FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200301600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -- This project is a pilot project to test the use of LU/LC spatial data in Willamette subbasin as Tier 1 monitoring data. The project will then link these data layers to Tier 2 fish data in Willamette River floodplain and potentially to Tier 3 data for floodplain restoration projects. Ultimately the approach will be applied to the John Day or Wenatchee River subbasins.

1. Does a proposal satisfy the objectives of RPA?
The proposed work directly addresses the landscape-scale monitoring component (Tier I) of RPA 180. The proposed work indirectly addresses RPA 181 through the work's dependence on remote sense (satellite imagery) data.
2. If not, explain what elements are lacking.
3. If the proposal partially satisfies the RPA objectives, suggest means or opportunities to strengthen the proposal.
The concepts put forth in the proposal lack significant detail to effectively evaluate exactly what would be done and what the specific outcomes would be. A significant effort will need to be undertaken to explain exactly what goes into quantifying and assessing ecosystem status, how this relates to fish distribution (habitat associations), and how they will be linked to form a more synthetic analysis of the two. As the proposal is currently written it appears to focus on large floodplain systems in the Willamette basin, a tributary-based focus will need to be added to improve the export of this approach to systems throughout the Columbia.
4. If a proposal is entirely satisfactory, indicate so and note the particular strong points.
5. Assess the feasibility of the proposed work in general terms.

Given the track record of the researcher's involved in this proposal and the general concepts they describe, the proposal shows significant promise in principle to address key aspects of RPA 180/181. Developing specific analyses linking population status and ecosystem status will be critical elements in the development of Tier 1-3 monitoring programs. This proposal potentially offers a significant opportunity to bridge some of these gaps to develop more quantitative and landscape-based analyses that inform managers about critical bottlenecks to population and watershed recovery. Development of a much more detailed proposal should answer just how the project would accomplish this.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP and RME Workgroup agree that the proposed project may have merit but a much more detailed proposal must be submitted before the project can be evaluated.

Comment:

Comment:

The respondents submitted a completely new proposal that the ISRP hasn't had an opportunity to evaluate and discuss as a group. If this proposal were to be reviewed at this time it would be without oral presentation, the opportunity to ask questions of the presenter, and a response loop. The ISRP feels that to allow submission of an entirely new proposal after receiving a rating of "not fundable, no response necessary" as part of the mainstem and systemwide process would be unfair to other sponsors and would set a harmful precedent to the review process.

However, this proposal may provide a critical level of monitoring that should be considered urgent for funding in the Columbia Basin. If the Council agrees to extend the period for consideration of funding of this and perhaps other monitoring proposals (e.g., new data to be captured by StreamNet and the NMFS Proposal #35048, Tier I monitoring proposed by #35016, and Tier III monitoring proposed by #35020) then the ISRP could review the set at a later time.

If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the CBFWA proposal #35033.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

There is a clear need for work at the landscape scale outlined in the proposal, and the proposal offers to test some novel ideas and techniques. The proponents are apparently planning use of the latest satellite data to correlate with on-the-ground field surveys. The technology seems to be state of the art. However, the objectives are exceedingly general and are given at the very end of the proposal, numerous technical claims are unsupported either by literature citations or data, the details of methodology (particularly those related to the tier 3 work, its sampling design, hypotheses to be tested, and how it will be related to tiers 1 and 2) are lacking, and statistical analysis using correspondence analysis and multiple regression is referred to but no detail is given about how these techniques will be used. Many of the methodological details are mixed in with the technical background information and not clearly related to the objectives.

The proposal needs to provide better linkage to an overall monitoring program. The linkage to the RPAs is not as clear with this proposal as the others in the set. Their definitions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 monitoring do not seem to closely match the definitions in the BiOp and the other proposals of the set. Tier 1, 2, and 3 appear to be used to indicate spatial scales in this proposal, i.e., Tier 1 = subbasin, Tier 2 = intermediate scale, Tier 3 = local habitat. This proposal has no reference to pilot work to be conducted by the other proposals in the Upper Salmon subbasin. The proposal appears to be exactly the same as that submitted earlier in the Mainstem Systemwide Solicitation. This suggests that the proponents did not attempt to integrate their proposal with the other proposals in the set, as claimed.

The proposal does not clearly state how this work will be used for the BiOp’s tier 1 monitoring and how it relates to project 35019 (status and tends monitoring) and project 35020, although all these projects are purported to form a package that will satisfy RPA’s 180, 181, and 183.

Estimation of landscape scale habitat attributes over time is a necessary resource for benefiting fish and wildlife. One of the best uses appears to be that of suggesting priority locations for conservation and restoration. However, the linkage to the other proposals is not clear. A tier one data sampling effort needs to be conducted and perhaps this need should have been included in the current call for proposals to meet specific needs.

The proposal does not specify how it would be coordinated with other monitoring projects, nor does it indicate why it is necessary to address BiOp RPAs.

The proposal does not show a clear connection to the other projects for improved ground checking. Ground truthing should be coordinated with the Tier II status monitoring proposal 35019 and potentially 35020. The proposal stated that an accuracy assessment of current work on the Willamette indicated a final map error of 26%. The overall map accuracy for 7 forest classes was reported to be over 80%. The proposal did not include a discussion of whether or not the monitoring requirements called for in the BiOp will be satisfied with these error rates. Will it be possible to detect changes of the magnitude called for in the BiOp?

Comment:

Comment:

Comments: