FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22024

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
22024 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Alternative Futures and Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River
Proposal ID	22024
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	David H. Johnson
Mailing address	600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email	3609022603 / johnsdhj@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project	Dr. Tim Quinn, Chief Scientist - Habitat Program
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Lower Columbia / Lewis
Short description	Characterize human build-out scenerios and commensurate impacts on land use/aquatic systems with a focus on examining impacts to salmonids, nutrients, and the "4-Hs" in the lower Columbia River region of WA over the timeframe of 2000-2050, inclusive.
Target species	Project will focus on overall aquatic habitat conditions, with a focus on chinook, steelhead, coho, and chum.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.01	-122.2	Lewis subbasin

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

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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1.0	$55,000
Fringe	-	$0
Supplies	computer & software; GIS supplies	$15,000
Travel	milage/lodging; trips for staff and county planners	$10,000
Indirect	WDFW rate of 25%	$20,000
Capital	na	$0
PIT tags	na	$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: Northwest Habitat Institute: $40K Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board $15K Mobrand, Inc. $45K	$100,000
Other	na	$0
		$200,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$200,000
Total FY 2001 budget request	$200,000

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
WA Dept. of Transportation	0.9 FTE	$50,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

The EDT model constitutes the marginally innovative portion of this proposal. This project would be the model's first application to aquatic systems. The model would project types of human population growth and their impacts on land use and aquatic systems in the lower Columbia River. The proposal presents an interesting idea but fails to present detail on methods, the application of results, and information transfer. Given the type of information that the project is intended to produce there should be much more emphasis placed on the use to which the information will be put, the means by which it will be provided to those who will make planning decisions, and how the data would be made available and preserved. The project is not new to the Columbia Basin. In the sponsor's words "A robust alternative futures project is currently underway in the Willamette Valley of Oregon…."