FY 2000 proposal 198331900

Additional documents

198331900 Narrative Narrative
198331900 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleNew Fish Tagging System
Proposal ID198331900
OrganizationNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameEarl Prentice
Mailing address2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112-2097
Phone / email2068424289 / Earl.Prentice@noaa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionDetermine the biological and technical feasibility of using PIT-tag technology to obtain information on juvenile and adult salmonids. Develop ancillary equipment to expand the PIT-tag system's capabilities to meet CRB resource stakeholder needs.
Target speciesAll salmonids
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1984 Developed tagging techniques for PIT tags
1984 Developed tagging equipment
1986 Developed automatic data entry station for tagging fish
1986 Investigated the effects of PIT tags on juvenile salmonids and determining tag retention
1986 Installed first prototype PIT-tag interrogation system at McNary Dam
1987 Designed and installed juvenile salmon PIT-tag interrogation systems at CRB dams
1987 Installed first PIT-tag interrogation system for adult salmon at Lower Granite Dam
1987 Developed prototype PIT-tag database for the CRB
1988 Developed slide-gate fish diversion system
1989 Evaluated effects of electromagnetic fields on juvenile and adult salmon (reproduction and behavior)
1990 Evaluated the technical feasibility of an acoustic PIT tag
1990 Investigated the effects of PIT tags on growth, behavior, and survival for different salmonid species
1993 Compared overwinter survival of hatchery coho released to wild in comparison to CWT
1994 Completed predator avoidance testing PIT-tag vs other tags
1995 Initiated a long-term tag retention study
1995 Installed and evaluated Separation-by-Code system (computer program and 2 and 3-way rotational fish diversion gates) at Lower Granite Dam
1996 Participated in the evaluation of 134-kHz ISO-based transceivers
1996 Developed and installed the first 400-kHz flat-plate interrogation system
1996 Installed Separation-by-Code system at Little Goose Dam.
1996 Developed first underwater PIT-tag interrogation system
1997 Installed the computer program MULTIMON into the main CRB sites
1998 Installed PIT-tag interrogation system in Bonneville Dam’s adult monitoring facility
1998 Evaluated PIT-tag interrogation systems at Bonneville Dam for tag-reading efficiency
1998 Completed development of a 3-way side-to-side fish diverter
1998 Directed fish tests for ISO-based PIT-tag system for juvenile salmon and made recommendations to proceed with transition
1998 Designed antenna systems for interrogation of adult salmon in fish ladders (orifices). Conducted basic development work on companion transceiver systems.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8712700 Smolt Monitoring by Non-federal agencies System development and evaluation
9008000 Columbia Basin PIT-tag Information System System development, evaluation, and technical assistance
9701000 PIT-tag System Transition Technical assistance and evaluation of systems
All projects that use PIT tags and PIT-tag information Technical assistance

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 $385,900
Fringe $81,800
Supplies $300,600
Operating $37,400
PIT tags 1,300 $3,800
Travel $47,500
Indirect $171,000
Other $700
Subcontractor $360,100
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$1,388,800
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$1,388,800
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
$0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: An inadequate budget would prevent developments, installations, and evaluations from proceeding in a timely and efficient manner and would prevent us from meeting Biological Opinion and other ESA obligations. Other factors that could create major problems include severe weather and delays in obtaining approvals and permits. These factors could prevent us from meeting schedule driven windows for equipment installation (e.g., ladder dewatering). Technical problems at any time could alter our proposed activities and their schedules.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Do Not Fund
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Do not fund. The research and development has already gotten too far ahead of implementation in this area. For the moment, the priority should be on deploying the required number of detectors in adult passage facilities so that the accumulation of desperately needed data on adult passage survival rates, and smolt to adult survival rates can accelerate.

Comments: The programmatic need for the work should be more clearly explained. Putting this work in the context of the related project 9701000, PIT Tag System Transition, would help. The objectives are clearly stated and tasks are appropriately aligned to meet objectives. It is not clear how results will be evaluated nor is it clear that the proposed work can be completed in a timely manner. A detailed time line should be prepared and a monitoring plan implemented. The focus on adult monitoring is welcome, but should be taken much farther. They should be moving beyond feasibility studies and into implementation. A considerable amount of money is being put into PIT tagging without detectors to monitor adults. The proposal should inform the reviewers if the new ISO system is not capable of detecting the old tags. It is not clear if the existing 400 kHz detector they propose to take out of Bonneville is for juveniles or adults. The reviewers understand that there are many PIT tag technologies available worldwide. Considering these available technologies, they should provide a review of the availability and suitability of these systems to the application of monitoring juvenile and adults salmon in the Columbia River basin.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


This project should be re-named. This tagging system is no longer new.
Aug 20, 1999


Criteria all: Met? Yes - Work necessary to develop adult fish PIT tag detection capability
Fund, but the project needs to develop an implementation plan.
Oct 29, 1999


Fund, but the project needs to develop an implementation plan. In addition, the project needs to be included in a programmatic review of smolt and adult monitoring.

The ISRP wants to emphasize that it is a better strategy for the region to implement adult detection, as quickly as possible, even with the use of devices that have substantial inefficiencies rather than continuing research and development until 90% detection efficiencies are achieved. Our concern is that extremely valuable adult detection opportunities are being lost, and the need to monitor adults with PIT Tag detection is so important that they should proceed before the detection devices are "perfected." Specifically, NMFS is seeking efficiencies of 90%, but this high of a goal is not necessary; they could begin implementation with much lower detection and still obtain meaningful monitoring estimates using Jolly-Seber.

In addition, more thought should be given to innovative uses of the existing technologies outside the confines of the fish ladder geometry, rather than directing all research and development at developing new technology that will work efficiently in the very unfavorable geometry of the ladders. For example: a collection device (such as a fyke net) with a standard PIT tag detector in the cod end might be located in the pool at the upstream end of the ladder where the flow environment is less physically demanding and short distances from a conventional detector can be assured; alternatively a counting chamber using the same strategy might be built into the ladder.

Generally, the response addressed many of the questions and concerns posed. Nevertheless, it is not clear how the results will be evaluated other than "pass/fail." What standards will be used to choose between competing systems that work in part? It is still not clear that the proposed work can be completed in a timely manner if delays occur in any stage of the development and implementation.

Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$770,000 $508,600 $508,600

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website