FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

AND

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SALE OF STORAGE IN ANDERSON RANCH

RESERVOIR FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

PURPOSES AND RELATED ACQUISITION OF LUCKY

PEAK RESERVOIR STORAGE

FOR SALMON FLOW AUGMENTATION

ARROWROCK DIVISION

BOISE PROJECT, IDAHO

Snake River Area Office

Pacific Northwest Region

Bureau of Reclamation

Boise, Idaho

SEPTEMBER 1997

Precision Mapping, Copyright 1995,96, Just Softworks Inc., Portions Copyright 1992-1996 TRIUS,Inc.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

PN-FONSI 97-06

SALE OF STORAGE IN ANDERSON RANCH RESERVOIR

FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

AND RELATED ACQUISITION OF LUCKY PEAK RESERVOIR STORAGE

FOR SALMON FLOW AUGMENTATION

INTRODUCTION

The Columbia Bench area of Southeast Boise is a rapidly developing residential, industrial, and

commercial area. Major developments include the Micron Technology (Micron) semiconductor

plant, JR Simplot Company’s (Simplot) Columbia Village residential community, associated

commercial services, parks, and athletic facilities. Municipal and industrial (M&I) water, both

potable and nonpotable, is currently supplied to the Columbia Bench through a series of wells

with Simplot and Micron supplying and using most ofthe water for nonagricultural irrigation and

industrial uses, and United Water Idaho (United Water) supplying most drinking water and

residential irrigation water.

Because of a declining aquifer in the region, in 1994 the Idaho Department ofWater Resources

(IDWR) issued an order establishing the Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area

(SBGWMA) in the vicinity ofthe Columbia Bench which restricts additional groundwater

pumping. This restriction on groundwater development has caused Simplot/Micron, the two

largest groundwater users in the area, to seek Boise River surface water supplies to reduce their

reliance on groundwater within the SBGWMA and meet their future water needs.

Much of Simplot/Micron’s surface water needs are expected to be met through a combination of

acquisition of existing natural flow water rights, flood releases, and other non Federal water rights

in the Boise River. These actions would not require a water contract action by Reclamation.

However, the natural flow water rights to be acquired may restrict diversion during the late

summer and winter. Flood flows are usually only available in spring and early summer and may

not be available at all in dry years. In order to meet the year-round demand for a reliable surface

water supply, reservoir storage for M&I purposes (the Proposed Action) is desired to compliment

the natural flow water rights.

In order to compliment these other surface water supplies, Simplot/Micron has requested a

contract to use 3,000 acre feet ofuncontracted storage in Reclamation’s Anderson Ranch

Reservoir. This storage has an M&I water right and is currently the only storage in the Boise

River reservoir system that Reclamation has the authority to contract for M&I purposes.

1
Since 1995, however, Reclamation has used this 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch storage to

assist in meeting its requirement of providing 427,000 acre feet annually for flow augmentation to

benefit listed Snake River salmon. In order to consider committing this storage for M&I uses,

Reclamation has required that mitigation water be provided so that its ability to meet salmon flow

augmentation requirements is not harmed. Simplot/Micron have developed a proposal whereby

they would acquire sufficient storage entitlement in Lucky Peak Reservoir from Eagle Island

Water Users Association (Eagle Island) and provide this storage, free of charge to Reclamation as

mitigation for the 3,000 acre feet in Anderson Ranch. Reclamation would also have the

opportunity to purchase additional storage in excess ofthat required for mitigation to further

benefit its flow augmentation program.

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action would involve three separate contract actions by Reclamation.

• Reclamation would enter into a 25-year M&I water service contract which would provide

Simplot/Micron with 3,000 acre feet ofstorage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Final costs

have yet to be determined but are estimated to be $20 to $25 per acre foot.

• Reclamation would modify and partially rescind Eagle Island’s existing water service

contract in Lucky Peak Reservoir for 5,882 acre feet ofstorage that Simplot/Micron

would acquire from Eagle Island. This contract entitles Eagle Island to Lucky Peak

storage through year 2008. Reclamation would acquire 3,554 acre feet ofthis storage free

of charge as mitigation for the 3,000 acre feet from Anderson Ranch formerly used for

salmon flow augmentation. The 3,554 acre feet amount is based on calculations ofthe

chance offilling the Lucky Peak space in a given year, and the reduced availability of

Eagle Islands excess Lucky Peak storage in the Boise River Water Rental Pool (Rental

Pool) which is a source for flow augmentation water.

• Reclamation would purchase 2,328 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage from Simplot/Micron

(5,882 acre feet total minus 3,554 acre feet for mitigation) and designate this storage as

noncontracted specifically assigned to salmon flow augmentation. The purchase price

would be based on the remaining contract entitlement which expires in 2008.

Water filling the Anderson Ranch storage acquired by Simplot/Micron along with any acquired

natural flow water would be released from Lucky Peak Dam and diverted at the Surprise Valley

pumping plant. The pumping plant is expected to be finished in 1998 with the first diversions

beginning shortly after completion. The water would be pumped up to the Columbia Bench area

and would be used for non agricultural irrigation, aquifer recharge, and industrial purposes.

2
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In February 1997 Reclamation mailed a scoping letter to over 60 agencies, organizations, and

individuals soliciting their help in identifying their issues and concerns related to the proposed

water transactions. In addition, a legal notice ofthe proposed contract actions was published in

three local and statewide newspapers and the Federal Register as required by Reclamation

contracting procedures. Reclamation received seven formal and two informal responses to its

public scoping efforts.

Reclamation also met with representatives ofWilder Irrigation District and the Boise Project

Board ofControl on February 28, 1997 to discuss their concerns about the potential effects ofthe

proposal on irrigation water supplies.

In addition to the scoping letter, Reclamation contacted US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

about consultation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. It was decided that with the

nature ofthe project and the availability ofinformation on fish and wildlife in the project area

from past consultations, USFWS would limit their consultation for this project to review and

comment ofthe Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Reclamation also consulted USFWS on a

list ofspecies listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The impacts to listed species from

the project are evaluated in this EA in compliance with Section 7 ofESA.

Idaho Department ofFish and Game (IDFG) was the only agency that responded to the scoping

letter, and their primary concerns were maintenance ofminimum winter river flows. Reclamation

also received information from IDFG on the status ofbull trout in the Boise River. IDWR

provided information about groundwater and the SBGWMA.

A summary ofthe significant issues raised during scoping include :

• Effects on Reclamation’s ability to meet salmon flow augmentation requirements

• Long term commitment ofwater for M&I purposes without consideration for other uses

• Growth inducement effects

• Cumulative effects ofthis and other related water transactions

A Draft EA addressing issues raised during scoping was mailed for review and comment to the

same parties which received the scoping letter on June 19, 1997. At the end ofthe 30 day

comment period Reclamation received five letters commenting on the Draft EA. These letters and

Reclamation’s responses to comments are included in the Final EA. As a result ofthe comment

letters Reclamation made revisions to the Draft EA where appropriate.

3
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT REVIEW COMMENTS AND RECLAMATION’S

RESPONSES

Reclamation received extensive comments from the Boise Project Board ofControl, Idaho Rivers

United, and the City ofBoise. A summary ofsignificant specific comments follows:

Boise Project Board ofControl

Comment: The Draft EA is not comprehensive because the Proposed Action would induce

growth in southeast Boise and effects ofthis growth are not analyzed in the EA.

Response: The Proposed Action is not growth-inducing since alternative water supplies are

available to Simplot/Micron to meet the demands of growth in the area. Growth, and its effects

are not a direct or indirect result ofthis Federal action and are an issue for local planning and

zoning processes.

Comment: Effects to other Reclamation contractors are not adequately analyzed in the Draft EA.

Response: The Final EA has been revised to clarify impacts to other contractors. A 0.7 percent

reduction in refill probability for Anderson Ranch spaceholders would occur. Also, water

available in the Boise River Water Rental Pool may be reduced by up to 1000 acre feet based on

Eagle Island’s past practices.

Comment: The costs of buying and contracting for the storage should be included in the EA

Response: The price paid by Simplot/Micron for Eagle Island storage entitlement is a private

business matter and is not known by Reclamation. Estimated cost for the proposed M&I contract

have been included in the Final EA.

Comment: The EA inappropriately relies on information provided by Simplot/Micron.

Response: In the case of an applicant-driven action such as that proposed, Reclamation must rely

on the applicant for much ofthe information in determining whether there are practical or feasible

alternatives concerning the applicant’s purpose and need. In this case Reclamation has relied on a

combination ofinformation from the applicant and other agencies, plus its knowledge of changing

demographics and water use in the Boise area in determining what alternative water supplies are

practical and feasible for Simplot/Micron to develop.

Idaho Rivers United

Comment: Reclamation should not be paying for water that may be available for free when Lucky

Peak water service contracts expire.

4
Response: Reclamation is paying for the Lucky Peak storage entitlement through the contract

expiration date in 2008, and the payment will be priced accordingly.

Comment: The 25-year commitment ofstorage to Simplot Micron will harm Reclamation’s ability

to meet salmon flow augmentation requirements.

Response: Reclamation’s ability to provide flow augmentation will improve over the life ofthe

Eagle Island contract (2008) through the acquisition ofLucky Peak storage in excess ofthat

required for mitigation. Reclamation has committed to evaluating Lucky Peak Reservoir contract

renewals comprehensively through the NEPA process prior to expiration ofthese contracts.

City ofBoise

Comment: The EA should address conservation and reuse measures.

Response: Discussions on water conservation, reuse, and return flows have been included in the

Final EA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Reservoir Operations and Boise River Flows - As the amount ofwater involved is very small

compared to the storage capacity ofthe Boise River reservoir system, only very minor changes in

reservoir levels and river flows would occur. Anderson Ranch spaceholders probability ofrefill

would be reduced by less than 1 percent with the change in “last to fill” status ofthe storage. In

addition a small decrease in Boise River Water Rental Pool would occur with excess Eagle Island

storage to be used for flow augmentation.

Groundwater - The potential ability to improve groundwater levels in the declining aquifer in

southeast Boise may be increased by the Proposed Action ifwinter diversions can be used for

recharge.

Urban Growth and Development - The Proposed Action would not induce growth. Even without

the Anderson Ranch storage, alternative water sources could be developed by Simplot/Micron

to meet the demand for growth in the area. Growth that would occur would be consistent with

local planning and zoning plans and processes.

Vegetation, Fish. Wildlife, and Endangered Species - The minor changes in reservoir levels and

river flows are not expected to affect fish. Vegetation and wildlife would not be affected by the

proposed action. The bald eagle and bull trout, the only listed or proposed endangered or

threatened species occurring in the area would not be affected. The proposal would not impair

Reclamation’s ability to provide 427,000 acre feet for flow augmentation for listed salmon stocks.

The Lucky Peak storage acquired would actually improve Reclamation’s ability to meet its flow

augmentation requirements.

5
Cultural Resources, Hydropower, and Indian Trust Assets would not be affected by the Proposed

Action.

FINDING

Based on the analysis ofthe environmental impacts in the EA and consultation with potentially

affected agencies and organizations, Reclamation concludes that implementation ofthe Proposed

Action would not have a significant impact on the quality ofthe human environment or the natural

and cultural resources in the project area. The project would provide a much needed water

source for a rapidly growing southeast Boise while assisting in the recovery of endangered Snake

River salmon stocks. This Finding of No Significant Impact has therefore been prepared and is

submitted to document environmental review and evaluation in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

RECOMMENDED:

Area Manager, Snake River Area Office

Boise, Idaho

CONCUR:

Regional Environmental Officer

Boise, Idaho

APPROVED:

Regional Director

Boise, Idaho

9/8/97

Date

9/9/97Date

Sept. 10, 1997

Date

6
CONTENTS

Location Map Frontispiece

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action 1

1.1 Need for Action 1

1.2 Background 2

1.3 Decisions Required 5

1.4 Scoping ofIssues andConcerns 5

1.5 Other Related ActionsandActivities 6

2.0 Description of Alternatives 8

2.1 No Action Alternative 8

2.2 Proposed Action 9

2.3 Alternatives Consideredbut Eliminated from Detailed Study 10

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 11

3.1 Reservoir Operation and Boise River Flows 11

3.2 Groundwater 19

3.3 Urban Growth and Development 21

3.4 Vegetation, Fish, and Wildlife 22

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 26

3.6 Cultural Resources 30

3.7 Hydropower Production 33

3.8 Indian Trust Assets 34

3.9 Environmental Justice 35

4.0 Consultation and Coordination 35

4.1 Public Involvement 35

4.2 Agency Coordination 36

5.0 Bibliography 36

Appendix A Mailing List

Appendix B Letters Received in Response to Scoping Letter

Appendix C Mitigation Storage Calculations

Appendix D Letters ofComment on Draft EA and Reclamation’s Responses

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Boise River Storage and Other Water Provided for Salmon 14

Flow Augmentation 1993-1996

Table 3-2 Boise River Reservoir Space Allocation 15
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used

BiOp NMFS 1995 Biological Opinion

COE U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

EA Environmental Assessment

Eagle Island Eagle Island Water Users Association

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System

ESA Endangered Species Act

IDWR Idaho Department ofWater Resources

M&I Municipal and Industrial

Micron Micron Technology Inc.

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMID Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District

Reclamation U.S. Bureau ofReclamation

Rental Pool Boise River Water Rental Pool

ROD Reclamation’s Record ofDecision Implementing the BiOp

SBGWMA Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area

Simplot J R. Simplot Company

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

United Water United Water Idaho
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SALE OF STORAGE IN ANDERSON RANCH RESERVOIR

FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

AND RELATED ACQUISITION OF LUCKY PEAK STORAGE

FOR SALMON FLOW AUGMENTATION

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Need for Action

The Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation), under the authority of the Reclamation Project Act of

1939, is proposing to issue a 25-year municipal and industrial (M&I) water contract to the J.R.

Simplot Company and Micron Technology Inc. (Simplot/Micron) for 3,000 acre feet of

uncontracted storage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir. This proposal would assist

Simplot/Micron in meeting their water supply needs in the Columbia Bench area ofsoutheast

Boise. The water under the proposed contract would be diverted at a pumping plant now under

construction on the Boise River near the new Highway 21 bridge and would be used primarily for

nonagricultural irrigation, industrial uses, and groundwater recharge.

Although currently uncontracted, this Anderson Ranch storage is now formally assigned by

Reclamation to provide a portion ofthe 427,000 acre feet required annually under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) for flow augmentation to protect listed Snake River salmon stocks.

Therefore, as a related action, Reclamation proposes to acquire 3,554 acre feet ofstorage in

Lucky Peak Reservoir from Simplot/Micron to mitigate the loss of Anderson Ranch storage.

Reclamation would also acquire an additional 2,328 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage from

Simplot/Micron to further assist Reclamation in meeting its salmon flow augmentation

requirement.

Simplot /Micron would first acquire this Lucky Peak storage from Eagle Island Water Users

Association (Eagle Island). Eagle Island holds its Lucky Peak storage entitlement through a

water service contract with Reclamation. The Lucky Peak storage to be acquired by

Simplot/Micron cannot be used for M&I purposes because Reclamation only has authority to

issue contracts for irrigation uses from Lucky Peak.

The Columbia Bench area of Southeast Boise (Figure 1), is a rapidly developing residential,

industrial, and commercial area. Major developments include the Micron semiconductor plant,

Simplot’s Columbia Village residential community, associated commercial services, parks, and

athletic facilities. M&I water, both potable and nonpotable, is currently supplied to the Columbia

Bench through a series ofwells with Simplot and Micron supplying most ofthe water for

nonagricultural irrigation and industrial uses, and United Water Idaho (United Water) supplying

most drinking water and residential irrigation water.

1
Because of a declining aquifer in the region, in 1994 the Idaho Department ofWater Resources

(IDWR) issued an order establishing the Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area

(SBGWMA) in the vicinity ofthe Columbia Bench which restricts additional groundwater

pumping. This restriction on groundwater development has caused Simplot/Micron, the two

largest groundwater users in the area, to seek Boise River surface water supplies to reduce their

reliance on groundwater within the SBGWMA and meet their future water needs.

Much of Simplot/Micron’s surface water needs are expected to be met through acquisition of

existing natural flow water rights in the Boise River that are already appropriated. In addition to

these natural flow rights, Simplot/Micron propose to submit new applications to divert flood

water releases as available. These actions would not require a water contract action by

Reclamation. However, the natural flow water rights to be acquired may restrict diversion during

the late summer and winter Flood flows are usually only available in spring and early summer

and may not be available at all in dry years. In order to meet the year-round demand for a reliable

surface water supply, reservoir storage for M&I purposes (the Proposed Action) is desired to

compliment the natural flow water rights.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Boise River Reservoir System

Under the authority ofthe 1902 Reclamation Act and subsequent authorities, Reclamation

(Reclamation) has constructed the Arrowrock Division ofthe Boise Project on the Boise River in

Idaho. The Arrowrock Division includes two storage reservoirs on the Boise River: Arrowrock

Dam and Reservoir completed in 1915 and Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir completed in

1950. Also included in the Arrowrock Division are Deer Flat Reservoir, Boise Diversion Dam,

and numerous canals and drains which serve approximately 223,000 acres in the Boise Valley.

Arrowrock Reservoir was authorized for irrigation while Anderson Ranch Reservoir was

authorized for multiple purposes including irrigation, power generation, flood control,

conservation offish, and recreation.

The Lucky Peak Project, consisting ofLucky Peak Dam and Reservoir on the Boise River below

Arrowrock Reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (COE) in 1957 for

the purposes offlood control and irrigation. Although the COE operates the dam, Reclamation

has issued contracts for irrigation storage entitlements in the reservoir. Reclamation and COE

coordinate the operation of all three Boise River reservoirs as a system for irrigation, flood

control, power generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation.

In planning for Anderson Ranch Reservoir, Reclamation allocated storage space for irrigation and

power generation (inactive space). After completing the dam, Reclamation found that the power

plant operated more efficiently than predicted, and 5,200 acre feet ofreservoir space was not

needed as power head and could be used as “active” storage and released for power purposes.

After Lucky Peak Dam was completed, this 5,200 acre feet of power storage was released for

2
power generation and recaptured in Lucky Peak Reservoir for irrigation use.

The 5,200 acre feet in Anderson Ranch was never considered by Reclamation for irrigation use

because ofits designation for power purposes. There was a large amount of uncontracted storage

in Lucky Peak available for irrigation for several years after Lucky Peak was constructed.

In the early 1980's, Reclamation became aware ofthe need in the Boise area for M&I water

supplies from Boise River storage reservoirs. In 1986, Reclamation filed for a change in place

and nature of use ofthe storage water rights for the 5,200 acre feet in Anderson Ranch Reservoir

to change the use ofthis space from exclusive power storage to joint power and M&I purposes.

Reclamation determined in its Boise Project Power Modification Study that such joint use would

not impair the efficiency ofthe Boise Project for irrigation nor interfere with the operation ofthe

project for flood control, power generation or other existing beneficial uses. This application was

approved by the IDWR in 1988.

Reclamation has executed two water service contracts for M&I purposes totaling 1,800 acre feet

of Anderson Ranch storage. Reclamation has also assigned 400 acre feet to wildlife mitigation at

Deer Flat Dam safety repairs. The remaining 3,000 acre feet is the storage for which

Simplot/Micron is applying.

Currently, all ofthe active storage space in Arrowrock, Anderson Ranch, and Lucky Peak

Reservoirs has been either contracted for irrigation and municipal and industrial use or has been

formally assigned by Reclamation for other specific purposes such as maintenance of winter

streamflows and for salmon flow augmentation.

1.2.2 Salmon Flow Augmentation and Water Acquisition Program

In 1991 and 1992 the Snake River stocks ofspring/summer chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye

salmon were formally listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following these listings the three Federal agencies (Reclamation,

COE, and Bonneville Power Administration) that operate the Federal Columbia River Power

System (FCRPS) initiated consultation with NMFS under Section 7 ofESA to evaluate the effects

ofFCRPS operation on listed salmon. The consultation for the 1995 operating year resulted in a

Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by NMFS for the 1995 - 1998 operating years that proposed a

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative including an extensive array of actions the three operating

agencies could follow to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence ofthese fish.

For Reclamation, a major measure identified in the BiOp was to provide 427,000 acre feet of

water each year from the Snake River basin above Brownlee Dam for river flow augmentation to

aid downstream migration ofsalmon smolts. It specifically requires that any water acquisitions be

made from willing sellers in accordance with state water law. On March 10, 1995 Reclamation

issued a Record ofDecision Implementing Actions Pursuant to Biological Opinion ofMarch 1995

(ROD) and extended the area from which it would acquire water to the Snake River above Lower

3
Granite Dam, where target flows are tracked. This document was issued to concur in and commit

to carry out the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the 1995 BiOp. In the ROD Reclamation

has committed to acquiring water from all available sources including permanent acquisitions,

annual storage rentals, annual rentals of natural flow rights, long-term leases, and dry year

options.

Since 1991, Reclamation has annually secured water from a variety ofsources in the Snake River

basin for salmon flow augmentation. The water has come from Reclamation projects in the upper

Snake (above Milner Dam), Boise, and Payette River basins. It has been released from

uncontracted reservoir storage and powerhead space, from water rental pools, and from reservoir

space that has been permanently acquired by Reclamation from willing sellers.

To help ensure that salmon water requirements can be met in the long term, Reclamation is

attempting to purchase reservoir space entitlements and natural flow water rights from willing

sellers. To date, Reclamation has permanently secured about 57,400 acre feet ofstorage space

entitlements in Idaho and 17,650 acre feet of natural flow water rights in Oregon for flow

augmentation (Reclamation 1996a, 1997). This water is combined with water rentals and other

uncontracted storage space in Reclamation reservoirs to meet the 427,000 acre feet requirement.

In the Boise River, 35,000 acre feet ofstorage in Lucky Peak Reservoir acquired from Nampa &

Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) and the remaining 3,000 acre feet of uncontracted

power/M&I storage in Anderson Ranch have been formally assigned to flow augmentation.

1.2.3 Growth and Land Use in the Columbia Bench Area

The Boise Comprehensive Plan, which was completed in January 1997 sets forth goals,

objectives, and implementation strategies that support and promote a common vision for the

future ofthe City ofBoise. The plan was developed through a tremendous amount of public

input over several years through public workshops conducted as part ofthe Comprehensive Plan

and through other processes.

Several goals, objectives, and policies developed in the Comprehensive Plan are related to water

supply and future land use within the Columbia Bench area in Southeast Boise. These measures

include:

• Coordinate land use planning and development with the standards and procedures ofthe

SBGWMA as appropriate when developed.

• Require a separate system for use ofirrigation water and where available and feasible for

landscape irrigation.

• Protect identified groundwater management areas through proper land use and site

planning.

4
• The land-use map and attendant policies shall be the official guide for development of the

planning area and shall be implemented through zoning and development review.

• Groundwater restrictions within the SBGWMA shall be adhered to, and groundwater

supplies of other areas shall not be jeopardized to serve the Columbia area, attainment of

the maximum unit count for Columbia shall be contingent on adequate water resources.

The future land use designations for the Columbia Bench include a mixture ofresidential,

industrial, commercial, office, and open space. Most ofthe undeveloped areas are designated as

residential - planned community or industrial.

1.3 Decisions Required

The decisions that Reclamation must make are to either deny the application for an M&I water

contract (No Action) or to approve the proposal with the proposed mitigation. Ifthe proposal is

approved, Reclamation would take the following actions:

• Issue an M&I contract to Micron/Simplot for 3,000 acre feet of uncontracted storage in

Anderson Ranch Reservoir

• Modify and partially rescind Eagle Island’s water service contract for 5,882 acre feet of its

7,650 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage to be acquired by Micron/Simplot. Acquire 3,554

acre feet ofthis storage from Simplot free of charge to replace flow augmentation storage

lost in Anderson Ranch Reservoir.

• Purchase the remaining 2,328 acre feet ofLucky Peak Storage from Simplot/Micron for

flow augmentation

1.4 Scoping of Issues and Concerns

In February 1997 Reclamation mailed a scoping letter to over 60 agencies, organizations, and

individuals soliciting their help in identifying their issues and concerns related to the proposed

water transactions. In addition, a legal notice ofthe proposed contract actions was published in

three local and statewide newspapers and the Federal Register as required by Reclamation

contracting procedures. Reclamation received seven formal and two informal responses to its

public scoping efforts (Appendices A and B).

Reclamation also met with representatives ofWilder Irrigation District and the Boise Project

Board ofControl on February 28, 1997 to discuss their concerns about the potential effects ofthe

proposal on irrigation water supplies.

Based on the responses to the scoping letter, information from the meeting, and Reclamation’s

experience in similar actions, the following main issues pertinent to the proposal were identified:

5
• Effects the proposal may have on Reclamation's ability to meet salmonflow

augmentation targets

• The long term commitment ofwaterfrom the Boise Projectfor M&Ipurposes without

considering its usefor instreamflowsfor residentfish, water quality, recreation, and

irrigation

• Growth inducement effects in southeast Boise

• Cumulative effects ofthis and other water transactions

Some issues were raised during scoping that Reclamation believes are either outside ofthe scope

ofthe proposed action and/or are not pertinent and are not analyzed in detail in this EA. These

issues and the reasons for no detailed analysis include:

• Pending litigation over salmon recovery efforts - An April 1997 decision in U.S. District

Court upheld the NMFS 1995 BiOp for listed salmon. Reclamation is basing its mitigation

and water acquisition components ofthis proposal on the BiOp and Reclamation’s 1995

ROD implementing actions pursuant to the BiOp.

• Why the uncontracted storage in Anderson Ranch was not offered to irrigators - This

storage has never been available for irrigation. It was originally allocated for power

production until 1986 when the storage right was changed to joint power and M&I

purposes. Irrigators were given ample opportunity to purchase Lucky Peak storage for

several years after construction ofthe reservoir.

• Whether the paymentfor the proposedM&I contract with Micron/Simplot would be used

toward repayment ofconstruction costs andfunding operation and maintenance of

Anderson Ranch Reservoir - Reclamation contracting regulations require that payment

received under an M&I contract such as that proposed must be deposited into the U.S.

Treasury and cannot be applied toward payment of construction costs.

1.5 Other Related Actions and Activities

Construction ofthe Surprise Valley Pumping Plant - In spring 1996 Reclamation received a

request from Simplot/Micron in partnership with United Water and Surprise Valley Partnership

for a permit and right ofway to construct a pumping plant and provide access on Reclamation

land on the south side ofthe Boise River near the newly constructed Highway 21 bridge. This

site formerly had a smaller pumping plant on it used for irrigation nearby. At the time ofthe

application, Reclamation was not aware that any Boise Project storage water would be diverted at

the pumping plant, and Reclamation believed its action was limited to approval ofthe permit and

access easement only. After coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on

bald eagles and other wildlife issues, Reclamation determined that issuance ofthe easement and

6
permit for the proposed pumping plant met the criteria for a categorical exclusion under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a categorical exclusion checklist was approved

on May 19, 1996.

Since the proposal analyzed in this environmental assessment (EA) will involve diversion of Boise

Project water at this pumping plant, cumulative impacts of construction and operation of the

pumping plant as well as the reservoir storage contract actions are discussed.

United Water’s M&I Water Needs - One halfofthe pumping plant now under construction on the

Boise River would be used by United Water to supply water for treatment and domestic use in the

Columbia Bench Area in the future. United Water has indicated a short term need of over 2,000

acre feet ofsurface water and long term needs of approximately 30,000 acre feet to keep pace

with projected growth in the Boise area. Reclamation has recently formed a “Water Needs

Working Group” with United Water to assist them in identifying potential sources for their

surface water needs. Discussions with United Water have only been preliminary, and any future

action involving Reclamation that would provide Boise River water to United Water is only

speculative at this time.

Recent Legal Decision on Salmon and Notices to Sue - As discussed in Chapter 1.4 above, an

April 3, 1997 U.S. District Court ruling rejected a challenge to the BiOp for ESA listed Snake

River salmon by a coalition of environmental and recreational groups. On March 20, 1997 the

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. issued a notice of intent to sue Reclamation on behalf of

several environmental and fisheries organizations for violations of ESA in Reclamation’s

operations on the Snake River. On March 25, 1997 the Columbia River Alliance, representing

industrial, hydropower, navigation, and irrigation interests issued a notice ofintent to sue

Reclamation, NMFS, and COE over violations ofESA in preparing and adopting the 1995 BiOp

for Snake River Salmon and the Agencies’ March 10, 1997 Records ofDecision.

In order to make certain that nothing was overlooked that might affect listed species in its

previous ESA consultations, on May 20, 1997 Reclamation initiated consultation with NMFS and

USFWS under Section 7 ofthe ESA for operation ofits projects above Brownlee Reservoir.

SBGWMA Advisory Committee - This group was established under IDWR’s 1994 Order

Designating the SBGWMA. The group consists ofrepresentatives from Simplot, Micron, United

Water, the major water users in the area as well as the City ofBoise, Boise State University,

IDWR and other independent water users. The objectives ofthis committee are to collect and

review groundwater data, mediate water-related issues and developing a groundwater

management plan for the SBGWMA.

Final Environmental Assessment and Finding ofNo Significant-Impact (FONSI) for Purchase of

Lucky Peak Reservoir Storage from NMID for Salmon Flow Augmentation - On July 12, 1996

Reclamation approved a FONSI for acquisition of 35,000 acre feet ofLucky Peak Reservoir

storage space from NMID for salmon flow augmentation.

7
2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.1 No Action Alternative

Under this alternative Reclamation would not enter into a M&I water service contract with

Simplot/Micron. The 3,000 acre feet of uncontracted storage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir

would continue to be used for salmon flow augmentation as long as Reclamation is required to

provide the 427,000 acre feet for flow augmentation under the BiOp and it remains uncontracted.

It is possible in the future that Reclamation could commit all or part ofthis storage by issuing a

contract for M&I water supply with another entity, such as United Water, however Reclamation

would consider only those proposals that would provide replacement water for Reclamation to

meet its salmon flow augmentation requirements.

Simplot/Micron would continue to seek alternative water supplies to meet their needs in

Southeast Boise. These include:

• Diversion ofBoise River water under decreed irrigation water rights that are already

appurtenant to lands in southeast Boise. An example is an existing 2.82 cfs water right

which would be diverted at the pumping plant to irrigate residential lawns and common

areas.

• Transferring to lands in southeast Boise portions of decreed natural flow irrigation water

rights owned by ditch companies and other water delivery organizations. An example is a

pending application before IDWR to transfer 4 cfs of decreed water right no. 63-00147

currently held by Boise Valley Ditch Company to the Surprise Valley pumping plant.

• The diversion ofseasonal Boise River flood control releases. Simplot and Micron have

filed applications with IDWR seeking a combined total diversion of 30 cfs when this water

is available.

• Annexing land located within southeast Boise into existing irrigation districts allowing a

portion ofthe natural flow water rights to be made available to the newly annexed lands.

Applications to transfer these rights will also seek to add industrial and aquifer recharge

uses to these water rights.

• Rental ofwater from the Boise River Rental Pool to supplement other supplies when it is

available.

• Groundwater supplies diverted from sources outside the SBGWMA such as the nearly

completed South Boise Pipeline project.

Any Boise River natural flow water acquired by Simplot/Micron would be released from Lucky

8
Peak Dam and diverted at the Surprise Valley pumping plant now under construction on the south

bank ofthe Boise River immediately downstream ofthe new Highway 21 bridge (Figure 1).

Reclamation has issued a permit and easement for construction of the plant and pipelines on

Reclamation land. One half ofthis pumping plant would serve Simplot/Micron and the other half

would serve United Water. The pumping plant is expected to be finished in 1998 with the first

diversions beginning shortly after completion. The water would be pumped up to the Columbia

Bench area and would be used for non agricultural irrigation, aquifer recharge, and industrial

purposes. The future rates of diversion throughout the year are unknown, however the maximum

capacity of Simplot/Micron’s half ofthe pumping plant is approximately 25 cfs.

Simplot/Micron would not acquire Eagle Island’s Lucky Peak storage under this alternative, and

this storage would not be available to Reclamation for flow augmentation. Reclamation has

approached Eagle Island directly about purchasing a portion oftheir Lucky Peak storage

entitlement for salmon flow augmentation, however an agreement on the sale ofthis storage could

not be reached. Whether Eagle Island would retain all oftheir storage in Lucky Peak or make it

available for other uses in the future is unknown, but based on past practices, some ofthis storage

is likely to be available to other water users in the Rental Pool.

2.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action would involve three separate contract actions by Reclamation.

• Reclamation would enter into a 25-year M&I water service contract which would provide

Simplot/Micron with 3,000 acre feet ofstorage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Final costs

have yet to be determined but are estimated to be $20 to $25 per acre foot.

• Reclamation would modify and partially rescind Eagle Island’s existing water service

contract in Lucky Peak Reservoir for 5,882 acre feet ofstorage that Simplot/Micron

would acquire from Eagle Island. This contract entitles Eagle Island to Lucky Peak

storage through year 2008. Reclamation would acquire 3,554 acre feet ofthis storage free

of charge as mitigation for the 3,000 acre feet from Anderson Ranch formerly used for

salmon flow augmentation. The 3,554 acre feet amount is based on calculations ofthe

chance offilling the Lucky Peak space in a given year, and the reduced availability of

Eagle Islands excess Lucky Peak storage in the Boise River Water Rental Pool (Rental

Pool) which is a source for flow augmentation water. The methods used for calculating

the quantity ofmitigation storage are found in Appendix C.

• Reclamation would purchase 2,328 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage from Simplot/Micron

(5,882 acre feet total minus 3,554 acre feet for mitigation) and designate this storage as

noncontracted specifically assigned to salmon flow augmentation. The purchase price

would be based on the remaining contract entitlement which expires in 2008.

Water filling the Anderson Ranch storage acquired by Simplot/Micron along with any acquired

9
natural flow water would be released from Lucky Peak Dam and diverted at the Surprise Valley

pumping plant as described in the No Action alternative. The pumping plant is expected to be

finished in 1998 with the first diversions beginning shortly after completion. The water would be

pumped up to the Columbia Bench area and would be used for non agricultural irrigation, aquifer

recharge, and industrial purposes. Current plans call for about halfthe water to be used for

nonagricultural irrigation and halffor industrial uses.

Water filling the 5,882 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage space acquired by Reclamation for flow

augmentation as part ofthis alternative would be held in Lucky Peak Reservoir until the JulyAugust salmon migration period when it would be released for flow augmentation along with the

35,000 acre feet of uncontracted water previously acquired for flow augmentation (Reclamation

1996).

It is possible that some ofthe flow augmentation water could be released at other times ofthe

year to enhance Boise River streamflows if an arrangement for shaping can be reached with Idaho

Power Company. Idaho Power already provides water from Brownlee Reservoir and shapes

additional volumes of water from the Minidoka-Palisades Project and the Cascade Division ofthe

Boise Project. All shaping by Idaho Power must be addressed in a single forum. At the present

time, Reclamation can provide all ofthe water it releases from Boise River Reservoirs during the

augmentation season. As long as it can continue to do so, shaping ofBoise River flows will be a

lower priority.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Simplot/Micron has approached Reclamation as an applicant with specific water supply needs. In

a situation such as this, Reclamation is required under NEPA to consider other reasonable

alternatives that are practical and feasible from an technical and economic standpoint given the

applicant’s needs and goals. In this case, Simplot/Micron has determined that the most practical

and feasible water supplies are a combination ofBoise River natural flow water and, reservoir

storage for M&I purposes that can be diverted year-round.

The only water available for M&I uses within Reclamation’s jurisdiction that is not under contract

is the 3,000 acre feet in Anderson Ranch (Proposed Action). There is a substantial amount of

noncontracted storage in Lucky Peak Reservoir, however Reclamation does not have authority to

issue M&I contracts from Lucky Peak. In addition, the noncontracted Lucky Peak storage is

assigned by Reclamation to meet winter minimum streamflows in the Boise River and is also used

for salmon flow augmentation.

There are other alternatives available to Simplot/Micron outside Reclamation’s jurisdiction.

These include acquisition of more natural flow rights, purchasing Rental Pool water, importing

groundwater from outside the SBGWMA, or a combination ofthese. These alternatives may

occur under No Action, but since they are somewhat speculative, their environmental effects

cannot be analyzed in detail.

10
During review ofthe Draft EA, one commenter suggested that conservation measures could meet

all or part of Simplot/Micron’s water needs. The proposed M&I contract would be subject to

similar water conservation policies as Reclamation irrigation contracts.

Simplot/Micron has provided information on ongoing conservation measures. For instance,

Micron Technology, currently recycles 40-50 percent ofits process water and anticipates reaching

a 70 - 80 percent rate in the future. They are also exploring reducing the City-mandated

landscaping requirements and have a pending zoning proposal that would allow for xeriscaping to

conserve water. While these measures will help reduce the water requirements, they cannot

provide sufficient water to meet Simplot/Micron’s future needs, and additional water supplies are

still required.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter presents relative resource components ofthe existing environment that would be

affected by the alternatives or would affect the alternatives ifimplemented, followed by a

discussion of each alternative’s effects to each resource component. The resources analyzed

represent those identified as important through public scoping and Reclamation’s experience in

similar proposals. Resources such as water quality, air quality, soils, recreation, noise, and

minerals would not be affected by the decision to be made and are therefore not analyzed nor

discussed further in this EA.

3.1 Reservoir Operation and Boise River Flows

3.1.1 Affected Environment

The discussion below is a broad overview of reservoir operation and flows in the Boise River.

More detailed information can be found in Reclamation 1996a and 1996b in Chapter 5.

The Arrowrock Division ofReclamation’s Boise Project consists ofthree storage reservoirs:

Arrowrock Reservoir, on the Boise River; Anderson Ranch Reservoir, on the South Fork ofthe

Boise River; and Lake Lowell, an offstream reservoir located south ofNampa. In addition to the

reservoirs constructed by Reclamation, Lucky Peak Dam and Reservoir, was constructed by the

Corps ofEngineers (COE) downstream from Arrowrock. For the purposes ofthis discussion,

the Boise River reservoir system includes only Lucky Peak, Arrowrock, and Anderson Ranch

reservoirs.

Reservoir Operation and River Flows - The three Boise River storage reservoirs are operated as a

system for irrigation, flood control, instream flows, power generation, and recreation. System

operations are directed by the Water Control Manual of 1985 developed jointly by Reclamation

and COE in consultation with IDWR, the Boise River Watermaster and the Boise Project Board

11
of Control. This manual provides for the use ofthe Boise River system’s total reservoir capacity

of 1,108,900 acre-feet.

Reservoir operations are conducted over a “water year” from October 1 to September 30. There

are three general operating seasons based on climatological patterns, runoff and irrigation

demand:

1. Maintenance Period (November through March) - Stored water is carried over from

previous year to the extent that flood control and releases for instream natural flow

rights allow.

2. Flood Control and Refill (April through July) - Outflow and storage are adjusted based

on runoff forecasts to provide space for flood control and ensure reservoir refill.

Irrigation Deliveries begin in April, and salmon flow releases begin in July.

3. Drawdown Period (August through October) - Storage is released for irrigation, and

more recently, salmon flow augmentation.

In addition to seasonal operations, reservoir operations can vary greatly from year to year

depending on water supply and other factors. In many years there is overlap among the three

operating periods, particularly with flood control, which can begin as early as January in years

with high runoff forecasts such as 1996 and 1997.

Anderson Ranch releases are managed conservatively so that in good water years as much

carryover as possible will be held in the reservoir while still meeting minimum streamflows.

Releases of at least 300 cfs are made from mid September to the end ofMarch to maintain fish

habitat, and 600 cfs for the remainder ofthe year ifstored water is available. The 300 cfs

minimum is usually released through the winter until flood control requirements dictate higher

releases in the spring. Reclamation attempts to maintain releases at the power plant capacity of

1,600 cfs during summer as long as irrigation demand remains high and stored water is available,

which is usually into mid August. From mid August into October, releases are maintained at 600

cfs then lowered to 300 cfs for the winter until flood control requirements increase flows in late

winter and spring. These flows meet the minimum recommended Riggin and Hansen 1992.

The water level at Anderson Ranch Reservoir fluctuates about 60 feet during a normal water year.

The reservoir usually fills in June and remains full until late July when irrigation demand exceeds

inflow. Water level continues to drop during the fall and winter as water is released for instream

benefits downstream ofthe dam.

The Boise River below Lucky Peak Dam is influenced by releases for minimum streamflows,

flood control, and irrigation. During the winter, releases of at least 150 cfs are supplied from

storage accounts held by Reclamation and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) when

stored water is available. These minimum releases may be increased to as much as 240 cfs during

12
years with abundant carryover storage, or may be reduced to as little as 80 cfs during prolonged

drought when little storage is available.

River flows generally remain near the minimum until flood control releases begin in the spring, or

earlier in wet years. Normal flood control operations occur from April through June with a flow

target of no higher than 6,500 cfs at Glenwood Bridge in Boise. During the peak ofthe irrigation

season, releases from Lucky Peak are about 4,500 cfs with much ofthis water diverted into the

New York and Ridenbaugh Canals above Boise. Summer river flows through Boise are released

for irrigation downstream and are usually about 900 to 500 cfs. Salmon flow augmentation since

1993 have added an additional 400 cfs or so to the river from mid July to mid August.

Irrigation diversions on the Boise River below the City of Boise reduce flows by about half at

Middleton 25 miles downstream. In the reach between Middleton and Parma, irrigation return

flows bring the flow up to levels similar to the reach through Boise.

Lucky Peak Reservoir usually fills in June and is maintained near full capacity through Labor Day

to maximize recreation opportunities. This is accomplished by drafting Arrowrock Reservoir to

near minimum pool prior to drafting Lucky Peak. From Labor Day through the winter, Lucky

Peak is normally drafted to meet late irrigation, winter streamflows, and flood control

requirements. During low water years, Lucky Peak may fail to fill, and drawdown begins prior to

Labor Day.

Salmon Flow Augmentation Releases - As discussed in Chapter I, Reclamation has been required

to annually provide 427,000 acre-feet for augmentation flows for migrating salmon smolts since

1993. The water for augmentation has been acquired on a year-to-year basis from several sources

in the Upper Snake, Boise, and Payette River basins and more recently, from permanent

acquisitions (Reclamation 1996a, 1997). Water from the Boise River for flow augmentation has

primarily come from uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak, and uncontracted storage and “power

head” in Anderson Ranch (Table 3-1). Reclamation has formally assigned the 3,000 acre feet of

uncontracted storage in Anderson Ranch and the 35,000 acre feet in Lucky Peak acquired from

NMID in 1996 for flow augmentation. Currently the 3,000 Acre feet of power and M&I space in

Anderson Ranch now assigned to flow augmentation is “last to fill” under rules ofthe Rental Pool

under which flow augmentation water from the Boise River is administered.

Storage Allocation -Rights for the storage ofwater in Arrowrock, Anderson Ranch and Lucky

Peak Reservoirs have been issued by the State of Idaho to Reclamation. Reclamation was given

authority to market water for irrigation in Lucky Peak and other COE reservoirs by the Flood

Control Act of 1944. Reclamation has entered into contracts with various entities, primarily

irrigation districts, for use ofstored water in the three reservoirs. Space holder contract language

is different among the three reservoirs and in some cases allows for complex accounting ofstored

water. A water rights accounting is maintained to assure that, regardless ofwhere water is

physically stored, the storage and use of water are properly accounted to the appropriate rights

and spaceholders.

13
Table 3-1 Boise River Reservoir Storage and Other Water Provided for Salmon Flow

Augmentation 1993-1996

System/Reservoir 1993 1994 1995 1996

Boise River (Release Dates) (7/13 - 8/7) (7/5 - 8/18) (7/17-8/20) (7/12 - 8/26)

Lucky Peak Uncontracted 3,000 25,000 22,000 35,000

Anderson Ranch Power Head 20,000 10,950

Anderson Ranch Uncontracted 3,000 3,000

Rental Pool 2,000

Subtotal Boise River 23,000 35,950 27,000 38,000

Payette River 129,971 61,883 145,000 151,300

Upper Snake River (Uncontracted and Rentals) 271,617 330,279 255,235 217,563

Oregon 15,778

TOTAL 424,588 428,112 427,235 422,641

As shown in Table 3-2, most ofthe storage in Boise River Reservoirs has been contracted for

irrigation. Spaceholder contracts in Anderson Ranch and Arrowrock Reservoirs are held in

perpetuity, but may be sold to another entity with Reclamation approval. Contracts for storage

space in Lucky Peak Reservoir are known as water service contracts and were issued in the

1960's for a period of 40 years.

Table 3-2 Boise River Reservoir Space Allocation (includes active capacity only)

Reservoir Contracted Space Uncontracted Space

Contracted

for Irrigation

Contracted

for M&I

Formally Assigned to Winter

Streamflows and other Uses

Formally Assigned to Salmon

Flow Augmentation

Total

Active

Capacity

Anderson Ranch 418,000 1,800 400 3,000 423,200

Arrowrock 286,600 286,600

Lucky Peak 76,950 152,420 35,000 264,3701

Total 781,550 1,800 152,820 38,000 974,170

14
A large block ofstorage remains uncontracted in Lucky Peak Reservoir. This includes 152,420

acre feet held by Reclamation and IDFG for maintenance ofwinter minimum streamflows in the

Boise River and 3 5,000 acre feet acquired from NMID in 1996 for salmon flow augmentation

(Table 3-2). Reclamation has authority to issue contracts only for irrigation in Lucky Peak

Reservoir.

Eagle Island is entitled to 7,650 acre feet ofstorage in Lucky Peak Reservoir under their water

service contract. A review oftheir use ofwater accruing to this storage over the last ten years

indicates that during normal to good water years, when a full 7,650 acre feet is available, Eagle

Island has used less than 10 percent oftheir Lucky Peak water. During the six drought years over

this period, Eagle Island used less than 50 percent oftheir stored water even without a full supply.

In most ofthese dry years Eagle Island also transferred some oftheir stored water to other Boise

Project spaceholders in need ofwater through direct transfers and transfers to the Rental Pool.

These transfers have ranged from over 5,000 acre feet in 1988 which was 27 percent ofthe total

water transferred in the Boise system to 100 acre feet in 1992 accounting for only about 2 percent

ofthe total transferred.

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

3.1.2.1 No Action

Reservoir Operation and River Flows - Under this alternative, Reclamation’s operation ofthe

Boise River reservoir system for irrigation, flood control, and minimum streamflows would be

expected to remain similar to the present. The greatest influence on Boise River flows and

reservoir elevations year to year would continue to be the amount of precipitation and runoff.

The available storage and operational flexibility in the system would allow Reclamation to meet

irrigation demand except during a prolonged drought such as occurred in the early 1990's.

Increased urbanization offarmland in the Boise Valley and water conservation measures would

likely reduce irrigation demand for some irrigation districts.

Minimum streamflows below Anderson Ranch and Lucky Peak dams would also be dependent on

the water year. Minimum streamflows would likely be met in all but the severest of droughts.

Under No Action, Simplot/Micron would seek additional natural flow water rights in the Boise

River to meet their current and future needs on the Columbia Bench. This water would be

diverted at the Surprise Valley pumping plant beginning in 1998. The total quantity that would

ultimately be acquired, the existing point of diversion, and the priority ofthe rights cannot be

predicted. However, the time of year water could be diverted should be limited to the water right

and availability ofwater in the river. In general, the water supply for pumping would be less

reliable in late summer and winter.

The total capacity ofthe Surprise Valley pumping plant is approximately 51 cfs, and

Simplot/Micron owns and would operate halfthe plant. The plant would not operate at full

15
capacity immediately. As development occurs on the Columbia Bench and water demand

increases, more ofthe plant would come on line. If Simplot/Micron’s half ofthe plant were to

operate at full capacity year round, about 18,600 acre feet could be diverted. A more likely

scenario is for most pumping to occur through the April 1 to November 1 irrigation season when

approximately 10,500 acre feet could be diverted at full capacity. Flows in the four mile reach of

river between Lucky Peak Dam and the pump plant would increase as much as 25 cfs when

Simplot/Micron’s half of the pumping plant is operating.

Some ofthe water diverted for industrial uses would be returned to the Boise River through the

Boise water treatment plant just below the city. Currently Micron, by far the largest industrial

water user, averages about 1.5 to 2.5 million gallons per day (2.3 to 3.9 cfs) of water that is

pretreated and discharged to the City’s treatment works and eventually returned to the Boise

River. The amount ofreturn flows to the Boise River will likely be reduced in the future as

Micron’s ability to reuse process water improves.

Salmon Flow Augmentation - Reclamation would continue to provide salmon flow augmentation

from 38,000 acre feet of noncontracted storage from Lucky Peak and Anderson Ranch reservoirs

as long as it is required to do so under the Bi Op for ESA listed salmon. Augmentation releases

would continue to increase flows below Lucky Peak by about 400 cfs in July and August. If

arrangements with Idaho Power can be made, it may be possible to “shape” flow augmentation

releases allowing some water to be released in winter to enhance streamflows.

The Snake River below the confluence with the Boise River would increase from an average of

7,000 cfs to 7,400 cfs during the flow augmentation period. This increase would be less if

augmentation releases can be shaped and some water released in winter.

The 3,000 acre feet of uncontracted storage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir would still be available

for M&I purposes, however any future commitment ofthis storage would require replacement

water for flow augmentation. Reclamation would continue to pursue additional water in the

Boise River basin for flow augmentation from willing sellers in accordance with state law. If

additional Boise River water is acquired there would be a corresponding increase in augmentation

releases.

Storage Allocation - In the short term, reservoir space allocation is not likely to change

dramatically. The 3,000 acre feet of uncontracted power/M&I space in Anderson Ranch would

continue to be in demand from entities such as United Water to meet existing and future growth

in the Boise area, however Reclamation would only consider contracting for this storage ifits

ability to meet salmon flow augmentation requirements are not harmed.

Eagle Island would be expected to use a small percentage ofits storage entitlement in Lucky Peak

as it has in recent years. During drought years it is reasonable to expect Eagle Island to continue

to transfer some ofits excess stored water to other entities directly or through the Rental Pool.

16
Lucky Peak storage contracts will expire within the next 8 to 11 years. This, coupled with a

decrease in irrigated farmland in the Boise Project, Reclamation’s continuing need for salmon

flow augmentation water, and increasing demand for surface water for M&I and instream uses

raises the possibility of changing storage allocations in this reservoir, however at this time these

changes are strictly speculative. Reclamation in cooperation with COE expects to

comprehensively evaluate these competing needs for storage allocation in Lucky Peak in the

future as contracts are closer to expiration.

3.1.2.2 Proposed Action

Reservoir Operation and River Flows - Under the Proposed Action only minor changes in

reservoir operation and Boise River flows would occur compared to No Action. The 3,000 acre

feet in Anderson Ranch which is now released in July and August for flow augmentation would be

released to meet Simplot Micron’s requirements for M&I uses - most likely in late summer

through winter when natural flow water may not be available. Because ofits M&I water right,

the Anderson Ranch storage can be diverted during winter months outside ofthe irrigation

season. Ifthe entire 3,000 acre feet was held in the reservoir until winter it would result in flows

in the South Fork below Anderson Ranch being reduced from 1,600 cfs to 600 cfs a day or two

earlier in August. Holding the water in the reservoir through the irrigation season would also

increase the reservoir water level about one foot at the end ofthe irrigation season. Ifsome ofthe

storage is used in the late summer it would have less effect on the Anderson Ranch releases and

reservoir water level.

Uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak Reservoir used to meet winter minimum streamflows would

not be affected by the Proposed Action.

The operation of Simplot/Micron’s half ofthe Surprise Valley Pumping Plant would be similar to

that under No Action except during late summer and winter. Under the Proposed Action,

Simplot/Micron would seek natural flow rights for spring and summer pumping. The acquisition

of Anderson Ranch storage would allow pumping in late summer when natural flow rights may

not be available and from November 1 to March 30 outside ofthe irrigation season. Ifdiverted at

the full 25 cfs capacity, the 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch storage can supply the pumping

plant 60 days. If diverted throughout the nonirrigation season, the storage could provide a

constant flow of about 10 cfs. River flows between Lucky Peak Dam and the pumping plant

would likely increase by this 10-25 cfs range during the late summer and winter.

Return flows from industrial users, primarily Micron, would be expected to be the same as under

No Action.

Salmon Flow Augmentation - Boise River flows below Lucky Peak Dam during the July - August

flow augmentation period would increase by about 30 cfs under the Proposed Action. The

increase would be from the acquisition of 2,328 acre feet of additional Lucky Peak storage over

and above the 3,455 acre feet acquired to replace the 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch

17
contracted to Simplot/Micron. This would be about a 3 percent increase in flows in the Boise

River and less than 1 percent increase in the Snake River

Because Arrowrock and Lucky Peak are operated so that Lucky Peak is at full pool throughout

the summer in normal water years, the release ofthe 5,882 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage would

actually result in an additional drawdown in Arrowrock of about 2 feet at the end ofthe flow

augmentation period in mid August. The cumulative effects ofthis alternative and other Boise

River flow augmentation releases would be an additional drawdown of 6 to 7 feet in Arrowrock

Reservoir at the end ofthe flow augmentation period.

The potential for Idaho Power Company’s shaping any ofthe flow augmentation releases to allow

for increased winter flows would be the same as under No Action.

The cumulative effect on river flows and reservoir levels of releasing the 5,882 acre feet acquired

under this alternative plus the 35,000 acre feet ofNMID’s Lucky Peak storage for flow

augmentation would be minor since a large quantity of uncontracted Lucky Peak storage would

be used for flow augmentation even if Reclamation did not acquire the NMID and Eagle Island

storage. (Reclamation 1996a). Normal drawdown of Arrowrock during the summer ranges from

about 100 to 125 feet. Under the Proposed Action, in an average water year Arrowrock Reservoir

levels would drop about 6 to 7 feet more at the end ofthe flow augmentation period compared to

No Action.

Storage Allocation - Under the Proposed Action, the commitment of 3,000 acre feet to M&I uses

would bring the total storage under contract for M&I purposes to 4,800 acre feet— approximately

0.5 percent ofthe 974,170 acre foot total active capacity in the three Boise River reservoirs. The

5,882 acre feet of additional storage acquired would bring the total available for flow

augmentation in Lucky Peak Reservoir to 40,882 acre feet — about 15 percent ofLucky Peak’s

active capacity and 4.2 percent ofthe total storage in all three reservoirs.

Once contracted for M&I use, the 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch storage would refill equally

with irrigation storage as opposed to “last to fill” status when used for flow augmentation under

No Action. With this space filling equally, the probability ofrefill to other spaceholders would be

reduced by about 0.7 percent (3,000 acre feet under M&I contract divided by 423,000 acre feet

active reservoir capacity). This refill probability would be similar to that prior to 1995, when

Reclamation began assigning the 3,000 acre feet in Anderson Ranch to flow augmentation.

The recision of 5,882 acre feet ofEagle Island’s Lucky Peak storage would reduce their irrigation

storage in Lucky Peak by about 77 percent. Eagle Island has not used this storage over the last

several years, and some ofit has been available to other users in the Rental Pool. The Proposed

Action would likely reduce water available in the Rental Pool for irrigation or flow augmentation

in drought years. Ifthe same method is used to compute impacts to the Rental Pool as was used

to compute mitigation storage needed (Appendix C), and the assumption is made that the entire

5,882 acre feet would be available for rental, water available in the Rental Pool would be reduced

18
by an average of 13 percent. In practice, however, during the drought years in the late 1980's and

early 1990's, Eagle Island transferred between 500 and 1,000 acre feet to the rental pool and other

irrigators which accounted for 2 to 27 percent of water available in the Rental Pool in those years.

3.1.3 Mitigation

The effects to river and reservoir operations and storage allocation would be very minor, and no

mitigation is proposed. Mitigation for salmon flow augmentation is a primary component ofthe

Proposed Action and is addressed in Chapter 3.5.

3.2 Groundwater

3.2.1 Affected Environment

In 1993 IDWR was petitioned by Boise Water Corporation (now United Water) to designate a

groundwater management area in the vicinity ofthe Boise-Fan aquifer in southeast Boise. Studies

showed that the aquifer was not being recharged by the Boise River and that ongoing

groundwater withdrawals were contributing to a lowering ofthe aquifer causing domestic wells to

go dry and reducing yield and increasing pumping costs in other production wells (IDWR 1994).

IDWR determined that based on declining water level trends, the ability to maintain the present

level ofgroundwater in the area was doubtful.

On October 14, 1994 IDWR issued an Order Designating the Southeast Boise Groundwater

Management Area (SBGWMA) located within 17 sections ofland in southeast Boise lying south

ofthe Boise River and straddling Interstate 84 and including the Columbia Bench area (Figure 1).

The Order also requires monitoring of groundwater diversions with water rights that allow more

than .2 cfs, formal approval of any well construction or enlargement, and assurances any new

groundwater appropriations would not harm existing users or cause increased aquifer depletion.

The Order also established the SBGWMA Advisory Committee of which Simplot, Micron, and

United Water are members.

Data for 1995 and 1996 indicate production wells within the SBGWMA pumped 4,657 acre feet

and 4,808 acre feet, respectively. Nearly all ofthe M&I water supply in the Columbia Bench is

currently provided by groundwater, with Simplot, Micron and United Water as the major

groundwater users. Simplot uses groundwater for non agricultural irrigation of athletic facilities,

parks and other landscaped areas near Columbia Village. Micron relies on treated and untreated

groundwater for its industrial needs. United Water provides treated domestic supplies used for

drinking, residential irrigation, industrial purposes, and peak demand for non-farm irrigation.

Some ofUnited Water’s supply is provided by groundwater imported from wells outside the

SBGWMA.

The formation ofthe SBGWMA and provisions ofthe Order have essentially halted further

groundwater development on the Columbia Bench. Since existing groundwater facilities are not

19
able to meet the future municipal and industrial needs in the area, new development will have to

rely on surface water or imported groundwater.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.2.2.1 No Action

Under this alternative, restrictions on development of new groundwater supplies within the

SBGWMA would be expected to continue. Simplot/Micron would acquire Boise River natural

flow rights and divert this water at the Surprise Valley pumping plant to replace groundwater

currently used for non-agricultural irrigation and industrial uses for which treatment is not needed.

A proposed pilot aquifer recharge program would treat water and inject it into the aquifer for later

uses by Micron and others. At full operating capacity, Simplot/Micron’s half ofthe pumping

plant can supply about 1,500 acre feet per month.

United Water is also seeking Boise River water which would be diverted at the Surprise Valley

plant, treated, and used for potable supplies in the area. United Water expects this to happen

within the next five to ten years.

Through the use ofBoise River water from the Surprise Valley pumping plant, groundwater

diversions within the SBGWMA would be reduced with a corresponding improvement in the

aquifer level. If groundwater recharge proves feasible and a recharge program is implemented,

additional improvements within the SBGWMA would occur.

The natural flow water rights that Simplot/Micron would acquire may limit when diversions can

occur, especially in late summer through winter. Ifsufficient Boise River water is not available

groundwater within the SBGWMA would still be used by Simplot/Micron to some extent and

additional groundwater may need to be imported from outside the SBGWMA to meet the demand

of growth.

3.2.2.2 Proposed Action

Implementation ofthe Proposed Action would provide a more reliable supply ofBoise River

water for Simplot/Micron to use in late summer when water under natural flow water rights may

be unavailable. The acquisition of Anderson Ranch storage would also allow diversion ofriver

water in the winter for industrial uses. Groundwater recharge iffeasible could also occur yearround which would allow a greater improvement in groundwater levels compared to No Action.

The need for importing groundwater from outside ofthe SBGWMA would be reduced as well.

3.2.3 Mitigation

No adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is proposed.

20
3.3 Urban Growth and Development

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Growth has been rapid in the Columbia Bench area ofsoutheast Boise over the last several years.

Major new developments include the Columbia residential community and associated recreation

facilities, continued expansion ofMicron Technology Inc. Semiconductor plant, Surprise Valley

residential development, and the Boise Factory Outlet mall.

Future growth in the area is directed by the January 1997 Boise Comprehensive Plan. The future

land uses designated in the plan for the Columbia Bench include a mixture ofresidential,

industrial, commercial, and office, and open space. Most ofthe industrial, commercial, and office

development is designated along either side ofInterstate 84, while residential development is

slated to occur to the south and east ofthe existing Columbia Village residential area.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3.2.1 No Action

Simplot/Micron have indicated that the alternative sources ofBoise River surface water they are

pursuing plus potential groundwater sources outside ofthe SBGWMA listed in Chapter 2.1

would supply sufficient water to serve the existing municipal and industrial needs as well as any

anticipated future development. The rate of growth cannot be accurately predicted since growth

would be entirely dependent on market demand for residential, industrial, and commercial

development and would be consistent with the Boise Comprehensive Plan. However with

adequate sources of water available, the rate offuture residential, industrial and commercial

development in the project area would not be limited by water supplies even if a contract for

storage from Anderson Ranch Reservoir for M&I purposes is not executed.

3.3.2.2 Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, the acquisition ofAnderson Ranch Reservoir storage would

compliment the other Boise River natural flow water rights Simplot/Micron anticipate acquiring.

The rate and nature of urban growth on the Columbia Bench under this alternative would be the

same as under the No Action alternative.

3.3.3 Mitigation

The Proposed Action would not induce growth, and mo mitigation is proposed.

21
3.4 Vegetation, Fish, and Wildlife

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The descriptions of vegetation, fish and wildlife below were primarily referenced from USFWS

1996.

Vegetation Communities - The typical and historic plant community along the Boise River below

Lucky Peak Dam and the South Fork Boise below Anderson Ranch Dam is black cottonwood

forest. The primary understory plants within this community include alder, birch, hawthorn and

other shrubs. Exotics such as Russian olive are also present in the lower reaches ofthe river.

Many areas ofthe black cottonwood community are classified by the USFWS National Wetlands

Inventory as palustrine forested wetlands with other areas classified as forested uplands. The

riparian community also includes temporary and seasonally flooded wetlands typically vegetated

with sedges, rushes, spikerush, cattail, and bulrush.

The entire riparian zone in the project area has been altered from hydrologic changes due to

operation ofthe Boise River reservoir system for flood control and irrigation and from channel

alteration near developed areas along the river. The upstream reservoirs collect and prevent

downstream movement ofstreambed sediments and lower peak flood flows which historically

scoured side channels and built gravel bars and islands in the river necessary for establishment of

new cottonwood communities. The riparian community through much ofthe Boise River below

Lucky Peak dam currently is limited to a narrow band of black cottonwood forest which lies

between developed areas and normal high water line. The cottonwood forest is dominated by

relatively mature trees with little understory or recruitment of young trees.

Vegetation around the Boise River reservoirs generally consists ofsagebrush steppe above the

water line with small pockets ofriparian areas along the high water line especially where tributary

streams enter the reservoirs. At Anderson Ranch pockets of ponderosa pine , Douglas fir, and

aspen occur in most areas on north and east facing slopes. Vegetation in the reservoir drawdown

areas consists primarily ofweedy annuals.

Vegetation at the Surprise Valley pumping plant site has been disturbed by the previous

construction and operation of a smaller pumping plant which has since been demolished. A

narrow strip ofwillows is present along the river at the pump plant site and with some low shrubs

and weedy annuals present above the river where the pump building is located.

Much ofthe natural vegetation in and around the Columbia Bench has been cleared or otherwise

disturbed in preparation for development or otherwise disturbed. To the east of Columbia Village

a fairly large expanse ofrelatively undisturbed sagebrush steppe is present.

Fish - River flows have been identified as the most important factor in providing quantity and

quality offish habitat. The regulation offlows from operation ofthe Boise River dams have

22
influenced important fish habitat features such as the formation ofside channels, vegetation on

stream banks and islands, instream hiding cover, and spawning substrate. Low flows in winter

cause reduced pool volume and cover, and increased vulnerability to predation, and the potential

formation of anchor ice.

Reclamation, in cooperation with IDFG provides minimum winter releases of 150 cfs from Lucky

Peak Dam from 152,000 acre feet of uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak Reservoir reserved for

that purpose. In good water years with abundant carryover storage, 240 cfs, the target flow

identified by IDFG, can be provided. Conversely, in consecutive drought years such as occurred

in the early 1990's very little water may be stored for instream flows and releases below 150 cfs

may be necessary.

Rainbow trout are the most common gamefish inhabiting the Boise River below Lucky Peak Dam.

Rainbows are stocked by IDFG between Barber Park and Star, and some naturally reproducing

rainbows are present but not abundant. Other gamefish in the river include mountain whitefish

and brown trout. Nongame native fish which occur include suckers, chiselmouth chub and

northern squawfish. In the lower reaches ofthe river below Middleton warmwater species such as

largemouth and smallmouth bass and channel catfish which can better withstand the poorer water

quality in that reach are most common.

A winter minimum flow of at least 150 cfs is maintained below Lucky Peak Dam from Lucky

Peak storage held by Reclamation and IDFG.

The South Fork Boise River below Anderson Ranch is renown as a blue ribbon wild rainbow

trout fishery. IDFG manages the trophy rainbow fishery with size and tackle restrictions.

Mountain whitefish are also an important gamefish in the South Fork, particularly in late fall and

winter.

Flows of 1,600 cfs or more during spring and early summer make it difficult to wade the river for

fishing, and most fishing is done from drift boats or rafts. In late summer Reclamation drops

flows to 600 cfs, the South Fork is much easier to fish by wading. Winter minimum flows are

maintained at 300 cfs. These flows meet the minimum recommended in Riggin and Hansen 1992.

A variety ofsport fish are found in the Boise River reservoirs. The most abundant and sought

after is rainbow trout with kokanee salmon and mountain whitefish also popular in all three

reservoirs. Other gamefish present include smallmouth bass, and yellow perch.

Wildlife - Wildlife is abundant and diverse along the Boise River riparian corridor. More than 150

species of birds, 37 species ofmammals, and a variety ofreptiles and amphibians are found near

the river and reservoirs. The project area serves as an important breeding and wintering area for

waterfowl. Wading birds, such as great blue herons are common along the river and heron

rookeries (communal nest sites) have been identified along the river. Many ofthe bird species

that nest along the river are neotropical migrants traveling as far south as Central and South

23
America for the winter. Game birds such as California quail are locally abundant in the riparian

areas and chukar partridge are found along the steep rocky slopes along the South Fork and

around the reservoirs.

Mammals known to occur are those normally associated with rivers and streams such as beaver,

skunk, porcupine, and river otter. The area from Anderson Ranch and Arrowrock Reservoirs to

Lucky Peak Dam is an important wintering area for mule deer and elk. Common reptiles and

amphibians include western garter snake, sagebrush lizard, western fence lizard, bull frog,

leopard frog, and western toad.

Many ofthe same wildlife species that inhabit the Boise River corridor are also found in the shrub

steppe habitat present in undeveloped areas ofthe Columbia Bench. Other wildlife species

common in these upland areas include birds such as western meadowlark, horned lark, loggerhead

shrike, and sage thrasher, and reptiles such as the sagebrush lizard, western fence lizard, and

gopher snake. Mammals common in the sagebrush areas include badger, Townsend’s ground

squirrel, and a variety of other rodents.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.1 No Action

Vegetation - Under this alternative, the Boise River reservoir system operations which is the

greatest influence on riparian vegetation, would be expected to remain similar to the present. The

lowering offlood peaks and constriction ofthe river flood plain would continue to limit the

regeneration ofthe cottonwood forest. Some minor changes in river flows and reservoir levels

may occur in the near future if additional water is secured for flow augmentation, however these

changes would have a negligible effect on vegetation when compared to the year-to-year changes

in hydrology due to variations in runoff in the Boise River basin. Residential and commercial

development adjacent to the river in the Boise area would also tend to reduce the quantity and

quality ofriparian areas.

Under this alternative, the Surprise Valley pumping plant would be constructed, resulting in a loss

of 1 to 2 acres of already disturbed vegetation for the pump house, about 1/4 acre ofsagebrush

steppe for the pipeline, and less than 1/4 acre ofriparian shrubs along the river near the pump

intakes.

Residential, industrial and commercial development would be expected to continue on the

Columbia Bench under No Action. Most areas slated for development in the short term have

already been disturbed by utility construction and site preparation. In the long term, growth

would be expected to eventually extend outward into relatively undisturbed sagebrush steppe,

however the rate and magnitude ofthe loss ofthis vegetation would depend on local economics

and market forces and cannot be accurately predicted.

24
Fish - Fish and fish habitat would continue to be most influenced by runoff in the basin and

corresponding Boise Project operations. Flows in the winter would continue to limit cold water

fish populations, however winter maintenance flows of at least 150 cfs released from Lucky Peak

Dam and 300 cfs from Anderson Ranch should maintain fish populations at or near current levels.

Flows below these minimums would only occur during severe prolonged drought when stored

water is unavailable.

The Surprise Valley pumping plant would be equipped with a screen which would prevent the

intake offish while operating.

Wildlife - Wildlife populations along the river, like fish, would be expected to remain similar to

that present in the short term. Factors such as weather and human disturbance from development

adjacent to the river below Lucky Peak Dam would have the most effect on wildlife populations.

Most wildlife inhabiting the sagebrush shrub steppe habitat on the Columbia Bench would be

gradually replaced by species adapted to urban habitats such as house sparrows, house finches,

and fox squirrels as these areas are altered by development.

3.4.2.2 Proposed Action

Vegetation - Vegetation changes under this alternative would be the same as under No Action.

The minor changes in reservoir operation and river flows would not be expected to affect riparian

plant communities or wetlands. The direct and indirect loss of vegetation from construction of

the Surprise Valley pumping plant and from development on the Columbia Bench would occur as

in No Action.

Fish - Fish in the Boise River in the project area are mostly limited by minimum winter

streamflows. The Proposed Action would not affect the availability ofstorage and operations for

winter flows in either the South Fork or main Boise Rivers.

The amount ofstorage involved, 3,000 acre feet from Anderson Ranch and 5,882 acre feet from

Lucky Peak, represent only 1.4 and 2.2 percent ofthe total capacity of each reservoir,

respectively. Reservoir system operations and resultant water levels and river flows during the

irrigation season would change very little with the sale of Anderson Ranch storage, and

acquisition ofLucky Peak storage for flow augmentation and would be well within the normal

operating ranges.

Anderson Ranch water surface level would be no more than a foot higher at the end of irrigation

season when the reservoir is usually drawn down about 50 feet. The acquisition and release ofthe

5,882 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage would actually affect Arrowrock water levels in most years

because Arrowrock is drawn down to keep Lucky Peak as full as possible to maximize summer

recreation use. The drawdown of Arrowrock would increase by about 2 feet at the end ofthe

flow augmentation period in late August over current drawdown of at least 50 feet at that time.

25
Wildlife - Wildlife populations and habitat, including losses due to urban growth, would be

expected to be the same as under No Action.

3.4.3 Mitigation

The vegetation disturbed along the pipeline corridor above the pumping plant would be reseeded

with a mixture of native grasses and shrubs under either alternative. A traveling screen installed at

the pumping plant intake would prevent fish losses. No additional adverse impacts to vegetation,

or to fish, and wildlife are expected under the Proposed Action and no mitigation is proposed.

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.5.1 Affected Environment

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, on March 24, 1997 the USFWS provided Reclamation

with a list of endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed species which may be present in the

project area. Two species were included on this list: the bald eagle, listed as threatened; and bull

trout which is a candidate species. On June 13, 1997 the USFWS proposed to list the Columbia

River population segment of bull trout, which includes Boise River populations, as threatened.

Bald Eagle - The Boise River from Anderson Ranch Reservoir downstream to the mouth ofthe

Snake River is considered an important wintering area for bald eagles with up to 35 individuals

counted in a single year below Lucky Peak and up to 50 individuals in the Anderson Ranch

Reservoir area (USFWS 1996, Riggin and Hansen 1992). Winter habitat use along the Boise

River includes communal night roosting and use of daytime perches for loafing and foraging.

Nesting territories have been documented at Anderson Ranch Reservoir, along the South Fork

Boise River below Anderson Ranch Dam, and in the upper reaches of Arrowrock Dam.

Several studies of wintering bald eagles below Lucky Peak Reservoir have been conducted, with

most ofthe effort concentrated between Lucky Peak Dam and the city ofBoise. Very little is

known about bald eagle use from Eagle Island to the mouth ofthe Boise River. These studies

have shown that bald eagles usually arrive in early November and leave the area by late March

with highest concentrations in January and February. Wintering eagles tend to perch throughout

the area, with a preference ofwide areas ofthe river and pools in well-vegetated areas with high

numbers of perches. The eagles also seem to avoid areas of high human use. The Barber Pool

area has been documented as having special importance as a communal night roost.

The diet of bald eagles wintering along the Boise River includes fish, birds, and mammals.

Hatchery rainbow trout appear to be important, but other fish species are also taken. Waterfowl

are also taken by eagles along the Boise River, and mule deer carcases are also used as a food

source if available.

Bull Trout - Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids

26
and are probably more sensitive to habitat changes (Rieman and McIntyre 1993) . Channel

stability, winter high flows, summer low flows, substrate, cover, temperature, and the presence of

migration corridors consistently appear to influence bull trout distribution. Bull trout are

generally restricted to colder stream temperatures than other salmonids. Threats to bull trout

include stream channel and water quality degradation from land use practices, blockage of

migration corridors by dams, and the introduction of non-native species such as brook trout.

Bull trout are known to occur in the Boise River basin including Lucky Peak, Arrowrock, and

Anderson Ranch Reservoirs and in the Middle, North and South Forks of the Boise River

upstream ofthe reservoirs. IDFG (1995) identified the Boise River upstream of Arrowrock and

the South Fork upstream and downstream of Anderson Ranch Reservoirs as key watersheds for

this species. The U.S. Forest Service has monitored headwater streams in the Boise River for the

presence and absence of bull trout and found them to be absent from many upper basin

watersheds where they historically occurred.

Bull trout inhabiting the Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch Reservoirs are believed to be adfluvial

forms which spend several years in the reservoirs until mature, generally from five to seven years

old. In late spring, mature fish migrate from the reservoirs into mainstem rivers and eventually to

headwater streams in the fall where they spawn. After spawning, the adults return to the

reservoirs where they overwinter. Juvenile fish remain in the upper watersheds for up to three

years before returning to mainstem rivers and reservoirs.

An ongoing study by IDFG and Reclamation has shown adfluvial bull trout begin moving out of

Arrowrock Reservoir in late spring and early summer. By fall many fish have moved into

spawning areas in the headwaters ofthe Middle Fork and North Fork ofthe Boise River. Bull

trout spawning has also been documented in Rattlesnake Creek, a tributary to the South Fork

Boise River just above Arrowrock Reservoir. Bull trout are also known to occur in the South

Fork Boise River between Arrowrock Reservoir and Anderson Ranch Dam, and are observed

most often in the fall. It is not known whether these are fish moving up the South Fork from

Arrowrock in an attempt to spawn or fish that escape from Anderson Ranch Reservoir.

The current telemetry study has also documented bull trout moving from Arrowrock into Lucky

Peak Reservoir. These fish are likely not able to reproduce since they can’t move back into

Arrowrock, and bull trout appear to be absent from Mores Creek, the only potential spawning

tributary to Lucky Peak Reservoir. The factors that influence movement from Arrowrock into

Lucky Peak are unknown, however IDFG is concerned about the loss of adult “spawners” to

Lucky Peak (Yundt, pers com 1997).

No data are available documenting bull trout migrating upstream from Anderson Ranch

Reservoir, however adult fish are present in the reservoir and spawning does occur in the

headwater streams above the reservoir. The Anderson Ranch bull trout most likely exhibit

migratory behavior similar to those in Arrowrock.

27
Endangered Salmon Stocks - In November 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

listed the Snake River sockeye salmon as endangered. NMFS listed Snake River fall and

spring/summer chinook as threatened in April 1992. In August 1994, the threatened status of

Snake River chinook was upgraded to endangered under emergency procedures.

While these listed salmon stocks do not presently occur within the Boise River drainage, recovery

efforts have recognized the importance offlow augmentation water provided from the upper

Snake River Basin for aiding smolt migration. NMFS 1995 Bi Op on operation ofthe FCRPS

called for Reclamation to deliver 427,000 acre-feet annually from the Snake River above Lower

Granite Dam. Details ofthe status, life history, and recovery efforts for listed salmon can be

found in NMFS 1995 Bi Op and related documents.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

3.5.2.1 No Action

Bald Eagle - Under this alternative the wintering bald eagle population would be expected to

remain similar to its present state, with potential declines due to human disturbance from

continued development along the Boise River below Lucky Peak Dam. The construction and

operation ofthe Surprise Valley pumping plant near the new Highway 21 bridge would not likely

cause additional disturbance to bald eagles as it is in the shadow ofthe Highway 21 bridge in an

area that does not contain trees suitable for perching or roosting. USFWS has concurred with

this determination during coordination for the Categorical Exclusion Checklist prepared by

Reclamation in May 1996.

Bull Trout - Impacts to bull trout from continued operation ofthe Boise River reservoir system,

including salmon flow augmentation are unknown. However, the fact that bull trout are still

present in Boise River reservoirs after many years of operation including the six years of drought

in the late 1980's and early 1990's when reservoir pools were at all-time lows indicate that these

fish are able to survive severe drawdown ofthe reservoirs and low flows in the Boise River.

The loss of adult bull trout from Arrowrock into Lucky Peak Reservoir would probably continue,

and would remain a concern; however the effects ofthese losses to the Middle and North Fork

bull trout populations is not yet understood. Ongoing and future bull trout research may help

answer these and other questions about bull trout in the Boise River.

Endangered Salmon Stocks - Under No Action, flow augmentation water from the Boise River

would continue to be provided from the 35,000 acre feet of uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak

and 3,000 acre feet from Anderson Ranch. It is possible that Reclamation could contract all or a

portion ofthe Anderson Ranch uncontracted storage, however Reclamation would require

replacement water for salmon flow augmentation in order to consider any proposal. Other flow

augmentation water could be acquired year-to-year from Lucky Peak uncontracted storage, water

rental pool, and power head, although the availability ofthis water is uncertain, especially during

28
prolonged drought. Water acquired and released for flow augmentation would be consistent with

NMFS 1995 Biological Opinion and is a component ofthe overall program for recovery of

endangered salmon stocks.

3.5.2.2 Proposed Action

Bald Eagle - The Proposed Action would have no effect on bald eagles or important bald eagle

habitat when compared to No Action. The hydrologic changes from the Proposed Action in

Anderson Ranch and Lucky Peak Reservoirs and the rivers below would be very minor, compared

to the normal variation from season to season and year to year. Fish, the bald eagle’s principal

prey base, would not likely be affected nor would the eagles’ ability to catch fish. As in No

Action, the siting ofthe pump plant near the Highway 21 bridge would avoid important perching

areas and would not contribute to human disturbance. The pump intake would also be screened

to prevent loss offish.

No cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action and related water acquisition actions

(Reclamation 1996a) would be expected.

Bull Trout - Bull trout would not be affected by the Proposed Action. The amount ofstorage

involved, 3,000 acre feet from Anderson Ranch and 5,882 acre feet from Lucky Peak represent

only 1.4 and 2.2 percent ofthe total capacity of each reservoir, respectively. Reservoir system

operations and resultant water levels and river flows would change very little with the sale of

Anderson Ranch storage and acquisition ofLucky Peak storage for flow augmentation and would

be well within the normal operating ranges.

Anderson Ranch water surface level would be no more than a foot higher at the end ofirrigation

season when the reservoir is usually drawn down about 50 feet.

The acquisition and release ofthe 5,882 acre feet ofLucky Peak storage would actually affect

Arrowrock water levels in most years because Arrowrock is drawn down to keep Lucky Peak as

full as possible to maximize summer recreation use. The drawdown of Arrowrock would increase

by about 2 feet at the end ofthe flow augmentation period in late August over current drawdown

of at least 50 feet at that time ofyear.

No cumulative effects to bull trout would be expected from this action and similar water

acquisition activities in the Boise River basin (Reclamation 1996a)

Endangered Salmon Stocks - The Proposed Action contains two elements which address

Reclamation’s responsibility to augment flows in the lower Snake and Columbia River to benefit

listed salmon. The first is 3,554 acre feet ofmitigation storage to be acquired by Reclamation to

replace 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch storage now devoted to flow augmentation. The

second element is acquisition of an additional 2,328 acre feet with the objective of helping

Reclamation reach its goal, as required in NMFS’ March 1995 Bi Op, ofsecuring 427,000 acre

29
feet ofwater each year for salmon flow augmentation from the Snake River basin. Therefore,

implementation ofthe proposed action would represent a beneficial effect to the three runs of

ESA listed Snake River salmon.

3.5.3 Mitigation

The acquisition ofLucky Peak storage provides both mitigation and enhancement for

Reclamation’s flow augmentation responsibility. No other adverse impacts are anticipated under

the Proposed Action and no mitigation is proposed.

3.6 Cultural Resources

3.6.1 Affected Environment

3.6.1.1 Historic Resources

The “project area” in this chapter refers to the South Fork ofthe Boise River below and including

Anderson Ranch Reservoir, and the main channel ofthe Boise River below Arrowrock Reservoir,

including Luck Peak Reservoir, and extending to the Surprise Valley pumping plant.

Historically, the people who occupied the Boise River “project area” included both the Northern

Shoshone and Northern Paiute. In addition to this resident population, southwestern Idaho also

attracted numerous visitors from elsewhere across the region. Visitors included Shoshonean

parties from the Fort Hall area and Lemhi area, and the White Knife Shoshone from northern

Nevada; the northern Paiute from eastern Oregon; as well as the Nez Perce, the Cayuse, the

Umatilla, the Flathead, and the Blackfoot. Although the native inhabitants ofsouthwestern Idaho

were linguistically and culturally closely affiliated with the Great Basin cultural area, their

residence in this portion ofthe region provided them with access to a more diverse and abundant

resource base than was possible in the Great Basin proper — chiefly through access to greater

varieties of plant species and the availability of anadromous fish.

Although several French explorers may have visited what is now the project area in the late

1700's, the first recorded visit to the general area by Euroamericans was in 1811 with the arrival

ofthe Pacific Fur Company expedition led by Wilson Price Hunt. Subsequently, Euroamerican

presence in the area would be realized on a number offronts, manifested in a variety ofthemes.

These themes include for hunting, exploration, the military, missionaries, settlement,

transportation, mining, communication, irrigation, hydroelectric development, and others.

The cultural resource surveys that have occurred in the project area have reported a number of

historic sites and associated cultural materials relating to the above themes. Most ofthe sites

probably date from the late 1840's to the early 20th century. Included in the project area are: the

Oregon Trail, an unnamed wagon road, the Mary Hallock Foote House, structures and features

associated with placer mining, sheepherder camps, a refuse dump containing a very complete

30
assemblage of late 19th and early 20th century domestic artifacts, cisterns, homestead remains,

and foundations.

Irrigation systems which are more than 50 years in age, and are associated with events or

processes important in the history ofthe area may be eligible for the National Register ofHistoric

Places. Preliminary information indicates Arrowrock Dam, which was constructed between 1910

and 1915 is on the National Register. Anderson Ranch Dam was constructed in 1950 and Lucky

Peak Dam in 1957, making these structures less than 50 years of age, and not eligible for the

National Register. Additional research would be needed to determine whether they have the

historic significance and physical integrity to be eligible for the Register once they meet the 50

year age requirement. Although these properties are not technically eligible for the National

Register at this point in time, they might be so in the near future; therefore, any alterations or

modifications to these structures should conform to the Secretary ofthe Interior’s “Standards for

Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.”

3.6.1.2 Archeological Resources

Other than the large-scale survey that was part ofthe Smithsonian River Basin surveys ofthe late

1940's, Anderson Ranch Reservoir remains largely unexamined. A number ofsmall-scale surveys

have been conducted for Idaho Transportation Department and Boise National Forest, but these

have yielded little information because oftheir restricted scope. Only one prehistoric site is

known within the Anderson Ranch Dam project area — a thin, widely dispersed lithic scatter.

Lithic scatters are known to occur within a two mile radius of the Anderson Ranch Dam project,

dating between 4500 - 1000 BP (before present), and it is thought that sites are more likely to be

located on south-facing slopes in the area. The Danskin Rockshelter (10EL1) is located

downstream from the Anderson Ranch Dam project area.

A number of cultural resource surveys have taken place within the boundaries ofthe Arrowrock

and Lucky Peak Reservoir project areas. The banks and basin ofLuck Peak Reservoir have been

almost completely surveyed, with a number ofsmaller surveys concentrating on specific locales.

Prehistoric sites are relatively rare and most lack dateable material. Site types include talus

burials, isolated debitage, lithic scatters, hunting blinds, a prehistoric quartz quarry, and rock

cairns. The Lydle Gulch site (10AA72), located 8 miles east ofBoise, near Luck Peak Dam,

was a site ofintermittent occupation during the past 4500 years, ending prior to the advent ofthe

historic period in the early 1800's.

3.6.1.3 Traditional Cultural Properties (Including Sacred Sites)

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are locations or resources identified by an Indian tribe or

other group as being important in the survival and continuation oftraditional cultural practices.

These can include natural resources used for traditional crafts, ceremony, or religion, or locations

with unique characteristics for the practice oftraditional activities, including Indian sacred sites.

31
There is no information available to determine whether or not TCPs are present in the affected

areas. Activities that constitute an “effect” on cultural resources pursuant to 36 CFR 800, will

require that Indian tribes be notified and requested to indicate if TCPs are present.

Reclamation would abide by all Federal laws and regulations which have been promulgated to

protect the nation’s historical, architectural, and prehistoric resources. Sites which hold

traditional cultural or religious value to Indian tribes are also protected by Federal law. These

authorities include the National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection

Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, National Landmarks Program, Executive Order

13007, and the World Heritage List.

3.6.1.4 Potential for Unrecorded Sites

The potential for locating unrecorded sites within the Boise River corridor is variable, depending

upon location, proximity to the Boise River or other drainages, topography and urban

development. Several reports indicate the possibility oflocating additional prehistoric sites

around and below Lucky Peak Reservoir. The Lydle Gulch site (an open camp) and several other

prehistoric sites located in this area may indicate a moderate potential for unrecorded prehistoric

sites.

There is a significant potential for recording historic sites and architectural properties as one

approaches the Boise area.

The Oregon Trail follows the Boise River throughout most ofthe corridor. There is significant

potential for unrecorded sites associated with this historic trail.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

3.6.2.1 No Action

Under this alternative, Reclamation’s operation ofthe Boise River reservoir system for irrigation,

flood control, and minimum streamflows would be expected to remain essentially the same as that

in the past. There would be no new effects on cultural resources due to Reclamation actions.

3.6.2.2 Proposed Action

Some minor changes in river flows and reservoir levels may occur in the near future if additional

water is secured for flow augmentation; however, these changes would have a negligible effect on

cultural resources when compared to the year-to-year changes in hydrology due to variations in

runoffin the Boise River basin. (For example, ifthe entire 3,000 acre feet was held in the

reservoir until winter it would result in flows in the South Fork below Anderson Ranch being

reduced from 1,600 cfs to 600 cfs a day or two earlier in August). In addition, holding the water

in the reservoir would increase the water level about one foot at the end ofthe irrigation season

32
compared to No Action. Essentially, there would be no new effects on cultural resources.

Because this project almost entirely involves non-Federal land, and the Federal land which is

involved is previously disturbed, consultation with Indian tribes under Executive order 13007

concerning sacred sites is not being conducted.

3.6.2.3 Mitigation

Because changes in river flow and reservoir levels under the proposed action would not be any

greater than that which occurs during day-to-day operations throughout the year, there would be

no new effects, therefore no mitigation would be required.

3.7 Hydropower Production

3.7.1 Affected Environment

Hydropower generation on the Boise River is secondary to irrigation and flood control

operations. While it is desirable to generate power whenever possible, generation is dependent

upon water release for other purposes. Hydropower plants are located at Lucky Peak, Anderson

Ranch and Boise Diversion Dams. Lucky Peak and Anderson Ranch powerplants generally

operate year-round.

Lucky Peak’s power plant is owned by the Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, NMID, Wilder

Irrigation District and Big Ben Irrigation District and operated by the City of Seattle pursuant to a

contract between Seattle and the districts and under a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. The power plant consists ofthree units capable of generating approximately 100

megawatts at maximum output of 5,800 cfs. The Anderson Ranch Powerplant is operated by

Reclamation and has two turbines which can generate up to 40 megawatts at a maximum

discharge of 1,850 cfs. The small powerplant at Boise Diversion Dam has not operated since

1982 because of high operation and maintenance costs due to the age ofthe equipment.

Rehabilitation ofthis plant is scheduled for 1999. It has a generating capacity of 1.5 megawatts at

a maximum discharge of 1,200 cfs.

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

3.7.2.1 No Action

Under this alternative, power generation would continue to be secondary to other purposes and

generation would be dependent on runoff and water supply. Water would be released for flow

augmentation from uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak and Anderson Ranch during July and

August and would provide a small amount of additional generation at Lucky Peak and Anderson

Ranch Powerplants during the summer peak demand period. The extra water from flow

augmentation releases would have no effect on generation at Boise Diversion Dam since irrigation

33
releases through the powerplant in July and August are usually at or above the plant’s capacity.

Since Eagle Island only uses a small portion oftheir Lucky Peak storage entitlement, most ofthe

water accruing to this storage would likely be retained in the reservoir and not used for power

generation.

3.7.2.2 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action only very minor changes to hydropower generation would occur.

Some ofthe 3,000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch storage now released during peak demand in the

summer for flow augmentation may be released in fall and winter, depending on Simplot/Micron’s

needs. This would result in lowering releases from Anderson from 1,600 cfs (almost power plant

capacity) to 600 cfs a day or two earlier in August. Since the Proposed Action will only delay the

time ofrelease, no net loss of generation at Anderson Ranch would occur

Power generation at Lucky Peak Dam would increase slightly since an additional 5,882 acre feet

ofstored water in Lucky Peak formerly held in the reservoir would be released in July and August

for flow augmentation. The net result would be about 960 megawatt hours additional power

generated at Lucky Peak.

3.7.2.3 Mitigation

No net adverse impacts are expected, and no mitigation is proposed.

3.8 Indian Trust Assets

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Indian Trust Assets (ITA’s) are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for

Indian tribes or individuals or property that is the United States is otherwise charged by law to

protect. Examples ofresources that could be ITA’s are lands, minerals, hunting and fishing

rights, water rights and instream flows.

The United States has a trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted

to American Indian Tribes or Indian individuals by treaties, statues and executive orders. These

rights are sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and regulations. This trust

responsibility requires that all federal agencies including Reclamation, take all actions reasonably

necessary to protect ITA’s.

The ITA’s located in the area affected by the proposed water transactions would be primarily the

fish, wildlife, and plant life associated with the lower Boise and Snake Rivers and applicable water

rights. An important ITA found downstream from the project area is the remaining anadromous

fish runs (both ESA listed and unlisted runs) found throughout the Snake and Columbia River

34
basins. These fishery resources are of particular significance to several treaty tribes because they

were historically important in terms ofthe Indian subsistence. Present day court interpretations of

treaty agreements reserve the rights of certain tribes to harvest a portion ofthese fish runs.

Reclamation’s proposal to replace storage previously used for salmon flow augmentation and

purchase additional storage for this purpose would continue the course of improving flows during

salmon and steelhead migration.

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

3.8.2.1 No Action

Under No Action, flow augmentation water from the Boise River would continue to be provided

primarily from the 35,000 acre feet on uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak, 3,000 acre feet from

Anderson Ranch. Other flow augmentation water could be acquired year-to-year from Lucky

Peak uncontracted storage, the Rental Pool, and power head, although the availability ofthis

water is uncertain, especially during prolonged drought.

3.8.2.2 Proposed Action

The proposed water transactions are responsive to resource considerations relative to the

conservation ofresident fish and wildlife in the Boise River drainages and to basin wide

anadromous fish recovery efforts. Also, certain existing water storage rights historically used for

agricultural irrigation would be converted to an instream flow for the expressed benefit of

anadromous fish species, a major trust asset.

3.9 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal Agencies to make environmental and human health

conditions in minority and low-income populations a priority in their policies, programs, and

activities. Reclamation has not identified any minority or low-income populations within the area

affected by the project, and no impacts to these communities would occur from either ofthe

alternatives.

4.0 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Public Involvement

On February 14, 1997 Reclamation mailed a scoping letter to over 60 potentially affected

agencies, organizations, tribal governments, and individuals describing the proposal and soliciting

help in identifying issues, concerns, and alternatives. A corrected version ofthis letter was

mailed on February 28. The mailing list for the scoping letter is included as Appendix A, and

copies ofthe six responses Reclamation received are in Appendix B. In addition to the scoping

letter, a legal notice ofthe proposed contract actions was published in three local and statewide

35
newspapers and the Federal Register as required by Reclamation contracting procedures. A

discussion ofthe issues identified through public scoping are discussed in Chapter 1.4 ofthis EA.

Reclamation met with Wilder Irrigation District and the Boise Project Board of Control on

February 28, 1997 to discuss their concerns over the proposal. Reclamation also met with

representatives of Simplot and Micron on several occasions throughout the process of preparing

this EA to collect information on the proposal and discuss issues.

On June 19, 1997 the Draft EA was mailed for review and comment to the same parties which

received the scoping letter. At the end ofthe 30 day comment period Reclamation received five

letters commenting on the Draft EA. These letters and Reclamation’s responses to comments are

included in the Appendix D.

4.2 Agency Coordination

In addition to the scoping letter, Reclamation contacted USFWS about consultation under the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. It was decided that with the nature ofthe project and the

availability ofinformation on fish and wildlife in the project area from past consultations

(Reclamation 1996a), USFWS would limit their consultation for this project to review and

comment ofthe draft EA. Reclamation also consulted USFWS on a list ofspecies listed under

ESA. The impacts to listed species from the project are evaluated in this EA in compliance with

Section 7 ofESA.

IDFG was the only agency that responded to the scoping letter, and their primary concerns were

maintenance ofminimum winter river flows. Reclamation also received information from IDFG

on the status of bull trout in the Boise River. IDWR provided information about groundwater

and the SBGWMA.

Prior to completing the categorical exclusion checklist for construction ofthe Surprise valley

pumping plant in May 1996, Reclamation met with USFWS to discuss impacts to wintering bald

eagles and other wildlife. Simplot/Micron also met with IDFG and the City ofBoise Public

Works Department as part of Ada County’s conditional use permit process for the pumping plant.

IDFG determined that construction ofthe plant would not likely have any significant adverse

impacts to fish or wildlife habitats. The City ofBoise conceptually supported the pumping plant

to meet the long term goals ofthe community.

5.0 Bibliography

Beck and Baird. 1993. Boise River system recreation study for Idaho Department ofWater

Resources and U.S. Bureau ofReclamation.

36
Boise City. 1997. Boise city comprehensive plan, goals, objectives and policies.

Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 1994. Fish sampling reports from Lucky Peak Reservoir

and Boise River, City ofBoise.

Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 1995. Assessment and conservation strategy of bull

Trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 1996. Draft proposal to define life history

characteristics and assess impacts of Arrowrock Reservoir on bull trout.

Idaho Department ofWater Resources. 1994. Order designating the Southeast Boise

Groundwater Management Area.

Martin, B. and K. Albin-Stone. 1986. Wildlife impact assessment, Anderson Ranch, Black

Canyon, and Boise Diversion Projects, Idaho. Final Report by Idaho Department ofFish and

Game, Boise, Idaho prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power

Administration.

Rieman, B. and J. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of

bull trout. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report

INT-302.

Riggin, S. and J. Hansen. 1992. Phase 1 water rental pilot project: Snake River resident fish and

wildlife resources and management recommendations. U.S. Department ofEnergy

Bonneville Power Administration. Idaho Department ofFish and Game.

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation. 1995. Record of decision implementing actions pursuant to

biological opinion ofMarch 1995. Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation. 1996a. Final environmental assessment and finding of no

significant impact, purchase of Lucky Peak Reservoir storage from Nampa & Meridian

Irrigation District for salmon flow augmentation. Bureau ofReclamation Snake River Area

Office, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation. 1996b. The Central Snake River basin, a description ofBureau of

Reclamation system operation ofthe Boise and Payette Rivers. Snake River Area Office,

Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation. 1997. Finding of no significant impact and final environmental

assessment - purchase ofwater rights from Skyline Farms for salmon flow augmentation.

Pacific Northwest Region, Boise Idaho.

37
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft planning aid report, water contract purchase for

salmon flow augmentation, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Snake River Basin

Office, Boise, Idaho.

Yundt, S. 1997. Idaho Department ofFish and Game, Southwest Region.

38
APPENDIX A

MAILING LIST FOR SCOPING LETTER

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LOCAL GOVTS. AND AGENCIES

Ada County Development Services

650 Main

Boise, ID 83702

Mr. Wayne Gibbs

City of Boise Planning

PO Box 500

Boise ID 83701

Mr. Robbin Finch

Environmental Coordinator

City ofBoise

PO Box 500

Boise ID 83701

Mr. Dorrell Hansen

Ada County Highway District

318 E. 37th Street

Boise, ID 83714

STATE AGENCIES

Idaho Department ofWater Resources

Western Region

2735 Airport Way

Boise Idaho 83705-5082

Mr. Bill Graham

Idaho Department ofWater Resources

1301 North Orchard

Boise ID 83706

Mr. Lee Sisco

District 63 Watermaster

6616 Overland Road

Boise, ID 83709

Mr. James Baker

Idaho Department of Agriculture

2270 Old Penitentiary Road

Boise, Idaho

Mr. Tracy Trent

Supervisor, Region III

Idaho Department of Fish & Game

3101 S. Powerline Road

Nampa, ID 83686

Ms. Cindy Robertson

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

PO Box 25

Boise, ID 83707

Mr. Wally Cory

Idaho Department of Health & Welfare

Division ofEnvironmental Quality

1410 North Hilton, Suite 101

Boise ID 83 706-1290

Mr. Bruce Schold

Idaho Department of Health & Welfare

Division ofEnvironmental Quality

1410 North Hilton, Suite 101

Boise ID 83706-1290

Ms. Nickie Arnold

Idaho Department of Health & Welfare

Division of Environmental Quality

Southwest Regional Office

1435 N. Orchard

Boise, ID 83706
Idaho Transportation Department

District 3

P O Box 8028

Boise, ID 83707-2028

Governor Phil Batt

Statehouse

Boise ID 83720

Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer

Idaho Historical Society

210 Main Street

Boise, ED 83702

Idaho Parks and Recreation Department

2117 Warm Springs

Boise, ID 83712

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Environmental Protection Agency

1435 N. Orchard St.

Boise ID 83706

Supervisor, Snake River Basin Office

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

4696 Overland Road

Boise ID 83705

Mr. Bill Mullins

U.S. Geological Survey

230 Collins Rd..

Boise, ED 83702

Mr Will Stelle

National Marine Fisheries Service

BEN Cl57000 Building 1

7600 Sandpoint Way NE

Seattle WA 98115-0070

Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, No. 1100

Portland OR 97204

Mr Greg Martinez

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lucky Peak Project

HC-33 Box 1020

Boise, ID 83706

CONGRESSIONAL

Honorable Larry E. Craig

304 N. 8th Street, Rm. 149

Boise, ED 83702

Honorable Dirk Kempthorne

304 N. 8th Street, Rm. 338

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable Helen Chenowith

304 N. 8th Street, Rm. 454

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable Michael Crapo

304 N. 8th Street, Rm. 444

Boise, ED 83702

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS

Eagle Island Water Users Association

807 South Channel Road

Eagle, ID 83616

Ballentyne Ditch Company Ltd.

325 Park Lane

Eagle ID 83616

Big Bend Irrigation District

747 Red Top Road

Adrian OR 97901-9310

Boise - Kuna Irrigation District

129 North School Street

Kuna, ED 83634

Boise Project Board ofControl

2465 Overland Road

Boise, ID 83705
Boise Valley Irrigation Ditch Company

4822 Alamosa Lane

Boise, ID 83703

Caldwell Irrigation Lateral District

PO Box 446

Caldwell ID 83606

Capital View Irrigation District

PO Box 208

Eagle ID 83616-0208

Black

Farmers Co-operative Ditch Company

PO Box 430

Parma ID 83660-0430

Farmers Union Ditch Company Ltd

4520 N. Linder Road

Eagle ID 83661-2128

Middleton Irrigation Association Inc.

PO Box 214

Middleton ID 83644

Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District

1503 First St. South

Nampa ID 83651 - 4395

Pioneer Irrigation District

PO Box 426

Caldwell ID 83606-0426

New Dry Creek Ditch Company Ltd.

1200 Hereford Drive

Eagle ID 83616

New Union Ditch Company Ltd.

PO Box 31

Eagle ID 83616

Settlers Irrigation District

PO Box 7571

Boise ID 83707

South Boise Mutual Irrigation Company

1120 Chamberlin Street

Boise ID 83 706-4106

South Boise Water Company

1729 S. Colorado Avenue

Boise ID 83706

Wilder Irrigation District

PO Box 416

Caldwell ID 83605-0416

BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND

INDIVIDUALS

Mr. Terry T. Uhling

Assistant General Council

J R. Simplot Company

999 Main Street, Suite 1300

PO Box 27

Boise, ID 83707

Micron Technology

Vice President and General Counsel

Mail Stop 507

800 Federal Way

PO Box 6

Boise, ID 83 707-006

United Water Idaho

8148 Victory Road

Boise, ID 83709

Mr. Wayne Peterson

Ada County Fish and Game League

6220 Robertson Drive

Boise ID 83705

New York Irrigation District

6616 Overland Road

Boise ID 83709
Mr. Christopher Doyle

Boise Valley Fly Fisherman, Inc.

PO Box 311

Boise ID 83701

Golden Eagle Audubon Society

PO Box 8261

Boise ID 83707

Mr. Mike Medberry

Idaho Conservation League

PO Box 844

Boise ID 83701

Idaho Power Co.

PO Box 70

Boise ID 83707

Ms. Marti Bridges,

Idaho Rivers United

PO Box 633

Boise ID 83702

Mr. Sheri Chapman

Idaho Water Users Association

410 South Orchard, No. 144

Boise ID 83705

The Nature Conservancy

Idaho Chapter

2015 Sunrise Rim Road

Boise ID 83705

Mr. Ed Chaney

Northwest Resources Information Center

PO Box 427

Eagle ID 83616

Mr. Laird Lucas

LAW Fund ofIdaho

PO Box 1612

Boise, ID 83701

Mr Michael C. Creamer

Givens, Pursley, and Hunt, LLP

PO Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Idaho Wildlife Federation

3964 Yorktown Way

Boise, ID 83707

Mr. Ralph Hosely

Trout Unlimited

2178 S. Crosscreek

Boise ID 83706

Mr. Jack Harrison

CH2M Hill

LBRWQP Advisory/Technical Groups

PO Box 8748

Boise ID 83707

Mr. Jack Biddle

Holaday Engineering Co.

LBRWQP Technical Group

PO 235

Payette ID 83661

Mr. Dan Steenson

Ringert and Clark Chartered Lawyers

PO Box 2773

Boise ID 83701

Mr Randall C. Fredericks

Law Offices

PO Box 2835

Boise, ID 83701-2835

Mr. Don Owlinksi

Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP

PO Box 1617

Boise, ID 83701-1617
APPENDIX B

LETTERS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SCOPING LETTER
February 27, 1997

Mr. Jerrold Gregg

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Ave.

Boise. ID 83702

Dear Mr. Gregg:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on scoping issues

related to the proposed sale of storage space in Anderson

Ranch Reservoir for M & I water use and the related

acquisition of Lucky Peak Reservoir storage space for salmon

flow augmentation.

This proposal raises many red flags. Idaho Rivers United is

currently in litigation with the Bureau of Reclamation because

of BOR's failure to the meet flow targets and failure to provide

adequate salmon flow augmentation. Litigation must be

resolved first. Otherwise this proposed action could make an

irretrievable commitment of resources. Furthermore, it will

preclude future selection of alternatives. We recommend that

Reclamation suspend further scoping of the issue.

Idaho Rivers United is also concerned that entering into any

long-term contract with J.R. Simplot Company at this time

precludes full public participation in reassessing the numerous

storage contracts which will come up for renewal or new

leases in the near future. The public has a genuine interest in

the future use of water from the Boise Project for all users and

uses, including but not limited to instream flows for resident

fish, water quality, recreation, municipal and industrial, and

irrigation.

Storage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir would have a more

senior water right attached than a right from Lucky Peak

Reservoir. It isn't prudent for the Bureau to give up that senior

space when it has been unable to meet its obligations under

the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, Reclamations

uncontracted storage in Lucky Peak is not fully available

during low water years due to last to fill and other restraints.

The Bureau should hang on to any uncontracted storage it has
for fish and wildlife purposes, particularly when that storage

has a more senior water right In fact, there is likely a legal

obligation for the Bureau to do so.

Idaho Rivers United is opposed to the Bureau of Reclamation

entering into a long-term municipal and industrial water

service contract with the J. R. Simplot Company at this time for

all the above reasons. Feel free to contact me or Charles Ray at

208-343-7481 if you have questions or need additional

information.

Sincerely,

Marti L. Bridges

Water Policy Director
IDAHO FISH & GAME

600 South Walnut / Box 25

Boise, Idaho 83707-0025

Phil Batt / Governor

Jerry M. Conley / Director

March 6, 1997

Mr. Steve Dunn

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise. ID 83 702-7298

RE: Proposed Sale ofStorage Space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir and Related Acquisition of

Lucky Peak Reservoir Storage Space-J. R. Simplot Company

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Idaho Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the proposed sale of 3,000 acre

feet ofstorage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir to the J. R. Simplot Company (Simplot) for

municipal and industrial purposes. In exchange, Simplot would acquire and transfer to Bureau of

Reclamation 3,554 acre feet ofstorage in Lucky Peak Reservoir from Eagle Island Water Users

Association Incorporated. This water would be used for salmon flow augmentation.

We believe this action would not negatively affect resident fish and wildlife resources nor impact

anadromous fish. A conversation with you on March 6, 1997 indicated that winter flow releases

from Lucky Peak Reservoir for channel maintenance in the Boise River would not be negatively

affected by the proposed changes.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

Sincerely,

Cal Groen, Chief

Natural Resources Policy Bureau

Cindy Robertson, NRPB

Bert Bowler, NRPB

Scott Grunder, Southwest Region

Steve Huffaker, Fisheries

11 March 1997

Jerrold D. Gregg, Area Manager

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Ave

Boise, ID 83702-7298

RE: Scoping of issues and correction of scoping letter for

proposed sale of storage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir for

municipal and industrial water uses and a related acquisition

of Lucky Peak Reservoir storage space for Salmon flow

augmentation - "Original scoping letter dated 14 February

1997, received 18 February 1997, correction of scoping letter

dated 26 February 1997, received 28 February 1997"

Dear Jerry:

Thank you for providing the above referenced information to the

Irrigation District.

At the Board Meeting of 5 March 1997, the Board of Directors met

and considered the above referenced letters.

As a result of their review, the Board of Directors concurred that

it does not have any substantive comments concerning the above

referenced letters and the issue contained therein.

page 1 of 2
page 2 of 2

11 March 1997

Jerrold D. Greg

On behalf of the Board of Directors, I wish to thank you for the

opportunity to review the proposal.

Sincerely,

Daren R. Coon,

Secretary/Treasurer

DRC/tlj

cc: File

Each Director

Water Superintendent

Attorney - Steenson

Boise Project Board of Control

Simplot
LAW OFFICES

RANDALL C. FREDRICKS

March 14. 1997

Mr. Jerrold D. Gregg

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise. Idaho 83702-7298

Dear Mr. Gregg:

Re: Proposed Sale of Storage Space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir

for Municipal and Industrial Water Uses and a Related Acquisition

of Lucky Peak Reservoir Storage Space for Salmon Flow Augmentation

Our File No. 97005-02

On behalf of the Boise-Kuna Irrigation District and in compliance with your letter of

February 26, 1997, we do have a number of questions and concerns. We note that you have

already published legal notices on the matter for which reply must be received by April 14,1997.

Since we have not yet received requested copies of the proposed contracts with Simplot or

Micron, please consider this letter our initial response. After receipt of the contracts forin-depth

review, a more formal response will be drafted.

The first concern we have is that the Bureau is contemplating transfer of 3,000 acre feet

of storage water in the Anderson Ranch reservoir in exchange for 3,554 acre feet of storage

water (now under contract with Eagle Island) in the Lucky Peak Reservoir. Since the storage

water in Lucky Peak is subordinate to the storage water in Anderson, how will you ensure

sufficient water during times of scarcity for salmon flow augmentation water? Will this impact the

water bank availability? Why were not other users notified that there was water available that

could be contracted for? Also, has Eagle Island been using their contracted water in the past?

If so, how much and what will they do for future irrigation needs? If they are not now using the

water nor will they be using it in the future, why do you need to contract with Simplot and Micron

forAnderson Ranch water? Could not Simplot and Micron deal directlywith Eagle Island and the

Bureau for the Lucky Peak water without involvement of the Anderson Ranch water?
Mr. Jerrold Gregg

Bureau of Reclamation

Re: Proposed Sale of Storage Space

Anderson Ranch Reservoir

March 14, 1997

Page 2

Another concern is that the contemplated use of the water by Simplot and Micron is fourfold: that is, municipal, industrial, irrigation and recharge of the Columbia plateau aquifer. Will

any of this water find its way back into the Boise River system as the Eagle Island water and the

uncontracted Anderson Ranch water would have? If so, how much? What will be the actual loss

to the Boise River system?

You have also stated that the waterin question will be diverted and used during the winter

non-irrigation season. How will this be handled?

As you can see. we have a number of concerns and questions. Some of these may be

answered after we review the proposed agreements. This review may also bring up additional

concerns and questions.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

March 14, 1997

Jerrold D. Gregg

Area Manager

Snake River Area Office

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83702

Re: Proposed Sale of Storage Space at Anderson Ranch Reservoir and

Related Acquisition of Lucky Peak Reservoir Storage Space

Dear Jerry:

This letter is written on behalf of the Boise Project Board of Control. As you

know, the member Districts of the Board of Control have contracts with the Bureau of

Reclamation for storage space. During the severe droughts ofrecent years, the Board ofControl

has attempted to obtain additional water from the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation. In

addition, some of the Districts have landowners without storage water who would want some if

it were available. As you know, the Board of Control’s member Districts felt strongly enough

about their need for additional water that they studied the feasibility of a new dam at the Twin

Springs site on the Boise River under a preliminary permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. The Districts received no support from the Bureau for this proposal. The Board

ofControl thus has strong concerns, and objects to, the proposed transaction which will make less

waler available over the long term for irrigation, and which will eliminate the possibility of using

some of the water through the water bank for irrigation in the short term. Some of the Board

of Control’s other concerns follow.

The transaction and the proposed use of water may be without specific

authorization. The proposed transaction may be a violation of Project authorizations and state

water law. Under what statutory authority is the proposed transaction?
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Jerrold D. Gregg

March 14, 1997

Page 2

The proposed transaction may have a negative impact on refill rights of the Board

of Control’s member Districts in Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Currently, when the Bureau uses

the uncontracted space in Anderson Ranch for salmon purposes, that space is last to refill. What

will the impact of the proposed transaction be on refill rights?

By structuring the transaction as it has, the BuRcc is in essence allowing a private

party to buy water without offering the opportunity to others. The Board of Control feels that

it should have the opportunity to purchase this water and, as a contractor with the BuRcc and as

a municipality, it should have a preference to obtain water which is sorely needed.

Under the proposed transaction, will there be any contribution toward construction

costs of Anderson Ranch Dam as the Board of Control’s member Districts had to make? The

Board of Control is also concerned about in essence trading waler under a long term contract at

Anderson Ranch Reservoir for water under a short term contract at Lucky Peak.

What impact will the proposed transaction have on development in southeast

Boise? How many additional residences will be able to be built? In that regard, the Board of

Control does not feel it is sufficient to try to isolate the impact of this transaction from the

overall development that is occurring there. The cumulative impact ofthis transaction with other

water rights transactions must be assessed under the National Environmental Policy Act

Please send me copies ofthe proposed contracts. I have also enclosed a Freedom

of Information Act request.

Sincerely,

HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP

Don A. Olowinski

Enc.
April 22, 1997

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83702 Re: Scoping Letters: 2/14/97 & 2/26/97

Dear Sirs:

In your "Scoping Letters" of February 14 and 26, 1997, you

have asked interested parties to help you evaluate the effects of

your proposal to sell storage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir and

a related acquisition of Lucky Peak Reservoir storage space.

Farmers' Cooperative Ditch Company management believes that

this proposal would be detrimental to the interests of all Boise

River irrigators below the proposed point of diversion near the new

State Highway 21 bridge. We understand that storage space in

Anderson Ranch Reservoir is "guaranteed" storage, assuring nearcertain delivery of such storage water. However, on the other

hand, it is our understanding that, since Lucky Peak Reservoir is

a flood control dam, storage water is delivered on an "as

available" basis, with much less assurance of guaranteed delivery

of such storage water. For this reason, Farmers' Cooperative Ditch

Company did not avail itself of the opportunity to acquire storage

space in Lucky Peak Reservoir when it was first offered by the

Bureau of Reclamation.

Therefore, it would appear that Reclamation would be trading

"guaranteed" reservoir storage for "non guaranteed" reservoir

storage water under this proposal. That would appear to be a

disadvantageous exchange from the point of view of the first party

in this arrangement, or, more specifically, in this instance,

Reclamation.

Also, assuming that Simplot acquires 1750 acre feet of Lucky

Peak Reservoir storage space from Eagle Island, which is highly

likely, Reclamation will have to purchase this water from Simplot

at fair market value for salmon flow augmentation. However,

Reclamation would in turn be receiving no compensation whatsoever

from Simplot for providing the latter with 3,000 acre feet of

storage space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir, other than modifying the

existing contract with Eagle Island Water Users Association.

In addition, we would like to point out that your "Correcting

Letter” of February 26, 1997, did indeed correct the original

letter of February 14, 1997, by inserting the line of text which
Bureau of Reclamation

Page 2

was omitted in the original letter. However, you failed to state

that your “Correcting Letter" of February 26th also omitted a

sentence which appeared in your original letter. The sentence

which was omitted in your most recent letter was the third sentence

in the third paragraph of your "Scoping of Issues" letter of

February 14th. That sentence stated that "The water to be

purchased under the proposed M&I contract would likely be diverted

and used during the winter nonirrigation season".

Does this omission mean that Reclamation has changed its

position from your first letter to the second letter, and that

Reclamation will no longer provide assurance to downstream

irrigators that this purchased water would not be diverted and used

during the irrigation season?

For the above reasons, we protest the proposed sale of storage

space in Anderson Ranch Reservoir for municipal and industrial

water uses and a related acquisition of Lucky Peak Reservoir

storage space for salmon flow augmentation.

We will sincerely appreciate your reply to this letter, and

particularly your response to the question we have asked in the

second paragraph of this page of our letter. Thank you.

Jerry D. Stone

Secretary

Farmers’ Cooperative Ditch Company

cc: P. Hubert Iverson, President

Farmers' Cooperative Ditch Co.

20998 Highway 20/26

Caldwell, Idaho 83605

APPENDIX C

MITIGATION STORAGE CALCULATIONS
December 20, 1996

From: Rick. Wells, Hydraulic Engineer

To: Files

Subj: Mitigation, Anderson Ranch Reservoir 3,000 acre foot municipal water contract

1. It is proposed to exchange Lucky Peak Reservoir space for Anderson Ranch Reservoir

space in order to facilitate a municipal water contract for 3,000 acre feet of storage in Anderson

Ranch reservoir.

Since the storage rights in Lucky Peak Reservoir are junior to the storage rights in

Anderson Ranch Reservoir it is necessary to estimate a volume of space in Lucky Peak Reservoir

that would provide a yield of water, as averaged over a period of years, equivalent to 3,000 acre

feet ofspace in Anderson Ranch Reservoir.

The relative yield ofthe various reservoirs was determined by using the MODSIM

computer model and hydrologic records for the 35 year period of 1961 through 1995. The

MODSIM model stores reservoir system inflows according to the relative priority dates of the

respective water rights.

The ratio of the respective reservoirs with respect to refill, as determined from use ofthe

MODSIM model is as follows: Arrowrock - 0.99, Anderson Ranch - 0.87, Lucky Peak - 0.82,

and Lucky Peak “last to fill” - 0.79. The “last to fill” scenario reflects the current water bank

rules which specify that water released out of basin for salmon flow augmentation is last to fill in

the system during the following refill period.

The 3,000 acre feet ofspace in Anderson Ranch Reservoir was divided by the ratio of

0.79/0.87 to determine the space required in Lucky Peak to provide a comparable water yield, on

average, to Anderson Ranch Reservoir. This resulted in a space requirement of 3,304 acre feet in

Lucky Peak Reservoir.

2. If 3,304 acre feet of water is available in Lucky Peak for potential purchase such a

purchase would reduce the volume of storage space which might be available for purchase for

salmon flow augmentation. It was decided to develop a quantitative measure of the impact ofthe

loss of this volume ofspace.

An estimate of the volume of water that might potentially be available in the market,

under current conditions, was determined by evaluating the minimum storage carryover in the

three reservoirs in the five lowest carryover years during the 35 year period of 1961 through

1995. For the three reservoirs the average minimum carryover averaged over the lowest five
APPENDIX D

LETTERS OF COMMENT ON DRAFT EA

AND RECLAMATION'S RESPONSES
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

July 25, 1997

Via Hand Delivery

Bureau of Reclamation

United States Department of the Interior

Snake River Area Office

ATTN: Mr. Steve Dunn

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, ID 83702-7298

RE: Draft Environmental Assessment Re Sale of Storage

Dear Bureau of Reclamation:

These are the comments of the Boise Project Board of

Control concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment for Sale of

Storage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir for Municipal and Industrial

Purposes and Related Acquisition of Lucky Peak Storage for Salmon

Flow Augmentation. The Board of Control believes the Draft EA is

deficient in that it does not address all of the impacts of the

proposed transactions, relies inappropriately on Simplot/Micron

for information for the EA, does not discuss cumulative impacts,

does not discuss costs of the transaction, and does not discuss

enough reasonable alternatives.

Lack of Comprehensiveness

The Draft EA at page 10 states that resources such as

water quality, air quality, soils, recreation, noise, and

minerals were not considered significant and not analyzed. In

general, the proposed transaction will foster urban sprawl and

population increases in one of Boise's fastest growing, most

populous areas. The impacts of this sprawl and population

increase need to be discussed. But there is virtually no

discussion about the effects that the growth anticipated and

stimulated by this transaction will have.
1. As discussed in Chapters 2.1 and 3.3, growth in the Columbia Bench area would likely occur

at the same rate and magnitude with or without the Proposed Action Based on information

provided from Simplot/Micron and Reclamation’s knowledge of changing land use and

demographics in the Boise Valley, it is reasonable to assume comparable quantities of

alternative water supplies are available to Simplot/Micron to serve existing and future

development The discussion ofthis issue has been expanded in Chapter 2.1 in the Final EA.

We agree that water quality, air quality etc are important environmental concerns in the Boise

Valley, however because these resources would not be affected by the Proposed Action, they

are not analyzed in the Draft EA The paragraph immediately following Chapter heading 3.0 in

the Final EA has been revised to clarify this.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Bureau of Reclamation

July 25, 1997

Page 2

For example, water quality is one of the prime concerns

in the Boise River Valley and for the Reclamation's Boise Project

itself. I have enclosed a copy of the Board of Control's recent

comments to the EPA on its proposed water quality regulations.

Yet, the Draft EA does not even analyze whether there will be any

water quality impacts from the withdrawal of the water from the

Boise River, from the increased growth fostered by the

transaction, or from the use of the water. Similar criticisms

can be made regarding the lack of analysis of the impacts on air

quality, soils, recreation, and noise.

Cumulative Impacts

There is no discussion about the cumulative impacts of

this transaction. Nothing discusses how this transaction will

add to growth in Southeast Boise (and nothing discusses the

impacts of that growth) . How many additional residences will be

built? What will be the impact on the replenishment or depletion

of the ground water?

Several of the Bureau of Reclamation's contractors have

provisions in their contracts concerning the construction of the

Lucky Peak Dam, that construction of the dam and operation of the

Boise River reservoir system as one system will not have any

impact on their storage rights, and if it does, such impact will

be made up from storage space in Lucky Peak. Yet, there is

nothing discussing how this transaction and other transactions

such as the Nampa & Meridian transaction will operate in

derogation of that guarantee.

Lack of Discussion of Costs

The Draft EA contains no discussions of costs. Without

such a discussion, the public cannot determine whether this is a

cost effective transaction or a waste of money. What

Simplot/Micron is paying for the Eagle Island/Lucky Peak water

may establish a minimum value for the Anderson Ranch water.

Presumably, Simplot/Micron would not pay more for the Lucky Peak

water than the Anderson Ranch water is worth. Yet, the Draft EA

does not give the public this cost. Without the costs, the

public cannot determine whether it would be more economical to

purchase other water or to wait for the expiration of the Lucky

Peak contracts.
2. See response to comment no 1 above.

3. The Proposed Action would have no effect on spaceholders’ storage rights in Boise Project

reservoirs The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District transaction had no effect to these

storage rights as well. The Proposed Action would have a minor effect on Anderson Ranch

spaceholders' probability ofrefill and water available in the Boise Ris er Water Rental Pool as

discussed in Chapter 3.1 2.2.

4 The transaction between Simplot and Eagle Island is a private business arrangement and is not

ofpublic record.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Bureau of Reclamation

July 25, 1997

Page 3

The Draft EA at page 6 states that Reclamation

contracting regulations require that payment received under an

M&I contract such as that proposed must be deposited into the

U.S. Treasury and cannot be applied toward payment of

construction costs. The Draft EA does not mention what the

payment will be. Secondly, the Draft EA does not discuss whether

this will result in an increase to other contractors with the

Bureau of Reclamation concerning Anderson Ranch or whether the

Bureau of Reclamation will pay the O & M charges associated with

the Anderson Ranch water.

Inappropriate Reliance on Simplot/Micron

The Draft EA inappropriately relies on Simplot/Micron

to provide information that the Bureau of Reclamation should be

determining for itself. For example, at page 20, the Draft EA

states:

According to Simplot/Micron, the rate of

future residential, industrial and commercial

development in the project area cannot be

accurately predicted since growth will be

entirely dependent on market demand.

Simplot/Micron have indicated that the

alternative sources of Boise River surface

water they are pursuing plus potential

groundwater sources outside of the SBGWMA

would supply sufficient water to serve the

existing municipal and industrial needs as

well as any anticipated future development.

These determinations should all be made by Reclamation itself.

Secondly, even if Simplot were correct in its analysis, the

question is not whether some growth would occur, but whether the

federal government, and especially the Bureau of Reclamation,

with its mission, should be fostering that growth.

The Draft EA at page 9, states that "Simplot/Micron

have determined that the most practical and feasible water

supplies are a combination of Boise River natural flow water and

reservoir storage." Again, this is a determination for the

Bureau of Reclamation.
5. The M&I rate that Simplot/Micron would pay is still under review and has yet to be

determined, however an estimated range is $20 to $25 per acre foot Reclamation would pay

for the O&M costs associated with all ofthe Lucky Peak Space transferred from Eagle Island

Simplot/Micron would pay a proportionate share ofthe Anderson Ranch Dam O&M costs lot

the 3,000 acre feet placed under contract The payment of O&M costs for the M&I conntract

would neither increase nor decrease O&M costs assigned to irrigation.

6. Reclamation must rely on information from an applicant to determine in part whether there are

practical or feasible alternative means ofmeeting their purpose and need in this case.

Reclamation has relied on documentation supplied by Simplot/Micron as well as our own

knowledge ofongoing water transactions and urbanization in the Boise Valley in determining

that other water supplies are available ifthe Proposed Action does not occur.

7 See response to comment no 1 above While the Proposed Action would not footer growth,

Reclamation believes that it is consistent with our mission to manage, develop, and protect

water and related resources in an environmentally sound manner in the interest of the

American public The Proposed Action is consistent with out mission by responding to

changing water needs in the area served by the Boise Project while improving Reclamation’s

ability to meet flow requirements for endangered salmon.

8 See response to comment no. 6.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Bureau of Reclamation

July 25, 1997

Page 4

The Bureau of Reclamation has strongly advocated water

conservation to its contractors. Yet, there is no discussion in

the Draft EA about whether water conservation measures could meet

part or all of Simplot/Micron's needs. For example, the Bureau

of Reclamation could analyze options from less water intensive

landscaping to desert-type landscaping.

Inadequate Discussion of Alternatives

The Draft EA does not discuss enough alternatives,

especially to procurement of the Lucky Peak Water for use in

salmon-flow augmentation. There is no discussion as to whether

more water could be obtained at less cost in other areas of the

Upper Snake Basin. As the Bureau's own tables show, the Bureau

has been able to meet the 427,000 acre-foot target without the

Lucky Peak water in the past. Because no value has been placed

on the Anderson Ranch water being given to Simplot/Micron, no

analysis can be made about whether more water elsewhere could be

obtained. At a minimum, the Draft EA should discuss an

alternative of obtaining water elsewhere.

Because of the Bureau's emphasis on water conservation

toward its contractors, the Draft EA should also discuss whether

water conservation or less water-intensive use could satisfy

Simplot/Micron's needs.

The Bureau of Reclamation's Authorities

The Draft EA does not discuss adequately the Bureau's

conclusions that it does not have the authority to enter into

M&I contracts for Lucky Peak water, but that it does have the

authority to enter into an M&I contract for Anderson Ranch

water. The project purposes for Anderson Ranch listed at page 2

of the Draft EA do not include M&I, for example. The only

change at Anderson Ranch appears to be a state water right change

in 1986, when the storage right was changed to joint power and M

& I purposes. The state-law change does not deal with the

underlying federal authority. What is the underlying federal

authority?

The Draft EA goes on to state that Anderson Ranch water

was never available for irrigators, and that irrigators were

given the opportunity to purchase Lucky Peak storage "for several

years" after construction of the reservoir. Since one of the
9. The same water conservation provisions applicable to irrigation contracts will be included in

the M&I contract. A brief discussion of waler conservation has been added to Chapter 2 of

the Final EA.

10. Reclamation in its 1995 Record of Decision Implementing Actions Pursuant to the Biological

Opinion of March 1995 (Section 1.2 2 of Final EA) has adopted the provision that water for

flow augmentation will be acquired only from willing sellers Reclamation has re-acquired all

ofthe reservoir space that has been offered for sale. It has also acquired all ofthe natural

flows that have been offered for sale in Oregon, where the Department of Water Resources

has interpreted state law to permit the use ofthe acquired water for flow augmentation

Reclamation believes it could acquire Idaho natural flows, but has been advised by state

water rights administrators that natural flow water rights could not be dedicated to flow

augmentation Reclamation is consequently unable to identify any alternatives to acquiring

all ofthe storage space that becomes available from willing sellers

11. See response to comment no 9.

12. The proposed water service contract for the Anderson Ranch storage space will be executed

pursuant to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. This has been added to the fust paragraph

ofthe Final EA.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Bureau of Reclamation

July 25, 1997

Page 5

purposes of the Lucky Peak water is irrigation, this statement in

the Draft EA is puzzling because the Bureau could offer some of

the Lucky Peak water now to irrigators, but apparently refuses to

do so.

Miscellaneous

The Bureau, at several places, states that “Reclamation

has been required to annually provide 427,000 acre feet for

augmentation flows for migrating salmon smolts . . . " This

misstates the requirements of the Biological Opinion. In

reality, the Biological Opinion only requires the Bureau of

Reclamation to make its best efforts to acquire such flows. The

Bureau makes no analysis of what other options would be available

to acquire these flows. In past years, for example, the Bureau

has been able to meet the 427,000 acre-foot flow target without

the water being acquired.

The Draft EA notes that the Idaho Department of Fish &

Game expressed concerns about how the proposed transactions will

impact winter minimum stream flows on the Boise River. The Draft

EA notes at page 24 that the storage amounts involved represent

only a small percentage of the total capacity of Anderson Ranch

and Lucky Peak Reservoirs. However, there is no analysis as to

what those amounts would mean concerning the ability to meet the

150 c.f.s. goal, and whether more pressure will be placed on the

Bureau’s contractors’ storage supplies to meet that goal.

The Draft EA states at page 32 that the power plant at

Lucky Peak is operated by “the Lucky Peak Power Project." The

power plant is owned by the Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, the

Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, the Wilder Irrigation

District, and the Big Bend Irrigation District. It is operated

by the City of Seattle pursuant to a contract between Seattle and

the Districts. The Draft EA also fails to address one of our

previous concerns:

The proposed transaction may have a

negative impact on refill rights of the Board

of Control’s member Districts in Anderson

Ranch Reservoir. Currently, when the Bureau

uses the contracted space in Anderson Ranch

for salmon purposes, that space is last to
13. While it is true that Reclamation has the authority to issue new contracts for irrigation from

Lucky Peak, aside from the severe drought period in the early 1990's there lias been no

identification ofthe need for more water for irrigation purposes. Irrigated acres have been

and continue to be replaced by homes and businesses whereas there is a clear need for water

for additional M&I uses in an expanding Boise valley even in ample water years. In addition,

the only uncontracted water available in Lucky Peak Reservoir has been designated tor

maintenance ofinstream flows or for salmon flow augmentation For any new contract in

Lucky Peak, Reclamation would require that mitigation water be provided so that its ability

to provide winter minimum flows and meet flow augmentation requirements are not

compromised.

14. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in the March 2, 1995, BiOp calls on Reclamation to

“...continue to provide the 427 thousand acre-feet offlow augmentation from the upper

Snake River...taking such actions as are necessary to ensure a high probability of providing

that volume by 1998.” In Reclamation’s March 10, 1995 Record ofDecision, it

committed to continue providing 427,000 acre-feet each year and to acquire additional

volumes ofstorage space and natural flows to improve its ability to provide such water in

drought conditions. Reclamation’s decision was based largely on the findings developed by

the Federal Columbia River Power System Actions Workgroup, a committee state, federal,

and tribal representatives designated to review various alternatives, including different flow

augmentation volumes to be provided That analysis concluded that Reclamation could

provide 427,000 acre-feet in average and good water conditions from already available

uncontracted reservoir space and water rentals but would need to acquire additional volumes

ofwater in order to provide 427,000 acre-feet in dry conditions it is important to

Reclamation that the water provided come from a variety ofsources, and very little volumes

have been available for rental from the Boise Rental Pool, even in good water years.

15. The second paragraph in Chapter 3.4.2.2 in the Draft EA states there would be no effect to

winter minimum streamflows We have also added a statement in Chapter 3.1.2.2 to clarify

this point. Irrigation storage supplies would not be used to meet winter minimum flows

under the Proposed Action.

16. Chapter 3.7.1 ofthe Final EA has been corrected to incorporate this comment

17. Under the Proposed Action, the 3,000 acre feet to be contracted to Simplot/Micron would no

longer be last to fill and would refill proportionately with storage space under contract for

irrigation A discussion on refill probability and impacts to other Anderson Ranch

spaceholders has been included in Chapter 3.1.2.2.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley llp

Bureau of Reclamation

July 25, 1997

Page 6

refill. What will the impact of the proposed

transaction be on refill rights?

Summary

In summary, the Draft EA does not analyze many of the

major impacts of the proposed federal action. Without an

analysis of these impacts, it is impossible to determine whether

this is a beneficial transaction. Because of the number of

impacts involved, an environmental impact statement may be

necessary.

Sincerely,

HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP

Don A. Olowinski

Enc.

cc: Boise Project Board of Control

Boise-Kuna Irrigation District

Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District

New York Irrigation District

Wilder Irrigation District

Big Bend Irrigation District
Thank you for your comments
July 25, 1997

Steve Dunn

Bureau of Reclamation

Snake River Area Office

214 Broadway Ave.

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mr Dunn:

Idaho Rivers Uniled has reviewed the Draft EA for Sale of Storage in Anderson

Ranch Reservoir for M & I Purposes and Acquisition of Lucky Peak Storage for

Salmon Flow Augmentation. On the whole, the Environmental Assessment has

raised more questions than it answers and appears inadequate. Few if any

questions raised in the scoping comments were answered in the Environmental

Assessment. On behalf of our 1600 members I offer the following comments.

Eagle Island holds its Lucky Peak storage entitlement through a water service

contract with Reclamation Why would Reclamation "pay" for waler it already

owns, when it can get that water for "free" when the service contract expires in a

few years? Then the water can be used for irrigation, uncontracted storage,

salmon flow augmentation or other needs.

Simplot/Micron has committed to planned aquifer recharge on the Columbia Bench

with this water. How will they be able to pump it back out when a Ground Water

Management Area restriction is in place. Also, once the water is "recharged" it will

require a new junior water right in order to retrieve it, Reclamation has not

evaluated this reality.

Simplot/Micron expects to meet its surface water needs through acquisition of

existing natural flow water rights or storage. Many of the natural flow rights are

currently subject to forfeiture due to non-use or "waterspreading" on existing

Reclamation project lands. Reclamation has failed to identify or discuss this issue

in its Environmental Assessment.

Who paid for the power offset costs on the Boise Project? Since only Anderson

Ranch is specifically authorized for fish and wildlife purposes shouldn't any new

contracts be for that express purpose, since fish and wildlife needs have always

gotten the short end of the stick? No discussion or evaluation of power offset

costs to BPA or fish and wildlife needs has been evaluated in the EA.

The Biological Opinion anticipates going from 427,000 acre feet to 1.2 million acre

feet in 1999 for flow augmentation. Giving away water to Simplot for a 25 year

period will harm Reclamation’s ability to meet the Biological Opinion regardless of

the replacement water from Eagle Island Water Users Assn. Why would

Reclamation a.) give Simplot/Micron a 25 year contract when you already own the

water in Anderson Ranch and have flexibility for its use, and b.) simply not renew

Eagle Island Water Users Assn. water service contract lease from Lucky Peak?

Reclamation states that it may be possible to shape flow augmentation waler for

Boise River streamflows if an arrangement for shaping can be reached with Idaho

Power Company. Flow shaping would benefit resident and native fish in the

Boise River, improve water quality, and could aid in black cottonwood

regeneration, while meeting the flow targets of the BiOp. Considering the
2

3

1 Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation would only pay for the Lucky Peak storage

entitlement through the term ofthe contract, which expires in 2008 Reclamation believes that

acquisition ofthis storage over this period is consistent with its 1995 Record of Decision

Implementing Actions Pursuant to the Biological Opinion of March 1995 (Section 1 2 2 of

Final EA). The description ofthe Proposed Action in Section 2 2 ofthe Final LA has been

revised to clarify this.

2 Any aquifer recharge program and new withdrawals within the SBGWMA developed by

Simplot/Micron will be subject state water law and regulation by Idaho Department of Water

Resources and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality The Order establishing the

SBGWMA requires an applicant for appropriation of ground water within the SBGWMA "to

furnish sufficient technical data andplans to allowpreliminary determination be the Director

that water is available, that existing users will not be injured, and that depletion ofthe

aquifer will not be increased'' Simplot/Micron’s have indicated these constraints will be

considered in scoping and development oftheir groundwater recharge pilot project

3 The natural flow water rights that Simplot/Micron is seeking are separate from Boise Project

storage rights and unrelated to the concept of “water spreading" - the unauthorized use of

project water

4 While the reference to "power offset costs" is unclear in the context ofthis project, the

Proposed Action would not affect cost allocated to power production The operation of

Anderson Ranch Reservoir to meet instream flow needs offish is discussed on Sections 3.4.1

and 3.4.1 in the Draft EA. The Proposed Action would not affect these operations (Section

3.4.2.2 ofDraft EA) These operations meet the minimum recommendations for protection

and enhancement ofresident fish and wildlife found in Riggin and Hansen 1992 These sections

in the Final EA have been revised to reflect this

5 In addressing flow augmentation from Reclamation, the only volume of water mentioned in the

BiOp is 427,000 acre-feet According to the BiOp. additional volumes, ifever required must

first be determined necessary and acquired in coordination with the states of Idaho and

Oregon Reclamation has determined that the Proposed Action does not detract from

Reclamation’s ability to meet the flow augmentation commitments addressed in the BiOp and

accepted in Reclamation’s ROD It would assist in meeting a critical need for municipal and

industrial water supply while improving its ability to meet flow augmentation requirements of

listed salmon

The renewal ofLucky Peak contracts will be evaluated through the NEPA process prior to the

expiration ofthese contracts As stated in response no 1 above, the Lucky Peak Storage

entitlement proposed to be acquired is only for the remaining term of Eagle Island’s contract.
conflicting mandates of filling for irrigation, flood control and salmon flow

augmentation, this is an appropriate goal. Are discussions under way with Idaho

Power Company regarding flow shaping? If not, why not, and what are the

anticipated hurdles and outcomes? This should be discussed fully in the EA.

The Environmental Assessment states on page 12 that winter releases are at least

150 cfs for minimum streamflows. You fail to discuss the fact that the Idaho Dept.

of Fish and Game target minimum is 240 cfs, or that historic wintertime inflows

were between 450 and 500 cfs. Furthermore, there is no discussion of IDFG’s

other recommended target minimum flows for nesting waterfowl or stream channel

maintenance.

Eagle Island is entitled to 7,650 acre feet ofstorage in Lucky Peak but typically

uses only 10% of that available water. Even in six years of drought they used less

then 50% of their stored water. Doesn’t that tell you something? They don’t need

the water and are speculating. That violates state water law. Why hasn’t

Reclamation revoked their water service contract or al the very least informed them

they will not be renewing it when it expires.

Some of the waler diverted for industrial uses would be returned to the Boise River

through the waler treatment plant The quantity can be estimated by simply

contacting United Water Idaho or Boise City Public Works, although the

Environmental Assessment failed to do so.

While the rental pool offers opportunities to secure water from other users for

various purposes, there is absolutely no reason Reclamation should have to pay

lime and lime again with taxpayer dollars for waler it already holds in storage and

which is a publicly held resource. Eagle Island is holding a water service contract

speculatively and Reclamation should pul an end to that.

Simplot/Micron should have to compete for the 3000 acre feet of Anderson Ranch

water. This cozy deal that is being proposed and evaluated in this Environmental

Assessment is not in the public interest as proposed. There will be a net loss of

water to the Boise River system if this is approved. Fish, wildlife and salmon

recovery options will suffer if the Proposed Action is adopted. Reclamation

should take NO ACTION on the proposal as presented.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to the Final EA.

Sincerely,

Marti L. Bridges

Water Policy director

2
6 Idaho Power already provides water from Brownlee Reservoir and shapes additional volumes

ofwater from the Minidoka-Palisades Project and the Cascade Division ofthe Boise Project

All shaping by IPC must be addressed in a single forum At the present time, Reclamation can

provide all ofthe water it releases from Arrowrock Division Reservoirs during the

augmentation season. As long as it can continue to do so, shaping of Arrowrock Division

flows will be a lower priority The opportunity for shaping these flows is mentioned in the EA

because Reclamation is keeping it in mind for future discussions ifthe opportunity presents

itself Chapter 2.2 ofthe final EA has been revised to include this information.

7 A briefdiscussion of hydrologic changes in the Boise River from historic conditions is given in

Section 3.4.1 ofthe Draft EA. Chapters 3.1.1 and 3.4.1 ofthe final EA has been revised to

better describe historic winter streamflows and current target streamflow levels. Minimum

streamflows are only briefly discussed in the EA because the ability to provide these flows

would not be affected by the Proposed Action nor would they be expected to change under No

Action.

8 Reclamation has made the commitment to acquire water from willing sellers, and fully intends

to honor Lucky Peak water service contracts, which were entered into with knowledge of the

water supply conditions that exist. Contract renewals are of keen interest to contracting

entities and other organizations, and renewal of all water service contracts in Lucky Peak

Reservoir will be evaluated prior to the expiration ofthese contracts What ever future action

is taken on these contracts will be subject to the NEPA process.

9. Chapter 3.1.2 ofthe final EA has been revised to include estimates ofreturn flows from

industrial uses.

10. The storage entitlement Reclamation is paying for under the Proposed Action is not held by

Reclamation. It is still under contract until 2008 unless the contract is modified and partially

rescinded See also response to comment no 9 above

11. There are no provisions in Reclamation’s contracting regulations to "compete" for storage

The decision before Reclamation to issue the proposed M&I contract and mitigation

provisions or not issue the contract Reclamation believes the Proposed Action would

improve its ability to meet its requirement of providing 427,000 acre feet for flow

augmentation to aid in salmon recovery without any adverse effects to resident fish and

wildlife.

Thank you for your comments
July 25, 1997

Bureau ofReclamation

Snake River Area Office

ATTN: Mr. Steve Dunn

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, ED 83702

Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment, Sale ofStorage in Anderson Ranch

Dear Mr. Dunn:

The following comments are provided for your information regarding the sale ofstorage water in

Anderson Ranch Reservoir to J. R. Simplot Company and Micron Technology.

1. While the proposed action is for municipal and industrial uses there is no

indication ofthe percentage ofthe water to be allocated to each use. Additionally,

neither firm is a “municipality” and it is unclear what “municipal" use the water

will be put toward. United Water Idaho is mentioned within the document,

however, it is unclear what UWI's relationship is to the proposed sale ofwater.

The report also discusses non-agricultural irrigation uses which appear to relate

primarily to water used for irrigation on private property, including the Micron

campus and the Columbia residential development. The report also discusses a

golfcourse associated with the Columbia development (see page 19). Will the

irrigation water be used for the golf course? What percentage ofthe purchased

water is intended for non-agricultural irrigation uses? What alternatives have

been examined to reduce the need for the proposed purchased water, for example

use oftreated industrial waste water for the golf course and landscaped areas

around the subdivisions or recycling ofprocess waste waters? These issues raise

questions as to the potential highest and best uses ofthe water and the land within

a rapidly developing area ofBoise that currently lacks sufficient ground water to

supply the expanding development.

2. Page 7 ofthe report states that the Bureau has developed a Water Needs Working

Group with United Water to assist them in identifying potential sources ofsurface

water. United Water operates a public water supply system under a franchise

agreement with the City ofBoise. Boise City has a clear interest in the

management, operation, and future planning processes conducted by United
1. The "municipal and industrial" term used in the Draft EA refers to the type ofcontract

proposed, as opposed to irrigation Reclamation's regulations recognize municipal and

industrial uses to include non-agricultural irrigation such as for residential lawns, common

areas, and athletic facilities Municipal and industrial contracts may be executed with entities

other than “municipalities”.

United Water’s is not a party to the proposed contract however it has similar needs and

interests in southeast Boise as explained in Chapter 1 5 ofthe EA United Water’s

involvement in the proposal is limited to it’s ownership and projected future use of half ofthe

Surprise Valley pumping plant The water under the Proposed Action would not be treated

by United Water and would not be conveyed by residential drinking water lines.

Simplot/Micron estimate approximately 50 percent ofthe water from Anderson Ranch would

be used for nonagricultural irrigation.

The reference to the golf course has been deleted There is no golf course nor are there

current plans for a golf course.

A briefdiscussion of conservation has been added to Chapter 2 3 ofthe Final EA
Water to provide adequate and safe drinking water supplies to citizens ofour

community.

3. Page 7 notes that the SBGWMA is "currently conducting a technical analysis of

aquifer recharge in preparation for a pilot recharge program." As chair ofthe

SBGWMA Advisory Committee, I can assure you that the committee is not

conducting such an analysis, and the committee has not voted or authorized such

work.

In conclusion, the sale ofstorage water m Anderson Ranch Reservoir could be acceptable if all

questions can be answered as to whether this is the best use ofthe purchased water and what will

be the general public benefit from the proposed sale. The long-term appropriateness ofthe use of

a diversion system to supply surface water to the rapidly growing southeast Boise area requires

additional evaluation. The Boise City Comprehensive Plan provides forsuch a review process as

does the Southeast Boise Ground Waler Management Area program.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment

Sincerely,

Catherine Chertudi

Ground Water Programs Manager
2. The reference to SBGWMA and the ongoing analysis ofgroundwater recharge has been

deleted from the Final EA.

Thank you for your comments
July 23, 1997

Bureau ofReclamation

Snake River Area Office

ATTN: Mr. Sieve Dunn

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, ID 83702

Re: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Sale ofStorage in Anderson Ranch Reservoir to Simplot/Micron

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Idaho Department ofFish and Game (IDFG) personnel have reviewed the above-referenced draft EA for the sale of 3,000

acre-feet ofmunicipal and industrial (M&I) water from Anderson Ranch Reservoir to Simplot/Micron and the acquisition

of 5.882 acre-feet of Lucky Peak Reservoir storage for salmon flow augmentation. The 5,882 acre-feet would come from

Simplot/Micron transferring 3,554 acre-feet directly to the Bureau ofReclamation (Bureau) in exchange for the Anderson

Ranch water and selling an additional 2,328 acre-feet. Simplot/Micron would acquire the Lucky Peak storage from the

Eagle Island Water Users Association.

IDFG has concerns about the long-term commitment ofwater from the Boise River system to new uses without

considering the instream flow needs offish and wildlife. IDFG’s areas of concern are impacts to winter flow releases,

impacts on bull trout, and benefits to anadromous fish. It appears the proposed sale and acquisition ofwater would not

negatively affect the availability ofstorage for release of winter flows in the South Fork Boise River or the main Boise

River. Analysis also indicates that although we do not know the impacts of current operation ofthe Boise River Reservoir

system on bull trout populations, the proposed action is not likely to change the existing situation. Finally, although the

amount ofwater acquired through the proposal for salmon flow augmentation is relatively small, it adds to the Bureau’s

ability to meet its goal to acquire 427,000 acre-feet required under the NMFS 1995 Biological Opinion.

IDFG suggests the Bureau consider making the sale ofthe storage in Anderson Ranch to Simplot/Micron contingent upon

subordination ofthe non-irrigation season M&I use to the existing agreements between the Bureau and IDFG to provide

winter flow releases in the mainstem Boise River. IDFG also would like to be involved in any future discussions with

Idaho Power Company and the Bureau regarding the possible shaping offlows released for salmon flow augmentation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed action.

Sincerely,

Will Reid, Acting Chief

Natural Resources Policy Bureau
1 Any release ofstored M&I water to Simplot/Micron during the winter would be over and

above the amount released for winter streamflow maintenance with no effect on winter

streamflows.

Thank you for your comments.
Area Manager

Bureau ofReclamation

Snake River Area Office

ATTN: Mr. Steve Dunn

214 Broadway Avenue

Boise, Idaho 83702

25 July 1997

Dear Steve Dunn.

I am sending you these comments in regards to the “Sale of Storage in Anderson Ranch

Reservoir for Municipal and Industrial Purposes and Related Acquisition of Lucky Peak Storage

for Salmon Flow Augmentation” as a representative for the local Golden Eagle Audubon Society

(GEAS). This well respected conservation organization represents over 700 individuals that

reside in southwestern Idaho and within the area in which this draft environmental assessment

(DEA) will effect. Therefore, I urge you to consider the following comments.

Because we are concerned with the improving diversity of native plant and animal

communities within southwestern Idaho, we encourage the Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation)

to strive for “natural” water flows and natural ecosystem approach. 1 have outlined three

concerns and/or clarifications Audubon has with this DEA.

1

2

I) If, in fact, actions (proposed and no-active) meet the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) requirements and suggestions, we no grievances with either action.

2) In the proposed action, construction will occur near the Surprise Valley pumping plant.

While you have stated (page 28) that there will be no cumulative impacts on bald eagles, do you

anticipate any short-term impacts from construction and human disturbance? Ifso, how will you

mitigate these impacts?

3) Page 7, the SBGWMA Advisory Committee. This committee mediates water-related

issues and groundwater management concerns. Why arc there no environmental organizations

(such as Idaho Rivers United) on this committee?

Thank you for allowing us to review this draft, we look forward to reviewing the final

environmental assessment. Please feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions regarding

these comments.

Sincerely,

Laura Valutis

Conservation Chair

Golden Eagle Audubon Society

208-343-6581
1. Construction ofthe Surprise Valley Pumping Plant is underway and will occur under either

alternative As discussed in Chapters 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2, construction and operation of the

pumping plant would not cause additional disturbance to wintering bald eagles, and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this assessment.

2 Reclamation is not a member of the SBGWMA Advisory Committee We suggest contacting

Ms. Catherine Chertudi, Ground Water Programs Manager for the City of Boise who chairs

the committee (See comment letter from City of Boise )

Thank you for your review and comments.