FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308600
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 35031 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Tagging Study Technical Committee |
| Proposal ID | 200308600 |
| Organization | Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Roy Beaty |
| Mailing address | PO Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621 |
| Phone / email | 5032305213 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Rowan |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | This project will establish a forum – the Tagging Study Technical Committee – to assist the region in mapping and tracking PIT-tag studies to help identify gaps and overlaps; to coordinate funding and implementation among the Corps, BPA, and the PUDs; to |
| Target species | All anadromous and resident for which PIT-tags and related tag technologies are used |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 15 RPAs in the 2000 NMFS FCRPOS BiOp |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 9 | NMFS | The Action Agencies, with assistance from NMFS and USFWS, shall annually develop 1- and 5- year plans for research, monitoring, and evaluation to further develop and to determine the effectiveness of the suite of actions in this RPA. |
| NMFS | Action 45 | NMFS | By the end of 2001, the Corps shall develop, in coordination with NMFS and the other Federal, state, and Tribal salmon managers, a McNary Dam transportation evaluation study plan specifically focusing on the response of UCR spring chinook and steelhead to transportation. Approved research should begin by 2002, if feasible. |
| NMFS | Action 46 | NMFS | The Corps and BPA, in coordination with NMFS through the annual planning process, shall evaluate transport to inriver return ratios for wild SR yearling chinook salmon and steelhead. In addition, the Corps and BPA shall also evaluate the effects of transportation on summer-migrating subyearling SR chinook salmon. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| n/a new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199008000 | Columbia River Basin PIT Tag Information Systems | Will cooperate to map locations of annual tagging groups and identify gaps and overlaps relative to management needs. |
| 199302900 | Survival Estimates for the Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs | This and other NMFS projects will be important elements in the |
| 199403300 | The Fish Passage Center (FPC) | |
| 199105100 | Monitoring and Evaluation Statistical Support | |
| 198910700 | Statistical Support for Salmonid Survival Studies | |
| 199602000 | Comparative Survival Rate Study (CSS) of Hatchery Pit Tagged Chinook & Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1: Map tagging locations and groups of fish each year and analyze overlaps and gaps. | ongoing | $90,000 | Yes | |
| 2: Coordinate funding and implementation. | ongoing | $10,000 | ||
| 3: Review technical aspects of proposed studies. | ongoing | $40,000 | Yes | |
| 4: Integrate/coordinate across tagging technologies. | ongoing | $10,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $160,000 | $170,000 | $180,000 | $190,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0 | $0 |
| Travel | $5,000 | |
| Capital | 0 | $0 |
| NEPA | 0 | $0 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | PSMFC/PTAGIS Obj. 1 | $90,000 |
| Subcontractor | Facilitator | $15,000 |
| Subcontractor | Statistical Consultants | $40,000 |
| $150,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $150,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $150,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Aug 2, 2002
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
Do not fund. There is a need to integrate the entire smolt monitoring/PIT tagging and other tagging responsibilities into a systemwide monitoring and evaluation program. The responsibilities described in this proposal should be shifted to the Fish Passage Center. Review of proposals is a task included under this proposal, which overlaps the responsibility of the ISRP.Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
STATUS MONITORING SUBGROUP -
- Does a proposal satisfy the objectives of RPA? This proposal is not explicitly linked to RPA's 180/181 in the narrative, but it is implicit that some tagging studies can/do support RPA 180 (Population and Environmental Status Monitoring - Tiers 1 and 2) by having the potential to estimate life-stage specific survival rates such as SAR. The proposal does reference 15 unspecified RPA Actions that involve pit-tags.
- If not, explain what elements are lacking. An explicit linkage to RPA 180 and specific objective, tasks, and methods to ensure that pit-tag studies that can support RPA 180 are identified and reviewed by the proposed Tagging Study Technical Committee. The proposal in its current form is aimed at being a central clearinghouse for all proposed and on-going tagging studies.
- If the proposal partially satisfies the RPA objectives, suggest means or opportunities to strengthen the proposal. One approach the proposal should consider is using state and federal scientific take permits to track the who, what, and where in the application of tagging technologies. For example, in Oregon the 4d and State Take database can tell exactly who is pit-tagging how many of what species where and for what reason. NMFS or States throughout the Columbia would require similar information.
- If a proposal is entirely satisfactory, indicate so and note the particular strong points.
- Assess the feasibility of the proposed work in general terms. Although the appeal of this type of effort is apparent, it seems that instead of creating another entity to oversee/advise another aspect of activities in the CRB, the essential elements of this proposal could be incorporated into another project already addressing pit-tags. These might include the PTAGIS or Fish Passage Center. The tasks and responsibilities could be incorporated into ongoing work statements with the same net result.
HYDRO SUBGROUP -- The Hydro work group sees a need for the coordination activities identified in this proposal. Many of the survival studies linked to RME RPAs appear redundant in coverage, while gaps can be evident. A forum to coordinate tag use and coverage, particularly in terms of satisfying BiOp needs could be advantageous to the community.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
The RME group comments on this proposal are rather lengthy compared to others, but none of them is in conflict with ISRP comments. In fact, the most substantive comment is in full agreement with the ISRP recommendation to include the work under an existing project, such as the Fish Passage Center. It is quoted as follows: "Although the appeal of this type of effort is apparent, it seems that instead of creating another entity to oversee/advise another aspect of activities in the CRB, the essential elements of this proposal could be incorporated into another project already addressing PIT-tags. These might include the PTAGIS or Fish Passage Center. The tasks and responsibilities could be incorporated into on-going work statements with the same net result."
Comment:
From a technical standpoint, all parties involved in PIT tagging in the basin agree that technical coordination among proposed and ongoing studies is necessary. Prior to finding this project a determination should be made as to whether or not existing coordination-infrastructure for fish tagging in the basin could satisfy the needs identified. Funding this project may create redundancy. Most or all of the coordination objectives presented in this proposal may be achieved through existing committees or processes. For example, the PSMFC Regional Mark Committee coordinates coded wire tagging in the basin, and includes representatives from federal and state agencies and tribes. CBFWA recommends that existing tagging and monitoring oversight committees review their charters to facilitate better communication and coordination between the various committees.Comment:
Do not fund. Disagree with CBFWA's Recommended Action ranking. There is a need to integrate the entire smolt monitoring/PIT tagging and other tagging responsibilities into a systemwide monitoring and evaluation program. The RME group agrees with the ISRP comments on this proposal. The ISRP recommendation is that the work should be conducted under an existing project, such as the Fish Passage Center. The RME group stated, "Although the appeal of this type of effort is apparent, it seems that instead of creating another entity to oversee/advise another aspect of activities in the CRB, the essential elements of this proposal could be incorporated into another project already addressing PIT-tags. These might include the PTAGIS or Fish Passage Center. The tasks and responsibilities could be incorporated into on-going work statements with the same net result." If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitBenefits are indirect. This project would attempt to establish a forum - The Tagging Study Technical committee - to assist the region in mapping and tracking PIT-tag studies to help identify gaps and overlaps and to coordinate funding and implementation of studies.
Comments
The ISRP supports the coordination proposal but questions whether it would be best to create another forum. NOAA Fisheries also has concern about creating another group for this function.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments: