Appendix I: Integrating Effects of Recommended Recovery Actions

Appendix I

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan

Example and Preliminary Draft Results of the Simple Additive Approach to Integrating Effects of Recommended Recovery Actions

This draft appendix describes a simple additive approach to integrating the effects of actions recommended in the recovery plan. It is important to note that this work is under development and has had very little local or regional review. There is no attempt at this time to account for confidence intervals around any of the parameters or in the integrated estimates. Therefore, the certainty of the preliminary results presented in this appendix remains unknown. However, despite these deficiencies, it is important to estimate how much the status of Upper Columbia steelhead and spring Chinook[1] might improve with implementation of the recommended actions within this plan.

This exercise evaluates the information presented in Sections 2, 3, and 5 to determine if the actions recommended within the plan are likely to achieve recovery. The simulation used various information and assumptions (which are outlined below) to evaluate the actions that have either been recently enacted, or recommended within this plan. Below, we outline each sector and associated assumptions and information that were used to estimate the increase in the VSP criteria.

For all sectors, we assumed a 50% hatchery effectiveness rate for steelhead. As such, the values for productivity reported for steelhead within this chapter differ from those reported in Section 2. The run was then reconstructed using 50% of the hatchery fish included with naturally produced fish to determine productivity values.

Future productivity was estimated from the sum of the percent increase in a particular sector, multiplied by the current estimate of productivity. Future abundance was simply the sum of the individual subbasin increases per sector.

Abundance was only based on naturally spawning fish, which is currently under review by NOAA Fisheries. Undoubtedly, if some portion of hatchery fish were included in abundance numbers, both species would be closer to reaching the abundance criteria for delisting, and in fact, would probably reach it for steelhead (see conclusion below for more detail).

Productivity was based on the latest year of data for a particular brood year of fish (1999 for spring Chinook, and 1996 or 1997 for steelhead). Abundance was based on the latest year that information was available (2003).

Hydro Sector

We applied the calculated increases in juvenile survival from the draft QAR (Cooney et al. 2000) to the calculated geo-mean of returns per spawner from Section 2 for spring Chinook and steelhead. This was applied basin-specific, where applicable. We used the estimated increase in juvenile survival from Cooney et al.’s table 24 for all five PUD dams, and also applied their estimated increase in juvenile survival in the lower Columbia River from McNary to below Bonneville dams (14.5% improvement; Table 27; scenario 1 – meeting the HCP survival goals; table below) to the estimated increases from the HCPs on local hydro dams.

Percent increase in juvenile survival
spring Chinook / steelhead
Wenatchee / 21 / 16
Entiat / 30 / 23
Methow / 35 / 25
Okanogan / 25
lower river / 14.5 / 14.5

The current ESU value was estimated by combining all populations (per species) and rebuilding the run, using 50% of the hatchery fish as spawners for steelhead only. The future ESU was estimated from increasing the current productivity rate by the sum of the increases from each basin.

We assume 1:1 increase in spawners from an increase in juvenile survival from the proposed actions (e.g., if juvenile survival increased 10%, we assume a 10% increase in spawners).

We applied the increases in productivity to the 12-yr geo-mean of returning natural spawners from Section 2 to determine what increases in abundance are likely from just hydro actions. For example, Wenatchee steelhead productivity increase 31% total from all of the increased survival from all of the hydro actions, and we applied the 31% increase to the 12-year geomean of spawning adults.

Preliminary Results

For spring Chinook, productivity increased between 26%-33% for the individual populations. For the entire ESU, the increase was 48%, increasing from 0.84 to 1.6 (Table 1). The increase in abundance was the same per population, but for the entire ESU, the increase was 31%; increasing from 1,196 to 1,724 (Table 1).

For steelhead, productivity increased 24%-29% per population, while for the ESU it increased 52% from 0.77 to 1.61 (Table 1). For the ESU, abundance increased 25%, from 1,063 to 1,422.

Harvest Sector

As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, harvest has been significantly reduced on Upper Columbia steelhead, spring Chinook, and bull trout within the last 20 years. However, for the purpose of this exercise, we estimate what effect an additional decrease in harvest would have on productivity and abundance.[2]

Total harvest on upper Columbia spring Chinook has been increasing since 1979 (Figure 1). In the decade between 1979 and 1988, harvest increased, and averaged 7.7%. Between 1989 and 1999, harvest decreased, but still averaged 8.3%. Since 2000, harvest has increased to an average of 10%.

Harvest on steelhead in the lower Columbia River is more difficult to determine because the run is mixed with Snake River origin fish in the lower river. Although harvest of steelhead in the upper river (upstream of Rock Island Dam) has decreased significantly since the listing in 1997 (Figure 2), we assume that we could reduce it even further from a recent average. However, for the purpose of this exercise, we estimate what effect an additional decrease in harvest would have on productivity and abundance.

Preliminary Results

We assumed (for this exercise only), that a reduction of 4% for spring Chinook and 5% for steelhead would increase the spawning population by the same amount. This reduction in harvest increased the spring Chinook ESU productivity by 11%, from 0.84 to 0.94. Abundance of spring Chinook increased 4%, from 1,196 to 1,244 (Table 1).

For steelhead, a 5% reduction in harvest increased the ESU by 17%, from 0.77 to 0.92. Abundance of steelhead across the ESU rose 5% from 1,063 to 1,116 (Table 1).

Hatchery Sector

To determine hatchery changes that contribute to productivity and abundance, we used the theoretical difference between the productivity for steelhead from Section 2. In Section 2, to reconstruct the historical steelhead run, we used two scenarios for spawner effectiveness: 1) where hatchery spawners were as effective as wild spawners (100%, H=1), or 2) where hatchery spawners did not contribute to returning spawners at al (0%, H=0).

In the Wenatchee and EntiatRivers[3], there is a 63% difference between zero contribution of hatchery spawners (return per spawner is 0.81), and 100% effectiveness (return per spawner is 0.25). While in the Methow-Okanogan Rivers, the difference is 89% (0.89 if H=0, and 0.09 for H=1). Since no data currently exist in the Upper Columbia[4] to determine the true relationship of hatchery spawner effectiveness, we assume, that hatchery spawners are half (50%; H=0.5) as effective as naturally produced spawners for steelhead and spring Chinook.

To determine the effects of improvements to hatchery programs, forthis exercise only, we assume the same relationship between 100% hatchery spawner effectiveness and 0% hatchery spawner effectiveness for steelhead applies to spring Chinook too within the Wenatchee-Entiat, and Methow rivers.

We then assumed that our current (since 1997) hatchery actions and those that may be implemented as recommended by this Plan will increase the effectiveness of hatchery spawners to 75% (H=0.75) that of naturally-produced fish for both steelhead and spring Chinook. This plan recognizes the long term goal of having hatchery fish as effective as naturally produced fish (H=1).

The steelhead run was once again reconstructed using H = 0.75 to determine what increases to the population occurred. Since the time series for spring Chinook does not delineate hatchery and natural returning fish, the same increase that was shown for steelhead was applied to spring Chinook.

Preliminary Results

Productivity for spring Chinook increased 1%-3% per subbasin and 7% for the whole ESU, from 0.84 to 0.91. Abundance increased 2%-7% for each subbasin, and 5% for the ESU, from 1,196 to 1,260 (Table 1).

Productivity of the steelhead ESU increased from 0.77 to 0.83. Abundance increases were the same as spring Chinook per subbasin, but slightly lower for the ESU, increasing from 1,063 to 1,101 (Table 1).

Habitat Sector

We applied the EDT results for the Wenatchee, Entiat[5], Methow, and Okanogan to determine what percentage of increase could be expected from implementing a habitat action plan that resulted in species responses equivalent to the 33% of full intensity scenario suggested in Section 5.5 (see that section for more detail).

Preliminary Results

For spring Chinook, productivity increased 3%-15% (since the Entiat was not modeled the same as the other subbasins, it is reasonable to assume that the 3% increase shown in Table 1 would most likely be higher if the same actions were modeled). For the ESU, productivity increased by 23%, from 0.84 to 1.09. Abundance increased 9% (Entiat) to 36%, and 34% for the ESU, increasing from 1,196 to 1,808 (Table 1).

For steelhead, productivity (excluding the Entiat) increased 7% to 33% per subbasin and 35% for the entire ESU, increasing from 0.77 to 1.19. Abundance increased between 39% to 64% per subbasin, and 42% for the ESU, from 1,063 to 1,835 (Table 1).

Summing Across Sectors

To understand if improvements in productivity and abundance in all sectors will reach recovery criteria, the percent increase in each sector was summed and applied to the current productivity and abundance numbers per subbasin. For productivity, spring Chinook increased 41% to 53% per subbasin, and 89% for the ESU. For abundance, increases were between 46% to 80% per subbasin, and 73% for the ESU, going from 1,196 to 2,029 (Table 1).

For steelhead, productivity increased between 35% to 67% and 112% for the ESU. Abundance increased between 34% and 105% for the subbasins, and 76% for the entire ESU (Table 1).

To determine how much “closer” each ESU was to becoming viable, the current and future population abundance and productivity were plotted on a viability curve and compared to the 5% risk of extinction in 100 years (Figures 3 and 4).

For the spring Chinook ESU, the productivity criteria is exceeded, but while abundance increases 73%, it is still well below the level needed for delisting (6,000; Figure 5). For the steelhead ESU, the productivity criteria is exceeded, and the abundance criteria is almost two-thirds of being met (3,000; Figure 8).

Diversity and Spatial Structure

The status of each population of steelhead and spring Chinook was discussed in Appendix B, with respect to the spatial structure and diversity requirements for a VSP based on draft guidance from the ICTRT. Spatial structure status and future improvements are really only relevant in the habitat sector, except that low abundance can lead to functional habitat being unoccupied. We did not attempt to integrate future abundance increases with suitable but unoccupied habitat, but assumed that more fish would “fill out” the available functioning habitat. However, species status with respect to diversity metrics does include influences of multiple sectors, primarily hatchery operations.

Spatial Structure

Six of the seven populations were at low to moderate risk for goal A (spatially mediated processes), which dealt primarily with distribution across major spawning areas (See Table 2.2 and Appendix B). Although a formal definition of occupancy was not available, this conclusion was based on the presence of natural origin spawners and/or functional habitat within the major and minor spawning areas consistent with the ICTRT guidance. Okanogan steelhead was the exception, and the high risk rating for goal A was because only 1 of 2 major spawning areas was occupied. In order to achieve low or moderate risk the Okanogan will need to have both MSA occupied. The intended actions in the habitat sector will improve the spatial distribution and habitat quality within the major spawning areas, so we expect the status of spatial structure to continue to improve. The ICTRT has suggested that a population and ESU could be viable with moderate risk for spatial structure and diversity so no further actions would be required. Our conceptual representation of current and future status with respect to spatial structure for the ESU can be seen in Figure 5. We chose to leave the emphasis on providing access to suitable habitat, although we recognize that hatcheries could contribute by seeding unoccupied habitat and hydro and harvest could contribute by helping to increase abundance which should lead to more occupied areas.

Diversity

Our risk assessment for goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) concluded that all three spring Chinook populations were at high risk and that 3 of the 4 steelhead populations were at moderate risk (See Table 2.2 and Appendix B). However, there was considerable uncertainty with respect to steelhead genetic variation and it is likely that if more genetic data were available we would have concluded the populations were at high risk (Appendix B). The majority of metrics that lead to conclusions of high risk for both species were related to past and current hatchery operations (Appendix B). Addressing these hatchery operation issues would remove the threats to diversity and likely lead to a diversity status that would meet the requirements of a VSP. We generated a conceptual graphic of the relative contribution of each sector to the current and future status of diversity for the ESU (Figure 6). Small gains could be made by reducing the risk of selective pressures that select for or against phenotypic traits in the harvest and hydro sectors; however, the emphasis was on habitat and hatcheries. Although gains were made in the habitat, VSP levels could not be achieved without adequate contributions in the hatchery sector (Figure 6).

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan1December 2005 Draft

Appendix I: Integrating Effects of Recommended Recovery Actions

Table 1.Summary of possible increases in abundance and productivity from recommended actions identified in this plan

Sector / Area / Spring Chinook / Steelhead
Productivity / Abundance / Productivity1 / Abundance2
Current / Future / % inc / Current / Future / % inc / Current / Future / % inc / Current / Future / % incr
Harvest / Wenatchee / 0.74 / 0.77 / 0.04 / 443 / 461 / 0.04 / 0.69 / 0.72 / 0.05 / 716 / 752 / 0.05
Entiat / 0.76 / 0.79 / 0.04 / 108 / 112 / 0.04 / 0.69 / 0.72 / 0.05 / 92 / 97 / 0.05
Methow / 0.51 / 0.53 / 0.04 / 645 / 671 / 0.04 / 0.90 / 0.95 / 0.05 / 202 / 212 / 0.05
Okanogan / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0.90 / 0.95 / 0.05 / 53 / 56 / 0.05
ESU3 / 0.84 / 0.94 / 0.11 / 1,196 / 1,244 / 0.04 / 0.77 / 0.92 / 0.17 / 1,063 / 1,116 / 0.05
Hatchery / Wenatchee / 0.74 / 0.76 / 0.03 / 443 / 453 / 0.02 / 0.69 / 0.71 / 0.03 / 716 / 732 / 0.02
Entiat / 0.76 / 0.78 / 0.03 / 108 / 110 / 0.02 / 0.69 / 0.71 / 0.03 / 92 / 94 / 0.02
Methow / 0.51 / 0.52 / 0.01 / 645 / 697 / 0.07 / 0.90 / 0.91 / 0.01 / 202 / 218 / 0.07
Okanogan / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0.90 / 0.91 / 0.01 / 53 / 57 / 0.07
ESU3 / 0.84 / 0.91 / 0.07 / 1,196 / 1,260 / 0.05 / 0.77 / 0.83 / 0.07 / 1,063 / 1,101 / 0.03
Hydro / Wenatchee / 0.74 / 1.00 / 0.26 / 443 / 600 / 0.26 / 0.69 / 0.90 / 0.24 / 716 / 938 / 0.24
Entiat / 0.76 / 1.10 / 0.31 / 108 / 157 / 0.31 / 0.69 / 0.95 / 0.28 / 92 / 127 / 0.28
Methow / 0.51 / 0.77 / 0.33 / 645 / 968 / 0.33 / 0.90 / 1.26 / 0.29 / 202 / 283 / 0.29
Okanogan / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0.90 / 1.26 / 0.29 / 53 / 74 / 0.29
ESU3 / 0.84 / 1.60 / 0.48 / 1,196 / 1,724 / 0.31 / 0.77 / 1.61 / 0.52 / 1,063 / 1,422 / 0.25
Habitat / Wenatchee / 0.74 / 0.84 / 0.12 / 443 / 696 / 0.36 / 0.69 / 0.75 / 0.07 / 716 / 1,353 / 0.47
Entiat4 / 0.76 / 0.78 / 0.03 / 108 / 119 / 0.09 / 0.69 / ND / ND / 92 / ND / ND
Methow / 0.51 / 0.60 / 0.15 / 645 / 993 / 0.35 / 0.90 / 1.05 / 0.15 / 202 / 333 / 0.39
Okanogan / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0.90 / 1.34 / 0.33 / 53 / 149 / 0.64
ESU3 / 0.84 / 1.09 / 0.23 / 1,196 / 1,808 / 0.34 / 0.77 / 1.19 / 0.35 / 1,063 / 1,835 / 0.42
Sum across all sectors / Wenatchee / 0.74 / 1.08 / 0.46 / 443 / 749 / 0.69 / 0.69 / 0.96 / 0.39 / 716 / 1,274 / 0.78
Entiat5 / 0.76 / 1.07 / 0.41 / 108 / 158 / 0.46 / 0.69 / 0.93 / 0.35 / 92 / 123 / 0.34
Methow / 0.51 / 0.79 / 0.53 / 645 / 1,122 / 0.80 / 0.90 / 1.71 / 0.49 / 202 / 364 / 0.80
Okanogan / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0.90 / 1.20 / 0.67 / 53 / 109 / 1.05
ESU3 / 0.84 / 1.59 / 0.89 / 1,196 / 2,029 / 0.73 / 0.77 / 1.63 / 1.12 / 1,063 / 1,870 / 0.76

1 Productivity was on a hatchery effectiveness of H = 0.5.

2 Abundance for wild steelhead only. For hatchery effects, future abundance is the percent increase between H = 0.5 and H = 0.75.

3 For the ESU, productivity is based on the whole time series and abundance is additive.

4 For the Entiat, the EDT model included activities that were not included in other subbasins.

5 Because the Entiat was not modeled the same as the other subbasins, the total increase in productivity and abundance would be greater than shown here.

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan1December 2005 Draft

Appendix I: Integrating Effects of Recommended Recovery Actions

Figure 1. Harvest rates of Upper Columbia River spring Chinook incidentally caught in the lower Columbia River fisheries.

Figure 2. Harvest of steelhead in the Upper Columbia ESU.

Figure 3. Comparison of current and future abundance and productivity metrics within the entire ESU for spring Chinook, with the 5% risk of extinction in 100 years.

Figure 4. Comparison of current and future abundance and productivity metrics within the entire ESU for steelhead, with the 5% risk of extinction in 100 years. An additional model run with the 12 year geomean if 50% of the hatchery spawners are added.

Figure 5. Conceptual representation of the current and future contribution of the four sectors to spatial structure for the Upper Columbia ESU.

Figure 6. Contribution of the Hs to recovery of the diversity attributes for Viable Salmonid Populations of spring Chinook and steelhead in the Upper Columbia ESU. Units were intentionally left off the y-axis because diversity is not a quantitative attribute. Although the relative length of the bars might shift slightly for each population, the concept for each is the same throughout the ESU. Some progress can and should be made in the habitat, but recovery cannot be achieved without changes to hatchery operations that will decrease the risk to diversity.

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan1December 2005 Draft

[1] Because we currently do not have enough information on bull trout within the Upper Columbia populations to estimate abundance and productivity, they were omitted from this section. However, the plan recognizes that implementation of the actions suggested herein will have a positive effect on bull trout habitat and subsequent population dynamics.

[2] It is not the intent of this plan to compromise any ongoing legal proceedings (e.g., US v OR).

[3]Wenatchee - Entiat, and also Methow - Okanogan returns per spawners cannot be separated because the base population (dam counts) is the same (see Appendix C for further detail).

[4] There is currently a study underway to estimate spring Chinook hatchery spawner effectiveness in the WenatcheeRiver, and the Chelan and Douglas PUDs will be determining the same for steelhead through their HCP hatchery M&E programs.

[5] In the Entiat, a different model run was used. Since the Entiat Watershed Plan has run EDT for various scenarios (see Plan for details), we used Scenario 5, as described in the Watershed Plan, and compared it to the “33%” run from the other subbasins. The Entiat Watershed Plan did not model steelhead, and at this writing, has not been completed.