FY07-09 proposal 200732700
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Compilation of Location-Specific Hatchery Release Data in Consistent Format Across Agencies by StreamNet |
| Proposal ID | 200732700 |
| Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
| Short description | Detailed fish liberation data for anadromous and resident fish species will be developed from multiple agencies. The data will show detailed release location information (not "rolled up") and posted through the StreamNet online database query system. |
| Information transfer | Data compiled by this project will be incorporated into the StreamNet database and made available via the StreamNet on-line query system at http://www.streamnet.org. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Mike Banach | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | mike_banach@psmfc.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Bruce Schmidt | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | bruce_schmidt@psmfc.org |
| Bruce Schmidt | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission | bruce_schmidt@psmfc.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| All waters of the state. | |||
| All Columbia Basin waters of the state. | |||
| All Columbia Basin waters of the state. | |||
| All Columbia Basin waters of the state. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Salmonidssecondary: Anadromous Fish
secondary: Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198201301 | Coded Wire Tag - PSMFC | This project will try to create closer working relationships between RMIS and StreamNet. We will move toward standardizing data structures and location coding. We will also search for ways in which hatchery release data flow to RMIS and StreamNet can be made more efficient. |
| BPA | 198201302 | Coded Wire Tag - ODFW | This project will try to create closer working relationships between RMIS and StreamNet. We will move toward standardizing data structures and location coding. We will also search for ways in which hatchery release data flow to RMIS and StreamNet can be made more efficient. |
| BPA | 198201303 | Coded Wire Tag - USFWS | This project will try to create closer working relationships between RMIS and StreamNet. We will move toward standardizing data structures and location coding. We will also search for ways in which hatchery release data flow to RMIS and StreamNet can be made more efficient. |
| BPA | 198201304 | Coded Wire Tag - WDFW | This project will try to create closer working relationships between RMIS and StreamNet. We will move toward standardizing data structures and location coding. We will also search for ways in which hatchery release data flow to RMIS and StreamNet can be made more efficient. |
| BPA | 198810804 | Streamnet (CIS/NED) | This project will expand the capabilities of StreamNet in providing regional coordination and in providing a new type of data. This project will try to create closer working relationships between RMIS and StreamNet. We will move toward standardizing data structures and location coding. We will also search for ways in which hatchery release data flow to RMIS and StreamNet can be made more efficient. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support effective management and restoration | Data consolidation makes information from multiple sources conveniently available in consistent format to managers, researchers and decision makers in support of management and restoration actions. This indirectly supports a variety of biological objectives. | None | Evaluating the effects (+ and -) of hatchery fish requires extensive knowledge of where those fish were released. This project will consolidate information about releases at individual locations and make it available for use in evaluation of hatcheries. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submit/Acquire Data | Acquire data on releases of anadromous salmonids, by individual location. | The agency partners will acquire, standardize and georeference data on the individual (un-rolled) releases of hatchery reared anadromous fish and submit them to the StreamNet database. This will be done in cooperation with the agencies rearing the fish. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $172,512 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | Acquire data on the stocking of resident fishes, by individual stocking location | StreamNet's partners in the fish agencies will acquire, standardize and georeference data on the stocking of resident fishes, by location, and submit the data to the StreamNet database. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $140,085 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Database management and tool development for capture and exchange of stocking data | Agency partners will develop data management tools to capture and manage release data, develop and conform to a standard data format and location coding, manage, and quality check the data. The existing data exchange format for release data will be evaluated and used as the basis for a new format. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $281,775 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate data on stocking of resident and anadromous fishes | Agency partners will disseminate release data through agency websites and by exchanging the data to the StreamNet database for widespread dissemination through www.streamnet.org | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $13,178 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Expenditures by subcontractors in partner agencies | $103,061 | $108,214 | $113,625 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $39,834 | $41,826 | $43,917 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $4,545 | $4,772 | $5,011 |
| Travel | [blank] | $1,276 | $1,340 | $1,407 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $44,004 | $46,204 | $48,514 |
| Totals | $192,720 | $202,356 | $212,474 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $607,550 |
| Total work element budget: | $607,550 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | 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: $200,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $200,000 |
Comments: The ultimate goal is to develop automated processes to capture fish release data, which would begin to reduce costs of acquiring and standardizing those data. |
Future O&M costs: In the long term, we anticipate building automated routines that would automate data capture. Those applications would have to be maintained over time, but at a reduced cost to developing the routines.
Termination date: Unknown
Comments: Data compilation to consolidate similar data from multiple agency sources and standardize them will be a long term program. We anticipate decreasing workload as more of the process can be automated, but the project would not terminate in entirety.
Final deliverables: Annual delivery of updated data on the release of anadromous hatchery produced salmonids and the stocking of hatchery produced resident salmonids.
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 proposal describes database improvements that are very likely to be useful to the Basin. The ISRP noted the need for this type of information in the previous review process (systemwide/provincial). All anadromous and resident fish would likely benefit from an improved information base. However, not enough detail is presented in the proposal about how this will be done. The sponsors should provide additional detail to better describe exactly what is planned. The sponsors propose to increase the quantity and consistency of hatchery release data by capturing more detailed release data than is currently done and expanding data coverage to all water bodies and species of fish. The proposal provides a good description of the data issues and the utility of taking a more comprehensive approach. Some efforts along these lines are documented in the proposal, but it notes that without further resources progress will remain slow. This raises the question: what cost and time savings are expected to result from this project? The proposal makes reference to some potential problems in getting the level of cooperation that is necessary from various agencies. It would be helpful to know the nature of the potential constraints and how the sponsors intend to address them. Is there continuing resistance among states to standardizing data? Are the tribal agencies part of this project? The project would seem to have clear rationale. The significance of this project is summarized as a bulleted list. These seem reasonable, but it would be useful to have more explanation under each bullet. There is no citation of how this work has been prioritized by the Fish and Wildlife Program, the BiOp, or other planning documents. The proposal is clearly tied to the core StreamNet effort. It would be helpful to demonstrate how the data provided by this project will assist or tie in with other projects in the Basin. The methods seem reasonable but are not presented in great detail. As an example, for automated data exchange, the statement is made that "we are not certain how much progress is possible at this time." It would be helpful to identify the likely constraints and the approach to removing them. Similarly, "acquire data" deserves more detailed explanation of approach than is provided. It is not clear how to determine the success of the project because no description of monitoring and evaluation is provided. Surely quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) monitoring would be relevant here as would be setting performance targets and assessing the extent to which they are being met? Information transfer is through data dissemination. Data compiled by this project will be incorporated into the StreamNet database and made available via the StreamNet on-line query system. There is the potential in a project like this to also learn about the process and challenges of data coordination. The sponsors should identify strategies to summarize lessons learned for the benefit of other efforts.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal describes database improvements that are very likely to be useful to the Basin. The ISRP noted the need for this type of information in the previous review process (systemwide/provincial). All anadromous and resident fish would likely benefit from an improved information base. However, not enough detail is presented in the proposal about how this will be done. The sponsors should provide additional detail to better describe exactly what is planned. The sponsors propose to increase the quantity and consistency of hatchery release data by capturing more detailed release data than is currently done and expanding data coverage to all water bodies and species of fish. The proposal provides a good description of the data issues and the utility of taking a more comprehensive approach. Some efforts along these lines are documented in the proposal, but it notes that without further resources progress will remain slow. This raises the question: what cost and time savings are expected to result from this project? The proposal makes reference to some potential problems in getting the level of cooperation that is necessary from various agencies. It would be helpful to know the nature of the potential constraints and how the sponsors intend to address them. Is there continuing resistance among states to standardizing data? Are the tribal agencies part of this project? The project would seem to have clear rationale. The significance of this project is summarized as a bulleted list. These seem reasonable, but it would be useful to have more explanation under each bullet. There is no citation of how this work has been prioritized by the Fish and Wildlife Program, the BiOp, or other planning documents. The proposal is clearly tied to the core StreamNet effort. It would be helpful to demonstrate how the data provided by this project will assist or tie in with other projects in the Basin. The methods seem reasonable but are not presented in great detail. As an example, for automated data exchange, the statement is made that "we are not certain how much progress is possible at this time." It would be helpful to identify the likely constraints and the approach to removing them. Similarly, "acquire data" deserves more detailed explanation of approach than is provided. It is not clear how to determine the success of the project because no description of monitoring and evaluation is provided. Surely quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) monitoring would be relevant here as would be setting performance targets and assessing the extent to which they are being met? Information transfer is through data dissemination. Data compiled by this project will be incorporated into the StreamNet database and made available via the StreamNet on-line query system. There is the potential in a project like this to also learn about the process and challenges of data coordination. The sponsors should identify strategies to summarize lessons learned for the benefit of other efforts.