Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199401500

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 Idaho Fish Screen Improvement - O&M
BPA Project Proposal Number 199401500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Business acronym (if appropriate) IDFG

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Patrick Marcuson
Mailing Address P.O. Box 1336
City, State, Zip Salmon, ID 83467-1336
Phone 2087566022
Fax 2087566274
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin Salmon
Short Description Enhance passage of juvenile and adult fish in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors by consolidation and elimination of irrigation diversions. Minimize impact of irrigation diversion dams, screen pump intakes and loss of fish to irrigation canals.
Target Species Chinook, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout and other indigenous resident salmonids.

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: 7:10A
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: None
Other Planning Document References Salmon Summit NPPC Strategy for Salmon Recovery NMFS Recovery Plan State of Idaho Statutes Congressional Mitchell Act USFS Land Use plans for Challis and Salmon N.F.

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
1993 Built Anadromous Fish Screen Shop
1994 Equipment purchased and screen construction to NMFS criteria.
1997 Constructed fish screens on consolidated canals, three fish friendly diversions, 20 pump intake screens, 2 infiltration screens and 17 headgates.
1998 Constructed fish screens, 4 fish friendly diversions, safety fences, canal eliminations and two stream reconnects, 20 pump intake screens, and 12 headgates.

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9401700 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Joint projects No
9202603 Idaho Model Watershed Admin/Improvement Technical Work Group advise/priorities No
9107200 Redfish Lake Sockeye Keep sockeye smolts from diversions No
8909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies Movement vs. fish screen efficiencies No
9600700 Consolidation Program Joint projects No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Complete surveys, designs, construction and installations of all unscreened, obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors a. Complete topographic surveys of unscreened and antiquated fish screen sites.
1. b. Design fish screen, headgate, and/or fish friendly diversion as appropriate at each site.
1. c. Contract construction at each site.
1. d. Fabricate and install fish screen and associated components at each site.
1. e. Locate, measure, design, build and install fish screens on pump intakes.
2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches a. Identify potential consolidation and ditch elimination sites.
2. b. Obtain easements and flow agreements.
2. c. Design consolidations and replacements of surface water diversions with ground water systems.
2. d. Construct designs both by contract and IDFG crew.
2. e. Evaluate and adjust as needed for proper function.
3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals a. Evaluate ditch fish habitat potential and existing fishery.
3. b. Locate fish screen to maximize rearing habitat.
4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors a. Locate streams providing historic spawning and rearing for anadromous fish.
4. b. Determine if sufficient water exists to support anadromous fish spawning and/or rearing.
4. c. Design and implement reconnect.
4. d. Install fish screens where needed.
5. Install and evaluate alternative fish screening methods a. Look for methods to reduce screen costs or maintenance needs, increase screen flexibility to handle ranges of water levels or flows. e.g. infiltration systems.
6. Make accessible fish screens safer to humans and domestic pets a. Fence screen sites that are accessible to public.
6. c. Design and implement reconnect.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/99 12/01/99 0.0%
2 01/01/99 12/01/99 0.0%
3 01/01/99 12/01/99 0.0%
4 01/01/99 12/01/99 0.0%
5 01/01/99 12/01/99 0.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Fisheries and Engineering Technicians $ 41,670
Fringe $ 14,420
Supplies $ 54,000
Capital Contracts $629,840
Construction $ 12,000
Travel $ 7,000
Indirect $ 31,000
Subcontractor Contracts $210,070
Total Itemized Budget $1,000,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $1,000,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $1,000,000
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
Mitchell Act Grant award O-M $1,516,208 unknown
Irrigators/Landowners Cost sharing $120,000 unknown
NRCS Professional employee assistance $ 0 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $500,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $500,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Some proposed consolidations, eliminations and conservation agreements of irrigation diversions fail at last hour because one or more ditch owners cannot agree. Inconsistent or delayed date-of-issuance of grant awards.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Abernethy, S.S., D.A. Neitzel, and W.V. Mavros. 1996. Movement and Injury Rates for Three Life Stages of Spring Chinook Salmon: A comparison of Submerged Orifices and an Overflow Weir for Fish Bypass in a Modular Rotary Drum Fish Screen. PNNL No
Clothier, William D., 1954. Effect of water reductions on fish movement in irrigation diversions. Journal Wildlife Mgt., Apr. 18 (2): 151-60. No
Corley, Donald 1961 Effect of irrigation diversions on smolt out-migrations in the Lemhi River, Idaho. M.S. Thesis, U of I No
Gebhards, Stacy. 1959 The effects of irrigation on the natural production of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Lemhi River. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University. Yes
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1998. Idaho's Anadromous Fish Stocks: Their Status and Recovery Options. Report to the Director, IDFG 98-13 No
Keifenheim, M. 1992. USFS-Region 4 Salmon National Forest Level 1 Stream Diversion Inventory. In cooperation with IDFG and BLM-Salmon District No
Keifer, Russel and Lockhard, J. 1994. Intensive evaluation and monitoring of chinook salmon and steelhead trout production. Crooked River and Upper Salmon River sites. U.S. Dept. of Energy, BPA, No. 91-73 No
Munther, Gregory. 1973. Unpublished USFS Program Rpt. No
Spindler, John C. 1995. Loss of game fish in relation to physical characteristics of irrigation canal intakes. Journal of Wildlife Mgt. 19 (3): 375-82. No

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:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund, ok for multiyear funding, run to completion in 2005.

Comments: This is an excellent proposal to continue an expensive fish screening program. Apparently no monitoring and evaluation of results is conducted so it is not possible to gauge the cost per smolt protected. If smolts are considered priceless, that is appropriate; otherwise, this may simply represent a subsidy to engineers and construction workers. The reviewers suggest incorporating monitoring and evaluation protocols and benchmarks into the project. There appears to be good collaboration among agencies and landowners. The proposal notes that screening should be complete by 2005. If the project is not linked with a smolt monitoring project it should be considered.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Capital project. $1 M requested. Title is misleading; Mitchell Act pays the O & M.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, should provide more details and demonstrate links to the biological opinions and recovery plan goals. Proposal should include measurable biological objectives.

The effectiveness of the screens should be monitored.

What is the return on investment?

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

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 (IDFG) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page