FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200307800

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

NA

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The objectives of this WDFW proposal are:

1. to estimate the survival of steelhead captured and released from a tangle net that would be suitable for harvesting spring chinook salmon;
2. to estimate the effect of capture and release from a tangle net on the condition and spawning success of spring chinook salmon and steelhead in the Kalama and Cowlitz river systems; and
3. to estimate the survival of spring chinook, coho and fall chinook captured and released in a mark selective recreational fishery conducted below Bonneville Dam.

The proposal would estimate these survival rates using a series of mark-recapture experiments over the next three years.

Objective 1 is very similar to the study proposed by ODFW (radio tagging of fish captured and released from experimental fishing) except for differences in the methods proposed to capture fish for control treatments. Objective 2 and 3 are specific to this proposal. It should not be necessary for the Council to consider two essentially identical research projects on this issue. The proponents should reconcile these two proposals before any further funding is provided, including the respective definitions of soak times.

This proposal provides more background on past studies and presents some analyses. The reviewers particularly noted the difference between comparisons of short term survival estimates by gear type and the results of the long-term survival studies. Short term survival rates of released spring Chinook were quite comparable between three treatments but long-term survival of fish released from the conventional gillnet were only 50% of the control compared to 91% for the tangle nets (section 9b). Consequently, Objective 2 seems a logical extension of these longer-term studies and merits support. We also agree with the author's comments concerning the variability in catch-and-release mortalities in recreational fisheries and would support the Objective 3, following consideration of our comments on the use of controls (below).

In Objective 1 and 3, the committee had concerns about the source of the control fish and whether they are comparable to the treatment fish. Objective 1 involves radio-tagging released fish caught in tangle nets fished downstream from Bonneville Dam. The proposed controls would be captured in the Bonneville fishway, radio-tagged, and released back to the fishway. While the authors acknowledge concern about this comparison they do not offer a solution. We recommend this be considered further and offer the following suggestion:

To improve the control, consider taking half the experimental fish up to the Bonneville Ladder and release half at the net site or half of the control fish downstream to be released. The Null hypothesis is no difference in survival of the two groups. If there is significant loss between the two groups, the assumption would be violated and the control procedure compromised.

Similarly, Objective 3 involves capture of control fish in the fishway but the tags proposed in this study are colored jaw tags, not radio-tags. This situation is more difficult to assess since any loss of tags released downstream from the fishery could be due to emigration from the study area, tag loss, or mortality. A response is required on both control issues.

There are two other specific points for consideration:

1. Task 1a states that for each steelhead captured, they will note the net type (mesh size) it was captured in and estimate the depth from the top of the net at which it was captured. Unless this depth definition is very general, quantification of this is variable and slow when handling a gillnet. A more direct means to investigate the depth of steelhead encounters would be to use variable depth "weed" lines, as conducted by CDFO, or to apply depth monitoring tags (the former is much cheaper). Weed lines allow the gillnet to be set at varying depths below the surface to investigate changes in the encounter rates with steelhead. Were these other methods considered and/or how will depth of capture in the gillnets be measured?
2. Hypothesis 1, Objective 2 appears to establish an acceptable difference in egg-to-fry survival of winter steelhead and spring chinook salmon released from tangle nets. What is the basis for "will not be greater than 10% different than that of fish not captured". Is 10% based on other studies, measures of variation, etc.?

Two budget concerns are notable. First, Task 2c. Compare spawning success of tagged and untagged spring chinook salmon in Kalama River is contingent upon funding of proposal #35041. Secondly, the budget presented in section 8 should include more justification/explanation for the 14 FTE and fringe rate applied, the very large travel budget ($163k per year), and the equipment to be purchased with the capital is very generally mentioned in section 9g but should be more explicitly stated.

Comment:

Comment:

Projects 200100700 and 35018 Combined in this ISRP Review

ISRP Final Recommendations on the combined proposal:

Fundable in part, Objectives 1-3 moderate to high priority. During the response cycle, Project #200100700 and #35018 were combined under #200100700. The objectives combined from the WDFW 35018 are fundable (objectives 1 to 3 in the current). However, for the two objectives originally under 200100700, the research components of objective 4 are fundable, but objective 5 is not fundable. Disagree with CBFWA's Urgent recommendation and disagree with the funding reduction proposed by the sponsor.

The combination of the two proposals recognized the ISRP comments, and the WDFW researchers reconsidered a number of their proposals in light of those comments (e.g., the controls). Reviewers are not, however, as positive about the responses from ODFW. The two ODFW studies to be included were the studies of mesh size and net structure on immediate and short-term mortality (objective 4); and then the feasibility test of a mass-mark selective commercial fishery (objective 5). The latter was the focus of an extensive response received from Washington Trout, Oregon Trout, and the Native Fish Society (Gayeski response) that was considered by the ISRP during their review. While the ISRP still had a number of small comments on the WDFW proposals, the sponsors adequately replied to our questions.

The ISRP was not so certain for the ODFW responses, particularly about our concern for multiple encounters in the commercial fishery, or who should fund the enforcement of that fishery. Further, given the extensive comments in the Gayeski response (and presented to the Columbia River Compact meeting, July 25, 2002), the ISRP is strongly inclined to recommend proceeding with the research components of objective 4 only but defer any support for a commercial fishery trials (objective 5) until the requirements under the ESA are established, appropriate mesh sizes and associated mortality rates are determined, and all users agree on the fishery. It is clearly not the position of the ISRP to make recommendations about fisheries, but we can advise when the technical assumptions and analyses do not seem to support such an expansion of this research program.

Numerous analytical questions remained concerning the 35018 response. That response did provide some preliminary analysis of the 2002, but not the data from 2000 and 2001 that were used in decisions to continue and expand the commercial trials. For 2002 data, marked and unmarked Chinook and steelhead are aggregated. Were there differences between marked and unmarked fish in condition at capture or in levels of delayed mortality? How was the sample size -- number and proportion to examine -- determined? (.7% Chinook total catch sampled for condition at capture; 3.7% steelhead). What were the proportions of marked and unmarked fish in the samples? How informative are the pooled data collected under different protocols? The focus in 2003 would be on 3.5" and 4.5" mesh. If mesh size and gear configuration are changed from the past fishery, how useful are the regressions estimated only on mesh size? How will the multivariate data for mesh size, hanging ration, etc be analyzed? What sample design does the project have to support the analysis? Mention is made of ANOVA techniques, but the question about sample design to support the ANOVA is not answered. Sample size for the monitoring program is also not addressed.

The response describes the process for choosing mesh size for the 2003 fishery: this will not be based entirely on data from the project but will be decided by the two state fish and wildlife commissions. Decisions about ESA protected steelhead will be made to keep "impacts" within 2%. Impacts to wild steelhead would be estimated using data from the project, but are wild and hatchery steelhead analyzed separately? Is the sampling rate of wild steelhead sufficient to calculate impacts? "Impact" isn't defined, but presumably assumptions about post-release survival will influence their determination. Immediate and short-term mortality are defined; moderate term mortality is not.

Overall, the response concerning #35018 does not provide confidence that the work will be conducted according to scientific standards. This ISRP was particularly surprised that comments were not submitted from the proponents of 35018 concerning the analyses presented in the Gayeski response and to the Columbia River Compact prior to the ISRP's preliminary report.

Comment:

Comments
The development and deployment of selective fisheries is called for in the BiOp (164) as is research to improve estimates of incidental mortalities (167). The use of MS-222 (an anesthetic not approved for immediate consumption) in close proximity to a consumptive fishery should be reconsidered.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: