FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200205900
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 |
|---|---|
| 28016 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28016 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28016 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoration of the Yankee Fork Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 200205900 |
| Organization | Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation (Custer SWCD / OSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Karma Bragg |
| Mailing address | Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, PO Box 305 Challis, ID 83226 |
| Phone / email | 2088794428 / CSWCD@Salmoncountry.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ted O'Neal |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Restore the natural river channel characteristics, floodplain function, sediment regime, and aquatic habitat within the dredged reach of the Yankee Fork. Reconnect the remaining quality habitat, thereby increasing the biological integrity of the basin. |
| Target species | Snake River Chinook Salmon, Snake River steelhead trout, bull trout, Westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.4 | -114.66 | Yankee Fork Salmon River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Overton, C. K., M. A. Radko, and R. Brannon. Watershed analysis approaches using chinook salmon, Yankee Fork of the Salmon River: An example. General Technical Report RMRS-XXX. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. |
| 1999 | Secured partial funding for project through Forest Service Abandoned Mine Lands Appropriations. |
| 1999 | Completed preliminary aerial photograph analysis and preliminary GIS analysis. |
| 2000 | Secured an understanding with landowner on conservation agreement. |
| 2000 | Presented conceptual design and methodologies to local stakeholders. |
| 2000 | Contracted with Ed Calame (N.F. John Day Project Manager; BPA Proj. no. 9605300) to review restoration feasibility. |
| 2000 | Partnership with University of Idaho Ecohydraulics Research Group to design restoration plan through graduate program. |
| 2001 | Completion of watershed analysis by USFS. |
| 2001 | USGS analysis of heavy metal impacts within the Yankee Fork watershed |
| 2001 | Established study of geomorphology, hydraulics, and sediment transport through University of Idaho Ecohydraulics Research Group. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199405000 | Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M&E | Samples mainstem and Yankee Fork annually to determine juvenile abundance, and adult escapement. Will provide baseline and monitoring data for our proposed work, and off-channel ponds will be integrated into our project. (RPA #150, 152) |
| 198909803 | Salmon supplementation study in Idaho Rivers | Sampling of the control reach within the study area. Will provide baseline and monitoring data for our proposed work. (RPA #150, 152). |
| 199202603 | Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USBWP) Administration/Implementation Support | Administrative and public outreach functions associated with habitat restoration planning and work (RPA #149, 150, 152, and 154) as described in this proposal. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Quantify existing and historic conditions | a. Develop spatial coverages (GIS) of existing and historic stream riparian area, channel condition and floodplain. | 7 | $31,500 | Yes |
| b. Conduct geomorphic watershed analysis and sediment budget | 1 | $42,000 | Yes | |
| c. Develop basin-wide hydraulic geometry relationship and define reference reaches. | 1 | $10,500 | Yes | |
| d. Complete aerial photography analysis | 1 | $42,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Develop restoration design options | a. Model channel hydraulics, sediment transport, and stream temperature. | 7 years. Task performed for each restoration phase | $65,100 | Yes |
| b. Conduct laboratory experiments to examine interactions between proposed channel morphology, surface and intergravel flow, and aquatic habitat | 3 | $52,500 | Yes | |
| c. Design channel and floodplain restoration plans based on existing data and 1a-d and 2a-b above. | 7 | $13,650 | Yes | |
| 3. Provide for longterm benefits for water quality, fish, and wildlife | a. Secure conservation easement with private landowners. | 1 | $10,500 | Yes |
| 4. Complete NEPA, Permitting, SHIPO Compliance and ESA Consultation | a. Same as Objective | on going as needed | $100,800 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. Continue GIS support of physical and biological conditions and project activities. | 2003 | 2006 | $126,000 |
| 2a. Continue modeling of design options for phased restoration | 2003 | 2006 | $260,400 |
| 2b. Complete laboratory experiments for design options | 2003 | 2004 | $105,000 |
| 2c. Continue development of channel and floodplain restoration plans for phased restoration. | 2003 | 2006 | $54,600 |
| 4. Complete NEPA, Permitting, SHIPO Compliance and ESA Consultation | 2003 | 2006 | $84,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $205,000 | $165,000 | $115,000 | $115,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore natural channel characteristics and floodplain function | a. Complete final engineering documents ($15,750/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes |
| b. Provide on-site construction planning, layout and staking, engineering support, and field direction ($31,500/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| c. Procure construction materials and supplies ($21,000/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| d. Grade, redistribute, and/or remove dredge spoils ($183,750/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| e. Construct new channel(s) and cross-section alignment ($131,250/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| f. Install restoration features, including bioengineered bank treatments and wood debris ($84,000/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| g. Provide on-site construction communications ($7,875/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| h. Supervise and manage restoration activities (construction engineer) ($33,600/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes | |
| 2. Restore riparian plant communities | a. Plant seedlings and transplanted mature trees/shrubs ($52,500k/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes |
| b. Install erosion control fabric and seed ($29,400k/yr) | 7 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $63,000 |
| 1b. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $126,000 |
| 1c. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $84,000 |
| 1d. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $735,000 |
| 1e. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $525,000 |
| 1f. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $336,000 |
| 1g. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $31,500 |
| 1h. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $134,400 |
| 2a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $210,000 |
| 2b. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $117,600 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $590,625 | $590,625 | $590,625 | $590,625 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Hire Project Manager & support his/her activities | a. Project manager to implement project, coordinate meetings, produce reports, and continue relevant permitting, SHIPO compliance and ESA consultation | 7 | $81,585 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Continue support for Project Manager | 2003 | 2006 | $326,340 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $81,585 | $81,585 | $81,585 | $81,585 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor channel restoration and update methods | a. Collect physical monitoring data, including surveys of channel planform & topography; surface and subsurface sediment; hydraulic discharge; stream temperature; sediment transport; riparian vegetation; hyporheic zone | 15+ years | $81,900 | Yes |
| b. Conduct bio-accumulation monitoring for heavy metals | 7 | $157,500 | Yes | |
| c. Conduct fish habitat surveys | 7 | $26,250 | Yes | |
| d. Compile, analyze, and report data | 15+ years | $19,425 | Yes | |
| e. Use monitoring data to update and improve restoration design and implementation | 7 | $5,250 | Yes | |
| 2. Evaluate restoration performance | a. Conduct statistical analyses of changes in physical and biological conditions | 15+ years | $15,750 | Yes |
| 3. Compare restoration techniques | a. Compare different techniques for restoration implementation in terms of their success, cost, and time involved in implementation | 7 | $15,750 | Yes |
| 4. Develop 2 foot contour map of study reach at completion of project | a. LIDAR and aerial photography | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| 5. Knowledge transfer | a. Author and present study results at scientific conferences and in peer-review publications | 7 | $6,300 | Yes |
| b. Develop agency reports | 7 | $12,600 | ||
| c. Participate in community and stakeholder meetings | 7 | $3,675 | ||
| d. Involve local high schools (Shoshone-Bannock High School Streamside Incubator Project; Challis High School Living Stream Classroom Project) | 7 | $5,250 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $327,600 |
| 1b. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $630,000 |
| 1c. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $105,000 |
| 1d. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $77,700 |
| 1e. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $21,000 |
| 2a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $63,000 |
| 3a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $63,000 |
| 4a. (as above) | 2006 | 2006 | $315,000 |
| 5a. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $25,200 |
| 5b. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $50,400 |
| 5c. (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $14,700 |
| 5d (as above) | 2003 | 2006 | $21,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $349,650 | $349,650 | $349,650 | $349,650 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 Project Manager | $50,000 |
| Fringe | 36.9% of salary | $18,450 |
| Supplies | computer, office supplies, field equipment, etc. for Project Manager | $5,250 |
| Travel | vehicle lease, insurance, per diem, etc. for Project Manager | $4,000 |
| Indirect | 5% (applied to all cost elements) | $38,085 |
| NEPA | $96,000 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | University of Idaho, Ecohydraulics Research Group | $312,500 |
| Subcontractor | USFS, Yankee Fork Ranger District & Rocky Mountain Research Station | $255,000 |
| Other | Report publication, community meetings, and outreach | $20,500 |
| $799,785 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $799,785 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $799,785 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS | Funding UI graduate student and USGS studies for design modeling, preliminary NEPA, survey, and monitoring | $500,000 | cash |
| SBT | Fisheries monitoring | $15,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | Fisheries monitoring | $15,000 | in-kind |
| Private landowner (Simplot Company) | Forfeiture of mineral and development rights through the conservation easement | $650,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The proponents should clarify the need for an upper watershed assessment and whether the dredged reach is a bottleneck for reaching good upstream habitat. Project history states that a contract was developed to determine the feasibility of the project. What was the result of this analysis? Did the analysis conclude that significant gains in productive salmonid habitat could be gained from this project? This proposal needs to include a convincing case that it is feasible, and that significant benefits to fish populations will result from this rather expensive project. Further clarification is needed of the role of Simplot Corp. Will they forego future development rights in the conservation easement?The project might be fundable in stages as the conservation easement is obtained and concrete plans for restoration construction are available. Plans for construction should be reviewed by an independent engineering group before final funding.
The proponents have accomplished impressive preliminary planning, cooperation with state, federal, and university personnel, completion of watershed analysis by USFS, and other pilot work in 1999-2001. The ISRP is sympathetic to the fact that detailed designs for restoration cannot be given at this time, however, if funded, much of the proposal must be taken on faith that technically sound procedures will be implemented to provide biological benefits.
The plans for monitoring and evaluation are well done.
Comment:
Although IDFG identified the Yankee Fork as a major source of sedimentation to the mainstem Salmon River, reviewers question the benefit/cost issue. The reviewers suggest that the proposed work appears expensive and are concerned about the ability to achieve proposed goals in a timely manner. The work proposed is high priority, there are some concerns about the cost of implementation.Comment:
Fundable at low priority subject to existence of a conservation easement that limits future development of lands associated with the stream channel restoration and completion of a watershed analysis that continues to support the feasibility of the project. The ISRP appreciates the detailed and straightforward responses to our questions and concerns. The fishery benefits on this project may be relatively low. The impacted area is a relatively short stretch of moderately high gradient. The primary chinook salmon rearing area is upstream, and passage doesn't seem to be impeded. This is an expensive project and the ISRP questions whether BPA funding is appropriate.To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, 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:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. This is an assessment with a large data collection component. The intent is ultimately to guide restoration of an historically productive subbasin that is severely degraded. It is not clear that this habitat improvement will result in significant gains in productive salmon habitat or how that habitat improvement would translate into increased survival.
Comments
This was once prime spawning and rearing habitat, but a 6 mile stretch has been severely altered by dredge mining. This project will acquire an easement for the property and restore it, but it does not meet RPA 150 because it is not currently productive non-Federal habitat. In outyears, the project may partially implement RPA 153 if permanent or long term easements (i.e., > 15 years) with willing landowners are initiated. Easements should be consistent with Oregon CREP. Chinook do continue to spawn in this reach, however. There is also an active mine in the area and another one which, while inactive, will discharge once the details are worked out with NMFS through Section 7. Given these concerns, and the proposed budget of $800K in FY02 , and even more in the coming years, we would question whether this project gives the "most bang for the buck" at this time.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. The bio-accumulation monitoring of heavy metals should be conducted prior to consideration of planning and design of this project. Potential heavy metal problems would have to be addressed before any further actions could take place on this project. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154
Comment:
Council recommendation: This is a proposal to evaluate and remediate impacts to a historically productive section of the Yankee Fork that has been severely impacted by dredge mining. The proposal was comprehensive in providing for design and evaluation, multi-year phased protection and active restoration, and long-term monitoring and evaluation.The ISRP rated the project as fundable in part, with support for those restoration and protection activities that could be included within a conservation easement. The NMFS comments noted that this area was historically productive, and that a conservation easement could be responsive to RPA 153 if it is long-term and meets certain standards. The Bonneville comments did not support funding at this time. The regional prioritization group included this as a management priority for the area.
The Council recommends that this project be funded, but at a level substantially reduced from as proposed, and to focus only on the conservation easement element and bioaccumulation monitoring. The proposed funding levels are presented in Table 1.
Comment:
FundComment:
should be SBT as sponsor. Check with SBT. John Buffington (UofI) Check with Jeff Allen, placeholder 04, 05Comment: