FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29021

Additional documents

TitleType
29021 Narrative Narrative
29021 Sponsor Response to ISRP Response
Michael L. Brown Resume Narrative Attachment
Letter in Support from USACE Response Attachment
Lisa Dally Wilson Resume Narrative Attachment
Donna DeFrancesco Resume Narrative Attachment
David Fernet Resume Narrative Attachment
Andreas Kammereck Resume Narrative Attachment
Ian Miller Resume Narrative Attachment
Chris Pitre Resume Narrative Attachment
William Roberds Resume Narrative Attachment
Paul Wagner Resume Narrative Attachment
Keith Wolf Resume Narrative Attachment
Keith Wolf Resume 2 Narrative Attachment
29021 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDevelop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions Analysis and Subbasin Planning
Proposal ID29021
OrganizationGolder Associates Inc. (Golder)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKeith Wolf
Mailing address18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, Washinton 98052
Phone / email4258830777 / kwolf@golder.com
Manager authorizing this projectMichael Brown
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionDevelop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions Analysis and Subbasin Planning
Target speciesSteelhead, spring chinook, summer/fall chinook, coho, sockeye and resident fish. Wildlife species will also receive ancillary benefits.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.55 -119.94 Project will encompass a cooperative effort with other projects in the Columbia Cascasde Province. Initial and specific project elements will target the Okanogan, Wenatchee, Methow and Entiat subbasins. Benefits will accrue to entire Columbia Basin.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 30 (see narrative)
Action 35 " "
Action 85 " "
Action 133 " "
Action 142 " "
Action 143 " "
Action 148 " "
Action 152 " "
Action 155 " "
Action 158 " "
Action 162 " "

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2001 Authorship of Okanogan Subbasin Summary for ISRP (Wolf et., al)
2001 Authorship of Okanogan Limiting Factors Analysis (final draft used in Subbasin Summary) (Fisher and Wolf)
2001 Validation of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model - Review of the Environmental Template (Task 2, 3and 4) (Wolf and Miller)
2001 Work Plan and Organizational Structure for the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (Wolf)
2000 Development of Validation process and tasks for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model - Regional Assessment Advisory Committee (Wolf as RAAC member)
2000 Development of Subbasin Planning and Assessment Template - Regional Assessment Advisory Committee (Wolf as RAAC member)
2001 Assisting Colville Confederated Tribes with overall recovery planning in Intermountain/Col. Cascade Province. Liason with NMFS etc. and public, (Wolf)
1997 Hanford Reach Juvenile Stranding Study. Field Studies, LIDAR and SHOALS survey (Wolf and Wagner)
1998 Hanford Reach Juvenile Stranding Study. Field Studies, mortality estimates, unsteady flow model and simulation development, delayed mortality studies (Wolf, Wagner, PNNL)
1999 Hanford Reach Juvenile Stranding Study. Technical and Policy Lead for multistate and tribal negotiation for interim operating plan (Wolf and Wagner)
1997 Steelhead Spawning Surveys in the Hanford Reach (Wolf and Wagner)
2000 GoldSim development project. Developing and applying a new general-purpose risk analysis simulation system.(Miller, Roberds)
2000 Developed risk-based model for proposed new water supply system, considering risks of poor water quality and excessive system costs (Miller).
1997 Dissertation research focused on controls on channel initiation in steep and low-gradient landscapes. Sustained interest in relationships between hillslope and fluvial processes motivates continuing research on sediment production, erosion mechanisms (Mon
1998 Leading a research program in Mountain Drainage Basin Geomorphology to develop methods for analyzing and predicting geomorphic response to both natural processes and anthropogenic disturbance.(Montgomery)
1999 Field studies of geomorphic processes and development of digital terrain models for predicting the spatial distribution of erosional processes, channel morphology, and sediment production and routing (Montgomery)
1999 Stream channel stability modeling and engineered treatments (Kammereck)
2000 Successful stream restoration designs and construction for USFWS (Wolf and Kammereck)
2001 Successful fish ladder design and construction project for USFWS (Wolf and Kammereck)
1994 Extensive FEMA and Fluvial Mechanics background - Seven years developing FEMA emergency planning critera for Whatcom County (Kammereck)
1998 Member of CBFWA subbasin technical review team (Wolf)
1989 Supported Department if Energy headquarters in developing a risk-based management model (STRIP) to evaluate alternative program management strategies. This model was used to develop a successful new strategy for WIPP nuclear waste disposal (Miller and Rob
1989 Supported a probabilistic risk assessment of the safety of a proposed tailings facility to be located on paleo-karst in Ireland (Miller).
1997 Developed probabilistic methodology for risk-based pipeline design for proposed trans-Alaska gas pipeline, for Yukon Pacific Corp. This methodology addressed multiple pipeline failure modes, and integrated geotechnical conditions along the pipeline right
1999 Chairman, Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Peer Review Panel, Yucca Mountain Project (Miller)
1999 Supporting DOE oversight of Yucca Mountain Project Viability Assessment. Leading development of next-generation performance assessment model, for DOE (Miller).
1993 Developed the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model (Mobrand)
2001 Chehalis Basin EDT analysis. Fluvial Mechanics and Alternate Strategies (Morris and Mobrand)
1998 Directed groundwater modeling at numerous sites, including a model of flow and solute transport at Hanford, Washington. Developed a model of multi-modal flow at the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site… (Miller)
2000 IFIM Techcnical Team Invitee (Fernet)
2000 Review of Mid-Columbia Habitat Conservation Plan (Wagner, Wolf)
1971 Team has recognition in all aspects of scientific diciplines to accomplish the project goals and objectives. Team is staffed and has access to experts ifisheries biology, ecology, fluvial processes, geology, geomorphology, civil and systems engineering,
1971 Team has world-wide recognition and extensive experience in risk analysis; advanced systems design; development of probablistic and statistical software and decision-support processes, and are experts in facilitatation of large, complex projects.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Columbia Cascade EDT analysis Direct and parallel relationship to provide new capability for subbain planning - project is not intended to extend existing EDT functionality, but provide new overall subbasin analysis and planning capability
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP) Parallel relationship to review capability for dynamic and direct linkages to SSHIAP and/or GIS-based analytical functionality
Okanogan and Wenatchee FLIR Direct input for physical process modeling
RAAC Process EDT Validation and subbasin assessment template

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Objective #1-P1 - By October 15th, 2002 convene the Core Development Team Task a. Define goals and objectives for PPM model in terms of direct benefit to fish and wildlife. Task b. Develop influence diagram for process and model 3 $59,920
Objective #2-P1 – By October 31, 2002, convene Project Management Team Task a. Develop project work plan, budget and allocate resources Task b. Initiate a web-based project collaboration site (Use Golder NetProject See- www.goldernetsolutions.com/PPM (review “preview” slides) 3 $59,920
Objective # 3-P1- By February 2003, conduct a literature search on all engineering and physical models and approaches used to compliment natural resource management and decision making. Task a. Define bounds of literature Task b. Assign Resources by discipline (e.g. model development, engineering, geomorphology and biological attributes.) Task c. Report linking existing literature with model objectives and discipline (dimensional m 1 $37,440
Objective #4-P1 – By June 2003, complete existing Physical Process Model review Task a. Model review. Review existing physical process models within context of EDT structure Task b. Define linkages and useful model structure and/.or general architecture Task c. Produce report of findings and conclusions Task d. Host symposim 1 $86,789
Objective #5-P1 By October 2003, develop and conduct a user-survey. Task a. Develop “usability” survey Task b. Conduct 50 user-surveys among subbasin planners, agency, tribal and planning groups to determine what functions are most desirable for the PPM 1 $9,460
Objective #6-P1 – Maintain linkage to Columbia Cascade (Methow, Okangoan, Entiat and Wenatchee EDT analysis) to ensure parallel development and stage “ground-truthing” in Phase II and III). Task a. Participate in CC EDT project technical meetings (6) Task b. Review baseline characterization and reach-specific analysis 3 $18,720
Objective #7-P1 – By October 2003, Document findings and report progress Task a. Prepare and deliver an end-of-year and Phase I report Task b. Prepare budget and scope for Phase II 3 $22,980
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. maintain core development team 2004 2006 $42,017
2. maintatin project management team 2004 2006 $42,017
3. end-of-year reports 2004 2006 $18,970
4. maintain linkage with CC EDT and Chehalis 2004 2006 $15,500
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$118,504$122,651$50,000$51,750

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective #1-P2 - Utilize the Phase –1 review and develop a work plan for Phase II 2004 2005 $6,600
Objective #2-P2 –Construct the Physical Processes Matrix 2004 2005 $50,084
Objective #3-P2 –Develop and integrate the conceptual model 2004 2005 $60,168
Objective #4-P2 –Develop and integrate the mathematical model 2004 2005 $60,168
Objective #5-P2 – Link physical processes and ecosystem analysis with scientific principles of advanced decision analysis. 2004 2005 $30,840
Objective #6-P2 – Maintain linkage to Columbia Cascade (Methow, Okangoan, Entiat and Wenatchee EDT analysis) to ensure parallel development and stage “ground-truthing” in Phase II and III). 2004 2005 $18,720
Objective #7-P2 – Document findings and report progress 2004 2005 $22,980
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004
$249,560

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective #1-P3 - Utilize the Phase –II review and develop a work plan for Phase IIL 2005 2006 $5,796
Objective #2–P3 By May 2005, implement mathematical program, integrate with Columbia Cascade subbasin planning process and EDT analysis to complete “model.” 2005 2006 $160,000
Objective #3–P3 – EDT/PPM reach specific and strategic prioritization model runs 2005 2006 $30,084
Objective #4–P3 – Model Validation 2005 2006 $30,084
Objective #5–P3 – Integration of model results with UCSRB and Col. Cascade SubbasinPlan 2005 2006 $30,084
Objective #6–P3 – Document PPM program and integration process 2005 2006 $49,000
Objective #7-P3 – Document findings and report progress 2005 2006 $22,980
Objective #8-P3 – Monitor and Evaluate Progress – Maintain process availability to subbasin planners 2005 2006 $22,980
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005
$351,008

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: Portions of 12 @ .26 of ea. FTE $210,009
Fringe Labor is fully burdened $0
Supplies 12,000 $12,000
Travel 9,078 $5,078
Indirect 3,252 $1,152
Subcontractor 48,000 $48,000
Other 18,990 for symposim costs, attendjournal publication and relevant professional association dues etc. $18,990
$295,229
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$295,229
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$295,229
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Army Corps. of Engineers Technical Services $28,800 in-kind
Golder Associates Inc. Support Services, GIS and Administration $12,500 in-kind
Colville Confederated Tribes Confer with Tribal Council $2,000 in-kind
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.

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Do not fund. No response is needed. The ISRP was not convinced that a highly sophisticated mathematical approach in combination with EDT is appropriate at this time. The sub models are available (and 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. A big Physical Processes Model may gain little not available from individual models for discrete processes.

Questions and concerns that arose in the course of review include: Where does EDT leaves off and PPM take over? What is the expected output of EDT in a specific real application and what is the expected output of PPM in the same illustration? Is EDT output input for PPM? A conceptual model of the system is needed. Without a conceptual model of the system, it is difficult to judge the qualifications of the proponents or the likelihood of success of the project.

The proposal should have contained a detailed monitoring and evaluation component. What real data will be collected and how will the project be evaluated (ground truthed)? How and when will one know that the project was a success or a failure? The proponents need to demonstrate support from management agencies in the Columbia Cascade Province and/or letters from the Council indicating need for augmentation of EDT in the subbasin planning effort.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Although some development of the methodology is necessary, this project should not be funded until EDT activities are underway.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. The ISRP acknowledges the proponent's response but remains unconvinced that the proposed project is an appropriate analysis and modeling procedure.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. A response was not needed. The ISRP was not convinced that a highly sophisticated mathematical approach in combination with EDT is appropriate at this time. The sub models are available (and 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. A big Physical Processes Model may gain little not available from individual models for discrete processes.

Questions and concerns that arose in the course of review include: Where does EDT leaves off and PPM take over? What is the expected output of EDT in a specific real application and what is the expected output of PPM in the same illustration? Is EDT output input for PPM? A conceptual model of the system is needed. Without a conceptual model of the system, it is difficult to judge the qualifications of the proponents or the likelihood of success of the project.

The proposal should have contained a detailed monitoring and evaluation component. What real data will be collected and how will the project be evaluated (ground truthed)? How and when will one know that the project was a success or a failure? The proponents need to demonstrate support from management agencies in the Columbia Cascade Province and/or letters from the Council indicating need for augmentation of EDT in the subbasin planning effort.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Possible indirect benefit. Integrate ecosystem diagnosis and habitat conditions analysis (biological models) with the causal mechanisms of landscape and/or land-forming processes (physical process models). This would allow biologists and decision-makers to effectively determine how specific actions will affect the productivity, diversity, and abundance of Pacific salmon.

Comments
1) Linking physical process models with a biological model like EDT will be inherently flawed because many of these models were developed to answer very specific in-channel hydraulics questions and are not related to the biology in anyway. The best way to use such models is to use them for the specific reason they were developed. 2) The physical processes they discuss only have to do with in-channel conditions and nothing to do with watershed processes as a whole, so you would be left with the main questions still being unanswered. 3) There is no ground-truthing component which would take years. They do not identify expected outputs and also do not have a larger conceptual model to work from making it more of a cobbling exercise.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: