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
  • Natural Gas Advisory Committee
  • Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
  • System Analysis Advisory Committee
  • RTF Policy Advisory Committee
  • System Integration Forum
  • Resource Strategies Advisory Committee (Not Active)

Energy Topics

  • Energy Efficiency
  • Demand Response
  • Power Supply
  • Resource Adequacy
  • Energy Storage
  • Hydropower
  • Transmission

Energy Forums and Workgroups

  • Pacific NW Demand Response Project
  • Northwest Wind Integration Forum (Archive)
Meetings
See next Council Meeting June 14 - 15, 2022 in Portland › See all meetings ›

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right
AUG 2021
TUE WED
10 - 11
Council Meeting
AUG 2021
MON
23
1:00 pm—2:30 pm
Council Meeting Webinar to Discuss the Draft 2021 Power Plan and Decision to Release for Public Review and Comment
AUG 2021
TUE
31
9:00 am—2:45 pm
RTF Meeting
SEP 2021
MON
13
9:00 am—12:00 pm
Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup
SEP 2021
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
SEP 2021
TUE
21
10:00 am—11:00 am
Informal Hatchery Workgroup Meeting
SEP 2021
TUE WED
21 - 22
RTF Meeting
SEP 2021
MON
27
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Montana
SEP 2021
WED
29
9:00 am—11:30 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
OCT 2021
THU
07
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Washington
OCT 2021
TUE
12
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Oregon
OCT 2021
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
OCT 2021
THU
14
Power Plan Public Hearing Hosted by Idaho
OCT 2021
TUE
19
9:30 am—3:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE
09
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
NOV 2021
TUE
30
1:00 pm—3:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
DEC 2021
TUE WED
07 - 08
RTF Meeting
DEC 2021
MON
13
9:00 am—11:00 am
Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup
DEC 2021
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JAN 2022
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
JAN 2022
WED
19
1:00 pm—5:00 pm
Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum
JAN 2022
TUE
25
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF New Member Orientation: January 25, 2022
JAN 2022
WED
26
9:00 am—1:00 pm
RTF Meeting
JAN 2022
FRI
28
8:30 am—11:30 am
Power Committee Meeting
FEB 2022
MON
14
9:00 am—10:30 am
Informal Hatchery Workgroup Meeting
FEB 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
FEB 2022
WED
23
9:00 am—2:30 pm
RTF Meeting
MAR 2022
WED
02
9:30 am—3:00 pm
System Integration Forum: Scope of Work on Potential Lower Snake River Dam Analysis
MAR 2022
TUE
08
1:30 pm—2:30 pm
Public Affairs Committee Meeting
MAR 2022
MON TUE
14 - 15
Council Meeting
MAR 2022
FRI
18
9:00 am—11:00 am
Fish and Wildlife Committee Meeting
MAR 2022
TUE WED
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
MAR 2022
WED
30
9:30 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q1 Meeting
APR 2022
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
APR 2022
TUE WED
19 - 20
RTF Meeting
MAY 2022
TUE WED
10 - 11
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
MAY 2022
WED
18
Council Meeting
MAY 2022
TUE
24
9:00 am—2:30 pm
RTF Meeting
JUN 2022
WED
08
1:00 pm—3:30 pm
System Analysis Advisory Committee
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting
JUN 2022
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JUN 2022
WED THU
22 - 23
RTF Meeting
JUL 2022
WED THU
06 - 07
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
JUL 2022
TUE WED
12 - 13
Council Meeting
JUL 2022
TUE WED
19 - 20
RTF Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE
09
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
AUG 2022
TUE WED
16 - 17
Council Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
Council Meeting
SEP 2022
TUE WED
20 - 21
RTF Meeting
SEP 2022
WED
28
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3 Meeting
OCT 2022
TUE WED
04 - 05
F&W and Power Committee Meetings
OCT 2022
TUE WED
11 - 12
Council Meeting
OCT 2022
TUE WED
18 - 19
RTF Meeting
NOV 2022
TUE
08
9:00 am—4:00 pm
RTF Meeting
NOV 2022
TUE WED
15 - 16
Council Meeting
NOV 2022
WED
30
9:00 am—12:00 pm
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
06 - 07
RTF Meeting
DEC 2022
TUE WED
13 - 14
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

ISAB Dam Bypass Selectivity Report

Review of Analyses of Juvenile Fish Size Selectivity in Dam Bypass Systems and Implications for Estimating and Interpreting Fish Survival

Council Document Number: 
ISAB 2021-1
Published date: 
April 12, 2021
Document state: 
Published

Share

In December 2020, NOAA Fisheries asked the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) to review the scientific findings and subsequent dialogue associated with two published papers (Faulkner et al. 2019, Storch et al. 2021) that investigated fish size selectivity in juvenile bypass systems and its implications for estimating and interpreting juvenile salmonid survival.

It has long been observed that juvenile salmonids that encounter multiple juvenile bypass systems during downstream migration return as adults, on average, at a lower rate than those that have fewer bypass encounters. Two, non-mutually exclusive, hypotheses have been put forth to explain this phenomenon: 1) bypass systems impart some sort of damage or stress that results in mortality, but not until the fish have completed passage through the hydropower system; 2) bypass systems select for individuals that are smaller or have other characteristics that result in a survival disadvantage regardless of passage routes at dams. Addressing the issue of effect of passage history on ocean mortality is important because the current management strategy of maximizing spill is designed to route fish away from bypass systems.

Faulkner et al. (2019) sought to investigate whether differences in length between fish using alternative passage routes might help explain differences in associated adult return rates. They found that smaller fish were more likely to enter juvenile bypass systems than larger fish and that smaller fish were less likely to return as adults. They also found that apparent effects of bypass passage on adult returns were diminished or disappeared when fish length was taken into account. In a comment to the journal, Storch et al. (2021) were critical of the data and approach adopted by Faulkner et al. (2019). In addition, the 2019 CSS report (McCann et al. 2019) had an appendix (Appendix G) that was also critical of Faulkner et al. (2019).

The ISAB considered the following review questions:

  1. Was the Faulkner et al. (2019) analysis scientifically sound, and were the data it used appropriate for addressing the question?
  2. Were the conclusions drawn by Faulkner et al. supported by their results?
  3. Does the ISAB have recommendations to improve the analysis?
  4. Are the criticisms raised by Storch et al. comment and the CSS report appendix valid and supported by the evidence and do any of those criticisms weaken Faulkner et al.’s results or conclusions?
  5. Was the Faulkner et al. (2021) response to the Storch et al. (2021) comment appropriate and were their criticisms of the Storch et al. methods valid?
  6. Is PITPH (an index of average cumulative powerhouse passage for groups of fish) an effective index of the powerhouse passage of individual fish, and is it valid to use it to draw causative inferences about effect of powerhouse passage on ocean survival?

One of the key reasons for the disagreements among these papers is a scientific problem known as the ecological fallacy.The ecological fallacy occurs when it is assumed that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals or vice versa. Faulkner et al. (2019) looked at the effect of fish length on survival within populations; Storch et al. (2021) looked at the effect of fish length on survival across populations. For example, considering salmonids in general, the larger individuals of smolts going to sea are more likely to return than are smaller ones of the same population in a given year. However, the average smolt length has little or no explanatory power for predicting the marine survival of that year’s cohort relative to smolts from other years, and the average marine survival observed among populations is not strongly associated with fish length either.

Faulkner et al. (2019) estimate individual-level effect of length on return probabilities while Storch et al. (2021) estimate the population-level effect of length on return probabilities. Faulkner et al. (2019) then go further and try to interpret why such a relationship between length and bypass probability may occur. Their discussion about possible size-selectivity of bypass structures is interesting but should be considered conjectural and a new hypothesis to test. Similarly, the Faulkner et al. (2019) discussion of the second finding of fish length affecting return probability is of great interest and yet more tenuous than the first finding. The time from recording length to the return of adult fish is now on the scale of years, which includes possible size-dependent mortality (predation), bioenergetics, and involves other habitats (including the ocean). Faulkner et al. (2019) accurately present these as possibilities in the Discussion (which is appropriate in a scientific publication), but the alternatives are not supported by the actual analyses.

Fisheries managers in the Columbia River Basin may be required to make decisions about management actions primarily intended to influence group-level survival (e.g., flow manipulations). In other situations, they face decisions about management actions that are designed primarily to improve within-group survival of individual fish (e.g., local habitat restoration projects). Managers should be cautious about incorrectly assuming that actions that influence population survival will similarly influence survival of individual fish. Likewise, it would be incorrect to assume that improvements that benefit the survival of individual fish will necessarily benefit the survival of the population. Researchers and managers should clearly identify the biological level (e.g., individual, population, metapopulation, community) of observations used in quantitative analyses and the appropriate biological level to which conclusions and recommendations apply.

The reviews raise important questions about the treatment of the data, questions asked, and analytical methods that require a coordinated (with original authors) or third-party comparative approach. Such follow-up analyses would likely add important insights to the data and the relationships of length with bypass encounters and return rates. The effects of the differences between the two analyses can be assessed and even resolved, which would lead to an even stronger set of findings. Without such an effort, the discussion and arguments will remain unresolved and allow for easy mis-interpretation of the results of each analysis. Faulkner et al. (2019) have raised a good set of questions and Storch et al. (2021) have provided a thoughtful response; it would be unfortunate and a missed opportunity not to pursue this further.

In conclusion, the original paper, the comment by Storch et al. (2021) (and Appendix G), and the response by Faulkner et al. (2021) provide an opportunity to make progress on the issue of the role of body length in how the fish use the bypass system and may clarify the effect of length on bypass usage and perhaps, return probability. If there is a size-selection effect on bypass probability, then there may also be an opposite effect on powerhouse passage probability (assuming this is not affected by spill passage probability), which suggests the need for yet another analysis.

Topics: 
Fish and wildlife
Tags: 
Fish TaggingSalmon and SteelheadNOAA FisheriesLower Granite DamDam Passage SurvivalSpillDam OperationsISABAnadromous SalmonidsComparative Survival StudyLife-cycle ModelSurface BypassLatent Mortality

ISRP 2021-05 LibbyMFWPfollow-up1June.pdf

Download the full report

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 Inclusion Statement