Review of the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project 1993-2003 Final Project Completion Report (SAFE Review)

Overview

At the request of the Council, the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and the Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB) reviewed the "Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project, 1993-2003 Final Project Completion Report" (Completion Report project 1990-060-00). In 1993, Bonneville initiated the Columbia River Terminal Fisheries Project (now named the Select Area Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) project), a 10-year comprehensive program to investigate the feasibility of terminal fisheries in Youngs Bay and other sites in Oregon and Washington. This cooperative project between the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Clatsop County Economic Development Council's (CEDC) Fisheries Project explored the means to increase harvest of hatchery fish while providing greater protection to weak wild salmon stocks. The Completion Report was submitted to address conditions placed on the project as part of the Council's Lower Columbia River and Estuary provincial review decision.

Executive Summary

The Completion Report contains comprehensive biological content describing many parts of the project's ten-year history. The attitude conveyed by the Completion Report is that protection of listed stocks is the highest priority. The appendix lays out a reasonable monitoring program, originally minimal but augmented after 2003. The report documents an increase in availability of salmon to the fisheries as a result of project actions.

In terms of its economic content, the Completion Report is partially responsive to the request to provide information on the ex-vessel market for salmon, the economic value of the fisheries and the value of this project to the industry, in the context of fishing alternatives.

This combined review identifies a number of biological and economic issues that need consideration and improvement.

The report does not adequately describe or reference either the biological or economic methodology used in the project. This is a major concern. Without methods of sampling and analysis described and documented, it is not possible to verify reported results and ensure that repeatable procedures can be applied in the future
Production goals are unclear. What is meant by "full implementation" is not specified. The question of the cost-effectiveness of further expansion is not addressed.
The reported 80-90% harvest rates of SAFE stocks are extremely high. The report should verify these rates and demonstrate that they are achievable without unwarranted impacts on local fishes.
Fishery impacts on listed as well as non-listed stocks should be better evaluated and described.
The rationale for importation of a non-local stock is not explained, but should be.
Efforts to regularly apply CWT for assessment are laudable, but there is concern that given the survival levels quoted, the numbers of tags applied appear to be marginal. Is there a statistical basis for the numbers and what questions are they designed to address?
Treatment of the test fishery is technically inadequate in determining if a stock of concern was present and at what frequency. If the sole basis for this determination is CWT recovery, then the test fishery may not adequately sample for these rare recovery events.
The report does not provide information on costs of achieving project goals. This is a major omission in terms of evaluating either the likely cost-effectiveness of continuing investments or the appropriate level of such investments.
Because cost considerations are absent, the report presents only a partial picture of project benefits (gross, rather than net incremental benefits). Maximizing the value of harvest, as well as the project overall, requires a consideration of both costs and benefits and how they change under different conditions.
The report does not thoroughly explain how decisions about project modifications are made, and how costs and benefits inform those decisions.
Expectations about how long BPA mitigation funding of this fishery should continue are not discussed, nor are possibilities for cost sharing between the region and local interests according to the distribution of project benefits and responsibilities for power system mitigation.
Economic components (costs and benefits) are not part of ongoing monitoring and evaluation, but should be.

Topics:

Fish and wildlife

Tags:

Integrating energy and the environment in the Columbia River Basin

See what the Council is up to.

Explore News By Topic

The Council works to protect and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. Its Fish & Wildlife Program guides project funding by the Bonneville Power Administration.

The Fish and Wildlife Program

Independent Review Groups

Forums and Workgroups

Topics

The Council develops a plan, updated every five years, to ensure the region’s power supply and acquire cost-effective energy efficiency.

The Northwest Power Plan

Technical Tools and Models

Energy Advisory Committees

Energy Topics

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Browse reports and documents relevant to the Council's work on fish and wildlife and energy planning, as well as administrative reports.

REPORTS BY TOPIC

COLUMBIA RIVER HISTORY PROJECT