FY07-09 proposal 200726200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhanced Landscape Classification to Improve Assessment of Conservation Restoration and Mitigation Projects |
| Proposal ID | 200726200 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory |
| Short description | Integrated landscape analysis and hydrologic modeling will be applied to spatially define ecosystem attributes used to quantify the contribution/influence of land parcels to riparian and watershed function and fish and wildlife productivity. |
| Information transfer | Publication of data and interim products on project web site. Development and maintenance of a metadata database on the project web site. Publication of annual reports. Publication of journal articles. Transfer of GIS data coverages and results to data repository |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Janelle Downs | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | jl.downs@pnl.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Janelle Downs | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | jl.downs@pnl.gov |
| Lance Vail | Pacific NW National Laboratory | lance.vail@pnl.gov |
| Mark Wigmosta | Pacific NW National Laboratory | mark.wigmosta@pnl.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: None Selected / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fishsecondary: All Wildlife
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assess watershed function | Demonstrate the use of dynamic process models to create additional spatial information to supplement the existing landscape attributes | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification | Demonstrate how the enhanced landscape classification scheme can be applied to regions at the scale of the entire Columbia River Basin. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Provide landscape characterization methods | Provide landscape characterization methods and capabilities to evaluate upslope processes and watershed and riparian function within selected subbasins. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Quantify impacts | Develop capabilities to quantify the local and cumulative impacts of land-use changes, potential management strategies, and proposed projects within classified landscapes. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop and document preliminary design specifications | Staff will meet with appropriate agencies and managers to exchange information regarding available data, data requirements, and review of required data formats and agree on the transfer of data and associated metadata for the enhanced classification. A status report documenting the data and design specifications will be published on the project website. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $6,664 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop and document index watershed selection criteria | Staff will meet with action agencies, resource experts, subbasin planners, regional planners (BPA), and domain experts to determine the priority conservation and restoration issues (e.g., returning water to streams, enhancing riparian function, improving temperature) and range of priority domains (e.g., lowland farms near major tributaries, forest lands). Staff will identify the range of index watersheds required to adequately represent the spatial and environmental variability found across the Columbia River Basin. Selection criteria will be published on the project website. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $37,746 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Inventory available spatial and time-series data | Staff will develop a comprehensive inventory of available data and associated metadata regarding selected watershed attributes including spatial data (such as satellite imagery, land cover) and time-series data (such as climate records, stream flow). A database will be developed to provide metadata information including data frequency, resolution, and extent of coverage and will be available on the project website. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $19,928 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Identify index parcels and associated watersheds | This work element involves applying the index selection criteria developed in work element B to the applicable datasets identified in work element C to screen potential index parcels. Final selection of index parcels and watersheds will be accomplished by field survey and verification visits to identified parcels. A diverse team of fish biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, and restoration specialists will carry out these field assessments and provide input to the final index selection. A geo-referenced photo journal documenting field site visits and index areas selected will be published on the web site. | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $49,782 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Acquire, assemble and interpret GIS data coverages | Under this work element staff will acquire and assemble various datasets that potentially may be used in the analysis. Examples include updated land cover (such as SAGEMAP, GAP, NLDC), digital elevation data, hydrography, soils data (STATSGO, SSURGO), climate information (PRISM, NCDC), USGS streamflows, road networks, land ownership, wetland delineation, and riparian inventory (such as SSHIAP). In addition, selected Landsat and MODIS imagery will be acquired to develop derived data layers describing snow cover, vegetation indices (NDVI), and erosion indices. The scope of this work element is not to develop a comprehensive regional GIS, but instead is intended to provide the layers required to demonstrate the enhanced classification approach. Therefore, all efforts will be made to leverage regional datasets that are readily available (such as data developed for ICBEMP). | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $63,048 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Perform terrain analysis | For this study, terrain analysis will be heavily utilized to determine numerous hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological parameters derived as primary and secondary topographic attributes. Terrain analysis will be applied to provide a wide-array of parameters for inputs to physical models as well as providing a method to derive and develop landscape classification. The analysis will use existing USGS 10-meter Digital Elevation Models (DEM) with Geographic Information System (GIS) based spatial-processing tools, such as the Terrain Analysis Programs for the Environmental Sciences (TAPES), to derive complex landscape processes and phenomena. | 5/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $31,535 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Parameterize and apply physical models | Under this work element, physical models and algorithms will be applied to the selected index watersheds to develop spatial data layers for inclusion in the enhanced classification scheme. The Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM) will be applied in coordination with the Hillslope Erosion Model (HEM) to selected index watersheds. The models predict temporal and spatial changes in hydrologic properties and will be used to provide spatial data layers for properties such as snow cover and depth, soil moisture, ground saturation, soil temperature, subsurface water movement, surface runoff, and simplified 1-D channel flow. Long-term sediment loading from mass wasting will be estimated using an approach similar to that of Benda and Dunne (1997). | 7/1/2007 | 1/30/2008 | $92,797 |
|
Biological objectives Assess watershed function |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimated land-use change impacts | Local impacts of potential land-use changes related to proposed projects will be quantified by a series of interpretive assessments of model-derived spatial data and derived land condition information. Under this work element staff will also use the derived spatial data layers to quantify the influence of upslope processes on the effectiveness of project actions. This work will also provide analysis of the incremental improvement or change as a result of reductions or expansions in the spatial extent of the proposed project. | 9/1/2007 | 3/30/2008 | $34,256 |
|
Biological objectives Quantify impacts |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate cumulative impacts | To estimate the cumulative impacts this project will leverage the existing investments made in EDT analyses for the Yakima and John Day subbasins. Through it’s so called ‘consumer reports’ diagrams, the EDT analysis characterizes the significance of specific EDT Level 2 environmental attributes in limiting the productivity and capacity for a particular species in each reach considered in the EDT analysis. The EDT analysis integrates the cumulative impact of the habitat that the species encounters in its trajectory from its natal waters to the ocean and back. This project will quantify the amount that the EDT Level 2 attributes will be altered by the actions to individual parcels, as well as, the amount that the EDT Level 2 attributes would be altered by the various combinations of actions. These results will be documented in a technical report that will be published on the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 6/30/2008 | $24,448 |
|
Biological objectives Quantify impacts |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate sensitivity of action to climate uncertainty | Climate change is projected to significantly alter the climate of the Pacific Northwest. Recent studies have predicted a significant change in the timing of the spring freshet occurring with a marked increase in winter temperatures. These will change both the water availability and temperature of critical habitat. PNNL has a long history of conducting research into the impacts of climate change. This project will leverage a variety of recent projects performed by PNNL, including the Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative, that have used the Yakima River Basin as an impacts analysis testbed. Staff will quantify and evaluate the impact of the predicted climate in 2050 on actions to the index parcels. These results will be summarized in a technical report that will be published on the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 6/30/2008 | $9,478 |
|
Biological objectives Quantify impacts |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Perform landform classification using pattern recognition | A multiple layer landform map will be developed for both the Yakima and the John Day subbasins based on landform training provided by the index watersheds. Training (calibration) of the pattern recognition scheme will performed using the index watersheds on the Yakima Basin. The pattern recognition approach for landform characterization will be validated on the John Day Basin. Multiple layer maps at the 30 m resolutions will be published for each basin on the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $37,417 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Perform landscape classification using pattern recognition | A multiple layer landscape map will be developed for both the Yakima and the John Day subbasins based on landscape training provided by the index watersheds. Whereas the earlier landform classification was strictly descriptive the terrain, the landscape classification’s primary goal is map areas with similar predicted local response to various land use actions. Therefore, the landscape classification in additional to being descriptive is also interpretive. Training (calibration) of the pattern recognition scheme will performed using the index watersheds on the Yakima Basin. The pattern recognition approach for landscape characterization will be validated on the John Day Basin. Multiple layer maps at the 30 m resolutions will be published for each basin on the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $78,456 |
|
Biological objectives Provide landscape characterization methods |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Visualization of tradeoffs | PNNL has developed several versions of a web-based tool that allows users to visually the tradeoffs between various cost and conservation objectives. The web-based applet accesses a web-based data to acquire information on the objective values predicted in the assessment. This project will not do a detailed cost analysis but for demonstrative purposes only postulate a cost for various actions based on areal extent. Approximately 300 alternatives (including actions, combinations of actions, and sequenced actions will be incorporated into the demonstration database. The applet will clearly state that the values provided are demonstrative and not to be considered as other than for demonstration purposes. The applet will be made accessible through the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $8,518 |
|
Biological objectives Quantify impacts |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Evaluate the optimal adaptive scheduling | Adaptive management requires considering the overall sequence of actions as a ‘deliberate experiment’. Sequencing monitoring along with actions in an integrated manner allows action strategies with possible significant regional benefit but with considerable uncertainty to be tested early in the process. Actions without large regional significance but with modest uncertainty and significant local benefits will still be considered valuable, although the value of monitoring will decline and they might be deferred to later in the sequence of actions. A technical report that discuss adaptive management based on the results illustrated in work element M will be published on the project website. | 3/1/2008 | 9/1/2008 | $7,950 |
|
Biological objectives Quantify impacts |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Acquire, assemble and interpret GIS data coverages at Columbia River Basin scale | Under this work element staff will acquire and assemble various datasets that potentially may be used in the analysis. Examples include updated land cover (such as SAGEMAP, GAP, NLDC), digital elevation data, hydrography, soils data (STATSGO, SSURGO), climate information (PRISM, NCDC), USGS streamflows, road networks, land ownership, wetland delineation, and riparian inventory (such as SSHIAP). In addition, selected Landsat and MODIS imagery will be acquired to develop derived data layers describing snow cover, vegetation indices (NDVI), and erosion indices. The scope of this work element is not to develop a comprehensive regional GIS, but instead is intended to provide the layers required to demonstrate the enhanced classification approach. Therefore, all efforts will be made to leverage regional datasets that are readily available (such as data developed for ICBEMP). The scope of this task will be limited to set of approximately 8 HUC-6 level watersheds distributed throughout the Columbia River Basin. The goal of this task is to test and demonstrate the classification scheme to a more diverse set of domains than those considered in the landscape pattern recognition training and validation effort described earlier. | 7/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $18,115 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Perform terrain analysis at the Columbia River Basin scale | For this study, terrain analysis will be heavily utilized to determine numerous hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological parameters derived as primary and secondary topographic attributes. Terrain analysis will be applied to provide a wide-array of parameters for inputs to physical models as well as providing a method to derive and develop landscape classification. The analysis will use existing USGS 10-meter Digital Elevation Models (DEM) with Geographic Information System (GIS) based spatial-processing tools, such as the Terrain Analysis Programs for the Environmental Sciences (TAPES), to derive complex landscape processes and phenomena. In addition to performing the above for the HUC-6 basins identified earlier, this task will provide an estimate of the level of effort required to perform such a terrain analysis for the entire Columbia River Basin. A technical report summarizing these findings will be published on the project website. | 7/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $18,115 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Reduced-form modeling at the HUC-6 scale | Since the goal of this project is to map action effectiveness in order to support decision making, increasing the complexity of the map is only justified if it clearly improves the ability to make correct decisions. Therefore, some potential descriptive layers of landscape are not required. It is impractical and unnecessary to perform detailed process modeling for the entire Columbia Basin. In this task a hierarchy model complexities will evaluated. It is expected that many of the model-derived spatial data layers could be adequately characterized with using more reduced-form models once the initial experience with the more complex models is obtained. By contrasting predictions derived with reduced for models with sensitivity analysis performed on the more detailed process models, it will be determined if reduced-form models can adequately replace the more detailed models. This will likely require a suite of reduced-form models for various processes (e.g. hydrology). A technical report summarizing the findings of this analysis will be published on the project website. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $67,530 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Landform classification at the scale of the Columbia River Basin | A multiple layer landform map will be developed for HUC-6 watersheds. In addition to performing the above for the HUC-6 basins identified earlier, this task will provide an estimate of the level of effort required to perform such a landform analysis for the entire Columbia River Basin. A technical report summarizing the findings of this analysis will be published on the project website. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $32,774 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Landform classification at the scale of the Columbia River Basin | A multiple layer landscape map will be developed for HUC-6 watersheds. In addition to performing the above for the HUC-6 basins identified earlier, this task will provide an estimate of the level of effort required to perform such a landscape analysis for the entire Columbia River Basin. A technical report summarizing the findings of this analysis will be published on the project website. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $42,425 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Map landscape classification uncertainty | Classes are generally fuzzy metrics. Pattern recognition and classification methods are imperfect. Data used in the classification evaluation is often incomplete. Therefore, uncertainty is an important consideration. This task is not intended as a comprehensive uncertainty analysis. The goal of this task is to create a better understanding to the best way that uncertainty can be mapped to support decision making. This task will review possible methods and select a specific method to map uncertainty. The uncertainty of interest is the decision making uncertainty not the uncertainty in the landscape descriptive attribute value. A map of the levels of uncertainty in the landscape classes will be published on the project website. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $12,999 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Demonstrate mapping landscape classes at Columbia River Basin | The primary product of this project is landscape maps. These maps will be used by a diverse audience. It important that these visualization products are both highly informative and readily accessible. This task will develop a design specification and implement the design specification for the map visualization. The design specification document and visualization procedures will be published on the project website. | 7/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $30,396 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Compare proposed action effectiveness | Strategies for implementing various actions, including the intensity of action on various land ownership classes (Federal, state, public, private) will be evaluated in this task. Since the domain considered is limited to the two subbasins used to train and validate the pattern recognition scheme and the HUC-6 watersheds used to demonstrate the regionalization of the pattern recognition scheme, this evaluation will be off limited scope and primarily serves a demonstrative function. These conclusions will be published with a discussion of the enhanced landscape classification approach in a peer-reviewed journal. | 7/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $11,101 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics Focal Area: Systemwide |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Transfer data and models to identified information archive | This project will result in an archive of metadata, data, derived data, algorithms, and computational procedures. All of this information will be transferred to an archival service determined by BPA. | 8/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $12,000 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce annual report | This work element involves the production of an annual technical report summarizing the work, accomplishments, and results for the current fiscal year. The annual report will be transmitted to BPA and published on the project web site. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $77,927 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Write articles for submission to peer-reviewed journals | At the completion of this project, and possibly sooner, if warranted by preliminary results, the principal investigators will collaborate to submit paper(s) to peer reviewed scientific journals such as ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineerings, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, and/or other journals as appropriate. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $44,126 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and adminster project | Each of the principal investigators will be responsible for management of the overall project, as well as their organizational responsibilities. Management activities will include administrative responsibilities required for compliance with BPA program requirements such as metric reporting, financial reporting (accruals), and development of annual statements of work. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $24,984 |
|
Biological objectives Demonstrate enhanced landscape classification |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Research sci/eng - 0.99 FTE | $81,707 | $96,985 | $93,717 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $28,271 | $32,782 | $30,458 |
| Supplies | Imagery | $13,998 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel | Pendleton - field work, Portland and Ellensburg - meetings | $2,807 | $394 | $403 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $124,813 | $142,426 | $132,800 |
| Other | Student labor and subcontractor | $44,315 | $34,264 | $34,375 |
| Totals | $295,911 | $306,851 | $291,753 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $894,515 |
| Total work element budget: | $894,515 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
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 | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The proposal is well written and clearly describes the objectives and work elements. The project goal is to develop decision support tools (primarily maps) that will assist in forecasting restoration action effectiveness. Most of the techniques involve recently developed geospatial mapping programs and models. The personnel are extremely well qualified to complete the tasks associated with the work elements. The proposal makes a number of assertions, yet it was not clear how the classification system would satisfy those assertions. It is also not clear what the benefits are going to be for fish and wildlife. Does enhanced landscape classification result in improved assessment of projects? The links between enhanced landscape classification, the assessment of improvement of limiting environmental attributes identified in each subbasin’s EDT analysis, and the benefit to fish and wildlife are not clear. Additionally, the sponsors should address whether the classification will be spatially hierarchical and, if so, how the hierarchy will be developed. If the classification is not hierarchical, then the sponsors should address how smaller-scale activities and impacts will be assessed. Development of landscape classification components may be worthwhile, as long as the products are truly new (and do not duplicate existing coverage). The futuring exercises - estimating land use change impacts and cumulative effects, sensitivity to climate change, exploring optimal scheduling, for example - should be more fully developed in concert with others engaged in similar exercise. There also was an almost total lack of reference to existing landscape-scale datasets. For example, the extensive GIS coverage that resulted from the ICBEMP project aren't mentioned until a parenthetical reference under the methods for Work Element E, yet these data constitute a major effort to assemble many of the land, water, and focal-species coverage throughout the entire Columbia Basin. Furthermore, there are up-to-date geospatial databases in many of the tribal, national forest, and state agency offices throughout the region that could help this project, but are not mentioned. There are general references, mostly to the 2005 ISRP Retrospective Report, but the proposal lacks specific reference to subbasin plans, especially Yakima and John Day, where the proof-of-concept work will be done. A stronger discussion of how the objectives of the project would help in implementing the subbasin plans is needed -- e.g., how can the results be used to prioritize in-stream restoration needs? It appears that the mapping work will be most useful to identifying priority areas for wildlife mitigation and less useful for deciding where streams need more structure, but it was hard to tell from the general description given. More details are needed to justify some of the models. For example, the erosion models are based on surface erosion models from the American southwest, but there are a number of erosion models from the Pacific Northwest. Why weren't these used? On the other hand, the DHSVM hydrology-soil-vegetation model is quite good and offers a lot of promise for the Columbia Basin. Lettenmeier and his colleagues used it to model flow changes in response to climate warming. The results for this project are maps, decision support tools, and meta- and derived data. Milestones are stated, although the proposal does not make explicitly clear how delays in completing one task might delay the completion of others. Nevertheless, it is assumed that progress will be adequately monitored. One concern with using existing datasets is that the accuracy of the data may be unknown. Some geospatial data might be out of date or inadequately ground-truthed, and the proposal should detail how accuracy of these underlying data will be verified.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The proposal is well written and clearly describes the objectives and work elements. The project goal is to develop decision support tools (primarily maps) that will assist in forecasting restoration action effectiveness. Most of the techniques involve recently developed geospatial mapping programs and models. The personnel are extremely well qualified to complete the tasks associated with the work elements. The proposal makes a number of assertions, yet it was not clear how the classification system would satisfy those assertions. It is also not clear what the benefits are going to be for fish and wildlife. Does enhanced landscape classification result in improved assessment of projects? The links between enhanced landscape classification, the assessment of improvement of limiting environmental attributes identified in each subbasin’s EDT analysis, and the benefit to fish and wildlife are not clear. Additionally, the sponsors should address whether the classification will be spatially hierarchical and, if so, how the hierarchy will be developed. If the classification is not hierarchical, then the sponsors should address how smaller-scale activities and impacts will be assessed. Development of landscape classification components may be worthwhile, as long as the products are truly new (and do not duplicate existing coverage). The futuring exercises - estimating land use change impacts and cumulative effects, sensitivity to climate change, exploring optimal scheduling, for example - should be more fully developed in concert with others engaged in similar exercise. There also was an almost total lack of reference to existing landscape-scale datasets. For example, the extensive GIS coverage that resulted from the ICBEMP project aren't mentioned until a parenthetical reference under the methods for Work Element E, yet these data constitute a major effort to assemble many of the land, water, and focal-species coverage throughout the entire Columbia Basin. Furthermore, there are up-to-date geospatial databases in many of the tribal, national forest, and state agency offices throughout the region that could help this project, but are not mentioned. There are general references, mostly to the 2005 ISRP Retrospective Report, but the proposal lacks specific reference to subbasin plans, especially Yakima and John Day, where the proof-of-concept work will be done. A stronger discussion of how the objectives of the project would help in implementing the subbasin plans is needed -- e.g., how can the results be used to prioritize in-stream restoration needs? It appears that the mapping work will be most useful to identifying priority areas for wildlife mitigation and less useful for deciding where streams need more structure, but it was hard to tell from the general description given. More details are needed to justify some of the models. For example, the erosion models are based on surface erosion models from the American southwest, but there are a number of erosion models from the Pacific Northwest. Why weren't these used? On the other hand, the DHSVM hydrology-soil-vegetation model is quite good and offers a lot of promise for the Columbia Basin. Lettenmeier and his colleagues used it to model flow changes in response to climate warming. The results for this project are maps, decision support tools, and meta- and derived data. Milestones are stated, although the proposal does not make explicitly clear how delays in completing one task might delay the completion of others. Nevertheless, it is assumed that progress will be adequately monitored. One concern with using existing datasets is that the accuracy of the data may be unknown. Some geospatial data might be out of date or inadequately ground-truthed, and the proposal should detail how accuracy of these underlying data will be verified.