FY 1999 proposal 9089

Additional documents

TitleType
9089 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleClassify Riparian and Wetland Vegetation in the Columbia Basin of Wash.
Proposal ID9089
OrganizationWashington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program (WDNR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRex C. Crawford
Mailing addressDept. Natural Resources, Forest Resources, P.O. Box 47016 Olympia, WA 98504-7016
Phone / email3609021749 / rex.crawford@wadnr.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem
Short descriptionStandardize and classify riparian and wetland vegetation that provides an ecological framework for fish and wildlife habitat management, restoration, and mitigation in the Columbia Basin of Washington.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
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 1999 costSubcontractor
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 1999 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 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $50,421
Supplies $2,000
Travel $7,000
Subcontractor $0
$59,420
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$59,420
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$59,421
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Objective 3 may be constrainted by gaining access to land needed to adequately sampling the riparian environment. Objective 2 may be constrainted by FGDC adoption of new formalized procedures to review classifications.


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: The proposal states that the existing information is limited and at a coarse scale – need to clearly explain why additional, finer scale information is needed. Need to clearly describe how this information will be used to benefit the watershed.

Management Issue: Need to demonstrate how all the relevant entities (include tribes, conservation districts) are coordinated with.

Technical Issue: Need to explain if this project is related to the ICBEMP, and if the work duplicates other information.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
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 after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The project personnel appear to be competent and capable of the work proposed; however, the proposal fails to place the proposed work into larger contexts of the Fish and Wildlife Program, general land management needs and salmon restoration in the basin. The language seems to indicate at some points that a new integrated riparian/wetland classification system would be developed (in which case the budget seems too light). At other times, it seems to indicate merely that the proposal is for funds to be used by personnel to fit data from Washington State into an existing riparian and wetland database. It is unclear what remains to be done. The proposal is unclear about what pieces of the problem are solved, what remains to be done, and why BPA funding is needed rather than WDNR. The proposed work may indeed be a worthwhile project. However, the proposal fails to adequately and convincingly present enough background, context, and linkages to other activities and needs in the basin to merit approval in its present form.