FY 2000 proposal 199600801

Additional documents

TitleType
199600801 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleTechnical Support for PATH
Proposal ID199600801
OrganizationNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn G. Williams
Mailing addressNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097
Phone / email2068603277 / john.g.williams@noaa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionTest hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.
Target speciesChinook salmon and steelhead
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1998 Completed a written compilation of comments on Draft PATH weight of evidence report
1998 Submitted a written Hatchery Extra Mortality hypotheses to the PATH Group
1998 Provided a written new estimate of SARs of Snake River spring chinook salmon to the PATH group
1998 Attended numerous PATH meetings to provide verbal input to PATH products

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9098 Technical Support for PATH PATH scientific support
9800100 Analytical Support-PATH & ESA Biological PATH scientific support
9393701 Technical Assistance With Life Cycle modeling PATH scientific support
9700200 CyclePATH--UW Technical Support Modeling PATH scientific support
9600800 Path-Participation by State and Tribal Agencies PATH scientific support
9303701 Simulation Modeling Participation C. Paulsen PATH scientific support
20515 Mainstem Columbia River Umbrella Proposal (region umbrella)
9600600 Facilitation, Technical Assistance And Peer Review Of Path

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $37,900
Fringe $8,200
Supplies $0
Operating $4,600
Travel $7,500
Indirect $16,800
$75,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$75,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$75,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
NMFS Salary $100,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule is based on all the work identified by the Implementation Team and time it takes to complete individual projects. Technical input and review is based on progress made by others.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. PATH, in its present form, with its present mission, should be phased out. A simpler process could be created to meet the continuing need for evaluation of the limited data now available to address management questions relative to the hydro biological opinion. A more ambitious and comprehensive scientific consensus process should be developed, somewhat along the lines of PATH, to address data collection design issues for the basin, to identify data needs that are critical to the actual management questions, and to ensure that data needs are met, to the extent practical, as quickly as possible, in a coordinated and efficient manner.

Comments: The programmatic need for NMFS participation is not clearly defined in the proposal. They need to identify the role of this proposal in the umbrella proposal for PATH.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

PATH projects reviewed in detail last year, little has changed. PATH proposals should be covered under an umbrella.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? Yes -
Recommendation:
Fund for the transition period
Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.
Recommendation:
Fund for transition
Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund for transition
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

26. PATH (not identified by Bonneville as non-discretionary); ESSA (9600600); ODFW (9600800); NMFS (9600801).

Discussion/Background: The PATH projects and process are designed to test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.

ISRP Reviews: Do not fund in the initial review. Fund for transition in the October 29, 1999 report. In both reports the ISRP recommended a different and revised process geared principally toward data collection and design issues for the basin, identifying data needs that are directly linked to management responses, and to coordinating data needs in the basin in an efficient and timely manner.

Council Recommendation: The Council recommendation consists of four major parts. Collectively, the four-part recommendation concurs with and incorporates the ISRP recommendations.

Recommendation Part 1: The three projects identified above should receive transition funding in a combined amount of $330,000 in Fiscal Year 2000, and also have remaining Fiscal Year 1999 funds available to complete the following tasks, with a planning target date that these tasks be completed by March 2000:

  1. Complete experimental management options and associated monitoring and evaluation. (2/00)
  2. Update spawner recruit information for the Snake River, mid-and lower Columbia River spring/summer Chinook stocks (12/99).
  3. Assist with stock status for Quantitative Analytical Reports (QAR) for upper Columbia and lower Columbia stocks.
  4. Assist in development of analysis for QAR.
  5. SRP review of fall Chinook and experimental management reports.
  6. ESSA and PATH work with NMFS to complete development of CRI metrics for PATH outputs to facilitate comparison.
  7. ESSA and PATH work with Council to completed development of EDT metrics for PATH outputs to facilitate comparison.
  8. ESSA to provide to Council data files (full outputs) from all model runs reported in PATH spring/summer Chinook (12/8) and fall Chinook (11/99) reports.
  9. ESSA to provide to Council copies of Bayesian Simulation Model.
  10. Anderson to provide to Council a copy of the CriSP model, including input files used for PATH spring/summer and fall chinook reports.
  11. Publish PATH methods/results in peer-reviewed journal.
  12. Assess key differences between PATH and CRI.
  13. Assess feasibility of actions to improve survivals at different life stages.

Recommendation Part 2: Beyond the completion of these specific activities, the Council recommends that its staff work with state, tribal and federal parties who have participated in PATH to develop a new data collection and analysis system that has the following five attributes:

The new data system would have to meet certain specific needs of the Council and the region. For example, a new data system would:

  1. Allow the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of each individual project funded by BPA.
  2. Allow the Council to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Council's program;
  3. Provide baseline populations from which the Council can establish meaningful quantitative goals;
  4. Allow the region to evaluate progress on recovery measures for all endangered species;
  5. Include all species relevant to the Council's program: anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife.

Recommendation Part 3: The Council expects that any data system proposal will include provisions for oversight and management to ensure accountability and orderly administration.

Recommendation Part 4: The Council may ask that the ISRP or ISAB review the data management system, and take comments of those bodies into account in making its funding recommendation. Part 3, item 27, below, provides additional discussion regarding the Council's treatment of the ISRP's recommendations about the funding of PATH-related projects.


Recommendation:
Fund thru 3/2000
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; fund thru 3/2000; receiving portion of $330,000 for transition - [entered as $110,000 for each of 3 transition projects - sysadmin]