FY 2000 proposal 20091
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 |
|---|---|
| 20091 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Construct Warm Springs Wetland |
| Proposal ID | 20091 |
| Organization | Southwest Idaho Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. (SWID RC&D) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Bill Moore |
| Mailing address | 132 Southwest 5th Avenue Meridian, ID 83642-2774 |
| Phone / email | 2088881890 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Boise |
| Short description | Protect the water quality of the Boise River by the development of a wetland to treat urban overland flows through biofiltration and decrease sedimentation. Enhance wildlife habitat with open water and vegitation areas for cover, food and nesting. |
| Target species | Red Band Trout, Canada Goose, Mallard, Cinnamon and Green Wing Teal, Wood Duck, Bald Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk and a myriad of other waterfowl, nongame and migratory birds. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Environmental Evaluation |
| 1998 | Land Acquired |
| 1998 | Survey and Design |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| No BPA projects have been proposed for this subbasin in fiscal year 1999. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 250 hours @ $13.50/hr | $3,400 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Operating | Water Quality Monitoring and Weed Control | $5,600 |
| Construction | Inlet, Outlet, Main Pond, Settling Basin, 5 Marshes, Water Control Structures, etc. | $31,690 |
| Indirect | Overhead and administration | $6,510 |
| $47,200 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $47,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $47,200 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Boise, Idaho | 1.3 Acres of Land | $65,000 | unknown |
| Bureau of Reclamation | Grant Funds authorized - Observation areas, bridges and interperative trail. | $10,000 | unknown |
| Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | Grant Funds authorized - Contracting, Water Control Structures, Plant Materials, Labor, Outreach, Bridges. | $10,000 | unknown |
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Grant Funds authorized - Plant Materials | $5,000 | unknown |
| Ada Soil Conservation District | Grant Funds authorized - Contracting, Weed Control, Operation and Maintenance, Outreach. | $3,060 | unknown |
| Idaho Department of Fish and Game | Grant Funds authorized - Marsh construction and Water Control Structures | $2,000 | unknown |
| Natural Resources Conservation Service | Technical Assistance on survey, design, plant materials, and construction. | $22,500 | unknown |
| City of Boise Parks and Recreation Department | Technical Assistance on project management, design review and maintenance. | $2,200 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Weather, contractor scheduling, and or availability of plant materials.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal does not contain adequate information to determine scientific soundness of the approach. The proposal needs a better description of site-specific actions, programmatic justification, and potential negative impacts.Comments: This is a relatively inexpensive proposal to implement a constructed wetland to limit urban runoff into the Boise River. The proposers appear to have experience with constructed wetlands, and the work involves input from a coalition of agencies and interests. Water quality is a recognized problem for fish and wildlife, and species to be benefited are identified. This proposal shows strong coordination and tie-in with other efforts, including work-share and cost-share. It is part of a longer term plan that includes monitoring , though who will pay for monitoring is not clear. Cost is low.
The ideas expressed in this proposal are interesting, but the proposal lacks important information in several areas. There is minimal explanation of whether the project employs the best scientific information or how the particular wetland design was chosen. The work is not set in experimental form, but is inexpensive and does have a monitoring plan. This plan should be more clearly developed, along with criteria for evaluating success. Also it seems odd to spray toxins to control weeds when the system is intended as a toxin filter. Weeds should not be a long-term problem if the wetland is well designed and plants are well chosen (which should also be better documented). Reviewers ask are there any likely effects of contaminants on wildlife using the wetland created to treat overland urban water that should be anticipated and avoided? It was not clear why BPA should be responsible for funding this project, which concerns urban non-point-source pollution.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no- It is not a resident fish measure.Technical Criteria: no- There is no demonstrated benefit to Resident fish.
Programmatic Criteria: no- It doesn't address Resident fish strategies as identified in criteria 11.
Milestone Criteria: no- It is a short term project.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This project should be based on an assessment, should demonstrate how it addresses the most limiting factor for redband trout, and should show why it is a high priority for funding in this area.Clearly show how this project relates to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It appears to be waste water treatment.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];