Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Strategies For Riparian Recovery: Plant Succession & Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 9141 |
| Organization | Oregon State University (OSU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Judith L. Li |
| Mailing address | Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife; 104 Nash Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3503 |
| Phone / email | 5417371093 / judith.li@orst.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Umatilla |
| Short description | Determines the role of riparian plant diversity, structure and density on fish diet and habitat. Examines temporal and spatial dynamics of riparian inputs, particularly cottonwood and willow, and their use by aquatic biota (invertebrates, salmonids). |
| 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 |
Includes 6 Principal Investigators, 5 graduate students, and research assistants |
$148,449 |
| Fringe |
Varies depending on position |
$32,276 |
| Supplies |
Field equipment, office supplies, laboratory costs etc. |
$18,018 |
| Capital |
Microscope; flow meter, fluorometer |
$16,000 |
| Travel |
Fieldwork (Corvallis - E. Oregon); presentations at meetings |
$27,500 |
| Indirect |
43% of costs |
$108,035 |
| Subcontractor |
Snowy Butte Helicopters Inc. |
$25,000 |
| Other |
|
$26,400 |
| $401,678 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $401,678 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $401,678 |
| 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: No major constraints;
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: Within a watershed context.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This study covers a key area of needed research because it focuses on ecological management of riparian zones. The proposal's drawback was that it was not well integrated with other projects and its relation to the Fish and Wildlife Program was not clearly stated. Return to the River calls for food web studies, but the proposal did not clearly relate to Return to the River. Studies of the dynamics of fish community needed more detail. In spite of these shortcomings, the ISRP strongly recommends this project for funding.