FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308900
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 |
|---|---|
| 35035 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35035 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 35035 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Incorporating Pit Tag Technology to Evaluate and Monitor the Reintroduction Effort for Anadromous Salmonids in the Upper Cowlitz Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 200308900 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Charles Morrill |
| Mailing address | 600 Capitol Way N., Fish Program Olympia, WA, 98501-1091 |
| Phone / email | 3609022747 / cfwdfw@aol.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Wolf Dammers |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | We propose to update pit tag system to basin ISO standards at the Cowlitz Falls Dam and Fish Facility and use pit tags to monitor and measure collection, collection efficiency, smolt production, and a prototype surface collector entrance. |
| Target species | Late Winter Steelhead, Coho, Cutthroat and Chinook, All part of the Lower Columbia River ESU |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.4664 | -122.1067 | Location of the Cowlitz Falls Dam and Fish Facility, Range 6E, Township 11N, Sectin 6, About 17 miles East of Morton , WA off of Highway 12 at 1379 Falls Road, Randle, WA |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 85 |
| 86 |
| 80 |
| 45,46,47 |
| 104 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2002 | Pilot tests initiated on larger prototype entrance to surface collection flume |
| 2002 | COE funded research on near zone directed flow iniated |
| 2002 | First use of Accoustic Camera to look at fish behavior in front of surface collection entrance |
| 2001 | Total Smolt collection of 434,000 including nearly 335,000 coho smolts from hatchery adult spawners |
| 2001 | Flaired entrance to collection flume evaluated: tests with this prototype showed no improvement in collection |
| 2001 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 58 % for steelhead, 42 % for coho, 23 % for chinook |
| 2001 | Total Smolt production estimated at over One million smolts, including more than 800,000 coho smolts |
| 2001 | No Coho fry released in the upper watershed |
| 2001 | Number of adult coho transported and released to spawn naturally in the upper watershed will exceed 30,000 |
| 2001 | Estimates of egg to smolt yield from hatchery origin coho that spawned naturally of 1.5 % with no correction for sport harvest prior to spawning |
| 2001 | Initial estimate of smolt to adult survival for returns in 2000-01 from smolts collected and released in '99 of ~ 5.0 % |
| 2001 | Estimates of smolt yield from chinook fry plants: 32 %, |
| 2001 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerling plants: 13 % |
| 2001 | Over 730 late winter adult steelhead released in the upper watershed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 1.2 million |
| 2001 | Over 200 adult spring chinook released in the Cispus and allowed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 381,000 |
| 2001 | Documented emigration of juvenile spring chinook from hatchery adults that spawned in the Cispus in the fall of 2000. |
| 2000 | Total Smolt collection of 178,000 |
| 2000 | Baffle panels modified to improve flow dynamics approaching entrance to collection flume, monitoring indicated nearly 66 % of fish collected entered over modified baffle panels. Sampling the collection flumes showed that 75 to 83 % of the fish |
| 2000 | Sampling in the collection flumes showed that 75 to 83 % of fish collected came over the unit with the modified baffle panel configuration |
| 2000 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 65 % for steelhead, 45 % for coho, 24 % for chinook |
| 2000 | Radio telemetry estimates of collection efficiency for steelhead of 66 % |
| 2000 | Radio telemetry data showed that over 92 % of the tagged steelhead smolts entered the area behind the baffle panels. Nearly twice as many fish were collected behind the modified baffle panel configuration as the original. |
| 2000 | Radio telemetry data showed that all tagged steelhead smolts were detected at the entrances to the collection flumes. |
| 2000 | Visual observations by project staff early in season with clear water indicated steelhead smolts readily found collection flume entrances, oriented to entrance flows, then choose to reject or accept. |
| 2000 | Second evaluation of directed flow, tests with coho showed increase in collection of up to 38 % over control |
| 2000 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 22 % and 25 % |
| 2000 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 8.3 % |
| 2000 | Over 400 late winter adult steelhead released in the upper watershed to spawn naturally; potential egg depostion of 651,000 |
| 2000 | Initial estimate of coho smolt to adult return from smolts collected and transported in 1998 of ~ 1.85 % |
| 2000 | Over 200 adult spring chinook released in the Cispus and allowed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 206,000 |
| 2000 | A total of 42,000 adult coho released in the upper watershed and allowed to spawn naturally, potential egg deposition of nearly 62 million eggs |
| 1999 | Total Smolt collection of 52,000 |
| 1999 | Tested Strobe lights installed in induction slot to reduce steelhead passage through the induction slot to the turbine. Strobe lights as tested increased passage through induction slot |
| 1999 | Radio telemetry estimates of guidance though baffle panel slots for steelhead in conjunction with the strobe light study of 54 % in the unit with strobe lights and 46 % in the control unit. |
| 1999 | First radio telemetry estimate of guidance efficiency (passage through baffle panel slots) for coho of ~ 63 % associated with Directed Flow research |
| 1999 | First radio telemetry estimate of collection efficiency for coho of ~ 42 % as part of Directed Flow research |
| 1999 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 41 % for steelhead, 17 % for coho, 24 % for chinook |
| 1999 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 9 % and 16 % |
| 1999 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 4.0 % |
| 1999 | More than 34,000 coho adults released in the upper watershed and allowed to spawn naturally, potential egg deposition of more than 52 million eggs |
| 1998 | Total Smolt collection of 168,000 |
| 1998 | First radio telemetry estimate of collection efficiency for steelhead of 55 % (pilot study with 52 tags) |
| 1998 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 38 % for steelhead, 32 % for coho, 18 % for chinook |
| 1998 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 19 % and 8 % |
| 1998 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 5.4 % |
| 1998 | More than 11,000 coho adults released in the upper watershed and allowed to spawn naturally, potential egg deposition of more than 11 million eggs |
| 1997 | Total Smolt collection of 46,000 |
| 1997 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 45 % for steelhead, 21 % for coho, 17 % for chinook |
| 1997 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 5 % and 18 % |
| 1997 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 1.7 % |
| 1997 | Juvenile Fish Collection Facility at the Cowlitz Falls Dam completed and turned over to BPA at a cost of 18 millian dollars |
| 1997 | Acclimation ponds for the reintroduction program at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery completed and turned over to BPA at a cost of 4 million dollars |
| 1996 | First season (only 12 weeks) of smolt collection at the Cowlitz Falls Project for the reintroduction of spring chinook, late winter steelhead and coho to the upper watershed |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cowlitz Falls Project Anadromous Fish Reintroduction Program | BPA owns the power generation at the Cowlitz Falls Project through 2032 and funds the current level Anadromous Fish Reintroduction Program through the Contract Generating Resources Office in Richland, WA |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Upgrade Fish Facility Pit Tag Detection system at the Cowlitz Falls Project to Basin ISO standards | a. Consult with Vendors and solicit formal proposal to upgrade outdated Pit Tag Detection system | One | $2,800 | |
| Obj. 1 | b. Review and approve final proposal | One | $2,000 | |
| Obj. 1 | c. Schedule and coordinate installation prior to smolt migration beginning in April, 2003 with BPA and LCPUD | One | $1,500 | |
| Objective 2. Initial planning to install pit tag detection in two of four collection flumes to support research efforts to improve and monitor smolt entrance into the collection flumes in 2004 | a. Consult with LCPUD Project Engineers on project feasibility, design criteria, safety issues, and logistics to add additional pit tag detectors to existing flumes | Two | $3,700 | Yes |
| Obj. 2 | b. Review results of monitoring and research during the '03 season on entrance behavior | One | $2,000 | Yes |
| Objective 3. Develop and refine plans to utilize pit tags as a long term tool to monitor smolt emigration, timing, smolt yields, collection efficiency, and response to changes in the collection system in-season and long term | a. Work with a consulting statistician to define the numbers of pit tags and tagging strategy to measure and monitor each component with appropriate levels of accuracy, precision and confidence levels for each species | On-going | $8,600 | Yes |
| Objective 4. Continue work begun prior to 2003 on the modified prototype surface collector entrance design | a. Complete engineering design work to modify prototype surface collector entrance | One | $20,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Develop and refine statistical criteria for plans to utilize pit tags as a long term tool to monitor smolt emigration, timing, smolt yields, collection efficiency, and response to changes in the collection system in-season and long term | 2004 | 2007 | $18,000 |
| Objective 2. Complete plans to install two two coil detectors in two of the four collection flumes prior to the March 2004 | 2004 | 2004 | $6,400 |
| Objective 3. At the end of the 2004 season, review results from 2004 work and plans for pit tag detection in the remaining two collection flumes to support efforts to monitor and improve smolt collection | 2005 | 2005 | $3,400 |
| Objective 4. Complete plans to install last two two coil detectors in the remaining collection flumes prior to March 2005 | 2005 | 2005 | $3,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,900 | $12,900 | $4,500 | $4,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Upgrade Pit Tag Detection system at Project Fish Facility | a. Contract with Selected Vendor to complete upgrade prior to beginning of smolt migration season in March of 2003 | One | $60,000 | Yes |
| Objective 2. Train staff in Pit Tagging techniques | a. Have staff gain learn proper techniques and gain experience working with experienced staff from other agencies in the basin | One | $4,500 | |
| Objective 3. Complete fabrication of modified surface collection prototype | a. Engineering firm to complete the modified surface collector entrance prototype and deliver it to the project | One | $30,000 | Yes |
| Objective 4. Install modified surface collector entrance prototype | a. LCPUD staff to install modified surface prototype entance collector | One | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Install Pit tag detection on first two collection flumes | 2004 | 2004 | $75,000 |
| Objective 2. Install Pit tag detection on last two collection flumes | 2005 | 2005 | $75,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $75,000 | $75,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Service and Maintain Pit Tag Equipment | a. Set up service contract with Vendor for service as needed in-season | On-going | $2,500 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Continue Service and Maintenance Agreement with Vendor for Pit Tag Equipment | 2004 | 2007 | $10,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1.Conduct post-construction evaluation of the new ISO compatible PIT tag collection system to ensure that detection efficiency is acceptable and fish passage is not detrimental to fish. | a. Pit tag up to 1,000 smolts for release into the flume system to determine PIT tag detection efficiency. | One | $4,535 | |
| Obj. 1. | b. Monitor descaling to determine if modifications to the flumes with new PIT tag detection system cause excessive descaling. | One | $2,000 | |
| Objective 2. Concurrently pit tag and elastomer mark smolts to compare PIT tag results with elastomer marks used during the last 6 years opf monitoring to ensure that mark method does not bias results. | a. Pit tag and release up to 2,000 smolts to compare current FCE with past visual mark-recaputre FCE. | One | $9,135 | |
| Obj. 2. | b. Mark groups of smolts of each species weekly with elastomer marks to compare PIT tag fish passage metrics. (funded under operation of fish facility) | One | $0 | |
| Objective 3. Evaluate pit-tagged smolts to replace flume sampling and radio tagging as tools to evaluate measures to improve fish collection efficiency. | a. PIT tag and release up to 3,000 smolts for surface collector entrance evaluations. | Five | $18,500 | |
| Obj. 3. | b. Monitor fish behavior at the flume entrances using flume sampling, an acoustic camera, or radion telemetry. (Primary funding for this task will be from another source) | Five | $0 | |
| Objective 4. Submit all tagging files to regional Pit Tag Data Base (Ptagis) | a. Validate and submit all tagging files upon releasing tagged fish | Five | $16,410 | |
| Objective 5. Monitor recovery of pit tags in lower Columbia River to supplement timing and life history information as tagged juveniles migrate to the ocean | a. Access Ptagis for tags recovered in esturary trawl program conducted by NMFS | Five | $2,530 | |
| b. Access Ptagis for tags recovered in on-going sampling of avian nesting sites and Estuary life history studies | Five | $2,530 | ||
| Objective 6. Complete annual reports | a. Prepare and complete annual reports on project activities and accomplishments | Five | $7,500 | |
| Obj. 6. | b. Submit completed reports to regional web database for inclusion | Five | $1,000 | |
| Obj. 6 | c. If appropriate, submit writeup of significant accomplishments for peer review and publication in professional journal | As needed | $2,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Pit Tag up to 2,000 smolts to measure smolt collection efficiency over the migration season | 2004 | 2007 | $39,364 |
| Objective 2. Pit Tag up to 3,000 smolts to assist in evaluating measures to improve collection | 2004 | 2007 | $58,173 |
| Objective 3. Submit all tagging files to regional Pit Tag Data Base (Ptagis) | 2004 | 2007 | $70,713 |
| Objective 4. Monitor recovery of pit tags in lower Columbia River from Ptagis data base to supplement timing and life history information of tagged juveniles from the upper Cowlitz watershed | 2004 | 2007 | $21,804 |
| Objective 5. Complete annual reports, submit to regional web database | 2004 | 2007 | $32,318 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $53,154 | $54,747 | $56,390 | $58,351 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 10.0 | $30,900 |
| Fringe | Avg. Benefit rate of .289 | $8,930 |
| Supplies | office space, phones, computer, office supplies | $10,200 |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | Indirect rate of .252, rounded to nearest 10 | $13,120 |
| Capital | Pit Tag Detection equipment to upgrade current system to ISO basin standards | $52,000 |
| NEPA | Addressed by Agency | $0 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 6,000 | $13,500 |
| Subcontractor | Pit Tag Equipment Installation | $8,000 |
| Subcontractor | Pit Tag Equipment Maintainence | $2,500 |
| Subcontractor | Engineering Support for Pit Tag Detectors in Collection Flumes | $3,000 |
| Subcontractor | Statistical Support for pit tagging studies | $4,500 |
| Subcontractor | Engineering design work to complete prototype surface entrance collector | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Fabrication costs for prototype surface collector | $30,000 |
| Other | Pit tagging needles, syringes, and supplies | $5,090 |
| $203,740 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $203,740 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $203,740 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA, Power Generating Resources | Funds Basic Components of the Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Fish Reintroduction Program | $305,000 | cash |
| USGS-BRD, Cook Washington | Equipment and staff services including an acoustic camera for monitoring fish behavior and response to the entrances of the surface collector flumes | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed to up-date the ISRP on progress towards a comprehensive study design in the upper Cowlitz River watershed. No further questions on this proposal. The ISRP recently reviewed this proposal and project # 31005 (Incorporating Pit Tag Technology to Evaluate and Monitor the Reintroduction Effort for Anadromous Salmonids in the Upper Cowlitz Watershed, WDFW) under the Lower Columbia/Estuary province. The committee was supportive of the upgrading of the PIT detectors to be consistent with downstream detectors, but we strongly noted the unique opportunities for important research in the upper Cowlitz River tributaries. We noted that the real value to the Basin in this upgrade it the monitoring and evaluation capability that could be incorporated into this research. This proposal did not comment on develops of such a research program but an organizational group was noted during the presentation. The ISRP has concluded that they must remain consistent with its recent recommendation:"Defer decision until an appropriate experimental design is developed. Funding of #31005 could proceed independent of #31017 but the value of that investment would be significantly reduced without the full development of the potential studies in the upper Cowlitz River (project #31017)." (see below)
We should note, however, that this proposal has very strong BPA cost sharing already in-place and that costs in this proposal are distributed over a couple of years. Proceeding with the upgrade would be advisable in order to be prepared for future studies. If a research program did not subsequently develop, then the benefit of this investment would be much more localized. There would still be value in the assessment of Cowlitz salmon production.
Past ISRP Review Comments:
June 7, 2002 Province Review -
Province: Lower Columbia
Subbasin: Cowlitz
FY03 Request: $257,130
5YR Estimate: $971,730
Short Description: We propose to update pit tag system to basin ISO standards at the Cowlitz Falls Dam and Fish Facility and use pit tags to monitor and measure collection, collection efficiency, smolt production, and a prototype surface collector entrance.
ISRP Final Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified - see comments)
CBFWA Category: Recommended Action
ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not fundable (Qualified)
ISRP Final Review Comments:
See comments on project #31017.CBFWA Review Comments:
This project should be considered under the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. The data collected would contribute to a larger database for evaluating populations. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ProjectID: 31017
Monitor and evaluate the success of hatchery salmonid reproduction for reintroduction of anadromous salmonids to the upper Cowlitz Basin
Sponsor: WDFW
Province: Lower Columbia
Subbasin: Cowlitz
FY03 Request: $183,661
5YR Estimate: $1,100,161
Short Description: Monitor the success of the reintroduction of anadromous salmonids to the upper Cowlitz Basin, including distribution, timing and success of reproduction of hatchery adults and success of upper basin seeding.
ISRP Final Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified - see comments)
CBFWA Category: High Priority
ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not fundable (Qualified)
ISRP Final Review Comments:
Defer decision until an appropriate experimental design is developed. Funding of #31005 could proceed independent of #31017 but the value of that investment would be significantly reduced without the full development of the potential studies in the upper Cowlitz River (project #31017).The Basin has witnessed other unique opportunities to learn from new programs, that promised to develop appropriate experimental designs, but results have been less than expected. The upper Cowlitz offers one of the best environments and research opportunity but must be conducted under an appropriate design. At present the project is not conceived of as an experiment and appropriate hypotheses have not been developed. The response included three hypotheses (top page 5) but these only describe hypotheses that are implicit in the reintroduction program, rather than outlining an experimental design that would enable testing of hypotheses and methods for testing them. The study design is not adequate and does not provide any confidence that valuable results will be gained from the project. Based on the responses for projects #31005 and #31017, the ISRP is inclined to recommend Do Not Fund.
The ISRP has clearly indicated their support for the development of these two projects into a potentially important study for the Basin.
"BPA has already invested heavily in the Cowlitz watershed by building the Fish Facility ($22 million) but this proposal has good cost sharing and local support. There is an opportunity for exciting and informative research programs concerning salmon restoration, role of nutrients in the ecosystem, and hatchery versus wild comparisons in the upper Cowlitz watershed."
We continue to support the development of these projects and consequently recommend that a limited time (e.g. six months) be allowed for the development of an appropriate design before a final decision is made on these two projects. There are numerous important questions in the Basin that could be studied in this environment, but the proponents do not seem to be aware of the opportunity presented. An advisory committee could be developed to assistant in the timely development of this design and execution of these projects.
Further, the responses to questions about recreational harvest focus on the regulation allowing targeting of marked hatchery fish and does not directly address the potential problem of incidental catch and release mortality. Discussion of the design should also consider the appropriateness of a recreational fishery in the upper Cowlitz. Can the fishery be relocated or limited to areas to minimize impacts?
CBFWA Review Comments:
This project is considered part of the base for the Biological Opinion by NMFS.
Comment:
Comment:
Not Fundable; disagree with CBFWA (Recommended Action). The response briefly describes a process for developing a study plan for the upper Cowlitz watershed, but does not provide an adequate response to the ISRP. The response was clearly influenced by the comments from CBFWA and NWPPC staff which indicated that even with an adequate and timely response, the Cowlitz proposals would not be funded given basin priorities and available funds (as part of the Lower Columbia project selection process). Consequently, the response did not supply the needed information. The ISRP reiterates that the upper Cowlitz offers one of the best environments and research opportunity to study supplementation.The ISRP recently reviewed this proposal and project # 31005 (Incorporating Pit Tag Technology to Evaluate and Monitor the Reintroduction Effort for Anadromous Salmonids in the Upper Cowlitz Watershed, WDFW) under the Lower Columbia/Estuary province. The ISRP was supportive of the upgrading of the PIT detectors to be consistent with downstream detectors, but we strongly noted the unique opportunities for important research in the upper Cowlitz River tributaries. We noted that the real value to the Basin in this upgrade is the monitoring and evaluation capability that could be incorporated into this research. The current proposal did not provide a study design but commented on a group organized to develop the research design.
The ISRP also noted that the proposal had very strong BPA cost sharing already in-place and that costs in this proposal are distributed over a couple of years. Proceeding with the upgrade would be advisable in order to be prepared for future studies. If a research program did not subsequently develop, then the benefit of this investment would be much more localized. There would still be value in the assessment of Cowlitz salmon production.
The provision of an inadequate response clearly limits any recommendations of the ISRP but we must emphasize that lack of progress in developing this study site and provision of the necessary detectors is potentially a major loss of information for the Columbia River Basin! As a regional study site, the upper Cowlitz has enormous research potential that is unavailable in most other basins. Consequently, the lack of response and the associated events are disturbing to the ISRP.
If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitNo biological benefits for RPA ESUs. Research and monitoring benefits assessment of reintroduction efforts and surface bypass collector in Cowlitz River
Comments
Does not involve fish covered by the RPA
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments: