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
  • 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 August 16 - 17, 2022 in (Webinar) › See all meetings ›

Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right
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
9:30 am—11:30 am
RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2 Meeting
JUN 2022
TUE WED
14 - 15
Council Meeting
JUN 2022
WED
22
9:00 am—2:00 pm
RTF Meeting
JUL 2022
WED
06
F&W Committee Meeting
JUL 2022
FRI
08
9:00 am—10:30 am
Resource Adequacy Adv Comm - Steering Committee
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
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 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 Review of Chapter 2 of the Comparative Survival Study (CSS) 2019 Annual Report

Life Cycle Evaluations of Fish Passage Operations Alternatives from the Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement (CRSO-EIS)

Council Document Number: 
ISAB 2020-1
Published date: 
April 29, 2020
Document state: 
Published

Share

The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program calls for a regular system of independent and timely science reviews of the Fish Passage Center’s (FPC) analytical products. These reviews include evaluations of the Comparative Survival Study’s (CSS) draft annual reports. The ISAB has reviewed these reports annually beginning ten years ago with the evaluation of the CSS’s draft 2010 Annual Report and most recently the draft 2019 Annual Report (ISAB 2019-2). This ISAB review focuses on the 2019 Annual Report’s Chapter 2, Life Cycle Evaluations of Fish Passage Operations Alternatives from the Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement (CRSO-EIS), which was not available at the time the ISAB reviewed the draft 2019 Annual Report. Chapter 2 became available when the draft EIS (CRSO-DEIS) was released to the public on February 28, 2020. It is important to note that the ISAB is not reviewing the CRSO-DEIS but just the CSS analyses as reported in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 of the 2019 CSS Annual Report is an important study for regional decision makers. Coordinated use of multiple models is a powerful approach answering difficult ecological questions. The use of a common hydrological input, management alternatives, and a common output predictor (smolt-to-adult return rate, SAR) potentially provide added confidence to modeling results and conclusions. The ISAB suggests improvements for description of model details, reporting of model results, and additional model development to better explore future conditions.

Model Development and Description

Chapter 2 implicitly assumes that the reader is familiar with the many years of the CSS reports and the CRSO-DEIS, and many key terms and data used in the chapter are not fully explained. Some methods and reporting styles used in Chapter 2 are likely a specific charge from the CRSO-DEIS steering committee, and the authors perhaps had less freedom to choose methodologies or the format for reporting and interpreting results. As such, it would be helpful for the authors to present the details of the charge they were given so readers can understand what was mandated for this chapter report and what was under control of the CSS.

Components of the cohort-specific (CSS-CS) model are not all based on the same years of data, and the years generally stop by about 2013, perhaps reflecting complete brood year records. However, partial brood year records are still useful for estimating juvenile survival. Why were data series truncated for the CSS-CS models? The CSS Grande Ronde life cycle (CSS-GR) model uses a longer record of data (1966 to 2010) than the CSS-CS models, but more complete brood-years appear to be available. How do the environmental conditions experienced by fish differ between the datasets used for model fitting? For example, if one set of data includes drought years while the other does not, the two models may perform differently. Reasons and implications for the choice of fitting data should be stated and discussed more fully.

Model Results

The models examined effects of large-scale management actions, such as Snake River dam breaching, and various spill and flow scenarios that may incorporate other fish passage improvements, such as high capacity turbines or powerhouse surface passage. Model scenarios that include dam breaching and maximum spill result in the greatest SARs. Key models results, such as variability in projected SARs across years and associated measures of uncertainty for summary performance metrics, are not presented. Measures of process and population uncertainty around the point estimates will be difficult to develop because simulations do not include demographic stochasticity (i.e., the same set of inputs will always lead to the same number of fish surviving the hydrosystem, surviving the ocean, and returning to spawn). Variation in response metrics (e.g., SARs) would reveal differences among alternative management actions. A single point estimate of the average/median response without considering year-to-year variation across different flow regimes and without considering demographic stochasticity is much more difficult to interpret. Caveats about interpreting the modeling results should be stated more prominently.

SAR and marine survival may be sensitive to smolt body size, timing of emigration, and date of marine entry. Will these remain the same under all operational alternatives? Do other variables used in the model, partially or completely, capture these effects? The ocean is the source of important and highly variable mortality. How well have the models captured variation in ocean survival as a function of measurable variables that can be forecast into the future?

The life cycle models incorporate a rich model-generated dataset based on the modified flow record to identify processes that influence the variation and magnitude of SARs. Yet, only point estimates of the mean/median response are reported. A rationale for the sole use of means/medians needs to be included. The report could be improved with an analysis to provide deeper understanding and implication of WHY the scenarios performed as they did. The yearly outputs across scenarios should be sufficient to better understand why the models generated different SARs and relative abundances and why alternatives produced differences in SARs.

Future climate and environmental conditions

The CRSO-DEIS analyses and those reported in Chapter 2 are based on an 80-year modified flow dataset. Modified flows are defined as the historical streamflows that would have been observed if current irrigation depletions existed in the past and the effects of reservoir regulation were removed (CRSO DEIS, Appendix I, page I-4-1). The results from the mandated task of using the modified flow dataset to compare operational alternatives are useful, but the results may not be indicative of future benefits. The modified flow dataset does not reflect projections of flow and environmental conditions that may occur due to future climate change. This is noted by the authors at the end of the introduction of Chapter 2: “Finally, it is important to carefully consider the lower end of the predicted ranges of biological response metrics, as anticipated consequences of climate change suggest poor river or ocean conditions may occur more frequently, which would mean that the lower end of the predicted ranges is likely to occur more often.” This caution needs to be described more prominently in the report. Climate, ocean, and in-river conditions are unlikely to remain static in their current state or range of conditions.

The CRSO-DEIS contains an examination of the potential impacts of climate change (Chapter 4 and Appendix V) on the freshwater environment, ocean environment, and life histories of salmon and steelhead. These would provide a useful framework for future modeling and understanding the limitations of the current analysis. Chapter 2 should summarize these findings in more detail.

For such an important study, caveats of interpreting current findings as representing future benefits should be more fully presented in the chapter’s Discussion section. Many environmental, climate, operational, and social factors may change. A chart listing these other factors and their impact on the results would permit a side-by-side comparison and consideration of outcomes.

The ISAB recommends that:

  1. Future projections of survival based on the modified flow dataset are likely to be overly optimistic. Recent years, such as 2015, have experienced very low summer flows and warm temperatures. The world’s five warmest years in the 1880 to 2019 record have all occurred since 2015 with nine of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2005 (NOAA Climate.gov). A sensitivity analysis needs to be performed to investigate the impact of climate change for potential future flow regimes, such as those described in Chapter 4 on Climate Change in the CRSO-DEIS. Such a sensitivity analysis will also need to account for changes in the maturation schedule, conversion probabilities due to warming water, and changes in the capacity in the Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit relationship for the CSS-GR model, habitat improvements, and other factors. Do relative rankings of the alternatives change if future climate scenarios (even if oversimplified) are represented?

  2. A more detailed comparison of results between different types of flow years would be a useful first step toward meeting ISAB recommendation (1). Demographic and other stochasticity (80 years of hydrology is a great start) should be included in the models so that year-to-year variation in the output measures is more reflective of the response from different operations.

  3. Both models do not incorporate the relationship of individual fish characteristics—such as body size, body mass, and condition factor, and date of ocean entry—to survival. The current literature is confusing (e.g., Faulkner et al. 2019 vs the rejoinder in Appendix G of the 2019 CSS Annual Report). It would be beneficial for both groups to collaborate on joint analyses and use a common data set to resolve this issue.

Topics: 
Fish and wildlife
Tags: 
Fish PassageFish Passage CenterHydrosystemDam Passage SurvivalSmolt-to-AdultISABCSSLife-cycle Model

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