FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32013
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 32013 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32013 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 32013 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Fishery Restoration of the Gold Fork River, Idaho |
| Proposal ID | 32013 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dale B. Allen |
| Mailing address | 555 Dienhard Lane McCall, ID 83638 |
| Phone / email | 2086348137 / dallen@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Don Wright |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Payette |
| Short description | Fish populations in the Gold Fork River can be recovered by reconnecting the habitat and expanding the range of bull trout and redband trout populations. By creating fish passage in the drainage we will reconnect 44 miles of resident fish habitat. |
| Target species | Bull trout, redband rainbow trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.705 | -116.0401 | The whole of the Gold Fork River drainage east of Cascade Reservoir - a tributary to the North Fork Payette River. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| n/a |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| new |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 980002 | Snake River Salmonid Assessment | Sharing of primary data, possible use of field crew and equipment, restoration of native species. |
| 199401500 | Idaho Fish Screen Improvement | Construction engineering help, possible construction of screens |
| 28007 | Causes and Effects of Nonnative Trout Invasions in the Salmon River Basin | Sharing of data, experimental design assistance |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recover the native bull trout populations in the North and South Fork Gold Fork River to population densities comparible to other viable Payette River basin population densities. | a. Complete necessary NEPA documents to satisfy planning requirements. | 1 | $44,000 | Yes |
| b. Identify all stream reaches that would support bull trout and redband trout if brook trout could be removed. | 1 | $8,000 | ||
| 1. | c. Complete consultation with USFWS on experimental renovation and transloction efforts for bull trout population creation. | 1 | $2,000 | |
| 1. | d. Locate specific stream reaches with potential for brook trout barriers and design barriers. | 1 | $10,000 | |
| 1. | e. Summarize all known fish and stream habitat data sets and all data collected during 2002. | 1 | $15,000 | |
| 1. | f. Collect non-lethal fin clips from the remaining Gold Fork River bull trout population. | 1 | $1,500 | |
| 1. | g. Collect non-lethal fin clips from 10-12 populations of bull trout in the Payette River Basin | 1 | $4,500 | |
| 1. | h. Comprehensively identify the genetic characteristics of the existing population of bull trout within the Gold Fork River; including identifying present levels of genetic variability and identifying possible hybridization with brook trout | 1 | $3,000 | |
| 1. | i. Comprehensively identify the genetic characteristics of sampled populations of bull trout within the Payette River Basin; including identifying possible hybridization with brook trout and identifying genetic variation both within and between pops. | 1 | $30,000 | Yes |
| 2. Remove all man-made fish passage barriers within the Gold Fork River drainage. | a. Evaluate all existing water structures and operations. | 2 | $15,000 | Yes |
| 2. | b. Identify water use, water availability and delivery constraints of the Gold Fork and Center Irrigation District system. Investigate delivery alternatives for providing legal water delivery. | 2 | $40,000 | Yes |
| 2. | c. Identify best alternatives for fish passage, fish screening; design and cost out. | 2 | $50,000 | Yes |
| 2. | d. Estimate amount of deliverable sediment behind Gold Fork Diversion Dam. | 1 | $12,000 | Yes |
| 2. | e. Present to stakeholders the developed alternatives. | 1 | $4,000 | Yes |
| 2. | f. Prioritize alternatives for fish passage contruction projects. | 1 | $3,000 | |
| 3. Support Cascade Reservoir Management Plan (TMDL) and the restoration of identified beneficial uses. | a. Complete the modeling of Gold Fork irrigation alternatives to meet TMDL goals for restoration of cold water biota. | 1 | $3,800 | |
| 3. | b. Develop increased water quality monitoring in cooperation with TMDL goals. | 1 | $4,400 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify all potential funding sources and Administrative mechanisms. | 4 | 5 | $7,500 |
| 1. Preparation of additional funding grant applications for Gold Fork Diversion changes. | 4 | 5 | $7,500 |
| 1. Complete planning and design analysis for fish passage at Gold Fork Diversion. | 4 | 4 | $100,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $115,000 | $15,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | a. Construct temporary fish migration barriers. | 2 | $16,000 | |
| 1. | b. Eradicate brook trout populations in study stream reaches. | 3 | $21,500 | |
| 1. | c. Define success of eradication treatments by fish surveys | 3 | $5,000 | |
| 1. | d. Relocate bull trout and native fish assemblages into renovated stream sections. | 3 | $18,000 | |
| 1. | e. Implant radio transmitters to monitor movement of transplanted fish. | 3 | $15,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Continue with second group of treatments in study streams and fish population monitoring. | 4 | 6 | $50,000 |
| 2. Construct minor water diversion and fish passage structures | 4 | 6 | $150,000 |
| 2. Construction of selected alternative for Gold Fork Diversion Dam fish passage | 5 | 6 | $900,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $200,000 | $1,100,000 | $200,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. O&M of fish screening structures. | 4 | 7 | $20,000 |
| 2. Electrical cost of possible change to pump irrigation system. | 5 | 7 | $50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| $70,000 | $70,000 | $70,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | a. Complete annual fishery surveys on all treatment and control streams. | 3 | $10,000 | |
| 4. Develop North Fork Payette River Fish Conservation Plan. | a. Apply knowledge gained in this process to develop longterm Fishery Conservation Plan for North Fork Payette River basin. | 3 | $8,800 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Communicate findings, coordinate with cooperating agencies, annual progress report, publish in peer reviewed journal. | 4 | 7 | $10,000 |
| 1. Continued development of Fishery Conservation Plan. | 5 | 7 | $15,000 |
| 1. Continued monitoring on experimental treatment streams. | 4 | 7 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1; Sr. Research Biologist, temp time | $60,000 |
| Fringe | $23,000 | |
| Supplies | Shocker, laptop computer, supplies, fish barriers construction. | $50,000 |
| Travel | vehicle rentals, travel, per diem | $11,500 |
| Indirect | @ 20.9% | $30,000 |
| NEPA | Possible EA document editor, cultural resources survey | $35,000 |
| Subcontractor | Agricultural/Civil engineer, vehicle, travel; DNA analysis. | $135,000 |
| $344,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $344,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $344,500 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Dept. Fish and Game | Supervision, office space, office support | $25,000 | in-kind |
| Natural Resource Conservation Service | Engineering technical support | $4,000 | in-kind |
| Valley County Soil and Water Conservation District | Supervision, office space, offfice support | $25,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Department of Water Resources | Water rights investigation, stream flow investigations | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Boise Cascade Corporation | Fishery survey, field personnel | $1,000 | in-kind |
| Boise National Forest | Fish/habitat surveys, cooperator in NF Payette Fishery Conservation Plan | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Payette National Forest | Fish/habitat surveys, cooperator in NF Payette Fishery Conservation Plan | $4,000 | in-kind |
| Southwest Native Fish Watershed Advisory Group | volunteer personnel | $1,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality | Water Quality analyst, modeling of alternative diversion structures on water quality. | $5,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Section 5, Construction Implementation; Outyear Objective FY05-06; Construction of a chosen alternative for fish passage at the Gold Fork Diversion. This is difficult to estimate at this point because of the fish passage structure alternatives that might be adopted. The alternative at the Gold Fork Diversion Dam could be a fish ladder and fish screen of water intake to a much more extensive change if the diversion dam is removed and a new pumping plant and pipeline is built, it will become a more expensive project.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Response needed. The proposal would work to bolster bull trout in one of the five key watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout recovery. What is the expected ability of Cascade Reservoir to support bull trout given the TMDL and temperature constraints? This topic was covered briefly in the presentation but please elaborate. Also, the M&E for habitat response and long-term population response needs to be more thoroughly described in the response. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, and the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation.Comment:
CBFWA suggests that this anadromous substitution project will benefit bull trout if brook trout can be successfully removed; however, the proposed methodology to eradicate brook trout is vague. CBFWA suggests that Antimycin combined with selective electrofishing has the best track record for removing nuisance species from running water. Lakes can be successfully treated with rotenone during late fall, just prior to ice formation. The sequential strategy for removing brook trout in stages between temporary barriers has merit and should be funded and assessed for effectiveness before initiating Objective 2. The narrative states that bull trout will not be stocked until brook trout are reduced to acceptable levels. Unfortunately, because the stream habitat has been degraded by excessive sedimentation, CBFWA believes that brook trout are likely to rebound if not removed entirely. Instream habitat should be repaired to reduce the amount of fine sediments and protect riparian vegetation for thermal cover. Bull trout require cool water temperatures and clean substrates, whereas brook trout can tolerate degraded stream conditions. Barriers isolating the remnant population of bull trout should not be removed if brook trout can invade from elsewhere in the system. CBFWA questions the current population status of the Gold Fork population compared to other populations within the Subbasin.Funds are allocated in FY 2003 to relocate bull trout and native fish assemblages into renovated stream sections. After removing brook trout from selected stream reaches, what is the duration and sampling frequency that will conclude that all brook trout have been removed? It is mentioned in the abstract that "No stocking will occur until brook trout abundance is reduced to acceptable levels in treatment stream sections". Is this acceptable level zero? The proposal mentions that "lower river reaches are frequently dewatered to satisfy irrigation demands". Would the creation of passage facilities and more efficient water transfer to the irrigators guarantee water will be left instream? The RFC proposes that the project should be funded in stages. Objective 1 should be completed first with the initiation of Object 2 dependent on the RFC review/approval of the results from Objective 1.
Comment:
Fundable in part. The proposal would work to strengthen the bull trout population in one of the five key watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout recovery plan. Some uncertainty remains regarding the future potential of Cascade Reservoir to support bull trout given its suboptimal physical and chemical conditions, but reviewers agree with the response of project proponents that the risk is relatively low. The ISRP notes the thorough technical review provided by CBFWA-RFC and agrees with support for Objective 1 (brook trout removal, stabilization, and enhancement of bull trout populations). Funding for Objective 2 (removal of all man-made passage barriers) should be delayed and contingent on successful completion of Objective 1 components. The proponents are also referred to this report's programmatic section on monitoring and evaluation.Comment:
Do not recommend. The discussions are agreements among responsible entities, as called for in the Council's 1995 F&W Program have not yet taken place. Findings on Section 10.5B. As BPA commented in 1995, FWL Program amendments, it may not be an FCRPS responsibility to mitigate above Hells Canyon dam if not affected by the construction or operation of Black Canyon, Anderson Ranch, Boise Diversion, Minidoka, or Palisades reservoirs.Comment: