FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27006

Additional documents

TitleType
27006 Narrative Narrative
27006 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEstablishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning
Proposal ID27006
OrganizationNorthwest Habitat Institute in collaboration with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (NHI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameThomas O'Neil
Mailing addressP.O. Box 855 Corvallis, OR 97339
Phone / email5417532199 / habitat@nwhi.org
Manager authorizing this projectThomas O'Neil
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionThis project will develop key ecological function information and species range maps for 133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the Columbia River Basin.
Target species133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the Columbia River Basin.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.52 -117.76 This proposal will cover all 62 subbasins within the Columbia River Basinincluding the 4 subbasins that comprise the Blue Mountain Province.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1998 Completed for USGS-Biological Resources Division: GAP Analysis Program a statewide map of Oregon Vegetation - Landscape Level Cover Types
1998 Completed for Oregon Fish and Wildlife a fine scale map (2 ac. miniimum mapping unit) of the Willamette Valley
1999 Completed for Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife a statewide map of Washington's Wildlife-Habitat Types
2000 Completed for the Northwest Power Planning Council Wildlife-Habitat Type maps depicting Current and Historic Conditions of the Columbia River Basin
2001 Co-developed and published a 736-page book and CD-ROM about Wildlife-Habitats Relationships in Oregon and Washington.
2001 Completed in conjunction with the British Columbia Ministry of Forests the first International Wildlife-Habitat Types map that depicts the entire Columbia River Basin in
2001 As of September 2001, we will have completed the first phase of this project: Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
1525 Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning Phase 1 of this project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
Objective 1. Complete the Integration of Data Developed by the Scientific Panel for Fish Key Ecological Functions (KEFs), Fish Habitat Elements, and Fish Management Activities into the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships Matrices. Task A. Gather and Compile scientifc panel information. >.1 $2,000
Task B.Develop the data formats, fields, lookup table to reconstruct the fish and wildlife data into a more manageable and efficient format. .75 $48,200
Task C. Convert the scientific panels information into the new data format. .1 $4,400
Objective 2. Develop Basin-wide Species Range Maps Based on Historic and Current Habitat Conditions for 133 Fish and 474 Wildlife Species at a Watershed Level. Task A.Acquire species occurrence at the county or watershed level for each of the 7 states in the Columbia River Basin. >.1 $2,500
B)Develop a relational data set that combines species occurrence with habitat types and breeding activity .1 $6,200
C)Develop in a GIS formats .15 $7,500
D)Edit and correct maps 1.5 $58,500
E)Oversee the review of maps .4 $18,000
F) Finalize maps .1 $6,200
Objective 3. Conduct for Each Subbasin an Ecological Function Assessments to Identify Community Functional Patterns, Geographic Patterns, Species’ Functional Roles, and Functional Responses of Communities by Using Basin-wide Species Range Maps. A)Create a species list for each subbasin $0
B)Determine functional redundancy .15 $0
C)Determine functional profiles .15 $0
D)Determine functional bottlenecks, cold and hot spots, and functional linkages .15 $0
F)Determine imperiled functions .15 $0
Objective 4. Disseminate Findings on the Internet and Quarterly Reporting A) Develop digital formats for dissemination via the Internet .2 $0
B)Create the necessary computer programs .1 $0
C)Write 8 quarterly reports .2 $0
D) Write final report .33 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 2. Develop Basin-wide Species Range Maps Based on Historic and Current Habitat Conditions for 133 Fish and 474 Wildlife Species at a Watershed Level. 2002 2003 $51,800
Objective 3. Conduct for Each Subbasin an Ecological Function Assessments to Identify Community Functional Patterns, Geographic Patterns, Species’ Functional Roles, and Functional Responses of Communities by Using Basin-wide Species Range Maps. 2003 2003 $42,500
Objective 4. Disseminate Findings on the Internet and Quarterly Reporting 2002 2003 $55,200
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003
$149,500

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 2.5 $73,707
Fringe 30% $22,112
Supplies 1-computer $5,215
Travel 5 meetings @.31/mile; plus per diem $950
Indirect 26% $26,516
Subcontractor Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife $25,000
$153,500
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$153,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$153,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. This project proposes to evaluate key ecological functions of species and species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that functional richness and functional redundancy can be assessed from the information base they have gathered or will compile. Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and of redundancy versus uniqueness of species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has obvious implications for management. However, the current proposal is unlikely to provide information of a quality that could reasonably be used for management.

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as a baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the PI and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in the earlier stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more consistent mapping. Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their application in the estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague about which ongoing work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information supporting the project but does not summarize that information. It does not specify relationship to projects other than to its predecessor BPA project; surely the project proponents could establish the utility of the KEF work they propose in terms of its usefulness to other researchers? The project history would be another place that the utility of results to managers and researchers could be demonstrated. The potential utility of the approach would be further strengthened if the proponents submitted the work for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives are well specified but it does not seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes across different contexts on the basis of species lists.

The information to be used to assess ecological function is very general (e.g., an animal might be described as an herbivore that carries vertebrate diseases and that physically affects soil structure) and does not consider strength or even presence of a functional role for a species in a particular area. These "key ecological functions" might provide a useful thumbnail sketch of basic ecological traits of a species, but species effects in ecosystems have often been shown to be very context-specific. The project will not use or gather any primary data on ecological function. Given the many ecological studies that show different functional roles for the same species in different communities or under different environmental conditions, this approach seems inherently flawed. Further, the data (species distributions) needed for such a project are not available for many species in many areas. Both lack of data and poor data quality are likely to be major problems for early steps of the analysis. The alternate source of distributional information - projecting presence of animals from habitat data - introduces circularity into the process and must add significant error to the resulting distribution maps and species lists.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Although the reviewers suggest that the knowledge of species functions in ecosystems is important and has potential management implications, the reviewers question whether the information that would be developed could be used for management purposes. The managers expressed a concern about the lack of coordination. It may be appropriate for the Regional Assessment Advisory Committee to review this proposal.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. This project proposes to evaluate key ecological functions of species and species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that functional richness and functional redundancy can be assessed from the information base they have gathered or will compile. Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and of redundancy versus uniqueness of species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has obvious implications for management. However, the current proposal is unlikely to provide information of a quality that could reasonably be used for management.

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as a baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the PI and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in the earlier stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more consistent mapping. Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their application in the estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague about which ongoing work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information supporting the project but does not summarize that information. It does not specify relationship to projects other than to its predecessor BPA project; surely the project proponents could establish the utility of the KEF work they propose in terms of its usefulness to other researchers? The project history would be another place that the utility of results to managers and researchers could be demonstrated. The potential utility of the approach would be further strengthened if the proponents submitted the work for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives are well specified but it does not seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes across different contexts on the basis of species lists.

The information to be used to assess ecological function is very general (e.g., an animal might be described as an herbivore that carries vertebrate diseases and that physically affects soil structure) and does not consider strength or even presence of a functional role for a species in a particular area. These "key ecological functions" might provide a useful thumbnail sketch of basic ecological traits of a species, but species effects in ecosystems have often been shown to be very context-specific. The project will not use or gather any primary data on ecological function. Given the many ecological studies that show different functional roles for the same species in different communities or under different environmental conditions, this approach seems inherently flawed. Further, the data (species distributions) needed for such a project are not available for many species in many areas. Both lack of data and poor data quality are likely to be major problems for early steps of the analysis. The alternate source of distributional information - projecting presence of animals from habitat data - introduces circularity into the process and must add significant error to the resulting distribution maps and species lists.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: