FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22026

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
22026 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Columbia Basin Interactive Watershed Atlas
Proposal ID	22026
Organization	Smart Map Imaging (SMI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Joel Haugen
Mailing address	52363 Jobin Lane Scappoose, OR 97056
Phone / email	5035436879 / jhaugen@columbia-center.org
Manager authorizing this project	Joel Haugen
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	An Interactive Atlas of the Columbia Basin Watershed System on DVD that incorporates 1-Meter Color Imagery, subbasin data, activities to stimulate local preservation/enhancement projects, and public GIS data. 250 teachers in region would Beta test.
Target species	All Fish & Wildlife

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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: 1.75	$105,000
Fringe	35% of 105,000	$36,750
Supplies	10,000 SQ KM 1-Meter satellite imagery, DVD's and Portable Projector Lease, Workshop Costs.	$145,000
Travel	30 Educator Workshops in Region	$5,300
Indirect	Depreciation and Facility Costs	$5,000
Capital	none	$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: GIS Consultant/Atlas Consultant (625 Hrs), Macro-media (50 Hrs), Repay USFW Workshop Hrs (200 Hrs)	$43,375
Other	Educator Honoraria	$50,000
		$390,425

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$390,425
Total FY 2001 budget request	$390,425

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USFW	Workshops and Activity Development Services over the course of the project is estimated at 300 hours @ $30/Hour	$9,000	in-kind
State and Federal Agencies	GIS and Research Resources	$0	in-kind
250 Basin Educators	Classroom/Community Activities - assumes that each educator would use the Atlas a minimum of 50 hours with students/community	$500,000	in-kind
Local Watershed Organizations	Resource Materials	$0	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:
Not Innovative

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

The panel felt that this proposal, which would provide educators and other public with an electronic atlas of the Columbia Basin watershed system, is not innovative in the sense required by the RFP. Although the proposal outlines a plan, via a series of workshops, to define a product, and subsequently to test it in classrooms, it does not indicate how the final product would be distributed. More importantly, it simply isn't clear that the project would have enough benefits to FWP to justify funding. Furthermore, there are some technical questions as to the source of the data (why is 1 m resolution satellite data necessary, and what would the source be?? – the only imagery of which the panel is aware at this resolution comes from classified sources. Perhaps the proposer means 1 km, at which resolution many land cover products are available?). Finally, the duration of the project isn't specified, nor is the source of funding that would be needed to maintain the product beyond the project period. The panel noted double counting in the cost-share calculation where a value is placed on the use of the final product in classrooms.