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
Fish Screen Oversight Committee (FSOC), Tributary Passage and Habitat Coordinator (TPHC)

BPA project number   9202800

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding

Sponsor type   CBFWF

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameClayton Hawkes
 Mailing address2501 SW First Ave. Suite 200
Portland, OR 97201

BPA technical contact   Tom Clune, EW 503/231-6965

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   7.10A.3

Short description
Plan and oversee the environmental, design and construction of several thousand fish screens and adult fish passage facilities in the Columbia River Basin.

Project start year   1991    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
8906200 - Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA): The TPHC is employed by CBFWA and also chairs the Ad Hoc Habitat Work Group, works with the agencies and tribes on selected FERC project proceedings, and assists in the coordination functions of the CBFWA; 9306600 - Oregon Fish Screen Projects; 8506200 Passage Improvement Evaluation; 9107500, 9107500, 9200900 Yakima Phase II; 9401500 Idaho Fish Screening Improvement; and Mitchell Act funding for fish passage facilities.

Project history
The FSOC was formed in 1991. The TPHC works for CBFWA. FSOC has developed a regional plan to address high priority and long-term fish passage and screening improvements. FSOC annual reports provide a basis for the NPPC to monitor implementation progress and to request Mitchell Act funding or to propose Fish and Wildlife Program measures and/or legislation that may facilitate increased fish screen usage.

Biological results achieved
FSOC has developed a database of fish passage projects in the Basin and has reviewed and adopted NMFS's juvenile fish passage criteria for gravity diversion and pump-intake fish screens. These FSOC criteria were also adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The use of standard criteria has improved the overall fish passage effectiveness of fish screens in the Basin. FSOC has facilitated the sharing of knowledge and facilities between the three participating states.

Annual reports and technical papers
1993, 1994, and 1995 annual reports to the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Management implications
Through FSOC each state has shared methods and techniques for the installation, operation, and maintenance of fish screens and have become more efficient. The states have also worked cooperatively to share modular fish screens. The common design criteria and the interaction of the state screen shops has resulted in an accelerated fish screening program.

Specific measureable objectives
FSOC facilitates the use of common criteria and the sharing of knowledge and experience between states and tribes. Results can be measured by the number of diversions treated with fish screens, or diversions consolidated or converted to other types of irrigation systems that do not entrain juvenile fishes (e.g. convert to well). Results can also be measured by facilities that conserve water as a result of program activities, which result in instream flow improvements and thus increased fish production.

Testable hypothesis

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
FSOC results are dependent on funding for implementation in addition to coordination.


Brief schedule of activities
The Tributary Passage and Habitat Coordinator (TPHC) organizes approximately five FSOC meetings, one conference call, and a workshop per year. At FSOC meetings, issues such as fish passage criteria, funding, coordination with Federal land managers, and other issues are addressed. The meetings rotate from state to state and generally it is possible to inspect fish passage facilities in the area. The FSOC coordinator shares information with each Member concerning funding, etc., and prepares action notes soon after the meeting. A Fish Screen Fabrication, Operation, and Maintenance Workshop has been held annually for three years for screen shop workers from the three states to exchange information. These workshops, which have included speakers, demonstrations, a trade show, and a field trip have been very well attended by other agencies outside of CBFWA and have been very educational.

Through 2001, the state screen shops will all be busy installing fish screens. Over the last three to four years the methods and techniques for building fish screens have improved dramatically and it has been important for the shops to exchange this information. FSOC has been a vital instrument for information exchange and would continue to be so. Many of the remaining diversions adversely affect instream flow and must be made to use water more efficiently, by conversion to pump or to well. For several diversions that have not been screened, enforcement action many be needed in order to achieve instream flows and fish screening. Many Mitchell Act fish ladders are in very poor condition and must also be addressed by FSOC if funding becomes available.

The TPHC also reports on significant issues related to fish passage, habitat and FERC licensing to the Members and Liaison Group and attends Pacific Fishery Management meetings to report on Columbia River fish screening progress. Meetings such as American Fisheries Society symposia are also attended, to report progress on tributary fish passage issues in the Columbia Basin.

Biological need
To promote the most effective technology for fish screening and to accelerate fish screening activities, thus decreasing the numbers of fish entrained into irrigation diversions and thereby increasing fish production.

Critical uncertainties
Mitchell Act Funding. FY 1996 funding was reduced substantially from FY 1995 and no funding has been made available to rehabilitate Mitchell Act fishways. Progress has slowed in non-Endangered Species Act areas and it remains to be seen if Mitchell Act funding will be made available for other production areas that have irrigation diversions. Decreases in implementation funding will prolong the need for FSOC past 2001.

Summary of expected outcome
Provided that funding remains approximately at or greater than FY 1995 levels for the Mitchell Act and from BPA, the FSOC Members could complete fish screening in the Basin above Bonneville Dam by 2001 to 2002.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation


Monitoring activity

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
1992: 20,700
1993: 13,169
1994: 245,085
1995: 0
1996: 0
Obligation: 0
Authorized: 164,000
Planned: 164,000
1997: 94,000
1998: 173,988
1999: 179,207
2000: 184,583
2001: 190,121

* 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   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 1 - fund

Recommended funding level   $94,000

BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget)   $34,000