This document describes a framework for arriving at informed alternatives for the future of the Columbia River Basin. These alternatives are being developed within the regional Multi-Species Planning Process. The Multi-Species Planning Process is not a decision making venture or a new governmental structure. It is an attempt to engage the region in a collective discussion of the future of the Columbia River, especially with respect to fish and wildlife resources. It is based on the premise is that fish and wildlife are components of ecosystems, and therefore, fish and wildlife management is an ecological problem requiring ecological solutions.

This report has been prepared by the Ecological Work Group (EWG)¹ as a contribution to the first Alternatives Workshop (November 17-19). The workshop is the starting point in a process whose ultimate objective is to describe a range of alternatives for the future of the Basin that have a high likelihood of achieving their stated vision and for which their ecological, economic, social and cultural implications have been described. These alternatives will form the basis for a policy debate over which vision is appropriate for the region.

The provisional nature of this document must be emphasized. The Multi-Species Planning Process introduces several new concepts for both ecological analysis and regional planning. The process that we will initiate on November 17 will be collaborative and iterative; scientists and analysts will work together with those suggesting alternatives to develop the final set of alternative futures. Over the course of the process, the EWG will likely revise and develop documents such as this one partly in reaction to discussion with the participants. Open discussion, constructive suggestions and revisions should flow freely between the EWG and the Alternatives Group. This report should be read and discussed in that context.

At the outset, we would like to make an important distinction that we will carry forward in our terminology. This is the difference between the ecological framework and the overall, Multi-Species Planning Process. Our focus is the ecological framework. This describes the structure and components of the Columbia River Ecosystem and a set of concepts, measures and metrics that we can use to describe its performance and how human actions affect that performance.

Figure 1 provides an overall "map" of the Ecological Framework. We emphasize that Figure 1 depicts a two-dimensional snap-shot of the ecosystem in time. Variation across time is an important characteristic of ecosystems (Scientific Principle 2). This adds an important third dimension to Figure 1. The concepts in Figure 1 will be discussed in the Preliminary Ecological Overview, below.

The Multi-Species Planning Process is the overall, regional process to develop alternatives for the future of the Columbia River Basin. It provides the regional context for the ecological framework. The ecological framework we describe is just that—the framework for the Multi-Species Planning Process. The Multi-Species Planning Process is based on the ecological framework but also includes the development of alternatives, the economic/cultural/social analysis and the process for discussing the alternatives within the region.

This document consists of three major components. (I) The Preliminary Ecological Overview discusses the ecological framework for the Multi-Species Planning Process. This includes the structure and key concepts shown in Figure 1 that are the basis for development of alternatives. It leads to (II) the Alternatives Template that provides the initial instructions for the development of alternatives. Finally, (III) we provide a preliminary discussion of our Analytical Approach. This describes the type of feedback that we expect to provide proposers based on our review of the alternatives. We emphasize the active collaboration between the ecological analysis and the development of alternatives. Our feedback is intended to be non-judgmental and lead to the improvement and refinement of the alternatives.

This section is the heart of the document. It describes a structure for consideration of the Columbia River as an ecological system. This provides the basis for linking policy and science and the processes of alternative building. The sections of the report that follow are all based on the Ecological Overview. The Ecological Overview has three key elements: Scientific Principles, Framework Components and Rationale and the Geographic Structure. These form the ecological framework (Figure 1). The scientific principles are the basic building blocks of ecologically informed alternatives. They are the basis for how we describe and think of the Columbia River Ecosystem. They constrain and guide the alternative building process and are the basis for evaluation. The Framework links policy (Visions), science (Ecological Performance and Attributes) and action (Strategies and Measures) via explicit Rationale that are based on the Scientific Principles. This section defines key terms and ideas and it describes the linkage among the policy and science elements that are part of the alternative building process. The Geographic Structure suggests an organization to the system that ensures consistency among the alternatives and their evaluation.

The components and structure of the ecosystem are the basis for components and structure of the alternative futures for the Columbia River. The Alternative Template provides guidelines and instructions for those developing alternatives. This section emphasizes that the development of alternatives is an iterative procedure. It also describes a five step process for developing an alternative consistent with the framework.

Application of ecological analysis to large-scale regional planning is relatively new, although based on a long history of scientific research. It is a quite different approach than that usually employed in Columbia River planning. The techniques for ecological analysis are being actively developed by the EWG. This third section describes our preliminary assessment of the kinds of feedback that we are likely to provide given the limitations on time and techniques. It is our hope that the November 17 workshop will provide us with information that will guide our analysis. For this reason, a major revision of the analytical approach should be expected.

Even as this report is being released, the EWG is continuing to develop the concepts and techniques it describes. After the November workshop, we expect to develop a decription of the present system and its trajectory. This can be thought of as the "no-action" alternative and it can provide the starting point for alternatives that suggest changes that could alter this trajectory. This could take the outline of the Ecological Overview and enhance it with historical data and discussion of ongoing trends that will determine future trajectory.

In parallel with the analysis of the alternatives, the EWG will be preparing a plan that will couple the alternatives to a monitoring, evaluation and research plan. This will address the uncertainties and performance measures appropriate to the alternatives.

Also following the November workshop, the EWG will examine the first iteration alternatives. We expect to characterize the alternatives in ecological terms. Our first analysis will likely result in many questions regarding the intent of the alternatives and should form the basis for a constructive dialogue between the proposers and the EWG.

I. Ecological Overview of the Columbia River

This report describes an ecological framework for the Columbia River. It is intended to introduce the concept of the Columbia River as a system of interacting biological and physical components (the ecosystem). This first version of the overview is intended to introduce the basic structure and concepts for consideration of the Columbia River as an ecosystem. Future work will use this ecological framework to organize existing data into a description of the Columbia River Ecosystem.

The premise of this effort is that an ecologically based approach is the most effective way to achieve goals for individual species, populations and communities. By recognizing the ecological basis of fish and wildlife management, we stress the need to address problems at different scales and to consider the relationship between species and their habitats. However, the framework recognizes that ecosystems change naturally and that the rate of change in the Columbia River ecosystem has greatly accelerated in the 20^th Century due to the increase in human population and impact. The system will continue to change in the future with or without a change in human activities. The system also has a finite ability to deliver goods and services. As a result, development of system-wide alternatives will involve compromise and tradeoffs between uses of the river. It is anticipated that improved ecosystem function will result in the rebound of some, but not all species/stocks of interest, to some measure of historical levels.

1. Scientific Principles²

   Recent reviews of fish and wildlife restoration activities have highlighted the need for a comprehensive vision for Columbia Basin fish and wildlife restoration based upon fundamental ecological principles. The common message in these reports (e.g., Return to the River, Upstream and Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish Wit.) is the need for an overarching plan that is integrated across the "4-Hs" (Hatcheries, Hydro, Harvest and Habitat). They point to the elements of an ecologically based scientific foundation for fish and wildlife recovery.

   To this end, we have developed an explicit scientific foundation that will guide the development of the ecological framework. This foundation is stated in eight principles³:

   Principle 1: The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the conditions they experience in their ecosystems over the course of their lifecycle.

   Principle 2. Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary and resilient.

   Principle 3. Ecosystems are structured hierarchically.

   Principle 4. Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant and animal species.

   Principle 5. Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.

   Principle 6. Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural processes.

   Principle 7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

   Principle 8. Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

   This foundation will be the basis for measures we will use to characterize the ecosystem and to evaluate changes that may result from strategies and actions. The principles may be refined with experience and new information. However, changes to the principles will be made using established routes of scientific review and in consultation with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board.

    

2. Components of the Framework

There are four components of the framework. The Vision describes the values attached to the ecosystem, Ecological Objectives describe the condition of the ecosystem needed to achieve the Vision, and Actions are the extrinsic process and human interventions that affect Ecological Objectives. The four components are linked by a Rationale. Each component has significance only in the context of the ecosystem framework. A Vision for the region that does not consider the needed change in Ecological Objectives and actions is little more than wishful thinking. Similarly, Actions that are not tied to specific changes in the environment (Ecological Objectives) and ultimately tied to some purpose (Vision) are disjointed and unlikely satisfying regional needs.

To emphasize the linkage between the four components, we will use the following recurring icon:
The arrows represent the Rationale and emphasize the continuity of the components. During planning (development of alternatives), the flow is from left to right. Feedback on the alternatives from the EWG will reverse this flow and the rationale will address how the Actions achieve the Objectives, and how this changed ecosystem achieves the Vision.

The Framework Components are applied to the Columbia River Ecosystem at different scales (Figure 1). For example, a Vision can apply to the Columbia River Basin and a Vision can apply to a specific subbasin or a regional aggregation of subbasins. While this will be discussed further in Section I.C, below, it is important to keep in mind the geographic scaling shown in Figure 1 when thinking about the Framework Components.

The Vision defines a set of ecological/biological, economic, social, cultural and other values that the proposer expects the Columbia River Basin to sustain in the future. The Vision captures not only those values to be gained, but should also reflect values the proposer expects to forgo.

Traditional goals for harvest, abundance or persistence of species can be part of a Vision. However, vision is actually a larger concept that tries to paint a picture for the future of the river. It addresses broad themes for the basin and can include intrinsic values in addition to more narrowly focused goals for specific species or populations.

A Vision can also be painted in terms of Values. This does not refer dollar amounts but rather to intrinsic qualities of the basin and specific goods and services. Visions should address terrestrial as well as aquatic values of the system and the needs of many species. While focusing on values for natural resources, a Vision also could address values for industry, agriculture or commerce and specifically should contemplate the balance and trade-offs in values. "Wild and scenic," "harvestable spring chinook" and "adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply" are examples of values that could be derived from the Columbia River ecosystem.

The Vision component is the basis from which an alternative is developed and the standard against which an alternative is evaluated. In developing an alternative, the proposers need to start with the Vision and sequentially determine what ecological objectives will accomplish the Vision, and then what actions will achieve the ecological objectives. In evaluating an alternative, the EWG will start with the actions and examine the degree to which they lead to ecological objectives that support the Vision.

The Vision presented by different alternatives will likely require differing amounts of change from relatively modest to perhaps dramatic. The ecological conditions needed to achieve the Vision are described by the Ecological Objectives. Objectives specify the kind, magnitude, and timing of change needed to achieve the Vision. The Objectives relate to three aspects of the Columbia River Ecosystem:

1. Ecosystem: relationships between species and their habitats,
2. Communities: relationships among species,
3. Populations: relationships within individual species.

The ecological objectives have two components, descriptors or indicators of Ecological Performance and a set of measurable Ecological Attributes. These can apply to the ecosystem, communities or to populations (Figure 1).

There are two important aspects of ecological performance. First, performance relates to variation over time and space that defines the boundaries of the system. These scales can be associated with species or groups of species of interest so that ecosystems, communities and populations have tangible boundaries, components and processes (Scientific Principle 4). In other words, there is a need to define a geographically discrete ecological classification so that performance can be assessed for those components and processes that are important in the context of a particular alternative. As will be discussed further in Section I.C, below, the vision, goals, and actions of an alternative partly determine the geographical structure appropriate to an alternative.

Second, performance can be described relative to a defined reference conditions (e.g. current or historical status and trends of the system). The presumed limits of the system (its performance potential) should also be defined, perhaps in terms of its historical performance. In other words we might describe the ecosystem performance expected from an alternative by comparing it to the historic and the present systems. The EWG is working on a description of the current ecological system that could serve as a reference point for describing future conditions.

Ecosystem Performance can be described by a number of terms. In Table 1, we provide a provisional set of appropriate concepts to describe performance. Appendix A indicates the logical relationship between these and specific Scientific Principles. The terms we provide in Table 1 will be the vocabulary and concepts that we will use to describe Ecosystem Performance for a particular alternative. However, we recognize that many of these are foreign to the conventional planning process in the Columbia River. Indeed, it is the consideration of the alternatives in the context of these terms that reflects the ecological basis that is unique to the Multi-Species Planning Process. We suggest that, for the initial iteration of the alternatives development (November 17 workshop), planners attempt to familiarize themselves with the concepts, use them if possible, but not feel constrained by the use of unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts. The feedback from the EWG after the workshop should increase the appreciation of the concepts and facilitate further development of the alternatives.

The values attached to the measures of Ecological Performance depend on the goals and values articulated in the Vision. In other words, whether the amount of, say, species diversity or system robustness is "good" depends on whether it is "enough" to achieve the Vision. Ecological Performance is not inherently "good" or "bad" except as it relates to the standards provided by the needs of the Vision.

The key indicators of ecological performance in Table 1 can be organized into four groups, based on whether they describe (1) organization, (2) response or (3) the output of ecological or systems behavior. A fourth category includes indicators that are composites of two or more of the terms in the first three groups. These groups and the terms used to define ecological performance are in common use in ecosystems theory that has been applied to ecosystem assessment and adaptive management in various contexts⁴. The generalized definitions given in the table below are meant to apply to each level of ecological organization, to be related directly to one or more of the Scientific Principles (see Appendix A), and to describe different properties of the Ecological Performance.

Table 1. Proposed measures of Ecosystem Performance.

Ecological Attributes have three key features: First, they are measurable indicators of effect. Flow, temperature, substrate embededness, and the Shannon-Weaver index of diversity are examples of attributes. Second, attributes are directly related to measures of Ecosystem Performance. The Shannon-Weaver index, for example, might relate to the Ecosystem Performance measure of diversity. Third, attributes are, in effect, hypotheses between actions and Ecosystem Performance. The action of providing for periodic scouring floods might have the Ecosystem Attribute of a measure of substrate embededness that is hypothesized to have a relation to the Ecosystem Performance measures of habitat complexity and biological diversity. The validity of these hypotheses might be tested through directed experimentation or monitoring and evaluation (see Future Products section).

These features apply to different ways of addressing attributes. They can describe the direct effects of the Actions of an alternative (e.g. river flow changes from 250 kcfs to 300 kcfs during April). These are ecosystem features that are directly and immediately altered by the proposed action. Attributes can also describe indirect or ancillary effects that take a longer time to manifest themselves (e.g. increased flow decreases juvenile salmon outmigration time or re-configures habitat) or affect other parts of the biological community. The rationale should link the direct effect attributes with these indirect or cumulative effect attributes, i.e. what mechanism links flow and juvenile fish outmigration time or habitat structure? This is the hypothesis between the action and change in Ecosystem Performance. Appendix B provides suggestions for measures that could be applied to either of the aspects of attributes.

Extrinsic processes include fire, drought, flood, decadal cycles in ocean condition, global warming and myriad other processes. They establish a background context within which human interventions must be planned. Extrinsic processes operate at all geographic scales (Figure 1). Regional climate changes affect the system at its broadest scale (Columbia River Ecosystem) while floods or droughts may have more localized effects at the Province or Subbasin level.

Generally, extrinsic processes can be treated as externalities during planning. Human interventions need to be planned and implemented in a manner that is consistent with what we know about the influence of extrinsic processes on ecological attributes and performance. For example, strategies and activities for anadromous fish management need to be robust so that they can respond to changes in ocean condition. At the same time, extrinsic processes can be influenced by human interventions. As human interventions disconnect streams from their flood plains, for example, floods and droughts occur more frequently and at greater intensities.

Human Interventions have two parts, strategies and management activities, that describe how humans affect the ecological attributes and thereby influence ecological performance. Tactics, or management activities, must be congruent with and directed by overall strategies, and at the same time strategies must be shaped by the limitations of tactical capabilities.

1. Strategies.

   Strategies concern the comprehensive, large-scale marshalling and allocation of resources that are intended to make the kind of ecological change needed to achieve a given set of ecological objectives. Strategies describe broad approaches and provide a conceptual link between management actions and ecological conditions.

   It is helpful to consider different types of strategies. Strategies consist of actions that (1) protect existing fish and wildlife resources, including ecosystems, communities and populations; (2) restore fish and wildlife resources that have been degraded to some measure of historical conditions; and (3) mitigate for fish and wildlife resources that have been lost or that will be lost due to future actions. Additional types of strategies are those that (4) monitor and evaluate progress toward the desired ecological condition and research identified uncertainties, and (5) identify opportunities for experimental management (adaptive management).

   Protection. Maintaining and protecting all or a portion of current fish and wildlife resources is the focus of protection strategies. Examples of protection strategies could include: a Key Watershed protection strategy to secure existing good habitat, a hatchery-free zone to protect genetic characteristics of specific fish stocks, or a water quality protection strategy to ensure a non-degradation standard is met.

   Restoration. The focus of restoration strategies is to improve the condition of fish and wildlife resources to some portion of an historical level. For example, an alternative with a vision of restoring salmon runs to harvestable levels could include strategies focused on habitat restoration or hatchery supplementation.

   Mitigation. A third category, mitigation strategies, addresses fish and wildlife resources that either already have been lost or that are expected to be forfeited as a result of attaining a vision. For example, differing mitigation strategies could include cash compensation, in-kind and in-place replacement with a hatchery, or species substitution.

   Monitoring and Research. Monitoring and evaluation strategies describe how progress towards attainment of the objectives and vision should be tracked, and research strategies detail how new information critical to the alternative’s vision will be identified and obtained. Among other things, these two types of strategies describe approaches for dealing with uncertainty. They are also the way that the hypotheses posed as the Attributes (above) are tested and refined.

    

2. Measures

Measures are human actions undertaken consistent with a specified strategy, to achieve the desired change in ecological objectives. Measures can be discussed in the traditional categories referred to as "the 4-Hs" (hatcheries, harvest, hydro and habitat). They tend to concern local, immediate and/or short-term activities. For example, if the restoration strategy is to encourage natural recovery of riparian habitats for fish and wildlife, a management action consistent with that strategy could be the reduction of grazing intensity and duration. Measures describe not only the type of action but specify where it should occur and a time schedule for its implementation.

The Rationale explains the connections among the Vision, Ecological Performance, Ecological Attributes, Strategies and Measures and explores these connections to identify ancillary effects. During planning the rationale is structured from Vision through Objectives (Performance and Attributes) to Actions (Strategies and Measures), that is from left to right in the icon above. During evaluation the rationale explores the connections in the opposite direction from Actions through Objectives to Vision. The Rationale is based upon the Scientific Principles discussed in Part IA, above.

An example serves to illustrate the relationship between Actions and the direct and indirect effects on Ecological Attributes and Ecological Performance, and between the Ecological Attributes and Performance and the Vision. Suppose an alternative proposes the Measure of using water leasing to achieve an historic pattern of instream flows in some tributary during the summer as part of a Strategy for that tributary. The purpose might be to have the direct effect on Ecological Attributes of nudging a subbasin toward more natural flow regime, temperature regime, riparian vegetation structure, and lateral stream habitat complexity. The Action also might be undertaken with the further intent of inducing the indirect effect of re-establishing riparian habitat to increase bird and other wildlife abundance and to increase life history diversity and abundance of native fishes. These changes in Ecological Attributes resulting from the Action would be linked to needed changes in Ecological Performance such as increasing habitat complexity, diversity and integrity, improving the resilience of the tributary ecosystem to disturbance, and increasing its salmonid productivity and diversity. These changes would be linked to a Vision for the tributary of strong, self-sustaining salmonid populations. The Rationale would explain these linkages and the underlying assumptions supporting the assessment of direct and indirect effects on the Ecological Attributes and Performance.

The Rationale should address the effect of actions on Ecological Objectives comprehensively to include the broader biological community of target species. In the example above, the success of the Actions relative to the Vision could be reduced if the native targeted fish species were connected to non-native fishes. Although, some warmwater non-native species might be reduced, other coolwater non-natives, such as smallmouth bass whose biological requirements overlap with many native salmonid fishes, might expand into streams that previously were inhospitable because of low summer flows. Competition and predation by these non-natives could be detrimental to the targeted native species. Therefore, the indirect effects of using water leasing to achieve an historic pattern of instream flows could also have the ancillary effect of reorganizing the fish community in a way that reduces the benefits of the Action for the targeted native fishes. The net result, for example, on the Ecological Performance of integrity may be neutral or even negative for the salmonid fish community thereby precluding accomplishment of the Vision, even as the viability, productivity and resilience of the fish community increases, and the diversity of riparian birds increases greatly.

The dimensions, components and functions of the ecosystem are defined relative to questions being asked. More specifically, this means they are defined with respect to species or communities of species that are of interest (Scientific Principle 4). With this rationale, we define the Columbia River Ecosystem to be composed of the watershed of the Columbia River and marine areas frequented by anadromous salmon, lamprey and sturgeon. This recognizes that ecosystem boundaries are fuzzy due to the movement of energy back and forth between adjacent systems and between systems of different scales.

Within this ecosystem can be discerned considerable spatial and ecological variation. This suggests a further organization that can be used to describe the system and its management. Any organization is arbitrary; lines are drawn to group areas in regard to criteria that depend on the question asked. We suggest a possible organization that may be appropriate to many alternatives but allow for its modification by the alternative proposers if it seems appropriate.

We provisionally recognize five levels of geographic/ecological organization:

These levels are the basis for the framework organization shown in Figure 1.

Our suggested organization begins with 4th order HUCs (Hydrological Unit Codes) that constitute a basic information and ecological unit. HUCs are in common usage by land and water management agencies and the StreamNet data system.

These 4^th order HUCs are aggregated into subbasins, for example, the John Day subbasin. The HUCs and subbasins are well defined in the region and are not likely to change between alternatives. Higher level aggregations, however, may be adjusted to suite the needs of different alternatives.

At the top of the hierarchy the system is divided into two major landscape categories: the marine landscape and the Columbia River Basin landscape. The marine landscape is divided into five marine provinces based on oceanographic characteristics. The Columbia River is partitioned provisionally into eight physiographic provinces, each of which is an aggregation of subbasins and/or mainstem river reaches. The province groupings are flexible, but should be composed of whole subbasins. Appendix C lists provinces and their contained subbasins. They are also shown in Figure 2.

1. The process of alternatives development

   Ecologically based planning is an area of rapidly developing scientific, social and legal issues. There is no ready "cook-book" to guide planners and scientists. For this reason we emphasize the iterative development of alternatives that will allow scientists and planners the opportunity to refine their ideas and techniques as the process develops.

   The framework process will stress the interaction between the alternative proposers and the scientists and analysts charged to evaluate and provide feedback on the alternatives. Analysts will fairly characterize the alternatives without judgment on the vision or goals reflected in the alternative. The evaluation will examine the fit between the vision, the ecological objectives and the strategies and management activities.

   Although the process still is being planned, alternatives development is based on a simple model of alternative proposal and analysis:

   

   It is expected that each iteration will result in greater refinement and detail in both the description and the analysis of the alternative. Proposers will develop alternatives based on the template described below. The EWG will evaluate the likelihood that the actions will achieve the ecological objectives and accomplish the vision for the alternative. This feedback will enable the proposers to refine their alternative. This process will be repeated in an effort to produce a coherent alternative.

   The steps in the first iteration that currently are scheduled are as follows:

   Concept papers	November 6
   First alternatives workshop	November 17-19
   First analysis	January 15
   Second alternatives workshop	To be scheduled

   The concept papers (November 6) are intended to be brief descriptions that will be used to plan the first alternatives workshop. They will be developed further at the first alternatives workshop (November 17-19) where the proposers will interact with the scientists and analysts. After the workshop, the EWG will examine the draft alternatives and provide feedback to the proposers. This feedback will enable the proposers to revise and improve the alternatives. Subsequent iterations between the proposers and analysts will be scheduled.

    

    

2. Steps for development of alternatives.

Within the structure of the ecosystem framework, regional planners will describe alternative approaches to Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife management that describe proposed changes needed to plot a new course towards their vision. As depicted in the figure, each alternative should include a vision that describes a set of values for the Columbia River Basin, a group of objectives describing the system needed to achieve the vision, an integrated strategy for achieving the objectives and an array of measures that implement the strategy. The alternatives also should be accompanied by a rationale that discusses how and why the elements of the alternative fit together to accomplish the vision for which they were proposed.

The elements of an alternative should address the ecosystem at different scales. Consistent with the geographic structure described previously, apply the following steps. At each step in developing an alternative, document your key assumptions and uncertainties.

1ST STEP: FORMULATING YOUR VISION. Formulate a broad vision for the Columbia River Basin that reflects the biological/ecological, cultural, social and economic priorities of the proposers. This vision should be in the form of statements that outline a specific regional vision or management intent for the Columbia River Basin; capturing the values the alternative has been developed to attain and reflecting which values the alternative is intended to forgo. Visions may vary considerably from one alternative to another and no vision is deemed — a priori — to be "better" or "worse" than any other. For example, one alternative could be developed to achieve the restoration of sustainable, naturally reproducing fish and wildlife populations to support tribal and non-tribal harvest and cultural and economic practices, while another alternative could be developed to achieve a stipulated level of mitigation for fish and wildlife populations lost as a result of management to meet other specified societal visions for the basin. However, a major focus of the Ecological Working Group evaluation will be the degree to which a given alternative is likely to achieve its stated vision. Therefore, each alternative must include explicit visions that paint a clear picture of the end state or purpose the alternative seeks to achieve.

2ND STEP: DETERMINING YOUR OBJECTIVES. Once the vision has been articulated, objectives are specified. Objectives should be stated in measurable terms to the extent possible because they will be used as signposts by which progress towards the goal can be evaluated. The EWG will work with the proposers to translate objectives into terms of ecological performance and ecological attributes so that biological soundness and to consistency between goals and actions can be evaluated. Developers of alternatives should initially consider stating their objectives in these terms to the extent possible to avoid later misunderstanding. Also note that similar information is requested as part of the rationale described below.

3RD STEP: DEVELOPING YOUR STRATEGIES. Strategies are comprehensive, large-scale marshaling and allocation of resources that must be implemented to achieve the objectives. Each alternative should consider the strategies it intends to take to

1. protect existing fish and wildlife resources,
2. restore fish and wildlife resources that have been degraded,
3. mitigate what resources have been or will be lost, as well as to
4. monitor and evaluate progress towards the goal and
5. identify critical information needs and conduct research that supplies that information.

Depending upon an alternative’s vision and objectives, strategies in one or all of these categories may be important.

4TH STEP: DETAILING YOUR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS. Identify those management actions, or tactics, needed to implement the strategies. The geographic area to which any change in management would be applied (e.g., basin-wide, in a specified province or subbasin, etc.), the kind, magnitude and direction of change, and the entity responsible for undertaking the management action must be specified. A number of management action categories are listed below. When developing an alternative, these categories should be examined to determine if changes are needed in any or all of them to implement the strategies and achieve the objectives and goals of the alternative.

1. Hatcheries

• Supplementation
• Captive brood stock
• Production

2. Harvest (address both direct and indirect effects)

• Commercial
• Sport
• Subsistence and ceremonial
• Oceanic
• Freshwater

3. Hydro

• Port and river traffic/navigation operations (facility, route, timing, etc.)
• Dam operations (configuration, flood control, flow regimes, instream flows, etc.)
• Structural modifications to dams
• Fish collection/barging/transportation practices
• Water diversions/withdrawals

Habitat

 

• Land use and allocation changes
• Changes in water quality
• Flow regulation
• Protection, restoration and enhancement
• Exotic species and predator management

5TH STEP: EXPLAINING YOUR RATIONALE. To complete the presentation of an alternative, a rationale must be included explaining how the individual elements of the alternative fit together to accomplish the goals. This rationale, which must be founded upon the Scientific Principles, should:

The rationale should demonstrate how and why undertaking the management actions implements the strategies; how implementing the strategies achieves the objectives; and how achieving the objectives will accomplish the vision. It also should identify any negative effects anticipated as a result of undertaking the management actions.

The analytical approach will be used in both the planning and the evaluation of the Multi-Species Planning Process. The planners will use the concepts to assess and justify whether or not their proposed ecological attributes and performances are likely to meet their vision/goals. The EWG will use these same concepts to evaluate the alternatives provided by the planning process. Their evaluation will assess the scientific adequacy of the rationale used to develop alternatives and will provide insight whether or not the proposed alternatives will meet their goals.

The analytical approach will be developed in an interactive process with the planners and the EWG. Preliminary work on this has been initiated by the EWG and several approaches have been identified. These range from reductionist approaches that require massive amounts of site specific data to integrative approaches that use synthesized data to address issues on a regional basis. Work on developing the analytical approach will continue once the EWG learns about the range of alternatives that are proposed in the first workshop(s) with the planners. Ongoing work (following the first workshop) on the analytical approach will continue the search for tools that have been developed for similar regional processes that address ecological-based regional management. Potential analytical tools identified to date include Indices of Biological Integrity developed by Karr, Qualitative Simulation Modeling used by Holling, habitat/salmonid modeling being developed in the PATH process and modeling efforts used as part of the regional water management effort in Florida.

While significant features of the analysis remain to be developed, it is clear that the feedback provided to the proposers by the EWG will include synthetic information based on existing data, quantitative analysis and qualitative conceptual information. Given the time frame contemplated by the Multi-Species Planning Process, we do not anticipate the opportunity of developing new models or quantitative tools. We will not be able to collect or even search out new data. As a result we propose a very pragmatic approach that relies on existing information and tools that will be organized around the concepts described in this paper. We will build on past efforts such as PATH, the Systems Operation Review and Subbasin Planning. Where quantitative tools exist, such as those in PATH, we will provide quantitative feedback. Where they do not we will provide qualitative discussion. Both quantitative and qualitative information will be synthesized within the ecosystem framework to assess the ecological consequences of different alternatives.

Planners input to developing the analytical approach will consist of feedback to the EWG regarding questions they generated as they developed their alternative and supporting rationale. The EWG expects that the initial feedback used by the planners and the EWG will be more qualitative and address: 1) the linkage between the scientific principles and the projected ecological performances and attributes, 2) general ecological responses and attributes not included in the vision/goal, 3) the likelihood that their alternative will meet their goals/vision and 4) sources of uncertainty in their planning process. The qualitative statements will provide the EWG insight to the planners thought process, will initiate a dialogue between the two groups and will provide the EWG the guidance they need as they refine the analytical approach.

The overall intent of the evaluation is to end up with a set of coherent alternatives that are likely to achieve their vision/goals. Decision-makers and the public can then debate the selection of the regional alternative.

An analysis of the present state of the Columbia River ecosystem will be provided in the next iteration of this document. This will describe likely future conditions for anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife populations, within the context of the framework described here, under a status quo or "no action" alternative.

The alternative will use regionally available data sources to present a description of the Columbia Basin ecosystem. It will focus on describing the present trajectory of the Columbia River Ecosystem. Alternatives will be intended, in most cases, to change this trajectory in some way. The present trajectory is influenced by the cumulative impact of past events and larger scale forces such as global warming and climate change. This description will be quantified where possible. Those aspects of the ecosystem that cannot be quantified will be described qualitatively within the overall framework context.

This alternative will provide a practical application of framework principles, an example of the analyses available to characterize alternatives, and a baseline scenario or alternative against which to compare other alternatives.

Each alternative that ultimately emerges from this process should include a plan for monitoring, evaluating and researching its implementation. As discussed at several points above, in most cases, there will be an hypothesis linking Measures and Ecological Attributes. The monitoring plan should address how these hypotheses will be tested and refined. The plan should be based upon the key assumptions, uncertainties, and information needs identified during the development and evaluation of management alternatives. The Ecological Working Group believes much of the necessary information is presently being collected under ongoing programs. The monitoring plan will, therefore, focus on identifying which ongoing data collection activities are essential to monitoring framework implementation and what new efforts must be started.

Development of the monitoring plan cannot begin until after the initial round of alternative evaluations is completed. We anticipate a schedule for this effort will be available by the second workshop early in 1999.

The scientific principles for ecological analysis, and the indicators of ecological performance that most directly pertain to each principle. Other relationships are possible, but those listed below should capture the majority of circumstances.

This is a provisional list of attributes that we expect will be modified as the evaluation process proceeds. We will be working iteratively to refine this list with respect to several considerations: its consistency with our list of ecological performances of interest, to ensure as comprehensive coverage of ecological conditions and changes as possible, to ensure that the attributes together capture the dominant effects and differences among the kinds of alternatives offered for review (i.e., all alternatives will be screened with the same set of attributes, but the list may be modified to improve its sensitivity); and in response to input from our cohorts in the policy and socioeconomic groups.

These specific attributes are a small subset of the possible range of metrics, selected on the basis of several criteria: 1) generality and explanatory power, i.e., changes in the metric broadly reflect, integrate, or affect many ecosystem processes and components; 2) data are widely available that can be used to assess the direction and trend in the attribute; 3) the attribute is relatively unambiguous in its qualitative or quantitative response, and prediction and assessment of its trend in response to a management action is feasible with existing knowledge; 4) (some) attributes directly reflect the status of resources traditionally valued by various human interests; 5) the attribute has been identified as a useful metric by other groups or institutions in other assessment efforts.

Habitat Codes: T= tributary streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, MS = major river mainstem segments, ES = estuary, CP = Columbia River plume, NP= NE Pacific Ocean.

The references listed below provide a background for the ecological approach to fish and wildlife management embodied in the framework. Most of these are accessible accounts that can provide useful background information for those preparing framework alternatives.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Fisheries Science Center
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/

Northwest Power Planning Council
http://www.nwcouncil.org/

StreamNet
http://www.streamnet.org/

The Multi-species Framework Process
http://www.nwframework.org/

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
http://www.icbemp.gov/

1. This report was jointly prepared by the Ecological Work Group and the Scientific Steering Committee. For convenience, this joint team is referred to here only as the Ecological Work Group (EWG).

2. An expanded discussion of the principles and their scientific basis can be found in Issue Paper 98-6 from The NW Power Planning Council.

3. These principles have been reviewed by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISD. They are being revised to reflect their suggested wording changes and organization and will be submitted for final approval by the ISAB. ISAB comments do not substantively modify the principles.

4. For example, Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.

5. Note that actions that address human actions at this scale are not categorically excluded from the process and may be addressed if appropriate to an alternative.

^ top