Contact
About

Integrating energy and the environment in the Columbia River Basin

About the Council
Mission and Strategy Members and Staff Bylaws Policies Careers / RFPs
News

See what the Council is up to.

Read the Latest News
Read All News Press Resources Newsletters International Columbia River

Explore News By Topic

Fish and Wildlife Planning Salmon and Steelhead Wildlife Energy Planning Energy Efficiency Demand Response
Fish and Wildlife

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.

Fish and Wildlife Overview

The Fish and Wildlife Program

2020 Addendum 2014/2020 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Subbasin Plans Project Reviews and Recommendations

Independent Review Groups

  • Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB)
  • Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)
  • Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)

Forums and Workgroups

  • Asset Management Subcommittee
  • Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum
  • Regional Coordination
  • Science and Policy Exchange
  • Toxics Workgroup
  • Columbia Basin Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Workgroup
  • Informal Hatchery Workgroup
  • Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup

Topics

  • Adaptive Management
  • Anadromous Fish Mitigation
  • Blocked Areas
  • High-level Indicators
  • Invasive and Non-Native Species
  • Lamprey
  • Predation: Sea lions, pike, birds
  • Protected Areas
  • Research Plan
  • Resident Fish
  • Resource Tools and Maps
  • Sockeye
  • Sturgeon
  • Hatchery Map
Energy

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

Energy Overview

The Northwest Power Plan

The 2021 Northwest Power Plan 2021 Plan Supporting Materials Planning Process and Past Power Plans

Technical Tools and Models

  • Regional Portfolio Model
  • Generation Evaluation System Model (GENESYS)

Energy Advisory Committees

  • Regional Technical Forum
  • Conservation Resources Advisory Committee
  • Demand Forecast Advisory Committee
  • Demand Response Advisory Committee
  • Generating Resources Advisory Committee
  • Fuels Advisory Committee
  • Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
  • System Analysis Advisory Committee
  • RTF Policy Advisory Committee
  • System Integration Forum

Energy Topics

  • Energy Efficiency
  • Demand Response
  • Power Supply
  • Resource Adequacy
  • Energy Storage
  • Hydropower
  • Transmission
Meetings
See next Council Meeting April 11 - 12, 2023 in (Webinar) › See all meetings ›

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right
JUL 2022
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
JUL 2022
TUE
19
9:00 am—3:00 pm
RTF Meeting
JUL 2022
WED
27
9:30 am—3:30 pm
Resource Adequacy and System Analysis Committee Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE
09
9:00 am—12:45 pm
RTF Meeting
AUG 2022
WED
10
9:00 am—12:00 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
AUG 2022
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE
30
9:00 am—11:00 am
F&W Committee Meeting
AUG 2022
WED
31
9:00 am—12:00 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
SEP 2022
MON
12
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE
20
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
SEP 2022
WED
21
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Resource Adequacy Adv Comm - Tech Committee
SEP 2022
WED
28
9:00 am—10:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3 Meeting
SEP 2022
THU
29
9:00 am—12:00 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
OCT 2022
TUE WED
04 - 05
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
OCT 2022
TUE
11
9:00 am—1:00 pm
Council Meeting
OCT 2022
TUE
18
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2022
WED
02
9:30 am—12:00 pm
Demand Response Advisory Committee
NOV 2022
THU
03
9:30 am—3:30 pm
GENESYS Technical Conference (SAAC/RAAC Combined)
NOV 2022
TUE
08
1:00 pm—4:00 pm
Resource Adequacy Technical/Steering Comm Meetings
NOV 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
NOV 2022
WED
30
9:00 am—10:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
DEC 2022
MON
05
1:30 pm—3:30 pm
Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
DEC 2022
TUE
06
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
JAN 2023
TUE WED
10 - 11
Council Meeting
JAN 2023
WED
18
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
FEB 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
FEB 2023
WED
22
2:00 pm—3:30 pm
Conservation Resources/Demand Response Adv Comm Combined Meeting
FEB 2023
WED THU
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
FEB 2023
FRI
24
9:00 am—2:00 pm
Conservation Resources Advisory Comm.
MAR 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
MAR 2023
TUE
21
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
MAR 2023
THU
23
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Resource Adequacy Adv Comm - Technical Committee
MAR 2023
TUE
28
9:00 am—11:00 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q1 Meeting
MAR 2023
FRI
31
9:00 am—10:30 am
Generating Resources Advisory Committee
APR 2023
WED
05
9:00 am—12:00 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
APR 2023
MON
10
1:00 pm—4:00 pm
Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting
APR 2023
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
APR 2023
TUE WED
18 - 19
RTF Meeting
MAY 2023
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
MAY 2023
TUE
23
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
MAY 2023
WED
24
12:30 pm—3:30 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting
JUN 2023
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
JUN 2023
WED THU
21 - 22
RTF Meeting June 21-22, 2023
JUL 2023
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
JUL 2023
TUE
18
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
AUG 2023
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
AUG 2023
TUE WED
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
SEP 2023
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
SEP 2023
FRI
15
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3 Meeting
SEP 2023
TUE
19
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
OCT 2023
WED THU
11 - 12
Council Meeting
OCT 2023
TUE WED
17 - 18
RTF Meeting
NOV 2023
TUE
07
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2023
WED
08
12:30 pm—3:30 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
NOV 2023
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
DEC 2023
TUE
05
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
DEC 2023
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
View Council Meetings View All Meetings
Reports and Documents

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

Browse Reports

REPORTS BY TOPIC

Power Plan Fish and Wildlife Program Subbasin Plans Financial Reports Independent Scientific Advisory Board Independent Scientific Review Panel Independent Economic Analysis Board

COLUMBIA RIVER HISTORY PROJECT

Scoping Task for Review of Hatchery EIS Economic Appendices, Task #171 Report

Council Document Number: 
IEAB 2011-1
Published date: 
Jan. 19, 2011
Document state: 
Published

Share

Background

In 2009 the IEAB completed a Phase I report on Integrated Hatchery Operations under Task 139. The report provided a preliminary discussion of the possible effects of HSRG recommendations on the cost of hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest and included the following conclusions:

  1. The HSRG recommendations generally would not require major changes in planned operations at Fish and Wildlife Project (FWP) hatchery projects, partly because most of the changes were already planned. Therefore, the recommendations should not result in large cost increases above planned costs at these hatchery projects.
  2. Estimates for additional one-time investment costs at FWP hatchery projects were "as an order of magnitude estimate, about $10 to $20 million." Long term operations costs could increase "as an order of magnitude estimate, $1 million to $2 million annually."
  3. Incremental costs could be more if major re-engineering of existing hatcheries is required; no such changes have been identified.
  4. Research, monitoring and evaluation (RM&E) costs are currently almost 40 percent of NWPCC FWP costs depending on the definition used. HSRG recommendations could have important effects on RM&E costs. Given the relatively large role the FWP has assumed in RM&E, the potential for RM&E cost increases should be further investigated.
  5. The IEAB recommended some cost engineering studies to estimate and compare costs of alternative selective harvest strategies, including weirs, modifications at existing facilities, and live capture gear.
  6. The report also identified some missing elements needed to identify costs of recommended changes in hatchery operations.

The IEAB concluded that a "Phase II study might provide useful information, but only after additional information has been provided in the form of a harvest BiOp." While NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) has not issued a BiOp on Columbia River hatcheries, their recent "Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs" (MA-DEIS) provides additional information on hatchery costs, and proposes five alternative approaches to addressing the listed species concerns. The alternatives range from "no action" to "implementation of strong performance goals to reduce negative impacts of hatchery programs on natural-origin salmon and steelhead populations" to "no Mitchell Act funding and closure of the hatcheries". This EIS appears to be one of the first significant actions to implement the HSRG recommendations, and has the goal of informing future Mitchell Act funding allocations as well as informing NMFS’ "future review of individual Columbia River hatchery programs under the ESA (at p. 6, ES). The "performance goals" embodied in the alternatives are based in part on HSRG recommendations. The HSRG goals are in part defined by a key measure of the relative gene flow from the natural to the hatchery program and from the hatchery to the natural environment: the Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI).

In Task 171 the IEAB explores the information contained in NMFS’ Draft EIS to determine whether it can be used to expand and enhance the IEAB’s assessment of potential costs of implementing the HSRG recommendations. We reviewed the content and structure of the economic analysis contained in the EIS to determine whether it provides significant and reliable new cost data that could help the IEAB expand its earlier report to refine the estimates of the possible effects of HSRG recommendations on the costs of FWP hatchery projects.

Overview of MA-DEIS Economics

The DEIS contains a significant amount of descriptive socio-economic information distributed over several locations: Chapter 3 Section 3 "Socioeconomics" (pp3-67 to 3-114); Chapter 4 Section 3 "Socioeconomics" (pp 4-107 – to 4-157); Appendix I "Draft Socioeconomics Resource Report Submitted by The Research Group to NMFS 2008"; and Appendix J "Mitchell Act Hatchery EIS Socioeconomics Impact Methods Appendix".

The Chapter 3 Socioeconomics section presents a comprehensive summary of the catch levels associated with Columbia Basin hatcheries over four sub-regions of the Columbia Basin (lower Columbia River, mid-Columbia River, Upper Columbia River, and Lower Snake River). Tribal and non-Tribal catches are summarized for 2002-2006, and the average annual catch and ex-vessel revenues are displayed in Table 3-16. Annual catches and ex-vessel revenues in commercial ocean fisheries during 2002-2006 (for all salmon not just fish originating in the Columbia basin) are summarized for 5 sub-areas (Oregon coast, Washington Coast, Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska) in Table 3-17 through 3-19. Recreational fishery catch and expenditures are summarized for the Columbia Basin fisheries in Tables 3-20 and 3-21, and for the five sub-areas of the ocean recreational fishery in Tables 3-22 through 3-23. Next, Table 3-24 displays the Operating Costs of the hatcheries in the Columbia River basin and the "personal income" and "Number of jobs" associated with the Hatchery operations and the fisheries, based upon the analysis presented in Appendix J. The aggregate annual "economic impact" in the basin is claimed to be $46 million in personal income and 1,370 jobs. Finally, the economic impact of the ocean fisheries, which are partly supported by Columbia River hatcheries, is stated as $9.2 million in income and 278 jobs in Washington and $4.5 million in income and 142 jobs in Oregon. The analysis also includes estimates of "net economic values" which equal ex-vessel value minus fishing costs for the commercial fisheries, and "willingness to pay" minus expenditures on fishing for recreational fisheries.

Chapter 4’s Section 4.3 on "Socioeconomics" compares the changes in hatchery program costs, harvest and ex-vessel values, and regional economic impacts associated with DEIS Alternatives 2-5 to the no-action Alternative 1. For each sub-region discussed in Section 3 above, this chapter displays the estimated commercial catch and value of fisheries and recreational expenditures associated with each alternative. This is followed by estimates of the net incomes of tribal and non-tribal fisheries in the Pacific Ocean and Columbia Basin sub-regions. Compared to Alternative 1, the other four alternatives all cause reduced economic impacts in terms of catches, incomes, jobs, and net incomes from commercial and recreational fisheries in each sub-area. Alternative 2 (No Mitchell Act Funding) has the largest negative impacts of the 4 alternatives to No Action. The chapter (p. 4-114) recognizes that the public holds broader non-market values to preserving wild salmon runs (e.g. willingness to pay to preserve a salmon sub-species), but they note that information on this value dimension is insufficient to base an estimate of impacts across alternatives.

The basic socioeconomic information (including hatchery costs) supporting the summary results presented in Chapters 3 (Affected Environment) and 4 (Environmental Consequences) is supported by a more detailed discussion of methods and data sources in Appendix J. There is an additional uncited appendix, Appendix I, which appears to be an earlier draft of the socioeconomics sections that was apparently never peer reviewed or otherwise utilized in the DEIS, but is (for some reason) reported anyway. Surprisingly, Appendix I has its own supporting appendix (denoted as Appendix A).

Prospects for Additional IEAB Analysis of the costs of Hatchery Policy Alternatives

Question: Does the draft Mitchell Act EIS (MA-DEIS) have sufficient new data to merit a closer review by the IEAB with the goal of updating the 2009 hatchery analysis?

Response: The MA-DEIS does not appear to provide much in the way of "new data" with respect to costs at any given FWP hatchery. However, there appears to be enough of an overlap between the methods and scope of IEAB 2009-2 and the MA-DEIS that it may be useful for the IEAB to provide a review as a "second opinion".

Because the decision was made in the MA-DEIS to include an analysis of non-Mitchell Act hatcheries, findings are generally reported for both the Mitchell Act and "other" hatcheries. FWP hatcheries are part of the latter, but are not reported separately. For example, in the analysis of hatchery cost implications of Alternative 2, which would end funding to MA hatcheries, additional best management practices (BMP) would be implemented for hatchery programs not funded by the Mitchell Act. An estimate of $5.1 million in new costs is associated with implementing BMPs (Table 4-85, text at 4-122).

Question: Aside from the fact that this is for a broader group of hatcheries (all non-Mitchell Act funded, not just FWP), how do estimated costs compare to, for example, the IEAB 2009-2 estimate of new capital costs of $10 to $20 million?

Response: Since the latter is an order of magnitude estimate, apparently the two estimates are in the same ballpark. (The MA-DEIS does not appear to provide uncertainty bounds on any of the estimates.) The MA-DEIS appears to provide adequate detail on what is included in its cost estimates and what is not, whether it is capital or operating, assumptions, and data sources in Chapter 4 and Appendix J. It appears it would be feasible to systematically compare the cost analysis relating to FWP hatcheries in IEAB 2009-2 and the MA-DEIS. Clearly the IEAB analysis was limited in scope and heavily qualified as to what was not estimated. Similarly, the MA-DEIS does not provide estimates for every potential capital and operating cost. The primary cost categories reported are changes in smolt production , new weir costs, and best management practices (BMP) costs. (Smolt production costs for the "other" non-Mitchell Act hatcheries, including the FWP hatcheries, are approximated by cost data for the Mitchell Act hatcheries aggregated at the agency/location level in Appendix J.) The MA-DEIS lists specific elements of the BMP costs at p. 8-9 of appendix J. Fifteen specific "implementation measures" were identified across alternatives (at Table 2-6) and include changing production levels, broodstock protocols, water intake screens, by-pass at hatcheries, water quality issues, new temporary weirs, new permanent weirs, etc. Not all of these implementation measures are associated with cost estimates for capital and operations.

The MA-DEIS examines a broad range of policy alternatives, and, relative to the IEAB analysis, has a broader scope of both accounting frameworks and outcomes (e.g. not just including hatchery cost impacts, but also harvest). In IEAB 2009-2, it was assumed (in the absence of policy-making decision documents like the MA-DEIS) that future policy would parallel the HSRG recommendations, and the effects of these recommendations were estimated on costs of individual FWP hatcheries. By contrast the MA-DEIS alternatives are more broad-brush, examining the implications of different policy options that are permutations of new performance standards at two levels (intermediate and strong) for two regions (Willamette/Lower Columbia and "Interior Columbia", for three population types (primary, contributing, stabilizing), and for two funding sources (MA and other). The information on which the economic analysis of the MA-DEIS alternatives is based appears to be fairly comprehensive and accurate regarding the Mitchell Act hatcheries. It demonstrates the economic impacts of the hatchery programs and calculates the net economic values for the commercial and recreational fisheries as accurately as can be expected using existing data. For sport fishing, the MA-DEIS does provide nonmarket value estimates of net economic benefits (values anglers realize over and above their trip costs). And it correctly notes the absence of estimates in the MA-DEIS analysis for publicly-held passive use value (value that does not derive from direct recreational use but rather from knowing that salmon populations are viable and available for use by future generations - what economists frequently call "existence values" and "bequest values" for salmon runs) .

The net economic value results could be useful to the IEAB in evaluating alternative salmon protection and conservation projects in the Columbia Basin. Our cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) have focused on the allocation of hatchery funds among alternative projects, comparing the outcomes (effectiveness) in terms of fish produced (catch plus hatchery returns) and costs in terms of program expenditures. However, the net economic benefit for a non-selected project alternative represents a more comprehensive measure of the opportunity costs incurred for the selected project. It is the net economic effect of selecting one project over the other. This economic perspective expands beyond the simple cost-effectiveness of project fund allocations, and represents a more comprehensive attempt to measure the economic consequences of planning decisions. It would be a more data-demanding version of CEA.

The IEAB could investigate the pros and cons of using this more comprehensive measure of costs in our analyses of NPCC projects being proposed for the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Recommendation for Further Research

To summarize, the MA-DEIS is an important document with respect to hatchery policy in the Columbia River Basin in the post-HSRG world. The potential policy changes considered in the MA-DEIS will affect the Council’s FWP hatchery program. This EIS does specifically consider the potential impacts of policy on costs at non-Mitchell Act funded programs including the FWP hatcheries. Like the earlier work by IEAB (IEAB 2009-2), the hatchery cost estimates are incomplete and based on a number of important assumptions. However, it does appear that cost estimates specific to the FWP hatcheries as a group could be disaggregated from the "other hatchery" estimates reported and that this could be done across alternatives. A limitation of the IEAB’s earlier work is that it simply assumes the HSRG hatchery level recommendations would be implemented.

The advantages of reviewing the MA-DEIS in greater detail include: 1) an independent "second opinion" on likely cost impacts of the HSRG recommendations; 2) insights on cost parameters not included in the earlier analyses; 3) a perspective on how these costs will vary depending on how the HSRG recommendations are implemented; and 4) a perspective on the broader impacts of the policy, including harvest policy. (The MA-DEIS provides an initial pass at the future analysis of harvest-related impacts, something that was suggested as a second phase for IEAB 2009-2).

The IEAB recommends that, since the MA-DEIS does not include a "preferred alternative", we wait for the final document before considering development of a potential future task. The final EIS would also presumably be improved by comments. Any potential future review task would focus on updating our earlier work on the FWP hatcheries and the implications of the MA-DEIS preferred alternative on costs for these hatcheries.

References:

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2009. Columbia River Hatchery Reform Project System-Wide Report.

IEAB. 2009. Integrated hatchery Operations: Fish and Wildlife Program Costs and Other Economic Effects Phase I. Publication IEAB 2009-2. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Portland, Oregon.

NOAA-NMFS Northwest Regional Office. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs.

Topics: 
Fish and wildlife
Tags: 
IEABHatcheryEconomics

ISRP 2021-05 LibbyMFWPfollow-up1June.pdf

Sign up for our newsletter

  •    

Contact

  • Central Office
  • Idaho Office
  • Montana Office
  • Oregon Office
  • Washington Office
  • Council Members

Social Media:

Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Vimeo Flickr

Copyright 2022

Privacy policy Terms & Conditions