Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Integrating remote sensing and topographic indicies to detect the impact of invasive species on critical winter elk forage areas |
| Proposal ID | 34024 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Stacy Schumacher |
| Mailing address | 72329 Confederated Way Pendleton, OR. 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5419662600 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Carl Scheeler |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description |
Use remote sensing and GIS analyis in combination with extensive range plots to evaluate the 30-year historical trend of the impacts of non-native species, cheatgrass and yellow starthistle, on critical winter elk forage areas. |
| Target species | Elk, deer |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.4874 |
-118.5416 |
Upper Umatilla Watershed |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1: Identify and characterize study sites
Objective 2: Characterize spectral signatures and contrast among wet and drought years. |
a) Locate study site boundaries.
b) Describe cover and species composition at each site.
a) Complete a supervised classification.
b) Conduct NDVI classification.
c) Conduct Tasseled Cap transformation.
d) Conduct data fusion analysis.
|
6 |
$52,890 |
Yes |
| Objective 3: Characterize the variability among and within years.
Objective 4: Conduct a 30-year historical analysis. |
a) Describe the variability among wet and drought years.
b) Describe the variability of remote sensing derived indices within each year.
c) Complete mapping.
a) Using three scenes with 10 year intervals summarize the expansion of cheatgrass and YST |
6 |
$52,890 |
Yes |
| Objective 5: Forecast the spread of invasive plant species.
Objective 6: Summarize the impact of invasive species on critical winter elk range. |
a) Using three scenes with 10 year intervals summarize the expansion of cheatgrass and yellow starthistle into perennial grasslands.
b) Develop a rate of growth.
a) Quantify the loss of perennial grasslands.
b) Forecast loss of grasslands |
6 |
$27,897 |
|
|
|
|
$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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|
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: 1.28 |
$49,990 |
| Fringe |
|
$16,286 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,390 |
| Travel |
|
$5,900 |
| Indirect |
34% CTUIR rate |
$30,721 |
| Subcontractor |
Spatial Solutions |
$12,610 |
| Other |
Landsat data, hardware and software |
$16,780 |
| $133,677 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $133,677 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $133,677 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Bureau of Indian Affairs |
Field plots and weed identification program |
$124,200 |
in-kind |
| CTUIR GIS Program |
2002 field season support |
$3,600 |
cash |
| NASA |
2003-2004 Landsat imagery |
$9,600 |
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
Date:
May 24, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable, the proposal is inadequate and the innovation is minimal. Reviewers found the proposal quite hard to follow. This proposal is innovative in the sense that the proponents propose to integrate robust statistical analysis (Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic) with new remote sensing techniques to evaluate the 30-year historical trend of the impacts of non-native species, cheatgrass and yellow starthistle, on critical winter elk forage areas. If successful, the techniques would have applications elsewhere for monitoring and prediction of the spread of invasive weeds on terrestrial rangelands.
The link to benefit to fish and wildlife is not adequately demonstrated. It is not clear how the ground-truthing of this project will be done. The proponents indicate that study sites will be located in topographically diverse areas and that ten locations for each plant community (star thistle, cheatgrass, perennial grassland) will be monitored for a total of 30 sites, but use of the resultant data is only loosely noted. Without some strong ground-truthing criteria, reviewers do not see how a convincing history of impact can be reconstructed. Protocols should be given for site selection. Will sites be in pure stands of cheatgrass, yellow starthistle, and native grasses, or are mixed stands to be selected? What are the criteria for site selection?
In addition to the use of data from training sites to refine the classification procedures, additional post-classification evaluations of accuracy of maps should be conducted. Double blind evaluations should be made.
Basically, the proposed work would seem simply to look for good spectral signals of cheatgrass and star thistle. The data to be used seem too skimpy - images from one very wet year and one very dry year to characterize spectral variability; images from 3 years from 1977 to 2001 to describe a 30-year history of impact.
There are many loose, unreferenced statements in the proposal (e.g., 'these species adapt to and modify the environment in order to promote their own establishment', 'as few as 10 plants/foot can seriously impact perennial seedlings', 'soil loss is increased by 600% when comparisons are made among the deeper rooted species and the shallower rooted species'). The proposal contains much generalization from the literature without adequate presentation of rationale. The proposed work would seem to continue in the vein of broad generalization with the result that little concrete information would be gained.
Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
We agree with the ISRP comment that more detailed information would be helpful, but disagreed with the ISRP do not fund recommendation. The Wildlife Committee felt that the study would provide information useful for making decisions on project prioritization.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Comments
Wildlife project - not reviewed.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Comments
Wildlife Project - Not reviewed
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No