FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21031

Additional documents

TitleType
21031 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLand Use Analyses of Spokane County
Proposal ID21031
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameHoward L. Ferguson
Mailing addressN 8702 Division St. Spokane, WA 99218
Phone / email5094564082 / ferguhlf@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDinah Demers
Review cycleIntermountain
Province / SubbasinIntermountain / Spokane
Short descriptionThis project analyzes and compares past and current vegetation types and land uses in order to determine, and for the future, predict, the impacts different land uses and human development has had and will have on wildlife in Spokane County.
Target speciesHabitat
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
47.62 -117.37 Spokane County
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1997 Initial Open Space Analysis of Spokane County conducted in cooperation with University of Washington
1998 Refinement and testing of initial Open Space Plan for Spokane County
1998 Contracted out initial phase of Spokane County's Land Use-Land Cover Analysis
1999 Completion of 3-year Spokane Winter Raptor Study
1999 Paper and Presentation of the Results of the 3 year Spokane Winter Raptor Study at the Annual Urban Wildlife Conference
1999 Paper and Presentation of the Development and Results of the Spokane County Open Space Analysis at the Annual Urban Wildlife Conference
2000 Open Space Plan that I developed was incorporated into Spokane County's "Master Comprehensive Plan"
2000 Completion of 2 Chapters for WDFW & ODFW new book "Wildlife Habitat and Species Associations in Oregon and Washington. Wrote Chapter on Vegetation Description of "Urban Habitats", and another Chapter on "Urban Wildlife Habitat and Species Associations".
2000 Paper and Presentation on "Current and Future Status of Urban Birds" to the 7th Annual The Wildlife Society Conference

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Identify and map Historic Land Use - Land Cover of Spokane County a. Coordinate with DNR, Eastern Washington University & NRCS .5 month $500
1. b. Advertise, interview and hire graduate student to implement project .5 month $500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2002
$1,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Identify and map Historic Land Use - Land Cover of Spokane County a. Purchase Historic Digital Aerial Photos .0625 $4,000
1. b. Purchase PC and ESRI ArcView GIS software Package .25 $6,000
1. c. Map Land Use-Land cover into GIS system from Aerial Photos .5 $18,000
1. d. Ground Truth GIS mapping .125 $4,000
1. e. Run analysis on both Current and Historic GIS analysis. Determine amount of each veg type. .25 $6,000
1. f. Compare GIS data for current (1996) data and historic. Calculate values for each veg type, % of each to total, difference between the two. Identify and rank the most threatened habitat types. .0625 $2,000
1. g. Prepare and publish summary and appropriate reports .25 $6,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2002
$46,000

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: 1.5 $36,000
Supplies $6,000 PC and GIS software + $4000 for Digitized Aerial Photos for Spokane County $10,000
Indirect Advertising, hiring graduate student $1,000
$47,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$47,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$47,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
WDFW Provide funding for initial phase of project $4,500 cash
WDFW Provide guidance and GIS help $8,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

Do not fund. The proposal is not adequately tied to the Fish and Wildlife Program and potential benefits are not demonstrated. A response review is not warranted.

Specific comments and questions to address in future proposals.

  1. Field sampling procedures for public and private land should be described for ground truth (field testing) of the accuracy of classifications from the recent photographs. How many randomly selected points would be visited in each class? What procedures will be applied if access is denied? What accuracy is required and what are the criteria for accepting the results? If changes are made based on field visits, will a second set of random points be selected?
  2. We assume that procedures developed for digitizing and classifying the recent photographs would be used to digitize and classify the old photographs, but these kind of assumptions should be spilled out in detail. How will the accuracy of classifications based on the old photographs be assessed?
  3. No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

T1-scientific validity of the methods is questionable,

T4-not applicable

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-does not clearly indicate that results would be implemented in a long-term sense, however, if become part of the ord. (caveat dependent upon adoption into county ord.)

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.

M5-if adopted into ordinance

M6-questionable based on application

FY01 Budget Review Comments: DNF-seek funds through another budget


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

Do not fund. The proposal is not adequately tied to the Fish and Wildlife Program and potential benefits are not demonstrated. A response review was not warranted.

Specific comments and questions to address in future proposals.

  1. Field sampling procedures for public and private land should be described for ground truth (field testing) of the accuracy of classifications from the recent photographs. How many randomly selected points would be visited in each class? What procedures will be applied if access is denied? What accuracy is required and what are the criteria for accepting the results? If changes are made based on field visits, will a second set of random points be selected?
  2. We assume that procedures developed for digitizing and classifying the recent photographs would be used to digitize and classify the old photographs, but these kind of assumptions should be spilled out in detail. How will the accuracy of classifications based on the old photographs be assessed?
  3. No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 31, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001

Comment: