FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22019

Additional documents

TitleType
Essa Technologies Corporate Experience Narrative Attachment
22019 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleUse a Multi-Watershed Approach to Increase the Rate of Learning from Columbia Basin Watershed Restoration Projects
Proposal ID22019
OrganizationESSA Technologies Ltd. (ESSA)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid Marmorek
Mailing address300 - 1765 W. 8th Ave. Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6J 5C6
Phone / email6047332996 / dmarmorek@essa.com
Manager authorizing this projectDavid Marmorek
Review cycleFY 2001 Innovative
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionCompile and compare data from restoration projects in multiple watersheds to enhance the rate of learning about effects of watershed restoration programs on aquatic populations and optimize design of future restoration projects and associated monitoring.
Target speciesAnadromous fish, resident fish
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.75 $227,436
Fringe included in Personnel costs $0
Supplies Supplies $1,000
Travel Travel to workshops, technical meetings $21,000
Subcontractor # of tags: Statistical Advisor $12,600
Other USFWS $30,000
Communications, Workshop costs $3,000
$295,036
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$295,036
Total FY 2001 budget request$295,036
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
IDFG Data collection, technical advice and review $30,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
13; Yes - B
Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This proposal is somewhat innovative in that it applies existing techniques to a new situation: the comparison of watershed restoration performance. It treats the many different watershed projects as a multi-watershed experiment from which lessons can be learned even though controls are missing. This project would serve a valuable role in the basin in providing a unique and potentially valuable analysis of restoration projects and would provide useful information for subsequent project management. A significant contribution would seem to be the continuation of the PATH Experimental Management philosophy in evaluation of watershed restoration procedures. The PIs are well qualified, and clearly have a grasp of FWP issues and the contents of ISRP reports. The sponsor demonstrates understanding of the role of experimental design, randomization, sampling units, etc. that is required in order to compare alternatives in watershed restoration projects, but does not provide detail on the statistical analysis to be performed. The proposal is presented as a multiyear project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001

Comment:

CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposal's inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. This information will be necessary for subbasin planning and M+E activities in the future. (AFC)

Although this project would be useful, the concept does not appear to be innovative. In addition, the goal would likely not be achieved within the allotted time period. Coordinating regional activities as expressed in the proposal take many years to achieve. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001

Comment:

CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposal's inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. This information will be necessary for subbasin planning and M+E activities in the future. (AFC)

Although this project would be useful, the concept does not appear to be innovative. In addition, the goal would likely not be achieved within the allotted time period. Coordinating regional activities as expressed in the proposal take many years to achieve. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)