Literature review

RESEARCH STATEMENT AND LITERATURE REVIEW
We are proposing a data collection from Washington State steelhead anglers. This document (1)
summarizes the Pacific Northwest steelhead angling context, (2) reviews prior literature related to the
data collection, (3) describes data products generated by the data collection, and (4) discusses how the
proposed data collection can inform management decisions.
Background
Steelhead are an important and valuable recreational fishery in Washington State despite significant
declines in wild steelhead populations compared to historical abundances (Gustafson et al. 2007,
Ruckelshaus et al. 2002). Underscoring wild steelhead population declines were the listings of five
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of steelhead in Washington as Threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) 1. Owing to their reduced populations, recreational retention of wild steelhead is
prohibited in Washington State. In order to provide harvest opportunities, fish hatcheries release marked
juvenile steelhead. Upon their return from the ocean these marked fish can be harvested by anglers or
tribal fishers. However, hatcheries operated for fishery enhancement can also have negative consequences
for wild steelhead through direct competition and genetic interactions with hatchery (Buhle et al. 2009,
Naish et al. 2007); so there may be trade-offs between conservation of ESA-listed fish and the
recreational opportunities provided to anglers.
Washington steelhead anglers target both hatchery and wild fish. On the hatchery side, anglers harvested
an estimated 78 thousand steelhead in 2016 (Kraig and Scalici 2018). There is also demand for targeting
wild steelhead in areas and times when regulations permit. For example, NOAA Fisheries recently
approved a catch-and-release fishery for an ESA-listed steelhead stock after wild stocks rebounded
(Bernton 2018).
Literature review
Before turning to the availability of economic values in the existing literature, we find it important to
make a clear distinction between two economic metrics: economic value and economic impact.
Measures of economic value are derived by integrating under demand curves for market or nonmarket
goods. In this case, the good is recreational steelhead fishing trips in Washington State. The economic
value of a steelhead fishing trip is the maximum amount of money or other goods an individual is willing
to give up (willingness-to-pay) in order to take the trip. The methods we use also allow the calculation of
willingness-to-pay for trip attributes, such as catch rates for hatchery and wild steelhead, and for season
long measures, such as closures in a particular river. Economic value is useful for capturing the net
benefits associated with a particular management change, in contrast to economic impact. Economic
impacts are a measure of the gross economic activity within a particular study region and are estimated by
applying input-output models of the regional economy to determine how angler expenditures on trips and
1

These ESUs, with listing year in parentheses, include: Snake River Steelhead (1997), Lower Columbia
River steelhead (1998), Middle Columbia River Steelhead (1999), Puget Sound Steelhead in (2007), and
Upper Columbia River Steelhead (2009).

1

durable goods support jobs and incomes. Without a behavioral model, input-output models provide only
gross measures of economic activity and are not capable of quantifying the net benefits of the change to
be valued. The primary goal of our proposed study is to estimate economic values, so we do not consider
distinct studies that measure only economic impact for steelhead fishing in our review of the literature.
Economic values for goods have been shown to be relatively stable in short time frames, but relying on
values from past studies that are decades old in current applications is questionable, and would likely
result in large transfer errors (Boman et al. 2011, Johnston and Rosenberger 2010, Rosenberger and
Johnston 2009, Zandersen, Termansen, and Jensen 2007). Based on our review of the literature, there are
no economic values of steelhead fishing in Washington State that are calculated using survey data from
within the last 20 years. The most recent Washington State study that we were able to locate was
administered 20 years ago, in 1998 (Layton, Brown, and Plummer 1999). To illustrate the age of
potentially relevant steelhead studies among all the studies we examined – including those in other states
– we classify each by the number of decades between the current period and the year in which the surveys
were fielded. There is one study (in California) that uses data from within the last 10 years (The Program
for Applied Research and Evaluation 2013), one study (in Ohio) between 10 and 20 years ago (Kelch et
al. 2006), five studies that use data 20 to 30 years old (Layton, Brown, and Plummer 1999, Loomis 1992,
1996, Loomis and White 1996, Olsen, Richards, and Scott 1991), four studies that use surveys between
30 and 40 years old (Donnelly 1985, Johnson and Adams 1988, 1989, Sorg and Loomis 1986), and three
studies that rely on data more than 40 years old (Brown, Singh, and Castle 1965, Chou-Yang 1980,
Loomis 1988).
There are no studies in the literature that separate out values for hatchery and wild steelhead catch rates.
In addition to grouping hatchery and wild steelhead together, a number of studies also group salmon
together with steelhead in a way where their values are not separable (Brown, Singh, and Castle 1965,
Layton, Brown, and Plummer 1999, Loomis 1996, Loomis and White 1996, Olsen, Richards, and Scott
1991). This lack of distinct values for hatchery and wild steelhead represents a major shortcoming of the
current literature – as both fishery managers and anglers consider hatchery and wild fish to have different
costs and benefits, our research must be capable of treating them distinctly.
Another issue with the existing studies is related to the framing of value. To evaluate the effects of
changes in season length, including closures and changes in hatchery production, we need a behavioral
model capable of estimating changes in fishing effort. Instead, some existing studies provide the total
economic value to the general population, rather than the change in value to the angling population from
changes to the fishery (Layton, Brown, and Plummer 1999, Loomis 1996, Loomis and White 1996,
Olsen, Richards, and Scott 1991). These studies seek to quantify the net value to all members of the
population, for increases in the viability of steelhead populations. A number of studies come closer our
needs, by capturing the value of fishing to the steelhead angling population directly (Brown, Singh, and
Castle 1965, Chou-Yang 1980, Donnelly 1985, Johnson and Adams 1988, 1989, Kelch et al. 2006,
Loomis 1988, 1992, Sorg and Loomis 1986, The Program for Applied Research and Evaluation 2013).
However, all of these provide the value framed in terms of a steelhead fishing day. Using these values for
evaluating the effects of changes in management would still require knowing how the number of days
fished would change under the relevant management scenarios we seek to evaluate. Such a model does
not exist in the literature.
2

Regional specificity is also an important consideration in determining which values would be the most
defensible to transfer from existing studies. Fewer than half of the studies included in this review are
specific to Washington State (Brown, Singh, and Castle 1965, Chou-Yang 1980, Layton, Brown, and
Plummer 1999, Loomis 1996, Olsen, Richards, and Scott 1991). Although we have considered studies
from other states, some of these are very different fisheries where steelhead are actually an introduced
species (Kelch et al. 2006) and earlier attempts to transfer benefits across state lines in a seemingly ideal
setting (neighboring states) have shown to be problematic (Loomis 1992). Specifically, the equality of
values was rejected between steelhead days in Oregon and steelhead days in Idaho. This suggests that
attempts to transfer benefits across state lines should be conducted with caution.
Based on these criteria, it is our determination that using a benefit transfer approach using any of the
available studies in the literature would not serve as a viable alternative to a primary data collection, on
the multiple levels discussed above.
Products of the planned data collection
The proposed data collection will employ a choice experiment format to estimate angler preferences for
steelhead trips to Washington rivers. In particular, the data collection and subsequent modeling will
facilitate estimation of several policy-relevant values that characterize angler preferences for steelhead
trip attributes and behavioral responses to changes in management. These values include:
●

The economic value of steelhead fishing in individual rivers under (a) current and potential future
catch rates for hatchery and wild salmon and (b) current and potential future season lengths /
closures

●

A model quantifying the number of trips anglers would take, conditional on catch rates and
season lengths, and quantifying these changes re-allocate effort to other rivers

In addition to the choice model outputs listed above, the proposed collection will gather individual angler
characteristics and trip expenditures by river and angler type. Angler demographics, including income and
area of residence, will facilitate characterization of river-specific steelhead fisheries in terms of the
anglers who frequent them. As a secondary motivation, the expenditure data can serve as inputs to an
economic impact model created by colleagues at our Science Center that estimate the impacts of angler
trip expenditures on incomes and employment in the regional economy.
Finally, the proposed data collection will generate estimates of current levels of angling pressure at
specific Washington state rivers. At present, estimating angling pressure is typically estimated using
Catch Record Card Data that only includes data on retained fish (e.g. NMFS 2017b).
Moreover, the proposed data collection will facilitate research within a body of literature that is
examining management of multi-use species, or species whose marginal values can be positive or
negative depending on population size (e.g. Rondeau 2001, Zivin, Hueth, and Zilberman 2000). Hatchery
steelhead likely fit into this category given their value as a recreational resource coupled with their
3

potentially negative influence on wild stocks. This collection will also provide a freshwater context to
existing literature evaluating heterogeneous angler preferences and substitutability between hatchery and
wild fish caught in marine sport fisheries (Anderson and Lee 2013).
How the proposed data collection can inform policy and management
Because steelhead fishery and hatchery operations can have negative consequences for wild steelhead
stocks, steelhead fisheries plans and steelhead hatchery programs operating in regions with ESA-listed
populations are subject to NMFS review. These reviews are conducted to ensure the planned activities are
consistent with ESA conservation and recovery goals. In particular, the National Environmental Policy
Act requires that NMFS conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) for resource management plans
that have significant negative environmental impacts, including take of ESA-listed species. The EIS
process includes consideration of economic effects, and prior EIS evaluations of steelhead management
utilize estimates of recreational catch and trip expenditures to estimate economic impacts under
alternative management scenarios (e.g. NMFS 2017b, a).
The first section of this document described a steelhead policy landscape in the Pacific Northwest that
requires resource managers to balance NMFS conservation objectives and other valuable uses for
steelhead. The need to strike this balance is due to the multi-objective nature of current steelhead
management. For example, instead of focusing solely on conservation, existing fishery and hatchery
management plans seek to provide recreational and tribal harvest opportunities for steelhead while
achieving conservation goals (NMFS 2017b, 2018, 2017a). Components of past hatchery management
plans in Washington include hatcheries to supplement fisheries, conservation hatcheries, catch-andrelease fisheries, and establishment of a network of “Wild Gene Banks” or rivers where wild fish are
largely protected from the effects of hatchery programs (WDFW 2018, NMFS 2017b, 2018, 2017a). The
proposed data collection will provide information for estimating the economic value of recreational
fisheries under multi-objective management alternatives designed to meet conservation objectives while
providing valuable angling opportunities.
The data products associated with the proposed data collection will provide estimates of economic value,
expenditures, and behavioral responses that can serve as inputs to EIS analyses and other policy
evaluation processes. As discussed in the literature review, these estimates represent more recent,
rigorous, and fishery-specific estimates compared to the economic data that are currently available.
References
Anderson, Leif E, and S Todd Lee. 2013. "Untangling the recreational value of wild and hatchery
salmon." Marine Resource Economics 28 (2):175-197.
Bernton, Hal. 2018. "A revered run — the Skagit steelhead — will open to catch-and-release angling."
Seattle Times, April 12, 2018. Accessed Accessed August 28th, 2018.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/a-revered-run-the-skagit-steelhead-willopen-to-catch-and-release-angling/.
Boman, Mattias, Leif Mattsson, Göran Ericsson, and Bengt Kriström. 2011. "Moose hunting values in
Sweden now and two decades ago: the Swedish hunters revisited." Environmental and Resource
Economics 50 (4):515-530.
4

Brown, William G, Ajmer Singh, and Emery N Castle. 1965. "Net economic value of the Oregon salmonsteelhead sport fishery." The Journal of Wildlife Management:266-279.
Buhle, Eric R, Kirstin K Holsman, Mark D Scheuerell, and Andrew Albaugh. 2009. "Using an unplanned
experiment to evaluate the effects of hatcheries and environmental variation on threatened
populations of wild salmon." Biological Conservation 142 (11):2449-2455.
Chou-Yang, Bih-lian. 1980. "Estimated net economic benefits from steelhead sport fishing of selected
Washington rivers." Master of Science, Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State
University.
Donnelly, Dennis M. 1985. "Net economic value of recreational steelhead fishing in Idaho."
Gustafson, Richard G, Robin S Waples, James M Myers, Laurie A Weitkamp, Gregory J Bryant, Orlay W
Johnson, and Jeffrey J Hard. 2007. "Pacific salmon extinctions: quantifying lost and remaining
diversity." Conservation Biology 21 (4):1009-1020.
Johnson, Neal S, and Richard M Adams. 1988. "Benefits of increased streamflow: the case of the John
Day River steelhead fishery." Water Resources Research 24 (11):1839-1846.
Johnson, Neal S, and Richard M Adams. 1989. "On the marginal value of a fish: some evidence from a
steelhead fishery." Marine resource economics 6 (1):43-55.
Johnston, Robert J, and Randall S Rosenberger. 2010. "Methods, trends and controversies in
contemporary benefit transfer." Journal of Economic Surveys 24 (3):479-510.
Kelch, Dave, Frank Lichtkoppler, Brent Sohngen, and Adam Daigneault. 2006. "The value of steelhead
(Onchorhynchus mykiss) angling in Lake Erie tributaries." Journal of Great Lakes Research 32
(3):424-433.
Kraig, Eric, and Tracey Scalici. 2018. Washington State Sport Catch Report. Olympia, Washington:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Layton, David, Gardner Brown, and Mark Plummer. 1999. "Valuing multiple programs to improve fish
populations." Dept. of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA.
Loomis, John B. 1988. "The bioeconomic effects of timber harvesting on recreational and commercial
salmon and steelhead fishing: a case study of the Siuslaw National Forest." Marine Resource
Economics 5 (1):43-60.
Loomis, John B. 1992. "The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function
transfer." Water Resources Research 28 (3):701-705.
Loomis, John B. 1996. "Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha
River: results of a contingent valuation survey." Water Resources Research 32 (2):441-447.
Loomis, John B, and Douglas S White. 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species:
summary and meta-analysis." Ecological Economics 18 (3):197-206.
Naish, Kerry A, Joseph E Taylor III, Phillip S Levin, Thomas P Quinn, James R Winton, Daniel Huppert,
and Ray Hilborn. 2007. "An Evaluation of the Effects of Conservation and Fishery Enhancement
Hatcheries on Wild Populations of Salmon1." Advances in Marine Biology 53:61-194.
NMFS. 2017a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 10 Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Programs
in the Duwamish-Green River Basin. edited by NOAA West Coast Region. Seattle, Washington.
NMFS. 2017b. Final Environmental Impact Statement to Analyze Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine
Fisheries Service joining as a signatory to a new U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement for the
Years 2018-2027. edited by NOAA West Coast Region.
NMFS. 2018. Environmental Assessment to Analyze Impacts of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries
Consideration of the Skagit River Steelhead Fishery Resource Management Plan under Limit 6 of
the 4(d) Rule of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) edited by West Coast Region. edited by
NOAA West Coast Region.
Olsen, Darryll, Jack Richards, and R Douglas Scott. 1991. "Existence and sport values for doubling the
size of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead runs." Rivers 2 (1):44-56.
Rondeau, Daniel. 2001. "Along the way back from the brink." Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 42 (2):156-182.

5

Rosenberger, Randall S, and Robert J Johnston. 2009. "Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit
transfer: avoiding unintended consequences." Land Economics 85 (3):410-428.
Ruckelshaus, Mary H, Phil Levin, Jerald B Johnson, and Peter M Kareiva. 2002. "The Pacific salmon
wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species." Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics:665-706.
Sorg, Cindy F, and John B Loomis. 1986. "Economic value of Idaho sport fisheries with an update on
valuation techniques." North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6 (4):494-503.
The Program for Applied Research and Evaluation. 2013. An economic analysis of striped bass,
steelhead, Chinook salmon, black bass, halibut, and sturgeon fishing in a 31 county area of
Northern California. edited by Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. Chico, California:
California State University, Chico.
WDFW. 2018. "Puget Sound Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Selection Process." accessed August 27th, 2018.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/steelhead/gene_bank/puget_sound/.
Zandersen, Marianne, Mette Termansen, and Frank Søndergaard Jensen. 2007. "Testing benefits transfer
of forest recreation values over a twenty-year time horizon." Land Economics 83 (3):412-440.
Zivin, Joshua, Brent M Hueth, and David Zilberman. 2000. "Managing a multiple-use resource: the case
of feral pig management in California rangeland." Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 39 (2):189-204.

6