FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21006

Additional documents

21006 Narrative Narrative
21006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCharacterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins within the Inter Mountain Ecoprovince
Proposal ID21006
OrganizationNorthwest Habitat Institute (NHI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameChris Kiilsgaard
Mailing addressP.O. Box 855 Corvallis, Oregon 97339-0855
Phone / email5417532199 / chris@nwhi.org
Manager authorizing this projectThomas O'Neil
Review cycleIntermountain
Province / SubbasinIntermountain / Inter-Mountain
Short descriptionFine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Inter-Mountain Ecoprovince 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
48.43 -118.12 Columbia Upper subbasin
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 Completed for Oregon Fish and Wildlife 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 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

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 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Produce a fine-scale map assessing current wildlife habitat types and structural conditions within the Intermountain Sub-basin a. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent wildlife-habitats type .30 $28,570
b. Develop and classify spectral groups that would most closely represent structural conditions .25 $24,874
c. Validate mapping classifications via field visits .05 $6,253
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 $24,874
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 2001 costSubcontractor
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 2001 costSubcontractor
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 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: .85 $45,696
Fringe 30% $19,584
Supplies $0
Travel 20 days of travel/per diem: $55/night lodging, $30/day food, $0.31 milage $3,192
Indirect 24% $16,099
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$84,571
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$84,571
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Northwest Habitat Institute 5 Landsat Thematic Mapper Scenes $3,500 in-kind
Northwest Habitat Institute Global Position Satellite tracking unit, lap-top computer, and software to field verify satellite imagery classification $8,100 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000


Fundable only if three conditions are met 1) a regional need by resource managers is demonstrated and 2) the ground truth methods are presented in more detail, and 3) the maps to be generated are specified as a deliverable to the funding agency rather than a product that NHI may own and sell. Further, the ISRP questions whether objective 2 should be included. This might better be left to local resource managers to evaluate with direct, primary local data. A response is needed that provides sufficient information before the project could be recommended for funding.

Overall evaluation. The proposers appear competent for completion of the project. Except for field testing, the proposal appears to provide adequate technical background and justification, however it is not written for reviewers who are not expert in GIS. The proposal does not refer to any subbasin plan objective, only asserts that "planning requires a finer resolution of mapping than what [sic] currently exists", the objectives are not measurable with respect to wildlife restoration. The proposal indicates that it would build on previous work and emphasizes information transfer. However, the direct benefits to fish and wildlife and relationship to other projects are not explained. The usefulness of resulting maps to resource managers is not demonstrated, and resource managers in the province have not been asked to support the project. Proposed methods for monitoring and evaluation of the utility of the classification maps are lacking.

Specific comments and questions.

  1. The field-based ground truth task is not presented in sufficient detail. Procedures for defining strata, selection of random points within strata, and methods for dealing with access problems should be presented. For example, will the number of random points that could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground truthed in the field? What is the procedure for determining the number of random field points to be visited in each class? What is the criterion and sample size to have an accuracy of 75% on each class? Will the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval be required to be above 0.75? It was stated during the oral presentation that if the criteria are failed for some class, then a completely new random sample of points from that class would be visited in the field? We would like to see this commitment more clearly expressed in the proposal. Will the field-testing be conducted blind, i.e., will field personnel not know the "office classification" before they visit a random point in the field? What are the criteria for identification of each of the 32 classes when the biologist is standing at a random point in the field?
  2. Are this proposal and its sister proposal in the Columbia Gorge Province the initial proposals to map the entire Columbia Basin at this scale? Is there a Columbia Basin wide need for vegetation maps at this scale? Will there be any cost savings to other provinces if this proposal is funded? Perhaps a pilot project should be funded to demonstrate the utility of the project.
  3. The maps and resulting classifications should not be viewed as primary data. The mapping project uses primary data from the current Landsat Thematic Mapper, but classifications are derived and are subject to change in the future based on a different procedure.

These comments and recommendations mirror those for the Gorge proposal, #21005.

Do Not Fund
Nov 15, 2000


This should be associated with the EDT process and thus be funded through a different budget.

T5-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented thus target species/indicator populations would not benefit from the work. However, results from the studies could lead to the development of M&E plans from which the species/populations could benefit

T6-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented. Until results are obtained through the assessment and an M&E plan is developed and implemented, it is unknown whether the long-term benefits will be realized.

M2-The proposed work is not associated with an urgent issue involving a listed (i.e., sensitive threatened, endangered) species. However, for many of the projects urgency does exist in the form of mitigation opportunities.

M3-Project does not directly promote/maintain sustainable and/or ecosystem processes or maintain desirable community diversity. However, data gathered through this project could be used for these purposes.

M7-maps by themselves are not capable of protecting habitat

FY 01 Budget Review Comments: DNF-EDT process should be funded through another budget

Dec 1, 2000


Fundable as amended. The technical difficulties were adequately resolved in the response. If funded, we would recommend that the field validation be conducted in a 'blind' study and that they report the percent of the original target of, say 75, random points in each habitat type that was not accessed during field validation of the map.

The response did not contain a direct expression of a need by the fish and wildlife managers at a regional level. For example, there were no letters of support from the fish and wildlife project managers, although participants at the subbasin meetings were supportive and expressed that they would use the maps. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that if habitat mapping at the proposed scale is primarily to be used for the EDT component of the NWPPC habitat assessment process, then the project should be endorsed by those using EDT and perhaps funded through the EDT development process.

Do Not Fund
Jan 31, 2001


Do Not Fund
Sep 11, 2001