FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 200302500
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 |
|---|---|
| 33009 Narrative | Narrative |
| 33009 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 33009 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Upper Snake: Snake Headwaters Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Upper Snake: Snake Headwaters Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from S. McNary (BPA) to J. Fredericks (IDFG) Re: Final Funding Decision for project proposal 33009 | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Yellowstone cutthroat trout recruitment and survival in the South Fork of the Snake River |
| Proposal ID | 200302500 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jim Fredericks |
| Mailing address | 1515 Lincoln Road Idaho Falls, ID 83401 |
| Phone / email | 2085257290 / jfrederi@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bob Saban, Regional Supervisor, IDFG |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Headwaters |
| Short description | Increase juvenile cutthroat trout recruitment and survival in the South Fork of the Snake River by minimizing entrainment losses and side channel stranding mortality, and by restoring tributary habitat. |
| Target species | Yellowstone cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.7525 | -111.9397 | confluence of South Fork and Henry's Fork of the Snake River (downstream project boundary) |
| 43.3297 | -111.201 | Palisades Dam (upsteam project boundary) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 9.1.1 |
| 9.1.3 |
| (NMFS BiOp of May 2001) |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1982 | annual population estimates were begun in representative reaches of the South Fork |
| 1992 | South Fork winter flow study completed to identify |
| 1998 | rainbow trout harvest encouraged through use of liberalized regulations (6 fish daily limit) |
| 1992 | screening facility installed in Palisades Creek irrigation diversion |
| 1999 | fish trap and weir installed in Palisades Creek |
| 2000 | fish trap and weir installed in Rainey Creek |
| 1999 | diversion screen installed in Rainey Creek diversion |
| 2000 | diversion screen and fish trap and weir installed in Burns Creek |
| 2002 | fish trap and weir installed in Pine Creek |
| 1998 | rainbow x cutthroat hybridization in mainstem study completed |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 98002 | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment | Inventory/evaluation of current distribution of native salmonids |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 1a—Inventory existing diversions | 1 | $15,000 | |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2a--Compile existing habitat data | 1 | $2,000 | |
| 2b--Conduct field surveys | 1 | $25,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 1b—design and implement screens on tributary diversions | 3 | $0 | |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2c--improve habitat with riparian fences, bank barbs | 3 | $0 | Yes |
| 2d--restore connectivity to tributary spawning habitat | 3 | $0 | ||
| 3. Evaluate flow/survival relationship of rainbow and cutthroat trout. | 3a--compile historical data of flows and refine estimates of year-class strength abundance | 3 | $25,000 | |
| 3b--use radiotelemetry to identify juvenile winter habitat use and movement | 3 | $65,000 | ||
| 4. Assess juvenile fish losses in Great Feeder and other lower river irrigation diversions | 4a--Estimate entrainment in Great Feeder | 2 | $40,000 | |
| 4c--Identify seasonal movements and spawning areas of adult fish in lower river | 3 | $52,700 | ||
| 4d--estimate fish losses in lower river diversions | 3 | $40,000 | ||
| 4e--model impacts of diversion entrianment | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 2004 | 2006 | $750,000 |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2005 | 2007 | $600,000 |
| 3. Evaluate flow/survival relationship of rainbow and cutthroat trout. | 2004 | 2005 | $120,000 |
| 4. Assess juvenile fish losses in Great Feeder and lower river irrigation diversions | 2004 | 2005 | $220,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $590,000 | $570,000 | $450,000 | $200,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 1b—maintain screens on tributary diversions | ongoing | $0 | Yes |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2c--maintain riparian fences | ongoing | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 2004 | 2007 | $40,000 |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2006 | 2007 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $10,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 1c--monitor effectiveness of diversion screen | 3 | $0 | |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2e--monitor fishery response to increase in tributary spawning habitat | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce juvenile entrainment in tributary diversions | 2005 | 2007 | $60,000 |
| 2. Increase tributary spawning and rearing habitat | 2005 | 2007 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3 - 1 full time biologist (2080 hrs @ 18.59/hr) 24 mo.of tech time (@11.53/hr) | $86,700 |
| Fringe | 35% | $30,300 |
| Supplies | radio tags, reciever, field gear, computer, office furniture | $30,000 |
| Travel | per diem, attendance at meetings/conferences | $4,000 |
| Indirect | IDFG overhead at @ 21% | $40,700 |
| Capital | jet boat suited for winter/foul weather telemetry | $30,000 |
| Subcontractor | air service for telemetry | $15,000 |
| Other | Equipment rental, mileage, boat gas | $28,000 |
| $264,700 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $264,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $264,700 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Forest Service | Stream habitat surveys | $25,000 | cash |
| Trout Unlimited | stream restoration and diversion screening | $25,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Excellent presentation. A response is needed that better describes the proposed screening inventory activities, prioritization protocol, etc. Objective 3 (examining juvenile flow survival relationships) seems to be a reasonable approach to try, but reviewers were somewhat skeptical of whether it would meet the project's goal. Should the project focus on tributaries as cutthroat spawning refuges?All would agree that the Great Feeder (Objective 4) is a major problem, but to what extent would the hard data that would result from this objective provide better justification regarding what actions are warranted? The approach to solving that problem (a tracking study) seems a very oblique way of initiating change. The proposal should lay out in some detail possible management options for reducing impacts of the Feeder.
It would be helpful if the project sponsors could clarify an apparent contradiction between a statement from IDFG from email and a meeting last year: "To date we have not found a significant relationship between winter flows and following year juvenile densities or total trout densities. ...over a wide range of flows during the past 15 years, the South Fork fishery has maintained a remarkable degree of stability and angling quality." This statement does not mesh with statements in the proposal about the likely effects of winter flow levels.
Some effort should also be directed at getting local landowners to use cutthroat or sterile rainbow when stocking rainbows in their private waters. IDFG could (and probably should) play an active role in this area, as continued stocking of non-native rainbows in adjacent and occasionally connected waters will continue to exacerbate the hybridization issue in the South Fork Snake. Project sponsors should address these concerns in their response.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. The response addresses the ISRP concerns in a thoughtful and thorough manner. The project presentation was also excellent. In the presentation and response, the project sponsor's demonstrated considerable background knowledge of the issues about which the ISRP requested additional information, including prioritization, protocols, and questions about the Great Feeder. Also, an apparent contradiction between statements about flow levels and overwinter mortality in Lower and Upper River sections was clarified and resolved.Comment:
Do not recommend. Consistent with the Council's 1995 FWL Program, BPA recommends development of "assessments of resident fish losses and gains related to construction and operation of each hydropower facility throughout the Columbia River Basin...". Section 10.1C.1. BPA stands ready to fund completion of appropriate assessments as part of subbasin planning. Section 10.1C.3.Comment:
Project Issue 3: New projects that were prioritized by the Upper Snake Province group
The province group reached a consensus that the following new projects were of the highest management priority after funding the ongoing projects discussed above. There are two projects recommended:
(a) IDFG # 33009 (Improve Yellowstone cutthroat trout recruitment and survival in S. Fork Snake R.) ($155,600 in Fiscal Year 2003, $226,550 in Fiscal Year 2004 and $230,900 in Fiscal Year 2005)
The ISRP rated this proposal as "Fundable" and CBWA as "High Priority". The ISRP comments found the proposal to be "thoughtful and thorough". Bonneville rated the project as a "C" stating that the 1995 program called for resident fish loss assessments on a project- by-project basis be established, and that this could be done with currently available money that was provided for subbasin planning.
Council Recommendation: The sponsor reports that the project is linked to the Palisades project, for which Bonneville has acknowledged at least partial responsibility. The Council believes that the project should be funded at this time, and does not believe that the subbasin planning budget that was agreed to by the Council and Bonneville contemplated funding a thorough loss assessment for each hydropower facility throughout the Columbia basin as called for in measure 10.1C.1. of the 1995 program.
BPA Funding Decision
Fund when Funds available. Not critical.
Apr 30, 2003
Comment:
Phase 3 will be initiated upon resolution of identified issues. BPA will reengage with the Council regarding applicability of this project to the FCRPS mitigation responsibility for Palisades project prior to issuing a final decision.Comment:
Phase III. Opportunity to implement full project in 2004 is available (catch up). Reduced first year budget was a result of budget cutting exercise. Option to just realign - project still valid.Comment: