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:
2024
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

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1.1: Select Area fishing locations in the lower Columbia River.

Project(s): 1993-060-00

Document: P117404

Dimensions: 1368 x 1319

Description: Page: 56 Figure 7.1a: New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (top photo).

Project(s): 1993-060-00

Document: P117404

Dimensions: 1024 x 466

Description: Page: 56 Figure 7.1b: New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (middle photo).

Project(s): 1993-060-00

Document: P117404

Dimensions: 1024 x 513

Description: Page: 56 Figure 7.1c: New outdoor education pavilion at Gnat Creek Hatchery (bottom photo).

Project(s): 1993-060-00

Document: P117404

Dimensions: 768 x 509


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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,999,264 From: General FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $67,974 From: General 1993-060-00 06/17/2022
FY2023 Expense $56,609 From: General ODFW FY23 Adjustments 08/26/2022
FY2024 Expense $2,217,296 From: General FY24 SOY Upload June 15th 06/15/2023
FY2024 Expense $92,790 From: General sept 19 Transfers 09/19/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
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
2023 $4,284,067 67%
2022 $3,897,485 65%
2021 $3,741,748 65%
2020 $3,852,567 66%
2019 $3,777,626 66%
2018 $3,556,950 65%
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, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
193 REL 2 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 COLUMBIA RIVER TERMINAL FISHERIES RESEARCH Terminated $667,656 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
516 REL 2 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-01 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Terminated $296,215 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
192 REL 2 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-02 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Terminated $810,629 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
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
4129 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-60-00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Closed $1,257,490 3/23/2001 - 9/30/2004
4131 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Closed $2,542,898 3/23/2001 - 9/30/2004
19912 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993 060 00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Closed $349,527 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
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
24738 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993 060 00 SELECT AREA FISHERY EVALUATION Closed $387,437 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
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
29593 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993 060 00 SELECT AREA FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT Closed $378,018 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
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
35247 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 199306000 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT Closed $796,666 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2009
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
44593 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 199306000 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2010 Closed $400,026 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
44553 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2010 Closed $796,183 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
46522 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2010 Closed $541,929 12/1/2009 - 11/30/2010
50147 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2011 Closed $413,274 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
50225 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2011 Closed $856,726 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
50978 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2011 Closed $492,831 12/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
54743 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2012 Closed $434,310 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
54833 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2012 Closed $838,929 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
54831 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2012 Closed $544,202 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
59804 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2013 Closed $502,308 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
58916 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2013 Closed $470,974 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59734 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2013 Closed $880,537 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
63237 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2014 Closed $906,133 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
63220 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2014 Closed $509,546 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
62905 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2014 Closed $477,294 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
66922 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2015 Closed $494,078 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
66417 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2015 Closed $477,313 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
66585 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2015 Closed $895,429 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
70547 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2016 Closed $514,606 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
70033 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2016 Closed $876,641 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2017
70378 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2016 Closed $1,826,454 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2017
74150 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2017 Closed $515,357 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
77299 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2018 Closed $440,323 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 12 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2018 Closed $910,506 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74314 REL 21 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2018 Closed $497,931 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 39 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2019 Closed $911,378 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74314 REL 55 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2019 Closed $515,357 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
80548 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2019 Closed $477,778 10/5/2018 - 9/30/2019
74314 REL 87 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2020 Closed $500,664 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83292 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2020 Closed $479,510 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74313 REL 61 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2020 Closed $967,476 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74313 REL 80 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2021 Closed $1,002,060 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
74314 REL 118 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2021 Closed $515,357 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
86170 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2021 Closed $456,829 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
88866 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2022 Closed $475,925 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
74314 REL 152 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2022 Closed $515,357 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
74313 REL 100 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2022 Closed $1,071,467 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
84042 REL 21 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2023 Closed $515,357 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
90961 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2023 Closed $479,560 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
84041 REL 6 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2023 Closed $1,128,876 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
92985 SOW Clatsop County Fisheries 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2024 Issued $525,045 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
84042 REL 55 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2024 Issued $538,033 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
84041 REL 27 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2024 Issued $1,247,008 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):50
Completed:36
On time:36
Status Reports
Completed:234
On time:90
Avg Days Late:16

                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
4129 19912, 24738, 29593, 35247, 44593, 50147, 54743, 58916, 62905, 66417, 70033, 77299, 80548, 83292, 86170, 88866, 90961, 92985 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - CLATSOP CO 2024 Clatsop County Fisheries 03/23/2001 09/30/2024 Issued 76 145 4 0 3 152 98.03% 3
4131 20307, 24828, 29595, 36072, 46522, 50978, 54831, 59804, 63220, 66922, 70547, 74150, 74314 REL 21, 74314 REL 55, 74314 REL 87, 74314 REL 118, 74314 REL 152, 84042 REL 21, 84042 REL 55 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - WDFW 2024 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 03/23/2001 09/30/2024 Issued 78 231 34 0 18 283 93.64% 3
4121 20059, 24975, 29684, 35929, 44553, 50225, 54833, 59734, 63237, 66585, 70378, 74313 REL 12, 74313 REL 39, 74313 REL 61, 74313 REL 80, 74313 REL 100, 84041 REL 6, 84041 REL 27 1993-060-00 EXP SAFE - ODFW 2024 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/23/2001 09/30/2024 Issued 76 302 15 0 8 325 97.54% 2
24884 1993-060-00 EXP SELECT AREA FISHERIES ECONOMIC REVIEW The Research Group 09/01/2005 11/30/2006 History 4 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
Project Totals 234 684 53 0 29 766 96.21% 8


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: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (objectives) and #2 (methods) in project documentation and consider condition #3 (synthesis) and address if appropriate. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Select Area Fishery Enhancement program. See Policy Issue I.b. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1993-060-00-ISRP-20230308
Project: 1993-060-00 - Select Area Fisheries Enhancement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/14/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

As part of this review, the ISRP also considered the proponents’ 2017-2019 Annual Report (Baker et al. 2020) and several earlier ISRP and ISRP/Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB) reviews. All earlier reviews were informative and gave the project high marks for providing fishery opportunities in the lower river. The ISRP/IEAB review (2007-3) was based on the project compilation covering 1994-2005 (North et al. 2006). The ISRP continues to believe that the SAFE project contributes significantly to lower-river fisheries while monitoring and considering upper river ESA-listed stocks. While we believe that the project meets most scientific criteria, the proposal itself was overly long and repetitious and did not follow the proposal guidance. For example, all the elements of SMART objectives are presented, but they are not clearly or explicitly stated.

In the next annual report and in a future synthesis report, the ISRP requests the proponents to provide information to address the following Conditions:

  1. SMART objectives. Provide a single, consistently described set of SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) as part of the next annual report. 

  2. Methods. In the next annual report, clearly describe methods that answer the four questions listed below in the Methods section of this review. 

  3. Synthesis. By the end of this funding cycle, provide a synthesis report for ISRP review that evaluates accomplishments since the 2005 report (reviewed by the ISRP and IEAB in 2007) and includes:

• a cost/benefit analysis

• a clear description of how success of the project is determined

• an analysis of impacts to upper- and lower-river fish and fisheries, and

• a description of how the proponents detect small impacts on ESA-listed stocks, given the large number of fish released.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The SAFE project receives funds from several state and local agencies as well as BPA to raise and release several salmon species (spring Chinook, tule fall Chinook, select area bright [SAB] fall Chinook, and coho) into off-channel hatchery and net pen sites in the lower Columbia River. Adult returns are intended to enhance non-Tribal commercial and recreational fisheries. The SAFE fisheries are monitored closely in-season to ensure minimal impacts on ESA-listed stocks. The project has been very successful in accomplishing these goals.

When the project was initiated in 1993 with a goal of determining the feasibility of the endeavor, there were nine objectives (see proposal pages 14-15). In 2011, the project objectives changed and are now stated as (proposal page 15):

• adaptively manage Select Area production and fisheries for increased benefit • monitor impact of Select Area fisheries

• monitor impact of Select Area production

• provide supplemental production for regional fisheries

• provide outlets for basin-wide reprogramming of hatchery production that reduces impacts.

These objectives are clearly stated but are not in the SMART format (see proposal instructions). Beginning on page 19, the proponents restate the objectives and provide extensive data and justification for the program based on the number of smolts released and the number, distribution and value of adults harvested. The proponents restate objectives in the proposal Goals and Objectives section. However, Figure 1 (perhaps 3-1, page 38) states four objectives that differ from earlier stated objectives, but these are approaching SMART objectives and subsequent text describes means of measuring success, how decisions are made (i.e., adaptive management), and the data collected. In the Methods section, the proponents provide numbers (measurable) and months (time-bound) for the various smolt releases. These data are also presented in the Timeline section (Table 7-1). The ISRP believes that all the elements for SMART objectives are presented in the proposal, but they are scattered and are not clearly and explicitly stated. A single, consistently described set of objectives is critical.

Q2: Methods

Most of the methods are based on sound science principles, are well documented in monitoringresources.org, and listed on page 44. The ISRP does, however, have some questions about the methods for the proponents to consider moving forward and when developing the synthesis report:

• How did the proponents determine that coded-wire tags in about 10% of the released fish was adequate? Was a power analysis conducted?

• More detail is required on how visual stock identification (VSI) is conducted.

• In various places in the proposal, the proponents briefly describe meetings with staff and public, but it is not clear how much of those meetings involve “outreach.” More description on how outreach/engagement with the public occurs and its importance to the program would be helpful.

• Given the fact that collecting and managing data seems to be one of the primary objectives of the project, what is the process for identifying questions that should be asked using the data? Is a formal mechanism available to ensure that the data collected are suitable for the questions to be answered?

Although it is not in the Methods section, the proponents want to explore past SARs in relation to as many response variables as can be documented. The description of variables, data and analysis sounds similar to what the Comparative Survival Study (CSS; BPA project 19960200) has been doing for many years to monitor Snake River and upper Columbia River stocks. The ISRP encourages the proponents to connect with that project. Much of the work needed to explore SARs may have already been done by the CSS Project. The proponents also mention hazing cormorants that threaten hatchery production. The proponents are collaborating with NOAA Fisheries to compare predation in the lower river to that of upriver stocks. The ISRP suggests that the collaboration examine whether or not the birds hazed away from SAFE hatcheries and net pens contribute to increased predation on ESA-listed smolts as they emigrate through the lower river.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project is well coordinated with the funders and cooperators. A flowchart for decision making is provided on page 48. The proponents provide an extensive listing of lessons learned as part of the Progress to Date section, and they also address potential confounding factors such as climate change and predation. Given the fact that the SARs of these fish do not seem to differ from those of upriver fish, the ISRP wonders why uncertainty in factors that affect ocean survival was not presented as a potential confounding factor to this project. The proponents also state that they have moved out of the project adjustment phase. The ISRP disagrees with the proponents’ assertion that project adjustment is a phase because project evaluation and adjustment should go on continuously.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has clear benefits to fish and fisheries, as well as providing economic benefits to the communities in the lower Columbia River. The proponents have documented the costs of the project and the returns on the investment in providing fisheries that are regulated to protect ESA-listed species. However, how will the success of the project be evaluated? For example, is the project’s success based on the harvest opportunities provided, or the number and value of fish landed, or some measure of public satisfaction with the project as a whole? Or all of the above?

Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

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.

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)

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

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

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:

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

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
Erica Keyser Administrative Contact Clatsop County Fisheries
Cameron Duff Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Patrick Hulett Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration