FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22059

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
Heat Source Methodology	Narrative Attachment
22059 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Using LIDAR technology for improved riparian vegetation monitoring and stream system water temperature modeling and TMDL development.
Proposal ID	22059
Organization	Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dale A. Mccullough
Mailing address	729 NE Oregon St., Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232
Phone / email	5032380667 / mccd@critfc.org
Manager authorizing this project	Phillip Roger
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Project is oriented to high quality, geographically extensive, riparian tree data acquisition allowing efficient water temperature modeling and analysis of riparian tree height and cover, key fish habitat quality parameters.
Target species	all salmonids

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		$48,243
Fringe		$12,583
Supplies		$13,200
Travel		$12,598
Indirect		$31,964
Subcontractor		$25,365
Other		$256,016
		$399,969

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$399,969
Total FY 2001 budget request	$399,969

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
ODEQ	FLIR; $250/mile x 125 miles/basin x 2 basins	$62,500	in-kind
	Veg. assessments; $50/mile x 125 miles/basis x2 basins	$25,000	in-kind
	Ground level data collection; 80-100 sites/subbasin; $15/site; $20/h; 2 subbasins	$80,000	in-kind
		$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:
Yes - B

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This is one of three proposals (22049 and 22050 are the others) that would make use of LIDAR (airborne laser altimetry) data to obtain detailed information (vertical resolution tens of cm, horizontal resolutions in meters) about streamside vegetation, channel cross-sections, and channel slopes. This is not the best proposal in the group of three. The proposal is not well written, and in particular lacks a clear plan of work. The proposers note that LIDAR data are expensive, but they do not suggest how it might be possible to extend the work beyond a relatively small site without more (expensive) flights. How important is the high resolution topographic data, as compared with streamside vegetation characterization? Would they be better off using high-resolution visible-band remote sensing data? What are the "economically feasible efficient sampling protocols" that are promised? Finally, the budget is confusing.