FY 2000 proposal 20015
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Characterize and Assess the John Day Watershed Using Landsat Tm Imagery |
Proposal ID | 20015 |
Organization | Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Chris Kiilsgaard |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 805 Corvallis, OR 97339-0855 |
Phone / email | 5419296330 / chris@nwhi.org |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
Short description | Characterizing 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 species | All 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
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
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 |
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 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 |
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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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];