FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28058
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 28058 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28058 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Letter from S. Huffaker (IDFG) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: Letter of support for project proposal 28058 | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Fish Passage and Habitat on the Upper East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 28058 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Environmental Quality - Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDEQ/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Bruce A. Schuld |
| Mailing address | 1410 N Hilton Boise, Idaho 83706 |
| Phone / email | 2083730554 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Robert Hanson |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Restoration of fish passage and aquatic and riparian habitat through a historic open pit mine which created a migration barrier in the middle of the east Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River (EFSFSR) |
| Target species | Summer Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Salmon River Basin Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Mountain Whitfish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.889 | -115.333 | At Stibnite eighteen miles east of Yellow Pine, Idaho |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 155 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Lower Snake River Conservation Plan | Reestablishing fish passage and habitat will provide access for native brood stock to recolonize an additional seven miles of high quality stream habitat which has been rehabilitated in |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Site Characteization | a. Detailed Engineering Baseline of Project Area. b. Hydrologic Flow Model c. Barrow Source Location and Characterization | 1 | $30,000 | Yes |
| 2. Remedial Action Design | a. Submit 401/404 Permit Application b.Consultation with Natural Resources Trustees c.Public Review and Comment d.Final Design Modifications | 1 | $30,000 | Yes |
| 3. Contracting | a. Request for Proposals and subcontractor selection for Site Characterization and remedial Action Design b. Request for Proposal and subcontractor selection for Construction/Implementation | 1 | $5,000 | |
| 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | 1 | 1 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mobilization and Site Preparartion | a. Mobilization of personnel and equipment. b. Development of Construction Mancamp c. Development of access roadways and barrow sources | 1 | $50,000 | Yes |
| 2. Construction Material Development | a. Overburden removal and sorting | 1 | $100,000 | Yes |
| 3. Construction of Fish Passage | a. Place founded boulders and substrate for plunge-pools b. Place cobbles and fines to seal substrate | 1 | $500,000 | Yes |
| 4. Reclamation | a. Regrade barrow and construction areas b. Replace topsoils c.Seed and fertilize distrubed areas d. Plant riparian and upland shrub and woody species in disturbed areas | 1 | $90,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | 1 | 1 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Engineering | a. Construction Evaluation and Modification Structural Stability of fish passage. b. Construction Evaluation and Modification of surface water management systems, soils, and revegetation. c. Annual Engineering and Fiscal Report | 2 | $10,000 | Yes |
| 2. Environmental | a. Surface Water Quality Monitoring during and post Implementation/Construction b. Fisheries and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring during and post- Implementation/Construction c.Annual Environmental Report | 5 | $10,000 | |
| 3. Site Modifications | a. Repair Eroded Areas, reseed and fertilize | 5 | $10,000 | Yes |
| 4. Site closure | a. Restrict Public Access to pedestrians | 5 | $1,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Engineering - Structural Stabilization Review | 2 | 3 | $10,000 |
| 2. Environmental - Monitoring | 2 | 6 | $40,000 |
| 3. Site Modifications | 3 | 6 | $40,000 |
| 4. Site Closure | 2 | 6 | $4,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $21,000 | $21,000 | $21,000 | $31,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Final Post-Construction Engineering Report (FY02) | 1 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Final Post- Construction Environmental Report (FY02) | 1 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| 3.Final Post-Construction Fiscal Report (FY02) | 1 | $2,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Engineering and Environmental Monitoring | 6 | 6 | $2,000 |
| 2. Final Post-Closure Engineering Report | 6 | 6 | $2,000 |
| 3. Final Post-Closure Environmental Report | 6 | 6 | $2,000 |
| 4. Final Post-Closure Fiscal Report | 6 | 6 | $2,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2006 |
|---|
| $8,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: In Kind Match (State Agencies | $0 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Travel | $2,500 | |
| Indirect | $2,500 | |
| Capital | 0 | $0 |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $827,000 | |
| Other | $10,000 | |
| $842,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $842,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $842,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $842,000 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
New
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | Personnel and Expense for Remedial Action Design Permitting Construction Management and Environmental Monitoring | $350,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Department of Water Resources | Personnel and Expenses for Remedial Action Design and Permitting | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Department of Fish and Game | Personnel and Expenses for Remedial Action Design, Permitting, and Environmental Monitoring | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Private - Hecla Mining Company and Exxon Mobil Corporation | Site Characterization and Rsik Assessments | $100,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
NA
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The project would restore fish passage by remediating a Stibnite mine "legacy". The site is no doubt a major source of sediment in the basin that should have been stabilized long ago. The biologist associated with the project assures reviewers that improving fish passage is not likely to also improve conditions for exotics such as brook trout. However, the response should provide additional information regarding expected gains in fish populations if passage is restored. To what extent would the 7 miles of habitat available above the Glory Hole barrier be usable for spawning and rearing by anadromous stocks?Reviewers note that a major attribute of the proposal is that it involves staff from a number of state agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe. A more definitive indication of the level of support from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, indicating their perspective on fish benefits from the project, would be helpful.
Please elaborate on the extent to which this action might be time-limited. The proposal states "if funds are not made available very soon, the project will be abandoned and fish passage to the Upper EFSFSR [will] be impaired until well after threatened and endangered species recovery efforts have been completed". For example, what is "very soon" and what would be the effect of abandonment?
Some funds are allocated to fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring during and after construction, but no methods are described. Please describe the basics of that program, and also how the post-project ability of anadromous fish to pass above the barrier will be assessed. Compatibility with methods of monitoring in other projects such as the Idaho natural production monitoring studies should be assured.
Comment:
Addresses RPA 149. Although monitoring does not exist in the proposal, activities would take place through other projects funded outside the BPA process. Removal of the passage barrier would allow passage to areas suitable for anadromous fish spawning as well for use by fluvial bull trout. This project will immediately provide information for the management of bull trout and cutthroat trout and eventually anadromous fish. Reviewers question why the removal of this barrier is now a desire of the sponsor. The IDFG, NPT, and NMFS support the concept that has been proposed but question the priority of the removal versus other proposed actions that have been submitted by proposal sponsors.The RFC expressed concern relative to the lack of inclusion of fisheries information. The RFC suggests that without specific goals and objectives related to fisheries benefits this project should not be funded. If specific fisheries goals and objectives can be determined than this project could be considered as a recommended action if the proponents address information about downstream effects and hazards as a result of this large scale project. Until downstream effects are better addressed the RFC questions whether possible downstream damage might out weigh up stream gains. In addition, the RFC questions whether the work could be completed in one year as proposed. The RFC believes the tie to the Federal Hydropower system is unconvincing.
Comment:
Fundable - medium priority. The project would restore fish passage by remediating a Stibnite mine "legacy". The site is no doubt a major source of sediment in the basin that should have been stabilized long ago. It seems reasonable to expect that the 7 miles of habitat available above the Glory Hole barrier would be useable for spawning and rearing by anadromous stocks, cutthroat and fluvial bull trout and therefore will provide fish benefits if the barrier were removed. However, the proposal and response were not definitive in describing such benefits, and the ISRP notes (and shares) CBFWA reviewers concern over this issue. BPA should examine whether this is appropriate offsite mitigation.Monitoring and evaluation also remains a significant issue. Although the response indicates that appropriate monitoring would be done jointly by a number of agencies, details of methodology were not provided. Thus ISRP support of this project is conditional on the completion of an M & E design. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
not reviewed.
Comment: