FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25034

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDevelop a Nutrient/Food-Web Management Tool for Watershed-River Systems
Proposal ID25034
OrganizationPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMarshall C. Richmond
Mailing addressPO Box 999, MS K9-33 Richland, WA 99352
Phone / email5093726241 / marshall.richmond@pnl.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionDevelop method to assess nutrients in water and associated benefits to juvenile fish by using computational fluid dynamics, watershed and food chain models.
Target speciesSpring Chinook, Steelhead/Rainbow, Coho
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.73 -120.67 throughout the entire subbasin
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
NA $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
NA $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
NA $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
This 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


Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: