FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27006

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
27006 Narrative	Narrative
27006 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning
Proposal ID	27006
Organization	Northwest Habitat Institute in collaboration with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (NHI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Thomas O'Neil
Mailing address	P.O. Box 855 Corvallis, OR 97339
Phone / email	5417532199 / habitat@nwhi.org
Manager authorizing this project	Thomas O'Neil
Review cycle	Blue Mountain
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short description	This project will develop key ecological function information and species range maps for 133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the Columbia River Basin.
Target species	133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the Columbia River Basin.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.52	-117.76	This proposal will cover all 62 subbasins within the Columbia River Basinincluding the 4 subbasins that comprise the Blue Mountain Province.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
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 Ministry of Forests the first International Wildlife-Habitat Types map that depicts the entire Columbia River Basin in
2001	As of September 2001, we will have completed the first phase of this project: Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
1525	Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning	Phase 1 of this project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost
Objective 1. Complete the Integration of Data Developed by the Scientific Panel for Fish Key Ecological Functions (KEFs), Fish Habitat Elements, and Fish Management Activities into the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships Matrices.	Task A. Gather and Compile scientifc panel information.	>.1	$2,000
	Task B.Develop the data formats, fields, lookup table to reconstruct the fish and wildlife data into a more manageable and efficient format.	.75	$48,200
	Task C. Convert the scientific panels information into the new data format.	.1	$4,400
Objective 2. Develop Basin-wide Species Range Maps Based on Historic and Current Habitat Conditions for 133 Fish and 474 Wildlife Species at a Watershed Level.	Task A.Acquire species occurrence at the county or watershed level for each of the 7 states in the Columbia River Basin.	>.1	$2,500
	B)Develop a relational data set that combines species occurrence with habitat types and breeding activity	.1	$6,200
	C)Develop in a GIS formats	.15	$7,500
	D)Edit and correct maps	1.5	$58,500
	E)Oversee the review of maps	.4	$18,000
	F) Finalize maps	.1	$6,200
Objective 3. Conduct for Each Subbasin an Ecological Function Assessments to Identify Community Functional Patterns, Geographic Patterns, Species’ Functional Roles, and Functional Responses of Communities by Using Basin-wide Species Range Maps.	A)Create a species list for each subbasin		$0
	B)Determine functional redundancy	.15	$0
	C)Determine functional profiles	.15	$0
	D)Determine functional bottlenecks, cold and hot spots, and functional linkages	.15	$0
	F)Determine imperiled functions	.15	$0
Objective 4. Disseminate Findings on the Internet and Quarterly Reporting	A) Develop digital formats for dissemination via the Internet	.2	$0
	B)Create the necessary computer programs	.1	$0
	C)Write 8 quarterly reports	.2	$0
	D) Write final report	.33	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 2. Develop Basin-wide Species Range Maps Based on Historic and Current Habitat Conditions for 133 Fish and 474 Wildlife Species at a Watershed Level.	2002	2003	$51,800
Objective 3. Conduct for Each Subbasin an Ecological Function Assessments to Identify Community Functional Patterns, Geographic Patterns, Species’ Functional Roles, and Functional Responses of Communities by Using Basin-wide Species Range Maps.	2003	2003	$42,500
Objective 4. Disseminate Findings on the Internet and Quarterly Reporting	2002	2003	$55,200

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003
$149,500

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.5	$73,707
Fringe	30%	$22,112
Supplies	1-computer	$5,215
Travel	5 meetings @.31/mile; plus per diem	$950
Indirect	26%	$26,516
Subcontractor	Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife	$25,000
		$153,500

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$153,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$153,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. This project proposes to evaluate key ecological functions of species and species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that functional richness and functional redundancy can be assessed from the information base they have gathered or will compile. Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and of redundancy versus uniqueness of species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has obvious implications for management. However, the current proposal is unlikely to provide information of a quality that could reasonably be used for management.

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as a baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the PI and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in the earlier stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more consistent mapping. Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their application in the estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague about which ongoing work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information supporting the project but does not summarize that information. It does not specify relationship to projects other than to its predecessor BPA project; surely the project proponents could establish the utility of the KEF work they propose in terms of its usefulness to other researchers? The project history would be another place that the utility of results to managers and researchers could be demonstrated. The potential utility of the approach would be further strengthened if the proponents submitted the work for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives are well specified but it does not seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes across different contexts on the basis of species lists.

The information to be used to assess ecological function is very general (e.g., an animal might be described as an herbivore that carries vertebrate diseases and that physically affects soil structure) and does not consider strength or even presence of a functional role for a species in a particular area. These "key ecological functions" might provide a useful thumbnail sketch of basic ecological traits of a species, but species effects in ecosystems have often been shown to be very context-specific. The project will not use or gather any primary data on ecological function. Given the many ecological studies that show different functional roles for the same species in different communities or under different environmental conditions, this approach seems inherently flawed. Further, the data (species distributions) needed for such a project are not available for many species in many areas. Both lack of data and poor data quality are likely to be major problems for early steps of the analysis. The alternate source of distributional information - projecting presence of animals from habitat data - introduces circularity into the process and must add significant error to the resulting distribution maps and species lists.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Although the reviewers suggest that the knowledge of species functions in ecosystems is important and has potential management implications, the reviewers question whether the information that would be developed could be used for management purposes. The managers expressed a concern about the lack of coordination. It may be appropriate for the Regional Assessment Advisory Committee to review this proposal.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. This project proposes to evaluate key ecological functions of species and species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that functional richness and functional redundancy can be assessed from the information base they have gathered or will compile. Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and of redundancy versus uniqueness of species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has obvious implications for management. However, the current proposal is unlikely to provide information of a quality that could reasonably be used for management.

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as a baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the PI and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in the earlier stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more consistent mapping. Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their application in the estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague about which ongoing work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information supporting the project but does not summarize that information. It does not specify relationship to projects other than to its predecessor BPA project; surely the project proponents could establish the utility of the KEF work they propose in terms of its usefulness to other researchers? The project history would be another place that the utility of results to managers and researchers could be demonstrated. The potential utility of the approach would be further strengthened if the proponents submitted the work for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives are well specified but it does not seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes across different contexts on the basis of species lists.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
D

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: