FY 2000 proposal 199106700
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 |
---|---|
199106700 Narrative | Narrative |
199106700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish and Wildlife Impacts - Phase III |
Proposal ID | 199106700 |
Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Eric Leitzinger |
Mailing address | 600 S. Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 |
Phone / email | 2083344888 / eleitzin@idfg.state.id.us |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Snake Upper |
Short description | Quantify changes in resident fish habitat in the upper Snake River basin resulting from the release of 427,000 acre-feet of water for anadromous fish flow augmentation. Recommend release strategies to benefit weak, native resident fish populations. |
Target species | white sturgeon, rainbow (redband) trout, yellowstone cutthroat trout, bull trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1992 | Completed Phase I: Summary of resident fish and wildlife issues, concerns; and needs in the Upper Snake Basin as well as potential impacts caused by flow augmentation. Recommendations to protect those resources. |
1994 | Completed Phase II: Biological Assessment (IFIM study) of the Upper Snake R. near Blackfoot. Summarized flow augmentation releases since Phase I. |
1996 | Developed a method to quantify changes in resident fish habitat resulting from the release of salmon flow augmentation water. |
1997 | In addition to the 1996 work, began a comparison of flows with and without the salmon augmentation releases to recommended and established instream flows, both in terms of volume of flow and frequency that flows were met and not met. |
1998 | Same as 1997 |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | $57,387 | |
Fringe | $18,146 | |
Supplies | $7,000 | |
Operating | $5,500 | |
Capital | $5,500 | |
Travel | $5,000 | |
Indirect | 22.5% of total except capital | $20,932 |
$119,465 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $119,465 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $119,465 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
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:
Recommendation: Do not fund; this proposal is not scientifically justified as sound. It addresses an important problem that deserves analysis, but the proposal does not provide an adequate framework to address the problem.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:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical 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:
Do not fund. The initial proposal was not recommended, due to lack of a sound scientific framework for addressing the subject of concern.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:
No new funds for 2000
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
(15) Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish and Wildlife Impacts - Phase III; IDFG; Project ID # 9106700; CBFWA 00 Rec. $119,465.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:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; complete wrap-up with funds on hand