Show new navigation
On
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal GEOREV-1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal GEOREV-1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.


Archive Date Time Type From To By
1/25/2013 12:38 PM Status Draft <System>
Download 2/28/2013 5:06 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
6/12/2013 9:19 AM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
6/12/2013 9:20 AM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
11/26/2013 5:00 PM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Proposal Number:
  GEOREV-1994-015-00
Proposal Status:
Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
Proposal Version 1
Review:
2013 Geographic Category Review
Portfolio:
2013 Geographic Review
Type:
Existing Project: 1994-015-00
Primary Contact:
Patrick Murphy
Created:
1/25/2013 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)

Project Title:
Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
 
Proposal Short Description:
The objective of this project is to identify and develop projects that will be implemented under other BPA funded projects, such as 2007-399-00. Some non Capitalization projects will be completed such as diversion removals and stream rechannelization. Projects targeted for implementation include all habitat improvement projects, fish screens, fish passage, stream re-connections, water conservation, water useage efficiencies, and riparian restoration. Work is done in all anadromous waters.
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
Provide management and operational support for a capital construction program dedicated to the protection of anadromous fish from loss in water diversions, improve fish passage at diversions for juvenile and adult anadromous fish, and improve stream flow conditions where possible. Project funding is coordinated with multiple sources in order to maximize the potential for anadromous fish recovery efforts in the Salmon River basin. Gravity water diversions are only screened following an intensive ditch consolidation and diversion elimination program. Water conservation avenues will be explored and implemented where possible. Screens will be constructed in ditches diverted from streams that are migration routes and rearing areas for anadromous fish, both hatchery and wild/natural salmon and steelhead produced in the upper Salmon River drainage. Upstream and downstream protection and passage will be improved for anadromous fish as they migrate to and from the Pacific Ocean. Other species also benefit from these improvements. A tributary wide approach will be incorporated in order to maximize benefits to the habitat. Fisheries surveys are conducted in these tributary streams utilizing electro-fishing methodologies to document the distribution, occurrence, and abundance of species throughout the project watersheds. These initial watershed inventories provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of future fisheries improvement projects. The surveys will determine management directions for improving irrigation practices for fisheries benefits. This work includes determination of landowner willingness to participate in future year fisheries improvement projects, mapping irrigation systems, and documentation of seasonal in stream flows, fish passage, and identification of water conservation potential. This project is coordinated with all stakeholders, state and federal agencies, and the Tribes. All projects are implemented in accordance with State of Idaho and Federal regulations.

This project also funds two fishery biologist positions (personnel only), one in the Salmon Region, and one in the Clearwater Region in order to accelerate the pace of implementation and completion of high priority, on-the-ground fish habitat improvement projects that will be funded from a variety of sources. These sources may include (but are not limited to) Bonneville Power, Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, Farm Bill, Snake River Basin Adjudication, Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act, National Fish Passage Program, Western Native Trout Initiative, NOAA, Landowner Incentive Program, Habitat Improvement Program, etc. The primary responsibilities will be to identify potential fish habitat improvement projects, prepare proposals for funding, review and prioritize projects and proposals, coordinate activities with other public and private entities, and implement fish habitat improvement projects.

The primary goal of the work is to enhance and restore the fisheries resource. Ultimately it will assist with the recovery of ESA threatened or endangered fish species. Secondary goal is to reconnect tributaries and improve fish passage to restore fluvial fish migration. Work is expected to improve habitat for all species, anadromous and resident.

This project proposal addresses the impact of water withdrawal from Idaho anadromous rivers and streams. Irrigation diversions date back to the 1860's in the Salmon River basin of the Snake River drainage and have impacted anadromous fish in a number of ways. These impacts include loss of habitat, entrainment of smolts on their migration to the ocean, and returning adults have been blocked by irrigation diversion wing dams. Riparian corridors have been degraded by various management actions. During peak irrigation, water temperatures rise and available thermal refuge for fish is minimal. Most unscreened diversions are currently found throughout both the large and small tributary systems of the main rivers, and number in the hundreds throughout the basin. Unlike most of the main-stem river diversions, which occur on private property, many diversions in the tributaries are located upon a combination of private property as well as lands administered by Federal land management agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service (USFS). Many tributary streams are completely de-watered by irrigation during annual low stream flow. Specific problems exist for specific species based on run timing and other biological factors. For example, adult steelhead are capable of navigating upstream small tributaries during increased spring stream flow. Following successful spawning, their offspring may perish due to entrainment in diversions, or they may succumb to high water temperatures in the late summer when water withdrawal de-waters the stream channel. Additionally, Chinook salmon parr pioneer into tributaries for rearing and thermal refuge during summer months and are subject to threats from water withdrawal. It is estimated there are still many diversions throughout the Clearwater River basin that have yet to be identified. While most diversions in the Clearwater basin are pump intakes, there are some gravity diversions. Inventory work completed in the past five years found numerous unscreened diversions on tributaries to the lower Salmon River and the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam. Many of the diversions on the lower Salmon River tributaries service backcountry ranches and are only accessible via airplane or jet boat. Work in those areas will be far more costly than previously completed projects.

A tributary wide approach is incorporated in order to maximize benefits to the habitat. Tributary restoration, stream flow reconnection, fish passage, and fish screening work will be completed in cooperation with all stakeholders. Consolidation of irrigation diversions reduces the number of times a fish is entrained into a canal during its migration to the ocean as well as decreases the overall cost of screening. Diversion eliminations reduce ditch entrainment potential and eliminate fish passage issues at the typical push-up gravel structures. Conversions from gravity flood irrigation systems to sprinkler systems can reduce irrigation water consumption by up to seventy percent. Water conservation and riparian improvements decrease water temperatures, improve habitat for rearing, and improve available in-stream flow conditions.

One limiting factor identified in the Subbasin Plan is that a small population size of a species can hinder recovery efforts. This proposal will also address many problems identified in the Salmon Subbasin Management Plan. These problems include decreased stream flow, disconnected tributaries, fish entrainment, and ditch interceptions of tributaries. This program proposes to conduct work to functionally reconnect tributaries to increase spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident salmonids. This will be accomplished by increasing stream flow, providing fish passage, and reducing entrainment into irrigation ditches. Fish screens will be installed to eliminate entrainment into unscreened diversions. Because of insufficient data in many tributaries, initial inventories are needed to identify stream diversions, stream reach characteristics, and fish species distribution and abundance. A major problem that still exists throughout all anadromous waters is that populations are isolated and stream habitat blocked by the interception of tributary streams by irrigation ditches. Tributaries that are intercepted by ditches will be identified and all attempts will be made to separate the tributary water from irrigation water that originates in other drainages. Often, irrigators possess water rights for both the ditch as well as the tributary stream that the ditch intercepts, thereby compounding the problem. Work includes improving diversion passage, installing siphons, transferring water rights, consolidating ditches, and providing water conservation measures in order to segregate these flows. Additionally, the problem of degraded riparian corridors will be addressed by initiating stream reconnects and water conservation projects. Riparian vegetation will respond and re-establish in corridors once the in-stream flow begins to provide additional water. Ultimately, tributary reconnections this program proposes will increase available stream habitat and decrease the effects of population isolation and threats from water withdrawal.

Most of the work in this proposal constitutes identifying and developing projects. Those projects will be completed by this program in other BPA funded proposals such as 2007-399-00 or completed using a cost share approach with other entities that use PCSRF monies, SRBA funding, and Mitchell Act funding. Work is targeted toward streams identified as having multiple limiting factors.

Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 80.0%   Resident: 15.0%   Wildlife: 5.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Clearwater, Salmon
Fish Accords:
None
Biological Opinions:

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
The Idaho Screens, Passage, and Habitat Program (Program) is the foundation for developing and implementing a recovery and habitat plan for listed anadromous salmonids in the upper Salmon River Basin. Fish migration barriers and entrainment into irrigation ditches from water diversion are primary limiting factors in most subbasins in the upper Salmon River basin, especially in the Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Salmon River, and North Fork Salmon River Subbasins. The fish screens that the program has installed and maintained provide safe passage through the migratory corridors for both anadromous and resident migratory populations of salmonids. The program focus is the Salmon River basin, but projects are completed throughout all anadromous waters in the State of Idaho. The program operates the only fish screening program in Idaho. Other agencies utilize this program to fulfill their obligations under the FCRPS Biological Opinion. This project is significantly related to many other anadromous and resident salmonid recovery plans including the Subbasin Plan, IDFG Fisheries Management Plan, Draft USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan, and Draft Lemhi Conservation Plan, among others. This project thoroughly supports and is consistent with the biological goals and objectives to restore and protect aquatic species and their habitat identified in the 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and the Salmon Subbasin Management Plan 2004. This project performs stream investigations identified in strategy 1A1 to assist meeting Aquatic Objective 1A (p.20). Stream investigation work establishes baseline data for monitoring and evaluation meeting Strategy 1A3. To address Aquatic Objective 2A (p.23), Strategy 2A3 and 2A4 will be performed on tributaries where projects are planned. Consistent with Aquatic Objective 9A (p.48) to improve water conveyance systems and irrigation efficiencies, Strategy 9A1, 9A3, 9A7, 9A10, and 9A11 will be performed. Project has work identified in priority watersheds (p.51) Upper Salmon River Core Area: Salmon River Headwaters – Pole Creek and Beaver Creek, Valley Creek – Goat Creek, Challis Creek, Garden Creek, and mainstem East Fork Salmon River. Pahsimeroi River Core Area: Pahsimeroi River, Patterson- Big Springs Creek, and Big Creek. Lemhi River Core Area: Big Timber Creek, Hawley Creek, Bohannon Creek, and Wimpey Creek. Middle Salmon River – Panther Creek Core Area: Hughes Creek and McKim Creek. Aquatic Objectives 12A and 12B, to rehabilitate tributary connectivity and implement fish screening in tributaries (p.53), will be addressed by implementing Strategies 12A1, 12B1, and 12B2. Our FY2014-2018 projects could potentially include 45 new fish screens, 20 fish screen replacements, 5 fish screen eliminations, and 12 fish passage barrier improvements. To improve survival at screened diversions, strategy 14A1 through 14A6 will be performed, where screens will be of appropriate size for the diverted flow, and evaluations will be made for bull trout. Aquatic Objective 28A (p.63) will be addressed by implementing Strategy 28A1, to install fish-friendly diversions, on several tributaries including Pole Creek, Goat Creek, and Beaver Creek. Aquatic Objective 29A and 29B, to develop water conservation agreements, modify diversions, and reconnect mainstem tributaries will be addressed with multiple diversions on the Pahsimeroi River and Sulphur Creek. Aquatic Objective 40A will be addressed by reconnecting mainstem tributaries and modifying diversion structures as needed to provide for anadromous and resident migration on Bohannon Creek, Wimpey Creek, Big Timber Creek, Hawley Creek, and Canyon Creek. Objective 41B strategy to improve connectivity and access to habitat currently blocked by manmade barriers, will be addressed with projects on Salmon River tributaries to improve connectivity in Fourth of July Creek, Tower Creek, Carmen Creek, Poison Creek, and McKim Creek. Socioeconomic Objective 63A is incorporated into our project by implementing Strategy 63A4, where possible, utilize local labor forces, contractors, and suppliers when implementing habitat-improvement projects. Most project supplies are purchased locally, project components are fabricated locally, and construction projects are bid and administered under Idaho Public Works. This project uses Strategy 66A1, 66A3, 66A4, and 66A5 to meet Socioeconomic Objective 66A (p.106) by using the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project to coordinate implementation of habitat strategies to maximize efficiencies in implementation. Stakeholders, irrigators, and agencies are involved throughout the planning and implementation process. The project is coordinated with many agencies. This project is consistent with many of the priorities established in the Salmon Subbasin Management Plan. The Salmon Subbasin Management Plan Aquatic Prioritizations (p.153) refer back to Table 7 and Table 8 of the plan as the highest priorities (p.154). Further, the technical team provided a questionnaire to assist ranking in the upper Salmon River basin (p.154). Of the 115 possible points available in the questionnaire, the specific components of our projects provides benefits averaging 85pts for each action. Referring back to Table 7, our project addresses Aquatic Objective 9A,12A,12B,(p.33); and Aquatic Objective 28A (p.35). Under Table 8 (p.43), our project addresses many limiting factors including barriers (p.43) that are identified in Objectives 28A, 35B, and 41B. This project has work identified in priority watersheds (p.51) on Valley Creek, Garden Creek, Pahsimeroi River, Big Timber Creek, Hawley Creek, Bohannon Creek, Wimpey Creek, Hughes Creek, and McKim Creek. Specific projects involve diversion barrier removal and/or improvements and installing fish screens on diversions. Many of the individual actions within this project involve extensive coordination with other agencies. For example, the screen installations and diversion improvements on Hawley Creek (Lemhi tributary) will be performed following a pipeline installation project by USBWP meant to reduce conveyance losses and reduce irrigation water consumption. The total reconnection of this stream also includes a project by IDWR involving a water lease. All these actions by various agencies are essential to completion of these types of projects. These cooperative projects are consistent with Aquatic Objective 12B. The project involves several actions specific to priorities identified under Problem 28 and corresponding to strategy 28A1 to alleviate the problem. All projects will produce positive effects on three ESA-listed salmonid species; Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Other native species such as westslope cutthroat trout also derive positive benefits from this project. This project is integral to the support and implementation of many goals and objectives that are identified in the Idaho Department of Fish & Game Fisheries Management Plan 2013-2018. Goals, Objectives & Desired Outcomes p 13. Goal 1: Sustain Idaho’s fish and wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend. Objective 2. Ensure the long-term survival of native fish, wildlife, and plants. Objective 3. Increase the capacity of habitat to support fish and wildlife. Habitat Restoration and Protection p 18 Part 2 – Fishery Management Plans by Drainage Clearwater River: Objectives and Programs, pgs 156-159 1. Objective: Maintain and improve fish habitat and water quality within the Clearwater drainage. Program: Implement habitat improvement projects for steelhead in the lower Clearwater drainage with emphasis in the Potlatch River watershed using PCSRF, SRBA, and other available funds. Program: Continue to provide monitoring and evaluation of wild steelhead response to habitat improvement in the Potlatch River Basin. Program: Continue working with land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State Department of Lands) and private land owners to inform, educate and assist with land management planning for protecting fish habitat and water quality. Emphasize the need for riparian habitat protection and enhancement. Encourage containment of sediment production areas, including old mining sites. Provide technical feedback to agencies, elected officials, and private landowners based on the best available scientific information regarding the potential impact of proposed land use activities on natural production areas. Salmon River Drainage – Horse Creek to North Fork: Objectives and Programs, pgs 196-197 3. Objective: Correct fish passage impediments such as irrigation diversions, road culverts, and dewatered stream segments that delay or restrict anadromous and resident fish access thermal refugia and to spawning and rearing tributaries. Program: Cooperate with Lemhi County and the US Forest Service in identifying, prioritizing, and constructing fish passage improvement structures for culverts. Identify and screen or repair irrigation diversions where needed. Assist the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project and others to reconnect tributary streams. Maintain or improve instream flows through critical review of water right applications, and by working with private irrigators, Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, and irrigation districts to pursue water savings projects. Consider feasibility of lease/rentals, source switches, and minimum flow agreements. Middle Fork Salmon River Drainage: Objectives and Programs, pgs 202-203 3. Objective: Maintain and improve habitat and water quality of key tributary fish production areas. Program: Screen all identified irrigation diversions where needed. Salmon River – North Fork to Headwaters: Objectives and Programs, pgs 208-209 5. Objective: Maintain and improve fish spawning habitat in main stem and tributaries. Program: Work cooperatively with willing landowners through the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project and other cooperators. In priority areas, maintain and enhance critical spawning and rearing areas for resident and anadromous fishes. Encourage land management activities on public and private properties that improve the quality of spawning habitat. Continue to monitor and evaluate benefits from habitat improvement projects. Maintain or improve in-stream flows through critical review of water right applications, and by working with private irrigators and irrigation districts to pursue water savings projects. Work with IDWR on strategies such as water lease/rentals, sources switches, and minimum flow agreements. 7. Objective: Improve anadromous juvenile and adult fish passage in the Salmon River. Program: Work with federal land managers and private irrigators to alleviate passage problems in main-river and tributaries due to irrigation diversions and dewatering. Lemhi River Drainage: Objectives and Programs, pgs 213-214 4. Objective: Minimize loss of juvenile salmon and steelhead to irrigation diversions on streams. Program: Continue evaluation of the current screening program to explore opportunities for improvements. Program: Install screens in any identified unscreened ditches. 5. Objective: Maintain and improve habitat quality throughout the Lemhi River drainage. Program: Continue to work cooperatively with willing landowners through the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, in priority areas, to maintain and enhance critical spawning and rearing areas for resident and anadromous fishes. Pursue the reconnection of tributaries through improved irrigation delivery systems, dry year lease options, and/or permanent leases. 7. Objective: Correct fish passage impediments such as irrigation diversions, road culverts, and dewatered stream segments that delay or restrict anadromous and resident fish access thermal refugia and to spawning and rearing tributaries. Program: Cooperate with Lemhi County, BLM and the US Forest Service (USFS) in identifying, prioritizing, and constructing fish passage improvement structures for culverts. Identify and screen or repair irrigation diversions where needed. Assist the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project and others to reconnect tributary streams. Maintain or improve in-stream flows through critical review of water right applications, and by working with private irrigators and irrigation districts to pursue water savings projects. Work with IDWR on ways to provide enhanced flows. Pahsimeroi River Drainage: Objectives and Programs, pgs 217-218 3. Objective: Minimize loss of juvenile salmon and steelhead to irrigation diversions on streams. Program: Continue evaluation of the current screening program to explore opportunities for improvements. Program: Install screens in any identified unscreened ditches. 4. Objective: Maintain and improve habitat quality throughout the Pahsimeroi River drainage. Program: Continue to work cooperatively with willing landowners through the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, in priority areas, to maintain and enhance critical spawning and rearing areas for resident and anadromous fishes. Program: Assist the efforts of The Nature Conservancy and the Lemhi Land Trust to secure conservation easements in priority areas within the watershed to protect and expand critical fisheries habitats. 6. Objective: Correct fish passage impediments such as irrigation diversions, road culverts, and dewatered stream segments that delay or restrict anadromous and resident fish access thermal refugia and to spawning and rearing tributaries. Program: Cooperate with Lemhi and Custer County’s, BLM and the US Forest Service (USFS) in identifying, prioritizing, and constructing fish passage improvement structures for culverts. Identify and screen or repair irrigation diversions where needed. Assist the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project and others to reconnect tributary streams. Maintain or improve in-stream flows through critical review of water right applications, and by working with private irrigators and irrigation districts to pursue water savings projects. Work with IDWR on solutions such as water lease/rentals, source switches or minimum flow agreements. East Fork Salmon River Drainage: Objectives and Programs pgs 221-222 2. Objective: Maintain and improve fish habitat and water quality. Program: Encourage land and water management that protects and enhances the quality of natural production areas. Program: Continue to work cooperatively with willing landowners through the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, in priority areas, to maintain and enhance critical spawning and rearing areas for resident and anadromous fishes. 4. Objective: Improve anadromous juvenile and adult fish passage to and from the Salmon River. Program: Work with landowners to alleviate entrainment passage problems due to irrigation diversions. Screen identified unscreened diversions on the mainstem East Fork Salmon River and associated anadromous tributaries. The US Fish & Wildlife Service Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan for the Salmon River Recovery Unit (Chapter 17) includes recovery measures 1.2.2, the elimination of bull trout loss (entrainment) at water diversions. The recommended actions include screening water diversions and eliminating unneeded diversions in streams listed in Appendix B of the plan. Measure 1.2.3 suggests taking an inventory of water diversions and other man-made in-stream structures to identify those indirectly or directly inhibiting fish passage. Areas to initially focus efforts included the Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, Upper Salmon River and Middle Salmon River-Panther Creek core areas. This proposal also includes action measure 1.2.4 of providing fish passage at water diversion and other in-stream structures. Specifically, modifying, consolidating or eliminating unneeded water diversions to reduce impediments to fish passage at sites identified in Appendix B of the plan. Work in this proposal would include measure 1.2.9, improving in-stream flows. Recommended actions of measure 1.2.9 include restoring connectivity and exploring opportunities for improving migration and other life history stages through improvement of in-stream flows and/or acquiring water rights cooperatively from private landowners. This proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the on-going Lemhi Conservation Plan. This plan is a collaborative effort by the Idaho Attorney General, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, Lemhi River irrigators, NOAA Fisheries, Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Program, and US Fish & Wildlife Service. Issues identified in the plan include re-connecting tributary streams to the Lemhi River, improving fish passage at diversion dams, and installing fish screens on all diversions. Our program provides fisheries data, technical review, and engages in a fast track approach to implement stream re-connections, fish passage improvements, and fish screen projects in Lemhi River tributaries identified by the group. Several projects of special interest to this group are in various stages of completion. The Bohannon Creek screen and passage project, Canyon Creek reconnection project, and the Big Timber Creek screen and passage project are examples of projects coordinated with the Lemhi Conservation Agreement participants. These projects are specifically listed in the Salmon Subbasin Management Plan. This project has work identified in priority watersheds (p.51) on Bohannon, Kenney, Wimpey, Hawley, and Big Timber Creeks. Objective 35B will be addressed by removing barriers on all of the tributaries. The Screening and Habitat Improvement Prioritization for the Upper Salmon Subbasin (SHIPUSS) is a working document intended to address fish conservation needs upon or adjacent to irrigated agricultural and livestock ranching lands. SHIPUSS is a prioritized list of streams within watersheds to guide fish screening and habitat improvement efforts on privately owned lands throughout the Upper Salmon River Basin (USRB). SHIPUSS was developed by the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USBWP) Technical Team, which is comprised of numerous professional technical experts and fisheries biologists from regional state, Federal, and tribal agencies, as well as other biologists familiar with fisheries populations in the USRB. SHIPUSS was developed to assist the Technical Team and USBWP Advisory Board in prioritizing the funding of conservation efforts across the USRB, and is intended to be used by these groups in conjunction with existing project-level prioritization methods. This proposal is compatible with the intent of SHIPUSS. The SHIPUSS document is used as a prioritization plan for future project proposals.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

This project proposal addresses the impact of water withdrawal on salmonids from Idaho anadromous rivers and streams. Irrigation diversions date back to the 1860's in the Salmon River basin of the Snake River drainage and have impacted anadromous fish in a number of ways. These impacts include loss of habitat, entrainment of smolts into irrigation ditches on their migration to the ocean, and returning adults have been blocked from reaching natal spawning areas by irrigation diversion wing dams. Riparian corridors have been degraded by various management actions. During peak irrigation, water temperatures rise and available thermal refuge for fish is minimal. Most unscreened diversions are currently found throughout both the large and small tributary systems of the main rivers, and number in the hundreds throughout the basin. Unlike most of the main-stem river diversions, which occur on private property, many diversions in the tributaries are located upon a combination of private property as well as lands administered by Federal land management agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service (USFS). Many tributary streams are completely de-watered during annual low stream flow. Specific problems exist for specific species based on run timing and other biological factors. For example, adult steelhead are capable of navigating upstream small tributaries during pre-irrigation or periods of increased run-off. Following successful spawning, their offspring may perish due to entrainment in diversions, or they may succumb to high water temperatures in the late summer when water withdrawal de-waters the stream channel. Additionally, Chinook salmon parr pioneer into tributaries for rearing and thermal refuge during summer months and are subject to threats from water withdrawal.

Water diversion structures on stream channels have been suspected to be a significant source of mortality to fish due to entrainment losses into irrigation systems. Most of the investigations on entrainment losses on resident fish populations have provided contradictory results on the overall effect of entrainment at the population level (e.g. Post et al. 2006, Schrank and Rahel 2004, Carlson and Rahel 2007). It was realized in the early 1900’s in Idaho that gravity irrigation diversions were entraining and harming fish (Jones 1921). The upper Salmon River Basin was no exception, and its headwaters and its tributaries historically supported large runs of spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye salmon. The effects of entrainment were especially evident in the Lemhi River and Pahsimeroi River subbasins due to the extensive water withdrawal and flow-limited reaches. Studies on juvenile Chinook salmon, an obligatory outmigrant, have been more conclusive on the population effects of losses due to entrainment into unscreened irrigation diversions. A study conducted in 1958 on the Lemhi River, a tributary to the Salmon River in Idaho, investigated the entrainment losses of juvenile Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha , as they migrated downstream as presmolts and smolts (Gebhards 1959). Results of this study estimated that 423,685 juvenile Chinook salmon were entrained in 90 canals, which may have contributed to a loss of 50% of the downstream migrating population. The screening of irrigation diversions was fully implemented by the start of the 1962 irrigation season with 84 structures within the Lemhi River system. A later study conducted during the implementation phase of the screening program from 1960-1962 in this same watershed estimated that the number of juvenile Chinook salmon bypassed at irrigation diversions ranged from 279,103 fish in 1991 to 91,499 fish in 1992 (Corley 1962). A recent collaborative study between the IDFG Anadromous Fish Screen Program and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center quantified the cumulative entrainment effects of water withdrawal on juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lemhi River. Utilizing fish screen bypass data collected from 2003-2008 on the Lemhi River it was estimated that 71.1% of migrating smolts were entrained and bypassed at the 41 lowermost screens under median streamflow conditions (Walters et al. 2012). This more recent study focused only on the spring smolt out-migration, whereas the fall parr outmigration comprises a large component of the juvenile Chinook salmon population that is also susceptible to entrainment. This study alone suggests that entrainment losses into irrigation diversions is a major limiting factor and can significantly effect this species at the population level.

In 1938, the U.S. Congress passed the Mitchell Act in an attempt to partially mitigate for losses resulting from hydroelectric projects, logging, mining, and agricultural developments. The Act provided a mechanism for conserving fishery resources of the Columbia River basin and created the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program (CRFDP). The CRFDP was extended to include the upper basin above McNary Dam in 1956. Between 1958 and 1966, this IDFG Anadromous Fish Screen Program constructed more than 200 screens on the main stem Salmon River and major tributaries with CRFDP funding. Mitchell Act funding installed fish screens on migration routes in the main stem river systems, but did not address the hundreds of small tributaries that are spawning and rearing streams for juveniles. These larger diversions were direct threats to many salmonids including migratory pre-smolt and smolt Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Snake River summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and fluvial bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). By the early 1990’s the original fish screens were in a state of disrepair. Funding allowed for little more than basic maintenance. Mitchell Act funding is also restricted to installation, operation, and maintenance of fish screens and fish passageways. Funding of ditch consolidation projects, ditch eliminations, and water conservation is outside the purview of Mitchell Act funding. In 1993, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the CRFDP shared the cost of a new fish screen shop facility in order to accelerate fisheries recovery work in Idaho. In 1994, BPA began funding anadromous fisheries projects falling outside the scope of the Mitchell Act. These funds were used in non-traditional ways to eliminate or consolidate irrigation diversions, improve fish passage, conserve water and provide proper screening of water withdrawals following an intensive effort to reduce irrigation water consumption.

It is estimated there are nearly 700 gravity diversions throughout the Clearwater, Salmon, and Snake River basins that are accessible to anadromous fish. About 50 diversions have been eliminated through conservation easements, purchase of water rights, ditch consolidation, and transfer of water withdrawal from a gravity diversion to a well. There are 257 gravity fish screens in operation today and over 323 pump intake screens, the majority of pump screens being in the lower Salmon and Clearwater River basins. Some unscreened gravity diversions may have been abandoned or converted to a well and pump by the irrigators. With the initiation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication all water rights within the Salmon River Basin are in the process for adjudication, this has and will continue to provide a better understanding of the work remaining. Therefore, an estimated 400 gravity diversions remain to be addressed. It is estimated there are still many diversions throughout the Clearwater River basin that have yet to be identified. While most diversions in the Clearwater basin are pump intakes, there are some gravity diversions. Inventory work completed in the past 10 years found numerous unscreened diversions on tributaries to the lower Salmon River and the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam. Many of the diversions on the lower Salmon River tributaries service backcountry ranches and are only accessible via airplane or jet boat. Work in those areas will be far more costly than previously completed projects.

This proposal is submitted by the Idaho Department of Fish & Game Screens, Passage, and Habitat Program based in Salmon, Idaho. This project provides protection of anadromous fish from loss in water diversions by installing fish screens, improving diversion dams for juvenile and adult anadromous fish passage, and improving stream flow conditions by implementing water conservation measures. Future funding will allow screen construction in currently unscreened ditches, improvements at diversion dams for fish passage, and water conservation system installations. The species benefited will include all anadromous salmonids, but other resident species also benefit from these improvements. A tributary wide approach will be incorporated in order to maximize benefits to lotic habitat.

The program focus is the Salmon and Clearwater River basins, but projects are completed throughout all anadromous waters in the State of Idaho. The Screen Program operates the only fish screening program in Idaho. Other agencies utilize this program to fulfill their obligations under the FCRPS Biological Opinion.

A tributary wide approach is incorporated in order to maximize benefits to the habitat. Tributary restoration, stream flow reconnection, fish passage, and fish screening work will be completed in cooperation with all stakeholders. Consolidation of irrigation diversions reduces the number of times a fish is entrained into a canal during its migration to the ocean as well as decreases the overall cost of screening. Diversion eliminations reduce ditch entrainment potential and eliminate fish passage issues at the typical push-up gravel structures. Conversions from gravity flood irrigation systems to sprinkler systems can reduce irrigation water consumption by up to seventy percent. Water conservation and riparian improvements decrease water temperatures, improve habitat for rearing, and improve available in-stream flow conditions.

Fisheries and diversion surveys are conducted in streams to document the distribution, occurrence, and abundance of species throughout the project watersheds and to provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of future fisheries improvement projects. This work includes determination of landowner willingness to participate, mapping irrigation systems, and documentation of seasonal in-stream flows, fish passage, and identification of water conservation potential.

This project is coordinated with all stakeholders, state, Federal, and tribal agencies. The identified work will be completed by this program using program staff, equipment, and facilities. Major construction activities utilize Idaho Public Works process licensed and bonded contractors. All projects are implemented in accordance with State of Idaho and Federal regulations. The program coordinates other funding sources with this project in order to maximize the potential for anadromous fish recovery efforts in the Salmon River basin.

 


What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Increasing fry to smolt survival (OBJ-1)
The objective of this project is to increase fry to smolt survival by preventing entrainment, injury, delay, and loss in gravity and pump diversions. Fish passage, including downstream passage, at many of these unscreened diversions is a major limiting factor for anadromous fish as well as resident species. Downstream passage can be safely assured by installing, properly maintaining, and upgrading fish screens. There are yet hundreds of unscreened gravity diversions in the Salmon River, Clearwater, and lower Snake River basins. Most of the diversions that remain unscreened are in tributary streams where de-watering is common and exacerbated by the combination of water withdrawal and seasonal low flows. Many of these tributaries provide habitat that is critical to the different lifestages and future persistence of anadromous salmonids, including: historic spawning areas, rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, and cold water refugia.

Improving fish passage to critical tributary habitat. (OBJ-2)
Ensure safe fish passage at all diversions, road crossings, and fishways, improving diversion dams for juvenile and adult anadromous fish passage. Eliminating diversions reduces ditch entrainment potential and eliminates fish passage issues at the typical push-up gravel structures. Restore and maintain safe fish passage for the future persistence of anadromous and resident native fish species in tributary watersheds by removing or modifying fish passage impediments such as irrigation diversions, road culverts, and dewatered stream segments that delay or restrict access to historic spawning habitat, rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, and critical cold water refugia.

Increasing survival and abundance of resident salmonids. (OBJ-3)
The objective of this project is to increase the survival and abundance of resident salmonids by providing fish protection from entrainment, injury, and loss in gravity and pump diversions. Ensure safe fish passage at all diversions, road crossings, and fishways; to complete habitat improvement projects including stream re-connections, water conservation, and improve water use efficiency. Many of these tributaries are historic spawning habitat, rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, and provide critical cold water refugia for the future persistence of these species.

Provide management and operational support for implementation of resource projects. (OBJ-4)
Perform all management activities related to project implementation. This activities include planning, project development, regulatory compliance, environmental compliance, coordination, engineering surveys, cultural surveys, and reporting. Operational support would include technical assistance to other parties, fish salvage operations at project implementation sites, and assessing the resource for potential improvements. The work should lead directly to new projects becoming available for implementation or it should support ongoing projects in some manner.


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $352,761 $361,847

Fish Accord - Idaho $352,761 $361,847
FY2020 $434,633 $417,704 $386,433

Fish Accord - Idaho $417,704 $386,433
Cost Savings $0 $0
FY2021 $440,066 $424,763 $359,618

Fish Accord - Idaho $424,763 $359,618
FY2022 $445,567 $393,605 $386,628

Fish Accord - Idaho $393,605 $386,628
FY2023 $479,668 $479,668 $468,975

Fish Accord - Idaho $479,668 $468,975
FY2024 $491,660 $491,660 $426,541

Fish Accord - Idaho $491,660 $426,541
FY2025 $503,952 $503,952 $193,534

Fish Accord - Idaho $503,952 $193,534
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $0 $0

FY2020 $0 $0

FY2021 $0 $0

FY2022 $0 $0

FY2023 $0 $0

FY2024 $0 $0

FY2025 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 28-Feb-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2024 (Draft)
2023 $250,000 34%
2022 $250,000 39%
2021 $250,000 37%
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012 $1,364,050 78%
2011 $1,323,834 76%
2010
2009 $1,377,261 78%
2008 $1,565,740 82%
2007 $2,014,082 90%

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
The total Working Budget from 2007 through 2012 was $2,279,282 with our total expenditures for the same timeframe being $2,358,282. We are currently in FY2013 and the results are not yet established. The total expenditures were $79,000 above our Working Budget for the years 2007-2012. Our record of completing projects and contract goals has been very good. The Cost Share contributions (noted above) vary little in value from year to year. Minor dollar amount changes can be attributed to work performed by other agencies. An example would be when we perform more work on Federal land in a particular year. The Federal regulatory requirements will result in other agencies contributing additionl time for NEPA documentation, Special Use Permitting, and addressing land management issues.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
Our expenditures per fiscal year prior to the BPA accounting change in 2004: FY1994 $201,881 FY1995 323,348 FY1996 320,044 FY1997 140,540 FY1998 234,611 FY1999 327,551 FY2000 269,639 FY2001 270,363 FY2002 550,483 FY2003 765,354 FY2004 355,626 During the 1990's contracts were carried year to year until the appropriation was consumed. Typically, no-cost contract extensions were given without question in order to complete a project that had been delayed. Therefore, a wide range of spending sums per year is apparent as funding was carried over to the next year based upon implementation projects. Average spending during the years 1994 through 2004 was $341,770 per year. BPA allowed great flexibility during those years in order to complete projects as they became solidified and readied for implementation. Funding was supplied as needed rather than offering a fixed sum per year. A number of proposals were reviewed by BPA and BPA determined that they should be combined. The decision to split out the 1994-015-00 project into expense and capital was made after the 06-09 solicitation by KEW managers at the time, including Mark Shaw, who created 2007-399-00 as the capital project. The capital budget was designed to be shared by several parties in the USB, including IDFG, OSC, TNC. The amount of the budget was determined through consultation with the sponsors in the USB, past invoicing history, as well as future project plans. The split of the total between Expense and Capital was determined collaboratively among BPA, OSC and IDFG, the principle users of this project's budget. In 2008, an additional approximately $100,000 was added to this project. The project was modified in order to fund two fishery biologist positions (personnel only), one in the Salmon Region, and one in the Clearwater Region in order to accelerate the pace of implementation and completion of high priority, on-the-ground fish habitat improvement projects that will be funded from a variety of sources. These sources may include (but are not limited to) Bonneville Power, Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, Farm Bill, Snake River Basin Adjudication, Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act, National Fish Passage Program, Western Native Trout Initiative, NOAA, Landowner Incentive Program, Habitat Improvement Program, etc. The primary responsibilities was to identify potential fish habitat improvement projects, prepare proposals for funding, review and prioritize projects and proposals, coordinate activities with other public and private entities, and implement fish habitat improvement projects.

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):33
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:111
On time:31
Avg Days Late:25

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5666 18384, 23364, 27873, 33528, 38456, 43653, 47867, 53579, 57842, 62006, 66265, 70536, 73976, 77127, 79686, 82756, 85582, 88219, 84045 REL 1, 84045 REL 15, 84045 REL 29, CR-378132 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 07/01/2001 06/30/2026 Pending 78 202 17 0 32 251 87.25% 1
35392 38390, 43275, 48306, 53580, 57792, 61879, 65780 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 09/01/2007 06/30/2015 Closed 33 41 0 0 8 49 83.67% 0
Project Totals 111 243 17 0 40 300 86.67% 1

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
23364 T: 69 fish screen installed 8/18/2005 8/18/2005
23364 W: 84 diversion installed 10/18/2005 10/18/2005
23364 AD: 69 fish screen installed 10/30/2005 10/30/2005
23364 AB: 69 fish screen installed 11/30/2005 11/30/2005
23364 M: 69 LKC-03 fish screen installed 11/30/2005 11/30/2005
23364 P: 84 diversion installed 3/23/2006 3/23/2006
23364 Q: 84 diversion installed 3/23/2006 3/23/2006
23364 G: 84 LBC-03 Diverson complete 4/14/2006 4/14/2006
23364 H: 84 LBC-04 diversion complete 4/14/2006 4/14/2006
23364 I: 84 LBC-05 Diversion complete 4/14/2006 4/14/2006
23364 R: 84 diversion installed 4/28/2006 4/28/2006
23364 J: 84 LBC-06 Diversion complete 4/30/2006 4/30/2006
23364 K: 69 LBC-06 fish screen installed 5/31/2006 5/31/2006
23364 L: 69 LKC-02 fish screen installed 5/31/2006 5/31/2006
23364 V: 69 fish screen installed 5/31/2006 5/31/2006
23364 X: 69 fish screen installed 6/9/2006 6/9/2006
27873 H: 69 Fish Screen installed 8/16/2006 8/16/2006
27873 M: 69 SEF-15 fish screen installed 8/30/2006 8/30/2006
27873 L: 84 Diversion installed 5/18/2007 5/18/2007
27873 I: 69 Fish screen installed 6/15/2007 6/15/2007
27873 G: 69 Fish screen installed 6/27/2007 6/27/2007
27873 E: 175 Surveys etc. complete 6/29/2007 6/29/2007
27873 J: 69 Fish screen installed 6/30/2007 6/30/2007
27873 N: 69 Fish Screen Installed 6/30/2007 6/30/2007
27873 F: 175 Completed engineering drawings. 6/30/2007 6/30/2007
27873 U: 69 Fish screen installed 8/8/2007 8/8/2007
35392 B: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Clearwater basin 4/18/2008 4/18/2008
33528 C: 114 Produce project proposals 5/31/2008 5/31/2008
33528 E: 175 Topographic electronic files 6/20/2008 6/20/2008
35392 D: 99 Communicate/coordinate in Upper Salmon Subbasin 6/30/2008 6/30/2008
35392 E: 99 Communicate/coordinate in Clearwater subbasin 6/30/2008 6/30/2008
35392 C: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Upper Salmon basin 8/29/2008 8/29/2008
38456 E: 157 Stream Investigation Reports 3/30/2009 3/30/2009
38456 C: 114 Conduct public and private meetings with stakeholders. 5/29/2009 5/29/2009
38390 B: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Clearwater basin 5/31/2009 5/31/2009
38390 C: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Upper Salmon basin 5/31/2009 5/31/2009
43275 B: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Clearwater basin 5/31/2010 5/31/2010
43275 C: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Upper Salmon basin 5/31/2010 5/31/2010
43653 E: 157 Stream Investigation Reports 6/25/2010 6/25/2010
43653 D: 175 Topographic Electronic Files 6/25/2010 6/25/2010
47867 B: 114 Conduct public and private meetings with stakeholders. 3/15/2011 3/15/2011
47867 D: 191 Coordination Meetings 3/17/2011 3/17/2011
48306 B: 99 Communicate/Coordinate in Upper Salmon Basin 5/31/2011 5/31/2011
48306 C: 99 Communicate/Coordinate in Clearwater Basin 5/31/2011 5/31/2011
53579 H: 149 LHC-08A/8B Pipeline 9/16/2011 9/16/2011
53579 D: 114 Conduct public and private meetings with stakeholders. 4/20/2012 4/20/2012
53579 L: 175 Preliminary Drawings and Plans 4/30/2012 4/30/2012
53580 D: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Clearwater Basin 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
53580 E: 114 Preliminary plans, projects, proposals for the Clearwater Basin 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
53580 B: 99 Communicate/Coordinate in Upper Salmon Basin 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
53580 C: 99 Communicate/Coordinate in Clearwater Basin 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
53579 N: 191 Coordination Meetings 6/29/2012 6/29/2012
53579 F: 122 Technical Review Comments 6/29/2012 6/29/2012
53579 K: 175 Topographic Electronic Files 6/30/2012 6/30/2012
57842 E: 115 Stream Investigation Reports 9/3/2012 9/3/2012
57842 C: 114 Conduct public and private meetings with stakeholders. 11/22/2012 11/22/2012
57842 I: 55 Hydro-seed Disturbed Ground 12/4/2012 12/4/2012

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
The deliverable history is better than the percentage might depict. Many projects are identified and developed for future implementation. We are optimistic we can convince stakeholders to join our mission. Therefore, we typically have listed more tasks than we expect to complete as we are attempting to move potential projects to implementation at the fastest pace possible. Often tasks involving landowners and other stakeholders can be quite volatile. Negotiations can fall apart due to circumstances beyond our control. Our project makes hundreds of cold calls each year to find potential projects. Stakeholders have walked away from a project at the last possible minute. Since 2007, this project has not completed very many implementation projects, because once a project is ready for implementation, they are handed to other BPA funded Capitalization projects, such as our other BPA project 2007-399-00. When looking at Red deliverables in past contracts it is apparent they are due to negotiations failing, State and Federal agency permitting delays, contractual delays, weather delays, funding partner decisions, and other issues that we can't control. Some of the projects are engineered by NRCS or the BoR. Those agencies may become delayed and that results in delays to this project. Timelines must be adjusted accordingly. Cultural surveys may reveal the need to perform monitoring. Funding may not have been acquired for that task and a delay is the result. Many of our projects are joint efforts with other entities. If they fail complete their portion on time, it creates a delay for us. That aspect slows deliverables sometimes by only a month or so, but it yields a Red deliverable for this project. In-stream work in ESA listed waters is subject to in-stream work windows. Any delay may push a project back one entire year until the next available in-stream work window. A project may have been 80% complete when the contract period ended. The project would be depicted as an unfinished project. That project was completed in the next contract period, but there was no placeholder in the contract to indicate it was completed. Before the end of a current contract we have already negotiated a new contract that has been established without the specific non-completed project listed. It was not listed as we thought the task could be completed on time. We would then likely finish the last 20% of the project using Mitchell Act funding. The project may show a Red deliverable, but in essence it is complete within days of the end of the Status Report that depicts the Red deliverable. Often we contract for multiple project deliverables that have different resource priorities. A new project deliverable of greater importance may be placed in front of a lesser but qualified deliverable. The greatest effort will be placed on the project deliverable having the greatest potential for improving the resource. Time is an expendible commodity that may result in some individual project deliverable getting delayed in order to ensure completion of a more important project deliverable. The annual reports page for this project lists fifteen annual report submittals, yet the summary above indicates we have only submitted seven. Looking at the section Existing Projects Documents listed lower on this page, the 15 annual reports are noted.

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

Important Activities By Year:

1993- BPA provided nearly $500,000 for a cost share with CRFDP on the new Idaho shop and office faclities in Salmon, Idaho.  The new 8,500 square foot facility was completed in December 1993.  An intensive effort was started to evaluate existing fish screens in the basin.  Battelle Labs began evaluations on existing Idaho fish screens and provided recommendations for improving the screening program.  The Battelle work was funded by BPA.  A diversion inventory was started and all main stem diversions were rated based on diversion characteristics, known entrainment data, mechanical condition of existing fish screens, and proximity to spawning areas.  All diversions were measured several times per irrigation season to begin the assessment of potential fish screen capacity needs.  The first steel modular fish screen was installed on an unscreened diversion at SNF-02A.  

1994- New industrial and specialized fabrication shop tooling was acquired with BPA funding. The program began an intensive program of replacing aged fish screens in anadromous migration corridors. Nineteen gravity diversions were treated, fifteen old screens were replaced with new screens meeting current NOAA fish screen criteria, one diversion and an old style fish screen was eliminated by ditch consolidation, three screens were installed on previously unscreened diversions, and two new control structures were installed. A spring on lower Hayden Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River was reconnected by consolidation of ditches. The lower ditch involved in the consolidation had intercepted and diverted the spring channel. Funding provided contract services for engineering topographic surveys and engineered designs. An easement specialist was hired to negotiate maximum diverted flows for all fish screen installations. Office and staff support was also funded.  BPA purchased twenty steel modular fish screens from Washington Department of Fisheries for use in Idaho.  These screens were placed in the Idaho inventory and deployed throughout the next several years as site conditions and screen sizes were matched to the screens in inventory. In October, the first 22-1/2 degree drum screen was installed at LHC-01 and was evaluated by Department Engineers, NOAA Engineers, and Battelle Labs.  These screens passed critique by Battelle Labs and the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority’s Fish Screen Oversight Committee (FSOC).  This design reduced cost by nearly one third per cfs screened and established increased sweeping velocity to the bypass, resulting in a substantial decrease in migration delay at fish screens. Management decided to contract all future concrete civil works projects rather than increase staff levels to accelerate fish screen installations. 

1995- Progress was substantial toward replacing existing aged fish screens on the main stem migration corridors.  Forty two diversions were treated in 1995, twenty nine were fish screen replacements, six were new screens on previously unscreened diversions.  Seven diversions were eliminated by consolidation of ditches.  Many fish screen replacements were funded by Mitchell Act, but all ditch consolidation projects and many screen installations on previously unscreened diversions were funded by BPA.  A pump intake inventory was initiated on the Lemhi River and the Salmon River near Salmon, Idaho.  Materials and supplies for head gate control structures, bifurcation structures used in ditch consolidations, and diversion structures were purchased in bulk quantity and placed in inventory.  These materials were used over the next several years as projects were implemented.  Diversion inventory work continued throughout the basin.  A preliminary survey of all diversions on the main stem Middle Fork Salmon River was completed in May 1995.  The program provided support and participated in laboratory testing of a comparison of submerged orifice and overflow weir bypass systems in a rotary drum screen. The test compared injury and movement rates for three life stages of spring Chinook salmon.  The research was conducted at Pacific Northwest National Labs during 1994 through 1995 (C. S. Abernethy et. al. 1996).  Funding provided contract services for engineering topographic surveys and engineered designs.

1996- Screen replacements continued in 1996 on the Lemhi River and the Salmon River and major tributaries along migration corridors.  Twenty seven existing fish screens were replaced, seven unscreened diversions were screened, and four pump intake screens were installed.   BPA funded the consolidation of multiple ditches, resulting in the elimination of eight diversions.  Two additional Salmon River diversions, S-34 and S-36 were converted from gravity diversions to wells.  Two diversions dams were improved for fish passage by installing step pools below the diversion wing dam.  The first solar powered fish screen was installed at L-31B.  Staff initiated and participated in the completion of a conservation easement including a ditch elimination on the Jenkins property near North Fork, Idaho.  Planning for screen replacements in the upper Salmon River basin was well underway in 1996.  Stream inventory work was initiated on many tributaries to the Salmon River near the headwaters.  Coordination with the SNRA led to streamlined procedures for implementing fish screen and passage projects within the SNRA.  Cultural survey work was first funded by BPA rather than Mitchell Act on program projects.  Funding was also provided to enable contract services for engineering topographic surveys and engineered designs.  

1997- Major diversions in the upper Salmon River basin were completed, near Stanley, Idaho adjacent to Chinook salmon spawning areas.  Some of these new screens were directly downstream of the release site for Chinook salmon at Sawtooth Fish Hatchery.  Two major diversion screen projects were completed immediately downstream of Redfish Lake Creek, the outlet of Redfish Lake and the only Sockeye salmon population in the Salmon River basin.  Eighteen existing aged fish screens were replaced with NOAA Criteria units, four fish screens were constructed on previously unscreened diversions.  Four gravity diversions were eliminated as were four pump intakes.  Twenty two pump intakes were screened to NOAA Fisheries criteria.  Coordination with BPA environmental compliance staff led to the utilization of the BPA Watershed Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the first time.  This streamlined approach to environmental compliance assisted SNRA with their responsibilities under the Ditch Bill Act when confronted with fish screen and passage projects presented by this program.  Funding was provided to contract services for engineering topographic surveys and engineered designs.

1998-  Stream investigations were conducted in Goat and Iron Creeks, tributaries to Valley Creek, located in the SNRA.  Preliminary surveys were also conducted on Alturas Lake, Beaver, Champion, Fisher, Fourth of July, Gold, Smiley, Warm, and Williams Creeks, tributaries to the Salmon River upstream of Stanley, Idaho.  Twelve existing aged fish screens were replaced, one previously unscreened diversion was screened.  Twenty seven pump intake screens were installed on previously unscreened pump intakes.  Four fish screens were eliminated through consolidations.  Six diversion dams were eliminated and one diversion dam was substantially improved for fish passage.  Funding was provided to contract services for engineering topographic surveys and engineered designs.

1999- Fisheries improvement plans incorporating landowner agreements, screen installations, water conservation measures, and fish passage improvements were finalized for several tributaries to the Salmon River in the SNRA.    

Laboratory testing of a scale model vee drum screen was conducted in Albrook Hydraulic Lab at Washington State University.  The tests were conducted to verify hydraulics of the sweeping velocity, approach velocity, bypass velocity, and velocity acceleration into the bypass.  Specific testing was performed to identify hydraulic characteristics of the bypass system and whether or not the design would conform to NOAA Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria.  Lab tests verified the design was adequate and also gave important results pertaining to flow patterns of a submerged orifice.

Twelve aged existing fish screen were replaced with new criteria screens.  Four screens were installed on previously unscreened diversions.  One ditch was eliminated by purchasing water rights.  Three ditch consolidation projects were completed, eliminating four diversions. A sixth diversion was eliminated by transferring the gravity diversion to a well.  Thirty five pump intake screens were installed, mostly in the lower Salmon River and Clearwater River basins. 

2000- Laboratory testing was conducted on paddlewheel designs at the Albrook Hydraulic Lab at Washington State University.  The large screens being reconstructed near Challis, Idaho on the S-28 and S-32 canals needed a very large paddlewheel to operate the drums.  Three concerns were identified; safety of personal, safety of design limits on power train components, and the depth and flow characteristics of the canal.  Scale model testing was performed to verify a new blade design and the expected operating parameters of the design in high and low tail water conditions. Other information was extrapolated relating to expected performance with additional design features such as approach ramps and radial blade positioning (Hightree 2006).   

Seven aged fish screens were replaced with new NOAA criteria fish screens.  Four previously unscreened diversions were screened.  Five diversions were eliminated by consolidation.   The five screens eliminated were part of the two largest consolidation efforts ever completed.  Seven canals were consolidated into two, leaving only one canal on each side of the Salmon River in the Round Valley near Challis, Idaho.  The concrete civil works was funded by BPA through the Custer Soil & Water Conservation District.  The drum screens and all drive system and other appurtenances were funded by Mitchell Act.  This program provided all engineering, contract management, and inspections.   

2001- Preliminary stream and diversion inventories were conducted on the lower Lemhi River tributaries.  Bohannon Creek was identified as a potential watershed project area.  Adult steelhead were located spawning in the lower reaches of that stream.  Water diversion inventories were conducted on the Middle Fork Salmon River to complete the inventory work started in 1995.  Cultural surveys were conducted by an archaeologist at six sites upon lands administered by the SNRA.  The sites were located on Elk, Goat, and Iron Creeks, all tributaries to Valley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River.  Three additional sites were surveyed on Champion Creek.     

Seven aged fish screens were replaced with new NOAA criteria models.  Sixteen previously unscreened diversions were screened.  Two diversions were eliminated by consolidation of canals.  Eighty six pump intake screens were installed, mostly located in the Clearwater and lower Salmon River basins.         

2002- Three engineering consultant firms were hired to accelerate stream investigative and design work.  Montgomery-Watson-Harza (MWH) and Quadrant Consulting were each assigned a complete tributary to explore.  MWH inventoried all diversions, provided surveys and documented water flow in Challis Creek (MWH 2003).  Options for enhancements, screening, and fish passage improvements were presented to irrigators.  The Boise office of CH2M Hill was assigned tasks to provide engineering services on large pump intake screen systems.  Bohannon Creek, a Lemhi River tributary, was investigated and options for enhancements were presented in the Bohannon Creek Fish Screening and Passage Plan (Quadrant 2003).           

The program hired a full time biologist to conduct activities specific to monitoring and evaluating projects completed by the program.  The biologist established procedures and protocols for field investigations, fish screen performance evaluations, and post project implementation evaluations.  Field investigations were conducted on Mill Creek, Eddy Creek, Bear Creek, and Mosquito Flat Reservoir in Challis Creek watershed to determine species present, habitat availability, and fish passage conditions.  Similar stream investigations were conducted on Bohannon Creek and Wimpey Creek in the Lemhi River basin as well as Morgan Creek, Panther Creek and Moyer Creek, tributaries to the Salmon River.  A fishery survey was conducted on Fourth of July Creek near Stanley as part of consultation with USFWS on in-stream diversion work, ditch flows, water rights, and usage by water-users on Fourth of July Creek-03 diversion.  A survey of all water diversions between Corn Creek and Vinegar Creek was conducted along the Salmon River including tributaries (Cooper 2002).         

Four capital construction projects involving consolidation of ditches to reduce total water consumption and lower fish screen installation costs were completed.  Five fish screens were installed, three were replacements.  Four other projects were completed to eliminate push-up gravity diversions.  Two diversions were eliminated by conversion to a well and installing additional sprinkler system components.  One sprinkler system was installed with a pump from an adjacent ditch to allow the elimination of one diversion. Another diversion was eliminated by purchasing and retiring the water rights.  The fourth diversion was replaced with a fish friendly diversion with step pools.  A ditch measuring flume was installed on a large canal. Nearly 6,500 feet total of pipe was installed on two projects for water conservation.  Three velocity barriers were installed on ditch tail water channels.  Further details are available in annual reports.  Funding was limited to BPA responsibility under RPA 149 of the FCRPS BiOp 

2003- Two consultant firms were hired to accelerate investigative and design work.  Quadrant Consulting Inc., Boise, Idaho was assigned fish screen design work for all diversions on Squaw Creek and all diversions from the mouth of Challis Creek upstream to SChaC-08 diversion known as the Highline Canal. Additionally, Quadrant Consulting was hired to produce topographic surveys for fifteen sites throughout the upper Salmon River basin.  An archaeologist was hired to provide cultural surveys and monitor mitigation requirements during construction excavation.   Cultural resource studies were conducted at three sites on Challis Creek, three sites on Iron Creek, four sites on Squaw Creek, and provided supplemental work at two sites in the SNRA following design changes that exceeded the limits of previous surveys.        

The fisheries crew conducted fisheries surveys and irrigation inventories in the Beaver Creek, Big Eightmile Creek, Big Timber Creek, Kenney Creek, and Squaw Creek watersheds.  Beaver Creek and Squaw Creek are tributaries to the Salmon River near Stanley, Idaho.  Big Eightmile Creek and Big Timber Creek are tributaries to the Lemhi River near its headwaters.  Kenney Creek is a tributary to the Lemhi River near Tendoy, Idaho.  These initial watershed inventories provided baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of future fisheries improvement projects.  The surveys documented the presence of fish species and life histories in the watershed and will determine management directions for improving irrigation practices for fisheries benefits.  Irrigation improvements may include improving fish passage, identifying fish screening opportunities, diversion consolidation, diversion elimination, decreasing irrigation conveyance losses, and producing water-savings for increasing in-stream flow.        

Fisheries staff utilized four Biomark Inc., Destron-Fearing FS2001 FR/ISO PIT-tag reading stations on bypass pipes to monitor entrainment of PIT tagged salmonids and develop diversion habitat inventories of L-3, L-3A, L-8A, and L-9.  Staff utilized the PTAGIS database and analyzed data for PIT tagged Chinook salmon and steelhead diverted through the monitored diversions and the associated screens.  Total tags interrogated at these four sites during the irrigation season of 2003 were 804 individual reads (Murphy 2003).        

Staff conducted bull trout redd surveys in the middle reaches of Fourth of July Creek near Stanley in late summer 2003 to determine if fish were using the fish passage structure at the S4thJC-03 diversion.  Several redds were found, signifying the fish are readily using the recently renovated diversion structure.        

Six capital construction projects were completed during this contract period.  Two projects were extensive requiring considerable planning and design.  A consolidation of two ditches on Champion Creek near Stanley, Idaho included a reconnection of a spring and small stream increasing the availability of approximately ½ mile of habitat.  The largest canal on Challis Creek was screened and its associated diversion dam was removed and replaced with a new structure utilizing a fishway.  Two small modular fish screens were installed on previously unscreened diversions.  In Morgan Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River, a diversion was eliminated by adding additional mainline to an existing pump and sprinkler system in the Salmon River.  Four project sites, two completed in previous contracts, were rehabilitated by planting trees, shrubs, sedges, and native plants.  Native willows were planted at all four sites where the fish bypass pipes penetrate the stream bank.  Further details are available in annual reports. Funding was limited to BPA responsibility under RPA 149 of the FCRPS BiOp.

2004- Three consultant firms were hired to assist with stream investigative and design work.  Quadrant Consulting, Inc., Boise, Idaho was hired to produce topographic surveys for several sites throughout the upper Salmon River basin.  They also provided additional engineering design work on some fish screen projects.  Laurie Mauser, M.A., dba  Archaeological and Historical Resource Consulting of Boise, Idaho was hired to provide archaeological surveys on Challis Creek, East Fork Salmon River, and to monitor mitigation requirements during construction excavation.  Jeanne Pepalis, M.A., R.P.A., dba Timeline Archaeology of Boise, Idaho conducted cultural resource studies at four sites on Bohannon Creek, three sites on Kenney Creek, and provided monitoring during excavation on the SChaC-01 project.            

The fisheries crew conducted intensive fisheries stream investigation surveys on Agency Creek, Champion Creek, Goat Creek, Iron Creek, and Thompson Creek during the summer of 2004.  Meadow Creek was not surveyed due to an uncooperative landowner who would not allow access.  These stream surveys included diversion inventories as well as fishery species identification, distribution and density determinations.  Due to not being able to complete a survey in Meadow Creek, a complete drainage survey was conducted in Bayhorse Creek.  Bayhorse Creek is a RPA 149 high priority watershed identified in the SHIPUSS prioritization document.        

Staff conducted redd counts on Fourth of July Creek in the upper Salmon River basin in September to evaluate fishery improvements on the drainage following recently completed intensive fish screen and fish passage projects.  Redd counts have nearly doubled since the project was completed.  Three diversions were screened and all diversion dams were improved to enhance fish passage.  The stream has now been fully connected with the Salmon River for three seasons.  Fisheries staff inspected every new screen structure funded by BPA with an underwater video camera to inspect the seals.  They also measured the velocities for conformance to NOAA criteria.           

Staff installed four Biomark manufactured, Destron-Fearing FS2001 FR/ISO PIT-tag reading stations to monitor fish passage through bypass pipes on Lemhi River fish screens L-03, L-03A, L-08A, and L-09 for the irrigation season from April  through October (Murphy et. al. 2004).  This is part of a long term project to evaluate fish screens and diversion impact on smolt migration.  Data was downloaded every two weeks from the four Biomark PIT-tag reading stations devices.  These devices were set up to monitor the downstream migration of PIT-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon through the bypass pipes and to evaluate the effectiveness of the screening projects.  These devices are very useful in demonstrating the usefulness of the program and for maintaining a minimum flow in the Lemhi River to provide passage to migrating fish.        

Fisheries staff investigated post-project implementation and monitoring at Ellis Creek for reconnection and habitat improvement in that watershed.  The program eliminated the only diversion on Ellis Creek in 2001 by transferring the water rights to a pump in the Salmon River.  A review of photos demonstrated vegetation regeneration in the riparian following the reconnection and subsequent fence project funded by BPA and installed by USBWP.         

Fourteen capital construction projects were completed during this contract period.  Additionally, two other projects were materially changed and partially completed.  Twelve fish screens were constructed, one measuring flume was installed on the largest canal on Challis Creek, a control structure was installed on a multiple year consolidation project, and a river pump diversion was removed by transferring the water source to a well.  One consolidation project resulted in separate screens being designed.  One screen was installed as part of that project.  Further details are available in annual reports.  Funding was limited to BPA responsibility under RPA 149 of the FCRPS BiOp.

2005- The fisheries crew conducted intensive fisheries stream investigation surveys on Big Casino, Haynes, Hawley, Lee, Little Eightmile, and Mill Creeks during the summer of 2005.  Preliminary surveys were conducted in sites of interest on Texas and Canyon Creeks.  All streams surveyed with the exception of Big Casino are tributaries to the Lemhi River.  Big Casino is a tributary to the Salmon River.        

Cultural surveys were completed at thirteen sites on Wimpey Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River.  An archaeologist also provided site monitoring during the installation of the SChaC-01 project as required by ISHPO.  Cultural surveys on Bayhorse Creek near Clayton, Idaho were performed.  Another archaeologist was contracted to provide cultural surveys at one site on Thompson Creek, one site on Smiley Creek, two sites on Beaver Creek, and two sites on Meadow Creek.  All sites surveyed are tributaries to the Salmon River near Stanley, Idaho.        

Staff inspected every new screen structure completed in the previous year with an underwater video camera to inspect the seals.  They also measured the velocities for conformance to NOAA criteria.          

Nine screens were installed on previously unscreened diversions, two aged screens were replaced with NOAA criteria screens.  Two diversions were improved for fish passage. Further details are available in annual reports.  Funding was limited to BPA responsibility under RPA 149 of the FCRPS BiOp.        

2006- Three consultant firms were hired to assist with project investigative and design work.  Quadrant Consulting, Inc., Boise, Idaho was hired to produce topographic surveys for several sites throughout the upper Salmon River basin.  They also provided additional engineering design work on some fish screen projects.  The firm completed topographical surveys at thirteen sites on Wimpey Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River, and several sites on Goat and Meadow Creeks in the Stanley Basin.  An archaeologist was hired to perform cultural surveys at several sites within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA).  Timeline Archaeology of Boise, Idaho conducted cultural resource studies at thirteen sites on Wimpey Creek, three sites on Goat Creek, and three sites on Meadow Creek.  Goat and Meadow Creeks are in the Stanley Basin.   

Seventeen construction projects were completed during this contract period. Additionally, several other projects were partially completed.  Eight fish screens were constructed, ten fish passage projects were completed at diversion dams, and seven control structures were fabricated and installed.  Three of the control structures were installed by the irrigators.  One of the fish screens installed will be operated and maintained by the irrigator.  Most of the materials and supplies were fabricated and purchased for one consolidation project on Champion Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River near Stanley, Idaho.

2007- The three consultant firms hired in 2006 to assist with project investigative and design work continued their appraisals and preliminary designs.  Quadrant Consulting, Inc., Boise, Idaho was hired to produce topographic surveys for several proposed project sites throughout the upper Salmon River basin.  They also provided additional engineering design work on some projects, including the PBSC-03A, PBSC-09, and SSmC-01 fish screens.  Claudia Walsworth M.A., of Ketchum, Idaho was hired to complete a previously initiated cultural survey at two sites on Knapp Creek within the Salmon-Challis National Forest.  Laurie Mauser, M.A., of Bayview, Idaho was retained to conduct cultural resource studies at several fish screen and diversion sites on Bayhorse Creek, two fish screen sites on Big Springs Creek, one pump intake screen and pipe site on the Pahsimeroi River, and one fish screen site at SEF-14, a diversion on the East Fork Salmon River.     

Staff met with and discussed project possibilities with two separate large landowners in the Pahsimeroi valley.  Staff evaluated potential fish screening and passage projects on the Beartooth Capital property, formerly the Cutler Ranch.  Beartooth Capital is working cooperatively with this program and other agencies to do conservation work.  This ranch is a very important ranch with significant potential to increase anadromous and resident fish production.  Staff  worked to identify potential new projects which include the reconnection of two spring tributaries by removing ditch intercepts and installing a siphon, removal of a significant diversion barrier to Patterson Big Springs Creek, and working towards a conservation agreement with multiple habitat protection covenants.   Similar evaluations were conducted on a large land holding near Sulphur Creek in the middle Pahsimeroi Valley. 

Multiple agencies met to coordinate and discuss projects in the Pahsimeroi River Basin.   Partners CSWCD, BoR, and NRCS discussed the options for finishing the P-09 Elimination Project by filling in the physical Cross Ditch and removing the head-gate control structure on Patterson Big Springs Creek.   Additional work was identified for improving fish passage above the Dowton Lane up to the Hooper Lane.  Long term improvements were discussed at subsequent meetings.  Preliminary planning was done pertaining to potential projects above Hooper Lane.

Fishery personnel surveyed three prioritized streams to determine the presence, densities and distribution of fish species throughout their watersheds and to identify diversions and fish passage related issues.  These stream surveys included Patterson Big Springs Creek, McKim Creek, and Tower Creek.  Patterson Big Springs Creek is a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River.  McKim Creek is a tributary to the Salmon River near Ellis, Idaho.  Tower Creek is also a tributary to the Salmon River downstream of Salmon, Idaho.  

In coordination with regional Department staff, seven weirs for trapping upstream migrating steelhead were installed on Cow Creek, Iron Creek, Carmen Creek, Tower Creek, Fourth of July Creek, Hughes Creek, and Indian Creek.  All are tributaries to the Salmon River.  The objective was to determine if adult steelhead are successfully entering and utilizing these streams for spawning.  The Iron Creek weir study is a continuation of the monitoring conducted in the last two years, which is within a part of the watershed that is currently undergoing changes to save water and install fish screens on diversions. 

Nine capital projects were completed under this contract.  Seven fish screens were constructed for gravity irrigation ditches.  Three screens were replacements for existing structures that did not meet the FSOC/NOAA juvenile fish screen criteria.  Two screens were located on Knapp Creek, a tributary to the Middle Fork Salmon River and one screen is located on the East Fork Salmon River. The remaining four screens were new screens on previously unscreened diversions.   Three were installed on Wimpey Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River.  One screen was installed on Smiley Creek, tributary to the Salmon River near Stanley, Idaho. Two ditch elimination projects were also completed.  The SCHaC-07 canal on Challis Creek was eliminated by consolidating the ditch with the SChaC-08 canal.  The primary water user on the SChaC-07 ditch used a gravity diversion to feed a pump station and pivot irrigation system.  In order to prevent pump cavitation, extra water was diverted and spilled below the pump.  A new penstock and bifurcation structure was installed in the SChaC-08 canal.  Several hundred feed of penstock pipeline was buried from the bifurcation structure to the pump station.  Excess water is no longer required to ensure loss of pressure.  The SChaC-07 canal was filled in along the pipeline route. The second ditch elimination was a multiple agency endeavor.  Several pivot sprinkler systems were installed by Custer Soil & Water Conservation District (CSWCD) on lands irrigated by the P-09 canal in the Pahsimeroi River drainage.  Some of the water supplying the pivots was taken from other currently screened ditches.  This project completed a portion of the P-09 elimination project including the installation of a new point of diversion fish screen and a new pipeline buried from the screen to the pump sump on the Moen Ranch.  That screen and pipeline feeds multiple pivots and wheel line irrigation systems.     

2008- Project 1994-015-00 was separated into two projects.   A new project 2007-399-00 was established in FY2007 for implementation of capital projects that are proposed and developed under Project 1994-015-00. Only preliminary planning, coordination, and feasibility design work is accomplished in this project from this time forward.    

Quadrant Consulting Inc., Boise, Idaho was retained to provide all topographic surveys on proposed project sites.  During this contract period, Quadrant surveyed ten proposed project sites, provided feasibility elevation verification at three sites, and completed pre-design drawings for all sites surveyed.

Archaeological surveys were performed with the assistance of North Wind, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho to complete cultural resource compliance on all proposed project sites.   North Wind completed nine field surveys and provided detailed reports that were submitted to the Idaho State Historical Society for concurrence. 

Preliminary planning and feasibility meetings were held with stakeholders in several drainages culminating in project proposals for future capital contracts.  Follow up meetings were concluded with individual landowners and irrigators to finalize easements and agreements.  Preliminary designs were reviewed with pertinent parties. 

Monitoring and evaluations of past projects continued.  Personnel conducted underwater video monitoring, flow measurement velocities, and screen seal integrity of select screen sites.  Staff installed and monitored PIT tag detectors on several fish screen bypass pipes to gather passage data used to evaluate the functionality and effectiveness of those screens previously funded and installed.  Biological staff provided fish salvage on all implementation projects.      

Staff provided oversight on two major ditch consolidation projects that eliminated three diversions.  Support and contract management was provided for a Public Works contract that included the installation of seven fish screens.   Staff coordinated and provided input to complete one stream tributary reconnection project was completed as a joint agency project.  

The Clearwater Region biologist met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Latah County Soil and Water Conservation district, Soil Conservation Commission, IDEQ, NRCS, Nature Conservancy, Potlatch Corporation etc.   The Clearwater Region biologist developed proposals for the East Fork Potlatch Riparian Enhancement Project (IDEQ 319 grant), the Pine Creek Project (PCSRF funding), the Upper Potlatch Restoration Project (PCSRF funding), and the Fry Meadow Restoration Project (PCSRF funding).  The biologist also oversaw the continued development of the previously funded East fork Potlatch Large Wood Project (PCSRF funding).

The Salmon Region biologist met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Lemhi County Soil and Water Conservation District, Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District, USFS, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.  The biologist attended the Tech Team meetings.  The Salmon Region biologist identified six projects and pursued funding for five of them.  Three proposals were developed during this contract (12-Mile Side Channel Project, Fish Screen Maintenance, and the Wallace Creek Project).  The biologist was also involved with implementing six previously funded projects in the Lemhi River drainage.

2009- Quadrant Consulting Inc., Boise, Idaho was retained to provide all topographic surveys on proposed project sites.  During this contract period, Quadrant surveyed ten proposed project sites, provided feasibility elevation verification at three sites, and completed pre-design drawings for all sites surveyed.

North Wind Environmental completed nine field surveys and provided detailed reports that were submitted to the Idaho State Historical Society for concurrence. 

Two fish habitat biologists, one for the Clearwater Region and one for the Salmon Region worked on identifying, prioritizing, designing, and implementing habitat restoration projects. Because the majority of the funding for these projects comes from federal or private sources, the habitat biologists are also responsible for securing funding for these projects. One hundred percent of their time is dedicated towards restoration efforts.

The Clearwater Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Latah County Soil and Water Conservation district, Soil Conservation Commission, IDEQ, NRCS, Nature Conservancy, Potlatch Corporation etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.   The Clearwater region biologist received funding for the Pine Creek and East Fork Riparian Enhancement projects and worked on designs for those projects as well as the permitting for the East fork Potlatch Large Wood Project.  The Clearwater Region biologist developed and submitted a funding proposal for the Fry Meadow Restoration Project (PCSRF funding) and worked on a proposal for the Shea Meadows Project.

The Salmon Region Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the general public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Lemhi County Soil and Water Conservation District, Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District, USFS, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.   The Salmon Biologist received PCSRF funding for the 12-Mile Side Channel Project, and the Canyon Creek Reconnect Project and continued to work on implementing the six previously funded projects in the Lemhi River drainage. Other projects were developed including the Duck Creek Restoration Project (PCSRF funding) and the Wallace Creek Easement and Culvert Replacement Project (PCSRF funding).  Proposals were submitted for funding. Projects have been identified for future funding in the Pahsimeroi River drainage.

Preliminary planning and feasibility meetings were held with stakeholders in ten drainages culminating in project proposals for future capital contracts.  Follow up meetings were concluded with individual landowners and irrigators to finalize easements and agreements.  Preliminary designs were completed for five potential projects on Hughes Creek, tributary to the North Fork Salmon River.  Three preliminary designs were completed to replace diversion dams on Patterson Big Springs Creek at the PBSC-01, PBSC-3, and PBSC-07/08.  Preliminary designs were reviewed with pertinent parties.  Planning continued on the Big Timber Creek Reconnect Project.   Staff worked to complete specifications and a project manual for boring the Big Timber Reconnect Project sprinkler pipeline under State Highway 28.  Materials list for pipe and fittings was obtained from NRCS.  Bids were solicited for the pipe and fittings.  Late in the project, a design change required additional pipe.   Surplus pipe was obtained from CSWCD.   Numerous flow agreements were obtained to assist in design work.  Staff completed nearly twenty agreements that allowed contractors and staff to enter private property to perform topographical surveys, cultural surveys, site inspections, and construction access.  

Numerous meetings were held with stakeholders on a consolidation proposal.  Other meetings were held concerning a proposal to eliminate a ditch on lower Carmen Creek and allow the flow to stay in-stream.  Agency coordination was conducted with other partners working in the basin.

Staff prepared biological assessments for ESA Section 7 consultations for significant in-stream work associated with fish screen and passage projects in the Lemhi River, Big Timber Creek, Bayhorse Creek, and Big Springs Creek in the Pahsimeroi River subbasin. 

Monitoring and evaluations of past projects continue.  Personnel conducted underwater video monitoring, flow measurement velocities, and screen seal integrity of select screen sites.  Staff installed and monitored PIT tag detectors on several fish screen bypass pipes to gather passage data used to evaluate the functionality and effectiveness of those screens previously funded and installed.  Staff performed fish salvage on several implementation projects.   

Stream investigations were conducted on four streams, Lyon Creek, Owl Creek, Sulphur creek, and West Pass Creek.  Lyon and Owl Creeks are tributaries to the Salmon River, Sulphur Creek is a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River, and West Pass Creek is a tributary to the East Fork Salmon River.  Weirs were installed on several streams.  Large percentage of wild/natural steelhead stocks were discovered on two streams, Carmen Creek and the North Fork Salmon River.

The only project implemented under this contract was the removal of the Cross Ditch head gate on Patterson Big Springs Creek in the Pahsimeroi River drainage.  The Cross Ditch was closed under a former multi-agency project the P-09 Elimination project.   All other projects were implemented under Project 2007-399-00 with any Public Works project being administered, program oversight provided, and capital contract project implementation management performed with funding in this contract.   Five new concrete structures were constructed under the capital project.   

2010- During this contract period many sites were surveyed both topographical and cultural in anticipation of future implementation.   Twelve proposed project sites were topographically surveyed, provided feasibility elevation verification at three sites, and completed pre-design drawings for all sites surveyed.  North Wind Environmental completed eight field surveys and provided detailed reports that were submitted to the Idaho State Historical Society for concurrence. 

There were not any projects implemented under this contract.  All projects were implemented under project 2007-399-00 in a separate capital contract #44098.  Public Works projects were administered, program oversight was provided, and capital contract project implementation management was performed with funding in this contract.   One major project keep staff busy for a two month period inspecting and managing an Idaho Public Works project that involved replacement of several diversions on Patterson Big Springs Creek, a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River.

Preliminary planning and feasibility meetings were held with stakeholders in eleven drainages culminating in project proposals for future capital contracts.  A major ditch consolidation and elimination project was negotiated on the East Fork Salmon River between irrigators and the USFS.  The project will eliminate three ditches and ensure fish passage in the lower section of West Pass Creek, a tributary to the East Fork Salmon River.  Eighteen follow up meetings were concluded with individual landowners and irrigators on several proposed projects to finalize easements and agreements.  Preliminary designs were reviewed with all pertinent parties.   

Cordination meetings were held with all entities working on restoration projects in the basin.  Screen Program staff met with members of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), BoR, CSWCD, and NRCS to coordinate and discuss projects in the Pahsimeroi River Basin.  The Screen Program is engaged in discussions to perhaps siphon the water of the PBSC-03 ditch under Mayrick Creek and reconnect it to Patterson Big Springs Creek.  One project identified was a potential project involves eliminating both the PBSC-03A and PBSC-09 diversions entirely.  Information regarding fisheries surveys was conveyed to the group.  The group discussed water rights, potential projects and landowner interest.  Four culverts are to be replaced on the Hooper Lane in The Pahsimeroi Valley.

The Clearwater Habitat Biologist met with 50 or more members of the public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Latah County Soil and Water Conservation district, Soil Conservation Commission, IDEQ, NRCS, Nature Conservancy, Potlatch Corporation etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.  The Clearwater Biologist oversaw the completion of the East Fork Potlatch Large Wood Project (PCSRF funding) where a total of 44 large wood structures using over 150 individual pieces of wood were installed in a mile long reach of the East Fork Potlatch River.   Clearwater Biologist oversaw the installation of bank stabilization treatments in the EF Potlatch River (PCSRF funding).  These include erosion control matting, tree revetments, willow fascines, and brush mattresses.  Willow poles, red osier dogwood poles, and evergreen trees were planted and the areas were seeded with a native grass seed mix.  Other projects continued to be developed, including the EF Potlatch fence (DEQ 319 grant), Pine Creek Bridge (PCSRF & BPA Accord funding), and the Shea Meadow Project (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding).

The Salmon Region Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the general public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Lemhi County Soil and Water Conservation District, Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District, USFS, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.  The Salmon Biologist oversaw the construction of the Eagle Valley Spring Restoration Project (PCSRF funding) and the Wallace Creek Easement and Culvert Replacement Design Project (PCSRF funding).  Other projects continued to be developed including the Duck Creek Restoration Project (PCSRF funding) and the 12-Mile Side Channel Project (PCSRF funding). New projects were being developed in the Pahsimeroi, North Fork Salmon, and Wallace Creek.

2011, opening several more miles of stream on Patterson Big Springs Creek, a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River.  Several follow up meetings were held, some by teleconference calls, to identify responsibilities and complete tasks that further the process.  Staff sent screen designs to NRCS for inclusion in the Mayrick Creek pump station design.   This program also agreed to perform all the hydro-seeding on the Mayrick Creek and Hooper Lane projects.  Biological staff met numerous times with landowners/irrigators and other agency staff working on conservation agreements.  Staff looked at proposals for water transfers, ditch elimination, habitat restoration and a host of other fisheries related projects that could be accomplished on a particular parcel of land.  Many of these actions will be funded by BPA through other programs and agreements.  Program staff are highly regarded and often sought out for technical assistance from other agencies and Non Governmental Organizations for project development and coordination to improve flows and fish passage in the upper Lemhi River.  Projects involved transferring water rights, removing diversions, installing siphons, and riparian fencing.

Monitoring and evaluations of past projects continue.  Personnel conducted underwater video monitoring, flow measurement velocities, and screen seal integrity of select screen sites.  Staff installed and monitored PIT tag detectors on several fish screen bypass pipes to gather passage data used to evaluate the functionality and effectiveness of those screens previously funded and installed with BPA funding.    Staff provided fish salvage on all BPA funded projects.  

Stream investigations were conducted on four streams, Lyon Creek, Owl Creek, Sulphur creek, and West Pass Creek.  Lyon and Owl Creeks are tributaries to the Salmon River, Sulphur Creek is a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River, and West Pass Creek is a tributary to the East Fork Salmon River.  Weirs were installed on several streams.  Large percentage of wild/natural steelhead stocks were discovered on two streams, Carmen Creek and the North Fork Salmon River.

The Clearwater Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Latah County Soil and Water Conservation district, Soil Conservation Commission, IDEQ, NRCS, Nature Conservancy, Potlatch Corporation etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.   The Clearwater Biologist oversaw the completion of the East Fork Potlatch Fence (DEQ 319 grant) where 2.5 miles of fence was installed to protect a mile long reach of the East Fork Potlatch River. Other projects continued to be developed, including the Pine Creek Bridge (PCSRF & BPA Accord funding), Fry Meadow (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding), and the Shea Meadow Project (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding).

The Salmon Region Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the general public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Lemhi County Soil and Water Conservation District, Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District, USFS, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.   The Salmon Biologist oversaw the completion of the fence and revegetation of the Eagle Valley Spring Restoration Project (PCSRF funding) and the construction on the Duck Creek Restoration project (PCSRF funding).  Other projects continued to be developed including the 12-Mile Side Channel Project (PCSRF and BPA funding) and the Pahsimeroi Hatchery diversion Screens project (BPA Accord funding).

2011- Quadrant Consulting Inc., Boise, Idaho was retained to provide all topographic surveys on proposed project sites.  During this contract period, Quadrant surveyed twelve proposed project sites, provided feasibility elevation verification at three sites, and completed pre-design drawings for all sites surveyed.

Archaeological surveys were performed with the assistance of North Wind, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho to complete cultural resource compliance on all proposed project sites.   North Wind completed field surveys on four separate drainages and provided detailed reports that were submitted to the Idaho State Historical Society for concurrence. 

There were not any projects implemented under this contract during this year.  All projects were implemented under project 2007-399-00 under capital contract numbers 44098 and 49515.  However, three Idaho Public Works projects were administered, program oversight was provided, and capital contract project implementation management was performed with funding in this contract.  The oversight involved the completion of a 3,000 foot pipeline, a pump station and sprinkler system installation, and a contract to construct fish screens.  Staff performed hydro-seeding at three additional projects funded by BPA but implemented by partners.

Preliminary planning and feasibility meetings were held with stakeholders in fourteen drainages culminating in project proposals for future capital contracts.  Follow up meetings were concluded with individual landowners and irrigators to finalize easements and agreements.  Preliminary designs were reviewed with pertinent parties.  Agreements were negotiated to eliminate two diversions in the Pahsimeroi River and to transfer water to eliminate two additional diversions.   Work with partners continued on tributary reconnections, water conservation, passage improvements, and screening.

Monitoring and evaluations of past projects continue.  Personnel conducted underwater video monitoring, flow measurement velocities, and screen seal integrity of select screen sites.  Staff installed and monitored PIT tag detectors on several fish screen bypass pipes to gather passage data used to evaluate the functionality and effectiveness of those screens previously funded and installed with BPA funding.   Staff provided all fish salvage at all implementation projects requiring de-watering regardless of funding source.   

Stream investigations were conducted on three streams, Castle Creek, Middle Pahsimeroi River, and Phillips Slough.  The Pahsimeroi River and the Phillips Slough are tributaries to the Salmon River, Castle Creek is a tributary to Camas Creek, tributary to the Middle Fork Salmon River.  Alder Creek is the official name for the stream known locally as Phillips Slough. 

The Clearwater Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Latah County Soil and Water Conservation district, Soil Conservation Commission, IDEQ, NRCS, Nature Conservancy, Potlatch Corporation etc.  The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.  The Clearwater Biologist oversaw the completion of the Pine Creek Bridge Project (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding).   Other projects continued to be developed, including the Meadow (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding), and the Shea Meadow Project (PCSRF and BPA Accord funding).

The Salmon Region Habitat Biologist met with 70 or more members of the general public, including landowners to discuss fish habitat and fish habitat restoration.  The Biologist also met with numerous agencies and NGOs to discuss and develop projects as well as coordinate project activities.  These include NOAA, USFWS, Lemhi County Soil and Water Conservation District, Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District, USFS, BLM, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc. The biologist has consistently attended Tech Team meetings.  The Salmon Biologist oversaw the completion and revegetation of 12-Mile Side Channel Project (PCSRF and BPA funding).  Other projects continued to be developed including the Pahsimeroi Hatchery Diversion Screens Project (BPA Accord funding).  An assessment of fish passage and alternative conceptual designs was completed and presented to the landowner (Idaho Power Company).  Idaho Power has decided to proceed with design and implementation of fish passage structures at these two sites and will fund and oversee the work. IDFG will remain involved through review of fish passage designs. New projects are being developed in Sulphur Creek and elsewhere in the Pahsimeroi drainage.

2012- During this contract period nine proposed project sites were surveyed, feasibility and elevation verification were performed at a site, and pre-design drawings for all sites surveyed were completed.

Archaeological surveys were performed with the assistance of North Wind, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho to complete cultural resource compliance on all proposed project sites.  North Wind completed field surveys on seven separate drainages and provided detailed reports that were submitted to the Idaho State Historical Society for concurrence.  Specialized monitoring was performed at Cow Creek on the Cow Creek-02/3 consolidation and water enhancement project.  The Idaho State Historical Society had recommended monitoring the site during all construction excavation activities.  

Preliminary planning and feasibility meetings were held with stakeholders in thirteen separate  drainages culminating in project proposals for future capital contracts.  Follow up meetings were concluded with individual landowners and irrigators to finalize easements and agreements.  Preliminary designs were reviewed with pertinent parties.    Numerous coordination meetings were held with partners working in the Pahsimeroi Valley on water conservation projects.   Several meetings were held with other entities regarding tributary reconnections on the Lemhi River.   Biologists working in the Clearwater River area held numerous meeting, coordinated with other agencies, and conducted stakeholder meetings to advocate for habitat projects.  

Monitoring and evaluations of past projects continued.  Personnel conducted underwater video monitoring, flow measurement velocities, and screen seal integrity of select screen sites.  Staff installed and monitored PIT tag detectors on several fish screen bypass pipes to gather passage data used to evaluate the functionality and effectiveness of those screens previously funded and installed.  Stream investigations were conducted on streams previously surveyed in order to determine impact of project implementation.  Biological staff provided fish salvage operations on every resource project in the Salmon River basin regardless of funding source or affiliation.  Other work included performing hydro-seeding operations at all sites with ground disturbing activities that were funded under other BPA projects..    

The Hayden Creek LHC-08A/8B Consolidation Pipeline Project was completed.  The project entailed funding a portion of a pipeline and bifurcation structure allowing one diversion to be removed from Hayden Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River.   All other projects were implemented under Project 2007-399-00 within separate capital contract numbers 49515 and 54777. 

Staff provided construction management on three Idaho Public Works projects funded under Project 2007-399-00.  One project entailed the completion and closeout of a sprinkler installation on Bayhorse Creek near Challis, Idaho.  The second project included the construction of four new fish screens, two on Carmen Creek, a tributary to the salmon River near Salmon, Idaho and two on Bohannon Creek a tributary to the lower Lemhi River.   

Objectives and Summary of Accomplishments:

 1.  To provide protection of anadromous fish from loss in water diversions.

     Since 1991, 257 fish screens have been installed or replaced within anadromous waters in the State of Idaho. Main river system migration corridors were mostly screened by 2007. These fish screens all meet or exceed NOAA and FSOC criteria.  Random inspections are performed in addition to general O&M. These inspections ensure the screens are continuing to meet criteria. Additionally, there are PIT tag detectors installed at select fish screens to interrogate downstream migrates that have been tagged by other parties. The detectors provide data relevant to the efficacy of the fish screens. A recent collaborative study between the IDFG Anadromous Fish Screen Program and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center quantified the cumulative entrainment effects of water withdrawal on juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lemhi River. Utilizing fish screen bypass data collected from 2003-2008 on the Lemhi River it was estimated that 71.1% of migrating smolts were entrained and safely bypassed at the 41 lowermost screens under median streamflow conditions (Walters et al. 2012). These PIT tag readers recorded bypassing an adult steelhead that had originally been tagged as a downstream migrating kelt the previous year at Lower Granite Dam.  The screen installation process includes consolidation of diversions to eliminate diversions and their potential for entrainment. Since 1994, 63 diversion dams have been eliminated. Each diversion had been an avenue of entrainment.

 2. To improve fish passage at diversions for juvenile and adult anadromous fish.

    Since 1994, 63 diversion dams were eliminated and 51 were improved for fish passage under this project. The work involved installation of native materials where practical. In some instances, step pools were created to allow juveniles to migrate upstream with due consideration to their swimming strength. All diversion treatments were in accordance with NOAA Juvenile Fish Passage Criteria. Details are available in annual reports from the years 1994-2012.     

 3. To improve stream flow conditions where possible.

   Efforts undertaken by this program have resulted in improved in-stream conditions in many streams. Numerous streams have been reconnected to major river systems through a variety of water conservation efforts.  Some of the work was through partnerships with Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, National Resource Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Flow enhancement was realized on many tributaries and fish now utilize entire streams or stream segments previously unavailable. Streams that were effectively reconnected and now provide habitat for both juvenile and adult fish include Carmen Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Iron Creek, Cow Creek, Patterson Big Springs Creek, Ellis Creek, Morgan Creek, Challis Creek, Bayhorse Creek, Fourth of July Creek, Champion Creek, Alturus Lake Creek, and Smiley Creek.  All streams listed except Patterson Big Springs Creek are tributaries to the main stem Salmon River. Patterson Big Springs Creek is a tributary to the Pahsimeroi River. Lemhi River tributaries reconnected include Bohannon Creek, Kenney Creek, Wimpey Creek, Canyon Creek and Big Timber Creek. These streams were all flow limited and supported some life stages of fish. Five small secondary tributaries were flow enhanced by conservation measures. Those five streams are Goat, Iron, and Elk Creeks, tributaries to Valley Creek, tributary to the Salmon River, and Muddy Springs and Duck Creeks, both tributaries to the Pahsimeroi River.    

Installation of diversion control structures and adherence to adjudicated water rights. Another effective tool was the manipulation of water rights to leverage in-stream flow. Moving points of diversion and consolidating diversions have removed passage barriers and improved stream conditions. The installation of fish screens has protected juvenile fish and adult resident fluvial fish. This program has implemented fisheries and habitat surveys to determine the effectiveness of some of the programs recent conservation projects.  The four project summaries listed below are typical of the implementation type of work performed in Project 1994-015-00 prior to 2007. Many similar projects have been completed. Further documentation can be found in Project 1994-015-00 annual progress reports.     

Fourth of July Creek Project:

Fourth of July Creek is a tributary to the section of the Salmon River that flows through the upper valley of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Fourth of July Creek falls within the known range of distribution of Snake River Spring/Summer Run Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, Snake River Sockeye Salmon, and bull trout; all listed under the Endangered Species Act with protected status. Upper Salmon River tributaries may provide habitat for any of these species at various life history stages, including spawning and early rearing habitat. Habitat within the lower reaches of Fourth of July Creek was compromised for several decades due to its utilization as a source of irrigation water from its lower reaches, which dewatered the stream channel during the peak of the irrigation season (Photo 1).  

2000_0807ag 

Photo 1.   Fourth of July Creek was seasonally de-watered in the lower reaches.

All three diversions on this stream were unscreened. None of the diversions had any manner of flow control and subsequently all three diversions exceeded both claimed water rights and ditch capacity. Fish passage after spring runoff was functionally non-existent. This program worked with the diverters to install control structures, fish screens, and to improve in-stream flow. In 2001, a control structure and fish friendly rock diversion was installed on the first diversion upstream from the confluence. After the ditch could be shut down, a new rotary drum fish screen was installed.  A new fish screen was installed on the third and uppermost diversion in the summer of 2001. Negotiations for a pipeline to reduce conveyance losses on the three mile long S4thJuly-03 ditch failed to be concluded, so a new diversion dam and step-up pool system was designed to assist fish passage. The design flow had to incorporate the larger flow necessary without the pipeline water conservation project. For many years a barrier had existed as a result of head cutting below the diversion dam. In late October 2002, the program work crew installed the new head gate and step-up pools at the third diversion. Earlier in 2002, a new control structure and fish screen was installed on the middle diversion.  This completed all screen and passage structure work on Fourth of July Creek.  In-stream flow improved considerably with the installation of the control structures. However, the limited in-stream flow during late summer was still problematic.     

In an effort to improve habitat and connectivity to the Salmon River for native fish species, in 2003, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) negotiated a one-year minimum flow agreement with the lowest diverter on Fourth of July Creek (FJC-01). The agreement secured 4.1 cfs in Fourth of July Creek between June 1 and October 31. In 2004, the Board negotiated a two-year lease that secured 2.97 cfs in Fourth of July Creek from the second Fourth of July Creek diversion (FJC2). That lease was renewed in 2006 for 2 years, 2008 for 1 year, and again in 2009 for 20 years. Total costs of the transactions to date are $28,115. Funding for these transactions is through the Columbia River Basin Water Transaction Program (CBWTP), which is a Bonneville Power Administration-funded program whose mission is to support innovative, voluntary, grassroots water transactions that improve flows to tributary streams and rivers in the communities of the Columbia River Basin.

Fishery surveys conducted in Fourth of July Creek since 2003 include an annual bull trout redd count and an electrofishing survey done in 2004 and 2011. Fourth of July Creek falls within the Upper Salmon River core bull trout recovery area, which is part of the Salmon River Recovery Unit, as listed in the Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). Bull trout following a fluvial life history make up a large component of the population within this core area. A fluvial life history in this part of the watershed requires tributary flows sufficient enough in mid to late summer to allow fish approaching 30 inches in length to move upstream through the stream channel to pass irrigation diversions and enter into the spawning areas. The annual bull trout redd count is conducted on a 5.8 km (3.6 mi) section of Fourth of July Creek with the lower boundary of the transect reach beginning at the third diversion from the bottom. Results of this survey indicated an increasing trend in the total number of bull trout redds observed from sixteen in 2003 to seventy-one in 2007 (Figure 2). The number of redds annually counted fluctuated from twenty-nine and fifty-six between the years 2008 and 2012 (IDFG 2012). This decrease may be from the effects of a forest fire that burned through a large section of the watershed in 2005.

Dscn0868 

Photo 2  Fluvial bull trout from Fourth of July Creek.

Electrofishing surveys have documented the presence of a small number of juvenile steelhead/rainbow trout and good densities of juvenile Chinook salmon within the lower reaches on intermittent years. It is not likely that lower Fourth of July Creek provides spawning habitat for adult Chinook Salmon, but it is being utilized for early rearing habitat with the current level of protection being provided by the CBWTP and the presence of fish screens to prevent entrainment losses. Other species documented to be present in Fourth of July Creek include westslope cutthroat trout, sculpin species, and nonnative brook trout in low densities.

Bull Trout Redds Fourth July Creek 

 

Challis Creek Passage and Screening Project: Within the Challis Creek drainage there are roughly 20 diversions that withdraw water from the mainstem and tributaries for irrigation use. Before 2003 there were no screened diversions within the Challis Creek Drainage. Having unscreened diversions increases the probability of entraining downstream migrating smolt and pre-smolt salmonids. Many of the diversion structures built to divert water also created fish barriers for upstream migrating fish. Numerous diversions had no controllable head gate structure. Starting in the winter of 2003, this program began construction of several screens and diversion structures on the mainstem of Challis Creek to remedy these potential problems for migrating fish. Eventually, thirteen diversions would be screened and passage would be afforded at those diversions. In-stream flows would be enhanced by performing conservation measures and consolidating ditches.    

The major diversion within the Challis Creek drainage is the Highline Canal, also known as the SChaC-08 diversion.  The canal takes as much as 52 cfs of water. This diversion was the major issue within the drainage for fish passage. The structure used to divert water into this ditch was essentially a dam created from stacked 3 x 12 boards.

Old Highline Canal Diversion 

Photo 3   Highline Canal Diversion Dam was a fish passage barrier.

Usually, when a diversion dam creates a passage barrier, one tool often used is to move the point of diversion (POD) upstream to eliminate head differential. At this site, a house was just upstream and the stream was constricted between the house and the Challis Creek Road, precluding moving the POD upstream. In order to resolve the fish passage problems on this diversion structure an Obermeyer Weir structure with an Alaskan Steep-pass Ladder was installed in the winter of 2003-2004. This structure allows the water to be dammed in order for water to flow down the ditch while the steep-pass ladder allows fish to move above the diversion structure. The rubber bladders can be deflated to allow bedload movement. A second small diversion on the north side of the stream was consolidated by diverting water from behind the new Obermeyer weir. This structure was finished and went into operation the spring of 2004. The program constructed a new screen structure for the Highline Canal in the spring 2004.

A study was conducted in 2006 to determine the effectiveness of the Alaska Steeppass ladder for providing passage to upstream migrating fish within the Challis Creek drainage.  A temporary upstream migration fish trap was installed approximately 50 yards upstream of the ladder for 37 days from March 23 until April 28, 2006.  A total of 73 adult steelhead were captured in the trap, seven of which were unclipped fish that appeared to be of wild/natural origin.  The rest had an adipose clip indicating that they were fish that had been released from a hatchery as age 1 smolts. The fish were carefully examined for injury.  No descaling or other injury was noted on any fish that had successfully negotiated the ladder. The results of the study indicate that steelhead do successfully return to Challis Creek as adult fish to spawn, and that the ladder installed did not hinder upstream passage to those fish.

New Highline Canal Diversion 

Photo 4   The new Highline Canal diversion and Alaska Steeppass ladder.

The SChaC-08 diversion was also selected to receive the first large 14 degree rotary drum screen. The SChaC-08A diversion was one of the first to use a new cylinder drum screen design also developed through the R&D program. These screens were all developed after careful study of smaller prototypes. Silt accumulations in screen fore bays have always been a maintenance concern. Engineers determined the silt accumulation was a function of screen angle to the ditch flow. A newer design was developed for a 14 degree screen and a prototype was installed in 2002. Two more were installed in 2003. Evidence was immediately noted with silt accumulations dropping by nearly 70%. The mechanical design was improved with less moving parts. The SChaC-08 and SChaC-08A fish screens were tested in the first month of operation for conformance to NOAA/FSOC criteria. There were no anomalies recorded. The new design allows fish to locate the bypass system faster and thus speeds downstream passage.

SChaC-08 Fish Screen 

Photo 5  The SCHaC-08 fish screen is a 14 degree rotary drum screen developed in Idaho in 2002-2004.

In 2008, the Lowline Canal on Challis Creek was consolidated into the Highline Canal. The SChaC-07 or Lowline Canal diversion provided water to irrigate a small acreage and also fed a pump used to operate a sprinkler pivot system. Excess water was diverted in order to feed the pump and ensure there were no cavitation issues. This project eliminated the SCHaC-07 diversion dam from Challis Creek. That diversion had been a fish passage barrier at low stream flows in late summer. A second benefit was a reduction in water withdrawal from Challis Creek. The project involved installing a bifurcation structure in the Highline Canal and feeding the pump with a penstock. The penstock supplies the pump demand rather than over supplying water. The bifurcation structure installed in the Highline Canal has a splitter fitting in order to supply the minor amount of water needed to irrigate the acreage outside the limits of the sprinkler pivot. At some point in the future, the landowner could install a second half pivot or wheel lines to reduce water consumption on that portion of the acreage under flood irrigation. The project involved obtaining approval from 52 water users in order to consolidate this ditch into the Highline Canal. The Highline Canal diversion was designed in 2004 to accommodate the Lowline Canal, so no modification was necessary to the Highline Diversion dam.

SCHaC-07 Bifurcation & Pipes 

Photo 6  The bifurcation structure and penstock for the SChaC-07 Consolidation project.

To date, thirteen diversions have been treated on Challis Creek.  All of the treated diversions have included new control structures and fish friendly diversion dams in addition to new fish screens. Two fish passage barriers were eliminated entirely. The fisheries benefits to Challis Creek from these related projects include increased in-stream flow, improved fish passage to several miles of spawning and rearing habitat for juveniles and adults, reduced water temperatures, and elimination of entrainment by the application of fish screens.       

Smiley Creek Project:

Smiley Creek is a headwater tributary to the Salmon River where adult Chinook salmon annually spawn. This section of the Salmon River is the uppermost reach of the subbasin where Chinook salmon are known to spawn. Smiley Creek has been suspected to provide early rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, but none were found to be present during a survey of the watershed in 2004 (Warren et al. 2005). At the time of the initial survey, a diversion just upstream of the confluence was dewatering the stream. There was no control structure at the point of diversion.  The diversion dam was constructed of rock, plastic, and other man made materials. Upstream fish passage was determined to be minimal at moderate flow and a full barrier to both adult and juveniles during late season low flow conditions. Conservation measures implemented in Smiley Creek began with the installation of a control structure. The irrigator was given advice on improving his diversion for fish passage. He removed imperious materials and used a rock step pool check structure to improve upstream passage.  A new fish screen was constructed following negotiations of a flow agreement with the irrigator. The flow agreement was signed prior to the final adjudication of water rights in the basin. The agreement provided a substantial amount of water in the streambed downstream of the diversion. A subsequent fishery survey conducted in 2012 found juvenile Chinook salmon within a segment of Smiley Creek upstream of this newly screened diversion. Following the adjudication, the amount of water diverted was reduced to reflect the adjudicated water rights.

The fisheries benefits to Smiley Creek from these related projects include increased in-stream flow, improved fish passage to several miles of spawning and rearing habitat for juveniles and adults, reduced water temperatures, and elimination of entrainment by the application of fish screens.       

Fish Screening Projects:

Since 1991, 257 NOAA/FSOC criteria fish screens have been installed on gravity diversions in anadromous waters of the State of Idaho. From 1993 through 1995 an intensive effort was started to evaluate existing fish screens in the Salmon River basin. Battelle Labs scientists C. Scott Abernethy (pers. comm.) and Duane Nietzel performed evaluations on existing Idaho fish screens and provided recommendations for improving the Idaho fish screening efforts. The study results revealed Idaho screen designs were below standards consistent within the remaining Columbia River basin. Fish screen approach velocities were excessive, fish bypass configurations were substandard, bypass pipes were a source of concern, bypass outfalls were not fish friendly, and the mechanical systems were prone to failure. The evidence all indicated Idaho needed newer better fish screen designs. Newer 45 degree fish screens had been installed since 1991, but those designs suffered several faults. The six inch bypass pipes were prone to plugging, silt accumulated at alarming rates in the screen fore bays, and the paddlewheel drives were inefficient and under high tail water conditions would stall allowing the screens to become clogged with debris. By late 1994, a new design was finished. It was a 22-1/2 degree screen and had no provision for bypassing flow around the drum screen. The 22-1/2 degree drum screen prototype was installed at LHC-01 on Hayden Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River. It was evaluated by Department engineers and Battelle Labs. The screen passed critique by Battelle Labs and the Fish Screen Oversight Committee (FSOC). This design reduced cost by nearly one third per cfs screened and established increased sweeping velocity to the bypass, resulting in a substantial decrease in migration delay at fish screens. Other refinements soon followed. The program provided support and participated in laboratory testing of a comparison of submerged orifice and overflow weir bypass systems in a rotary drum screen. The test compared injury and movement rates for three life stages of spring Chinook salmon. The research was conducted at Pacific Northwest National Labs during 1994 through 1995 (C. S. Abernethy et. al.). The first solar powered fish screen was installed at L-31B in 1996. 

A R&D Program was established in 1997 to test new screen designs and modifications to existing designs. The R&D Program was a huge success. Many minor improvements were made to drive trains, materials, fabrication technique, bypass systems and appurtenances. However, newer better methodology was always being sought. A proposed design was put forward for a large capacity vee drum screen. Laboratory testing of a scale model vee drum screen was conducted in Albrook Hydraulic Lab at Washington State University (WSU). The tests were conducted to verify hydraulics of the sweeping velocity, approach velocity, bypass velocity, and velocity acceleration into the bypass. Specific testing was performed to identify hydraulic characteristics of the bypass system and whether or not the design would conform to NOAA Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria. Lab tests verified the design was adequate and also gave important results pertaining to flow patterns of a submerged orifice. Other laboratory testing was conducted on paddlewheel designs at the Albrook Hydraulic Lab at WSU . Silt accumulations in screen forebays have always been a maintenance concern. Engineers determined the silt accumulation was a function of screen angle to the ditch flow.  A newer design was developed for a 14 degree screen and a prototype was installed in 2002. Two more were installed in 2003. Evidence was immediately noted with silt accumulations dropping by nearly 70%. Tributary reconnection often hinged on keeping water in stream for passage. If a rotary drum screen was deployed in certain places, the bypass systems required would actually result in the stream being dewatered. A new point of diversion (POD) screen without the need for a bypass system had to be designed. Several designs were deployed, but the most successful POD screen has been the cylinder brush screen.

SMC-07 Screen 

Photo 7.  A cylinder point of diversion screen uses a brush cleaning system.

In the late 1990s, as new designs and improvements were being made to fish screens, it was evident biological testing needed to be performed to ascertain the efficacy of the new screens. In 2002, the program hired a full time biologist to conduct activities specific to monitoring and evaluating projects completed by the program. The biologist established procedures and protocols for field investigations, fish screen performance evaluations, and post project implementation evaluations. Four Biomark Inc., Destron-Fearing FS2001 FR/ISO PIT-tag reading stations were purchased and deployed on bypass pipes to monitor entrainment of PIT tagged salmonids and develop diversion habitat inventories. Staff utilized the PTAGIS database and analyzed data for PIT tagged Chinook salmon and steelhead diverted through the monitored diversions and the associated screens. Submerged camera operations revealed screen seal problems that were not apparent from ground level. From this work a new random inspection program was developed to sample a percentage of fish screens each year so fish screen effectiveness would remain high.

The main stem of the Lemhi River has 72 screened gravity fed irrigation diversions and an additional 32 screens on Lemhi River tributaries. A monitoring program utilizing passive integrated transponser (PIT) tag technology was implemented in 2003 and continues to this day to track tagged fish as they move around the Lemhi River watershed and through selected fish screen bypasses. The results of his study conclude that approximately 71% of downstream migrating Chinook salmon smolts are entrained and bypassed by Lemhi River fish screens during median May flow conditions (Walters et al. 2012). This monitoring program has also found that some downstream migrating fish are entrained and bypassed numerous times, and that some juvenile steelhead will be entrained numerous times as they move about the watershed before then migrate downstream as smolts. Tracking studies have also found that adult steelhead tagged as outmigrating kelts have been detected to be bypassed at monitored fish screens as second time returning adult spawners. This more recent study focused only on the spring smolt out-migration, whereas the fall parr outmigration comprises a large component of the juvenile Chinook salmon population that is also susceptible to entrainment. This study alone suggests that entrainment losses into irrigation diversions is a major limiting factor and can significantly effect this species at the population level. Maintenance of existing fish screen structures is paramount to increasing fry to smolt survival. A NOAA/FSOC criteria fish screen is only operating within the criteria parameters when it is being properly maintained.

Idaho Department of Fish & Game

BPA Project 1994-015-00

All Idaho Anadromous Waters

1994-20121

  

  

Total

Gravity Diversions

Diversion Dams

Pump Screens 

Control

Structures

Diversion

Screens

  Screens

Previously

Improved

Eliminated

Passive

Self

Eliminated

 

 Year

Treated

Replaced

Eliminated

Unscreened 

 

 

 

Cleaning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1994

19

15

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

2

1995

42

29

7

6

1

7

0

0

0

10

1996

48

27

10

7

2

10

0

4

0

13

1997

56

18

8

4

4

10

22

0

4

9

1998

44

12

4

1

1

6

25

2

0

11

1999

57

12

6

4

0

6

33

2

0

7

2000

83

7

5

4

1

61

 

6

2

2001

136

7

2

16

6

5

86

 

4

10

2002

48

1

5

2

8

5

45

 

 

11

2003

20

4

5

1

1

5

11

 

 

7

2004

19

3

 

10

6

1

9

 

1

10

2005

22

2

 

9

2

 

11

 

 

12

2006

23

1

 

8

10

 

4

 

 

7

2007

24

3

 

6

9

2

3

 

1

9

2008

 

Project 1994-015-00 was separated into two projects. A new project 2007-399-00 was established in FY2007 for implementation of capital projects that are proposed and developed under Project 1994-015-00. Except for one Capitalization project, only preliminary planning, coordination, and feasibility design work was accomplished in this project from this time forward.

2009

 

2010

 

2011

 

2012

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

645

141

52

81

51

63

310

8

16

120

1.  Data is calendar based and may not match all BPA annual contracts.  Contract periods were modified following contract extensions.  Work noted includes Mitchell Act cost share funded projects. 

Quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program were met with the installation of fish screens.  Of the 257 fish screens constructed since 1991, BPA has either funded them in whole or provided funding support critical to their effectiveness. The biological necessity for quality fish screens on water diversions has been clearly documented by the M&E work this program has conducted. Without fish screens, entrainment would severely limit any opportunity for ESA listed species recovery.

PIT tag testing  

Photo 8   Testing a PIT tag detector at the S-32 fish screen bypass pipe on the Salmon River.    

                                 



The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation. This project supports past Program investments for operation and maintenance of fish screens. See Policy Issue II.a. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20230324
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: None
Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1994-015-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: C. Provide Long-term Maintenance of Fish Screens—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1994-015-00
Completed Date: 6/12/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:20:28 AM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Capital Project or at least elements of the project can be capitalized. Final determination will most likely not occur until contracting (per BPA 8/11/06).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This was a very nicely prepared proposal that included an excellent overview of project history and results to date. Very clear and detailed responses were provided to reviewers' questions. Responses were requested on two items. First, the ISRP asked where the agency currently stands in the process of completing the needed fish screens. The response indicated that 75% of all the known main stem river corridor diversions, including those on the Lemhi River, Little Salmon River, Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Salmon River, North Fork Salmon River, and main stem Salmon River, have had fish screens installed. At present there is one Salmon River diversion with an antiquated fish screen in need of replacement. There is one diversion on the Lemhi River that also is in need of a better fish screen. The North Fork Salmon River has two unscreened diversions. The East Fork Salmon River has three diversions in need of NOAA Criteria screens. One is currently under contract, and the other two are in design phase.

In addition, "there are many years of future work to screen tributaries that are in occupied anadromous habitat. These diversions number several hundred in occupied anadromous waters of the upper Salmon River Basin. Unlike the main stem river diversions which generally do not involve dewatered reaches and water-savings projects, almost all tributaries have potential water-savings projects due to seasonally dewatered reaches and unscreened diversions. This makes fish screening that much more complicated in tributaries as there are generally multiple water conservation projects that are needed to complement a fish screen project in order to make a fish screen effort effective. These primarily include improving fish passage with fish passable diversions and fish screens, and increasing instream flow by water-savings projects and installation or improvement of water control structures."

The second issue was whether water saved due to these projects was being returned to the streams and remaining in the stream channel. The response indicated, "The purpose for installing sprinkler systems and installing pipelines is to keep water instream. These systems are only installed if there can be some assurances the water will remain instream. The Idaho Screen Program works on a tributary wide approach in order to provide the best possible results. Unless the saved water can be shepparded (sic) through the tributary and allow fish passage in lower stream flow conditions, then the project is not considered." While in general this is a beneficial approach for fish, the statement "if there can be some assurances the water will remain instream" is not as concrete as it might be. Whether such projects include any legal provision for instream flow was unclear. Reviewers encourage the sponsors to continue to strengthen this emphasis to the greatest extent possible.

Reviewers appreciate the detail provided in the response regarding how the risk of passage blockage and diversion entrainment varies over an irrigation season by fish species and life stage. Certainly the number of smolting fish diverted and killed in these projects represents an important loss that can only be compensated via factors outside-the-basin, perhaps an unlikely scenario. Because the loss of smolting fish would be the most important loss in freshwater apart from the death of an adult fish, the sponsors might (if not already done) assign higher priority to screening needs at sites where smolting fish predominate than for sites typically entraining younger fish. It would be helpful in the future to see more details regarding this issue and its relative importance at various sites.
Documentation Links:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
The ISRP had two questions regarding the project in the FY-07-09 Review. <br/> Q: The ISRP wonders where the agency currently stands in the process of completing the needed fish screens. In 2003 they made the statement: &quot;Idaho is approximately 75% complete with the screening effort of known diversions in anadromous waters. Consistent funding could assist completing the known work by 2005.&quot; Where are they now after three additional years of funding? From the current proposal, it now appears the screening can go on indefinitely. <br/> A: The 2003 statement was based upon goals set in the early 1990s. The goal was to screen all diversions in anadromous migration corridors. This should have stated that 75% of all the known main stem river corridor diversions have had fish screens installed. In 2003, the Idaho Screen Program had successfully completed 75% of the fish screen installations on main stem river corridors, but certainly not in all anadromous occupied waters. By 2005, nearly all main stem corridor diversions had been screened. Screening will not go on indefinitely, however there are many years of future work to screen tributaries that are in occupied anadromous habitat. Unlike the main stem river diversions which generally do not involve dewatered reaches and water–savings projects, almost all tributaries have potential water-savings projects due to seasonally dewatered reaches and unscreened diversions. Generally, multiple water conservation projects are needed to compliment a fish screen project in order to make a fish screen effort effective. These primarily include improving fish passage with fish passable diversions and fish screens, and increasing instream flow by water-savings projects and installation or improvement of water control structures. Although most of the mainstem river corridor diversions are screened, there are many unscreened tributary diversions that effect different lifestages of threatened salmonids. These tributary diversions are very important limiting factors to anadromous and fluvial salmonid populations in the upper Salmon Basin. Almost all tributaries in the upper Salmon Basin are used for juvenile rearing and thermal refuge by salmonids, especially anadromous Chinook salmon parr. It is very common to find Chinook parr that pull into tributaries, where adult spawning is not documented, during the spring and summer to rear or to escape mainstem river water temperatures that can approach the lethal limit for these fish. Almost all steelhead in the upper Salmon Basin are tributary spawners, both in very large tributaries and smaller tributaries. We believe that entrainment into irrigation ditches of both adult steelhead, migrating juveniles, and emerging fry is very significant and a major limiting factor to steelhead production. Large, fluvial bull trout generally start migrating towards their spawning tributaries during the descending limb of the hydrograph in late June. They stage at the mouths of the tributaries and generally enter the tributaries in July. After spawning, which is still during the irrigation season, these fish are often entrained as they migrate back to the mainstem rivers during the low water season as a much higher percentage of the instream flow is being diverted for irrigation.<br/> Q: The second issue: Is water saved due to these projects being returned to the streams and remaining in-channel? A response is needed on the benefit of irrigation improvement (sprinkler conversion, etc.) to instream flows. <br/> A: Yes. The purpose for installing sprinkler systems and installing pipelines is to keep water in-stream. These systems are only installed if there can be assurances the water will remain in-stream. This project works on a tributary wide approach in order to provide the best possible results. Unless the saved water can be shepparded through the tributary and allow fish passage in lower stream flow conditions, then the project is not considered. Flood irrigation can consume as much as ten times the amount of water necessary to irrigate crops efficiently by sprinkler system. Leaking ditches that traverse rocky slopes require irrigators to increase the diverted amount of water in order to make up for the conveyance loss. The most important aspect is be able to maintain in-stream flow so the stream is connected for all fish species to have safe and unfettered movement throughout the tributary. Pipelines and sprinkler conversions are a valuable tool to provide more efficient transport of water from the point of diversion to the point of irrigation use, leaving water in-stream. This is very important because many fish species, especially salmonid parr will utilize tributary water which is generally, significantly cooler for rearing and thermal refuge. With irrigation improvements we can functionally reconnect the tributaries to benefit multiple threatened salmonid species and life-stages by looking at wholistic tributary improvements.


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
Project Level: In 1993, a diversion inventory was started and all main stem river diversions in anadromous waters were rated based on diversion characteristics, known entrainment data, mechanical condition of existing fish screens if applicable, and proximity to spawning areas. Those inventories revealed many issues relating to irrigation practices. There was a severe lack of adequate control structures at the head of the ditch or canal. Water usage far exceeded claimed water rights on a large percentage of ditches. Pushup gravel diversions were common and most were reworked at least once per year resulting in excessive discharges of sediment into the stream channel. Gravity irrigation practices consumed five to ten times the amount of water as sprinkler systems. The inventory found numerous ditches that intercepted perennial streams and springs, resulting in dewatering and blocking fish passage. Most small tributary streams were functionally disconnected during late summer. The conditions found on these early surveys provided new direction for the type of work we performed. We began to engineer semi-permanent diversion structures to eliminate the need for the annual practice of pushing up gravel for diversion dams. We encouraged irrigators to install control structures and found sources to fund those structures. We encouraged irrigators to consolidate ditches and remove diversions from in-stream. Conversion from gravity flood irrigation practices to sprinkler systems became a tool for water conservation. Sprinkler systems were installed in critical flow areas and the saved water was restored to in-stream flow. This program continued to work on the totality of the resource problem by incorporating a tributary wide approach to maximize benefits to stream and riparian habitat. Using those early assessments we also began looking at diversions that had potential to be converted to well water. A list was generated and efforts to convert the water withdrawal began in earnest. That effort was controversial as Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) would not allow the irrigator to keep their water right priority date. We worked with IDWR to find a solution that would meet the legal requirements. Eventually we settled on a determination that if the well water was influenced by the stream from where the gravity diversion had originated, the water right priority date would remain the same. This work lead to a better understanding of Idaho water code and of water rights issues in general. Avenues became clear for completing transactions involving moving water rights to leverage in-stream flows. From 1993 through 1995 an intensive effort was started to evaluate existing fish screens in the Salmon River basin. Battelle Labs scientists C. Scott Abernethy (pers. comm.) and Duane Nietzel performed evaluations on existing Idaho fish screens and provided recommendations for improving the Idaho Screen Program. The study results revealed Idaho screen designs were below standards consistent within the Columbia River basin. Fish screen approach velocities were excessive, fish bypass configurations were substandard, bypass pipes were a source of concern, bypass outfalls were not fish friendly, and the mechanical systems were prone to failure. The evidence all indicated we needed newer better fish screen designs. By late 1994, the first 22-1/2 degree drum screen was installed at LHC-01 on Hayden Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River. The prototype was evaluated by Department engineers and Battelle Labs. These screens passed critique by Battelle Labs and the Fish Screen Oversight Committee (FSOC). This design reduced cost by nearly one third per cfs screened and established increased sweeping velocity to the bypass, resulting in a substantial decrease in migration delay at fish screens. Other refinements soon followed. The program provided support and participated in laboratory testing of a comparison of submerged orifice and overflow weir bypass systems in a rotary drum screen. The test compared injury and movement rates for three life stages of spring Chinook salmon. The research was conducted at Pacific Northwest National Labs during 1994 through 1995 (C. S. Abernethy et. al.). The first solar powered fish screen was installed at L-31B in 1996. A R&D Program was established in 1997 to test new screen designs and modifications to existing designs. When in need of a large fish screen design for the two largest canals in the Salmon River basin we studied numerous designs of recently completed large screens in California and Washington states. With due consideration to local conditions including possible electrical power outages and frazzle icing it was apparent existing designs would be inadequate. A proposed design was put forward for a vee drum screen. Laboratory testing of a scale model vee drum screen was conducted in Albrook Hydraulic Lab at Washington State University (WSU). The tests were conducted to verify hydraulics of the sweeping velocity, approach velocity, bypass velocity, and velocity acceleration into the bypass. Specific testing was performed to identify hydraulic characteristics of the bypass system and whether or not the design would conform to NOAA Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria. Lab tests verified the design was adequate and also gave important results pertaining to flow patterns of a submerged orifice. The large screens being reconstructed near Challis, Idaho on the S-28 and S-32 canals needed a very large paddlewheel to operate the drums without electricity. Three concerns were identified; personal safety, design limit safety on the power train, and the depth and flow characteristics of the canal. Scale model testing was performed to verify a new blade design and the expected operating parameters of the design in high and low tail water conditions. Laboratory testing was conducted on paddlewheel designs at the Albrook Hydraulic Lab at WSU. Silt accumulations in screen forebays have always been a maintenance concern. Engineers determined the silt accumulation was a function of screen angle to the ditch flow. A newer design was developed for a 14 degree screen and a prototype was installed in 2002. Two more were installed in 2003. Evidence was immediately noted with silt accumulations dropping by nearly 70%. In 2004, a large 14 degree screen was installed and subsequent 14 degree screens have all proven to be better designs. Tributary reconnection often hinged on keeping water in stream for passage. If a rotary drum screen was deployed in certain places, the bypass systems required would actually result in the stream being dewatered. A new point of diversion (POD) screen without the need for a bypass system had to be designed. Several designs were deployed, but the most successful POD screen has been the cylinder brush screen. We also reconfigured this design for pump intake applications. Management Level: The Department holds water rights for each fish screen to operate the bypass system. The water rights are considered a non-consumptive use. These water rights are junior to most irrigation water rights because fish screens were not installed until the late 1950s. Past practice was to close off the fish bypass pipes when the stream became under regulations as stream flow dropped. This program worked with the Lemhi Irrigation District and the Lemhi Basin Watermaster to work out a plan to allow fish to migrate in low flow regimes by opening the bypass at each screen as the Watermaster regulated flows. Eventually the Watermaster proposed to simply consider the uppermost bypass flow in the river basin as being shepparded downriver through each diversion and fish screen back to the river. Looking at the bypass flows as only one right moving downriver as a non-consumptive use, all fish bypass systems at all fish screens remained open even during regulation. The Lemhi Irrigation District supported the plan. In 2002, the program hired a full time biologist to conduct activities specific to monitoring and evaluating projects completed by the program. The biologist established procedures and protocols for field investigations, fish screen performance evaluations,and post project implementation evaluations. Four Biomark Inc., Destron-Fearing FS2001 FR/ISO PIT-tag reading stations were purchased and deployed on bypass pipes to monitor entrainment of PIT tagged salmonids and develop diversion habitat inventories. Staff utilized the PTAGIS database and analyzed data for PIT tagged Chinook salmon and steelhead diverted through the monitored diversions and the associated screens. Submerged camera operations revealed screen seal problems that were not apparent from ground level. From this work a new random inspection program was developed to sample a percentage of fish screens each year so fish screen effectiveness would remain high. Early M&E work included bull trout redd counts on Fourth of July Creek in the Stanley basin. Recent projects in that tributary had included installation of control structures, fish screens, and a water transaction project. The first year following the work, bull trout redds were recorded at 16, the second year 33, the third 41, and year four produced 71. In the subsequent years the redd counts have averaged 44.6 per year. This stream was once considered to be completely dewatered with little potential for improvement. The management assessment was clear it is possible to functionally reconnect streams that are in dire condition. Renewed effort was directed to other tributary reconnection projects. Approximately 50 tributary streams were surveyed from 2002 to 2012. That information is the basis for much of the prioritization for projects in the area. All entities working on resource recovery implementation work rely on the data for their pre-project baseline. The assessments allow all implementors to define issues and identify potential solutions leading to projects.

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
P104125 Upper Salmon Anadromous Fish Passage Annual Report September 2007 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2006 - 06/2007 27873 10/18/2007 11:12:25 AM
P106777 FY05 Screen Shop Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2004 - 06/2005 18384 6/2/2008 11:10:27 AM
P106778 FY06 Screen Shop Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2005 - 06/2006 23364 6/2/2008 11:11:56 AM
P107663 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 01/2008 - 06/2008 35392 8/8/2008 10:11:14 AM
P107783 Idaho Fish Screeening Improvements Annual Report 2008 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2007 - 06/2008 33528 8/14/2008 9:56:53 AM
P108983 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements; BPA Project 1994-015-00; Contract # 35392 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2008 - 09/2008 35392 11/12/2008 1:05:15 PM
P112254 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Annual Report June 2009 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2008 - 06/2009 38456 6/29/2009 9:27:44 AM
P112437 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 07/2008 - 06/2009 38390 7/13/2009 2:30:29 PM
P117103 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 07/2009 - 06/2010 43653 7/13/2010 2:36:48 PM
P118061 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Final Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2009 - 06/2010 43275 9/16/2010 8:31:29 AM
P121730 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 07/2010 - 06/2011 47867 6/23/2011 1:31:07 PM
P121869 Idaho Fish Screeing Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 07/2010 - 06/2011 48306 7/5/2011 9:49:55 AM
P122965 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Progress (Annual) Report 07/2010 - 06/2011 53579 9/16/2011 10:16:31 AM
P127296 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements; 7/11 - 6/12 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2011 - 06/2012 53580 7/11/2012 8:05:35 AM
P127494 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Project; 7/11 - 6/12 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2011 - 06/2012 57842 7/27/2012 10:06:01 AM
P133650 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements; 7/12 - 6/13 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2012 - 06/2013 57792 10/25/2013 11:14:14 AM
P141333 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements; 7/13 - 6/14 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2013 - 06/2014 65780 2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM
P143864 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Final Status Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2012 - 06/2013 65780 6/23/2015 8:45:29 AM
P164039 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Project; 7/14 - 6/17 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2014 - 06/2017 79686 2/15/2019 1:21:31 PM
P176871 Idaho Fish Screening Improvement Project; 7/17 - 6/19 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2017 - 06/2019 82756 6/26/2020 12:15:30 PM
P187471 Idaho Fish Screening Improvements Project 7/19-6/20 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2019 - 06/2020 85582 10/5/2021 2:44:49 PM

Other Project Documents on the Web

None


The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

This program is the only fish screening entity in operation in Idaho, thus it coordinates salmon, steelhead, and bull trout recovery efforts with other State of Idaho and Federal agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC), Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (SCC), National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA), Tribes, Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USBWP), US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS), and private citizens.  The Screen Program also has a FRIMA representative to coordinate FRIMA funded projects.  Most projects in the Salmon River basin involve multiple agency actions.  Biological data compiled by this program is dispensed to all agencies requiring such information.  Technical assistance for fish screening options is provided to all agencies.  Program staff sit on advisory boards to assist with coordination and technical support addressing resource actions.  

This program has been funded by the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program (CRFDP) since 1958.  The funds are refered to as Mitchell Act monies and they are the core source of funding for this program.  In 1993, funding was substantially increased to accelerate salmon recovery efforts.  CRFDP provided personnel and operational support for projects funded partially or wholly by BPA.  BPA funding was used for projects falling outside the limits of CRFDP funding ability for such actions as ditch consolidations, purchasing water rights, and water conservation projects.  CRFDP agreed to provide funds for personnel to secure easements, manage projects, provide engineering services, and provide overhead on BPA funded capital projects.  CRFDP also provided operation and maintenance funds for fish screens and passageways that were funded and constructed exclusively by BPA.  This arrangement allowed more screens to be replaced earlier, better stream flow conditions for fish, and the funds expended for ESA species recovery was used more efficiently.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) has been a partner in the Salmon River basin since the early 1990’s.  The agency has no capital construction funding authority, but they can expend funds on construction management, biological support, cultural assessments, engineering services, environmental compliance and topographical surveys. Most projects coordinated with BoR tend to be of larger scale.  Smaller projects tend to become inefficient when the time required to coordinate the project exceeds the time it would take our own staff to complete the task.  However, this program has coordinated with the BoR on many major projects over the years.

The Governor's Office of Species Conservation (OSC) sponsors the USBWP and provides direction and oversight for the local soil and water conservation districts.  Various BPA funded projects for water conservation, watershed habitat restoration, riparian fencing, and diversion consolidation are reviewed by the USBWP Technical Team comprised of members from all state and Federal agencies, Tribes, and local authorities.  OSC performs similar work using Accord funding on the Lemhi and Pahsiimeroi River systems.  OSC also manages all PCSRF and SRBA settlement monies.  The Idaho Department of Fish & Game employ staff to develop projects using those funds.  This program often works on those endeavors to provide a non Federal cost share.  A typical shared project would include installation of a screen on a SRBA or PCSRF project.  

To assist in salmon recovery efforts, the NRCS created and funded an engineering position in the Salmon River basin in 1994 to provide technical assistance on water delivery systems, bifurcation structures, pipeline design, and control structure design.  The Screen Program relies on NRCS to provide all sprinkler system designs involving water conservation projects as well as for bifurcation structure designs in consolidation projects.  Many control structures have been designed by NRCS as well.  NRCS WHIP funding mandates that fish screens be installed during any water control or delivery project utilizing WHIP funding.  This program installs fish screens in anadromous waters on behalf of NRCS for WHIP projects that are high priority.

Numerous research and monitoring projects in the upper Salmon River basin are currently PIT tagging fish.  PIT tagged fish migrate past diversions and can become entrained into a ditch.  We utililize PIT tag detectors to interrogate those tags as part of our monitoring and evaluation process of the efficacy of fish screens.  This program documented the only steelhead kelt ever verified in the upper Salmon River basin by PIT tag interrogation at a Lemhi River fish screen.  

The history of working with NGOs goes back to the early 1990s when this program engaged The Nature Conservacy (TNC) to assist with a Land Conservation Agreement.  Over the years we have participated in many joint projects involving water conservation and land use modification.  TNC uses both private and public funds to reach their goals.  Our joint work involves technical review, fisheries investigations, fish data delivery, construction assessments, preliminary engineering feasibility plans, and easement and agreement support.  Additionally, this program has supplied infrastructure such as pipelines, pumps, and fish screens for TNC sponsored projects.  

This program provides the bulk of the fisheries data to those other entities working on ESA listed species recovery in the upper Salmon River basin.  We obtained that data via our stream investigations and download all data into a statewide fisheries database.  We also provide fish salvage operations and sediment monitoring on all construction activities performed by IDFG, USBWP, NRCS, BoR, LSWCD, and CSWCD.


Primary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (Threatened)
Sockeye (O. nerka) - Snake River ESU (Endangered)
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Snake River DPS (Threatened)
Trout, Bull (S. confluentus) (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope (O. c. lewisi)
Trout, Interior Redband (O. mykiss gairdnerii)
Whitefish, Mountain (Prosopium williamsoni)

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
Program efforts to reconnect tributary habitats will continue to provide focal species access to critical habitats including thermal refugia that are essential to long-term survival and conservation. These actions will improve habitat resiliency, access for native populations to cold water habitat, and increase the capacity of aquatic populations to withstand future droughts and warmer water temperatures.

There are two major factors on the horizon that are worthy of consideration.  The first factor that should be scrutinized is the renewed interest and proposed installation of small hydro-power facilities.  These small facilities are being encouraged by providing tax incentives in the Federal tax code, by legislators writing new bills placed before Congress, and by the promotion of the industry to the public touting the benefits of claimed clean hydro-power.  Many states require public utilities to purchase excess power from these small facilities and insert the energy produced into the electrical grid.  Several small facilities are being proposed in the Lemhi River basin.  One of the limiting factors for the basin is insufficient in-stream flow.  If the hydro-power facilities are approved, water quantity for aquatic life in some of the high gradient tributary streams would be further compromised.  A worse situation would be for one of these facilities to capture in-stream flows that were developed by resource conservation implementation projects.  State water law does not necessarily disallow new applicants to file on any unsecured flow.  The Department has initiated discussions at the highest levels of state government to address this potential issue.

Invasive species constitute one of the greatest threats to the resource.  Zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, and quagga mussels, Dreiseena rostriformis bugensis are freshwater species.  Zebra mussels are the only freshwater species that can attach itself to hard substrates. These bivalves impact the other bivalve species by attaching directly to the shells of native mussels and clams. They have a large impact on plankton because they consume high quantities.  Mussels clog water intakes and damage equipment. These prolific invaders cost the U.S. millions of dollars each year. They can provide habitat for other non-native species, unbalancing the ecosystem. The mussels are most likely transported to freshwater ports, through shipping and dumping of ballast water.  Although at this time, there are no known zebra mussels or quagga mussels in the project implementation area, staff are vigilant, educated, and are instructed to inspect all our facilities for evidence of their presence.  Personnel are instructed to follow Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan protocol to reduce the risk of spreading aquatic nuisance species from one location to another.  The plan lists some specific protocol for disinfecting equipment.  All staff are trained and required to use the protocols. There are 18 employees that work primarily in the field.  They comprise the fisheries crew and the fish screen tenders.  All of these people work around water bodies and facilities associated with water withdrawal.  One of their assigned duties is to routinely inspect facilities for the presence of invasive species.  The goal is to never allow the species to become an issue.

Operation and maintenance funding has declined in recent years and may continue to decline unless policy support can be acquired and positively exerted.  Many new fish screens and fish passage structures have been built with a host of funding sources, but only the Columbia Basin Fisheries Development Program (Mitchell Act) provides O&M funding.  Mitchell Act funding cannot continue to support all new infrastructure being built by other entities.  Collectively, the major Mitchell Act funded programs in the Columbia River basin are uniting to educate all project implementers about the need for O&M.  Structures that are not adequately maintained cannot ensure protection of the species nor ensure the structures meet the intent of the implementation action.  Mitchell Act funded programs are seeking alternative funding sources for O&M.

Work Classes
Work Elements

Habitat:
Habitat work elements typically address the known limiting factors of each location defined for each deliverable. Details about each deliverable’s locations, limiting factors and work elements are found under the Deliverables sections.

29. Increase Aquatic and/or Floodplain Complexity
30. Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel
34. Develop Alternative Water Source
47. Plant Vegetation
55. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
69. Install Fish Screen
80. Install Siphon
82. Install Well
84. Remove/Install Diversion
148. Install Flow Measuring Device
149. Install Pipeline
150. Install Sprinkler
151. Line Diversion Ditch
164. Acquire Water Instream
184. Install Fish Passage Structure
186. Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage/Structure
Planning and Coordination:
154. Develop and Negotiate Water Right Transaction
99. Outreach and Education
114. Identify and Select Projects
115. Produce Inventory or Assessment
122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
175. Produce Design
191. Watershed Coordination
Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?
Reconnection of tributaries produce the best results for native resident fish. Re-establishing connection and safe fish passage between tributary streams and the mainstem rivers is expected to provide several benefits for multiple fluvial species including threatened bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. First, adults and juveniles will have access to currently unavailable but historically important spawning and rearing habitat. Second, re-established migratory corridors will allow for the restoration and perpetuation of depressed fluvial life histories of these species and act as a conduit for gene flow among existing resident populations. Third, increased flow throughout the tributaries, including high water events during spring runoff, will improve the quality of existing habitat for resident species by mobilizing bed load, removing fine sediments, and improving base flow throughout the irrigation season. Finally, reconnected tributary streams will moderate water temperatures in the mainstem rivers during summer months while providing thermal refuge when necessary. In addition, any project that benefits anadromous fish will benefit resident fish. Projects that improve in-stream flow, restore riparian areas, and improve in-stream passage all benefit native species. Fish screens properly installed and maintained will ensure native fish are not entrained into irrigation canals. Completion of implementation projects targeted to anadromous species in tributaries ensures the fluvial component of resident fish species are protected and enhanced. Irrigation improvements can functionally reconnect the tributaries to benefit multiple threatened species and life-stages. This project does not supplement resident stocks with hatchery fish.
Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?
No
Describe how the project addresses the loss assessment. If a loss assessment is in progress or being proposed, describe the status and scope of that work.
A loss assessment has not been completed, however, the Bull Trout Recovery Plan limiting factors are addressed in all our tributary implementation projects. An Idaho Department of Fish & Game Draft Westslope Cutthroat Plan will be released shortly.
If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?
Yes
What are the findings of that assessment?
N/A. We are not using any non-native fish.
Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?
Yes
Please explain.
For bull trout in the Clearwater Recovery Unit, production goal is to achieve estimated abundance of adult bull trout of at least 21,500 individuals in the Clearwater River Recovery Unit including at least 500 individuals in each of the Fish Lake (North Fork Clearwater River), the Fish Lake (Lochsa River), and the Lower/Middle Fork Clearwater River core areas; and at least 5,000 individuals in each of the North Fork Clearwater River, the Lochsa River, the Selway River,and the South Fork Clearwater River core areas. Specific tasks this program will address associated with the Bull Trout Recovery Plan Chapter 16 includes reducing fine sediment production, eliminating or reducing the number and length of stream segments with impaired water quality, identifying culverts and other manmade barriers inhibiting fish passage, conducting watershed assessments, and investigating additional opportunities to improve passage. These are all priority number 1 tasks that have been specified as necessary to meet recovery production goals. If USFWS issues a revised Draft/Final Bull Trout Recovery Plan during this five year period, the Department will adjust its strategy accordingly to meet the goals of the revised plan. For bull trout in the Salmon River Recovery Unit, trend criteria will be met when the overall bull trout population trend is accepted as stable in three core areas and increasing in five core areas, based on at least 15 years of monitoring data. Restoring connectivity in specific streams by eliminating barriers that inhibit fish passage will allow for the migratory bull trout life history form to persist in the Pahsimeroi River, Lemhi River, Upper Salmon River, and Middle Salmon River-Panther core areas. Specific tasks this program will address associated with the Bull Trout Recovery Plan Chapter 17 includes evaluating bull trout entrainment at water diversions, inventorying water diversions and other manmade instream structures to identify those indirectly or directly inhibiting fish passage, improving instream flows, and restoring streams that are partially or completely dewatered. These are all priority number 1 tasks that have been specified as necessary to meet recovery production goals. If USFWS issues a revised Draft/Final Bull Trout Recovery Plan during this five year period, the Department will adjust its strategy accordingly to meet the goals of the revised plan.

The Large Habitat Program section is required because you selected one or more of the following work elements in Edit Types of Work: 114

Instructions: As applies to your project, please describe your methods to solicit, review, prioritize and select habitat projects as outlined here. You should also reference any related documents attached that further explain your methods.

Describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. Explain how the solicitation process incorporates or is consistent with other similar regional or state processes as appropriate. The following outlines the information to include:

Solicitation: Describe in detail the solicitation process and criteria. Include how the announcement is communicated and who is included in the communication, eligibility criteria for submitting proposals, types of projects funded, expressed priorities, and any other applicant requirements.

Review: Include and describe the review/scoring/prioritization criteria used to determine and select technically feasible projects. Discuss how you incorporate current scientific information and limiting factors to support the prioritization of projects. Describe feasibility factors that affect priority such as land ownership, permitting, cost, cost/benefit ratio, risk, etc. Also describe the review process, provide the resumes and qualifications of the review panel and explain how potential conflict of interest issues are avoided in regard to project prioritization.

Selection: Describe who makes funding recommendations and who makes final funding decisions. Describe all steps in this process including how potential conflicts of interest are avoided with regard to project funding.

Large Habitat Programs: View instructions

Solicitation:  This program works primarily with private property landowners, irrigators, and irrigation districts.  The Screen Program is the only entity that has the expertise to properly design, install, and maintain fish screens and fish passage structures.  We do actively pursue projects in priority watersheds, and coordinate with other entities if a project involves a fish screen. 

Review:  All larger, diversions in anadromous habitat are prioritized for treatment with fish screens and fish passage to NMFS Juvenile Fish Screen and passage criteria.

Selection:  All significant diversions that entrain anadromous fish, or block upstream and downstream migration, are selected and actively pursued for treatment by the Screen Program or agency partners. 

Our Process:   Mitchell Act funding is the backbone of the Idaho Department of Fish & Game's  Screens, Passage & Habitat Program.  It has been active since 1957. The Mitchell Act program is administered under the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program (CRFDP) by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Fish & Wildlife Program funds are used to augment the Mitchell Act program activities.  All Federal funding is carefully distributed so there is no co-mingling of Federal funds.  This program is not under the umbrella of any other program, including any funded by BPA.  Although a Model Watershed Project was established in Salmon, Idaho in 1993, the Idaho Department of Fish & Game declined to join based upon the Department's statutory obligations.  They did, however, offer to provide technical assistance by providing biologists to assist the watershed program as Department technical representatives.  NMFS offered to coordinate all activities involving the CRFDP, but was not supportive of this program being placed under the umbrella of any other program or project.

Although this program has been known as the Idaho Screen Program, historically it has been the pioneer that developed new standards for resource project implementation that goes well beyond just installing fish screens.  This program reconnected a spring channel to a stream as early as 1994, and currently working on 20 different watershed reconnections.  Water conservation projects were developed to secure in-stream flows and establish fish passage.  Irrigation practices were evaluated for efficiencies in order to identify avenues to secure in-stream flow.  Diversion dams were evaluated and recommendations were given to rebuild push up gravel diversions with semi-permanent diversions to eliminate the annual in-stream disturbance associated with rebuilding the gravel diversion dam.  Off stream sources of water were developed in order to eliminate diversions. Originally, the work was performed in the main stem river corridors to meet the goals of the NPPC early implementation plan.  Although the plan focused on installing fish screens, this project began looking at issues in a holistic manner.               

We have thousands of landowner/irrigator contacts. We have a history of working with landowners on contentious resource issues and been successful.  The reputation of this program with the local irrigators and landowners is the basis for its success. 

The methodology begins with understanding conditions on the ground.  In 1991, prior to our first funding from BPA, the program began inventorying diversions, passage barriers, and stream dewatering situations within all anadromous waters in the State of Idaho.  By the late 1990s, our crews were surveying the smaller tributaries.  In 2002, the program obtained funding from BPA to continue the stream investigations.  Fisheries and diversion surveys were conducted in streams to document the distribution, occurrence, and abundance of species throughout watersheds and to provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of future fisheries improvement projects.  This work included determination of landowner willingness to participate, mapping irrigation systems, and documentation of seasonal in-stream flows, fish passage, and identification of water conservation potential.  Since obtaining BPA funding this program has inventoried nearly 60 additional streams.  This knowledge is the basis for developing the known limiting factors for numerous species. It provides the cornerstone for products such as the Salmon Subbasin Plan, Clearwater Subbasin Plan, Screening and Habitat Improvement Prioritization for the Upper Salmon Subbasin (SHIPUSS), and the Bull Trout Recovery Plan.  The BPA and Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) conduct Expert Panel workshops every three years as part of requirements associated with the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion.  They depend on the expertise of staff from local, State, and Federal agencies to identify and evaluate habitat improvement projects that receive funding and technical assistance from BPA and USBR.  This program provided biologists for the Expert Panel.  It is our program institutional knowledge that is transferred to the regional and Columbia River basin planning efforts.  

Our preferred approach to meet project objectives is to compile all relevant information about a stream or tributary stream, including species absence or presence, distributions, densities, habitat inventories, mapped irrigation systems, ditch water rights and priority dates, and documentation of seasonal in stream flows, fish passage, and any water conservation potential.  We contact all irrigators, landowners, appropriate land management agencies, and individuals that would be a stakeholder in the drainage.  A meeting is held and we educate and appraise individuals about the issues and possible solutions.  We request their input and allow them to offer solutions.  We use the time to discuss techniques we would employ in order to meet the needs of the resource.  Often we invite individuals from other areas we have worked to come and testify on our behalf.  After we have met with all parties we then identify water conservation measures and request assistance from a specific agency best suited to perform the task.  BoR or NRCS may be requested to design a sprinkler system, well water transfer, or a pipeline for water conservation.  Projects are identified and then scheduled in coordination with other agencies based on workload and funding availability.  Cost share potential is maximized at every opportunity.  Many projects are initiated by the various Federal land management agencies in the process of issuing special use permits and rights of way.  Those agencies contact us to ascertain the status of fish screens for a particular diversion and/or drainage. 

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Columbia River Basin None
Pahsimeroi (17060202) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 4
Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 7
Lemhi (17060204) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 5
Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205) HUC 4 None
Clearwater (17060306) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 12
Upper Salmon (17060201) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 24
Bayhorse Creek (170602011403) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Realign Bayhorse Creek Stream Channel (DELV-1)
Numerous old unregulated diversions caused braiding of the stream channel as uncontrolled flows entered ditches then spilled back into the stream a short distance down the ditch. These actions created new side channels. Ditch consolidation and elimination projects have been completed. All remaining diversions have control structures and fish screens installed. At this time the braided side channels must be blocked so water can be concentrated in the main channel for fish passage. There are four specific reaches of the stream needing improved. Most of the work will be outside the main stream channel.

Patrick Murphy
Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Habitat
30. Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel

Maintained Fish Screens and Passage Structures to NOAA Criteria (DELV-2)
Operate and maintain 20 fish screens and three fish passage structures previously funded by BPA in accordance with NOAA Criteria. The specific screens and passage facilities are L-06, L-07/7A, S-05/6/7, S-10, S-13/14, S-28, S-32, SCoC-02/3, SChaC-08/8A, SCC-05, SCC-08/9, SCC-10/11, SCC-12, SCC-13, SCC-14, SIC-07, SIC-08, Tyler Pump Screen, Beyeler Pump Screen, and Moen Pump Screen. These fish screens are installed in critical areas for fisheries recovery. The L-06, L-07/7A, S-13/14, S-28 and S-32 fish screens are the five largest structures in Idaho. They were all built from 1994 to 2000 under a BPA contract. The S-28 and S-32 fish screens were constructed by Custer Soil & Water Conservation District. They are in a major river corridor for several listed species, including sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout. The L-06 and L-07/7A and the L-06 fish ladder was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The SChaC-08/8A fish screen is on Challis Creek, a stream supporting adult steelhead spawning, juvenile steelhead rearing, juvenile Chinook rearing, and bull trout of all age classes. The Cow Creek-02/03 fish screen was recently installed to protect adult and juvenile steelhead and bull trout. Several screens on Carmen Creek protect a large stock on natural steelhead. The three passage facilities are located at L-06, S-05/6/7, and SChaC-08/8A. The passage facilities are fish ladders. All these facilities have been maintained each year by Mitchell Act funding, but now funding has been reduced by $230,000 since 1997. Approximately mid-March, maintenance personnel start field work preparing existing screens for the irrigation season. Screens are inspected, cleaned, lubricated, and set in position with new seals as required. Mesh screen and perforated drum screens are repaired or replaced. Bypass intakes are inspected, slide gates prepared, and bypass pipe outfall areas inspected. Silt deposits are removed to restore proper, uniform, and efficient flow conditions. As spring cleanup and repairs are completed the screens are placed into operation, depending on irrigation demand, and checked on a daily basis. Screen tenders clean, service and perform minor repairs to assure proper screen operation and check bypass flow discharge locations to assure safe fish passage. Screens are inspected for proper submergence, seals are inspected for integrity, and bypass orifices are inspected for proper operation necessary to safely pass the fish. During the period of high water runoff, some damage normally occurs, particularly to screen control structures and fish passageways. The months of June and July require extra effort to keep debris removed and prevent damage to the screening facilities from high water. Emergency repairs are completed as necessary during the high water period. In late fall following the irrigation season, irrigators are contacted and encouraged to ramp the ditches down prior to full head gate closure for the winter. This ramping procedure has been proven effective as a means to stimulate fish movement out of the ditch between the head gate structure and the screen/bypass facility thereby returning the fish to the parent stream. Following ditch shut down, all fish screens are winterized. Winterization includes raising the drum screens to prevent winter ice damage, a complete inspection, and maintenance needs are noted for the winter repair schedule. Winter months are used for repairing drums and components. The shop facilities contain all the tools and equipment needed to perform maintenance on any facility. The facility is a fabrication shop with dedicated machinery and specialized tooling specific to the requirements of fish screening technology. All metals and some plastics can be processed in this facility including exotics such as aluminum and stainless steels. The shop has an environmentally safe paint spray room housed separate from the main shop area with a makeup air heater. A complete tool and parts room stores a variety of hand and power tools as well as fish screen parts. Pressure washers are used to wash algae and sediment from fish screens and to remove encrusted mud carrying weed seed from equipment, thereby limiting the spread of noxious weeds in the basin. The program also has a line of construction support tools including compactors, generators, pumps, a laser level, and all concrete finish tools. The program has a mixed fleet of 16 vehicles for transportation.

Patrick Murphy
Charles Warren
Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Habitat
186. Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage/Structure

Stream Investigation Reports (DELV-3)
Perform fisheries investigations on designated tributary streams to identify species absence or presence, distributions, densities, and habitat inventory. This work includes determination of landowner willingness to participate in future year fisheries improvement projects, mapping irrigation systems, and documentation of seasonal in stream flows, fish passage, and identifying water conservation potential. This work includes documentation of seasonal fish passage and spawning data. The work is to identify potential projects for future funding and to provide post project evaluations on improvements performed in that drainage. The reports cover species absence/presence, distribution, watershed assessment, and diversion inventory. Methodologies used to collect information include electro-shocking, redd counts, and water right identification.

Because of insufficient data in many tributaries, initial inventories are needed to identify stream diversions, stream reach characteristics, and fish species distribution and abundance. These watershed inventories provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of fisheries improvement projects. The objective of performing the surveys is to document the presence of fish species and life histories in the watershed and determine management directions for improving irrigation practices for fisheries benefits. Another objective is to evaluate and assess the benefits and impacts to the watersheds from these projects. Fish presence and abundance will be documented by utilization of backpack electrofishing methodologies. Site locations will be selected to encompass a complete sampling coverage of fish communities within watersheds. Electrofishing sites are systematically selected from a topographical map of the watershed. Each site will be approximately one kilometer apart if access is available. Specific locations of sample sites will be measured at the downstream boundary of the site using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device providing a Universal Transverse Mercator location set to North American Datum 27 metric units. Total length of each stream site electrofished will be generally 100 meters per site with block nets used to isolate fish from moving in or out of a sample site. Most sites will be sampled with a one-pass electrofishing survey, with multiple monitoring sites in each watershed surveyed utilizing three-pass depletion-removal electrofishing techniques. Electrofishing will be conducted with a three to four person team, with one person operating a Smith-Root Model 15D generator powered backpack electrofishing unit. The other team members net fish, with 1 or 2 primary netters and one secondary netter who carries a 5-gallon holding bucket. The electrofishing unit is typically operated at the I-5 setting at 300-500 volts pulsed DC. All settings were within the guidelines for electrofishing waters containing salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act established by the National Marine Fisheries Service. All salmonids are identified according to species then measured for fork-length (mm) and weight (g), and all other fish species will be enumerated. In between passes, fish will be held in recovery live-wells, and released back into the stream after completion of all 3 passes and processing. For all completed sites surveyed, we will meet the assumptions of depletion-removal electrofishing by (1) placing block nets (0.5 cm mesh) at both ends of a stream sample site (closing the population), (2) sampling each site within the same day (usually 3 hours), and (3) using constant effort in each consecutive pass. Population estimates of fish sampled with multiple passes are generated using MicroFish 3.0 (Van Deventer and Platts, 1985). The Screen Program uses the Burnham maximum-likelihood population estimate model (Van Deventer and Platts, 1983), generating total population estimates, probability of capture, standard error of total population, and 95% confidence intervals for total population.

Charles Warren
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
115. Produce Inventory or Assessment

Coordination Meetings (DELV-4)
Coordinate watershed association activities. Identify opportunities to enhance natural resources within the Clearwater River, Pahsimeroi River, Potlatch River, Lemhi River, and Salmon River watersheds. Work with Tribes, BoR, OSC, USFWS, NRCS, local conservation districts, NGO's and stakeholders to identify problems and solutions within the watershed. Coordinate with agencies, stakeholders, and other entities on restoration and enhancement efforts to prevent duplication and enhance communication and cooperation. Work with landowners, interest groups and agencies to research and identify funding and cost share opportunities. Meet with all stakeholders, assign specific project tasks that will lead to a project proposal. Coordinate with various agencies to ensure interest and viability of potential projects. Allow opportunity for all stakeholders to understand the interconnectivity of their projects and ensure projects do not clash in terms of outcomes.

This project is coordinated with other Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) funding sources as well as other state and Federal agencies in order to integrate and consolidate anadromous fish recovery efforts. The Idaho Screens, Passage, and Habitat Program is the only fish screening entity in operation in Idaho, thus it coordinates salmon, steelhead, and bull trout recovery efforts with other State of Idaho and Federal agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC), Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA), Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USBWP), US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS), the Tribes, and private citizens. This program also has a FRIMA representative to coordinate FRIMA funded projects. Most projects in the Salmon and Clearwater River basins involve multiple agency actions. Biological data compiled by this program is dispensed to all agencies finding a need for the information. Technical assistance for fish screening options are provided to all agencies. Program staff sit on advisory boards to assist with coordination and technical support addressing resource actions.

In addition to coordination of agency actions and regulatory concerns, this project also coordinates with a variety of funding sources to maximize the potential for anadromous fish recovery efforts. Since this project obtains primary funding from CRFDP Mitchell Act, all activities and actions involve direct coordination with that program. Other IDFG activities, such as completing conservation agreements, habitat restoration projects are also coordinated with plans in this proposal.

Vital to the success of the Idaho Screen Program, is the ability to effectively communicate with landowners and irrigators regarding anadromous fish recovery goals and the ability to obtain easements and agreements in a professional manner. This includes understanding and conveying IDFG authorization under Idaho Code 36-906 and 36-908, and having good understanding of Idaho Water Law as it pertains to diversions in the Upper Salmon Basin. An easement specialist is in place whose major responsibility is to acquire legally binding easements and/or rights-of-way with water users and landowners prior to new screen construction on gravity or pump diversions. Easement acquisition may be necessary for existing screen reconstruction if sites change. Additionally, this position acquires, as necessary, rights-of-way from third parties for road and maintenance access to screen/pump site. In some circumstances, the Idaho Screen Program acquires consolidation agreements of two or more gravity diversions into a single point of diversion from willing irrigators. All binding easements are filed at the county courthouse and entered into program records.

Other coordination activities would include projects identified by NGOs and private firms with large land holdings. Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and other entities request data, review of potential projects and seek advice for delinating benefits to the resource as a result of an action.

Windy Davis
Damon Keen
Patrick Murphy
Jared Bragg
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
114. Identify and Select Projects

Conduct Public and Private Meetings With Stakeholders (DELV-5)
Develop preliminary plans, projects and proposals. Includes coordination meetings with other agencies and private landowners. Lists of potential projects for the next funding cycle will be drafted. Meetings will include water users, landowners, engineers, and other stakeholders to explain habitat restoration proposals. Meetings are aimed toward assisting County Road & Bridge Departments and the Idaho Transportation Department with a culvert replacement schedule based upon physical necessity and prioritized upon fish passage improvement. Meetings will be held with the USFS to determine if there are roads and culverts that can be identified for closure. Large private timber holding firms will be approached concerning land use, road inventories, culvert fish passage issues, and stream restoration needs. Meetings will coordinate and develop potential projects based upon the project's technical merit.

Windy Davis
Damon Keen
Patrick Murphy
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
114. Identify and Select Projects

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation and Permits (DELV-6)
Perform comprehensive cultural surveys in accordance with approved standards and practices in support of NEPA documentation for fish screens and fish passage projects. This work will be supplied by contract consultant. Cultural survey report will be completed by consulting archaeologist. Similar cultural survey work may be bundled into one Task Order and one report. Any final report should include concurrence letter from the Idaho State Historical Preservation Office. Examples include providing maps and detailed project descriptions, contracting for an archaeological survey, etc. Special monitoring during excavation for cultural resources may be required if a cultural resource survey indicated possible presence of artifacts. Monitoring of the excavation may be recommended by Idaho State Historical Presentation Office.

Perform biological assessments, prepare documentation, and consult with the proper agencies for an ESA Section 7 Informal Consultation for all diversion improvement projects identified in the SOW within anadromous waters occupied by ESA listed species. Work may include drafting BA, completing HIP II BO Project Notification Form, providing copy of Section 10, 4(d), or 6 permit, etc.; or submitting Hatchery Genetic Management Plan to BPA for ESA consultation initiation, and providing input for the ensuing consultation.

Prepare and submit routine regulatory paperwork including NEPA compliance checklists, SHPO required documents, CWA Section 404 permits, State and Federal special use permit applications, construction permits, and special validations.

Review of work proposed and determinations will be made to identify absence/presence of Pacific lamprey. Identify if there are any stream disturbing activities or instream activities that could adversely impact Pacific lamprey. During implementation activities, implementation of USFWS Best Management Practices will be adhered to. By Feb 15 each year, a report covering any lamprey observations during the previous calendar year will be submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service. This data should include date, location (river mile or GPS), number of individuals, and life stage. Report the life stage as ammocoete (larval stage with undeveloped eyes, found burrowed in substrate), macropthalmia (free-swimming juvenile stage with developed eyes) or adult.

Patrick Murphy
Charles Warren
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
114. Identify and Select Projects

Hydro-seed Disturbed Ground (DELV-7)
Perform machine hydro-seeding of mulch, seed, and a carrier to provide erosion control and ground stabilization following construction activities. Seeds are selected for the site based on native origin, site characteristics, and available moisture. Sites within lands administered by Federal land management agencies will be re-seeded using specifications provided by those agencies. Additional hydro-seeding is sometimes required to cover areas that did not sprout or that were disturbed by livestock or other factors. Slurry of wood fiber mulch plus tackifier and seed mixture delivered to disturbed ground by a hydro-seeder pump. Depth of delivered product as per manufacturers recommendations based upon seed mixture requirements and expected runoff. The Idaho Department of Fish & Game has the only hydro-seeder and trained operators in the area. This project provides all hydro-seeding for other BPA funded projects

Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Habitat
55. Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Technical Review Written Comments (DELV-8)
Provide technical review of products not generated by this program, but funded by BPA. Reviews include engineering plans, specifications, and designs of structures, bifurcation devices, pipelines, roads, bridges, power lines, waterways, and instream structures for fisheries impacts. Field review would include tours of proposed projects with project sponsor to provide technical expertise in fisheries related matters. Provides fisheries data, evaluations, and recommendations to other fisheries enhancement project sponsors. Recommendations would include technical advice concerning dewatering methodologies during construction activities, assisting with language selection in biological assessments, permitting, and other submittals. Written review comments indicating issues, responsibilities, fisheries absence/presence, migration timing, in-stream work window applicability, identification of specific techniques, and fisheries enhancement recommendations. Markup and comments on environmental assessment documents. May include water right review. Review of engineering documents relates to applicability to NOAA/FSOC passage criteria and specific interconnectivity of project components to fisheries benefit. Review project proposals and evaluate habitat conditions and identify potential for improvement. Recommend habitat actions to third parties working on fisheries projects. Attend field on-site meetings to assess projects and make recommendations to project sponsor regarding applicability to NOAA/FSOC passage criteria, habitat improvements, fisheries enhancements, and bio-engineering standards. Generally, these are proposed projects that may ultimately be funded by BPA.

Patrick Murphy
Jared Bragg P.E.
Charles Warren
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation

Topographic Electronic Files (DELV-9)
Topographic surveys of proposed project sites. May include screen installation sites, head gate sites, diversion sites, ditch flow lines, agricultural production lands defined for efficiency projects, or property boundaries. Develop topographic drawing of these sites and provide suitable field temporary bench marks. Some of this work will be supplied by contract consultants.Topographical files to be held in trust by IDFG for BPA. Files will be available for examination or to other contractors at request of BPA. Topographic information will be used to design a new fish screen that improves fish passage and screen maintenance. Field data to be stored electronically for development in CAD software. Task orders will be developed for each specific project site or drainage. Typical task orders will identify a specific tributary and one or more irrigation diversions to be treated by screening, consolidating with another diversion, or by replacing with a well and pump. Consulting firms will assist IDFG by providing engineering topographic surveys in the proposed work zones, performing background research to identify potential impacts, consulting with Department engineers concerning findings, proposing alternative work to avoid undesirable effects, and providing related engineering services. Work shall be performed to meet the published requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act, NOAA Fisheries Criteria, and other State of Idaho and Federal regulations. Each task order will outline the preliminary survey site and indicate known topographic features. Deliverable timelines will be outlined in the task order. Permits to perform site surveys from Federal and State of Idaho agencies will be secured prior to the work. Project sites in the same drainage will be surveyed and treated as one major project. Field surveys will be performed and a record of findings will be recorded in any suitable manner, such as field notebook or portable computer. Topographic surveys will be conducted with proper equipment to download point files, elevations, and relevant surface features. Locations and potential sites of interest may also be recorded using survey-grade global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Digital images will be obtained of relevant points of interest and will include shots providing spatial relationships to distant topographical features. Preliminary engineered drawings will be developed in accordance with standard engineering practices that depict topographical features, profiles, and contours. Submittals will be stored in both digital and paper copies.

Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
114. Identify and Select Projects

Preliminary Drawings and Plans (DELV-10)
Engineering plans and designs as needed to determine feasibility of a project. May include elevation checks, piping flow comparisons and calculations. Verification of water depths and headgate capacities. Generation of preliminary lines, elevations, and grades to explore engineering options and contingencies in order to determine courses of action. Does not include final designs or full topographic surveys intended to complete a project. Electronic CAD files to be held in trust by IDFG for BPA. Files will be available for examination or to other contractors at request of BPA. All designs must include an engineer's construction estimate (including, but not limited to): volume of materials and cost per volume, hours and rates for each person, equipment hours and rates, delivery costs, travel and per diem costs, supplies, etc. (generally, no lump sums except mobilization). Estimates may NOT include contingency funds. Estimates should be of sufficient detail to be used as documentation for BPA budget requests. Verification of water rights and water distribution may be required. Does not include final designs or full topographic surveys intended to complete a project. Produce engineer's estimates for proposals including alternatives.

Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
175. Produce Design

Timely Administrative Oversight (DELV-11)
Project oversight and management work related to the administration of all contract obligations. Coordination with all agencies and stakeholders working on fisheries recovery in Idaho. Supervise staff. Manage individual projects identified in this contract. Provide financial accounting. Build Statements of Work, Budgets, Inventories, and submit Accruals as required. Setup meetings and outreach to the public, stakeholders, and interested parties. Coordinate environmental compliance measures and compile and submit all required documentation. Report on all activities in the format prescribed. It also covers administrative work in support of on the ground efforts and in support of any BPA programmatic requirements such as metric reporting, spending plan, and property inventory.
This program engages in all the above tasks. Additionally, staff coordinates work by contractors, consultants, and other agencies that is performed for the benefit of this contract. This includes coordination of surveys, design work, and regulatory compliance provided by other agencies and their contractors to this project. Office operations are maintained to provide for building maintenance, building utilities, janitorial services, communications fax and phone access lines, building insurance, blueprints for construction contracts, contract document printing, and newspaper ads for Public Works contracts. Major construction activities utilize Idaho Public Works process licensed and bonded contractors. Some fish screen installations and fish passageway facilities are constructed through this process. Administering these projects involves letting formal bids, awarding contracts, negotiating change orders, and final project closeout. All administrative tasks will be fulfilled on time and with quality products. Timely responses to request for more information are required. Proactive communication is required if a signifiicant lag in a scheduled delivery may occur.

Tom Curet
Eric Leitzinger
Patrick Murphy
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
191. Watershed Coordination

Completed Pisces Status Reports (DELV-12)
Reports on the status of milestones and deliverables will be inserted into Pisces. Reports shall be completed either monthly or quarterly as determined by the BPA COTR. Additionally, when indicating a deliverable milestone as COMPLETE, the contractor shall provide metrics and the final location (latitude and longitude) prior to submitting the report to the BPA COTR.

Tom Curet
Eric Leitzinger
Patrick Murphy
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
191. Watershed Coordination

Define Conservation Easement Terms & Conditions (DELV-13)
Assist partners such as The Nature Conservancy and various Land Trusts to define the merits of a conservation easement. Identify habitat needs, habitat value to the resource, irrigation efficiency potential, and appraise fish & wildlife resource potential that could be exacted from a land purchase or conservation easement. May include assessment of water rights as it applies to a specific resource action.

Patrick Murphy
Types of Work:

Fish Passage Barrier Elimination (DELV-14)
Remove man made barrier from stream to allow fish passage. Barrier may be removed by hand labor or by machine depending upon size. Barrier type may be culvert, bridge, weir, dam, or road crossing. The barrier may be a partial barrier, preventing passage to specific life history stages. These barriers may be temporal in nature or limit passage due to obstructions, e.g., high flow, low flow, temperature,
physical barriers, etc., or other variables that may allow some fish past, but not others. Once barrier is removed, stream gradient will be re-established, streambank will be stabilized if required, and vegetation will be planted on all disturbed soils.

Patrick Murphy
Jared bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Habitat
84. Remove/Install Diversion

Annual Progress Report (DELV-15)
Non-technical written report on activities performed under an annual contract. Non-technical reports may include photos, summaries of data, and lessons learned. They must document completion of the contract's work and capture important information that would not be readily available through other means (e.g., Pisces metrics and status reports). Report will include any issues related to implementation.

Eric Leitzinger
Tom Curet
Patrick Murphy
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
191. Watershed Coordination

Salvaged Fish (DELV-16)
Provide fish salvage operations at all BPA funded in-stream projects in the Salmon River basin. Crews will be dispatched to projects that include de-watering of a stream channel, diverting water around a construction site, and re-watering up a new channel. ESA Section 10 Take Permit and/or 4D rules apply. Electroshocking will be performed in de-watered channels, fish will be moved safely back to the main stream. Other associated activities include snorkeling near construction sites, checking downstream of construction site for spawners and monitoring turbidity. These activities are performed for the sole purpose of saving fish of all species from mortality associated with in-stream construction activities. BPA funded contractors performing the in-stream work activities include Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, Lemhi Soil & Water Conservation District, Governor's Office of Species Conservation, Trout Unlimited, and Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project.

Charles Warren
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Habitat
184. Install Fish Passage Structure

Quarterly teleconference meetings and annual training and workshops of the Fish Screen Oversight Committee (DELV-17)
The Fish Screen Oversight Committee (FSOC) has been a productive group that historically has coordinated fish screen and passage issues throughout the Columbia River basin. The Fish Screening Oversight Committee envisions all stream diversions within the Columbia River Basin properly screened to prevent loss of juvenile salmonids and other species of fish. FSOC meets quarterly by teleconference to discuss pertinent basinwide and regional issues related to fish screens and fish passage. Bi-annually, in even numbered years, FSOC sponsors a Fish Screen and Bypass Facilities Design seminar co-sponsored by NOAA Fisheries. The training is focused toward individuals new to fish screens and fish passage work. Bi-annually in the odd numbered years, FSOC sponsors the Pacific Northwest Fish Screening and Passage Workshop. This is a multiple day workshop for the purpose of sharing information, design standards, new technology, and new procedures for anyone actively engaged in fish screen and fish passage implementation work. The purpose of the FSOC (spelled out in Section 7.10A1 of the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program) is to provide overall direction, set priorities and ensure oversight of objectives, funding opportunities, standards, biological criteria and evaluation relative to fish screening activities in the Columbia Basin.

Patrick Murphy
Charles Warren
Jared Bragg P.E.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education


Objective: Increasing fry to smolt survival (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Maintained Fish Screens and Passage Structures to NOAA Criteria (DELV-2) This project proposal addresses the impact of water withdrawal from Idaho anadromous rivers and streams. Irrigation diversions date back to the 1860's in the Salmon River basin of the Snake River drainage and have impacted anadromous fish in a number of ways. These impacts include loss of habitat, entrainment of smolts on their migration to the ocean, and returning adults have been blocked by irrigation diversion wing dams. Riparian corridors have been degraded by various management actions. During peak irrigation, water temperatures rise and available thermal refuge for fish is minimal. Most unscreened diversions are currently found throughout both the large and small tributary systems of the main rivers, and number in the hundreds throughout the basin. Unlike most of the main-stem river diversions, which occur on private property, many diversions in the tributaries are located upon a combination of private property as well as lands administered by Federal land management agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service (USFS). Many tributary streams are completely de-watered during annual low stream flow. Specific problems exist for specific species based on run timing and other biological factors. For example, adult steelhead are capable of navigating upstream small tributaries during spring increased stream flow. Following successful spawning, their offspring may perish due to entrainment in diversions, or they may succumb to high water temperatures in the late summer when water withdrawal de-waters the stream channel. Additionally, Chinook salmon parr pioneer into tributaries for rearing and thermal refuge during summer months and are subject to threats from water withdrawal. The fish screens that the program has installed provide safe passage through the migratory corridors for both anadromous and resident migratory populations of salmonids. Water diversion structures on stream channels have been suspected to be a significant source of mortality to fish due to entrainment losses into irrigation systems. Most of the investigations on entrainment losses on resident fish populations have provided contradictory results on the overall effect of entrainment at the population level (e.g. Post et al. 2006, Schrank and Rahel 2004, Carlson and Rahel 2007). It was realized in the early 1900’s in Idaho that gravity irrigation diversions were entraining and harming fish (Jones 1921). The upper Salmon River Basin was no exception, and its headwaters and its tributaries historically supported large runs of spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye salmon. The effects of entrainment were especially evident in the Lemhi River and Pahsimeroi River subbasins due to the extensive water withdrawal and flow-limited reaches. Studies on juvenile Chinook salmon, an obligatory outmigrant, have been more conclusive on the population effects of losses due to entrainment into unscreened irrigation diversions. A study conducted in 1958 on the Lemhi River, a tributary to the Salmon River in Idaho, investigated the entrainment losses of juvenile Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha , as they migrated downstream as presmolts and smolts (Gebhards 1959). Results of this study estimated that 423,685 juvenile Chinook salmon were entrained in 90 canals, which may have contributed to a loss of 50% of the downstream migrating population. The screening of irrigation diversions was fully implemented by the start of the 1962 irrigation season with 84 structures within the Lemhi River system. A later study conducted during the implementation phase of the screening program from 1960-1962 in this same watershed estimated that the number of juvenile Chinook salmon bypassed at irrigation diversions ranged from 279,103 fish in 1961 to 91,499 fish in 1962 (Corley 1962). A recent collaborative study between the IDFG Anadromous Fish Screen Program and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center quantified the cumulative entrainment effects of water withdrawal on juvenile Chinook salmon in the Lemhi River. Utilizing fish screen bypass data collected from 2003-2008 on the Lemhi River it was estimated that 71.1% of migrating smolts were entrained and bypassed at the 41 lowermost screens under median streamflow conditions (Walters et al. 2012). This more recent study focused only on the spring smolt out-migration, whereas the fall parr outmigration comprises a large component of the juvenile Chinook salmon population that is also susceptible to entrainment. This study alone suggests that entrainment losses into irrigation diversions is a major limiting factor and can significantly effect this species at the population level. Maintenance of existing fish screen structures is paramount to increasing fry to smolt survival. A NOAA/FSOC criteria fish screen is only operating within the criteria parameters when it is being properly maintained.

Coordination Meetings (DELV-4) Coordination meetings are key to developing good working relationships with all other entities involved in resource work. Meetings with land management agencies can lead to better understanding of issues and assist those managers with better decision making concerning species of concern. In some instances, the land management agency can directly affect outcomes by institution of good policy. Coordination allows funding to be allocated more judiciously, often increasing the number of projects that can be accomplished. Coordination meetings allow the scoping process to reveal avenues that lead to better prioritization. Higher priority projects result in better species recovery projects. Coordination is important when utilizing funding requiring cost share. Often, different entities manage or control different funding streams. Coordinating primary funding and cost share funding can leaverage funds and free up funds to be allocated to other projects, the net result being more on the ground effort and increased project implementation.

Conduct Public and Private Meetings With Stakeholders (DELV-5) We have thousands of landowner/irrigator contacts. This program began in 1957. We have an extensive history of working with these people that exceeds other resource implementation programs. This program is the major source of the fisheries data used by all other entities working on restoration projects. The Screen Program's success is based on it's track record and relationships with the local irrigators and landowners. We actively solicit fish passage projects. We call all irrigators, landowners, appropriate land management agencies, and individuals that would be a stakeholder in the drainage. A meeting is held to become acquainted with individuals, and about the issues and possible solutions. We request their input and allow them to offer solutions. We use the time to discuss techniques we would employ in order to meet the needs of the resource. Often we invite individuals from other areas we have worked to come and testify on our behalf. After we have met with all parties we then identify water conservation measures and request assistance from a specific agency best suited to perform the task. This process allows citizens direct access to biologists to discuss issues and become educated about the plight of the species and the actions that are possible in order to improve conditions. This work is essential and must be completed before any action can be taken that involves water rights, private property, and land use. Often, potential solutions involve multiple parties. These meetings are crucial to producing solutions and developing plans for resource work. It is the first step that must be accomplished in order to allow work to proceed.

Hydro-seed Disturbed Ground (DELV-7) Implementation projects often require earthmoving or in-stream disturbance. Unless re-vegetation measures are taken, silt from the work zones will migrate into stream channels. The silt can adversely effect the fishery and result in fry or smolt mortality. Our project owns and operates the only hydro-seeding machine in the Salmon River basin. We perform machine hydro-seeding of mulch, seed, and a carrier to provide erosion control and ground stabilization following construction activities. Seeds are selected for the site based on native origin, site characteristics, and available moisture. Additional hydro-seeding is sometimes required to cover areas that did not sprout or that were disturbed by livestock or other factors. A slurry of wood fiber mulch plus tackifier and seed mixture is delivered to disturbed ground by a hydro-seeder pump. Depth of delivered product as per manufacturers recommendations based upon seed mixture requirements and expected runoff. These measures keep the soil moist and allow seeds to sprout soon after application. We perform these measures for any implementor using BPA funds. The measures taken are superior to dry seed broadcast application. The sooner vegetation is re-etablished following the project completion, the less sediment is released. Many projects are completed within in-stream work windows and the completion date is often at the first arrival of late summer spawners. It is critical to keep sediment from migrating into the streams and smothering redds. This deliverable helps to minimize mortality and increase fry survival. Monitoring indicators such as vegetation composition, soil erosion, road stability, woody species regeneration, residual vegetation (key species), woody species use, and in-channel measurements may be collected. Site evaluations will be conducted monthly for the first year to ensure all erosion control measures remain effective.

Technical Review Written Comments (DELV-8) This Deliverable could meet any of the four objectives.

Topographic Electronic Files (DELV-9) Specific work scopes will generally consist of engineering topographic surveys on sites scoped for natural resource conservation projects, engineering design work related to fish screens, fish passage facilities, water conservation projects including pipelines, engineering consulting, and related services. Preliminary survey plans will be developed for each specific project site or drainage. Typical survey plan will identify a specific tributary and one or more irrigation diversions to be treated by screening, consolidating with another diversion, or by replacing with a well and pump. Work includes providing engineering topographic surveys in the proposed work zones, performing background research to identify potential impacts, proposing alternative work to avoid undesirable effects, and providing related engineering services. Locations and potential sites of interest may also be recorded using survey-grade global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Digital images will be obtained of relevant points of interest and will include shots providing spatial relationships to distant topographical features. These surveys are the starting point for determining feasibility of a proposed project. Surveys answer many what-if questions. Once a survey is performed, a cost analysis can be computed, biologists can analyze the potential impact to the resource, and options and alternatives can be identified. The surveys will meet the objectives if they help define the issues and allow future project implementation that ultimately leads to an alleviation of the limiting factors.

Preliminary Drawings and Plans (DELV-10) Preliminary drawings and plans are used to describe proposals to landowners and other stakeholders. It is a visual representation of the proposed action and impact to the landscape. Planning includes a wide range of activities including restoration plans, implementation plans, operation plans, feasibility studies, management plans, and surveys. Planning can include strategic plans that will influence multiple projects and site-specific plans. For example, a strategic plan would cover a tributary wide approach to habitat restoration. Planning allow options and alternatives to be discovered. This work covers all work associated with the preparation technical drawings, specifications and/or budgets required for the construction of any structure or facility. This program is actively engaged in applied bio-engineering including habitat restoration, erosion control, stream bank stabilization, in-stream fish passage and fish protection, with emphasis on fish screening technology. Planning includes coordination between biologists, archaeologists, civil works contractors, and consultants involved in similar work. Once all action plans within a drainage have been settled and prerequisite work has been completed, then the final design work is initiated. Staff review plans by NRCS and BoR for projects or portions of projects in support of this project. A quality plan will address limiting factors and tie future project implementation to species ESA recovery goals. The plans will provide a procedural path for project implementation that meet recovery goals and increase fry to smolt survival, improve passage to critical habitat, or increase survival of resident species.

Define Conservation Easement Terms & Conditions (DELV-13) This Deliverable will meet the first three objectives. This program partners with NGOs such as the Lemhi Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy. The conservation easements these groups make with landowners are quite diverse and many include many facets. Often, they work on three or more party transactions. This program provides staff to perform the majority of the biological assessments that are required before a conservation easement can be acquired for a tract of land. The steps include water rights research, boundary determinations, and identification of minimum habitat units. For easements, this work involves the definition of the easement terms and conditions. Biologists work with the NGOs to identify potential habitat improvements that could be accomplished. They assess different scenarios and conditions of consent. This process is part of an ongoing negotiation between the land owner and the NGO. Three way deals are sometimes used to work out a land use arrangement that satisfies all parties. As the negotiations proceed, biological staff reconsiders pertinent conditions, reassesses the impact of potential agreements, and provide technical expertise in order to assure the best possible outcome. The selection of potential terms and actions on a land parcel can and will lead to positive outcomes for the resource. The goals of the NGO and this program is to place additional flow in-stream, protect riparian ares, ensure fish passage, and thereby increase fry to smolt survival, and improve passage into tributaries. The improvements are made in perpetuity.

Salvaged Fish (DELV-16) This program and our partners will typically be involved in several conservation projects that include in-stream channel work on an annual basis. This program provides salvage operations for any BPA funded project because we have all the appropriate permits to perform those fish handling activities. Most of these projects have been either the replacement of culverts with a bridges or the replacement of in-stream irrigation diversion structures with different structures that provide upstream fish passage at the point of diversion. Under the Rescue/Salvage guidelines of Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, Idaho Department of Fish and Game employees when acting in the course of his or her official duties, may take action to aid a threatened stranded salmonid. It is under this provision that employees of the program will be available during construction phases of conservation projects when it is likely that fish will become stranded or potentially harmed. In all instances, prior arrangements are made with the contracting agent to establish a time-line with fisheries personnel who will be doing the salvage of stranded threatened salmonids. Salvage operations are generally done by the Program Fishery Biologist, who has knowledge about the use of electrofishing, nets, and other equipment, as well as an understanding of the biological needs of fish in stressful environmental conditions. Operations to salvage fish from a dewatered stream channel requires that the contractor and biologist work together to make sure that no potentially harmful activities occur prior to the removal of fish from the channel to be altered or dewatered. In many cases this requires a slow reduction of flow over about a 48 hour period to allow fish to emigrate out of the affected stream channel, then leaving enough survival flow to allow the biologist and his/her chosen crew to salvage all remaining fish with either electrofishing equipment or nets. The benefit to this process is that is reduces the risk of injury or death to federally listed salmonid species, as well as other aquatic life that may reside within the affected reach. Once the salvage operation and construction project has been completed, the temporarily dewatered section of stream is recharged, and fish are allowed to recolonize that reach. These operations salvage fish that would perish if special accommodations and actions were not taken for their survival.


Objective: Improving fish passage to critical tributary habitat. (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Realign Bayhorse Creek Stream Channel (DELV-1) Following several habitat projects, the stream is now connected year around, but the stream has been braided by irrigation diversions that were never maintained or controlled. The project will repair the braided section and concentrate flow into one channel section. Most large tributaries in this reach of the Salmon River, from the confluence of the Lemhi River upstream to the confluence of the East Fork Salmon River, are seasonally flow-limited or dewatered during the irrigation season. These tributaries, like Bayhorse Creek, provide critical spawning, rearing, and thermal refuge for native fish species. This cool water habitat is not limited only to the tributaries, but influences the immediate reaches downstream of the confluence with the Salmon River. These cold water plumes provide critical habitat where the cooler input of water is utilized by all species and life stages in the Salmon River, including Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. This reach of the Salmon River has water temperatures in the summer months that reach the upper limit tolerated by salmonids, and this is exacerbated by the lack of cold water inputs from the tributaries. The concentrated flow will play a critical role in survival of different life histories of these salmonids, from access to spawning habitat, emergence from the redds, quality of habitat, and clear and unfettered fish passage for rearing, thermal refuge, and over-wintering habitat.

Stream Investigation Reports (DELV-3) Fisheries and diversion surveys are conducted in streams to document the distribution, occurrence, and abundance of species throughout the project watersheds and to provide baseline data for monitoring and evaluation assessments of future fisheries improvement projects. This work includes determination of landowner willingness to participate, mapping irrigation systems, and documentation of seasonal in-stream flows, fish passage, and identification of water conservation potential. The data collected is the basis for much of the prioritization for projects in the area. All entities working on resource recovery implementation work rely on the data for their pre-project baseline. The assessments allow all implementors to define issues and identify potential solutions leading to projects. The information gleaned is used to develop projects that improve critical tributary habitat. A tributary wide approach is incorporated in order to maximize benefits to the habitat. Post project monitoring in the same watersheds provides conclusive evidence of improvements to the resource.

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation and Permits (DELV-6) This work involves investigating, gathering, acquiring, or preparing data and documents in support of obtaining environmental clearances. Work may include providing maps, drafting a biological assessment, obtaining permits, monitoring and reporting required by permits, conducting public involvement activities, completing a cultural resource survey and report, inspecting water craft, vehicles, and heavy equipment for invasive species, implementing best management practices for lamprey, etc. Project implementers are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including those that restrict the transport of invasive species. If water craft, heavy equipment, waders, boots, or other equipment from outside the local watershed will be used during performance of work in the contract, standard protocols or BMPs to meet the intent of federal, state, and local aquatic and terrestrial invasive species prevention guidelines will be utilized. The Clean Water Act provides for the restoration and maintenance of the Nation's waters. It authorizes EPA to establish effluent limitations and requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from a point source to navigable waters. EPA approves state and tribal limits for the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards for specified purposes, including fish and wildlife. The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation and recovery of species of plants and animals that the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines to be in danger of or soon to become in danger of extinction. It includes measures to protect the habitats of these species. The National Environmental Policy Act requires measures to promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. The act requires federal agencies to examine the impacts of proposed major federal actions "significantly affecting" the environment. These environmental regulations are only some of many that are applicable to implementation projects. This deliverable is applicable to the objective by ensuring the implementation of resource projects do not contribute to the decline of the resource by injecting sediments into streams, covering redds with silt, and allowing invasive species to impact native populations. It ensures projects are installed in a manner that accommodates high flows, runoffs, and flash flooding. Stability of in-stream structures must be a staple or damage to the environment may occur and negatively impact the resource.

Fish Passage Barrier Elimination (DELV-14) Work may be part of a diversion consolidation effort that reduces the number of diversion sites. Designs may include installation of alternative ways to divert stream flow without creating passage barriers caused by traditional diversion structures. Each diversion dam creates a specific problem for fish passage. Some dams do not have a concentrated flow in order for smaller fish to migrate. Adult fish may be unable to jump the dam due to insufficient water depth in the downstream pool. Sometimes, the diversion tends to immediately entrain smaller upstream migrants into the ditch as they pass the dam. Some diversion dams create a velocity barrier. Typically, diverters use push up gravel diversions that must be replaced annually. That in-stream disturbance creates additional sedimentation. Eliminating a diversion allows juvenile and adult upstream passage without delay. Once the diversion is eliminated, the potential to entrain downstream migrantes is also eliminated. If an alternative manner of water withdrawal can be found, the elimination of the diversion can increased stream flow.


Objective: Increasing survival and abundance of resident salmonids. (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Objective: Provide management and operational support for implementation of resource projects. (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Timely Administrative Oversight (DELV-11) All projects must be managed appropriately in order to reach maximum effectiveness. While the ultimate objective is to increase fry and smolt survival, projects that are not managed well will result in lesser outcomes. Recordkeeping is essential to provide other entities with a clear understanding of what resources have been expended, where the work was preformed, and the results. These records allow better oversight and ensure coordination and future implementation of projects are compatible with prior efforts. Resources need to be managed effectively to ensure all aspects of a project are considered and that the work is performed in accordance with all plans, regulations, and environmental objectives.

Completed Pisces Status Reports (DELV-12) Reporting on project status is important for all managers and interested parties. Often work by one entity is a prerequisite for other projects. Reporting allows managers to monitor the status and pace of project implementation and to identify issues that may delay or halt a project or major portion of a project. Reporting is a checklist to ensure all steps were taken and no aspect of a project was ommitted.

Annual Progress Report (DELV-15) Reporting on project completion is important for all managers and interested parties. Often work by one entity is a prerequisite for other projects. Reporting allows managers to monitor the overall basinwide project implementation and to identify issues that may arise. Annual reports are used by a host of planners and Columbia River specialists to quantify and qualify actions that impact multiple species. Reporting is a checklist to ensure all the implementation projects are addressing limiting factors.

Quarterly teleconference meetings and annual training and workshops of the Fish Screen Oversight Committee (DELV-17) Ensure robust Fish Screen Oversight Committee to provide overall direction, set priorities and ensure oversight objectives, funding opportunities, standards, biological criteria and evaluation relative to fish screening activities in the Columbia Basin per the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's PERC recommendation, November 6, 2012 and as described in Section 7.01A1 of the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. The funding associated with this deliverable will be passed through in its entirety to the regional coordination group.


*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

There are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal.

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Realign Bayhorse Creek Stream Channel (DELV-1) 2015 2015 $50,000
Maintained Fish Screens and Passage Structures to NOAA Criteria (DELV-2) 2014 2018 $200,000
Stream Investigation Reports (DELV-3) 2014 2018 $325,000
Coordination Meetings (DELV-4) 2014 2018 $400,000
Conduct Public and Private Meetings With Stakeholders (DELV-5) 2014 2018 $400,000
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation and Permits (DELV-6) 2014 2018 $250,000
Hydro-seed Disturbed Ground (DELV-7) 2014 2018 $20,000
Technical Review Written Comments (DELV-8) 2014 2018 $61,500
Topographic Electronic Files (DELV-9) 2014 2018 $120,000
Preliminary Drawings and Plans (DELV-10) 2014 2018 $150,000
Timely Administrative Oversight (DELV-11) 2014 2018 $150,000
Completed Pisces Status Reports (DELV-12) 2014 2018 $10,000
Define Conservation Easement Terms & Conditions (DELV-13) 2014 2018 $150,000
Fish Passage Barrier Elimination (DELV-14) 2014 2018 $125,000
Annual Progress Report (DELV-15) 2014 2018 $10,000
Salvaged Fish (DELV-16) 2014 2018 $75,000
Quarterly teleconference meetings and annual training and workshops of the Fish Screen Oversight Committee (DELV-17) 2014 2018 $5,000
Total $2,501,500
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2013
2014 $490,300
2015 $540,300
2016 $490,300
2017 $490,300
2018 $490,300
Total $0 $2,501,500
Item Notes FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
Personnel $312,741 $318,996 $325,375 $331,883 $338,520
Travel $3,376 $4,465 $3,376 $3,500 $3,376
Prof. Meetings & Training $3,650 $2,185 $3,500 $2,185 $3,600
Vehicles $12,256 $29,256 $12,500 $9,000 $11,645
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $14,639 $28,560 $13,639 $12,500 $8,639
Rent/Utilities $28,620 $32,620 $28,015 $28,450 $28,980
Capital Equipment $0 $9,174 $0 $0 $0
Overhead/Indirect $88,074 $95,374 $88,074 $88,074 $88,074
Other $26,944 $19,670 $15,821 $14,708 $7,466
PIT Tags $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $490,300 $540,300 $490,300 $490,300 $490,300
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
The Idaho Screens, Passage, and Habitat Program has all the tools and equipment needed. The program has Idaho Public Works authority through the Engineering Section to complete major construction projects requiring State of Idaho contracting procedures. Our facility includes a fabrication shop with dedicated machinery and specialized tooling specific to the requirements of fish screening technology. The facility also includes two acres for materials storage and several outbuildings. Additionally, there is also a 270 square foot modular office annex that houses the engineering section. All staff use computer technology less than three years old, a LAN system for statewide communication, internet access, and specific software necessary to complete the work in this proposal. The facility encompasses both biological as well as engineering programs. Biological staff have available some very sophisticated equipment. Offering laboratory precision, the program’s SonTek FlowTracker series handheld acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) is capable of measuring velocities from 0.001 m/s (0.003 ft/s) to 5 m/s (16 ft/s), and in water as shallow as 2 cm (~1 inch). The FlowTracker features an automatic discharge computation program and can be interfaced to a laptop in the field. The FlowTracker uses acoustic Doppler technology to measure 2D or 3D flow in a small sampling volume. Four Biomark manufactured, Destron-Fearing FS2001 FR/ISO PIT-tag reading stations allow staff to monitor fish passage through bypass pipes on fish screens. Using two or more stations in a drainage, quality data concerning fish migration delay following entrainment in diversions can be obtained. The Department owns a DeepSea Power & Light Seacam 2050 underwater video camera. The unit can monitor fish in their native habitat, inspect fish screen seals, and is essential in testing screen seals. Vehicles, computers and sofware are rented from the state.

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) 2014 $4,250 In-Kind NRCS coordinates on many projects that include their agency funding a portion of a joint project. They provide cultural resource work and engineering services for control structures and pipelines.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) 2015 $4,300 In-Kind NRCS provide coordination, engineering services, and cultural resource documentation on joint projects.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) 2016 $4,400 In-Kind NRCS provide coordination, engineering services, and cultural resource documentation on joint projects.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) 2017 $4,500 In-Kind NRCS provide coordination, engineering services, and cultural resource documentation on joint projects.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) 2018 $4,600 In-Kind NRCS provide coordination, engineering services, and cultural resource documentation on joint projects.
Lemhi County 2014 $3,750 In-Kind Oversight and coordination on culvert replacement project.
Lemhi County 2016 $4,200 In-Kind Oversight and coordination on culvert replacement project.
(Unspecified Org) 2014 $4,150 In-Kind Idaho State Historical Preservation Office reviews all cultural resource studies and coordinates with the Tribes.
(Unspecified Org) 2015 $3,800 In-Kind Idaho State Historical Preservation Office reviews all cultural resource studies and coordinates with the Tribes.
(Unspecified Org) 2016 $4,200 In-Kind Idaho State Historical Preservation Office reviews all cultural resource studies and coordinates with the Tribes. Esimate.
(Unspecified Org) 2017 $4,400 In-Kind Idaho State Historical Preservation Office reviews all cultural resource studies and coordinates with the Tribes. Esimate.
(Unspecified Org) 2018 $4,400 In-Kind Idaho State Historical Preservation Office reviews all cultural resource studies and coordinates with the Tribes. Esimate.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2014 $38,000 In-Kind Fisheries Bureau level management & oversight. Regional Fisheries Manager coordination and supervision.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2015 $40,000 In-Kind Fisheries Bureau level management & oversight. Regional Fisheries Manager coordination and supervision.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2016 $44,000 In-Kind Fisheries Bureau level management & oversight. Regional Fisheries Manager coordination and supervision.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2017 $46,000 In-Kind Fisheries Bureau level management & oversight. Regional Fisheries Manager coordination and supervision.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2018 $48,000 In-Kind Fisheries Bureau level management & oversight. Regional Fisheries Manager coordination and supervision.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2014 $500,000 Cash Mitchell Act funding provides the core of the program. Staff time is used for M&E, landowner negotiations, administration, and bio-eng support. Funding for O&M on BPA built structures.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2015 $500,000 Cash Mitchell Act funding provides the core of the program. Staff time is used for M&E, landowner negotiations, administration, and bio-eng support. Funding for O&M on BPA built structures.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2016 $500,000 Cash Mitchell Act funding provides the core of the program. Staff time is used for M&E, landowner negotiations, administration, and bio-eng support. Funding for O&M on BPA built structures.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2017 $500,000 Cash Mitchell Act funding provides the core of the program. Staff time is used for M&E, landowner negotiations, administration, and bio-eng support. Funding for O&M on BPA built structures.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2018 $500,000 Cash Mitchell Act funding provides the core of the program. Staff time is used for M&E, landowner negotiations, administration, and bio-eng support. Funding for O&M on BPA built structures.

Abernethy, C. S., D. Neitzel, and W. Mavros. 1996. Movement and injury rates for three life stages of spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)- A comparison of submerged orifices and an overflow weir for fish bypass in a modular rotary drum fish screen. Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, Washington. Beechie, T., Imaki, H., Greene, J., Wade, H., Wu, H., Pess, G., Roni, P., Kimball, J., Stanford, J., Kiffney, P., and Mantua, N., 2012. Restoring Salmon Habitat for a Changing Climate, River Research and Applications DOI: 10.1002/rra.2590 Carlson, A.J. and F.J. Rahel. 2007. A basinwide perspective on entrainment of fish in irrigation canals. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1335-1343. Cooper, M. 2002. Inventory of water diversions on the main Salmon River between Corn Creek and Vinegar Creek. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Copeland, T., and D. A. Venditti. 2009. Contribution of three life history types to smolt production in a Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 66: 1658-1665 Corley, D. 1962. A summary of fish trapping at the bypass pipes of irrigation screens on the upper Salmon River drainage in 1960, 1961 and 1962. Project 922.2A and 161.4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Der Hovanisian, J.A. 1997. Irrigation diversion fish loss reduction: Salmon Region. Annual Performance Report 1997. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. DuPont, J. M. 1998. Evaluation of fish screens on Lemhi River, Idaho in 1989. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Gebhards, S.V. 1959. The effects of irrigation on the natural reproduction of Chinook salmon (Onchorynchus tshawtscha) in the Lemhi River. Master of Science thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Hightree, M. (2006). Fish screen paddlewheel design report, 1994-015-00, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Boise, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Fisheries Management Plan 2013 – 2018. Boise, Idaho. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) 2007. Viability criteria for application to Interior Columbia River Basin salmonid ESUs. Review Draft, March 2007, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Available from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/col/trt_viability.cfm [accessed 13 April 2011]. Jones, Otto M. 1921. Annual report of the fish and game warden of the State of Idaho. Kiefer, R.B. and J.N. Lockhart. 1994. Intensive evaluation and monitoring of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout production, Crooked River and upper Salmon River sites. Annual progress report 1992. Project Number 91-73. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho. McMichael, G.A., J.A. Vucelick, C.S. Abernethy, and D.A. Neitzel. 2004. Comparing fish screen performance to physical design criteria. Fisheries 29(7):10 Montgomery-Watson-Harza. 2003. Challis Creek subbasin fish screening and passage plan. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Murphy, P., and J. Yanke. 2003. Challis Creek fisheries report. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Murphy P. 2003. Utilization of PIT-tag readers to evaluate and monitor fish screens on the Lemhi River, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Neitzel, D. A., S. L Blanton, C. S. Abernethy, D. S. Daly. 1996. Movement of Fall Chinook salmon fry (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): A comparison of approach angles for fish bypass in a modular rotary drum fish screen. Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, Washington. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2005. Salmon subbasin management plan. In: Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon. Post, J. R., B. T. van Poorten, T. Rhodes, P. Askey, and A. Paul. 2006. Fish entrainment into irrigation canals: An analytical approach and application to the Bow River, Alberta, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:875-887. Quadrant Consulting. 2003. Bohannon Creek fish screening and passage plan. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Servheen, G., Beals, J., Hebdon, L., Cousins, K., Eklund, W., Semmens, J., Mundt, J., Chavez, N. 2004. Salmon Subbasin Assessment. NPPC . http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/salmon/default.asp. Servheen, G., Huntington, C. et al. 2001. Salmon Subbasin Summary. Northwest Power Planning Council. http://www.cbfwa.org/archives/ReviewCycle.cfm?ReviewCycleURL=FY+2002+Mountain+Snake Schrank, A.J. and F.J. Rahel. 2004. Movement patterns in inland cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah): management and conservation implications. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1528-1537. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 16, Salmon River recovery unit, Idaho. 198 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 17, Salmon River recovery unit, Idaho. 194 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from streams. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 48:349-354. Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1985. A computer software system for entering, managing, and analyzing fish capture data from streams. USDA Forest Service Note INT-352. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 12 pp. Walters, Annika W., Damon M. Holzer, James R. Faulkner, Charles D. Warren, Patrick D. Murphy, and Michelle M.McClure. 2012. Quantifying cumulative entrainment effects for Chinook salmon in a heavily irrigated watershed. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:5, 1180-1190. Warren, C., and J. Thabes. 2005. Bayhorse Creek fisheries report. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Warren, C., and J. Thabes. 2006. Smiley Creek (SNRA) fisheries report. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Warren, C., and C. Taylor. 2007. Carmen Creek fisheries report. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Warren, C. 2011. Fourth of July Creek fisheries report. Idaho Department of Fish & Game, Anadromous Fish Screen Program, Salmon, Idaho. Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Program Technical Team (USBWP). 2009. Habitat Goals and Priorities Document. Salmon, Idaho. http://www.modelwatershed.org/TECHTEAM/DOCUMENTS/Habitat Goals and Priorities_Updated_5-6-2009.pdf Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Program Technical Team (USBWP). 2005. Screening and Habitat Improvement Prioritization for the Upper Salmon Subbasin (SHIPUSS). Salmon, Idaho. http://modelwatershed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/FINALSHIPUSS2005.pdf

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1994-015-00
Completed Date: 6/12/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:20:28 AM.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: