FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33002
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 |
|---|---|
| 33002 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Establish Instream Flow and Reservoir Pool Habitat for Native and Other Trout in the Upper Snake River/American Falls Fragment Area |
| Proposal ID | 33002 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Richard Scully |
| Mailing address | 1345 Barton Road Pocatello, Id 83204 |
| Phone / email | 2082324703 / Rscully@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Richard Scully, PhD |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Assess instream flows and American Falls Reservoir fishery pool shortfall for sustainable Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other game fish species. Identify options and long-term strategies for improving water quantities where necessary. |
| Target species | Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other resident fish species. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 42.7785 | -112.8748 | American Falls-Blackfoot-Pocatello, Idaho vicinity |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 28. |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9201000 | Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Fort Hall Reservation | Streams on the Fort Hall Reservation connect directly to American Falls Reservoir and have been affected by American Falls dam construction and operation. |
| 980002 | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment | Important populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout have been verified in this fragment area. Reservoir and mainstem rearing of large cutthroat to maturity for tributary spawning will enhance this species. Other game fish will proper. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordinate study purpose and objectives with key collaborative entities | a. Establish and maintain contact with the Idaho Office of Species Conservation,Idaho Department of Water Resources and Water District 1, Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Snake River Offices, and the Idaho Power Company. | 5 | $35,300 | |
| 2. Develop instream flow/minimum fishery pool study design | a. Complete literature review. Determine instream flow methodology and design. | 2 | $49,800 | |
| b. Become familiar with site specific nature of streams and reservoir conditions, accessibility and physical aspects of project area. | 1 | $12,500 | ||
| c. Order and purchase field equipment needed to implement study design. | 1 | $6,500 | ||
| 3. Determine and recommend adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | a. Implement instream flow field methodology measurements | 2 | $0 | |
| b. Analyze data and determine seasonal flow regimes as minimum flows | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Analyze data and determine minimal viable fishery pool for American Falls Reservoir | 1 | $0 | ||
| 4. Explore water management options for achieving adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | a. Collaborate with BOR and IDWR and use their existing water management models to manipulate alternative scenarios for Water District 1 water management | 2 | $0 | |
| b. Assess within Water District 1 irrigation affects of alternative scenarios | 2 | $0 | ||
| c. Assess mid-Snake irrigation affects of alternative scenarios | 2 | $0 | ||
| d. Assess Snake River system hydroelectric generation options and affects of alternative scenarios | 2 | $0 | ||
| 5. Develop a strategic plan to guide achieving instream flow and minimum viable fishery pool targets | a. Define Water District 1 irrigation water management policy options | 2 | $0 | |
| b. Define Snake River hydroelectric generation options | 2 | $0 | ||
| c. Identify innovative financing options for water rights acquisition, rental or other | 2 | $0 | ||
| $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordinate study purpose and objectives with key collaborative entities | 2004 | 2007 | $150,100 |
| 2. Develop instream flow/minimum fishery pool study design | 2004 | 2004 | $36,300 |
| 3. Determine and recommend adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2004 | 2005 | $120,200 |
| 4. Explore water management options for achieving adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2005 | 2006 | $68,400 |
| 5. Develop a strategic plan to guide achieving instream flow and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2006 | 2007 | $100,800 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $159,400 | $114,100 | $99,900 | $102,400 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordinate study purpose and objectives with key collaborative entities | 2004 | 2007 | $150,100 |
| 2. Develop instream flow/minimum fishery pool study design | 2004 | 2004 | $36,300 |
| 3. Determine and recommend adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2004 | 2005 | $120,200 |
| 4. Explore water management options for achieving adaptive management instream flows and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2005 | 2006 | $68,400 |
| 5. Develop a strategic plan to guide achieving instream flow and minimum viable fishery pool targets | 2006 | 2007 | $100,800 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $159,400 | $114,100 | $99,900 | $102,400 |
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 |
|---|
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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 | $38,974 |
| Fringe | $27,876 | |
| Supplies | $11,600 | |
| Travel | $2,400 | |
| Indirect | $16,750 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $6,500 | |
| $104,100 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $104,100 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $104,100 |
| 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 Services-Project Oversight and Support Regional and Headquarters Staff | $48,300 | in-kind |
| Office and Utilities | $21,000 | cash | |
| Field Equipment (Boats, motors, snowmachines) | $2,500 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable because the benefits to fish and wildlife are minimal. There is clear evidence of a long-standing biological problem in low flow years stemming from over appropriation of river flows. However, neither proposal nor presentation offered avenues that seemed sufficiently strong or novel to achieve solutions. There was no evidence of active collaboration with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The claim of native fish benefits is tenuous, with 97% of the American Falls Reservoir catch being nonnative species.Comment:
Comment:
Not fundable because the potential benefits to fish and wildlife were largely unsubstantiated. There is clear evidence of a long-standing biological problem in low flow years stemming from over appropriation of river flows. However, neither proposal nor presentation offered avenues that seemed sufficiently strong or novel to achieve solutions. There was no evidence of active collaboration with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The claim of native fish benefits is tenuous, with 97% of the American Falls Reservoir catch being nonnative species.Comment: