BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Development and Implementation of Remote Sensing Technologies for Stream Monitoring and Evaluation

BPA project number   5522000

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
USFS

Sponsor type   OR-Federal Agency

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameBruce McIntosh
 Mailing addressU.S. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
 Phone503/750-7313

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
Develop remote sensing technologies for stream monitoring and evaluation, and provide technology transfer to users (PC based GIS - ArcView).

Project start year   1997    End year   1998

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
The Forest Service is expected to provide 50% of the total project funding ($115,000 or $230,000). This proposal seeks matching funding of $67,500/year for two years).

Project history
The Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense, have been evaluating the utility of remote sensing technologies for stream monitoring and the identification of critical habitats for salmonids. We have concluded that several technologies are appropritate for monitoring and restoration programs. Methods have been developed for stream temperature assessment and the identification of critical stream habitats. Our current capabilities allow us to collect spatially continuous water temperature data over large areas in a single day. We have been able to identify cool-water areas and validate their use by endangered salmonids in streams that approach or exceed lethal temperatures for salmonids. Presently, we are working on improving our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies. Developing the methods and protocols to implement these technologies is not part of our current funding. In addition, we would like to evaluate the utility of these technologies for the monitoring and assessment of stream habitat and riparian vegetation. We propose to develop, assess, and transfer these technologies to all potential users (federal, state, tribal, and provate), as appropriate.

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications
1) Rapid, cost-effective methods to monitor and assess stream ecosystems.
2) Addresses critical information needs for land management and regulatory agencies across the nation.
3) Applicable across multiple spatial scales.
4) PC based GIS (ArcView)

Specific measureable objectives
1) FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed): continuous stream temperature mapping across entire stream networks.
2) Visible Video: video photo points and stream habitat and other stream/floodplain/landscape features.
3) Multi-Spectral Imagery: riparian vegetation.

Testable hypothesis
Collection of remotely sensed data is a cost-effective way to monitor stream temperature.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
1) Automated data capture and processing -- degree is dependent on the scale of question, finer attributes may still require hands-on analysis.
2) Data Analysis: highly dependent on information needs, finer scale data more costly; potential for supervised classifications.

Methods
1) We have pioneered the use of FLIR for stream temperature mapping and the identification of critical habitats (thermal refugia) for endangered salmonids.
2) On-Going multi-disciplinary research (National Science Foundation) to determine how the patchiness of critical habitats affects aquatic communities.
3) Partnership with EPA and Department of Defense developing remote sensing and assessment technologies.

Brief schedule of activities
Two year study to develop and implement technologies.

Biological need
1) Rapid, cost-effective methods to monitor and evaluate streams at multiple spatial and temporal scales, for example: stream temperature; stream habitat; riparian vegetation; and other (e.g. debris flows, log jams).
2) Restoration planning: identification of critical habitats; methods to prioritize activities.

Critical uncertainties
Whether remoting sensed data can be used monitor stream habits and riparian vegetation cost - effectively.

Summary of expected outcome
Finalize development and implement stream temperature monitoring (FLIR), assess and if plausible implement habitat and raparian vegetation monitoring.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Forest Service provide matching funds, further cooperation expected from EPA and DOD. NSF research should further the file results.

Risks

Monitoring activity
Entire projects focuses on collecting monitoring data and developing monitoring methods.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 67,500
1998: 67,500

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $67,500