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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)/Federal Tributary Project Coordination

BPA project number   5507500

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 97201-4752

BPA technical contact   , EWP

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   7.10B, 7.10C, 7.10D, 7.10E, 7.10F, 7.10G, 7.10H, 7.10I, 7.10J, 7.10K, 7.9B, 7.9D

Short description
Provide coordination between FERC/Federal project operators and Columbia River agencies/tribes on various tributary projects.

Project start year   1997    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
8906200 - Draft Implementation Work Plan for NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program via Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) Agency and Tribes. .

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
Provide needed coordination and focus for the resources agencies, tribes and interests to resolve measures in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program related to tributary FERC and Federal water projects in a manner that gives "equal consideration" to fish and wildlife resources in the Columbia Basin. Some of these measures to mitigate for fish and wildlife impacts associated with tributary hydroelectric and flood control projects have been in the Program since 1982. Many of the Basin's FERC hydroelectric projects are currently or soon to undergo relicensing, including Hells Canyon and mid-Snake River projects (11 dams), Condit Dam, Leaburg-Walterville, Lewis River, Willamette Falls, Bull Run, Marmot, Oak Grove, North Fork/Faraday, Powerdale, and Pelton-Roundbutte. Protection and mitigation issues at Federal projects in the Program are mainly at the Willamette River reservoirs. All of these FERC and Federal projects have important fisheries resources and involve issues such as fish passage, water quality, and instream flow.

Testable hypothesis

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
These projects will each take several years to work through the consultation/licensing process. It is assumed that agencies and tribes will agree to work together on significant FERC relicensing/Federal project issues to maximize benefits for natural resources. It is also assumed that the technical staff will not be constrained from making technical recommendations because of state/tribal politics.

The agencies and tribes will determine whether the coordination/facilitation will be provided by a CBFWA coordinator or through a subcontractor to CBFWA. The "coordinator" will facilitate meetings and suggest strategies to help the resource parties work through the FERC consultation process.

Brief schedule of activities
The Staff Coordinator will first become involved in projects that are currently active and become involved with other projects and parties as additional proceedings get under way.

Biological need
FERC/Federal Projects in the Columbia River Basin usually involve multi-state, multi-agency/tribal interests and the potential for important resource benefits or impacts. FERC licenses last up to 50 years before a new review is conducted. Currently, state agencies and tribal fisheries departments are stretched too thin to adequately cover long lasting FERC consultations, studies, and the licensing process, which begins at least 5 years before a licenses expires and often takes 6-8 years to conclude. Consultation for these projects has been very inconsistent throughout the Basin. For example, NMFS was very engaged in the FERC process in the 1980's, but has now shifted most available staff to Endangered Species Act consultation.

Agencies/tribes often have conflicting management goals. Coordination of the resource parties is needed because a lack of consensus can result in weak fractured positions. During a licensing proceeding or Federal project investigation the parties often change priorities or positions on issues as personnel change. Additionally, most agencies and tribes lack adequate legal and engineering support staff to fully develop positions and be effective in the FERC process. Coordination would facilitate the sharing of this type of support and help to reach consensus amongst agencies and tribes, up-river and down-river parties, etc., on study proposals, comments on draft license applications and National Environmental Policy Act documents, and license terms and conditions.

Critical uncertainties

Summary of expected outcome
Pursuant to the Northwest Power Act hydro licenses must reflect adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. (Re)licensing studies will be recommended that adequately address resource issues and meet the needs of FERC to require implementation of license agency/tribal recommended terms and conditions and NMFS/USFWS fish passage prescriptions. Several FERC projects have operating on one-year temporary licenses for years. Several Federal tributary projects in the Program have not been concluded because of funding issues or questions of responsibility. The coordinator will assist in bringing the parties together to prompt FERC and Federal managers to resolve resource issues in a timely manner.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
The coordinator will cooperate with the resource agency/tribal technical and policy level staff that work on FERC projects, as well as water quality and land management agencies and non-government constituency groups that are involved. These projects require legal, engineering, and biological expertise in very specialized areas. Cooperation amongst the resource parties can facilitate the sharing of this expertise.


Monitoring activity
Monitoring and evaluation is typically the project operators' responsibility.

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
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 100,000
1998: 103,000
1999: 106,090
2000: 109,272
2001: 112,550

* 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 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $100,000