FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25084
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 |
|---|---|
| 25084 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop GIS Layers for Generation of Specific Natural Resource GIS Maps and Analysis |
| Proposal ID | 25084 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Milt Hill |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave Portland, OR 97207 |
| Phone / email | 5038725255 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Rick Kepler |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Develop data sets for use in comparative analysis of multiple factors affecting fish and wildlife values in the four subbasins. This data can help integrate basin wide natural resource planning and decision making. |
| Target species | All fish and wildlife species that might occur in the four subbasins |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Deschutes Subbasin, John Day Subbasin, Umatilla Subbasin, Walla Walla Subbasin | ||
| 44.78 | -119.59 | John Day subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Performed "visual pass" geoprocessing for the National Hydrologic Database project. |
| 1997 | Implemented "GIS@ODFW" ftp and web site for data, metadata and map distribution. Maintain site through to the present. Site address: rainbow.dfw.state.or.us. |
| 1998 | Identified beaver habitat coincident with coastal coho habitat; produced and distributed paper and electronic versions of final product. Supported Oregon Plan activities. |
| 1999 | Conduct "Using GIS" workshops at many ODFW field locations, providing training, technical assistance, data and software. |
| 2000 | Developed the "Division 33 map" as agreed to in MOU between Oregon Water Resources Dept., Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality and Oregon Dept. of Agriculture. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Status Review of Wildlife Mitigation at Columbia Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Col. Mainstem and Lower Snake Facilities (BPA 1984) | Reviewed past, present and proposed future wildlife planning and mitigation programs at BPA's hydrofacilities. Called for quantitative and qualitative assessment of wildlife losses attributable to the dams and implementation of mitigation plans. | |
| Wildlife Impact Assessment: Bonneville, McNary, The Dalles, and John Day projects (Rasmussen and Wright 1990) | Evaluated pre- and post- dam construction/inundation habitat conditions and estimated wildlife losses using the HEP methodology. | |
| 199208400 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning (OTAP) Project (BPA 1993) | Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites within Oregon. |
| 9565 | Assessing OTAP Project Using Gap Analysis (ODFW 1997) | Refinement of OTAP Project. Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites in Oregon using Gap Analysis techniques. |
| 199705900 | FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | OWC's programmatic project proposal that included a list of priority acquisition projects within Oregon. |
| Special Status Wildlife Species Surveys and Priority Habitat Assessment in the Deschutes River Subbasin | New FY 02 Columbia Plateau project proposal submitted by ODFW which will establish permanent sampling stations and transects for target species, conduct species surveys, and assess habitat for maintaining species viability through time |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop GIS assessment products to help determine relative fish and wildlife values of proposed land acquisitions, project developments, and land use planning decisions within the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla subbasins. | a. Develop data sets and generate GIS based maps for land use planning and decision making at the subbasin and watershed level for conservation of fish and wildlife resources in the Oregon Columbia Plateau. | 2 | $73,000 | |
| b. Make data sets and maps easily available to basin interests by a variety of means, including the Internet. Document data and maps with FGDC compliant metadata where appropriate. | 2 | $26,000 | ||
| 2. Use data sets and maps to assess relative value of proposed land acquisitions and development projects at the basin and subbasin level for conservation of fish and wildlife resources in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and Walla Walla Basins | 2 | $12,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.a. | 2003 | 2004 | $60,000 |
| 1.b. | 2003 | 2004 | $30,000 |
| 2. | 2003 | 2004 | $70,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $80,000 | $80,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.75 | $26,500 |
| Fringe | @ 38.8% | $10,300 |
| Supplies | computer (<$10K), software, and data processing supplies | $17,000 |
| Travel | mileage | $2,400 |
| Indirect | @ 21% | $11,800 |
| Capital | $11,800 | |
| Subcontractor | may be accomplished via contractor, university or contribution to other projects | $31,200 |
| $111,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $111,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $111,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | computer system administration, server and software, office space, partial FTE | $25,000 | 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
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
A response to ISRP concerns is required. This project would develop data sets for the generation of comparative maps at the watershed level. Although the development of GIS products would be useful representations of watershed -level conditions, the proposal does not indicate how the mapping products it describes are distinct from those developed by others - e.g. the NHI - for use in the EDT analysis, even though it refers to these products. Methods are only vaguely described: "produce...maps" or "use products".
Presenting comparative information in maps does not necessarily provide explanation for changes or provide direction for recovery actions. The rationale is extremely vague without even hypothetical examples of how the product would be used. It's not clear how fish and wildlife managers would use mapping products to develop risk assessments of fish and wildlife resources. The proposal does not provide information that would make it possible to judge the relative value of providing maps and information for planning purposes versus on the ground habitat improvement, land acquisition, etc.
The project should be explicitly tied to long term biological monitoring projects whereby site specific information could be provided to sites that are selected for monitoring of terrestrial or aquatic systems. Also, the potential overlap of these GISs with the ones proposed for selecting probabilistic samples of sites for water quality, fish surveys, remote vegetation monitoring, etc. should be explained.
Resumes of project investigators should be provided.
Why should this project be funded by BPA and not by the state of Oregon? It seems that most of the results are to be housed in the ODFW and are to be used by Oregon agencies.
Comment:
This project should be coordinated with the project 25098 and funded through the NWPPC's EDT process.Comment:
Not fundable. A response was requested but not received.The preliminary ISRP comments include:
This project would develop data sets for the generation of comparative maps at the watershed level. Although the development of GIS products would be useful representations of watershed-level conditions, the proposal does not indicate how the mapping products it describes are distinct from those developed by others - e.g. the NHI - for use in the EDT analysis, even though it refers to these products. Methods are only vaguely described: "produce...maps" or "use products".
Presenting comparative information in maps does not necessarily provide explanation for changes or provide direction for recovery actions. The rationale is extremely vague without even hypothetical examples of how the product would be used. It's not clear how fish and wildlife managers would use mapping products to develop risk assessments of fish and wildlife resources. The proposal does not provide information that would make it possible to judge the relative value of providing maps and information for planning purposes versus on the ground habitat improvement, land acquisition, etc.
The project should be explicitly tied to long term biological monitoring projects whereby site specific information could be provided to sites that are selected for monitoring of terrestrial or aquatic systems. Also, the potential overlap of these GISs with the ones proposed for selecting probabilistic samples of sites for water quality, fish surveys, remote vegetation monitoring, etc. should be explained.
Resumes of project investigators should be provided.
Why should this project be funded by BPA and not by the state of Oregon? It seems that most of the results are to be housed in the ODFW and are to be used by Oregon agencies.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPossible indirect benefits -- Project would develop data sets (GIS) for use in comparative analysis of multiple factors affecting fish and wildlife values in the four subbasins.
Comments
Project would develop data sets for the generation of comparative maps at the watershed level. Proposal does not indicate how the mapping products it describes are distinct from those developed by others, e.g., the NHI - for use in the EDT analysis. Presenting comparative information in maps does not necessarily provide an explanation for changes or provide direction for recovery actions. There are no hypothetical examples of how the product would be used.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This proposal would develop data sets for use in comparative analysis of multiple factors affecting fish and wildlife values in the four subbasins. This data can help integrate basin-wide natural resource planning and decision-making. The ISRP commented: “Why should this project be funded by BPA and not by the state of Oregon? It seems that most of the results are to be housed in the ODFW and are to be used by Oregon agencies.” The extent to which BPA should support local and state infrastructure needs to be explored further; therefore, this proposal should be deferred.Comment: