FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 198506200: Juvenile Fish Screen Evaluations in Columbia Plateau Province

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Mickie Chamness

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 198506200
Proposal Name: Juvenile Fish Screen Evaluations in Columbia Plateau Province
BPA Project Manager: Jonathan McCloud
Agency, Institution or Organization: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Short Description: The goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate fish screen facilities to ensure they meet NMFS criteria for safe juvenile fish passage. Fish screens will be evaluated in most subbasins within the Columbia Plateau Province.
Information Transfer: Annual reports will be provided on-line at http://www.efw.bpa.gov and at http://www.pnl.gov/ecology/Projects/Screen/Reports.htm. These reports will discuss the results of the fish screen evaluations, any problems that were identified, and whether the problem was rectified. If problems are noted in the field, we will provide that information to the operations and maintenance (O&M)agency and work with them if possible to correct the problem. These evaluations will provide the O&M agencies with monitoring and evaluation of their fish screening projects.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Mickie Chamness Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PO Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Ph: 509-372-1202
Fax: 509-372-3515
Email: mickie.chamness@pnl.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Mickie Chamness Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PO Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Ph: 509-372-1202
Fax: 509-372-3515
Email: mickie.chamness@pnl.gov
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: Columbia Plateau
Sponsor Subbasin: None Selected ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Multiple locations along the Umatilla River and it's tributaries , Oregon Umatilla Yes
Multiple locations along the John Day River and it's tributaries , Oregon John Day Yes
Multiple locations along the Yakima River and it's tributaries , Washington Yakima Yes
Multiple locations along the Walla Walla River and it's tributaries in Washington and Oregon , Walla Walla Yes
Multiple locations along the Deshcutes River and it's tributaries , Oregon Deschutes Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Anadromous Fish
Bull Trout

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Evaluated 26 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. A report containing results of the evaluations is in progress.
2004 Evaluated 25 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
2003 Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
2002 Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
2001 Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
2000 Evaluated 21 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
1999 Evaluated 20 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities at twice each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
1998 Evaluated 19 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilites up to three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.
1997 Evaluated 19 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities at least three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199105700 Yakima Bas Screen Fab Ph 2 We evaluate the fish screening sites built by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199107500 Yakima Fish Screens Cons Bor We evaluate the fish screening sites built by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report..
BPA 199200900 Yakima Ph Ii/Huntsvill Scr O&M We evaluate the fish screening facilities maintained by this project in the Yakima River subbasin and on the Touchet River. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199306600 Oregon Fish Screens Project We would be evaluating fish screening sites installed and maintained by this project in the John Day and Umatilla River basins. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199503300 O&M Yakima Basin Fish Screens We evaluate the fish screening facilites maintained by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199601100 Juv Screens & Traps Wallawalla We currently evaluate Walla Walla screens sites as a part of this project. That work would be incorporated into the work under this proposal. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199601100 Juv Screens & Traps Wallawalla We have been evaluating fish screens in the Walla Walla basin for the past 4 years, as well as providing data and technical expertise needed to address problems at the Nursery Bridge fish passage facility. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 199803400 Establish Safe Access Tributar We would be evaluating fish screening sites installed and maintained by this project in the Yakima River basin. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.
BPA 200202501 Yakima Tributary Access & Habi We would be evaluating screens installed in the Yakima River subbasin under this project. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report..

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes The Deschutes subbasin plan describes lack of adequate fish screens as a limiting factor in most or all of it's tributaries. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. Deschutes Strategies are listed by tributary; many of them indicate screening diversions is completed or is planned. MP-45 to MP-85
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day Several limiting factors related to fish screens have been identified in the John Day basin. The limiting factors include entrainment in irrigation diversons, harassment (caused by human actions or structures) and obstructions. The subbasin plan's strategy to rectify the limiting factors is to screen all water diversions, ensure screened facilities are fish friendly, and that they allow safe passage past obstructions. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. John Day Strategy B: Install Fish Screens on Water Diversions 255
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla Two of the limiting factors identified for natural production in the Umatilla subbasin are habitat quantity and fish passage. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. Umatilla Strategy 13. Increase passage efficiency of in-stream obstructions including culverts, bridges, diversion structures, and unscreened diversions. Strategy 14. Maintain passage efficiency through ongoing O&M activities. 1-27, 5-9, 5-10
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima One of the key findings for the low- and mid-elevation Yakima River and the mid-elevation Naches River is inadequate screening at some of the irrigation diversions, which cause fish mortality. Old screens are being replaced or improved and screens are being installed at diversions without any. We propose to continue evaluating Phase II screens as well as other fish screens in the Yakima subbasin to ensure they are functioning as designed and are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. Yakima Continue with screening and passage improvements, monitoring program 4-53,-57, &-64
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla The Walla Walla subbasin plan lists water diversions that are not screened or are inadequately screened as imminent threats to focal species. Old screens are being replaced or improved and new screens are being installed that are designed to meet NMFS criteria. Monitoring of the facilities after construction is planned to ensure they are functioning as designed, i.e., that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for water velocity through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment/impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. Walla Walla Strategy to address imminent threats - Fish Diversions/Screens 150, 151

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Manage and Administer Projects Project Management Provide oversight on the project throughout the performance period. Respond to BPA as requested, providing financial, contractual, and administrative documents, including quarterly Pisces reports. Coordinate with O&M and construction agencies in Columbia Plateau province to select fish screen facilities. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $38,453
Biological Objectives Metrics
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Dissemination of Screens Evaluation Results Produce an annual report containing a description of the methods used, sites evaluated and results of the evaluations. The report will be available on-line at http://www.efw.bpa.gov and at http://www.pnl.gov/ecology/Projects/Screen/Reports.htm 10/1/2007 12/31/2009 $61,451
Biological Objectives Metrics
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Problem Identification and Correction We will implement a standardized protocol for identifying, correcting, and following up any problems that may be discovered during our evaluations. Screens O&M staff will be notified as soon as a problem is identified. Timing of the follow-up evaluation will depend on the time of year, with more rapid follow-ups occurring when anadromous smolts are emigrating. All follow-ups for field-identified problems will occur within two weeks of the identification of the problem. At locations where the initial evaluation indicates there is a problem, we will try to coordinate with the O&M agency to immediately measure the effects of changes they make to settings at the facility, providing them with feedback to fine-tune the settings as needed to try to bring the site into compliance. Problems and results of any corrective actions will be documented in the annual report. 4/15/2007 10/15/2009 $43,358
Biological Objectives Metrics
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla
Focal Area: Tributaries
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data On-Site Evaluations of Fish Screen Facilities We will examine up to 25% of the fish screening facilities in the Columbia Plateau province and evaluate their ability to protect fish. We will monitor approach and sweep velocities in front of the screens and in the fish bypass to determine if the facilities meet NMFS fish passage criteria. Screen integrity will be evaluated using underwater video technology. At locations where the initial evaluation indicates there is a problem, perform additional evaluations may be conducted. These evaluations will provide the O&M and construction agencies with project compliance monitoring of their projects as part of their metrics documentation. This work provides an independent and limited, stratified sample of fish screen facilities for compliance with NMFS criteria. 4/15/2007 10/15/2009 $141,044
Biological Objectives Metrics
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima
Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring
Focal Area: Tributaries


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel Research Scientist/Eng .88 FTE; Technician .07 FTE $21,243 $22,082 $23,186
Fringe Benefits [blank] $7,350 $7,464 $7,535
Supplies Video tapes, gloves, minor repairs and expendable supplies $515 $527 $540
Travel Field work in WA and OR $7,654 $7,837 $8,025
Overhead [blank] $39,078 $40,292 $41,641
Other Graduate student $15,877 $16,406 $17,054
Totals $91,717 $94,608 $97,981

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$284,306
Total Work Element budget$284,306

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$100,000 $106,000 This is an estimate based on current predictions of cost.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
New fish screens are still being installed and old ones improved. These fish screens should be evaluated to ensure they meet NMFS criteria.
 
Termination Date Comments
none This project should be continued as a way to monitor the investment made in fish screens as a way to protect juvenile salmonids. Fish screens in other provinces may be added in the future.
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: Columbia Plateau
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments: [none]


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund Pending Available Funds
Comments: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments during contracting, when funds become available.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This ongoing project is likely to benefit fish. The need for properly functioning juvenile fish screens is clearly identified. The relationship to other projects and the rationale for this project in the context of past and current fish screening projects are clearly noted. Collaborative effort with screening projects is described.

The project history is described in detail. The proponents have carefully documented results in annual reports. The 2005 annual report showed strong evidence that appropriate data are being collected, well analyzed, and taken seriously. Most screens function properly, but it is clear from the report that PNNL staff are working actively with BOR and WDFW to remedy a few problem spots.

A summary of the number of problems identified, their severity, and the resolution of the problems would strengthen the proposal. Also, a description of how selection of sites will be prioritized would have been useful. The proposal would be improved by more detail on how the target of 25% subsampling was chosen, how the various sites were stratified, and whether or not this subsampling level is a representative sample. The timelines for the work are vague because there is little detail concerning which subbasins will be monitored when, and how prioritization will be made.

The facilities appear appropriate. The key personnel have a long history with this project. Future proposals should specify the proportion of time each person will devote to the project and indicate the timeframe for activities.

In the future the sponsors should provide information that makes it clear that this project is a success in terms of impact on fish. While the description of problems and solutions identified at fish screens are available in annual reports with excellent links provided in the proposal the ISRP would like to have a summary of these activities presented in future proposals.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This ongoing project is likely to benefit fish. The need for properly functioning juvenile fish screens is clearly identified. The relationship to other projects and the rationale for this project in the context of past and current fish screening projects are clearly noted. Collaborative effort with screening projects is described.

The project history is described in detail. The proponents have carefully documented results in annual reports. The 2005 annual report showed strong evidence that appropriate data are being collected, well analyzed, and taken seriously. Most screens function properly, but it is clear from the report that PNNL staff are working actively with BOR and WDFW to remedy a few problem spots.

A summary of the number of problems identified, their severity, and the resolution of the problems would strengthen the proposal. Also, a description of how selection of sites will be prioritized would have been useful. The proposal would be improved by more detail on how the target of 25% subsampling was chosen, how the various sites were stratified, and whether or not this subsampling level is a representative sample. The timelines for the work are vague because there is little detail concerning which subbasins will be monitored when, and how prioritization will be made.

The facilities appear appropriate. The key personnel have a long history with this project. Future proposals should specify the proportion of time each person will devote to the project and indicate the timeframe for activities.

In the future the sponsors should provide information that makes it clear that this project is a success in terms of impact on fish. While the description of problems and solutions identified at fish screens are available in annual reports with excellent links provided in the proposal the ISRP would like to have a summary of these activities presented in future proposals.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.