FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29043

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:

The proposal is to extend the data collection and management system developed under SSHIAP for western Washington to include the Columbia Cascade Province. It would provide a central source for data available on 10,000 miles of streams, and present these data at a 1:24000 scale. Members of the review team have used the information on fish distribution from the SSHIAP and found it to be extremely helpful. Parts of the proposal are complete, clearly presented, and reference pertinent basic literature on the subject. The staff appears highly qualified for and experienced in the work involved.

The sponsor should incorporate elements of their response from the Blue Mountain Province. See http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/blue/projects/27009.htm#reviews.

The proponents should discuss the quality of existing data and whether they are adequate to support the proposed work. Methods for providing meta-data for each of the data sources should be described.

There should be a monitoring and evaluation section in the 'Objectives, tasks and methods' section that is more than the usual QA/QC work in mapping projects. How are errors quantified and what are acceptable error rates for each of the data layers? For example, what is the error rate for "known fish distribution?" For habitat types? For Fish Passage Barriers? How will one know that a good job was done? Or, that the project was a success in quantitative terms? The CBFWA review remarks for the proposal 27009 in the Blue Mt. Province were "The reviewers question whether the 75-80% accuracy rate is acceptable and whether the work would be performed at the correct scale." The ISRP saw no discussion of accuracy rate in the objectives, tasks, and methods section.

The proposal would be stronger with a "ground-truth" component in the tasks, perhaps in cooperation with other WDFW departments to confirm the accuracy and precision of mapped components. Complete detail should be given concerning a double-blind sampling and evaluation procedures. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) would need to be specified.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comment:

Comment:

However, it should be realized that precise estimates of classification errors in SSHIAP products remain outside the practical scope of the SSHIAP project. Within the proposed budget, SSHIAP personnel propose to assemble an information system that others in the Columbia Cascade Province can store their data in. It remains for other projects and investigators to address assessment of error for fish distribution and other information. The ISRP acknowledges that this is a good information system with very competent and dedicated personnel and the project is fundable. However, the region should recognize the substantial problem acknowledged by the proponents in their response, namely, that SSHIAP is largely dependent on existing data, some or most of which has unknown accuracy and precision. The importance of ground truthing the data is fully recognized by the proponents, but the many spatial and temporal problems of a systematic effort of this kind in which one can have confidence is beyond the current capability and responsibility of SSHIAP. The substantial spatial and temporal problems that must be solved to arrive at data in which one can have confidence have been unequivocally demonstrated in, for example, development of the bull trout detection protocols by the U.S. Forest Service.

Comment:

Comments
Both this and 29037 submitted by WDFW. Relationship/coordination between the two efforts needs to be better explained.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment: