FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29021
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 |
---|---|
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 title | Develop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions Analysis and Subbasin Planning |
Proposal ID | 29021 |
Organization | Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Keith Wolf |
Mailing address | 18300 Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 Redmond, Washinton 98052 |
Phone / email | 4258830777 / kwolf@golder.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Michael Brown |
Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
Short description | Develop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions Analysis and Subbasin Planning |
Target species | Steelhead, spring chinook, summer/fall chinook, coho, sockeye and resident fish. Wildlife species will also receive ancillary benefits. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
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 ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
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
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$118,504 | $122,651 | $50,000 | $51,750 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Do not fund - no response required
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.
Comment:
Although some development of the methodology is necessary, this project should not be funded until EDT activities are underway.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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPossible 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
Comment:
Do not recommendComment: