Show new navigation
On
  • Log In
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Help
    • Help
    • Help Center
    • Data dictionary
    • EF&W Program documents
    • Request support
    • Send feedback
      • View all help topics
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Mitigation work
    Mitigation work View all mitigation work topics
  • Reporting
    Reporting View all reporting topics
  • Funding
    Funding View all funding topics
  • Search
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal NPCC19-2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal NPCC19-2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History


Archive Date Time Type From To By
11/14/2018 8:16 PM Status Draft <System>
11/14/2018 8:16 PM Status Draft <System>
Download 2/11/2019 3:46 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
4/19/2019 9:42 AM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
5/28/2019 4:06 PM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending BPA Response <System>
5/30/2019 2:41 PM Status Pending BPA Response Pending Council Recommendation <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Back To Top

Basics

Proposal Number:
   NPCC19-2008-105-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending Council Recommendation
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 2
Review:
 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Portfolio:
 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Type:
 Existing Project: 2008-105-00
Primary Contact:
 Michael Rayton (Inactive)
Created:
 11/14/2018 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 Colville Confederated Tribes
Project Title:
 Selective Gear Deployment
 
Proposal Short Description:
 To facilitate the growth of a locally-adapted, self-sustaining, Okanogan River summer/fall Chinook population by using selective fishing techniques and selective harvest gear to collect natural-origin and hatchery-origin Chinook broodstock used in the Chief Joseph Hatchery program, and; affecting the proportion of natural influence of fish on the spawning grounds by harvesting only hatchery-origin Chinook while releasing natural-origin Chinook and other non-target species at point of capture
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 Salmon fishing has long been a fundamental aspect of tribal culture on the Colville Reservation. Utilizing and restoring the salmon fishery resource currently accessible to tribal members and Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) Fish & Wildlife programs are fundamental to preserving and restoring tribal culture. The paramount concern is protecting the sensitive salmon stocks found within the basin that are currently listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The presence of Upper Columbia spring Chinook, Upper Columbia summer steelhead and resident Bull trout necessitates the utilization of selective fishing gears and non-lethal fishing techniques. With the Selective Gear Deployment Project, 2008-105-0, the Colville Tribes have successfully integrated traditional fishing practices with the use of modern gear in the terminal fishing grounds of the upper Columbia region.
Selective harvest gears and revival technologies were tested and refined during the Evaluation of Live Capture Gear phase of the program (2007-249-0). During the evaluation phase, the CCT investigated a number of different fishing gears to determine their effectiveness and suitability for use within the Tribal community: large fishing gears needing large capital investments (purse seine, fishwheel and weir); less technical gears (tangle nets and beach seine); and smaller, more individual-use gears (dip nets and hoop nets). Of the gears investigated, the fishwheel was removed from consideration due to a lack of suitable sites in the Okanogan basin with appropriate river conditions, while other gear types, like the weir, pound net and dip netting (fishing platform or scaffold) needed additional permitting, investigation and infrastructure to test their efficacy. Interestingly, fishing gear not highly ranked in the initial analyses, like the purse seine, was ultimately discovered to be more effective and applicable than first thought and became the primary tool in the selective harvest tool chest. Since 2013, the purse seine has successfully operated in the mixed-stock fishery at the mouth of the Okanogan River and has served multiple purposes.
Primarily, the harvest program supports the Colville Tribes’ F&W goal of collecting Okanogan-origin, summer/fall Chinook broodstock for use in the Chief Joseph Hatchery. In the high Chinook return years of 2014 and 2015, the entire quota of broodstock was successfully collected in each year. During 2016, 2017 and 2018, seasons of marginal or low Chinook returns, the shortfall of the purse seine collections were made up by harvest, hatchery and M&E staff with brood collections at the Okanogan weir, the hatchery ladder and by using a beach seine in the Similkameen River.
Reducing the number of hatchery-origin Chinook reaching basin spawning grounds is another important task undertaken by this program. A principle linkage within the HSRG is the correlation of hatchery production to pHOS and PNI. The basic tenet is that if the proportion of natural influence (PNI) falls below 0.67 on a 5-year rolling average then hatchery production must be reduced. Although the legwork in determining the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) on the spawning grounds falls to the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation program (CJHM&E), the responsibility for removing 95% of the returning, segregated-program adults, excess HOR Chinook from the CJH integrated program, and any Chinook straying from downriver hatchery programs relies heavily on the purse seine. Additionally, the harvest crew participates in ladder surplus activities and Okanogan weir operations which also remove Okanogan HOR Chinook.
Harvest data are collected for all F&W program fishing efforts. During purse seine operations, start and end times are recorded for each set. The number, species and origin of all fish encountered are recorded. The disposition is also notated, i.e. harvested, released, or collected for brood. Most if not all NOR Chinook released are interrogated for PIT tags. Harvested HOR Chinook are checked for PIT tags and sampled for CWTs. Non-target fish also carry tags. In some years a small number of Sockeye salmon carry an anchor tag. The number on these floy tags are read and recorded and the fish is checked for PIT tag.
Education will continue to be an important focus for the program. To date, the Tribal membership has embraced opportunities to learn about live-capture technique, including: tangle net, hoop net and dip net construction; fish handling; species identification; determination of which fish to release; fish preservation, and; assistance in data collection and tag recoveries. This outreach will continue for the foreseeable future.
Purpose:
 Harvest
Emphasis:
 RM and E
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 No
Subbasin Plan:
Biological Opinions:

Back To Top

Contacts

Contacts:

Back To Top

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
The benefits of implementing selective harvest fishing principles using live capture gear will: increase the fitness of salmonid populations within the Upper Columbia Region; increase the proportion of natural origin adult salmonids spawing in the Upper Columbia watershed; increase the number of available fish for use by the Tribal membership both on and off the reservation; provide broodstock needed for propogating the next generation of hatchery origin fish; The return to a traditional food source contributes to the general health and well being of the Tribal membership. Implementation of this project will be felt by sport fishermen and the economies of local communities dependant upon sport fishing.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

The Colville Tribes’ Chief Joseph Hatchery Program produces spring and summer/fall Chinook, in the upper Columbia region near Bridgeport, WA, to augment natural-origin Chinook populations in the Okanogan basin and to meet tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest needs of the Colville tribal membership. Simultaneously achieving both the conservation goal and the harvest objective requires that fishing activities target only hatchery-origin summer/fall Chinook, minimizing impacts on the natural-origin component of the Okanogan run, reducing or eliminating take of threatened or endangered species, and unwanted harvest of non-target fish.

The previous review identified the process for determining which gear types were best suited for implementation by the Selective Gear Deployment program while fishing reservation waters. With testing complete, this program now focuses on the purse seine, the semi-permanent weir, and hatchery ladder surplus as the preferred methods, in descending order of importance, of collecting brood and harvesting hatchery-origin Chinook. As described in the previous review, these selective harvest techniques are expected to remove upwards of 80 percent of all surplus hatchery fish returning to the basin each year.

The annual number of fish targeted for removal is derived using the logic pathway utilized by the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation program (CJHM&E). Annual hatchery production targets are determined through a rigorous process and are presented at the Annual Performance Review (APR) that the CCT F&W convenes each spring. This yearly review process takes into consideration many different factors, including the efficacy of previous years’ fishing efforts to remove HOR summer/fall Chinook; results from redd and carcass surveys; the number of juveniles released from the CJH hatchery; the TAC forecast of returning adult summer/fall Chinook, and; the tribes’ harvest allocation within the framework of the US v OR and the CCT/WDFW harvest sharing agreements.


Back To Top

Objectives

What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Hatchery Broodstock Collection (OBJ-1)
Provide hatchery broodstock for use in area hatchery-supplementation programs. The goal being to collect a maximum of 1,107 adult summer/fall Chinook for the Chief Joseph Hatchery Program, with a mortality rate on natural origin fish of less than 3 percent.
Reduce pHOS of summer Chinook and summer steelhead in spawning areas (OBJ-2)
Reducing the proportion of hatchery origin fishes in the spawning area (pHOS) of summer Chinook and summer steelhead will create more locally-adapted populations of fish. The goal is to maintain pHOS values of less than 30 percent for both steelhead and summer/fall Chinook. Actual numbers will vary based on the PNI value being targeted each year as part of the Chief Joseph Hatchery Plan.
Instruct individual tribal fishermen on the techniques of selective fishing (OBJ-4)
The Colville Tribes wish to move away from non-selective fishing techniques, such as gill nets. This outreach and education component will provide instruction to interested parties on the proper use of tangle nets and beach seines.

The 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.

A secondary objective is to have 10 fisherman using these methods as their primary fishing technique each year.
Harvest adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (OBJ-5)
It is the desire of the CCT to provide fresh fish to the Colville tribal membership when in season, while simultaneously processing and storing fish for use at other times of the year. It is also the intent of the CCT to share fish caught with neighboring tribes if fish are harvested with the selective harvest gear in excess of what is needed for the CCT.

The summer/fall Chinook goal is to capture at least 50 percent of the terminal run of Chinook with minimum (<3%) mortality on natural origin fish. Sockeye harvest levels are based on harvest agreements developed annually.

The number of fish collected will vary by run-size, but the tribe anticipates that more than 1,000 HOR Chinook will be harvested each year.

Back To Top

Project History

Financials

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

Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Actual Project Cost Share

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

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
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
2024 (Draft)
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017 $38,100 7%
2016 $38,100 6%
2015 $53,100 11%
2014 $24,600 6%
2013
2012
2011

Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
2012 was the last year that this project funded LGL Ltd as consultants for development of the Okanogan weir. In the years to follow, the CJHM&E project managed weir development and installation. The number of employees employed by the program has slowly increased since 2013. At the beginning of the Selective Gear Deployment Project, the purse seine fishing was in the early years of tribal-only operation and technicians were hired on a seasonal basis. Due to a high, yearly turnover of seasonal employees and the need to retain experienced deck hands, the project began funding at least one, full-time permanent technician in 2014. That number has since increased to a second, full-time permanent technician and up to four seasonal employees. The project also relies heavily on the Tribes’ Summer Youth Employment Program and an occasional college intern for additional labor during the summer fishing season. BPA initially provided funding for construction of a salmon processing facility and for staff positions engaged in fish processing. This financial support also funded the distribution of fresh fish to the four tribal districts. However the CCT has recently taken on the financial responsibility for the building R&M, the fish processing, the long-term storage and the distribution of salmon harvested by the program. The following information details the tribal contract year (June 1 to May 31 of the following year), percentage of annual contract value unspent, the amount of each contract budget unspent, and a percentage breakdown of the unspent budget by category. 2012 34.7% $176,176 53% subcontracts 33% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 2013 14.9% $ 61,075 71% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 11% subcontract 2014 32.5% $186,486 54% subcontracts 21% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 2015 17.1% $ 92,616 45% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 17% capital equipment 2016 19.8% $145,232 68% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 11% subcontract 2017 32.4% $233,592 62% salary (worked+non-worked+indirect) 12% capital equipment Budget values for CY 2018 are not included at this time.

Back To Top

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):22
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:55
On time:26
Avg Days Late:8

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted 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, 73548 REL 89, 73548 REL 117, 73548 REL 145, 92568, 84051 REL 19, 84051 REL 40 2008-105-00 EXP SELECTIVE GEAR DEPLOYMENT Colville Confederated Tribes 06/01/2011 05/31/2026 Issued 55 116 7 0 20 143 86.01% 6
Project Totals 55 116 7 0 20 143 86.01% 6

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
53054 E: 157 Collect harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 9/30/2011 9/30/2011
53054 G: 66 Collect broodstock for area hatchery programs 9/30/2011 9/30/2011
53054 C: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
53054 F: 161 Share harvest data with other regional entities 5/31/2012 5/31/2012
57210 F: 66 Collect broodstock for area hatchery programs 9/30/2012 9/30/2012
57210 D: 157 Collect harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 2/28/2013 2/28/2013
57210 E: 162 Analyze and summarize all harvest data 3/31/2013 3/31/2013
57210 I: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/31/2013 5/31/2013
57210 H: 161 Share harvest data with other regional entities 5/31/2013 5/31/2013
61373 G: 66 Collect broodstock for area hatchery programs 9/30/2013 9/30/2013
61373 E: 157 Harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 3/25/2014 3/25/2014
61373 I: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 4/30/2014 4/30/2014
61373 F: 162 Analyzed and summarized harvest data 5/7/2014 5/7/2014
65295 F: 66 Collect broodstock for Chief Joseph Hatchery program 11/1/2014 11/1/2014
65295 D: 157 Harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 12/5/2014 12/5/2014
65295 C: 160 Refine and use harvest database module 3/6/2015 3/6/2015
65295 E: 162 Analyze and summarize harvest data; calculate harvest allocations 4/12/2015 4/12/2015
65295 H: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/29/2015 5/29/2015
68906 G: 66 Collect broodstock for Chief Joseph Hatchery program 11/1/2015 11/1/2015
68906 E: 157 Harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 3/31/2016 3/31/2016
68906 F: 162 Analyze and summarize harvest data; calculate harvest allocations 3/31/2016 3/31/2016
68906 I: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/31/2016 5/31/2016
72600 E: 157 Harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 3/20/2017 3/20/2017
72600 F: 162 Analyze and summarize harvest data; calculate harvest allocations 3/20/2017 3/20/2017
72600 I: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/31/2017 5/31/2017
73548 REL 9 G: 66 Collect summer Chinook broodstock for Chief Joseph Hatchery program 11/1/2017 11/1/2017
73548 REL 9 E: 157 Harvest data from live capture gears at discrete locations 4/4/2018 4/4/2018
73548 REL 9 F: 162 Analyze and summarize harvest data; calculate harvest allocations 4/12/2018 4/12/2018
73548 REL 9 I: 99 Inform and educate the CCT membership, and other regional partners 5/31/2018 5/31/2018

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
Red deliverables for this project include: Annual Progress Reports, and; Study Design documentation uploaded to monitoringresources.org. This project will work towards submission of timely annual reports. Status reports are typically submitted on time.

Back To Top

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

The Colville Tribes are developing the Chief Joseph Hatchery Program to produce summer/fall Chinook to meet tribal harvest needs and to conserve the Okanogan River population. However, to achieve both the conservation and harvest objectives requires that harvest occur on primarily hatchery fish while at the same time having minimal impacts on the natural population. Because standard fishing gears (such as gill nets) used to collect large number of fish are not selective and have high mortality rates associated with them, the Colville Tribes use selective gear to harvest fish and release non-target fish unharmed to the stream

The results of initial year studies of these techniques (described below) indicated that survival rates were high for seines, less so for other techniques such as tangle nets. However, it was also found that the seining operations were insufficient on their own to remove the number of hatchery origin fish required to achieve conservation goals for the system as too many hatchery fish would spawn in the wild decreasing natural population productivity. 

Thumbnail results of harvest operations for 2008-2018 are provided below.

 

2008

During 2008, the Evaluate Live-Capture Gear project (BPA Project No. 2007-249-00) used three different gear types (tangle nets, purse seine, and beach seine) to test whether selective fishing can be used to meet five CCT principles: 1) Integrate Tribal traditional and modern gears; 2) Help secure the Colville Tribal harvest allocation; 3) Harvest HOR summer Chinook for Tribal utilization while reducing the pHOS on the spawning grounds; 4) Release unharmed the NOR summer Chinook; 5) Protect and restore ESA-listed salmon (Upper Columbia River spring Chinook and steelhead). Earlier evaluations in 2006 and 2007 affirmed that tangle nets and beach seines can provide NOR summer Chinook for the future Colville salmon hatchery, helping to maximize the pNOB and PNI for the proposed hatchery program. These efforts also work towards implementing a priority of the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan.

Results in 2008 were:
Tangle Nets: Tangle nets (primarily 4-1/4 inch, multi-monofilament strand mesh) were used at the confluence of the Okanogan and Columbia rivers, and in the upper Okanogan River at the mouth of the Similkameen River for a total of 15 nights and 40 individual sets resulting in a total harvest of 304 summer Chinook. A total of 178 HOR summer Chinook were caught and killed with the tangle nets. An additional 126 NOR summer Chinook were caught with 101 of those fish released in vigorous condition, for an immediate release survival of 80 percent. A total of 452 sockeye were harvested with the tangle nets for tribal utilization.

Beach Seine: A 110 meter beach seine was used for a total of 5 days and 30 individual sets in the upper Okanogan River at the mouth of the Similkameen River resulting in a total harvest of 184 summer Chinook. A total of 99 HOR summer Chinook were caught and killed with the beach seine. An additional 85 NOR summer Chinook were caught, with 84 of those fish released in vigorous condition, for an immediate release survival of 99 percent. A total of 28 sockeye were harvested with the beach seine effort for tribal utilization.

Purse Seine: A 120 fathom long, approximately 20 meter deep purse seine with herring mesh (fine 3/8 inch mesh) in the purse end was tested from a converted lower Columbia River gillnet boat at the confluence of the Okanogan River for a total of 8 days and 23 individual sets. This effort resulted in a total harvest of 314 summer Chinook. A total of 202 HOR summer Chinook were caught and killed with the purse seine. An additional 112 NOR summer Chinook were caught with 112 (100%) of those fish released in vigorous condition. A total of 544 sockeye were harvested with the purse seine evaluation effort for tribal utilization.

Total harvest was 802 summer Chinook, of which 479 were HOR and killed for tribal utilization, and 323 were NOR of which 26 were not released due to injuries or evidence of stress and 297 were released in vigorous condition for an overall immediate release survival of 92 percent. 1,024 sockeye salmon were captured and provided for tribal utilization.  Fish that were caught and killed were distributed to 50 Tribal Members, plus additional Tribal community distributions, Tribal Senior Centers, the Tribal Convalescent Home, and the Tribal jail. The fish were very well received, and greatly appreciated by many Tribal members.

A total of five adipose fin-clipped adult Upper Columbia River steelhead were harvested incidentally with one released in vigorous condition and 4 direct mortalities. One non-clipped adult steelhead was harvested and released in vigorous condition. An additional 20 adipose fin-clipped juvenile O. mykiss were harvested in the beach seine operation, with 15 of them released in vigorous condition. Also, one non-clipped juvenile O. mykiss was harvested and released. These juvenile O. mykiss were assumed to be steelhead.

elcgresult_08_final

 

2009

During the summer and fall of 2009, three different gears were used to selectively harvest hatchery-origin (HOR) summer Chinook salmon, HOR summer steelhead trout, and natural-origin (NOR) sockeye salmon.  The effectiveness of each gear type was evaluated for direct release mortality of NOR summer Chinook salmon and NOR summer steelhead.

Purse Seine
A 110-fathom long, purse seine net with 3½” webbing was tested using a newly built, 28-foot, purse seine vessel, the Dream Catcher.  The Dream Catcher was chartered from a downriver fishing company for a total of 26 fishing days and a total of 65 purse seine sets near the Okanogan confluence between July and September.  Representing over 98% of the 2009 harvest, 16,742 salmonids were caught in a combined total of 36.2 fishing hours.  Release survival rates for the purse seine included values of 100% for steelhead and 99.9% for summer/fall Chinook.

Averages for elapsed time per set and CPUE were 34 minutes and 462.5 target salmonids per hour, respectively.  CPUE per day ranged between 0.0 fish and 5,203.2 fish per hour, with the highest CPUE rates occurring between July 15th and August 15th.  The days having very large CPUE values correspond precisely to days in which the Okanogan River mean daily temperature at Malott exceeded 22°C.  Catch per unit effort values for the entire season by specie were: sockeye salmon, 393.8; Chinook salmon, 33.1; and steelhead, 2.3.   

The number of fish captured in the seine net occasionally exceeded the processing capacity and distribution capabilities of the program.  Captured sockeye salmon were released on several of days due to excessive numbers observed in the closed net and the desire to harvest summer Chinook.  Fish were released by partially submerging the cork line for a brief period of time which allowed opportunistic sockeye salmon ? to escape.  Several days many sockeye were wedged or gilled in the mesh openings.  One day in particular over 500 sockeye salmon were manually removed from the net.

Initially, mesh size was a concern in regards to the unintentional harvest of summer steelhead.  Unlike sockeye, where all fish caught were harvested, the gilling and mortality of smaller, NOR steelhead would prevent successful release.  These concerns ultimately proved to be unfounded.   However, to reduce the incidence of the gilling or wedging sockeye, mesh size will be reduced from 3½ to a stretched mesh of 3 inches for the 2010 season.

Evaluation of selective fishing techniques is ongoing, but after two years of analysis the purse seine method in the confluence of the Okanogan River shows the highest rate of CPUE and the lowest release mortality for non-target and NOR salmonids of all selected fishing gear evaluated.

Tangle Nets
Multi-strand 4¼” stretched-mesh tangle nets of varying lengths and depths were utilized in both the Columbia and Okanogan rivers during the 2009 field season.  Dimensions of each net and the number of nets deployed were recorded for each set.  Fishing effort was mainly concentrated in the evening and overnight hours to offset net detection and avoidance by adult salmonids. 

In 53 sets comprising 54.8 combined fishing hours, 287 salmonids were caught in tangle nets on 17 different dates at various locations throughout the basin.  These areas included the Okanogan River mouth, the Okanogan River above the cross-channel in Oroville, WA, and the Columbia River downriver of Chief Joseph Dam.  Release rates of NOR summer steelhead were 64.7% and NOR summer/fall Chinook salmon were 87.5%.  Average elapsed time per set was 76 minutes. Mean catch per unit effort for the season was 5.2 fish per hour with daily ranges between 0.3 and 11.7.  Mean CPUE by specie was: sockeye, 3.1; Chinook, 0.8; and steelhead, 0.8.

The low release survival rates of salmonids recorded for this gear-type,  specifically steelhead, can be attributed to the time elapsed between surveying the net,  taking too much time freeing individual fish, particularly non-target fish species (carp) and not implementing the use of recovery boxes. 

Though the release rate of NOR summer steelhead and CPUE might be substantially lower than purse seining, tangle nets are less expensive and are being pursued as the preferred gear type for replacing gillnets currently used by independent Tribal fishermen in their subsistence and ceremonial fishery.

Beach Seine
No salmonids were caught using the beach seine technique.  Three sets were made using a 110 x 6 meter beach seine during daylight hours on September 9th and 10th near McLaughlin Falls (Rkm 75).  However, large, submerged rocks prevented successful net closure.  Despite the limitations imposed on this gear type at this site, beach seining should remain a gear type utilized by the selective harvest program, particularly as the preferred method for collecting hatchery broodstock at tributary locations on the Okanogan River.  During the 2008 season, beach seining demonstrated that excellent NOR Chinook release success (99%), relatively high CPUE, and low by-catch could be achieved at a proper site. 

Beach seining could be the method which most closely resembles traditional net fishing practices and should be considered as a replacement gear for gill nets currently used by Tribal net fishers.  Implementation of this gear requires considerable labor and might promote Tribal net fishing in family or other social groups to successfully harvest fish. 

Results table 2009

 

2010

During the summer and fall of 2010, the purse seine was effectively deployed in the Okanogan River confluence area.  Hatchery-origin (HOR) summer Chinook salmon and natural-origin (NOR) sockeye salmon were targeted for ceremonial and subsistence harvest.  NOR Chinook broodstock were collected with the assistance of the Chelan County PUD and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and transported to the Eastbank Hatchery in Wenatchee.  Data was recorded for direct release mortality of NOR summer Chinook salmon and summer steelhead.

Purse Seine
A 110-fathom long, purse seine net with 3” webbing was utilized using the Dream Catcher, the recently purchased purse seine vessel.  The Kuller Fish Company was hired to teach Tribal employees how to successfully and safely operate the vessel.  A total of 19,512 salmonids were caught in 90 sets during the season in the United States.  This harvest total represents a 16% increase in total catch from 2009.   The aggregate total of 37.3 fishing hours is a 3% increase in effort from last year.  Release survival rates for the purse seine included values of 100% for steelhead and 97.3% for summer/fall Chinook.

Averages for elapsed time per set and CPUE were 24.3 minutes and 449.6 target salmonids per hour, respectively.  CPUE per day ranged between 0.0 fish and 5,203.2 fish per hour, with the highest CPUE rates occurring on July 22nd and 23rd.  The days having very large CPUE values correspond precisely to days in which the Okanogan River mean daily temperature at Malott exceeded 22°C.  Catch per unit effort values for the entire season by specie were: sockeye salmon, 373.6; Chinook salmon, 47.4; and steelhead, 0.6.   

At the end of the 2009 season it was thought that the speed of retrieving the net could be increased with a smaller mesh size.  In February 2010, the 3½” mesh on the net was replaced with 3” webbing.  As a result, the incidence of fish wedging in the net was dramatically reduced.   

Beach Seine & Tangle Nets
One set was made using a 110 x 6 meter beach seine during daylight hours on October 13th at the Klein Site on the Similkameen River.   No salmonids were caught using the beach seine technique.  The use of this gear type so late in the season all but eliminated the chances of harvesting fish in good condition. 

Three sets were made on the morning of October 13th using a multi-strand 4¼” stretched-mesh tangle net at the Klein Site on the Similkameen River.  One NOR Chinook was successfully released. 

The beach seine and tangle net gears were not utilized this season due to the effectiveness of the purse seine at the mouth during the height of the summer fish run.    

 2010 Harvest Results

2011

2011 harvest results were affected by the lack of a solid thermal barrier. The large freshet allowed returning fish to move up the Okanogan River unchecked and they swam right by us. Catch totals for the purse seine included 98 NOR Chinook brood collected, 133 NOR Chinook adults released, 146 HOR Chinook adults and 405 Sockeye harvested. Total combined fishing effort was 167 sets for a combined 50.1 fishing hours. Release survival rates for the purse seine included values of 100% for steelhead and 99.9% for natural-origin, summer/fall Chinook.

Multi-strand 4¼” stretched-mesh tangle nets of varying lengths and depths were utilized in both the Columbia and Okanogan rivers. Dimensions of each net and the number of nets deployed were recorded for each set. Fishing effort was mainly concentrated in the evening and overnight hours to offset net detection and avoidance by adult salmonids.

In 24 sets comprising 19.2 combined fishing hours, no Chinook were encountered and 351 sockeye were caught in tangle nets at various locations throughout the basin. These areas included the Okanogan River mouth, the Okanogan River above the cross-channel in Oroville, WA, and the Okanogan River at the Similkameen River confluence.

No effort was recorded using the beach seine in 2011.

2011 Chk Soc Sthd Harvest Data rotated 

2012

A total of 1,762 HOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 957 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 15,677 sockeye salmon were harvested.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include values of 100% for steelhead and 99.9% for NOR summer Chinook. No bull trout were encountered. One sturgeon was captured, checked for scutes, scanned for PIT tag, length data recorded and then released. 

The tribal membership, as well as other tribes in the basin, shared in the harvest of the fresh fish.  Fish were shared with the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Kalispel, Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock and Okanagan Nation Alliance tribes in 2012.  Approximately 5,500 fish were processed by CCT Salmon Processing technicians and stored in the program freezer for use at other times of the year.  

Ten NOR summer Chinook carrying radio-tags were captured and released by the purse seine. The radio tags were implanted for a telemetry study implemented by the WDFW (Ryan Mann, pers. comm.).  Post-season analysis included the final disposition of these fishes in the Okanogan basin.  According to Mann and Charles Snow (WDFW) eight eventually migrated to the Okanogan, and two to the Methow. Nine of the ten fish were determined to have spawned. The non-spawner was caught by the purse seine on 7 August. Telemetry records show the fish survived, but died in the Okanogan River prior to spawning approximately one month later.

Fish & Wildlife staff utilized tangle nets at various locations throughout the basin. These areas included the Okanogan River mouth, the Okanogan River above the cross-channel in Oroville, WA, and the Okanogan River at the Similkameen River confluence.  No Chinook were encountered and 1,532 Sockeye were harvested.

Four sets a day were made using a 110 x 6 meter beach seine during daylight hours on September 25 and 26 and October 2 and 4 at the Klein Site on the Similkameen River.  In total, 61 NOR summer Chinook adults and 1 NOR jack were caught and released at the fishing location.  75 HOR adults and 5 HOR jacks were harvested using the beach seine.  Thirty of the harvested fish were taken to the CCT F&W salmon processing plant for eventual distribution to a local food bank.  However, after filleting a few it was decided the flesh was too soft for consumption.  These fish, and the other Chinook harvested were returned to the river for the purposes of nutrient enhancement.

2012 Harvest Table

2013

A total of 120 sets were made by the purse seine on 31 different fishing days between July 9 and August 28. Over 5,700 salmonids were harvested in a combined total effort of 43.5 fishing hours. A total of 1,190 HOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 1,483 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 4,056 sockeye salmon were harvested.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include values of 100% for steelhead and 99.9% for NOR summer Chinook. No bull trout or sturgeon were encountered.

Fish & Wildlife staff utilized tangle nets at the Okanogan River mouth in 2013.  Four HOR Chinook and 107 Sockeye were harvested. The tribal membership also reported a harvest total of 419 Sockeye and 26 summer Chinook adults. Eighteen NOR Chinook were successfully released.

The CCT F&W Department collected all of the summer Chinook broodstock required for the season.  A total of 427 natural-origin, and 300 hatchery-origin summer Chinook broodstock were collected by the CCT purse seine in July and August 2013.  The fish were transported to the Chief Joseph Hatchery in Bridgeport, WA for holding until spawning.

The beach seine was not utilized in 2013. 

2013 Harvest Table 

2014

A total of 98 sets were made by the purse seine on 31 different fishing days between July 1 and August 26, 2014. Total number of salmon caught was 23,280 fish.  Average effort was 3.2 sets per day and 21.8 minutes per set. 569 HOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 3,212 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 18,572 Sockeye salmon were harvested.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include values of 100% for steelhead and 99.6% for NOR summer Chinook. No bull trout or sturgeon were encountered.

Neighboring tribes in the basin participated in the CCT harvest of the fresh fish.  Fish were shared with the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Kalispel, Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock and Okanagan Nation Alliance tribes.  Approximately 5,000 fish were processed by CCT Salmon Processing technicians and stored in the program freezer for use at other times of the year.  

A total of 3,212 Sockeye and 19 summer Chinook adults were reported as harvested by tribal net fishermen in 2014. Five NOR Chinook were successfully released.

The CCT F&W Department collected all of the summer Chinook broodstock required for the season.  A total of 427 natural-origin, and 300 hatchery-origin summer Chinook broodstock were collected by the CCT purse seine in July and August 2014.  The fish were transported to the Chief Joseph Hatchery in Bridgeport, WA for holding until spawning.

Fish & Wildlife staff did not utilize tangle nets or the beach seine in 2014.

2014 Harvest Table 

2015

A total of 79 sets were made by the purse seine on 31 different fishing days between July 1 and August 26. A total of 630 HOR and 75 NOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 3,404 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 22,358 Sockeye salmon were harvested.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include 97.8% for NOR summer Chinook. No Bull trout, steelhead or sturgeon were encountered. The 2015 harvest total was influenced by a solid thermal barrier.

The purse seine collected all of the summer Chinook broodstock required for the season.  A total of 427 natural-origin, and 300 hatchery-origin summer Chinook broodstock were collected in July and August 2015.  The fish were transported to the Chief Joseph Hatchery in Bridgeport, WA for holding until spawning.   

Fish & Wildlife staff did not utilize tangle nets or the beach seine in 2015. 

2015 Harvest Table 

2016

The 2016 harvest total was influenced by a weak-to-mild thermal barrier. A total of 122 sets were made by the purse seine on 29 different fishing days in July and August, with an average of 4.2 sets per day and 15.8 minutes per set. A total of 260 HOR and zero NOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 1,347 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 1,802 Sockeye salmon were harvested and 532 NOR Chinook and 441 HOR Chinook brood collected.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include 100% for NOR summer Chinook.

No Bull trout or sturgeon were encountered. Three adipose-present steelhead were released.

Fish were shared with the Okanagan Nation Alliance tribes in 2016.  Fish were processed by CCT Salmon Processing technicians and stored in the program freezer for use at other times of the year.  

The beach seine was utilized on September 15 at the Klein Site on the Similkameen River.  A shortage in the number of late-arriving Chinook collected for brood necessitated this fishing effort. Seventy-two NOR and seven HOR Chinook were taken for broodstock by the crew that day.

Fish & Wildlife staff did not utilize tangle nets at the Okanogan River mouth in 2016.  Rather, tribal members were loaned the tangle nets that had been constructed by the harvest staff.

2016 Harvest Table 

2017

The 2017 harvest total was again influenced by a weak-to-mild thermal barrier. A total of 145 sets were made by the purse seine on 35 different fishing days in July and August, with an average of 4.1 sets per day and 20.4 minutes per set. A total of 119 HOR and two NOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and 904 NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river in vigorous condition near the point of capture. In addition, 5,469 Sockeye salmon were harvested and 628 NOR Chinook and 540 HOR Chinook brood collected.  Immediate-release survival rates for fish released from the purse seine include 99.8% for NOR summer Chinook.

Ten juvenile sturgeon and zero Bull trout were encountered. Two adipose-absent steelhead were released.

Fish & Wildlife staff caught 352 Sockeye using tangle nets but did not utilize the beach seine.

 2017 Harvest Table

2018

A total of 150 sets were made by the purse seine on 32 different fishing days in July and August, with an average of 4.7 sets per day and 22.2 minutes per set. A total of 32 HOR and zero NOR summer Chinook adults were harvested for tribal use and zero NOR summer Chinook were released back into the river. In addition, 11,221 Sockeye salmon were harvested and 368 NOR Chinook and 767 HOR Chinook brood collected. 

Nine juvenile sturgeon and zero Bull trout were encountered. Two adipose-present steelhead were released.

Fish & Wildlife staff caught 21 Sockeye using tangle nets but did not utilize the beach seine.

 

2018 Harvest Table


Back To Top

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews


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

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-105-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 2008-105-00 - Selective Gear Deployment
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal: NPCC19-2008-105-00
Proposal State: Pending Council Recommendation
Approved Date: 8/25/2019
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Sponsor to address the nine ISRP qualifications during the 2021 Habitat and Hatchery review process as part of the project proposal narrative for the Chief Joseph Hatchery Program (Project# 2003-023-00). See Programmatic issue for Hatchery-Related work.

[Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fish-and-wildlife-program/project-reviews-and-recommendations/mainstem-review]

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)
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
Although no assessments of the current project proposal have been finalized, the FY07-09 Solicitation Review of project #2007-249-00 is relevant to the direction that the Selective Gear Deployment project is now heading. It was made clear in the ISRP response from 2006 that the M&amp;E component of the project was relying heavily upon the CJHP to determine the effects of the selective harvest program on escapement of target and non-target species. <br/> The plan to purchase a boat was questioned in 2006. After investigating the cost of chartering a boat over multiple years, accounting for the variations in run timing of both sockeye and summer/fall Chinook between different years, and planning for known uncertainties in the environmental conditions affecting fish behavior in the Okanogan River confluence (specifically the thermal barrier), CCT F&amp;W decided that the best course of action was purchasing a seine boat for fishing in the confluence area and pursuing a weir in the lower reach of the Okanogan River.

Back To Top

Adaptive Management


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
Yearly fishing objectives are responsive to the five-year rolling average of summer/fall Chinook PNI as identified in the HSRG. The yearly calculation of PNI is the primary focus of the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CJHM&E). The CJHM&E uses an in-season management tool that contains a set of decision rules guiding all phases of summer/fall Chinook population management and hatchery production. Factors included in this analysis include natural-origin escapement, the number and origin of broodstock collected and the number of hatchery-origin fish removed. The management targets for summer/fall Chinook brood collection and HOR harvest are identified each spring by the CJHM&E at the Annual Program Review (APR). At the APR, CCT F&W biologists review results from the previous year and present program targets for the upcoming year. The APR meeting consists of four steps: Step-1: Updating Key Assumptions Step- 2: Reviewing Decision Rules Step- 3: Updating Stock Status Information Step-4: Setting Biological Targets for the Coming Season Decision rules remain constant over time unless the assumptions underlying their implementation are proven to be in error. The biological targets will likely change each year as they are based on a running average of run-size and composition over multiple years, and forecasts of run size in the coming year. The biological targets for broodstock collection, harvest, escapement, etc., are then communicated to managers and eventually field staff.

Back To Top

Project Documents & Reports

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

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
P118643 Evaluation of Selective/Live Capture Gear 2008 Other - 53054 11/5/2010 11:53:28 AM
P118663 Okanogan River Salmon Weir - Feasibility Design Workshop Notes Other - 53054 11/5/2010 4:49:05 PM
P128819 Evaluation of Live Capture Gear; 6/10 - 7/11 Progress (Annual) Report 06/2010 - 07/2011 53054 10/24/2012 3:31:03 PM
P144035 Selective Gear Deployment Project, Annual Report For Performance Period June 2011 - December 2013 Progress (Annual) Report 06/2011 - 12/2013 65295 7/21/2015 10:48:18 AM
P148007 Selective Gear Deployment; 1/14 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 68906 4/6/2016 8:50:33 AM
P156013 Selective Gear Deployment 2015; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 72600 9/8/2017 9:16:09 AM
P163987 Selective Gear Deployment; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 73548 REL 38 2/13/2019 11:10:18 AM
P197033 2019 BPA Report Draft Progress (Annual) Report 06/2019 - 05/2020 73548 REL 145 1/25/2023 4:08:42 PM

Other Project Documents on the Web


Back To Top

Back To Top

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

The Selective Gear Deployment project occurs in the terminal fishing grounds of the upper Columbia region.  The project works closely with the Chief Joseph Hatchery (CJH) project to collect the Okanogan River summer/fall Chinook broodstock needed for integrated and segregated hatchery programs at CJH. The purse seine operation has been responsible for collecting the full quota of Okanogan summer/fall Chinook since 2011 and it is anticipated that the harvest program will provide CJH the necessary adult broodstock for the foreseeable future.  
The Selective Gear Deployment program is also a critical component of the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring & Evaluation (CJHM&E) project. The critical function of the CJHM&E project is to determine broodstock collection quotas and HOR harvest goals in a manner compatible with sustaining natural production (i.e., conservation).
Fishing operations are used to remove surplus hatchery fish, collect broodstock for the hatchery program and control spawner composition (NOR and HOR) in the river. The control of spawning composition is required to achieve program goals associated with the proportion of natural influence (PNI), proportion hatchery-origin spawners in the wild (pHOS), proportion of natural origin spawners used as broodstock (pNOB) and maximize natural-origin escapement.
This information may be used by the WDFW, Colville Tribes and others to set or revise in-season harvest goals, determine harvest rates between Wells Dam and the Okanogan River, and estimate pre-spawn mortality rates for adult fish passing Wells Dam.
The seine is fished in the mainstem Columbia River in the vicinity of the Okanogan River confluence to prevent catching large numbers of Methow River summer/fall Chinook and summer steelhead. Fishing staff examines all fish for PIT Tags (and other marks) and submit this information to PTAGIS. A sampling program for recovering coded wire tag data is also implemented with data submitted to RMIS. Tag information may be used by researchers in the Okanogan River and other basins to track harvest, run-timing, fish behavior and habitat utilization in the upper Columbia. This information is helpful for determining if the goals outlined in the HSRG, the Upper Columbia River Recovery Plan and the Monitoring Strategy for the Upper Columbia Basin are being met.

Additional data to be collected in fisheries include:
Fishing gear effectiveness
Catch sampling
Coded wire-tag and PIT Tag recoveries
Acoustic-tag fish recoveries

Projects that may find the data collected by seine and weir operations have value include:

• Upper Columbia River Implementation and Active Effectiveness Monitoring (RMECAT-2010-075-00)
• Mid-Columbia Reintroduction Feasibility Study (RMECAT-1996-040-00)
• Expanded Multi-Species Acclimation in the Wenatchee/Methow Basins (RMECAT-2009-001-00)
• Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Juvenile and Adult Abundance, Productivity and Spatial Structure Monitoring (RMECAT-2010-034-00)
• Research to Advance Hatchery Reform (RMECAT-1993-056-00)
• Status and Trend Annual Reporting (RMECAT-2009-002-00)
• Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) (RMECAT-2003-017-00)


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU

Secondary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU (Endangered)
Sockeye (O. nerka) - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Upper Columbia River DPS (Threatened)
Sturgeon, White (Acipenser transmontanus) - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Bull (S. confluentus) (Threatened)

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
Harvest of adult fish is dependent upon population fitness and escapement totals.  Escapement is dependent upon: successful juvenile emigration (i.e. hydrosystem water spill, non-native predation); favorable ocean conditions; severity of ocean and lower Columbia exploitation rates; success of hatchery supplementation programs; severity of global warming impacts.

Back To Top

Types of Work

Work Classes

Data Management

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
This project has developed a good system for collecting, recording, analyzing and managing harvest data. A data management SOP has been briefly outlined in each of the published annual reports but the project has not created a management plan specific to the harvest program itself. Currently, harvest data are recorded in a spiral-bound, Rite in the Rain notebook. Noted parameters collected by set include; location; date, time and duration of individual sets; an instantaneous surface water temperature reading; species and numbers of target salmonids caught, harvested and or released; species and numbers of non-target fish caught, harvested and or released; the presence or absence of adipose fins and/or other marks and tags; general conditions or noteworthy observations, and; crew members present. After completion of each individual set, the harvest data are immediately entered into an SQL database loaded on a Toughbook computer. The Toughbook computer is attached to a docking station hard-mounted on the boat. Data are uploaded to an off-site server on a daily basis where they are double checked against the paper data sheets for accuracy. Finally, all data are exported in Excel format for analysis by project biologists. Redundant data security practices are utilized to protect against catastrophic loss: storage on an external server and weekly backup to an external hard drive; copies made of the data sheets. Once analyzed, harvest data are disseminated to a number of organizations and individuals within the watershed and the region by early to mid-November of the same year. The most important recipient is the Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring & Evaluation Program within the CCT F&W. These data are important for the CJHM&E in the setting of the Chief Joseph Hatchery yearly production targets that are publicly presented at the Annual Performance Review in March of each year. Other important recipients of these data include the Okanagan Nation Alliance, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the public utility districts of Chelan and Douglas counties.
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
Harvest data are shared with other CCT programs annually and distributed to basin co-managers after November of the same year. Summary data are available at the Annual Performance Review conducted in March of the following year.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Action Effectiveness Research
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Back To Top

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Okanogan (17020006) HUC 4 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 24

Back To Top

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Hatchery Broodstock Collection (DELV-1)
Collect broodstock for use in current and future hatchery programs using live capture techniques with selective harvest gear. This is currently being executed in the Selective Gear Deployment project with cooperative efforts from Chief Joseph Hatchery and Chief Joseph Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation programs.

Potential factors limiting success are availability of target species; transport capabilities of collected fishes from seine to shore and shore to hatchery; and equipment readiness.
Types of Work:
Reduce pHOS of summer/fall Chinook in spawning areas (DELV-2)
To reduce the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) the Selective Gear Deployment program will harvest only hatchery-origin summer/fall Chinook. This will be accomplished by use of a purse seine fishing vessel by the harvest crew, the use of a semi-permanent weir in the lower Okanogan River by F&W staff, removal of HOR Chinook at the CJH ladder, and the use of tangle nets, hoop nets and dip nets by individual tribal members. The number of fish to be removed each year is publicly identified at the Annual Performance Review.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
Instruct individual tribal fishermen on the techniques of selective fishing (DELV-4)
Hold workshops, meetings, and field trainings to instruct interested tribal members on the benefits and techniques of selective fishing. Produce handouts and other training materials. Build fishing nets, including tangle nets, hoop nets and dip nets.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
99. Outreach and Education
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
Provide adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (DELV-5)
Providing fish for consumption by the tribal membership can be segregated into three distinct activities:
Harvest (fishing) with the purse seine, helping operate the Okanogan weir and supporting hatchery ladder fish removals;
Distribution of harvested fish are delivered to each of the Districts in insulated totes;
Preservation of a portion of each day's harvest or surplus event will be taken to the processing plant for cleaning, vacuum sealing and freezing.

BPA has conveyed that they are unwilling to fund any distribution of processing. Tribal funds have been allocated for these activities.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
66. Trap/Collect/Hold/Transport Fish - Hatchery
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Hatchery Broodstock Collection (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Hatchery Broodstock Collection (DELV-1)
Provide adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (DELV-5)
Objective: Reduce pHOS of summer Chinook and summer steelhead in spawning areas (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Reduce pHOS of summer/fall Chinook in spawning areas (DELV-2)
Provide adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (DELV-5)
Objective: Instruct individual tribal fishermen on the techniques of selective fishing (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Instruct individual tribal fishermen on the techniques of selective fishing (DELV-4)
Objective: Harvest adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (OBJ-5)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Provide adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (DELV-5)
*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Back To Top

RM&E Protocols and Methods


Back To Top

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Hatchery Broodstock Collection (DELV-1) 2020 2023 $950,000
Reduce pHOS of summer/fall Chinook in spawning areas (DELV-2) 2020 2023 $950,000
Instruct individual tribal fishermen on the techniques of selective fishing (DELV-4) 2020 2023 $105,832
Provide adult salmon for subsistence and ceremonial uses (DELV-5) 2020 2023 $200,000
Total $2,205,832
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2019
2020 $366,458 $551,458 CCT staff will be process a BCR to increase the budget limit by $185,000
2021 $366,458 $551,458 CCT staff will be process a BCR to increase the budget limit by $185,000
2022 $366,458 $551,458 CCT staff will be process a BCR to increase the budget limit by $185,000
2023 $366,458 $551,458 CCT staff will be process a BCR to increase the budget limit by $185,000
Total $1,465,832 $2,205,832
There are no Line Item Budget entries for this proposal.
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
Purchased a 29 foot purse seine fishing vessel (FV Dream Catcher) in FY10. Will need to purchase a replacement skiff in the coming years and continue purchasing net-building materials for purse seines, beach seines and tangle nets. Need to have the ability to purchase additional boat motors, if necessary. Three vehicles are currently leased from GSA. Office space is currently adequate though basement was damaged in the 2018 Okanogan River flood. Heated shop space for use in the winter months is very limited. The Dream Catcher is currently parked under cover but there is not additional covered parking for the program's other boats, boom truck or refrigeration truck. Will need replacement desktop computers and smart phones in the next several years.

Back To Top

Cost Share

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
Colville Confederated Tribes 2020 $100,000 In-Kind The Colville Business Council has allocated annual funding to provide for the labor, materials and building O&M needed to distribute, process and store salmon. This amount is estimated

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

Ashbrook, C.E., E.A. Schwartz, C.M. Waldbillig and K.W. Hassel. 2006. Migration and movement patterns of adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) above Wells Dam. Submitted to Colville Confederated Tribes and Bonneville Power Administration. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/RT_FinReport2006.pdf http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00856/wdfw00856.pdf Ashbrook, C.E., K.W. Yi, J.F. Dixon and J. Arterburn. 2005. Tangle nets and gill nets as a live capture selective method to collect fall Chinook salmon broodstock in the Okanogan River: 2004. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Colville Tribes. Omak, WA. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00861/wdfw00861.pdf http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/Ashbrooketal2005.pdf Kutchins, K.A., B.L. Nass and J. Marauskas. 2008. Evaluation of Selective/Live Capture Gear: 2007. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Colville Tribes. Omak, WA. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/Kutchinsetal2008.pdf Mobrand Biometrics. 2004. Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Broodstock Testing Collection Plan. Report prepared for Colville Tribes, Nespelem, WA. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/BroodstockCollection2004.pdf Nass, B.L., E. Zapel and E. Rowland. 2006. A conceptual proposal for a salmon enumeration facility on the Okanogan River. Report prepared by LGL Limited, Ellensburg, WA for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/Nassetal2006.pdf Smith, J. and B. Nass. 2005. Evaluation of Potential Fishwheel Sites for Capturing Chinook Salmon on the Okanogan and Mid-Columbia Rivers, WA. Report prepared by LGL Limited for Colville Confederated Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/SmithandNass2005.pdf Vander Haegen, G.E., K.W. Yi, C.E. Ashbrook, E.W. White, and L.L. LeClair. 2002. Evaluate live capture selective harvest methods: 2001. Annual Report #FPT 02-01. BPA grant #200100700. 35 p. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00859/wdfw00859.pdf http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/VanderHaegenetal2002.pdf Waldbillig, C.M., K.A. Kutchins and C.E. Ashbrook. 2007. Development and testing of selective fishing gear as a broodstock collection method for Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Okanogan Basin. Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Colville Confederated Tribes. Nespelem, WA. http://nrd.colvilletribes.com/obmep/pdfs/Waldbilligetal2007.pdf

Back To Top

Notes

None

Back To Top

2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support Assessments

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:
Proponent Response: