FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28013
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 |
|---|---|
| 28013 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28013 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28013 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Renovate Selway Falls Anadromous Fish Passage Tunnel |
| Proposal ID | 28013 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / tcochnau@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cal Groen |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | The Selway River anadromous fish tunnel was constructed in the late 1960' in an effort to provide improved passage conditions through the Selway Falls complex. Since that time the infrastructure has deteriorated and requires renovation. |
| Target species | Steelhead Trout, Bull Trout, Pacific Lamprey, Chinook Salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.0513 | -115.3038 | Located at Selway Falls, RM 25.0, Selway River, Idaho |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Improve passage conditions in Selway River fish tunnel. | Task 1.1 Renovate and reconstruct the deteriorated infrastructure of the Selway Falls fish passage tunnel per engineered specifications. | 1.5 | $270,000 | Yes |
| Task 1.2. Provide oversight to reconstruction phase. | 1 | $19,100 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| $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 |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2. Monitor success of steelhead trout and chinook salmon in passage through renovated fish tunnel. | Task 2.1 Capture adult steelhead trout and chinook salmon below falls and tunnel, and insert radio transmitters for monitoring passage through the falls complex. | 1 | $55,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Biologists time for onsite supervision and radio telemetry work. | $22,000 |
| Fringe | $8,000 | |
| Supplies | 60 radio transmitters; fixed site receiver, miscellaneous | $28,000 |
| Travel | Meetings, work site visits | $3,000 |
| Indirect | $13,700 | |
| Capital | Engineer and construction contractor | $270,000 |
| $344,700 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $344,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $344,700 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDFG | On-site administration of project; office space, followup monitoring | $18,000 | in-kind |
| USFS | On-site administration; permitting; followup monitoring | $10,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Depending on construction schedule, the monitoring of passage success may be delayed until FY03, thereby deferring needed personnel and associated costs for one year.
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:
Response needed. Reviewers were not convinced that the falls were an obstruction; benefits to fish were not adequately demonstrated. Has this been a recommended action from the Clearwater Focus Group? The response should provide material (perhaps including additional photos) that shows the natural falls are or are not an obstruction. If it is a demonstrated problem, the response should describe the options of blasting. This project was proposed in the High Priority Review and has been adjusted since then.The reviewers were impressed by the fact that 5 of the marked steelhead did surmount the falls (and no evidence exists that all or most of the 13 that used the tunnel could not have gone over the falls instead if the tunnel were absent). Also, the photos indicate that the falls pose less of a fish passage problem than other falls that steelhead surmount. If water were not diverted by the tunnel and instead went over the falls, the falls might be even more passable than it now is, depending on the volume involved. It is also possible that the tunnel structure diminishes the passability of the falls in other ways. The applicant should consider removing the tunnel if it is a potential obstruction. The proposal should discuss the positive selective pressure exerted by the falls on the fish population.
A review of the site by hydrological engineers and biologists experienced in fish passage issues is recommended, followed by a re-submission of a prescribed solution to the problem if it remains of concern.
We were informed that there is not consensus among managers regarding the need to renovate the tunnel, and request clarification, especially on how this might affect the upcoming chinook and coho supplementation efforts (one of the NPT satellite release sites will be above Selway Falls). Letters of support from agencies and tribes concerned with this area should be provided.
Comment:
This is a one year budget proposal that will not require out year funding.Comment:
Fundable in part to do an expert appraisal to include a site review and feasibility report by independent hydrological engineers and biologists, with recommended action, including alternatives. There is currently no firm basis for concluding that passage is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Reviewers were not convinced that the falls were an obstruction; benefits to fish were not adequately demonstrated. The reviewers were impressed by the fact that during the 1999 radio-tracking 5 of the marked steelhead did surmount the falls (and no evidence exists that all or most of the 13 fish that used the tunnel could not have gone over the falls instead if the tunnel were absent).Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUImprove the survival of out-migrating smolts by renovating and reconstructing deteriorated infrastructure that will eliminate injury and mortality caused by impingement and entrainment
Comments
The Selway River anadromous fish passage tunnel was constructed in the 1960’s and has provided an alternative route for movement above Selway Falls, particularly during periods of drought or extremely high flows. The infrastructure of the passage tunnel has deteriorated over time and it no longer provides optimum passage conditions i.e., the interior baffles no longer function to slow water movement and the upper headgate facility does not operate effectively to control flows through the tunnel. Renovation is needed.
Already ESA Req? No. (But minor O&M is covered under an informal section 7 with NMFS on Mitchell Act.)
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin planning is completed and is reviewed under BPA's policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
500
Comment: