BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1998 Proposal

Section 1. Summary
Section 2. Goals
Section 3. Background
Section 4. Purpose and methods
Section 5. Planned activities
Section 6. Outcomes, monitoring and evaluation
Section 7. Relationships
Section 8. Costs and FTE

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Summary

Title of project
Idaho Fish Screening Improvement (see new NPPC)

BPA project number   9401500

Short description
Enhance passage of juvenile and adult salmon in Idaho's Anadromous fish corridors by consolidating and screening diversions.

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NamePatrick Marcuson, Upper Salmon River Anadromous Fish Passage
 Mailing address
Salmon, ID 83467-1336
 Phone208/756-6022
 EmailPMarcuson@IDFG.STATE.ID.us
   

Sub-contractors
Model Watershed of Idaho; Custer, Lemhi, Blaine County Soil and Water Districts

Section 2. Goals

General
Supports a healthy Columbia basin; maintains biological diversity; maintains genetic integrity; increases run sizes or populations; provides needed habitat protection; adaptive management (research or M&E); program coordination or planning; conserves water

Target stockLife stageMgmt code (see below)
Sockeye SalmonAdult and Smolt(L)
Snake River Spring ChinookAll Stages(L)
Snake River SteelheadAll Stages(P)
Bull TroutAll Stages(W)(P)

 
Affected stockBenefit or detriment
All resident fishBeneficial

Section 3. Background

Stream area affected

Stream name   Salmon and Clearwater
Stream miles affected   775 and 310
Hydro project   All mainstream Columbia and Snake River Hydro Dams
Subbasin   Snake
Land ownership   Public and Private
Habitat types   Rivers, streams and some artificial channels

History
This project was started as a high priority ESA effort to improve screens and anadromous fish passage in Idaho tributaries with threatened or endangered species impacts.

Biological results achieved
ht irrigation diversion dam )Saved countless numbers of anadromous and resident fish from mortality in irrigation canals.

Project reports and papers
Project output is reported through Annual FSOC report under project 92-028-00 and quarterly reports to NOAA grants.

Adaptive management implications
Ditch consolidations reduce instream diversion barriers, assist with river channel stabilization, and conserves water.Good headgates conserve water and reduce conveyance losses.Projects increase access to fish and wildlife habitat.Confining anadromous spawners instream increases nutrients, carcass N&P, and food to resident fisheries.Sites are constructed to consider fish and wildlife compatibility, i.e., wetlands, white tail, non-game habitat.Stream bank stabilization and habitat improvement by fencing project sites.(If shorter answer reply needed, then: )This program is a positive, protective, proven management action.

Section 4. Purpose and methods

Specific measureable objectives
Complete designs, construction, installations of all unscreened and obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. Delete gravel berms diversions by consolidation of ditches, conversions to wells on as many sites as possible. Place screens to maximize potential rearing habitat if available in the ditch.

Critical uncertainties
Preventing emigration of fish species into irrigation diversions may not reverse population declines in areas where dewatering occurs. Anadromous fish may not return to Idaho spawning and rearing habitats as a result of downstream limitations.

Biological need
Screening to NMFS criteria is a proven technique of preventing fish mortality. Gravel berm diversions made annually of in-river gravel not only block the channel to migrating fish, but cause sever biological, thermal, and morphological alterations. The Lemhi River is a classic example of gravel berms washing down river and settling out in low gradient reaches. These accumulations of gravel force the channel to seek a new course of less resistance.

Hypothesis to be tested
Losses of fish species to irrigation diversions impact the welfare of the fishery and aquatic ecosystem. Gravel berm diversions impede migration of adult and juvenile anadromous fish and disrupt the aquatic ecosystem.

Methods
Each year a technical work committee establishes and prioritizes a list of diversions needing new or replaced screens. From this list the program coordinator determines all phases of work required and what agencies (see cooperation list) will participate and when to accomplish the project. The program coordinator then determines what functions will be financed by Mitchell Act funds, by participating irrigators, and by BPA funds. All sites require an access easement, flow agreements with irrigators, site surveys, design, awards to contractors, construction inspection, screen and component fabrication and installation. Associated duties may require providing access to site, headgate and ditch modifications, site vegetative enhancements, well drilling, pump intake screening, operation and maintenance, demolitions of old screens, and evaluations of the systems performance. Presence or absence of fish on the downstream side of screens is verified by live trapping or visual observation.

Section 5. Planned activities

Phase PlanningStart 1994 End 2001Subcontractor
1998 Prioritize list of 50+ gravity diversions sites to screen, consolidate or eliminate. Locate, inspect, and install screens on 50 or more pump intakes. Topographic Surveys of 50 to 100 sites until completed. Maintain and operate 250 screens. Design, construct, and operate 50+ gravity diversion screens. Install safety fencing around sites near public access. Inform public via news releases, displays and informative signs on some screens.1998-2001Same activities with more emphasis on alternative, less expensive and more efficient screen types (see 10.2c proposal). More emphasis on riparian improvements and use of some channels for fish habitat.
Phase ImplementationStart 1994 End 2001Subcontractor
Continue replacing screens not at NMFS criteria
Phase O&MStart 1994 End +yrsSubcontractor
Keep all 250-350 screens operating along with providing access to screens and headgate facilities
Project completion date   2001

Section 6. Outcomes, monitoring and evaluation

SUMMARY OF EXPECTED OUTCOMES

Expected performance of target population or quality change in land area affected
Upon completion all gravity diversions and pump intakes will be screened to keep anadromous fish anadromous and resident fish residents of the streams in Idaho. Many of the ditches will be eliminated and/or consolidated to save water and reduce instream migrational barriers. Potentially dangerous screens will be fenced to minimize harm to animals and humans. Fish habitat around screened areas will be enhanced where streambank vegetation is allowed to perpetuate.

Present utilization and convservation potential of target population or area
Tribal utilization in subdrainage. Coastal commercial and recreational fisheries.

Assumed historic status of utilization and conservation potential
Sport fish product in subdrainage.

Long term expected utilization and conservation potential for target population or habitat
Desired expectation is a self sustaining, harvestable population.

Contribution toward long-term goal
Prevent mortality due to loss to irrigation channels. All Stocks

Physical products
+ 250 functioning fish screens and headgates with access roads, gates and associated components.

Environmental attributes affected by the project
Instream habitat improvement, bank stabilization due to fencing riparian area.

Changes assumed or expected for affected environmental attributes
Reduced mortality and delays of migrating stocks of fish.

Assessment of effects on project outcomes of critical uncertainty
Presence or absence of any target population.

Information products
The screens show an actual product and are readily viewable to the general public, landowners, scientific, and recreational land users.

Coordination outcomes
On the ground, positive, protective, proven management action.

MONITORING APPROACH
Each year a technical work committee establishes and prioritizes a list of diversions needing new or replaced screens. From this list the program coordinator determines all phases of work required and what agencies (see cooperation list) will participate and when to accomplish the project. The program coordinator then determines what functions will be financed by Mitchell Act funds, by participating irrigators, and by BPA funds. All sites require an access easement, flow agreements with irrigators, site surveys, design, awards to contractors, constriction inspection, screen and component fabrication and installation. Associated duties may require providing access to site, headgate and ditch modifications, site vegetative enhancements, well drilling, pump intake screening, operation arid maintenance, demolitions of old screens, and evaluations of the systems performance. Presence or absence of fish on the downstream side of screens is verified by live trapping or visual observation.

Provisions to monitor population status or habitat quality
Evaluations are simple and only require examination of presence or absence of fish behind fish screens. Habitat improvement is monitored by photographic records.

Data analysis and evaluation
The only data collected will be reviewed by the fisheries managers.

Information feed back to management decisions
Through quarterly and annual status reports and by constant involvement of the fisheries management staff.

Critical uncertainties affecting project's outcomes
More evaluation of screens intended purpose. Continued efforts to find alternatives to screening ditches.

Evaluation
Through annual project and fish oversite committee reports, and show-me trips.

Incorporating new information regarding uncertainties
Through a technical work group.

Increasing public awareness of F&W activities
Fish screens are readily observable, some are signed and most have enough public interest to be included in periodic news releases. Every irrigator and their families are aware of the fish screen and it's intended purpose.

Section 7. Relationships

Related BPA projectRelationship
9200900; 9105700; 9107500; 8402400; 9107200; 9405000; 9202800; 9401700; 9202603; 9402700 Yakima Screens; Marsh/Elk/Upper Salmon; Red Fish Lake Sockeye; Salmon River Habitat; Regional Fish Screening; Model Watershed Habitat; Grande Ronde Model Watershed: Anadromous fish passage The project started in 1983 (as project 8300600 Operation and Maintenance of BPA Fish Marking Trailers). In 1995, projects 8906500 and 8300600 were combined and the USFWS has marked over 25.5 million fish for evaluation in the Columbia River ba
Related non-BPA projectRelationship
SCREEN AND FISHWAY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.OPERATION AND REPAIR, REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF FISH SCREENS AND FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES FOR STATE OF IDAHO, IDFG
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Opportunities for cooperation
This project is a cooperative effort of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, IDWS, the Bureau of Reclamation, USBR, the U.S. Forest Service, USFS, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, SNRA, the Model Watershed Program, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, NRCS, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Bureau of Land Management, BLM and the irrigators in the state of Idaho. NOTE The BPA and NMFS should have a Bio Opinion ID number to cover the Screen Programs in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.I would appreciate a copy of such coverage as some of the cooperating agencies are required to receive permitting under the Bio opinion to allow us the opportunity to work in their are of jurisdiction.

Section 8. Costs and FTE

1997 Planned  $300,000

Future funding needs   Past obligations (incl. 1997 if done)
FY$ Need% Plan % Implement% O and M
19982,000,000  80% 20%
19992,000,000  80% 20%
20002,000,000  80% 20%
20011,000,000  80% 20%
2002500,000  80% 20%
 
FYObligated
1994749,716
1995593,400
1996701,000
Total2,044,116
FYOther funding sourceAmountIn-kind value
1998Mitchell Act - NOAA $1,500,000 
1999Mitchell Act - NOAA $1,500,000 
2000Mitchell Act - NOAA $1,500,000 
2001Mitchell Act - NOAA $1,500,000 

Other non-financial supporters
Natural Resources Conservation Service; US Forest Service; Idaho Model Watershed; US Bureau of Reclamation; US Bureau of Land Management; Lemhi County.

Longer term costs   2002 - 500,000 - 50% implementation - 50% operation and maintenance
2003 - 500,000 - 50% implementation - 50% operation and maintenance
2004 - 500,000 - 50% implementation - 50% operation and maintenance.
FY97 overhead percent   28%

How does percentage apply to direct costs
Operation and maintenance only

Contractor FTE   14 permanent; +24 temporary
Subcontractor FTE   variable 5 to 10