FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29019

Additional documents

TitleType
29019 Narrative Narrative
29019 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCharacterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Okanogan sub-basin
Proposal ID29019
OrganizationNorthwest Habitat Institute and the Colville Confederated Tribes (NHI/CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameChris Kiilsgaard; Grant Timentwa
Mailing addressP.O. Box 855; P.O. Box 150 Corvallis, OR 97339-0855; Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone / email5417532199 / chris@nwhi.org; grant.timentwa@colvilletribes.com
Manager authorizing this projectJoe Peone
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionFine-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 speciesAll 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
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
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 2003 costSubcontractor
not applicable $0
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 2003 costSubcontractor
not applicable $0
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 2003 costSubcontractor
not applicable $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

In-house data base refinement at very reasonable costs.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments
Wildlife Project - Not Reviewed

Already ESA Req?

Biop? No


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: