Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Columbia Gorge Ecoprovince |
| Proposal ID | 21005 |
| Organization | Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Chris Kiilsgaard |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 855 Corvallis, Oregon 97339-0855 |
| Phone / email | 5417532199 / chris@nwhi.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Thomas O'Neil |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile |
| Short description | Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Inter-Mountain Ecoprovince will produce critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlife-habitat relationships process. |
| Target species | All wildlife species that could potentially occur within the sub-basin with a special emphasis to those species associated with (directly or indirectly) with salmon. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.44 |
-121.16 |
Fifteenmile subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
Completed for Oregon Fish and Wildlife 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 the Northwest Power Planning Council Wildlife-Habitat Type maps depicting Current and Historic Conditions of the Columbia River Basin |
| 2000 |
Completed for Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife a statewide map of Washington's Wildlife-Habitat Types
Published a 800 page book and CD-ROM about Wildlife-Habitats Relationships in Oregon and Washington
|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 2000742 |
Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish & Wildlife for Sub-Basin Planning |
A refined map would depict with greater accuracy those areas where ecological functions are thought to have increased or decreased. Maintaining ecological funcitons is identified in the Framework Process. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Produce a fine-scale map assessing current wildlife habitat types and structural conditions within the Intermountain Sub-basin |
a. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent wildlife-habitats type |
.20 |
$17,835 |
|
|
b. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent structural conditions |
.20 |
$17,835 |
|
|
c. Validate mapping classifications via field visits |
.05 |
$5,016 |
|
| 2. Produce a written sub-basin assessment relating wildlife to wildlife-habitat types and structural conditions depicted by the mapping. |
a. Using the wildlife-habitat relationships data set (that is part of the Framework Process), write an assessment of the wildlife resource based on the current conditions mapped. |
.20 |
$17,835 |
|
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 |
FTE: .65 |
$31,360 |
| Fringe |
30% |
$13,440 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
15 days of travel/per diem: $55/night lodging, $30/day food, $0.31 milage |
$2,394 |
| Indirect |
24% |
$11,327 |
| $58,521 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $58,521 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $58,521 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Northwest Habitat Institute |
2 Landsat Thematic Mapper Scenes |
$1,400 |
in-kind |
| Northwest Habitat Institute |
Global Position Satellite tracking unit, lap-top computer, and software to field verify satellite imagery classification |
$8,100 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable if three conditions are met 1) a regional need by resource managers is demonstrated and 2) the ground truth methods are presented in more detail, and 3) the maps to be generated are specified as a deliverable to the funding agency rather than a product that NHI may own and sell. Further, the ISRP questions whether objective 2 should be included. This might better be left to local resource managers to evaluate with direct, primary local data. A response is needed that provides sufficient information before the project could be recommended for funding.
Overall evaluation. The proposers appear competent for completion of the project. Except for field testing, the proposal appears to provide adequate technical background and justification, however it's not written for reviewers who are not expert in GIS. The proposal does not refer to any sub basin plan objective, only asserts that "planning requires a finer resolution of mapping than what [sic] currently exists", the objectives are not measurable with respect to wildlife restoration. The proposal indicates that it would build on previous work and emphasizes information transfer. However, the direct benefits to fish and wildlife and relationship to other projects are not explained. The usefulness of resulting maps to resource managers is not demonstrated, and resource managers in the Province have not been asked to support the project. Proposed methods for monitoring and evaluation of the utility of the classification maps are lacking.
Specific comments and questions.
- The field-based ground truth task is not presented in sufficient detail. Procedures for defining strata, selection of random points within strata, and methods for dealing with access problems should be presented. For example, will the number of random points which could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground truthed in the field? What is the procedure for determining the number of random field points to be visited in each class? What is the criterion and sample size to have an accuracy of 75% on each class? Will the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval be required to be above 0.75? It was stated during the oral presentation that if the criteria are failed for some class, then a completely new random sample of points from that class would be visited in the field? We would like to see this commitment more clearly expressed in the proposal. Will the field-testing be conducted blind, i.e., will field personnel not know the "office classification" before they visit a random point in the field? What are the criteria for identification of each of the 32 classes when the biologist is standing at a random point in the field?
- Are this proposal and its sister proposal in the Inter-Mountain Province the initial proposals to map the entire Columbia Basin at this scale? Is there a Columbia Basin wide need for vegetation maps at this scale? Will there be any cost savings to other Provinces if this proposal is funded? Perhaps a pilot project should be funded to demonstrate the utility of the project.
- The maps and resulting classifications should not be viewed as primary data. The mapping project uses primary data from the current Landsat Thematic Mapper, but classifications are derived and are subject to change in the future based on a different procedure.
These comments and recommendations mirror those for the Inter-Mountain proposal, #21006.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
This project is being funded under the EDT component of the NWPPC assessment effort. If expansion of the project is necessary, that expansion should be determined and funded under the EDT development process. Not appropriate to fund with wildlife funds. The Wildlife Committee also has concerns over data access based on past experience. This project provides very interesting information, however, the application of the information for management decisions is unclear. This information will be very useful for watershed assessment work. Currently accessibility to this information is not widely known.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Fundable as amended. The technical difficulties were adequately resolved in the response. If funded, we would recommend that the field validation be conducted in a 'blind' study and that they report the percent of the original target of, say 75, random points in each habitat type that was not accessed during field validation of the map.
The response did not contain a direct expression of a need by the fish and wildlife managers at a regional level. For example, there were no letters of support from the fish and wildlife project managers, although participants at the subbasin meetings were supportive and expressed that they would use the maps. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that if habitat mapping at the proposed scale is primarily to be used for the EDT component of the NWPPC habitat assessment process, then the project should be endorsed by those using EDT and perhaps funded through the EDT development process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment: