FY07-09 proposal 200703100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Identifying prioritized action plans from subbasin strategies using a scenario-based decision support system |
| Proposal ID | 200703100 |
| Organization | Northwest Fisheries Science Center |
| Short description | Improving, testing, and applying a transparent method for developing an efficient habitat action list using multiple models. The proposed project builds on a decision support system that has successfully been applied in the Lewis River basin. |
| Information transfer | Products will include watershed management action plans for three subbasins based on strategies identified in the sub-basin plans, predictions using multiple models of expected habitat change and biological response that can form the basis of monitoring programs, a portable tool for use in other basins, and answers to applied research questions that will benefit system-wide habitat management. Information will be transferred through workshops, a series of on-line reports, and four peer-reviewed publications. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Ashley Steel | NW Fisheries Science Center, NOAA | Ashley.Steel@noaa.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Aimee Fullerton | NW Fisheries Science Center, NOAA | Aimee.Fullerton@noaa.gov |
| Ashley Steel | NW Fisheries Science Center, NOAA | Ashley.Steel@noaa.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| streams | Entire watershed | ||
| streams | Entire watershed | ||
| streams | Entire domain | ||
| streams | Mill/Abernathy/Germany |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Lower Columbia River ESUprimary: Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
primary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chum Columbia River ESU
secondary: Other Anadromous
secondary: Resident Fish
secondary: All Wildlife
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other: NOAA, USBR, WDFW | [no entry] | EDT Sensitivity Analysis | A multi-agency collaborative working group has been conducting sensitivity analyses on the EDT model. Paul McElhany and Ashley Steel are leading the NOAA analyses. Results from the EDT sensitivity analyses will be incorporated into the proposed decision suipport system so that EDT model output will include estimates of precision. These estimates can be compared to those of other model output. |
| Other: WDFW, NOAA, USFS, Other | [no entry] | Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW) | The three study basins are part of the IMW network. The IMW network will be a source for smolt monitoring data, flow data, and potentially habitat data. We plan to make our results available to the IMW group. Predictions using multiple models of expected habitat change and biological response can be used as benchmarks for monitoring programs. |
| Other: NOAA | [no entry] | Willamette Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (WLC-TRT) | The Lewis River analyses were initiated at the suggestion of the WLC-TRT. The goal was to provide an example of habitat recovery planning using multiple models and incorporating model uncertainty. The WLC-TRT has reviewed the development of the Lewis River analyses and will continue to be involved in the DSS by providing review and feedback. Elements of the DSS approach may be applied to watershed planning in Oregon. |
| Other: PacifiCorp Co. | [no entry] | PacifiCorp Aquatic Habitat Fund | PacifiCorp Co. is in the process of prioritizing spending of their aquatic habitat fund and of developing a strategic plan for habitat management above Swift Reservoir where anadromous fish will soon be introduced. We have initiated discussions for using the DSS to help PacifiCorp develop these aquatic habitat management plans. |
| [Funding Source left blank] | USFS | USFS Habitat Work Schedule | The DSS will assist the USFS in the Wind and Lewis Rivers by providing landscape analyses to examine strategies and actions proposed in the Lower Columbia 6-Year Habitat work schedule, August 2005, written by the LCFRB. |
| Other: USFS, BPA Proposal | [no entry] | Hemlock Dam Removal | The DSS will provide predictions of potential fish accessibility and habitat condition above Hemlock Dam. Scenario modeling can assist with development of habitat restoration activities in areas that may soon become accessible to anadromous fish. A proposal is also being submitted by Bengt Coffin (USFS) for removing Hemlock Dam from Trout Creek, Wind River. |
| [Funding Source left blank] | [no entry] | 200713500: Assessment of Proposed Recovery Actions for Salmon and Steelhead in the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Subbasin Plan | We will collaborate to develop a consistent model, or library of relationships, relating recovery actions to EDT input data. The consistent model will allow multiple model results from our 3 basins to be compared with EDT results from WDFW analyses across the domain. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation: Action Schedules | To provide an effective basis for recovery program, action schedules will be prepared showing the tasks, schedules, priorities, and responsibilities for implementation of the recovery actions identified in this plan. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all subbasins in the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 8.4 Implementation. |
| Implementation: Benchmarks | Benchmarks for action implementation, action effectiveness, and biological and habitat status will provide tracking reference. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all populations in all subbasins of the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 8.5.2 Benchmarks |
| Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations | Additional consideration of cost and economic factors will play an important function in developing specific implementation mechanisms and actions that are both scientifically sound and politically and fiscally feasible. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all populations in all subbasins of the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 8.4.5 Economic and Cost Considerations. |
| Implementation: Public Education and Outreach | Successful implementation of the plan will require broader public awareness, understanding, support, and participation. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all populations in all subbasins of the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 8.6 Public Education and Outreach. |
| Implementation: Restoration scenarios | P.M6. Conduct qualitative evaluation of program sufficiency. Explanation: This measure will involve close coordination of work with NOAA Fisheries' Science Center and the LCFRB staff to develop a systematic approach to modeling effects of actions on fish habitat and watershed processes and use this approach to evaluate alternative restoration scenarios. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all subbasins in the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 8.8 Measures. |
| Lewis: Habitat Action Plan | Translating tables of limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions into a strategic habitat action plan including economic consideration, performance metrics, and a prioritization of specific habitat actions. | Lower Columbia | Lower North Fork Lewis, Upper North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis: all populations. |
| Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan | Translating tables of limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions into a strategic habitat action plan including economic consideration, performance metrics, and a prioritization of specific habitat actions. | Lower Columbia | Mill/Abernathy/Germany: all populations. |
| Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty | The key to effective analysis in an uncertain world is to frame an approach that recognizes that uncertainties will always remain in specific data, analyses, and assumption. | Lower Columbia | This objective is relevant to all populations in all subbasins of the Lower Columbia as identified in Section 4.9 dealing with Uncertainty. |
| Wind: Habitat Action Plan | Translating tables of limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions into a strategic habitat action plan including economic consideration, performance metrics, and a prioritization of specific habitat actions. | Lower Columbia | Wind River: all populations. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project management | Oversee personnel and time schedules. Ensure that newly developed model components are consistent with decision support system framework. Ensure regular progress reports. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $20,697 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Outreach and planning workshops | Host a series of workshops to develop stakeholder participation in strategy development and to inform public about decision support system. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Public Education and Outreach |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Develop a strategic habitat action plan for Mill/Abernathy/Germany Creeks | Use the decision support system, in cooperation with LCFRB and the USFS, to develop a prioritized action plan for the Mill/Abernathy/Germany watersheds based on the limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions in the sub-basin plan. The plan will include economic considerations. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $50,521 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Develop strategic habitat action plan for Wind River | Use the decision support system, in cooperation with LCFRB and USFS, to develop a prioritized action plan for the Wind River based on the limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions in the sub-basin plan. The plan will include economic considerations. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $43,688 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Habitat restoration plan for use in local ground-truthing | Development of habitat restoration plans for particular land-owners or entities within the subbasin that can be used as performance metrics for monitoring efforts. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $33,069 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Lewis River strategic habitat action plan | Use the decision support system, in cooperation with LCFRB, to develop a prioritized action plan for the Lewis River based on the limiting factors, habitat measures, and habitat actions in the sub-basin plan. The plan will include economic considerations. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $16,200 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Decision support system manuscript | Produce and submit a scientific manuscript describing the decision support system. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $6,394 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Lewis River manuscript | Produce a scientific manuscript explaining final results and conclusions for application of decision support system in the Lewis River. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $6,395 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Mill/Abernathy/Germany manuscript | Produce a scientific manuscript explaining final results and conclusions for application of decision support system in Mill/Abernathy/Germany Creeks. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $6,394 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce web-based report | Produce a web-based report describing progress to date, strategic habitat plans, model details, and decision support system structure. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $21,125 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Scientific manuscript describing initial ground-truthing activities | Produce a scientific manuscript explaining final results and conclusions for application of decision support system in small projects for local landowners. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $6,394 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Wind River manuscript | Produce a scientific manuscript explaining final results and conclusions for application of decision support system in the Wind River. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $6,394 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Juvenile capacity analysis | Analysis of existing data and model predicting juvenile capacity. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $37,600 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Optimization routine analysis | Analysis of existing data on economic models and habitat/survival relationships to use in development of an optimization routine. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $130,750 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Statistical models |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Pool density analysis | Analyze existing field data on pool density from Gifford Pinchot National Forest and ODFW | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $55,400 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Statistical Model |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Sensitivity analysis | Conduct sensitivity analyses on decision support system. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $11,303 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: precision intervals |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Water temperature data analysis | Analyze existing and newly collected water temperature data for development of a portable routed water temperature model. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Statistical Model |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Water temperature data collection | Collecting primary data to parameterize water temperature model | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $4,000 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Water Temperature means and variations |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Development of an optimization routine | Development of a methodology for optimizing a restoration strategy based on one or a series of habitat and biological performance metrics. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $79,338 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Development of methodology for local ground-truthing | Development of a methodology for using decision support system in a series of small local habitat planning efforts. Goals include providing benchmarks and assessing short-term model accuracy. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $33,069 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Public Education and Outreach Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Development of pool density model | Development of predictions of pool density based on statistical model and variables that can be manipulated in the decision support system. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $45,818 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Incorporation of juvenile capacity model | Incorporation of juvenile capacity model based on statistical analysis and elements that can be manipulated in decision support system. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $25,121 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Sensitivity analysis methods | Development of a methodology for conducting a sensitivity analysis of internal decision support system parameters. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Benchmarks Implementation: Economic and Cost Considerations Implementation: Restoration scenarios Scientific Foundation: Dealing with Uncertainty |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Water temperature model development | Develop a routed water temperature model that responds to habitat features that can be manipulated in the decision support system; incorporation of water temperature model in decision support system. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $97,750 |
|
Biological objectives Implementation: Action Schedules Implementation: Restoration scenarios Lewis: Habitat Action Plan Mill/Abernathy/Germany: Habitat Action Plan Wind: Habitat Action Plan |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Aimee Fullerton (0.15 FTE) | $9,533 | $10,120 | $10,772 |
| Personnel | Ashley Steel (0.10 FTE) | $8,540 | $9,393 | $9,769 |
| Fringe Benefits | For All Personnel | $35,347 | $47,647 | $38,489 |
| Overhead | On Personnel and Fringe Benefits | $43,840 | $58,056 | $47,924 |
| Travel | Scientific Conferences | $4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
| Travel | Data Collection | $2,000 | $2,000 | $0 |
| Travel | Workshop | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Computer and Miscellaneous | $4,500 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Personnel | 2 Technicians, GIS Analyst, Statistician (Total 4FTE) | $113,356 | $163,624 | $121,510 |
| Totals | $226,116 | $296,840 | $234,464 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $757,420 |
| Total work element budget: | $757,420 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOE | Patricia Olson (4wk/yr) | $7,328 | $7,548 | $7,768 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Paul Mcelhany (0.1 FTE) | $18,036 | $18,938 | $19,682 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | data loggers | $4,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Ashley Steel (0.4 FTE) | $70,024 | $77,024 | $80,104 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Aimee Fullerton (0.4 FTE) | $52,112 | $55,320 | $58,888 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Beth Sanderson (0.05 FTE) | $7,807 | $8,634 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Blake Feist (0.05 FTE) | $7,807 | $8,197 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Conflation analysis and pool frequency model | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NOAA | Mark Plummer (mth/yr) | $13,000 | $13,390 | $13,780 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USFS | Diana Perez and Ruth Tracy; data and review | $8,500 | $7,500 | $2,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USFWS | Joel Reynolds (0.05 FTE) | $0 | $5,868 | $6,039 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| USGS | Christian Torgerson (0.05 FTE) | $4,244 | $4,371 | $4,502 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| WDFW | Brad Thompsen (0.05 FTE) | $4,896 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| WDFW | Dan Rawding (0.05 FTE and travel) | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $207,754 | $206,790 | $192,763 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $70,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $70,000 |
Comments: Proposed budget is simply to maintain GIS and technical support to complete pee-reviewed manuscripts. Project does not depend on on-going support. Proposed analyses can be completed in 3 years. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 12-31-2010
Comments: There are no on-going costs associated with this project.
Final deliverables: Web-based progress reports, 5 peer-reviewed manuscripts (including guidance on developing action plans), action plans for 3 watersheds, programming and software for application in other basins.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposed decision support system (DSS) has potential to be useful for assisting with prioritization and decision-making related to habitat restoration. The sponsors are understandably enthusiastic about their approach. They seem to have, however, an overly confident attitude toward modeling very complex physical and biological functions that raises concerns about how objectively the DSS will be conveyed to managers. The kinds of models that comprise the DSS and the assumptions and shortcomings of the models (e.g., data inadequacies) should be better explained. It is difficult to grasp exactly what the DSS is and how it is supposed to be used. Contributing to this problem is inadequate explanation of Figures 1 and 2 and how the results displayed in these figures could support management decisions. The sponsors need to explain what new insights these modeling exercises could add to what we already know. What are examples of some new insights or testable hypotheses that could be added or developed? The sponsors also need to address several methodological issues. Technical and scientific background: The proposal is very well presented. The technical background and justification were understandable and logical. Sponsors claim that habitat response can be modeled with greater certainty than biological response with clear links to multiple populations. This seems an overly optimistic claim and needs to be justified. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal was clearly linked to the subbasin plan for the Lower Columbia, as well as the efforts of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) and the Lower Columbia-Willamette Technical Recovery Team (TRT). The work addresses a high priority need to rank habitat recovery actions in terms of effectiveness, cost, and certainty of outcome. Relationships to other projects: The proposal clearly identifies the context of work and discusses how it fits with other major habitat projects in the region. Other projects include federal (NOAA-Fisheries, USFS), state (WDFW), and private industry (PacifiCorp) efforts. Objectives: Specific outcomes and timelines are clearly stated and reasonable. Objectives are linked to subbasin plan needs and Fish and Wildlife Program objectives. If the project is successful, the decision support tool should be transportable to other subbasins and provinces. The sponsors propose to improve the DSS they have developed and applied in the Lewis River watershed, ground-truth the model, and extend application to other watersheds. These are reasonable extensions of the approach. The sponsors need to explain why they are developing their own water temperature models when these models are already available (e.g., Matt Boyd’s model, Oregon DEQ)? What is the purpose of the ground testing and what will be ground-tested? How will the ground testing relate to future landscape scenarios? The sponsors also should explain why they consider their approach to be successful in the Lewis River. Tasks (work elements) and methods: In general, methods are clearly articulated. The modeling exercises will be complex, and bringing them together (Figure 3) will be a difficult undertaking; however, the sponsors have assembled a very capable team with a proven track record. A successful result would be both innovative and widely applicable. The sponsors need to provide greater detail about the models that are part of the DSS and the shortcomings and major assumptions of the models. A crucial need is a better explanation of the specific outcomes or products of the DSS and how managers could use them. This comment relates specifically to Figures 1 and 2, which are poorly explained. Specifically, what do the percentages in Figure 1b refer to? How were the targeted watersheds selected? What do the maps in 1c-f illustrate and what do the numbers beside the bars mean? Exactly how would a manager use this information to make decisions and how does this information lead to prioritization? Similar concerns pertain to Figure 2. What are the y-axis values and what does the x-axis represent? How would a manager use this information to aid in decision-making? The sponsors do not point out any shortcomings of the models that are part of the DSS and the DSS itself. For example, the data demands of some of the popular models used in the basin (e.g., EDT) are great. The lack of appropriate data and the quality of much of the available data has long been a concern of the ISRP and ISAB. Will the DSS be amenable to use and modification by mangers to enable them to incorporate new information or alter scenarios? Usability is a central criterion for any basinwide approach. Given output from several models that may or may not agree, will there be direction provided to managers as to how to weigh the positive and negative aspects of each of the models? Will the assumptions of each be made known? A major problem pointed out in the subbasin planning exercise was the inaccessibility (proprietary) of EDT to modification. Will this still be the case? By what criteria has the DSS framework been judged to be “successful” in the Lewis River? Monitoring and evaluation: Fortunately, the proposal includes tasks that involve verification and ground-testing of model predictions, allowing for adjustment in model parameters as better data become available. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The personnel are highly qualified and experienced, and the facilities are adequate for the work proposed. Information transfer: An excellent mix of information transfer techniques, including public workshops, on-line reports, and peer-reviewed publications. The decision support system will be made available to managers throughout the basin, but it is unclear how much assistance the managers will be given in using the DSS. Benefits to focal species: The project is focused on identifying a useful set of models that support decisions on salmon and steelhead habitat. It has the potential to greatly benefit recovery of these species over the long-term if restoration decisions prove effective. The project would be beneficial to salmonids because it would assist managers in making restoration action decisions. Benefits to non-focal species: Although the proposal is aimed at developing decision support tools for salmonid habitat, non-focal species habitat needs are not directly considered. In all likelihood, however, salmonid habitat improvements will also benefit native non-salmonid fishes.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposed decision support system (DSS) has potential to be useful for assisting with prioritization and decision-making related to habitat restoration. The sponsors are understandably enthusiastic about their approach. They seem to have, however, an overly confident attitude toward modeling very complex physical and biological functions that raises concerns about how objectively the DSS will be conveyed to managers. The kinds of models that comprise the DSS and the assumptions and shortcomings of the models (e.g., data inadequacies) should be better explained. It is difficult to grasp exactly what the DSS is and how it is supposed to be used. Contributing to this problem is inadequate explanation of Figures 1 and 2 and how the results displayed in these figures could support management decisions. The sponsors need to explain what new insights these modeling exercises could add to what we already know. What are examples of some new insights or testable hypotheses that could be added or developed? The sponsors also need to address several methodological issues. Technical and scientific background: The proposal is very well presented. The technical background and justification were understandable and logical. Sponsors claim that habitat response can be modeled with greater certainty than biological response with clear links to multiple populations. This seems an overly optimistic claim and needs to be justified. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal was clearly linked to the subbasin plan for the Lower Columbia, as well as the efforts of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) and the Lower Columbia-Willamette Technical Recovery Team (TRT). The work addresses a high priority need to rank habitat recovery actions in terms of effectiveness, cost, and certainty of outcome. Relationships to other projects: The proposal clearly identifies the context of work and discusses how it fits with other major habitat projects in the region. Other projects include federal (NOAA-Fisheries, USFS), state (WDFW), and private industry (PacifiCorp) efforts. Objectives: Specific outcomes and timelines are clearly stated and reasonable. Objectives are linked to subbasin plan needs and Fish and Wildlife Program objectives. If the project is successful, the decision support tool should be transportable to other subbasins and provinces. The sponsors propose to improve the DSS they have developed and applied in the Lewis River watershed, ground-truth the model, and extend application to other watersheds. These are reasonable extensions of the approach. The sponsors need to explain why they are developing their own water temperature models when these models are already available (e.g., Matt Boyd’s model, Oregon DEQ)? What is the purpose of the ground testing and what will be ground-tested? How will the ground testing relate to future landscape scenarios? The sponsors also should explain why they consider their approach to be successful in the Lewis River. Tasks (work elements) and methods: In general, methods are clearly articulated. The modeling exercises will be complex, and bringing them together (Figure 3) will be a difficult undertaking; however, the sponsors have assembled a very capable team with a proven track record. A successful result would be both innovative and widely applicable. The sponsors need to provide greater detail about the models that are part of the DSS and the shortcomings and major assumptions of the models. A crucial need is a better explanation of the specific outcomes or products of the DSS and how managers could use them. This comment relates specifically to Figures 1 and 2, which are poorly explained. Specifically, what do the percentages in Figure 1b refer to? How were the targeted watersheds selected? What do the maps in 1c-f illustrate and what do the numbers beside the bars mean? Exactly how would a manager use this information to make decisions and how does this information lead to prioritization? Similar concerns pertain to Figure 2. What are the y-axis values and what does the x-axis represent? How would a manager use this information to aid in decision-making? The sponsors do not point out any shortcomings of the models that are part of the DSS and the DSS itself. For example, the data demands of some of the popular models used in the basin (e.g., EDT) are great. The lack of appropriate data and the quality of much of the available data has long been a concern of the ISRP and ISAB. Will the DSS be amenable to use and modification by mangers to enable them to incorporate new information or alter scenarios? Usability is a central criterion for any basinwide approach. Given output from several models that may or may not agree, will there be direction provided to managers as to how to weigh the positive and negative aspects of each of the models? Will the assumptions of each be made known? A major problem pointed out in the subbasin planning exercise was the inaccessibility (proprietary) of EDT to modification. Will this still be the case? By what criteria has the DSS framework been judged to be “successful” in the Lewis River? Monitoring and evaluation: Fortunately, the proposal includes tasks that involve verification and ground-testing of model predictions, allowing for adjustment in model parameters as better data become available. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The personnel are highly qualified and experienced, and the facilities are adequate for the work proposed. Information transfer: An excellent mix of information transfer techniques, including public workshops, on-line reports, and peer-reviewed publications. The decision support system will be made available to managers throughout the basin, but it is unclear how much assistance the managers will be given in using the DSS. Benefits to focal species: The project is focused on identifying a useful set of models that support decisions on salmon and steelhead habitat. It has the potential to greatly benefit recovery of these species over the long-term if restoration decisions prove effective. The project would be beneficial to salmonids because it would assist managers in making restoration action decisions. Benefits to non-focal species: Although the proposal is aimed at developing decision support tools for salmonid habitat, non-focal species habitat needs are not directly considered. In all likelihood, however, salmonid habitat improvements will also benefit native non-salmonid fishes.