FY07-09 proposal 200731400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Regional Consolidation of Habitat Restoration Project Information From Multiple Funding Sources with Dissemination Through the StreamNet Website |
| Proposal ID | 200731400 |
| Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
| Short description | Detailed information on habitat restoration projects is maintained by the multiple sources of project funding, but there is currently no way to review consolidated information in a common format. This will obtain data across agencies and disseminate. |
| Information transfer | Data compiled by this project will be incorporated into the StreamNet database and made available via the StreamNet on-line query system at http://www.streamnet.org. As time permits and on request, we will assist data users with conversion of data in the StreamNet format to their own formats. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Mike Banach | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | mike_banach@psmfc.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Bruce Schmidt | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | bruce_schmidt@psmfc.org |
| Bruce Schmidt | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | bruce_schmidt@psmfc.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary focus is data from within the anadromous zone of the Columbia River basin. Data from other areas may be included as a by-product because exclusion of those data could require extra effort. | |||
| Primary focus is data from within the Columbia River basin. Data from other areas may be included as a by-product because exclusion of those data could require extra effort. | |||
| Primary focus is data from within the anadromous zone of the Columbia River basin. Data from other areas may be included as a by-product because exclusion of those data could require extra effort. | |||
| Primary focus is data from within the anadromous zone of the Columbia River basin. Data from other areas may be included as a by-product because exclusion of those data could require extra effort. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Salmonidssecondary: Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198810804 | StreamNet (CIS/NED) | This project will provide extra effort needed to expand the habitat restoration data available from StreamNet. |
| OWEB - State | [no entry] | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) | StreamNet works with OWEB to design a regional database structure for habitat restoration projects data. We also collaborate to make OWEB data available via the StreamNet query system. This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from the OWEB database and other data sources in the region |
| PCSRF - WSRFB | [no entry] | Washington State SRF Board | This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from SRFB's PRISM database and other data sources in the region. |
| Other: PCSRF | PCSRF | Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) | This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from the PCSRF database and other data sources in the region. |
| BPA | [no entry] | Pisces database | This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from BPA's Pisces database and other data sources in the region. |
| Other: MFWP | [no entry] | Montana Future Fisheries Program | This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from MFWP's Future Fisheries database and other data sources in the region. |
| Other: USFWS | [no entry] | Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Partners); Jobs in the Woods (JITW); Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) | This proposal is meant to assist with data sharing to/from these FWS databases and other data sources in the region. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support effective management and restoration | Data consolidation makes information from multiple sources conveniently available in consistent format to managers, researchers and decision makers in support of management and restoration actions. This indirectly supports a variety of biological objectives. | None | Evaluating restoration project effectiveness requires knowledge of actions that have been taken. This project will consolidate information about restoration projects and make the data available in a standard format for planning and evaluation purposes. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submit/Acquire Data | Develop data to track habitat restoration / improvement projects across the many funding entities | Agency partners will compile data from the many sources of such data, including BPA/Pisces, OWEB, Washington SRFB, USDA Forest Service, USDI BLM, Native American tribes, PCSRF, and private entities. Update data annually, converting them to a regionally standardized format. Cooperators will compile, standardize and exchange data on restoration projects funded through the various programs. This will create a single repository in a common format for all data of this kind. These data are currently scattered through a number of databases and individual agencies. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $342,815 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Development of database and data capture tools | Oregon, Washington, and Montana have made significant efforts to develop databases of restoration project data. Idaho does not have a comparable database. For this reason it will be a relatively demanding job for IDFG StreamNet to develop project restoration data. A programmer/database analyst will develop the necessary databases and develop application tools to migrate existing data and capture new data. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $395,925 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate data on restoration projects through agency avenues and by submission to the StreamNet database. | Agency partners will make the collected restoration project data available through agency data outlets and by exchanging the data in standard format to the StreamNet database. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $13,178 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Expenditures by subcontractors in partner agencies | $124,962 | $131,210 | $137,771 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $50,456 | $52,979 | $55,628 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $4,918 | $5,164 | $5,423 |
| Travel | [blank] | $1,410 | $1,481 | $1,555 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $56,768 | $59,606 | $62,587 |
| Totals | $238,514 | $250,440 | $262,964 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $751,918 |
| Total work element budget: | $751,918 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $276,112 FY 2011 estimated budget: $276,112 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: Maintenance of the data collected should occur in perpetuity. Because the data will be managed as part of the StreamNet database, future cost to maintain the data specifically collected under this project should be essentially zero. Costs for annual updates in the future, should they occur, could be less than annual costs shown here because data sources would already be known and data capture tools may already exist. Potential measurable costs in the future may result from changes in database structure or standards that would require data conversions, but none are anticipated at this time.
Termination date: none
Comments: This should be a long term committment to maintain and update data on restoration projects as long as they are being performed.
Final deliverables: Quarterly and annual reports for this project will be provided as part of the main StreamNet reports. Data sets created under this project will be available from the StreamNet web site at www.streamnet.org. Data would be updated at least annually.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The proposal is sparse in details so justification for the benefits of the proposed work is difficult to assess. It would seem that this could be useful, but it is unclear how much the consolidated web site would be used and what provisions there are for quality control. Although we recommended this type of an effort as needed in the systemwide/province review, this proposal doesn't adequately describe the problem or how the project would address the problem. The proposal does not adequately describe how this project would relate to the other monitoring programs. It is not clear whether this project would depend on others for developing standard protocols or whether this project would develop and require standardization. The overall objective is to obtain data across agencies and disseminate them. It is not clear what the timeline will be. Work elements are described in very general form. Needed is more detail on what type of data, a framework for data capture, or specifics on how "cooperators will compile, standardize and exchange data." What is their incentive to collaborate and standardize? How well documented are the existing data, enough to allow standardization? There is reference to what agency cooperators will do but not a clear distinction between what will be done within agencies and what will be done by this project. Not enough information is provided to evaluate the adequacy of facilities, equipment, and personnel, so it is not possible to discern if personnel have the appropriate expertise to conduct this project. The proposal states that new personnel will be hired for these tasks, but justification is lacking. Percent of time by project management personnel is not identified.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The proposal is sparse in details so justification for the benefits of the proposed work is difficult to assess. It would seem that this could be useful, but it is unclear how much the consolidated web site would be used and what provisions there are for quality control. Although we recommended this type of an effort as needed in the systemwide/province review, this proposal doesn't adequately describe the problem or how the project would address the problem. The proposal does not adequately describe how this project would relate to the other monitoring programs. It is not clear whether this project would depend on others for developing standard protocols or whether this project would develop and require standardization. The overall objective is to obtain data across agencies and disseminate them. It is not clear what the timeline will be. Work elements are described in very general form. Needed is more detail on what type of data, a framework for data capture, or specifics on how "cooperators will compile, standardize and exchange data." What is their incentive to collaborate and standardize? How well documented are the existing data, enough to allow standardization? There is reference to what agency cooperators will do but not a clear distinction between what will be done within agencies and what will be done by this project. Not enough information is provided to evaluate the adequacy of facilities, equipment, and personnel, so it is not possible to discern if personnel have the appropriate expertise to conduct this project. The proposal states that new personnel will be hired for these tasks, but justification is lacking. Percent of time by project management personnel is not identified.