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

Fish Accord - Colville $592,838 $592,838 $592,838 $438,836
FY2019 (Current) $600,051 $562,595 $562,595 $265,819

Fish Accord - Colville $600,051 $562,595 $562,595 $265,819
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 30-Apr-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $422,786 From: Fish Accord - Colville FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (CCT) 7/26/2017 07/27/2017
FY2018 Expense $57,076 To: Fish Accord - 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
FY2019 Expense $233,593 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord budget transfer (CCT) 3/28/2019 03/28/2019
FY2020 Expense $366,458 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  Yes


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) 7 % (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.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total 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
73548 REL 60 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Review $562,595 6/1/2019 - 5/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:4
On time:4
Status Reports
Completed:32
On time:20
Avg Days Late:6

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, 73548 REL 60 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Colville Confederated Tribes 06/2011 06/2011 Signature 32 70 6 0 10 86 88.37% 6
Project Totals 32 70 6 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: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-105-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2008-105-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

This selective fishing project is important because it evaluates how hatchery Chinook salmon can be selectively harvested in upper watershed tributaries for the benefit of Tribal members and for reducing interactions of hatchery and natural-origin Chinook salmon on the spawning grounds. This type of project was highlighted in the ISAB report on density dependence (ISAB 2015-1). The ISRP views this effort as a demonstration project that might stimulate similar efforts in other parts of the Columbia Basin. Addressing the following ISRP comments will justify and highlight the utility of this effort.

In its review of this project in 2010, the ISRP listed six qualifications. Qualifications two through five are repeated here and need to be addressed by the project. "(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; and 6) Explain how the education and outreach components of objectives 4 and 5 will be performed and evaluated."

Three additional qualifications are identified by the ISRP for the current review:(1) Document the change in pHOS, PNI, and overall spawning escapement induced by the selective fishing effort; (2) Estimate the increase in harvest that the selective gear approach enabled compared with a non-selective fishing approach; and (3) A limited description of an annual adaptive management cycle for reviewing assumptions, decision-making, and data sharing is presented. A more complete description of this process is requested.

The proponents are asked to provide a written response to each of the 2010 ISRP qualifications and the two additional ones from this review, and submit the responses for the 2021 Category Review of Artificial Production Projects for anadromous fishes.

Comment:

A description of the major accomplishments of this project since its beginning in 2008 is needed. The project has produced a lot of data that should be placed in summary tables that cover the years that the program has been active.

The proponents should be commended on making a good effort to produce quantitative objectives. However, timelines are not provided. The next step is to see if the proponents are achieving the objectives. The selective gear project is important for the specific area and for potential application to other parts of the Columbia Basin. The reporting of results should be expanded as noted in the qualifications so that the full benefits of the effort can be evaluated and shared with others in the Columbia River Basin.

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

It is hypothesized that selective fishing of hatchery origin salmon on Colville reservations and ceded lands will improve the survival and percent natural influence (PNI) of natural salmon populations and reduce mortality on other non-target species with benefits to salmon populations throughout the Upper Columbia Basin.

The four objectives are clearly stated and seem appropriate. The first two objectives are explicitly linked to biological outcomes (i.e., to increase the survival of natural-origin anadromous salmon [especially ESA listed ESUs] and to increase PNI of summer/fall Okanogan Chinook by selectively harvesting hatchery origin returns [HOR]).

All four objectives include quantitative targets, and the last objective includes expected benefits (i.e., expect annual harvest of >1000 HOR Chinook surplus to broodstock requirements). However, additional explanation is needed to reconcile three related but quantitatively different targets from the problem statement, "these selective harvest techniques are expected to remove upwards of 80 percent of all surplus hatchery fish returning to the basin each year"; from objective 4 (mislabeled as 5?) - "goal is to capture at least 50 percent of the terminal run of Chinook with minimum (<3%) mortality on natural origin fish"; and from objective 3 (mislabeled as 4?) - "goal of the program is to be able to remove 10 percent of the HOR origin fall summer/fall Chinook passing the weir using these methods." Presumably the target percentages refer to different components of the run at different locations (i.e., all surplus hatchery fish, total terminal run, and hatchery fish passing the weir, respectively). However, clear explanations of these differences are needed to show that the different targets are coherent.

The significance of the program to regional programs is noted, but the presentation could be expanded given the importance of implementing selective fisheries as a means to provide harvests while reducing ecological and genetic impacts associated with hatchery fish spawning in the wild. However, the project proponents do not provide information on how their project is integrated with other restoration efforts in the Basin. For example, in the section on Project Relationships, they state that purse seining is conducted in a location to "prevent catching large numbers of Methow River summer/fall Chinook and summer steelhead." What kind of coordination is being conducted to assure that this project is not negatively impacting other restoration efforts?

Given that the project focuses on assessment of different gears, what is currently being done to assess the three current approaches to collecting and harvesting fish (i.e., purse seine, weir, and hatchery ladder)? What are the relative effectiveness, needed human resources, and cost of each collection/harvest approach? An objective focused on this element of the project appears to be lacking.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

There has been no rigorous assessment of results from this project. Selective fishing results for broodstock and harvest are tabulated for individual years in annual reports. However, the summary results for each year should be compiled across years to facilitate evaluations of year-to-year variability, temporal trends, and averages compared to targets. Such a synthesis is needed to assess the success of the project to date and to reveal challenges that face the project.

The table format in annual reports requires more explanation. Tables are difficult to interpret and some entries seem inconsistent with values mentioned in the text. It would help to show (as for previous years) the total number of natural origin returns (NOR) and to explain how the grand total handling mortality is calculated. The proposal does not present any results relating directly to the third objective (i.e., fostering the adoption of selective fishing methods by individual tribal fishermen).

The proposal does not provide evaluation of outcomes in terms of the targets or expected benefits listed in the objectives.

Although an increase in PNI is a goal of the project, the PNI value was not calculated for Chinook and steelhead as a means to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program. The project report should evaluate the extent to which pHOS is reduced by the selective fishery efforts by documenting HOR and NOR fish in the escapement and among those removed by the selective fishery. It is unclear how many tribal fishers were instructed in the use of selective fishing gear.

Management targets for broodstock collection and HOR harvest are identified each spring at the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation (CJHM&E) Annual Program Review. The Selective Gear Deployment Project is tied to the CJHM&E program which appears to include a systematic adaptive management process. However, an adaptive management process specific to the Selective Gear Deployment Project is not fully described. The Adaptive Management section of the proposal describes a step process, but the detail is insufficient to enable an understanding of the process. A limited description of an annual adaptive management cycle for reviewing assumptions, decision-making, and data sharing is presented. Some outcomes of adaptive management are evident. For example, the harvest target for HOR Chinook is now determined annually to achieve a five-year running average target for PNI based on annual calculations described in the CJHM&E Program. Similarly, tribal seining operations were insufficient on their own to remove the number of hatchery origin fish required to achieve HSRG conservation goals, so a weir is planned on the Okanogan River to supplement the purse seine removals and broodstock collection.

Lessons learned about ways to improve methods of selective fishing or to foster the use of selective fishing among tribal fishers are applicable but have not been documented.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The proposal does not provide information on methods being used to achieve the stated objectives. The most recent 2015 Annual Report documents the selective fishing methods and annual activities in considerable detail. However, it does not describe methods for evaluating the performance of alternative methods and for choosing which selective gear to use (ISRP 2010 qualifications 3 and 4; 2010-44b). Neither the proposal nor the 2015 Annual Report describes methods for implementing or evaluating the outcomes for the last objective (i.e., fostering the adoption of selective fishing methods by individual tribal fishermen).

Education will continue to be an important focus for the project. Tribal members have reportedly embraced opportunities to learn about live-capture technique. Methods to evaluate this element of the project are needed.

Documentation Links:
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.
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