FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200307700

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

Other budget explanation

Cost is for hosting one regional symposium

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proponents propose to link the biological and physical worlds through cause and effect processes and develop an overarching "model" called the Physical Process Method (PPM) process. The project would provide input to the EDT process of evaluating aquatic habitat and predicting effects of habitat changes on anadromous fish populations. The ISRP is not convinced that a highly sophisticated mathematical approach in combination with EDT is appropriate at this time. The sub models are available (and some were listed in the proposal) for many of the processes they want to link. Users may be better off to leave them unlinked and use them as needed, based on the combined expertise of several disciplines working together. An overarching Physical Processes Model may gain little not available from individual models for discrete processes. However, part of Phase 1, a directory of and synthesis report containing protocols and recommendations for use of individual physical process models in subbasin planning, may be useful. The ISRP agrees that a useful form for this inventory would be the style of presentation of protocols in the report "Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Northwest: Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia" by Johnson, et al. 2001.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -- This proposal would engage earth scientists, civil/systems engineers, geomorphologists, hydrogeologists and others familiar with the science of physical processes to conduct a synthesis inventory of tools and develop a Landform Library, database, web based application, and model.

1. Does a proposal satisfy the objectives of RPA?
This proposal is vaguely linked to RPA 180 in the narrative but no specific linkages are established by the proposal. The proposal is really aimed more at supporting subbasin planning than monitoring, although data derived from monitoring will be necessary to model development and application. Proposal indicates applicability to RPA 180 as it would provide new overall subbasin analysis and planning capability similar/parallel to EDT, SSHIAP, and/or GIS-based analytical functionality. The primary purpose appears to be to provide tools that translate habitat treatments into specific changes in habitat attributes, which could then be used by EDT or other habitat analysis tools. Relevance to RPA 180 appears to be in which habitat attributes might be monitored.
2. If not, explain what elements are lacking.
Explicit linkage to RPA's 180/181 is lacking. The proposed models/tools to be developed under this proposal would need environmental data developed under RPA's 180/181, in addition to providing some synthesis of the potential and/or realized benefits of restoration actions. The proposal is long on concepts but very sparse on the details, particularly in the objectives section. This project appears to relate more to RPA 183 (effectiveness monitoring) by identifying the physical attributes that might respond to specific habitat actions and predicting the potential magnitude of the responses.
3. If the proposal partially satisfies the RPA objectives, suggest means or opportunities to strengthen the proposal.
The authors need to integrate biological processes (riparian vegetation) into their conceptual framework of what processes control the environment. Ecosystem processes and structure are not simply based on physical processes controlling the environment. A more holistic conceptual framework would be useful. In addition, treatments need to be expanded to consider passive processes in addition to engineered solutions. Sometimes the best solution is just taking the human disturbance off the land, not just mitigating or engineering around it.
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.
This proposal is highly ambitious as it attempts integrate significant known and unknown elements of putting together physically-based models and tools to quantify cause and effect in biophysical processes. The direction of their approach is based on physical processes and an engineering-oriented perspective on how to address recovery of watersheds. There doesn't seem to be much emphasis on the biological processes (e.g. riparian vegetation) that also shape and form the habitat template. While the problem statements addresses by this proposal are laudable, it is unclear how the proposal will address many of these lofty goals.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP is in general agreement with the RME review comments on this project.

Comment:

Comment:

The proponents propose to link the biological and physical worlds through cause and effect processes and to develop an overarching "model" called the Physical Process Method (PPM) process. The project would provide input to the EDT process of evaluating aquatic habitat and predicting effects of habitat changes on anadromous fish populations. The ISRP is not convinced that a highly sophisticated mathematical approach in combination with EDT is appropriate at this time. The sub-models are available (and some were listed in the proposal) for many of the processes they want to link. Users may be better off to leave them unlinked and use them as needed, based on the combined expertise of several disciplines working together. An overarching Physical Processes Model may gain little not available from individual models for discrete processes. However, part of Phase 1, a directory of and synthesis report containing protocols and recommendations for use of individual physical process models in subbasin planning, may be useful. The ISRP agrees that a useful form for this inventory would be the style of presentation of protocols in the report "Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Northwest: Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia" by Johnson, et al. 2001.

Comment:

Comments
The linking of models is something that does not lead to scientifically sound analysis. This project is not well thought out. It presents many ideas but no clear linkages between physical processes. Additionally, there is not enough information in the methods to provide for a more detailed review.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: