FY07-09 proposal 200730000
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Fish Passage Technical Services Project |
Proposal ID | 200730000 |
Organization | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) |
Short description | Staff central analytical group to provide technical support to state and federal fishery managers. |
Information transfer | Annual reports, weekly reports, website, electronic formats, internet and email distribution. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Dona Watson | Fish Passage Center | dwatson@fpc.org |
All assigned contacts | ||
Ed Bowles | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife | ed.bowles@state.or.us |
Rob Lothrop | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | lotr@critfc.org |
Olney Patt | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission | servs@critfic.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
[none] | 1827 NE 44th Ave |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous FishSection 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | 198712700 | Smolt Monitoring By Non-Feder | Data obtained from SMP on status of annual smolt migration through the hydrosystem is used in making in-season recommendation on hydrosystem operations. |
BPA | 199602000 | Pit Tagging Spring/Summer Chin | Estimates generated by CSS of in-river reach survival rates and smolt-to-adult survival rates for transported and in-river migrants are used in making future recommendations on hydrosystem operations and transportation as a recovery tool. |
BPA | 200303600 | CBFWA Monitor/Eval Program | Data and results from studies conducted under the monitoring and evaluation studies within CSMEP (including the SMP and CSS and other research) will be used in making recommendations on mitigation options to aid in recovery of listed salmonids. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Technical Services | Provide technical assistance and information to fish and wildlife agencies and tribes in particular and the public in general on matters related to juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead passage through the mainstem. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | CSS and SMP Environmental permitting and reporting | The FPC will meet ESA section 10 permit application and reporting requirements and states permitting requirements for the implementation of the Smolt Monitoring Program and the Comparative Survival Study. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $60,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Fishway Inspections | Fishway Inspections at the Columbia River and Lower Snake River Dams | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $190,520 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | CRITFC, ODFW Administration | CRITFC and ODFW management and administration of the Fish Passage Technical Support staff and project. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $1,113,656 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University Oversight | The Hatfield School of Government will subcontract with CRITFC and ODFW to provide a layer of oversight as a permanent governance framework that is efficient, cost effective, and service oriented. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $600,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Plan | Work Plans for CSS and SMP | Produce marking and implementation plans, sampling plans and work plans for the SMP and the CSS projects. Develop spending and projections for the projects. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $150,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Annual Report | Complete a project annual report (which includes SMP) and a CSS Annual report of findings and analysis. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $180,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Analysis for the Agencies & Tribes | Analysis as requested by State and Federal, Tribal and other agencies. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $600,560 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Data Collection and Validation | Maintain SMP data, validation and error checking process throughout the season. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $374,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Managing and maintaining SQl database | Create and maintain smolt, adult, environmental data tables, current and historic data in supporting analysis as part of a consistent long-term database. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $350,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop design for SMP & CSS | Develop the design for the SMP and the CSS study. This will include determination of mark group sizes, coordination of fish availability with the managing agency or tribe Past data, prevailing management questions and comments and reviews by the agencies and tribes, the region and the ISAB and ISRP will be incorporated into the designs for 2007/09. CSMEP and subbasin plan initiatives and benefit evaluations will also be incorporated. Individual sampling site requirements will be reviewed; data collection and software for data acquisition and transmittal will be modified if required. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $490,440 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Monitoring and research information. | Gather, organize, analyze, house, and make widely available monitoring and research information related to juvenile and adult passage, and to the implementation of the water management and passage measures that are part of the Council's program. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $349,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Submit/Acquire Data | Submit and Acquire Data | Acquire real time daily and annual migration characteristics, hydrologic data, hydrosystem operations data, reservoir operations, water quality, hatchery releases, mark recapture information and other information utilized in hydrosystem operation requests for fish passage and to support operations analysis. | 4/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $349,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | Fish Passage Technical Services (FPTS) Employees | $741,050 | $763,282 | $786,180 |
Fringe Benefits | 32.5% | $240,841 | $248,066 | $255,510 |
Other | Oversight Entity | $200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Supplies | Supplies for FPTS | $5,000 | $10,000 | $15,000 |
Travel | for FPTS personnel | $9,850 | $10,441 | $10,900 |
Overhead | 35.95% of all items but Other (oversight entity) | $358,328 | $370,928 | $383,800 |
Totals | $1,555,069 | $1,602,717 | $1,651,390 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $4,809,176 |
Total work element budget: | $4,809,176 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, USFWS & NOAA | Fishway Inspections | $42,500 | $32,200 | $43,700 | Cash | Confirmed |
Totals | $42,500 | $32,200 | $43,700 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,700,900 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,700,900 |
Comments: Estimated |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: None
Comments: Ongoing as part of long term R M & E.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Under Review |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to replace most of the functions of the current Fish Passage Center (FPC), which is a required element in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The ISRP found this proposal lacking sufficient technical detail for an adequate technical review and requests a response. This project is very similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to project proposals # 200732100 and # 200732600. In general, these three proposals recommend a return to the same organization and staff of the present FPC, which may be dissolved in November 2006. The ISRP recommends close coordination among these four proposals' proponents (CRITFC, ODFW, CBFWA, and WDFW) to develop one well-organized proposal with sufficient technical detail to address ISRP comments/recommendations. A response should address the comments and suggestions made within each of the following sections of the proposal: Technical and scientific background: Only general statements are given describing the need for the technical support that this project has provided to the state, tribal, and federal fishery managers: "The project addresses the problem of the continuation needed technical support for the fishery managers which has been recognized in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program and a central structure that the agencies and tribes have built upon over the years. The core staff structure, data, analysis and technical services continue the cost effectiveness and efficiency established and operational to date. The central function provides a foundation for ongoing and future collaborative efforts of the states, tribes and federal fishery mangers. Specifically those in the Biological Opinion appendices related to long term system wide monitoring and Evaluation." This section does not indicate the kinds of technical services to be provided (i.e. daily juvenile and adult fish passage data, passage timing, duration, survival, etc.), their importance, or do anything to help justify this project. The Abstract preceding this background section does a better job of this. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Council’s Mainstem Amendments (2003) and the BiOp are cited as requiring this project to provide technical support to the state, tribal, and federal fishery managers. The specific objectives of this project in relation to these regional programs/plans are not described. Relationships to other projects: On the administrative form, three BPA Projects are listed as having a close relationship to this one, and a brief relationship of this project to each is described. The narrative of the proposal doesn't do this, but describes an organizational structure and gives a description of oversight and governance structure, which doesn't seem to belong in this section. The function of the Hatfield School of Government (at PSU) is not clearly explained other than "Specifically, the Hatfield School will help clarify performance guidelines necessary to avoid advocacy-based technical services and ensure objectivity and transparency. The Hatfield School will review the oversight process and a sampling of technical service products on a semi-annual basis to assess performance relative to established guidelines." Detailed descriptions should be added to determine how the school will "clarify the performance guidelines" and what criteria the school will use to review technical service products. The section describing Oversight and Governance Structure along with the proposed Memorandum of Agreement and Principles for Fish Migration and River Management Technical Assistance should be included in the background section, not here. The project history section only consists of a few sentences and is lacking sufficient detail to provide project accomplishments and give adequate justification for continued support. For such a long-running project there have been a number of important accomplishments and completed documents that need to be listed. Objectives: Objectives are not clearly stated, and it appears that the sub-objectives (a-d) under Objective 1 are the real objectives and most of the main objectives are general statements related to program activities and collaborative activities. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Too often the reviewer is referred to FPC documents or memos for details that should be included in the proposal. Examples are: pg. 8 "Data auditing procedures will be implemented using procedures outlined in the Fish Passage Center’s September 17, 1997 memorandum describing the data auditing tasks"; pg. 9 - "Maintain the web based presentation and distribution of the Smolt Monitoring Program by species in the present daily format with daily automatic updates to the SQL data system concurrently with presentation on the web utilizing the data protocols described in the FPC32 Smolt Monitoring Program Remote Sites Data Entry Program"; pg. 11 - "Consistent with the present FPC work statement, attend and provide technical assistance to the agencies and tribes in the water quality technical committee, including the annual water quality report for NOAA, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the state water quality agencies." The methodology for some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) is briefly summarized on about one page. The methods for each of these work elements needs to be clearly detailed. Monitoring and evaluation: The major functions of the FPC are M&E. However, the proposal only makes several general statements that the project will "develop annual smolt monitoring plan with the Fish Passage Advisory Committee of CBFWA" and as Objective 5 - "Participation in long-term development of Research, Monitoring & Evaluation in coordination with CSMEP and other regional RM&E programs, as requested by managers participating in the Remand processes, and as needed for the SMP." The proposal needs to provide some detail of how they will develop this annual monitoring plan and give details of how they will coordinate with other regional RM&E programs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Nothing useful is mentioned about facilities and equipment. The project personnel are the current staff of the FPC, who have a long history of association with the FPC and are well qualified.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to replace most of the functions of the current Fish Passage Center (FPC), which is a required element in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The ISRP found this proposal lacking sufficient technical detail for an adequate technical review and requests a response. This project is very similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to project proposals # 200732100 and # 200732600. In general, these three proposals recommend a return to the same organization and staff of the present FPC, which may be dissolved in November 2006. The ISRP recommends close coordination among these four proposals' proponents (CRITFC, ODFW, CBFWA, and WDFW) to develop one well-organized proposal with sufficient technical detail to address ISRP comments/recommendations. A response should address the comments and suggestions made within each of the following sections of the proposal: Technical and scientific background: Only general statements are given describing the need for the technical support that this project has provided to the state, tribal, and federal fishery managers: "The project addresses the problem of the continuation needed technical support for the fishery managers which has been recognized in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program and a central structure that the agencies and tribes have built upon over the years. The core staff structure, data, analysis and technical services continue the cost effectiveness and efficiency established and operational to date. The central function provides a foundation for ongoing and future collaborative efforts of the states, tribes and federal fishery mangers. Specifically those in the Biological Opinion appendices related to long term system wide monitoring and Evaluation." This section does not indicate the kinds of technical services to be provided (i.e. daily juvenile and adult fish passage data, passage timing, duration, survival, etc.), their importance, or do anything to help justify this project. The Abstract preceding this background section does a better job of this. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Council’s Mainstem Amendments (2003) and the BiOp are cited as requiring this project to provide technical support to the state, tribal, and federal fishery managers. The specific objectives of this project in relation to these regional programs/plans are not described. Relationships to other projects: On the administrative form, three BPA Projects are listed as having a close relationship to this one, and a brief relationship of this project to each is described. The narrative of the proposal doesn't do this, but describes an organizational structure and gives a description of oversight and governance structure, which doesn't seem to belong in this section. The function of the Hatfield School of Government (at PSU) is not clearly explained other than "Specifically, the Hatfield School will help clarify performance guidelines necessary to avoid advocacy-based technical services and ensure objectivity and transparency. The Hatfield School will review the oversight process and a sampling of technical service products on a semi-annual basis to assess performance relative to established guidelines." Detailed descriptions should be added to determine how the school will "clarify the performance guidelines" and what criteria the school will use to review technical service products. The section describing Oversight and Governance Structure along with the proposed Memorandum of Agreement and Principles for Fish Migration and River Management Technical Assistance should be included in the background section, not here. The project history section only consists of a few sentences and is lacking sufficient detail to provide project accomplishments and give adequate justification for continued support. For such a long-running project there have been a number of important accomplishments and completed documents that need to be listed. Objectives: Objectives are not clearly stated, and it appears that the sub-objectives (a-d) under Objective 1 are the real objectives and most of the main objectives are general statements related to program activities and collaborative activities. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Too often the reviewer is referred to FPC documents or memos for details that should be included in the proposal. Examples are: pg. 8 "Data auditing procedures will be implemented using procedures outlined in the Fish Passage Center’s September 17, 1997 memorandum describing the data auditing tasks"; pg. 9 - "Maintain the web based presentation and distribution of the Smolt Monitoring Program by species in the present daily format with daily automatic updates to the SQL data system concurrently with presentation on the web utilizing the data protocols described in the FPC32 Smolt Monitoring Program Remote Sites Data Entry Program"; pg. 11 - "Consistent with the present FPC work statement, attend and provide technical assistance to the agencies and tribes in the water quality technical committee, including the annual water quality report for NOAA, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the state water quality agencies." The methodology for some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) is briefly summarized on about one page. The methods for each of these work elements needs to be clearly detailed. Monitoring and evaluation: The major functions of the FPC are M&E. However, the proposal only makes several general statements that the project will "develop annual smolt monitoring plan with the Fish Passage Advisory Committee of CBFWA" and as Objective 5 - "Participation in long-term development of Research, Monitoring & Evaluation in coordination with CSMEP and other regional RM&E programs, as requested by managers participating in the Remand processes, and as needed for the SMP." The proposal needs to provide some detail of how they will develop this annual monitoring plan and give details of how they will coordinate with other regional RM&E programs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Nothing useful is mentioned about facilities and equipment. The project personnel are the current staff of the FPC, who have a long history of association with the FPC and are well qualified.