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
Idaho Fish Screening Improvement (see new NPPC)
BPA project number 9401500
Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Sponsor type ID-State Agency
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
|Mailing address||Idaho Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 1336
Salmon, ID 83467-1336
BPA technical contact Tom Clune, EW 503 231-6965
Biological opinion ID None
NWPPC Program number 7.10A.4, 7.10A.5
Enhance passage of juvenile and adult salmon in Idaho's Anadromous fish corridors by consolidating and screening diversions.
Project start year 1994 End year 2001
Start of operation and/or maintenance 1994
Project development phase Implementation
Section 2. Narrative
Yakima Screens: 9200900, 9105700, 9107500
Marsh/Elk/Upper Salmon: 8402400
Red Fish Lake Sockeye: 9107200
Salmon River Habitat: 9405000
Regional Fish Screening: 9202800
Model Watershed Habitat: 9401700, 9202603
Grande Ronde Model Watershed: 9402700
Resident Fish Loss Assessment: 9501400
Juvenile Screens/Smolt Walla Walla River: 9990069
This project was started as a high priority ESA effort to improve screens and passage in Idaho tributaries with threatened or endangered species impacts.
Biological results achieved
Because of the shop (finished in 1994), the fabrication and mechanical equipment, 11 new screens were installed, 5 obsolete screens removed, rebuilt 1 ditch and 1 headgate, upgraded 6 juvenile bypass pipes in 1993. In 1994, eighteen new screens, designed and evaluated 22 1/2 degree angle screen, replaced annual gravel berm diversion with fish friendly diversion, remeshed several old screens, purchased 13 modular screens, completed inventory of pump diversions in Salmon River drainage, purchased machinery needed to build, install, and maintain screens. In 1995, BPA funds assisted with the installation of 43 screen sites in ESA chinook salmon habitat. Eight diversions were eliminated by consolidation or conversion to ground water.
Each consolidation reduced the gravel barriers bulldozed from stream gravels each year. Conversions of water withdrawals from the streams to wells or gravity ditches to pumps greatly reduce barriers to anadromous fish. Each screen built to criteria saves countless salmonids, both endangered and resident species, from death. Some sites provide off-channel rearing habitat.
(if short answer required, then:)
Saved countless numbers of anadromous and resident fish from mortality in irrigation canals.
Annual reports and technical papers
Project output is reported through Annual FSOC report under project 92-028-00 and annual reports to NOAA grants.
Ditch consolidations reduce instream diversion barriers and conserve 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.
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.
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.
Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
1. 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.
2. Irrigators could dewater some critical habitats.
3. Landowners/irrigators willingness to allow access to construct, maintain, and operate screens.
4. Cooperating agencies have the ability to assist.
5. Construction can proceed during windows of opportunities between irrigation season and winter limitations.
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.
Brief schedule of activities
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.
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.
Same 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.
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.
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.
Summary of expected outcome
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.
Dependencies/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.
All projects are monitored for compliance with NMFS criteria. Some facilities do not meet NMFS passage criteria and threatened or endangered stocks may be impacted as juveniles until compliance is achieved. Inspections are conducted by NMFS engineers.
Section 3. BudgetData 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 costs||FY 1996 budget data*||Current and future funding needs|
* 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.
CBFWA funding review group Snake River
Recommendation Tier 1 - fund
Recommended funding level $1,000,000
BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget) $300,000