BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Little Naches Passage

BPA project number   8607500

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
USFS

Sponsor type   Wa-Federal Agency

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameScott Hoefer
 Mailing addressNaches Ranger Station District
10061 Highway 12
Naches, WA 98937
 Phone509/653-2205

BPA technical contact   Marcella Lafayette, EWP 503/230-3781

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   7.11B.1

Short description
O&M fish passage facility at Salmon Falls on Little Naches River.

Project start year   1985    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   1996

Project development phase   MAINTENANCE

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history
1987 construction of fish ladder, then O&M over the ensuing years. Built to enhance anadromous salmonid passage at Salmon Falls. The stream channel below Salmon Falls was also rehabilitated to permit summer low flow fish migration to the falls.

Biological results achieved
Since project completion, chinook have been spawning upstream of the falls. Redd numbers have ranged from 2 to 11 each year.

Annual reports and technical papers
April 1995 - Engineering report on possible revisions to fish passage.

Management implications
Improvements to the facility are outlined in the April 1995 - Engineering report on possible revisions to fish passage.

Specific measureable objectives
1) The presence of debris (large woody debris, fine and coarse sediment) within fish ladder which may inhibit fish passage.

2) Chinook salmon are passing safely over the fish ladder.

Testable hypothesis
Ladder is clear of debris, so chinook salmon are passing safely over the fish ladder.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
1) Automated data and processing--degree is dependent on the scale of question, finer attributes may still require hands-on-analysis.

2) Data Analysis: highly dependent on information needs, finer scale data more costly; potential for supervised classifications.

Methods
No intensive experiment necessary, only a visual inspection of debris deposition and the necessary action to remove debris. Debris removal is done by hand or excavator.

Brief schedule of activities
Major project tasks for 1997:

1) Visual inspection of the fish ladder and the removal of debris from the ladder inhibiting upstream passage. Debris includes large woody debris, and fine and coarse sediment. Sediment deposited during high water may be blocking water from entering the upstream end of the fish ladder.

*Tasks for 1998 - 2001 should be similar.

Biological need
The underlying need is to make upstream habitat available by continuing to pass chinook salmon over the fish ladder.

Critical uncertainties
The critical uncertainty is whether or not debris will be inhibiting fish passage from year to year.

Summary of expected outcome
Fish passage will be provided by removing debris when it is a problem.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
No actions or events are known that may affect the project's timing or budget.

Risks
One minor risk is that chinook migration may be inhibited by up to 6 hours for one day in early July during ladder maintenance. Individuals have been seen in the ladder in July, even though this isn't during peak migration.

Monitoring activity
The ladder will be visually inspected just after spring runoff for debris deposition, and the ladder will be viewed daily during August to determine if fish are successfully passing over the ladder. A redd survey above the ladder is conducted by Yakima Indian Nation.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
1986: 73,188
1987: 320,262
1988: 23,224
1989: 15,851
1990: 0
1991: 17,708
Obligation: 0
Authorized: 1,870
Planned: 1,870
1997: 2,000
1998: 2,500
1999: 2,500
2000: 3,000
2001: 3,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Bonneville Dam - Priest Rapids Dam

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $2,000