| |
Review of the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project
1993-2003 Final Project Completion Report
(SAFE Review)
March 16, 2005 | document ISRP/IEAB 2005-8
read full report > (100k PDF)
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). 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.
|
|
home