804(e)IDFG-2 Tbis-application calis.fo;- the constructioo-o^ ao upstceam resident fish passage 

 facilrtyand downstream fish- screen and-'bypass facility at the Palisades Creek irrigation diversion 

 on the Snake River The 'Council staff proposes to reject this amendment because the project 

 seeks to correct- resident fish damage caused by an irrigation facility As a result, the amendment 

 does not address effects of the development, operation and management of the hydroelectric 

 system (Seei6USC 839b(h)(5), program section 804(e)(i6)) 



804(e)' OT Tne Council staff proposes to reject this amendment which requests Bonneville 

 funding to provide riparian habitat improvement and pool construction on the upper Metolius River. 

 The Council rejected a similar amendment application m 1984 because there was insufficient 

 documentation of the biological benefits of the proposed project and of the nature and extent of 

 unmitigated losses attributable to hydropower development and operation to be addressed by the 

 project. The same deficiencies apply to the current application In addition, the requirements of 

 program measure 804(e){i6) pertaining to resident fish projects are not met Specifically, the 

 applicants fail to: a) oocument agreement on resident fish losses attributable to the hydroelectric 

 facilities at issue (hydroelectric projects on the Deschutes River), b) provide evidence that 

 significant biological gams will be achieved by the proposed expenditure, or c) provide evidence 

 that the project will result m no significant conflict with efforts to restore anadromous fish As a 

 result, the staff is unable to conclude that the best available scientific Knowledge shows that the 

 amendment would protect, mitigate and enhance fisn and wiidiife affected by hydropower 

 operations and development (16 U S C 839b(h)(5). (6).) 



-175- 



