IEAB Independent Economic

Analysis Board

Kenneth L. Casavant, Chair 

Roger Mann, Vice-Chair 

Joel R. Hamilton

Daniel D. Huppert

Noelwah R. Netusil

Lon L. Peters

Susan S. Hanna

Hans Radtke

Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Analysis for 

the Columbia River Basin: Description and 

Preliminary Analysis

Independent Economic Analysis Board

January 2004

Document IEAB 2004-01
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 1

1. Executive Summary

Bypass spill for juvenile anadromous fish out-migration and passage improvements to 

assist juvenile migrants together cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. 

The Northwest Power Act requires that the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation 

Council (the Council) consider the cost-effectiveness of its fish and wildlife program and 

determine whether its projects employ cost-effective measures to achieve program 

objectives. Summer bypass spill is regarded by some to be expensive and not costeffective, while others believe that summer bypass spill is important for the restoration of 

wild salmon and steelhead populations. 

This report presents principles and examples of the application of cost-effectiveness 

analysis (CEA) to actions intended to improve mainstem passage survival in the 

Columbia River Basin. CEA principles are reviewed and related analyses and policy 

issues are discussed. An example of the application of CEA to bypass spill and facility 

modifications is developed using information from a hydrosystem model (Genesys, 

operated by the Council), a model of Western power pricing (AURORATM, licensed by 

the Council from EPIS, Inc.), a model of juvenile salmon and steelhead survival 

(SIMPAS, Simulated Passage, developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service), and 

information on costs of facility modifications. 

This juvenile passage CEA is preliminary. It is intended more to illustrate the potential 

for CEA than to determine the cost-effectiveness of particular passage improvements. 

CEA might increase the rate of implementation of cost-effective passage improvements 

because it shows that juvenile passage survival can be increased in the long run at a net 

cost reduction to power consumers. CEA, combined with the ability to borrow against 

future power revenues, might do even more to speed the implementation of passage 

improvements, and ultimately, the recovery of listed species. 

Simple cost-effectiveness measures may be developed for actions that have measurable 

survival and cost effects. The measure chosen for this example is the cost of an action 

divided by the change in the percent of juvenile migrants surviving through the mainstem 

to below Bonneville Dam. Table ES-1 shows results.

Table ES-1 suggests that extended length screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose, and 

the Bonneville powerhouse II corner collector, are all highly cost-effective in comparison 

to August spill at Ice Harbor dam. For example, the extended length screens at Lower 

Granite dam appear to be approximately 50 times (600/12) more cost-effective for fall 

Chinook juvenile passage than August spill at Ice Harbor. The cost-effectiveness of the 

Bonneville corner collector appears to be approximately 6 times (600/95) that of August 

spill at Ice Harbor.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 2

Table ES-1. 

Summary of Juvenile Passage Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Cost Per 

Unit of Juvenile Survival for Selected Passage Actions

Million $ per Year per Percentage Point 

Increase in Juvenile Survival

Fall 

Chinook

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook Steelhead

August spill at Ice Harbor $600 No Effect No Effect

Extended length screens at Lower Granite $12 $3 $6

Extended length screens at Little Goose $23 $7 $14

Corner collector at Bonneville $95 $95 $158

One purpose of our analysis is to show how CEA might be used to identify combinations 

of actions, or scenarios, that make both “power consumers” and “fish” better off. Results 

of three such scenario analyses are summarized in Table ES-2. For example, the first 

scenario combines the cessation of August bypass spill at Ice Harbor with extended 

length screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. Increased power revenues from 

reduced spill are expected to be greater than the annualized costs of the extended length 

screens, so net power system revenue (increased power revenues net of passage 

improvement costs) of $900,000 could be returned to ratepayers annually. At the same 

time, survival of Snake River juveniles would be expected to increase by 0.31% to 

1.11%, depending on the stock, with no effect on Columbia River stocks. In this case, 

power revenues from reduced spill could fund passage improvements to increase juvenile 

survival while increasing net power system revenues. 

Removable spillway wiers (RSWs) are expected to reduce bypass spill while maintaining 

or increasing juvenile passage survival. RSWs at Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and 

Ice Harbor dams are evaluated. It is assumed that bypass spill is reduced by half, but 

juvenile survival is not affected. The RSW proposed for Ice Harbor appears to be costeffective: increased power revenues from reduced bypass spill should be more than 

enough to finance the cost of the RSW. The third example in Table ES-2 shows that net 

power system revenues from the Ice Harbor RSW are large enough to finance the 

Bonneville corner collector, which results in a measurable survival benefit, while still 

leaving $6.26 million annually for ratepayers.

In contrast, a RSW at Little Goose does not appear to be cost effective: increased power 

revenues are not even enough to pay for the weir. Results for the RSW at Lower 

Monumental are too close to call. These RSWs might be cost-effective if survival is 

increased, or if behavioral guidance systems are not required. In addition to illustrating 

cost-effective alternatives, CEA can help identify potential passage investments that 

should be put on hold pending an improved showing of cost-effectiveness.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 3

Table ES-2.

Summary of Juvenile Passage Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Results for CostEffective Scenarios

Change in Percent Survival of Juveniles

to Below Bonneville Dam

Scenario

Annualized 

Net Change 

in Power 

Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, 

Million $ 1.

Snake 

River 

Fall 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Steelhead

Columbia 

River 

Stocks

Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice 

Harbor and Construct Extended Length 

Screens at Lower Granite and Little 

Goose

$0.90 0.31% 1.11% 0.61% none

Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice 

Harbor and Build Bonneville Corner 

Collector $1.26 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% positive

Build Removable Spillway Weir at Ice 

Harbor and Build Bonneville Corner 

Collector $6.26 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% positive

1. Net power system revenue. Capital costs of facilities are annualized over 20 years at 4 percent real 

interest

There are a number of limitations to the preliminary CEA. First, some of the analysis is 

retrospective in that the extended length screens and Bonneville corner collector are 

already built. Second, the effects of passage improvements on juvenile survival are 

uncertain, and some future costs are uncertain. The analysis is based on conservative 

assumptions regarding biological benefits, and if costs are uncertain, the higher of the 

range of costs is used. Third, the analysis is based on annual average flow conditions. 

Results in any given year, or even a short series of years, might be different and affect 

both cost and effectiveness.

A fourth limitation is that there is currently no direct institutional mechanism whereby 

power revenues from reduced bypass spill can be used to fund passage improvements. On 

the other hand, Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) has some discretion for 

funding passage improvements that may be cost-effective. An Implementation Team, 

made up of representatives from federal and state agencies, the tribes, and utilities, is 

currently considering possible actions that could offset the juvenile survival effects of 

reduced summer bypass spill.

One purpose of the analysis is to identify information gaps and uncertainties that limit the 

identification of more cost-effective ways of inc reasing juvenile survival. Many 

information gaps associated with juvenile survival are well known. Delayed mortality, 

survival through the different passage routes, and spillway survival with RSWs are key 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 4

uncertainties. On the cost side, the post-installation costs of the RSWs; for research, 

behavioral guidance systems, and operations should be clarified. 

2. Introduction

As a matter of broad social and economic policy, available fish and wildlife dollars 

should be spent in a way that maximizes the beneficial impacts to fish and wildlife. More 

specifically, the Northwest Power Act requires that the Council consider whether there is 

a less costly way of achieving a given biological effect. Section §4(h)(6)(C) requires that 

the Council “will utilize, where equally effective alternative means of achieving the same 

sound biological objective exist, the alternative with the minimum economic cost.” 

Section §4(h)(10)(D)(vi) states that “in making its recommendations to BPA, the council 

shall determine whether the projects employ cost-effective measures to achieve program 

objectives.”1

Since the energy crisis of 2000-01 and the ensuing Bonneville financial difficulties, 

increasing attention has been paid to the cost-effectiveness of fish and wildlife mitigation 

programs. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of spill for juvenile passage has come 

under increased scrutiny. The Council’s 2003 Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program call for “a rigorous evaluation of the biological 

effectiveness and cost of spillway passage.” The stated goal of the evaluation would be 

to “determine if it is possible to achieve the same, or greater, levels of survival and 

biological benefit to migrating fish as currently achieved while reducing the amount of 

water spilled, thus decreasing the adverse impact on the region’s power supply.”2

Council staff has presented preliminary analyses of the costs and fish population effects 

of summer spill.3 These analyses have not addressed whether there is a less costly way of 

achieving the same biological effect. That is, the additional power revenues associated 

with reduced spill have been estimated, but it has not been determined if it is possible to 

achieve the same, or greater, levels of survival using these revenues to offset the cost of 

other improvements. 

The System Configuration Team (SCT) of the Columbia River Regional Forum was 

established to review progress on planning/engineering studies, and/or collection of 

research data, and to make appropriate modifications to passage improvements or their 

schedules. The Implementation Team (IT) consists of representatives from the Federal 

operating and regulatory agencies, States (including Alaska), Columbia River Indian 

Tribes, and Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts. The IT 

 

1

 Northwest Power Act, 94 Stat. 2710, as amended by Pub. L. 104-206 §5124(h)(6)(C) 

§512(4)(h)(10)(D)(vi) September 30, 1996 110 Stat. 3005

2

 Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, NPCC Council 

Document 2003-11. Page 19.

3

 For example, Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill, July 16, 

2003; Cost and Energy Impacts of Fish and Wildlife Operations, May 9 2003.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 5

[p]rovides a mechanism for coordination, decision, and appropriate and timely 

implementation of NMFS’ Biological Opinions on the Federal Columbia River 

Power System. These include real time operations of the hydroelectric system for 

the protection of migrating salmon and other listed species, needs and priority for 

changes to mainstem Columbia fish passage facilities, fish transportation, and 

research, monitoring and evaluation needs.4

The IT has recently begun considering reduced summer bypass spill as a method for 

increasing power revenues, and a spill offset group is considering actions that could be 

taken to offset the juvenile survival effects of reduced spill. The group has developed a 

set of nine principles, of which cost-effectiveness is one, and a number of potential 

actions are being evaluated.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) evaluates and compares alternative ways to achieve a 

stated, quantifiable objective. This report provides an example of a preliminary CEA that 

considers the costs of alternative groups of actions, or scenarios, and their effects on 

juvenile passage and survival on the Snake River. The alternative actions considered in 

this brief study are August bypass spill, removable spillway weirs, extended length 

screens and an improved surface bypass system.

2.1. Purposes of the Report

The purposes of this report are

• To explore the potential for applying CEA to the juvenile passage problem;

• To provide an example of the application of CEA, by comparing spill and other 

juvenile passage improvements and identifying changes that are cost-effective in 

that net costs are reduced and juvenile survival is increased;

• To identify information gaps and uncertainties that limit the identification of more 

cost-effective ways of increasing juvenile survival; and

• To identify impediments and constraints to implementing cost-effective juvenile 

passage improvements.

The report is structured as follows. First, CEA is defined and described. Types of CEA, 

their potential for applications to fish and wildlife expenditures and their general 

limitations are discussed. The significance of the choice of a biological objective in 

framing a cost effectiveness analysis is discussed. Then, CEA is applied to a simple 

example of passage spill and passage improvements. 

Finally, the limitations of the analysis and its policy implication are discussed. This 

juvenile passage CEA is preliminary. It is intended solely to illustrate the potential for 

 

4

 From Regional Implementation Forum information (NOAA 2003)
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 6

CEA as opposed to fully determining the cost-effectiveness of particular passage 

improvements. The major limitations of the analysis are numerous biological and cost 

uncertainties, and the absence of a formal institutional mechanism to allow increased 

revenue from reduced bypass spill to be channeled to passage improvements.

2.2. Definition and description of cost-effectiveness analysis

2.2.1. Definition

CEA compares the costs and results of alternative actions, or groups of actions, that could 

be taken to accomplish a specific quantifiable objective. The essential requirements are a 

measurable objective (or a reasonable proxy) and the economic costs of various actions 

that could be taken to achieve that objective. 

2.2.2. Description as a comparison of scenarios

A CEA is, fundamentally, a comparison of forecasts of what would happen under at least 

two alternative courses of action. As such, CEA must be concerned with a variety of 

future conditions that might affect cost-effectiveness. 

The status quo scenario is the basis against which the costs and the achievements of other 

scenarios are compared. For this example of CEA analysis, the Federal Columbia River 

Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) is considered the status quo.

An action scenario is an action or a group of actions that might be packaged together to 

accomplish the same objectives. CEA compares their costs and amount of 

accomplishment (effectiveness) to the status quo scenario.

3. Types of cost-effectiveness analysis

CEA has several variants that could be applied to fish and wildlife costs and 

improvements. This section describes the types of CEA and the general methods used to 

determine cost-effective solutions.

3.1. Maximize an objective subject to a fixed budget

In this application, the problem facing managers is that the budget available to meet an 

objective is fixed and the total costs of all available or potential actions exceed the 

budgeted amount. The management goal is to select those actions that have the largest 

positive effect on the objective given the fixed budget. 

If the amount of improvement in the objective is additive over all possible actions (that is, 

if the actions are not in some way interdependent, either in terms of cost or in terms of 

effectiveness), the easiest way to determine which actions to select is to divide the cost of 

each action by the amount of objective it accomplishes to obtain a unit cost. The actions 

are then selected in rank order of increasing unit cost until the budget is exhausted.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 7

This solution method will not work if there are significant interactions among the actions 

such that the effectiveness of each action depends on which other actions are selected. In 

this situation, it may be necessary to compare sets of actions to determine which set is 

most cost-effective.

The selection of cost-effective actions is also more complicated if some actions are not 

divisible, meaning that only one size of the action is available. If the costs of indivisible 

actions are large relative to the entire budget, then the cost-effective solution may not 

include some actions with low unit costs. The most obvious instance of this problem 

occurs if the total cost of the lowest unit-cost action exceeds the budget. (This does not 

occur in this study)

3.2 Achieve a fixed objective at least cost

In this form of CEA, the objective is fixed, there are more than enough actions available 

to meet the fixed objective, and the goal is to achieve the objective at least cost. There are 

several examples of quantitative objectives in the fish and wildlife program to which this 

type of CEA could be applied. 

• The BiOp includes Tier 2 Hydro System Juvenile Survival Rates by 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). The FCRPS combined juvenile survival 

rate objectives for Snake River spring/summer chinook, fall chinook and 

steelhead are 57.6%, 12.7% and 50.8%, respectively.5 Information on success in 

meeting these targets in 2001 and 2002 is available.6

• The Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH) identified a 2 percent 

minimum Smolt to Adult Ratio (SAR) as a minimum recovery threshold for wild 

stocks.7

The solution method for selecting actions in this application is identical to the fixedbudget problem, except that actions are selected in order of increasing cost per unit of 

objective, starting with the action with the lowest unit cost, until the objective is reached. 

Potential problems with interactions among actions and with indivisible actions apply 

here as well.

 

5

 USACE, North Pacific Division. Endangered Species Act Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia 

River Power System. Summer 2001

6

 USACE, Northwestern Division. Endangered Species Act 2003 Check-in Report for the Federal 

Columbia River Power System September 2003.

7

 In 1994, a science panel concluded that there were three major differences between the models used to 

evaluate actions for recovery of Columbia River Basin salmon stocks: 1) the distribution of survival over 

the life span; 2) the effect of flow on survival; and 3) the benefit of transportation. The panel concluded that 

work should be focused on resolving these issues through hypothesis testing. This process became known 

as the Plan for Analyzing Testable Hypotheses (PATH). 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 8

3.3 Analyze scenarios (i.e., groups of actions)

CEA can be used to compare feasible scenarios in terms of total cost and level of 

effectiveness. This method is preferable where there are many interactions among 

actions; for example, passage improvements that must be implemented together. Often, 

one passage improvement cannot be implemented effectively without another. The CEA 

provides information on cost-effectiveness, but the analysis does not necessarily select 

the scenario that is most cost-effecticve. 

Constraints can be imposed on a scenario analysis that might lead some scenarios to be 

discarded. For example, the management goal might require that costs be reduced from 

the status quo. If this is the case, any scenario that increases cost must be discarded 

regardless of the increase in achievement of the objective. On the other hand, a 

management goal may require that the achievement of the objective be increased or 

maintained. In this case, scenarios whose net effects are to reduce the objective must be 

discarded regardless of the cost savings. 

3.3.1 Using CEA to meet the policy objectives of the Power Planning Act and the 

Mainstem Amendments

CEA can be used to search for and identify scenarios that meet the cost-effectiveness 

criteria defined by the Power Planning Act and the Mainstem Amendments. The example 

analysis of juvenile passage in this report seeks to identify scenarios that are expected to 

increase the objective (juvenile survival) and reduce net costs (power losses plus costs of 

actions). This criterion is intended to be consistent with the intent of the Northwest Power 

Planning Act and the Council’s 2003 Mainstem Amendments. 

For purposes of this analysis we define a cost-effective scenario as one that reduces net 

costs (power revenue losses plus costs of passage actions) and increases the objective 

(juvenile survival) relative to the status quo scenario. This unambiguous “win-win” 

analytical constraint is intended to be acceptable to both power and fisheries interests. 

Figure 1 shows the type of win-win situation that the juvenile passage CEA hopes to 

identify. To implement a win-win scenario, some of the increased power revenues due to

reduced spill would be used for passage improvements that would increase survival. 

Total survival would be increased and the cost of the passage improvements would be 

less than the increased power revenues. 

This is not to imply that a “win-no lose” scenario could not be selected. However, it may 

be difficult to obtain agreement for a win-no lose result. The party who is not made better 

off has no reason to participate. Often, any change from the status quo is viewed as being 

more risky, so there needs to be some expectation of gain to induce participation. In this 

case, the winner may be able to compensate the other party so that both are better off.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 9

Figure 1. The Goal of IEAB CEA Analysis: Identify Potential

Win-Win Situations

Reduced 

Spill

Reduce 

Juvenile 

Survival

Increase Power 

Revenues

Use Revenues to Pay 

Costs of Passage 

Improvements

Increase 

Juvenile 

Survival

Net 

Biological 

Effect is 

Increased 

Survival

Some Power Revenues 

Remain after Paying 

Costs of Passage 

Improvements

Win Win

3.3.2 Handling multiple objectives

Multiple objectives increase the complexity of CEA. In the juvenile passage CEA, for 

example, there will be more than one species for which increased juvenile survival is an 

objective. Suppose a scenario increases survival of juvenile salmon but reduces that of 

steelhead? Is this scenario better? CEA does not provide information regarding whether a 

salmon is preferred to a steelhead. If one objective is increased, but the other reduced, 

CEA cannot provide a basis for selecting or rejecting the scenario. The information can, 

however, be useful to decisionmakers who must make such tradeoffs.

3.3.2.1 Win-win-win scenarios

A win-win-win scenario minimizes costs, and maximizes more than one objective; 

salmon and steelhead, for example. Within the confines of CEA, the problem of multiple 

objectives can be overcome in only one way: through the existence of scenarios that 

reduce net costs and do not decrease any objectives, for example, juvenile survival of 

both salmon and steelhead.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 10

3.3.2.2 Choosing among win-win scenarios

CEA of scenarios could result in the enviable problem that more than one scenario is 

cost-effective relative to the status quo. In this case, the status quo scenario clearly should 

be rejected, but which of the other scenarios should be selected? 

Among the cost-effective scenarios (those with more survival and less cost than the status 

quo), one scenario may have less cost and more effectiveness for both species than the 

others. If so, then this one is clearly preferred, at least within the set of scenarios under 

consideration. 

However, it is more likely that one cost-effective scenario will have both less cost and 

less effectiveness than another. For example, we might find that a scenario that combines 

reduced spill with other actions increases survival a little, but net cost savings compared 

to the status quo are large. Another scenario might increase survival a lot, but net cost 

savings are small. CEA alone cannot provide a basis for selecting among win-win 

scenarios. 

4. Limitations of cost-effectiveness analysis

CEA has a number of inherent limitations, some of which are discussed above. A 

particular limitation is where there are multiple objectives that cannot be measured in 

common units, and so cannot be compared on the same basis. In such cases, there is no 

definitive basis for choosing among scenarios based on cost effectiveness unless one 

scenario happens to be the best for all the objectives. 

Some objectives might be quantifiable in dollar terms, i.e., as benefits or costs, and these 

values can be included with all other costs in the CEA. The costs counted in CEA can 

include any measurable economic costs. Ultimately, if all objectives and effects can be 

valued in dollars, then CEA reduces to benefit-cost analysis.

4.1 Economic benefit of the objective is not considered

One of the most important limitations of CEA is that it does not consider whether the 

given objective has a value that is greater than its cost. CEA seeks to meet an objective, 

but it does not address the value of meeting the objective. The objective is taken as a 

given. For this reason, many economists argue that CEA is conceptually inferior to 

benefit-cost analysis. In benefit-cost analysis, all effects are valued in dollar terms and 

the scenario with the most net economic benefit can be identified. CEA cannot identify 

the scenario with the most economic benefit because the economic benefit of the 

objective is not considered.

CEA can be used, however, to identify efficiency improvements. If we are able to 

produce more fish at less cost, that is clearly an efficiency improvement, even if the most 

efficient result is to produce more fish at higher cost or fewer fish at lower cost.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 11

In many cases, it is not practical or even desirable to place dollar estimates on the 

objective, and CEA is the best tool for this situation. For example, most economists 

would agree that it is difficult to place a dollar value on wild salmon and steelhead. But 

for CEA, all that is needed is a measure of effectiveness. For example, the BiOp includes 

quantified survival goals. In this case, CEA may be the most practical tool available.

4.2 Risk and uncertainty 

Risk and uncertainty have different meanings. Risk involves a probability distribution 

that is known or can be estimated. For example, we can estimate an expected distribution 

for river flows from historical records, but hydropower production is still risky because 

the amount of flow in any given year is quite variable. With uncertainty, a probability 

distribution cannot be estimated, usually because there is no precedent. For example, 

many fish and wildlife improvements have uncertain outcomes because they have not 

been tried before. 

For many reasons, the recovery of an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) is an exercise 

in planning under uncertainty. The ESU has never been recovered before. The effects of 

past and future recovery actions are uncertain. A realistic analysis must recognize that 

there is risk and uncertainty involving the costs and efficacy of actions, and there is also 

uncertainty involving whether or not actions can actually be implemented (e.g., due to 

budget constraints, legal questions, or political opposition). 

Some scenarios may be viewed as being more risky or uncertain than others. Risk and 

uncertainty may be important factors in selecting a scenario. In general, the status quo 

scenario will be viewed as being less risky and uncertain, though that view may not be 

reasonable. Scenarios that are less uncertain or less risky should be preferred, all else 

equal.

Decision-making will be more transparent if sources of risk and uncertainty are revealed. 

Research can be used to reduce risk and uncertainty. CEA may reveal potential costsavings from successful research. In the analysis below, uncertainty associated with 

survival and cost parameters suggests potential cost-savings from additiona l research. 

5. Implementing CEA

5.1. Selecting an objective

The selection of an objective and the measurement of that objective are critical decisions 

for CEA. The objective is the physical measure of success in a CEA. Some alternative 

objectives for CEA for production and recovery of anadromous fish are:

• Juvenile survival of one species at one facility

• Juvenile survival of multiple species at multiple facilities

• Adult returns
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 12

• Harvest

The objective determines the scope of analysis in that the analysis should include feasible 

actions that affect that objective. If the objective involves a fraction of the life cycle of 

the species, juvenile passage for example, then fewer actions need to be considered, but 

correspondingly less information is considered about what other actions might be 

desirable. For example, if juvenile survival is the objective, then harvest actions can be 

disregarded, but the analysis cannot consider whether harvest actions might be more 

desirable than passage actions in improving adult returns.

5.2. Counting costs

It is important to consider and define which costs should be counted. The accounting 

perspective of any economic analysis defines precisely whose costs are counted. As an 

example, one accounting perspective might be all citizens of the Pacific Northwest. 

Another, more constrained accounting perspective might be ratepayers of the Bonneville 

Power Administration. The two might differ, for example, when some fish and wildlife 

costs are paid by state or federal taxpayers rather than power users. The Pacific 

Northwest region perspective might count certain state taxes paid by regional citizens 

because they are used to fund fish and wildlife projects. The Bonneville cost perspective 

would not count such taxes.

5.3. Specifying scenarios

CEA scenarios should be specified that are realistic and acceptable from a variety of 

perspectives, including legal, cultural, engineering and biological. The scenarios and the 

analysis must capture all of the important changes that are likely to be associated with 

each scenario. If there is some doubt as to the feasibility of the scenarios, these issues 

must be addressed. Again, CEA is just one step in a series of analyses that are likely to be 

required before a scenario is selected and implemented.

5.4. Evaluating scenarios

With the decisions on objective, accounting perspective, and scenarios resolved, cost data 

and measures of effectiveness can be collected and the scenarios compared. The 

evaluation of scenarios may require that they be modified to make them internally 

consistent and feasible.

6. Review of previous studies of reduced spill

This section describes some recent analyses of reduced bypass spill for the purpose of 

increasing power revenues, and their results in terms of survival of affected anadromous 

fish. The studies are from a variety of sources and organizations and reflect a variety of 

assumptions that are not evaluated here.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 13

6.1. Reducing summer bypass spill

There are numerous examples of calculations showing the opportunity cost of power 

foregone to provide summer bypass spill. 

6.1.1. Council

Council staff presented an analysis of summer bypass spill reductions at the Warm 

Springs Council meeting on July 16, 2003.8 Ending August bypass spill would generate 

about $38 million a year in power revenues.9 The analysis suggested that the cessation of 

August bypass spill would have negligible effects on Snake River Fall Chinook (a 

reduction of 3 fish escapement against an escapement goal of 2,500, which has been 

reached on average over the last 10 years) and a reduction of 1,000 fish harvested and 

1,400 fish escapement on healthy Upper Columbia Fall Chinook.

6.1.2. Bonneville

Bonneville examined the benefits of ending summer bypass spill in mid-August (two 

weeks early, relative to the status quo) at Bonneville, the Dalles, John Day and Ice 

Harbor dams.10 The analysis estimated that power revenues would increase by $17 

million, but 585 fewer adult Columbia River fall Chinook would return. 11 The power cost 

to consumers per returned adult is therefore about $30,000. Most of the reduced 

escapement is from healthy Columbia River stocks. 

6.1.3. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) provided an opinion 

regarding the BPA analysis of eliminating spill from Ice Harbor and Lower Columbia 

Dams in the second half of August.12 They list twelve stocks that would be affected. 

They state that:

• increased mortality for Hanford Reach fall Chinook would be 16,000 to 26,000 

adults;

• direct mortality to Deschutes fall Chinook juveniles not ye t passed The Dalles and 

Bonneville Dams would increase 12%; mortality of other stocks originating 

higher in the Columbia River system would be even larger;

• there would be relatively large effects to adult returns, because late migrating fall 

Chinook have a higher SAR than early migrants;

 

8NPCC. Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill. July 16, 2003.

9

 The assumed price of power, based on a 1999 price forecast, was $28 per MWH.

10 From Suzanne Cooper. “2003 Summer Spill - - Two Week Curtailment Option” BPA, 6/2003.

11 BPA used different power prices than those used in the council study.

12 CRITFC. To: Steven Wright. From: CRITFC. RE: Summer Spill at Federal Columbia River Power 

System Dams. July 23, 2003.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 14

• additional losses of adults would be caused by fallback through turbines and 

screen bypass systems.

While the CRITFC letter does not attempt a cost-effectiveness analysis, it concludes that 

full summer spill and funding of certain fisheries programs should be provided. The 

opinion expressed in this letter illustrates some of the uncertainty associated with existing 

information about the effectiveness of juvenile fish passage strategies.

6.2. Eliminate spill in dry years

In dry years, survival of Snake River migrants may be maximized by transporting fish, 

and the unit value of power is likely to be higher than average. In another analysis, the 

cost of bypass spill in a dry year was estimated to be about $150 million annually. 13 In a 

separate analysis, the total number of adult ESA-listed fish lost by eliminating spill in dry 

years was estimated to be in the range of 468 to 4,681 fish, depending on smolt to adult 

survival.14 The cost of bypass spill per adult fish saved would therefore be $32,000 to 

$320,000.

7. An Example of Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Juvenile 

Passage Scenarios

7.1. Purpose and Objective

The purpose of the juvenile passage CEA is to demonstrate the potential for CEA to be 

used to improve efficiency of passage spill and the implementation of passage 

improvements in the Columbia River Basin. The analysis seeks to identify potential winwin situations for “fish” and “power.” In these situations, passage improvements could be 

implemented using a share of revenues from reduced bypass spill in such a way that both 

passage survival and net returns to the hydropower system would increase.

7.2. Scope

The analysis uses Snake River juvenile mainstem passage survival as the objective, and 

evaluates only bypass spill and passage improvements. Passage survival is measured 

from above Lower Granite dam to the Bonneville dam tailrace. There are many ways 

(timing, location, amounts) in which bypass spill could be reduced to increase power 

revenues. For this analysis, only spill at Snake River dams is considered, and only 

survival of Snake River stocks is measured. 

Other runs, meaning upper Columbia River stocks or stocks from Lower Columbia 

tributaries, are not evaluated, and no actions or scenarios are considered that could reduce 

their survival. These stocks are excluded merely to simplify the example. Some actions 

 

13 Data on value of power losses caused by spill are from the NPCC presentation "Cost and Energy Impacts 

of Fish and Wildlife Operations" Slides 10 and 11.

14 Fish numbers are from NPCC “Recommendations on 2001 Federal Columbia River Power System 

Operations and Fish Survival," Tables 7, 8 and 9. 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 15

that could benefit these other stocks are included in the analysis. Future CEA could 

consider these stocks using the methods developed here.

Many potential actions to increase salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia 

Basin are not considered because they would not affect juvenile passage survival in a 

measurable way, or because they are not being actively investigated at this time. These 

actions include hatcheries, habitat improvements in the estuary and natal streams, harvest 

management, and major hydrosystem changes such as dam removals and flow 

management. Thus, it is quite possible that there are actions that are more cost-effective 

than the ones studied here.

There are many actions being considered that could improve Snake River juvenile 

passage survival. Bonneville provides information on passage improvements that are 

currently planned.15 Many more actions are considered or evaluated in other forums.16

Many of these actions are in the conceptual or development phase, so the information 

needed to evaluate them in the CEA is not available, or the expected magnitude of their 

effects is somewhat controversial. For some other actions, their effectiveness depends 

substantially on which other actions are included.

For this preliminary analysis, passage improvements were selected based on the 

reliability of information about their cost and effectiveness. Three types of improvements 

were selected: extended length screens, removable spillway weirs (RSWs), and the corner 

collector at Bonneville dam. 

The actions considered in this analysis and their purposes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Actions considered in IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Action Purpose

Cease Ice Harbor juvenile bypass spill on July 31- no 

bypass spill in August

Reduce spill and increase power sales revenue

Build and operate extended length screens, Lower Granite 

Dam

Improve fish guidance efficiency

Build and operate extended length screens, Little Goose 

Dam

Improve fish guidance efficiency

Build and operate Bonneville Powerhouse II corner 

collector

Increase share of migrants passed by the sluiceway

Build and operate removable spillway weir and behavioral 

guidance system at Little Goose dam

Reduce spill and increase power sales revenue. May 

increase spillway survival

Build and operate removable spillway weir and behavioral 

guidance system at Lower Monumental dam

Reduce spill and increase power sales revenue. May 

increase spillway survival

Build and operate removable spillway weir and behavioral 

guidance system at Ice Harbor dam

Reduce spill and increase power sales revenue. May 

increase spillway survival

 

15 Bonneville maintains spreadsheets for “Hydro Project Capital Costs, Appropriations, and Estimated 

Interest & Depreciation” which are updated annually

16 For example, see Giorgi, Albert, Mark Miller and John Stevenson (2002); Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board for the Northwest Power Planning Council (2002); USACE, North Pacific Division 

(2001); Skalski, John R. and Dilip Mathur (undated) and Whitney, Richard R., Lyle D. Calvin, Michael W. 

Erbo Jr. and Charles Coutant (1997)
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 16

7.3. Example Scenarios

Reduced spill and selected passage improvements are combined into scenarios to show 

how increased juvenile passage survival and increased net power system revenues 

(increased power revenues net of passage improvement costs) might both be achieved. 

Reduced spill increases net power system revenues but reduces survival, and RSWs 

increase net power system revenues and are assumed to maintain survival. Only extended 

length screens and the Bonneville corner collector increase survival measurably. Since 

our goal is to increase net power system revenues and increase survival, we need to 

include at least one of the passage improvements in any scenario. Three example 

scenarios, or combinations of actions, are evaluated. The scenarios are described in Table 

2 below.

Table 2: Example Scenarios for the Juvenile Passage

 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Example 1. Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice Harbor and Construct Extended Length Screens at 

Lower Granite and Little Goose

Example 2. Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice Harbor and Build Bonneville Corner Collector

Example 3. Build Removable Spillway Weir and Behavioral Guidance System at Ice Harbor and 

Build Bonneville Corner Collector

In two scenarios, bypass spill would end at Ice Harbor July 31 and increased annual 

average power revenues of $6 million would be available to finance passage 

improvements. In one of these two scenarios, bypass spill reduction is combined with 

extended length screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. Extended length 

screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose are currently operational. Therefore, the CEA 

for this scenario is retrospective. 

In the second of the first two examples, the July 31 end to bypass spill at Ice Harbor is 

combined with the corner collector at Bonneville powerhouse II. The corner collector at 

Bonneville powerhouse II is currently under construction. Therefore, the CEA for this 

improvement is also retrospective. 

In the third example, a RSW and behavioral guidance system (BGS) would be built at Ice 

Harbor. The RSW at Ice Harbor is currently in the design phase, so the analysis is 

prospective. The analysis considers the potential for increased revenue from reduced spill 

enabled by the RSW to be used to increase passage survival by financing and building the 

corner collector at Bonneville powerhouse II. Therefore, the CEA for this improvement is 

also retrospective. 

7.4. Analysis Methods

The analysis combines three types of information. Increased revenues from reduced 

bypass spill are estimated from hydrosystem and electricity price forecasting models. 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 17

Information on the capital costs of passage improvements was provided by the 

Bonneville. Changes in juvenile passage survival caused by reduced passage spill and 

passage improvements were estimated using SIMPAS, a model of juvenile salmon and 

steelhead survival.

7.4.1. Revenues from Reduced Spill

The measures of hydropower revenues used in the analysis are all derived from an 

analysis of costs of passage spill presented to the Council by Council staff in 2003.17 This 

analysis used the Genesys model to estimate hydrosystem power production, and the 

Aurora model provided data representing monthly "stable" (i.e., non-crisis) bulk 

electricity prices at Mid-Columbia. These prices are used to place a dollar value on 

changes in electricity production. Results are provided by facility. 

To simplify the analysis, reduced spill on the Lower Columbia River is not considered. 

On the Snake River, only Ice Harbor provides spill in summer. The total cost of summer 

bypass spill at Ice Harbor is about $10.5 million annually in an average water year. The

analysis estimates that about 56% of summer spill cost occurs in August, so Ice Harbor 

bypass spill costs in August are about $6 million. In two example scenarios, this revenue 

is assumed to be available to cover costs of extended length screens or the corner 

collector at Bonneville. These passage improvements would not have any additional 

effects on hydropower production.

RSWs are being considered for three out of four Snake River dams. It is assumed that the 

RSWs would reduce bypass spill by half year round. Therefore, half of the revenue losses 

from bypass spill could be avoided at Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor. 

Annual average revenue loss due to full bypass spill at these three facilities would be 

about $2 million, $7 million and $29 million, respectively, so about $1 million, $3.5 

million and $14.5 million of power revenues could be saved, respectively, by RSWs. 

Bonneville and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recently estimated that the 

RSWs would save power worth an average of $0.6 million annually at Little Goose and 

$13 to $22 million at Ice Harbor. Therefore, our assumptions probably favor the RSW at 

Little Goose, but are conservative for Ice Harbor. 

It should be noted and recognized that SIMPAS as modified for this CEA uses average 

monthly flows from a long hydrologic period. Juvenile passage conditions in any given 

month will differ from SIMPAS results as hydrologic conditions vary from the average. 

The energy analysis also assumes average hydroelectric conditions in determining energy 

losses and price. In general, energy losses from spill will be less valuable when 

hydroelectric supplies are plentiful, and more valuable when supplies are scarce. The 

improved guidance efficiency of extended length screens may be more important in dry 

years because in-river survival is lower in low water conditions compared to barging.

 

17 Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill, July 16, 2003;
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 18

7.4.2. Costs of Passage Improvements 

Capital costs of passage improvements were obtained from Bonneville Power 

Administration. 18 Actual capital costs may differ from these planned costs. The planned 

costs generally include planning, design, regulatory and construction costs. 

For the RSW’s, actual capital costs of the facilities are less than half of the planned 

cost.19 The facilities cost about $15 million each, but two years of studies will be required 

to determine if survival could be improved. If so, then BGSs would be constructed, and 

more studies would be required. Total costs with the studies and the BGS are less than 

the budgeted costs provided by Bonneville. To be conservative, it is assumed that the 

BGSs would have to be included, and the higher budgeted costs are used.

It is assumed that the passage improvement facilities have a useful life of 20 years. A 

four percent real interest rate is used in the analysis.

Operating, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) costs must be included. For the 

extended length screens, OM&R costs have been estimated for several maintenance 

alternatives.20 For the preferred maintenance alternative, maintenance costs are estimated 

to be $0.42 million per year at either Lower Granite or Little Goose. This alternative 

includes the purchase of spare screens and other parts costing $3.09 million to help 

minimize maintenance costs. 

OM&R costs for the other passage improvements are less certain at this time. For the 

corner collector, OM&R costs are assumed to be the same proportion relative to capital 

costs as for the extended length screens. OM&R costs, therefore, are equal to the ratio of 

the capital cost to the capital cost of the extended length screens, times the annual 

maintenance cost ($0.42 million) or replacement cost ($3.09 million) of the extended 

length screens. 

RSW OM&R costs are believed to be small compared to extended length screens.21 RSW 

operating costs are required for raising and lowering once per year, and for pumping 

water. Costs are assumed to be $100,000 per RSW, annually.

 Costs assumed for the analysis are provided in Table 3.

 

18 Spreadsheets for Hydro Project Capital Costs, Appropriations, and Estimated Interest & Depreciation. 

Updated annually

19 Barnhart, 2003

20 Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers Extended Length Screen (ESBS) System-Wide Letter Report. USAC, 

2002.

21 Kalamaz, 2003
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 19

Table 3: Assumed Capital, Replacement, and O&M Costs

of Passage Improvements (Million $)

Costs Bonneville Extended Length Screens Removable Spillway Wiers

2

nd Power 

House 

Corner 

Collector

Lower 

Granite

Little 

Goose

Little 

Goose

Lower 

Monumental Ice Harbor

Initial Capital $50.00 $30.00 $30.00 $45.80 $45.55 $42.00

Annualized Capital1$3.68 $2.21 $2.21 $3.37 $3.35 $3.09

Replacement Cost2$5.15 $3.09 $3.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Annualized Replacement Cost1$0.36 $0.22 $0.22 $0.33 $0.33 $0.31

Annual O&M 3$0.70 $0.42 $0.42 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10

Total Annualized Cost $4.74 $2.85 $2.85 $3.80 $3.78 $3.50

Total NPV Cost $64.45 $38.67 $38.67 $51.70 $51.42 $47.52

1. 20 years, 4 percent real interest

2. For ELS, buy a spare ESBS and a spare VBS. For others, (capital cost)/(ELS capital cost)x(ELS replacement)

3. For ELS, from USACE 2002. For others, (capital cost)/(ELS capital cost)x(ELS O&M)

7.4.3. Juvenile Survival and SIMPAS Modeling

7.4.3.1. SIMPAS Status Quo Data

SIMPAS is a simple spreadsheet model of juvenile passage survival developed by 

NMFS. The model can estimate the individual and cumulative effects of spill and 

passage improvements that affect passage efficiency (the share of smolts that do not go 

through the turbines), smolt survival through each passage route, and survival through 

each Snake River reservoir, from above Lower Granite dam to the tailrace at Bonneville 

Dam. Effects on survival of three stocks are counted: fall Chinook, spring Chinook and 

steelhead.

Most of the parameters included in SIMPAS for this analysis are documented in the 

Federal Columbia River Power System 2001 Biological Opinion Appendix D (NOAA, 

2001). Several changes were included for this work. The model was split into two 

separate models: one to represent the April through July period, and one to represent 

August. This split was used to better represent August bypass spill. Data showing average 

monthly Snake River outflows, forced spill and bypass spill were obtained from the 

Council (Fazio, 2003). SIMPAS requires daytime and nighttime spill levels. Forced spill 

was assumed to occur equally during day and night. Bypass spill was allocated to day and 

night according to the BiOp rules in place during each month.

With one model for each of two passage periods, it was necessary to estimate the share of 

each Snake River run that completes its downstream migration in each period. Data were 

obtained from the Fish Passage Center and from the University of Washington. From the 

available history, it appears that practically all steelhead and yearling Chinook have 

passed Lower Monumental dam well before July 31. For subyearling Chinook, being the 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 20

fall run, the share varies from year to year. It is assumed that 65 percent have passed Ice 

Harbor dam by July 31, and 35 percent pass after then.

SIMPAS accounts for delayed mortality of transported migrants through the Differential 

Delayed Effects value, or D-value. The D-value is the proportion of juveniles transported 

to below Bonneville that survive to escapement. If D is less than the in-river survival 

rate, then in-river migrants survive at higher rates than transported fish. 22 SIMPAS used 

a mid-range estimate of the D-value for fall run Chinook (0.24) but no mid-range values 

were provided for spring Chinook or steelhead. The mid-point of the Lower and Upper 

D-values are used for spring Chinook (0.68) and steelhead (0.55).

SIMPAS was modified to include sluiceway passage at Bonneville powerhouse II. This 

was needed to model the new corner collector. Espenson (2003) summarizes research by 

the Corps of Engineers that showed that “nearly 35 percent of the yearling or spring 

chinook and 50 percent of the steelhead approaching the second powerhouse passed 

downriver through the sluiceway.” These estimates are used for the status quo SIMPAS 

model.

Table 4 provides status quo survival estimates from SIMPAS, measured from above 

Lower Granite dam to the Bonneville tailrace. For comparison, the FCRPS BiOp Tier 2 

hydrosystem juvenile survival rate objectives for Snake River fall Chinook, 

spring/summer chinook, and steelhead are 12.7%, 57.6%, and 50.8%, respectively.

Table 4: Summary of Baseline Survival Estimated

from SIMPAS as Modified for CEA

Fall Chinook

Apr-Jul

Fall Chinook 

August

Spring 

Chinook

Steelhead

13.9% 14.3% 52.4% 47.0%

7.4.3.2. SIMPAS Modeling of Passage Improvements

SIMPAS must be modified for the scenario that includes extended length screens. Corps 

researchers measured increases in fish guidance efficiency due to the longer screens for 

spring chinook: from 57 to 72 percent at Lower Granite dam and from 70 to 84 percent 

at Little Goose dam, or 14 to 15 percentage points.23 Swan et al. (1992) reported on 

research using a configuration that simulated an extended length screen. For steelhead, 

they found a fish guidance efficiency of 83 percent as compared to 77 percent with a 

standard submerged traveling screen: a seven percentage point improvement.24

 

22 Giorgi et al. page 7.

23 Rebecca Kalamasz, USACE, personal communication, 11/20/03. Summary of data from Lower Granite 

and Little Goose Lock and Dam Turbine and Intake Screen Design Memorandum #42 and #30, December 

2001.

24 As summarized in Whitney et al., 1997, page 26.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 21

The CEA here assumes that fish guidance efficiency was increased by 5 percentage 

points at each facility when extended length screens were added. This assumption is quite 

conservative given that research has found the actual improvement to be about 15 

percentage points. The conservative assumption allows for possible operational problems 

and outages that might result in lower fish guidance efficiency.

SIMPAS is also modified for scenarios that include the Bonneville corner collector. 

Current expectations are that the “corner collector and improved screened bypass 

completed in 1999 are expected to pass 90 percent of the spring migrants and 75-80 

percent of the summer migrants.”25 For steelhead and spring Chinook, 90 percent is 

assumed, and 75 percent is assumed for fall Chinook.

Information from the new RSW at Lower Granite dam suggests that the RSWs might 

increase survival, 26 but survival improvements at the new facilities cannot be estimated 

with any certainty. Therefore, it is assumed that the new RSWs do not increase survival.

8. Results of the Juvenile Passage CEA

8.1. Results for Individual Passage Measures

Simple cost-effectiveness measures, being cost per unit of survival change, can be 

estimated for actions that have measurable survival and cost effects. By assumption, the 

RSWs do not affect survival, so a measure of cost per unit survival cannot be provided. 

Table 5 shows results.

The preliminary analysis suggests that extended length screens at Lower Granite and 

Little Goose, and the Bonneville powerhouse II corner collector, are all highly costeffective in comparison to August spill at Ice Harbor dam. For example, the annual cost 

of spill per one-percentage point increase in fall Chinook passage survival is $600 million 

(i.e., $6,000,000/-0.01; see Table 6 first line). The same measure for the extended length 

screens at Lower Granite dam is $11.9 million ($2,260,000/0.19; see Table 6 second 

line). Therefore, the extended length screens at Lower Granite dam appear to be 

approximately 50 times (600/11.9) more cost-effective for fall Chinook juvenile passage 

than spill at Ice Harbor in August. By a similar calculation, the extended length screens at 

Little Goose dam appear to be approximately 25 times (600/23.8) more cost-effective for 

fall Chinook juvenile passage than spill at Ice Harbor in August.

The same measure for the corner collector is $94.8 million ($4,740,000/.05, see Table 7 

second line). The cost-effectiveness of the Bonneville corner collector appears to be 

approximately 6 times (600/94.8) that of Ice Harbor August passage spill. This measure 

does not consider the positive effects of the corner collector on Columbia River stocks.

 

25 CBB, 11/7/2003. $50 Million Bonneville Dam Project Expected To Up Survival.

26 Quoting from the Columbia Basin Bulletin (12/8/03) “Preliminary results of an evaluation of the RSW at 

Lower Granite Dam show that survival probability rises from 93.1 percent with spill to 98 percent with the 

RSW and that survival is more consistent over the entire spill season with the RSW.”
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 22

Table 5: Summary of Juvenile Passage Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness 

Analysis. (Cost Per Unit of Juvenile Survival for Selected Passage Actions)

Million $ per Year per Percent Increase in 

Juvenile Survival

Fall Chinook

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook Steelhead

August spill at Ice Harbor $600.0 No Effect No Effect

Extended length screens at Lower Granite $11.9 $3.2 $5.7

Extended length screens at Little Goose $23.8 $7.0 $14.3

Corner collector at Bonneville $94.8 $94.8 $158.0

8.2. Example 1: Cease August bypass spill at Ice Harbor dam and build extended 

length screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose dams

Table 6 shows results for this example scenario. Results of this analysis are retrospective 

in that the extended length screens are already completed at Lower Granite and Little 

Goose dam. Ending August bypass spill at Ice Harbor would reduce survival of fall 

Chinook by about 1-hundredth of 1 percent, or 1 in 10,000 out-migrants. There would be 

no effect on spring Chinook or steelhead because they have all migrated past Ice Harbor 

by July 31.

Revenues generated by ending August spill at Ice Harbor would be worth $81.54 million 

in present value terms ($6 million per year at 4 percent for 20 years). This amount of 

revenue could fund construction of both extended length screens and still leave $12.21 

million in present value terms for other purposes. With both extended length screens, 

survival of fall Chinook, spring Chinook and steelhead would increase by 0.31%, 1.11% 

and 0.61%, respectively. It should be noted that the assumed improvement in fish 

guidance efficiency (five percent) is much less than recently observed improvements, up 

to 15 percent for yearling spring Chinook. 

There are many uncertainties embedded in this analysis. The screens are used to divert 

fish into transportation facilities, which may reduce survival compared with spill. To 

consider effects of a different assumption about delayed mortality, the D-values for fall 

Chinook, spring Chinook and steelhead were reduced to 0.20, 0.63 and 0.52, from 0.24, 

0.68 and 0.55, respectively. For spring Chinook and steelhead, these values are the low 

end of the range suggested by the BiOp. 

With this change, SIMPAS estimates the change in cumulative survival for the three 

groups following completion of extended length screens is 0.19%, 0.99% and 0.56%, as 

compared to 0.31%, 1.11%, and 0.61% with the baseline D-values. Even with the lower 

survival rate for transported fish, the screens are still highly cost-effective compared to 

Ice Harbor August bypass spill. 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 23

Table 6: Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice Harbor and Construct

Extended Length Screens at Lower Granite and Little Goose

Change in % Survival to Below Bonneville

Action

Annualized Net 

Change in 

Power Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, Million $

Net Present 

Value of Net 

Change in 

Power Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, Million $ 

1

Snake 

River 

Fall 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Steelhead

Columbia 

River 

Stocks

Power revenue and survival 

effects, no Ice Harbor August 

spill

$6 $81.54 -0.01% 0.00% 0.00% None

Add Extended Length Screens, 

Lower Granite

($2.26) ($30.67) 0.19% 0.70% 0.40% None

Cumulative Effect on Revenue 

Plus Costs, or Survival

$3.74 $50.87 0.18% 0.70% 0.40% None

Add Extended Length Screens, 

Little Goose

($2.85) ($38.67) 0.12% 0.41% 0.20% None

Cumulative Effect on Revenue 

Plus Costs, or Survival $0.90 $12.21 0.31% 1.11% 0.61% None

1. 20 years, 4 percent real interest

8.3. Example 2: Cease August bypass spill at Ice Harbor dam and build Bonneville 

corner collector

Table 7 shows results for this scenario. Results of this analysis are retrospective in that 

the corner collector is already being built. 

The Bonneville corner collector appears to be cost-effective for increasing passage 

survival of fall Chinook. Revenues from ending August spill at Ice Harbor could fund 

construction of the corner collector and still leave $17.1 million in present value terms for 

ratepayers or other purposes. With the corner collector, survival of fall Chinook, spring 

Chinook and steelhead would increase by 0.04, 0.05 and 0.03 percentage points, 

respectively. Survival of Columbia River stocks would also be increased, but this 

improvement has not been measured.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 24

Table 7: Cease August Bypass Spill at Ice Harbor and Build Bonneville Corner Collector

Change in % Survival of Juveniles to Below 

Bonneville

Action

Annualized Net 

Change in 

Power Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, Million $

Net Present 

Value of Net 

Change in 

Power Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, Million $ 

1

Snake 

River Fall 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Steelhead

Columbia 

River 

Stocks

Power revenue and survival 

effects, no Ice Harbor August 

spill

$6 $81.54 -0.01% 0.00% 0.00% None

Effects of Bonneville Corner 

Collector

($4.74) ($64.45) 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% Unknown

Cumulative Effect on Revenue 

Plus Costs, or Survival $1.26 $17.10 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% Positive

1

 20 years, 4 percent real interest

8.4. Removable Spillway Weirs, Power Revenues and Costs

By assumption, the RSWs do not directly affect survival. However, if increased power 

revenues exceed total implementation costs, then the positive net power system revenues 

could be used to fund passage improvements that increase survival, so that RSW is costeffective.

With the costs shown in Table 3, the RSW at Little Goose dam does not appear to be cost 

effective. The annual value of reducing bypass spill is $1.0 million, but the annualized 

capital cost of the RSW is $3.8 million. It is possible that increased power revenues are 

understated, because more than 50 percent of bypass spill might be avoided, and costs 

could be overstated because most capital costs are already spent, costs of behavior 

guidance systems might be avoided, and annual operations and maintenance costs could 

be less than assumed. At a minimum, more detail in the revenue and cost estimation is 

clearly justified before this facility is built.

At Lower Monumental, results for the RSW are much closer. Annual power revenues of 

$3.5 million compare to annual costs of $3.78 million, which would make this project not 

cost-effective. However, if costs are overstated, or if increased power revenues are 

understated (perhaps more than 50 percent of bypass spill can be avoided), then 

completion may be economically justified.

At Ice Harbor, the power revenue savings from the RSW easily justifies its costs: 

annualized costs of $3.5 million compare to additional power revenues of $14.50 million. 

Therefore, this RSW appears to be cost-effective.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 25

8.5. Example 4. Build Removable Spillway Weir at Ice Harbor and Build 

Bonneville Corner Collector

Net power system revenues from the RSW at Ice Harbor are more than enough to finance 

the Bonneville corner collector, thereby ensuring that fish and power are both better off. 

Table 8 shows the results.

Table 8: Build Removable Spillway Weir at Ice Harbor

and Build Bonneville Corner Collector

Change in % Survival of Juveniles to Below 

Bonneville

Action

Annualized 

Net Change in 

Power 

Revenue plus 

Facility Costs, 

Million $

Net Present Value 

of Net Change in 

Power Revenue 

plus Facility 

Costs, Million $ 

Snake 

River Fall 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Spring/ 

Summer 

Chinook

Snake 

River 

Steelhead

Columbia 

River 

Stocks

Power Revenue from RSW at 

Ice Harbor $14.50 $197.06 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% None

Add RSW at Ice Harbor ($3.50) ($47.52) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% None

Cumulative Effect on Revenue 

Plus Costs, or Survival $11.00 $149.54 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% None

Add Bonneville Corner 

Collector ($4.74) ($64.45) 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% Unknown

Cumulative Effect on Revenue 

Plus Costs, or Survival $6.26 $85.09 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% Positive

9. Interpretation of Results

The preliminary CEA suggests that the method might be very helpful in assisting 

managers with decisions about investments in passage improvements. Although there are 

uncertainties in survival and cost parameters, results of some of the calculations suggest 

that order-of-magnitude cost-effective improvements may be possible. In this situation, a 

large amount of uncertainty can be accommodated while still leading to a fairly certain 

result. 

The three example scenarios indicate that some passage improvements are highly costeffective compared to bypass spill, and results suggest that additional bypass survival 

could be obtained at a lower total cost. Extended length screens and the Bonneville 

corner collector appear to be highly cost-effective relative to August bypass spill. The 

RSW at Ice Harbor would increase power revenues enough to pay for itself and other 

passage improvements, even without considering that the Ice Harbor RSW might increase 

survival. In all of the scenarios, the analysis indicates that juvenile survival could be 

increased at reduced cost.

On the other hand, the RSW at Little Goose dam does not appear to be a cost-effective 

investment. Its cost exceeds the present value of power revenue savings by a considerable 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 26

margin, and it is currently assumed that it does not increase survival. Additional research 

on costs and survival at Little Goose and Lower Monumental might result in more certain 

results.

9.1. Limitations in Applying Results of these Examples

The quantitative results of our juvenile passage CEA have limited policy implications for 

several reasons. First, some of the passage improvements analyzed in the examples are 

already completed or planned for implementation. The passage improvements in our 

example were selected for analysis because their characteristics, their costs and effects on 

juvenile passage, are relatively well known. 

Second, a CEA should be just one in a series of increasingly detailed biological, 

hydrologic, and engineering studies that may be required to implement any set of costeffective hydrosystem actions. A number of non-economic uncertainties are being 

debated outside of this report. Uncertainties associated with some of the actions are 

discussed below. Some impediments and possible solutions to implementing costeffective juvenile passage improvements are also discussed.

Third, there are institutional constraints to implementing cost-effective improvements. 

Passage improvements are not universally viewed as substitutes for bypass spill. Also, 

there is currently no formal mechanism whereby increased power revenue from reduced 

spill could be used to fund passage improvements. Additional research would help to 

resolve the best role for CEA in decision-making about passage improvements.

9.1.1. Uncertainty about survival improvements

Some advantages of bypass spill relative to passage improvements are not covered by the 

CEA. The survival benefits of bypass spill are fairly well documented. The survival 

improvements for some passage improvements are less certain. In particular, some 

passage improvements such as extended length screens achieve survival benefits, in part, 

by allowing more fish to be transported. The survival benefits of juvenile transportation 

are viewed by some as being uncertain. SIMPAS is a very simple model of passage 

survival, and it may be viewed by some as inappropriate for this analysis.27 The 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) stated that: 

These are only “point estimates” and are subject to a considerable degree of 

uncertainty. For this reason, it is not appropriate to develop a long-range 

management plan just on the basis of results from assuming that these uncertain 

estimates are true. The importance of uncertainty in assessments of this type 

needs to be evaluated carefully.”

 

27 A letter from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority to the Council dated October 16, 2002 

(Sando, 2002) quotes from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 27

9.1.2. Uncertainty about costs

Costs associated with a passage improvement are often uncertain, and cost uncertainty is 

often related to survival uncertainty. In the case of RSWs, the need for a BGS and its 

future cost is related to survival obtained by the RSW. Operations and maintenance costs 

for new passage improvement technologies are often uncertain.

9.1.3. Uncertainty regarding future policies

The CEA presented here uses a 20-year period of analysis. Many values used in the 

analysis become increasingly uncertain as the length of the forecast period increases. In 

particular, the value of passage survival due to passage improvements in the far future 

(10 to 20 years out) is unclear. The long-term status of the listed species, the 

hydrosystem, and the laws that set survival goals are not all clear. Uncertainty about the 

future argues for a shorter period of analysis and implementation of only those passage 

improvements that are highly cost effective in the short term.

9.1.4. The maximum survival perspective

Some interests would not agree that bypass spill should be decreased to fund passage 

improvements, even if they agreed that the change would be cost-effective. In this view, 

all feasible passage improvements and bypass spill should be implemented, regardless of 

the cost to obtain, at a minimum, the amount of survival required by the BiOp. This view 

is supported by the fact that some passage survival goals are not being met, and the 

perspective that implementation of passage improvements should not be limited by the 

availability of funds.

It is true that many passage improvements are being implemented throughout the FCRPS 

almost as quickly as they can be shown to be feasible and funding can be secured. In a 

sense, this fast pace of implementation is driven by the belief that the passage 

improvements will be cost-effective: they will be able to meet survival goals at a cost 

less than spill. 

Even if the goal is to achieve survival targets as soon as possible, CEA could help reach 

these goals sooner. Decisions made by the IT and the SCT must take the availability of 

funds into account. Because of the nature of the funding mechanisms that are currently in 

place, there are de facto budget constraints facing policy-makers. To the extent that 

annual funding limits constrain the implementation of cost-effective passage measures, 

CEA and an ability to borrow against future power revenues might speed the 

implementation of passage measures, and ultimately, recovery of listed ESUs. 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 28

9.1.5. Institutional Constraints

The ability to fund a more cost-effective set of mainstem actions is somewhat limited by 

the institutional arrangements that currently govern the source of capital for investments 

at Corps and Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) hydro projects. Capital investments for 

fish passage improvements at Corps/Bureau projects are funded through appropriations 

made by Congress. Additional revenues that BPA might earn through reduced spill do not 

have any direct connection to the Congressional appropriations process. As a result, 

there is no formal mechanism currently available for BPA to provide funds to the Corps 

and Bureau in excess of what Congress has chosen to appropriate. Under current rules, if 

additional (or accelerated) capital investments for fish at Corps/Bureau projects are 

determined to be part of a more cost-effective mainstem program, these (new or 

accelerated) projects would have to survive the Congressional appropriations process.

On the other hand, there is considerable flexibility within the annual Fish and Wildlife 

budget to prioritize and allocate funds. The Implementation Team (IT) and its technical 

teams provide a mechanism for coordination, decision, and appropriate and timely 

implementation of the BiOp.28 Currently, the IT of the Columbia Rive r Regional Forum 

is evaluating potential offsets to reduced summer bypass spill. This process demonstrates 

that there is some flexibility to change bypass spill and implement new passage 

improvements.

10. Fuller Implementation of Juvenile Passage CEA

This juvenile passage CEA is preliminary. Many limitations of this preliminary CEA 

were discussed in Section 9. The scope of this CEA was limited to bypass spill on the 

Snake River, and only a few types of passage improvements were considered. Many 

other types of actions that could increase survival or escapement could be evaluated. 

Additional analysis is subject to the available data on survival and costs.

10.1. Focus on unfunded passage improvements

It would be useful to identify and investigate changes in system operation and 

configuration that might be cost-effective, and to analyze cost-effective improvements 

that would not be implemented without additional funds. In these situations, detailed 

analysis might have more immediate benefits, because they would help ge t projects 

funded. A list of potential projects has been provided by the IT. 29

10.2. Apply additional hydrologic/survival modeling

The analysis of hydrology and survival provided from secondary sources could be 

improved to provide more insight into cost-effective measures. Better information about 

 

28 From Regional Implementation Forum information (NOAA 2003)

29 Palensky, 2003. Spreadsheet of offset opportunities and principles. 
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 29

the timing and survival parameters of wild and hatchery stocks would be helpful. CEA 

should be conducted with other passage models such as CRISP.

10.3. Resolve key uncertainties

Many types of uncertainties limit the utility of the analysis. In particular, uncertainties 

involving D-values, long-run efficacy of passage improvements in the far future could be 

investigated. CEA sensitivity analysis should be used to identify which uncertain 

parameters matter most to cost-effectiveness decisions.

One useful area of research might be to investigate more complex models and objective 

functions for endangered species recovery that consider risk and uncertainty. For 

example, the objective function might be to minimize social cost where (a) social cost is 

assumed to increase with the risk of extinction, (b) this cost becomes very high at a high 

risk of extinction, and (c) the results of recovery measures are also uncertain. This is 

similar to a portfolio management problem where the decision-maker is highly risk 

averse.

10.4. Expand scope to mainstem Columbia and non-federal projects

Our analysis intentionally limited the scope to Snake River improvements. Mainstem 

improvements, including non-federal facilities, should be investigated. The potential for 

using cost-effective projects at FCRPS projects to fund passage improvements at nonfederal projects should be considered.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 30

11. References

Barnhart, Ken, 2003. Personal communications. Bonneville Power Administration. 

Bonneville Power Administration. Annually. Spreadsheets for Hydro Project Capital 

Costs, Appropriations, and Estimated Interest & Depreciation. Obtained from Phil Thor, 

BPA.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 2003. Letter. To: Steven Wright. From: 

CRITFC. RE: Summer Spill at Federal Columbia River Power System Dams. Dated July 

23.

Cooper, Suzanne, 2003. 2003 Summer Spill - - Two Week Curtailment Option. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland.

Espenson, Barry. 2003. “$50 Million Bonneville Dam Project Expected To Up Survival.” 

Columbia Basin Bulletin. November 7.

Fazio, John. 2003. 50-Year Averages for the 2000 BiOp (Simulated).

Fish Passage Center. 2003. Historic SMP graphs for hatchery and wild Chinook 

subyearling and yearling, and steelhead, 1997 to 2000.

Giorgi, Albert, Mark Miller and John Stevenson. 2002. “Mainstem Passage Strategies in 

the Columbia River System: Transportation, Spill and Flow Augmentation.” For: 

Northwest Power Planning Council. January

Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power Planning Council. 2002. 

“Review of Giogi et. Al. Report “Mainstem Passage Strategies in the Columbia River 

System: Transportation, Spill and Flow Augmentation” ISAB 2002-1. June 4.

Kalamasz, Rebecca, 2003. Personal Communication. USACE, 11/17/03.

Kalamasz, Rebecca, 2003. Personal Communication. USACE, 11/20/03. Summary of 

data from Lower Granite and Little Goose Lock and Dam Turbine and Intake Screen 

Design Memorandum #42 and #30, December 2001.

National Oceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service 2001. 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion, Appendix D. Biological Effects Analysis 

and SIMPAS Model Documentation.

NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Hydropower Division. 2003. 

Regional Implementation Forum. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hydrop/hydroweb/rif.htm
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 31

Northwest Fishletter, 2003. “Latest Spill Analysis: A Costly Strategy With Small 

Benefits For Fall Fish.” July 22.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2001. "Recommendations on 2001 Federal 

Columbia River Power System Operations and Fish Survival." NPCC Document 2001-6. 

April.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. “Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.” NPCC Document 2003-11.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2003. Fish and Energy Impacts Resulting 

from Reductions in Summer Bypass Spill. Powerpoint Presentation. July 16. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2003. Cost and Energy Impacts of Fish and 

Wildlife Operations. Powerpoint Presentation. May 9.

O'Bryant, Mike. 2003 “Execs support removable spillway weir at ice harbor” Columbia 

Basin Bulletin. December 19, 2003

Palensky, John. 2003. Spreadsheet of offset opportunities and principles. Personal 

Communication, NOAA. December.

Sando, Rodney W. 2002. Letter dated October 16. To: Mr. Frank L. Cassidy Jr. 

Northwest Power Planning Council. From Rodney Sando, Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Authority. 

Skalski, John R. and Dilip Mathur. Undated. Effects of Turbine Operating Efficiency on

Smolt Passage Survival. Powerpoint Presentation.

University of Washington 2003. Columbia Basin Research. School of Aquatic & Fishery 

Sciences, Inseason Forecasts Stock Map and Information.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. 2001. “Endangered Species Act 

Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System.” Summer.

U.S.A.C.E., Walla Walla District 2002. Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers Extended 

Length Screen (ESBS) System-Wide Letter Report. August.

USACE, Northwestern Division. 2003. “Endangered Species Act 2003 Check-in Report 

for the Federal Columbia River Power System.” September.

Whitney, Richard R., Lyle D. Calvin, Michael W. Erbo Jr. and Charles Coutant. 1997. 

Downstream Passage for Salmon at Hydroelectric Projects in the Columbia River Basin: 

Development, Installation and Evaluation. For Northwest Power Planning Council. 

Document 97-15, October.
IEAB Juvenile Passage Cost Effectiveness Page 32

________________________________________

r:\tm\ww\fish\ieab\mainstem cea (task79).doc