FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21031
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 |
|---|---|
| 21031 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Land Use Analyses of Spokane County |
| Proposal ID | 21031 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Howard L. Ferguson |
| Mailing address | N 8702 Division St. Spokane, WA 99218 |
| Phone / email | 5094564082 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dinah Demers |
| Review cycle | Intermountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Intermountain / Spokane |
| Short description | This 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 species | Habitat |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.62 | -117.37 | Spokane County |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 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 ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 |
|---|
| $1,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 |
|---|
| $46,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
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.
- 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?
- 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?
- No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.
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
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.
- 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?
- 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?
- No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.
Comment:
Comment: