1. Hydrologic Analysis for CAMP Environment, Fish and Wildlife Working Group Briefing for ESHMC May 6, 2008

2. SWC Opinion “…water going into the Snake River … would pass the reservoir system and go beyond Milner Dam, potentially benefitting others who are not parties to this proceeding, including Idaho Power, those concerned with the ESA, the Nez Perce settlement and any other flow augmentation interests, and the State of Oregon.” “Collateral consequences to other interests are for another forum.”

4. EFW Working Group Aberdeen Springfield CDR Associates IDEQ, IDWR, IFG Idaho Power Nature Conservancy Trout Unlimited USBR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5. Goal “to identify and discuss possible impacts on fish and wildlife resources, positive and negative, from actions to be taken under the ESPA Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan”

6. Concerns Species and habitats Reach flows Spring flows Water quality and temperature Other info for evaluating impacts

7. Meetings EFW Working Group met on March 17 and April 4 Presentation to CAMP on April 24 in Rexburg IDWR and IPCO modelers met on April 16, April 23, and May 2

8. Goals of Analysis Evaluate hydrologic impacts of CAMP measures on a seasonal basis Agree upon a single method of analysis

9. Method 3 computer programs –SRPM –ESPAM –Recharge Water Availability Iterative modeling SRPM for years 0 and 1  RWA program for year 1  superposition ESPAM to predict reach gains for years 1 through XX  SRPM for years 1 and 2

10. Assumptions Conversions –Require diversions of 3 acre-feet/acre –Soft conversions Phased in over 10 years Limited by canal capacity –Hard conversions Initiated in year 10 at full implementation Not limited by canal capacity Storage in Lake Walcott increased from 97 KAF to 147 KAF

11. Assumptions cont’d Exchange flow –Augmentation flows at Milner decreased for July, August, and September –High lift pump acreage below King Hill reduced by 1.2 acres for every soft conversion acre CREP –200 KAF phased in over 10 years

12. Assumptions cont’d Recharge –Uniformly distributed along Egin Great Western Aberdeen Springfield –Recharge sites Milner Gooding (2) NSCC (4) –10-year phase-in

13. Assumptions cont’d Priority 1.Hard Conversions 2.Soft Conversions 3.Recharge on NSCC 4.Recharge on Milner Gooding 5.Recharge on Aberdeen Springfield 6.Recharge on Egin 7.Recharge on Great Western

14. Scenarios Base Full CAMP Full Camp No CREP CREP only Other

15. To Do Develop database application to facilitate iterative modeling Verify/evaluate results Compare results for 1-month and 6-month stress periods

16. Thank You