FY 2000 proposal 20069
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 20069 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Innovation Proposal Fund: Construct fuzzy logic decision support system for watershed assessments in Oregon |
| Proposal ID | 20069 |
| Organization | E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Timothy Sullivan |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 609 Corvallis, OR 97339 |
| Phone / email | 5417585777 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop 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 species | steelhead, salmon, resident fish, wildlife |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
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.
Comment:
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.Technically Sound? No
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.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];