DOCSLIB.ORG

Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Project Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Project Information Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 2. Proposal applicants: David Weisenberger, Banta Carbona Irrigation District 3. Corresponding Contact Person: David Weisenberger Banta Carbona Irrigation District 3514 West Lehman Road P.O. Box 299 Tracy, CA 95378-0299 209 835-4670 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: At-risk species, fish Fish Passage/Fish Screens Monitoring 5. Type of project: Fish Screen 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: Fish Screens 8. Type of applicant: Local Agency 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 37.725 Longitude: -121.298 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. The Banta-Carbona Irrigation District diversion canal is located on the San Joaquin River approximately five miles north of Vernalis, CA, at River Mile 63.5 10. Location - Ecozone: 1.3 South Delta 11. Location - County: San Joaquin 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? No 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: 11 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 12 California Assembly District Number: 26 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17. Requested Funds: a) Are your overhead rates different depending on whether funds are state or federal? No If no, list single overhead rate and total requested funds: Single Overhead Rate: n/a Total Requested Funds: 510000 b) Do you have cost share partners already identified? Yes If yes, list partners and amount contributed by each: Banta Carbona Irrigation District 93,231 c) Do you have potential cost share partners? No d) Are you specifically seeking non-federal cost share funds through this solicitation? No If the total non-federal cost share funds requested above does not match the total state funds requested in 17a, please explain the difference: 18. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by CALFED? Yes If yes, identify project number(s), title(s) and CALFED program (e.g., ERP, Watershed, WUE, Drinking Water): Banta Carbona Fish California Urban Water Agencies’ Category III 1997-A101 Screen Account Have you previously received funding from CALFED for other projects not listed above? No 19. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by CVPIA? Yes If yes, identify project number(s), title(s) and CVPIA program (e.g. AFRP, AFSP, b(1) other). Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen 5-FG-20-12940 AFSP Project--Feasibility Study Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Project - 6-FG-20-13960 AFSP Design and Construction Have you previously received funding from CVPIA for other projects not listed above? No 20. Is this proposal for next-phase funding of an ongoing project funded by an entity other than CALFED or CVPIA? Yes If yes, identify project number(s), title(s) and funding source. Banta Carbona Irrigation California Department of Fish and 6-FG-20-13960 District Fish Screen Game, Prop 204 BCID Fish Screen - Supplemental Study California Department of FG-6053-IF for Smelt Criteria and Design & Fish and Game, Prop 70 Construction Please list suggested reviewers for your proposal. (optional) 21. Comments: #17a. All work will be performed by subcontractors; therefore BCID does not have a overhead rate. #17b. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain Pump and Fish Screen Facility Environmental Compliance Checklist Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 1. CEQA or NEPA Compliance a) Will this project require compliance with CEQA? Yes b) Will this project require compliance with NEPA? Yes c) If neither CEQA or NEPA compliance is required, please explain why compliance is not required for the actions in this proposal. 2. If the project will require CEQA and/or NEPA compliance, identify the lead agency(ies). If not applicable, put "None". CEQA Lead Agency: Banta-Carbona Irrigation District NEPA Lead Agency (or co-lead:) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation NEPA Co-Lead Agency (if applicable): 3. Please check which type of CEQA/NEPA documentation is anticipated. CEQA -Categorical Exemption XNegative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration -EIR -none NEPA -Categorical Exclusion XEnvironmental Assessment/FONSI -EIS -none If you anticipate relying on either the Categorical Exemption or Categorical Exclusion for this project, please specifically identify the exemption and/or exclusion that you believe covers this project. 4. CEQA/NEPA Process a) Is the CEQA/NEPA process complete? Yes b) If the CEQA/NEPA document has been completed, please list document name(s): Banta Carbona Irrigation District Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Finding of No Significant Impact (March 2001) 5. Environmental Permitting and Approvals (If a permit is not required, leave both Required? and Obtained? check boxes blank.) LOCAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS Conditional use permit Variance Subdivision Map Act Grading Permit General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Approval Rezone Williamson Act Contract Cancellation Other Obtained STATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS Scientific Collecting Permit CESA Compliance: 2081 CESA Compliance: NCCP 1601/03 Obtained CWA 401 certification Obtained Coastal Development Permit Reclamation Board Approval Obtained Notification of DPC or BCDC Other FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS ESA Compliance Section 7 Consultation ESA Compliance Section 10 Permit Obtained Rivers and Harbors Act CWA 404 Obtained Other PERMISSION TO ACCESS PROPERTY Permission to access city, county or other local agency land. Agency Name: Permission to access state land. Agency Name: Permission to access federal land. Agency Name: Permission to access private land. Landowner Name: 6. Comments. #4. The draft EA/IS is a joint document for CEQA and NEPA because the project is a discretionary action of a local agency with federal participation through funding and permitting processes Land Use Checklist Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 1. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 2. Will the applicant require access across public or private property that the applicant does not own to accomplish the activities in the proposal? No 3. Do the actions in the proposal involve physical changes in the land use? No If you answered no to #3, explain what type of actions are involved in the proposal (i.e., research only, planning only). The fish screen facility is certainly under construction. The post-construction evalution and biological monitoring proposed will not require physical changes in the land use. 4. Comments. Conflict of Interest Checklist Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Please list below the full names and organizations of all individuals in the following categories: Applicants listed in the proposal who wrote the proposal, will be performing the tasks listed in the proposal or who will benefit financially if the proposal is funded. Subcontractors listed in the proposal who will perform some tasks listed in the proposal and will benefit financially if the proposal is funded. Individuals not listed in the proposal who helped with proposal development, for example by reviewing drafts, or by providing critical suggestions or ideas contained within the proposal. The information provided on this form will be used to select appropriate and unbiased reviewers for your proposal. Applicant(s): David Weisenberger, Banta Carbona Irrigation District Subcontractor(s): Are specific subcontractors identified in this proposal? Yes If yes, please list the name(s) and organization(s): As needed Montgomery Watson Harza Helped with proposal development: Are there persons who helped with proposal development? Yes If yes, please list the name(s) and organization(s): Amy Wade Montgomery Watson Harza Neil Schild Montgomery Watson Harza Michelle Treinen Montgomery Watson Harza Chris Leininger Ducks Unlimited Comments: The subcontractors listed above are firms that will have several employees working on the project. Budget Summary Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Please provide a detailed budget for each year of requested funds, indicating on the form whether the indirect costs are based on the Federal overhead rate, State overhead rate, or are independent of fund source. Independent of Fund Source Year 1 Direct Salary Benefits Other Total Task Task Supplies & Services or Indirect Total Labor (per (per Travel Equipment Direct Direct No. Description Expendables Consultants Costs Cost Hours year) year) Costs Costs Project 1 30,000 30000.0 30000.00 Management Construction 2 50,000 50000.0 50000.00 Management Operation and 3 Maintenance 30,000 30000.0 30000.00 Manual Preparation Hydraulic 4 90,000 90000.0 90000.00 Evaluation Biological 5 270,000 270000.0 270000.00 Monitoring 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 470000.00 0.00 0.00 470000.00 0.00 470000.00 Year 2 Direct Salary Benefits Other Total Task Task Supplies & Services or Indirect Total Labor (per (per Travel Equipment Direct Direct No. Description Expendables Consultants Costs Cost Hours year) year) Costs Costs Project 1 5,000 5000.0 5000.00 Management Biological 4 40,000 40000.0 40000.00 Monitoring 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45000.00 0.00 0.00 45000.00 0.00 45000.00 Year 3 Direct Salary Benefits Other Total Task Task Supplies & Services or Indirect Total Labor (per (per Travel Equipment Direct Direct No. Description Expendables Consultants Costs Cost Hours year) year) Costs Costs Project 1 5,000 5000.0 5000.00 Management Biological 4 30,000 30000.0 30000.00 Monitoring 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35000.00 0.00 0.00 35000.00 0.00 35000.00 Grand Total=550000.00 Comments. Budget Justification Banta Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Direct Labor Hours.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Evaluation of Submerged Weir to Reduce Fish Impingement at Indian Point." May 25-Jul 29,1977
    wilveveaI, PDR ADOCK 05' p 0 -v EVALUATION OF A SUBMERGED WEIR TO REDUCE FISH IMPINGEMENT AT INDIAN POINT. FOR THE PERIOD 25 MAY - 29 JULY 1977 March 1978 Prepared for CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 .Prepared by TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED Science Services Division P.O. Box 5621 Dallas, Texas 75222 Copyright March 1978 by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. science Services division TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I INTRODUCTION I-i Ii METHODS AND MATERIALS 'I-i A. INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 'I-i B. STUDY DESIGN 11-1 III RESULTS 111-1 IV DISCUSSION IV-l V LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX Appendix Title A IMPINGEMENT DATA COLLECTED AT INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 DURING THE COURSE OF WEIR STUDY, 25 MAY-29 JULY 1977 TABLES Table Title Page 111-1 Taxon List of Fish Collected during Submerged 111-2 Weir Study 111-2 Results of Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U-Tests Comparing 111-3 Number of Fish Collected Daily from Traveling Screens at Indian Point Unit 1 during Periods of Weir and Fixed Screen Operation ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 11-1 Indian Point Plant Layout 11-2 11-2 Cross Section of Unit 1 Forebay with Submerged Weir and 11-4 Back-up Fine N~esh Screen 11-3 Details of Submerged Weir Construction 11-4 science services division SECTION I INTRODUCTION Impingement of fish at power plant intakes is often an unavoidable consequence of withdrawals of large volumes of water from cooling water sources. Frequently, the magnitude of the impingement problem can be re duced by careful design of intake structures and judicious selection of intake location (USEPA, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Intake End-Of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline
    Department of Fisheries and Oceans DRAFT Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans DRAFT Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Published by: Communications Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE6 DFO / 5080 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1995 ISBN 0-662-23168-6 Catalogue No. Fs 23-270 / 1995E Printed on recycled paper Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline Table of 1.0 Introduction 1 Contents 2.0 Guideline Objective 1 3.0 Information Requirements for Evaluation of Intake Screens 3 4.0 Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Freshwater intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 3 4.1 Fish Screen Criteria 4 4.2 Design of Fixed End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 6 4.3 Installation 8 4.4 Cleaning and Maintenance 15 References 17 Glossary 19 Appendix A: Information Requirements 21 Appendix B: Sample Calculation 23 Appendix C: Units of Conversion 25 Appendix D: DFO Regional Contacts 27 March 1995 Page i Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline List of Figure 1 - Open Screen Areas for End-of-Pipe Water Figures Intake Flows 9 Figure 2 - Common Screen Shapes and Area Formulae 10 Figure 3 - Typical Applications and Features of End-of-Pipe Screens 11 Figure 4 - Examples of Typical Screen and Material Types 12 Figure 5 - Examples of Typical Installations of End-of-Pipe Screens 13 Table 1 - Summary of Common Fish Species and List of Swimming Modes 5 Tables Table 2 - Open Screen Area Required for End-of-Pipe Water Intakes 7 Table 3 - Examples of Screen Material 7 March 1995 Page iii Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe FishDRAFT Screen Guideline The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has prepared the Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline to 1.0 assist proponents in the design and installation of fish screens |for the protection of anadromous and resident fish where freshwater is extracted from fish-bearing waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Fish Screens for Fish Protection at Water Diversions
    DESIGNING FISH SCREENS FOR FISH PROTECTION AT WATER DIVERSIONS Written By: Bryan Nordlund National Marine Fisheries Service 510 Desmond Drive S.E., Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 April 16, 2008 The following paper should be considered a working document, and its contents will be updated as errors are found and as technology progresses. The contents express the opinions of the author, and not necessarily the National Marine Fisheries Service. Consultation with local fisheries authorities is absolutely required to augment and confirm any information used from this paper. 1.0 -- INTRODUCTION Protecting the fisheries resources from hydroelectric, irrigation, municipal water supply and industrial water supply developments created the need for design criteria for the construction of juvenile fish screens to protect the fisheries resource from project impacts. This paper discusses a variety of topics involved in the juvenile fish screen design process, in a manner intended for the novice biologist, manager, planner or design engineer. Screen designs have been improved over the years mostly by the observation and evaluation of existing screens that were constructed based on a little bit of science, a generous dose of intuition and rudimentary understanding of fish behavior. Research in the field of fish passage was historically difficult to finance, and difficult to reach concise conclusions that could lead directly to the establishment of fish passage design criteria. More recently, biological and hydraulic testing of juvenile fish screens, and research specific to the design of juvenile fish screens has lead to further refinement of design criteria. Certain aspects of juvenile fish screen design criteria are now well understood for some species (such as maximum approach velocity and minimum mesh opening for juvenile salmonids), but data for many species is lacking.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Herrera Report Template
    1 2 3 4 WHITE PAPER 5 6 7 Fish Screens 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Prepared for 16 17 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 March 2008 Draft (Working Draft – Do Not Cite) 1 2 3 WHITE PAPER 4 5 6 Fish Screens 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prepared for 13 14 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 15 600 Capitol Way North 16 Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 17 18 19 20 21 Prepared by 22 23 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 25 Seattle, Washington 98121 26 Telephone: 206/441-9080 27 28 29 In collaboration with 30 31 Kozmo Ken Bates 32 33 34 35 March 2008 Draft (Working Draft – Do Not Cite) Contents Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 3.0 Methods............................................................................................................................ 3-1 4.0 Hydraulic Project Description.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Characteristics, Applications, and Descriptions of Fish Screen Subactivity Types...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Barriers to Fish Passage
    APPENDIX A(1) Definition of Barriers Barriers to fish migration exist in many ways shapes, and forms. The range of salmon and steelhead has always been limited to some extent by natural features, such as sandbars, landslides, waterfalls, and boulder cascades. Man has further truncated their range with an astounding variety of instream features and effects, such as dams, culverts, water diversions, tidegates, and many others. The habitat fragmentation resulting from this expansion of impediments to fish passage has played a major role in the decline of salmon and steelhead populations worldwide. The following explanations provide a more thorough examination of some of the barriers identified and assessed in this report. However, barriers should not be examined in a vacuum. Appendix B(1) provides an overview of the broader range of habitat conditions necessary for the survival and perpetuation of anadromous fish stocks. Fish passage improvement proponents are urged to examine proposed barrier modification or removal projects in the context of all necessary habitat conditions. NATURAL FEATURES Upper Limits to Anadromy Sustained slope can be a useful tool to estimate upper limits to anadromy. The California Department of Fish and Game has conducted a literature review of this subject and selected a sustained slope of >8% as measured off of a topographic map to define the upper limit of anadromy for the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, Section IX. That guideline is offered with the caveat that field level knowledge is best to use, since slopes from topographical maps often fail to capture important geographic features, such as bedrock falls or chutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Survival on Fine Mesh Traveling Screens
    AR-210 Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S369-S376 www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Fish survival on fne mesh traveling screens a, b James B. McLaren *, L. Ray Tuttle Jr aBeak Consultants Incorporated, 140 Rotech Drive, Lancaster, NY 14086, USA bPublic Service Electric and Gas Company, 28 W. State Street, Suite 1414, MC-104, Trenton, NJ 08608, USA Abstract The survival of fsh impinged on 1-mm mesh Ristroph-type traveling screens was evaluated at Somerset Station, a 625-MW coal-fred electric generating station located on the south shore of Lake Ontario. Somerset Station was designed and built with an ofshore intake, discharge and fsh return system. Survival testing was conducted over a 4-year period that included all four seasons. Test fsh were diverted from the fsh return and held for 96 h for observation. Following observation, a specially constructed screening table was used to diferentiate test fsh that typically would have been impinged on a standard 9.5-mm mesh screen from smaller individuals that typically would be entrained. Twenty-eight species were tested, and collections were dominated by fve species: alewife, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, rainbow smelt, and spottail shiner. Survival rates commonly approached or exceeded 80%, and were infuenced by species, fsh size or life stage, season and fsh condition. Results are interpreted in terms of survival rates demonstrated elsewhere for entrained fsh and fsh impinged on alternative traveling screen technologies. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fine mesh traveling screen; Impingement survival; Ristroph screens; Mitigation; Fish return system; Lake Ontario 1. Introduction Several features were designed into the once-through cooling system for the protection of fsh and other New York State Electric and Gas Corporation aquatic animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209 Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Gloucester, Massachusetts February 2008 Recent Issues in This Series: 191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005- 101437. [Online publication only.] 192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online publication only.] 193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.] 194. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2005. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2006. v + 392 p., 45 figs, 79 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB 2007-104395. 195. A Large Marine Ecosystem Voluntary Environmental Management System Approach to Fisheries Practices. By Frank J. Gable. December 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish & Wildlife, Oregon Dept Of
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Division Inland Fisheries Program 2015-2017 Organization Chart GOVERNOR COMMISSION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISH & WILDLIFE ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS PROGRAMS FISH WILDLIFE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION INLAND INFORMATION & PROPAGATIONFISHERIES EDUCATION DIVISION PROGRAM INLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION WATER AND ENERGY COORDINATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION HATCHERY MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING AND FACILITIES Positions = 898 FTE = 694.06 2015-17 Biennium Governor's Budget Page 469 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Primary Outcome Area: Healthy Environment (Economy & Jobs for Hatchery Management section) Secondary Outcome Area: Economy and Jobs (Healthy Environment for Hatchery Management section) Program Contact: Ed Bowles, (503) 947-6206 Executive Summary The Inland Fisheries Program (IFP) ensures the conservation and sustainable use of Oregon’s inland fish populations. The program provides policy and management direction for Oregon’s freshwater fishery resources, ensuring native species are conserved. It also fosters and sustains opportunities for sport, commercial, and tribal fishers to catch hatchery and naturally-produced fish, consistent with the conservation of native fish. The program manages these resources to fulfill ODFW’s mission and statutory responsibility to “protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.” The Hatchery Management Program within the IFP generates jobs and is a vital part of the State’s economy, particularly in rural areas. The Program produces 44 million salmon, steelhead and trout annually that are released into Oregon’s rivers and lakes. ODFW hatcheries provide more than 70 percent of the fish harvested in the state’s sport and commercial salmon, steelhead, and trout fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch® Standard for Salmonidsalmon Fisheries Table of Contents Seafood Watch Ratings
    1 Seafood Watch® Standard for SalmonidSalmon Fisheries Table of Contents Seafood Watch Ratings ............................................................................................................................ 2 Seafood Watch Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................ 2 Seafood Watch Criteria for Salmon Fisheries ............................................................................................. 5 Criterion 1 – Impacts of the Fishery on the Stock for which you want a Recommendation .......................... 8 Factor 1.1 Abundance ........................................................................................................................... 8 Factor 1.2 Fishing Mortality ................................................................................................................ 18 Criterion 2 – Impacts on Other Capture Species ....................................................................................... 20 Factor 2.1 Abundance ......................................................................................................................... 22 Factor 2.2 Fishing Mortality ................................................................................................................ 26 Factor 2.3 Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use ........................................................................... 30 Criterion 3 – Effectiveness of Fishery Management ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Intake End-Of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline
    Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Published by: Communications Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE6 DFO / 5080 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1995 ISBN 0-662-23168-6 Catalogue No. Fs 23-270 / 1995E Printed on recycled paper Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline Table of 1.0 Introduction 1 Contents 2.0 Guideline Objective 1 3.0 Information Requirements for Evaluation of Intake Screens 3 4.0 Design, Installation, and Maintenance of Freshwater intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 3 4.1 Fish Screen Criteria 4 4.2 Design of Fixed End-of-Pipe Fish Screens 6 4.3 Installation 8 4.4 Cleaning and Maintenance 15 References 17 Glossary 19 Appendix A: Information Requirements 21 Appendix B: Sample Calculation 23 Appendix C: Units of Conversion 25 Appendix D: DFO Regional Contacts 27 March 1995 Page i Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline List of Figure 1 - Open Screen Areas for End-of-Pipe Water Figures Intake Flows 9 Figure 2 - Common Screen Shapes and Area Formulae 10 Figure 3 - Typical Applications and Features of End-of-Pipe Screens 11 Figure 4 - Examples of Typical Screen and Material Types 12 Figure 5 - Examples of Typical Installations of End-of-Pipe Screens 13 Table 1 - Summary of Common Fish Species and List of Swimming Modes 5 Tables Table 2 - Open Screen Area Required for End-of-Pipe Water Intakes 7 Table 3 - Examples of Screen Material 7 March 1995 Page iii Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has prepared the Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline to 1.0 assist proponents in the design and installation of fish screens |for the protection of anadromous and resident fish where freshwater is extracted from fish-bearing waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Field-Based Evaluations of Horizontal Flat-Plate Fish Screens B
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship School of Marine Sciences 12-1-2008 Field-Based Evaluations of Horizontal Flat-Plate Fish Screens B. P. Rose M. G. Mesa Gayle Barbin-Zydlewski University of Maine - Main, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/sms_facpub Repository Citation Rose, B. P.; Mesa, M. G.; and Barbin-Zydlewski, Gayle, "Field-Based Evaluations of Horizontal Flat-Plate Fish Screens" (2008). Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship. 49. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/sms_facpub/49 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1702–1713, 2008 [Article] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2008 DOI: 10.1577/M07-073.1 Field-Based Evaluations of Horizontal Flat-Plate Fish Screens BRIEN P. ROSE AND MATTHEW G. MESA* U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory, 5501 Cook-Underwood Road, Cook, Washington 98605, USA GAYLE BARBIN-ZYDLEWSKI School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, 5741 Libby Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5741, USA Abstract.—Diversions from streams are often screened to prevent the loss of or injury to fish. Hydraulic criteria meant to protect fish that encounter screens have been developed, but primarily for screens that are vertical to the water flow rather than horizontal. For this reason, we measured selected hydraulic variables and released wild rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss over two types of horizontal flat-plate fish screens in the field.
    [Show full text]