FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25034
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| Letter from T. Pearsons (WDFW) to Interested Parties RE: Confirmation that WDFW will participate in proposed salmon carcass evaluation in Yakima Basin | Response Attachment |
| 25034 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25034 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25034 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web Management Tool for Watershed-River Systems |
| Proposal ID | 25034 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Marshall C. Richmond |
| Mailing address | PO Box 999, MS K9-33 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093726241 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Develop method to assess nutrients in water and associated benefits to juvenile fish by using computational fluid dynamics, watershed and food chain models. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook, Steelhead/Rainbow, Coho |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.73 | -120.67 | throughout the entire subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Configured and verified the watershed model (DHSVM) for the Yakima River basin |
| 2000 | Conducted numerical analysis of dissolved gas conditions on the lower Columbia River using MASS1 |
| 1999 | Configured and verified the watershed model (DHSVM) for the American River Basin |
| 1999 | Simulated Lower Snake River temperatures for impounded and unimpounded conditions usint MASS1 |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| WDFW Carcass Distribution Program on American, Bumping and Little Naches Rivers | The proposed project would involve a comprehensive field evaluation of this ongoing, unmonitored carcass introduction program, and would use that data to verify the Nutrient/Food Web tool. | |
| 22002 | Influences of Stocking Salmon Carcass Analogs on Salmonids in Columbia River Tributaries | The proposed project would be a valuable compliment to the analog study because togethor they would support additional comparisons between different subbasins and different nutrient sources (i.e., carcasses versus carcass analogs). |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Model Development | a. Watershed | .3 | $27,024 | |
| b. River | .3 | $27,024 | ||
| c. Food Chain | .42 | $37,934 | ||
| d. Data Transfer | .16 | $14,348 | ||
| e. Preliminary Calibration and Testing | 1 | $90,220 | ||
| 2. Data Gathering | a. Watershed Data | .25 | $35,966 | Yes |
| b. River Field Data | 1 | $143,866 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Data Gathering | 2003 | 2003 | $60,042 |
| 2. Model Application | 2003 | 2003 | $79,144 |
| 3. Reporting | 2003 | 2003 | $28,473 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $167,659 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.04 | $68,457 |
| Fringe | $24,178 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Travel | $0 | |
| Indirect | $123,898 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $159,849 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $376,382 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $376,382 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $376,382 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
The subcontracting costs are to cover work proposed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns; e.g. after receipt of commitment for WDFW participation
This is a well-written and innovative proposal that could result in a useful management tool. The proposal involves a good balance of data collection, integration of models, validation of predictions, reporting, and sensitivity to management needs. The proposal is only for two years but is reliant upon participation of WDFW staff for the provision of data on nutrient enhancement in the American, Bumping, and Naches rivers. Unfortunately, the proposal does not include any confirmation or commitment from WDFW for the provision of this data (except for sub-contractor costs included in the budget). Confirmation of WDFW agreement must accompany this proposal.
The ISRP suggests, however, that this proposal could wait to see if the empirical evidence shows results before developing an elaborate model. Because of the interest in nutrient enhancement, a modeling system that could be used to prioritize and direct management decisions could be valuable. A question is whether the results of this study will be available in time to add to the debate because of the number of nutrient enhancement projects that are in progress. That is, will the results from this study be unnecessary because of information gained from other projects? At the very least, information from other nutrient enhancement projects should be compared in some way to the results predicted from this modeling effort. At this time, we assess the priority for this modeling work to be medium.
Comment:
Indirect costs for this project appear excessive. During the FY01 Innovative funding process, CBFWA ranked this project (Project Number 22055) as a Recommended Action. The model at this stage will be entirely theoretical at this point and will not provide practical analyses until significant empirical data has been acquired.Comment:
Not fundable, a timely response was not received for ISRP review.Preliminary Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns; e.g. after receipt of commitment for WDFW participation.
This is a well-written and innovative proposal that could result in a useful management tool. The proposal involves a good balance of data collection, integration of models, validation of predictions, reporting, and sensitivity to management needs. The proposal is only for two years but is reliant upon participation of WDFW staff for the provision of data on nutrient enhancement in the American, Bumping, and Naches rivers. Unfortunately, the proposal does not include any confirmation or commitment from WDFW for the provision of this data (except for sub-contractor costs included in the budget). Confirmation of WDFW agreement must accompany this proposal.
The ISRP suggests, however, that this proposal could wait to see if the empirical evidence shows results before developing an elaborate model. Because of the interest in nutrient enhancement, a modeling system that could be used to prioritize and direct management decisions could be valuable. A question is whether the results of this study will be available in time to add to the debate because of the number of nutrient enhancement projects that are in progress. That is, will the results from this study be unnecessary because of information gained from other projects? At the very least, information from other nutrient enhancement projects should be compared in some way to the results predicted from this modeling effort. At this time, we assess the priority for this modeling work to be medium.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUThis model has the potential in the future to improve implementation of nutrient enhancement studies and programs at the subbasin scale, by modeling nutrient availability under a variety of conditions. However, the current data available to support such a model are extremely limited; therefore its potential for immediate or even short-term benefit is limited. (see also, comments).
Comments
Model at this point will be almost entirely theoretical; data collection and studies of nutrient enhancement should be conducted first, in order to make this a much more useful project.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? no
Comment:
No cost-share. This proposal develops a method to assess nutrients in water and associated benefits to juvenile fish by using computational fluid dynamics, watershed and food chain models. This is not a critical uncertainty (therefore, does not meet an RPA); however, it is interesting research. It should be deferred for now.Comment: