FY07-09 proposal 200724900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluation of Live Capture, Selective Fishing Gear |
| Proposal ID | 200724900 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes |
| Short description | The project will evaluate promising live-capture, selective fishing gears to increase harvest of target species while conserving weak stocks. Results will be applicable to other tributary and mainstem locations. |
| Information transfer | Results will be published. The project will be coordinated with any similar activities funded in the lower Columbia River. The Colville Tribes will use the study results to deploy the gear for their ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. Demonstrations of selective fishing will be available for other Columbia Basin fisheries. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Stephen H. Smith | Fisheries Consulting Inc. | huntersmith@canby.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Jerry Marco | Colville Tribes | jerry.marco@colvilletribes.com |
| Joe Peone | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation | joe.peone@colvilletribes.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48.08 | 119.7 | Columbia River | Columbia River above Wells Dam and Okanogan River |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESUprimary: Sockeye Okanogan River ESU
primary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: All Anadromous Salmonids
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 200302300 | Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery | This project is critical to achieving conservation and C&S harvest objectives of mitigation hatchery by targeting harvest of hatchery-origin Chinook while allowing escapement of natural-origin Chinook. |
| BPA | 200302200 | Monitor/Eval Okanogan Basin Pr | The M&E Program will be used to determine the effects of the selective harvest program on escapement of target and non-target species |
| BPA | Demo00001 | Demonstration Project | Proposal 200710700, Evaluate Fish Net Traps and Beach Seines for Live Capture, Selective Harvest is being submitted by WDFW for similar research in the lower Columbia River. These two proposals have been coordinated and are intended to be complimentary. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conserve Species | Manage spring Chinook harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 3-4 |
| Conserve Species | Manage summer/fall Chinook harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 9-5 |
| Conserve Species | Manage steelhead harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 20-3 |
| Conserve Species | Manage harvest consistent with escapement needs | Lower Columbia | Strategy F.S.1 |
| Improve Harvest | Increase harvest opportunity of strong stocks and hatchery populations | Lower Columbia | Strategy F.S.2 |
| Improve Harvest | Rebuild runs of coho, fall Chinook, and steelhead to increase harvest opportunities | Lower Middle Columbia | Table 52 |
| Improve Harvest | Manage steelhead harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 21-9 |
| Improve Harvest | Manage summer/fall Chinook harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 10-5 |
| Improve Harvest | Manage spring Chinook harvest consistent with escapement needs | Okanogan | Strategy 4-7 |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage, administer and coordinate the research project | Primary administrative duties will include annual budget development, Pices maintenance, coordination with BPA and co-managers | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $25,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Develop Detailed Research Design for Testing Gear | Develop gear testing schedule | 10/1/2006 | 2/27/2007 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Obtain ESA, and waterway permits, and achieve NEPA compliance | Installation and operation of selective fishing gears will require ESA and NEPA coverage. This should be accomplished via amendment of existing documents. Permits will be necessary to install stationary net traps. | 11/1/2006 | 4/1/2007 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Test and Evaluate Live-Capture, Selective Fishing Gear | Install fishing gears and test capture efficiency and effect on target and non-target stocks | 7/15/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $748,400 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation Focal Area: Harvest |
||||
| Mark/Tag Animals | Effect of Live-Capture, Selective Fishing Gear on Non-Target Species | Mark captured salmon and steelhead to determine catch and release mortality | 7/15/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Focal Area: Harvest Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze Gear Effectiveness, Fish Effects, and Cost Considerations | Each gear type tested will be evaluated for effectiveness (CPUE per species), fish effects (injury and mortality), and cost-effectiveness | 12/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Focal Area: Harvest Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation |
||||
| Other | Produce Annual Report | Following each field season, an annual report will be prepared on that years research results. Information will be coordinated with co-managers and NOAA Fisheries | 12/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce final report and video | After the 3 study years a final report will be prepared for BPA and a scientific journal. An fishing gear video will also be produced to instruct tribal fishermen and for use in other potential fisheries | 12/1/2009 | 4/1/2010 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 2 1/2 FTE annually | $142,000 | $147,000 | $152,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | @ 22% | $31,200 | $32,300 | $33,500 |
| Overhead | @ 38% of personnel | $54,000 | $56,000 | $58,000 |
| Capital Equipment | Fishing gears and boat | $145,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | tags, gear maintenance, boat maintenance | $6,000 | $6,500 | $7,000 |
| Travel | Truck, boat O&M, per diem | $10,400 | $11,000 | $11,500 |
| Other | trap installations | $6,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Totals | $394,600 | $254,800 | $264,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $913,400 |
| Total work element budget: | $913,400 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colville Tribes | small boats | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $25,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $25,000 |
Comments: Colville Tribes will need funding assistance to initially deploy and demonstrate live-capture fishing gear. |
Future O&M costs: O&M and replacement costs will be assumed by the Colville Tribes and tribal fishermen.
Termination date: FY 2011
Comments: The project will test and evaluate fishing gears for 3 years followed by deployment and demonstration for 2 years. After 2011, all fishing activitites will be supported by the Colville Tribes. Colville Tribes will provide gear demonstrations for fishermen from other Columbia River fisheries.
Final deliverables: Annual progress reports in 2007-2009, including video. Final research report following the 2009 fishing season, including video. Final demonstration report following 2011 fishing season, including video.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $130,000 | $185,000 | $185,000 | $500,000 | Expense | Basinwide | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $130,000 | $185,000 | $185,000 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: Overall, this is a well-written proposal, and the problem addressed is an important one. The proposal might require minor clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives in the final selection process. The final sample design is dependent on the results of ongoing work by WDFW in 2006, a review by ISRP, and hiring of key personnel. A major strength of this proposal is that the proponents looked at a range of issues related to feasibility: safety, cost, etc. The proposal would be even stronger if issues of economics, property rights, and bycatch mortality had been addressed. The fish wheels are likely to be the most successful of the proposed gear types. This could be confirmed by direct (on the ground) consultations with people who have used this gear elsewhere. The fish wheel in western Washington (low cost) should be purchased if in situ testing is recommended. It might be possible to test the wheel in the first year of the project and if it is successful perhaps the net traps might not be needed. The ISRP does not recommend funding the fish stress evaluation study. At a minimum, the proponents should provide more explanation as to why physiological studies are necessary at this initial stage of feasibility evaluation. The proponents should be more specific about how hatchery fish will be identified. Are all hatchery fish marked? The budget is high, and more explanation should be provided for the "personnel" category (why 2.5 FTE? Who? What will they do?). The boat purchase also needs explanation. Why is purchase necessary? Are charter options available? Additional comments and questions by reviewers are listed below: Technical and scientific background: The background provides a thorough description. The point is made that one problem with gillnets and tangle nets is that high water temperatures make catch and release infeasible. It would be helpful to have a little more explanation of this problem as well as how water temperature issues play out differently with the different gears. For example, what is the nature of the problem and why isn't it also a problem with pound nets, net traps, or fish wheels? The ecological and genetic (supplementation and hatchery) aspects of the bycatch problem are explained well. Many references are made to a non-peer reviewed report by Beamesderfer et al. (2005) wherein a model is used to forecast benefit of selective fishing. It would have been useful to have this apparently key document linked to the proposal. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Many of the tasks involve coordination, permitting, and development of a research plan, data collection, and analysis. The tasks are reasonable for this approach. They include documentation of operational characteristics, safety and costs, which indicates recognition that feasibility is more than a question of technical possibility. The mesh sizes of the proposed by catch reduction devices (floating trap nets and fish wheel) are not given. These data are important for an assessment of the non-target species that the gear would catch. The proposal does not specify how hatchery fish are distinguished from wild fish, presumably the former are adipose clipped, but what is the current mark rate? Or is that part of the design (which is not finalized)? Methods for evaluating fish injury and stress are to be similar to those in the WDFW proposal (200710700). This degree of coordination is laudable; however, the ISRP does not recommend funding the stress evaluation at this initial stage of evaluation. A research design is not yet finalized, and so some aspects of this proposal are plans to develop a plan. The final design for the proposed study is dependent on ongoing 2006 projects by WDFW and ISRP review. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E): The proposal contains several elements of monitoring and evaluation of gear performance. Another project’s M&E program (200302200) will apparently be used to determine the effects of the selective harvest program on escapement of target and non-target species. A description of this M&E program would be helpful in this proposal. The final design of the study is needed before ISRP can assess the adequacy of the proposed M&E. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Equipment is adequately explained, except for the boat purchase. The proponents indicate that they will seek used boat, but have budgeted for new one. The ISRP recommends options for purchasing fishing gear and other equipment at a low cost. A discussion of range of options for obtaining boat services would be helpful. More explanation of the "personnel" budget line is needed. Key staff have yet to be hired and named. Information transfer: Results are to be published in unspecified outlet. The proponents will make demonstrations of gear available to others. What are the proponent’s plans for release and long-term storage of data and meta-data? Non-focal species: The proposal should be augmented with a discussion of by catch of non-salmonids and non-focal species. A number of species could suffer mortalities, depending on mesh size, water temperature, etc. What is the fish community in the reaches of the Columbia River where the deployments are planned? The project may affect Bull Trout and other non-focal species. The proposal would be improved by a plan to monitor and evaluate bycatch of non-focal species.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: Overall, this is a well-written proposal, and the problem addressed is an important one. The proposal might require minor clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives in the final selection process. The final sample design is dependent on the results of ongoing work by WDFW in 2006, a review by ISRP, and hiring of key personnel. A major strength of this proposal is that the proponents looked at a range of issues related to feasibility: safety, cost, etc. The proposal would be even stronger if issues of economics, property rights, and bycatch mortality had been addressed. The fish wheels are likely to be the most successful of the proposed gear types. This could be confirmed by direct (on the ground) consultations with people who have used this gear elsewhere. The fish wheel in western Washington (low cost) should be purchased if in situ testing is recommended. It might be possible to test the wheel in the first year of the project and if it is successful perhaps the net traps might not be needed. The ISRP does not recommend funding the fish stress evaluation study. At a minimum, the proponents should provide more explanation as to why physiological studies are necessary at this initial stage of feasibility evaluation. The proponents should be more specific about how hatchery fish will be identified. Are all hatchery fish marked? The budget is high, and more explanation should be provided for the "personnel" category (why 2.5 FTE? Who? What will they do?). The boat purchase also needs explanation. Why is purchase necessary? Are charter options available? Additional comments and questions by reviewers are listed below: Technical and scientific background: The background provides a thorough description. The point is made that one problem with gillnets and tangle nets is that high water temperatures make catch and release infeasible. It would be helpful to have a little more explanation of this problem as well as how water temperature issues play out differently with the different gears. For example, what is the nature of the problem and why isn't it also a problem with pound nets, net traps, or fish wheels? The ecological and genetic (supplementation and hatchery) aspects of the bycatch problem are explained well. Many references are made to a non-peer reviewed report by Beamesderfer et al. (2005) wherein a model is used to forecast benefit of selective fishing. It would have been useful to have this apparently key document linked to the proposal. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Many of the tasks involve coordination, permitting, and development of a research plan, data collection, and analysis. The tasks are reasonable for this approach. They include documentation of operational characteristics, safety and costs, which indicates recognition that feasibility is more than a question of technical possibility. The mesh sizes of the proposed by catch reduction devices (floating trap nets and fish wheel) are not given. These data are important for an assessment of the non-target species that the gear would catch. The proposal does not specify how hatchery fish are distinguished from wild fish, presumably the former are adipose clipped, but what is the current mark rate? Or is that part of the design (which is not finalized)? Methods for evaluating fish injury and stress are to be similar to those in the WDFW proposal (200710700). This degree of coordination is laudable; however, the ISRP does not recommend funding the stress evaluation at this initial stage of evaluation. A research design is not yet finalized, and so some aspects of this proposal are plans to develop a plan. The final design for the proposed study is dependent on ongoing 2006 projects by WDFW and ISRP review. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E): The proposal contains several elements of monitoring and evaluation of gear performance. Another project’s M&E program (200302200) will apparently be used to determine the effects of the selective harvest program on escapement of target and non-target species. A description of this M&E program would be helpful in this proposal. The final design of the study is needed before ISRP can assess the adequacy of the proposed M&E. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Equipment is adequately explained, except for the boat purchase. The proponents indicate that they will seek used boat, but have budgeted for new one. The ISRP recommends options for purchasing fishing gear and other equipment at a low cost. A discussion of range of options for obtaining boat services would be helpful. More explanation of the "personnel" budget line is needed. Key staff have yet to be hired and named. Information transfer: Results are to be published in unspecified outlet. The proponents will make demonstrations of gear available to others. What are the proponent’s plans for release and long-term storage of data and meta-data? Non-focal species: The proposal should be augmented with a discussion of by catch of non-salmonids and non-focal species. A number of species could suffer mortalities, depending on mesh size, water temperature, etc. What is the fish community in the reaches of the Columbia River where the deployments are planned? The project may affect Bull Trout and other non-focal species. The proposal would be improved by a plan to monitor and evaluate bycatch of non-focal species.