Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199306600

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Oregon Fish Screening Project - FY’00 Proposal
BPA Project Proposal Number 199306600
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) ODFW

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Roy Elicker
Mailing Address P.O. Box 59
City, State, Zip Portland, OR 97207
Phone 5038725252
Fax 5038725632
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin John Day
Short Description Install 25 new fish screening devices in critical chinook spawning and rearing areas in John Day basin. Construct and install one fish passage improvement (removable diversion structure/fish screen system/ladder) in Trout Creek (Deschutes River basin).
Target Species Chinook and Steelhead,Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat, Rainbow.

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Measures 7.10, 7.10A.2, 7.10A.3.
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1997 Built 29 new screens
1998 Built 27 new screens
1997 Installed fish passage improvement on Upper Trout Creek
1998 Installed fish passage improvement on Lower Trout Creek

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8402100 John Day River Fish Habitat Spawning and rearing protection and passage No
9404200 Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Spawning and rearing protection and passage No
20514 John Day Subbasin Umbrella Yes
9404200 Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Yes
9405400 Oregon Bull / Cutthroat Trout Research Yes
9306600 Oregon Fish Screening Project (this proposal) Yes
8402100 John Day River Fish Habitat Yes
9801600 Natural Escapement - John Day River Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Prioritize basin projects a. Inventory fish screening and passage structures and/or potential project sites by existing condition, potential juvenile fish mortality, and other factors.
1. b. Prioritize projects by location within the watershed, fish species present, potential juvenile fish mortality, and other factors.
1. c. Prioritize and schedule individual installations by above factors (1a, 1b), water diversion practices, water user cooperation and other factors.
2. Seek water user cooperation and access to project site a. Work with Water Resources Department to identify water right holders for priority projects.
2. b. Contact landowner of each proposed project site location for construction access.
2. c. Conduct on-site project reviews with irrigation districts and individual owners and users.
3. Project site surveys a. Complete project site surveys in coordination with the Oregon Water Resources Department, NMFS, and individual property owners.
3. b. Work with NMFS to ensure individual projects meet acceptable criteria.
4. Preparation and construction of civil works a. ODFW shop crew constructs specific project forms.
4. b. ODFW field construction crew constructs concrete support structures at project site.
5. Component fabrication (ODFW Fabrication Shop) a. ODFW shop crew fabricates project fish screening and passage components.
5. b. ODFW field fabrication crew installs project components into structure.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 02/01/00 03/01/00 Prioritize basin projects Ongoing 5.0%
2 03/01/00 07/01/00 Landowner access Ongoing 10.0%
3 02/01/00 07/01/00 Site surveys Ongoing 10.0%
4 03/01/00 11/01/00 Construction & fabrication Ongoing 75.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 6 seasonal FTE's $138,980
Fringe OPE 45% $ 62,541
Supplies Service & Supplies $270,000
NEPA N/A $ 0
Travel Perdiem $ 2,000
Indirect Administrative Overhead @ 35.5% $168,100
Other N/A $ 0
Total Itemized Budget $641,621

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $641,621
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $641,621
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
National Marine Fisheries Service Facility overhead and vehicle maintenance $ 90,876 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $671,752 $739,503 $813,453 $894,798
Total Outyear Budgets $671,752 $739,503 $813,453 $894,798

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule constraints may occur if: Contract award precludes seasonal employees being rehired in a timely manner; weather conditions prevent project access; site restraints due to landowner cooperation complications.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1991. Integrated System Plan for Salmon & Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin. Yes
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 1984. Recommended Salmon and Steelhead Improvement Measures for the John Day River Basin. Pendleton, Oregon. Yes
Lindsay R.B., Knox W.J., Flesher M.W., Smith B.J., Olson E.A., and Lutz, L.S. 1985. Study of wild spring chinook salmon in the John Day River system. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. DOE/BP-39 No
Bronson, S., Findley, G., Moulton, C., Schumacher, A., Simpson, C. 1997. Northeast Oregon Rotary Fish Screen Program Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. No
Neal, J.A., Jerome, J. 1996. John Day Fish Habitat Improvement Project Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. Yes
Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima Tribes. Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wit. Yes
Oregon Water Resources Department. 1992. Stream Restoration Program for the John Day River Subbasin. Salem, Oregon. Yes
ODFW and CTUIR. 1990. John Day River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan, Portland, Oregon. Yes
Stuart, A., Lacy, M., Williams, S. 1987. John Day River Fish Habitat Project Implementation Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. John Day, Oregon. Yes

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Delay funding until the authors provide methods for determining priority of screen placement (or replacement) and monitoring of effectiveness. (medium priority)

Comments: The proposal would be improved with greater discussion of the need for the project, expected benefits and plans for monitoring. Reviewers suggest that monitoring plans might be developed in cooperation with an expansion of the Proposal No. 9801600. Because this is a continuing effort, this project may not require annual review and may be appropriate for multi-year funding based on a more detailed and comprehensive proposal, with annual review of past work.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Objectives as presented here are somewhat too general. For example, they neglect to mention criteria/priorities to determine screen placement and do not adequately describe evaluation methods used to determine fish screen efficiency. Priority listing criteria relative to expected increases in survival should be described. Further, there is inadequate description of methodology used for the Trout Creek fishway project in this proposal.

More specific information is needed on juvenile mortality associated with outdated or poorly operating screens (relative to NMFS-designed screens that are properly maintained). With this information, the cost-effectiveness of the projects could be better assessed and prioritization schemes could be better evaluated. The proposal should expand in detail and offer some provisions for delays. It should also describe possible contingencies and a time-line.

Several statements in the proposal are unclear: Proposed fish screens are in the vicinity of improved habitat projects. How near? And is this siting by design or otherwise?

There is no correlation cited between stream productivity and areas proposed for screening. The proposal should provide estimates of the numbers of fish lost to irrigation diversions in the area and compare those numbers to other basins, to indicate the relative importance of this effort. The benefits of previous screening are not reported. In the immediate past two years, many new screens were installed, but the proposal makes no mention of monitoring and evaluation of their performance. The proposal acknowledges water quality problems in these basins (sedimentation, flood events, low summer flows, heavy irrigation use, high water temperatures, etc.), but neglects to report if they have been corrected. Failing this, the value of expensive diversion screens may be negated. The proposal notes the development of a priority listing of screens in need of replacement during 1997 and 1998, but includes a funding request for still another priority listing. The reviewers ask why another such listing is sought, and what specific sites are proposed for screen installation.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Costs are all in JD and Deschutes. What are outyear costs increases based on? #5-Mitchell Act pays O&M. SRT is aware of additional c/s that is not included. #6-Needs O&M but NMFS will cover . #12-No demonstration in proposal. #13-Needs more public awareness

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Provide a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to assess biological response the fish screens.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund pending compliance
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page