FY 2000 proposal 199306600

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199306600 Narrative	Narrative
199306600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Oregon Fish Screening Project - FY’00 Proposal
Proposal ID	199306600
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Roy Elicker
Mailing address	P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email	5038725252 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / 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

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

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
8402100	John Day River Fish Habitat	Spawning and rearing protection and passage
9404200	Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project	Spawning and rearing protection and passage
20514	John Day Subbasin Umbrella
9404200	Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project
9405400	Oregon Bull / Cutthroat Trout Research
9306600	Oregon Fish Screening Project (this proposal)
8402100	John Day River Fish Habitat
9801600	Natural Escapement - John Day River

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. 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
		$641,621

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 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%

Cost sharing

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

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.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay Funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Provide a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to assess biological response the fish screens.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund pending compliance

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
capital

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$701,117	$701,117	$701,117

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website