What is the CRI?
The Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI), is an ongoing effort of the Northwest
Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), that assesses salmonid population trends
and the impact of various actions on those trends. This project uses the
following approach. First, the group analyzes data regarding the "Four
Hs" (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydrosystems) to assess the
impact of these factors on salmonid population growth. Concurrently, the
team assesses the risk of extinction and constructs population models
for each species, using current survivorships for each life-stage. These
models can identify the times or stages at which changing survivorship
will yield the largest impact on population growth rates. Follow-up work
entails examining whether such changes in survivorship are biologically
feasible and what management options will yield the best results. Finally,
as conservation actions are implemented, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), in collaboration with other regional scientists, will
be engaging in ecological experiments to test hypotheses about the relationships
between management actions in the 4 H’s and salmon populations.
As part of their efforts to provide scientifically rigorous support for
salmonid conservation and recovery planning, CRI scientists are committed
to conducting consistent and transparent analyses.
What is the CRI team doing?
CRI activities include the integration of risk factors, the development
of critical definitions of viable salmonid populations, and the identification
of productive habitat for viable salmonid populations (see
Figure 1).
INTEGRATION (across H’s, across populations, across species):
One main goal of the CRI effort is to organize data where they exist,
and to provide an analytical framework for integrating the effects of
taking actions in different portions of fish life cycles. This framework
allows us to evaluate how actions in different portions of the salmon
life cycle may improve survival, reduce risks, and foster recovery. The
approach being used involves four facets:
- Data exploration
- Identification of key risk factors
- Detailed analyses and evaluation of management options
- Adaptive Management: Opportunities for pathbreaking science
No single decision model, but a commitment to transparency and
data access: NMFS scientists do not envision producing a single
decision-theoretic model that can be conveniently queried for scientific
illumination. Because there will not be a single model, NMFS envisions
a wide variety of scientific dialogues and diverse approaches. A public
website will be created where all data, models and analyses used by NMFS
will be accessible to anyone. At the same time, NMFS is working with other
federal agencies to coordinate data management and provide a dynamic decision
support system. This requires investment in innovative technologies so
that the insights from adaptive management can go ‘on-line’.
The value of transparency and accessibility is that no interest group
will be left out – anyone can examine the data and logic, evaluate
the inferences, or contribute their own analyses. This mode of doing science
encourages outside participation and is less likely to disenfranchise
any group.
Science as a process and not a product: As in all
scientific endeavors, the approach and pending results are not fixed in
stone. Instead the process will evolve, as new data are uncovered and
analyzed, as modelers reap new insights, and as practical experience confronts
and contradicts the very best theorizing.
Key to this process is the NWFSC monthly workshop series, alternating
between a "policy" focus and a "research and
development" focus. These workshops provide an opportunity for
NMFS to inform others about our process/results, receive vital input from
scientific peers not at NMFS, and identify important linkages between
science and policy. Frequently, scientists back away from drawing conclusions
because of fear of being wrong; meanwhile managers seek straightforward
solutions delivered in tidy packages from scientists. It is impossible
to jointly satisfy the reluctant skepticism of scientists and the pragmatic
desire for tidy solutions of the policy-maker. Instead there will be a
relentless back-and-forth between science and policy – with scientists
wanting to say "we do not know", and decision makers
asking "what is the answer". What the public, government
agencies and interested groups can expect from NMFS is open dialogue,
free access to data and models, and frank discussion of risks.
Time schedule: The first round of CRI research efforts
should come together in a form that will be applied ESU-wide near the
end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000.
Public websites detailing data and analyses used by NMFS will be in operation
no later than October of 1999. These websites will include information
such as habitat and population data for particular regions, statistical
analyses, a simple matrix model with estimated survival and reproduction
by age for different stocks, and an explanation of how those demographic
rates translate into potential for population recovery.
VIABLE SALMONID POPULATIONS (VSP): NWFSC scientists are
identifying key principles to be followed when assessing population- and
ESU-level viability. To make these principles practical, NMFS is developing
"rules of thumbs" aimed at identifying
measurable population attributes that can be used to assess the
status of ESU’s and thereby guide formation of recovery goals. The
initial document presenting these guidelines is called the Viable Salmonid
Populations (or VSP) paper. The VSP guidelines range in specificity from
actual ranges of numbers to qualitative admonitions about "what
to worry about" when assessing viability. The discussion
of "how many populations are needed" and "where
the populations should be located" for ESU-level viability
is especially tentative because major technical research concerning these
questions is ongoing (and will be presented in a technical workshop in
December). The VSP paper is thus a starting point, and not the final word
on viability assessment (see Chapter 3 for a more in-depth discussion
of VSP efforts).
It is important to realize that population viability assessment is a
contentious and highly technical branch of population biology. NMFS seeks
to avoid rigid doctrine regarding viability while at the same time making
sure that cautious standards are available. Secondly, it is important
to realize that when considering what makes an ESU viable, the answers
are likely to identify more than one means of achieving that goal.
HABITAT for VIABLE SALMONID POPULATIONS: NWFSC scientists
are investigating relationships between habitat condition and salmon production.
Freshwater habitats associated with salmon life histories are being examined
largely at the subwatershed and watershed scales. The initial goal is
to understand the spatial distribution of salmon production in relation
to habitat conditions. The scientific process generally involves linking
regions of low-medium-high salmon production to habitat conditions associated
with those regions, including physical habitat characteristics and land
use parameters. Once these relationships are identified, production potential
for habitats where no fish data are available can then be estimated. A
technical workshop concerning habitat-salmonid interactions is scheduled
for September 29th and 30th.
As a longer-term goal, NMFS is also examining connections between estuaries
and near-shore habitats and the survival of salmonids as they make the
transition to the ocean portion of their life cycle. In addition, a better
understanding of how variability in ocean conditions interacts with salmonid
fluctuations is a necessary ingredient for the design of monitoring programs.
How will CRI efforts interact with other NMFS efforts?
In time, scientific efforts of the CRI will interact with a number of
other NMFS efforts (see Figure 1-1). CRI methods and analyses will be
flexible in order to accommodate the diversity of groups and efforts needing
information. Below are descriptions of how CRI work will interact with
two of these efforts: recovery planning and jeopardy evaluations. The
descriptions below are intended as examples of how CRI science will inform
these other efforts.
Recovery Planning
CRI integration efforts and preparation of viable salmonid population
and habitat manuscripts will provide a foundation for use by Technical
Recovery Teams (see Chapter 4). Technical Recover Teams will be composed
of members from state, tribal, and federal co-managers, academic institutions,
stakeholders and scientific organizations. Each team will be responsible
for populations within a specific geographic area and will be charged
with developing recovery goals for listed ESUs. Teams will undertake a
range of tasks, including identifying:
- Factors for decline and limiting factors
- Population/ESU criteria for recovery
- Habitat criteria for recovery
- Early actions for recovery
Teams will use the habitat and viable salmonid populations documents
as an organizing framework for establishing recovery goals. CRI researchers
and other NMFS staff will work with teams to provide data and analyses
germane to the recovery planning process.
Jeopardy Evaluations
ESA decision-making is not restricted to recovery planning. Habitat conservation
plans, Section 7 consultations and formal jeopardy determinations are
all important aspects of endangered species management; all are aspects
that will be served by CRI analytical tools. For instance, the degree
to which an action "jeopardizes" a species can be evaluated
using the matrix models under development by the CRI. These matrix models
summarize salmonid population dynamics and can be easily adapted to varying
life histories. With these models, examining how a proposed action alters
parameters in the projection matrices can assess the degree to which an
action ‘jeopardizes’ a species.
NMFS has initially been tailoring its CRI efforts to recovery planning
because many of the decisions concerning recovery planning often require
only relative comparisons. In contrast, jeopardy decisions ideally require
absolute assessments of survival probabilities, and such absolute assessments
are much harder to make than are relative comparisons. As the tools being
created for CRI are further developed, they will become increasingly useful
in the panoply of endangered species decision-making that ranges from
statewide habitat conservation plans to jeopardy determinations.
last modified
02/13/2007
Web site owner: Northwest Fisheries Science Center
|
