FY07-09 proposal 200732600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitoring of juvenile and adult salmonid survival through the Federal Columbia River Power System |
| Proposal ID | 200732600 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Short description | This project will collect, analyze, mange, store, and disseminate data on the survival of juvenile and adult salmonids within the Federal Columbia River Power System. These were duties formerly provided by the Fish Passage Center. |
| Information transfer | Information will be provided through an interactive web site, reports, peer reviewed publications, briefing reports to fish, wildlife and power managers, and in response to public inquiries |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Dick Stone | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | stonerws@dfw.wa.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Jim Scott | WDFW | scottjbs@dfw.wa.gov |
| Dick Stone | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | stonerws@dfw.wa.gov |
| Bill Tweit | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | tweitwmt@dfw.wa.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Columbia River | |||
| Snake River |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Anadromous Fishsecondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: White Sturgeon Lower Columbia River
secondary: Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199403300 | Fish Passage Center | This project will assume the duties formerly provided by the Fish Passage Center |
| BPA | 198712700 | Smolt Monitoring By Non-Feder | This project will support the collection, storage, analysis, and dissemination of data collected under this related project |
| BPA | 199008000 | Columbia Basin Pit-Tag Informa | This proposal supports the collection of pit tags released in the Columbia river system |
| BPA | 199602000 | Pit Tagging Spring/Summer Chin | The proposal supports the work of the Comparative Survival Study through study design and data collection, analysis and reporting. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administer program | Administer and manage the project including budgets, personnel, supplies, space rental, communications and other factors. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring | Provide access for real time data queries and routine analysis, reporting, and report preparation of the results of passage monitoring in the Columbia River system. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring | Develop and update sampling protocols, provide training on data collection, and provide capability for daily data uploads of collected information. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
| Manage real time database of smolt monitoring data | Provides for the coordination of data collection, uploading to data warehouse, routine data analysis, and data reporting of smolt monitoring data from the Columbia River system. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submit/Acquire Data | Update and develop smolt monitoring sampling protocols and procedures | Work with the sampling agencies to make certain that appropriate sampling protocols are in place to provide the level of information necessary to provide for management. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $77,171 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Real-time display of smolt monitoring data | Provide real-time display of smolt monitoring data in a flexible on-line format that will allow users to select their desired information. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $185,207 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Real-time display of spawning ground data | Provide real-time display of spawning ground data as requested on the web site in a flexible easy to retrieve format. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $185,207 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Present available data on general river conditions | Retrieve and make available on the web site data on general river conditions (water conditions, flow, temperature, spill, dissolved gases) during the migration period. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $185,207 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Display adult migration information | Display continuously updated information on dam counts for adult returns of salmon and steelhead. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $185,207 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Respond to requests for analysis of smolt and adult migration data | Respond to requests for information about smolt monitoring results, survival, and other migration issues from fish and wildlife managers, other agencies, and the public | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $617,357 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Coordinate Comparative Survival Study (CSS) | Work with CSS participants to coordinate the marking and other logistic necessary for the CSS | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $51,446 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze hydrological conditions during migration | Analyze and monitor hydrological conditions during the migration period. Relate hydrological conditions to factors that might affect survival. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $185,207 |
|
Biological objectives Analysis and reporting of passage monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Administer project | Provide administrative oversight and management for the project. Includes managing and directing staff, budget preparation and oversight, communications, space rental, and other tasks necessary to support the operation of the project. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $715,798 |
|
Biological objectives Administer program |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Facilitate governance process | Facilitate work with advisory committees to develop an appropriate governance approach to insure that the project produces credible scientifically-based information that is accepted across the basin | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $600,076 |
|
Biological objectives Administer program |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | Support uploading of collected data | Establish and maintain the infrastructure necessary to support uploading of sampling data in a timely fashion. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $154,339 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Acquire necessary ESA permits | Work with NOAA Fisheries and other agencies to secure any necessary permits to allow for sampling listed populations. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $51,446 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordinate and implement Fish Facilities Inspection program | Work with appropriate agencies to coordinate the fish facilities inspection program at various FCRPS locations. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $51,446 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Prepare smolt monitoring annual report | Coordinate the preparation of the annual report of the smolt monitoring program. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $128,616 |
|
Biological objectives Coordinate implementation of smolt monitoring |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Validate uploaded data | Use existing or newly developed routines to validate incoming data against established standards. Where necessary work with data providers to correct and resubmit data. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $416,741 |
|
Biological objectives Manage real time database of smolt monitoring data |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Store data in a secure and appropriate fashion | Provide secure storage of data in database. Maintain current database design and update/modify as necessary to maintain functionality. Provide mirroring to facilitate recovery in the case of malfunction. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $416,741 |
|
Biological objectives Manage real time database of smolt monitoring data |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Archive and backup data | Data will be archived to a secure storage medium on a routine basis. Archived data will be stored off-site is a secure location. Periodic data recoveries will be made to test recovery procedures. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $416,741 |
|
Biological objectives Manage real time database of smolt monitoring data |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Warehouse other data as requested | Work with other parties in the region to provide storage and retrieval of stock monitoring information. Examples include the current storage of data on spawning ground surveys of some lower river tributaries. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $416,741 |
|
Biological objectives Manage real time database of smolt monitoring data |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | [blank] | $752,352 | $778,684 | $805,938 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $188,088 | $194,671 | $201,485 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $103,827 | $107,461 | $111,222 |
| Capital Equipment | [blank] | $50,000 | $51,750 | $53,561 |
| Other | Facilitation subcontract | $150,000 | $155,250 | $160,684 |
| Overhead | @28.79% | $362,760 | $375,456 | $388,592 |
| Travel | [blank] | $15,753 | $16,304 | $16,856 |
| Totals | $1,622,780 | $1,679,576 | $1,738,338 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $5,040,694 |
| Total work element budget: | $5,040,694 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,799,179 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,799,179 |
Comments: Assumes simple 3.5% inflation rate |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: Unknown
Comments: This is an on-going project as long as tribal, state, and federal fish managers and stakeholders, power managers, and others need to have data collected, analyzed, stored, and made available.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to replace most of the functions of the current Fish Passage Center (FPC), which is a required element in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The ISRP found this proposal lacking sufficient technical detail for an adequate technical review and requests a response. This project is similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to Project Proposals # 200730000 and # 200732100. In general, these three proposals recommend a return to the same organization and staff of the present FPC, which may be dissolved in November 2006. The ISRP recommends close coordination among the sponsors of these three proposals (CRITFC, ODFW, CBFWA, and WDFW) to develop one well-organized proposal with sufficient technical detail to address ISRP comments/recommendations. A response should address the comments and suggestions made within each of the following sections of the proposal: Technical and scientific background: Only a broad summary of fish passage and survival in the hydrosystem is presented, and smolt-monitoring functions are discussed only in very general terms. This section does not indicate the kinds of technical services to be provided (i.e. daily juvenile and adult fish passage data, passage timing, duration, survival, etc.), their importance, or do anything to help justify this project. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does not provide any specific linkage to priority objectives and goals indicated in regional programs or specific subbasin plans. The proposal needs to make a case of how this project will meet those requirements. Relationships to other projects: The proposal indicates that there are too many projects linked to this one to effectively list all of the connections. There is some truth to this, but several examples of the relationships of this project to projects like the Comparative Survival Study (#199602000) need to be included. Project history: The proposal indicates that it builds on a body of existing work and the proposal is considered new because the earlier project was terminated. Therefore no history is described. However, for such a long-running project there has been a number of important accomplishments and completed documents and that needs to be listed in this section. At least a one-page summary should be included. Objectives: Four objectives are listed including reasonable justification for each. Work Element 3.5 should probably be separated out as a specific objective to analyze and interpret passage and survival data. This is one function of the FPC that must be included and stated explicitly. Also, some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methodology for many of the work elements is only briefly described and often the details of how these tasks will be completed are missing. Some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. The methods for each of these work elements needs to be included and clearly detailed. Monitoring and evaluation: The major functions of the FPC are M&E. However, the proposal includes nothing regarding the broader monitoring aspects such as coordinating or participating with other regional RM&E programs such as CSMEP. The proposal needs to provide some detail of how they will develop this broader monitoring plan and give details of how they will coordinate and participate with other regional RM&E programs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The proposal indicates that equipment will be upgraded and consolidation of facilities will be done. However, WDFW also states that no decision has been made as to location, so much uncertainty exists. The WDFW management staff for the project is very well qualified; however, only a list of summarized position descriptions needed for basic project duties is provided. This is inadequate for reviewers to be able determine if the important functions of the project will have a reasonable chance of being accomplished. Either much more detailed position descriptions with necessary qualifications or a list of potential project personnel with resumes needs to be included.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to replace most of the functions of the current Fish Passage Center (FPC), which is a required element in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The ISRP found this proposal lacking sufficient technical detail for an adequate technical review and requests a response. This project is similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to Project Proposals # 200730000 and # 200732100. In general, these three proposals recommend a return to the same organization and staff of the present FPC, which may be dissolved in November 2006. The ISRP recommends close coordination among the sponsors of these three proposals (CRITFC, ODFW, CBFWA, and WDFW) to develop one well-organized proposal with sufficient technical detail to address ISRP comments/recommendations. A response should address the comments and suggestions made within each of the following sections of the proposal: Technical and scientific background: Only a broad summary of fish passage and survival in the hydrosystem is presented, and smolt-monitoring functions are discussed only in very general terms. This section does not indicate the kinds of technical services to be provided (i.e. daily juvenile and adult fish passage data, passage timing, duration, survival, etc.), their importance, or do anything to help justify this project. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does not provide any specific linkage to priority objectives and goals indicated in regional programs or specific subbasin plans. The proposal needs to make a case of how this project will meet those requirements. Relationships to other projects: The proposal indicates that there are too many projects linked to this one to effectively list all of the connections. There is some truth to this, but several examples of the relationships of this project to projects like the Comparative Survival Study (#199602000) need to be included. Project history: The proposal indicates that it builds on a body of existing work and the proposal is considered new because the earlier project was terminated. Therefore no history is described. However, for such a long-running project there has been a number of important accomplishments and completed documents and that needs to be listed in this section. At least a one-page summary should be included. Objectives: Four objectives are listed including reasonable justification for each. Work Element 3.5 should probably be separated out as a specific objective to analyze and interpret passage and survival data. This is one function of the FPC that must be included and stated explicitly. Also, some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methodology for many of the work elements is only briefly described and often the details of how these tasks will be completed are missing. Some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. The methods for each of these work elements needs to be included and clearly detailed. Monitoring and evaluation: The major functions of the FPC are M&E. However, the proposal includes nothing regarding the broader monitoring aspects such as coordinating or participating with other regional RM&E programs such as CSMEP. The proposal needs to provide some detail of how they will develop this broader monitoring plan and give details of how they will coordinate and participate with other regional RM&E programs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The proposal indicates that equipment will be upgraded and consolidation of facilities will be done. However, WDFW also states that no decision has been made as to location, so much uncertainty exists. The WDFW management staff for the project is very well qualified; however, only a list of summarized position descriptions needed for basic project duties is provided. This is inadequate for reviewers to be able determine if the important functions of the project will have a reasonable chance of being accomplished. Either much more detailed position descriptions with necessary qualifications or a list of potential project personnel with resumes needs to be included.