IEAB Independent Economic 

Analysis Board

Roger Mann, Chair 

Noelwah R. Netusil, Vice-Chair 

Kenneth L. Casavant 

Daniel D. Huppert 

Joel R. Hamilton 

Lon L. Peters 

Susan S. Hanna 

Hans Radtke 

Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information 

Task Number 105 

June 20, 2006 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this task is to review the status of available information for fish and 

wildlife projects in 2007 fish and wildlife project proposals (proposals) and in Pisces, and 

to recommend whether a larger task is advisable to develop ways to improve the cost 

effectiveness of the project selection process. Pisces is a computer program developed by 

BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Division to improve management of Fish and Wildlife projects, 

and to improve the ability to report information about the Fish and Wildlife Program. 

The objective is to see if costs of different strategies can be approximated in a way that 

could support cost-effectiveness analysis or cost benchmarking. Cost-effectiveness 

analysis compares the costs of alternatives, usually on a per-unit basis, to determine 

which is least costly, or to obtain an objective at least cost. Cost benchmarking uses costs 

of existing activities to develop cost standards or guidelines to help judge the 

reasonableness of future proposed costs. 

The IEAB has examined information available in a subset of proposals and examined 

information for ongoing projects available in Pisces. In general, the quality of 

information available for cost-effectiveness analysis or cost benchmarking is variable 

among proposals, and in Pisces, among the standardized work elements and metrics.

Work elements are standardized definitions of work activities. Metrics are standardized 

quantitative measures of accomplishment associated with some work elements. 

Among the proposals, there is great variation in the types of projects, their objectives, and 

local conditions that affect activities and their expected costs. For most work elements, 

no metric is reported. For some projects, BPA pays for a fraction of the total cost and the 

proposals do not show the other cost shares. For most work elements there are several 

types of activities and costs reported across proposals. Some of the metrics in the 

proposals are not clear in terms of what is being reported. It appears that some work 

elements could have a metric but none is reported. 

Some types of work elements and metrics – miles of fencing, acres of vegetation 

removed, or smolts produced, for example, lend themselves to cost comparisons, but for 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 2 

typical questions about benchmarking and cost-effectiveness, there are still projectspecific and site-specific conditions that should be considered. More analysis of these 

conditions might lead to a formula where expected costs can be estimated as a function of 

site conditions. For other work elements, some disaggregation beyond the existing work 

elements may be needed to isolate the costs of measurable activities within the element. It 

may not be possible to specify a standard metric for cost-effectiveness analysis for some 

work elements such as environmental compliance, data collection, analysis or reporting, 

but it will still be useful to show the share of total project cost devoted to these types of 

activities. For some applications, these “foundational” or joint costs may need to be 

reviewed and possibly allocated among other metrics. 

Pisces improves on the proposal information in several ways. The proposals provide 

information on planned, rather than actual, costs and metrics. Pisces provides actual costs 

and metrics for ongoing projects. Some of the information in the proposals is not checked 

or verified. Some errors and inconsistencies are corrected before actual project 

information is entered into Pisces. BPA intends that Pisces will improve on the quality of 

information provided in project proposal forms (BPA 2006). 

Pisces is a project management tool and is not designed for economic analysis. Pisces 

information will be helpful, but more detail will often be required for useful analysis. As 

with the proposals, there is a large range of activities within work elements, so additional 

information about the actual work and costs should be reviewed. The IEAB and Pisces 

developers have an ongoing dialogue to help improve the quality of economic 

information contained in Pisces. 

For most projects, some of the important cost, engineering, and site-specific information 

is not provided in the proposals or Pisces. In particular, more information about the 

expected life of improvements and the duration of benefits would be useful for basic 

economic analysis. The share of cost that is a long-term investment, the expected life of 

these investments, and the expected timing of benefits in the future, should be provided if 

available. It is our understanding that contractors will provide this information for Pisces 

at the contracting phase when statements of work are being developed. 

Metrics should be tied directly to proposal objectives. The number of fish produced is not 

provided as a metric for habitat, and the disposition of fish production is not provided as 

a metric for hatcheries. The IEAB recognizes the difficulties and uncertainties associated 

with estimating and providing this type of information. Still, we continue to support 

efforts to improve information about the amount, types and disposition of fish and 

wildlife produced. 

Based on this preliminary review, the IEAB recommends that a larger task be developed 

to identify opportunities to increase the value of proposals and Pisces information for 

cost-effectiveness analysis and cost benchmarking. In particular, the IEAB would 

• Attempt to develop some cost data for cost-effectiveness analysis and 

benchmarking based on all data provided by Pisces, augmented by current and 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 3 

past proposals, and report on the potential use(s) and quality of the cost 

information developed. 

• Investigate cost data that may be available from other public and private sources 

and determine if it could be used for cost-effectiveness analysis or cost 

benchmarking of fish and wildlife projects. 

• With BPA, review the list of work elements and their metrics to see if more 

detailed work element categories and measures can be recommended, and 

continue working with BPA and Pisces to increase the value of information 

provided by proposals and Pisces for economic analysis. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 4 

Introduction 

Task 105 included three tasks. 

1. Select a few current project proposals and evaluate the information that is 

provided in the project proposal form. 

2. Further evaluate the Pisces data management system to see if it organizes and 

maintains project information in a way that could help evaluate cost effectiveness. 

3. Consider the possibility of benchmarking different types of fish and wildlife 

actions based on information provided in project proposal forms or in Pisces. 

These guidelines might be a specific cost per unit, but they could also be expressed as a 

share of project cost, or as formulas for calculating cost based on site-specific factors. 

Task 1. Evaluate information in a few current project proposals 

Six habitat proposals and five hatchery proposals for FY2007 were examined. 

Task 1.1 Habitat Proposals 

The habitat proposals investigated were: 

• ODFW Blue Mountain Oregon Fish Habitat Improvement 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=379

• Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=171

• Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=241

• Northeast Oregon Wildlife Project Precious Lands 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=200

• Pine Creek Conservation Area: Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management on 

33,557-acres to benefit grassland, shrub-steppe, riparian, and aquatic species. 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=109

• Libby Mitigation Program 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=500

Proposed costs and metrics were compiled and compared. Results are shown in Table 1. 

The six projects reported 67 metrics. The metrics examined were 

• Realign, connect and create channel 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 5 

• Increase instream habitat complexity 

• Install fence 

• Plant vegetation 

• Create, restore or enhance wetland 

• Remove vegetation 

• Enhance floodplain 

• Improve/relocate road 

Observation 1. Most proposal work elements do not have metrics. 

For each proposal, work elements without metrics compared to total work elements are 

shown in Table 2. 

Many of the work elements, such as environmental compliance and planning and 

coordination, do not have metrics. This is intentional. For many work elements, there are 

no useful metrics. Some of the costs of these work elements are the “foundation costs.” In 

economic terms, these are joint costs of the proposal. Joint costs are costs necessary to 

support the entire assemblage of activities making up a project. Depending on how the 

cost information is to be used, some of the joint costs might be re-allocated across metrics 

to obtain allocation by metric or total project cost by metric. 

Observation 2. Some of the proposal metrics provided are not explained well. 

Some of the metrics are unclear in that they do not provide enough information about the 

actual activities to understand what accomplishments are actually proposed. 

Example: Trout Creek. Enhance Floodplain. # of acres treated: 65. What kind of acres? 

What kind of treatment? The metric is expressed as “floodplain and channel 

connectivity.” 

 

By contrast, in Albeni Falls, Enhance Floodplain is streambank, large woody debris 

(LWD) and streambed work. Without more information it is difficult to compare across 

these two proposals. 

Example: NE Oregon. Work element no. 3 claims # of road miles improved, upgraded, or 

restored: 15, but on reading the text it is actually 11 miles of trails and 4 miles of roads. 

Without information on the types of roads or trails it is difficult to compare across 

projects. 

Example: Two proposals count Planting Vegetation as acres, Libby Mitigation counts 

Planting Vegetation as miles. Planting Vegetation is reported by two different metrics. 

The metrics for planting vegetation cannot be compared when one is in miles and the 

other in acres. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 6 

Table 1. Summary of Selected Metrics for Eight Work Elements from Six 2007 Proposals

Work Element Metric Proposal Cost

Metric 

Value Cost/Metric Notes

Realign, connect and create 

channel Miles Blue Mtn $47,192 15 $3,146

Tech, Design, Mgmt (T, D, M). Total 

cost is about 5 times

Trout Creek $50,000

1.4 to 1.75 

after $28,571 Trout Cr Berm removal

Trout Creek $60,000

4 to 4.6 

after 1. $13,043 Antelop & Trout Cr

Libby Mit $101,150 0.57 $177,456 Libby Cr Lower Cleveland

Libby Mit $17,850 0.27 $66,111 Pipe Cr

Libby Mit $41,650 0.76 $54,803 Grave Cr Phase 4

Libby Mit $89,250 0.81 $110,185 Libby CR Highway 2 reach

Libby Mit $41,650 0.76 $54,803 Grave Cr Phase 5

Libby Mit. $71,400 0.8 $89,250 Dunn Cr

Increase instream habitat 

complexity Miles Blue Mtn $23,596 15 $1,573

T, D, M, Meadow, End and Ladd Crs, 

Wallowa R, tribs

NE Oregon $172,800 2 $86,400 Joseph Cr large woody debris

Libby Mit. $89,250 0.57 $156,579 Libby Cr Lower Cleveland

Libby Mit. $35,700 0.27 $132,222 Pipe Cr

Libby Mit. $59,500 0.76 $78,289 Grave Cr Phase 4

Libby Mit. $107,100 0.81 $132,222 Libby CR Highway 2 reach

Libby Mit. $59,500 0.76 $78,289 Grave Cr Phase 5

Libby Mit. $95,200 0.8 $119,000 Dunn Cr

Install Fence Miles Blue Mtn $106,182 30 $3,539

Albeni Falls $150,000 20 $7,500

Plant Vegetation Acres Blue Mtn $58,990 1000 $59 T, D, M

Albeni Falls $189,000 100 $630 Native seed and plant

NE Oregon $137,880 100 $1,379 also 3 riparian miles

Miles1 Libby Mit $17,850 1.14 $15,658 Libby Cr Lower Cleveland

Libby Mit $23,800 1.62 $14,691 Libby Cr Highway 2 reach

Libby Mit $17,850 1.52 $11,743 Grave Creek

Create, restore or enhance wetland Acres Blue Mtn $11,798 1000 $12 T, D, M

Albeni Falls $223,000 5 $14,867 Create nesting islands

Albeni Falls $550,000 100 $1,833 Restore hydrologic function

Remove Vegetation Acres Albeni Falls $345,000 3800 $91 Spray, pull or mow noxious weeds

NE Oregon $171,000 600 $285

Thistles, blackberries, weeds chem, 

mech, and bio

Pine Creek $56,015 500 $112 Juniper cut

Pine Creek $59,015 550 $107 Juniper cut

Pine Creek $92,015 1100 $84 Juniper cut

Enhance Floodplain Acres Albeni Falls $560,000 75 $2,489 Stabilize shoreline, woody debris

Trout Creek $25,000 65 $385

Trout Creek $60,000 125 $480

Improve/relocate road Miles NE Oregon $84,000 15 $5,600 Includes some trail

Pine Creek $31,805 20 $1,590

1. Started with 4 miles, ended with 4.6 

2. Both sides of a 1-mile stream = 2 miles
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 7 

Proposal Name

Work 

Elements 

without a 

metric

Work 

Elements 

with a 

metric

Total 

work 

elements

Blue Mountain 14 7 21

Albeni 31 15 46

Trout Creek 9 10 19

NE Oregon Wildlife 13 4 17

Pine Creek 13 4 17

Libby Mitigation Program 14 27 41

Total 94 67 161

Table 2. Numbers of Work Elements Without and With Metrics, 

from 6 Proposals

Example: Libby Mitigation counts Grave Cr Phase 4 and 5 metric of 4,000 feet 

separately; but are they the same miles? They could be double counting. Another 

proposal might count the same work as one 4,000 foot piece. 

BPA’s comments on a draft of this report note that the proposal data collection tool 

includes limited data verification logic; whereas Pisces has built-in data verification logic 

that ultimately ensures higher quality and more consistent data across all projects (BPA 

2006). 

Observation 3. A proposal may include just a fraction of total costs 

For some of the metrics there is an enormous range in the unit costs ($ cost per unit of 

metric) between the proposals. Table 1 shows that, for “Increase instream habitat 

complexity,” and “Realign, connect and create channel” the difference between the 

lowest and highest unit cost is 50 to 100 times. For “Create, restore or enhance wetland” 

the difference is over 1,000 times. In these cases, the low unit cost is associated with the 

ODFW Blue Mountain Proposal. The costs reported for Blue Mountain are just technical 

support, design and management. From the project narrative: 

“BPA funding makes possible the work of the GRMWP, ODFW and CTUIR and 

attracts another $4 from other sources for each $1 committed by BPA.” 

That is, total project costs are about five times the amount included in the proposal. 

Observation 4. Some proposal metrics include a wide range of activities and costs. 

For some of the metrics a large range in the unit costs ($ cost per unit of metric) between 

the proposals appears to be related to a large range of activities being reported. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 8 

With the ODFW project excluded, the unit cost range in Table 1 narrows to roughly 10 

times. Differences in unit costs in some cases can be attributed to different activities 

within a work element. 

Example: In “Create, restore or enhance wetland” for example, one would establish 

nesting islands, and one would restore hydrologic function. 

Observation 5. There are some opportunities for comparison across metrics. 

Even with this wide range, there appears to be an opportunity for estimating useful unit 

costs for comparison. Four habitat work elements that appear to have readily quantifiable 

activities are Install Fence, Plant Vegetation, Remove Vegetation, and Improve/Relocate 

Road. However, even these unit costs are dependent on a number of site-and elementspecific characteristics. For these work elements, it may be possible to isolate the major 

causes of cost differences between projects and use resulting unit costs as a check on 

reasonableness for costs of similar projects. 

Observation 6. Some proposal work elements could have a metric but don’t. 

Example. In Pine Creek, controlled burn acreage data are provided in the narrative but 

not as a metric. 

Example. In Libby Mitigation, some riparian planting projects show miles in the narrative 

but they claim no metric. 

BPA’s comments on an earlier draft of this report note that if no metric was entered, this 

would be corrected in Pisces by the combination of human review and automated 

validation checks (BPA 2006). 

Observation 7. Some of the more useful information for cost-effectiveness is found 

in the expanded narrative descriptions. 

Some example text from the narratives is provided below. 

Blue Mountain 

Work Element 47 Plant Vegetation 

“Level of planting will depend on final design but will include shrubs/trees, sedge 

mats, sedge/rush plugs and seeding. Preliminary plans suggest between 10,000 and 

25,000 shrubs/trees per project.” 

Albeni 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 9 

“The Work Group is confident that the members can secure fee-title and/or negotiate 

conservation easements at a cost of about $7,200 per acre on 2,500 acres for the 

period of fiscal year 2007 through 2009.” 

NE Oregon 

Important information about vegetation planted is shown in the text: 

Trees and shrub species to be planted by stream. 

Stream Species and stream miles to be treated 

Bear ponderosa pine (0.5 miles) 

Cottonwood black cottonwood, red osier dogwood (0.25 miles) 

Joseph black cottonwood, ponderosa pine (0.25 miles) 

Tamarack black cottonwood, ponderosa pine, aspen (0.5 miles) 

Observation 8. Some proposal information regarding historical accomplishments 

and costs could be useful for cost-effectiveness and benchmarking. 

Information on project accomplishments and costs is contained in the narratives of some 

proposals, as illustrated below. BPA, in their comments on an earlier draft, note that some 

of this information may be too subjective to be meaningful and the way in which the 

sponsors describe their accomplishments may be too diverse to be comparable (BPA 

2006). Still, the information may be useful. 

Blue Mountain. 

“The projects implemented by ODFW have had a positive impact on riparian and 

stream habitat in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Examples include: 

• Projects have improved the structure and function of degraded riparian areas and 

streams. Restored riparian areas were more fully developed and had less bare 

ground susceptible to erosion. Stream channels in restored areas were narrower, 

deeper and had more pools. An assessment of program photopoints at projects built 

between 1988 and 2001 found improvement in all habitat categories (Table 5 and 

Figure 2) 

• Implementation monitoring suggests maximum summer water temperature is 

reduced as it passes through areas where fencing has allowed riparian restoration 

(Figure 3 and 4) 

• Meadow ground water level has been shown to rise very soon (Figure 5) after 

channelized streams are returned to a more natural channel/floodplain configuration 

(Figure 6 and 7); and 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 10 

• Independent sampling has shown an increase in 0 age salmonids and a reduction 

in warm water fishes in exclosure projects (Kauffman et al. 2002). While not as 

rigorous, observations suggest salmon and steelhead use of project streams increases 

soon after degraded conditions begin to improve. 

Limited implementation monitoring is conducted as part of this project. Funding has 

never been provided to perform a more rigorous evaluation of projects.” 

Trout Creek 

“The ability of Trout Creek Watershed basin to produce a large number of steelhead 

smolts is reflected by the 1998 smolt trapping estimated 76,000 smolts outmigrating 

from the Trout Creek Watershed.” 

Albeni Falls 

“In nine years of implementation (1997 – 2006), the Work Group has mitigated 

approximately 28 percent of Albeni Falls wildlife losses by securing the protection 

of 8,587 acres of wildlife habitat and crediting BPA with 6,602 baseline protection 

habitat units. Enhancement activities have resulted in a total of 1,560.73 

enhancement HUs. Management plans have been completed on 49 percent (2,721 

acres) of Project lands.” 

Observation 9. The narrative often includes good information about historical 

accomplishments, but more cost data could be tied to the accomplishments. 

The narratives often provide information about general or specific accomplishments 

without reference to the costs of these accomplishments. Cost data would help to more 

easily document the cost effectiveness of past actions. 

Example from a Proposal: 

“The Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration project has accomplished the following: 

• Installed and maintained riparian exclosure fencing on 55 stream miles. This 

provides protection on 68% of the currently available steelhead habitat. 

• Created 14 off channel watering sites, placed 3,397 habitat boulders and 498 

pieces of LWD. 

• Planned designed and constructed 5.34 stream miles of berm removal and channel 

reconstruction on Trout Creek. 

• Worked with private landowners to solve aquatic and riparian habitat problems. 

• Rotary Ditch Screens Installed 9 

• Self Cleaning Pump Screens Installed 35 

Project budgets and expenses costs by fiscal year: 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 11 

Fiscal year Expense billed to BPA 

1982-2000 Approx $1.8 million 

2001 $338,693 

2002 $292,978 

2003 $271,767 

2004 $328,001 

2005 $332,336” 

(Note these annual costs do not provide any detail about the costs of the improvements 

above) 

Observation 10. Data provided in the proposals is expected or planned. For cost 

benchmarking, and for some evaluations of project cost-effectiveness, actual cost 

and metrics from past projects should be used as a basis for comparison. 

This observation is just to note that proposed metrics may not be attained in practice. 

Where a project history is available, actual performance may be preferred to planned 

performance for purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pisces includes the actual 

performance data, so Pisces is preferred in this sense. 

Task 1.2 Hatchery Proposals 

Five FY 2007 hatchery projects were reviewed 

• Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=188

• Hood R Prod O&M - Ws/ODFW 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=266

• Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations & Maintenance 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=573

• Restoration and Conservation Aquaculture 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=152

• Sherman Creek Hatchery - O&M 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=151

All projects provide a request for a three year budget and estimates for annual budgets. 

Costs are in terms of total costs and are not species specific, when more than one species 

or stock is produced. 

The hatchery projects provide a number of different measures of fish production, and 

most provide a measure of smolts released by species. Three out of five project proposals 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 12 

provide expected adult returns to the hatcheries and some measure of expected pairs 

spawned. From these metrics total annual cost per smolt released and total annual cost 

per pair spawned may be calculated. (See columns 7 and 8 in Table 3; the differences 

across hatcheries are noticeable.) 

Observation 11. For existing hatcheries, measures of actual performance are 

generally preferred to proposal information. 

The IEAB has already shown that cost effectiveness of hatcheries can be compared using 

data on actual returns (IEAB 2002). Where planned operations and production is 

essentially the same as in past years, we must conclude that actual data on costs and 

returns is preferred to proposal information on costs and returns. 

A summary of costs, planned production, and expected returns from the proposals is 

provided in Table 3. 

The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project provides one quantified 

metric with an associated cost: summer Chinook salmon smolts released to Johnson 

Creek. Expected cost per smolt released is $1.00. Total cost per pair of spawners 

returned is $32,500. 

The Hood R Prod O&M - Ws/ODFW project provides metrics for juvenile fish released, 

fry produced, and pairs spawned for spring Chinook and summer and winter steelhead. 

Smolt production costs per spring Chinook and steelhead may be calculated to be $.28 

per unit, not including overhead costs. Costs per returning pair of spawners may be 

calculated to be $2,800. 

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations & Maintenance provide a total cost for their Snake 

River fall Chinook program, and another cost for their spring Chinook program, and they 

provide smolts released by species and location. For Snake River Fall Chinook, 1.4 

million smolts would be released annually at an estimated cost of $.72 per smolt and 

$1,428 per returning spawning pair. The expected fisheries resulting from releases for 

resident fish hatcheries would also be useful in developing cost effective models in terms 

of smolts released, expected harvest and costs per unit of these metrics. For purely 

enhancement projects a description of present spawning returns versus expected returns 

would be useful in comparing costs per returned spawners over time. For spring 

Chinook, 0.625 million smolts and juveniles would be released at a cost of $1.74 per unit. 

The returning spawners may be calculated to cost $4,770 per unit. 

The Restoration and Conservation Aquaculture, and the Sherman Creek Hatchery - O&M 

do not provide any quantified metrics for their programs. 

Observation 12. Additional data could improve the ability to use hatchery proposals 

for hatchery economic analysis 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 13 

Table 4 provides some additional information that can be provided to improve hatchery 

impact analysis. None of the hatchery projects provide a description of fish harvesting 

that may be expected from these releases. Such information is available from the 

Integrated Hatchery Operation Team (IHOT) reports or from State and Federal fish 

managers. With this information and expected smolt production, harvest estimates could 

be developed. Columns 1 and 2 include information from the IEAB/NPCC report 

“Economic Effects from Columbia River Basin Anadromous Salmonid Fish Production” 

(IEAB–2005-1). This information could be used in conjunction with the metrics included 

in the proposals to consider the cost effectiveness of the projects. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 14 

Table 3. Comparison of Five Hatchery Project Proposals. Annual Costs, Planned Production, Expected Returns, and Unit Costs 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Project Name Total ThreeYear Budget Approx. Annual 

Budget 

Planned Smolts 

Produced/Released by 

Species/Area Annually 

Expected Adult 

Returns 

Expected Adult 

Pairs Spawned 

Total Annual 

Cost per 

Smolt 

Released 

Total Annual 

Cost per Pair 

Spawned 

Johnson Creek 

Artificial Propagation 

Enhancement 

Project 

$3,893,000 $1,300,000 100,000 Chinook Snake 

River Spring/Summer ESU 

152-1,000 40 $1 $32,500 

Hood River 

Production O&M 

$833,718 $280,000 Lower Columbia ESU: Spr 

Ch 30,000; Sum St 40,000; 

Win St 25,000-50,000 

Spr Ch 750 Spr Ch 60 Spr Ch  ̃ $ .28 Spr Ch  ̃ $2,800 

 Sum St 600 Sum St 16 Sum St  ̃ $.28 Sum St  ̃ $2,800  Win St 700 Win St 22 Win St  ̃ $.28 Win St  ̃ $2,800 

Nez Perce Tribal 

Hatchery O & M 

(Supplementation) 

$6,305,423 

($2,616,633 for 

Fall Ch)=48%; 

($2,791,915 for Spr 

Ch)=52% 

$2,100,000 Mountain Snake/Clearwater: 

Fall Ch 1,400,000; Spr Ch 

625,000 

Fall Ch 1413 If pairs are 1/2 of 

brood stock 

collected = Fall Ch 

706; Spr Ch 361 

Fall Ch $.72 Fall Ch $1,428 

 Spr Ch 722 Spr Ch $1.74 Spr Ch $4,770 

Restoration and 

Conservation 

Aquaculture 

Resident Fish 

$8,233,000 

($300,000 for 

Burbot)=10%; 

($3,000,000 for 

Sturgeon)=90%; no 

budget for 

Kokanee 

$2,744,333 Mountain Columbia: Burbot; 

White Sturgeon; Kokanee 

2,500 Burbot; 

20 White Sturgeon; 

250 Kokanee 

Released about 

36,000 young 

sturgeon 

Cannot be 

calculated with 

given data 

Cannot be 

calculated with 

given data 

Sherman Creek 

Hatchery O&M 

$885,154 $295,000 Intermountain/Columbia 

River 

Resident fish 

mitigation 

Note: Information in columns 1-6 is taken from project proposals. Columns 7 and 8 are calculations made from information provided. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 15 

Table 4. Comparison of Five Hatchery Project Proposals. Other Information on Returns and Harvest

1 2 3 4 5 

Project Name Comments Historical 

Expected 

Survival 

Rate/Numbers of 

Survival to 

Harvest and 

Escapement 

Species Area of Harvest (Percentage and Numb

Johnson Creek 

Artificial 

Propagation 

Enhancement 

Project 

The proposals fail to estimate expected increase over years. 

The expected returns are higher than historical survival to 

harvest rates which are 0.10% to 1.00 % (from IHOT data). In 

general hatchery operations the overall costs of Spring 

Chinook are about $1.00 per smolt when capital costs are 

included. For this size of releases the costs are probably from 

$.30 to $.40 each. This seems to be somewhat in line with 

general cost estimates. 

1.00% Spr Ch /1,000 

Spr Ch 

Spring 

Chinook 

Alaska/BC 8%=80; WA/OR/CA Ocean 2.5%

Freshw Sport 30.5%=305; Gillnet Commercial 5%

Gillnet Tribal 39%=390; Research/Other 3%=

Hatchery/Escape 11%=110 (versus Proposal Exp

152-1,000) 

Hood River 

Production O&M 

Costs not given by species, so these estimates are averages. 

Expected returns (from IHOT data) are as follows: Spring 

Chinook .35% to 1.2%; Steelhead .40% to 1.00%. 

Expectations seem to be high; costs seem low. They are not 

projecting changes in increased returns over time. 

1.20% Spr Ch; 

1.00% St/ 360 Spr 

Ch; 400 Sum St; 375 

Win St 

Spring 

Chinook 

Alaska/BC 21%=76; WA/OR/CA Ocean 7%=2

Freshwater Sport 10%=36; Gillnet Commercial 

36; Hatchery/Escape 52%=187 (versus Propo

Expected 750) 

 Steelhead Alaska/BC Ocean 1%=8; Freshwater Sport 45%

Hatchery/Escape 54%=418 (versus Proposal Exp

700) 

Nez Perce Tribal 

Hatchery O & M 

(Supplementation) 

No expected increase over years. Expected survival rates are 

.40 to .73% for Fall Ch and .10 to 1.00% for Spring Ch. Their 

expected return rates seem low. 

1.00% Spr Ch; .60% 

Fall Ch/ 14,000 Spr 

Ch; 3,750 Fall Ch. 

Spring 

Chinook 

Alaska/BC 8%=1120; WA/OR/CA Ocean 2.5%=

Freshwater Sport 30.5%=4270; Gillnet Comme

5%-700; Gillnet Tribal 39%=5480; Research/O

3%=126; Hatchery/Escape 11%=1540 (versus P

Expected 722) 

 Fall Chinook Alaska/BC 33%=1238; WA/OR/CA Ocean 10%=

Freshwater Sport 1%=38; Gillnet Commercia

14%=525; Gillnet Tribal 31%=1162; Hatchery/E

11%=413 (versus Project Expected 1413) 

Restoration and 

Conservation 

Aquaculture 

Resident Fish 

Very few comparable numbers. 

Sherman Creek 

Hatchery O&M 

No quantified metrics are available to evaluate this program. 

Note: Column 2 contains relevant notes made by IEAB reviewer. Column 3 lists survival rates that may be expected for the mentioned species propagatethis geographic area of the Columbia Basin in terms of percentage and total returning adults. For an explanation, see NPCC_IEAB 2005-1 report. Colum

lists expected harvest (by percentage) for the species in this proposal (NPCC-IEAB) and calculated number of adults that may be expected to return to thhatchery (hatchery escape) versus the proposal expected number of returns anticipated. 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 16 

Task 2. Further evaluate the Pisces data management system to see if it 

organizes and maintains project information in a way that could help 

evaluate cost effectiveness. 

Pisces has the potential to be useful as a platform for cost-effectiveness analysis or cost 

benchmarking. Pisces is a software program and database which includes information on 

work elements and metrics for ongoing projects. The purpose of Pisces is primarily for 

project tracking and management. BPA is hopeful that the data collected by Pisces will 

be useful in analyzing the effectiveness of the program including its cost-effectiveness 

(BPA 2006). However, Pisces was not designed to be used as a tool for cost-effectiveness 

analysis or cost benchmarking. Therefore, any findings here of limitations on the 

potential use of Pisces for cost-effectiveness analysis or benchmarking should not be 

taken as a criticism of Pisces. 

The FY 2007 proposals are required to follow a format compatible with Pisces. 

Therefore, the examination of proposals in Task 1 reveals some of the limitations of the 

data in Pisces for cost-effectiveness analysis and benchmarking. In particular, many of 

the reported metrics will need to be placed in their site and project-specific context. 

The IEAB commented on Pisces in 2005 in a letter to the Pisces developers. The 

following IEAB comments from that letter are pertinent to this task. 

IEAB Comment: The information to be provided must first be defined, and then it must 

be collected. Definition is not a trivial matter. BPA should work with NPCC and other 

potential users to develop and agree on common metrics which can be easily tied to goals 

and objectives. 

From the review of 2007 proposals, it appears that all projects are not using the same 

standardized metrics in the same way. Sometimes, the same metric is used for different 

types of activities or improvements. The original proposal may need to be checked to see 

what was actually done. More detailed categories of work might be useful for some work 

elements. These standardized metrics will be useful not just for cost-effectiveness 

analysis but also for routine project management. 

IEAB Comment: Project costs should reflect all costs, not just the cost share paid by 

Bonneville. Costs paid by other federal agencies, by State and local governments, and by 

private interests should be counted. 

This problem is reflected in the 2007 proposals as well as in Pisces. For Blue Mountain, 

for example, 2007 costs reported are just design and management, and the narrative 

reveals that total project costs are about five times the BPA share. Pisces developers are 

working to include a capability to include all costs, not just the BPA cost shares. 

IEAB Comment: For cost-effectiveness, all costs must be expressed on a common basis 

of either cost per unit time or net present value. Information on the expected life of 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 17 

investments will be required. Pisces should include information that allows a user to 

know when benefits will be realized. 

This type of information is not provided by the proposals in a standardized way. From the 

June 2005 presentation for the IEAB (BPA 2005) 

Based on feedback from the Summer 2004 workshops, the overwhelming sentiment from 

contractors and BPA project managers was not to require a line item budgeting detail for 

every work element. Instead, Pisces accepts an estimate of total spending for every work 

element in a SOW. 

This reporting limitation will make cost-effectiveness analysis more difficult. The 

detailed costs could show, for example, types of improvements, for which an expected 

life could be assigned. Cost reporting by work element will not reveal this useful 

information. The IEAB recommends that costs be made available by every proposal 

applicant at the highest level of detail used by the applicant to develop the work element 

costs. That is, applicants should provide the more detailed costs if they are available. This 

should not significantly increase the applicant’s work load. In any case, a short narrative 

explaining how costs were estimated would be useful. 

IEAB Comment: Project proponents should be required to provide effectiveness 

estimates at several levels of detail to the extent possible; for example, miles of fence 

built, acres of habitat protected, increased primary productivity, and numbers of fish 

produced. 

Most of the proposals attempt to include this type of information where possible, but not 

in a standardized format. Some is provided in the narratives. Some work elements allow 

use of more than one metric, but not both. For the Plant Vegetation work element, for 

example, miles and acres should both be provided (not just one or the other). From the 

2007 proposals, it appears that some available metrics were not reported. It is unknown if 

this problem will carry into the Pisces database. 

As part of this Task, a Pisces user account was obtained and metrics information was 

extracted. Currently, Pisces can obtain data by project (contract) on planned and actual 

metrics. There is no easy way to view all metrics available by work element over all 

contracts, but this information can be extracted. 

Task 3. Consider the possibility of cost benchmarking 

The IEAB proposes to attempt to develop some costs for benchmarking based on all data 

provided by Pisces, augmented by current and past proposals, and report on the potential 

use and quality of the cost information developed. Only projects active in 2005 or later 

have work elements, so this limits the potential scope of this effort. 

We will obtain data from Pisces organized by work element, and report on this 

information. This data set should include: 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 18 

• the work element cost 

• the reported metrics 

• the project number and 

• data on total cost of the project for each element. 

Next, we will use project numbers to go back to the proposal forms and project narratives 

to see how many additions, corrections and improvements to the raw data from Pisces 

can be accomplished. The resulting data set will be reported separately. The difference 

between Pisces data and total proposal information will be discussed. 

We will develop some cost-benchmarking standards from this data set, and we will 

evaluate the possible limitations of this data. This benchmarking will include unit costs 

for some metrics such as building fences and removing vegetation, but will also include 

some administrative, overhead and RM&E costs – data collection and analysis, 

environmental compliance, possibly – as a share of total project costs. 

We would also like to determine if reliable cost benchmarking data are available from 

other sources. We would conduct a literature search and investigate other sources of 

information about fish and wildlife project costs. USDA NRCS county offices have cost 

standards for a variety of environmental improvements, and other state and federal 

programs may keep cost information. We would also contact The Nature Conservancy to 

see if they keep records on costs that we could review. The result of this review will be a 

recommendation about the use of this other information for benchmarking or costeffectiveness analysis of Fish and Wildlife Program costs. 

Citations 

BPA 2005. Pisces Presentation to the IEAB. 

BPA 2006. BPA Comments on the Draft IEAB Review of Pisces and Proposal Data and 

their Potential Use in cost-effectiveness analysis. May. 

IEAB 2002. Artificial Production Review Economics Analysis Phase I. Council 

document IEAB 2002-1. July 8, 2002. 

IEAB 2005. Economic Effects From Columbia River Basin Anadromous Salmonid Fish 

Production. Council document IEAB 2005-1. December 2005. 

ODFW 2005. Project 198402500 Project Narrative. Page 9 

Acronyms 

IEAB – Independent Economic Analysis Board 

CEA – Cost Effectiveness Analysis 

BPA – Bonneville Power Administration 
IEAB Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information Page 19 

LWD – Large Woody Debris 

ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

GRMWP – Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program 

CTUIR – Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

HU – Habitat Units 

IHOT – Integrated Hatchery Operations Teams 

NPCC – Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

SOW – Statement of Work 

RM&E – Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 

USDA NRCS– US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Acknowledgement 

The IEAB would like to thank BPA for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this 

manuscript. 

________________________________________ 

c:\documents and settings\rodenberg\my documents\task105final0606.doc (Julie Rodenberg)