FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29019
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 29019 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29019 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Okanogan sub-basin |
| Proposal ID | 29019 |
| Organization | Northwest Habitat Institute and the Colville Confederated Tribes (NHI/CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Chris Kiilsgaard; Grant Timentwa |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 855; P.O. Box 150 Corvallis, OR 97339-0855; Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5417532199 / chris@nwhi.org; grant.timentwa@colvilletribes.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Okanogan sub-basin will produce critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlife-habitat relationships process. |
| Target species | All wildlife species that could potentially occur within the sub-basin with a special emphasis to those species associated with (directly or indirectly) with salmon. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.5 | -120 | Okanogan sub-basin within the Colville Tribal boundaries |
| 48.15 | -119.5 |
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 Oregon Fish and Wildlife a statewide map of Oregon Vegetation - Landscape Level Cover Types |
| 1999 | Completed for the Northwest Power Planning Council Wildlife-Habitat Type maps depicting Current and Historic Conditions of the Columbia River Basin |
| 2000 | Completed for Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife a statewide map of Washington's Wildlife-Habitat Types Published a 800 page book and CD-ROM about Wildlife-Habitats Relationships in Oregon and Washington |
| 2001 | Initiatiated Tribal Traditional Areas Headwaters classification. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 2000742 | Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish & Wildlife for Sub-Basin Planning | A refined map would depict with greater accuracy those areas where ecological functions are thought to have increased or decreased. Maintaining ecological funcitons is identified as a wildlife goal #1 for the Spokane River Sub-basin Summary. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Produce a fine-scale map assessing current wildlife habitat types and structural conditions within the Okanogan sub-basin | a. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent wildlife-habitats type | .30 | $9,428 | |
| b. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent structural conditions | .25 | $8,208 | ||
| c. Validate mapping classifications via field visits | .05 | $2,063 | ||
| 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 Framework Process), write an assessment of the wildlife resource based on the current conditions mapped. | .25 | $8,208 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| not applicable | $0 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| not applicable | $0 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| not applicable | $0 |
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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .85 | $15,080 |
| Fringe | .30 | $6,463 |
| Supplies | $1,053 | |
| Indirect | 41% | $5,311 |
| $27,907 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $27,907 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $27,907 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colville Confederated Tribes | Global Position Satellite tracking unit, lap-top computer, and software to field verify satellite imagery classification | $8,100 | in-kind |
| Colville Confederated Tribes | Desktop computer, plotter, and software to conduct raster and imagery analysis | $10,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
continue with Part 2 - Narrative (MS Word document)
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
No response is needed. Fundable as a pilot study for the use of NHI in this region. The proposal and presentation make a good case that this resolution mapping would be useful to regional wildlife managers who would actually make use of the map. The budget is either very reasonable or incomplete.The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. If successful, the proposed maps will 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.
Questions or clarifications that need to be addressed during contracting are as follows: The relationship of this proposal to similar ones in the Mountain Snake, Blue Mountain, Columbia Cascade, and other provinces should be given. The ISRP has reviewed versions of these proposals in each province.
A detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans should be included in the 'Proposal objectives, tasks and methods' section. How will one know that this project was a success? M&E methods for the accuracy and precision of classification of 4 ha units should be given in more detail. How is the accuracy of 75% guaranteed for a mapped class and how is an overall map accuracy of 80% guaranteed? Details for ground truthing the maps with field visits should be given.
How good is the correlation between environment conditions and animal use? Describe methods for presence absence on the ground surveys and comparison with mapped habitats. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The response should include plans for repeating the mapping effort to account for succession and other habitat changes.
Comment:
In-house data base refinement at very reasonable costs.Comment:
Fundable as a pilot study for the use of NHI in this region. A response was not needed. The proposal and presentation make a good case that this resolution mapping would be useful to regional wildlife managers who would actually make use of the map. The budget is either very reasonable or incomplete.The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. If successful, the proposed maps will 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.
Questions or clarifications that need to be addressed during contracting are as follows: The relationship of this proposal to similar ones in the Mountain Snake, Blue Mountain, Columbia Cascade, and other provinces should be given. The ISRP has reviewed versions of these proposals in each province.
A detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans should be included in the 'Proposal objectives, tasks and methods' section. How will one know that this project was a success? M&E methods for the accuracy and precision of classification of 4 ha units should be given in more detail. How is the accuracy of 75% guaranteed for a mapped class and how is an overall map accuracy of 80% guaranteed? Details for ground truthing the maps with field visits should be given.
How good is the correlation between environment conditions and animal use? Describe methods for presence absence on the ground surveys and comparison with mapped habitats. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The response should include plans for repeating the mapping effort to account for succession and other habitat changes.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Wildlife Project - Not Reviewed
Already ESA Req?
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: