FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199306000

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSelect Area Fishery Evaluation Project
Proposal ID199306000
OrganizationWash. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, and Clatsop County Economic Development Council (WDFW/ODFW/CEDC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMarc Miller / Pat Frazier / Tod Jones
Mailing address2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661
Phone / email3609066719 / millemcm@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this projectJohn Skidmore, BPA
Review cycleLower Columbia
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Columbia Lower
Short descriptionDevelop and enhance fisheries in the lower Columbia River utilizing hatchery stocks; while protecting depressed wild stocks through application of net-pen rearing; and monitor and evaluate rearing effects on habitat at net-pen sites.
Target speciesCoho, fall chinook and spring chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.1718 -123.8322 Youngs Bay, OR
46.2038 -123.7563 Tongue Point, OR
46.3345 -123.6868 Deep River,WA
46.2017 -123.5365 Blind Slough, OR
46.2593 -123.4503 Steamboat Slough, WA
46.1823 -123.088 Coal Creek Slough
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
9.6.3.3
9.6.3.4
9.6.3.2.1

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
BPA Action 164 NMFS The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS, USFWS, and Tribal and state fishery management agencies in a multiyear program to develop, test, and deploy selective fishing methods and gear that enable fisheries to target nonlisted fish while holding incidental impacts on listed fish within NMFS-defined limits. The design of this program and initial implementation (i.e., at least the testing of new gear types and methods) shall begin in FY 2001. Studies and/or pilot projects shall be under way and/or methods deployed by the 3-year check-in.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1994 Categorized, ranked and selected potential sites for further study.
Established water quality monitoring programs at each selected site.
1995 Implemented coho rearing and release activities at three new selected sites (Tongue Point, Blind Slough and Deep River) and expanded existing Youngs Bay production.
Implemented fall chinook rearing and release activities in Youngs Bay.
Implemented spring chinook rearing and release activities in the three new sites and Youngs Bay.
1996 Established fall chinook harvest opportunities in the three new selected areas and Youngs Bay.
Attained expected survival from select area releases of coho.
1997 Established spring chinook harvest opportunities in Youngs Bay, Blind Slough and Tongue Point.
1998 Implemented coho rearing and release activities at Steamboat Slough.
Expanded rearing capabilities at Deep River.
Successful spring recreational fishery occurred in Youngs Bay (55 fish).
Commercial fishery harvest in all select areas: 2,200 spring chinook, 1,900 fall chinook, and 23,500 coho.
1999 Implemented "Natures" rearing strategy for spring chinook.
Expanded time and area in select area spring/summer commercial fisheries.
Established year-round recreational seasons in select areas.
Commercial fishery harvest in all select areas: 2,000 spring chinook, 2,100 fall chinook, and 22,200 coho.
2000 Initiated first year (99 BY) of spring chinook rearing in Deep River net pens at harvestable levels.
Commercial fishery harvest at record levels in select areas: 6,500 spring chinook, 1,600 fall chinook, and 61,100 coho.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8201300 Coded-wire tag recovery program CWT recovery essential for evaluation of project
8906600 Annual stock assessment-CWT program (WDFW) CWT recovery essential for evaluation of project
8906900 Annual stock assessment-CWT program (ODFW) CWT recovery essential for evaluation of project
9202200 Wild Smolt Behavior/Physiology (ESA) Juvenile rearing and increased returns.
9702400 Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin Juvenile rearing, increased returns, and avian predation.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 1a. Maximize spring chinook production in Youngs Bay and Blind Slough. 5 $5,203
1b. Maximize coho production in Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough, and Deep River. 5 $1,735
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2c. Investigate appropriateness of releasing spring chinook at Tongue Point at new location using homing enhancement. 5 $5,085
2e. Continue to evaluate other potential sites for select area fisheries including Coal Creek Slough. 5 $25,375
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 2003 2007 $14,388
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2003 2007 $168,319
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$39,433$33,584$35,264$37,028

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 1a. Maximize spring chinook production in Youngs Bay and Blind Slough. 5 $57,334
1b. Maximize coho production in youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough, and Deep River. 5 $41,315
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2a. Develop spring chinook fishery in Deep River and Steamboat Slough. 5 $3,093
2c. Investigate appropriateness of releasing spring chinook at Tongue Point at new location using homing enhancement. 5 $286,668
2d. Develop coho fishery at Steamboat Slough. 5 $3,093
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 2003 2007 $235,175
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2003 2007 $688,431
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$499,838$10,233$10,746$11,286

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 1a. Maximize spring chinook production in Youngs Bay and Blind Slough. 5 $224,814
1b. Maximize coho production in Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough, and Deep River. 5 $490,296
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2a. Develop spring chinook fishery in Deep River and Steamboat Slough. 5 $78,052
2b. Continue development of SAB fall chinook in Youngs Bay. 5 $193,549
2c. Investigate appropriateness of releasing spring chinook at Tongue Point at new location using homing enhancement. 5 $133,415
2d Develop coho fishery in Steamboat Slough. 5 $117,077
2e.Continue to evaluate other potential sites for select area fisheries including Coal Creek Slough. 5 $37,100
4. Coordinate activities with WDFW, ODFW, CEDC, BPA, NMFS, and SFA. 4a.Coordinate all objectives, tasks, and activities undertaken jointly to ensure complementary products and minimal overlap of actions. 5 $115,038
4b.Co-host bimonthly coordination meetings of involved or interested parties to further develop work plans and report on progress. 5 $65,917
4c.Promote dialogue and participation in all projects that are affected by select area fisheries development. 5 $57,730
4d. Respond to NMFS requirements as per SAFE biological opinion. 5 $5,085
4e. Continue practice of cost sharing of project expenses via fisherman/processor contributions. 5 $5,085
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites. 2003 2007 $4,394,759
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2003 2007 $3,028,773
4. Coordinate activities with WDFW, ODFW, CEDC, BPA, NMFS, and Salmon for All. 2003 2007 $1,504,979
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$1,690,951$1,667,675$1,989,378$2,057,349

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
2.Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2a. Develop spring chinook fishery in Deep River and Steamboat Slough. 5 $49,201
2b. Continue development of SAB fall chinook in Youngs Bay. 5 $43,223
2c. Investigate appropriateness of releasing spring chinook at Tongue Point at new location using homing enhancement. 5 $11,322
2d. Develop coho fishery in Steamboat Slough. 5 $49,201
3.Determine suitability of the Deep River, Steamboat Slough, Tongue Point Turning basin, Blind Slough, and Coal Creek Slough sites for rearing and release of salmon. 3a. Conduct water quality monitoring program for rearing areas in selected areas for the entire year. Water column parameters, benthic sediment and organisms, and planktonic characteristics to be measured at rearing sites using established schedule. 5 $45,620
3b. Continue to collect and analyze homing and straying information from current net-pen and lower Columbia River hatchery programs. 5 $34,298
4. Coordinate activities with WDFW, ODFW, CEDC, BPA, NMFS, and SFA. 4a. Coordinate all objectives, tasks and activities undertaken jointly to ensure complementary products and minimal overlap of actions. 5 $33,966
4d. Respond to NMFS requirements as per SAFE biological opinion. 5 $8,964
4e. Continue practice of cost sharing of project expenses via fisherman/processor contributions. 5 $5,191
5.Compile and report SAFE project results. 5a. Complete current annual report. 5 $35,256
5b. Begin next annual report. 5 $22,543
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas. 2003 2007 $870,364
3. Determine suitability of the Deep River, Steamboat Slough, Tongue Point Turning basin, Blind Slough and Coal Creek Slough Sites for rearing and release of salmon. 2003 2007 $466,827
4. Coordinate activities with WDFW, ODFW, CEDC, BPA, NMFS, and SFA. 2003 2007 $349,975
5. Compile and report SAFE project results. 2003 2007 $353,021
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$383,589$418,018$438,923$460,872

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 18.8 $717,549
Fringe $251,302
Supplies $497,298
Travel $59,176
Indirect $303,529
Capital $374,513
NEPA $0
PIT tags $0
Subcontractor $74,028
Other $13,449
$2,290,844
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$2,290,844
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$2,290,844
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$1,651,000
% change from forecast38.8%
Reason for change in estimated budget

In past contracts, project expenses were sometimes less than the budgeted amount. In these cases project managers would carryover costs from the previous contract to reduce costs of the following contract. This was the case in FY2000; and the FY2001 budget was therefore reduced due to carryover funds from the FY2000 contract. In FY2002 the entire budget was spent out and there were no carryover dollars to apply to the FY2003 contract. The fact that the FY2001 contract was reduced due to carryover and the FY2003 was not reduced due to carryover, combined with the transition into phase 3 of the project, explains most of the increase in cost from FY2001 to FY2003. As a site moves to full capacity production (phase 3) landings resulting from associated fisheries increase. As landings increase funds collected via the voluntary assessment (5% from fishers and prodessors) program also increase, thereby reducing BPA funds required to support Select Area fisheries.

Reason for change in scope

The original contract included three phases for each site. Phase one was intended to determine if the site was suitable, phase two was intended to test the feasibility of establishing net pen rearing sites and associated fisheries, and phase three was intended to establish full capacity rearing and fisheries at sites determined to be suitable in phase two. Several sites have been fully evaluated through phase two of this project. Feasibility tests have been positive and several sites have been targeted for expansion into phase three. The proposal for 2003 reflects moves from phase two to phase three for several of these sites. Expectations for outyears, 2004 and beyond, include additional progress from phase two to phase three at additional sites. Sites that do not show positive results in phase two will be eliminated from the project.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
BPA Project research $2,291,000 cash
Commercial fishermen Voluntary assessments $20,000 cash
WDFW/ODFW/CEDC hatcheries Hatchery facility rental and fish for research $350,000 in-kind
Salmon for All Education / Promotion $50,000 in-kind
City of Astoria Site lease $10,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is required due to the technical deficiencies of this proposal. As stated by the ISRP during the 2000 review "Annual reports are cited in the proposal, but there is little summary material to aid reviewers. The proposal would benefit from a listing of results and accomplishments to date. While multi-year funding is viewed favorably, there should first be an extensive programmatic review of the project by ISRP or ISAB." While many complimentary statements are made about the program there is nothing for the ISRP to review or comment on. ISRP comments from the past review were not addressed and yet there is a request for a 40% increase in funding and a stated intention to proceed to Phase 3 full production at several sights. Another ISRP comment in FY00 was that methods were not well described. This proposal lists objectives and tasks with no description of methods. Tasks are listed in very general form (e.g. maximize coho production", "develop spring Chinook fishery").

The purpose of this project is to use hatchery stocks to develop and enhance fisheries in the Lower Columbia River and to use net-pen rearing of wild stocks. The project has been in existence since 1994. The proposal requests $2.3 million for FY2003 and outyear budgets range from $1.7 to $2.0 million. Net-pen sites which have been feasibility tested with positive results are moved into "phase 3", which includes the establishment of additional net pens, expanding production and expanding fisheries. The proposal states that to date little effort has been invested in moving to phase 3, but that now several sites are deemed suitable for this expansion. The project has modified release strategies to minimize straying. Three strategies to eliminate straying are described.

This project is a major deviation from the original statements made about developing terminal fisheries to better protect ESA stocks. Diverting fishing pressure to new locations could be a very effective conservation program (as has apparently been appreciated in past reviews and reports referred to). However, biological concerns about the expansion of these new fisheries will be related to the ultimate magnitude of these releases, their ecological impact and competition with other populations and species, and about the adequacy and accuracy of the assessments conducted. For example, how would you know that 99-100% harvest rates were accomplished in terminal fisheries? A statistically rigorous assessment of these values would require an extensive survey of other populations and habitats, but none of the information is provided. Further, how are the magnitudes of Phase 3 releases determined, what impact is acceptable, and who makes these determinations?

Other concerns noted in the proposal are:

  1. Monitoring refers to sampling for coded-wire tags but where are the costs for tagging accounted for and what M&E is actually conducted? The proposal lists tasks but provides no other insights. Further, several objectives in Sections 5,6, and 7 are very expensive without adequate description or justification.
  2. Section 9g refers to supporting "two state hatcheries completely" but the budget only includes "In-kind" contributions for these hatcheries. Is BPA paying for the management of these hatcheries or what was meant in that section?
  3. An economic analysis should be done on the costs and benefits of this project or portions of it. For example, the development of spring chinook rearing at Tongue Point seems exceedingly expensive for this one location and the investment may be better place in another activity.

While this program has demonstrated success to date, a significant expansion of the releases and fisheries could generate other impacts or issues. An independent monitoring or periodic review of the program (biological assessment and cost effectiveness) may be a recommendation for NWPPC and BPA to consider, and could assist the proponents of the program.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

This project represents a majority of the funding for the Lower Columbia and Estuary Province budget. This project's budget should be reviewed in line with other opportunities in this province.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable in part. Fund ongoing activities but the expansion is not justified scientifically or economically. An economic analysis should be done before further investment in the expansion of facilities and fisheries. The potential impact on listed stocks remains uncertain but seems limited based on the information provided, but see ISRP comments below.

The project is basically a mitigation program to provide fishing opportunity but the fishery is limited by its potential impact on ESA stocks. The additional information provided in this response does indicate that the project has been operated with care and that they have met the consultative requirements during its development. However, without description of methods or M&E plans (as requested), there is very little to review technically and our comments are largely non-scientific. We cannot conclude from this material that impacts on ESA stocks are minimal (as suggested). The tables provided contain information but there is no discussion of this material (e.g., in Table 7 significant straying of Rogue-stock Fall Chinook is evident, and how is "Wild Impact" determined in Table 10?). Further, while impacts in fisheries seem limited there is no information on the juvenile stage. Juvenile impacts may also be minimal if the juveniles emigrate immediately but this remains unknown and without discussion.

The response does not answer what M&E is being conducted other than referring to CWT costs (that presumably must be covered in some other project). The new Table 1 does clarify budget alignment but neither the table nor Appendix 1 really describe what activities are included in each objective or task. For example, the response does clarify that these funds are operating two hatcheries (Gnat Cr. And Grays River) to produce fish for SAFE ... but this activity is not evident in Table 1 or Appendix 1 (Table 2 does itemize on major task). Attachment 2 notes the economic assessment suggested by the ISRP but does not note when it will be completed or whether it will be publicly available. Appendix 2 is interesting background, but leaves one major question in our minds ... is there any ultimate production limit or goal for this program. As the scale of this program grows the risk of impacts must increase. If we continue to accept the evaluation of impacts based on adult fishery sampling, how do we know that this is not after the impact at the juvenile stage? The proponents of this project do seem well intentioned, but the project is too open ended and without defined limits.

In summary, the response provides more complete information in many areas but important questions remain unanswered. The response does not explicitly address how the magnitude of production increases is determined or how those increases are evaluated for acceptability. Given past and continuing levels of investment in this activity, more critical assessment and reporting are required.

How is "maximum production" of various stocks in various sites determined? What is the content of the economic analysis being done by Radtke? What will it include? How will the results of the economic analysis affect decisions about whether or how to expand the fisheries? How will the effect of expansion on ESA stocks be monitored? How was the estimate of $49 million contribution to the West Coast economy calculated?


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
None to RPA ESUs; some concern regarding straying into local streams with remnant chum and coho populations.

Comments
Close evaluation should precede expansion of the SAFE project to avoid any increased risk to listed fish. Project 31031 notes a high number of strays into local streams; would expansion exacerbate?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
A w/conditions
Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding for implementation of RPA 164. Recommendation conditions on submittal of delinquent annual reports. Concur with ISRP comments regarding maintaining current scope of project, however we note that a larger commercial and recreational cost share is appropriate and certain project costs appear excessive.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Columbia Lower Issue 1: Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project (Project 199306000)

Council Recommendation: 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 project developed in three distinct stages: an initial two-year research phase to investigate potential sites, salmon stocks, and methodologies; a second three- year phase of expansion in Youngs Bay and introduction into areas of greatest potential as shown from the initial work; and a final five-year phase of establishing terminal fisheries at full capacity at all acceptable sites. Currently, the project is in the third phase.

The project received a "Fundable in Part" recommendation from the ISRP. The ISRP supported the ongoing activities but did not support any expansion of the project due to lack of scientific and economic justifications. The ISRP stated that before any additional investment into the expansion of this project an economic analysis and a determination of potential impact on listed stocks should be conducted. CBFWA rated the projects as High Priority.

Bonneville recommended funding the project for the implementation of RPA 164 (Harvest Strategy 1: Develop fishing techniques to enable fisheries to target non- listed fish while reducing harvest-related mortality on ESA- listed species) and recommended that the funding of the project be conditioned on the submittal of delinquent annual reports. In addition, Bonneville concurred with the ISRP regarding the current scope, though they mentioned the excessive costs associated with the project.

NOAA Fisheries indicated that there is no association of this project to the Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System and stated "close evaluation of this project is needed before any expansion to avoid any risk to listed fish."

Council staff concurs with the findings of the ISRP, Bo Bonneville and NOAA and supports no expansion of the production associated with the project. Funding for Fiscal Year 2003, 2004 and 2005 reflects no expansion of the project, but applies the 3.4% rule. Funds were provided in Fiscal Year 2003 to relocate a net pen at Tongue Point. This reflects a one-time cost of $71,000 to relocate the net pen from a leased area where the project has lost the ability to lease the location, to a new dock.

Funding associated with Fiscal Year 2003 will address the tenth and final year of the feasibility study. The Council needs to receive a final report regarding this project summarizing and evaluating the findings and conclusions of this investigation regarding the feasibility of terminal fisheries in the lower Columbia. This report needs to be comprehensive and must address the current dynamics in the commercial fisheries such as the market, the economic value of the fisheries made possible through this project, and the value to the industry of this project in the context of all other fishing opportunities and activities in the lower Columbia and Estuary that the industry now has available. At the conclusion of the tenth season the information and data collected to date will need to be summarized and analyzed with the report submitted in Fiscal Year 2004. Activities associated with this final report and project review needs to occur within the budget proposed in the staff recommendation. If there is a budget shortfall, sponsors will need to prioritize tasks from within budget to ensure completion of these final report activities.

The staff recommended that the project sponsors' final report be reviewed by both the ISRP and the IEAB during Fiscal Year 2004, and that future funding for this proposal (i.e. Fiscal Year 2005) is conditioned on a favorable review by these advisory boards and the Council. The Council deferred a recommendation on this project at its September meeting. The Council noted the substantial investment in this project that has been made, and has questions about the economic value of the project to the commercial fishing industry that it utilizing it. Sponsors and supporters of the project provided the Council with economic information and testimony at the October meeting. After considering this information, the Council recommends funding for the project subject to the conditions set forth above.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 30, 2003

Comment:

Fund as Recommended and to implement RPA 164.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Most of cost item are being spent as planned. Contract aligns to fiscal year. Make sure that work in 03 booked in 03. Budget for salaries and benefits and site lease costs slightly over. Terminated Steamboat Slough site. Will have some cost savings.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

The revised '04 and '05 budget estimates for the SAFE project reflect the sponsors best estimate of funding needs to meet project objectives and maintain current fish production levels. We have reduced costs as much as possible by consolidating coded-wire tag groups, reducing travel and mileage, reducing administration expenses, and deferring maintenance required by Clatsop County at one of the net pen sites. The proposed '04 budget is similar to the recommended funding level (+26,482 or ~1.6%)
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$1,673,567 $1,673,567 $1,673,567

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website