FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23008
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
23008 Narrative | Narrative |
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations in Salmon and Clearwater Basins |
Proposal ID | 23008 |
Organization | Idaho State Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | John Chatburn |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 790 Boise, Idaho 83701-0790 |
Phone / email | 2083328540 / jchatbur@agri.state.id.us |
Manager authorizing this project | John Chatburn |
Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / |
Short description | Enhance tributary and main stem fish habitat by reducing runoff from CAFO operations by supporting on-farm improvements with cost-share funding and technical assistance. |
Target species | Salmon and Bull Trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45 | -114.98 | Salmon subbasin |
46.44 | -115.65 | Clearwater subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|---|---|
$40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 6 | $250,000 |
Fringe | (Benefits are 33% of salary) | $82,000 |
Supplies | supplies, computers, eng.equip.,etc | $98,000 |
Travel | Lease Vehicles, fuel, per diem, Lodging, etc. | $142,000 |
Indirect | $144,000 | |
Capital | 70% match for Cost Share Grants | $2,500,000 |
Subcontractor | IDEQ for baseline monitoring | $75,000 |
Other | Nez Perce Tribe for coordination with ISDA | $75,000 |
$3,366,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $3,366,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $3,366,000 |
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
1. Idaho Department of Agriculture | Supplemental support functions and ongoing monitoring of cost-share funded projects. | $230,000 | in-kind |
2. Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | Cooperating in guidelines and application form creation, Coordination of outreach meetings and dissemination of materials | $20,000 | in-kind |
3. University of Idaho/ Extension Service | Identification of CAFO's, dissemination of materials, and providing technical assistance | $50,000 | in-kind |
4. Idaho Cattle Association | Coordinating outreach meetings, and dissemination of materials | $10,000 | in-kind |
5. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | Identification of projects, provide existing water quality data, inform interested publics of benefits and values, and ongoing monitoring of water quality benefits from projects | $60,000 | in-kind |
6. Idaho Department of Water Resources | Identification of projects, provide hydrologic data, and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $20,000 | in-kind |
7. Army Corps of Engineers | Evaluate, plan, and implement projects. and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $10,000 | in-kind |
8. Bureau of Reclamation | Provide data and inform interested publics of benefits and values | $10,000 | in-kind |
9. IDFG | Perform ongoing regional fish monitoring activities | $40,000 | in-kind |
10. Landowners | 30% match for cost share funding of AFO impact mitigation | $750,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Not all parts of this proposal meet the basic criteria of the solicitation for one-time funding. However, if carried to full implementation it would address risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits. The project focus is on planning and identification of problem sites. Location and priority of sites for on-the-ground actions is not adequately described. This proposal could be expanded and then reconsidered as part of the Province Review.Comment:
This project is establishing a cost share grant program to add value to an existing regulation-based improvement effort. There are small operations and multi-species facilities that fall outside of the Beef Cattle Environmental Control Act. The Act was designed to address CAFO's impact on Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act requirements. The IDAG is inspecting these operations and finding additional work that needs to be performed that falls outside of the BCECA. The program proposed here would provide a cost-share opportunity for additional improvements that would reduce animal nutrient loading in the streams but may not be required by law. Work is not being directed according to any subbasin planning effort that prioritizes efforts. Specific activities and locations are unknown at this time. Questions of in-lieu were also raised.Comment:
Comment:
This project would reduce runoff from animal feed lots. NMFS commented on this proposal based on the information provided in November 2000 using the criteria provided by BPA to determine if the project required "High Priority status" for funding in 2001. This proposal appeared likely to provide some benefit to Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species in the Salmon and Clearwater river basins by improving water quality. Projects like this would be expected to contribute to recovery efforts identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Basinwide Recovery Strategy. Several reviewers, including NMFS, concluded that this project fell short in providing adequate project description, leaving reviewers unable to predict improvement to fish habitat and population response. Without specific designs and locations of individual actions and adequate descriptions of the baseline habitat conditions, reviewers were not able to support this project as meeting the criteria for high priority funding.The proposal might merit a higher priority if the component projects were more fully developed and if it was part of a scientifically-based, watershed-level plan with measurable biological objectives. The Basinwide Recovery Strategy identified a desire to integrate ESA and Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements and supports Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development by the state. Generally, improving water quality for ESA-listed fish species by reducing animal waste entering streams benefits fish. But, the approach should be based on the demonstration that the actions that are funded will result in success compared to the other opportunities that are necessarily forgone. This proposal should be more fully developed as described above and reconsidered during the Mountain Snake provincial review.
Comment:
At this time, we do not intend to fund proposal no. 23008… it is difficult to determine from the proposal how and to what magnitude the benefit to listed stocks would accrue to the project. It seems appropriate for this project to be resubmitted in the Mountain Snake Provincial Review Process