FY 2000 proposal 20015

Additional documents

TitleType
20015 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCharacterize and Assess the John Day Watershed Using Landsat Tm Imagery
Proposal ID20015
OrganizationNorthwest Habitat Institute (NHI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameChris Kiilsgaard
Mailing addressP.O. Box 805 Corvallis, OR 97339-0855
Phone / email5419296330 / chris@nwhi.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionCharacterizing and assessing landscapes within watersheds will allow for better planning of habitat enhancement and mitigation projects. Also, linking landscapes with wildlife habitats enhances a system approach and strengthens the design of a project.
Target speciesAll native wildlife species that occur within the John Day watershed with a specific emphasis on those associated or linked (directly or indirectly) to salmon.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 Phase 1 - developed regional wildlife habitats and structural conditions for forest, shrub/grasslands, and agriculture
1998 Completed a statewide vegetation map with a 250 acre minimum mapping unit
1998 Completed the Willamette Valley map with about a 2 acre minimum mapping unit
1999 Publish the findings in Wildlife Habitats and Species Associations in Oregon and Washington with OSU Press

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Support for 5 staff (or equivalent of 3.3 FTE $116,984
Fringe rate 30% OPB $50,136
Supplies software licenses, imagery, and field supplies $4,100
Travel rate .30/mile and a maximum of $65.00 per diem/day $6,780
Indirect rate 21% $37,380
$215,380
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$215,380
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$215,380
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Northwest Habitat Institute computer equipment, some imagery $15,000 unknown
Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange technical support $10,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None know at this time


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. The project has low programmatic value and insufficient ties to other projects.

Comments: Though well written, the proposal fails to establish clear need, and there is inadequate linkage to other efforts to rehabilitate areas of the John Day Watershed. High-tech descriptive maps would be of value if coupled with a knowledge of processes that affect the landscape (e.g., erosion, over-grazing, rates of timber harvest etc.), but that provision is inadequate in this proposal.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: The authors cite past work in this mapping technique, but their methods are relatively technical and would benefit from examples to assist in evaluation. There is insufficient detail to review field trial accuracy. The authors claim 70 per cent accuracy in depicting 1997 scenes, but it is unclear if that level of accuracy is meaningful or acceptable. The spatially explicit modeling work appears to be relatively experimental, with uncertain predictive ability. Should the authors submit the proposal in some future year, they may wish to expand it to include workshops to help acquaint heads of other BPA-funded projects with expected results and their application.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

How does this fit with Oregon's GAP analysis, TNC's Heritage Program, and other watershed programs in the John Day?

How does the information gained in this project lead to management actions?

Proposal needs to demonstrate that this project fills critical data gap and does not duplicate existing information.


Recommendation:
Not Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Research criteria applied - rejected
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];