MEMORANDUM Tracy Stone-Manning, Chief of Staff, Governor’s ... · Natural Resource Damage Program...

Natural Resource Damage Program P.O. Box 201425 Phone: 406-444-0205 State of Montana 1720 9th Avenue Fax: 406-444-0236 Dept. of Justice Helena, MT 59620-1425 [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Trustee Restoration Council: Tracy Stone-Manning, Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office Elizabeth Erickson, Chair, BNRC Tim Fox, Attorney General John Tubbs, Director, DNRC Tom Livers, Director, DEQ Martha Williams, Director, FWP FROM: Doug Martin, NRDP DATE: May 31, 2017 SUBJECT: Trustee Restoration Council Meeting on June 5, 2017 The Trustee Restoration Council (TRC) will meet on Monday, June 5, 2017 from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. in the Montana Room of the DNRC Building located at 1539 11th Ave. Attached are the meeting agenda and backup materials. All of these materials are also available on the NRDP website at https://dojmt.gov/lands/trustee-restoration-council/. Following is a description of the agenda items: Program Updates: The NRDP welcomes Shannon Gilskey, Administrative Officer. Butte Area One Restoration Plan 2017 Small Projects – Action Item The TRC will consider and decide on its recommendation to the Governor for the Butte Area One Restoration Plan 2017 Small Projects. The TRC will consider 16 small projects of $100,000 or less. These project proposals were presented to the BNRC and the public on April 6, 2017. On April 20, 2017 the BNRC met, received public comment and made their recommendations on the projects. These projects are summarized in the attached criteria evaluation tables prepared by the NRDP. A summary spreadsheet that provides project funding request and the NRDP / BRNC funding recommendations is also attached for your use during the meeting. Also, two comment letters received after the April 20, 2017 BNRC meeting pertaining to the “Blacktail Creek Non-point Nutrient Management” project are attached for your review, as well as additional project background information provided to NRDP. At the meeting Pat Cunneen, NRDP, will summarize each project and provide the staff and BNRC funding recommendation. Elizabeth Erickson will provide the BNRC input. Following the consideration of public comment, the TRC will vote on its funding recommendation to the Governor for each of the 16 projects. Upon request NRDP can provide a copy of the project proposals.

https://dojmt.gov/lands/trustee-restoration-council/

Trustee Restoration Council Meeting Monday, June 5, 2017

2:30 to 4:30 PM DNRC Building

1539 11th Ave., Helena, MT Room 110 “Montana Room”

AGENDA

2:30 – 2:40 Introductions, NRDP Update and Meeting Overview – Tracy Stone- Manning, TRC Chair 2:40 – 4:10 Butte Area One Restoration Plan Small Projects (16 projects) – Action

Item Each project to be presented and voted on individually.

• Summary of 2017 BAO Small Projects– Pat Cunneen, NRDP • BNRC Advisory Council Input – Elizabeth Erickson, Chair • Public Comment • TRC Discussion, Input, and Action on Recommendation –

facilitated by Tracy Stone-Manning, TRC Chair Order of Small Projects to be considered:

o 1 “Storm Drain Inlet Markers” by Taryn Stratton o 2 “Revegetation of National Dump Site” by Crystal Vandermeulen o 3 “Data Visualization - Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor” by Joe Griffin o 4 “Bacterial Soil Rejuvenation” by Grant Mitman o 5 “Using Pore Water Diffusion Samplers…” by Chris Gammons o 6 “Basin Creek Recreational Development” by George Grant TU o 7 “Copper Mountain Kid’s Fishing Pond” by George Grant TU o 8 “Pilot Program for Cleaning Contaminants from Diggings East” by Jackie Michelsen o 9 “Blacktail Creek and Basin Creek Watershed Resiliency” by Ted Dodge o 10 “Blacktail Creek Non Point Nutrient Management” by John Moodry o 11 “Microbial Activity in Silver Bow and Blacktail Creek” by Alysia Cox o 12 “Relationship Between Site Contamination and Revegetation Success” by J. Trilling o 13 “A Restoration Management System for Restoration Projects in BAO” by Joao

Nascimento o 14 “Extending Outreach of Science Mine Exhibits” by Lois Podobnik o 15 “Montana Tech Tree Greenhouse” by Robert Pal o 16 “Feasibility Study to Evaluate and Design BMPs to Improve Grove Gulch Water

Quality” by Raja Nagisetty 4:10 – 4:30 Additional Public Comments/Adjourn Note: All meeting materials are posted on the NRDP website at: https://doj.mt.gov/lands/advisory-councils/

https://doj.mt.gov/lands/advisory-councils/

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Storm Drain Inlet Markers” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks up to $9,302 to purchase and install up to 3,300 4” round plastic storm drain inlet markers in

uptown Butte to raise public awareness that storm drains lead to Silver Bow Creek. Increased awareness could help prevent placement of pollutants into the system. Sponsor proposes a first phase of the project to purchase 300 markers for $1,278 and install them with the help of her father. If that effort is successful, then the sponsor would recruit assistance from civic organizations to purchase/install: Alternative 1 for 2,000 additional markers for $6,147 or Alternative 2 for 3,000 more markers at a cost of up to $8,024. Sponsor proposes using restoration funds to purchase materials and will donate all labor, safety vests, travel costs and meals.

Evaluation Summary/Funding Recommendation

Section 3.2.5 of the 2012 Final Butte Area One Restoration Plan states: “Because other regulatory authority requires that storm water issues be addressed, the BNRC is proposing that no funds from the Butte Area One settlement be allocated directly to storm water projects under the BNRC Restoration Recommendation. Although no funds have been allocated to this category, because of its importance it remains in the plan as a placeholder for potential future funding of projects dealing with critical storm water needs.” The 2016 small project submittal form states that “Types of projects that will be considered include… storm water.” NRDP believes this project is eligible for small project funds due to its education component. The sponsor has provided the BNRC with a well thought-out, feasible and cost-effective plan, and seems very capable of implementing the project successfully. NRDP recommends funding “phase 1” of this project for request of $1,278. Should the sponsor successfully complete installing the 300 markers within 1 year of contract start date and be successful in recruiting additional manpower, NRDP recommends funding “phase 2” of the project for Alternative 2 for 2,000 markers for an additional $6,147. NRDP proposes a funding condition that the project sponsor receive written permission from BSB to place the markers on BSB property.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Storm drain inlet markers are fairly common in many urban areas throughout the country.

Placement of these pre-fabricated markers in uptown Butte appears to be “reasonably feasible” with the funding condition.

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate Benefits: Cost to purchase the markers seems fairly reasonable and labor to install is provided as match. Once in place, the markers could provide observers with an increased awareness for their natural resources. Therefore, the project costs would seem commensurate with the project benefits.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Likely Cost-Effective: In recent years, volunteers have painted murals at store drain inlets to increase public awareness of their connection to the stream. Those efforts would seem to involve a greater amount of labor and materials than simply attaching prefabricated markers to the curb. The sponsor’s approach would seem to deliver the same message in a more cost-efficient manner, so it is reasonable to conclude that this project would be cost-effective.

4. Results of Response Actions

Consistent: Project would not interfere with a response action.

5. Adverse Environmental Impacts

No Significant Adverse Impacts: This low-impact project should pose no significant adverse impacts to the environment.

6. Recovery Period and Potential for Natural Recovery

No Effect on Recovery Period: This project likely could have positive effects on the recovery of the injured natural resources of Butte Area One by decreasing the amount of pollutants reaching Silver Bow Creek.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Storm Drain Inlet Markers” 7. Human Health and Safety No Adverse Impacts: This project should not have any adverse impacts to human health and safety. 8. Federal, State, and Tribal

Policies, Rules, and Laws Project would not appear to be subject to Superfund laws/policies.

9. Resources of Special Interest

Project should have no adverse impacts on these special sites/resources.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Revegetation of the National Dump” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks up to $60,000 to revegetate the 1.15 acre National Dump BRES site off North Montana Street.

Sponsor plans to work with Norm DeNeal, who has implemented similar projects using BAO restoration funds. Sponsor proposes planting native aspen and native shrubs and forbs to help improve ground cover and prevent erosion. Site ownership is divided with BSB owning 0.75 acres and BP-ARCO owning 0.4 acres. Sponsor estimates cost to revegetate the BSB parcel will be $39,130 and cost to revegetate the BP-ARCO owned parcel at $20,870.


NRDP has no history with the sponsor nor knowledge of her prior restoration experience; however, since the sponsor will be working under the guidance of Norm DeNeal and his company, Landscapes of Montana, NRDP believes the sponsor can implement a successful project. As with past revegetation projects, NRDP is reluctant to invest public restoration funds on private land. NRDP recommends funding only the portion of the project on BSB land for $29,130. NRDP has two funding contingencies: 1) BSB supply a match of approximately $10,000 of irrigation water and 2) BSB commits to not selling the property in the future for development. If BSB does not commit, NRDP recommends a similar alternative site be later approved in place of the National Dump.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Project sponsor will work with a 2014 small project sponsor and duplicate his effort

undertaken a similar near-by BRES sites, and those efforts appear to be successful thus far. 2. Costs:Benefits Net Benefits: Project benefits outweigh/exceed costs associated with the project if sponsor can replicate previous

similar efforts produced by the co-sponsor. 3. Cost-Effectiveness Cost Effective: Sponsor’s request is proportional to previous BAO restoration revegetation projects, which appear to

have been successful. 4. Results of Response

Actions Positive Coordination: Project is anticipated to augment reclamation of the mine waste cap at this site.


Short Term Adverse Impacts with Mitigation: During the implementation of this project, it is anticipated that some disturbance to the reclaimed area will occur, but it is outweighed by the anticipated final result which should improve the erosion resistance of the waste cap.


Reduces the Recovery Period: Project proposes to plant aspens at the site, which is currently void of woody plants. The end product could closer resemble the pre-injured conditions at the site; however, that undisturbed condition is not documented to NRDP’s knowledge.

7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: During the construction phase of the project, sponsor’s workforce will have to observe safe work practices. Upon completion of the project, no further impacts to human health/safety should be realized.

8. Federal, State, and Tribal Policies, Rules, and Laws

Project sponsor will have to obtain landowner permission to conduct the work, and all work will have to be coordinated with the landowner/EPA/DEQ/NRDP/BSB.

9. Resources of Special Int. Project should have no adverse impacts on these special sites/resources.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Data Visualization for the Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $49,700 in Butte Area One restoration funds to complete a 3-D geologic referencing and

animation to facilitate the understanding of the current conditions of groundwater and storm water remedy in the Upper Silver Bow Creek corridor to identify any possible data gaps and help analyze whether the current groundwater remedy is effective. Sponsor would input all available information into software and build the visualization and present the information to the public. The model could be updated as new information is gathered and remedial and restoration actions are conducted. Sponsor is requesting $49,700 in BAO funding, proposes a $1,000 in-kind match of volunteer time and would seek a 10% partnership match shared by CTEC, Project Green and Restore Our Creek Coalition.


There is uncertainty in the community concerning the effectiveness of the current groundwater remedy for the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit. Conflicting information has been provided to the public from the various stakeholders. Completing a visualization of the existing information that should be easily comprehended by the community is beneficial. NRDP recommends funding the data visualization of the Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor” for $49,700, with the funding condition that sponsor secures the 10% match of $4,970 from its partners.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Project sponsor proposes to contract with groundwater and modeling experts to build a 3-D

visualization of the current conditions for groundwater, storm water and remedial infrastructure using specialized software. The specific software to construct the model has not been determined, but software is available and is becoming more widely accepted. NRDP believes this proposal appears to be “reasonably feasible.”

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate Benefits: Benefits of the project range from identifying potential data gaps to communicating significant information to the public in an easily accessible manner. Additional remedial or restoration actions could result from the outcome of the study, or a as the model could indicate capture capabilities for the subdrain area. Therefore, the project benefits would seem commensurate with project costs.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Likely Cost-Effective: NRDP has previously funded similar model developments and believes the cost proposed are reasonable and likely to be cost effective.


Consistent: Project would not interfere with a response action. Project would use existing information from various superfund efforts to develop a visualization of the current conditions in the Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor.


No Significant Adverse Impacts: This computer-based simulation project should pose no significant adverse impacts to the environment.


No Effect on Recovery Period: This computer-based simulation project would have no effect on the recovery of the injured natural resources of Butte Area One.

7. Human Health and Safety No Adverse Impacts: This project should not have any adverse impacts to human health and safety. 8. Federal, State, and Tribal

Policies, Rules, and Laws Project would be planning work outside of the superfund area and does not appear to be subject to Superfund laws/policies.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Bacterial Soil Rejuvenation, A Process to Initiate Viridescence, Restoration and Repair of Natural Resources Damaged by Mining that Impact Butte Area One”

Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Department of Biology has proposed conducting a research project to produce large amounts of lab grown Beijerinckia in culture vats and introduce them into four areas with low pH soil disturbed by mining and void of vegetation. The sponsor theorizes that applying these nitrogen-fixing bacteria will restore the native soil microbial ecosystem and promote natural recovery in place of expensive soil removal and capping. Sponsor would provide technical reports and a final presentation to the BNRC and also produce a poster and a step-by-step how to pamphlet. Total costs for this two-year project are projected to be $69,592 with an in-kind match of $29,171 for salaries. Total request for BAO restoration funds is $40,421.


The sponsor obtained $48,979 in BAO restoration funds for a 2015 small project using moss to revegetate the areas now targeted by this 2016 small project for a cost of an additional $40,421. It would seem premature to do work in these areas until the first project has been completed and evaluated. Therefore, NRDP recommends that this 2016 bacterial soil rejuvenation not be funded at this time. Should the moss project prove successful and the BNRC makes a future call for small project submittals, the NRDP encourages the sponsor to submit a similar proposal at that time, but targeting a different area.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Uncertain Feasibility: Sponsor has cited sources in literature where others have completed work successfully with the

proposed bacteria; however, the approach offered is not known to be a practice common among other Montana superfund sites, so NRDP cannot be certain that the stated objectives and goals of the project can be successfully achieved.

2. Costs:Benefits Net Costs: Project sponsor targeted the same areas for restoration with a $49,000 2015 moss revegetation project. The cost:benefit ratio of that project was deemed commensurate. Another $40,000 to address the same sites would make costs likely to outweigh the benefits.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Not Cost-Effective/Uncertain: The BNRC has invested nearly $49,000 in a 2015 moss revegetation small project with this sponsor. This new 2016 small project requests an additional $40,000 in restoration funds be spent on the bacteria project in the same areas targeted in the 2015 moss project. For $89,000 combined cost, these sites could likely have been addressed by the standard practice of regrading, capping and revegetating with a more certain outcome. Therefore, this experimental revegetation approach does not seem cost-effective. NRDP is also uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this project. The approach offered is not known to be a common practice among other Montana superfund sites, so NRDP cannot be certain that the stated objectives and goals of the project can be successfully achieved.


Consistent: the project should not interfere or duplicate any remedy actions. Study results could help quantify the effectiveness of covering unreclaimed areas with Beijerinckia and preventing sediment transport to surface waters.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Bacterial Soil Rejuvenation, A Process to Initiate Viridescence, Restoration and Repair of Natural Resources Damaged by Mining that Impact Butte Area One”

5. Adverse Env. Impacts Unknown Adverse Impacts: Project does not appear to present any significant adverse impacts to the environment, but without previous experience to rely on, it would seem potential adverse impacts are uncertain.

6. Recovery Period/Potential for Natural Recovery

No Effect on the Recovery Period: If successful, the project could reduce the recovery time; however, there would seem to be some chance for natural recovery.

7. Human Health and Safety Likely No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project cites references that indicate the bacteria proposed for use in this project does not pose any health and safety risks to humans.


Project locations are reclaimed/unreclaimed BRES sites: project sponsor would have to communicate and coordinate with EPA/DEQ/BSB prior to, during, and after the project implementation.

9. Resources of Special Int. No Impact: project has no adverse impacts on these special sites/resources.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Using Pore Water Diffusion Samplers to Investigate Metal Loading from Stream Sediments in Blacktail Creek and Lower Area One”

Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Department of Geological Engineering has proposed using pore water diffusion samplers to investigate the metals loading from sediments in Blacktail and Silver Bow Creeks. This data could help determine if stream sediments and/or shallow groundwater immediately under the stream could be a source of metals and nutrient contamination to surface waters as they pass through Butte Area One. The study could also help yield further information regarding shallow groundwater bypassing the existing groundwater collection system and getting to the creeks. Information from this study could also collaborate with information from the microbial activity study also proposed by Montana Tech. Samples collected during this two-year project would be analyzed at the MBMG lab. Findings would be submitted in a technical report to the NRDP. Total project costs are estimated at $59,434 with an in-kind match of $22,009 for salaries and discounted analytical services. Total request is $37,425.


Water quality in Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks regularly exceeds metals standards. It is debated whether the source of this contamination is instream sediments, groundwater inflow, storm water or a combination of these factors. The proposed study would examine the pore water diffusion in the sediments that could help lead to determining which mechanism(s) is/are the likely contributing heavy metals to the stream. The sponsor has conducted much valuable research for area superfund sites, including a 2014 Butte Area One small project. Efforts could benefit from this information as it may guide future stream actions; NRDP recommends funding this project for the full request of $37,425.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Collection of lake/wetland pore water samples in sediments with this specific type of pore water

technology is a fairly common practice. The sponsor believes collection of data during low flow periods of the year will be effective for stream sediment (moving water). The project sponsor has successfully completed porewater sampling projects at superfund sites downstream of Butte Area One. NRDP believes this project seems reasonably feasible with the sponsors proposed schedule.

2. Costs:Benefits Net Benefits: Costs for the project are relatively reasonable while the restoration efforts could gain useful information about the interaction of the groundwater and surface water streams in Butte Area One. This information could help the development future stream restoration efforts. The project benefits outweigh project costs.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Likely Cost-Effective: Although the applicant provided only a limited analysis of alternatives, based on available information, NRDP concludes that the selected alternative is likely to be cost-effective.


Positive Coordination: Information gained through this study should coordinate positively with other information gathered by other restoration and remedy efforts. Project sponsor suggests this porewater information could also collaborate with the microbial activity study being proposed by Montana Tech. Information from the study would be made readily available to the interested parties.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Using Pore Water Diffusion Samplers to Investigate Metal Loading from Stream Sediments in Blacktail Creek and Lower Area One”

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project appears to present no adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: Project would not change the time frame for recovery.

7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project presents minimal potential significant adverse impact to human health and safety.


Consistent: Project does not appear to be subject to Superfund laws/policies.

9. Resources of Special Int. No Impact: Project has no adverse impacts on these special sites/resources.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Basin Creek Reservoir Recreational Development” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $100,000 in Butte Area One small project funds for a Basin Creek Reservoir

Recreational Development Project. The project is comprised of several components, including: engineering, surveying, permitting, trail design and construction, channel design and construction, fishing access, picnic areas, restrooms, historic preservation and more. Sponsor will seek other funding partners for the project, which has a total estimated price tag of $839,084.


The BNRC and NRDP were guaranteed by Butte-Silver Bow that public access would be granted to the Basin Creek Reservoir area with the recommendation and the Governor’s dedication of $10 million in BAO restoration funds to go toward the construction of the Basin Creek Water Treatment Plant. For the sponsor to come forward with this small project proposal is in-line with the BNRC’s vision. Many components of this large project would not be eligible for restoration funding; however, many are. NRDP recommends this project for the full amount of $100,000.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Project sponsor proposes using well-known building/construction methods to conduct

the work, so it is reasonable to expect that the objectives will be reached. Fish, Wildlife and Parks has indicated the Basin Creek Reservoir could be developed into a sustainable cutthroat trout fishery. With these considerations NRDP believes the project is reasonably feasible.

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate: The total project costs, $839,084 are part of a large initial investment required for this project; however, the end product should provide Montanans with ample fishing and recreating opportunities similar to those that were lost due to mining impacts on Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks. The requested amount of $100,000 for the portions of the project proposed would have benefits equivalent to the total cost.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effective: Sponsor’s approach to evaluate and survey the area, then develop an engineered plan, is a typical and cost-effective means to proceed with a large project. Larger cost elements would go out for competitive bid. This is a cost-effective way to accomplish the project.

4. Results of Response Actions Positive Coordination: The project would not augment, interfere or duplicate the results of any Superfund response actions.

5. Adverse Environmental Impacts Short Term Adverse Impacts with Mitigation: This project presents no known long-term adverse environmental impacts, but proper construction techniques will need to be employed with working in the floodplain in order to mitigate short term impacts.


No Effect on Recovery Period: This replacement project would have no effect on the recovery period for the injured resources of Butte Area One.

7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project sponsor would be required to obtain any/all permits required to conduct this work.


Project sponsor would be required to obtain any/all permits required to conduct this work.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Basin Creek Reservoir Recreational Development” 9. Resources of Special Int. Project should have no adverse impacts. If funded, NRDP will consult with the Tribes and DOI concerning

the potential to impact natural resources of special interest. If necessary, the grant agreement would require proper consultation with the Tribes and/or DOI in such situations should undiscovered/undocumented resources of special interest be encountered during project construction activities.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Copper Mountain Kids’ Fishing Pond” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $100,000 in Butte Area One small project funds to deepen the existing irrigation pond at the

Copper Mountain Park and turn it into a children’s fishing pond. The pond is fed by water from Silver Lake. The existing liner would be dug up, the pond enlarged and deepened, then a new liner would be installed and the shoreline re-contoured to make access easier. Goal would be to make the pond large and deep enough for trout to over-winter. FWP would supply hatchery stock. Total estimated project cost is $458,639.


NRDP believes that natural fishery projects are a much better restoration investment than artificial put-and-take fishery projects, such as this one proposed at Copper Mountain. A Copper Mountain fishing pond would require frequent human effort unlike self-sustaining fishery projects, which is a goal of restoration. If the maximum small project award was dedicated to the Copper Mountain Kids’ Fishing Pond project, the sponsor would be required to raise another $358,000; which would take considerable time and effort. NRDP is also concerned with a project that involves construction and maintenance of a lined permanent deep pond directly upgradient of a mine waste repository. The severe threat of leakage to the downgradient waste repository would always exist. NRDP does not recommend this project for funding.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Project sponsor would enlarge and re-install a liner on an already existing pond using common

construction practices. The pond is supplied by Silver Lake water, which is fairly pristine and trout would likely do well. It is reasonable to assume that the project goal would be successfully met.

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate: A large initial investment is required for this project; however, the end product should be expected to provide fishing opportunities similar to those that were lost due to mining impacts on Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks. It seems those benefits would be equivalent to the total cost.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effective: Sponsor’s plan to deepen the pond might not be the only approach. As-built drawings of the pond indicate that it is 10 to possibly 14 feet deep. Perhaps that depth is adequate enough for the temperature of the water to remain cool enough for trout in the summer, but perhaps not deep enough to over-winter trout. In that case, the pond could be fished and re-stocked with new fish each spring. Monitoring water temperature should be conducted for at least a season to determine if the pond could sustain fish in its current status. Planting large trees around the perimeter could provide shade in the summer and help keep water temperatures cooler. NRDP believes other alternatives should be considered before funding this project as proposed.


Inconsistent Coordination: The project could potentially interfere with Superfund actions by placing a large amount of water directly upgradient of a mine waste repository.


Potential Long Term Adverse: The Copper Mountain Park is a solid waste repository housing the Clark Zinc Mill Tailings, the old county landfill and the Colorado Smelter tailings. The irrigation pond is upgradient from the repository. It was required to be lined to prevent water from leaking out of the pond and getting to the wastes in the repository, which could lead to further contamination of the aquifer. However, the potential for that scenario will always be present as long as there is water in the pond. The proposed project would increase that risk.


No Effect on Recovery Period: This replacement project would have no effect on the recovery period for the injured resources of Butte Area One.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Copper Mountain Kids’ Fishing Pond” 7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: During the construction phase of the project, sponsor’s workforce would have to

observe safe work practices. Upon completion of the project, users of the recreational area would need to follow general safe practices to minimize the impacts to human health and safety.


Project sponsor would have to obtain access agreements with the landowner and obtain various permits and approval of MDEQ to assure that the integrity of the existing remedy would not be compromised.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Pilot Program for Cleaning Contaminates from Tailings at Diggings East” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $99,514 in Butte Area One restoration funds to conduct a pilot test to remove heavy metal

contaminants from approximately 120 cubic yards of material containing 160 tons of tailings in the Diggings East area on property that was recently donated to Butte-Silver Bow. Sponsor has built a skid-mounted mobile processing plant which is composed of vibrating screens, jigs, augers, water concentrators and a pressurized cyclone. Sponsor cites previous tests in Africa where their process recovered significant amounts of gold, chrome and tin from previously processed tailings piles. Tailings would be excavated, then conveyed to the onsite processing plant and processed. Cleaned material would be put back in place, capped with soils and seeded with grass. Waste water from the process would be delivered to the BPSOU subdrain and pumped to the Butte Treatment Lagoons for treatment. Total project costs are estimated at $261,315. Sponsor cites an investment of $124,130 in the equipment and a match of $46,625 by BSB for shipping the skid to the US and for supplying the water truck and the water necessary to run the process.


The process of cleaning tailings on-site and returning them to their place offers a unique alternative to removal or capping. The sponsor seems confident that their process will work successfully and the property owner, Butte-Silver Bow, is supportive. However, NRDP recommends no funding of this project due to the uncertainty of the innovative design and the commercial nature of the pilot study. Project sponsor has sought other funding for the pilot study.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Uncertain Feasible: Project sponsor’s process is innovative, but not space-age. Components of the skid are common

pieces of equipment, some of which have been used for centuries. Likely alternatives for remediating the tailings at the Diggings East are removal or capping, the first being more costly and the latter is not an option for wastes in a floodplain. This process seems feasible however this technology has not been used to successfully treat mine tailings from this area.

2. Costs:Benefits Likely Net Benefits: Project benefits could outweigh project costs. Pilot projects are purposely small in scale so their worth can be determined without too sizable of a financial commitment. However, should the sponsor’s process be successful, the net benefits could outweigh the cost.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Uncertain: Based on the limited information provided by the project sponsor and the fact this is an innovative technology, it is reasonable to conclude that the project is uncertain whether it is cost-effective when compared to the alternative of removing the tailings to an offsite repository. In addition, NRDP views the required analytical costs as too high, based on comparable BAO analytical costs.


Consistent: This pilot program may or may not augment the result of an effective Superfund response action, but it will not interfere with or duplicate the results of such an action. However, delivery of waste water to the subdrain would need the approval of EPA and coordination with ARCO. The project sponsors would need to work with EPA and DEQ regarding disposition of final concentrate. Any profit would need to be used to reimburse pilot study costs.


No Significant Adverse Impacts: This pilot project involves the potential for some minor adverse environmental impacts, like the generation of small quantities of waste water and a final concentrate which may have value, but could be considered a waste stream if a market for the product is not identified. However, the level of adverse impacts would likely not rise to a significant level.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Pilot Program for Cleaning Contaminates from Tailings at Diggings East” 6. Recovery Period and

Potential for Natural Recovery

May Reduce the Recovery Period: If successful at removing heavy metal contaminants from waste left in-place this pilot process could be used on a larger scale to remove larger volumes of metal contaminants and reduce the source of loading to the alluvial aquifer and accelerate its recovery.

7. Human Health and Safety Short-Term Adverse Impacts with Mitigation: Project sponsor would be required to obtain any/all permits required to conduct this work. This project involves handling material contaminated with arsenic, lead and other heavy metals and the operation of large equipment. Mitigation measures, like proper personnel training, wearing proper PPE and observing safe operating procedures must be carried out while executing the project to protect human health and safety.


Project sponsor would be required to obtain any/all permits required to conduct this work.

9. Resources of Special Int. Project likely has no impact to the resources of special interest to the S&K Tribes. However, it is likely that many artifacts, like glass bottles will be unearthed while excavating the material. Project sponsor should coordinate with the Butte-Silver Bow Preservation Officer to properly handle/preserve any artifacts that might be encountered.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Blacktail and Basin Creek Watershed Resiliency Project” Proposal Summary The Mile High Conservation District proposes to improve natural water storage in order to address the impacts of

climate change by restoring wetlands in the headwaters of Basin Creek. Wetlands would be created by constructing beaver mimicry structures and monitoring the ability to improve late season stream flows. The project sponsor proposes $111,455 in matching funds from a National Wildlife Conservation Society grant. Sponsors seeks $40,000.00 in BAO restoration funds, with $4,000 in project administration/coordination, $26,000 in contracted services, and $10,000 for equipment. Project sponsor offers a match of $15,000 in salaries and wages. Total project costs are $195,805.


Beaver mimicry projects have been successfully used in the UCFRB to help restore wetlands, restore incised streams, and increase late season flows. However, the ability of these structures to improve late season flows is determined by site-specific characteristics. The successful implementation of this project within Basin Creek is certain, however, the ability of these structures to restore incised channels and increase late season flows is uncertain because specific data is not available for each site. NRDP recommends funding this project for $40,000.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Butte Silver Bow has recently provided Sponsor with access to watersheds draining into the

Basin Creek Reservoir to install beaver mimicry structures. The access to this area makes this project feasible. 2. Costs:Benefits Net Costs: The project costs are equal to the benefits to be gained project. There is uncertain success of the project

meeting the goals since each structure’s success will be based on local geology. 3. Cost-Effectiveness Uncertain: Although the project sponsor provides significant matching funds, there is uncertain success of the

project meeting the goals since each structure’s success will be based on local geology. 4. Results of Response

Actions Consistent: Project will not augment the results of any Superfund response actions.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Adverse Impacts: The project presents no adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: This project would not change the time frame for recovery of the alluvial aquifer or surface waters of Butte Area One.

7. Human Health and Safety Likely No Significant Adverse Impacts: This project should have no significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.


Applicant would need to obtain access agreements with landowners and make them aware of the goals and objectives of the project.

9. Resources of Special Int. No Impact: The project has no adverse impacts on these special sites/resources.

Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Blacktail Creek Non Point Nutrient Management Project” Proposal Summary The Mile High Conservation District proposes conducting a study to evaluate nutrient levels, loading, sources and

developing best management practices to control nutrient inflow (Goal 1) and exploring point to non-point source nutrient trading potential (Goal 2) for Blacktail Creek in Butte. The project will coordinate with existing stream projects. Sponsor seeks $95,943.00 in BAO restoration funds, with $22,943 in project administration/coordination and $73,000 in project implementation and offers a match of $15,000 in salaries and wages.


Nutrients from non-point sources can adversely limit aquatic life in streams. The TMDL program implemented by DEQ has identified streams throughout Montana as being negatively impacted by nutrients from non-point sources. Blacktail Creek is not listed as impaired by DEQ. Best management practices are common methods to address nutrients from entering stream systems. The nutrient trading program (Circular 13) is a DEQ program that has not been implemented as of this time. Recognizing this nutrient issue, Butte Silver Bow completed a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) in 2008 for the South Butte Valley Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Alternatives. NRDP believes the 2008 PER and this small project proposal are redundant and implementation of the project would not provide new information. Because of this new information the NRDP recommends not funding this project.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Goal 1 Reasonably Feasible; Goal 2 Uncertain Feasible: Goal 1, identification of nutrient sources and developing best

management practices for these sources is feasible as established by the TMDL process and reported in the 2008 PER. Goal 2, implementation of the Montana policy for nutrient trades Circular 13 in uncertain feasibility as this program has not been implemented to our knowledge.

2. Costs:Benefits Net Costs: The potential benefits of the project have been reported in the 2008 PER resulting in project costs exceeding the benefits to be gained from the project.

3. Not Cost-Effectiveness Not Cost Effective: The 2008 PER addresses the nutrient issues the project proposes to investigate. 4. Results of Response

Actions Consistent: Project will not augment the results of any Superfund response actions.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Adverse Impacts: The project presents no adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: This project would not change the time frame for recovery of the alluvial aquifer or surface waters of Butte Area One.

7. Human Health and Safety Likely No Significant Adverse Impacts: This project should have no significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.


Applicant will need to obtain access agreements with landowners and make them aware of the goals and objectives of the study.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Microbial Activity in Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks” Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Department of Chemistry and Geochemistry has proposed conducting a research project to identify

the structure, diversity and activities of microbes that exist at five locations in Butte Area One waters and sediments, then integrating that information with corresponding geochemical data in an effort to ascertain the health of the ecosystem at four different points of time, including storm season when water quality parameters can often exceed the acute aquatic life standards for metals. Results of the findings would be shared with the BNRC in a technical report and presentation to the council. Total project costs are $95,730 with an in-kind match of $45,424 for salaries, discounted analytical services and consultant wages. Total request is $50,306.


In-stream microbial information is not a typical parameter measured for the superfund activities in Butte Area One; however, whole effluent toxicity testing will be required for the Horseshoe Bend Water Treatment Plant effluent when it is discharged to Silver Bow Creek, and Silver Bow Creek and Blacktail Creek are monitored for water quality and macroinvertebrate communities. There is the potential that information from this study could lead to a better understanding of the effects of storm water/seasonal changes on the life in the streams. Results from this study will be compared to sites upstream in Blacktail Creek where mining impacts were minimal and from a similar recently funded study downstream on the Clark Fork River. The sponsor proposed a similar study in 2015, this new 2016 proposal asks for approximately $27,000 less in BAO funds and offers $8,000 more in match and is a more refined and useful proposal. NRDP recommends this project for funding for the full amount of $50,306.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Potentially Feasible: Since ecosystem data of this type have not been collected Butte Area One streams, there are

uncertainties associated with the outcome of this project. However, by comparing the information from the studied reach to reaches up and down stream, it may provide a baseline picture of the current instream microbial health of Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks in Butte and a better understanding of the ecosystem health of these streams.

2. Costs:Benefits Potentially Commensurate: No known microbial data exists for the streams, so the cost and value of that information is difficult to ascertain.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Potentially Cost-Effective: With the many unknowns associated with the project, the NRDP cannot determine if the project is likely to be cost-effective given that there are no alternative means of procuring the information.


Consistent: The project would not interfere with remedy actions. Study results could help quantify the effectiveness of surface water/storm water portions of BPSOU remedy. Information from the study would be made readily available to the interested parties.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project appears to present no significant adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: Project most likely will not change the time frame for eco system recovery.

7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project presents no potential significant adverse impact to human health and safety. 8. Federal, State, and Tribal

Policies, Rules, and Laws Project focuses on research and public education and does not appear to be subject to Superfund laws/policies.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “The Relationship Between Site Contamination and Native Plant Success in Butte, Montana: Implications for Future Success”

Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Native Plant Program personnel propose conducting a study of unreclaimed areas on the Butte Hill and west of Montana Tech to determine the various contaminants/degree of contamination versus what types of plants exist at the various sites. Results could help guide future native plant restoration efforts. Sponsors seeks $11,170 in BAO restoration funds, with $7,920 in wages and $3,250 in supplies and materials and offers a match of $4,331 in salaries and wages.


Areas in the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit are not presently required to be reclaimed unless lead, arsenic or mercury levels exceed the BPSOU ROD’s human health standards. These metals are phytotoxic at concentrations below those standards. The Montana Tech Native Plant Program tries to match species to compatible sites using general knowledge of species preference for slope, aspect, and hydrologic conditions. However, often the limiting factor is high levels of contaminants. This research project aims to identify native plants, and plant communities that thrive in various types and levels of contamination. This baseline data will increase the success, and reduce costs of current restorations and will allow us to navigate future restoration challenges better. A low-cost means of identifying native plants able to successfully establish on these unreclaimed areas could be formulated under this project. NRDP recommends funding this small project for the full amount of $11,170.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Sites for the study would be characterized using common field sampling equipment. Qualified

personnel will observe and record the types of vegetation growing at each site, and data will be cataloged. Sites will be characterized and plant species identified as successful establishing on unreclaimed areas can be matched with similar sites for planting at the future. This is a reasonable strategy that should prove successful.

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate Benefits to Costs: The potential benefits of the project seem commensurate with the proposed costs. 3. Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effective: Although the sponsor only provided limited analysis of alternatives the NRDP concludes the project

is cost-effective. 4. Results of Response

Actions Positive Coordination: Several injured areas on the Butte Hill will remain unreclaimed. A strategy like the one proposed by the sponsor might be a low cost means of addressing some of the areas and help prevent erosion of contaminated sediments into Silver Bow Creek. Therefore, it seems that this project would coordinate positively with other Superfund actions.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Adverse Impacts: Making field observations should have no adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: This project would not reduce the time it will take for the alluvial aquifer or surface waters of Butte Area One to recover, but it could help prevent future degradation of surface waters.

7. Human Health and Safety Likely No Significant Adverse Impacts: This vegetation study should have no significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.


Applicant will need to obtain access agreements with landowners and make them aware of the goals and objectives of the study. The study would seem more useful if it followed the BRES protocol.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “A Restoration Management System for Projects in Butte Area One” Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Native Plant Program personnel proposes creating a software system to improve the quality of the

revegetation efforts through data management. Sponsor believes the software could be used to track plants from cradle to grave and streamline monitoring and maintenance, ultimately resulting in the increased efficiency of native plant program. Sponsor seeks $4,900 from the BAO small project category, with $4,400 going for labor and $500 in materials. Sponsor offers an in-kind match of $2,166 in labor.


Spending $4,900 to create a thorough, user-friendly database to track a million dollar project and make it more efficient appears to be an effective, low-cost investment. NRDP recommends funding this project for the full amount of $4,900.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Uncertain Feasible: Access based software for tracking projects is fairly common. It is reasonable to expect the

sponsor to be able to customize a system that will suit their purpose. Whether vegetation contractors will use this system to track all their work is uncertain.

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate Benefits to Costs: The potential benefits of the project seem commensurate with the proposed costs. 3. Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effective: It is likely that sponsor could purchase software at a reasonable price; however, it is unknown to the

time required to fit the purchased product to meet their needs. The alternative of sponsor creating a software system seems like a cost-effective way to achieve the project goals.


Consistent: Although BSB has software/note pads to evaluate BRES sites, this project appears to have a wider application. This project is not expected to interfere or duplicate any remedy efforts.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Adverse Impacts: Project concerns the creation of software and should have no adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery No Effect on the Recovery Period: This project would not reduce the time it will take for the alluvial aquifer or surface waters of Butte Area One to recover.

7. Human Health and Safety Likely No Significant Adverse Impacts: This computer software project should have no significant adverse impacts to human health and safety.


Applicant will need to be aware of the applicable superfund statutes and policies and consider how they apply to the efforts of the Montana Tech Native Plant Program’s restoration endeavors, then make sure to incorporate these requirements into the software system.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Extending the Public Outreach of the Science Mine BNRC Exhibits” Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $48,800 in Butte Area One restoration funds for the installation of new digital signage and

creation of related websites for each BNRC exhibit; purchase of a mobile unit to transport exhibits to other locations and for an outreach coordinator who will recruit and train volunteers to run the mobile unit; and who will cultivate virtual field trips with public schools through the use of live-streaming video with two-way equipment. Sponsor proposes a $53,000 in-kind match of volunteer time.


The results of the Science Mine’s initial small project have been notable. Enhancing the exhibits with improved digital signage, as well as increasing their exposure by taking exhibits on the road to public events seems like a reasonable progression to expanding the projects growth. However, NRDP believes purchasing video equipment and arranging for virtual field trips and “a day with a scientist” is beyond the scope of restoration, as topics could have little or nothing to do with the restoration of Butte Area One. NRDP recommends funding the digital signage/creation of the website for the exhibits and purchasing the mobile unit and creating the mini-exhibits and training volunteers to run the mobile unit for a total of $19,000 from the Butte Area One small project fund.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Based on the Project sponsor’s successful implementation of the initial grant project they should

be able to complete all three objectives it proposes. One objective simply calls for the purchase of a trailer and another for the purchase of video equipment. The development of the digital signage involves computer programming, although some will be high tech, the objectives should be realized. NRDP believes this proposal to be “reasonably feasible.”

2. Costs:Benefits Commensurate Benefits: Benefits of the project are basically “taking the exhibits to the student” instead of “the students coming to the exhibits.” Cost of building the initial exhibits from the 2014 small project proposal were equivalent to the cost of taking the exhibits to the students/public. The project benefits are commensurate with project costs.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Likely Cost-Effective: Project sponsor did not provide an alternatives analysis of various ways to obtain their objectives. However, the means by which they propose to achieve each goal seem to be reasonable and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the selected alternative is likely to be cost-effective.


Positive Coordination: Project does not involve an environmental action, rather it is an endeavor to educate the public. It appears that the Science Mine’s efforts do not duplicate those of CFWEP, and instead appear to complement their educational program.


No Significant Adverse Impacts: Taking the Science Mine’s exhibits on the road should not pose any significant adverse impacts to the environment.


No Effect on Recovery Period: This educational project would have no effect on the recovery of the injured natural resources of Butte Area One.


Policies, Rules, and Laws Project would be educational and would not be subject to Superfund laws/policies.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Montana Tech Tree Greenhouse” Proposal Summary The Montana Tech Native Plant Program Total seeks up to $95,747 in BAO restoration funds to build a new

greenhouse to propagate an additional 5,000 native trees, shrubs, and forbs that are locally adapted and will be provided to BAO restoration partners. The Project sponsor proposes providing the land and labor to erect a new greenhouse and long-term maintenance for the facility. Three options were provided ranging in base costs from $60,380 to $85,747.


NRDP recommends not funding this greenhouse as a small project because there is a well-funded tree planting project within Butte-Silver Bow. However, approximately $1.6 million remains in NRDP’s tree planting contract with Butte-Silver Bow. Butte-Silver Bow needs a long-term supply of good tree stock to successfully implement their project. NRDP recommends that Butte-Silver Bow consider use of funds from the tree planting contract to construct the Montana Tech tree greenhouse for $95,747 with Montana Tech committing a minimum of 5,000 trees per year for 10 years to BSB in return.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Sponsor proposes to purchase a greenhouse kit, construct the greenhouse, operate and maintain

it. This is common construction and operation and maintenance work and the professionals at Montana Tech should be quite capable of successfully executing the project. Therefore, it is reasonably feasible.

2. Costs:Benefits Potentially Net Benefits: The benefit of planting stock from locally collected native sources known to be the best approach for restoration of the native ecosystem of the Butte Hill. If the cost of producing such local stock can be accomplished at the same price as nursery stock, then the project would offer net benefits.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Potentially Cost Effective: Small tree stock is currently procured from nurseries in western Montana. As a rough order of magnitude comparison, for a bare–root sapling is typical price is $1.50 per tree. Using $1.50 per unit, if sponsor could produce 10,000 units per year, it would take approximately 6.5 years for this project to cover the costs of the greenhouse.


Positive: The project should coordinate with and augment the results of an effective Superfund revegetation actions already undertaken and others that are still in progress.

5. Adverse Env. Impacts No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project appears to present no significant adverse impacts to the environment. 6. Recovery Period/Potential

for Natural Recovery Likely has No Effect on the Recovery Period: The native plant and tree planting projects on the Butte Hill will not accelerate the recovery on the aquifer or the creeks; however, those resources will likely be better protected from received waste sediments transported from the hill by run-off.

7. Human Health and Safety No Significant Adverse Impacts: Project presents no potential significant adverse impact to human health and safety. 8. Federal, State, and Tribal

Policies, Rules, and Laws Project focus is building a structure on the Montana Tech campus; therefore, the project would not be subject to Superfund laws/policies.


Summary of BAO Criteria Evaluation for 2016 Small Project: “Feasibility Study to Evaluate and Design the Best Management Practices to Improve Grove Gulch Water Quality”

Proposal Summary Project sponsor seeks $42,932 in Butte Area One restoration funds to conduct a feasibility study to engage stakeholders and identify and quantify the source(s) of the heavy metal contamination in Grove Gulch, evaluate the best management practices, and select and design the most cost-effective alternative for improving the stream’s water quality. Sponsor proposes in-kind salaries and analytical services match of $27,150.


Cleanup options for this area received little focus from the BPSOU ROD. The BAO Restoration Plan allocates $3.74 million in the “stream restoration” category for Upper Silver Bow Creek and its tributaries. It is possible that Grove Gulch restoration project could be implemented in the future. The contamination investigation portion of this study could provide information related to needed remedy. This could be helpful in determining what restoration work may be needed after remedy is complete, and thereby inform future stream restoration options and priorities. NRDP recommends funding the first three phases of this feasibility study of Grove Gulch for $35,000, but not the final phase for the design of the preferred BMP.

Criteria Evaluation 1. Technical Feasibility Reasonably Feasible: Project sponsor proposes to conduct a feasibility study that follows appropriate remedial

investigation/feasibility study procedures and it is reasonable to assume that this process will achieve the stated objectives. Therefore, this proposal is “reasonably feasible.”

2. Costs:Benefits Net Benefits: Project benefits would outweigh project costs. Very little characterization of Grove Gulch has been conducted and the sponsor proposes a cost-effective approach for quantifying the water quality of the stream and developing a 30% design of a passive system to help improve the water quality of the stream. The full scale cost benefits would be considered uncertain because cost of construction and long-term O&M are unknown.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Likely Cost-Effective: Based on the information provided by the project sponsor, it is reasonable to conclude that the selected alternative to conduct the remedial investigation/feasibility study is cost-effective.


Consistent: The amount of superfund response action is unknown for Grove Gulch area. This effort would likely not interfere with a response action.


No Significant Adverse Impacts: This planning project should pose no significant adverse impacts to the environment.


No Effect on Recovery Period: This planning project would have no effect on the recovery of the injured natural resources of Butte Area One.


Policies, Rules, and Laws Project sponsor would need to coordinate with landowners and agencies in order to obtain samples.


2016 Butte Area One Small Project Submittals Summary

Project No. Title Sponsor Project Summary Based on Proposals

BAO Restoration Small Project Fund

Request NRDP Staff RecommendationNRDP Funding

Recommendation BNRC Recommendation

1

Storm Drain Inlet Markers

Tyran StrattonEast Middle School

8th Grader

Raise awareness that storm drains are connected to Silver Bow Creek, by putting storm drain markers on inlets in uptown Butte. $1,278

NRDP recommends funding Phase 1 of this project for the requested $1,278. Should the sponsor successfully complete installing the 300 markers within a year and be successful in recruiting additional manpower for a second phase, then NRDP recommends funding Phase 2 (Alternative 2) for 2,000 markers for an additional $6,147 with a funding condition that the Sponsor get permission from Butte-Silver Bow to place markers on their property. $7,425

Motion: BNRC same as NRDP recommendation. Move: Helen, 2nd: Dave. Vote: All For

2

Revegetation of the National Dump

Site

Crystal Vandermeulenand

Norman DeNeal

Restoring the 1.15 acre National Dump site on North Montana Street to the ecological equivalent before mining took place by planting 1,000 native aspen and additional native flowering shrubs to slow erosion from storm water runoff by providing a more effective groundcover. $60,000

NRDP is reluctant to invest public restoration funds for vegetation projects without public ownership. In addition, NRDP believes the stormwater concerns should be addressed by remedy. NRDP recommends funding only the portion of the project on BSB land for $29,130 with BSB supplying a match of approximately $10,000 of irrigation water and that BSB commits to not selling the property in the future for development. If BSB does not commit, NRDP recommends a similar alternative site be later approved in place of the National Dump. $29,130

Motion: Recommend funding as recommended by staff. Move: John, 2nd: Chad Vote: All For

3 Data Visualization of Upper Silver

Bow Creek Corridor

Project GreenNorthey Tretheway

Complete a 3-D geologic referencing and animation visualization for public. The visualization will set forth the locations of storm water and remedial systems, and how they work, as well as expected contaminant conditions before, during and after the cleanup. $50,000

NRDP recommends funding for $49,700, with the funding condition that sponsor secures the 10% match of $4,970 from its partners. $49,700

Motion: Accept recommendation of staff. Move: John, 2nd: Vote: All For

4

Bacterial Soil Rejuvenation

Dr. Grant MitmanMontana Tech

To develop an easily replicatable method to produce large amounts of Beijerinckia bacteria (known for their ability to grow on acidic/metal laden soils) and apply them to mining impacting soils to restore nitrogen fixation and natural plant growth. This could become an alternative to costly removal/capping of sites on the Butte hill. $40,421

It would seem premature to do work in these areas until the first project for these same areas has been completed and evaluated. NRDP recommends that this bacterial soil rejuvenation not be funded at this time. Should the moss project prove successful, and the BNRC makes a future call for small project submittals, NRDP encourages the sponsor to submit a similar proposal at that time, but targeting a different area. $0

Motion: Accept recommendation of staff. Move: Emmett, 2nd: Vote: All For

5Using pore water

diffusion samplers to investigate metals loading from stream sediments in

Blacktail Creek and LAO

Dr. Chris GammonsMontana Tech

Proposal to investigate metal loading in the lower reaches of Blacktail Creek and uppermost Silver Bow Creek usingpore water diffusion samplers, aka “peepers.” The new data would help determine if stream sediment and/or shallow groundwater immediately underlying the stream could be a source of trace metals and nutrients to surface waters as they pass through Butte Area One. $37,425

Water quality in Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks regularly exceeds metals standards. It is debated whether the source of this contamination is instream sediments, groundwater inflow, storm water or a combination of these factors. The proposed study would examine the pore water diffusion in the sediments that could help lead to determining which mechanism(s) is/are the likely contributing heavy metals to the stream. The sponsor has conducted much valuable research for area superfund sites, including a 2014 Butte Area One small project. Efforts could benefit from this information as it may guide future stream actions; NRDP recommends funding this project for the full request of $37,425. $37,425

Motion: Fund as recommended by staff. Move: Chad vote: all





6 Basin Creek Reservoir

Recreational Development

Project

Roy MorrisGeorge Grant Chapter

ofTrout Unlimited

Develop the Basin Creek Reservoir area into a public recreation destination with opportunities such as; fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, camping, hunting and non-motorized boating, and other non-motorized outdoor activities. To develop the area as a self-sustaining cutthroat fishery by restoring spawning habitat instead of stocking the reservoir. $100,000

NRDP recommends this project for the full amount of $100,000 with restoration funds focused on the fishery, with $18,000 dedicated to channel reconstruction, $15,000 for aquatic organism passage (AOP) design and $25,000 for AOP installation, riparian and wetland area seeding for $9,500 and $32,500 for plan development and engineering. $100,000

Motion: Accept staff recommendation to fund for $100,000. Move: Emmet 2nd: Vote: All For

7

Copper MountainRecreation Complex

Kids' Fishing Pond Project

Roy MorrisGeorge Grant Chapter

ofTrout Unlimited

To provide fishing opportunities to local kids by developing the existing irrigation pond at the Copper Mountain Recreation Complex into a kids' fishing pond by deepening the pond to suitable depths, lining the pond to prevent seepage, and reshaping/recontouring the shoreline to make fishing access easier. $100,000

Even though the pond would be lined, the threat of leakage to the downgradient waste repository would exist due to the permanent impoundment of water. NRDP believes that natural fishery projects are a much better restoration investment than artificial put-and-take fishery projects, such as this one proposed at Copper Mountain. A Copper Mountain fishing pond would require frequent human effort unlike self-sustaining fishery projects, which is a goal of restoration. NRDP does not recommend this project for funding. Even if the maximum small project award was dedicated to the Copper Mountain Kids’ Fishing Pond project, the sponsor would still have to raise another $358,000; which would take considerable time and effort. $0

Motion: Accept recommendation of staff. Move: John, 2nd: Vote: All but Emmet approve of motion.

8 Pilot Program for cleaning

Contaminants from Tailings at the Diggings East

Jackie MichelsenRufunsa Plains LLC

Conduct a pilot project to remove metals contamination from the tailings at the Diggings East area using specific gravity separation equipment and the PETK4 process plant. $99,707

The process of cleaning tailings on-site and returning them to their place offers a unique alternative to removal or capping. The sponsor seems confident that their process will work successfully and the property owner, Butte-Silver Bow, is supportive. However, NRDP recommends no funding of this project due to the uncertainty of the innovative design and the commercial nature of the pilot study. Project sponsor has sought other funding for the pilot study. $0

Motion: Accept staff recommendation. Vote: All For except Helen who abstained

9

Blacktail Creek and Basin Creek Watershed

Resiliency Project

Ted DodgeWatershed Restoration

Coalition

Restore historic wetland areas in Basin and Blacktail Creek drainages using nature-based approaches to improve water storage and provide opportunities for research and environmental education. $40,000

Beaver mimicry projects have been successfully used in the UCFRB to help restore wetlands, restore incised streams, and increase late season flows. However, the ability of these structures to improve late season flows is determined by site-specific characteristics. The successful implementation of this project within Basin Creek is certain, however, the ability of these structures to restore incised channels and increase late season flows is uncertain because specific data is not available for each site. NRDP recommends funding this project for $40,000. $40,000

Motion: Recommending staff recommendation to fund for $40,000 Vote: All





10

Blacktail CreekNon Point Nutrient

Management Project

John MoodryMile High Conservation

District

Evaluate nutrient levels, loading and sources of Blacktail Creek and develop best management practices and begin point source to non-point source nutrient trading under DEQ Circular 13. $95,943

Nutrients from non-point sources can adversely limit aquatic life in streams. Blacktail Creek is not listed as impaired by DEQ. Best management practices are common methods to address nutrients from entering stream systems. Recognizing this nutrient issue, Butte Silver Bow completed a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) in 2008 for the South Butte Valley Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Alternatives. NRDP believes the 2008 PER and this small project proposal are redundant and this project would not provide new information. Because of this new information the NRDP recommends not funding this project. $0

Motion: Not to accept staff recommendation Move: John 2nd: Chad vote: 6 For ,2 Against

11Microbial Activity in Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks

Dr. Alysia CoxMontana Tech

This project aims to determine the microbial community structure and microbial activities in the sediments and waters of Silver Bow and Blacktail Creeks in order link microbial processes with the geochemistry of restoration so that decisions made in the future will be informed ones. $50,306

Sponsor proposed a similar study in 2015, this new 2016 proposal asks for approximately $27,000 less in BAO funds and offers $8,000 more in match and is a more refined and useful proposal, but NRDP would offer input to make it more useful to restoration. We recommend this project for funding for the full amount of $50,306. $50,306

Motion: Accept staff recommendation John Vote: All

12Relationship Between Site

Contamination and Revegetation

Success in Butte, MT

Dr. Robert Paland Jared Trilling

Montana Tech

Currently, Tech Native Plant Program tries to match species to compatible sites using general knowledge of species preference for slope, aspect, and hydrologic conditions. However, often the limiting factor is high levels of contaminants. This research project aims to identify native plants, and plant communities that thrive in various types and levels of contamination. This baseline data will increase the success, and reduce costs of current restorations and will allow us to navigate future restoration challenges better. $11,170

This research project aims to identify native plants, and plant communities that thrive in various types and levels of contamination. This baseline data will increase the success, and reduce costs of current restorations and will allow us to navigate future restoration challenges better.This gap poses a challenge for establishing vegetation and preventing sediment from running off unreclaimed areas. A low-cost means of identifying native plants able to successfully establish on these unreclaimed areas could be formulated under this project. NRDP recommends funding this small project for the full amount of $11,170. $11,170

Motion: Accept staff recommendation Dave/Chad Vote: All

13

A Restoration Management

Systemfor Projects in

Butte Area One

Dr. Robert Paland Joao Nascimento

Montana Tech

To develop an easy-to-use Restoration ManagementSystem with a database to help streamline therestoration process. Using widely available low-cost orfree software will improve the efficiency of a project'soutcome by reducing the amount of resourcesinvested. Any problems caused by lack of information $4,900

Allocating $5,000 for creation of a thorough, user-friendly database that would be used to track a the million dollar vegetation project, and make it more efficient seems an appropriate low-cost investment. NRDP recommends funding this project for the full amount of $4,900. $4,900

Motion: Fund as proposed by staff. Move: Emmett 2nd: Vote: All For

14 Extending thePublic Outreachof the Science

Mine'sBNRC Exhibits

Dr. Lois PodobnikScience Mine

Create new digital signage and related websites for each BNRC exhibits, purchase/create a mobile unit to take the exhibits to public exhibitions and create a temporary position for an Outreach Coordinator to recruit and train volunteers to manage the mobile unit and implement virtual field trips. $84,900

Purchasing video equipment and arranging for virtual field trips and “a day with a scientist” seems beyond the scope of restoration, as topics would have little to do with the restoration of Butte Area One. NRDP recommends funding only the digital signage/creation of the website for the exhibits, purchasing the mobile unit and creating the mini-exhibits, and training volunteers to run the mobile unit, for a total of $19,000. Sponsor's funding, including previous funding, remains below the $100,000 limit. $19,000

Motion: Accept staff recommendation. Move: John, 2nd: Vote: All For





15

Montana TechTree Greenhouse

Dr. Robert PalMontana Tech

To build a greenhouse at Montana Tech that could provide, at a minimum, 5,000 native plants (trees, shrubs, forbs) yearly for the restoration partners that work in the area. This greenhouse would be a crucial resource for increasing the amount of restoration accomplished in the BPSOU, which would, ultimately, help restore water quality in BAO.

$48,382 to

$85,747

NRDP recommends not funding this greenhouse as a small project because there is a well funded tree planting project within Butte-Silver Bow. However, approximately $1.6 million remains in NRDP's tree planting contract with Butte-Silver Bow. Butte-Silver Bow needs a long term supply of good tree stock to successfully implement their project. NRDP recommends that Butte-Silver Bow consider use of funds from the tree planting contract to construct the Montana Tech tree greenhouse for $95,747 with Montana Tech committing a minimum of 5,000 trees per year for 10 years to BSB in return. $95,747

Motion: Not to accept staff recommendation and move that BNRC recommend funding project for $95,747 Move: 2nd: Vote: All For

16Feasibility Studyto Evaluate and

DesignBest Management

Practices to Improve

Grove GulchWater Quality

Dr. Raja NagisettyMontana Tech

To restore the water quality of Grove Gulch by identifying sources of heavy metal contamination , evaluating remedial alternatives and then identifying and designing the best alternative that will cost-effectively restore the water quality of the stream. $42,932

Cleanup options for this area received little focus from the BPSOU ROD. The BAO Restoration Plan allocates $3.74 million in the “stream restoration” category for Upper Silver Bow Creek and its tributaries. It is possible that Grove Gulch restoration project could be implemented in the future. The contamination investigation portion of this study could provide information related to needed remedy. This could be helpful in determining what restoration work may be needed after remedy is complete, and thereby inform future stream restoration options and priorities. NRDP recommends funding the first three phases of this feasibility study of Grove Gulch for $35,000, But not the final phase for the design of the preferred BMP. $35,000

Motion: Accept staff funding recommendation. Move: Dave, 2nd: John Vote: All For

Total Request for BAO Funds $914,729 $479,803

South Butte Valley Wastewater Nutrient Reduction Alternatives

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary Butte-Silver Bow County recognizes the current effects to human health and the environment and limitations on meeting growth projections in the south Butte valley (Project Area) due to elevated nitrate concentrations in the groundwater and surface water. In response, a detailed engineering analysis of potential wastewater nutrient reduction alternatives was conducted. This report defines the current impacts of septic system effluent on ground water and surface water resources and evaluates various potential alternatives to both reduce and eliminate existing and future impacts, while accommodating growth in the Project Area. Alternatives to individual on-site wastewater treatment systems will be required to reduce nutrient loads to the groundwater, thus reducing health effects to residential well users and alleviating further nutrient impacts to surface water in the Upper Clark Fork River basin. This preliminary engineering report has been completed in accordance with the requirements of Montana’s applicable grant and loan programs and conforms to the Uniform Preliminary Engineering Report outline as specified by these programs. Existing Wastewater Problems Since 1970, the Project Area has experienced significant growth due to redistribution of the BSB population, even though countywide population estimates have decreased (Figure II.1, and Table II.i). Municipal wastewater services are not available in the Project Area, and existing homes are served by domestic wells and individual on-site septic systems. Environmental factors such as valley geologic conditions, septic system densities, well setbacks, and proximity to surface water have resulted in impacts to water resources from septic system effluent. Currently, development in the south Butte Valley has been effectively halted by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) due to nitrate concentrations in the groundwater that approach or exceed the MDEQ Human Health Standard of 10 mg/L. Most problems have occurred in areas with both shallow depths to competent bedrock and developments that date back to the 1970’s, before subdivision rules that set minimum separation distances between wells and septic systems. Due to the inability to accommodate development in the valley under existing conditions, the Butte Silver Bow Planning Department has commissioned this engineering report to review available wastewater treatment alternatives that will accommodate growth in the Project Area. The projected growth within the Project Area consists of 61 to 245 new homes by the year 2028 (Table II.ii). Alternatives Considered Various wastewater treatment and nutrient reduction alternatives were considered as potential solutions to serving the Project Area. The following alternatives were considered in detail as part of this report: Central Wastewater Treatment Systems Central wastewater treatment systems service multiple to hundreds of homes within a subdivision or geographic area. It is possible for a number of these systems to be sited throughout the Project Area to service projected additional growth and development, while treating wastewater effluent to lower concentrations. Centralized wastewater treatment systems have design and operational requirements ranging from buried tanks with infrequent maintenance to a stand


Page 2

alone wastewater treatment plant with a full time, certified operator. There are three systems approved in Montana which can achieve an effluent nitrate concentration below 15 mg/L. In the absence of an alternative that would completely remove nitrate-laden wastewater from being discharged to ground water and surface water, a centralized wastewater treatment system is the best alternative due to its ability to achieve a relatively low effluent nitrate concentration. Details on centralized wastewater treatment systems are included in Chapter IV.B. Sewer Capacity and Connection Alternatives A first step in evaluating sewer extension alternatives was to determine the reserve capacities, if any, of the existing sewer collection system trunk lines. The Harrison Avenue and Blacktail Creek sewer trunk lines border the Project Area, and both were considered for extension to serve the area. The reserve capacity of the Harrison Avenue trunk line was evaluated in the Butte-Silver Bow South Industrial Park Study (HKM Engineering, May 2005). The reserve capacity of the Blacktail Creek trunk line was evaluated in the Southeast Butte Metro Sewer Extension Study-Phase 1 (HKM Engineering, Feb. 2007). These reserve capacities are discussed in Chapter 2, Section C.3.h, Collection System Capacity. Also included for evaluation is an alternative for building a new trunk line from south Butte to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. The various sewer extension alternatives evaluated are shown on Figure 15.

Depending on the ultimate housing density to be served, either the Harrison Avenue or the Blacktail Creek trunk line may provide adequate capacity to serve the needs of future development in the Project Area. However, if future development is expected to be greater than roughly 300 homes, then neither trunk line in its current condition would have adequate capacity. There are no feasible options to increase capacity on the Blacktail Creek trunk line. However, two cost effective options for increasing capacity on the Harrison Avenue trunk line have been identified (Alternative 3A Phases 2 and 3). Additionally, construction of a new trunk line from the Project Area to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant could serve the south Butte valley and Timber Butte area. This trunk line would be in addition to the existing Harrison Avenue trunk line and is evaluated as Alternative 3A Phase 4.

The Harrison Avenue trunk line reserve capacity is "current" reserve, i.e., no allowance has been made for build-out of vacant land adjacent to Harrison Avenue. A consideration of connecting the Project Area to the Harrison Avenue trunk line is that the lift station may need to be designed with as small a pumping rate as possible, in order to conserve as much of the Harrison Avenue reserve capacity as possible. One option is to allot 50 percent of the current Harrison Avenue trunk line reserve capacity to future wastewater flow from the Project Area and reserve 50 percent of the capacity for build-out of vacant land adjacent to Harrison Avenue. With approximately 220 gpm reserve capacity on the Harrison Avenue line, this would equate to 110 gpm available to convey wastewater from the Project Area. Therefore, a lift station for the south Butte valley with 110 gpm pumping capacity, equates to approximately 150 additional homes in the Project Area. Sewer capacity and connection alternatives are covered in detail in Chapter IV.C. Sewer Extension Alternatives After determination of sewer connection and capacity alternatives with the existing conveyance system, alternatives were evaluated on the optimal location of a sewer extension line into the Project Area. Alternative 3.1 (segment “AD” on Figures 15 and 19 and the Plan and Profile Sheets in Appendix IV.d), extends municipal sewer


Page 3

into the Project Area with approximately 2.3 miles of gravity sewer along Blacktail Creek. The sewer would be installed away from the creek and out of the floodplain at a depth of approximately 5 feet below the stream bed of the creek. With this alternative, gravity sewer laterals could connect to the trunk main from both sides of the creek. The service area that this sewer extension alternative could accomodate by gravity drainage is overlain on the Project Area on Figure 20. Alternative 3.2 (segments “BD” and “CF” on Figures 15 and 19) extends municipal sewer into the Project Area with approximately 2.4 miles of gravity sewer on Continental Drive and 1.4 miles of gravity sewer on Albany Avenue and Highway 2. This alternative is located almost entirely on public right-of-way. It should be noted that even with the combined alignments of this alternative, certain areas downgradient of the sewer alignments cannot be served with gravity sewer. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative is a combination of connection into the existing Harrison Avenue trunk line with a capacity upgrade of this line (Alternative 3A, Phase 1 and 2), and a sewer extension along Blacktail Creek into the Project Area (Alternative 3.1). Alternative 3A, Phase 1 connects the study area to the Harrison Avenue trunk line and consists of approximately 1.8 miles of combination force main and gravity sewer with lift stations on Blacktail Creek and Basin Creek. The current reserve capacity of the Harrison Avenue trunk line is approximately 220 gpm. Considering development of vacant land adjacent to the Harrison Avenue corridor, approximately 110 gpm (50% reserve) is available to convey wastewater flows from new development in the Project Area. A peak flow rate of 110 gpm equates to approximately 140 homes based on a wastewater generation rate of 300 gallons per home per day and a peaking factor of 3.5. Alternative 3A, Phase 2 increases the capacity of the Harrison Avenue trunk line by approximately 300 gpm. It consists of approximately 0.5 miles of gravity sewer on Harrison Avenue between Waterline Road and Sunset Road to bypass a low-slope, bottleneck segment on Wynne and Paxson Avenue. This capacity increase equates to service for 400 additional homes. Alternative 3.1 was chosen based on its ability to service the largest geographical area with gravity sewer with low operational oversight and maintenance requirements. It effectively eliminates further nutrient impacts to ground water and surface water in the Project Area from additional on-site wastewater treatment systems. This alternative also provides the greatest expansion potential along existing trunk lines, and has the greatest flexibility to meet growth projections for the south Butte Valley should they exceed those included in this report. Estimated Cost of Preferred Alternative The total estimated cost to complete Alternative 3A, Phase 1 and 2 in combination with Alternative 3.1 is $4,499,440. Cost estimates for each specific phase of the preferred alternative are shown in Table I.i.


Page 4

Table I.i. Summary of Estimated Costs for Preferred Alternative

Item Estimated

Costs O&M

Increase

Alternative 3A Phase 1 A $1,472,225 $23,200

Alternative 3A Phase 2 A $299,250 $500

Alternative 3.1 A $1,551,075 $2,500

Subtotal $3,322,550 $26,200

Contingency (20%) $664,510

Total Estimated Construction Cost $3,987,060

Engineering Design, Construction Administration and Oversight (15%)

$498,380

Legal and Administrative $14,000

Estimated Total Project Cost $4,499,440

Footnotes: A. Costs from Chapter IV Tables IV.xii, IV.xiii, IV.xvi, IV.xxv and IV.xxvi.

Proposed Funding Strategy and Expected Cost per User Due to the reasonable capital costs of this project and the current water sewer user rate below the calculated target rate, it is recommended that BSB fund the preferred alternative through the combination of a rate increase and private investment by Project Area landowners. Several different funding options were evaluated from a 100% loan repaid by a user rate increase to varying combinations of rate increases, private investment, and grant funding. The private contributions would be available from local developers that are interested in developing land within the next few years in the Project Area. The grant funding options were included in the event that BSB increases its utility rates to the calculated target rate through the completion of other infrastructure projects. Ultimately, the timing of a South Butte sewer extension will be determined based on the overall priority of this project compared to other BSB infrastructure needs, the ability of residents in South Butte to hook into a municipal system, and the timing of future development proposals. As a result, additional funding scenarios may be developed for this project in the future. Additionally, the Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners must approve any user rate increases to fund the project and the necessary expansion of the sewer district, which will include a public hearing. Table I.iv summarizes the funding scenarios evaluated with and without grant assistance and resultant sewer rate increases.


Page 5

Table I.ii. Alternative Funding Scenarios and User Costs

Funding Scenarios

Line Item Cost SRF Loan Private #1 Private-TSEP

Private-STAG

Projected Project Cost $4,499,440 $4,499,440 $4,499,440 $4,499,440

Private Developer/Landowner Funding $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000

Grant Share (%) 0% 0% 13% 11%

TSEP Grant $0 $0 $500,000 $0

EPA STAG $0 $0 $0 $500,000

RRGL Grant $0 $0 $100,000 $0

Community Share $4,499,440 $3,999,440 $2,899,440 $2,499,440

From Sewer Reserve Fund $0 $0 $0 $0

Revenue Through Rate Increase1 $45,183 $37,653 $30,122 $30,122

SRF Loan (20 years at 4%) $4,454,257 $3,961,788 $2,869,318 $2,469,318

Administration $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

Loan Fees (1.575%) $70,155 $62,398 $45,192 $38,892

Loan Reserve (one annual payment +/-) $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000

Total Loan Amount $4,764,412 $4,264,186 $3,154,510 $2,748,210

Annual Loan Payment (20 years; 4%) $350,661 $313,844 $232,172 $202,268

Coverage On Loan Payment (25%) $87,665 $78,461 $58,043 $50,567

Total Annual Debt Service Cost $438,326 $392,305 $290,215 $252,835

Additional Annual O&M Cost2 $26,200 $26,200 $26,200 $26,200

Total Additional Annual Cost $464,526 $418,505 $316,415 $279,035

Rate Increase Breakdown

Portion of rate increase to cover annual debt service and increased O&M costs3 $2.57 $2.32 $1.75 $1.54

Remainder to be added to sewer fund to accumulate for future projects $0.43 $0.18 $0.25 $0.46

Total Additional Taxpayer Cost Per Month $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $2.00 Footnotes:

1 Accumulate 1 month’s revenue prior to loan payments. $2.50/month rate increase x 15,061 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) x 1 month = $37,653.

2 Annual O&M cost from Table IV.xvi ($23,700, Alternative 3A, phase 1 & 2) and Table IV.xxv ($2,500, Alternative 3.1). 3 $450,320 total annual cost ÷ 15,061 EDUs ÷ 12 months = $2.50/month.

Project Implementation Implementation of the preferred alternative can begin as soon as the final funding scenario has been determined, and all appropriate public outreach and administrative issues have been completed.

Highw

ay 2

Far r

agut

Ave

Con

tine n

t al D

r

Amherst Ave

Ore

gon

A ve

Lexi

ngto

n Av

e

Whi

t e W

ayDewey Blvd

Burlington St

Hil l

Ave

She

rida n

Av e

Hanson Rd

Beef Trail Rd

Rowe Rd

Holmes Ave

Highway 2

Wes

tern

Blv

d

Centennial Ave

Uta

h A v

e

Four Mile Rd Mt Highland Dr

Har

rison

Ave

Contine ntal D

r

Electric Blvd

Beef T

rail R

d

Bul

l Run

Gul

ch R

d

Con

tine n

t al D

rElizabeth Warren Ave

Blacktail Ln

Littl

e Ba

sin

Cree

k Rd

Bas

in C

reek

Rd

Utah Ave

Front StSecond St

Tex a

s A v

e

Wal

kerv

ille D

r

George St

Cobban St

Grand Ave

Empire St

Ad a

ms

A ve

Har rison Ave

Exc

e lsi

o r A

ve

Mercury StAriz

o na

A ve

Excelsior Ave

Park St Galena St

Platinum St

Mon

tan a

St

Iron St

N M

ain

St

Sh ie lds Av e

Daly St

Farrell St

Mai

n St

BerkleyPit

Yankee DoodleTailings

Motor View Rd

Oro FinoGulch Rd

Jann

ey R

d

Bea

con

Rd

Floral Blvd

Bluebird Trail

Snowbird Trail

Missoula Ave

Mou

lton

Res

e rvo

ir R

d

Bla

c kta

il L

oop

Alb

a ny

Ave

Shoe String Annie Rd

BlacktailSand Creek

Bl a

ckt a

il C

reek

Metro S

torm D

rain

Grove G

ulch Cree

k

Silver Bow CreekBasin Creek

Basin Creek

Blacktail Creek

Sand Cree

k

Creek

Bas

in C

reek

Grove Gulch Creek

Bla

ckta

il C

reek

Little Blacktail Creek

Little Basin Creek

Greenwood Ave

BNSF

RR

BNSF RR

Five Mile Rd

Waterline Rd

Sunset Rd

Meadowlark Ln

BUTTE-SILVER BOW PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 1

BLACKTAIL CREEK NUTRIENT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE 3 - SEWER EXTENSION

LEGEND:

URBAN LIMIT BOUNDARY

CURRENT SEWER DISTRICTBOUNDARY

EXISTING SEWER TRUNK LINE

PROPOSED SEWER LINE

TECHNOLOGIES, PC

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER &

B

G

F

C

A

E D

METRO TREATMENT PLANT

PROPOSED ALT. 3PHASE 2

LIFT STATION

PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE 218-INCH GRAVITY SEWER CDAND FORCE MAIN SEWER DE

PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE1CONNECTION TO HARRISON

AVENUE TRUNK LINE

PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE 116-INCH GRAVITY SEWER ABAND FORCE MAIN SEWER BC

BASIN CREEKSEWER TRUNK LINE

HARRISON AVENUESEWER TRUNK LINE

BLACKTAIL CREEKSEWER TRUNK LINE

PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE 1LIFT STATION

PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE 1GRAVITY SEWER FG ON HARRISON AVE. TO

ELIMINATE BOTTLENECK (INCREASE RESERVE CAPACITY FROM 220 GPM TO 520 GPM)

POSSIBLE ADD-ON TO PROPOSED ALT. 3 - PHASE 1

REPLACE EXISTING 10-INCH GRAVITY SEWER GC ON HARRISON AVE. WITH 16-INCH

GRAVITY SEWER TO INCREASE RESERVE CAPACITY FROM 520 GPM TO 1,000 GPM

MEMORANDUM Tracy Stone-Manning, Chief of Staff, Governor’s ... · Natural Resource Damage Program...

Documents

Transcript of MEMORANDUM Tracy Stone-Manning, Chief of Staff, Governor’s ... · Natural Resource Damage Program...