Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Boise River Wetlands Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 32021 |
| Organization | Pioneer Irrigation District |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Scott L. Campbell |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 829 Boise, ID 83701-0829 |
| Phone / email | 2083452000 / slc@moffatt.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Scott L. Campbell |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Boise |
| Short description | Restore wetlands in the Lower Boise River watershed in order to mitigate the inundation of wetland habitats caused by the construction of Anderson Ranch Dam. Improvements in water quality will be an intergral part of restoration of the wetlands. |
| Target species | Mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, brown trout, beaver, mink, otter, ducks, geese, other migratory birds, amphibians, crustations. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 43.6986 |
-116.6728 |
Mason Creek at Mouth NR Caldwell, Idaho - Decimal Latitude 43.6986, Decimal Longitude -116.6728, Lat.-Long Datum NAD27, Land net SESESWS10 T04N R03W, HUC 17050114 |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| -386 |
Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Implementation Project |
Mitigate Losses for Anderson Ranch Dam |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop and implement structure for
community-wide participation |
a. Contact / meet with potential partners (e.g., Shoshone-Bannock & Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Idaho Rivers United, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, City of Caldwell, |
3.0 |
$20,000 |
Yes |
|
a. (con't) Canyon County Commissioners, City of Boise, NRCS, BOR, IDEQ, Soil Conservation District) |
0 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Develop contract / memorandum of agreement |
.25 |
$2,500 |
Yes |
|
c. Negotiate / finalize / execute contract / memorandum of agreement |
1.0 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
| 2. Complete engineering design |
a. Retain engineers to complete design work |
.5 |
$1,000 |
|
|
b. Prepare final construction-ready engineering designs |
1.0 |
$65,000 |
Yes |
|
c. Prepare construction bid documents |
.25 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
|
d. Coordinate engineering with construction bidders. |
.5 |
$10,000 |
Yes |
| 3. Complete real estate appraisals / acquition |
a. Select real estate consultant |
.25 |
$1,000 |
|
|
b. Select real estate appraiser |
.25 |
$1,000 |
|
|
c. Develop contracts for service of consultant and appraiser |
.25 |
$2,000 |
Yes |
|
d. Coordinate with consultant and appraiser to produce deliverables |
1.0 |
$2,000 |
Yes |
| 4. Perform Federal, State and Local
environmental review and permitting |
a. Develop outline / punch list of necessary environmental review and permits |
.25 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Contact / coordinate with relevant regulatory / advisory entities to obtain required permits, authorizations, and studies |
1.5 |
$45,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Development / implement structure for community-wide participation |
2003 |
2004 |
$27,500 |
| 2. Complete real estate appraisals |
2003 |
2004 |
$4,000 |
| 3. Perform Federal, State and Local environmental review and permitting |
2003 |
2004 |
$100,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Complete real estate appraisals / acquisition |
a. Acquire fee title or conservation easement for land (60 acres) [Note: fee title = 600,000; conservation easement = 300,000] |
1.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Perform Federal, State and Local environmental review and permitting |
a. Complete acquisition of required permits, authorizations and studies |
1.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 3. Construct wetland cells and water distribution facilities |
a. Complete bid process to select construction contractor for project |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Conduct earth-moving and other site preparation work |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. Construct intake facilities |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Construct sediment basin |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Construct by-pass system |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
f. Construct water level control structures |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
g. Construct wetland cells (berms, water control structures and wetland plants) |
1.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
h. Conduct engineering oversight of construction |
1.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Complete real estate appraisals / acquisition |
2004 |
2005 |
$654,000 |
| 2. Perform Federal, State and Local environmental review and permitting |
2004 |
2005 |
$100,000 |
| 3. Construct wetland cells and water distribution facilities |
2004 |
2005 |
$2,036,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $1,281,000 | $1,405,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop monitoring program |
a. Prepare water quality monitoring protocol |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Select laboratory for water quality analysis |
.25 |
$0 |
|
|
c. Determine water quality reporting format |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Prepare wildlife census protocol |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Select contractor |
.25 |
$0 |
|
|
f. Determine wildlife census reporting format |
.5 |
$0 |
|
|
g. Prepare fishery census monitoring protocol |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
h. Select contractor |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
i. Determine fishery census reporting format |
.25 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Develop maintenance program |
a. Prepare project maintenance protocol |
.25 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Purchase necessary equipment, tools and supplies |
.25 |
$0 |
|
|
c. Select contractor |
.25 |
$0 |
|
| 3. Implement maintenance program |
a. Conduct periodic maintenance of sediment basins |
3.0 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Conduct ongoing maintenance of wetland cells and water distribution facilities |
3.0 |
$0 |
|
|
c. Conduct harvest of wetlands vegetation every 5 years. |
1.0 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Develop monitoring program |
2004 |
2005 |
$15,000 |
| 2. Develop maintenance program |
2004 |
2005 |
$13,500 |
| 3. Implement maintenance program |
2004 |
2007 |
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $14,250 | $14,250 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Implement monitoring program |
a. Between March 15 and November 15, conduct weekly grab sampling of inflow / outflow of water through project, including delivery to lab for analysis |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Deliver water quality analysis to Lower Boise Effluent Trading Center |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. Conduct monthly wildlife census |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Prepare annual report utilizing wildlife census data |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Conduct annual fishery census |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
f. Prepare bi-annual report utilizing fishery census data |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Develop education / public information program |
a. Coordinate with local school districts, IDFG, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, and Idaho Rivers United to develop science based educational opportunities for students K-12 (eg, field trips, biological studies) |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Coordinate with IDFG, the Nature Conservancy, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited and Idaho Rivers United to develop a public information / outreach program |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 3. Implement educational / public information program |
a. Produce educational materials for school students K-12 |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Distribute educational materials |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. Coordinate field trips to project and conduct guided tours |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Produce information brochures for public distribution |
.5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Prepare / implement public awareness / publicity program |
2.0 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Implement monitoring program |
2005 |
2007 |
$112,500 |
| 2. Develop education / public information program |
2005 |
2005 |
$75,000 |
| 3. Implement education / public information program |
2005 |
2007 |
$165,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $193,000 | $63,000 | $63,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
|
$0 |
| Indirect |
|
$0 |
| Capital |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
|
$0 |
| PIT tags |
|
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
Coordinating Consultants |
$84,500 |
| Subcontractor |
Engineering |
$80,000 |
| $164,500 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $164,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $164,500 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Pioneer Irrigation District |
Accounting |
$50,000 |
in-kind |
| Pioneer Irrigation District |
Operation & Maintenance |
$243,000 |
in-kind |
| Pioneer Irrigation District |
5 Year Harvest of Wetlands Vegetation |
$74,000 |
in-kind |
| Pioneer Irrigation District |
Construction Coordination |
$50,000 |
in-kind |
| NRCS |
Technical Assistance |
$50,000 |
in-kind |
| Department of Environmental Quality |
Monitoring / Technical Assistance |
$150,000 |
in-kind |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
Wetlands Hydrology Design Assistance |
$50,000 |
in-kind |
| Bureau of Reclamation |
Technical Assistance |
$40,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Response needed. The proposal would create a wetland to eventually be a part of the "dynamic trading of pollutant loading" to the lower Boise River, principally involving phosphorus and sediment. A Technical Memorandum describing a conceptual design prepared for the City of Boise was appended to the proposal.
If mitigation credit would accrue to BPA in terms of Habitat Units gained in wildlife habitat, the sponsors should develop or identify the appropriate HEP methodology. How many units of credit are available from purchase of the property and from development of the wetlands habitat? See project proposals 199505701 and 199505700 for examples.
Is there a watershed assessment that establishes this project as a high priority issue? The proposal needs a fully developed monitoring and evaluation plan for data, both for water quality and fish and wildlife benefits. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
This project will provide for the removal of phosphorous and sediment from the lower portion of the Boise River. The IDEQ has identified phosphorous and sediment as having negative effects on the white sturgeon population in the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Although the sponsors suggested the project would provide for sensitive species, the reviewers question the benefits to sensitive species. Reviewers indicated that there are nine target species in this area and that the proposed work would provide habitat only for mink and waterfowl. CBFWA found that this proposal does not provide enough detail to determine if the construction phase should be funded and suggest that the proposal be reviewed after the design phase is completed. Wildlife would likely benefit from the wetland creation, but dredging and removal of vegetation to remove accumulated silts and nutrients would cause disturbances approximately every five years. It is unclear if fisheries benefits would result. In fact, CBFWA suggests that thermal heating in the settling cells and wetlands could lead to elevated water temperatures downstream. CBFWA suggests that the proposed project is primarily a water quality project, with potential side benefits to wildlife. The project would benefit from cost-share arrangements for funding from other sources. All listed cooperators are shown to contribute "in-kind" services or funds. Although the benefit of this project, combined with others throughout the basin, could have lasting benefits, impacts addressed are not entirely attributable to the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). CBFWA was unclear as to how this project qualifies as offsite mitigation for impacts caused by the FCRPS. Due to the relatively minor impacts associated with power operations, it seems the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, State of Idaho and the counties would have greater responsibilities to provide funding to mitigate for these impacts, rather than BPA.
The proposed conservation easements or land acquisitions appear to be very high cost at $5000/acre and $10,000/acre, respectively. The proposal does not describe how wildlife benefits will be calculated and credited.
CBFWA found that coordination with BPA and the fish and wildlife managers appears to have been inadequate.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable at low priority. Quoting from the proposal, the proposal would create a wetland to eventually be a part of the "dynamic trading of pollutant loading" to the lower Boise River, principally involving phosphorus and sediment. The Council should carefully review this project to ensure that it qualifies for offsite mitigation responsibilities. The project would likely have some minimal wildlife benefits, but benefits were not well articulated in the proposal or response. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that sensitive species would not benefit. The proposal lacks a fully developed monitoring and evaluation plan for data, both for water quality and fish and wildlife benefits.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: