FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33008

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
33008 Narrative	Narrative
33008 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
33008 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Assessing effects of Columbia River Basin anadromous fish flow management on the aquatic ecology of the Henry's Fork watershed
Proposal ID	33008
Organization	Henry's Fork Foundation (HFF)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Mr. Charlie Sperry
Mailing address	PO Box 550 Ashton, ID 83420
Phone / email	2086523567 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Charlie Sperry
Review cycle	Upper Snake
Province / Subbasin	Upper Snake / Upper Snake
Short description	This multi-partner project will assess the effects of the Columbia River Basin hydroelectric operations on aquatic ecology of the Upper Snake River Subbasin, specifically the Henry's Fork watershed.
Target species	Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brown trout, steelhead, Chinook salmon, chum salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Last Chance, Idaho
43.7574	-111.9497	Henry's Fork

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
1
2
3
5
9
14
15
17
18
28
32
35
54
154

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1992	Formation of the Henry's Fork Watershed Council.
1996	Multi-partner riparian exclosure and enhancement projects completed on public and private land.
1996	Phosphorus input to Henry's Lake was attributable to natural processes.
1999	Sheridan Creek identified by Henrys Fork Watershed Council as highest priority for restoration in the upper watershed.
1989	HFF constructed 34 km of solar powered riparian fence along the Henry's Fork on US Forest Service and Harriman lands.
1988	Targhee Forest, Idaho State Univ, and HFF complete riparian enhancement efforts in a 6.4 km section of Harriman Park.
1989	Targhee Forest completes riparian enhancements along Buffalo River.
1993	Targhee Forest completes instream enhancements in the Last Chance reach of the Henry's Fork.
1994	Targhee Forest, Idaho State Univ, and HFF enhance juvenile winter trout habitat demonstration project.
1997	HFF uses experimental project to enhance overwintering juvenile trout habitat.
1996	Buffalo Hydro Inc. installs Buffalo River Fish ladder.
1998	Rotary screw trap juvenile trout capture project completed.
1999	Montana State and IDFG conduct research on late winter flow importance on Henry's Fork.
2000	HFF experiment to enhance Harriman Canal for overwinter juvenile trout habitat.
2000	HFF, Harriman Park State Park, IDFG, Native Trout Committee implement cutthroat trout restoration project.
2000	IDFG administered Teton River Enhancement Project funded by BOR.
2000	Intermountain Journal of Science publishes Issue Devoted to Aquatic Resources of the Henry's Fork Watershed.
1998	HFF completes 5-year habitst assessment of the Henry's Fork and tributaries.
2000	HFF initiates long term synoptic monitoring project.
1989	Contor found that bank cobble-boulder habitat was an important component of winter habitat for juvenile trout.
1992	Smith found that survival of juvenile trout through their first winter was size and temperature dependant.
1994	Griffith and Smith found that macrophytes provided habitat to many fish in early winter but by late winter loss of macrophytes caused them to loose their habitat value for juvenile trout.
1995	Meyer found that size dependant mortality was relative to the size of fish within any given year and that migration was likely the cause of much of the loss of fish from the Last Chance area.
1993	Yellowstone Soil Conservation District and ID Dept of Env Quality identified major pollution sources in Henry's Lake.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1) Estimate spring pop'ns of juvenile trout	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$15,200	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$1,450	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$2,624	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$2,800	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$3,251
2) Estimate fall pop'ns of juvenile trout	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$15,200	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$1,450	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$2,124	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$2,800
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$3,176
3) Estimate winter survivorship, juveniles	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$10,600	Yes
	b. Weir equipment	2003,2004,2005	$5,050	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$2,448	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$3,200	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$3,134
4) Estimate egg-to-fry survivorship	a. Fieldwork	2003	$4,100	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003	$850	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003	$1,080	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003	$800	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003	$1,024
5) Estimate annual pop'ns of adult trout	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$20,800	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$3,050	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$1,944	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$2,800	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$4,229
6) Estimate upstream spawning migration	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$3,200	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$750	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$792	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$2,000	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$891
7) Continue long-term monitoring	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$36,100	Yes
	b. Laboratory analyses	2003,2004,2005	$5,000	Yes
	c. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$1,000	Yes
	d. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$3,312	Yes
	e. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$6,200	Yes
	f. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$7,681
8) Estimate trout habitat availability/flow	a. Fieldwork	2003,2004,2005	$11,200	Yes
	b. Equipment	2003,2004,2005	$2,500	Yes
	c. Travel expenses	2003,2004,2005	$1,940	Yes
	d. Study coordination	2003,2004,2005	$10,000	Yes
	e. HFF Administration	2003,2004,2005	$3,846

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1) Estimate spring pop'ns of juvenile trout	2004	2005	$50,650
2) Estimate fall pop'ns of juvenile trout	2004	2005	$49,500
3) Estimate winter survivorship, juveniles	2004	2005	$48,864
5) Estimate annual pop'ns of adult trout	2004	2005	$65,646
6) Estimate upstream spawning migration	2004	2005	$14,466
7) Continue long-term monitoring	2004	2005	$118,586
8) Estimate trout habitat availability/flow	2004	2005	$58,972

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$203,342	$203,342

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 9,216	$9,216
Fringe	3,584	$3,584
Supplies		$16,100
Travel		$16,264
Indirect		$27,232
NEPA		$0
PIT tags	# of tags: accounted for under supplies	$0
Subcontractor		$139,200
		$211,596

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$211,596
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$211,596
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Idaho Department of Fish and Game	personnel, equipment	$25,000	in-kind
US Forest Service	housing, personnel, expertise	$4,000	in-kind
The Nature Conservancy	access, personnel, expertise	$2,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Response needed. The proposal and presentation dwelled on a description of how "low" flow in both winter and summer may be impacting fish resources but did not adequately convey basic hydrologic information. How does the current hydrograph differ from the historic? Virtually no detail is provided on the anadromous fish flow "loss" of water (its relative magnitude, timing, etc.) and that information, the apparent keystone of the project, is needed. What kind of management recommendations might result from this project and how might they then be implemented?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

CBFWA believes that the proposal does not address how it mitigates for losses created by the Federal Hydrosystem. The hydrologic problems in the Henry's Fork watershed are a result of over allocating water for irrigation needs and not the operations of the Federal Hydroelectric Dams. Additional monitoring will likely confirm that over-winter survival is the limiting factor, but this is already well established. Past attempts to reduce this limiting factor have had minimal success, so how will information collected result in new and innovative management alternatives? Responses to ISRP concerns link this data to reservoir operations but a long history both in the Missouri River and Columbia River basins where reservoir operators are not inclined to modify water flows for fish and wildlife unless mandated, makes this an unlikely outcome.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. The response justifies the proposal as having legitimate ties to anadromous fish flow augmentation, a connection that was not made in the presentation.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: