Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Real Time Data Loggers for Monitoring Climate Conditions within a Riparian System |
| Proposal ID | 22027 |
| Organization | EcoTec |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Fara Currim |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 188 Tygh Valley, Oregon 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5419801336 / fara@centurytel.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Irl "Mike" Davis |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Stream temperature, air temperature and light sensoring ability within one rugged yet disposable data logger will allow for riparian habitats to be be monitored in real time |
| Target species | Anadramous and resident fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 |
|
$160,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$48,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$25,220 |
| Travel |
|
$10,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$17,500 |
| $261,220 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $261,220 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $261,220 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| EcoTec |
Office space, office equipment |
$15,000 |
cash |
| AD Electronics |
Lab Equipment |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| RC&D (EDN) |
Local community information group |
$5,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Yes - C
Date:
Dec 15, 2000
Comment:
This is marginally innovative. The proposal would develop a multi-channel data logger including capability for light measurements of riparian cover. In fact much of the project would be to develop remote measurement for light penetration of riparian vegetation. While such data might be of some use in a few situations, and their real-time aspect would be valuable, they represent a single site. The panel felt streamside surveys or remote imagery would allow better spatial information and therefore be of greater utility to fish and wildlife researchers and managers. Further, no evidence was provided that the product could only be developed if the proposal were funded.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001
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.
Agree with ISRP comments. (AFC)
Project appears to be for product development within incorporated company operated for profit. (RFC)
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 17, 2001
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.
Agree with ISRP comments. (AFC)
Project appears to be for product development within incorporated company operated for profit. (RFC)