FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25055

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:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This is a well-written proposal for groundwater and surface water modeling associated with the Echo Meadows test of the groundwater recharge system using an irrigation system. Groundwater recharge in winter when flows are high and water cold is an idea that has been developing since the ISG wrote Return to the River. This proposal is an evolution of those discussions, as was the Echo Meadows proposal. The models proposed for use are good ones. The staff is experienced in groundwater modeling at the Hanford site. The reviewers were surprised in a way that this modeling effort was not part of the original Echo Meadows proposal. In fact, this project needs to have a ground truthing component that should be available from the first Echo Meadows project. The claim is made in this proposal that the models have been widely used and just need to be calibrated. However, it should be required that they have an independent set of data collected, withheld from the calibration effort, and used to test the models after the models have been calibrated with the rest of the data. Another possibility is that the data set could be split and two scientists independently calibrate the model and predict the other half of the data. If this is such a straight forward process why did they find it necessary to propose three additional wells "Due to the extreme spatial geologic variability of the sediments at this site..."?

This work would follow much of the Echo Meadows testing, but needs to be in this 3-year proposal cycle if it is to be done with, or soon after, the field tests. Can this work be conducted as part of the Echo Meadows testing project, previously reviewed? The funding for that project might be boosted to keep all the Echo Meadows work together. Is proposing a separate project an indication that the people don't work well together?

Comment:

Comment:

This is a well-written proposal for groundwater and surface water modeling associated with the Echo Meadows test of groundwater recharge using an irrigation system. Groundwater recharge in winter when flows are high and water cold is an idea that has been developing since the ISG wrote "Return to the River." This proposal is an evolution of those discussions, as was the IRZ Echo Meadows proposal. The models proposed for use are good ones. The staff is experienced in groundwater modeling at the Hanford site. The reviewers were initially surprised that this modeling effort was not part of the original Echo Meadows proposal, but now understand the history. This project needs to have a ground truthing component that will be available from the first Echo Meadows project. The claim is made in this proposal that the models have been widely used and just need to be calibrated, which prompted several reviewer comments and suggestions. The response adequately discussed the calibration process. The proposal for three additional wells "Due to the extreme spatial geologic variability of the sediments at this site" seems justified.

This work would follow much of the Echo Meadows testing, but needs to be in this 3-year proposal cycle if it is to be done with, or soon after, the field tests. This work will be conducted functionally as part of the Echo Meadows testing project, previously funded, but use different staff with different expertise. It is reasonable that the funding be separate. Care should be taken to ensure that the two projects are, in fact, closely coordinated.

Comment:

Comments
Well-written proposal for groundwater & surface water modeling associated with the Echo Meadows test of groundwater recharge using an irrigation system.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? no

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: