FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22048
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 22048 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Integrate Physical and Biological Assessment Models |
| Proposal ID | 22048 |
| Organization | Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. (MBI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lars E. Mobrand, Ph.D. |
| Mailing address | PO Box 724 Vashon, WA 98070 |
| Phone / email | 2064635003 / lars@mobrand.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kathryn A. Mobrand |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / |
| Short description | Develop and demonstrate the feasibility of one or more advanced tools for bridging physical and biological models that incorporate revolutionary computing approaches, including fuzzy logic, neural networks, and genetic algorithms. |
| Target species | Steelhead and chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.92 | -119.35 | Columbia Plateau province |
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: labor figure is fully burdened with labor overhead and general & administrative costs | $45,400 |
| Travel | $1,500 | |
| Subcontractor | $50,000 | |
| $96,900 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $96,900 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $96,900 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This procedure meets the criteria for innovative research, because the mathematical procedures have not been used for modeling interrelationships of physical and biological parameters in the Columbia Basin. However, the proposal is not particularly well written, relying heavily on jargon without contextual explanation, and being short on methodological detail. The application to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program is not adequately explained. The methodology is not new and has been under development for over 20 years in the mathematical journals. Questions and concerns: ? Should this project be funded through the Framework process? It is essentially an enhancement to the EDT method. ? How would the effectiveness of this project be monitored and evaluated? ? A clear description in simple English is needed of how the model will be tested to see whether it matches reality. ? The research team seems rather short on demonstrated research achievements through published research in established peer reviewed journals.Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. The need to conduct this work is not clear. The extension of EDT should not be viewed as innovative. (RFC)Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. The need to conduct this work is not clear. The extension of EDT should not be viewed as innovative. (RFC)