FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22049

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
22049 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Determine The Feasibility of Combining LIDAR, Computer Modeling, and GIS Techniques To Develop Effective Habitat Actions at the Watershed Scale
Proposal ID	22049
Organization	Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. and the Yakama Indian Nation (MBI and YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Lars E. Mobrand
Mailing address	PO Box 724 Vashon, WA 98070
Phone / email	2064635003 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Kathryn Mobrand
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description	Investigate the feasibility of combining a remote sensing system (LIDAR), landscape computer modeling, and GIS techniques to conduct rapid watershed analysis, and place effective habitat actions on the landscape.
Target species	All salmonids

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.73	-120.67	Yakima subbasin

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		$225,000
Fringe	labor is fully burdened	$0
Supplies		$163,000
		$388,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$388,000
Total FY 2001 budget request	$388,000

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - B

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

LIDAR data would be collected in the North Fork Teanaway River to identify channel and streamside vegetation characteristics. This is one of three proposals 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 – it isn't clear in the proposal how the data would be used, or what the "pilot" nature of the project would be. Various models (wood delivery potential, landslide modeling, stream temperature) would be used, but there would be no attempt to demonstrate transferability to other sites. The $130k allocated for LIDAR data acquisition is expensive relative to other proposals. The proposed schedule that includes five years for modeling could be more consistent with a proof of the principle approach, which is oriented towards shorter projects.