Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Implement Best Management Practices |
| Proposal ID | 9088 |
| Organization | Cowlitz and Wahkiakum Conservation Districts (CCD and WCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Darin Houpt |
| Mailing address | 2125 8th Avenue Longview, WA 98632 |
| Phone / email | 3604251880 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Cowlitz |
| Short description | Assist landowners with improving water quality and fish habitat. Examples include: livestock fencing, riparian plantings, and instream structures. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
|
N/A |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Project Administration, Hydrologist, Resource Technician, Engineer Technician |
$40,255 |
| Fringe |
Medical, retirement, annual and sick leave |
$13,704 |
| Supplies |
Materials to implement BMP’s (plant materials, fencing, instream habitat, etc) |
$40,142 |
| Operating |
Landowner responsibility with some staff time |
$0 |
| Capital |
N/A |
$0 |
| Travel |
|
$1,250 |
| Indirect |
|
$2,860 |
| Subcontractor |
no subcontractors will be used |
$0 |
| $98,211 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $98,211 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $98,211 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Permits and/or Design approval
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to more clearly define the objectives and explain how the funding will be used to achieve those objectives. The objectives in section 4 are not consistent with those in the narrative (section 7).Technical Issue: Explain how the budget is appropriate to fulfill the objectives; e.g., how many acres of land will be BMPs be applied to, miles of fence, need clarification on how much implementation will be done and how much it will cost versus the cost of coordination functions.
Technical Issue: The specific measurable expected results are not detailed. Need to describe relationship and coordination with project 9127.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.
Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal presents a logical sequence of tasks and objectives to improve water quality and habitat conditions in the local watershed. However, no specific benchmarks are identified, so it is difficult to judge how the principal investigators are going to conduct monitoring and evaluation. The proposal demands a leap of faith that best management practices are sufficient and adequate to achieve habitat restoration and to increase salmon abundance. Other than an initial link to the Fish and Wildlife Program, no mention was made of the project’s effects on salmon or habitat. This proposal is similar to other watershed proposals in that it does not give a good summary of its funding portfolio.