FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310200
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 |
|---|---|
| 35053 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 35053 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Biological Feasibility of Reintroducing Fishwheels to the Columbia River System |
| Proposal ID | 200310200 |
| Organization | Steward and Associates |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Cleve Steward |
| Mailing address | 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, WA 98290 |
| Phone / email | 3608621255 / csteward@stewardandassociates.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cleve Steward |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | This project will determine whether a fishwheel can be successfully constructed and operated as selective harvest and sampling gear. |
| Target species | Hatchery spring chinook, fall chinook, coho salmon, steelhead and American Shad |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.0956 | -122.9155 | Cowlitz River, southwest Washington |
| 45.8504 | -122.7824 | Lewis River, southwest Washington |
| Columbia River, Mainstem |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 164 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 164 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS, USFWS, and Tribal and state fishery management agencies in a multiyear program to develop, test, and deploy selective fishing methods and gear that enable fisheries to target nonlisted fish while holding incidental impacts on listed fish within NMFS-defined limits. The design of this program and initial implementation (i.e., at least the testing of new gear types and methods) shall begin in FY 2001. Studies and/or pilot projects shall be under way and/or methods deployed by the 3-year check-in. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I Objective: Fishwheel research, design, and construction | Task 1.1. Literature review and interviews | 0.25 | $7,470 | |
| Task 1.2. River and site selection | 0.25 | $7,800 | ||
| Task 1.3. Fishwheel design | 0.5 | $12,720 | Yes | |
| Task 1.4. Fishwheel construction | 0.5 | $57,880 | Yes | |
| Phase II Objective: Fishwheel deployment, operation, and evaluation. | Task 2.1. Develop objectives, methods, and sampling protocols | 0.25 | $7,470 | |
| Task 2.2. Deploy fishwheel and collect biological data | 1.0 | $142,920 | Yes | |
| Phase III Objective: Data analysis and reporting | Task 3.1. Biological analysis | 0.5 | $0 | |
| Task 3.2 Harvest analysis | 1 | $0 | ||
| Task 3.3. Reporting | 0.5 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase III Objective: Data analysis and reporting | 2004 | 2004 | $0 |
| Task 3.1. Biological analysis | 2004 | 2004 | $19,950 |
| Task 3.2 Harvest analysis | 2004 | 2004 | $8,590 |
| Task 3.3. Reporting | 2004 | 2004 | $27,970 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $56,510 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 | ||||
| $0 |
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 |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.9 | $49,796 |
| Fringe | Retirement, health (25%) | $12,450 |
| Supplies | Boat, boat trailer, computer, and motorhome lease; field and office supplies | $16,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle mileage, lodging, and food | $11,000 |
| Indirect | Administrative costs (10%), office rent and utilities, insurance, communications | $21,905 |
| Capital | Fishwheel and trailer | $55,000 |
| Subcontractor | Engineer (Manuck) | $13,091 |
| Subcontractor | Fish Monitor (Torner) | $28,509 |
| Subcontractor | Fish Monitor (Settler) | $28,509 |
| $236,260 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $236,260 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $236,260 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
This is an approximately 18 month project. The FY 04 part focused on analysis and report production. Objective 2, Task 2.2 will be completed with the principle and sub-contractors.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
This proposal is to test the efficacy of using the fish wheel as a selective terminal fishing gear in the Columbia River System. The intent is to use the fish wheel to catch hatchery salmon and American shad. The goal is to provide economic and cultural benefits to tribal fishermen while providing appropriate protections to protected species.As the ISRP indicated in its review of an earlier version of this proposal under the "Innovative" solicitation, the re-introduction of fish wheels as a selective fishing technique would be useful for the Columbia River Basin allowing harvestable numbers of healthy stocks of salmon or steelhead to be captured and kept, while allowing fish from other stocks to be released alive to continue to the spawning grounds or hatcheries. The ISRP supports a test of fish wheel feasibility. There are locations where the wheels are very effective and could be used as a selective fishing tool, but their success is site-specific.
The feasibility questions surrounding this gear do not pertain to the gear's technical or economic performance as much as to whether fish wheels are a feasible harvest method in the current regulatory context of ESA protected species, and whether acceptable allocation mechanisms for fish wheel harvests can be developed.
Fish wheel gear makes fishing a collective, rather than individual operation. This is a fundamental change. It will require a cooperative, rather than competitive, approach to fishing and will also require that some sharing mechanism be worked out among fishers to allocate the catch. The proponents should address how this will be done: who will use the gear, how it will interact with other gear, and how harvest will be allocated.
More detail should be provided about objectives, tasks and methods. For example, why is a literature review of fishwheel design necessary? How much is already known? What factors will be considered in identifying design characteristics of a Columbia River fishwheel? More detail should also be provided about how the experiment will be conducted and about the criteria to be used to evaluate performance. What gear types would it be compared against, and what metrics will be used to measure effectiveness?
Comment:
This project meets RPAs 164 and 167 of the NMFS 2000 FCRPS BiOp.Comment:
Not Fundable. Disagree with CBFWA's Recommended Action ranking. As indicated in the preliminary comments and innovative review, the ISRP supports a test of fish wheel feasibility as a selective fishing tool. However, the response was technically inadequate and too many issues remain unresolved for this project to be funded. The literature review would add little to this project's outputs and should instead be part of proposal preparation. The methods response is inadequate. The limited research design compares sites and day/night fishing, but does not compare fishwheels to other gears. There is no comment on estimating long-term survival of fish intercepted by the wheels. The catchability of the wheels could be estimated by using paired wheels, as conducted by LGL Ltd, but the response contains no comment on this option. The sponsors now recognize but will not address the issues of cooperative gear use and whether acceptable allocation mechanisms for fish wheel harvests can be developed.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitDirect biological benefit to the extent fishery techniques developed and employed reduce incidental fishery mortality to listed stocks.
Comments
The development and deployment of selective fisheries with low incidental impact to listed species is especially valuable. This project would be especially successful, if an alternative harvest of shad could be performed without increased effects on listed populations.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments: