FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22026

Additional documents

TitleType
22026 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleColumbia Basin Interactive Watershed Atlas
Proposal ID22026
OrganizationSmart Map Imaging (SMI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJoel Haugen
Mailing address52363 Jobin Lane Scappoose, OR 97056
Phone / email5035436879 / jhaugen@columbia-center.org
Manager authorizing this projectJoel Haugen
Review cycleFY 2001 Innovative
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionAn 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 speciesAll Fish & Wildlife
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 $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
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001

Comment:

Agree with ISRP comments.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001

Comment:

Agree with ISRP comments.