FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198810804

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

The FY-03 budget is signficantly enlarged by the proposed addition of work on a variety of new data types and a new objective to provide data and services to subbasin planning. This approach was taken to illustrate the number of different kinds of data that could be made available, and at the request of a CBFWA member. Intent is to let the budget review and approval process help establish priorities among the data types that will be needed for subbasin planning, VSP and SWAM analysis, recovery planning, and other regional processes. It is not expected that the budget will be approved in its entirety, but we anticipate a meaningful discussion of priorities. We also expect to show that the project can develop these types of data more efficiently than an entity not directly linked with the management agencies. Secondarily, the budget has not kept up with realized inflation, resulting in staff contraction and the need to focus only on highest priority data types.

Reason for change in scope

1. Additonal types of data can be obtained if regional entities establish them as priorities and resources are made available. 2. Some data types have received low emphasis due to reduced staff and focus on only highest priorities. These can be expanded with relatively small increases. 3. A change in project direction to begin conducting some basic data summarization and analysis, at the request of a CBFWA member. Heretofore, the project was advised to provide data but not to engage in analysis. With the proper staff, we could undertake basic summarization and calculation of basic parameters, such as population estimates, should the region decide they wish us to go in that direction. 4. People are increasingly approaching the project at both the state and regional levels for help with database development, data management strategies, consultation and database administration strategies, beyond just obtaining data. Subbasin planning will only increase this trend.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Out year budget estimates anticipate a reduction in subbasin planning expenditures in the future. All budget estimates include current 'Base' project funding (related to on-going efforts) plus an array of potential 'New' work that will be done only if approved as high priority through this budget review and approval process. The 'Base' funding currently does not cover the full year for several key staff, including the project biologist, the GIS specialist, and the programmer. CRITFC support of staff will end in FY05. All but one ODFW StreamNet staff are supported partially on other funds now, which will not be available in FY03

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The data are georeferenced (location coded) to the 1:100,000 hydrography GIS layer so that different kinds of information can be mapped together and spatially analyzed. The data are tied to references in the StreamNet Library to document sources. An example of its usefulness is that, data from StreamNet is used to populate the pilot database discussed in Proposal #35048 from the NMFS.

Concerns in earlier reviews for overlap with other projects including other database operations were adequately addressed.

The response should be more forceful on proposed additions to the project and segments of the project to keep. The proponent should give a prioritized list of data needs based on use of present segments of the database and on past requests for information including information requests for subbasin planning. Each task for collecting and maintaining high priority new data should include a detailed methods section. For example, the proponent states that "Some data are still relegated to paper files or are retained by local biologists. If requested, StreamNet staff can effectively mine data from field offices." One of the other areas that the proponents indicate a need for new effort is in collection of data on the fraction of hatchery fish on spawning grounds. The 40 data sources listed should be prioritized and methods (with proposed budget) given to accomplish the individual tasks of acquiring and maintaining the data. To be consistent with ISRP's statements on implementation of a systemwide M&E program (see proposal #35033) the proportion of StreamNet's budget passed through for participation of other agencies and tribes could potentially be reallocated under the overall CBFWA proposal #35033 (approximately ¾ of the StreamNet budget according to the oral presentation).

Tasks and methods to meet the objectives (2 - 6) should be expanded and prioritized. For example, tasks and methods to accomplish Objective 6. Support and Services to Subbasin Planning are too brief to allow scientific review.

The ISRP suggests that an alternative approach be used in the response. Namely, independent proposals should be prepared to provide suggested new data analyses for the region, in the spirit of DART and the FPC. The proposals should be to accomplish specific needed analyses, e.g., calculating and/or summarizing specific population estimates, or deriving results from other analyses, where not done by the originating agency. Data justifying demand for analyses should be given with detailed methods to provide the service. It is the opinion of ISRP that quality of the database service provided by StreamNet will be improved by funding an in-house, but independent project, to provide analyses and compete with other second tier database systems on an equal basis.

The response must have a monitoring and evaluation section in the project history and a proposed monitoring and evaluation section for the proposed project. It is not acceptable for one of the most quantitative projects to not have a quantitative monitoring and evaluation plan for itself.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

DATA MANAGEMENT SUBGROUP -- The Stream net proposal claims specifically to address RPA's 180 and 198 (at Section 1), and other RPA's outside the Data Management Subgroup's scope.

Overall:

The Action Agencies' RME program calls for the systematic, rigorous and directed collection and maintenance of data for status and effectiveness monitoring as defined by the program. Like the NWFSC project (see comments on NWFSC proposal above), the StreamNet project only manages data that is submitted to it by the participating agencies. The project is not designed in the base or new program to ensure that agencies that submit the data have a quality control and quality assurance program that would meet the RME requirement. Hence data in the base program and data anticipated in the new program may be standardized but may be insufficient for the needs of the BO if the data collecting agencies have not used consistent, rigorous protocols as defined by the RME program. For example, because of the lack of protocols, the current StreamNet database does not adequately locate dams, barriers, points of diversion, amounts of each diversion, changes in points of diversion, etc. Any new data collection should proceed only after common field collection protocols have been adopted.

The StreamNet proposal has a considerably greater emphasis on Subbasin data than specific Opinion-generated RM&E data.

RPA 180.

It is not clear how the StreamNet proposal meets the requirements for the "development and implementation of a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program... the ground truthing of regional databases... and a draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected".

The text of the StreamNet proposal at page 8 refers to RPA 180 with the detail of the proposal offered by StreamNet stated as follows: "StreamNet's experience and abilities with database management can be provided to support this effort on a more cost effective basis than through entities that are not already dealing with monitoring data in the basin". This claim is not supported with any other information, and it does not address the concept of a basin wide monitoring program specified in RPA 180. It is not clear what the StreamNet deliverables for RPA 180 are.

Note: StreamNet has two funding requests that it says do relate to RPA 180.

The first is to deploy a prototype database to obtain and deliver water temperature data. This item, temperature recording for RPA 143, has a 2003 cost of $83,130. The second expenditure is stream habitat data for 2003 expenditure of $89,799 to complete a needs assessment (scoping) with existing groups who collect habitat data, hold focus groups, define core data develop a database structure and manage the data. While this could be a part of a basin wide monitoring program it is by no means complete.

RPA 198.

There is a specific reference in the StreamNet proposal to work on the SAIC project as "Participation in Regional Data Initiatives". The proposal is listed in a category of expenditure called "Services to Fish and Wildlife program". The 03 budget for this category is $167,508 however it is not possible to determine how much of this funding is being proposed for RPA 198 and, for that matter, what "Participation in Regional Data Initiatives means". There is a reference at page 22 of the proposal as follows: "Work with state and local subbasin teams to identify priority information management and sharing needs. Share findings with SAIC project". There is inadequate information here to determine what the deliverables are and who has responsibility.

Pros:

1. StreamNet's willingness to address new information system development needs.
2. StreamNet's experience in data management and knowledge of existing databases the project consolidates, standardizes and distributes fish information throughout the Columbia Basin; also some coastal streams.
3. It includes a library function.
4. Through use of data exchange formats (DEFs), data are made comparable among the 4 states, CRITFC, PSMFC and USFWS.
5. Relies on metadata, 1:100,000 hydrography; Uses LLIDs for accuracy.
6. Program is distributed among F&W management agencies. The seven cooperating agencies represent the major F&W management agencies, except for NMFS.
7. It uses restoration project database format developed by PSMFC and California; data from states.
8. Has ARC-IMS GIS application; on-line query system promotes distribution of standardized data.

Cons:

1. The proposed budget does not include budget items for Planning/Design or Construction/Implementation. This makes it difficult to determine how StreamNet will complete proposed tasks such at needs assessment which is a Planning/Design task.
2. We cannot determine how and when StreamNet will meet RPA action item 180 and what the cost will be. The StreamNet proposal for RPA 180 does not address the requirements of RPA 180 for a basin wide hierarchical monitoring program.
3. Data / information will be collected but not necessarily standardized. It will be a repository, no guarantee of data integrity.
4. For RPA 198, we cannot determine what the actual spending and deliverable is, apart from generally described cooperation and coordination and completing a needs assessment for priority subbasin data.
5. Current data categories are limited to those established as part of the StreamNet mission. Region needs other data but guidance previously lacking.
6. Data are not distributed but partial distribution through State StreamNet servers has been evaluated.
7. Lacks 1:24,000 level data of interest to IRICC agencies - difference in mission.
8. Lack of NMFS in StreamNet may mean data are not standardized and cannot be exchanged with the StreamNet projects.
9. NMFS proposing use of OWEB and PRISM restoration databases also.
10. NMFS' identified 30 tabular data layers might duplicate newly proposed StreamNet data layers and will need integration. Who serves the Region?

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP agrees in general with the comments on this proposal. Specifically,"...the StreamNet project only manages data that is submitted to it by the participating agencies. The project is not designed in the base or new program to ensure that agencies that submit the data have a quality control and quality assurance program that would meet the RME requirement. Hence data in the base program and data anticipated in the new program may be standardized but may be insufficient for the needs of the BO if the data collecting agencies have not used consistent, rigorous protocols as defined by the RME program." The ISRP agrees with this assessment, and recommends funding of Proposal #35033 from the CBFWA to coordinate the development of a basinwide research, monitoring and evaluation program, including potential reallocation of funds from StreamNet and other projects to accomplish the tasks and meet the needs of RPAs 180 and 198. NMFS through participation in CBFWA would have more influence on data collected by the states and tribes and stored by StreamNet to help ensure that RPAs in the BiOp are satisfied.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The Council could consider amending the base budget of StreamNet and partial funding of #35048 (NWFSC Salmon Data Management, Analysis, and Access for Research Monitoring and Evaluation Programs) to allow for prioritization and funding of some of the additional tasks proposed (see below). Obviously, StreamNet and the sponsors of #35048 would have to provide more complete study plans on each high priority task. The plans for capturing additional data could be reviewed by CBFWA staff and the ISRP. If the Council agrees to extend the period for consideration of funding of this and perhaps other monitoring proposals (e.g., new data to be captured by StreamNet and the NMFS Proposal #35048, Tier I monitoring proposed by #35016, and Tier III monitoring proposed by #35020) then the ISRP could review the set at a later time.

Council members should carefully review the roles that their respective States play in providing data to StreamNet. It would be helpful for the Council members to exert what influence they may have on their respective state government agencies to cooperate with and actively provide information to StreamNet using common methods and protocols. Also, much of the Tribal data from the various States are not currently included in the base program of StreamNet.

Much of the data collected by Fish and Wildlife Program projects are not readily available to the public in a timely manner from any source, and in particular, not from StreamNet (e.g., data from the various artificial production studies). We note that this is not a problem with StreamNet but rather with the failure of project sponsors to provide their data and metadata to StreamNet in a timely manner or to provide links from the StreamNet web site to locations of the data and metadata. Requirements should be implemented that all project sponsors provide their data in a timely manner after being provided adequate time to write final reports and manuscripts for the open scientific literature. Coordination of these efforts could be accomplished under the recommended CBFWA proposal #35033.

Of the new tasks (in parentheses) proposed by StreamNet, the ISRP would list 12 as urgent for evaluation of habitat and fish recovery efforts:

1. (#39) Start capture of data on straying and spawning of hatchery fishes and monitoring of spawning by wild populations where hatchery influences exist in Idaho, from the Tribes, and expand efforts in Oregon. The ISRP is curious as to why the State of Washington is not included.
2. (#6) Expand capture of natural spawner abundance data, e.g., anadromous data collected by USFS, BLM, Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Nation.
3. (#8) Expand capture of hatchery release data, e.g., to Tribal hatcheries.
4. (#10) Expand capture of hatchery return data, e.g., to Tribal hatcheries.
5. (#26) Capture additional data for calculating return rates of hatchery and natural fishes by brood year for all priority basins in Oregon and start the process with the Tribes.
6. (#18) Capture new habitat restoration and improvement information from Idaho and Oregon. The ISRP is curious as to why the State of Washington and the tribes are not included.
7. (#20) Expand capture of information on barriers, e.g., culverts in Oregon and expanded information from Idaho.
8. (#22) Expand capture of information on diversions and screen status in Idaho and Oregon. The ISRP is curious as to why the State of Washington is not included.
9. (#3) under "Support subbasin planning." Capture subbasin planning data being collected and compiled.
10. (#40) Develop a water temperature database.
11. (#5) under "Data related services." Start an analysis function as a specific part of StreamNet.
12. (#30) Capture stream habitat data (currently very low priority in the base program).

Finally, we are concerned that the full function and potential value of StreamNet to the basin's scientific community are being encumbered by its steering committee. The ISRP believes that the scientific value of StreamNet to the region could be enhanced by a reorganization of its administration to provide greater autonomy.

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:

Comments
Streamnet is a well used source for anadromous fish data. However, the lack of quality control and standardization of data decreases the value of the database as well as its ability to meet the BiOp database standards. Any new data collection should require standardized field collection protocols.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:
Dependent on coordination of database system issue for subbasin plans.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website