FY 2000 proposal 20069

Additional documents

TitleType
20069 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleInnovation Proposal Fund: Construct fuzzy logic decision support system for watershed assessments in Oregon
Proposal ID20069
OrganizationE&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTimothy Sullivan
Mailing addressP.O. Box 609 Corvallis, OR 97339
Phone / email5417585777 / tsullivan@proaxis.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionDevelop a knowledge-based decision support software system that will interface with output from watershed assessments based on the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The fuzzy logic system will classify stream reaches according to water and habitat qual
Target speciessteelhead, salmon, resident 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $20,382
Fringe $9,783
Supplies $1,944
Operating $2,592
Travel $3,888
Indirect $20,618
Other Fee (6%) $5,660
Subcontractor $35,134
$99,995
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$99,995
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$100,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
BPA $100,000 unknown
GWEB $54,325 unknown
Total project cost (including BPA portion) $154,325 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. We recommend resubmitting the proposal in FY2001 with a better description of the project's relationship to existing work in the Fish and Wildlife Program, better programmatic justification and correction of other deficiencies noted below. (innovative)

Comments: This proposal is to assist Watershed Councils in performing watershed assessments through the development of a standard methodology for integrating assessment results, prioritizing restoration and monitoring the effectiveness of restoration activities. The product would be decision support software. The proposal presents an excellent description of the technical and scientific problems facing watershed councils. The decision support software is an interesting idea that has potential efficiencies in putting the science and technical information in the hands of watershed council members who have to prioritize activities. The project would fit well within the idea of "innovative" grants.

Fuzzy logic is a widely accepted analytical approach to decision making in cases where criteria are ambiguous. It provides a set of rules for evaluating decision pathways based on membership in sets called fuzzy sets. This approach should be highly appropriate to the purpose intended; helping watershed councils reach decisions with incomplete or ambiguous information. However, assertions about the need for precision in model-based approaches using simulation and statistical methods are not supported. Hence, the proposal does not provide evidence that rule-based decision support systems are superior. The need for this approach is not justified adequately. In addition, the proposal's relation to the Fish and Wildlife Program, connections to other research and the likelihood of benefiting fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin all need to be strengthened.

The proposal also lacks a specific example of a successful application of fuzzy logic to problems as complex as those of watershed management. That the products of the application would actually produce positive results for a watershed council in Oregon is possible, but reviewers are given no basis for evaluating the probability of success. Other than the development of a software product, the proposal is silent on what a successful application would look like. Many possibilities are described, but no specific outcomes that could be used to gauge the success of the project are presented. The applicant is asking the funding agency to bear all risks for this knowledge engineering application.

The proposal has a low likelihood of benefiting fish and wildlife in Oregon because it has not been tested as a pilot program at the expense of the proposer and the intended recipient, the State of Oregon GWEB (acronym used but never defined in the proposal). It is a promising technique but there is no way to judge based on the information presented in the proposal how long this would take in order to be successful, if that is possible. The authors should also use less jargon in the proposal and explain what they propose in terms that readers will understand.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This project is more appropriate for funding as part of the Multi-Species Framework which is not part of the direct budget process. Focus of work is not based in the Columbia Basin.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

It is not appropriate to rely solely on the output of this model to make management decisions.

The BPA/ NPPC mitigation program is not the appropriate source of funding.

Proposal exceeds the page limit.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];