FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199403300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199403300 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199403300 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 199403300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | The Fish Passage Center |
| Proposal ID | 199403300 |
| Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Michele Dehart |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230 Portland, OR 97201 |
| Phone / email | 5032304288 / mdehart@fpc.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Michele DeHart, FPC and Pam Kahut, PSMFC |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | Provide the fishery agencies and tribes with technical expertise regarding hydrosystem operations, analysis of smolt monitoring data for daily, weekly and monthly fish passage management decisions, and regional fish passage data base management. |
| Target species | All Species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.51147 | -122.68005 | 2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230, Portland, OR 97201 |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| BiOp 9.6.1.2 |
| 9.6.5.3.5 |
| 9.6.5.3.5.1 Juvenile monitoring & evaluation |
| 10.4.1.1, 10.5.1.4 Monitor juv fish pssg at dams |
| 10.5.1.5 Monitor effects of dissolved gas supersat |
| 10.5.3.1 Special conditions |
| 10.5.3.2 Annual reporting and authorization req |
| 10.5.3.3 |
| 9.6.1 & 9.6.5.3.5.1 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 191 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall continue to implement adult salmonid counting programs at FCRPS dams, but shall improve the reporting of these counts. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Successful implementation, completed annual reports and other deliverables for FPC, SMP and CSS. |
| 2000 | Successful implementation, completed annual reports and other deliverables for FPC, SMP and CSS. |
| 1999 | Flow, spill implementation, dissolved gas management, Ives Island data reporting system, Ives Island predictor analysis, Rapid River volitional PIT tag detector and data recording, Dissolved Gas Report to the States water quality agencies, |
| successful implementation of the SMP and CSS projects. | |
| 1998 | Flow, spill implementation, dissolved gas management, Dissolved Gas Report to the States water quality agencies, successful implementation of the SMP and CSS projects. |
| 1997 | Flow, spill implementation, dissolved gas management, Dissolved Gas Report to the States water quality agencies, successful implementation of the SMP and CSS projects. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 198712700 | Smolt Monitoring by Federal & Non-Federal | Critical Component |
| 198712702 | Comparative Survival Study | Critical Component |
| 198712702 | CSS Oversight Committee | Critical Component |
| 198332300 | Smolt Condition & Arrival | Critical Component |
| 199008000 | PITAGIS | 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. Plan, implement, and conduct analysis of the annual Smolt Monitoring Program to collect information on the migration characteristics of various stocks of salmon and steelhead within the Columbia Basin for in-season decisions and long term analysis. | $1,316,323 | |||
| 2. Plan, implement, and conduct analysis of the Comparative Survival Study (CSS) as directed by the CSS Oversight Committee of the fishery management agencies and tribes. | $0 | |||
| 3. Plan and develop a program developing resident fish indices with the fish and wildlife managers, to create a long term data base of resident fish populations. | $0 | |||
| 4. Maintain a consistent long term data base of daily and annual migration characteristics, hydrologic data, hydrosystem operations data, reservoir operations, water quality, hatchery releases, mark recapture information and other information utilized in | (con't) hydrosystem operation requests for fish passage and Board of Directors to support operations analysis. | $0 | ||
| 5. Coordinate and facilitate discussions and analysis, among the agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors, of fish passage data and hydrosystem operations for enhancement of fish passage conditions and resident fish populations. | (con't) Provide necessary data compilations, analysis, and graphics to facilitate those discussions. | $0 | ||
| 6. Review research proposals, analysis and results applicable to fish passage management issues. Advise agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors, regarding the relationship and application of research to fish passage management issues. | (con't) Maintain current knowledge of proposed and on-going studies and their results and applications to fish passage management and hydrosystem operation issues. | $0 | ||
| 7. Consolidate, summarize, and distribute fish passage, reservoir, and other data as directed by the fishery agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors. | $0 | |||
| 8. Consolidate, summarize, and distribute resident fish and reservoir indices and data, as directed by the fish and wildlife managers. | $0 | |||
| 9. Provide technical expertise to the agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors, on hydrosystem management, fish passage, and resident fish populations. Respond to requests for analysis of data from the agencies and tribes, & FPC Board of | (con't) Directors, through the FPC Board of Directors. | $0 | ||
| 10. Participate in committees, meetings, and presentations as requested by the agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors, and approved by the board of directors, including ESA processes related to mainstem hydrosystem management. | $0 | |||
| 11. Respond to data requests from state and federal agencies, tribes, private and public utilities, interest groups, and the public at large. | $0 | |||
| 12. Develop System Operational Requests as directed by the Fish and Wildlife managers committee, addressing juvenile and adult salmon passage and resident fish species year- around. | $0 | |||
| 13. Maintain a freeze brand coordination program. Maintain a freeze brand data base. | $0 | |||
| 14. Prepare a Fish Passage Center Annual Report, summarizing fish migration and fish passage operations and implementation and resident fish indices. | $0 | |||
| 15. Meet ESA permit requirements and reporting requirements for the Smolt Monitoring Program. Respond to NMFS requests for review of specific Section 10 permit applications | $0 | |||
| 16. Provide weekly reports throughout the migration period, and bi-weekly reports through the end of the passage season. Weekly reports are provided to any entity or individual making a request. | $0 | |||
| 17. Provide technical assistance, analysis, & data for ESA and Northwest Power Planning & Conservation Act related issues & processes, including ANCOR & PATH process efforts in recovery analysis; states water quality agencies consideration (see con't) | (con't) of water quality issues, such as dissolved gas levels as it relates to spill for fish passage; the System Configuration Team (SCT); the Technical Management Team (TMT); the Dissolved Gas Team (DGT; & the Implementation Team (IT). | $0 | ||
| 18. Conduct pre-passage season analysis of hydrosystem status and operations, and advise the agencies and tribes, and the FPC Board of Directors. Conduct post-passage season analysis of fish passage, resident fish population characteristics,cr | (con't) and operations, in addition to the FPC Annual Report. | $0 | ||
| 19. Maintain a current knowledge of the daily operation of the hydrosystem. Maintain communication with the operators and regulators on a daily basis. | $0 | |||
| 20. Maintain a Fish Passage Center Internet page. | $0 | |||
| NOTE: The state and federal salmon management agencies fund the Adult and Juvenile Fish Facilities Inspection Coordination Program at the FPC. The following objective is not funded by BPA, but is a component of the FPC annual work plan (objective 21): | $0 | |||
| 21. Coordinate the implementation of the Adult and Juvenile Fish Passage Facilities Inspection Coordination Program. Summarize inspection reports. Follow up on findings, reporting issues to the agencies and tribes, & FPC Board of Directors, & pursuing | (con't) their resolution with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Complete an Annual Report of the Adult & Juvenile Fish Facilities Inspection Program. | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-21 | 2004 | 2004 | $1,381,253 |
| 1-21 | 2005 | 2005 | $1,453,583 |
| 1-21 | 2006 | 2006 | $1,518,995 |
| 1-21 | 2007 | 2007 | $1,587,350 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,381,253 | $1,453,583 | $1,518,995 | $1,587,350 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $699,364 | |
| Fringe | $265,758 | |
| Supplies | $167,962 | |
| Travel | $11,545 | |
| Indirect | $171,694 | |
| $1,316,323 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $1,316,323 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,316,323 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $1,439,872 |
| % change from forecast | -8.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Delay additional Biometrician on staff
Reason for change in scope
No change in scope
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Fish Facility Inspections/reporting | $8,745 | cash |
| IDFG | Fish Facility Inspections/reporting | $8,745 | cash |
| WDFW | Fish Facility Inspections/reporting | $8,745 | cash |
| ODFW | Fish Facility Inspections/reporting | $8,745 | cash |
| USFWS | Fish Facility Inspections/reporting | $8,745 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Aug 2, 2002
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 summaries and references given to written protocols or reports) to allow review and ensure documentation for future use of data. Results and plans for quantitative 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.The response should contain a careful self-review evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of combining this project with the CBFWA proposal #35033 to form a systemwide monitoring and evaluation project.
Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -- These comments are aimed at how the 199403300 Fish Passage Center proposal addresses RPA 180, which calls for the development of a program to determine population and environmental status while allowing ground-truthing of regional databases. The proposal includes some important elements in the service of the Biological Opinion RPA 180, specifically, the measurement of annual juvenile population abundance, survival, and SARs. Useful guidelines for the proposal, taken from document Mainstem/Systemwide Province Stock Status Program Summary (February 22, 2002), are given below. We suggest that the sponsors address these guidelines in the proposal. Using these guidelines, we have commented on how the proposal 199403300 can be strengthened or clarified to help meet the RME needs specified in RPA 180.
Guidelines: Tier 2 Population Status-Juvenile Life Stage:
- Clearly identify the demographic unit (e.g., population, ESU, deme; wild/natural or hatchery origin) over which sampling will take place. Comments: It would be helpful if the proposal would clearly identify the demographic units targeted. According to reports on the FPC website, Comparative Survival Study work appears to be aimed at spring/summer chinook juveniles of hatchery-origin, while the Smolt Monitoring Program is aimed at all salmon species. Presumably identifying demographic units can be done using PITTAGIS data system and FPC databases. As far as RPA 180 is concerned it is measures of population abundance, survival, and trend that are of interest. The proposal would be made more relevant to the RPA 180 if it had a thorough treatment of wild juveniles. The current FPC work is more relevant to hatchery-born juveniles, and, according to the CSS report, it cannot presently be demonstrated that hatchery-born juvenile survivals can be used to reliably estimate wild-born juvenile survivals. The method for constructing confidence intervals for wild fish juvenile numbers, adult numbers, and in-river survivals should be explicitly treated in the proposal. What progress has been made in this endeavor? Do the confidence intervals indicate that estimates are reliable?
- Clearly identify the spatial scale represented by each samples (e.g., reach, watershed, basin). Comments: The location of the samples for the Smolt Monitoring Program (traps and dams) are clearly indicated in the proposal. For the Comparative Survival Study tagging sites, it was necessary to read reports on the FPC website. A link (or reference) should be supplied to this information, along with a table of the tagging sites.
- Identify the performance measure or indicator that will be monitored (e.g. summer/winter juveniles, outmigrating smolts). If different methods are used to enumerate the same population, specify. Comments: The performance measures are described in the proposal. They include smolt-to-adult ratios, juvenile passage survivals, and relative abundance measures.
- Describe the method used for enumerating the indices, e.g., snorkel surveys, electrofishing, smolt trap, and the error associated with the method. Comments: The method for estimating juvenile survival (the program MARK) is outlined in the proposal. The proposal should have greater detail in the methods for estimating relative abundance and smolt-to-adult ratios. It should reference papers and reports where detailed methods are given for estimating these measures. The proposal should describe which measures have standard errors and confidence intervals reported, and how they are developed.
- Specify any expansion factors (e.g. aerial expansions, trap efficiency) or other adjustments (e.g., daylight trapping only) that need to be applied to the raw counts. Provide the rationale supporting the use of those expansion factors, how the factors change over time, how they are estimated, and assess their reliability.
- Provide an assessment of the accuracy and precision associated with the proposed methods for estimating juvenile abundance or an index of juvenile abundance. Comments: Estimates of bias and precision should be available for all estimates derived. When sample sizes are small biases can be large and precision poor. How will bias be assessed?
HYDRO SUBGROUP -- As part of the FPC activities a variety of smolt survival estimates are generated using combinations of hatchery and wild fish. In the RME-context of the NMFS BO, these estimates could be useful in computations of D, EM and testing compliance with survival Performances Standards for the hydro system. It would be instructive if the investigators provided examples as to how these might be applied to such. Given there are a number of other NMFS (D, EM, inriver survival estimates) and CBFWA (CSS) studies producing hydro-related survival estimates, it would be useful to understand what the applications of the collective estimates are. It appears that there may be overlap for some stocks and river segments. However, this is difficult to decipher since the efforts are not treated as a whole. This is probably more of a regional process matter than one specific to FPC investigations.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
In general the ISRP agrees with the comments provided. We would suggest that it may be adequate to reference and summarize written documents to provide some of the detail asked for in the comments.
Comment:
The project meets RPA 152 of the NMFS 2000 FCRPS BiOp.Comment:
The Fish Passage Center budget proposal total for FY 2003 of $1,316,323 is 8.6% below the forecast made in FY 2001. We believe we can reduce this budget another 1% 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. The total reduction from the 2001 projection would then be 9.6%. See table 1 below for the revised projection. However, the Fishway Inspection portion of the FPC budget, which is reimbursed by federal and state agencies, would not be reduced but would remain at $43,725 for 2003 and stay the same as previously projected for 2004 and 2005.Comment:
Fundable. Agree with CBFWA's Core Program ranking. The ISRP appreciates the careful and complete responses that provided adequate details on methods, monitoring, and evaluation. The explanation of relationships to other projects was useful. For example, the relationship to the proposed CBFWA project #35033 was particularly helpful. As we understand the proposals, the FPC project, and others, e.g. the smolt monitoring program (SMP), are all CBFWA sponsored and jointly developed proposals in terms of joint sponsorship by the state, federal and tribal fishery managers. If #35033 is funded then the functional melding of #35033 with the FPC and the SMP is likely assured.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect. The Fish Passage Center provides fish and wildlife agencies, tribes and hydrosystem operators and regulators with data and analyses regarding fish passage, spill, and flow and fish facilities operations.
Comments
Provides important physical and biological data and analyses related to hydrosystem passage.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Category:1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation
Comments:
Comment:
Coordination of Smolt Monitoring Program is important function of FPC but needs programmatic review, as noted for Project 198712700. Other activities of FPC are a priority to the fishery agencies and Tribes and may be more appropriately funded by them. This issue has been discussed, but not resolved, by the FPC Oversight Committee. Budget consistent with NPCC recommendation.Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
expense
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,302,904 | $1,302,904 | $1,302,904 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website