FY 1999 proposal 199106700

Additional documents

TitleType
199106700 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIdaho Water Rental: Resident Fish and Wildlife Impacts Phase III
Proposal ID199106700
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameEric Leitzinger
Mailing address600 S. Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707
Phone / email2083344888 / eleitzin@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Snake, Boise, Payette
Short descriptionQuantify 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 speciesbull trout, redband/rainbow trout, white sturgeon, mountain whitefish, Yellowstone cutthroat
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.

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


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Tasks deleted
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.