200732600 - Monitoring of juvenile and adult salmonid survival through the Federal Columbia River Power System
Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Budgets: FY07: $1,622,780 | FY08: $1,679,576 | FY09: $1,738,338
Short description: This project will collect, analyze, manage, store, and disseminate data on the survival of juvenile and adult salmonids within the Federal Columbia River Power System. These were duties formerly provided by the Fish Passage Center.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
ISRP final recommendation: Response requested
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 similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to Project Proposals # 200730000 and # 200732100. 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 the sponsors of these three proposals (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 a broad summary of fish passage and survival in the hydrosystem is presented, and smolt-monitoring functions are discussed only in very general terms. 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. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does not provide any specific linkage to priority objectives and goals indicated in regional programs or specific subbasin plans. The proposal needs to make a case of how this project will meet those requirements. Relationships to other projects: The proposal indicates that there are too many projects linked to this one to effectively list all of the connections. There is some truth to this, but several examples of the relationships of this project to projects like the Comparative Survival Study (#199602000) need to be included. Project history: The proposal indicates that it builds on a body of existing work and the proposal is considered new because the earlier project was terminated. Therefore no history is described. However, for such a long-running project there has been a number of important accomplishments and completed documents and that needs to be listed in this section. At least a one-page summary should be included. Objectives: Four objectives are listed including reasonable justification for each. Work Element 3.5 should probably be separated out as a specific objective to analyze and interpret passage and survival data. This is one function of the FPC that must be included and stated explicitly. Also, some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methodology for many of the work elements is only briefly described and often the details of how these tasks will be completed are missing. Some of the most important work elements in this proposal (e.g. passage index, relative abundance, migration timing, travel time, and survival estimates) are not included in the work element methods. The methods for each of these work elements needs to be included and clearly detailed. Monitoring and evaluation: The major functions of the FPC are M&E. However, the proposal includes nothing regarding the broader monitoring aspects such as coordinating or participating with other regional RM&E programs such as CSMEP. The proposal needs to provide some detail of how they will develop this broader monitoring plan and give details of how they will coordinate and participate with other regional RM&E programs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The proposal indicates that equipment will be upgraded and consolidation of facilities will be done. However, WDFW also states that no decision has been made as to location, so much uncertainty exists. The WDFW management staff for the project is very well qualified; however, only a list of summarized position descriptions needed for basic project duties is provided. This is inadequate for reviewers to be able determine if the important functions of the project will have a reasonable chance of being accomplished. Either much more detailed position descriptions with necessary qualifications or a list of potential project personnel with resumes needs to be included.
State/province recommendation: MS: Fish passage monitoring
Review group: MSRT
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: The fish and wildlife managers believe that this project may meet their needs. See February 16, 2006 FPAC memo for articulation of fish and wildlife manager needs. These functions are Core Program activities. The MSRT recommends that a group should be formed that would develop the criteria for evaluating projects to serve fish passage monitoring functions for FY 2007-2009.