FY 2000 proposal 199403300

Additional documents

TitleType
199403300 Narrative Narrative
199403300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleThe Fish Passage Center (FPC)
Proposal ID199403300
OrganizationPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMichele Dehart, FPC & Pam Kahut, PSMFC
Mailing address2501 SW First Ave., Suite 230 Portland, OR 97201
Phone / email5032304288 / mdehart@fpc.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionProvide 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 speciesAll Species
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
Met all objectives for management and implementation

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
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 $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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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