FY 2000 proposal 199106700

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

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 vs flow data in the upper Snake Basin. Possible reluctance of the BOR or Idaho Power to implement flow recommendations.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: This proposal suggests a means to evaluate the influence of flow augmentation on weak populations of potamodromous fishes. The proposal has numerous deficiencies. The objective schedule table lists no measurable biological objectives. The results of the study to date are not clearly described. The proposal gives some informative background, but should take the approach of testing whether returning to a more natural hydrograph will significantly improve conditions. The proposal has several "belief" statements that should be recast as testable hypotheses. Release strategies have been recommended but the nature of the data to date that support them is not given. How well supported are these recommendations and how effective have they been in achieving goals? In Phase III (to monitor and evaluate the impacts of flow augmentation releases on resident fish through effects on habitat)

Descriptions of methods are only sketchy and the experimental (sampling) design and analyses/interpretation are unclear. The proposal relies heavily on modeling and physical data, and it would be much stronger if there were provisions to model randomly selected native populations that would be affected by the flow augmentation. Reviewers had some specific questions: Objective 1: wouldn't you also want to assess impacts on fish in addition to impacts on their habitat? The proposal notes information may be made available on IDFG's web site; this is a good idea, but how, specifically, will the project "enable managers to assess the trade-offs between fishes and wildlife affected by upriver reservoir releases and anadromous fish affected by flow augmentation releases"? What specifically does it mean to "maximize benefits" to resident fish? The proposal should clearly lay out the trade-offs it seeks to clarify and resolve.

The CBFWA evaluation noted that "There are no milestones listed." and asked the question, "When is this project going to end?" The ISRP concludes that the proposal is of questionable benefit to fish.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- There are no milestones listed.

General comments: When is this project going to end? Justification for the 2005 end date.

Comment:

The responses do not direct the central scientific concerns of reviewers. The primary argument the respondents offer is that the proposal is for evaluation, not research. This is a meaningless distinction. Evaluation implies conclusions with some degree of confidence, and that is a form of research. The responders state that they are not designing an experiment with this project, but then go on to say that they are trying to identify when and how to release flow augmentation water in such a way as to either reduce negative impacts or improve habitat. This is an experiment. How would water management activities be evaluated without testing hypotheses about alternative treatments/effects? This is the crux of the issue.

In the absence of clear design and procedures for testing hypotheses, the "conclusions" of the project would seem to be little more than, at best, descriptive natural history (which might generate some good hypotheses), or, at worst, unwarranted individual opinion that remains unchallenged by standards of statistical deduction. The responses suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of how sound, scientifically supported conclusions are drawn from data (observations). Inclusion of an idea in the Fish and Wildlife Program document does not address the question of scientific soundness of that idea or of any particular implementation of the idea.

Averaging habitat measurements across reaches and months to obtain an estimate of change in the quantity of habitat per reach per year will not account for variation in habitat requirements related to individual fish species and life-history stages.

Is there any evidence that estimation of habitat changes will accurately or precisely predict the effects of the flow augmentation on potamodromous fish populations in the Upper Snake River basin? Regardless of how much information is gathered from models, IFIM literature, and/or expert opinion, it will be impossible to realistically ascertain these effects without some type of validation study that includes all of the species and/or specific life-history stages that may be affected. An evaluation of habitat without any population data has little scientific merit.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: The sponsor advises that wrap-up activities can be accomplished with funds on hand. No funding for Fiscal Year 2000 is requested or required.

ISRP Review: Do not fund.

Council Recommendation: The Council recommends no funding for new Fiscal Year 2000 funds and anticipates receiving a final report on findings and/or conclusions developed during the course of this project. The Council recommends that Bonneville disburse funds on a quarterly basis and hold the final disbursement until the sponsor submits a final report.

Comment: