cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal RESCAT-2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment

Proposal RESCAT-2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment

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
	9/15/2011	9:52 AM	Status		Draft	<System>
Download	12/15/2011	9:28 PM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	2/16/2012	3:27 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>
	4/17/2012	2:56 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Final Review	Pending Council Recommendation	<System>
	2/12/2014	10:04 AM	Status	Pending Council Recommendation	Pending BPA Response	<System>
	2/12/2014	12:20 PM	Status	Pending BPA Response	Proposal Vetted	<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.

Basics

Proposal Number:		RESCAT-2008-115-00
Proposal Status:		Proposal Vetted
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 1
Review:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Portfolio:		Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Categorical Review
Type:		Existing Project: 2008-115-00
Primary Contact:		Jason McLellan
Created:		9/15/2011 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Colville Confederated Tribes

Project Title:		Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment

Proposal Short Description:		Our long-term goal is a healthy and harvestable burbot population in Lake Roosevelt. Our project objective is to monitor the status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population to facilitate management to achieve our goal. Standardized stock assessment data is needed to facilitate management of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population.

Proposal Executive Summary:		Our long-term goal is a healthy and harvestable burbot population in Lake Roosevelt. Our project objective is to monitor the status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population to facilitate management to achieve our goal. Standardized stock assessment data is needed to facilitate management of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population. Under this project, we are proposing to implement a burbot stock assessment program in Lake Roosevelt to monitor status and trends in abundance, survival, catch rates, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition. Initially, we will analyze the Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN; see Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Project, BPA Project No. 1994-043-00) burbot data for trends in mean catch rate, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition (relative weight), as well as investigate the power (1-ß) of all statistical tests (inferential). The second component will consist of a comparison of the aforementioned stock status metrics generated from catch in FWIN gill nets, cod traps, and trammel nets. The gear comparisons, along with the results of the initial analysis of the FWIN data, will allow us to evaluate whether or not FWIN alone is adequate for burbot stock assessment, as well as identify the most efficient non-lethal technique if the FWIN data are not adequate and for capture-recapture experiments to estimate abundance and survival. Cod traps were selected because they have equal or greater efficiency (catch-per-unit-effort) than hoop nets, are easier to transport, pull into the boat on retrieval, and remove the catch. Trammel nets were selected due to their high efficiency in previous investigations. Finally, we will implement a burbot stock assessment program based on the results of the first two components.

Purpose:		Hydrosystem
Emphasis:		RM and E
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 0.0% Resident: 100.0% Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		No
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:		Fish Accord - Colville
Biological Opinions:		None

Contacts

Contacts:

Peter Lofy (Supervisor)
Sandra Fife (Inactive)
Jason McLellan (Project Lead)

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program:  The CCT Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment Project is consistent with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2009 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (hereafter referred to as the Program) goal to 
“protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries … affected by the development, operation, and management of [hydroelectric projects] while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.”

The project addresses the following Basin-level Biological Objectives related to Resident Fish Losses:  1) complete the assessments of resident fish losses resulting from the development and operation of the hydrosystem, 2) maintain and restore healthy ecosystems and watersheds that preserve functional links among ecosystem elements to ensure the continued persistence, health, and diversity of all species, 3) protect and expand habitat and ecosystem functions in order to increase the abundance, productivity, and life history diversity of resident fish at least to the extent that resident fish have been affected by the development and operation of the hydrosystem, and 4) achieve within 100 years population characteristics of resident fish species that represent on average full mitigation for losses of resident fish. 

Monitoring burbot population status and trends provides information that will assist with the Primary Hydrosystem Passage and Operations Strategy to:
provide conditions within the hydrosystem for adult and juvenile fish that 1) most closely approximate the natural physical and biological conditions; 2) provide adequate levels of survival to support fish population recovery based in subbasin plans; 3) support expression of life history diversity; and 4) ensure flow and spill operations are optimized to produce the greatest biological benefits for the targeted species with the least-adverse effects on other fish populations and species important to the Program while assuring an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.

Monitoring burbot population status and trends are consistent with the Program Mainstem Objectives and Strategies: 1)  where feasible, manage the hydrosystem to optimize survival, including by re-establishing patterns of flow that more closely approximate natural hydrographic patterns, 2) operations should balance the needs, from a scientific perspective, of resident fish, 3) improve the survival and production of native resident fish in the mainstem by enhancing the inriver migration, habitat, and water-quality conditions consistent with the biological objectives of this Program, ESA requirements and state and federal water-quality standards under the Clean Water Act, 4) provide conditions that support the needs of resident fish species in upstream reservoirs and river reaches, as well as the needs of anadromous and resident species in the lower parts of the mainstem, 5) contribute to providing the conditions necessary to protect spawning and rearing habitat for fish in, and adjacent to, Lake Roosevelt to build fish populations to levels capable of supporting harvest consistent with the goals set forth in the management and mitigation plans and the recommendations of the Spokane and Colville Tribes, 6) protect wild, native salmonids and resident fish, ensuring adequate survival, escapement, and habitat conditions, 7) provide conditions that best fit those natural behavior patterns and river processes that most closely approximate the physical and biological conditions needed by the relevant species, 8) optimize actions to produce the greatest biological benefits for targeted species with the least cost, and the least adverse effects on other species, while ensuring an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply, and 9)  implement actions to stabilize and improve burbot populations in the Upper Columbia region.

Specific subbasin objectives and strategies include the Spokane Subbasin objectives 1A1) complete assessments of resident fish losses throughout the Spokane Subbasin resulting from the FCRPS construction and operation in terms of the various critical population characteristics of key resident fish species, through the evaluation of altered habitat, carrying capacity, and competition, strategy a) using existing databases, identify data gaps and critical information needs for the Spokane Subbasin, and strategy b) continue filling data gaps in the Subbasin through ongoing investigations and new investigations.

Upper Columbia objectives include: 1C6) restore resident fish species (subspecies, stocks and populations) to near historic abundance throughout their historic ranges where suitable habitat conditions exist and/or where habitats can be restored; 2A1) protect the genetic integrity of all focal and native fish species throughout the subbasin, strategy a) determine genetic distribution of native focal species (white sturgeon, rainbow/redband trout, Pacific lamprey, burbot, kokanee), identify limiting factors, and develop strategies for  addressing limiting factors, strategy d) develop technical and policy work groups to identify problems and implement solutions; strategy c) enhance white sturgeon populations through habitat improvements, in concert with the Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan, strategy f) develop technical and policy work groups to identify problems and implement solutions; Objective 2A2) Maintain, restore, and enhance wild populations of native fish, and subsistence species to provide for harvestable surplus .

Columbia River Basin Research Plan: Monitoring burbot population status and trends in Lake Roosevelt  will provide information that could be used to address the following critical uncertainties identified in the Research Plan: 
(2) Hydrosystem - 1. What is the relationship between levels of flow and survival of juvenile and adult fish through the Columbia Basin hydrosystem? 4. What is the effect of hydrosystem flow stabilization, flow characteristics, and channel features on anadromous and resident fish species and stocks? 
Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Reporting Plan (MERR) Plan: The work proposed under this project is consistent with MERR Draft Implementation Strategy developed for burbot in the upper Columbia River http://www.cbfwa.org/RFMS/index.cfm?species=Burbot. The draft strategy was developed in coordination with area resource managers. The project specific activities in this proposal are indicated in the Upper Columbia Burbot Implementation Strategy and are organized under the NPCC Management Questions, High Level Indicators (HLI), and Primary Indicators (PI) they address. 

Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document: The activities proposed under this project are consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies in the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document.

Problem Statement:

Background

Despite their wide distribution, burbot Lota lota have often been neglected by anglers and fish management agencies in North America (Quinn 2000). Only four of 20 states with burbot regulated their harvest as of 2000, yet growing angler interest in burbot in some regions, ecosystem-based management, and declines in some populations emphasize the need for greater focus on burbot by management entities.

Several North American burbot populations have declined and the declines were attributed to over harvest (Bonar et al. 2000a; Paragamian et al. 2000; Quinn 2000; Ward et al. 2000), negative species interactions (Carl 1992; Bonar et al. 2000a), and impacts from hydropower development (Paragamian et al. 2000), decreased productivity (Paragamian et al. 2000), and reservoir fluctuations (Krueger and Hubert 1997).

In Washington State, populations of burbot are known to occur in 11 lakes and reservoirs in the upper Columbia River drainage (Bonar et al. 1997; Bonar et al. 2000a; Wydoski and Whitney 2003). A review of burbot stock status in Washington categorized the status of each population as healthy, depressed, critical, or unknown based on existing abundance, size structure, growth, and condition data (Bonar et al. 1997; Bonar et al. 2000a). The Lake Roosevelt population was considered healthy due to its stable abundance based on electrofishing and gill net catch-per-unit-effort (C/f) data, although nothing was known about size structure, growth, or condition.

Subsequent to the status review, Polacek et al. (2006) analyzed data from burbot captured during electrofishing and gill net sampling conducted on Lake Roosevelt between 1988 and 2001. They indicated that abundance, based on C/f, had increased after 1994; though, all of the C/f values were relatively low and the trend analysis was qualitative. Growth and condition of Lake Roosevelt burbot were found to be low, which were attributed to poor rearing conditions in the reservoir (Polacek et al. 2006). They suggested that reservoir operations were unlikely to change, so if the Lake Roosevelt burbot population is a priority then it will likely have to be actively managed to achieve increases in abundance, survival, growth, and condition.

Standardized stock assessment data is needed to facilitate management of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population. Bonar et al. (1997; 2000a) pointed out the need for a standardized stock assessment program that monitors trends in abundance, growth, and condition of burbot in Washington State. Standardized fish sampling programs have been used to determine and monitor stock status of multiple fish populations (Ney 1993; Willis and Murphy 1996; Bonar et al. 2000b), including burbot (Bernard et al. 1993). Without a standardized stock assessment protocol, management biologists have no way of monitoring changes in burbot populations as a result of changes in management, exploitation, biological factors, or environmental factors.

The Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) program implemented annually in Lake Roosevelt may provide the standardized stock assessment program needed for monitoring burbot population status and trends (see the proposal for the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Project, BPA Project No. 1994-043-00) for a complete description of FWIN). The FWIN program, established in 2002, is used to monitor Lake Roosevelt walleye population trends, but burbot are regularly captured as bycatch in FWIN gill nets. Managers recognized the potential of FWIN for monitoring burbot stock status, so catch and biological data were also collected on burbot. However, the FWIN data for burbot has never been analyzed. It is unknown if FWIN is adequate (α=0.05, β=0.20, effect=25%) for monitoring status and trends in stock assessment metrics (C/f, growth, condition). We are proposing to analyze the existing FWIN data to determine if it is adequate for monitoring burbot stock status.

Gill nets may not be the best gear for monitoring burbot stock status in Lake Roosevelt. Numerous studies have used gill nets to capture burbot (e.g. Dryer 1966; Stapanian et al 2006); however, the use of gill nets often result in high mortality, substantial bycatch, and size biased data (Hamley 1975). For these reasons, researchers have evaluated the use of other gears, such as hoop nets, trammel nets, modified cod traps, and slat traps. Hoop nets were used for burbot stock assessment in Alaska (Bernard et al. 1991; Bernard et al. 1993) and modified cod traps were used in British Columbia lakes after a comparison with hoop nets indicated higher catch rates in the cod traps (Spence 2000; Prince 2007). Cod traps were used to monitor burbot stock status in two eastern Washington lakes and they found that they had a negative behavioral response to capture in cod traps (McLellan and Hayes 2007, 2008; McLellan et al. 2009; McLellan and Hayes 2010, 2011). Horton and Strainer (2008) compared burbot catch statistics using hoop nets, cod traps, and slat traps and found no differences in catch rates, although the slat traps captured smaller burbot. Catch rates of burbot were >6 times higher in trammel nets than in hoop nets or cod traps (see Gardunio et al. 2011) and mortality of burbot captured in trammel nets was low (Abrahamse 2009), thus trammel nets have become the burbot stock assessment gear of choice in Wyoming. A pilot study comparing burbot catch rates using trammel nets, cod traps, and setlines was conducted in Palmer Lake, Washington in 2009 (WDFW, unpublished data). While the total catch of burbot was substantially higher in trammel nets, a high amount of bycatch resulted in reduced efficiency. There has been little comparison of size selectivity between the various gear types.

Under this project, we are proposing to implement a burbot stock assessment program in Lake Roosevelt to monitor status and trends in abundance, survival, catch rates, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition. Initially, we will analyze the FWIN burbot data for trends in mean C/f, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition (relative weight), as well as investigate the power (1-β) of all statistical tests (inferential). The second component will consist of a comparison of the aforementioned stock status metrics generated from catch in FWIN gill nets, cod traps, and trammel nets. The gear comparisons, along with the results of the initial analysis of the FWIN data, will allow us to evaluate whether or not FWIN alone is adequate for burbot stock assessment, as well as identify the most efficient non-lethal technique if the FWIN data are not adequate and for capture-recapture experiments to estimate abundance and survival. Cod traps were selected because they have equal or greater efficiency (C/f) than hoop nets, are easier to transport, pull into the boat on retrieval, and remove the catch (Spence 2000). Trammel nets were selected due to their high efficiency in previous investigations (see Gardunio et al. 2011). Finally, we will implement a burbot stock assessment program based on the results of the first two components.

The Lake Roosevelt Co-Managers have particular concern for the Lake Roosevelt burbot population because it is a native species, provides harvest opportunity, and reservoir operations likely limit population productivity.

Management Questions

Are the data from burbot captured as bycatch during the Fall Walleye Indexing Netting adequate for population status and trend monitoring at the preferred levels of confidence (95%) and power (80%)?
Are there differences in burbot catch and population statistics between different gear types?
What is the most efficient gear for non-lethal capture of burbot in Lake Roosevelt?
What is the relationship between abundance and catch rate of burbot?
What is the status of the burbot population in Lake Roosevelt?
1. What is the trend in abundance?
2. What is the trend in survival?
3. What is the trend in size structure?
4. What is the trend in growth?
5. What is the trend in condition?

Goal and Objective

Our long-term goal is a healthy and harvestable burbot population in Lake Roosevelt. Our project objective is to monitor the status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population to facilitate management to achieve our goal.

Key Project Personnel

The project manager/principal investigator, Jason McLellan, has more than 13 years in the Inland Northwest, with more than 12 of those years as the project manager/principal investigator on one or more fish research or monitoring projects. He recently accepted a Resident Fish Biologist position with the CCT, where he is responsible for managing Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) resident fish research, monitoring, and evaluation projects related to redband trout, white sturgeon, and burbot. Mr. McLellan is the CCT’s technical lead for white sturgeon projects, such as the Mid-Columbia River Sturgeon Technical Group, and is the Tribes representative on the UCWSRI Technical Working Group. Prior to his employment with the CCT, Mr. McLellan was employed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). He was the WDFW representative on the UCWSRI TWG from 2003 until his move to the CCT in June 2011. While at WDFW, Mr. McLellan was responsible for managing and conducting research and monitoring projects focused on resident fish conservation and management in the upper Columbia River basin. Projects included the Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (BPA Project No. 1997-004-00), Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Recovery (BPA Project No. 1995-027-00), Redband Trout Spawning and Fry Emergence Study: Abundance and Year-Class Strength (Avista Corp.), Middle Spokane River Baseline Fish Population Assessment (Avista Corp.), and the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Fine-Scale Movement and Habitat Study (Washington Department of Ecology).

As project manager/principal investigator for the WDFW portion of the Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (BPA Project No. 1997-004-00), Mr. McLellan had a primary role in the development, design, and implementation of all aspects of the project between 1999 and 2011, including burbot stock assessment studies on Bead and Sullivan lake in northeast Washington from 2006 through 2011 (McLellan and Hayes 2007, 2008; McLellan et al. 2009; McLellan and Hayes 2010, 2011). Mr. McLellan is also very familiar with the Lake Roosevelt Fall Walleye Index Netting program and has extensive experience analyzing capture-recapture data (Howell and McLellan 2007b; Baldwin et al. 2003; McLellan and King 2011). Mr. McLellan has successfully collaborated with a diverse range of professionals with expertise in limnology, toxicology, hydrogeology, hydrography, genetics, biostatistics, hydropower, contracting, and administration to meet the requirements of each of the projects he has managed.

The Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment is a new project, thus there are no other staff associated with this project. Our intent is to hire staff with training and experience necessary to complete the tasks identified in this proposal. In addition we will consult with an appropriately credentialed statistician for assistance with study design and data analysis.

Objectives

Objectives:

Monitor status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population (OBJ-1)

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

Expense	SOY Budget	Working Budget	Expenditures *
FY2019		$306,129	$376,801

Fish Accord - Colville		$306,129	$376,801

FY2020	$411,520	$255,281	$347,886

Fish Accord - Colville		$255,281	$347,886

FY2021	$427,034	$357,904	$265,366

Fish Accord - Colville		$357,904	$265,366

FY2022	$424,287	$398,273	$319,775

Fish Accord - Colville		$398,273	$319,775

FY2023	$400,577	$460,146	$443,917

Fish Accord - Colville		$460,146	$443,917

FY2024	$512,209	$649,280	$592,753

Fish Accord - Colville		$649,280	$592,753

FY2025	$420,856	$569,586	$209,595

Fish Accord - Colville		$569,586	$209,595

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

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 DRAFT

Cost Share Partner	Total Proposed Contribution	Total Confirmed Contribution
Spokane Tribe		$15,000
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)		$15,000
Colville Confederated Tribes		$2,230
Colville Confederated Tribes		$100,415
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)		$75,000
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)		$200,000
Total	$0	$407,645

Previous Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year	Total Contributions	% of Budget
2024	$307,645	32%
2023	$232,645	34%
2022	$132,645	25%
2021	$30,000	8%
2020	$57,325	18%
2019	$174,000	36%
2018	$65,000	15%
2017	$25,000	8%
2016	$20,000	9%
2015	$27,500	11%
2014	$10,000	6%
2013

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance:

None

Explanation of Financial History:

The Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment Project is a new project within the CCT MOA and has no financial history.

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	24
Completed:	14
On time:	12

Status Reports
Completed:	48
On time:	33
Avg Days Early:	3

								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
60316	64303, 67819, 71605, 73548 REL 3, 73548 REL 22, 73548 REL 52, 73548 REL 80, 73548 REL 106, 73548 REL 137, 91887, 84051 REL 11, 84051 REL 32	2008-115-00 EXP LAKE ROOSEVELT BURBOT POPULATION ASSESSMENT	Colville Confederated Tribes	03/01/2013	02/28/2026	Issued	48	108	0	0	12	120	90.00%	0
Project Totals							48	108	0	0	12	120	90.00%	0

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.

None

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

Explanation of Performance:

None

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:

Umbrella Proposals:

None

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: 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2008-115-00-NPCC-20210317
Project:	2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment
Review:	2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review
Approved Date:	10/27/2020
Recommendation:	Implement
Comments:	Supported as reviewed. Bonneville and Manager review ISRP comments and implement to the extent possible. [Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fw/reviews/2019RFS]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number:	2008-115-00-ISRP-20210319
Project:	2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment
Review:	2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review
Completed Date:	None
Documentation Links:	Proponent Presentation (3/3/2020)

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	2008-115-00-NPCC-20120313
Project:	2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal:	RESCAT-2008-115-00
Proposal State:	Proposal Vetted
Approved Date:	12/31/2011
Recommendation:	Under Review
Comments:	Implement Objective 1, deliverable 1 only through completion and not beyond FY2017 (Analysis of Fall Walleye Index Netting Bycatch Data). Sponsor to submit revised proposal based on this analysis for ISRP/Council for review and recommendation prior to additional assessment efforts in Lake Roosevelt.
	Publish Date: 02/12/2014 BPA Response: Agree Project should be contracted to implement Objective 1, Deliverable 1, and then submit a new/revised proposal for the additional Deliverables. This will give ISRP, Council, and BPA a chance to review the additional proposed work before commencing it."

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2008-115-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2008-115-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part

	Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 In Part - The full proposal is not yet justified. Deliverable 1 should proceed. Previous and ongoing burbot data collection in Lake Roosevelt from WDFW Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) should be fully examined and analyzed to determine if it is adequate for evaluating the status of burbot before exerting significant additional sampling effort in the lake. Evaluation based on Deliverable 1 should be used to design field sampling efforts, if needed, beyond existing efforts as a means to meet project goals. The ISRP should review a subsequent revised proposal that builds on results from Deliverable 1. The design should consider other ISRP comments noted below.
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
First Round ISRP Comment:
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Significance to Regional Programs: The sponsor refers to several regional programs, including the Spokane Subbasin plan, the Columbia River Basin Research Plan, the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document, MERR, and the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program 2009. The declining status of burbot in many southerly portions of their range is a valid concern to resident fish managers. Technical Background: The proposal provides decent technical background information on sampling and status of burbot, although additional gray literature might be available on burbot sampling. Key information involving the ultimate goal of the proposal was missing until the presentation by the sponsor. During the presentation, the sponsor noted that current harvest levels of burbot are low because fishing gear is now limited to hook and line since set lines were banned in 2006. No sport or subsistence catch data was provided. According to WDFW regulations, the daily bag limit for burbot is currently five fish, but the state also recommends that women of child bearing years and children not consume more than one meal of burbot per week because the fish are contaminated. The sponsor cited a 10-year old WDFW report suggesting the Lake Roosevelt burbot population was “healthy” based on stable electrofishing and catch per effort sampling. Given the reportedly low catch rates of burbot by fishermen and the apparent healthy status of the population, the ultimate goal of this project seems to be whether the population of burbot could withstand a higher harvest rate, possibly through changes in gear regulation. If so, this would be a potential benefit to subsistence and recreational anglers. If changing harvest and gear regulations is an ultimate goal of this effort, then metrics and benchmarks for making this decision should be developed. Objectives: The goal is reasonable: a healthy and harvestable burbot population. The objective is reasonable: to monitor and facilitate management to achieve the goal. Specific target levels to define “healthy population” and harvest levels are needed. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) This is a new project so no accomplishments, adaptive management, or results. However, the ISRP thought the sponsor should have analyzed the existing Fall Walleye Index Netting data (FWIN) prior to developing this proposal to conduct extensive field effort. Analysis of the existing FWIN data may be sufficient to evaluate status of burbot relative to previous sampling efforts (e.g., Bonar study), and this analysis could be used to inform the sampling design if it was determined that an extensive field effort was needed in addition to ongoing FWIN sampling and creel survey efforts. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) Project Relationships: The proposal described how this project was related to four other projects: Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Project, Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation, CCT Chief Joseph Kokanee, and CCT White Sturgeon Enhancement Project. Four BPA projects are listed that this project will coordinate with and share data. Emerging limiting factors: Climate change, chemical contamination, and potential impacts by non-native predators are discussed. Tailored questions: The sponsor addressed the PIT tag study to develop population estimates. They plan to tag and release all viable burbot, approximately 2200 fish per year based on assumptions. The sponsor notes that they do not know if the proposed sample size is adequate for estimating burbot population size, but they suggest this is not needed since the project is a pilot study. The ISRP notes that prior to the proposed field effort, the sponsor should examine “what if” scenarios to determine whether tagging of 1100 fish twice per year might be sufficient to detect population trends over time in this very large reservoir. Also, the sponsor should develop criteria for determining whether captured burbot are suitable for tag and release even though previous studies suggested mortality in trammel nets was low. Tagging of burbot that die from capture and tagging operations would significantly bias population estimates if not properly accounted for. The sponsor did describe how they would classify the health of burbot captured in traps. The sponsor notes that a biometrician would be consulted. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables are adequate. The sponsor did a good job describing methods in MonitoringMethods.org. However, presenting methods on separate web pages makes it difficult to evaluate how the overall sampling program fits together. Additional information on metrics should have been provided. Age and year class strength are key metrics when assessing population status of fishes, yet it was not clear how age of burbot captured in traps, trammel nets, or gillnets (FWIN) will be assessed and incorporated into the analysis. Burbot are relatively long-lived (up to ~15 years) and could be susceptible to high harvest rates. Each gear type will have its own selectivity for size and age of burbot; how will selectivity be evaluated? 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The sponsor did a good job describing methods in MonitoringMethods.org. Estimates of growth will be based on recaptured burbot, but growth estimates may be few. Were other approaches considered and excluded for estimating growth? Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:56:41 PM.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

None

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

This is a new project and no management decisions have been made as a result.

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
P136365	An Assessment of the Utility of FWIN Sampling for Burbot in Lake Roosevelt, Washington; 1/13 - 2/14	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2013 - 02/2014	64303	4/21/2014 10:46:59 AM
P142838	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/14 - 12/14	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2014 - 12/2014	67819	4/17/2015 9:35:38 AM
P151487	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/15 - 12/15	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2015 - 12/2015	71605	12/14/2016 11:10:21 AM
P158555	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/16 - 12/16	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2016 - 12/2016	73548 REL 3	1/2/2018 10:31:41 AM
P161526	2014 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Results (Golder 2015)	Other	-		8/3/2018 11:08:27 AM
P161527	2015 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Results (Golder 2016)	Other	-		8/3/2018 11:18:36 AM
P161528	2016 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Results (Golder 2017)	Other	-		8/3/2018 11:24:11 AM
P161529	2016 Annual Report Appendix B - Maturity Pilot Study (PNNL 2016a)	Other	-		8/3/2018 11:59:36 AM
P161530	2016 Annual Report Appendix C - Maturity Pilot Study Supplement (PNNL 2016b)	Other	-		8/3/2018 12:01:01 PM
P161531	2017 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Results (Golder 2018)	Other	-		8/3/2018 12:07:17 PM
P162639	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/17 - 12/17	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2017 - 12/2017	73548 REL 22	11/8/2018 10:15:59 AM
P166160	2018 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Report (Golder 2019)	Other	-		7/15/2019 3:31:34 PM
P166161	2018 Annual Report Appendix B. Ageing Comparison (McLellan et al. 2019)	Other	-		7/15/2019 3:33:16 PM
P166162	2018 Annual Report Appendix C. Burbot Maturity (McGarvey 2019)	Other	-		7/15/2019 3:35:10 PM
P166163	2018 Annual Report Appendix D. Burbot eDNA (Carim and Dysthe 2019)	Other	-		7/15/2019 3:37:19 PM
P166164	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	73548 REL 52	7/15/2019 3:40:18 PM
P170539	Lake Roosevelt Burbot FWIN Analysis Report (Golder 2020)	Other	-	73548 REL 52	1/30/2020 12:00:38 PM
P170540	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Modeling Guidance DRAFT (McLellan and Capaul 2019)	Other	-	73548 REL 52	1/30/2020 12:03:30 PM
P172133	Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment; 1/19 - 12/19	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2019 - 12/2019	73548 REL 80	4/8/2020 12:12:27 PM
P181564	2019 Annual Report Appendix A - FWIN Analysis Results (Golder 2020)	Other	-		1/21/2021 9:33:09 AM

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 Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Project (BPA Project No. 1994-043-00) monitors fish populations, productivity, and water quality in Lake Roosevelt. As part of the fish population monitoring, the project leads the Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN). Data from burbot captured as bycatch during FWIN will be provided to the CCT Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment Project personnel for analysis. Increased understanding of the burbot population will help the Lake Rrosevelt Data Collection Project with its assessment of overall reservoir health.

The Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation (BPA Project No. 1988-065-00) has the objective of restoring recruitment of burbot in the Kootenai River. The project includes adult and juvenile stock assessment for status and trend monitoring. Information from the Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation Project will inform efforts to monitor the Lake Roosevelt population. Likewise, the effort of the Lake Roosevelt population assessments may provide the Kootenai project with valuable comparitative information.

The CCT burbot project will coordinate with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or Superfund, remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) activities conducted on the upper Columbia River in Washington in relation to industrial contaminants from the smelter in Trail, BC. As part of the RI/FS, researchers are examining contaminant bioaccumulation in upper Columbia River burbot.

The CCT Chief Joseph Kokanee Project (BPA Project No. 1995-011-00) is leading the development of the CCT Resident Fish and Wildlife database. Data collected by the Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment will be included in the CCT Resident Fish and Wildlife database.

The CCT White Sturgeon Enhancement Project (BPA Project No. 2008-116-00) will share staff and equipment with the WSEP when feasible to ensure the projects are cost-effective and efficient.

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Burbot (Lota lota)

Secondary Focal Species

None

Threats to program investments and project success:

The impacts of climate change have been modeled for the upper Columbia River in BC (Zwiers et al. 2011). Model results were considered "robust" when compared to those in other areas. The models predicted high annual streamflow and precipitation; however, seasonally the increases were predicted for the spring, fall, and winter. Summer streamflow and precipitation are predicted to decline. Lower discharge in the summer may limit burbot production. Long-term monitoring of stock status should allow for empirical evaluation of impacts due to climate change.

The CERCLA process is addressing contaminant impacts to fish, including burbot, in the upper Columbia River.

Non-native predator densities, population trends, and impacts to native species, including burbot, will be addressed through Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Recovery (1995-027-00) and Lake Roosevelt Data Collection (1994-043-00) projects.

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

RM & E and Data Management:

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Planning and Coordination:

191. Watershed Coordination

Tagging

Populations	Origin	# of PIT Tags per year	Type of PIT Tag	Years to be tagged	Comments
Burbot (Lota lota)	Wild	4000	FDX - Full Duplex	2013 - 2017	No other marks or tags.

Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

PIT tags will be utilized for assessing population abundance and survival based on capture-recapture methodologies. PIT tags are well suited to mark-recapture studies as they provide a unique identifier for individual fish and have, essentially, an unlimited functional life that facilitates the development of long term capture history data sets that are essential for monitoring long lived species such as sturgeons. Ease of application, low cost, high retention rates, and negligible impacts on fish behavior are also factors that lend themselves well to burbot population assessment work. Additionally, coordination with the PTAGIS system may allow for identification of emigration to areas downstream from Grand Coulee Dam.

All burbot >200 mm total length captured alive will be tagged with a 12 mm FDX-B (full duplex) 134.2 kHz PIT tag (Digital Angel Corp.).

Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

NA

For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The data will be provided to PTAGIS for Columbia basinwide data sharing.

If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).

NA

Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

Two components of the proposed stock assessment monitoring are estimation of abundance and survival of burbot in Lake Roosevelt. Currently we anticipate using the (closed) robust capture-recapture design to estimate abundance and survival (Kendall et al. 1997, 1995; Kendall and Nichols 1995; Kendall and Bjorkland 2001; Pollock 1982; Pollock et al. 1990). Generally, the robust design incorporates two methods of parameter estimation: an open method (Jolly-Seber models) that estimates survival between primary sample periods; and a closed method (Lincoln-Petersen, Schnabel) that estimates abundance from secondary sample periods that occur within each primary period. The strength of the Robust Design is that open model survival rate estimation is insensitive to variability in catchability and closed models can take unequal catchability into account.

The degree of sampling intensity during a mark-recapture effort is dictated by the desired level of accuracy and precision in the estimates balanced against logistical constraints. The burbot population assessment project has two boats available for stock assessment work. Each research boat can deploy approximately 10 trammel net sets per day (1 night soaks; 40 sets per week) or 30 cod traps per day (2 night soaks; 60 sets per week).

In the 2005, WDFW conducted a pilot cod trapping survey in Lake Roosevelt and catch averaged 0.7 fish per overnight set. Since cod traps have significantly higher catch rates in sets 2 nights or longer, we could reasonably expect catch rates to be greater. We will assume 0.85. Trammel nets are reported to have catch rates >6 times those of cod traps, so let's assume 5.0 per overnight set. Assuming then an average catch rate of 0.85 for cod traps and 5.00 for trammel nets, we could expect to capture about 1,100 burbot in four weeks of sampling. We would complete this sampling effort twice, once in the late fall and once in the early spring.

A general estimate of abundance and survival are required to calculate sample sizes for capture-recapture studies (Robson and Reiger 1964; Pollock et al. 1990). However, we have no idea about what the abundance and survival rates rate of burbot are in Lake Roosevelt. Thus, we consider the initial two years of the study a pilot, after which sample sizes can be adjusted.

Study plans will require further development in consultation with appropriately credentialed professional biometrician.

Resident Fish

Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?

NA

Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?

Describe how the project addresses the loss assessment. If a loss assessment is in progress or being proposed, describe the status and scope of that work.

CCT staff are currently developing a loss assessment project proposal for this review. The proposed
approach is to first develop the methods for conducting a loss assessment, followed by project
implementation.

If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?

Please describe: for the production of non-native fish, what are the potential impacts on native fish populations, including predation, competition, genetic impacts, and food web implications?

NA. We are not planting any fish.

Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?

Colville Tribes is currently developing a data management system for resident fish data. This data initially will be made available to all lead Biologists of the Colville Tribe, but is the base for future reporting and web based sharing. We will have exports that allow for data integration with PTAGIS.

Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.

The CCT Resident Fish and Wildlife Database will have a web-based interface for data upload, query, and download, QA/QC features, customized reporting tools, and tiered levels of access. We will institute electronic data collection for this project to insure standardized data collection and entry.

Data exchange templates will be created to allow for simple receiving/sharing of data to and from the system.  In addition, a custom web reporting solution will also be created, to allow user friendly and customizable access to all data for outside users. Beyond basic usability, the database was built with a flexible structure, to ensure any custom templates for both receiving and sharing data could be built efficiently and easily.

Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?

The majority of the data collected will be primary data collected by project staff. The exception will be secondary environmental data (temperature, discharge) from USGS and Columbia River Data Access in Real Time (DART). The data will include capture data from stock assessment surveys and environmental conditions from monitoring (temperature, turbidity, discharge,etc...).

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.

This is a new project so no data has been collected. Our data and associated metadata will be stiored in the CCT Resident Fish and Wildlife Database. Our electronic metadata (collected and stored with the data system), includes documentation of the database structure and version, database and interface platform/version decisions, plus detailed information about each data collection point which includes: 1) Collected data  - we track who collected it, what time, detailed location, methodology, species; 2) Entered data - we also track who entered and (if applicable) who modified it; and 3) Associations by - Project, Project manager, Methodology, and Species. We will request that the datbase subcontractor consider the PNAMP guidelines for handling metadata.

Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.

This is a new project with no data currently available to share, although the only access to CCT resident fish data at this time is via BPA annual progress reports. Development of the Resident Fish and Wildlife Database will work to further align data sharing requirements with the 2009 Program guidance.

The BioOp does not apply to the blocked area; however, the CCT is committed to coordination with regional managers to ensure proper data standardization and coordination for all its Resident Fish Programs. 

Access to the Resident Fish Database will be granted on a variety of levels. Initially, all data will only be accessible by the lead Biologist, and a small subset of the data available to outside sources. As the database evolves and user needs change, additional access will be developed. For this project, we we will work with the database subcontractor to develop custom reporting tools that will be
available to managers and the public and will provide metadata and data from BPA funded activities as soon as it has undergone appropriate QA/QC. In addition, we will meet all reporting requirements as described under the NPCC Program and by BPA.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?

Status and Trend Monitoring

Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

BPA Pisces

Colville Tribes Resident Fish Database

PTAGIS Website

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Grand Coulee Dam to Keenleyside Dam	Mainstem		None

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

Analysis of Fall Walleye Index Netting burbot bycatch data (DELV-1)

We will analyze the FWIN burbot data for trends in mean C/f, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition (relative weight), as well as investigate the power (1-ß) of all statistical tests (inferential).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Planning and Coordination

191. Watershed Coordination

Comparison of gears for burbot stock assessment (DELV-2)

We will complete a comparison of stock status metrics (catch rates, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition) generated from catch in FWIN gill nets, cod traps, and trammel nets. The gear comparisons, along with the results of the initial analysis of the FWIN data, will allow us to evaluate whether or not FWIN alone is adequate for burbot stock assessment, as well as identify the most efficient non-lethal technique if the FWIN data are not adequate and for capture-recapture experiments to estimate abundance and survival. Cod traps were selected because they have equal or greater efficiency (C/f) than hoop nets, are easier to transport, pull into the boat on retrieval, and remove the catch (Spence 2000). Trammel nets were selected due to their high efficiency in previous investigations (see Gardunio et al. 2011).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Planning and Coordination

191. Watershed Coordination

Implement burbot stock assessment program (DELV-3)

We will implement a burbot stock assessment program in Lake Roosevelt to monitor status and trends in abundance, survival, catch rates, proportion positive catch, size structure, growth, and condition. Initially, we will use a variety of gears, as we will concurrently complete the FWIN analysis and gear comparison study. After the first two deliverables have been completed we will refine the stock assessment methods. The robust capture-recapture design will be used to estimate abundance and survival (Kendall et al. 1997, 1995; Kendall and Nichols 1995; Kendall and Bjorkland 2001; Pollock 1982; Pollock et al. 1990). We will use the general random tessellation stratified design for sample site selection.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
183. Produce Journal Article

Planning and Coordination

191. Watershed Coordination

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Monitor status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Analysis of Fall Walleye Index Netting burbot bycatch data (DELV-1)	We will analyze existing Fall Walleye Index Netting burbot bycatch data to determine if it is adequate for monitoring status and trends of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population.

Comparison of gears for burbot stock assessment (DELV-2)	Gear comparison is needed to insure the most efficient implementation of burbot stock assessment. Gill nets, as used in FWIN, may not be the best gear for monitoring burbot stock status in Lake Roosevelt. Numerous studies have used gill nets to capture burbot (e.g. Dryer 1966; Stapanian et al 2006); however, the use of gill nets often result in high mortality, substantial bycatch, and size biased data (Hamley 1975). For these reasons, researchers have evaluated the use of other gears, such as hoop nets, trammel nets, modified cod traps, and slat traps. Hoop nets were used for burbot stock assessment in Alaska (Bernard et al. 1991; Bernard et al. 1993) and modified cod traps were used in British Columbia lakes after a comparison with hoop nets indicated higher catch rates in the cod traps (Spence 2000; Prince 2007). Cod traps were used to monitor burbot stock status in two eastern Washington lakes and they found that there were negative behavioral responces to capture in cod traps (McLellan and Hayes 2007, 2008; McLellan et al. 2009; McLellan and Hayes 2010, 2011). Horton and Strainer (2008) compared burbot catch statistics using hoop nets, cod traps, and slat traps and found no differences in catch rates, although the slat traps captured smaller burbot. Catch rates of burbot were >6 times higher in trammel nets than in hoop nets or cod traps (see Gardunio et al. 2011) and mortality of burbot captured in trammel nets was low (Abrahamse 2009), thus trammel nets have become the burbot stock assessment gear of choice in Wyoming. A pilot study comparing burbot catch rates using trammel nets, cod traps, and setlines was conducted in Palmer Lake, Washington in 2009 (WDFW, unpublished data). While the total catch of burbot was substantially higher in trammel nets, a high amount of bycatch resulted in reduced efficiency. There has been little comparison of size selectivity between the various gear types.

Implement burbot stock assessment program (DELV-3)	We will implement the burbot stock assessment program to monitor status and trend of the Lake Roosevelt burbot population.

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol	Deliverable	Method Name and Citation
Supplemental Burbot Sampling to Evaluate Lake Roosevelt FWIN Gill Net Length/Age Bias v1.0		Gill Netting v1.0 (Crawford, B.A. 2007) Collecting Sagittal Otoliths for Ageing v1.0 (Secor, D. H., J. M. Dean, and E. H. Laban 1992) Cod Trapping v1.0 (McLellan, J.G. and S.G. Hayes 2011) Trammel Netting - Burbot v1.0 (Jason McLellan and Matthew Howell 2014) Measuring Fish Length: Total length v1.0 (Anderson, R.O. & Neumann, R.M. 1996) Indirect estimation of setline and gillnet size selectivity v1.0 (Millar, R.B., and R. Holst 1997) Age-length key v1.0 (Isely, J.J. and T.B. Grabowski 2007)

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
Analysis of Fall Walleye Index Netting burbot bycatch data (DELV-1)	2013	2017	$216,216
Comparison of gears for burbot stock assessment (DELV-2)	2013	2015	$635,767
Implement burbot stock assessment program (DELV-3)	2013	2017	$1,310,174
		Total	$2,162,157

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request
2013		$435,140
2014		$407,307
2015		$429,087
2016		$439,814
2017		$450,809
Total	$0	$2,162,157

Item	Notes	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017
Personnel		$205,757	$210,655	$215,554	$225,352	$226,198
Travel		$5,819	$5,964	$6,110	$6,255	$6,401
Prof. Meetings & Training		$4,600	$4,715	$4,830	$4,945	$5,060
Vehicles		$17,044	$17,470	$17,896	$18,322	$18,748
Facilities/Equipment	(See explanation below)	$72,001	$40,882	$41,879	$42,876	$43,873
Rent/Utilities		$12,680	$14,104	$14,448	$14,792	$15,136
Capital Equipment		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Overhead/Indirect		$43,896	$44,942	$45,987	$48,077	$50,167
Other	statistician subcontract and admin (13% of total)	$65,223	$60,455	$74,263	$71,075	$77,106
PIT Tags		$8,120	$8,120	$8,120	$8,120	$8,120
Total		$435,140	$407,307	$429,087	$439,814	$450,809

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
The CCT has offices and equipment storage in Nespelem, Omak, Inchileum, Wenatchee, and Spokane, WA. The Inchileum site is currently undergoing a re-model that includes the development of a wet lab for sample processing. The CCT will have 26’x8’6” and 27’x10’ Almar landing craft boats that are ideal for burbot stock assessment research. They are equipped with specialized equipment for the rapid and safe deployment of sampling equipment and handling of fish. The specialized equipment consists of hydraulics for powering a gill net drum and pot hauler, davit arm, in-floor livewell for holding fish, dive door, bow door, washdown pump, VHF marine radio, GPS, radar, and sonar. Additional project start-up sampling equipment is needed in 2013, such as cod traps, trammel nets, buoys, line, etc...

Cost Share

None

Project References or Citations

Abrahamse, M.S. 2009. Abundance and structure of burbot Lota lota populations in lakes and reservoirs of the Wind River Drainage, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Bernard, D.R., G.A. Pearse, and R.H. Conrad. 1991. Hoop traps as a means to capture burbot. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:91-104.

Bernard, D.R., J.F. Parker, and R. Lafferty. 1993. Stock assessment of burbot populations in small and moderate-size lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:657-675. 

Bonar, S.A., L.G. Brown, P.E. Mongillo, and K. Williams. 2000a. Biology, distribution and management of burbot (Lota lota) in Washington State. Northwest Science 74:87-96. 

Bonar, S.A., B.D. Bolding, M. Divens. 2000b. Standard fish sampling guidelines for Washington state ponds and lakes. Report # FPT 00-28. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Bonar, S.A., L.G. Brown, P.E. Mongillo, and K. Williams. 1997. Status of burbot in Washington State. Research Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Carl, L.M. 1992. The response of burbot (Lota lota) to change in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) abundance in Lake Opeongo, Ontario. Hydrobiologica 243/244:229-235.

Dryer, W.R. 1966. Bathymetric distribution of fish in the Apostle Islands Region, Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1033-1043

Gardunio, E.I., C.A. Myrick, R.A. Ridenour, R.M. Keith, and C.J. Amadio. 2011. Invasion of illegally introduced burbot in the upper Colorado River Basin, USA. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27:36-42.

Hamley, J.M. 1975. Review of gill net selectivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:1943-1969.

Horton, T.B., and A.C. Strainer. 2008. Distribution and population characteristics of burbot in the Missouri River, Montana: based on hoop net, cod trap, and slat trap captures. Pages 201-211 in V.L. Paragamian and D.L. Bennett, editors. Burbot: ecology, management, and culture. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 59, Bethesda, MD.

Kendall, W.L., and J.D. Nichols. 1995. On the use of secondary capture-recapture samples to estimate temporary emigration and breeding proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 22:751-762.

Kendall, W.L., K.H. Pollock, and C. Brownie. 1995. A likelihood-based approach to capture-recapture estimation of demographic parameters under the robust design. Biometrics 51:293-308.

Kendall, W.L., J.D. Nichols, and J.E. Hines. 1997. Estimating temporary emigration and breeding proportions using capture-recapture data with Pollock's robust design. Ecology 78:563-578.

Kendall, W.L., and R. Bjorkland. 2001. Using open robust design models to estimate temporary emigration from capture-recapture data. Biometrics 57:1113-1122

Krueger, K.L., and W.A., Hubert. 1997. Assessment of lentic burbot populations in the Big Horn/Wind River drainage. Wyoming. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12(3): 453-463.
Mathews, K.R. 1996. Diel movements and habitat use of California golden trout in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:78-86.

McLellan, J.G., and S.G. Hayes. 2007. Part I. Burbot Stock Assessment on Bead, Sullivan, and Marshall Lakes, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Draft 2006 WDFW annual report for the project Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. Report prepared for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians.

McLellan, J.G., and S.G. Hayes. 2008. Burbot Stock Assessment in Bead and Sullivan Lakes, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project No. 19700400. BPA Document No. P106615.

McLellan, J.G., S.G. Hayes, and R.R. O’Connor. 2009. Burbot Stock Assessment in Bead and Sullivan Lakes, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project No. 19700400. BPA Document No. P114269.

McLellan, J.G., and S.G. Hayes. 2010. Burbot Stock Assessment in Bead and Sullivan Lakes, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project No. 19700400. BPA Document No. P121537.

McLellan, J.G., and S.G. Hayes. 2011. Burbot Stock Assessment in Bead and Sullivan Lakes, Pend Oreille County, Washington. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project No. 19700400. BPA Document No. P121540.

McPhail, J.D., and V.L. Paragamian. 2000. Burbot biology and life history. Pages 11-23 in V.L. Paragamian and D.W. Willis, editors. Burbot: biology, management, and ecology. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section, Publication Number 1, Bethesda, MD.

Neufeld, M.D., and C.R. Spence. 2004. Evaluation of a simple decompression procedure to reduce decompression trauma in trap-caught burbot. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1260-1263.

Ney, J.J. 1993. Practical use of biological statistics. Pages 137-158 in C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert, editors. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Paragamian, V.L., V. Whitman, J. Hammond, and H. Andrusak. 2000. Collapse of burbot fisheries in the Kootenai River, Idaho, USA, and Kootenay Lake, British Columbia, Canada. Pages 155-164 in V.L. Paragamian and D.W. Willis, editors. Burbot: biology, management, and ecology. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section, Publication Number 1, Bethesda, MD.

Polacek, M.C., C.M. Baldwin, and K. Knuttgen. Status, distribution, diet, and growth of burbot in Lake Roosevelt, Washington. Northwest Science 80:153-164.

Pollock, K.H. 1982. A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:757-760.

Pollock, K.H., J.D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J.E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs, No. 107.

Prince, A. 2007. East Kootenay burbot population assessment. Report to British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia. Westslope Fisheries Ltd., Cranbrook, British Columbia.

Quinn, S. 2000. The status of recreational fisheries for burbot in the United States. Pages 127-135 in V.L. Paragamian and D.W. Willis, editors. Burbot: biology, management, and ecology. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section, Publication Number 1, Bethesda, MD.

Robson, D.S., and H.A. Regier. 1964. Sample size in Petersen mark-recapture experiments.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93:215-226.

Spence, C.R. 2000. A comparison of catch success between two styles of burbot traps in lakes. Pages 165-170 in V.L. Paragamian and D.W. Willis, editors. Burbot: biology, management, and ecology. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section, Publication Number 1, Bethesda, MD.

Stapanian, M.A., C.P. Madenjian, and L.D. Witzel. 2006. Evidence that sea lamprey control led to recovery of the burbot population in Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1033–1043.

Ward, C., R.L. Eshenroder, and J.R. Bence. 2000. Relative abundance of lake trout and burbot in the main basin of Lake Michigan in the early 1930s. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 282-295.

Willis, D.W., and B.R. Murphy. 1996. Planning for sampling. Pages 1-15 in B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Wydoski, R.S., and R.L. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington, second edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD and University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, fourth edition. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Notes

None

Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review Assessments

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	2008-115-00-ISRP-20120215
Project:	2008-115-00 - Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment
Review:	Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number:	RESCAT-2008-115-00
Completed Date:	4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date:	4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part

	Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 In Part - The full proposal is not yet justified. Deliverable 1 should proceed. Previous and ongoing burbot data collection in Lake Roosevelt from WDFW Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) should be fully examined and analyzed to determine if it is adequate for evaluating the status of burbot before exerting significant additional sampling effort in the lake. Evaluation based on Deliverable 1 should be used to design field sampling efforts, if needed, beyond existing efforts as a means to meet project goals. The ISRP should review a subsequent revised proposal that builds on results from Deliverable 1. The design should consider other ISRP comments noted below.
First Round ISRP Date:	2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
First Round ISRP Comment:
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Significance to Regional Programs: The sponsor refers to several regional programs, including the Spokane Subbasin plan, the Columbia River Basin Research Plan, the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document, MERR, and the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program 2009. The declining status of burbot in many southerly portions of their range is a valid concern to resident fish managers. Technical Background: The proposal provides decent technical background information on sampling and status of burbot, although additional gray literature might be available on burbot sampling. Key information involving the ultimate goal of the proposal was missing until the presentation by the sponsor. During the presentation, the sponsor noted that current harvest levels of burbot are low because fishing gear is now limited to hook and line since set lines were banned in 2006. No sport or subsistence catch data was provided. According to WDFW regulations, the daily bag limit for burbot is currently five fish, but the state also recommends that women of child bearing years and children not consume more than one meal of burbot per week because the fish are contaminated. The sponsor cited a 10-year old WDFW report suggesting the Lake Roosevelt burbot population was “healthy” based on stable electrofishing and catch per effort sampling. Given the reportedly low catch rates of burbot by fishermen and the apparent healthy status of the population, the ultimate goal of this project seems to be whether the population of burbot could withstand a higher harvest rate, possibly through changes in gear regulation. If so, this would be a potential benefit to subsistence and recreational anglers. If changing harvest and gear regulations is an ultimate goal of this effort, then metrics and benchmarks for making this decision should be developed. Objectives: The goal is reasonable: a healthy and harvestable burbot population. The objective is reasonable: to monitor and facilitate management to achieve the goal. Specific target levels to define “healthy population” and harvest levels are needed. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results) This is a new project so no accomplishments, adaptive management, or results. However, the ISRP thought the sponsor should have analyzed the existing Fall Walleye Index Netting data (FWIN) prior to developing this proposal to conduct extensive field effort. Analysis of the existing FWIN data may be sufficient to evaluate status of burbot relative to previous sampling efforts (e.g., Bonar study), and this analysis could be used to inform the sampling design if it was determined that an extensive field effort was needed in addition to ongoing FWIN sampling and creel survey efforts. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging) Project Relationships: The proposal described how this project was related to four other projects: Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Project, Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation, CCT Chief Joseph Kokanee, and CCT White Sturgeon Enhancement Project. Four BPA projects are listed that this project will coordinate with and share data. Emerging limiting factors: Climate change, chemical contamination, and potential impacts by non-native predators are discussed. Tailored questions: The sponsor addressed the PIT tag study to develop population estimates. They plan to tag and release all viable burbot, approximately 2200 fish per year based on assumptions. The sponsor notes that they do not know if the proposed sample size is adequate for estimating burbot population size, but they suggest this is not needed since the project is a pilot study. The ISRP notes that prior to the proposed field effort, the sponsor should examine “what if” scenarios to determine whether tagging of 1100 fish twice per year might be sufficient to detect population trends over time in this very large reservoir. Also, the sponsor should develop criteria for determining whether captured burbot are suitable for tag and release even though previous studies suggested mortality in trammel nets was low. Tagging of burbot that die from capture and tagging operations would significantly bias population estimates if not properly accounted for. The sponsor did describe how they would classify the health of burbot captured in traps. The sponsor notes that a biometrician would be consulted. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables are adequate. The sponsor did a good job describing methods in MonitoringMethods.org. However, presenting methods on separate web pages makes it difficult to evaluate how the overall sampling program fits together. Additional information on metrics should have been provided. Age and year class strength are key metrics when assessing population status of fishes, yet it was not clear how age of burbot captured in traps, trammel nets, or gillnets (FWIN) will be assessed and incorporated into the analysis. Burbot are relatively long-lived (up to ~15 years) and could be susceptible to high harvest rates. Each gear type will have its own selectivity for size and age of burbot; how will selectivity be evaluated? 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The sponsor did a good job describing methods in MonitoringMethods.org. Estimates of growth will be based on recaptured burbot, but growth estimates may be few. Were other approaches considered and excluded for estimating growth? Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:56:41 PM.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response:

Map Visibility:
Map Name:
Description:

Please correct the errors noted below.

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

Download a snapshot PDF

Summary of Budgets

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025 DRAFT

Previous Fiscal Years

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Public Attachments in CBFish

Other Project Documents on the Web

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment