Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment
Project Number:
2008-105-00
Title:
Selective Gear Deployment
Summary:
Salmon fishing is a fundamental aspect of Colville tribal culture. Restoring the salmon fishery resource is equal to preserving and restoring tribal culture. The Colville Tribes intend to continue using selective fishing gear to harvest non-sensitive salmon species (hatchery-origin summer Chinook and natural-origin sockeye) for tribal utilization while simultaneously releasing ESA-listed sensitive salmon stocks (i.e., spring Chinook and summer steelhead).

The CY2014 Selective Gear Deployment project is a continuation of two projects funded by BPA in the recent past. In 2004 the Broodstock Collection Study plan explored a variety of ways in which broodstock for area hatcheries could be efficiently collected while minimizing mortality. Much effort was directed towards understanding discharge and temperature patterns, adult fish escapement and migrational behavior, and the annual temporal variations unique to the Okanogan River basin.

The Evaluate Live Capture Gear project was implemented in 2007 to test the feasibility and evaluate the costs and effectiveness of twelve different live-capture fishing gears. The purse seine, weir, beach seine, tangle net, hoop net and dip net received the highest ranks because their individual criteria were rated as having the strongest potential for catching fish and allowing non-target species to be released with the lowest potential for unintended mortality.

Purse seine. This gear type has proven effectiveness and has rapidly become the cornerstone of the selective fishing program. During the summer months of most years, a significant thermal migration barrier exists at the mouth of the Okanogan River. The purse seine method capitalizes upon the salmon schooling in the Columbia River waiting for cooler water before ascending to spawning areas. A 26-foot Jitney seine boat was purchased for use in the Okanogan River confluence area and achieved success in 2009 and 2010, both in high CPUE of hatchery-origin summer Chinook and sockeye and very low release mortality of natural-origin summer Chinook. Additionally, 167 natural-origin Chinook brood fish were successfully collected in 2010, one half of the number needed for the Eastbank Hatchery program. Pre-spawn mortality was so low that the tribal purse seine was charged with collecting all of the fish needed in 2011 and 2012. The purse seine also collected all summer Chinook brood for the Chief Joseph Hatchery program in 2013.

Beach seine. This method was proven to be an effective method for live capture, selective harvest for broodstock in the local area. The relatively high catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), low by-catch, site suitability, and ease of operation appear to fit the needs of the Colville Tribe. Additional testing of this method is required in order to solve issues regarding the high manpower requirements needed for this gear type.

Tangle nets can be used effectively in both the mainstem Columbia and the Okanogan rivers. Evaluation in 2008 and 2009 resulted in fairly high CPUE when fished where fish are concentrated, but the immediate release mortality was 20%, much higher than the <1% mortality experienced in the beach seine and purse seine operations.

Tribal seining operations are insufficient on their own to remove the number of hatchery origin fish required to achieve HSRG conservation goals for the system; too many hatchery fish would spawn in the wild and decrease natural population productivity. Therefore, a weir is planned on the Okanogan River to supplement the purse seine in removing upwards of 80 percent of the surplus hatchery fish returning to the basin each year and a method for broodstock collection. Design, engineering and implementation of a temporary weir is currently being evaluated for a permanent structure.

Hoop and dip nets are presently used in the lower Columbia and tributaries in subsistence fisheries off of riverside platforms. They have the positive aspect of being used by individual fishermen in fish staging areas. Two scaffolds have been completed. This gear needs refinement and evaluation; potential sites for scaffold construction will continue to be evaluated and these gears will be implemented where feasible.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Okanogan 40.00%
Mainstem - 60.00%
Purpose:
Harvest
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $422,786 $592,838 $592,838 $592,838 $438,836

Post 2018 - Colville $365,710 $365,710 $365,710 $270,709
Fish Accord - Colville $227,128 $227,128 $227,128 $168,127
FY2019 (Current) $366,458 $0 $0 $42,996

Fish Accord - Colville $366,458 $0 $0 $42,996
FY2020 (Next) $366,458 $366,458 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - Colville $366,458 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $422,786 From: Post 2018 - Colville FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (CCT) 7/26/2017 07/27/2017
FY2018 Expense $57,076 To: Post 2018 - Colville CCT Establish FY18 budget for 2009-007-00 Accord Administration. 02/21/2018
FY2018 Expense $145,233 From: Fish Accord - Colville CCT Accord Transfers (various) 2-21-2018 02/21/2018
FY2018 Expense $81,895 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, CRITFC) 4/19/18 04/19/2018
FY2019 Expense $366,458 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $366,458 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2017 $38,100 (Draft) 5 % (Draft)
2016 $38,100 6 %
2015 $53,100 11 %
2014 $24,600 6 %
2013
2012
2011

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
73548 REL 9 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Issued $720,709 6/1/2017 - 5/31/2018
73548 REL 38 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Issued $592,838 6/1/2018 - 5/31/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
Completed:3
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:30
On time:18
Avg Days Late:7

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
53054 57210, 61373, 65295, 68906, 72600, 73548 REL 9, 73548 REL 38 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Colville Confederated Tribes 06/2011 06/2011 Issued 30 67 9 0 10 86 88.37% 6
Project Totals 30 67 9 0 10 86 88.37% 6


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-105-00-NPCC-20110106
Project: 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2008-105-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualifications. Provide a literature review/summary of hatchery fish effects on wild fish and the ecosystem in the CCT region of the Basin. Explain how relationships among projects will be implemented, and provide a more detailed description of these related projects. Explain methods used to evaluate which gear will be used for selective capture of hatchery fish (e.g., will CPUE, cost, or tradition (or some combination) be the deciding factor(s)? Explain statistical details of monitoring methods. Explain methods for communal distribution of fish caught in experimental gear. Explain how the education and outreach components of objectives 4 and 5 will be performed and evaluated.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-105-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2008-105-00
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:
Qualification: The online proposal should be updated during contracting with BPA to provide the following information:
1. Provide a literature review/summary of hatchery fish effects on wild fish and the ecosystem in the CCT region of the Basin;
2. Explain how relationships among projects will be implemented, and provide a more detailed description of these related projects.
3. Explain methods used to evaluate which gear will be used for selective capture of hatchery fish (e.g., will CPUE, cost, or tradition (or some combination) be the deciding factor(s)?
4. Explain statistical details of monitoring methods;
5. Explain methods for communal distribution of fish caught in experimental gear;
6. Explain how the education and outreach components of objectives 4 and 5 will be performed and evaluated.

The successful implementation of the Chief Joseph Hatchery plan relies to a great extent on the success of this project for deployment of selective gear to catch hatchery fish and release wild fish. This project and further ISRP-requested revisions to the online proposal should draw from and clearly explain linkages to the in-depth monitoring proposed under the Chief Joseph Hatchery research, monitoring, and evaluation plan. The online proposal should be a self-contained document that does not necessitate the reading of additional referenced documents in order to evaluate its scientific and technical merit.

This proposal has been improved, and the proponents’ response provided much of the detail requested by ISRP. The ISRP's request for a literature review/summary of hatchery fish effects on wild fish and the ecosystem in the CCT region of the Basin, however, was not provided. The statement of the relationship of the proposed work to other regional efforts remains quite sparse and focuses on outcomes rather than implementation relationships among projects. Other related projects are only briefly described. Much more detail was provided on project results in terms of total harvest and catch per unit effort (CPUE) by species, year, and gear type. Detail was not provided about comparisons among gear types; for example, measurement of mortality differences, etc. Apparently, only immediate mortality is assessed for each gear types, and delayed mortality is not. More detail was provided on methods. However, the response to ISRP's Question #9 concerning details on monitoring methods was weak and required finding details elsewhere. Additional statistical details (for example, power analyses) are required. The statistical basis for gear choice was not explained. Is this information in the referenced documents? The proposal does not clearly explain how the gear used for the selective capture of hatchery fish will ultimately be chosen, for example, will CPUE, cost, or tradition weigh heaviest in the choice? More detail was provided on the adaptive management process. The response did not provide a description of methods for communal distribution of fish caught in the experimental gear and indicated only that methods will not be difficult to develop. There is still insufficient explanation of how the education and outreach components of Objectives 4 and 5 will be performed and evaluated.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal did not provide the ISRP with sufficient information for scientific review. The project could be significant to regional programs, but, as proposed, weak and equivocal results are likely to be obtained. The critical linkage to the Chief Joe Hatchery Program (CJHP) is not established. The scientific basis for almost all of the work should be improved to build a defensible program. Benefits of the proposed project to fish and wildlife cannot be ascertained as presently described.

The proponents need to revise and update their online proposal, as follows:

1. Finalize Statements in the Proposal Executive Summary which are currently incomplete.

2. Specifically describe the relation of their proposed work to other regional documents in the Project Significance to Regional Programs section. Establish the critical linkage between the proposed implementation of selective fishing and successful operation of the CJHP. Provide information on relationships with projects upriver and downriver from the mouth of the Okanogan. The latter would help the proponents plan their fishing effort and the former would benefit from knowledge of expected escapements after the fish pass through the Colville area.

3. State objectives in terms of desired outcomes. Describe deliverables in sufficient detail to enable scientific evaluation of the proposed approaches.

4. Provide a financial history and reporting (project started in 2008).

5. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem (a map was provided but no other description). The background and history should include a review of the major results of BPA Project #2007-249-00 (Evaluation of Selective/Live Capture Gear), which is the precursor to this project. Describe the relationship between the two projects. Provide a literature review on regional hatchery versus wild salmon issues and predator control programs in place elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin, and technical background specific to CJHP. Discuss hatchery fish impacts and explain why hatchery fish removal is required for the CJHP and the benefits to wild fish.

6. Describe deliverables and past performance (project began in 2008).

7. Describe major accomplishments to date (project began in 2008).

8. Provide specific information on how adaptive management will be implemented.

9. Provide work elements, RM&E Metrics, indicators, and methods for each objective. The project is said to be an RM&E proposal but this aspect needs further explanation. PIT tag data are planned to be archived in regional data bases but no details are provided. Methods to be used for fish capture (purse seine, weir) are straightforward but the statistical and geographic basis for their deployment needs to be described in much greater detail. In particular the statistical aspects of the fishing effort relative to Objectives 1, 2, and 3 should be specified in much greater detail (e.g. power analyses). Objectives 4 and 5 are tending toward socio-economic goals and should be evaluated with relevant criteria. Regarding the educational outreach, socio-economic goals change from individual to collective harvest. This is not just technical, but also educational. How does this work among tribal members? Beach seines and purse seines take a lot of human power.

10. Provide an action-effectiveness study design.

11. Provide project references or citations to relevant reports.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-105-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2008-105-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2008-105-00
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: (62.2 62.3 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (62.4)
Proponent Response:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Michael Rayton Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Cindy McCartney Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Kirk Truscott Technical Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Keith Kutchins Technical Contact Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)
Dan Warren Technical Contact D J Warren and Associates, Inc.
Stephen Smith Technical Contact Stephen H Smith Fisheries Consulting, Inc.
Jan Brady (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Kristi Van Leuven (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Kary Nichols Interested Party Colville Confederated Tribes
Rachel Kutschera (Inactive) Interested Party D J Warren and Associates, Inc.
Randy Friedlander Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Billy Gunn Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Timothy Ludington Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration