FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198712700
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 |
---|---|
198712700 Narrative | Narrative |
198712700 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
198712700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 198712700 | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Smolt Monitoring by Federal and Non-Federal Agencies |
Proposal ID | 198712700 |
Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Michele Dehart |
Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave. Portland, OR 97201 |
Phone / email | 5032304288 / mdehart@fpc.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Michele DeHart, FPC & Pam Kahut, PSMFC |
Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
Short description | Daily passage data through the mainstem, Snake, Columbia and mid-Columbia Rivers to facilitate fish passage management decisions, including Biological Opinion implementation, is collected daily. Sampling and marking occur at 8 sites of the larger region. |
Target species | yearling chinook, sub-yearling chinook, coho, steelhead, sockeye |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45.38 | -121.56 | Bonneville Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by PSMFC |
45.73 | -120.66 | John Day Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by PSMFC |
45.94 | -119.29 | McNary Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by WDFW |
46.56 | -118.54 | Lower Monumental Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by WDFW |
46.54 | -118.03 | Little Goose Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by ODFW |
46.66 | -117.43 | Lower Granite Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by WDFW |
47.34 | -120.09 | Rock Island Dam Juvenile Sampling Facility, run by WDFW |
46.42 | -117.03 | Lewiston Fish Trap, Lewiston, Idaho on Snake River, run by IDFG |
46.06 | -116.98 | Grande Ronde Fish Trap, on Grande Ronde River approximately rm 2, run by ODFW |
45.97 | -116.9 | Imnaha Trap, on Imnaha River run by Nez Pierce Tribe |
45.66 | -116.29 | White Bird Trap, on Salmon River, run by IDFG |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
NMFS RPA 10.5.1.4. Monitor Juvenile Fish Passage |
NMFS RPA 10.5.1.1. Evaluate Reach Survival |
NMFS RPA 9.6.5.3.5.1. Juv Monitoring & Evaluation |
RPA 9.6.5.3.5 |
NMFS Action #17 |
NMFS Action #52 |
NMFS Action #131 |
NMFS Action #141 |
NMFS Action #1193 |
FWS RPA # 11.A.2.1.b |
FWS RPA # 11.A.3.1.b |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 199 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall implement the specific research/monitoring actions outlined in Appendix H. |
NMFS/BPA | Action 199 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall implement the specific research/monitoring actions outlined in Appendix H. |
NMFS | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
NMFS | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
NMFS/BPA | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
2001 | Collected, maintained, distributed all passage data, river data daily, successfully implemented sampling plans, all objectives, data reporting requirements, and met conditions of ESA section permit. |
2000 | Collected, maintained, distributed all passage data, river data daily, successfully implemented sampling plans, all objectives, data reporting requirements, and met conditions of ESA section permit. |
1999 | Collected, maintained real time passage, and GBT data for Columbia and Snake river monitoring sites. Data was available to all regional parties. |
1998 | Collected, maintained real time passage, and GBT data for Columbia and Snake river monitoring sites. Data was available to all regional parties. |
1997 | Collected, maintained real time passage, and GBT data for Columbia and Snake river monitoring sites. Data was available to all regional parties. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
198712702 | Comparative Survival Study | Critical Component |
198712703 | Imnaha River SMP | Critical Component |
198332300 | Monitor Smolts at the Head of Lower Granite Reservoir & Lower Granite Dam | Critical Component |
19940330 | Fish Passage Center | Critical Component |
198332300 | Smolt Condition & Arrival Timing | Critical Component |
199401400 | SMP Marking | Critical Component |
199008000 | PITAGIS | Critical Component |
199602100 | Gas Bubble Disease Research & Monitoring | Critical Component |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
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 |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
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 |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Smolt Monitoring-Lower Granite (WDFW) | a. Sample migrants daily in the sample system | $266,466 | ||
b. Monitor Gas Bubble Symtoms according to FPC protocols. | $0 | |||
c. Transmit Data according to FPC protocols | $0 | |||
d. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocols | $0 | |||
e. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation | $0 | |||
f. Conduct sampling for implementation of the Smolt Transportation Program | $0 | |||
2. Smolt Monitoring-McNary & Lower Monumental Dams. | a. Sample migrants daily in the Sample System. | $430,378 | ||
b. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocol. | $0 | |||
c. Monitor for Gas Bubble symptoms according to FPC protocols. | $0 | |||
d. Transmit Data according to FPC protocol | $0 | |||
e. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation. | $0 | |||
f. Conduct sampling for implementation of the Smolt Transportation Program | $0 | |||
3. Smolt Monitoring-Grande Ronde | a. Sample migrants daily in the Sample System | $238,462 | ||
b. Apply PIT Tags | $0 | |||
c. Transmit Data according to FPC protocol | $0 | |||
d. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocol | $0 | |||
e. Monitor for gas bubble symptoms according to FPC protocols | $0 | |||
f. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation | $0 | |||
g. Cost of tags | $17,100 | |||
4. Smolt Monitoring-Little Goose | a. Sample migrants daily in the Sample System | $114,521 | ||
b. Monitor Gas Bubble Symtoms according to FPC protocols. | $8,502 | |||
c. Transmit Data according to FPC protocol | $0 | |||
d. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocol | $0 | |||
e. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation. | $0 | |||
f. Conduct sampling for implementation of the Smolt Transportation Program | $0 | |||
5. Smolt Monitoring-Rock Island | a. Sample migrants daily in the Sample System. | $181,918 | ||
b. Monitor Gas Bubble Symtoms according to FPC protocols. | $0 | |||
c. Apply PIT tags | $0 | |||
d. Transmit data according to FPC protocol. | $0 | |||
e. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocol. | $0 | |||
f. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation | $0 | |||
g. cost of tags | $36,450 | |||
6. Smolt Monitoring-John Day Dam & Bonnefille Dam | a. Sample migrants daily in the Sample System. | $669,523 | ||
b. Monitor Gas Bubble Symtoms according to FPC protocols. | $0 | |||
c. Transmit data according to FPC protocol. | $0 | |||
d. Conduct data verification procedure according to FPC protocol. | $0 | |||
e. Project management, planning, work statement/budget preparation | $0 | |||
7. Smolt Monitoring-Head of Lower Granite Reservoir & Lower Granite Dam (Idaho) | a. Provide daily trap catch data & smolt passage index | $341,259 | ||
b. Determine travel time of PITtagged smolts from the point of of release to the smolt traps (index sites). | $0 | |||
c. Provide an interrogation site for PIT-taggged smolts, marked on other projects, at the end of their migration in a riverine environment and the beginning of migration in a reservoir environment & intermediate site on the Salmon River. | $0 | |||
d. Determine travel time for age 1 hatchery and wild chinook, hatchery steelhead, and wild steelhead smolts from the lower Salmon River. Also provide pit-tagged fish for survival estimates. | $0 | |||
e. Determine PIT-tag detection rate at Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and McNary dams during spring outmigration period | $0 | |||
f. Correlate smolt migration rate with river flow for fish moving in riverine and reservoir environments during the spring outmigration period. | $0 | |||
g. Evaluate timing of returning adult wild and natural steelhead crossing Lower Granite Dam. | $0 | |||
h. Analyze data and produce an annual report | $0 | |||
i. Provide fish collection in Lower Granite Reservoir as requested by other agencies. | $0 | |||
j. Provide a source of fish, in excess of SMP needs, for other research projects in the basin. | $0 | |||
k. Maintain traps, boats, & other equipment prior to the field season. | $0 | |||
l. cost of tags | $52,875 | |||
8. USFWS Fish Marking Support | a. Implant PIT tags | $43,977 | ||
b. Upload data file to PTAGIS database; scan morts for PIT tags; validate & submit files, submitting release files | $0 | |||
c. Complete an annual report documenting tags & summary of of tagging expenditures | $0 | |||
d. cost of tags | $57,375 | |||
9. PSMFC | a. administer contract | $22,294 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$2,580,344 | $2,683,558 | $2,817,736 | $2,930,445 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | $1,194,205 | |
Fringe | $408,117 | |
Supplies | $219,876 | |
Travel | $95,752 | |
Indirect | $362,070 | |
PIT tags | # of tags: 72,800 | $163,800 |
Subcontractor | $14,987 | |
Other | PSMFC Indirect | $22,293 |
$2,481,100 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $2,481,100 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $2,481,100 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $2,530,715 |
% change from forecast | -2.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
cost of PIT tags is less than anticipated for 2003
Reason for change in scope
No change in scope
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
COE | Funding Transportation LGR | $72,826 | cash |
COE | Sampling LGS | $74,296 | cash |
COE | LMN | $58,380 | cash |
COE | MCN | $76,055 | cash |
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:
This is a useful and needed project; however, the methods section is too brief to allow scientific review. Methods must be attached to each task and provided in sufficient detail (or adequate summary and reference given to written protocols) to allow review and ensure that they are documented for future use. Results and plans for monitoring and evaluation of this project must be given. It is not appropriate for one of the most quantitative projects to not have a quantitative monitoring and evaluation plan for itself.This is one element of work by the Fish Passage Center. The response should clarify the tasks and budget for smolt monitoring that is contracted out to the states and tribes. To be consistent with ISRP's statements on implementation of a systemwide M&E program (see proposal #35033) the proportion of the budget passed through for participation of other agencies and tribes that could potentially be reallocated under the overall CBFWA proposal #35033 should be identified. The response should contain a careful self-review evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of combining this with the CBFWA proposal #35033.
Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
HYDRO SUBGROUP -- The proposal identifies three BO research actions (1240,-41,-42) that can benefit from information obtained under this program. These research actions are linked to RME RPA 199 in the FCRPS BO. We further note that some of the estimates generated in the SMP may also have utility in the context of juvenile performance standards (Hydro) specified in the BO.
RA 1240. Specifies the evaluation of the spillway weir at LGR Dam using telemetry techniques. The contribution of the SMP would be to collect fish to use in the research.
RA 1241. The action specifies that telemetry be used to assess smolt behavior and survival at dams in the Lower Columbia. The contribution of the SMP would be to collect fish to use in the research.
RA 1242. The objective of this RA is to evaluate inriver migration survival and transportation survival from LGR to BON Dam. Fish PIT tagged under the SMP have the potential to contribute to this. However, it is not clear if the sample sizes described in the proposal will generate survival estimates with suitable precision. It would be instructive to detail these points in a revised version of the proposal, so the utility of the proposed survival estimates can be estimates can be evaluated a priori.
Performance Standards. The survival estimates derived from the PIT tagged SMP fish can potentially have application in the evaluation of BO performance standards. However, concerns regarding the suitability of precision need to be addressed before this could be determined. Also, as we noted for the NMFS survival proposal, the reliance on hatchery stocks may restrict the utility of these fish, since ESA focuses on wild stock performance. If this proposal remains linked to ESA needs, then it should offer evidence or rationale to support the use of hatchery fish as surrogates for wild populations.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
In general, the ISRP agrees with the comments on this proposal. Specifically, the response should address the precision associated with survival estimates of wild fish through the hydropower system and use of hatchery fish as surrogates for wild fish.
Comment:
Information produced by this project is specifically called for in the Hydrosystem Biological Opinion, Appendix H (Research and Monitoring).Comment:
The Smolt Monitoring budget proposal total for FY 2003 of $2,481,100 is 2% below the forecast made in FY 2001. We believe we can further reduce this budget by 1.82% by lowering the cost of living allowances and reducing the inflation factor, which seems reasonable considering the overall flat US economy in 2002 to date. However, the PIT tag portion of the budget could not be reduced because the tags will remain at the cost of $2.25 per tag in the foreseeable future, according to Sean Casey of Destron. The total reduction from the 2001 projection would then be 3.82%. See table 2 below for the revised projection. The caution in reducing this budget, however, is that, if the scope of work and number of PIT tags increase to satisfy the requirements of the ISRP comments, the budget will likely increase rather than decrease from the original projection.Comment:
Fundable. Agree with CBFWA's recommendation of Core Program. The ISRP appreciates the careful and complete responses given to our comments and to the RME Group comments. While there may be some differences of opinion concerning particular methods, the response is adequate. Specifically, the response provided adequate details on methods, monitoring and evaluation activities, and connections with other projects such as 35033. If #35033 is funded then the functional melding of #35033 with the FPC and the SMP is likely assured.The responses to the RME Group comments illustrate the need for a coordinated, cooperative systemwide monitoring and evaluation program. The RME Group expressed the need for certain abundance estimates of juveniles migrating from the Snake and Salmon Rivers. The Smolt Monitoring Program sponsors responded, "Historically, SMP estimated trap efficiencies at the Snake and Salmon River Traps. The Nez Perce tribe as part of their SMP monitoring at the Imnaha trap have also estimated trap efficiency at the Imnaha Trap. .... Given that the NMFS RME group has identified abundance as a critical component of their performance measures in the BiOp, the SMP program could add those objectives and modify trap operations to begin to estimate trap efficiencies and population abundance passing the trap. The SMP proposal for 2003 can be modified to include these tasks if the region desires." This is an example of the need for better communication of the Action Agency/NMFS RME and CBFWA. This lack of communication is particularly puzzling to the ISRP, because some of the Action Agencies/NMFS members are also members of the CBFWA.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitThe smolt monitoring program does not provide direct biological benefit to listed fishes, however, it provides necessary data for hydrosystem performance assessment. The project supports a number of ongoing research projects on the hydrosystem performance, as well as supports the regional assessment of stock performance across the entire CRB.
Comments
An important project that supports the FCRPS BiOp's performance standards assessments of the hydrosystem. A well integrated program that feeds into a number of on-going and developing efforts (RPA 199 - 124). Could form a key portion of the regional status monitoring program
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Potential budget error on NPCC spreadsheet?Comment:
Category:1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation
Comments:
Comment:
Budget consistent with NPCC recommendation.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$2,239,743 | $2,239,743 | $2,239,743 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website