FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29024

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
29024 Narrative	Narrative
29024 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Analysis of multiple land uses and their effects to shrub-steppe habitat and wildlife species, such as roads, patterns of development and agriculture.
Proposal ID	29024
Organization	Douglas County (Douglas co.)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Chuck Jones
Mailing address	470 NE Ninth Street East Wenatchee, WA. 98802
Phone / email	5098847173 / cjones@co.douglas.wa.us
Manager authorizing this project	Mark Kulaas, Planning Director
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Columbia Upper Middle
Short description	Document wildlife species and habitat use with varying types and intensities of land use practices, such as urban development, agricultural, rural, development patterns and transportation effects, and regulation in shrub-steppe landscapes.
Target species	Shrubsteppe-associated species including sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, golden eagle, burrowing owl, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, sage, Brewer’s, grasshopper, lark and savannah sparrow, and mule deer

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.73	-119.71	Douglas County, Washington

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Not Applicable

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
21006	Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Inter-Mountain Ecoprovince	Habitat related
21029	A cooperative approach to identifying the role of forage quality in affecting physical condition of mule deer in north central Washington.	Habitat related
21031	Land Use Analyses of Spokane County	Habitat related and land use analysis
21032	Eastern Washington Survey for Townsend's big-eared bat.	Habitat/species related
21034	Colville Tribes Restore Habitat for Sharp-tailed Grouse.	Habitat/species related
199204800	Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation and Maintenance Project	Habitat/species related
199106100	Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area (SLWA)	Habitat/species related
199404400	Enhance, protect, and maintain shrubsteppe habitat on the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SFWA)	Habitat/species related
25098	Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince	Habitat/species related
25089	The Effects of Agriculture on Amphibians of the Columbia Plateau	Habitat/species related
25039	Effects of agricultural conversion on shrubsteppe wildlife and condition of extant shrubsteppe habitat	Habitat/species related, similar data use/approach
25046	A cooperative approach to evaluating avian and mammalian responses to shrubsteppe restoration in the Crab Creek Subbasin	Habitat/species related
25030	Factors limiting the shrubsteppe raptor community in the Columbia Plateau Province of eastern Washington	Habitat/species related

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Complete detailed, large-scale vegetation mapping of plant communities and condition in Douglas County	a. Delineate plant communities using large-scale digital aerial photography or satelite imagery and NRCS Soils data and incorporate into a GIS	1.0	$250,000	Yes
1. Continued	b. Assess relative condition of vegetation communities.	.5	$30,000	Yes
2. Identify wildlife use and distribution in Douglas County	a. Acquire and/or adapt existing spatially oriented wildlife species and habitat data for GIS	.2	$0	Yes
2. Continued	b. Estimate wildlife habitat use and abundance using models and existing research.	.5	$0	Yes
3. Complete land use GIS relational datasets	a. Complete a cadastral GIS dataset for Douglas County.	.25	$40,000	Yes
3. Continued	b. Complete a building point dataset for Douglas County.	.25	$0	Yes
3. Continued	c. Attribute existing GIS road network dataset for surface and use frequency.	.5	$0	Yes
4. Establish and depict geographical relationships between land use patterns and wildlife use and abundance.	a. Spatially analyze datasets in GIS using buffers, distances, densities and frequencies.	.5	$0	Yes
5. Create a risk analysis for selected wildlife species	a. Based on results in Objective 4, create a risk matrix for selected wildlife and/or habitat	.25	$0	Yes
5. Continued	b. Create a GIS dataset that depicts attributes of the risk matrix	.1	$0	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2. Identify wildlife use and distribution in Douglas County	2003	2004	$41,000
3. Complete land use GIS relational datasets	2003	2005	$60,000
4. Establish and depict geographical relationships between land use patterns and wildlife use and abundance.	2004	2005	$20,000
5. Create a risk analysis for selected wildlife species	2004	2005	$15,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$61,000	$35,000

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
Not Applicable			$0

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
Not Applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1	$13,000
Fringe		$3,250
Supplies		$5,000
Travel		$1,000
NEPA	Non-project, probably does not apply	$1,000
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$296,750
		$320,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$320,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$320,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
To be determined		$0	cash

Other budget explanation

These are very rough estimates. When this is reviewed with WDFW (contracting agency), and possibly other agencies/entities, there may be some adjustments necessary.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Do not fund. No response is needed. The proposal was inadequate. The proposal is to use existing data to evaluate wildlife habitat and potential risks to populations from roads, development patterns, and agricultural uses. The proposal refers to two previous efforts along this line, both of which used mapping units that were too large to be of use in the proposed context. Existing data on wildlife will be incorporated into the maps. CBFWA managers should contrast usefulness, feasibility, and cost of this proposal with proposal #29019.

Conflicting statements are made concerning the basic source of data. In one place it is stated that existing data will be augmented by use of 1 meter, or better, resolution satellite imagery for baseline vegetation mapping of Douglas County. In another, it is stated that"...large-scale digital aerial photography or satellite imagery..." will be used. Source of and cost of basic data should be verified.

One-meter resolution requires very large data storage and computing capability. A letter of support from Douglas County computer services verifying that the facilities and budget are adequate would have been helpful. Also, apparently plans include sub-contracting some of the work to the WDFW. A letter of support would also have been helpful from WDFW indicating that the proposal is feasible, the budget is adequate, and the department is welling to subcontract for the required work.

The proposal should have included a discussion of use and availability of digital data from the Council's mapping project completed by the Northwest Habitat Institute. Also, see proposal #27003,"Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins within the Blue Mountain Province" and the ISRP review of proposal #27003 in the Blue Mt. and Mt. Snake Provinces

The proposal left unanswered several questions and issues. Provisions should be included to ensure that meta-data for each of the data layers mapped are made readily available to users. There is no monitoring and evaluation (QA/QC) section. What is an error and what are acceptable error rates for tasks identified in Objectives 2, 3, and 4? How will one monitor and evaluate this project to know that a good job was done? The proposal would be stronger with a detailed "ground-truth" component, perhaps in cooperation with WDFW to confirm the accuracy and precision of estimates of wildlife habitat use and abundance. Complete detail should be given concerning a double-blind sampling and evaluation procedure. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) would need to be specified. Methods are incomplete for Objectives 4 and 5.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Should be funded by using other funds. Methodology unclear. No protocol for ground-truthing

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Do not fund. A response was not needed. The proposal was inadequate. The proposal is to use existing data to evaluate wildlife habitat and potential risks to populations from roads, development patterns, and agricultural uses. The proposal refers to two previous efforts along this line, both of which used mapping units that were too large to be of use in the proposed context. Existing data on wildlife will be incorporated into the maps. CBFWA managers should contrast usefulness, feasibility, and cost of this proposal with proposal #29019.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments
Wildlife Project - Not Reviewed

Already ESA Req?

Biop? No

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
D

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: