Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Classify Riparian and Wetland Vegetation in the Columbia Basin of Wash. |
| Proposal ID | 9089 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program (WDNR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Rex C. Crawford |
| Mailing address | Dept. Natural Resources, Forest Resources, P.O. Box 47016 Olympia, WA 98504-7016 |
| Phone / email | 3609021749 / rex.crawford@wadnr.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Standardize 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
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.