Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Project Number:
2002-060-00
Title:
Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Summary:
The Nez Perce Tribe Harvest Monitoring project collects, analyzes, and reports catch data pursuant to pre-planned statistical sampling designs and procedures to assure the conduct of biologically sound harvest strategies for Nez Perce treaty fisheries that may affect ESA listed species.

This project describes the Nez Perce Tribe's efforts to monitor currently ongoing NPT fisheries. Sampling strategies are designed to provide greater data precision in treaty catch reports and exploitation rates during select Nez Perce fishery seasons. Harvest management is intertwined with all Columbia Basin artificial production programs and affects the status of naturally produced stocks as well. The Nez Perce Tribe has monitored its fisheries primarily by funding sources outside the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) process. However, the subbasin planning process has documented the need to incorporate this very important aspect of fisheries management within the existing Fish and Wildlife Program.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 50.00%
Upper Snake Snake Upper 50.00%
Purpose:
Harvest
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU (endangered)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Other Anadromous
Sockeye - Snake River ESU (endangered)
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $346,269 $346,269 $317,191 $317,191 $317,852

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $346,269 $317,191 $317,191 $317,852
FY2017 (Current) $346,269 $346,269 $346,269 $346,269 $196,277

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $346,269 $346,269 $346,269 $196,277
FY2018 (Next) $0 $1 $1 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $1 $1 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-May-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $346,269 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $346,269 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 32 %
FY2012 32 %
FY2011 31 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
20444 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2002 060 00 NEZ PERCE HARVEST MONITORING History $324,017 12/1/2004 - 11/30/2005
25460 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2002 060 00 NEZ PERCE HARVEST MONITORING History $326,646 12/1/2005 - 11/30/2006
74325 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2002-060-00 EXP NEZ PERCE HARVEST MONITORING Issued $346,269 12/1/2016 - 11/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):22
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:25
Avg Days Late:8

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
20444 25460, 30450, 35243, 40118, 44823, 50363, 55129, 60006, 63445, 67113, 70630, 74325 2002 060 00 NEZ PERCE HARVEST MONITORING Nez Perce Tribe 12/2004 12/2004 Pending 48 81 8 0 22 111 80.18% 0
Project Totals 48 81 8 0 22 111 80.18% 0


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2002-060-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-060-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.4 50.5 50.6 62.4)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.1 50.2 50.3 50.7 50.8 51.1 51.2 51.3 )
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-060-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The response improves the proposal in some areas: good descriptions are provided of the live capture study and its educational components, and the metrics section is expanded. However, overall the amount of detail provided in the response is excessive, detracting from the goal of a concise and compelling description of the proposed project and making it difficult to clearly understand the project. The proposal should be a stand-alone document that clearly and concisely justifies the project. It should contain all relevant information sufficient for a complete scientific and technical review without requiring reference to external documents, past proposals, or previous reviews.

Qualification: The proponents are requested to revise and resubmit their proposal for ISRP review. The proposal should be updated incorporating information provided in the response and in cited reports, to provide a concise stand-alone document with sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate its scientific and technical merits.

The revised proposal should:

(1) Synthesize project accomplishments in an evaluative manner rather than listing a number of project reports.
(2) Evaluate the extent to which specific project objectives are being met.
(3) Summarize the adaptive management process of making changes to sampling of fish and tribal fishers, rather than simply listing formulas.
(4) Reconcile the description of the data situation with earlier data statements.
(5) Justify the choice of selective fishery techniques.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal is rich in detail about the context and history of the harvest monitoring efforts. It is weaker in detail about statistical sampling and estimation methods used, how these have changed, and why. The proposal needs to be stronger in documenting specific results of past work and the extent to which project objectives are being met.

A response is requested on:

1. Project accomplishments: more information is needed on what the project has accomplished to date and the extent to which project objectives are being met.

2. Adaptive management: more detail is needed, supported by data and examples, on how the project has adaptively managed its approach in response to changing conditions.

3. Methods: clarification is needed on the methods to be used to address each of the three specific problems the proposed work is designed to address. More detail is needed on methods of sampling surveys, estimation and the conduct of the live capture pilot study.

4. Education: a description is needed of the educational component (regarding mark-selective fishing techniques) of the live capture pilot project.

5. Metrics: detail is needed on metrics to be used for testing live capture methods and implementing the harvest management plan.

6. Data: the proposal indicates that the data are not electronically available. A description of the data situation and an explanation of why data are not in electronic format are needed. What problems exist with previously collected harvest data, and what is the plan to solve the problems?

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The stated goal of this project is to develop and implement a biologically sound harvest monitoring program through the collection of credible and accurate catch data to support harvest strategies consistent with treaty reserved fishing rights.

The proposal provides a detailed description of the significance of Nez Perce tribal harvest management to regional programs and agreements, such as U.S. v. Oregon. It describes the large geographic area within which the tribe holds treaty fishing rights and fishing locations. The Tribe is responsible for developing biologically and legally sound harvest plans for both artificial propagation and natural stocks that comport with ESA protections. The project components and objectives form the basis for improved harvest management and therefore are significant to regional programs.

A reasonable technical background is presented. The harvest monitoring project is described as a way to quantitatively evaluate progress toward meeting basin and subbasin harvest objectives and to determine tributary adult abundance. It ties these evaluations to both the U.S. v. Oregon and FCRPS BiOp processes. The U.S. v. Oregon process includes performance measures to monitor progress toward rebuilding and track trends in the status of indicator stocks. This project provides base information for used by the U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee to complete annual run reconstruction and forecasting for upriver spring Chinook.

The proposal also ties the project to the Snake Basin Harvest Forum with a long-term goal of developing an integrative management system for tributary fisheries and harvest management in the Snake River Basin. A short-term goal is better coordination and harvest allocation. For some reason the project title does not include the Salmon River, but harvest is monitored there also.

The project is related to specific objectives of subbasin plans.

A good problem statement is provided, accompanied by a list three specific problems the proposed work is designed to address: 1. improving the timing and accuracy of harvest estimates; 2. accounting for harvest impacts on ESA-listed Snake River salmon and steelhead; and 3. increasing the Tribe’s capacity to catch its full share of salmon and steelhead. However, clarification is needed on specific methods proposed to address each problem.

The proposal has three objectives each including specific deliverables: 1. plan anadromous harvest strategies and harvest monitoring appropriate for treaty fishing; 2. implement harvest monitoring plan; and 3. design and implement a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using “live catch” methods. The project appears to represent the primary source of funding for Nez Perce fisheries management. It is surprising that objective 2 is not already part of the management program.

The project collects, analyzes, and reports catch data pursuant to pre-planned statistical sampling designs and procedures to assure the conduct of biologically sound harvest strategies for Nez Perce treaty fisheries that may affect ESA listed species.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project’s financial history is summarized, with a brief statement that funding has been relatively static over time.

Project results in the form of harvest management plans and harvest enumeration are described. The Nez Perce Harvest Division produced one of the first long-term tribal resource management plans in the Snake Basin. The project has developed harvest plans and estimates of hatchery and wild fish in past years.

Various data collection methods are summarized. The proposal states that the project is learning from its experience and improving accuracy and precision of harvest estimates.

“Adaptive management” describes actions taken to improve project efficiency over time, including changing survey methods of harvest, statistical estimates of harvest to address data gaps, the development of sampling techniques that adapt to changing fishing areas (with a long-term goal of standardized Basinwide sampling of harvest and effort) and an assessment over time of the performance of estimators. The material is very briefly described and lacks sufficient data and examples. Further details of project accomplishments are provided in the annual reports but not summarized in the proposal.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The proposal provides a detailed description of the project’s relationship to other projects, subbasin plans and regional agreements. Accurate harvest and escapement estimates of hatchery and wild salmon (especially ESA listed species) are important. The investigators seem to be well qualified to make improvements in harvest estimation, as proposed.

A brief but adequate description of limiting factors and the project’s approach to them is presented.

The ISRP is aware of tribal cultural issues regarding tagging and marking fish. It is therefore pleasing that the Nez Perce Tribe managers are willing to evaluate live capture methods that could lead to mark-selective fishing by tribal members. As part of this evaluation, it will be important to include an educational component to explain the benefits of mark-selective fishing techniques in increasing harvest of hatchery fish and reducing straying of hatchery fish.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are described in adequate detail under each project objective. Metrics are limited to harvest metrics such as CPUE and abundance. None are listed for testing live capture methods or implementing the harvest management plan.

Five RM&E work elements are listed, all directed at data collection and management, data dissemination, and data analysis and interpretation. The proposal indicates that the data are not electronically available, although it is not clear why this would be the case.

The project takes a reasonable step-wise approach to harvest management: 1. develop fishery plans and associated harvest monitoring plans for Zone 6 and Snake River tributaries; 2. determine potential run sizes preseason and update those numbers in-season as fishery managers acquire better information on the actual run; 3. prepare annual and long-term fishery plans using best available information on the target populations; and 4. implement harvest monitoring methodology and disseminate data.

Some detail on methods is provided in the description of each deliverable; the survey methods under “study designs” are listed but not described. Regarding the pilot study on the use of live capture fishing methods, more detail is needed on how the study will be conducted.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-NPCC-20110106
Project: 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2002-060-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Under Review
Comments: No recommendation at this time. Sponsor requested by the ISRP to submit revised proposal (see ISRP qualifications for what the new proposals should include).
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-060-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Tribal harvest monitoring; fishery managers authorized/required; query whether cost-share sufficient (and it comes from LSRCP--BPA funded portion of LSRCP? Then this might be a "3").

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-060-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The response provides thorough and detailed information on the statistical basis and operational details of the harvest monitoring program. The sponsors have provided numerous details in their response, including outlines of the statistical methods that will be used to estimate variance of catch rates. The program seems to be in the hands of a very qualified statistician. Primarily extracted from the sponsor's annual report (Statler et al. 2006, submitted after the ISRP review), the response adequately addresses ISRP comments.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-060-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-060-00 - Nez Perce Harvest Monitoring on Snake and Clearwater Rivers
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Hold funding at FY 2006 budget level.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Dave Johnson Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Dave Statler Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Arleen Henry Administrative Contact Nez Perce Tribe
Joseph Oatman Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
GREGORY SMITH Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
David Roberts Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration