FY 1999 proposal 199106700

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
199106700 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish and Wildlife Impacts Phase III
Proposal ID	199106700
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Eric Leitzinger
Mailing address	600 S. Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707
Phone / email	2083344888 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Upper Snake / Upper Snake, Boise, Payette
Short description	Quantify changes in resident fish and wildlife habitat in the upper Snake basin resulting from the release of water (427,000 acre-feet) from upper Snake River reservoirs (upstream of Hell’s Canyon Dam complex) for anadromous fish flow augmentation.
Target species	bull trout, redband/rainbow trout, white sturgeon, mountain whitefish, Yellowstone cutthroat

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 1999 cost
Personnel		$58,000
Fringe		$18,000
Supplies		$5,300
Operating		$4,000
Capital		$4,000
Travel		$9,000
Indirect		$20,700
Subcontractor		$0
		$119,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$119,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$119,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Model development is dependent on cooperation from BOR and progress of BOR’s Snake River Resources Review project. The lack of habitat versus flow data for the upper Snake River Basin. Another constraint may be reluctance on part of the BOR and/or Idaho Power to implement recommended release strategies. A major milestone was the updated recommendations on the release of the salmon flow augmentation water to benefit resident fish (Leitzinger, in press).

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Fundable if funds available

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The purpose of this project (Phase III) is to monitor and evaluate the impacts of Upper Snake flow augmentation (above Brownlee reservoir) on resident fish. Phase I of the project started in 1991 with an agreement with BPA to assimilate the pertinent information. Phase II (also completed) was a mini IFIM study. This project is closely tied to the Snake River Salmonid Assessment Project (980200) and will build on their work. IDFG has been working with the water managers to increase the benefits to resident fish from flow augmentation.

Questions/Answers:

Are you doing IFIM on large systems? Answer: It is difficult to do. Some areas have been done, (e.g. the USFWS did some work below C.J. Strike Reservoir and IPC has also done some IFIM work for sturgeon). We will use other existing information as is becomes non-proprietary.

Is there any effort to cost-share with NMFS since this project address NMFS-caused impacts? Answer: No, but we can pursue it. We are also pursuing BOR money.

Is there any indication that your results and recommendations will actually be implemented? Answer: IDFG is optimistic because we already have support to modify flows from the Payette and Boise rivers. Also, the parties are "at the table.” There are 3 Federal dams on the Boise River. The river goes up and down in response to irrigation and flood control needs. Flows are nothing like the natural hydrograph.

When you have finished collecting the data, will there be monitoring and evaluation? Answer: Yes, in conjunction with power production and the BOR. This project really monitors and evaluates flow augmentation. The big issue is the NMFS 1999 decision. We anticipate more water demands from the Upper Snake.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: No. This should be under ESA costs.

Programmatic Criteria: Yes

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Tasks deleted

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is well related to other projects and describes programmatic need for the proposed work. The experimental design needs to be developed in more detail, but the project is still in evaluation phase. The proposal describes past results, but should do so with more interpretive detail.