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.

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.