Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Project Number:
1993-060-00
Title:
Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Summary:
As part of the 1993 Strategy for Salmon, the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC, currently Northwest Power and Conservation Council, NPCC) recommended terminal-fishing sites be developed to allow harvest of known hatchery production while minimizing incidental harvest of weak stocks. Beginning in 1991, listing of various ESU’s under the federal ESA complicated harvest management and severely limited execution of mixed-stock fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River. The Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) Project was subsequently initiated by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in 1993 to mitigate fisheries by providing the opportunity to harvest locally-produced salmon stocks in off-channel areas of the Columbia River.

During 1993-1996, 25 potential sites were evaluated for rearing potential, capacity for fishers, access, water quality, and potential to impact non-local stocks, of which eight were selected for further study. Physicochemical and aquatic bio-monitoring surveys and extensive test fishing were conducted to establish baseline conditions, including if, and when non-local stocks use each area. Given available funding, five Select Area fishing areas were established and four currently exist including Youngs Bay, Tongue Point/South Channel, and Blind Slough/Knappa Slough in Oregon and Deep River in Washington.

Approximately 4,000,000 coho, spring, and fall chinook hatchery smolts are currently reared and released from SAFE net pens and associated hatcheries. Commercial and recreational fisheries have expanded substantially due to improved rearing strategies and increased releases as the project has progressed from research to implementation.

Continuation of this project will maintain the significant fisheries established in Select Areas, and allow for transition from the implementation to expansion phase, through increased production and efficiencies. Potential for additional expansion of the SAFE Project exists with the current infrastructure and is primarily constrained by available funding. For the proposed funding period, the sponsors Clatsop Economic Development Council (CEDC), ODFW and WDFW have incorporated multiple cost-efficiencies combined with a 1.2 million production increase to address concerns of the NPCC, Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB).
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Clatsop County Fisheries (Govt - Local)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1994
Ending FY:
2019
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
Harvest Augmentation
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Upper Willamette River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Select Area fishing locations in the lower Columbia River.

Figure Name: Figure 1.1

Document ID: P117404

Document: Select Area Fishery Enhancement Project FY 2009 Annual Report

Page Number: 8

Project: 1993-060-00

Contract: 46522

New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (top photo).

Figure Name: Figure 7.1a

Document ID: P117404

Document: Select Area Fishery Enhancement Project FY 2009 Annual Report

Page Number: 56

Project: 1993-060-00

Contract: 46522

New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (middle photo).

Figure Name: Figure 7.1b

Document ID: P117404

Document: Select Area Fishery Enhancement Project FY 2009 Annual Report

Page Number: 56

Project: 1993-060-00

Contract: 46522

New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (bottom photo).

Figure Name: Figure 7.1c

Document ID: P117404

Document: Select Area Fishery Enhancement Project FY 2009 Annual Report

Page Number: 56

Project: 1993-060-00

Contract: 46522


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $2,116,517

General $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $2,116,517
FY2019 (Current) $1,908,145 $1,908,145 $1,908,143 $1,908,143 $0

General $1,908,145 $1,908,143 $1,908,143 $0
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $1,908,145 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $1,908,145 From: General Sept 25th SOY Transfers 09/25/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 (Draft)
2017 $4,179,169 69 %
2016 $4,093,234 68 %
2015 $2,731,055 59 %
2014 $2,651,343 58 %
2013 $2,714,200 59 %
2012 $2,682,074 58 %
2011 $2,316,448 55 %
2010 $2,380,056 56 %
2009 $1,488,100 45 %
2008 $1,426,909 43 %
2007 $1,518,471 47 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
4121 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 COLUMBIA RIVER TERMINAL FISHERIES History $2,030,824 3/23/2001 - 9/30/2004
20059 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 199306000 SELECT AREA FISHERIES History $534,600 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
20307 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 SELECT AREA FISHERIES EVALUATION History $627,918 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
24884 SOW The Research Group 1993-060-00 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES ECONOMIC REVIEW History $55,000 9/1/2005 - 11/30/2006
24828 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES EVALUATION History $685,584 10/1/2005 - 5/31/2007
24975 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199306000 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES EVALUATION - ODFW History $544,449 10/19/2005 - 9/30/2006
29684 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE 07 - ODFW History $682,274 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
29595 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE 07 SOW WDFW History $583,281 10/1/2006 - 10/31/2007
35929 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE 08 - ODFW History $1,608,285 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2009
36072 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE 08 WDFW History $1,099,968 11/1/2007 - 11/30/2009
77299 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2018 Issued $479,561 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 12 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2018 Issued $913,227 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74314 REL 21 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2018 Issued $515,357 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74314 REL 55 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2019 Signature $515,357 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74313 REL 39 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2019 Issued $913,226 10/5/2018 - 9/30/2019
80548 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2019 Signature $479,560 10/5/2018 - 9/30/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):36
Completed:13
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:169
On time:77
Avg Days Late:18

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4129 19912, 24738, 29593, 35247, 44593, 50147, 54743, 58916, 62905, 66417, 70033, 77299, 80548 1993-60-00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Clatsop County Fisheries 03/2001 03/2001 Signature 54 112 1 0 3 116 97.41% 3
4131 20307, 24828, 29595, 36072, 46522, 50978, 54831, 59804, 63220, 66922, 70547, 74150, 74314 REL 21, 74314 REL 55 1993-060-00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 03/2001 03/2001 Signature 57 174 24 0 14 212 93.40% 1
4121 20059, 24975, 29684, 35929, 44553, 50225, 54833, 59734, 63237, 66585, 70378, 74313 REL 12, 74313 REL 39 1993-060-00 COLUMBIA RIVER TERMINAL FISHERIES Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Issued 54 235 1 0 8 244 96.72% 1
24884 1993-060-00 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES ECONOMIC REVIEW The Research Group 09/2005 09/2005 History 4 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
Project Totals 169 527 26 0 25 578 95.67% 5


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: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1993-060-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1993-060-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (62.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations (0) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (0)
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1993-060-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proponents have provided a thorough and detailed response to each of the ISRP information requests.

Methodology is described in good detail, including a differentiation of the collection of data by other agencies (e.g., WDFW and ODFW) from the synthesis and summarization of those data by SAFE personnel. They also discuss how internal resources will be allocated away from field staff to project biologists to support coordination and data compilation and to assist with analysis and reporting. This approach reduces the potential for duplication of effort. Fishery sampling is described in detail by fishery, with citations provided for further information. Stream escapement sampling, which is largely conducted by other agencies, is sufficiently described, including issues related to the identification of hatchery fish.

A good description of how the project uses adaptive management is provided. Since project constraints (based on allowable impacts to ESA-listed stocks) change by year and within year, decisions are made on how the season will be structured and how harvest will be monitored. A flowchart is provided to show how project decision processes take account of and adapt to information within-season and between seasons. The process of monitoring impact rates on upriver spring Chinook is well described. The spring fisheries are differentiated from the fall fisheries in terms of difficulty and urgency of monitoring impact rates on non-local stocks.

The explanation regarding "efficient harvest" as a project deliverable states that the term "efficient" is relative and then describes how the term is used. However "efficient" is a term with technical meaning which is different from what the proponents describe. To avoid confusion it would be better to avoid "efficiency" altogether and use instead "harvest effectiveness" which is what they are describing.

To address the four questions regarding the effects of the SAFE program on harvests of local (natural origin) and non-local stocks, detailed tables are provided. These tables show some data gaps, which are recognized by the proponents.

The response adequately identifies problems with identifying local natural origin fish in harvest, acknowledges the importance of being able to do this, and states the intent to apply greater effort in determining these harvest rates. The response is similarly detailed in identifying problems with differentiating SAFE hatchery fish from other hatchery fish in order to estimate the proportion of SAFE fish on local spawning grounds. This problem arises because only a portion of the recovered hatchery strays (fin clip) have coded-wire tags. Exceptionally high levels of stray fall Chinook and coho salmon are observed in some watersheds, and this observation is recognized by the management agencies.

The response describes the Oregon and Washington recovery plans for salmon and SAFE's role in them. It notes the compromise between harvest opportunities and persistence of local populations, while identifying wild fish only areas upstream of hatchery weirs.

The response related to deliverables suggests that, as with other proposals, some confusion exists and therefore clarification is needed before the next round of proposals on how projects should list deliverables on the proposal form. There appear to be some difficulties with how Taurus structures objectives and deliverables leading to a hierarchy in the proposal that is confusing to reviewers. The explanation of the project's deliverables is adequate. The proponent notes that a project report will be prepared every three years and the latest report was uploaded to the web page one week ago.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The SAFE project provides an important approach for providing fishing opportunities in the lower Columbia River while attempting to minimize impacts on non-local stocks, including protected wild stocks. Nevertheless, the project should provide additional evidence that the fishery is not adversely affecting non-local and local natural-origin stocks.

The ISRP recommends that the project prepare a comprehensive analysis of the project and a report at least every five years. The report should include a detailed project description, methods used to evaluate the project, project benefits, project costs, and project effects on natural-origin local and non-local stocks. Some key questions are listed below:

1. How many and what percentage of non-local stock populations are harvested and what is the stock composition of the non-local harvest?

2. How many local, natural-origin salmon are harvested?

3. What percentage of the local spawning escapement is represented by SAFE fish that escaped the fishery?

4. How will the SAFE project coexist with attempts to rebuild local natural origin fish?

The proposal did not provide information on the methodology and the key monitoring questions noted above. The ISRP requests that the proponent provide a response with the following information:

1. Please describe the methodology that will be used to achieve each objective.

• When monitoring the fishery, the methods should describe frequency of sampling, numbers of fish sampled, methods for stock identification, and methods for estimating catch of each stock.

• Methodology used to sample streams for stray SAFE salmon should be documented. How many streams will be sampled, what area, and how frequent? How are stray stocks identified?

• How does the program adaptively manage SAFE production and fisheries? How are adjustments made during the course of the season? Does the program have specific goals that it strives to achieve?

2. Please identify specific deliverables that are linked to each objective in the proposal (see comment below).

3. Please provide available information on the four key questions listed above for natural-origin local and non-local stocks associated with the SAFE fisheries.


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

The proposal provides an adequate statement of purpose for the project, placing it well within the context of regional efforts to maintain commercial and recreational fisheries in the lower Columbia River while minimizing incidental impacts on listed ESUs. The significance of the project to regional programs is adequately described. The proposal lists four project goals: 1) mitigation of harvest opportunities lost through actions taken to recover listed ESUs, 2) protection of endangered species, 3) minimizing negative environmental impacts of SAFE hatcheries and rearing pens, and 4) minimizing the straying of hatchery fish to wild spawning grounds by maximizing harvest rates.

The project has five objectives that are consistent with the specified goals: 1) adaptively manage select area production and fisheries, 2) monitor impact of select area fisheries, 3) monitor impact of select area production, 4) provide supplemental production for regional fisheries, and 5) provide outlet for basin-wide reprogramming of hatchery production.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

A summary list of accomplishments and charts is provided. This information provided evidence that the project was addressing most of the goals and objectives. However, the ISRP identified additional information that should have been provided or discussed more thoroughly. For example, the proposal states that the SAFE fishery comprises 91% local stock for the winter, spring, and summer fisheries, and 87% Chinook and 80% coho local stock for the fall fishery. The project should attempt to identify non-local stocks that comprise the remaining 9%, 13%, and 20% in these fisheries and whether those percentages have a harmful impact on protected wild stocks. Did the local stocks harvested in the fishery include some natural-origin fish?

Habitat restoration projects are underway in watersheds adjacent to SAFE fisheries (e.g., Young’s Bay) in order to recover depleted or extirpated local stocks; therefore, the project should evaluate how it might coexist with rebuilding of local natural-origin stocks. Migration timing might be one factor to consider. The proposal mentioned that some data on straying of SAFE fish to local spawning grounds have been collected, but the findings were not described. The ISRP encourages the SAFE project to collaborate with local ODFW and WDFW biologists in order to more accurately estimate numbers of SAFE fish straying to the local spawning areas. This is important to local stock rebuilding efforts because stocks used in the SAFE project are produced by using segregated hatchery practices and because the SAFE stocks may not be derived from nearby stocks.

One performance element noted is the ex-vessel value of SAFE production. The proposal notes that ex-vessel value is a minimum indicator of economic value since it does not capture any multiplier effect. This is not fully correct. It is true that noting the value at point of first sale (ex-vessel value) does not account for local multiplier effects within the economy, but it is also the case that ex-vessel value represents gross revenues rather than net revenues (accounting for costs) and so overstate first-round benefits. An estimate of costs was given in the 2006 economic analysis, as was an analysis (based on predicted return rates, revenues and estimated costs) of economic impacts. Economic impacts were found to be positive for the two counties of the Astoria/Ilwaco area but less clear for the larger Oregon/Washington region.

Earlier ISRP recommendations for employing a statistician for data analysis appear to still be relevant; a detailed statistical analysis of project outcomes or impacts was not included. A comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and effects on natural-origin local and non-local stocks should be performed and reported at least every five years.

The proposal presented some evidence of adaptive management, such as eliminating the use of stocks that had high stray rates. The proposal indicates the potential for increasing SAFE releases and harvest opportunities. If this occurs, will production from other hatcheries decrease to the same extent?

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

A long list of related projects is provided. An important emerging factor is the effort to recover locals stocks through habitat restoration projects in watersheds adjacent to SAFE fisheries. The SAFE project should more accurately estimate strays to spawning grounds (as proposed through new collaborations with ODFW and WDFW field crews), estimate harvest rates on local natural-origin salmon, and evaluate approaches to minimize harvests of these stocks.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The same deliverable is listed for each of the five objectives. The deliverable is “efficient harvest of hatchery salmon while contributing to the recovery of listed stocks.” “Efficient” is not defined. This deliverable is not specific to any of the objectives, and its details are a brief history and justification for the project, not a description of deliverables and how they will be accomplished. Methods of the project are not described.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-NPCC-20100902
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1993-060-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Implement through FY 2016. Consistent with the original intent of this project this project will work toward being self-sustaining by 2017.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1993-060-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Select/net pen terminal fisheries to mitigate for FCRPS impacts, provide harvest opportunities for commercial/recreational. Other non FCRPS hydropower producers potentially authorized/required; need confirmation that cost share is reasonable.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1993-060-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The very good response to the ISRP review was detailed and informative, clearly indicating areas where success, improvement and collaboration may be possible or desired. Opportunities for partnerships in tagging and estuarine and plume studies should continue to be encouraged and supported. At a future review, an independent monitoring and assessment would serve to further substantiate the positive claims in the response such as in North et al. (2006). The reporting of results has been commendable and informative in recent years, with signs of adaptive management.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Joint proposal from OR and WA. Funding conditioned on the sponsors completing their submission of information to the ISRP and IEAB to address the biological and economic issues raised in the recent ISRP/IEAB joint review (ISRP and IEAB Document 2005-8), and on a favorable economic review of that information by the IEAB within one year. One measure of success for this project will be equal fishing access by Washington fishers

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Geoffrey Whisler Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Steve Meshke Project Lead Clatsop County Fisheries
Rosemary Mazaika Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Michelle O'Malley Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Erica Keyser Administrative Contact Clatsop County Fisheries
Michelle Guay (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Cameron Duff Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Elisabeth Bowers Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Patrick Hulett Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)