FY 2000 proposal 199403300
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | The Fish Passage Center (FPC) |
| Proposal ID | 199403300 |
| Organization | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Michele Dehart, FPC & Pam Kahut, PSMFC |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230 Portland, OR 97201 |
| Phone / email | 5032304288 / mdehart@fpc.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / 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 |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
|
Met all objectives for management and implementation |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8401400 |
Smolt Monitoring - Federal |
Critical Component |
| 8712700 |
Smolt Monitoring by Non-Federal |
Critical Component |
| 8712702 |
Comparative Survival Study |
Critical Component |
| 8332300 |
Smolt Condition & Arrival |
Critical Component |
| 9008000 |
PITAGIS |
Critical Component |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$541,750 |
| Fringe |
|
$200,447 |
| Supplies |
Included with Operations & Maintenance |
$0 |
| Operating |
|
$172,982 |
| Capital |
|
$5,000 |
| Travel |
|
$20,592 |
| Indirect |
|
$138,592 |
| $1,079,363 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,079,363 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,079,363 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| NMFS |
Facility Inspection Cost Partial Reimbursement |
$7,656 |
unknown |
| IDFG |
Facility Inspection Cost Partial Reimbursement |
$7,656 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
Facility Inspection Cost Partial Reimbursement |
$7,656 |
unknown |
| WDFW |
Facility Inspection Cost
Partial Reimbursement |
$7,656 |
unknown |
| ODFW |
Facility Inspection Cost Parial Reimbursement |
$7,656 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None Known
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on programmatic review. The entire set of smolt monitoring projects needs to receive a programmatic review with one of the goals to create a central data repository that includes historical and raw data. They also need to develop a justifiable program-wide design. The various regional data sets should be consolidated with a specific protocol for quality control and data collection. Whether this consolidation is done through selecting an existing project to cover this, or creating a new site is a policy question. Various analysis efforts should be funded separately from the data collection entity.
Comments:
The proposal indicates the analysis and information function of the Fish Passage Center. Users of the analyses and data compilations are identified. Linkage to other projects is indicated, but reference to the smolt monitoring umbrella project 20552 is missing. Activities are clearly described but the proposal does not address quality control issues nor provide a strategy for assessment of information needs. The impact of the information will depend on the quality of the data and the demand, which should be assessed. It is important to have a central source of expertise and information on mainstem passage in the Columbia River basin. Information on fish passage rates, gas bubble trauma, and other indicators of resource status are used directly in the management of the hydroelectric operations each migration season. Like the other data management proposals (Streamnet, Fish Passage Center, PTAGIS and DART), this proposal fails to explain the need for the separate centers; the distinct function each serves; the nature of coordination between them; safeguards against redundancy; safeguards against inconsistent representations of the same nominal information; and the ability to serve the actual information needs of clients who have to access data from more than one data center to get an answer to their question. The entire set of database efforts should be coordinated by one entity. Data access should be possible from a single portal. A reorganization of "data centers" might benefit by separating the three functions that now appear to be mixed together at some of the data centers, and by attempting to centralize the coordination of each function, namely (1) data archiving and access, (2) data collection design, and (3) data analysis.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
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