The ISRP identifies the following three comments for the decision making process and for the sponsors to consider in further developing the project.

1) The O&M costs associated with existing structures are increasing with time, but there are no funding sources identified to deal with these increased costs as structures near their end of their projected lifetimes. These costs should be considered as future screens are installed.

2) Objectives are qualitative and lack success criteria. Some success is expected given that screens have been proven effective in reducing salmonid mortality at water diversions elsewhere. During the site visit, the ISRP was provided with quantitative information of the percentage of salmonids saved by screens in the Lemhi and stated that approximately 95% of fish were now protected. The sponsors should identify this analysis in their next progress report and in future proposals.

3) The program should identify the number and percentage of additional significant fish screen or fish passage issues that will remain in the Salmon River basin following implementation of this effort.

Due to the nature of this project, the ISRP did not feel these issues needed to be captured as “Qualifications.” And a response is not requested on these items.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This is the capital works list for projects identified in 1994-015-00.

This project is clearly important to regional programs and relates to multiple species of interest. Its relationship to regional priorities and recovery plans is well described.

Technical background is adequate with some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas. The process for prioritizing activities or deliverables is clearly described and seems reasonable.

The objectives are important and reasonable but not expressed quantitatively; there are no criteria for success that would allow retrospective evaluation, for example repair x% of the remaining high priority water diversions in the Salmon River tributaries during the next five year period.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal contains an excellent review of past projects and accomplishments with respect to physical factors like improved water flow, channel connectivity, irrigation efficiency, and screening. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O&M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The collaborative study with NMFS (Walters et al. 2012) quantified entrainment and bypass survival in the Lemhi River from 2003 to 2008. This journal publication is an excellent review of this project’s progress in the Lemhi River.

The narrative under Adaptive Management demonstrates convincingly that past investments in monitoring and evaluation, including surveys to create maps and inventories, have repeatedly paid off for this program in terms of prioritizing activities, identifying areas where usage exceeded water rights or where existing screens and irrigation methods were inadequate, and improving technology and policy for conserving water.

Information was presented on how fish have responded to removals of fish passage barriers and other habitat improvements.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal indicates that this project represents a single coordinated effort for the State of Idaho, and provides good evidence of cooperative relationships among interested parties.

Two emerging limiting factors, climate change and invasive species, are discussed. The proposal has focused on actions rated as high value in addressing threats from climate change by providing greater access to more habitat including cool water refuges. Steps have been taken to ensure staff vigilance to reduce the threat of nuisance aquatic species, especially zebra mussels and quagga mussels.

The program notes the need for O&M and the problem with continued funding for O&M of fish screens. The 1994 planning project identifies screens and diversions that will be maintained. Is more maintenance needed?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Individual projects are clearly identified and succinctly described as separate deliverables. However, the section showing how individual deliverables relate to objectives is repetitious and unhelpful. In most cases the numerous entries repeat a general description of the activity without indicating how, and more importantly, the degree to which it would help to achieve the objective in question.

Some monitoring effort was briefly described for tracking the response of fish after specific projects. The proposal said it would use the ISEMP approach to evaluate 1) changes in distribution of adult anadromous salmon, steelhead, and fluvial bull trout, 2) utilization of rearing habitat by juvenile salmonids in the Lemhi River, 3) changes in productivity, for example juvenile survival, of salmon and steelhead, and 4) changes in species composition, length, and age distribution of anadromous and resident/fluvial salmonids. The proposal should identify how much effort will go into ISEMP monitoring and whether all or a select number of projects will be monitored.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This watershed is one of the ISEMP Intensively Monitored Watersheds.

The ISRP identifies the following three comments for the decision making process and for the sponsors to consider in further developing the project.

1) The O&M costs associated with existing structures are increasing with time, but there are no funding sources identified to deal with these increased costs as structures near their end of their projected lifetimes. These costs should be considered as future screens are installed.

2) Objectives are qualitative and lack success criteria. Some success is expected given that screens have been proven effective in reducing salmonid mortality at water diversions elsewhere. During the site visit, the ISRP was provided with quantitative information of the percentage of salmonids saved by screens in the Lemhi and stated that approximately 95% of fish were now protected. The sponsors should identify this analysis in their next progress report and in future proposals.

3) The program should identify the number and percentage of additional significant fish screen or fish passage issues that will remain in the Salmon River basin following implementation of this effort.

Due to the nature of this project, the ISRP did not feel these issues needed to be captured as “Qualifications.” And a response is not requested on these items.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This is the capital works list for projects identified in 1994-015-00.

This project is clearly important to regional programs and relates to multiple species of interest. Its relationship to regional priorities and recovery plans is well described.

Technical background is adequate with some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas. The process for prioritizing activities or deliverables is clearly described and seems reasonable.

The objectives are important and reasonable but not expressed quantitatively; there are no criteria for success that would allow retrospective evaluation, for example repair x% of the remaining high priority water diversions in the Salmon River tributaries during the next five year period.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal contains an excellent review of past projects and accomplishments with respect to physical factors like improved water flow, channel connectivity, irrigation efficiency, and screening. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O&M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The collaborative study with NMFS (Walters et al. 2012) quantified entrainment and bypass survival in the Lemhi River from 2003 to 2008. This journal publication is an excellent review of this project’s progress in the Lemhi River.

The narrative under Adaptive Management demonstrates convincingly that past investments in monitoring and evaluation, including surveys to create maps and inventories, have repeatedly paid off for this program in terms of prioritizing activities, identifying areas where usage exceeded water rights or where existing screens and irrigation methods were inadequate, and improving technology and policy for conserving water.

Information was presented on how fish have responded to removals of fish passage barriers and other habitat improvements.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal indicates that this project represents a single coordinated effort for the State of Idaho, and provides good evidence of cooperative relationships among interested parties.

Two emerging limiting factors, climate change and invasive species, are discussed. The proposal has focused on actions rated as high value in addressing threats from climate change by providing greater access to more habitat including cool water refuges. Steps have been taken to ensure staff vigilance to reduce the threat of nuisance aquatic species, especially zebra mussels and quagga mussels.

The program notes the need for O&M and the problem with continued funding for O&M of fish screens. The 1994 planning project identifies screens and diversions that will be maintained. Is more maintenance needed?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Individual projects are clearly identified and succinctly described as separate deliverables. However, the section showing how individual deliverables relate to objectives is repetitious and unhelpful. In most cases the numerous entries repeat a general description of the activity without indicating how, and more importantly, the degree to which it would help to achieve the objective in question.

Some monitoring effort was briefly described for tracking the response of fish after specific projects. The proposal said it would use the ISEMP approach to evaluate 1) changes in distribution of adult anadromous salmon, steelhead, and fluvial bull trout, 2) utilization of rearing habitat by juvenile salmonids in the Lemhi River, 3) changes in productivity, for example juvenile survival, of salmon and steelhead, and 4) changes in species composition, length, and age distribution of anadromous and resident/fluvial salmonids. The proposal should identify how much effort will go into ISEMP monitoring and whether all or a select number of projects will be monitored.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This watershed is one of the ISEMP Intensively Monitored Watersheds.