Year

of

The

Renewin

Decisio

g the

n

Northwest Power Planning Council’s

Fish and Wildlife

Program

It’s Your Money

The steps the

Power Planning Council

is taking to bring

and

balance to fish and

wildlife spending

accountability

Independent Science,

Sound Decisions

Why the Council’s

new system

will lead to

analytical

decisions

The

of the

Columbia Basin

Future

The Multi-Species

Framework Project’s

alternatives

the choices

balance

3
February 2000

Dear Fellow Citizen:

As we begin the 21st Century, the Northwest Power Planning Council marks an important

end — and an important beginning.

We recently came to the end of an annual fish and wildlife project selection process that

brought an unprecedented level of independent scientific review to our recommendations.

Using this rigorous analysis in our decision making should increase the confidence of

stakeholders and the public in the effectiveness of hundreds of millions

of dollars of public investment.

At the same time, we are embarking on a year that will bring dramatic changes to our

efforts to protect and restore fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. We will refine the

Multi-Species Framework Project, amend our fish and wildlife program and improve our

project funding process to make our decision-making more clear, effective and accountable.

Most important, the amended program will provide a resource that can help

all the region’s stakeholders coordinate their efforts and investments in a way that will

significantly improve results.

A vital tool in changing our way of doing business will be the Multi-Species Framework

Project.

The Multi-Species Framework Project is an attempt to bring the highest level of data-based

analysis together with an inclusive and participatory look at the different alternatives available

to the region as we make choices about how to protect and restore our fish and wildlife. What is

exciting abouttheFramework is that its extraordinary scope and detail holds an important

promise: action based on a solid scientific foundation and a clear focus on measurable results.

The Council included the entire range of Northwest constituent interests in defining the

possible approaches to fish and wildlife recovery. When it’s complete, the Framework will offer

a comprehensive analysis of the ecological and human effects of these approaches. With this

information in hand, we will be able to make on-the-ground decisions that have the best

chance of protecting the values and achieving the results we share.

What follows is an overview of the Multi-Species Framework and the steps the Council

will take to refine it and to amend our fish and wildlife program. Over the next year, the

Northwest Power Planning Council looks forward to working with all the region’s stakeholders

to update and improve the region’s fish and wildlife plan and to move from discussion to

decisive action.

Sincerely,

From the Desk of

Council Chair

Larry Cassidy

EricBloch, Oregon

John Brogoitti, Oregon

John Etchart,Montana

MikeField,Idaho

Stan Grace, Montana

Tom Karier, Washington

Northwest

Power Planning

Council

PHOTOS:

RICHIWASAKI

Council Members

Todd Maddock,Idaho
Fish and wildlife protection and recovery are not new issues in the

Pacific Northwest. People used to believe that our salmon runs were

a vast, inexhaustible resource. It’s become clear that isn’t the case.

As long ago as the late 1800s, declines in numerous stocks of fish were

beginning to be noticed. Around the turn of the century, the

first measures for protecting fish and wildlife were proposed. But even

with all the efforts undertaken, challenges have continued to mount

even faster.

Few issues facing our region are as important, complex and emotional

as protecting and restoring our fish and wildlife. Fish and wildlife are

important resources in the Northwest, but also hold a far greater

significance than other resources because they are intrinsic to

our regional character. They are a living link with our natural heritage,

and part of what makes us unique as a region and a people.

At the same time, the things that pose a threat to the survival of our

fish and wildlife also make important contributions to our quality of life:

urban development, recreation, logging, agriculture, shipping and the

hydroelectric power that helped transform the Pacific Northwest into

the vital, dynamic place it is today.

Few would argue with the need to protect and restore our fish

runs and other wildlife. However, that work must be accomplished while

being respectful of the effects on our communities, people and other

values. That commitment has led to a tremendous amount of dedicated

work and investment from every corner of the region. But beyond that,

there has been precious little effective collaboration among the collection

of agencies, organizations and sovereign interests.

Problems arise from these divergent efforts. In some cases, useful

projects have worked at cross-purposes. An example would be one agency

investing in a project to release fish upriver, while an irrigation diversion

downriver created by another agency makes it impossible for these same

fish to pass to the ocean. Even more typically, fragmented research and

differing perspectives have created a sort of fish and wildlife recovery

“paralysis.” This has had a damaging effect on the confidence and

support of policy makers and the public.

The Northwest Power Planning Council has a special position and

a unique perspective on all of this. Created by Congress as a regional

compact, the Council is the region’s public voice in key fish and wildlife

decisions. The Council seeks to find the balance that best serves the

Next Step

Taking the

for

Wildlife

Fishand

continueson page 4

PHOTO:STEPHENSASSER,NWPPCSTAFF

Lefttoright:GovernorGaryLocke of Washington,

Governor Marc Racicot of Montana, GovernorJohn

Kitzhaber of Oregon and Governor Dirk Kempthorne

of Idaho. The four Northwest governors appoint

members of the Northwest Power Planning Council.

They areshown atabriefingontheFramework

Project where theydirected the Counciltoimprove

the scientific credibility, accountability and results

of fishandwildlife investments.

“We simply must find a way to save our wild

salmon. This is not just about fish. It’s about

saving the quality of life that makes the

Northwest unique.”

“The framework will provide us with a fresh

start in finding solutions. It is a chance to get

everyone on the same page so we can work

toward the same goalsandmeasure progress in

the same way.”

“I am looking to the Northwest Power Planning

Council to provide the meaningful and effective

regional input that is essential for these issues

to be resolved in waysthatbenefitthe

Northwest.”

“The salmonwillberestored only by addressing

each portion of their habitat during each phase

of their life cycle. Each sector will have to make

concessions, and each state will have to do its

part.”

Governor Gary Locke, Washington

Governor Marc Racicot, Montana

Governor John Kitzhaber, Oregon

Governor Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho
4

broad public interest while keeping an eye on how public and elect-ricity

ratepayer dollars are spent.

The Council has a keen understanding of the competing interests

involved in this problem. But at this juncture, the Council has come

o realize that this competition can no longer be an excuse for endless

process and debate.

With guidance from Congress, the Council identified several

elements necessary for the region to move forward. One was to

demonstrate that public and ratepayer dollars spent on fish and wildlife

recovery efforts are used accountably and effectively.

As a result, 1999 saw an extraordinary use of independent scientific

review to help formulate project funding decisions. In addition, the

entire project review and selection process is being reformed to be more

rational, coordinated and cohesive, while bringing a longer-term

perspective to bear.

Another important need is to establish a comprehensive scientific

and policy structure that can be used by all those involved in fish and

wildlife recovery to ensure the highest possible level of scientific

credibility, fiscal accountability and cooperation.

That requires creating a base of information that has heretofore

been lacking: a single analysis that encompasses a full spectrum of

alternative approaches to restoring fish and wildlife, while clearly outlining both the expected environmental effects and the human and

community impacts. And it is vital that this analysis be “transparent”

in its methodology, so that the assumptions, the science and the

calculations are there for all to see.

That analysis is the Multi-Species Framework. And it promises

to be a valuable tool in the coming year’s effort to transform the

Northwest’s fish and wildlife recovery efforts.

The Northwest

Power Planning

Council:

A Public Voice for

Balanced Policy

Authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1980,

the Northwest Power Planning Council is a n

interstate compact among the states of

Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

The Council is charged by Congress with

bringing balance to critical decisions facing

the Northwest: the need to provide for the

region’s power needs while developing a

program to “protect, mitigate and enhance”

fish and wildlife populations affected by

hydroelectric development in the Columbia

Basin.

The Council is also required to make an

extensive effort to involve the public in its

decision-making process. The Council is

designed to be a publicly accountable

body to give Northwest citizens a stronger

voice in determining the future of these

common resources.

The governors of Idaho, Montana,

Oregon and Washington appoint the

Council’s eight members. The Council solicits

the participation of all stakeholders in the

work it does, including state, federal and

tribal agencies, local governments, environmental advocacy groups, industry, the

scientific community and all other citizens

in the Pacific Northwest.

In a sense, it is the Council’s role to

be an “honest broker”among a complex

galaxy of legitimate interests — developing

scientifically credible policies and

recommendations that best serve

the broadpublic interest.

“TakingtheNextStep”continuedfrompage3

Salmon Runs Millions :

A Historical

Perspective

Pre-development 1980s Average Current

Natural Runs

Average

Range between

10-16 million

PHOTOCOURTESY OFCORPSOFENGINEERS,PORTLANDDISTRICT
5

The people of the Northwest want healthy fish and wildlife. At the same

time, they’re frustrated that recovery efforts spawn more controversy

than fish. Too often, the debate focuses on one group promoting its

recovery strategy while criticizing other strategies as radical, costly or

ineffective. Citizens and policy-makers have a difficult time sorting

through the claims and counterclaims. Progress is stalled.

Meanwhile, two panels of independent scientists recently concluded

that the region’s fish and wildlife recovery efforts could be greatly

improved if they went beyond the Endangered Species Act’s limited

approach of looking at individual species in isolation. Instead, the

scientists said, our work should aim to restore and protect the entire

community of plants, animals, and people in the Columbia Basin

of which individual species are a part.

The scientists’ advice pointed to a new way to analyze the problems

created by competing fish and wildlife recovery proposals—a way to

decrease the rhetoric and increase the results.

From the start, the Multi-Species Framework Project was conceived

and designed to be different. The Framework Project looked at the

entire system: at the humans, salmon, steelhead, bull trout, bears,

beavers and other species that share the Columbia Basin.

The Northwest states and tribes, along with a host of federal

agencies, created the Framework Project. They shared the responsibility

for managing the project. And unlike most planning processes, where a

single agency manages a decision process that affects a single species,

the Framework Project brought all the players

together in a single, comprehensive effort.

Jointly, they created a common understanding of the ecological

problems facing fish and wildlife. Together, they defined a broad range

of alternatives for the future management of the Columbia River. In

short, the Framework Project created a system in which everyone’s

proposal can be tested against the same criteria. It provides a cohesive,

comprehensive context for all of the plans.

Analyzing the Effects of Change

on all Species, Including Humans

The Multi-Species

Framework Project:

Involving People toMake Progress

The following organizations were representated at the original Framework

Project conference. Many organizations

have followed the project since then,

and additional groups haveparticipated

as well.

1000 Friends of Oregon

Audubon Society

Blue MountainNativeForest Alliance

Bonneville Environmental Foundation

Center for Watershed and Community Health

DefendersofWildlife

Ducks Unlimited

For the Sake of Salmon

Foundation for Water and Energy Education

Friends of ColumbiaGorge

Friends of the Earth

Idaho RiversUnited

Inland Empire Public Lands Council

Izaak Walton League of America

Keep Oregon Green Association

Kettle Range Conservation Group

Montana Environmental Information Center

National AssociationofConservation

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives

to Pesticides

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

Northwest Energy Coalition

Northwest Environmental Strategies

Oregon Environmental Council

Oregon Water Trust

Pacific Rivers Council

Save OurWildSalmon

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

WildernessSociety

Avista Corporation

Benton CountyPublicUtilityDistrict

Columbia River Alliance

Franklin County PUD

Northwest Irrigation Utilities

Pacific Northwest UtilitiesConference

Committee

Public Power Council

Seattle City Light

Warm Springs Power Enterprise

West Extension Irrigation District

Berry Botanical Garden

Columbia-SnakeRivers Irrigation Association

Idaho Dairyman’s Association

Idaho Water UsersAssociation

Intermountain Grass Growers Association

Oregon Cattleman’sAssociation

Oregon-Washington-North Idaho

Hereford Association

Oregon-Washington Pea Growers Association

Oregon Water Coalition

Northwest Food Processors

Pacific NWProject

Pasco Farmer’s Market

Washington State FarmBureau

Walla Walla Sweet Onion Growers

Association

Washington-North Idaho Seed Association

Washington Association of Apple Growers

Washington Association of Conservation

Environmental Groups

Utilities

Agriculture and Livestock

Organizations

A More Balanced,

Comprehensive Approach

to Fish and Wildlife Recovery

The

Multi-Species

Framework

Project:

continuesonpage 6 continues onpage 6
The Framework Project —

Scientific and Systematic

Here’s how the process works:

The Council and its partners, in collaboration with the region’s independent

science panels, developed the Framework

concept and a scientific foundation for fish

and wildlife recovery actions.

A broad spectrum of interests (more than

300 people attended an initial workshop)

developed a set of visions and goals for the

future of the Columbia Basin. Using

workshops and input from two rounds of

regional public meetings, seven

alternatives were developed and refined

from more than 30 initial proposals.

Two scientific work groups analyzed

the initial alternatives to see if they were

feasible and complete, and if their

objectives and goals could be expected

to achieve their stated visions.

The alternatives were revised and fleshed

out with considerable detail to reflect

concerns and comments from the scientific

work groups.

The scientific work groups will describe

the expected outcomes of each of the

revised alternatives: how will Northwest

ecosystems change in response to each?

How will those changes affect people?

In keeping with its commitment to

openness, the Framework Project will

share all of its background data,

information, statistics and scientific

assumptions with important stakeholders

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

❏

Step One

Step Two

Step Three

Step Four

Step Five

Step Six

Districts

Washington Association of Wheat Growers

Washington Mint Growers Association

Washington-Oregon Asparagus

GrowersAssociation

Washington Poultry Industry Association

Washington State Beef Commission

Washington State Cattleman’s Association

Washington State Dairy Federation

Washington State Dairy Herd Improvement

Association

Washington State Jersey Cattle Club

Washington State PorkProducers

Washington State CouncilofFarmers Co-op

Washington State FarmBureau

Washington State Grange

Washington State Horticultural Association

Washington State Potato Commission

Washington Women for Agriculture

Washington Wool Growers Association

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Animal and PlantHealth Inspection

Association of O&C Counties

Bonneville Power Administration

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

City of Boardman, Oregon

City of Portland, Oregon

City of Umatilla, Oregon

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

CorpsofEngineers

Department ofEnergy

Department oftheInterior

Federal Highway Administration

Forest Service-PacificNorthwest Region

Idaho DepartmentofFishandGame

Idaho DepartmentofWater Resources

IdahoNationalEngineering

& Environmental Lab

Kittitas County Commission

Lake Roosevelt Forum

Legislative Commissionon Indian Services

Marion County Board of Commissioners

Montana Department ofFish,

Wildlife and Parks

Morrow County Commission

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Parks Service

National OceanicandAtmospheric

Administration

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Okanagon County Commissioners

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Geology

& Mineral Industries

Oregon Department of Land Conservation

and Development

Oregon Department of Transportation

Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon DivisionofStateLands

Oregon Office of Energy

Oregon Soil and Water Commission

Oregon State Marine Board

Oregon State ParksandRecreationDivision

Oregon Tourism Commission

Oregon Water Resources Department

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Pend Oreille County Commissioners

Government Agencies

6

“Participants”continuedfrom page5 “TheMulti-SpeciesFramework Project”continued frompage5

and the public to ensure accuracy,

thoroughness and comprehensiveness

before final analytical results are produced.

If people are concerned,

they will have an opportunity to make

suggestions.

The Framework Project will produce

an initial analysis and share it with key

stakeholder groups and the public through

another round of regional meetings to

ensure people understand the results

predicted for each alternative. If

stakeholders raise concerns about the

analysis, it will be refined and improved.

The Framework Project’s final analysis of

the alternatives will be compiled into a

final report. The report and the analysis

will be used by the Northwest Power

Planning Council, federal agencies and

others to guide the future of fish and

wildlife recovery efforts.

At the heart of the Framework Project’s

policy work is a series of seven sciencebased alternatives for the river’s future.

The alternatives represent a range of

plans, from those that are most protective

of the Northwest’s ecology to those that

are most protective of its economy.

the equation, each alternative addresses

not only fish and wildlife, but also the

importance of fishing, agriculture,

shipping, recreation and other economic

activities. And finally, each alternative goes

beyond the Endangered Species Act’s

single-species approach to include all the

species that need and deserve

our attention.

Balanced Range of

Alternatives Shapes

the Analysis

❏

❏

To ensure that people are part of

Step Seven

Step Eight

continuesonpage 7
Port of Morrow

StevensCountyCommissioners

US Geological Survey

US Army CorpsofEngineers

US Attorney’s Office

US Bureau of Reclamation

US Department of the Interior

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA Forest Service

Washington Conservation Commission

Washington Department of Ecology

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Department of National

Resources

Washington State Association of Counties

Washington State Department of Agriculture

Washington State Parks and Recreation

Associated Oregon Industries

Associated Oregon Loggers

Columbia Basin Development League

Douglas Timber Operators

Idaho Dairyman’sAssociation

Idaho Grain ProducersAssociation

Idaho Rural Development Council

Intertribal Timber Council

Kaiser Aluminum

Northwest Forestry Association

Northwest Mining Association

Olympic Peninsula Christmas Tree Association

Pacific NorthwestWaterways Association

Warm Springs ForestProductsIndustry

Washington Wine Institute

Association of NorthwestSteelheaders

Columbia River Fisherman’sProtective Union

Oregon Trout

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Salmon for All

Trout Unlimited

White Salmon Steelheaders

Affiliated TribesofNorthwest Indians

Burns Paiute Tribe

Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission

Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Colville Confederated Tribes

Confederated Tribe of Grande Ronde Indians

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Confederated Tribe of Umatilla

Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs

Reservation

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Coquille Indian Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians

Kalispel Tribe

Klamath Tribes

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Nez Perce Tribe

Okanagon Nation FisheriesCommission

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe

Shoshone-PaiuteTribesofthe Duck Valley

Reservation

Spokane TribeofIndians

Warm Springs Cultural and Heritage Program

Yakama Nation

Industry Groups

Fishing Groups

Tribal Governments and Organizations

7

Each Alternative includes:

Scientific Analysis

Accountable Public

Process

The vision paints a picture of the future

of the river and the life it supports. In

addition to fish and wildlife goals, a

vision might describe the state of industry,

agriculture or commerce. The vision must

be realistic, and acknowledge the tradeoffs necessary for all the river’s uses

to co-exist.

These are the targets that define the vision

and give direction on how to proceed.

They are measurable outcomes; the

number and type of species or the growth

in the local economies, for example.

Strategies are the specific steps planned

to achieve objectives. Strategies to help

fish and wildlife might include: changes

in the way dams are operated (or removal

of dams in some cases); changes in landuse regulations; changes in fishing; and,

changes in hatchery programs.

Two independent scientific workgroups

made up of carefully selected experts from

a range of environmental, biological,

cultural, and economic specialties (see

sidebar, Page 8) will soon complete an

analysis of the alternatives from not only

an ecological perspective, but also for their

impacts on human culture, economics,

and society as well.

The Framework process was designed

to be collaborative, and to the greatest

extent possible, open to public

participation.

A Vision

Objectives

Strategies

All of the agencies involved joined

to coordinate public involvement and

outreach and to communicate with

people who will be affected by the decisions

that will flow from the analysis. And, every

workgroup meeting was open to the public.

Three rounds of public meetings were

held throughouttheregion to inform the

public and stakeholders and to solicit their

input and involvement. State, tribal and

federal decision-makers participated in

the meetings. Another round of public

meetings will be held when the project’s

analysis is complete.

The Framework Project will continue to

support important decisions on fish and

wildlife recovery that will be made in

coming months by the Northwest Power

Planning Council (see “Next Steps,”

Page 21) and by federal agencies. The

Framework analysis will lay a foundation

so the Council and its partners in fish and

wildlife recovery can work from scientifically sound, economically balanced

information and choose from a broad

range of possible options.

In addition, federal agencies with

Endangered Species Act responsibilities can

use the Framework Project’s results. Federal

modelers and managers co-ordinated with

Framework staff to ensure the project’s

analysis will also be useful

to federal decisions.

The Framework Project is a straightforward attempt by the Northwest Power

Planning Council to bring balance,

accountability, and action to decisions

about the future of the Columbia River.

Framework to Guide

Important Action on Fish

and Wildlife
At the heart of the Framework Project’s analytical effort is a system called

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT). Unlike other analytical systems,

EDT is all about ecosystems — the places where fish and wildlife live and the

ways they interact with their environment.

EDT’s bottom line: the condition of the ecosystem predicts the condition

of fish and wildlife.

At the most basic level, EDT does three things. First, it evaluates current

ecological conditions. Second, using the best available scientific knowledge,

EDT examines the changes that are likely to result from different management actions. Third, EDT predicts — using the best available scientific

information — how different species will respond to those changes.

Although EDT is new to large-scale regional planning, it is not a new

analytical system. EDT has been used to develop fish and wildlife plans for

the Grande Ronde and Deschutes rivers in Oregon; the Clark Fork River in

Montana; and the Cowlitz, Yakima, and Nisqually rivers in Washington.

Unlike other systems, EDT organizes information at four different geographic scales (see maps on pages 12 and 13). The broadest scale is the

Columbia Basin as a whole. The next level of detail allows policy makers

to divide the region into 10 distinct ecological provinces. This scale helps

identify broad problems, priorities and possible solutions. Beyond the

province scale are subbasins. The Columbia Basin is made up of nearly

60 separate subbasins. Subbasins are collections of watersheds.

And finally, to ensure that citizens can make a difference in their own

watersheds, EDT also will provide analytical detail at a scale that divides the

region into approximately 7,200 separate areas. From the broad to the

specific, EDT’s ability to aggregate and separate data and analysis will create

valuable information and guidance for regional policymakers and local

watershed councils alike.

From Regional to Local — EDT’s Geography

Scientific, Economic

Workgroups Assist

Framework Project

The Ecological Workgroup

The Human Effects

Workgroup

The ecological workgroup is a carefully

selected groupofindependent scientists

and researchers from throughoutthe

Pacific Northwest who are specialists in

analyzing river ecosystems. A steering

committee of tribal, federal and stakeholder representatives worked closely

with the scientists.

The scientists first described the current

state of the Columbia Basin: which species

live where, their number and overall health.

The Framework Project used this information

to develop the range of alternatives.

Toanalyze the alternatives, the ecological

workgroup made use of the mostcurrent

databases on Columbia Basinspecies and

habitat characteristics. These data, together

with EDT’s powerful analytical capabilities,

will project how different species and systems

will perform under eachalternative.

The human effects workgroup is made up

of individuals and representatives of groups

who have an economic or cultural stake in

the Columbia River and the region’s fishand

wildlife. They are supported by economists

and social scientists who specialize in analyzing the effects of various management

actions on local economies and populations.

The work of the human effects workgroup

will address elements that can be quantified,

i.e., described with numbers, and those that

are non-quantifiable, i.e., that must be

Who?

How?

Who?

How?

8

Analyzing the Alternatives:

Ecosystem

Diagnosis &Treatment

(EDT)

continues onpage 10
9

EDT is based on a series of fundamental scientific assumptions that are well

documented in the latest scientific literature. These fundamentals include

biological carrying capacity, fish and wildlife productivity, and their life

history diversity. Examining one of EDT’s scientific fundamentals —

biological carrying capacity — helps illustrate how the system works.

The notion behind biological carrying capacity is that at any life stage

(e.g. egg to fry for salmon), there is an upper limit on the number of animals

that can be accommodated by the quantity and quality of available habitat.

This upper limit is the for that life stage of that species in

that habitat.

For example, as the population of salmon increases beyond a certain

point, survival decreases until the population returns to the carrying capacity

of the habitat. Think about stuffing people into a VW Bug. It

is easy to see that there is a limit to the number of people that can be

stuffed in.

With one person, the comfort level is as good as it gets in a VWBug.

As the number of people in the VW increases, the comfort level declines.

Eventually a point is reached when you just can’t get anyone else in the car.

At that point, you’ve reached the VW’s carrying capacity. You can only

increase the carrying capacity by changing the size of the vehicle — using a

VW van perhaps — or by changing the vehicle itself (taking out the seats to

make more room, for example).

Now take the same problem and transfer it to the number of salmon

that spawn and the number that survive to spawn in the next generation.

All things being equal, the maximum survival of young salmon from a

spawning pair of adult salmon should occur when the number of young is

low. As the number increases, the young salmon get in each other’s way and

there is more competition for space and resources. As a result, survival

declines until the capacity of the habitat is reached.

Once again, to change the carrying capacity, you can either increase the

amount of habitat or improve the quality of the habitat you already have.

Carrying capacity affects every stage of the salmon lifecycle. It applies in

the streams where salmon are born, where they live until they migrate to the

ocean, in the river during their migration, in the ocean and throughout their

trip back up river to spawn (and at every stage of other species’ lifecycles,

too).

EDT uses data about the carrying capacity of the region’s existing habitat

to predict the outcomes that would result from changing that habitat (from a

VW Bug to a VW Van in our example) by implementing different river

The Fundamentals of EDT

carrying capacity

continues onpage 10

EDT

at a glance

existing

ecosystem

new

ecosystem

changes proposed

in alternatives

human,

fish &

wildlife

effects

analytical

rules

analytical

rules
10

management alternatives. To do this, EDT relies on very detailed

information at the regional, provincial, subbasin and local level and

a set of science-based “rules.”

Here’s an example of how EDT’s “rules” work. Each action in every

alternative is designed to create an expected change in the ecosystem.

For example, one of the 108 separate strategies EDT will analyze calls for

removing some roads in our forests to reduce the amount of silt in areas

where salmon spawn, thus improving the capacity of the habitat and

improving the ability of salmon to reproduce.

The “rule” in this case is the scientific knowledge and experience that

links removing roads with reduced silt in streams. Based on scientific studies

and literature and on the opinion of experts, there is a documented

relationship between the amount of sediment in stream gravel and the

survival of salmon eggs. The nature of that relationship is reflected in

the so-called “rule.”

In other words, scientists hypothesize that removing “w” miles of road in

“x” type of forest reduces silt by “y” amount improving survival of salmon

eggs by “z” percent. EDT uses that formula to judge the effects of alternatives

that call for road removal. And, EDT can make that judgment about each of

the 108 strategies as they apply to each of 7,200 distinct geographic areas

that make up the Columbia Basin.

Every one of the several hundred “rules” EDT uses is documented with

scientific literature and expert opinion. That documentation will be made

available to the public. More importantly, EDT is coordinated with and

complements federal and other regional scientific initiatives.

By combining its vast habitat data with its analysis of carrying capacity and its

review of two other fundamentals — fish and wildlife productivity and

life history diversity — EDT will provide the clearest picture available of

how different actions change ecological conditions and thus the status

offish and wildlife.

Once policy-makers understand not only how different ecosystem changes

will affect fish and wildlife, but why as well, they will be in a better position to

make sound decisions about the future of the Columbia River. EDT will

provide that information and help make those decisions.

An important success of the Framework Project is the collection of

EDT’s rules and the documentation and data that support them. In scientific

terms, the rules are hypotheses that capture the best available scientific

information about fish and wildlife recovery at this point in time. These

hypotheses can, and will, be tested and refined. In this way, EDT

will not only provide policy-makers with clear information about different

alternatives and decisions, it will also become an evolving synthesis of

knowledge about fish and wildlife recovery.

Science-Based “Rules” Ensure Accountability

From Analysis to Action

described as values or general outcomes.

Based on the actions employed in the

alternatives and the biological results

predicted by EDT, the Human Effects

Workgroupwillpredict the impacts of

each alternative on people using several

different indicators. Some examples are:

This includes projected employment rates,

per capita income, and other job-related

information.

This includes life expectancy, crime rates,

nutrition, accident rates, infant mortality

andotherfactors.

The river plays an important part inthe

cultural identity of tribal people. The Human

Effects Workgroup wlil consider these

effects when evaluating the alternatives.

The human effects analysiswilluseexisting

studies that analyze the effects of various

fish and wildlife recovery strategies on local

and regional economies. Existing models

andnewstudies were used to assess river

operation alternatives. Other strategies,

such as habitat improvements, are less well

understood. The Human Effects Workgroup

will extrapolate from existing data to

complete its analysis or recommend further

research where data is not available or

reliable.

Natural resource plans always involve

compromises andtrade-offs. The purpose

of the Framework Project’s ecological and

human effects analysis is to help policymakers assess the benefits to humans that

come from improving the health of fish and

wildlife and the quality of the ecosystem

before making decisions.

Economic Opportunity

Social Effects

Tribal Effects

Balancing the Effects,

Making Decisions

“HumanEffectsWorkgroup”continuedfrompage8 “EDT” continuedfrompage 9
11

ILLUSTRATION: LARRYMILAM

The Framework Project will produce a lot of data.

The challenge is describing that data in a way that

leads to decisions. Here’s a brief description of

what you can expect.

EDT takes disparate data and creates straightforward reports that display the

performance of specific fish and wildlife populations under each of the

proposed management alternatives (see Page 14). EDT will create reports for

each of 10 ecological provinces (see map, Page 13). The reports will measure

different fish and wildlife populations’ ability to reproduce, the

size of the populations and the populations’ diversity. EDT results will be

created at the subbasin and watershed level, too.

The Framework Project’s Human Effects Group will use EDT’s analysis to

determine the likely economic costs and benefits of each alternative.

Cost and benefit information will be broken out for different industries,

land uses, geographic areas and by the different strategies called for in

the alternatives.

For most people, maps are the most effective way to illustrate the power

of the Framework Project data system and the likely affects of the different

alternatives. A typical Framework Project map will show the entire Columbia

River Basin with data displayed for 7,200 watersheds. Different colors or

shades of gray will represent different biological conditions and economic

costs and benefits. Thanks to GIS technology, it also will be possible to create

similar maps that focus on any one of the Columbia Basin’s ten ecological

provinces or 60 subbasins.

Finally, the data reports from the Framework Project will be used to create

charts and graphs comparing the different alternatives’ biological and

economic effects. Charts and graphs will be created to illustrate how each

alternative would change current economic and biological conditions.

Turn the page to see EDT-based maps of historic and current habitat

types in the Columbia Basin. These maps were among the first produced to

help analyze the different alternatives

What to Expect

from

theFramework

Project

EDT

and
12

Historic Wildlife Habitat Types in the Columbia River Basin

The Framework Project:

Building a Picture of the Future

The Multi-Species Framework Project’s analytical effort is using an

analytical tool called Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment. Unlike other

systems, EDT organizes information at four different geographic scales.

The broadest scale is the Columbia Basin as a whole.

The maps above were created using EDT’s data and analytical ability

regarding current and existing habitat types in the Columbia River Basin.

The maps show that aquatic,riparian, grassland, shrub-land and some

forest habitats have changed significantly from their historic conditions.

The EDT system analyzes those changes and predicts the likely effects on

fish and wildlife populations.

More importantly, by analyzing how proposed alternatives would

change various habitats, EDT can make predictions about how those

alternatives will affect fish and wildlife in the future.

Once policy makers understand not only how different ecosystem

changes will affect fish and wildlife, but why as well, they will be in a better

position to make sound decisions about the future of the Columbia River.

EDT will provide that information and help make those decisions.

The mapsabove show a basin-wide perspective.

When its analysis is complete, the Framework Project

willalsoprovide pictures of how different

alternatives will affect habitat, and thus fishand

wildlife, at the province and subbasin level.

The province level divides the region into 10

ecological provinces. This scale helps identify broader

problems, priorities and possible solutions.

Provinces of the Columbia Basin
13

Current Wildlife Habitat Types in the Columbia River Basin

GRAPHICS: NORTHWEST HABITATINSTITUTEANDSTEPHENSASSER,NWPPC

Beyond the province scale are subbasins. The

Columbia Basin is made up of nearly 60separate

subbasins. Subbasins are collections of watersheds.

Finally, EDT also will provide analytical detail a t

a scale that divides the region into 7,200 separate

watersheds. That information will help local people

learnabout the best ways to help fish and wildlife in

their area and make sure local efforts combine

to achieve broader regional goals.

From the broadtothespecific, EDT’s ability to

aggregate and separate data and analysis will create

valuable information and guidance for regional

policymakers and local watershed councils alike.

Subbasins of the Columbia Basin Watersheds of the Columbia Basin
How the Alternatives

were Developed

Alternatives Illustrate

Choices

In November 1998, 27 concept

papers on how the Columbia River

Basin should be managed were

submitted to the Framework Project

by a broad spectrum of regional

interests. These concept papers were

distilled into 108 individual fish and

wildlife recovery strategies that could

be applied throughout the Columbia

Basin. The strategies were then

distilled into seven alternatives.

The actions contemplated by

the seven alternatives have been

developed in considerable detail —

from the basin as a whole to the

very local — so scientific workgroups

can analyze them completely. The

alternatives represent an array of

approaches, from managing the

Columbia River for peak benefit

for fish and wildlife to managing it

for economic goals.

Although interest groups and others

had a big role in defining the alternatives (see sidebar on Framework

Project participants), no single

alternative is intended to fully

represent the views of any particular

group, nor was anyone asked to

endorse a particular alternative.

Instead, the alternatives reflect a

range of options designed to capture

the breadth of the region’s views. The

goal is to analyze a range of actions

ecological and human impacts of

specific alternatives promoted by

different interest groups and

governments.

Along with the seven alternatives are

two “base cases.” One represents the

current state of the Columbia River

Basin. The other represents historic

conditions and assumes they are as

good as the basin ever was for the

survival of fish and wildlife. The EDT

analysis of these two “base case”

alternatives provides a means to

compare the alternatives to current

and historic conditions.

All the alternatives are premised on

the notion that a healthy ecosystem is

characterized by its ability to support

some level offish and wildlife harvest

that is greater than the level currently

allowed. The alternatives differ in

the way they characterize a “healthy”

system, the way they would create that

system and in the amount of harvest

they contemplate. Beyond that, each

alternative contains the following

components:

With a vision, people try to paint a

picture of the future of the river and

Setting Sideboards

with the Past and

the Present

What’s in an Alternative

the life it supports. In addition to

fish and wildlife goals, a vision might

Vision

Defining

the

Future

Inclusive Range

ofAlternatives

Reflects Regional Priorities

strong economy, in many cases the

alternatives share similar visions. The

differences among alternatives appear

in the particular strategies they call for

and the intensity and speed with

which those strategies are

implemented.

These are the targets that define the

vision and give direction on how to

proceed. They are outcomes like the

number and type of species or the

growth in the economy, for example.

Once again, the differences appear

in the specific actions the alternatives

call for and the intensity and speed

with which those actions are taken.

Strategies represent the specific steps

planned to achieve an alternative’s

objectives. For example, strategies

might include changes in operations

at the dams, in land management

approaches, and in fishing and

hatchery programs. Strategies also

apply to habitat. The Framework

Project identifies three levels of

intensity when it comes to habitat

strategies. Those intensities are

applied separately to private and

public land depending on the

alternative.

Objectives

Strategies

14
1

Human Effects Objectives

Strategies

Alternative 1 puts the highest priority

of all the alternatives on the aesthetic,

environmental and amenity values of

the river and its natural resources.

Alternative 1 assumes that restoring

the most natural conditions on the

river are the best way to provide

significant economic, social and

cultural value to the Northwest over

the long run.

Breach the John Day, McNary, and

four Lower Snake dams

Manage the river and river uses for

seasonal flows and water quality

consistent with the life cycle needs

of salmon, steelhead and resident

fish species (those that don’t

migrate to the ocean)

Reduce the amount of water stored

for hydropower production to

provide for more natural flows,

including periodic flooding and

droughts to restore native plants

Protect, connect, and restore

habitat on the tributaries

throughout the basin

Restore salmon and steelhead

passage into upper portions of the

basin atChief Joseph, Grand

Coulee, and Hells Canyon dams

Increase connections among

habitats in the basin, including

ocean environments

Phase out use of artificial means of

salmon recovery, such as barging

and hatcheries, as habitat is

restored

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

Alternative 1 seeks to eliminate or

significantly reduce fish and wildlife

impacts caused by construction and

operation of the hydroelectric system

through dam breaching and other

significant changes. This alternative

supports those measures that restore

or mimic natural ecosystem functions.

This option focuses intensively on

habitat improvements in both the

mainstem sections of the Columbia

and Snake rivers and their tributaries.

The habitat measures contemplated

by Alternative 1 would require significant land use changes on both public

and private lands.

Alternative 1 distinguishes itself from

other alternatives because it does not

support the use of fish hatcheries

except for the temporary preservation

of extremely endangered species. It

also discourages the proliferation of

non-native species and conditions

favoring non-native species below and

above dams that have permanently

blocked salmon migration. Alternative 1 suggests that artificial

approaches like hatcheries are unlikely

to produce long-term improvements.

Alternative 1 would reduce virtually all

fishing except that related to tribal

ceremonial, subsistence and commercial purposes. This alternative also

would require that fish be caught in

their rivers of origin to emphasize

benefits to local economies and to

minimize impacts on weak wild stocks

that sometimes mix with healthier

stocks in mainstem portions of the

Columbia River.

Summary of Alternative 1:

A connected, self-sustaining ecosystem

Vision

Biological Objectives

Alternative 1 suggests that the only

way to restore fish and wildlife is to

restore the ecosystem to a much more

natural state by eliminating dams,

hatcheries and other artificial constraints and approaches, and by taking

very aggressive actions to protect and

restore habitat. Alternative 1 suggests

it is not possible to provide artificial

mitigation to the losses caused by

development.

Instead, Alternative 1 focuses on

restoring as many areas as possible

through natural means. This alternative virtually eliminates human

services like power generation and

transportation on the Lower Snake

River and would significantly reduce

them on the Columbia River. This

alternative puts creation of a more

natural ecosystem ahead of short-term

economic needs.

Under Alternative 1, effort and

money now spent to maintain

relatively constant conditions that

benefit economic needs would be

redirected toward changing the

ecosystem back toward the condition it

was in prior to large-scale human

development. Management of fishing

would change as well: Alternative 1

would put the short-term needs of

native fish and wildlife ahead of

fishing needs.

This alternative seeks to help native

fish, wildlife and plant communities

by restoring the Columbia River

Basin’s natural characteristics and

functions and by discouraging

proliferation of non-native species.

Alternative 1 would apply the most

aggressive approach to habitat

improvement on both public and

private lands.

15
2

Alternative 2 suggests that restoring

habitat in the mainstem Columbia

and Snake rivers is the most critical

factor for fish and wildlife recovery.

Unlike Alternative 1 however, this

alternative suggests it is possible to

mitigate damage caused by the hydrosystem. This alternative emphasizes

increasing and sustaining salmon

fishing while moving the system

toward the condition it was in before

large-scale human development.

Alternative 2 treats areas above and

below the dams that block salmon

migration as separate systems.

Alternative 2 seeks to restore and

manage the ecosystem primarily for

native fish, wildlife and plants.

Alternative 2 explicitly recognizes

tribal harvest obligations and is willing

to accept some increased

risk to native species to increase

fishing opportunities. Alternative 2

takes a middle ground approach

to habitat requirements on private and

public lands.

This alternative seeks to take

immediate action to stop further loss

of biological diversity of fish, wildlife

and plants; especially those listed

under the Endangered Species Act.

Immediate objectives include enhancing conditions for healthyfish

and wildlife populations; emphasizing

restoration and enhancement of

conditions compatible with native

species; discouraging proliferation of

non-native species except in special

circumstances; and, managing human

activities to meet regional and federal

air and water quality standards.

Alternative 2 seeks to eliminate or

significantly reduce fish and wildlife

Vision

Biological Objectives

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

Alternative 2 applies moderately

intensive habitat measures on both

public and private lands, and instead

focuses more aggressive actions on

dams. It also calls for the acquisition

and development of wildlife habitats

as mitigation for habitat damage

caused by hydropower development.

Alternative 2 would use hatcheries to

help restore weak fish runs and to

ensure increased fishing opportunities. For areas below dams that

block salmon migration, Alternative 2

would require that hatcheries produce

fish that closely match those lost, but

would accept slightly more risk to

native species to increase fishing

opportunities. For areas above the

dams that block salmon migration,

Alternative 2 would allow hatcheries to

produce native-type fish that could

survive in the changed ecosystem.

Alternative 2 emphasizes the fact that

fishing provides important cultural,

spiritual and commercial benefits to

the region. This alternative seeks

to provide conditions to meet ceremonial, subsistence and commercial

fisheries consistent with court interpretations of Indian treaties. The

alternative would shift fishing toward

spawning areas to emphasize benefits

to local economies and to reduce the

risk to weak stocks that mix with

healthier stocks that are caught in the

mainstem section of the river. Finally,

Alternative 2 emphasizes sport fishing

over non-Indian commercial fishing.

Human Effects Objectives

In establishing regional priorities

for economic development and

environmental restoration, Alteremphasis than Alternative 1 on

ensuring more fish for tribal and sport

fishing.

Alternative 2 takes a moderate

approach to public and private

ands when it comes to protecting

or restoring habitat. As the river is

modified to accomplish its vision,

Alternative 2 would mitigate for

significant economic costs by continuing to provide existing levels of

flood control, a hydropower backbone for the power system (albeit

reduced from current levels); and,

significant contributions to regional

transportation and agricultural needs.

Breach the four Lower Snake dams

Manage the river to return seasonal

flow patterns for salmon and

steelhead while also protecting

upriver fish that don’t migrate to

the ocean

Increase habitat connections

throughout the basin, including

estuary and marine areas

Make careful use of hatcheries as

part of a coordinated plan that

restores habitat for the fish that are

released. Alternative 2 would

develop new hatchery production

in the John Day pool to mitigate

for lost mainstem salmon habitat

Eliminate fish barging

Above the dams that block salmon

and steelhead migration, tailor

programs to provide resident fish

and wildlife required by local

conditions and management needs

Strategies

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Summary of Alternative 2:

A reconnected ecosystem

to support salmon fishing

16
17

3

than Alternatives 1

and 2. Fish migration improvements

at the dams are contemplated.

Alternative 3 would place the highest

priority for habitat improvements

on public lands. Alternative 3 would

reduce the habitat burden on private

lands compared with Alternatives 1

and 2. Alternative 3 also would seek to

acquire and develop wildlife habitat to

mitigate for habitat lost

to hydropower development.

Alternative 3 would allow use of

hatcheries in areas below dams that

block salmon migration, but would

require that the fish released closely

match those lost. For areas above

dams that block salmon migration,

Alternative 3 would attempt to restore

and enhance conditions to increase

and maintain native resident fish

species wherever possible. This option

would allow mitigation with nonnative species only in situations where

those species would have limited

interaction with native species.

Alternative 3 seeks to provide productive regional and local fisheries,

in particular, ceremonial, subsistence

and commercial fishing consistent

with court interpretations of Indian

treaties. Alternative 3 would shift

fishing toward spawning areas to emphasize benefits to local economies

and to reduce the risk to weak stocks

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

that mix with healthier stocks that are

harvested in the mainstem portion of

the river. Finally, Alternative 3 would

emphasize sport fishing over nonHuman Effects Objectives

Strategies

Alternative 3 puts a high priority on

the ecological and amenityvalues of

the river and its natural resources.

Alternative 3 would attempt to

mitigate for significant transitional

economic impacts by providing

existing levels of flood control; the

hydropower backbone for an

adequate, economical, efficient and

reliable power supply, and regional

transportation and agricultural needs.

This alternative’s biological focus on

the Snake River would concentrate its

human effects in that region as well.

Restore mainstem habitat in the

Snake River by breaching the four

lower Snake dams

Manage the river to return some

seasonal flow pattern for salmon

and steelhead while also protecting

upriver populations that don’t

migrate to the ocean

Protect, connect, and restore key

habitats

Make careful use of some artificial

methods (such as hatcheries)

Eliminate fish barging

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Summary of Alternative 3:

This alternative breaches the lower

Snake River dams and relies on

increased use of fish hatcheries.

The focus of this alternative is to

increase the number of Snake River

fall chinook salmon using dam

breaching and hatcheries so more

of the healthy Hanford Reach

salmon runs can be caught without

endangering the Snake River fish

that migrate with them.

This alternative envisions an

ecosystem that increases currently

productive fish and wildlife

populations and recovers depleted

populations to the point of selfsustainability with a very low

probability of extinction in the

foreseeable future.

The ecosystem would be restored

and managed primarily for native

fish, wildlife and plants. However,

Alternative 3 would put a greater

emphasis on the use of fish hatcheries

to address tribal harvest obligations

and to increase recreational and

commercial harvest.

Alternative 3 seeks to increase the

overall productivity and resilience

of the Columbia River ecosystem

by taking immediate action to stop

further loss of biological diversity of

fish, wildlife and plants, especially

those listed under the federal

Endangered Species Act. Alternative 3

also would attempt to enhance

conditions for currently productive

fish and wildlife populations,

emphasizing native species while

discouraging proliferation of nonnative species except in special

circumstances.

Vision

Biological Objectives

A Snake River that is ecologically connected

to the Columbia River

ILLUSTRATION: LARRY MILAM
4

Summary of Alternative 4:

Experiment to reduce scientific uncertainty

In Alternative 4, current programs

would continue but would be

managed more like carefully designed

experiments to test uncertainties

critical to the decision to move forward with the actions contemplated

in Alternatives 2, 3 or 5. Findings

would be evaluated before major

changes were made to dams.

This alternative continues existing

programs while reducing scientific

uncertainty. Alternative 4 seeks the

middle ground between short-term

economic return and longer-term

environmental quality.

Because of its emphasis on

experimentation, Alternative 4 is

described in terms of uncertainties

that are suggested by differences in

Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. In addition to

the experimental design, Alternative 4

includes tributary habitat measures

that are moderately intensive on both

public and private land.

Alternative 4 would test drawdown,

leaving more water in the river,

passing fish over dams, and other

techniques before making significant

changes to the hydrosystem.

Alternative 4 is less aggressive than

earlier alternatives on both public and

private land. Alternative 4 also seeks

to acquire and develop terrestrial

habitats to mitigate for wildlife lost to

hydropower development.

For areas below dams that block

salmon and steelhead migration,

Alternative 4 would use hatcheries

to help specific species. Hatcheries

Vision

Biological Objectives

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

dams that block salmon passage,

Alternative 4 would restore and

enhance conditions to increase and

maintain native resident fish species

wherever possible.

Alternative 4 seeks to create an ecosystem that can provide productive

regional and local fisheries, in particular, conditions to meet ceremonial,

subsistence and commercial fisheries

consistent with court interpretations of

Indian treaties. Alternative 4 would

shift fisheries toward spawning areas

to emphasize benefits to local

economies and to reduce the risk to

weak stocks that mix with healthier

stocks that are harvested in mainstem

sections of the river. Alternative 4

emphasizes sport fishing over nontribal commercial fishing.

Alternative 4 would attempt to

mitigate for significant economic

impacts by providing existing levels

of flood control, the hydropower

backbone for an adequate, economical, efficient and reliable power

supply, and regional transportation

and agricultural needs. Finally,

Alternative 4 seeks to ensure that

significant costs would be justified by

effective fish and wildlife recovery

before they are incurred.Thisjustification would be made through

research and experimentation.

Human Effects Objectives

Harvest

Strategies

The use of drawdown to test

restoration effects on mainstem

habitat

The use of hatcheries to make up

for lost habitat

Reductions in ocean harvest to

increase numbers of returning

adult salmon

Tests of the effectiveness of

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Above the dams that block salmon

migration, tailor programs to

provide resident fish and wildlife

required by local conditions and

management needs

To evaluate uncertainties, some

potential experiments are:

Limited drawdown of the reservoir

behind McNary Dam

More water from the Snake River

Basin and possibly Canada would

be left in the river for fish

Elimination of certain fisheries,

such as that in Southeast Alaska

Implementation of innovative

habitat programs

ILLUSTRATION:LARRY MILAM

18
5

Summary of Alternative 5:

Rebuild fish and wildlife by

doing everything but breaching dams

Alternative 5 suggests thatyoucan

mitigate for the changes caused by

dams through the use of aggressive

habitat restoration, fish hatcheries and

other measures short of breaching

dams. This alternative

aims to build healthy, harvestable

salmon populations and to stabilize

weak stocks while preserving current

human benefits of the multipurpose

dams. Alternative 5 would rely on

improved technology and tributary

habitat improvements to achieve its

vision without dam breaching.

This alternative sees a Columbia River

that provides a substantial

contribution to the regional economy

while attempting to ensure that

natural amenities are retained and

that legal obligations to the tribes and

the environment are met.This

alternative puts a slightly greater

emphasis on short-term economic

return than the previous alternatives.

Alternative 5 envisions the most

aggressive habitat improvements on

both public and private land. It also

envisions significant effort to improve

fish survival at dams though the use of

improved water management and new

technology.

Increase the overall productivity and

resilience of the Columbia River

ecosystem by stopping the loss of

biological diversity of fish, wildlife and

plants, especially those listed under

the Endangered Species Act.

Alternative 5 also would attempt to

enhance conditions for currently

productive fish and wildlife

populations, emphasize restoration

and enhancement of conditions

compatible with native species,

and discourage proliferation of

non-native species except in

special circumstances.

Vision

Biological Objectives

but would not breach

any dams. It would use flow augmentation, surface fish bypass, changed

operations, extended length fish

screens, and other measures short

of dam breaching to improve fish

migration.

Alternative 5 would place high

priority and significant intensity on

habitat improvement on both public

and private land. It would match the

most aggressive habitat actions (with

the exception of dam breaching to

create mainstem habitat) called for by

the previous alternatives. Finally,

Alternative 5 seeks to acquire and

develop wildlife habitats to mitigate

for losses caused by hydropower

development.

Alternative 5 calls for the extensive

use of hatcheries to make up for

lost habitat.

Alternative 5 seeks to provide

productive regional and local fisheries,

in particular, conditions to meet

ceremonial, subsistence and

commercial fisheries consistent with

court interpretations of Indian

treaties. Alternative 5 would shift

fisheries toward spawning areas to

emphasize benefits to local economies

and to promote known stock fisheries

and would emphasize sport harvest

over non-Indian commercial harvest.

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

Because it does not call for breaching

any dams, Alternative 5 would provide existing levels of flood control,

Human Effects Objectives

Alternative 5 seeks to select actions to

restore and enhance the environment

with the greatest likelihood of

achieving the ecological objectives

at the least cost.

Continue current flow programs,

with some protection for upstream

reservoirs. Secure use of water from

Canadian storage reservoirs to

meet flow needs

Capital improvements at the

mainstem dams designed to

approximate natural conditions

(e.g., surface bypass)

Manage flows in the Hanford

Reach to match natural seasonal

and daily patterns

Set aside the Hanford Reach as an

ecological preserve

Make use of fish transportation as

appropriate

Increase habitat connections

throughout the basin

Use significantly more hatcheries to

replace lost spawning areas

Above the dams that block salmon

and steelhead migration, tailor

programs to provide resident fish

and wildlife required by local

conditions and management needs

Strategies

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

19
6

Alternative 6 would allow for adjustments in river operations for fish to

increase investment in habitat and

other measures. Like Alternative 5,

this alternative aims to build healthy,

harvestable salmon populations and

stabilize weak stocks at reduced

costs. A key difference between this

alternative and others is that it

contemplates the use of non-native

species as mitigation for changes

caused by development.

This alternative sees a Columbia River

where strong salmon and steelhead

runs increase in number and inhabit

more of the river system. It would

allow for recurring levels

of harvest, sustained resident fish

species and rebuilt weakened or

marginal stocks of subspecies where

there is a sufficient likelihood of

recovery at socially acceptable costs.

The Columbia River Basin would

continue to supportfull spectrums of

river-related economic activities and

accommodate anticipated regional

growth. All existing mainstem

hydroelectric projects would remain in

place. The river system’s stewards

would both maintain and improve

multipurpose federal projects,

and also promote and ensure the

completion of a variety of programs

throughout the basin to improve the

ecosystem generally or individual

watersheds specifically.

Alternative 6 seeks to increase the

overall productivity and resilience of

selected fish and wildlife species,

especially those listed under the

Endangered Species Act and others

that can contribute to regional

fisheries. Alternative 6 would take

immediate action to stop further loss

of biological diversity of fish, wildlife

and plants, especially those listed

under the Endangered Species Act.

Vision

Biological Objectives

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

Alternative 6 seeks to reduce the

current hydropower cost impacts

caused by fish and wildlife recovery

measures by decreasing the amount of

water dedicated to fish in the spring

and increasing the amount of water

available for fish in the summer.

These changes would produce

hydropower cost savings that would be

used to make investments in other

measures to restore fish and wildlife.

Alternative 6 would attempt to reduce

fish and wildlife impacts associated

with the hydrosystem using improved

technology like surface fish bypass,

extended-length fish screens,

maximized fish barging and other

measures that do not reduce the

hydropower output of the system.

Alternative 6 would use moderate

habitat approaches on private land

and moderate to intense approaches

on public land. This alternative would

seek to increase hydropower revenues

and would use the increases to invest

in habitat improvements.

Alternative 6 seeks extensive use of

fish hatcheries to meet fishing needs.

This alternative seeks to create an

ecosystem that can provide productive regional and local fisheries.

Alternative 6 would permit use of

artificially supplemented stocks to

meet tribal harvest objectives and

would use artificial production

techniques to meet non-Indian

harvest objectives.

Alternative 6 seeks to provide

conditions to meet ceremonial,

subsistence and commercial fisheries

harvested in the river’s main-stem

sections. Finally, Alternative 6

emphasizes sport harvest over nonIndian commercial harvest.

Alternative 6 seeks to provide

traditional economic benefits while

reducing impacts on the environ-ment

and fish and wildlife. It would mitigate

for the loss of native species without

jeopardizing existing eco-nomic

activities. It would provide traditional

flood control and com-mercial

supplies of salmon through the most

efficient economic means. Alternative

6 prioritizes tribal and then

recreational fisheries over traditional

commercial fisheries. It would seek to

protect the regional power system’s

ability to financially support fish and

wildlife recovery efforts by

maintaining or improving electricity

generation as a high priorityriver use.

Human Effects Objectives

Strategies

(similar to Alternative 5, with the following

differences)

✔

✔

✔

✔

Change the flow augmentation

program to produce additional

funds for fish and wildlife measures

Use supplemented stocks in the

river to meet tribal harvest

objectives

Meet non-Indian harvest objectives

through artificial production

Improve and maximize fish

barging

Summary of Alternative 6:

Rebuild species, enhance current river uses

20
7

Summary of Alternative 7:

Rebuild species through

managed approaches

This alternative envisions a river

system that is managed to provide

maximum economic benefits, including increased power production,

increased irrigation, and increased

fishing under scientific management.

Alternative 7 would increase the

multiple benefits of dams and the

river through application of quantifiable data. It would increase hydropower production; improve harvest,

habitat and hatchery management;

maintain existing irrigation and

allow more consumptive water use;

maintain navigation to river ports;

and use experiments to gather

useful data.

This alternative seeks to quantify the

benefits and costs of proposed strategies and implement them solely on

the basis of cost-effectiveness. This

alternative calls for improved

measurements of survival to identify

high mortality areas and the use of

computer models to organize data

and depict relationships to enable

survival predictions. This alternative

would focus on “hot spots” of

mortality, abandon spring flow

augmentation and real-time flow

management, and experiment with

late summer/fall flow augmentation in

low water years. Finally, Alternative 7

would introduce predators to control

terns and allow limited marine

mammal hunting.

Alternative 7 would enhance the

ability of the hydrosystem to produce

economic benefits. It would limit

hydropower funding of fish and

wildlife recovery to offset the effects of

hydropower construction and

operation. Finally, this alternative

would limit fish and wildlife impacts

Vision

Biological Objectives

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest

This alternative would sort habitat

into “nature preserve” and production

categories, decentralize habitat

decisions and focus regional habitat

decisions on inter-juris-dictional

issues. This alternative would leave

habitat issues to local decision-makers,

eliminate wildlife mitigation, and use

the BPA Environmental Foundation to

fund habitat improvements.

Alternative 7 seeks to unify hatchery

reporting and measure hatchery

success by returns to watersheds. It

calls for the marking of all hatchery

fish. This alternative would provide

funds for genetic research to increase

fish size, improve disease resistance,

and aid adaptation to warm temperatures.Thisalternative would share

fishing tag revenues with hatcheries

that return fish to watersheds, move

hatchery management to tribes, and

declare some tributaries off limits to

hatchery production and others as

production and supplementation

watersheds.

This alternative seeks to manage

harvest to protect weak stocks by

stopping all harvest of wild fish,

adopting tributary-specific escapement goals; eliminating ocean harvest;

redirecting lower river mixed stock

harvest to terminal areas; redirecting

tribal mixed stock harvest to ladder

and tributary fishing; buying selective

gear for harvesters; and by improving

harvest enforcement.

Alternative 7 seeks the maximum use

Human Effects Objectives

of natural economic incentives to

implement only cost-effective

strategies. This alternative puts

human economic needs above

changes designed to enhance the

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Abandon all spring flow augmentation and real-time management of

flow for fish. Focus flow programs

solely on temperature control

Focus mainstem research efforts on

measurement of survival through

alternate passage methods at dams

to reduce “hot spots” for mortality

Engineer spawning channels to

expand natural spawning areas

Abandon efforts to protect existing

wild stocks in tributaries where

there is already significant hatchery

influence

Declare specific tributaries “offlimits” to hatcheries to provide

buffer zones against genetic

problems with hatchery production

Move hatcheries to tribal

management in settlement of treaty

obligations

Ban harvest of wild stocks in the

mainstem

Work toward elimination of ocean

salmon harvest

Redirect tribal mixed-stock

commercial harvest to selective

harvest at fish ladders and in

tributaries

Take direct action to control the

bird population on Rice Island,

marine mammals, and Northern

pikeminnow that prey on salmon

End federal, regional, and state

regulation of habitat restoration

21
22

Renewing the Northwest Power Planning

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program

Articulate a vision. Define the goals. Break those goals into specific objectives.

And then, craft the strategies that will achieve them.

These are the four building blocks of the Multi-Species Framework

Project. The Northwest Power Planning Council is abouttousethis

same successful approach to renew the Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program.

The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to develop “a program

to protect, mitigate and enhance” fish and wildlife populations harmed by

the construction and operation of the federal dams on the Columbia River

and its tributaries. The law also says that the Council must periodically review

its program.

The Framework Project will soon complete its preliminary analysis of the

alternatives. The Council will use that analysis and other tools to create a

renewed fish and wildlife program that will help all the region’s agencies and

stakeholders coordinate their efforts and investments in a way that

will achieve a common goal: significantly improved results.

The Council’s amendment of the fish and wildlife program will mark a

significant change in approach. Before the Framework Project, individual

agencies, tribal governments and others independently submitted their

priority projects and ideas to the Council. In turn, the Council compiled

these individual responses into an overall fish and wildlife program.

Past programs have produced important results. But it is also clear that

change is needed. Independent scientific reviews, along with things the

Council and others have learned through research and on-the-ground

experience, suggest the region’s recovery efforts would be more effective if

they were based on a comprehensive framework that includes an explicit

vision, goals, objectives and strategies. The Council program amendment

process will help the region establish these things and more.

The first step will be to share the Framework Project’s analysis of

alternatives with everyone interested in fish and wildlife, in particular, the

region’s tribes, fish and wildlife agencies and stakeholders. The Council will

use public meetings, workshops and other tools to ensure that the right

people get the right information.

Building on the Framework Project

A New Way of Doing Business

Renewing the Region’s

Fish and Wildlife Program

Key Principles from the

Northwest Power Act

In developing its program, the Council mustdeal

with the Columbia Riveranditstributariescomprehensively. The system touches a broad range of

species and human activities. The Multi-Species

Framework Project’s economicandbiological

analysis will help ensure the new program properly

accounts for the impacts onboth.

While the fish and wildlife programmust “protect,

mitigate and enhance fishandwildlife,” itmust do so

in a way that ensures the region “an adequate,

efficient, economical and reliable power supply.”

The Northwest Power Act gives the Bonneville Power

Administration the authority touseitslegaland

financial resources “to protect, mitigate, and enhance

fishandwildlife” in a manner consistent with the

Council’s program. The Actalso requires Bonneville

and other federal agencies to take the Council’s

program intoaccount at each stage of their decisionmaking.

The Councilisrequiredto consultwith a variety of

groups in the Northwestandtomaintain comprehensive programs for public participation.

The region’sfish and wildlife agenciesandIndian

tribes play a special role in the program. The program

must complement their existingandftur u e activities

and be consistent with the legalrightsofthe

Columbia Basin’s tribalgovernments.

In considering fishandwildliferecommendations,

the Act requires the Counciltorelyonthebest

available scientific knowledge. The Framework

Project’sscientific analysis,combined with research

fromfederal and other agencies,will provide that

knowledge.

Where equallyeffective meansofachieving the same

result exist, the Council mustchoose the alternative

with the lower economic cost.

The Act directs the Council to adoptmeasures to

“provide flows of sufficient quality andquantity

between [dams onthe Snake and Columbia rivers]

to improve production, migration and survival of

suchfish as necessary tomeet soundbiological

objectives.”

Comprehensive approach

Regional power supply.

Federal responsibilities

Fishery management

Best available science

Lowest cost alternatives

River flows

Public involvement

From Analysis

toAction
Renewing the Northwest Power Planning

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program

Articulate a vision. Define the goals. Break those goals into specific objectives.

And then, craft the strategies that will achieve them.

These are the four building blocks of the Multi-Species Framework

Project. The Northwest Power Planning Council is about to use this

same successful approach to renew the Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program.

The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to develop “a program

to protect, mitigate and enhance” fish and wildlife populations harmed by

the construction and operation of the federal dams on the Columbia River

and its tributaries. The law also says that the Council must periodically review

its program.

The Framework Project will soon complete its preliminary analysis of the

alternatives. The Council will use that analysis and other tools to create a

renewed fish and wildlife program that will help all the region’s agencies and

stakeholders coordinate their efforts and investments in a way that

will achieve a common goal: significantly improved results.

The Council’s amendment of the fish and wildlife program will mark a

significant change in approach. Before the Framework Project, individual

agencies, tribal governments and others independently submitted their

priority projects and ideas to the Council. In turn, the Council compiled

these individual responses into an overall fish and wildlife program.

Past programs have produced important results. But it is also clear that

change is needed. Independent scientific reviews, along with things the

Council and others have learned through research and on-the-ground

experience, suggest the region’s recovery efforts would be more effective if

they were based on a comprehensive framework that includes an explicit

vision, goals, objectives and strategies. The Council program amendment

process will help the region establish these things and more.

The first step will be to share the Framework Project’s analysis of

alternatives with everyone interested in fish and wildlife, in particular, the

region’s tribes, fish and wildlife agencies and stakeholders. The Council will

use public meetings, workshops and other tools to ensure that the right

people gettheright information.

In developing and amending the fish and wildlife program, the Council

considers recommendations from outside parties, along with proposals the

Council initiates on its own.

In the past, the Council provided little guidance on the structure and type

of recommendations it was seeking. This year, the Council is asking people to

submit specific recommendations about the appropriate vision, goals,

Building on the Framework Project

A New Way of Doing Business

Seeking the region's recommendations

23

Local Planning,

Regional goals.

The Council understands that when

it comes to the many tasks of fish

and wildlife recovery, one size doesn’t

fit all.Different stakeholders have

different ideas about the bestways

to approach fish and wildlife

problems.

The Council alsounderstands

that the best tool for building an

effective regional approach isn’t

always a hammer. As the only truly

regional fish and wildlife agency,

the Council is in a unique position

to enact changes that fairly balance

the region’s legitimate needs and

help improve coordination among

different agencies and interests.

While amending its program, the

Council is determined to meet

its own obligations and help others

meet theirs as well.

The new Council program will

help guide and coordinate state and

local efforts to ensure they are linked

to broader regional goals. It alsowill

define procedures, criteriaand

priorities to help improve the way

individual projects are selected and

reviewed by independent scientists.

Through its program amendment

process, the Council will develop

subbasin planning guidelines and

outline principles about who should

participate intheplanningprocess.

By creating a clear regional vision

and helping local communitieswork

together to obtain that vision, the

Council will help the region make

on-the-ground decisions that have

the best chance of protecting the

values everyone shares and getting

the results everyone desires.
January/February 2000

February/March

March

Council calls for recommendations on ways to update

and improve the region’s fish and wildlife program.

Preliminary results of the Multi-Species Framework

analysis reviewed by experts and stakeholders.

Council members meet with tribal leaders, stakeholders and the public to discuss the Council’s new

direction and the schedule for updating the program.

Multi-Species Framework analysis released.

Council staff releases a draft version (Strawman) of what

a revised fish and wildlife plan might look like

to foster regional discussion and debate.

Council hosts series of technical discussions with

region’s fish and wildlife managers and stakeholders on

various fish and wildlife issues related to amending its

program.

Council hosts meetings with stakeholders and opinion

leaders about renewing the fish and wildlife program.

Technical meetings and outreach continue.

April/May

June

June/July

July/August

August/September

Deadline for submitting recommendations for a new

fish and wildlife plan.

Recommendations received are sent out for public

review.

Council holds discussions with tribal governments

and stakeholder groups.

Council issues draft of updated and improved plan.

Council holds additional discussions with tribal

governments and stakeholders and hosts public

hearings on the draft plan.

Council deliberates on public comments.

Council approves a new fish and wildlife plan.

Timeline to Decisions

For More Information...

Contact the Northwest Power Planning Council

Call: 800 452-5161

Email: comments@nwppc.org

Write: Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon, 97204-1348

Web: www.nwppc.org

COVER PHOTOS:

COURTESYOFCORPSOFENGINEERS,

PORTLANDDISTRICT

COVER ILLUSTRATION:

LARRY MILAM, FROM NWPPC FILES

DESIGN&PRODUCTION:

PIERRELORANGER,12STONEGRAPHIC

ANDSTEPHENSASSER,NWPPC

PRINTING:

BRIDGETOWNPRINTINGCOMPANY,

PORTLAND,OREGON

Northwest

Power Planning

Council

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon, 97204-1348

BULKRATE

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT # 11

PORTLAND, OR

The proposed schedule for renewing the Northwest

Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program