FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200100700

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:

"Objective 1. - Determine effects of varying net mesh size on species-specific catch rates, condition at capture profiles, immediate-, short-, and moderate-term survival rates.

Objective 2. - Investigate the feasibility of using live capture fishing methods and gear in a full fleet commercial fishery."

However, while this proposal is now substantially more expensive than previous version, it is not clear what, if anything, new would be gained by this research. One reviewer summarized the proposal as more socially motivated than scientifically driven. There are significant issues with the current proposal:

1. While the general background and broad results are summarized from past work, there are no actual data or analyses presented, nor are there any experimental designs presented for the proposed research. The way that past research results are presented is confusing and limits the understanding about what is known, what is unknown, and the quantitative results. There is also no sense of an integrating experimental design to this project.
2. The results of the 2002 study of a commercial fishery are initially used as the basis for suggesting more research in 2003 since the bi-catch of winter steelhead was so large and inadequate data on mesh size were collected. However, in task 2, these same 2002 data are to be used in establishing the 2003 regulations but in the absence of any results from the 2003 research. How then does the 2003 commercial fishery "experiment" build on new information and how would the steelhead bi-catch issue be addressed? For example, what mesh size is proposed for the 2003 fishery?
3. Given (b), what is new that would allow improved protection of steelhead in the commercial fishery? What allowable mortality of steelhead and unmarked spring Chinook is provided for the experimental commercial fishery and how will it be incorporated in the regulations and monitored? If the fishery is limited to 1-2% of the winter steelhead return, how would you known when such a limit was met?
4. A commercial fishery introduces an additional mortality that small test sampling does not involve, i.e., the potential for multiple encounters and cumulative mortality of the released fish. This issue was asked at the presentation but there did not seem to be a plan to addresses this in the proposed monitoring.
5. While the committee could infer the definitions of immediate, short-term, and moderate-term mortality; clearly, such fundamental terms should be defined in the proposal. Further, the ISRP has previously asked how delayed mortalities would be measured.

This proposal is driven by a need to find ways to increase gear selectivity in order to be able to continue in-river commercial fishing on hatchery fish while continuing to protect co-distributed weak stocks. The strategy is to find more selective harvest methods and effective live-release techniques. Although the proposal says it is to evaluate aspects of live capture commercial fishing gears and methods, the project is limited primarily to a single gear (tangle nets) methods of using and configuring that gear (drift length, mesh size, the use of recovery boxes for fish to be released) and the degree it can be used successfully by gillnet fishermen.

Reference is made to data from previous experiments not being adequate to address certain questions, but it is not clear whether the proposers have a plan to ensure that the proposed work does deliver data adequate to answer the questions. The structure of the experimental design does not seem to have been clearly thought about. What statistical analysis is proposed to determine significance of differences? What are the data requirements of this analysis? What sample design follows from the data requirements? How does the beach seine function as a control? It is not clear from the proposal the extent to which the proposed work is new versus a repetition of previously conducted experiments. Objective 2: Continue to investigate feasibility...creates the impression of an ongoing project that will never end.

Reference is made to enforcement and compliance - how does this fit with the full observer coverage on vessels? Is enforcement a post-project issue? Further, enforcement and compliance are fishermen behavior issues that the fishery should pay, or at least, contribute to. The development of these fishing techniques clearly are to the benefit of those fishers, have they been approached to monitor their fishery.

Why does this need to be a five-year project? A strong justification would be needed for 5 years!

The ISRP clearly sees the merit in developing new fishing techniques given the number of factors limiting fisheries in the Columbia River. However, the provision for these fisheries must stand-up to technical review and compliance with ESA limits on protected stocks. Based on the material presented in this proposal we cannot make that assessment and cannot, at this time, conclude that this new proposal would provide a sound scientific basis for such an assessment.

NOTE: Objective 1 of this study is very similar to the study proposed by WDFW (#35018), both use radio tagging of fish captured and released from experimental fishing but differ in the methods proposed to capture fish for control treatments. Objective 2 is 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 their respective definitions of soak times.

Comment:

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). Also, sponsors should address study design issues raised by ISRP to ensure that those "tests" of selective fisheries yield quality, reliable data.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Project was originally billed as innovative evaluation of technology. Have not proven that they can prosecute the fishery without conducting severe impacts. Does the technology work or not? Not a multi-year project.

Comment: