FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28019

Additional documents

28019 Narrative Narrative
28019 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImprove Stream Habitat by Reducing Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations
Proposal ID28019
OrganizationIdaho State Department of Agriculture / Idaho Office of Species Conservation (ISDA/IOSC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Chatburn
Mailing addressP.O. Box 790 Boise, Idaho 83701-0790
Phone / email2083328540 / jchatbur@agri.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectJohn Chatburn
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionEnhance tributary and main stem fish habitat and water quality by reducing direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations by supporting on-farm improvement with cost-share funding and technical assistance.
Target speciesChinook salmon, steelhead trout and bull trout.
Project location
45.1879 -113.8891 Lemhi Watershed (HUC No. 17060204)
44.6923 -114.0485 Pahsimeroi Watershed (HUC No. 17060202)
44.2682 -114.3265 East Fork of the Salmon River Watershed (HUC No. 17060201)
45.09 -113.9 Upper Salmon Watershed (HUC No. 17060201) / Middle Salmon (HUC No. 17060203)
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)


Habitat RPA Action 149
Habitat RPA Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199401170 Idaho Model Watershed Project RPA Action # 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 - Habitat protection, restoration, and complexity in Salmon subbasin watersheds.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Identify Operations and establish ongoing baseline monitoring in Salmon subbasin a. Complete the inventories and locate facilities in Salmon subbasin a. 1 FY $50,000
1 b. Assess facilities in Salmon subbasin b. 1 FY $50,000
1 c. Establish base-line monitoring data c. 1 FY $75,000 Yes
2. Develop cost-share guidelines and promote program a. Develop specific guidelines for cost-share program. a. 1 FY $10,000
2 b. Design application and contract forms, develop form evaluation process b. 1 FY $5,000
2 c. Publicize program to landowners c. Ongoing $25,000
3. Assist in design of projects, accept applications for projects and select projects a. Provide technical assistance for project designs and accept applications from landowners a. 1 FY $160,000
3 b. Evaluate projects, prioritize and select those to receive funding b. 1FY $20,000
3 c. Legal review of projects and contracts c. 1FY $0
3 d. Sign contracts with landowners d. 1 FY $0
3 e. Report on projects selected and expected results e. 1 FY $6,000
. $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Implement projects a. Monitor on-farm construction and check installation b. Certify project completion and that Idaho Department of Agriculture standards are met c. Provide technical assistance from ISDA for operation of improvement including operation management 1FY $50,000
2. Project oversight and administration a. Verify project costs with landowner b. Voucher project costs and reimburse landowners with cost share dollars c. Distribute funds to subcontractor 1FY $1,500,000
3. Coordinate with Nez Perce Tribe a. Funds for Tribe to coordinate with ISDA 1FY $75,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
All costs for monitoring and evaluation will be borne by the landowner and cooperating agencies with no cost to BPA. $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 3 $150,000
Fringe (Benefits are 33% of salary) $50,000
Supplies Supplies, computers, engineering equipment, etc $46,000
Travel Lease vehicles, fuel, perdiem, lodging, etc. $30,000
Indirect $100,000
Capital 70% match for cost share grants $1,500,000
Subcontractor IDEQ for baseline monitoring $75,000
Other Nez Perce Tribe for coordination with ISDA $75,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$2,026,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$2,026,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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 CAFOs, 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. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Perform ongoing regional fish monitoring activities $40,000 in-kind
10. Landowners 30% match for cost share funding of AFO impact mitigation $500,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001


A response is needed. This proposal is a request for funds to identify feed lots that degrade local water quality. The proposal is similar to several others that request funds for an activity that has no specific objectives other than identifying and fixing problems. There is no informational support provided for a contention that these sites pose further threat for endangered salmon. Plans for survey and prioritization of projects are needed. Biological problems need to be identified and justification given that injuries to fish and fish habitat are occurring. Is the problem sediments? Temperature? Nutrients? They would address run-off and streambank degradation issues.

Are there USDA programs, e.g. the CRP and CREP programs to provide fenced buffers along streams, that could be brought to bear to help solve the anticipated problems? What are the perceived magnitudes of the problems and what are some of the proposed solutions? What are the estimated benefits to water quality that would come from completion of this assessment and enrollment of local livestock owners into this program?

Recommended Action
Nov 30, 2001


Sponsors suggest that the proposed work will provide the tool needed to reach the private landowners, a tool that is currently absent. Based on experience elsewhere in Idaho, the sponsors indicated that $10,000-20,000/feedlot would be required to implement the prescribed corrective measures; however, the sponsors are unsure of the number of unregulated feed lots that would require corrective measures in the Salmon River subbasin and thus are unable to calculate the reduction of inputs that will occur until the cattle operations are identified. Based on conversations with the owners of the cattle operations, the sponsors anticipate the ability to address approximately 80% of the unregulated sites. Because the number of feedlots that may need corrective measures is unknown, the reviewers expressed concern whether the requested amount would be enough to correct all the identified operations. The sponsors indicated that they were unsure if the requested amount would be sufficient but also suggested that the funding request may exceed their needs. The sponsors indicated that there are no out-year costs associated with the proposed work since landowners and other programs are responsible for maintenance costs. Reviewers questioned why a needs assessment was not proposed as the first step for this proposed project. The sponsors suggested that implementing an assessment process could disturb the synergy that exists among the existing regulatory programs. The sponsors further stated that the Governor of Idaho has asked what actions could be taken relative to livestock that would immediately benefit fish and wildlife. The sponsors indicted that the fencing of unregulated feedlots is considered the best solution to addressing livestock induced problems. Although monitoring was not identified in the proposal, monitoring activities will be performed through other ongoing programs. The reviewers suggest there this a lack of coordination and believe the prioritization process could be enhanced through coordination with the state and tribes. The managers acknowledge that if the right operations are selected the tagged species will significantly benefit from the activity. Until the reviewers can be assured the work occurs in areas that the managers have identified as key areas, the reviewers are unable to recommend the proposal as a high priority. The reviewers suggest that through the TMDL process there is EPA money for this type of activity. Furthermore, reviewers question the benefit/cost issue and subsequently believe the proposed work appears expensive and are concerned about the ability to achieve the proposed goals in a timely manner.
Do Not Fund
Dec 21, 2001


Not fundable. This proposal is a request for funds to identify streamside animal feeding operations and to improve water quality and fish habitat by funding 70% of the cost of remedial actions for landowners, especially those with smaller herds. The proposal is similar to several others that request funds for an activity that has no specific objectives other than identifying and fixing problems.

On the other hand, the ISRP agrees the problem of animal feeding operations in the Salmon subbasin is real in a biological sense and notes a similar observation from the CBFWA reviewers. Also "real" is landowner apprehension regarding the threat of "taking" fish listed under ESA if their operations are found to cause impact. However, the ISRP agrees with CBFWA reviewers that it is important to target those feeding operations that pose the greatest problems in key portions of the subbasin where fish would benefit the most. As written, the proposal does not do that and specific actions are not identified, making it impossible for reviewers to support the proposal in its current form.

The ISRP recommends that projects dealing with animal feeding operations in the Upper Salmon basin be considered for funding as part of Project #199202603 and related proposals submitted by the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Those projects either have or are developing criteria for effective prioritization of projects for benefit of fish in the subbasin. The ISRP recommends that the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project give priority to identifying key feeding operations and to coordinating remediation with their owners and with the ISDA and IOSC and other funding sources.

Feb 1, 2002


Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potential indirect benefits to anadromous fish through the reduction of direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations. However, proposal does not indicate specific actions or locations or actions so benefits can't be evaluated further.

No specific RPA covers water quality alone. The proposal does not provide any information on what BMPs will be implemented, where, when, and the likely effect on water quality or salmonids. This proposal has been submitted to BPA for funding previously under the High Priority solicitation. NMFS did not support funding it under that process and the Council and BPA deferred it to the Mountain Snake Provincial Review and told the project proponents to revise and further flesh out the proposal. Project proponents have not significantly revised or expanded the proposal and are not even certain that the work will take place in anadromous drainages. That will depend on willing landowners. This proposal does not meet the FCRPS BiOp RPAs and appears to be more appropriately funded through other sources such as agricultural or Clean Water Act programs.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Feb 11, 2002


Do not recommend. This project appears to propose BPA funding of Idaho State Department of Agriculture's responsibility under state legislation.



Do Not Fund
Apr 19, 2002