FY 2000 proposal 198331900

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

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.

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website