FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28003

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCharacterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins within the Mountain Snake Province
Proposal ID28003
OrganizationNorthwest Habitat Institute (NHI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameThomas O'Neil
Mailing addressP.O. Box 855 Corvallis, Oregon 97339-0855
Phone / email5417532199 / chris@nwhi.org
Manager authorizing this projectChris Kiilsgaard
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionFine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Mountain Snake Province will provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is called for in the 2 subbasin summaries and is consistent with the NWPPC 's Subbasin Planning process.
Target speciesAll wildlife spcies that could potentially occur with the subbasin with a special emphasis for those species closely associated with riparian and wetland habitats and have a direct, or indirect relationship with resident and anadromous fish populations.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
The proposal will create wildlife habitat maps, digital data bases, and wildlife distribution models for the 2 subbasins that comprise the Mountain Snake Province
45.56 -115.36 Mountain Snake province
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 153

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's Forest Service the first International Wildlife-Habitat Types map that depicts the entire Columbia River Basin.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
2000742 Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish & Wildlife for Sub-Basin Planning An ecoprovince fine-scale habitat map would depict with greater accuracy areas where key ecological functions are increasing or decreasing. Baseline key ecological functions are an important omponent of NWPPC's Subbasin Planning Process.
21005 Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Columbia Gorge Ecoprovince This project is for refined mapping at a sub-basin level and when completed will give a fine scale ecoprovince map. This ecoprovince map can then be compared with the Mountain Snake map when it is done and eventually can build into a basin perspective
21006 Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Inter Mountain Ecoprovince This project is for refined mapping at a sub-basin level and when completed will give a fine scale ecoprovince map. This ecoprovince map can then be compared with the Mountain Snake map when it is done and eventually can build into a basin perspective
24007 Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Mountain Columbia Ecoprovince This project is for refined mapping at a sub-basin level and when completed will give a fine scale ecoprovince map. This ecoprovince map can then be compared with the Mountain Snake map when it is done and eventually can build into a basin perspective
25098 Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince This project is for refined mapping at a sub-basin level and when completed will give a fine scale ecoprovince map. This ecoprovince map can then be compared with the Mountain Snake map when it is done and eventually can build into a basin perspective

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Data Development Collect, compile, and process revelant Landsat and GIS data .3 $16,875
2. Determine mappable structural conditions Establish field test to determine what structural conditions are mappable in an efficient and accurate manner .3 $22,500
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
1. Produce a fine-scale map assessing current wildlife habitat types and structural conditions within the Mountain Snake Subbasins a. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent wildlife-habitats type 4.0 $95,320
b. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent structural conditions 4.0 $95,320
c. Validate mapping classifications via field visits 4.0 $145,920
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 NWPPC's Subbasin Planning Process), write an assessment of the wildlife resource based on the current conditions mapped. .6 $0
b. Develop metadata for each sub-basin's wildlife-habitat map .1 $0
c. Post data and findings at the web site .1 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Task A, B, and C we would envision that 25% of Task A, B, & C would be completed in 2002; 30% in 2003; 30% in 2004; and 15% in 2005. 2003 2005 $849,236
2. The Tasks needed to completed this object require Objective 1 to be completed. As the subbasins are completed then Task C would be done. We would envision that 50% would be completed in 2004 with the remaining 50% in 2005. 2003 2005 $55,200
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$363,854$378,408$162,174

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 $126,130
Fringe 30% $54,055
Supplies $9,200
Travel 90 days: $55/nights lodging, $30/day food, $0.31 mileage, $600/hr helicopter $39,400
Indirect 26% $77,150
Subcontractor Assistance with Landsat Classification and Validation $70,000
$375,935
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$375,935
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$375,935
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Northwest Habitat Institute 11 Landsat Thematic Mapper Scenes $6,600 cash
Northwest Habitat Institute Global Position Satellite tracking unit, 3-workstations, lap-top computer, color plotter, software to develop and filed verify satellite imagery classifications, and GIS software $37,400 cash
Other budget explanation

Please Note: because of the large area within the Mountain Snake Province that has access restrictions the percentages, costs and timeline for Objective 1 may change. The budget is developed as a most difficult case scenario.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable in part - no response required
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is not needed for these two proposals [27003 and 28003]. Fundable in part. The ISRP has reviewed versions of these proposals in each province. The proposals argue for the utility of consistent wildlife maps produced at a finer level of resolution than currently available, but the benefits of this mapping should first be demonstrated in one subbasin or province before funding in multiple areas. The ISRP recommends that only Objective 1 of one proposal in one subbasin or province be funded as a test of the maps' utility.

The proposals make a convincing case for the value of presenting complex habitat information in map form. The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The proposed mapping would develop Landsat maps of wildlife-habitat types throughout the Columbia River Basin. If successful, these maps would represent a major step forward in the detail of information available to managers as baselines for ecological assessments. The improvement in mapping scale (down to 4 Hectare MMU from the Current 100 Hectare) would be particularly useful. However, the success of finer resolution maps would be determined by the availability of data at this scale. It is unlikely that regional data are of sufficient quality to support Objective 2.

Objective 2 should not be funded. The "wildlife and ecological evaluation" would be an assessment based only on habitat-type maps and on previous correlations of the habitat types shown in these maps with presence of species of wildlife. However, habitat maps contain errors and habitat types are necessarily arbitrary and cannot fully capture habitat for individual species. Thus, the evaluation adds no additional information to what is provided by the habitat maps, and it would undoubtedly be in error on many counts in predicting wildlife. It would not provide a very useful assessment of "wildlife species or habitats that are limiting" within a subbasin; in fact, it is not clear exactly what is meant by species or habitats being limiting. Objective 2 would have managers diagnose errors in the predictions that would be generated by the evaluation. Critiquing the predictions would be a useful exercise for the proponents but is not likely to be useful to the managers, who might be better informed by gathering primary information on species distributions and ecosystem function.

The maps would be made available in digital format to wildlife managers for the development of "coarse filter" conservation strategies. The utility of the maps to wildlife resource selection studies or as a layer in a GIS is unclear. For example, if the location (latitude-longitude) of a radio-tagged animal is provided, can the user easily build a table of associated habitat types based on the digital map?

Proposal 27003 falls below the quality of previous proposals. It is poorly written, combining poor grammar, spelling and punctuation with a confused structure and unexplained technical terms. Methods are presented in the background section. Objectives are different in sections 4 and 5. The "relations to other projects" section refers almost exclusively to other NHI mapping projects rather than establishing how the mapping would relate to and complement other projects. Also, absent from the proposals is a clarification of their relationship to work funded under the NWPPC's Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project. The proponents have, however, adequately addressed the ISRP's previous comments on validation and field-testing from those reviews.

A key issue for these mapping proposals remains support from the managers, CBFWA, and the scientific community as a whole. Subbasin summaries indicate a need for mapping products and in particular, a need for mapping wildlife-habitats, but the summaries in themselves do not directly call for specific maps. The proposals did not contain letters of support from managers in the respective subbasins. Finally, publications describing the methodology for wildlife and ecological evaluation of the habitat maps should be submitted to peer review in the wildlife scientific journals such as the Journal of Wildlife Management.

The ISRP suggests that validation and field-testing be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This activity is currently being funded under the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project at NWPPC. The need for expansion of this project to produce finer resolution within each province should be determined through the EDT assessment process. If that process determines that finer resolution is necessary for regional planning, then funding for expansion should be provided through the NWPPC subbasin assessment effort.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in part. A response was not requested for these two proposals. The ISRP has reviewed versions of these proposals in each province. The proposals argue for the utility of consistent wildlife maps produced at a finer level of resolution than currently available, but the benefits of this mapping should first be demonstrated in one subbasin or province before funding in multiple areas. The ISRP recommends that only Objective 1 of one proposal in one subbasin or province be funded as a test of the maps' utility.

The proposals make a convincing case for the value of presenting complex habitat information in map form. The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The proposed mapping would develop Landsat maps of wildlife-habitat types throughout the Columbia River Basin. If successful, these maps would represent a major step forward in the detail of information available to managers as baselines for ecological assessments. The improvement in mapping scale (down to 4 Hectare MMU from the Current 100 Hectare) would be particularly useful. However, the success of finer resolution maps would be determined by the availability of data at this scale. It is unlikely that regional data are of sufficient quality to support Objective 2.

Objective 2 should not be funded. The "wildlife and ecological evaluation" would be an assessment based only on habitat-type maps and on previous correlations of the habitat types shown in these maps with presence of species of wildlife. However, habitat maps contain errors and habitat types are necessarily arbitrary and cannot fully capture habitat for individual species. Thus, the evaluation adds no additional information to what is provided by the habitat maps, and it would undoubtedly be in error on many counts in predicting wildlife. It would not provide a very useful assessment of "wildlife species or habitats that are limiting" within a subbasin; in fact, it is not clear exactly what is meant by species or habitats being limiting. Objective 2 would have managers diagnose errors in the predictions that would be generated by the evaluation. Critiquing the predictions would be a useful exercise for the proponents but is not likely to be useful to the managers, who might be better informed by gathering primary information on species distributions and ecosystem function.

The maps would be made available in digital format to wildlife managers for the development of "coarse filter" conservation strategies. The utility of the maps to wildlife resource selection studies or as a layer in a GIS is unclear. For example, if the location (latitude-longitude) of a radio-tagged animal is provided, can the user easily build a table of associated habitat types based on the digital map?

Proposal 27003 falls below the quality of previous proposals. It is poorly written, combining poor grammar, spelling and punctuation with a confused structure and unexplained technical terms. Methods are presented in the background section. Objectives are different in sections 4 and 5. The "relations to other projects" section refers almost exclusively to other NHI mapping projects rather than establishing how the mapping would relate to and complement other projects. Also, absent from the proposals is a clarification of their relationship to work funded under the NWPPC's Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project. The proponents have, however, adequately addressed the ISRP's previous comments on validation and field-testing from those reviews.

A key issue for these mapping proposals remains support from the managers, CBFWA, and the scientific community as a whole. Subbasin summaries indicate a need for mapping products and in particular, a need for mapping wildlife-habitats, but the summaries in themselves do not directly call for specific maps. The proposals did not contain letters of support from managers in the respective subbasins. Finally, publications describing the methodology for wildlife and ecological evaluation of the habitat maps should be submitted to peer review in the wildlife scientific journals such as the Journal of Wildlife Management.

The ISRP suggests that validation and field-testing be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Any future evaluation of this project should be made in light of its relationship to EDT.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: