Response for project 199801700: Gravel Push-Up Dam Removal Low
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The proposed budget of $105,134 is adequate to cover the current level of project activity; additional funding (to $150,000) would allow us to accelerate our progress and get near our goal of working with all irrigators in the project area to install fish-friendly diversions.
Accomplishments since the last review
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Develop designs for FY 2006 projects | |
| Maintain Terrestrial Structure | Rework screens on 1998 to 2000 installations to improve performance. | |
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | We expect to install 10 screens on pumps that take approximately 3000 gpm from April to end September | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | These are new screens, which replace the non-standard screens traditionally used by irrigators | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | Various | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 30+ miles (currently partially accessible; our primary concern is allowing passage for juveniles during irrigation season) | |
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | We are continuing temperature and photopoint monitoring of our project sites. |
In 2002-3 considerable progress was made in exploring appropriate and cost-effective design alternatives for fish-friendly diversions. In 2004 work was completed at four diversion sites and intiated at another 2 sites. This work involved installing 5 shallow water pump screens and installing one lay-flat stanchion dam. Another 10 shallow water screens are scheduled for installation in 2005, along with 3-5 instream structures. Together these will result in fish-friendly diversions at 10 or more sites where diverting water previously required push-up dams and instream use of heavy equipment. We will also make minor improvements to 1-2 structures installed prior to 2002 to improve performance. This work is occuring on the lower North Fork of the John Day and the lower 2 miles of Cottonwood Creek, a tributary rated as the highest priority for restoration in the North Fork Basin in the John Day Subbasin Plan. We are also beginning design work for 2006 sites, especially for mainstem diversions for which devising cost-effective solutions has been challenging. Intensive monitoring of temperature patterns at a push-up site was conducted in the summer of 2004 and photo-monitoring of past installations has been conducted each fall.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | We will complete project designs for 2006 sites and any scheduled for subsequent years | |
| Replace/Maintain Instream Structure | We will continue to work with irrigators to assure that all fish-friendly diversions perform well. | |
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | To be determined; we plan on working on several larger diversions (~2 cfs), so total volumes would be between 5 and 10 cfs) | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | New | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | To be determined; we plan on working on several larger diversions (~2 cfs), so total volumes would be between 5 and 10 cfs) | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | ~30 on Cottonwood Creek; perhaps another 10-20 on Deer and Rudio- all cases where partial passage exists, but juvenile passage is blocked during key periods. | |
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | We will continue temperature and photopoint monitoring of project sites and the effects of push-up dam removal. |
Goals for FY 2006: 1) Complete replacement of all diversions on lower Cottonwood Creek (2-4 remaining after FY 2005 Work) 2) Work with landowners on Rudio and Deer Creeks to address all diversion related issues on both of these small creeks (which provide excellent steelhead habitat). 3) Replace remaining 5-8 sites on the North Fork that require large push-up dams; address smaller sites on North Fork as opportunities arise. 4) Continue ongoing temperature and photomonitoring efforts. 5) Work with irrigators to maintain and improve structures installed in past years.
Subbasin planning
How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?
This project directly implements Strategy A, Action 2 (Improve Irrigation Diversions, p. 252 of the Final Draft of the John Day Subbasin Plan) by removing push-up dams that pose seasonal barriers to movement of juvenile salmonids. It implements Strategy B, Action 1 (Screening of Irrigation Diversions, p.255) by incorporating NOAA-approved screens into all diversion improvements. It also allows for Riparian Habitat Improvement(Strategy E, p. 263) by eliminating the regular disturbance to riparian areas associated with heavy equipment access and maintenance of push-up dams and eliminating exposed artificial side channels that serve diversions and are prone to accelerated warming in low flow periods.
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
Replacing diversions on Cottonwood Creek is a primary forcus of our work in 2003-6 as Cottonwood Creek was identified as the watershed with the greatest restoration potential in the North Fork Basin by both EDT and the subbasin technical team. Passage Improvements, Fish Screening (both directly addressed by this project) and Riparian Habitat Improvement (which we achieve by reducing areas impacted by push-ups and heavy equipment) received priority ratings of high or very high for Cottonwood Creek. In general, restoration work on the mainstem North Fork was given a moderate level of priority in the Subbasin Plan, with screening and riparian habitat improvement among the highest priorities for this area (Relative priorities are summarized on p.250). This project rates high according to the criteria for benefit to focal species, technical soundness and socio-economic appropriateness laid out in the Prioritization Framework (see p. 285)