Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Flow Augmentation In The Upper Snake River Sub-Basin To Benefit Anadromous, Resident Fish And Wildlife Species. |
| Proposal ID | 33012 |
| Organization | Upper Snake River Basin Water Users (USBWU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Guy A. Meuleman |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 101 Rupert, Idaho 83350 |
| Phone / email | 2084369828 / aquaiig@netscape.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Guy A. Meuleman |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Address restrictions & concerns that arise from the lease of irrigation water. Lease water from Upper Snake River water users to release & protect from the Snake River headwaters to below Hells Canyon Complex for the benefit of fish & wildlife. |
| Target species | Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Sockeye Salmon, Mountain whitefish,Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Leatherside chub, Longnose dace, Redside shiner, Utah sucker, Bluehead sucker, Mountain sucker, Mottled sculpin and many non-native fish and wildlife. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
Entire Upper Snake River Subbasin |
|
|
Entire Upper Snake River Subbasin |
| 42.93 |
-113.26 |
Snake Upper subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 149c& d: |
| Action 151 |
| Action 152 |
| Action 152e |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
427 acer-feet water for flow augmentation as per USBR Bio-op requirment. |
The project would provide water toward the 427 acer ft USBR Bio-op requirment. |
|
RPA Action 149c: |
The RPA states the BPA shall address "passage, screening, and flow problems where they are not the responsibility of others." The project addresses flow problems. |
|
RPA Action 149d: |
The RPA states the "BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above." The project addresses flow problems. |
|
RPA Action 151: |
The RPA states that the "BPA shall, in coordination with NMFS, experiment with innovative ways to increase tributary flows by, for example, establishing a water brokerage." The project leases water for fish & wildlife and establishes a water brokerage. |
|
RPA Action 152 |
RPA states: "Action Agencies shall coordinate efforts & support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments..." The project will benefit water quality & quantity for fish & wildlife. |
|
RPA Action 152e: |
RPA states the above shall: "Share technical expertise and training with Federal, state, tribal, regional, & local entities (such as watershed councils or private landowners). The project will work with these entities to lease water for fish & wildlife. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Research appropriate statutes, procedures, and rules to lease, release, & protect water below Hells Canyon Complex |
a. Research existing legislation |
2003 |
$24,192 |
Yes |
|
b. Research USBR policies |
2003 |
$27,072 |
Yes |
|
c. Research Idaho Water Resource Boards (Board) policy |
2003 |
$19,152 |
Yes |
|
d. Research IDWR policys |
2003 |
$19,152 |
Yes |
| 2. Identify needed changes in legislation, policies, procedures, or rules in order to pay fair market price to lease water that would be released and protected below Hells Canyon Dam |
a. Negioiate and draft new legislation,and prepare legislation stradageies. |
2003-2007 |
$24,480 |
Yes |
|
b. Identify USBR policies that need to be changed |
2003 |
$24,480 |
Yes |
|
c. Identify "Board" procedures or rules that need changed |
2003 |
$22,320 |
Yes |
|
d. Identify change in IDWR policy |
2003 |
$20,160 |
Yes |
|
e. Identify change in Water district 01 Water Bank procedures or rules |
2003 |
$20,160 |
Yes |
| 3. Implement changes in existing legislation, policies, or rules in order to pay fair market price to lease water that would be released and protected below Hells Canyon Dam |
a. Work with Legislators, NWPPC Idaho Members, USBR, the Governor’s Office, IDWR, the Committee of Nine, the District 01 Board Members, and Idaho Power |
2003-2007 |
$84,960 |
Yes |
|
b. Negotiate and draft legal documents |
2003-2007 |
$24,336 |
Yes |
| 4. Identify potential willing water lessors |
a. Hold public meetings throughout the Upper Snake Basin |
2003-2007 |
$41,108 |
|
|
b. Meet with individuals water users |
2003-2007 |
$53,376 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Identify needed changes in legislation, policies, procedures, or rules in order to pay fair market price to lease water that would be released and protected below Hells Canyon Dam |
2004 |
2007 |
$465,486 |
| 3. Implement changes in existing legislation, policies, or rules in order to pay fair market price to lease water that would be released and protected below Hells Canyon Dam |
2004 |
2007 |
$686,265 |
| 4. Identify potential willing water lessors. |
2004 |
2007 |
$389,815 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $365,738 | $378,539 | $391,788 | $405,501 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Contract development |
a. Draft terms of the water rental contracts |
2004-2007 |
$18,720 |
Yes |
|
b. Work with BPA and Water Users to establish terms and finalize contracts (primary & subcontractor) |
2004-2007 |
$137,596 |
Yes |
| 2. Signed Contracts |
a. Contracts with Water users for approximately 3000 acre-feet and rental fees. Lease water and ensure timing and release rates are established at USBR facilities and Idaho Power facilities in order to benefit fish & wildlife. |
2004-2007 |
$432,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Contract development |
2004 |
2007 |
$564,762 |
| 2. Signed Contract |
2004 |
2007 |
$12,139,035 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $3,013,990 | $3,119,480 | $3,228,662 | $3,341,665 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1.Problem solving |
a. Work with BPA if any problems arise |
2004-2007 |
$21,600 |
Yes |
|
b. Work with Water users if any problems arise |
2004-2007 |
$20,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Problem solving |
2004 |
2007 |
$175,342 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $41,600 | $43,056 | $44,563 | $46,123 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Contract compliance |
a. Develop method to monitor contract compliance |
2003-2007 |
$30,000 |
|
|
b. Monitor Compliance |
2003-2007 |
$35,000 |
|
| 2. Leased water to be released and protected below Hells Canyon Complex |
a. Develop method to monitor and protect water that is leased for the benefit of fish and wildlife |
2003-2007 |
$14,000 |
|
|
b. Monitor water release and protection to below Hells Canyon Complex |
2003-2007 |
$1,000 |
|
| 3. Reports |
a. 4 Quarterly reports (primary & subcontractors) |
2003-2007 |
$1,546 |
Yes |
|
b. Annual report (primary & subcontractors) |
2003-2007 |
$1,501 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Contract compliance |
2004 |
2007 |
$358,270 |
| 2. Lease Water to be released and protected below Hells Canyon Complex |
2004 |
2007 |
$63,224 |
| 3. Reports |
2004 |
2007 |
$21,274 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $105,047 | $108,724 | $112,529 | $116,468 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: (2) Project Mgr & Office Mgr |
$114,100 |
| Fringe |
32.44% |
$37,014 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies, room rental, advertising |
$16,372 |
| Travel |
|
$20,169 |
| Indirect |
20.9% |
$39,220 |
| Capital |
Approximately, 3000 acre feet & rental fees, 2 laptops & printers, PC projector |
$441,500 |
| NEPA |
|
$5,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Attornies, appraisal, remote sensing, |
$439,536 |
| Other |
5 Board member expenses |
$5,000 |
| $1,117,911 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $1,117,911 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,117,911 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| N/A |
|
$0 |
cash |
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
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal has the potential to be effective and provide benefits to Snake River fish and wildlife. The sponsors appear well positioned to make progress toward meeting their objectives.
This proposal is to lease water in the upper Snake to increase flow to assist spring out-migration of juveniles. Under this proposal, individual water rights holders would lease unused portions of their water. Under present practice, water leases are managed by the Water Bank under operating rules that give preference priority to agriculture over other uses. Giving up water for lease puts a farmer at the bottom of the priority list for water in subsequent years, a disincentive for the release of unused water.
The Water Bank is the mechanism by which the state of Idaho has allowed stored water from USBR projects to be rented for flow augmentation for Snake River outmigration to meet USBRs obligation under the 1995 NMFS Biological Opinion.
The provision of more water for out-migrating juvenile salmonids has clear relevance and significance to regional programs. Good technical background to the problem is provided. The nature of the problem is that existing operating rules of the Water Bank provide a disincentive for water users to lease water for flow augmentation through the bank. These disincentives are well documented.
This proposal describes a need for alternative approaches to augment stream flow in the upper Snake. Although the need to augment flow is well documented, the proposal does not indicate why water bank decisions to lease water for this use are not possible in the same manner as previous augmentation to meet requirements of the BiOp.
It is also a large budget proposal without adequate detail to justify the budget. The budget for attorneys, appraisal and remote sensing is about equal to the budget for leasing. It has a very large construction and implementation budget without adequate justification. Details in the tasks and methods are sparse. The budget combines legal research, appraisal and remote sensing into one category. Budgets for these component parts should be broken out by task.
More details should be provided under Planning and Design Objectives 1, 2, and 3: what will be researched in the legislation and policies? What are the questions to be answered and the methods that will be used to answer those questions? Is enough known already to establish the constraints to leasing water through the Bank and to identify and document the needed changes?
How will "air market price" be determined? The proposal does not provide details beyond "draft terms of water rental contracts" and "establish terms of contracts"
What is the biological basis of the 3000-acre feet goal for water augmentation?
Under Operation and Maintenance, Objective 1 needs much more detail and specifics, particularly under methods.
Under Monitoring and Evaluation: the focus is only on contract compliance. Is it really necessary to use remote sensing to monitor compliance with a leasing contract? How is compliance done under existing water lease contracts? This project should be tied to related projects that will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this level of flow augmentation for fish migration.
Clarification is needed on key personnel that would be involved. Those personnel initially listed appeared well qualified but apparently have conflict of interests.
Recommendation:
withdrawn
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
proposal withdrawn
Recommendation:
Withdrawn
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Proposal Withdrawn
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: