cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal RESCAT-2003-072-00 - Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin

Proposal RESCAT-2003-072-00 - Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History

Archive	Date	Time	Type	From	To	By
	9/6/2011	3:47 PM	Status		Draft	<System>
Download	11/27/2011	4:48 PM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	2/16/2012	2:45 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>
	4/17/2012	2:47 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Final Review	Pending Council Recommendation	<System>
	3/5/2014	2:26 PM	Status	Pending Council Recommendation	Pending BPA Response	<System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Basics

Proposal Number:		RESCAT-2003-072-00
Proposal Status:		Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 1
Review:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Portfolio:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Categorical Review
Type:		Existing Project: 2003-072-00
Primary Contact:		Thomas O'Neill
Created:		9/6/2011 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Northwest Habitat Institute

Project Title:		Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin

Proposal Short Description:		The IBIS project is being redefined to present a more comprehensive and integrated wildlife approach. IBIS is primarily a data management project within the Columbia River Basin's Fish and Wildlife Program emphasizing wildlife & habitat. IBIS will continue to support Subbasin Planning, and will now include work objectives for developing a digital library and repository for GIS habitat data, developing wildlife high-level indicator information, and integrating habitat inventories and evaluations.

Proposal Executive Summary:		The IBIS project is being redefined to present a more comprehensive and integrated wildlife approach. IBIS is primarily a data management project within the Columbia River Basin's Fish and Wildlife Program emphasizing wildlife & habitat. IBIS will continue to support Subbasin Planning, and will now include work objectives for developing a digital library and repository for GIS habitat inventory data, developing wildlife high-level indicator information, and integrating habitat inventories and evaluations. Specifically, our proposal is all about meeting multiple needs with our products, streamlining and efficiencies, hence we look to merge the Habitat Evaluation Project (2006-006-00) with the IBIS project, as well as to take steps to integrate with the CHaMP program (2011-006-00). IBIS's data and information foundation is bulit around the book, Wildlife Habitat Relationship’s in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), which was supported by more than 40 organizations and was an outgrowth of the Spotted Owl management issues that occurred in the early to mid-1990s. This book serves as a principal source for standardizing wildlife names, along with relationships with habitat types, structural conditions, and key environmental correlates (i.e. fine feature habitat elements). The collection of data sets that this project uses are called IBIS and are recognized as a regional information system. IBIS has been valued by other organizations as a "Key Informational Source for the Northwest” by National Biological Information Infrastructure, as "Best Available Science" by the Office of Community Development in Washington State, and as "Best Practices" by the Ash Institute-Harvard University. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for the Pacific Northwest recently released a report, Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration (September 2011). In Section III of this report, Foundation for a Comprehensive Landscape Approach (page 104), the only Essential Database identified was NHI's Pacific Northwest Habitat Classification System (PHaCS) and its connection to IBIS – habitat types, structural conditions, and key environmental correlates. IBIS also includes a spatial/visual component to display habitat attributes and wildlife species information, i.e. by creating specific habitat maps as well as regional species range maps. Over the past year, NHI has gone from developing regional range maps to producing GIS map based products for the entire Columbia River Basin. IBIS is a basinwide project and is identified as a "Core Program" to support Regional Planning by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. IBIS is developed to support subbasin planning and if this proposal is appoved, IBIS products will be extended to include development of wildlife high-level indicators; development, operation and maintenance of a habitat GIS spatial library and habitat data repository; and integrating habitat evaluation techinques with fish habitat projects. This redinfing of IBIS would also include the merging of the Habitat Evaluation Project functions and roles. The proposed high-level indicator components (Wildlife Advisory Committee 2001) just enhances the very low level of effort that the IBIS projects currently provides to support subbasin planning effort, which were to map focal habitats by subbasin. The establishment of a GIS spatial library and repository is a concept that was initiated and supported in the ISRP's Project Reviews of 2007 and 2009. Now, because of the expanded role of a Habitat Mitigation Program that list 228 habitat collection projects, which if funded as proposed will have a cumulative budget between $772 million to $1.2 billion, and currently involves 62 proponents; the need for establishing the GIS spatial library and repository is greater than ever before. The IBIS's (and NHI's) current primary function/product output is GIS. Therefore, development and maintenance of a GIS spatial library and repository by NHI staff is the best option. In addition, NHI has a $100,000 cost share each year with ESRI, the principal GIS software developer. Lastly, blending the Habitat Evaluation project with IBIS also makes sense because 1) both projects use a set of similar protocols, 2) IBIS data does assist in habitat evaluations and can be used in compliance monitorng using the CHAP approach (Northwest Habitat Institute 2011), 3) habitat evaluations are now becoming more spatially explicit, which the IBIS project supports; 4) IBIS project has lent technical support to the Habitat Evaluation project in the past; and 5) both projects have a basinwide perspective [Note:the Habitat Evaluation project is currently described as having one deliverable (Produce HEP Reports) in this proposal and it encompasses all the functions of the Regional Habitat Team, and we expect all exisiting coordination to remain the same]. Finally, by merging with the Habitat Evaluation project gives IBIS the ability to integrate and lend consistency to riparian habitat evaluation (Chappell et al. 2001, O'Neil et al. 2001) for fish projects, like CHaMP. Regarding the budget, by redefining the IBIS project it is requested on average about $1,075,000/ year. Combine the current IBIS budget of $165,821 with the Regional Habitat Evaluation budget of $442,016 gives $607,837 of this amount. Noting that in past years IBIS project has only been funded between 30-35% of ISRP approve project requests. So the additional amount of $467,163 is all that is requested to implement and acquire wildlife high-level indicators and the habitat GIS spatial library and repository. Because high-level indicators, specifically riparian habitat, can be strategically integrated to meets several of CHaMP program goals, there may be some cost savings with the CHaMP program. This is because the IBIS project could inventory and charachterize the riparian habitat and could also perform the GIS data development tasks. We are uncomfortable about rendering an exact amount that could be transferred to further reduce this additional amount, but certainly there could be some savings. Lastly, as we seek the most cost effective and efficient approaches to coordination and data management within the Columbia River Basin strong connections with fish and wildlfe managers are desireable and to that end efforts like fish and wildlife coordinating forums being proposed by the Columbia Fish and Wildlife Authority would be important buildlig blocks. Our work goes to support the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and uses either standard protocols or takes verification steps to help validate findings. Our information is frequently used and or cited within the region, and we also track Internet access to the IBIS information.

Purpose:		Habitat
Emphasis:		Data Management
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 0.0% Resident: 0.0% Wildlife: 100.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:		None
Biological Opinions:		FCRPS 2008 (RPA 71.4, RPA 71.5, RPA 71.6, RPA 72, RPA 51, RPA 73.3)

Contacts

Contacts:

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

The elements of this proposal serve to address a wide-ranging scope of needs, as identified by various regional authorities and reports, including the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Planning and Conservation Act, the ISRP Retrospective Report, the Fish & Wildlife Basin-level Wildlife Objectives, the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, and the Data Management in Support of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Planning and Conservation Act addresses the inclusion of fish and wildlife into the planning for the region.  Specifically, it calls for: 1) coordination of fish and wildlife management and research and development [839b(h)(2)(c)], and 2) base and support programs with the best available scientific knowledge [839b(h)(6)(a)].  The Act also calls for the development and implementation of a fish and wildlife program and to take into account at each relevant stage of decision-making processes the program adopted by the Council [839b(h)(d)(i) and 839b(h)(11)(a)(ii)].   The Council has developed and adopted a plan called, 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program – A Multi-Species Approach for Decision-making. Amendments to the Program were vetted and adopted in October 2009 (Council Document 2009-09), and in this amendment process new  measures for High-Level Indicators, and  Research, Monitoring and Evaluation, Data Management, Coordination were made.  One key measure is developing consistency and integrating efforts where practical.  To help with consistnecy, the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington book especially its definitions and conmponents were also adopted into the program via the 2009 admendment process. 

In this program plan, there are several statements that directly support IBIS as proposed, specifically: (A) one of the underpinnings of the program is that it is habitat based – IBIS is all about habitat in that it has already collected, complied and is synthesizing the latest scientific thinking on fish and wildlife as it relates to their habitats. (B) achieving a vision for multi-species during a time of multi-objectives requires coordination of information and actions, which calls for an appropriate structure to be in place from which to plan and coordinate – regarding information systems about fish and wildlife habitat relationships, there is no current system that addresses the entire Columbia River Basin.  IBIS addresses this need. (C) making information readily available is a specific strategy of the program plan –  it states (p. 46, paragraph 3), “ Dissemination of data via the Internet: The Council will initiate a process for establishing an Internet-based system for the efficient dissemination of data for the Columbia Basin.  This system will be based on a network of data sets, such as Streamnet, Northwest Habitat Institute, Fish Passage Center…. the function of each data site, or module will be clearly articulated and defined.” IBIS addresses this need along with defining its purpose. (D) implementing subbasin plans is a principal portion of the program plan –  subbasin planning brings together multiple agencies, objectives, plans and ideas with the hope of developing a collective vision that incorporates joint biological objectives and strategies. Currently, IBIS makes information available to subbasin planners in part because our data sets have been collaboratively developed; peer reviewed, and have defined terminology. IBIS served as regional technical support for subbasin planning with 59 subbasins incorporating its information into their plans. The foremost purpose for developing IBIS is to build a common understanding of fish and wildlife resources for better management. 

In the ISRP Retrospective Report, there are several places that support the continued development of IBIS and its associated modules.  Specifically, under Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation (p.35), they voiced a concern “that monitoring and evaluation of wildlife projects and programs should not rest solely on a HEP-based analysis".  This concern was also reiterated under the Wildlife Section (p.72&73).  They also recommend that the fish and wildlife elements be fully integrated in continuing the development of Subbasin Plans when they emphasized “coordination, subbasin-scale planning that integrates habitat, wildlife, fish goals, and that incorporates explicit consideration of ecological relationships, including linkages amongst multiple populations of fish, wildlife and their habitat” (p.75&76 also in Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners, Council Document 2001-20).  ISRP also cites a need for a habitat GIS spatial library and repository when it states the need to continue to do watershed assessment by providing a systematic way to understanding and organizing ecosystem information (p.61); noting that the feasibility of collecting data on current and future status of focal species was generally ignored in many subbasin plans (p.76) and; expressed the difficulties in establishing coordinated working groups and difficulty in working with the assessment tools (p. 70).  Additionally, the ISRP recommended that data of all projects be made available via the regional database projects (p.31). IBIS is a regional data project and this was most recently re-affirmed in BPA’s Additional Information and Responses to FAQ’s for FY07-09 Solicitation Participants, Section #9. Finally, the ISRP also supports the need for habitat mapping when it states, “develop a sound census monitoring procedure for trend, based on remote sensing, photography and data layers in GIS.  Landscape changes in terrestrial and aquatic habitat and land use should be monitored for the smallest unit…” (p.28).

Furthermore, this proposal is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Program Basin-level Wildlife Objectives.  Specifically, the Council's basin-level objectives are to mitigate wildlife losses based on the premise that development and operation of the hydrosystem resulted in wildlife losses through construction and inundation losses, direct operational losses or through secondary losses. The program has included measures and implemented projects to obtain and protect habitat units in mitigation for these calculated construction/inundation losses. Operational and secondary losses have not been estimated or addressed. The program includes a commitment to mitigate for these losses, which aligns with the Habitat Mapping and Enhancing Habitat Evaluations sections of this proposal. More specific wildlife objectives that parallel our efforts are: 
	Basin-Level Wildlife Objective 1 - Quantify wildlife losses caused by the construction, inundation, and operation of the hydropower projects.
	Basin-Level Wildlife Objective 2 - Develop and implement habitat acquisition and enhancement projects to fully mitigate for identified losses. 
	Basin-Level Wildlife Objective 3 - Coordinate mitigation activities throughout the basin and with fish mitigation and restoration efforts, specifically by coordinating habitat restoration and acquisition with aquatic habitats to promote connectivity of terrestrial and aquatic areas.
	Basin-Level Wildlife Objective 4 - Maintain existing and created habitat values.
	Basin-Level Wildlife Objective 5 - Monitor and evaluate habitat and species responses to mitigation actions.

Implementation of our proposal is also supported by the previously identified Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA).  RPA Action 152 – IBIS supports a coordinated effort to evaluate and assess offsite habitat enhancement by using and building on an existing data management structures, so all agencies are able to share habitat data, databases, data management and quality assurance information. RPA Action 154 – IBIS supports the development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans by supplying consistent technical and scientific information to subbasin planners.  RPA Action 180 – IBIS would develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical spatial, text, and tabular data designs and decision support tools to support monitoring programs and allow ground-truthing of regional databases.  RPA Action 181 – IBIS would develop the spatial delivery system once the digitial aerial and satellite imagery of the entire Columbia River Basin has been acquired to allow all organizations access to these spatial data sets. RPA Action 198 – IBIS continues to expand upon a common data management system for fish and wildlife and their habitats that has taken over 10 years to build.

In reviewing the summary for Data Management in Support of the Fish and Wildlife Program (Schmidt et al. 2002) there are several need statements that our proposal would fulfill.  For examples, under Future Needs there is an immediate program recommendation that states, “The ecosystem management concept emphasizes a need to understand and address the relationships between and among all natural resources within the basin.  To this end, increased support is needed to expand and/or develop information management systems that address habitat plus wildlife and non-game species.”   The report also states several technical needs such as developing and managing information management tools to support subbasin planning in 2002 and beyond, and provide information management services to local subbasin planning groups. Finally, under Needed Future Action, “A primary future need is development of a more comprehensive approach to data management basin-wide, as called for in RPA Action 198.  Similar needs were identified for the regional database management project under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (Coutant et al. 2000).”

Developing IBIS as outlined in this proposal would help fulfill each of these needs cited in the regional reports and follows the general outline for A Draft Strategy for Managing Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Data – Columbia River Basin Framework (Roger et al 2007).  IBIS will allow all Internet users to quickly and efficiently peruse, query, and download fish and wildlife information pertinent to their individual questions.  Further, it allows consistent peer-reviewed information to be distributed across the states. The results of this proposal will give resource managers, educators, scientists, conservationists, and the interested public a means to quickly access high-quality scientific data in a uniform, yet interactive, format. There are no other data sets like IBIS currently on the Internet or within state or federal agencies.  These data are highly sought after because they depict our current understanding about how fish and wildlife species associate with their habitat(s) across a state and within a region.  Finally, making these data available to a wide audience will help build a common understanding for management of the Pacific Northwest’s fish, wildlife and their habitats.

Problem Statement:

The Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) has been working on developing a consistent set of habitat data for both fish and wildlife for the past 16 years. One of our goals in applying these data is to determine baseline wildlife habitat conditions so there can be common understandings for effective natural resource management. There are three essential components in developing a common methodology. First, there is a need for a consistent wildlife habitat classification system and a common set of ecological definitions and data protocols (McDonald et al. 2007), because without it agencies and organizations develop their own. Second is a need for an integrated relational database that ties multiple species to specific habitat types, structural conditions, and fine featured habitat elements. Third is the development of a consistent habitat mapping approach. By incorporating these three components, it makes comparisons of findings easier, and helps develop a unified ecological picture. Examples of wide-ranging and inconsistent classification systems currently in use were highlighted when NHI recently surveyed the natural resource agencies and organizations within the Columbia River Basin. More than 80 people were contacted and more than 65 currently used habitat classifications were recorded. Some of these are: Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States (Kuchler 1964), Fisheries and Oregon Estuarine Habitat Classification System (Bottom 1979), Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979), Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho (Cooper et al. 1991), A Hierarchical Approach to Classifying Stream Habitat Features (Hawkins et al. 1992), Washington Gap (Cassidy et al. 1997), Montana Gap (Redmond et al. 1998), Idaho and Western Wyoming Gap (Homer 1998), Oregon Gap (Kagen et al. 1999), Oceans, Canada: Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping (Mason and Knight. 2001), USGS’s National Land Cover Database (2001), ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project (2002), NatureServe’s A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems (Comer et al. 2003), and the U.S. Forest Service has several including: Field guide for Forested Plant Associations of the Wenatchee National Forest (Lillybridge et al. 1995), A Structural Classification for Inland Northwest Forest Vegetation (O'Hara et al. 1996), Pacific Northwest Ecoclass Codes for Seral and Potential Natural Communities (Hall 1998), and Classification and Management of Aquatic, Riparian, and Wetland Sites on the National Forests of Eastern Washington: Series Description (Kovalchik and Clausnitzer 2004). To bring some continuity to the various classifications, NHI has compiled the different habitat classification systems into a single database (Pacific Northwest Habitat Classification System http://www.nwhi.org/index/publications ) and cross-walked these to a common system using IBIS. Our main purpose is intended to improve communication between groups that may use different habitat classification systems.

Given this wide variety of habitat classification systems, the need exists to incorporate a consistent and transferable language in data management. The principal stated purpose in the peer-reviewed text, Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon & Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), is that wildlife-habitat information should be compiled in such a way that management decisions are built on a common understanding. This is accomplished by focusing on habitat, while creating a consistent language in regards to its terms and assessment for wildlife and fish.

The existing habitat and biodiversity data sets that NHI has maintained and developed working collaboratively have evolved over a 14 year process involving more than 40 organizations, with input from more than 700 people. This effort has resulted in periodic book publications which incorporate IBIS habitat information: Atlas of Oregon (Csuti et al. 1997), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington [plus CD-ROM ] (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), Atlas of Oregon-Revised (Csuti et al. 2001), Birds of Washington (Wahl et al. 2005), A Guide to Oregon’s Forest Wildlife (Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2005), Washington and Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WDFW & ODFW 2005) A Guide to Oregon and Washington Wetland Wildlife and their Habitats (Northwest Habitat Institute 2007), and A Guide to Priority Species and Oregon Forests (O'Neil et al., 2012). Since the completion of the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington project, the NHI, with financial support and cooperation from the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council (NWPCC), Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and other sources, has continued collecting and revising these data sets and expanding coverage of its wildlife-habitat mapping efforts throughout most of the Pacific Northwest. In addition to Oregon and Washington, coverage now includes all of Idaho, and the parts of Nevada, Montana, Wyoming and Utah within the Columbia River Basin. Additionally, the data sets have also been expanded to now address fish-habitat relationships and fish and wildlife interactions.

As a result of IBIS development, these peer-reviewed biological data sets currently consist of 9 data matrices that focus on the interactions of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. The data collected in this effort contains extensive information on 142 fish and 662 wildlife species and a limited amount of information on another 397 species that are found throughout the Columbia River Basin. This information includes (but is not limited to): their ecological functions, life histories, habitats they inhabit, and the impact of various management activities on their existence (See Appendix A for matrices data types). Attesting to the value of these species-account data sets, such information is specifically called for on the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s web site for Subbasin Planning and reiterated by the ISRP’s Retrospective Report (p.63) where it is requested that species range maps be developed so that species of interest within a watershed can be related to proposal actions. Additionally, current and historic wildlife-habitat maps of the Columbia River Basin that are in a geographic information system (GIS) augment the linkage of these biological data to real-world locations and are developed by NHI to enhance the data’s usefulness for spatial modeling (O’Neil et al. 2005). The combined fish and wildlife data sets currently exceed 150,000 records, and IBIS currently serves on the Internet more than 5,000 files. Conceptual approach to IBIS informational data sets can be seen in the below Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual Approach to IBIS Information

This conceptual approach relies in part on spatial data. A key component of our proposal is the continued development of spatial data, accomplished by habitat mapping. IBIS information combined with habitat mapping provides a method to provide decision support tools and services for the region, enhance the habitat evaluation procedures, develop educational outreach, and further establish active partnerships for regional coordination; all of which relate to the 6 objectives stated above, and are described in the upcoming sections.

Objectives

Objectives:

Enhancing Access to IBIS Habitat and Biodiversity Information (OBJ-1)

Incorporating the remaining IBIS data into an improved database management system
A large amount of wildlife information has already been compiled but not incorporated into the online IBIS application. To incorporate these data efficiently, the data needs to be migrated to an Structured Query Language (SQL) enterprising software. Currently, the areas of life history, biomass, taxonomy, legal status, general status and occurrence, salmon-wildlife relationships, structural condition definitions, key environmental correlates definitions, key ecological functions definitions, principal foods-diet, seasonal activity and movement, and spatial and landscape associations need further attention. Species range maps that are being developed for all focal species listed in the subbasin plans and other species range maps will need to migrate into a geospatial data set. Then, the SQL and geospatial data sets can be linked to form a very dynamic and potentially very informative application.

Mapping Focal Habitats - Subbasin Planning, CHaMP, & High-Level Indicators (OBJ-2)

IBIS information is used for planning, evaluating and monitoring fish and wildlife habitats. Thus, multi-scale habitat maps are of keen interest. In 2005, the ISRP supported habitat mapping as part of an approach that is most likely to accomplish a successful long-term RME program. Specifically stating: 1) develop a sound census monitoring procedure for trend, based on remote sensing, photography, and data layers in GIS. Landscape changes in terrestrial and aquatic habitat and land use should be monitored for the smallest units (i.e. pixels or sites); and 2) use common protocols for on-the-ground or remotely sensed data collection. In a recent Fisheries article about monitoring,and evaluation of fish and wildlife restoration projects in the Columbia River Basin, the ISAB and ISRP recommended developing an extensive census of attributes for habitat trends as data layers in GIS. Our strategic approach is to map focal habitats with riparian meeting High-level and CHaMP program needs.

Develop, Operate, and Maintain a Digital Library and Repository for GIS Habitat Data (OBJ-3)

The on-line digital library application would be built internally using ESRI software, but to increase accessibility map services would be created that would not need any ESRI products. That is, map service would be created for Google Earth and other popular internet applications. Additionally, users would have the ability to search, mix and/or match GIS data sets as well as edit, and to take those derviative products with them without changing the original GIS data layers. The repository can be viewed as life insurance for the regional GIS data in that it would be an off-site storage facility that would record and house the original GIS data sets.

** Note creating this ability also allows the public and other resource agencies access to the Regional GIS data, and this would be very important because it could also streamline data needs for Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessment Reports, etc.

HEP Field Survey Data Transitioning to Trends, Status, Compliance Montioring (OBJ-4)

With a gradual conclusion to the Habitat Crediting issue, we envision the need for HEP survey data to decline though do expect an increase in habitat project needs to establish baseline conditions and a continuing need for compliance monitoring. We see set protocols using GIS and field inventory methods to develop a standard set of compliance monitoring reports. These data would be housed within the GIS spatial library and repository with map services produced to make these data available to the public and resource managers. HEP Survey habitat variable data that is already (and will be) collected will be spatially located and presented in tabular form and made available for regional access.

Integrate Habitat Inventories and Evaluations (OBJ-5)

A primary objective is to integrate wildlife habitat inventories and evaluations with fish projects so to provide a more complete picture of the setting and status of the resource. The CHAP and CHaMP programs are both habitat base and incorporate similar approaches, thus it would be efficient to integrate the approaches to develop a more comprehensive evaluation of the resources. This objective calls for the CHAP approach to be applied to the riparain habitats that are adjacent to the CHaMP stream segments to add value to the CHaMP findings within these segments. Additionally, it is proposed that NHI fulfill the GIS needs for the CHaMP program because this: 1) would facilitate continuity between projects by pairing CHaMP with a program (NHI) with the GIS resources to fully meet their needs, 2) would provide one home for GIS data (its dissimination and repository), and 3) would establish and streamline habitat sharing amongst and between projects and groups.

Develop Tools and Services (OBJ-6)

Create tools and services that can be used on the Internet or on hand-held devices. This objective is mostly collaborative because of the growing interest to use the Internet as a means for recording and sharing information along with the high interest in mobile applications that can be incorporated into devices and phones. For example, NHI worked in collaboration with US Fish and Wildlife Services and the Environmental Protection Agency on the design and development of an Application and Protocol for Sampling Wetland Vegetation. The protocol, developed by USFWS staff, provides guidance on vegetation planning and monitoring protocols for wetland and riparian areas. It is based on a presumption that reference sites can help develop vegetation plans and performance standards for compensatory mitigation sites. Such a tool can be easily modified to include other components and needs for monitoring and evaluation in the Columbia River Basin, thereby forgoing initial startup development.

Education and Outreach (OBJ-7)

This objective is mostly collaborative, and with NHI as a non-profit organization with a classification from the Internal Revenue Services as a science and education institute, we provide some educational outreach in most years. As an example, in 2011 we work collaboratively with the Oregon Forest Resources Institute using IBIS information to develop and publish a book, A Guide to Priority Species in Oregon Forests, for landowners and childern. This book is due out in early 2012 and an estimated 20,000 copies will be printed.

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense	Working Budget	Expenditures *
FY2019	$0	$0


FY2020	$0	$0


FY2021	$0	$0


FY2022	$0	$0


FY2023	$0	$0


FY2024	$0	$0


FY2025	$0	$0


* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

Cost Share Partner	Total Proposed Contribution	Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.

Previous Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year	Total Contributions	% of Budget
2014
2013
2012	$165,000	50%
2011	$142,000	46%
2010
2009	$143,000	39%
2008	$227,000	59%
2007	$131,000	45%

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance:

First, the contracted amount that shows in 2006 for $326,677 reflects the 2004 and 2005 amounts combined with the 2006 budget.  I assume this was done from an accounting standpoint to balance the sheet though we had separate contracts for 2004 & 2005. Our budget remain the same from 2006 thru 2009 at $157,831.  We did receive a 2.5% increase in 2010 and again 2011.  For 2012 the budget is at the current 2011 level.  In 2009, we went through a BOG request for $64,294 to replace equipment that had been in use for 6 to 10 years; our plotter literally was coming apart.

Regarding our cost share for 2009 & 2010, the breakout should be:  ESRI [Earth Systems Research Institute] - $100,000 in-kind software; Northwest Habitat Institute - $35,000 in-kind general support; USGS - $8,000 (IBIS software application support); and USFS - $10,000 (IBIS focal habitat mapping support). For 2011, the USFS completed the contract to map their focal habitats. So in recent years, we have 40-50% cost share amounts.

Explanation of Financial History:

The IBIS project has operated for 12 years.   Since 2004, our project budget has been reduced below the requested and approved amounts by CBFWA Management Review Team. As part of the Council's 2007 project review, this project is designated as a "Core Program" but the Council/BPA has only given it "interim funding". We have made several attempt to obtain complete funding by sponsoring a data management workshop to scope, list and verify project needs; to having it reviewed by the CBFWA Wildlife Advisory Committee for prioritization of project needs; and to developing and drafting  A Strategy for Managing Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Data. All three of these efforts have been completed, and the project remains with an iterim status. 

Specific project funding history is: In 2004-2006, this project was recommended for funding at $434,000, but only funded at l5% to 36% of the recommended funding, which mostly came from the data management placeholder. In 2006, this project was again recommended for funding at $440,000 for FY 2007-2009. However, interim funding was assigned to this project at 36% of the recommended funding with an understanding that the Council would revisit this project once the workshop and other reviews were completed. For FY 2009-2014 review, the IBIS project requested funds at $554,740 (plus an additional pass thru to states and tribes for data coordination at $400,000; the project was recommended for funding, but was kept level funded or at 30% of the requested amount. However, this time the Council staff did state that some or most of the requested costs may be funded and a decision made after the RM&E category review. So currently, the IBIS project is before this Review with an interim funding status.

For a look at the Habitat Evaluation Project Financial History please see
https://www.cbfish.org/Project.mvc/Display/2006-006-00

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	9
Completed:	7
On time:	7

Status Reports
Completed:	30
On time:	24
Avg Days Late:	9

								Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract	Subsequent Contracts	Title	Contractor	Earliest Start	Latest End	Latest Status	Accepted Reports	Complete	Green	Yellow	Red	Total	% Green and Complete	Canceled
19561	24577, 29718, 34627, 38779, 43717, 49290, 54674	2003-072-00 EXP HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY INFO SYSTEM FOR COLUMBIA	Northwest Habitat Institute	09/01/2004	12/31/2012	History	30	76	0	2	2	80	95.00%	0
Project Totals							30	76	0	2	2	80	95.00%	0

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract	WE Ref	Contracted Deliverable Title	Due	Completed
49290	F: 189	Compile high value focal habitat data collected by others for the Columbia River Basin by subbasin	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	G: 189	Attend meetings, make presentations, lead work group, hand out materials, complete work assign	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	A: 159	Develop Internet Application to Access Regional Focal Species Information by Subbasin or Ecoprovince	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	B: 159	Compile high value focal habitat data for the Columbia River Basin by subbasin in areas w/ Data Gap	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	D: 160	Redesign the IBIS website	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	C: 160	Deliverable is a full operational and up to date information system	9/20/2011	9/20/2011
49290	E: 161	Develop and maintain Internet Site for IBIS Information and Provide Technical Support	9/20/2011	9/20/2011

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Explanation of Performance:

The Northwest Habitat Institute's contract approach has always been to be on time and within budget.  The above information supports this tenet.

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
List important activities and then report results.
List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.

All Proposals:

Umbrella Proposals:

To understand the IBIS project, I have checked all of the Work Elments for FY 11 contract period. This was done to give the reader a more complete understanding of the types and kinds of products that are developed. In this section. I will list a synopsis of our recent major accomplishments followed by one work element discussed in some detail; for more detail on the other work elements please see our Annual Report for FY11 that is attached in the Other Project Document Section. Additionally, in perusing this work, we need to mention that the IBIS project has only been funded at about 30% of its requests over the years, and last year was no exception. With this in mind, IBIS serves as a primary source for regional information which emphasizes fish and wildlife habitat for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. The information that is collected, created or derived is done in support of Subbasin Planning and regional monitoring, evaluation and reporting programs, thus the work elements undertaken this year focus on this continued support; specifically 1) supporting and enhancing existing subbasin plans and their data and where appropriate include other relevant data sources specifically targeting focal habitat and species, 2) enhancing the IBIS infrastructure for accessing and retrieving information, 3) providing technical support for those who still are inquiring into these data sets, 4) acquiring aquatic, riparian, and upland data and information that are current or recently in use by the various resource organization in the Basin, and 5) attending coordination meetings and to educate the resource managers and public about IBIS and its capabilities.

Major Accomplishments:

The IBIS project focuses on the issue of developing, capturing, maintaining and making available habitat and species data system-wide. In 2009, the IBIS project (http://www.nwhi.org/index/ibis) was evaluated under the Wildlife Category Review and received the approval of the ISRP. Additionally, the ISAB produced a report on Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration (Sept. 30, 2011), whereby they list our PNW Habitat Classification System and its linkage to IBIS as an Essential Database. However, full funding for all aspects of the IBIS project as proposed still has been deferred. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) staff has identified the IBIS project for further funding consideration during the R&ME and/or Data Management Review; both were initially scheduled for fiscal year 2011 but now appear for late 2011 and early 2012 with funding in 2013.

Several efforts required a larger portion of our time than initially planned. Once such example was concluding the data documentation to support the State of Oregon and Bonneville Power Administration settlement agreement. Though the Trappist Abbey and Wildish properties appeared to be the focus, three other lands [Herbert Farms, Hunsacker and 2-Russ properties] and several reference sites required inventories and analysis. This project gave us an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness of the IBIS data, when Oregon Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) wanted to enter into a settlement agreement with Bonneville Power Administration to resolve a 25-year old wildlife mitigation issue. Because IBIS was updated and maintained we were able to utilize the data in conjunction with the CHAP process to help ODFW and BPA to come to an initial agreement within 6 months. CHAP process was funded by ODFW, CBFWA, and The Nature Conservancy. The Oregon Governor signed the settlement with BPA on October 22, 2010 for $150 million, of which $140 million was related to wildlife mitigation.

Other efforts that staff were involved in were participating in the NPCC Wildlife Crediting Forum and working with the regional Wildlife Advisory Committee on the wildlife portion of the Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Report (MERR) document, which emphasizes creating and developing the wildlife high-level indicators portion.

The IBIS project has also had continued success in receiving a $100,000 GIS grant from ESRI for another year. Regarding publications, one technical paper or book chapter for The Wildlife Society still remains in a draft status and is now anticipated to be published in late 2011 (see end of this section for citation). Another collaborative goal of NHI is to leverage IBIS’s high value data where possible to conduct outreach and education. Almost all sections of the book were developed by NHI and the Oregon Forest Resource Institute is publishing the book at their expense. The book is, A Guide to Priority Species and Oregon’s Forests by O’Neil, T.A., K. O’Neil, M. Anderson, J. McFadden, F, C. Coe, and N. Dimeo-Ediger. 2011. Initial printing is estimated at 20,000 and copies of this book are to be given away free to school children and landowners in Oregon. Next, the project made 3 presentations regarding the IBIS data sets and attended 28 meetings, and at NHI’s expense sent 2 staff to attend a 4 day GIS workshop.

As mentioned in our 2010 annual report, the USGS has published a unified Hydrologic Units data coverage. This coverage was released in late 2009, but we did not discover it until almost 7 months later in 2010. Because this is the first unified coverage depicting hydrologic units for the entire United States, we have continued to incorporate our past work with fish and wildlife species ranges into this unified coverage. Additionally, the project has continued to collect riparian habitat data in portions of the Willamette Valley; these data are mapped at the 1 ha minimum mapping unit. In 2011 over 300 polygons have been surveyed by September 30^th and another 300 or more scheduled during the 2012 field season. Currently, the total number of mapped forested oak and riparian focal habitat polygons now stands at over 6500.

The principal goal of this project is to continue the development of high value data sets using common formats and methods to inventorying, monitoring, evaluating habitats, and to make these data sets available for subbasin planning or other reporting purposes, like Status of the Resource Report. There are 5 areas of emphasis: 1) enhancing access to IBIS habitat and biodiversity information and supporting further development of other high value data and maintenance, 2) multi-scale focal habitat mapping in support of subbasin planning, Columbia Fish and Wildlife Authority’s Status of the Resource Report, NWPPC’s Report to Congress, and NWPPC Amendments, and High Level Indicators, 3) creating supporting tools and services to build upon the former Northwest Environmental Data-Network’s workplan, PNAMP Action items, and lessons learned from subbasin planning for better efficiencies and decision making and to provide a systematic way for understanding and organizing ecosystem information at the various watershed levels; 4) acquiring and maintaining (reposit) high valued data sets with emphasis on GIS data from existing projects and linking these data to subbasins and making them available, and 5) developing regional coordination.

Technical Paper Submitted – A comment from the ISRP process was that we need to publish a number of our concepts that incorporate IBIS data in peer reviewed publications. To meet this comment, in 2011 one book chapter that had been accepted in 2010 was slightly revised again in 2011; this book chapter is now scheduled to be printed in December 2011. It is: O’Neil, T.A., P. Bettinger, B. Marcot, W.B. Cohen, Oriane Taft, Richard Ash, Howard Bruner, Cory Langhoff, Jennifer Carlino, Vivian Hutchison, R.E. Kennedy, and Z. Yang. Submitted 2009. Revised 2010 & 2011. Application of Spatial Technologies in Wildlife Biology. Editor N. Silva, Chapter In Wildlife Techniques Manual 7^th Edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 35 pp.

Below please find a more detailed example of one of our work elements identified for FY 11 that have been completed; please see the Annual Report FY11 for other work element progress.

Work Elements:

Work Element 159: Submit and Acquire Date

Aquatic, Riparian and Upland Habitat Data and Information

Progress: As a product oriented organization, NHI has continued collecting and obtaining habitat data in the region. We have continued mapping of focal habitats (and some are now considered high-level indicators) such as riparian and white oak forests in the Willamette Valley. A large inventory of airborne videography (c. 1993) has been digitized to prevent against further loss due to magnetic tape degradation. Also, our collection of fish and wildlife species rangemaps continues to grow.

Willamette Valley Oak/Riparian Mapping Inventory

NHI has continued mapping riparian forests of the Willamette Valley in the 2010-2011 field mapping season (Figure 1). This mapping effort is a continuation of the Ecoregion Riparian Inventory, which is supplemental to the Oregon White Oak Restoration Inventory to create a comprehensive map of Westside Riparian Forest habitat within the ecoregion. Forest stands containing Oregon Oak, Ponderosa Pine, or riparian characteristics within the Willamette ecoregion have been inventoried as to their vegetation classification, canopy closure, average tree size, and structural conditions. Additionally, the vegetation classification scheme broadly categorizes “mixed hardwood” into one class; therefore the “Comments” field contains USDA coded tree species in order of dominance to data enhance the more general “mixed hardwood” classification. This project has been ongoing for over 8 years and has been funded in part by the NFWF, BPA, BLM, USDA Forest Service, TNC, ODFW, and NHI.

Figure 1. Focal Habitats

Figure 1.White oak, ponderosa pine, and riparian mapping status in the Willamette Valley including the Forest Service’s Mt. Hood National Forest quads.|

The project has grown in scope over the years to encompass the needs of these different agencies. What started as a LANDSAT remote sensing project grew into an ocular survey in companion with a GIS and the 2005 NAIP aerial imagery to accurately map oak forest and woodland stands throughout the Willamette Valley. As a result of funding, we gradually worked from the Southern Valley near Eugene, North toward the Portland Metro area. It became recognized that riparian forests were also a high-level indicator that was not well suited to detection using remote sensing and that our project, while capturing many riparian forest stands containing oak, was not designed to specifically look at non-oak bearing riparian forest stand, of which there are many. Subsequently BPA and others have supported NHI to map these important high-level indicators. In the past several years we have completed the ocular riparian forest survey throughout the Willamette Valley while updating the originally surveyed oak forest maps in the process where applicable. Occasionally this meant changing attribute values, but mostly consisted of refining the previously digitized line work to reflect the capabilities of GIS software today.

Figure 2. A breakout of the riparian polygons mapped in 2011 (blue and yellow) within the Willamette Valley.

A comparison based on GIS analysis and aerial photo interpretation of 2009 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) 1-meter orthophotos and previously identified oak and riparian stands was able to determine data gaps such as unmapped forested polygons. These riparian data gaps are mostly comprised of polygons adjacent mainstem Willamette River and mainstem Santiam River. NHI has been field mapping of these data gaps during the past two years and when merged with the Oregon White Oak Restoration Inventory data, will complete a unified coverage of riparian and white oak habitat within the Willamette ecoregion. Over 480 polygons have been added to these areas totaling approximately 7200 acres, most of which were very inaccessible except by boat (Figure 2). Many of these forested polygons were missed during previous vehicular surveys do to the lack of visual access by road. These polygons have now largely been surveyed via canoe. Several areas remain to be mapped in the upper Santiam river systems as well as the mainstem Willamette River North of Salem

Mt Hood Oak and Riparian Inventory

NHI has also continued to map riparian, oak, grand fir, and ponderosa pine habitats near the Mt. Hood area in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service as part of our effort to quantify these and other focal habitats in the Columbia River Basin. In August and September 2010 NHI drove about 500 miles of forest roads, representing all of the navigable roads within 4 U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, while mapping several attributes of the forest stands encountered to a one hectare minimum mapping unit. The field effort was completed last fall and the digital phase at the beginning of this fiscal year added 624 polygons totaling approximately 41,160 acres, Figure 3 highlights the completed additional orthoquads that were inventoried.

Figure 3 MT Hood National Forest Mapping

Figure 3. Forest Service’s Mt. Hood National Forest quads mapped as a collaborative partnership.

Rangemaps

To date we have 373 rangemaps, including all of the identified focal species updated to cover the entire Columbia River Basin that is Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and parts of Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. BPA has supported the development of the focal species as identified in subbasin plans, while NHI has in-kind support the remaining species so as to achieve a complete wildlife species coverage for the Basin. These data have all been converted to fit with the recently released national hydrography dataset that is the first unified 6th HUC coverage for the continental United States.

Figure 4. Sample Combined NHI Rangemaps

Figure 4. Sample rangemap viewer built with ESRI Flex viewer web application. Draft species range shown is the bull trout.

These rangemaps are in the process of being integrated into the IBIS database redesign to enable a spatialization of the database itself. Soon, given proper funding, NHI will be able to offer web resources for a variety of uses. Web applications will be built to consume web services that will allow for dynamic queries of species lists for a given area and individual rangemaps. An example rangemap application built on the ArcGIS viewer for Flex web application framework is shown in figure 4 below. Eventually, we will add several hundred more species rangemaps once the proper source data has been identified and converted to fit in the IBIS system. The creation of these rangemaps is the culmination of many years work and will support many functions at multiple scales from a regional habitat landscape perspective, to the mapping and analysis of habitats at the subbasin scale, all the way to CHAP assessment work at the site level.

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-NPCC-20120313
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal:	RESCAT-2003-072-00
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	3/5/2014
Recommendation:	Implement with Conditions
Comments:	Council recommendation: Revise proposed work based on the following recommendation through FY 2013: This work should remain narrowly focused on Program evaluation needs and evolve towards web-service data accessibility for facilitating meeting these needs. Guidance from the wildlife managers and Council should guide wildlife and terrestrial related work needed for Program evaluation and reporting needs related to HEP, CHAP, subbasin and provincial assessments, and wildlife HLIs. The sponsor will work with Bonneville to incorporate all HEP data into the NWHI database by end of FY2013 (also see project-specific recommendation for NHI in Part 3-3b). Furthermore, if the PERC moves forward, it would be expected that the council recommendations based on the guidance from this committee would be incorporated in this work.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2003-072-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)

	Qualification #1 - Qualification 2/8/2012 The issues raised in this review can be addressed during contracting. No response to the ISRP is required. Deliverable 2 (Implement a GIS spatial library and repository for habitat data) and parts of Deliverable 5 (Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators) appear to be regionally inconsistent with the objectives and deliverables of StreamNet and other fish and fish habitat data storage projects. Long-term storage of terrestrial wildlife and habitat data, including GIS data layers, may be more appropriate in a distributed network in cooperation with projects dealing with long-term storage and retrieval of fish and fish habitat data. Deliverable 5 needs specific details that can be specified during contacting, namely, what other data sets should be acquired and where will they be permanently stored, should NHI serve in a "tier 2 data analysis" capacity to derive and disseminate High-Level Indicators and GIS data layers based on non-spatial and spatial data that reside within agencies and organizations, and what non-spatial information should be acquired?
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives We support the proposal to present a more comprehensive and integrated wildlife approach in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The project as proposed will continue to support subbasin planning and will now include other work objectives to develop wildlife high-level indicator information and integrate habitat inventories and evaluations. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) IBIS is an information system providing service to the region on terrestrial wildlife and habitat issues. The project has started producing GIS map based products for the Basin and has made major accomplishments, particularly in helping with development of subbasin plans and production of wildlife habitat maps. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) This project is to merge the Habitat Evaluation Project (200600600) with the IBIS project, as well as to take steps to integrate with the CHaMP program (201100600). The proposal identified four emerging limiting factors for the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program that if addressed would better inform subbasin planning, high-level indicators, and other monitoring projects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables 1, 3, and 4 meet scientific review criteria. Deliverable 2 (Implement a GIS spatial library and repository for habitat data) and parts of Deliverable 5 (Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators) appear to be in conflict with the objectives and deliverables of other proposals which meet scientific review criteria, namely StreamNet and other fish and fish habitat data storage projects. Long-term storage of terrestrial wildlife and habitat data, including GIS data layers, may be more appropriate in a distributed network in cooperation with projects dealing with long term storage and retrieval of fish and fish habitat data. Deliverable 5 needs specific details that can be specified during contacting, namely what other data sets should be acquired and where will they be permanently stored, should NHI serve in a “tier 2 data analysis” capacity to derive and disseminate High-Level Indicators and GIS data layers based on non-spatial and spatial data that reside within agencies and organizations, and what non-spatial information should be acquired? 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The wildlife habitat monitoring protocols, both at a fine and coarse scale, can be found in MonitoringMethods.org. Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:47:25 PM.
Documentation Links:

Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-NPCC-20091217
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date:	5/31/2009
Recommendation:	Fund
Comments:	Programmatic issues #2-3, #10, and Project-Specific Issue #2-3 for NHI. All or part of this project may be considered for funding in the RM&E category review. Staff recommend holding to BPA's SOY 2010 until Council and BPA address this issue.
Conditions:
	Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) - interaction between wildlife crediting and monitoring
	Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) participation funding
	Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: Regional Coordination funding

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-ISRP-20090618
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date:	5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
The principal goal of this phase of the project is to continue development of common data sets and methods to inventory, monitor, and evaluate habitats for fish and wildlife. Among other uses, this information would be used in future subbasin planning efforts. This product was used during subbasin planning in all subbasins. Regular updating is necessary to ensure current data are easily available to users. With advances in small scale mapping and data storage, the product may be useful for monitoring of noxious weeds. In the future, the ISRP recommends that more formal efforts be used to document use of the products produced by the project as well as to evaluate user satisfaction with services provided.
First Round ISRP Date:	3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
The principal goal of this phase of the project is to continue development of common data sets and methods to inventory, monitor, and evaluate habitats for fish and wildlife. Among other uses this information would be in future subbasin planning efforts. This product was used during subbasin planning in all subbasins. Regular updating is necessary to ensure current data are easily available to users. With advances in small scale mapping and data storage the product may be useful for monitoring of noxious weeds. In the future ISRP recommends that more formal efforts be used to document use of the products produced by the project as well as to evaluate user satisfaction with services provided.
Documentation Links:	Proposal (1/23/2009) Narrative Proponent Presentation (3/4/2009, 5.7 MB)

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-NPCC-20090924
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date:	10/23/2006
Recommendation:	Fund
Comments:	Interim funding pending Council review of data priorities. The Council will need to decide on the appropriate interim funding level pending further action on recommendatios from the data management workshop.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-ISRP-20060831
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
This is a detailed and thorough proposal for a big project. Among the database proposals, this is among the best justified. It includes an excellent recounting of the history of this effort, but little is said about how results have guided work in the Columbia River Basin, or how they solicit and utilize regular feedback on their products. Are all the users happy with the way habitats are quantified and displayed? As an example consider the following comment from the ISRP's review of the Flathead and Kootenai Subbasin Plans: "Planners used a biome approach informed by IBIS to assess wildlife. Specifically, they developed the Terrestrial Biome Assessment (TBA) tool to get to a finer level of analysis than that provided by IBIS, which is limited to qualitative measurements. The Terrestrial Biome Assessment includes both quantitative and qualitative data fields." www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2004-7.pdf. IBIS has likely progressed and can get to finer scales. The rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs is clearly and exhaustively described. Data developed by this proposal relate to the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, and the ISRP retrospective report. This project provides data to, or works directly with, a wide range of projects. The proposal provides a good description of connections to many projects, BPA funded and otherwise. The objectives and work elements are clearly described. The sponsors propose new decision support tools using data from the RME process: ELVIS (to provide guidance on wetland vegetation planning and monitoring protocols). Project effectiveness monitoring is proposed, as are quality control checks and data refinements. Information transfer includes a website to disseminate habitat and biodiversity information and performance tools to support decision making, presentations at meetings, professional material development, peer reviewed publications, and an education outreach effort in a habitat assessment course offered at PSU.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

IBIS Project: The main questions was, how do we know people using IBIS are meeting their needs and are they satisfied? We have listed 2 significant feedbacks that we have received last year. One was the Oregon 25-year old wildlife habitat settlement with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for $140 million, whereby CHAP which uses the IBIS data set was the procurring method. BPA's Vice President stated at a joint meeting in October 2010 that "finally we have a method that is not a black box and can be explained to the public". Next, is the ISAB's recent released report, Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration (September 2011). In this report, in Section III –Foundation for a Comprehensive Landscape Approach (page 104), the only Essential Database identified was NHI's Pacific Northwest Habitat Classification System (PHaCS) and its connection to IBIS – habitat types, structural conditions, and key environmental correlates. We have found our maps in a number of venues, like The Nature Conservancy's Synthesis Map where our focal habitat map is the key data to help call other information in or out. We have begun to start to look at asking any one that downloads our data to identify who they are and their purpose, so that we will be able to follow-up with them. But our current web interface is 6 years old and we need to totally revamp it. We are hoping with an increase in funding that we will be able to begin a significant revision of the IBIS web-based platform. Habitat Evaluation Project: The main concern was that the CHAP method go under further review. To that end, we have taken several steps: 1) contacted IDFG and asked them to compare CHAP and HEP. They did a CHAP assessment at 3 site: Derr Creek, Rapid Lighting, and Smith Creek and these sites also had previous HEP assessments. We are unsure if a report was actually written, but in the September 2011 Wildlife Advisory Committee meeting they did make a statement that the CHAP information is the most valuable they have because it characterizes their sites in some detail and is spatially available and often referred too (pers. comm. K. Cousins 9/30/2011; 2) the Corp of Engineers has been using CHAP in the Los Angeles District and has forward it to their Center of Expertise staff in Vicksburg, MS requesting a review and formal approval; and 3) we have drafted several papers for publication a) one is on CHAP GIS and a very short description has been incorporated into The Wildlife Society's Techniques Manual 7th Edition which will be available in February 2012, and b) we have contacted The Wildlife Society about a possible article on CHAP, they are interested providing we do not write it. So a senior biologist for the Corp of Engineers was contacted by the Society to write an article in The Wildlife Professional, which is scheduled to be published Spring 2012, c) we are submitting a more technical paper on CHAP to another Journal.

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

The current level of funding over the past several years has lead the Institute to move IBIS towards a more comprehensive wildlife project, looking now to merge with the Habitat Evaluation project and to integrate with the CHaMP program.  Additionally, the IBIS project continues to request additional suppport along with identfying major future needs for data managment ie. spatial library and repository for GIS habitat data.

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID	Title	Type	Period	Contract	Uploaded
00019561-1	An Interactive Biodiversity System for Columbia River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	09/2004 - 09/2005	19561	10/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
P103870	Annual Report (Final) NHI 200307200 - FY2007	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2006 - 09/2007	29718	10/2/2007 4:21:49 PM
P108472	Paper to National Academy of Sciences on Wildlife Habitat Mapping	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2007 - 09/2008	34627	9/30/2008 1:18:51 PM
P108547	An Interactive Habitat and Biodiversity System for Columbia River Basin - Final Annual Report	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2007 - 09/2008	34627	10/6/2008 4:06:20 PM
P114425	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System for Columbia River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2008 - 09/2009	43717	12/7/2009 9:40:42 AM
P119538	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System for Columbia River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2009 - 09/2010	49290	1/14/2011 11:10:36 AM
P123951	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System for Columbia River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2010 - 09/2011	54674	11/30/2011 1:54:59 PM
P172955	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172956	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172957	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172958	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172959	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172960	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172961	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172962	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172963	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172964	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172965	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172966	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172967	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172968	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P172969	An Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity System For Columbia River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.

Project Relationships:	None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

IBIS Project:

NPCC Subbasin Planning - IBIS project served as Technical Support for Ecoprovince and Subbasin Planning for terrestrial information. In so doing, developed numerous data sets to meet the Subbasin Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners, as well as addressing special requested needs. These data were posted on the Internet and made available to all subbasin planners. Fifty-nine subbasins use IBIS data in their subbasin plans. Today, these and new data sets are still served and maintained at the website.

BPA 198810804 Past involvement with Streamnet (CIS/NED) - NHI was an active participant in NED Working Group and has lead or co-lead the completion of 3 working group's objectives: A) subbasin planning data - 1) converting subbasin planning EDT/QHA data to a GIS format, and 2) retrieving, compiling and re-disseminating GIS data used in subbasin plans; and B) regional habitat aquatic, riparian, and upland habitat data - 1) bring together regional habitat classifications and developing crosswalks. C) co-writing the Strategy for Managing Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Data- Columbia River Basin Framework. Finally, all pertinent reports collected are also forwarded to the Streamnet Library for cataloging.

BPA 199206800 Willamette Basin Mitigation - ODFW has requested NHI to assist in working through the Willamette Mitigation obligation.  The Oregon Governor’s Office has also endorsed using the Combined Habitat Assessment Procedure (CHAP) which is based on Habitat Appraisal system (HAB).  The need is to assess properties that are being considered as replacement to fulfill BPA’s mitigation obligation for identified losses that have occurred in the Willamette Valley.  ODFW desired an approach that is ecologically based, as well as having better links to management plans for those properties. ODFW and BPA used the CHAP approach to continue addressing mitigation in the Willamette Valley.  Additionally, the Council amendment process also supports this request by ODFW and BPA.

BPA 200600600 Habitat Evaluation Project - NHI over the past several years has been working periodically with the regional HEP team in co-support of conducting habitat assessments. NHI has used HAB on several pilot projects in the Willamette Valley to show its capabilities and refine its methods.  Additionally, at one site HEP and HAB were both used to show the differences between the methods.  Each group has assisted the other in running vegetation verification transects. Most of the joint ventures have occurred in the Willamette Valley subbasin.

BPA  200201100 Kootenai Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment - The primary goal of the Kootenai project is to produce one regional, flexible, transferable template for operational loss assessments. Of keen interest is coming up with an approach that can address off-site efforts where mitigation cannot be accomplished through hydro-system operational measures alone.  To do this, there needs a common approach that would contain consistent components, measures, and protocols along with a coordinated data management strategy for collection, sharing, and storage that could be used basin wide.Currently, we respond to their specific requests.

BPA Relationship with Multiple Habitat Projects Regarding Wildlife High-Level Indicators,  IBIS project is proposed to meet these needs and in so doing would have an enhance working relationships with all wildlife projects within the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program.Improvement/Enhancement; 1993-040-00 Fifteen Mile Creek Habitat; 1994-017-00 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat; 1994-018-06 Tuccanon Stream and Riparian; 1994-050-00 Salmon River Habitat Enhancement; 1996-080-00 NE Oregon Wildlife Project; 1997-011-00 Shoshone-Paiute Habitat Enhancement.

Habitat Evaluation Project:
The regional habitat team works with all  wildlife entities that are part of mitigation for inundation losses caused by hydroelelctric development within the Columbia River Basin.   Please see the Wildlife Crediting Final Report (2011), which is attached in the Other Project Web Document Section.

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Wildlife

Secondary Focal Species

None

Threats to program investments and project success:

As a data management project that collects, creates, disseminates, and stores data/information we see four emerging limiting factors for the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program that if addressed would better inform Subbasin Planning, High-Level Indicators, and other monitoring projects. They are: 1) fine resolution mapping of focal habitats - we need finer delination of the focal habitats to know what is their composition and structural conditions, along with how much do we have and where does it occur. Further, specific focal habitat types that are linear or small in nature (e.g. riparian, open water streams and canyon grasslands) are not accurately represented moving up to a larger hierarchical scale; 2) creating, operating and maintaining a spatial library and repository for GIS habitat data - this need is critical and based on a) lessons learned from Subbasin Planning, whereby 60 % of the spatial data was lost with 1 1/2 years, b) there are currently 62 proponents identified as habitat collection projects that are funded, and if funded to completion will result in a $1.2 billion dollar investment, and c) the need for a GIS spatial library and repository has been supported by the ISRP in both the 2007 and 2009 reviews; 3) intergrating wildlife habitat assessment methods with fish projects - the need here is to gain a more complete picture of our resources rather than a partial one focused mainly on the wetted perimeter; and 4) trends and status and compliancy monitoring - the need here is to independently establish baseline conditions of habitat projects so to ascertain project success and future trends in addition there is a need to evaluate proposed management activiites opposed to what is really implemented.

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination:

99. Outreach and Education
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

RM & E and Data Management:

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Habitat:

Habitat work elements typically address the known limiting factors of each location defined for each deliverable. Details about each deliverable’s locations, limiting factors and work elements are found under the Deliverables sections.

87. Prepare HEP Report

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?

NHI has been involved in data storage, sharing and archival for over ten years, and the IBIS project is identified as a Core project for the Counci's Fish and Wildlife Program.    That said, we mainly rely on Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) suite of GIS software products to manage and share our datasets.  In addition to these software packages, we currently employ eight servers to run our network and web system.  Computer rack contains computers that act as our web servers, ArcGIS server, SQL RDBMS, storage servers, and domain controller.  Our current website is fully operational but we are working on re-design of the website that will also support many rich user account controls that will allow us great control in how people experience our website based on the permissions they have been granted.

Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.

NHI has been fortunate in garnering a grant from ESRI totaling over $100,000 of licensing, training, and software.  This includes several copies of the fully licensed ArcGIS desktop suite of products.  ESRI also has licensed NHI a copy of ArcGIS Server Advanced Enterprise software.  The ArcGIS Server product allows NHI to develop webservices and online applications to consume the data we collect and serve to resource managers and the public.  

Typically webservices are created to be consumed by many different applications.  Often GIS professionals obtain the URL’s for webservices to have the data they are interested in available to their desktop GIS software without having to maintain or store the data themselves.  This concept allows NHI to actively control, maintain, update and disseminate the data by administering a ‘live’ webservice rather than maintain a large number of flat files.  Once in place this process then gives us the ability to control sensitive datasets so that only the registered members that have proper authorization can have access.  The ability to edit these datasets online without specialized GIS software becomes possible.  Users will be able to edit datasets directly given the proper permissions, and those edits will then be checked in and migrated to the ‘live’ webservice when data administrators have has the chance to review and post the changes.  

Webservices can be consumed by many applications other than ESRI’s native products such as Microsoft’s Bing Map service and Google Earth.  This ability to work across platforms opens new opportunities for the dissemination of habitat related datasets.  The plan in place at NHI calls for the building of a supporting website that uses a modern content management system such as Drupal 7 to take advantage of the rich user control and content management features such a system has.  As of 2011, most people who use the internet are becoming familiar with the ubiquitous mapping applications that are available to web browsers.  Google Earth is a great example of this feature.  The maps found there are easy to navigate and can display many datasets such as zoning, business locations, vegetation, habitat types and many more.  In fact, the application can be used to display just about any supporting information that is available The ArcGIS Server software from ESRI gives NHI the tools necessary to build the webservices that serve our datasets to the web.  It also supports several different formats of webviewer applications that can be extensively modified to suit our needs. 

All of these technologies are geared to provide a robust and stable system to explore the multiple datasets we currently store as well as those that will be collected and deposited here as a GIS repository for habitat data.  The webservices and web map viewer supplications will dynamically present information for consumption by many different partiers with varying permissions to access the data.  

Although our projects have been approved for full funding, only a portion of our funding is actually received to meet these goals.  This has resulted in our process being put into a ‘deferred status’.  Much of what has been described above is ready to go given the availability of funding.

Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?

Much of our data that is stored on NHI’s servers and served to the public via our web interface was gathered as part of the subbasin planning process.  Each subbasin has a team that was responsible for creating their subbasin plan.  After that process was completed NHI was contracted to collate and archive all of the data for the individual subbasins.  

We have also archived large datasets of EDT and GIS stream reach data for the Columbia River Basin.  These datasets were created by Mobrand in support of the subbasin planning effort.  In addition, several tribal groups throughout the region have shown us support by actively uploading their data to NHI’s servers for archival and dissemination.  

NHI also has been the primary source for an ever increasing number of BPA related wildlife habitat projects through our CHAP process.  All of these datasets are being archived and will be made available where appropriate via our website, please see www.nwhi.org/index/gisdata .

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.

NHI’s goal is to collect and be the repository for any habitat related data.  Much of our focus is on GIS datasets, but we strive to collect any data pertaining to habitat in the Columbia River Basin.  These may be habitat surveys, status and trends monitoring datasets, upland and stream related habitat GIS datasets, regional habitat maps, and baseline habitat information.

We also maintain fish and wildlife species rangemaps for the region.  On our website we have posted the species rangemaps for those species that having relationships with Salmonids.  We are currently in a final review of over 370 fish and wildlife species rangemaps that have had their rangemaps extended to include the entire Columbia River Basin plus all of Oregon and Washington.  These new rangemaps have been converted to use the new 6th HUC watershed layer that is continuous across the United States.  This conversion will allow for the seamless representation of species rangemaps across the region regardless of political boundaries.  

We have worked with the former NBII metadata forum team to establish protocols for documenting our data with effective metadata that is compliant with national standards.  For the most part we use ESRI’s imbedded metadata tools with other supporting documents where necessary.  It is our goal to ensure that all of our data is properly catalogued and retrievable from our archives in a timely manner.   Supporting metadata is included with all of our downloadable products.

Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.

Most data on our website consist mainly of downloadable GIS files or image files of maps.  Currently we do not place access restrictions on our datasets, but in the future we plan on requiring at least a free registration process that will allow for much finer grained tracking of who is using the datasets we are serving.  In addition, various levels of access rights will be able to be granted to users depending on their needs.  Once a free user account is generated, a user will be able to access most of the datasets on NHI’s servers.  However, some data may be deemed sufficiently sensitive as to limit the access to only those parties actively involved in the project the data represents.  This will be possible with the systems we envision putting into place.  Editing capabilities can also be extended to end users with proper permissions through a simple web based interface.  This interface eliminates the need for expensive GIS software that has steep learning curves, while more actively involving the resource managers into the creation the data.  This will be especially important when future projects require the input of resource managers during the process of collecting and generating the data, such as determining the initial boundary extents of a project site.  No longer would GIS and resource managers have to constantly be sending each other images and .PDF’s of hand drawn maps through email to share information.  They would be able to log onto our web application from any device and instantly update the boundary files on the data themselves while having that activity logged and attributed to their user profile which can then be reviewed and posted by the website administrator.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?

Project Implementation Monitoring

Status and Trend Monitoring

Project Compliance Monitoring

Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Northwest Habitat Institute’s GIS Digital Library and Repository for the Columbia River Basin

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Columbia River	Basin		None

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

Redesign, Operate and Maintain IBIS's Web Site for Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indictors Information (DELV-1)

Because of changing technologies and the ever growing requirements of internet based information solutions, it has become apparent that the NHI website system needs to be replaced by a modern and more functional web content management system (CMS). To this end, research in a Drupal based website was completed in the spring of 2011. Drupal is an open source CMS that enjoys a wide user base and information rich support forums. Drupal, however, seems to have a rather large learning curve and a high cost of initial setup is a departure from traditional page driven CMS's. However, it does provide a very powerful suite of features that allow for fine grained user permissions and tracking. These features, when implemented will easily address the ISRP's concerns regarding the tracking of who is using IBIS data. This will also allow security control over who can download or view specific datasets.

The Drupal environment will also increase the updating of the website by editors and users by allowing them to edit the website without using code, but via internet applications that are defined to limit errors and overall enhance the user experience. This is an important feature that will spread the workload of data creation amongst many people rather than being the sole province of the web administrator.

Two months were spent learning the Drupal system and designing the functionality the new NHI site would need. At this point activity has slowed due to the lack of funding and the need for further staffing to complete these tasks.

Work is ongoing in the effort to redefine the IBIS data structure to better facilitate communication between the various components of IBIS, ArcGIS Server, and the website. The decision to fully make IBIS data spatial has been made to take advantage of the rich tools provided by ESRI's ArcGIS suite of software. This 'Geodatabase' is being designed to allow greater flexibility of the IBIS datasets across server, web and client applications. This new format will be a huge improvement in the usability of IBIS.

Currently the Geodatabase is being designed and built. This requires the use of ArcGIS tools to define the database schema and is aided by the use of a Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tool and Unified Marco Language (UML) to graphically depict the schema. Besides defining table structures and geographic feature classes, relationship classes, coded field domains and topology rules governing the way features interact with each other are being built. ESRI has done much work in these areas to provide a robust and extremely rich set of tools to query the IBIS data. Properly configuring the geodatabase tables, rules and relationships early in the process will be critical in supporting all of the other features desired for the IBIS system.

While work continues on this process, it is necessary to point out that the continued lack of full funding for the IBIS project makes it a slow venture. Designing the database is an intensive process as is populating the database with valid data. Adequately funding this project would allow us to bring in the necessary expertise and assistance to complete this phase on which so many other work elements rely.

NHI is working to fulfill this goal by upgrading our systems as described.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Fully Functioning GIS Spatial Library and Repository (DELV-2)

NHI proposes to implement a GIS spatial library and repository for habitat data as an effective protection against data loss and as a coordination tool that will improve data transfer and collaboration between entities in the region. This need is critical given between $772 million and $1.2 billion are estimated for implementation of habitat related projects for the Fish and Wildlife Program. (see Taurus https://www.cbfish.org/Portfolio.mvc/Summary/878 - Project Potentially Collecting Habitat Data and https://www.cbfish.org/Portfolio.mvc/Summary/1122 - Project that Emphasis Habitat Restoration in Implementation).

In the past, individual agencies have been responsible for the creation, dissemination, storage and maintenance of the various datasets they produce. A GIS repository does not necessarily replace the need for such data management, but rather it provides a location to query, access, download, and archive habitat related datasets from many different entities. Often very little coordination takes place between agencies or scientists from different disciplines (i.e., fisheries and wildlife biologists and regional planners). Having a repository would provide linkages between research goals and coordination of restoration efforts, as well as afford a solid measure to reduce ‘corporate memory loss’ of project data.

This GIS repository will serve as a data node in the Pacific Northwest that will coordinate regional habitat data activity from individual entities. The repository acts as a data backup and archival mechanism for the region as wells as a data aggregator that pushes web services that can be accessed via the internet. Web portals as demonstrated in a pilot project by Northwest Environmental Data-Network (NED) will be able to consume these web services and allow for metadata searches to be conducted thus creating an infrastructure for quick and easy information retrieval. Data will be accessed via a small number of industry-standard interfaces. NHI currently uses four standard interfaces from the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) i.e. Web Mapping Service (WMS, map-like views of information), the Web Features Service (WFS, retrieve and update geospatial data), Web Coverage Service (WCS, geospatial coverages) and the Web Processing Service (WPS, pre-programmed calculations and/or computation models). Data will be exchanged using self-describing technology like eXtensible Markup Language (XML).

Lessons Learned from Past Data Management Efforts -
Much effort has gone into detailing the best practices that should be used to manage geographic data in the region. Many different entities in the region involved with this planning effort such as the Northwest Environmental Data Network (NED), StreamNet, the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP), the Collaborative System-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP), and the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). Developing a coordinated data management strategy depends on the adoption of administrative and business practices, agreements, and standardized protocols. To effectively develop these elements, executive coordination and consent are needed. The targeted architecture represents an end-to-end approach to data collection, reporting, management (or handling), discovery and sharing. This approach includes: more consistent use of best practices and standards by content groups (e.g. CSMEP, PNAMP, NHI, StreamNet), systematic attention to data quality throughout data management, use of regional-scale tools to making published data discoverable through metadata and the development and use of data sharing agreements and practices to make data available. The results of this process were developed into a Best Practices document. Some of the lessons learned from the process are shown below:

• Effective information management is an ongoing effort, not an episodic task. A sound data management strategy should be part of core funding considerations during project funding cycles.
• Most of the regional information sharing needs involve summarized, derived, or other analyzed and synthesized data.
• Derived data and analyses created during inter-agency technical projects (orphan or homeless data sets) have no long-term owner and are at particularly high risk of being lost over time, if they are not captured and integrated into the regional network.
• Connecting local data sets to shareable agency or regional databases is an important need for improving data sharing. Developing efficient methods to move data from field collection into regionally accessible nodes and repositories will yield large benefits.

To create efficencies, and to save time, the additional steps and cost for NHI to complete the GIS data development for the CHaMP Program, which is clearly a BIOP is money/effort well spent.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Produce Maps of Focal Habitats to Meet Subbasin Planning, CHaMP and High-Level Indicator Needs (DELV-3)

Mapping of subbasin's focal habitats can be strategically implemented to meet CHaMP and High-Level Indicator needs. Fine scale mapping of certain focal habitats, like riparian is currently a limiting factor for the Fish and Wildlife program. This new approach could address this limiting factor and compliment and add value to the CHaMP program. For instance, fine scale mapping can start in watersheds that the CHaMP surveys are or have been undertaken. This information can then also be summarized as part of the focal habitat status for High-Level Indicators. Moreover, other information like grazing or fire history within a watershed could be gleaned from the High-Level Indicators, to further inform landscape condition for the CHaMP watershed(s).

Mapping protocols both at a fine and coarse scale can be found in the PNAMP Monitoring Methods application under the keywords focal habitat mapping and Landsat. A synopsis follows of the fine scale approach.

NHI uses an ocular survey methodology to map subbasin focal habitats. The example that follows refers to the techniques used to map Oregon white oak, Ponderosa pine and riparian forests in the Willamette Valley and near Mt. Hood. The general premise is:

1. Complete inventory of white oak, pondrosa pine, and riparian for the entire Willimatte Valley
The mapping process begins by obtaining the most current and high resolution data that is available for the project area. For large landscapes, this is often the most current iteration of the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. The NAIP program remaps entire states at a 3-5 year interval. The most recent iteration for Oregon is the 2009 NAIP dataset, while the previous dataset was captured in 2005.

Each vegetation class and structure is determined in a multi-agency team environment field-driving the study area and identifying stands of oak and pine. Stands are identified by georeferenced digital coverages displayed on a laptop with attached GPS unit, or using a Trimble GeoXT GPS unit with ArcPad capabilities, and recording observations and field points. Polygons of oak and pine stands are drawn directly in the Trimble unit using ArcPad, or on digital coverages using the laptop.

The minimum mapping unit is 2.0-5.0 acres. The classification scheme/approach follows that of Klock et al. (1998), who initially mapped oak in the Willamette Valley at a coarser scale starting in 1993. White oak, ponderosa pine, and riparian habitats are categorized by % stand composition (4 categories); structural conditions by % canopy coverage (4 categories); size by dbh (6 categories); and canopy by single- or multi-story. The map depicts actual vegetation, not historical or potential vegetation.

Note: one problem associated with ocular surveys is that in some areas, access can be very limited due to private property, natural landscape features, or other land use restrictions. The goal of these mapping efforts is to quantify to the best of our ability all those areas that can be directly viewed by field crew without addressing access issues. Ocular surveys were limited to available line of sight from public or permissibly accessible locations. That said, so far in the Willamette Valley we have mapped almost 9,000 polygons, and only a handful (<100) had absolutely no access to view the forest stand.

2: Run Inventory Transects.
This step follows the HEP - Habitat Measurement Techniques Manual Protocols for establish status and trend information. This detailed transect information can also be used to determine the range of plant variability and to produce a technical plant association handbook, if desired, so land managers can make better restoration decisions.

3. Field verification or map accuracy.
Once a draft map is complete, field verification addresses any inconsistencies and establishes a product error matrix so users know the reliability of the map. We will use a stratified random sampling approach to validate a representative subsample of each mapped category.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Develop HEP Reports and Status & Trends, or Compliance Reports (DELV-4)

HEP reports are needed because of the Fish and Wildlife Program's requirement to determine and track Habitat Units fore each mitigation parcel, agency and entity. Please see the Draft Habitat Crediting Forum Report attached in the Other Documents section. The protocols for field inventory will follow the Habitat Measurment Techniques Manual found at the PNAMP Monitoring Methods application under the keywords: Habitat Evaluation Procedures.

As the habitat crediting issues comes to conclusion, we see a need for an independent assessment of existing projects to develop baseline conditions so that trends and status can be established and reported. Additionally, we also see a need for compliance reporting to determine what is being proposed versus what is being implemented. We believe these assessments are limiting factors for the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program.

We see transitioning from HEP surveys to the trends, status and compliance surveys. Protocols for field inventory will follow the Habitat Measurment Techniques Manual found at the PNAMP Monitoring Methods application under the keywords: Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Establishing baseline conditions will follow the GIS and field inventory approached used for CHAP - Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols, which are found in the Monitoring Methods application (also please see the attached paper Mapping with a Consistent Wildlife Habitat Classification to Improve Transportation & Conservation Planning in the Other Documents section). GIS maps are produced to depict amount and juxtaposition of habitat types, structural condtions, key environmental correlates, invasive plant species, and anthropogentic developments. If potential species lists are needed to allow comparisons with actual species observed, then this list would be pulled from peer-reviewed range maps that are being developed for the entire Columbia River Basin. Not all of the exact components that may be needed to report status, trends, and compliance have been determined at this time so additional information may be required.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

87. Prepare HEP Report

See note and explanation below *

Planning and Coordination

189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators (DELV-5)

Regarding acquiring other data sets including GIS data, NHI creates a number of data layers from its mapping projects that are posted for free access. Many of these projects are considered a match contribution because other organizations beside BPA are funding them and they can be used in subbasin planning. For example, the fine scale mapping of white oak, ponderosa pine and riparian habitat in the Willamette Valley, which has been supported by 5 groups at a cost of nearly $625,000. In addition, NHI has also worked collaboratively with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) to convert the EDT & QHA data that was developed for salmonids in the Subbasin Plans to a hydrology GIS data layer at either a 1:100,000 or 1:24,000 scale. Recently, NHI found 37 hours of airborne videography flown in 1993 that cover a large portion of Oregon. These data were in a Super-VHS mode, and the concern was that these data would further deteriorate. So we have converted them to a digitial format and working to make them available to land managers and the public.

Additionally, a number of the High-Level Indicators that are in need to be reported reside within agencies and organizations. So continual collection of these data will not only be tied to the appropriate subbasin's for planning purposes, but also be used in the High-Level Indicator reports.

Non-spatial information that would be acquired includes but is not limited to: 1) reports pertinent to an individual subbasin or ecoprovince like other agency’s management strategies, relevant research reports or papers, current initiatives or concerns; and 2) key tables, figures, and spreadsheets pertinent to subbasins. Metadata will also need to be created to accompany these and the GIS data sets.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Unassigned Work Elements from Locations (UAWE)

Placeholder deliverable for locations with work elements assigned that are not assigned to any deliverable

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Planning and Coordination

99. Outreach and Education

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Enhancing Access to IBIS Habitat and Biodiversity Information (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Redesign, Operate and Maintain IBIS's Web Site for Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indictors Information (DELV-1)	Updating the IBIS website to newer user friendly applications will allow a streamlining of current and future informational data sets. Currently, IBIS serves about 5,000 files and users have to tunnel down within a subbasin to find their data sets of interest. Redesigning will allow for more efficient querying to locate and retrieve information. Additionally, newer information will be easier to join with existing data. The current website platform was developed in 2004-2005.

Objective: Mapping Focal Habitats - Subbasin Planning, CHaMP, & High-Level Indicators (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Produce Maps of Focal Habitats to Meet Subbasin Planning, CHaMP and High-Level Indicator Needs (DELV-3)	This is a strategic approach to mapping, in that to provide better information to Subbasin Planning, CHaMP, and High-Level Indicators requires fine scale mapping. For example, taking just riparian habitat, which is a focal habitat for subbasins, is an identified High-Level Indicator for wildlife, and is an area for data needs for the CHaMP program, so by intentionally stratifying mapping of this focal habitat can meet the needs of all three programs.

Objective: Develop, Operate, and Maintain a Digital Library and Repository for GIS Habitat Data (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Fully Functioning GIS Spatial Library and Repository (DELV-2)	To reduce or eliminate the loss of GIS data, a spatial library and repository are needed, especially given that the Fish and Wildlife Program may spend in the range of $1 billion dollars on habitat projects. Thus, we need to create, test, operate and maintain the spatial library and repository so that it can be fully functioning, including creating and posting map services for others to find and use the data. What we do not need are 228 potential projects doing their own GIS, exponentially increasing cost, and creating 228 homes. Based on lessons learned, we need one home to house these data.

Objective: HEP Field Survey Data Transitioning to Trends, Status, Compliance Montioring (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Develop HEP Reports and Status & Trends, or Compliance Reports (DELV-4)	Because these reports are anticipated as principal needs for the Fish and Wildlife Program, steps are required to collect and analyze the necessary information.

Objective: Integrate Habitat Inventories and Evaluations (OBJ-5)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Produce Maps of Focal Habitats to Meet Subbasin Planning, CHaMP and High-Level Indicator Needs (DELV-3)	This is where the wildife methods can help inform fish project needs. Having our habitat evaluation team inventory and map the riparian areas associated with the CHaMP watersheds, it will add value and help present a more complete picture of the adjacent landscape. It is efficient and cost-effective.

Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators (DELV-5)	Because of the need for other organizations information, we will need to acquire other habitat inventories, evaluations, and/or reporting data sets and tie these to the appropriate watershed or subbasin landscapes to better document baseline conditions and restoration efforts.

Objective: Develop Tools and Services (OBJ-6)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Redesign, Operate and Maintain IBIS's Web Site for Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indictors Information (DELV-1)	IBIS information lends itself to other collaborative efforts, like the Vegetation Manager or VEMA that was developed with the USFWS and EPA. We would want to continue to leverage these opportunities especially now that there strong connections between Internet and mobile devices.

Objective: Education and Outreach (OBJ-7)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Redesign, Operate and Maintain IBIS's Web Site for Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indictors Information (DELV-1)	Being a product driven organization, we always strive to "get the word out" to others. IBIS information lends itself to a number of venues with school children, landowners and resource managers whereby opportunities present themselves to educate them about our natural resources. Our information is presented as ecologically neutral, that is just presenting facts with no agenda.

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol	Deliverable	Method Name and Citation
HEP - Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP) v1.0		Tree Measurements - Basal Area v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Establishing Transects for Habitat Measurements v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Tree Measurements - Diameter Breast Height (DBH) v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Down Woody Debris v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Establishing Photo Points v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Establishing Transects v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Estimate screening/hiding cover v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Herbaceous Vegetation Height v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Tree Measurements - Percent Canopy Cover v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Herbaceous Measurements - Percent Cover v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Shrub Measurements - Percent Cover v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Sample Size Determination v1.0 (Northwest Biological Assessment Workgroup 2010) Shrub Demographics v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Shrub Height v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Snags v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Stand Density v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Stumps v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Tree Measurements - Tree Height v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010) Visual Obstruction Readings (VOR) v1.0 (Ashley, P.R. 2010)
Basin Creek Utah Scientific Protocol for Salmonid Habitat Surveys within the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) v1.0 v1.0		Channel Class v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Locating the Site v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Layout v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Channel Unit Classification v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Fish Cover Elements v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Ocular Channel Unit Substrate Composition v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Setting Up Topographic Survey v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Topographic Point Collection v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Large Woody Debris v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Macroinvertebrate Drift v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Particle Size Distribution and Particle Embeddedness v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Photos v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Riparian Structure v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Solar Input v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Stream Discharge v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Water Chemistry - Conductivity and Alkalinity v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Water Temperature Probe Installation v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Map v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Measurement of Alkalinity Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Channel Unit Large Wood Volume Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Site Discharge Calculation v1.0 (CHaMP (Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program) 1) Drift Biomass Calculation v1.0 (Nicholas P. Weber 2009) Fastwater Cobble Embeddedness Calculations v1.0 (CHaMP (Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program) 2013) Pool Tail Fines: Particles <2mm and <6mm v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Fish Cover Calculation v1.0 (Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck 1999) Substrate Composition Calculations (Boulder, Cobbles, Gravel, Sand and Fines) v1.0 (Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck 1999) D16, D50, and D84 Particle Size in Riffles Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester) Percent Big Tree Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2017) Large Wood Volume Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2014) Large Wood Frequency v1.0 (Heitke, Jeremiah D.; Archer, Eric K.; Leary, Ryan J.; and Roper, Brett B. 2011 2011) Percent Coniferous Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Ground Cover and Percent No Ground Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Non-Woody Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2017) Percent Understory Cover and Percent No Understory Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2018) Percent Woody Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2018) Site Measurement of Conductivity Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) RBT - Channel Unit Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Site Gradient Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2014) RBT - Bankfull Width To Depth Ratio Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Bankfull Width Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Integrated Bankfull Width Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Integrated Wetted Width Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Bankfull Area Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2009) RBT - Wetted Area Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2011) RBT - Thalweg Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Wetted Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Bankfull Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Site Sinuosity Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Thalweg Depth Profile Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Wetted Width To Depth Ratio Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Wetted Width Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Wetted Volume Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2009) Channel Unit Supplemental Data v1.0 (Boyd Bouwes 2014) Air Temperature Sensor Installation v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, C. Beasley, S. Bennett, A.C. Hill, C.E. Jordan, R. Miller, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, G. Wathen, and J. White. 2011) Channel Segment Number v2.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Stream Temperature Logger Calculations v1.0 (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 2014)
Landscape Level Habitat Mapping v1.0		Wildlife Habitat Mapping using LANDSAT TM imagery v1.0
Mapping High-level Indicator Habitats v1.0		High level indicator mapping v1.0 (Cory Langhoff)
Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington v1.0

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
Redesign, Operate and Maintain IBIS's Web Site for Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indictors Information (DELV-1)	2013	2017	$930,000
Fully Functioning GIS Spatial Library and Repository (DELV-2)	2013	2017	$1,250,000
Produce Maps of Focal Habitats to Meet Subbasin Planning, CHaMP and High-Level Indicator Needs (DELV-3)	2013	2017	$735,000
Develop HEP Reports and Status & Trends, or Compliance Reports (DELV-4)	2013	2017	$2,210,000
Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators (DELV-5)	2013	2017	$260,025
Unassigned Work Elements from Locations (UAWE)	2012	2012	$0
		Total	$5,385,025

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request	Explanation of amount above FY2012
2013		$1,139,366	above average because it includes startup cost for establishing GIS spatial libarary and repository and to update IBIS equipment
2014		$1,034,447	below average
2015		$1,051,953	below average
2016		$1,073,228	below average
2017		$1,086,031	slightly above average because of expected increases in benefits and living expenses
Total	$0	$5,385,025

Item	Notes	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017
Personnel		$776,154	$776,154	$791,677	$791,677	$807,510
Travel		$40,340	$40,340	$44,340	$44,340	$48,340
Prof. Meetings & Training		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Vehicles		$47,925	$47,925	$52,925	$52,925	$57,925
Facilities/Equipment	(See explanation below)	$52,734	$15,500	$0	$15,500	$0
Rent/Utilities		$9,600	$9,600	$10,800	$10,800	$12,600
Capital Equipment		$64,000	$10,000	$15,000	$18,000	$18,000
Overhead/Indirect		$148,613	$134,928	$137,211	$139,986	$141,656
Other		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
PIT Tags		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Total		$1,139,366	$1,034,447	$1,051,953	$1,073,228	$1,086,031

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
NHI is a non-profit organization that rents a portion of a building at: 355 NW 7th in Corvallis, Oregon. Our computer equipment that would be available to conduct this proposal is (at a minimum; 1 Windows Server 2003 OS Domain Controller Server, 2 Windows Server SBS 2003 OS Web Servers, 4 Windows 7 Workstations, 1 Windows 7 laptop computer, 1 HP Z6100 42inch Plotter, 1 printers (inkjet all-in one), 6 UPS power supplies, 2 Windows Server 2008 64-bit application servers, Windows 2000 OS Network Attached Storage (NAS) backup system, 1 Windows 2008 64-bit 4 TB data storage server. Available software that is specific to the grant needs is Windows Server 2003 and 2008, SQL Server 2005, Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat, ESRI 's ArcGIS Desktop, ArcGIS Advanced Enterprise Server, ArcIMS, Visual Nature Studio 3 3-D visualization software, and ERDAS Imagine. A schematic of the equipment and network can be forwarded, if desired. Habitat Evaluation Team has been operating since 2005 and the types of equipment they have includes: compasses, cameras, data loggers, computers, computer software programs, GPS devices, cell phones, and all the equipment to run vegetation line intercept transects. Vehicles are leased for field work.

Cost Share

Source / Organization	Fiscal Year	Proposed Amount	Type	Description
Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc	2013	$100,000	In-Kind	Providing software licenses, GIS modules, and training opportunities
Northwest Habitat Institute	2013	$35,000	In-Kind	Support for additional staff time and benefits
Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc	2014	$100,000	In-Kind	Provinding software licenses, GIS modules, and training opportunity
Northwest Habitat Institute	2014	$35,000	In-Kind	Support for additional staff time and benefits
(Unspecified Org)	2013	$2,000	In-Kind	Tech Soup - multiple copies of software
Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc	2015	$100,000	In-Kind	Providing software licenses, GIS modules, and training opportunities
Northwest Habitat Institute	2015	$35,000	In-Kind	Support for additional staff time and benefits

Project References or Citations

References:  

Ashley, P. 2010.  Habitat Measurement Techniques. Regional HEP Team. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, OR.44 pp.

Bottom, D., B. Kreag, F. Ratti, C. Roye, and R. Starr. 1979.  Habitat classification and inventory methods for the management of Oregon estuaries. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Cassidy, K. M., M. R. Smith, C. E. Grue, K. M. Dvornich, J. E. Cassady, K.
R. McAllister, and R. E. Johnson. 1997. Gap Analysis of Washington State: An evaluation of the protection of biodiversity. Volume 5 in Washington State Gap Analysis - Final Report (K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 192 pp.

Chappell,C.,R.Crawford, C.Barrett,J.Kagan, D.Johnson, M.O?Mealy,G.Green, H.Ferguson, W.Edge, E. Greda,& T.O?Neil. 2001. Wildlife Habitats: Descriptions, Status, Trends, and System Dynamics in: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O’Neil (managing directors). Oregon State University Press.  Corvallis, OR. 736 pp.

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S.
Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003.
Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S.
Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Cooper, S.V., K.E. Neiman, and D.W. Roberts. 1991. Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho: A Second Approximation. General Technical Report INT-236

Coutant, C., D. Goodman, S. Hanna, N. Huntly, D. Lettenmaier, L. McDonald, B. Riddel, W. Smoker, R. Whitney, R. Williams, and S. Urquhart.  2000. Review of Databases Funded through the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.  Northwest Power and Planning Council, Council Document ISRP 2000-3.  Portland, OR.  Pp.29. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, USFWS, Washington, D.C. 

Csuti, B., T. A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E. Gaines, and J. Hak.  2001.  Atlas of Oregon Wildlife (Second Edition, Revised and Expanded).  Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.  525 pp.

Csuti, B., J. Kimmerling, T. A. O'Neil, M. Shaughnessy, E. Gaines, and M. Huso.  1997.  Atlas of Oregon Wildlife.  Oregon State Press. Corvallis, OR. 492 pp.

Hall, F.C.  1998.  Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural communities.  Portland, OR: USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-418, 290 pp.

Hawkins,C.P.,  J.L. Kershner, P.A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, L.M. Decker, S.V. Gregory, D.A. McCullough, C. K. Overton, G.H. Reeves, R.J. Steedman and M.K. Young. A Hierarchical Approach to Classifying Stream Habitat Features. 1992. Fisheries 18(6):3-12.
Homer, C.G.  1998. Idaho/Western Wyoming landcover classification.  Remote Sensing/GIS Laboratories, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB) 2011.  Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration

Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP). 2005.  Retrospective Report 1997-2005 #2005-14. for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, OR. 150 pp.

Johnson, D.H., T.A. O'Neil.  2001.  Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press.  Corvallis, OR. 736 pp.

Kagan, J.S., J.C. Hak, B. Csuti, C.W. Kiilsgaard, and E.P. Gaines. 1999. Oregon Gap Analysis Project Final Report: A geographic approach to planning for biological diversity. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, Oregon.
72 pp.

Kovalchik, B.L. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 2004.  Classification and management of aquatic, riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series description. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-593. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 354 pp. 

Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States, American Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36

Lillybridge, T.R., B.L. Kovalchik, C.K. Williams, B.G. Smith. 1995.  Field guide for forested plant associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR. 335 p. 

Marcot, B., W. McConnaha, P. Whiteney, T. O’Neil, P. Paquet, L. Mobrand, G. Blari, L. Lestelle, K. Malone, and K. Jenkins.  2002.  A Multi-species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin – Integrating Fish, Wildlife, and Ecological Functions.  Northwest Power Planning Council.  Portland, OR. CD-ROM. 

Mason, B., and R. Knight. 2001. Sensitive Habitat Inventory and Mapping. Editor M. Johannes, In Fisheries and Oceans, Canada: Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping (SHIM). Community Mapping Network, Vancouver, British Columbia. 315pp.

McDonald, L., R. Bilby, P. Bisson, C. Coutant, J. Epifanio, D. Goodman, S. Hanna, N. Huntley, E. Merrill, B. Riddell, W. Liss, E. Loudenslager, D. Philipp, W. Smokere, R. Whitney, and R. Williams. 2007.  Research, Monitoring and Evaluation of Fish and Wildlife Restoration Projects in the Columbia River Basin.  American Fisheries Society Vol. 32, No.12, 582-590.

Northwest Habitat Institute. 2011. CHAP General Approach.  Northwest Habitat Institute, Corvallis, OR. Version 09-7-11.  29 pp.

Northwest Habitat Institute. 2007.  A Guide to Oregon and Washington Wetland Wildlife and their Habitats.  Northwest Habitat Institute, Corvallis, OR.  74 pp.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC). 2000. Fish and Wildlife Program 2000, a Multi-Species Approach for Decision Making.  Portland, OR.  [Council document 2000-19]  http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-19/Default.htm (last accessed; 11/21/2011).

ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project. 2002.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Inventories Project, Natural Production Program, Corvallis, OR.  http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/pdffiles/habmethod.pdf  (last accessed; 11/21/2011).

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2005.  Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Salem, OR. 

O'Hara, K.L., P.A. Latham, P. Hessburg, B.G. Smith. 1996.  Structural Classification for Inland Northwest Forest Vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11: 97-102.

O’Neil T.A., C. Langhoff, and A. Johnson. 2008. Mapping with a Consistent Wildlife Habitat Classification to Improve Transportation & Conservation Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2058 - Environment and Energy, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C.  pp. 115-124.

O’Neil, T.A., P. Bettinger, B. Marcot, W. Luscombe, G. Koeln, H. Bruner, C. Barrett, J.Pollock, and S. Bernatas. 2005.  Application of Spatial Technologies in Wildlife Biology.  Editor C. Braun, Chapter 15 In Wildlife Techniques Manual 6th Edition.  The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.  pp.  419-447.

O’Neil, T.A., K.A. Bettinger, M. Vander Heyden, B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, W. M. Vander Haegen, D.H. Johnson, P.J. Doran, L. Wunder, and C. Barrett.  2001.  Structural conditions and habitat elements of Oregon and Washington.  in:  Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Johnson, D.H. and T. A. O’Neil (managing directors). Oregon State University Press.  Corvallis, OR. 736 pp.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger, Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G. Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. 2001. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington.  Northwest Habitat Institute. Corvallis, OR. CD-ROM.

O’Neil, M. Anderson, J. McFadden, F, C. Coe, and N. Dimeo-Ediger.  2011.  A Guide to Priority Species and Oregon Forests.  Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, OR. 

Oregon Forest Resources Institute.  2005.  A Guide to Oregon’s Forest Wildlife.  Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, OR  34 pp. 

Redmond, R.L., M.M. Hart, J.C. Winne, W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, Z. Ma, C.M. Tobalske, M.M. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, T.P. Tady, F.B. Fisher, S.W.
Running. 1998. The Montana Gap Analysis Project: final report. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, The University of Montana, Missoula.  136 pp.

Roger, P., T. O’Neill, T. Iverson, D. Tetta, S. Toshach, and P. Paquet. 2007.   A Strategy for Managing Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Data – Columbia River Basin Framework (draft). A report to the Northwest Power and Conservation Planning Council.   Northwest Environmental Data-Network & Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Joint Committee. Portland, OR 46 pp.

Schmidt, B., J. Anderson, B. Butterfield, C. Cooney, and P. Roger.  2002.  Draft- Data Management in Support of the Fish and Wildlife Program Summary. Northwest Power Planning Council.  Portland, OR.  pp.38.

U.S. Geological Survey. Land Use Land Cover map.
http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/anderson.pdf  (accessed 11/21/2011).

U.S. Geological Survey. 2001.  National Land Cover Database. 
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_definitions.asp. Accessed 12/4/2005. (accessed 11/21/2011).

Wahl,T.R., B. Tweit,, and S.G. Mlodinow. 2005. Birds of Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.  448 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Olympia, WA.

Wildlife Advisory Committee. 2011.  Draft Wildlife Monitoring Implementation Strategy. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. Portland, OR.  46 pp.

Notes

Because IBIS is redefining itself to offer a more comprehensive wildlife project, we thought it best to explain the rationale, efficiencies, and costs involved with this approach.  As you are aware much as changed since our last 2009-2010 review.  Bonneviille Power Administration has worked through Accord settlements and there has been more focus on habitat assessment and implementation projects.  Our querying of Taurus shows IBIS as the only identified habitat data management project basinwide and the best approach to build efficiencies, streamline the process, and create better data products, and to more effectively capture data sets. So our current proposal is all about meeting multiple needs with our products, streamlining and efficiencies.  

Regarding the budget, our proposed project budget request is about $1,075,000/ year.  Combine the current IBIS budget of $165,821 with the extant Regional Habitat Evaluation budget of $442,016 accounts for $607,837 of the total requested amount.  Noting that in past years IBIS project has only been funded between 30-35% of ISRP approve project requests. So the additional amount of $467,163 is requested to implement and acquire wildlife high-level indicators and the habitat GIS spatial library and repository.  Because high-level indicators, specifically riparian habitat, can be strategically integrated to meets several of CHaMP program goals.  Hence, there may be some cost savings with the CHaMP program because we could likely inventory and characterize riparian habitat attributes and perform related GIS data development at a lesser cost thatn currently paid. We are uncomfortable about rendering an exact amount that could be transferred to NHI to meet CHaMP needs; but certainly there could be some savings.

Support for our proposal redefinements are found in the Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and Artificial Production Project Review by the ISRP Final Decision document June 10, 2011 w/ July 2011 additions.   Specifically it states:
•	P. 12 “There is comparatively little evidence that habitat effectiveness monitoring is being coordinated in such a way that monitoring programs can take advantage of multiple restoration actions occurring in the same are, at least at the subbasin scale. [support for GIS Spatial Library and Repository and coordinating the GIS work]

•	P. 12 “we noted that consensus among major habitat attributes and metrics has not yet occurred. …we also suggest CHaMP … developing  and testing methods of scaling up site-specific habitat conditions to watershed and subbasin scale indicators of habitat quality” [support for strategically integrating high-level indicator needs with CHaMP program]

•	P. 13 “the most pressing need …is to develop robust, accurate relationships between VSP parameters….and changes in habitat condition that relate to restoration or continued habitat degradation in…watersheds” [support for strategically integrating high-level indicator needs with CHaMP program]

•	P. 17 “ Revise the CHaMP project and implementation plan and further develop the other elements of the habitat monitoring and evaluation effort consistent with the ISRP’s review and…in collaboration with …the basin’s other participants in habitat monitoring and evaluation. [support for strategically integrating high-level indicator needs with CHaMP program and support for GIS Spatial Library and Repository and coordinating the GIS work]

•	P. 17 “include some monitoring of “non-standard”  … metrics and methods to evaluate their value” [support for the use of CHAP method along side the CHaMP approach]

•	P. 17 “ continue the dialog with other monitoring groups to resolve as much as possible the differences in approaches to habitat monitoring, including the use of side-by-side field comparisons of various protocols..” [support for the use of CHAP method along side the CHaMP approach]

•	P. 18 “explore whether monitoring more sites less intensively may be more valuable than monitoring fewer sites more intensively.” [support for the use of CHAP method along side the CHaMP approach]

•	P. 18 “ clearly identify the roles of various cooperators…(e.g. data collection only..)” [support for GIS Spatial Library and Repository and coordinating the GIS work]

•	P. 18 “CHaMP should develop a lesson learned report based on the experience…” [support for GIS Spatial Library and Repository and coordinating the GIS work]

•	P. 18 “include an evaluation of how different models and methodologies compare…..such as expert panels…” [support for the use of CHAP method along side the CHaMP approach]

Note to the ISRP reviewers: we have spent a number of hours correcting formats, pictures and font sizes, lamentably some variations still exists throughout this proposal. Because of the on-line proposal process, we have relied on their technical support to make the best presentation given some inherit constraints. Thank you for your time and for considering our proposal.  Northwest Habitat Institute

Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review Assessments

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2003-072-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2003-072-00 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2003-072-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)

	Qualification #1 - Qualification 2/8/2012 The issues raised in this review can be addressed during contracting. No response to the ISRP is required. Deliverable 2 (Implement a GIS spatial library and repository for habitat data) and parts of Deliverable 5 (Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators) appear to be regionally inconsistent with the objectives and deliverables of StreamNet and other fish and fish habitat data storage projects. Long-term storage of terrestrial wildlife and habitat data, including GIS data layers, may be more appropriate in a distributed network in cooperation with projects dealing with long-term storage and retrieval of fish and fish habitat data. Deliverable 5 needs specific details that can be specified during contacting, namely, what other data sets should be acquired and where will they be permanently stored, should NHI serve in a "tier 2 data analysis" capacity to derive and disseminate High-Level Indicators and GIS data layers based on non-spatial and spatial data that reside within agencies and organizations, and what non-spatial information should be acquired?
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives We support the proposal to present a more comprehensive and integrated wildlife approach in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The project as proposed will continue to support subbasin planning and will now include other work objectives to develop wildlife high-level indicator information and integrate habitat inventories and evaluations. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) IBIS is an information system providing service to the region on terrestrial wildlife and habitat issues. The project has started producing GIS map based products for the Basin and has made major accomplishments, particularly in helping with development of subbasin plans and production of wildlife habitat maps. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) This project is to merge the Habitat Evaluation Project (200600600) with the IBIS project, as well as to take steps to integrate with the CHaMP program (201100600). The proposal identified four emerging limiting factors for the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program that if addressed would better inform subbasin planning, high-level indicators, and other monitoring projects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables 1, 3, and 4 meet scientific review criteria. Deliverable 2 (Implement a GIS spatial library and repository for habitat data) and parts of Deliverable 5 (Continue to Acquire Other Regional Data Appropriate to Subbasin Planning and High-Level Indicators) appear to be in conflict with the objectives and deliverables of other proposals which meet scientific review criteria, namely StreamNet and other fish and fish habitat data storage projects. Long-term storage of terrestrial wildlife and habitat data, including GIS data layers, may be more appropriate in a distributed network in cooperation with projects dealing with long term storage and retrieval of fish and fish habitat data. Deliverable 5 needs specific details that can be specified during contacting, namely what other data sets should be acquired and where will they be permanently stored, should NHI serve in a “tier 2 data analysis” capacity to derive and disseminate High-Level Indicators and GIS data layers based on non-spatial and spatial data that reside within agencies and organizations, and what non-spatial information should be acquired? 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The wildlife habitat monitoring protocols, both at a fine and coarse scale, can be found in MonitoringMethods.org. Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:47:25 PM.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response:

Please correct the errors noted below.

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

Download a snapshot PDF

Summary of Budgets

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

Previous Fiscal Years

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Public Attachments in CBFish

Other Project Documents on the Web

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment