BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Upper Salmon River Diversion Consolidation Program

BPA project number   9600700

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Sponsor type   ID-Tribe

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

 NameMike Rowe
PO BOX 306

BPA technical contact   Allyn Meuleman, EWP 208/334-1005

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   3.1D.1, 7.0A1, 7.7B

Short description
Consolidate diversions at two upper Salmon River sites: S-14 (near Salmon, ID) would consolidate four diversions into one, and S-28 (near Challis, ID) would incorporate three diversions and one unscreened pump intake into one diversion. In addition, a new screen at S-32 (phase I of the project) would be constructed to accomodate the additional flow from the consolidated diversions.

Project start year   1996    End year   2001

Start of operation and/or maintenance   1996

Project development phase   Implementation and Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
Idaho Fish Screening Program (Project #9401500

Project history
The first phase of the project (S-32 diversion consolidation) is underway, construction (canal enlargement) will start late winter or early spring of 1996.

Biological results achieved
As the diversion consolidation at S-32 will not be completed until later this year, no biological results have yet been realized.

Annual reports and technical papers
Preliminary plans have been completed for both the S-32 and S-28 consolidations. Final plans for the on-farm delivery and sprinkler systems associated with the S-32 phase of the project are being prepared.

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
elimination of eight irrigation diversions and one unscreened pump intake

Testable hypothesis

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints

The canals of the diversions to be retained (S-14 and S-28) will need to be enlarged to accomodate water from the eliminated diversions. Delivery systems to transport water from the retained diversion canal to the new irrigators will be built. The newly enlarged canals (including S-32) will also need new fish screens to accomodate additional amounts of water. Financial assistance in purchasing on-farm sprinkler systems will be provided.

Brief schedule of activities
FY97 - S-28; Engineering, canal enlargement, sprinkler system purchase and installation, fish screen design
S-14; Survey and preliminary engineering

FY98 - S-28; Complete consolidation, fish screen construction
S-14; Canal enlargement and fish screen design

FY99 - S-28; Complete all unfinished work
S-14; Fish screen construction

FY00 - S-14; Complete all unfinished work
S-32; Fish screen design

FY01 - S-32; Fish screen construction

Biological need
Irrigation diversions can be detrimental to migrating fish in several ways. Juvenile fish can be diverted into the irrigation canal causing migration delays. Gravel berms contructed in the river to divert water can act as passage impediments to adult fish and may result in dewatering downstream sections. Operation of heavy equipment to construct the gravel berms causes streambed distrubance releasing sediment into the stream. In addition, any time equipment is operated in a stream there is a risk of spills of pertroleum or other toxic substances.

Critical uncertainties

Summary of expected outcome
Several benefits are gained by implementation of the project. Immediate benefits for fish include reducing points of diversion that entrain juveniles in irrigation canals, eliminating gravel berms which act as passage impediments to adults, and increasing instream flows (through conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation). Several of the fish screens on the diversions do not currently meet the latest National Marine Fisheries Service criteria. By eliminating diversions, fish screen construction, operation, and maintenance costs will be substantially reduced. The affected irrigators will realize reduced canal maintenance costs, reduced time and money to construct gravel berms, and, for those irrigators converting to sprinkler, improved crop production.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
This project will require irrigators’ approval, NEPA compliance, 404 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, consultation with NMFS, and archaelogical clearance.

Cooperators include: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Custer Soil and Water Conservation District, Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation District, individual irrigators.


Monitoring activity
Following elimination of the diversions and unscreened pump intake, no further monitoring is planned.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
1996: 733,342
Obligation: 733,342
Authorized: 0
Planned: 733,342
1997: 645,000
1998: 1,547,500
1999: 250,000
2000: 37,500
2001: 250,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Snake River

Recommendation    Tier 1 - fund

Recommended funding level   $645,000

BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget)   $645,000