FY07-09 proposal 200206000

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This project has merit and should yield long-term conservation benefits, but more detail should be provided on statistical sampling, analytical methods, as well as on the subcontract work to develop assessments and management plans. The need for harvest monitoring of Nez Perce fisheries is well supported in this proposal. Tribal responsibilities for managing their fisheries are clearly described. Harvest monitoring activities are enormous in geographic scope, encompassing the mainstem Columbia River (Zone 6) up to the headwaters of the Clearwater River on the Montana/Idaho border. The question of appropriate fishery management is placed in the context of two recent ISAB reports and to other monitoring projects. The project is well associated with the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program. More specifically, an excellent description is provided of the relationship of this project to the Clearwater, Salmon, Imnaha and Grande Ronde Subbasin Plans by listing objectives from each plan and stating the proposed project's relationship to these objectives under each. The proponents have good connections with most key fishery entities in the Columbia River Basin, including the Pacific Salmon Commission. It is related to a number of supplementation evaluation and population assessment projects through the provision of harvest data. The project receives funding from the Lower Snake River Compensation Program to monitor harvest activities in the tributaries and to provide this information to the USFWS. The project has the potential to yield very important data. It has been underway for one year and seems to have made reasonable progress. The project history describes the geographic area of concern and the locations of harvest monitoring in 2005. It also describes the sampling plans management plans, and biological assessment completed to prepare for this monitoring. Training for sampling is still underway and results of full implementation are apparently not complete. A table showing numbers of fish in the tributary is the result of spring Chinook monitoring; it is not clear what these numbers demonstrate. The proposal states that these fisheries were successfully monitored to support harvest goals, objectives, and strategies, but does not say how. The primary objective of the project is to develop and implement a biologically sound harvest monitoring program for the Nez Perce Tribe through the collection of credible and accurate catch data. Two operational objectives are to plan anadromous harvest strategies and harvest monitoring, and to implement the harvest monitoring plan. Work elements describe the function of biological assessments and tribal management plans (which will be done by subcontract) to allow harvest while maintaining ESA protections. The proposal provides little detail as to how assessments and management plans for the different geographic areas will be done except through subcontracts or consultations. For example, sampling plans are developed with the help of the CRITFC biometrician. A table describes elements of the sampling approach but does not describe the sampling plan. It is difficult to comment on the rigor of the sampling program without further details on size of the areas covered, total run size etc. More information should be provided on: • Review comments by the CRITFC biometrician and NOAA Fisheries (if applicable) on the 2005 review of sampling results. • The statistical basis for the number of samplers for various fishing areas (Table p. 13) • Content and process of the training program for samplers; • Method of discriminating wild fish from hatchery fish if not all hatchery fish are adipose clipped; • Method of determining exploitation rates - this goal is mentioned in the abstract of the narrative but nowhere else; • The mean around which the CI of 2005 hatchery fish harvest is calculated (Table p. 9 gives CI for hatchery fish but not natural or jacks); • Elements of the biological assessments and components of the NOAA Fisheries review; • Ocean effects on SARs. Monitoring is at the core of this project and the proponents are making a good effort towards evaluation of results by review processes.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The response provides thorough and detailed information on the statistical basis and operational details of the harvest monitoring program. The sponsors have provided numerous details in their response, including outlines of the statistical methods that will be used to estimate variance of catch rates. The program seems to be in the hands of a very qualified statistician. Primarily extracted from the sponsor's annual report (Statler et al. 2006, submitted after the ISRP review), the response adequately addresses ISRP comments.