FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 200106800

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This proposal may offer a water transfer that will benefit fish in the Lemhi while doing minimal harm in the Salmon and could be especially beneficial if the Lemhi instream flow is increased immediately in 2001. However, this proposal did not convince reviewers of the net benefit of switching water removal from the Lemhi to the Salmon. The proposal could leave more water in the Lemhi, but what about the Salmon? Is the goal to move water around (at significant cost) so that each stream has minimum calculated needed flow (and not more)? From the regional fish population's perspective, does it matter whether the 13 cfs comes from the Lemhi or from the Salmon? What information suggests that passage is a problem in the lower portion of the Lemhi River? What information suggests that reducing the Salmon River by 13 cfs will not increase risk to fish in that system? The proposal does not contain specific enough information to answer those questions. This seems a risky strategy that could result in unintended negative consequences. It appears from the proposal that intended benefits from this project will not likely be immediate because planning, permitting, and landowner agreements will likely take most of 2001. Due to the likelihood that the actual water transfer will not occur this year, this project (with revisions) would be more appropriate for review in the Mountain Snake Province review. The context provided in the provincial review process is needed for a project of this nature. Proposals for the Mountain Snake are due July 20, 2001.

Comment:

Comment:

Although the proposal and response do not provide fish data, the response is convincing that there is a problem with passage in the lower Lemhi River and that the removal of 13 cfs of water from the Salmon (300 CFS at record low flow) for a short distance (6.5 miles) will not significantly impact migration of salmon in the Salmon River.

However, the response raises additional issues on what flow is needed to ensure benefits to the fish in the context of what this project will provide. The response notes that the 13 cfs gained by the proposed actions would amount to one-third of the needed 39 cfs for summer passage into the Lemhi River by returning adult salmon. The response notes that this project coupled with other undefined actions would yield the requisite 39 cfs. Yet, the response also notes that summer flows have often been less than 1.0 cfs and were ~10 cfs in July and August 2000 (a reasonable water year). This means that the "undefined" actions will be required to provide somewhere between 13 cfs (as in 2000, for example) to 25 cfs during a low water year. Thus, success of the project (passage for salmon) depends on these other undefined actions. These undefined actions may be described or proposed in the upcoming provincial review. Perhaps, there is a less expensive and complicated alternative to this project. These issues indicate that the proposal would be best reviewed in the context of the suite of regional problems and actions.

The response indicates that the project will be ready to go once funding is available, but it still does not make an adequate case that this project can be implemented in time to yield benefits in 2001. Consequently, this project (with revisions) would be more appropriate for review in the Mountain Snake Province review. The context provided in the provincial review process is needed for a project of this scale and nature, and the project would benefit from the more considered review and presentation opportunities afforded in the ISRP's imminent review of the Salmon River subbasin.

Comment:

Comments from NWPPC Review of 8/14/01: The Council recommended this proposal in the first list of Action Plan recommendations, contingent on additional ISRP review. Bonneville included it on its list of fundable proposals, also contingent on the ISRP's review. While the ISRP continues to find the proposal "not fundable" in this solicitation, the Council considered the criticisms to be based in management concerns and not scientific merit. The central criticism in the ISRP's report concerns the significance of the water to be gained from this proposal towards resolving the passage problems in the Lemhi River:

The response notes that the 13 cfs gained by the proposed actions would amount to one-third of the needed 39 cfs for summer passage into the Lemhi River by returning adult salmon. The response notes that this project coupled with other undefined actions would yield the requisite 39 cfs. Yet, the response also notes that summer flows have often been less than 1.0 cfs and were ~20 cfs in July and August 2000 (a reasonable water year). This means that the "undefined" actions will be required to provide somewhere between 13 cfs (as in 2000, for example) to 25 cfs during a low water year. Thus, the success of the project (passage for salmon) depends on these other undefined actions. These undefined actions may be described in the upcoming provincial review... (ISRP; August 3, 2001; p. 8)

The State of Idaho has implemented new measures in 2001 to provide more water in low stream flow conditions. These measures are quickly evolving and the Idaho Governor's Office assures the Council that companion measures can provide a total of the requisite flows in the Lemhi if this proposal is funded as a partial achievement of the flow objectives. The Council agrees that securing a significant portion of the required volume would be worthwhile and again recommends that Bonneville fund this project.

Comments from NWPPC Review of 6/29/01: Projects 23028 and 26026 were conditionally approved subject to response by the sponsors to the ISRP comments and further ISRP Review. These were rated "defer to provincial review" and "do not fund" respectively. The Council recommended these projects because the ISRP found that they met the solicitation criteria, and because it appears likely that the sponsors will be able to supply the necessary information to satisfy the concerns noted in the ISRP's Action Plan Proposals review. Further, the Council conditionally recommends these projects because, notwithstanding some technical questions, the ISRP report indicates that the projects are likely to provide substantial immediate benefits.

In the case of proposal 23028, the ISRP's review of the proposal in the Columbia Plateau provincial review asked for additional information from the project sponsors of quantitative estimates of fish benefits, but said "The project would clearly provide immediate and presumably substantial benefits to fish and wildlife..." (ISRP 2001-6, p. 87).

Proposal 26026 promises to supply additional water for fish flows in the Lemhi River (13 cfs) through transfer from the Salmon River. The ISRP report said, "This proposal may offer a water transfer that will benefit fish in the Lemhi while doing minimal harm in the Salmon and could be especially beneficial if the Lemhi instream flow is increased immediately in 2001." The ISRP's questions centered on a need for additional information about potential impacts to the Salmon River. The Council was recently provided a letter from the chief of fisheries for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that addressed those issues. We are asking the ISRP to review that response.