SUMMARY
The summary is organized as follows:
Results of Wildlife Assessments
Results of Integrated Fish-Wildlife Assessments
Findings Related to Scientific Uncertainty and Potential Management Risk
Recommendations on a Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program
Through the Multi-Species Framework approach, we have developed a joint fish and wildlife scientific assessment and management framework for the entire Columbia River Basin. This Framework encourages fish and wildlife biologists to share common foundations for habitat databases, population models, and a technical lexicon. This commonality will allow the region to forecast the effects of proposed actions would have on both fish (resident and anadromous) and wildlife populations and their habitats, and to guide integrated assessments of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This Multi-Species Framework is designed to help the region develop a collective vision and approach for fish and wildlife recovery in the Columbia River Basin. The Framework is based on a simple premise: our actions are designed to influence environmental attributes in a manner that changes biological performance to better meet basin management goals. We work from a set of strategies at multiple geographic scales (basin, province, and subbasin) that pertain to biological objectives also at those scales, which in turn pertain to an overall vision (Figure I.1).
A set of scientific principles provides the scientific foundation for this Framework. These principles form the basis for the biological objectives, working hypotheses, and strategic guidelines that will provide specific direction for program measures.
The Multi-Species Framework and associated tools can be applied over a wide range of geographic scales and can help resource managers plan, implement, and coordinate actions in areas as large as the entire Columbia River Basin, or in the smallest tributary providing that reliable data on habitats and populations are available at each scale. The Framework and tools provide a consistency among fish and wildlife analyses across multiple spatial scales. By this report, regional managers are provided a powerful tool for conducting cumulative effects analysis of actions designed to enhance fish and wildlife populations or economic development.
The ecological information structure embedded in the Framework is designed to describe the ecosystem at multiple levels of spatial and biological organization. Its purpose is to identify and organize key assumptions about the environment and about habitats for selected species of management concern, key ecological functions (KEFs) of fish and wildlife, and biological performance of populations being analyzed. This structure serves to document the rationale for expectations about the likely success of management actions to meet the goals and vision for the basin.
The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment methodology (EDT) is the modeling approach used for determining fish population response to proposed actions. Using EDT entails emphasizing the need for explicit operating hypotheses on which to base management decisions. The EDT approach supports the idea that the usefulness of adaptive management depends upon the theoretical underpinnings of management strategies and actions to be explicit, clearly stated, and tested. As such, the EDT modeling approach is an explanatory-based approach that relies on empirical data, and on expert opinion when the data are not available, in contrast to purely statistically based approaches that rely solely on probabilities and correlations derived from empirical data.
In the Framework, we have developed an explicit set of biological analysis rules to determine how changes to the environment affect salmonid performance. The rules are based on empirical data from research studies, general scientific literature, and expert opinion where appropriate. The rules are what drive the EDT model results, i.e., they produce the projections about chinook performance given implementation of management actions. Each rule is, in essence, an assumption about how the environment works and how salmonid populations respond. By documenting the rules, we document each assumption. Making the rules explicit helps reviewers to focus on the underlying assumptions in seeking explanations for inaccurate results, replacing poor assumptions with better ones, and expanding our common understanding. The debate is thus shifted away from focusing on outputs (i.e., fish numbers) to inputs (knowledge and understanding of how the system works).
Current freshwater habitat productivity (from egg to smolt) has been reduced, to varying degrees, from its Historic Potential to Current Potential, in all tributaries to the Columbia-Snake Rivers. Current Potential ranges from about 25% of Historic Potential in the Columbia Plateau province to about 60% in the Mountain Snake province.
The environmental attributes that have had the greatest effect on freshwater habitat productivity are bed scour, fine sediment, riparian function, maximum monthly temperature, embeddedness, turbidity, and woody debris.
Current Potential abundances of chinook in the Columbia River Basin range 4-17% of estimated Historic Potential abundances. This result – suggesting a large decline since historic levels—is consistent with the status of several chinook populations being currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Chinook productivity in the Columbia River Basin has been reduced on average to less than 20% of Historic Potential productivity. A reduction in productivity means that chinook populations recover more slowly from low abundance. Actions that increase productivity would reduce the time required for chinook populations to reach recovery levels.
Reduction in chinook life history diversity ranges from 30% to 60% of the historic, dependent on race. Life history diversity refers to the multitude of life history pathways (temporally and spatially connected sequences life history segments) available for the species to complete its life cycle. The large drop in life history diversity likely makes these populations less resilient to environmental change, thereby increasing their risk of extinction.
By ESU, chinook abundance is currently 1-9% of Historic Potential abundance. Across all chinook ESUs, chinook productivity and life history diversity have been reduced to 11-30% and 16-84% of Historic Potential productivity and life history diversity, respectively.
All of the three alternatives we analyzed, regardless of their worldview basis, would likely increase overall chinook abundance by more than ~100% from current abundance levels. Therefore, the implementation of any of the three alternatives would likely result in a significant increase in chinook abundance.
The results of the analysis indicate that the actions included in Alternative 2 (dam removal, moderate-to-high level of tributary improvement) outperform all other alternatives in terms of increasing chinook population abundance, regardless of the assumptions examined.
Alternative 2 produces the greatest benefits (i.e., increases in chinook abundance) when it is assumed that chinook juvenile transportation is ineffective, in-river survival rates are low, ocean nearshore survival is high, and hatchery fish fitness and post-release survival are low.
Alternative 5 improves chinook production abundance potential to between 114% and 216% of Current Potential. This alternative performs best when it is assumed that transportation is relatively ineffective, in-river juvenile survival is low, nearshore ocean survival rates are high, and habitat restoration actions in the tributaries are effective.
Alternative 6 improves chinook performance to between 107% and 122% of Current. Most of the chinook production increase in this alternative is a result of improvements made in tributary habitat and hatchery fish fitness. Thus, this result depends on the assumptions that tributary habitats and fitness of hatchery fish most affect positively the future abundance of chinook.
Results of Wildlife Assessments
The wildlife analysis focused on species-specific issues and on system-level issues. To demonstrate the species-specific, we analyzed three species: American black bear, bald eagle, and American beaver. Key points are as follows.
We have developed a joint fish and wildlife assessment framework for the entire Columbia River Basin that uses a common approach to databases on habitats and species. The database is structured to also accommodate finer scaled data for analyses of smaller geographic areas and scales than those included in this report. In addition, the Framework fish and wildlife population assessment methods have the same theoretical basis.
All three alternatives that we analyze here demonstrated benefits for black bear and some benefits for bald eagle. Negative influences on the bald eagle habitat (as measured by a Habitat Condition Index, HCI) outweighed the beneficial influences on bald eagle habitats. A change map for the bald eagle illustrates where negative and beneficial influences were detected. At the basin scale, differences between alternatives on bald eagle and black bear were not discernable due to the very large area of the basin in relation to the relatively small amount of change proposed and our ability to depict species key habitat features through out the basin; such differences will become more obvious at finer geographic scales.
Alternative 2 could provide benefits for beaver and bald eagle due to restoration of wetland and riparian areas along reaches where dams are removed. Efforts to restore and preserve shrub-steppe, as stipulated under this alternative, will have little benefit for bald eagle and black bear, which are species that are not closely associated with shrub-steppe. Of course, it would benefit many other wildlife species that are so associated. Tributary restoration will benefit all three wildlife species evaluated.
Alternative 5 proposes restoring connectivity of shrub steppe reserves that would not particularly benefit, and that could have a negative influence on key environmental correlates for, black bear and bald eagle. Increased effort to restore tributary habitat, especially forested and riparian habitats would benefit all three wildlife species evaluated. Benefits for the black bear could occur more in poorer quality habitat (i.e., shrub steppe adjacent to forested area) and as a result of decreased roading. The bear analysis included input from the chinook analysis. For example, the actions in some alternatives resulted in an additional 75 6-HUCs having increased salmon carcass abundance, which is a key environmental correlate for black bear.
Quantitative analyses for the beaver failed due to the lack of consistent fine scale data of key habitat features across the entire basin. Nonetheless, subbasin managers should not abandon analyses for the beaver at finer geographic scales. Finer scale data on habitat variables such as tributary gradient will likely be more available at the subbasin and watershed scales.
Alternative 6 proposes less preservation along mainstem Columbia River and less restoration in tributary habitat especially on private land. This will result in less benefit for all three wildlife species assessed. The reliance on hatcheries would not benefit the 110 species of wildlife that use salmon carcasses; in fact, de-emphasizing the natural breeding and carcass stages of anadromous fish (especially salmon) in favor of hatchery use may provide poorly for these 110 wildlife species.
Results of Integrated Fish-Wildlife Assessments
Ecological relationships between salmon and wildlife indicate that the strongest associations in fresh water habitat are between 110 species of wildlife and salmon carcasses, and between 50 species of wildlife and salmon smolts.
Losses in ecological function of terrestrial wildlife communities may have occurred across the basin between Historic Potential and Current Potential conditions. These losses may be partially restored by any of the three alternatives, which would serve to at least partially restore some of the terrestrial environments that have declined since historic time.
Several key ecological functions (KEFs) of wildlife, such as transportation of seeds, would be at least partially restored to Historic Potential levels of functional redundancy (number of species with each function) by any of the three alternatives, but other KEFs, such as primary cavity excavation, might still decline because of continued loss of forest cover.
Findings Related to Scientific Uncertainty and Potential Management Risk
Predictions of biological performance depend on assumptions in each alternative, where the assumptions differ according to two different worldviews, which we call Technology Pessimistic and Technology Optimistic. We used this type of analysis to compare the alternatives by providing regional decision makers with a clear assessment of the risks and critical uncertainties embedded in each alternative and associated worldview.
In all of the alternatives, we assumed that management actions can be implemented as designed. This means that dams can be removed and habitat can be improved, in some cases dramatically, on both public and private lands. In the non-modeling world (i.e., real world) some actions may be politically impossible or practically difficult to implement or, over time, they may become socially unacceptable. Thus, the degree to which the various alternatives can be practically implemented likely vary, and our analyses do not take this variation into account.
Alternative 2 performs better for chinook population recovery under the Technology Pessimistic worldview and poorer under the Technology Optimistic view. Alternative 2 is projected to produce a larger increase in chinook abundance from current levels, than either of the other two alternatives regardless of the worldview.
Management actions under Alternative 2 would emphasize natural over hatchery production of fish. This emphasis poses greater weight on assumptions regarding our ability to improve and recover natural salmon habitat. As management actions designed to improve and recover natural salmon habitat likely will require many decades to both implement and reap fish survival benefits, the pay-off as to when the region could see the run sizes depicted for the alternative may be longer than under the other alternatives which rely more heavily on hatcheries. But there are other issues related to natural vs. hatchery stock that extend to questions of impacts on wildlife species that rely on adult salmon and salmon carcasses, and the arrays of ecological functions provided by that set of wildlife.
Because the predicted increase in chinook abundance for Alternative 2 is greater than that for the other alternatives under all scenarios (worldviews), there is less uncertainty associated with this alternative regarding the production of more chinook. Under the best-case scenario, chinook abundance may increase by as much as 381% from Current Potential levels; worst case would be 164%.
Alternative 2 is projected to substantially increase chinook abundance, productivity, and life-history diversity in all ESUs. Thus, there is less uncertainty associated with this alternative with regard to recovering listed chinook stocks.
Of the five ESUs analyzed, chinook performance increased the least in ESU 12 and ESU 13 located in the upper Columbia River. This is especially true with chinook productivity, which for ESU 12 is actually reduced under Alternatives 5 and 6. These data point to the fact that actions in all of the alternatives have been focused primarily on improving chinook performance in the Snake River (ESUs 14 and 15). To reduce the extinction risk for stocks originating in the upper Columbia River, consideration could be given to implementing more actions in these ESUs.
We estimated that the cost of implementing Alternative 2 is $765 million a year, and of implementing Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 $390 million and $210 million, respectively. Thus, to reduce uncertainty of response and recovery of chinook populations to the level shown for Alternative 2, the region may need to spend an additional $375-555 million a year (CH2MHill 2000).
Some of the actions included in Alternative 2 may not be internally consistent. Alternative 2 emphasizes natural production of chinook, yet still allows for the continuation of a large chinook hatchery production program. Because there is still considerable debate (uncertainty) as to the impact that hatchery fish have on wild stocks, either eliminating, curtailing, or reforming the hatchery program could reduce this inconsistency. In addition, at least under Alternative 2, studies should continue to quantify the effect of hatchery stock on the long-term fitness of native stock.
We project that implementation of Alternatives 5 and 6 will result in a Columbia River system heavily dependent upon hatchery production to achieve the respective chinook performance objectives of these alternatives. This is especially true if the Technology Optimistic worldview more accurately represents the State of Nature. A decision to place a large emphasis on hatchery production may pose significant risk to natural (wild) fish through the mechanisms of competition, disease, genetic introgression and harvest, and may sacrifice some of the wildlife assemblages and their ecological functions associated with feeding on mature salmon and salmon carcasses. A major assumption inherent in both Alternative 5 and 6 is that the region can maintain a large-scale hatchery program and also increase natural chinook abundance through aggressive habitat measures directed at the tributaries.
All of the alternatives require a substantial increase in freshwater productivity to increase chinook performance throughout the Columbia River Basin. Alternative 5 requires the most improvement in freshwater habitat, while Alternative 6 requires the least. At a minimum, the alternatives assume that freshwater habitat productivity can be improved by 35% over Current Potential levels. This is a relatively large improvement that may not be achievable because of either social constraints or the ineffectiveness of habitat management actions, but that lies in the purview of decision-makers, not biologists.
The preceding paragraph should not be interpreted to mean that a 35% improvement is needed in freshwater habitat in all reaches of the Columbia River Basin. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the alternatives require that we eliminate at least 35% of the identified habitat problems. These problems may be as simple as removing a small blockage or as complex as restoring late summer stream flows in a tributary dewatered as a result of agricultural practices. Regardless, there is still considerable uncertainty that this range of improvement in freshwater habitat can be achieved. However, the exact scale of the effort, and thus probable success, will not be known until after a diagnosis has been completed for all of the subbasins. The diagnosis could be performed as part of the assessment and subbasin planning phases of the Fish and Wildlife Program.
Under the best-case scenarios, our analyses suggest that Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 may produce 992,000, 728,000, and 755,000 chinook adults, respectively. Under the worst-case scenarios, our analyses suggest that Alternative 2, 5, and 6 may result in decreases in chinook production to 898,000, 652,000 and 428,000 chinook, respectively. The difference between the best case (Alternative 2) and worst case (Alternative 6) is approximately 564,000 adults. This defines the maximum reward possible for choosing the right alternative and State of Nature. Because there is much uncertainty around this estimate, it is up to resource managers to decide whether doubling or halving the number – given our uncertainty over these numbers - would influence their selection of one approach, or set of actions, over another set.
We assumed each alternative would provide a different level of habitat restoration effort (intensity), dependent on whether the habitat is located on private or public lands. Alternative 2 places equal effort in improving habitat on private and public lands. Alternative 5 emphasizes habitat actions on public over private, whereas Alternative 6 requires the same amount of effort as Alternative 5 does for public lands but significantly less on public lands. We assumed that there is greater uncertainty about fish response associated with an alternative that requires substantial improvement in habitat on private lands in comparison to an alternative that relies on actions on public lands.
We also assumed under all alternatives that hatchery fish survival can be improved through hatchery reform initiatives and that this improvement would result in a ~50% increase in hatchery fish survival. Studies underway in Yakima and other basins should help determine the validity of this assumption in the next three years.
Recommendations on a Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program
Biological objectives can be used to focus monitoring and evaluation efforts to track progress towards basin and province goals. The biological objectives we used in our analyses were based on an explicit set of hypotheses as represented in the EDT model. The hypotheses (rules) themselves are derived from a synthesis of scientific literature, research studies, and specific analyses using statistical tools such as h-VSP being developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the models developed within PATH. The Council can use EDT to evaluate subbasin plans for their contribution to the larger scale (province and basin) vision and biological objectives. To develop biological objectives, EDT could be used to describe the amount of environmental change needed within a province or subbasin to meet the overall vision. Subbasin plans would then detail the strategies and actions needed to make this amount of change across the province.
Biological objectives could be based on three characterizations of the environment: (1) the Current Potential condition, (2) the adopted resource management program, and (3) the Historic Potential condition. The Current and Historic Potential conditions are based on information gathered at the 6-HUC level. The characterization of the future conditions could be based on the increase in performance desired and the change in quantity and quality of attributes required to achieve the desired performance. EDT can be used to determine the amount of change from current conditions to achieve a desired condition. Thus, EDT can be used to help set the biological objectives for conditions in the basin by helping to determine what is possible.
Biological objectives would be established for aquatic and terrestrial habitat and biological performance. Candidate biological objectives include changes in the 45 environmental modeled amounts of habitat, fish survival rates, and modeled parameters such fish productivity, life history diversity and abundance.
Three levels of monitoring could be included in the Framework: implementation, effectiveness, and validation.
Implementation monitoring is used to ensure that strategies and management actions are implemented as specified by management guidelines.
Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if the rules developed for estimating an action’s effect on habitat attributes are indeed correct. It is also used to determine if mid-course corrections to the management strategies are needed due to the ineffectiveness of the strategy, changing environmental conditions, or real-world limitations. Effectiveness monitoring intends to confirm that the implemented action is having the predicted effect on the targeted habitat attribute. If not, then the rule will be changed to better fit the monitoring data.
Validation monitoring is used to confirm that as habitat attributes change, salmon populations respond as predicted by the EDT model and other models used in the assessment. In other words, validation monitoring tracks trends in population performance measures that imply goals are being achieved. Validation monitoring tests the veracity of the major scientific assumptions underlying the assessments. This would require statistical trend analyses of empirical data on habitats and populations.
A Scientific Advisory Board could advise on various scientific and technical aspects of the Framework plan. These aspects are listed individually.