Independent Scientific Advisory Board

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

and the National Marine Fisheries Service

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

ISAB@nwppc.org

Review of the Biological Objectives

in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

July 27, 2001

ISAB 2001-6

Peter A. Bisson

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Robert Gramling

Dennis Lettenmaier

James Lichatowich

Eric Loudenslager

William Liss

Lyman McDonald

David Philipp

Brian Riddell
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

i

Review of the Biological Objectives in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................ii

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Overview............................................................................................................................. 1

Questions Addressed in the Review.................................................................................... 2

Summary of Comments on Environmental Objectives..................................................... 10
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

ii

Review of the Biological Objectives in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Northwest Power Planning Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP)

established a broad framework for fish and wildlife mitigation and recovery within the

Columbia River Basin. The framework included a vision for the Columbia River, which

is intended to define the expected basin-wide outcome of the FWP, and a scientific

foundation, which is a set of scientific principles that are intended to broadly summarize

current scientific knowledge concerning ecosystem attributes, processes, and functions

that are applicable to fish and wildlife mitigation and recovery within the basin. To

achieve the vision, biological objectives were developed for the basin and will be

developed for provinces and subbasins. The biological objectives describe the physical

and biological changes needed to achieve the vision and they have two components:

(1) biological performance, describing population responses to habitat conditions, and

(2) environmental characteristics, describing the environmental changes that are needed

to achieve the desired population responses.

The 2000 FWP charged the ISAB with reviewing the scientific soundness and basin-wide

applicability of the provisional environmental characteristics, as well as their utility for

further defining biological objectives at the province and subbasin levels (2000 FWP,

Appendix D). The ISAB was given the option to review other elements of the framework,

as appropriate to accomplishing its stated charge of reviewing the environmental

characteristics. The Basinwide Provisions section of the 2000 FWP discusses the

framework and Appendix D presents the provisional basin environmental characteristics.

Overview

Previous Fish and Wildlife Plan programs consisted largely of a catalog of measures and

specific actions, but lacked an integrative framework that could provide a rational

scientific basis for measures and actions (ISG, 2000). The 2000 FWP has attempted to

remedy this situation by proposing such a framework, complete with a scientific

foundation. The framework is intended to guide and integrate the planning process and

help ensure that strategies and actions at the province and subbasin scales contribute to

accomplishment of basin-wide objectives and thus the vision. This general approach

appears sound.

The 2000 FWP embodies an ecosystem approach to mitigation and planning much more

than previous programs. Through the framework structure, the program advocates a

landscape-based approach that attempts to integrate, across several spatial scales,

objectives, strategies, and actions pertaining to tributary and mainstem habitat, mainstem

anadromous fish passage, harvest, and artificial production. The 2000 FWP provides a

hierarchical structure that is intended to provide flexibility in application of the scientific

principles and basin-scale biological objectives to the localized biological, physical, and
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

iii

social conditions in the basin’s ecological provinces and subbasins. The 2000 FWP also

proposes to use the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling approach as a

tool to provide a quantitative analytical assessment of recovery and mitigation actions.

Previous plans did not rely so extensively on quantitative assessment tools. This

approach, too, appears sound; however, in addition to EDT, other available quantitative

tools should be employed in assessment of recovery and mitigation actions.

Questions Addressed in the Review

The ISAB developed nine questions that would be addressed in its review. The

condensed answers to these questions are given below, with a more detailed discussion of

each provided in the main text.

1. Are the scientific principles consistent with current ecological and conservation

theory? Are they adequate to provide guidance in developing biological objectives,

including biological performances and environmental characteristics, and strategies and

actions at the Columbia River Basin, province, and subbasin scales?

The scientific principles generally are consistent with current ecological and conservation

theory. The principles are general and theoretical, provide good background, and are

consistent with the vision, but they alone may not be adequate to provide guidance for

development of more specific biological objectives, strategies, and actions. While the

ISAB recognizes that flexibility in interpretation is important in applying the principles to

areas of the basin that differ in ecological characteristics, we believe that additional, more

explicit guidance may be needed to facilitate use of the principles in developing province

and subbasin biological objectives.

2. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale 1) adequate to achieve

the vision, 2) scientifically justified and consistent with the science foundation,

3) applicable to all species of concern, 4) accomplishable within the stated timeframes?

The structure and terminology of the framework leading from vision to strategies and

actions need to be clarified. In particular, confusion arises because the term “biological

objectives” is used repeatedly in different contexts. Coherence of the basin-scale

objectives for biological performance with the vision and principles is not always

apparent in the FWP. The objectives for biological performance may need to be more

clearly linked to the principles; for example, by explicitly stating the principle(s) to which

a particular objective is related. The objectives for biological performance, especially the

“objectives for anadromous fish losses” do not reflect the conceptual richness and scope

of the scientific principles. Finally, the objectives for biological performance for

anadromous fish, for resident fish, and for wildlife differ considerably in their specificity

with respect to both performance measures and timeframes. The level of specificity

among the three sets of objectives needs to be consistent.

It is not possible to assess whether the numerical objectives for biological performance

listed under “Anadromous fish losses” (p. 18) and the timeframes for achieving the
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

iv

objectives are realistic because no quantitative or qualitative justification of the

objectives and timeframes is provided.

3. Are the objectives for environmental characteristics scientifically sound and

applicable basin-wide? Are they useful for further defining biological objectives at the

province and subbasin levels.

The provisional objectives for environmental characteristics are scientifically sound,

consistent with the Council’s science foundation and recommendations in Return to the

River (ISG, 2000), and are applicable basin-wide. These objectives, with some

modification and expansion, are far more appropriate as basin-wide objectives than the

objectives for biological performance; particularly the biological performance objectives

related to anadromous fish. We review each of the provisional objectives for

environmental characteristics in the full report.

4. At the Columbia River Basin scale, are the environmental attributes sufficient to

achieve the desired biological performances?

There are differences in levels of specificity between the provisional objectives for

environmental characteristics and the objectives for biological performance. The

objectives for environmental characteristics are written in broad terms that express ideal

ecological conditions while the objectives for biological performance are species-oriented

with specific timeframes in which they will be accomplished. Thus it is difficult to

determine if accomplishment of the broad environmental objectives will lead to

accomplishment of the specific objectives for biological performance. However, the logic

behind the objectives for biological performance (particularly the numerical, timespecific objectives pertaining to anadromous fish losses) is unclear and it is unlikely that

these objectives can be accomplished within the stated timeframes.

5. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale, including biological

performances and environmental characteristics, applicable to all areas of the Columbia

River Basin including areas above barriers to fish migration?

The problems with the biological objectives described above, especially the biological

performance objectives dealing with anadromous fish losses, make application of the

objectives to all areas of the basin problematic. The provisional objectives for

environmental characteristics are more comprehensive, though more general, than the

biological performance objectives, more consistent with the scientific foundation, and

probably more applicable basin-wide.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

v

6. Are ecological provinces useful in subbasin planning?

Ecological provinces could be useful in both the planning process and in monitoring and

evaluation. Provinces form an ecological planning unit that could link biological

objectives, strategies, and actions at the basin scale to those at the subbasin scale, thus

facilitating transition from regional planning to more localized planning. Furthermore, the

consistency of boundaries of ecological provinces and ESUs could facilitate coordination

between ESA recovery actions and the Council’s program.

To function effectively, province plans need to be much more than simply the aggregate

of subbasin plans. Each province should have its own level-specific objectives, strategies,

and actions that address province-wide recovery problems characteristic of the province’s

dominant ecosystems (e.g., forested headwater, shrub-steppe plateau) and guide the

formation of subbasin plans. Subbasin plans, in turn, should be evaluated in terms of their

consistency with province objectives as well as the basin vision, objectives, and scientific

principles. Subbasin planning is beginning, yet province objectives, strategies, and

actions have not been developed. It is unclear what parties will be responsible for

province planning and monitoring and evaluation.

7. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale, including biological

performances and environmental characteristics, sufficient to guide development of more

specific biological objectives and strategies at the province and subbasin levels?

Development of objectives, strategies, and actions at the subbasin level could be

encumbered by the rather confusing terminology and structure of the planning

framework, the apparent lack of connection between objectives for biological

performance at the basin level and the scientific principles, the differing levels of

specificity between basin level biological objectives and environmental characteristics,

and the lack of clarity and quantitative or qualitative rationale justifying the basin-level

biological performance objectives and timeframes for their accomplishment.

8. Is EDT the proper analytical tool to link strategies and actions, environmental

attributes, and biological performances to determine if the biological objectives are

accomplishable?

EDT is a useful analytical tool but it should not be the only analytical tool used in

assessments. EDT is limited to predicting biological response within the constraints of

the environmental characteristics that define the survival landscape of select species. It is

a species-centered, not an ecosystem-centered, model. It is, however, landscape-based in

the sense that it predicts survival at the scale of 6th-field watersheds, which can be pieced

together to create a landscape mosaic over an entire subbasin. This will be helpful in

setting restoration priorities within subbasins and provinces.

EDT does not appear to be able to determine whether biological objectives are

accomplishable. The designers of EDT emphasize that it is best used as a tool for

hypothesis generation and predicting survival improvements from various restoration
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

vi

actions that can be tested on the ground. EDT has another limitation: it is an equilibrium

model that assumes once a biological response to a change in an environmental attribute

occurs, the magnitude of the response thereafter remains constant. Furthermore, recovery

goals often designate specific timeframes within which they are to be achieved. Since

EDT focuses on the equilibrium state and not on the time required to reach that state, it is

not useful for assessing whether recovery goals can be met in the specified time.

9. At the Columbia River Basin scale, is there sufficient logical and conceptual

consistency between the scientific foundation, the biological objectives, and strategies

and actions to provide a reasonable chance of fulfilling the vision?

The development of scientifically sound, coordinated subbasin plans seems to be at the

heart of the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program. The scientific principles provide a good

conceptual foundation. The subbasin assessment and planning process is just getting

started and it is too early to determine if the principles will be taken seriously in the

planning process, or if the subbasin plans will revert to previous restoration approaches.

However, the ISAB is concerned about the adequacy of the operational linkages between

vision and principles, basin-scale objectives, and subbasin-scale objectives, strategies,

and actions. The scientific principles are too general to provide specific guidance for

development of objectives, constraints imposed by the principles are not clearly

specified, and the objectives for biological performance are not well justified and not

especially consistent with the principles. Furthermore there must be widespread agency,

tribal, and interest group agreement on the principles, objectives, and strategies for the

plan to have a reasonable chance of fulfilling the vision. How this consensus can be

achieved, if at all, is unknown.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

1

Review of the Biological Objectives

in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

Introduction

The Northwest Power Planning Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP)

established a broad framework for fish and wildlife mitigation and recovery within the

Columbia River Basin. The framework included a vision for the Columbia River, which

is intended to define the expected basin-wide outcome of the FWP, and a scientific

foundation, which is a set of scientific principles that are intended to broadly summarize

current scientific knowledge concerning ecosystem attributes, processes, and functions

that are applicable to fish and wildlife mitigation and recovery within the basin. To

achieve the vision, biological objectives were developed for the basin and will be

developed for provinces and subbasins. The biological objectives describe the physical

and biological changes needed to achieve the vision and they have two components:

(1) biological performance, describing population responses to habitat conditions, and

(2) environmental characteristics, describing the environmental changes that are needed

to achieve the desired population responses. The biological objectives that are to be

developed for provinces and subbasins are supposed to be consistent with the basin-scale

biological objectives and the scientific principles.

The 2000 FWP charged the ISAB with reviewing the provisional basin-level

environmental characteristics, a component of the basin level biological objectives (FWP,

Appendix D). The Council requested that the ISAB consider “the scientific soundness

and basin-wide applicability of the environmental characteristics, as well as their utility

for defining further the biological objectives at the province and subbasin levels.” The

ISAB was also asked to consider the applicability of the environmental characteristics to

areas of the basin above blockages to anadromous fish passage. Council staff recognized

that the environmental characteristics were integrated with other elements of the

framework, such as biological performances and the scientific principles, and, therefore,

could not be evaluated outside of this broader context. Because consistency among the

various elements of the framework is necessary if the framework is to provide the region

a clear and logical vehicle for basin-scale planning, the ISAB was given the option to

review other elements of the framework, as appropriate to help accomplish its stated

charge of reviewing the environmental characteristics. The Basinwide Provisions section

of the 2000 FWP discusses the framework, and Appendix D presents the provisional

basin environmental characteristics.

Overview

Previous Fish and Wildlife programs consisted largely of a catalog of measures and

specific actions, but lacked an integrative framework that could provide a rational

scientific basis for measures and actions (ISG, 2000). The 2000 FWP has attempted to

remedy this situation by proposing such an integrated framework, complete with a
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

2

scientific foundation. The framework is intended to guide and integrate the planning

process and help ensure that strategies and actions at the province and subbasin scales

contribute to accomplishment of basin-wide objectives and thus the vision. This general

approach appears sound, although the ISAB has identified some serious problems with

the framework structure and terminology, the structure of basin-scale biological

objectives, and the applicability of the scientific principles and basin-scale objectives to

provinces and subbasins scales. These problems are discussed later in this review. That

problems exist is not surprising considering that the approach taken in the 2000 FWP is

new, and that difficulties are to be expected. These problems will need to be addressed as

implementation of the FWP moves forward at the province and subbasin scales.

The 2000 FWP embodies an ecosystem approach to mitigation and planning much more

than previous programs. Through the framework structure, the program advocates a

landscape-based approach that attempts to integrate, across several spatial scales,

objectives, strategies, and actions pertaining to tributary and mainstem habitat, mainstem

anadromous fish passage, harvest and artificial production. The 2000 FWP departs from a

“one-size-fits all” approach that sometimes characterizes large-scale ecological

restoration planning. It provides a hierarchical structure that is intended to provide

flexibility in application of the scientific principles and basin-scale biological objectives

to the localized biological, physical and social conditions in the basin’s ecological

provinces and subbasins.

The 2000 FWP also proposes to use the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)

modeling approach as a tool to provide a quantitative analytical assessment of recovery

and mitigation actions at subbasin, province, and basin scales. Previous plans did not rely

so extensively on quantitative assessment tools. This approach, too, appears sound;

however, in addition to EDT, other available quantitative tools should be employed in

assessment of recovery and mitigation actions.

Questions Addressed in the Review

The ISAB developed nine questions to be answered in this review. In general, the

questions address the scientific soundness and basin-wide applicability of the scientific

principles and the biological objectives, including both biological performances and

environmental characteristics. They also assess whether there is sufficient logical and

conceptual consistency between the science foundation and biological objectives at the

Columbia River Basin scale to provide guidance for development of biological

objectives, strategies, and actions at the province and subbasin scales.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

3

1. Are the scientific principles consistent with current ecological and conservation

theory? Are they adequate to provide guidance in developing biological objectives,

including biological performances and environmental characteristics, and strategies and

actions at the Columbia River Basin, province, and subbasin scales?

The scientific principles generally are consistent with current ecological and conservation

theory. The principles are general and theoretical, provide good background, and are

consistent with the vision, but they alone may not be adequate to provide guidance for

development of more specific biological objectives, strategies, and actions. While the

ISAB recognizes that flexibility in interpretation is important in applying the principles to

areas of the basin that differ in ecological characteristics, we believe that additional, more

explicit guidance may be needed to facilitate use of the principles in developing province

and subbasin biological objectives. The generality of the principles leaves them open to

interpretation that could become too broad. The explanations, implications, and

constraints posed by each principle need to be expanded. The narratives for each

principle should explicitly tie the underlying theory to the existing and expected

conditions in the Columbia River and should explain how the principle constrains or

shifts the current focus of recovery work in the basin. For example, the narrative under

Principle 7 should state how an adaptive approach implemented in a hierarchical system

would change the existing decision making process. Although the ISRP will evaluate

subbasin plans for their consistency with the scientific principles, they too may need

more specific guidance to assist their evaluations.

The principles emphasize interactions between biological communities and their

environment, and they do not focus on individual species-centered management goals.

Principles 2 and 6 state that ecosystem stability is buffered by biodiversity. They do not

adequately address the role of non-native species and their interactions with native fishes.

Metapopulation theory was not adequately represented in the principles, although the

metapopulation concept was implicit in the scientific principles. Two aspects of that

theory have particular relevance to the Columbia River Basin: the disadvantage of

synchronous fluctuations in abundance of local populations and the importance of core

populations. The dams and the operation of the hydropower system can synchronize the

dynamics of local populations, reducing variation in abundances among populations and,

in theory, reducing metapopulation persistence. Core populations are critical to the

persistence of metapopulations; however, some or most of the core populations may have

been eliminated by the construction of the hydropower system. Synchronization and loss

of core populations likely have an importance influence on the risk of extinction (ISG

2000).

Principle 8 needs to be altered to read something like: “Ecosystem function, habitat

structure and biological performance are affected by human actions, and in turn affect

human social and economic systems.” That people are part of the ecosystem is implied in

the discussion, but not in the principle itself.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

4

2. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale 1) adequate to achieve

the vision, 2) scientifically justified and consistent with the science foundation,

3) applicable to all species of concern, 4) accomplishable within the stated timeframes?

The structure and terminology of the framework leading from vision to strategies and

actions need to be clarified. The “overarching objectives” are simply a re-statement of the

vision. As a result, either the vision or the overarching objectives should be changed.

Even though the “biological objectives” are stated to have two components, biological

performance and environmental characteristics, the biological objectives themselves--the

statements that reflect the union of biological performance and environmental

characteristics --are not given. What is given in the FWP are “objectives for biological

performance.” The term “biological objectives” appears again as “biological objectives

for environmental characteristics.” Environmental characteristics “describe the

environmental conditions or changes sought to achieve the desired population

characteristics.” Presumably, environmental conditions include more than just biological

conditions. These overlapping definitions and concepts are confusing. To further

complicate matters, all of this is supposed to be repeated at the province and subbasin

levels.

We suggest a clarified framework that includes the vision, scientific principles with

expanded interpretations to provide specific guidance for development of biological

objectives, the biological objectives (which should represent a melding of the objectives

for biological performance and environmental characteristics), strategies and actions, and

a means of assessing whether the strategies and actions accomplish the objectives.

Much of the operational success of the FWP depends on the biological objectives,

strategies, and actions that will be developed at the subbasin level. It is imperative that

the biological objectives at the basin level both be consistent with the vision and

scientific principles and provide clear guidance for development of subbasin biological

objectives, strategies, and actions. Coherence of the basin-scale objectives for biological

performance with the vision and principles is not always apparent in the FWP. The

objectives for biological performance need to be more clearly linked to the principles; for

example, by explicitly stating the principle(s) to which a particular objective is related.

The need for subbasin plans to be consistent with the scientific principles should be

mentioned. The objectives for biological performance, especially the “objectives for

anadromous fish losses” do not reflect the conceptual richness and scope of the scientific

principles. Whereas the scientific foundation emphasizes ecosystems and communities,

the objectives for biological performance are very traditional and have a strong species

orientation. The scientific principles are not needed to provide conceptual support for the

objectives for anadromous fish loss; these objectives flow easily out of the current

management perspective. The Council should consider developing biological objectives

that would fulfill the need for healthy and productive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Finally, the objectives for biological performance for anadromous fish, for resident fish,

and for wildlife differ considerably in their specificity with respect to both performance

measures and timeframes. The level of specificity among the three sets of objectives

needs to be consistent.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

5

Although scientific principle 3 states that biological systems are hierarchical, the plan

does not reflect a hierarchical system in which higher levels constrain and provide

context for lower levels. The province and basin level programs appear to simply consist

of the accumulated programs from the subbasin level. Are there basin-wide attributes that

can be described in terms of measurable endpoints? Flow patterns and the effects of

regional climate might fit this category. Cumulative harvest from the ocean through

tributary streams might also fit. Cumulative effects of hydrosystem operation on the

estuary and plume could be a basin-level concern. According to scientific principle 3,

there should be specific recovery activities described at the basin level. At a minimum,

these activities might include collection, analysis, and reporting of information relevant

to the basin-level performance expectations shown on page 18 of the FWP. The

information may simply be collected from the other levels in the hierarchy or there may

be a specific data gathering at the basin level -- tracking the effects of climate and ocean

conditions, for example. Who will be held accountable for tracking progress at the basin

level? The history of salmon recovery has shown that statements of intent without a clear

assignment of responsibility do not achieve effective implementation.

It is not possible to assess whether the numerical objectives for biological performance

listed under “Anadromous fish losses” (p. 18) and the timeframes for achieving the

objectives are realistic because no quantitative or qualitative justification of the

objectives and timeframes is provided. Furthermore, the objectives as stated are unclear.

For example, what does halting the decline in salmon and steelhead by 2005 mean? Does

a halt by the year 2005 apply to all populations in the basin, half of the populations or a

few indicator populations? Given the natural variability in the abundance of salmon and

steelhead, what basin-scale metric(s) will be used to establish that the decline has in fact

halted? It is not clear what elements of the program the Council expects to have

implemented in time to halt the decline by 2005. For chinook salmon with a three-year

ocean life history, any improvements affecting the freshwater life stage would have to be

in place and effective by 2002. If halting the declining trend means causing an upward

trend in the moving 5-year average, how would the benefits of management actions be

distinguished from a climate shift toward favorable ocean conditions? How do we

quantify the negative effects of a severe winter drought so that they are not counted

against anthropogenic habitat losses? The statement "restore the widest possible set of

naturally reproducing populations of salmon and steelhead in each relevant province by

2012" has many of the same shortcomings described above. What does the widest

possible set mean? This can only be defined in terms of the constraints mentioned earlier,

that is, the kinds of recovery actions that are possible to undertake and the kinds that are

undertaken. The timeframes appear arbitrary and impossible to meet.

Although the 100-200 year long-term objectives include “full mitigation” for losses of

anadromous fish, it is not clear what the term “full mitigation” means or whether “full

mitigation” is feasible in the face of regional population and economic growth, much less

the uncertainty of climate change. The changes in salmon management caused by this

winter’s drought and resultant energy crisis (an example being the de-watering of lower

Columbia River chum salmon spawning areas) are an effective illustration of why full
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

6

mitigation is not realistically achievable. The ISAB is not aware of any salmonid fishery

in which the biological objective of maintaining native fish species at “near historical

abundance” while allowing relatively high harvest rates of hatchery fish (p. 19) has been

achieved.

3. Are the objectives for environmental characteristics scientifically sound and

applicable basin-wide? Are they useful for further defining biological objectives at the

province and subbasin levels.

The provisional objectives for environmental characteristics are scientifically sound,

consistent with the Council’s science foundation and recommendations in Return to the

River (ISG, 2000), and are applicable basin-wide. These objectives, with some

modification and expansion, are far more appropriate as basin-wide objectives than the

objectives for biological performance, particularly the biological performance objectives

related to anadromous fish. The provisional objectives link protection and restoration of

biodiversity with habitat conditions and emphasize restoration of natural ecosystem

processes, to the extent possible, as a basis for habitat protection and restoration. Below

we review each of the provisional objectives for environmental characteristics.

1. “Protect the areas and ecological functions that are at present relatively productive for

fish and wildlife populations (e.g., the Hanford Reach fall chinook; spring chinook in

the upper John Day River) to provide a base for expansion of healthy populations as

we rehabilitate degraded habitats in other areas.

• Protect and enhance habitats and ecological function to allow for the

restoration of more natural population structures, by allowing for the

expansion of productive populations and by habitat restoration actions that

connect weak populations to stronger populations and to each other. Allow

for the recovery of depleted and listed populations to at least the point of

self-sustainability and a low probability of extinction.

• Protection and expansion of habitats and ecological functions should allow

for an increase in the number, complexity and range of multi-species fish

and wildlife assemblages and communities. Increases in the productivity,

abundance, and life-history diversity of specific fish and wildlife

populations are dependent on, and should not be viewed in isolation from,

these multi-species communities.”

This objective is based upon the metapopulation concept that localized strong populations

(sources) provide colonists for satellite areas with low population abundances. This

concept is consistent with general conservation biology principles and with the

recommendations in Return to the River (ISG, 2000). The objective, however, could be

more explicitly linked to metapopulation theory to clarify its intent, especially concerning

colonization and gene flow patterns. As stated, the objective could be construed as

support for outplanting fish from one or a few selected populations throughout the basin.

One component of core area protection that is not mentioned in this objective is

protection from invasion by non-native species. Certain exotic species (both aquatic and
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

7

terrestrial) can be as damaging to habitat as harmful land and water use activities, and

explicit recognition of their threat is needed.

2. “Protect and restore freshwater habitat for all life history stages of the key species.

Protect and increase ecological connectivity between aquatic areas, riparian zones,

floodplains and uplands.

• Increase the connections between rivers and their floodplains, side

channels and riparian zones.

• Manage riparian areas to protect aquatic conditions and form a transition

to floodplain terrestrial areas and side channels.

• Identify, protect and restore the functions of key alluvial river reaches.

• Reconnect restored tributary habitats to protected or restored mainstem

habitats, especially in the area of productive mainstem populations.”

As statements of general objectives, these objectives are well grounded. One suggestion

is that Objective 2 should also recognize the longitudinal (river continuum) and vertical

(surface flow-hyporheic channels-groundwater) dimensions of connectivity. Because of

their importance as fish habitat, perhaps alluvial areas of rivers should receive high

priority for restoration.

3. “Allow patterns of water flow to move more than at present toward the natural

hydrographic pattern in terms of quantity, quality and fluctuation.

• Habitat restoration may be framed in the context of measured trends in

water quality.

• Allow for seasonal fluctuations in flow. Stabilize daily fluctuations.

• Increase the correspondence between water temperatures and the naturally

occurring regimes of temperatures throughout the basin.

• Significantly reduce watershed erosion where human activities have

accelerated sediment inputs.”

This objective recognizes the importance of the natural hydrologic regime and the

importance of maintaining natural seasonal fluctuations. The first bullet should not be

taken to mean that habitat restoration be framed only in terms of water quality trends,

rather that water quality trends are important indicators of recovery. Daily fluctuations in

flow may be quite normal in some circumstances; the second bullet should be changed to

reflect elimination of deliberate flow regulation that strongly departs from natural

patterns. The bullets should be expanded to include other elements of the disturbance

regimes such as flood events.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

8

4. “Increase energy and nutrient connections within the system to increase productivity

and expand biological communities.”

This objective stresses the importance of natural nutrient pathways to the maintenance of

aquatic and riparian productivity. A bullet explicitly recognizing the importance of

salmon carcasses as nutrient sources for a variety of fish, wildlife, and plants would be

helpful. Another bullet stating the importance of periodic inundation of floodplains for

normal nutrient cycles would be useful.

5. “Allow for biological diversity to increase among and within populations and species

to increase ecological resilience to environmental variability.

• Expand the complexity and range of habitats to allow for greater life

history and between species diversity.

• Manage human activities to minimize artificial selection or limitation of

life history traits.

• Restoring habitat and access to habitat that establishes life history

diversity is a priority.”

This objective provides general support for restoring biocomplexity, but does not go into

very much detail about how this will be accomplished. Many of the points contained in

this objective are restated in other objectives. Again, there is no distinction drawn

between native and exotic species. The second bullet appears to call for minimizing

artificial production. Was this what was intended? The concept of “between species

diversity” needs to be clarified.

6. “Increase genetic connections and gene flow within the ecological system to facilitate

development, expansion and protection of population structures.

• Increase the abundance and range of existing habitats and populations.

• Expand and connect existing habitat pockets to facilitate development of

resilient population structures for aquatic communities.”

Like Objective 5, it is a bit difficult to understand the real intent of Objective 6. As it

reads, Objective 6 seems to call for maximizing genetic diversity, but there is no

distinction between natural genetic diversity and diversity introduced by various aspects

of artificial production, run re-establishment, and introduction of exotic species.

Additionally, the bullets refer to habitat restoration and do not really address genetic

issues. The objective appears to be well intentioned, but it needs to be clarified.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

9

7. “Identify, protect and restore ecosystem functions in the Columbia River estuary and

nearshore ocean discharge plume as affected by actions within the Columbia River

watershed.

• Evaluate flow regulation, river operations and estuary-area habitat changes

to better understand the relationship between estuary and near-shore

plume characteristics and the productivity, abundance and diversity of

salmon and steelhead populations.”

Objective 7 is another scientifically sound objective; however, it is the only one that does

not call directly for improvement but rather for research. As such, it is not a biological

performance objective. At least one bullet should indicate that estuarine interrelationships

that have been altered by human activity should be rectified by some actions.

8. “Enhance the natural expression of biological diversity in salmon and steelhead

populations to accommodate mortality and environmental variability in the ocean.”

Like Objectives 2, 5, and 6, this objective stresses maintaining natural diversity within

salmon species. Unfortunately, it is very general and leaves considerable room for

interpretation. Additional bullets clarifying this objective would be helpful, particularly

because it focuses on marine mortality and because freshwater options for improving

ocean survival are somewhat limited. Within-species diversity could buffer impacts of

environmental change during all phases of the life cycle, not just during the ocean phase.

9. “Accept significant variation in the productivity, capacity and life-history diversity

for any particular population over any particular time period, as part of the normal

environmental condition. A measure of whether key ecological functions have

increased sufficiently will be whether the system can accept normal environmental

variation without collapse of the fish and wildlife population and community

structure.”

Objective 9 appears to deal with the issue of biological resiliency, that is, healthy

populations will contain sufficient life-history diversity to be able to cope with

environmental variation. The distinction between natural variation and variation

stemming from human actions needs to be sharpened. To what extent should we “accept”

variation caused by human activities? It was not clear why this objective was needed,

except as a caveat to those above, because success with the other objectives will virtually

guarantee resiliency in all but the most extreme conditions. If the goal was to rebuild

resilient populations, it might have been better to base this objective on the assumption

that most of the salmonid populations in the Columbia Basin may not be able to endure

environmental extremes and identify the strategies (with bullets) for restoring resiliency.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

10

Summary of Comments on Environmental Objectives

The objectives for environmental characteristics represent a set of ideal conditions that, if

met or even approached, would lead to significant recovery of fish and wildlife in the

basin. The challenge in application of these objectives will be to interpret them in such a

way that the intent of the basin level objectives is reflected appropriately in the objectives

at the province and subbasin levels. Like the scientific principles, the objectives for

environmental performance are general, and specific guidance and interpretation

probably will be needed if the intent of the basin level objectives is to be carried through

to provinces and subbasins. For example, the meaning of terms used in the objectives

such as “protect and enhance” will need clarification as the planning effort moves to the

province and subbasin levels. There may be a need to relate to productivity to population

abundance. At some point, concepts such as life history diversity, genetic diversity,

ecosystem function and process, capacity, and productivity will need to be defined

operationally.

4. At the Columbia River Basin scale, are the environmental attributes sufficient to

achieve the desired biological performances?

There are differences in levels of specificity between the provisional objectives for

environmental characteristics (Appendix D) and the objectives for biological

performance (Basinwide Provisions section). The objectives for environmental

characteristics are written in broad terms that express ideal ecological conditions, while

the objectives for biological performance are species-oriented with specific timeframes

for which they are to be accomplished. As a result, it is difficult to determine if

accomplishment of the broad environmental objectives will lead to accomplishment of

the more specific objectives for biological performance. However, the logic behind these

objectives (particularly the numerical, time-specific objectives pertaining to anadromous

fish losses) is unclear and it is unlikely that these objectives can be accomplished within

the stated timeframes.

5. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale, including biological

performances and environmental characteristics, applicable to all areas of the Columbia

River Basin including areas above barriers to fish migration?

The problems with the biological objectives described above, especially the biological

performance objectives dealing with anadromous fish losses, make application of the

objectives to all areas of the basin problematic. The provisional objectives for

environmental characteristics are more comprehensive, though more general, than the

biological performance objectives, more consistent with the scientific foundation, and

probably more applicable basin-wide.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

11

6. Are ecological provinces useful in subbasin planning?

Ecological provinces could be useful in both the planning process and in monitoring and

evaluation. Provinces are defined by patterns of climate, regional geology, hydrologic

boundaries, and the distribution of native fish and wildlife. Their boundaries are generally

similar to the boundaries of ESUs. This consistency of boundaries could facilitate

coordination between ESA recovery actions and the Council’s program. Most salmon

populations cross the boundaries of several subbasins on their journeys between

freshwater and the sea. Province-level planning and evaluation could help to ensure that

all aspects of the salmon’s life history were addressed effectively. All subbasins within a

province should have both large-scale ecological similarities (e.g., climate, major

ecological features such as forested headwaters, shrub-steppe plateau, etc.) and common

recovery problems that require somewhat similar strategies and actions. Thus, provinces

form an ecological planning unit that could link biological objectives, strategies, and

actions at the basin scale to those at the subbasin scale, thus facilitating transition from

regional planning to more localized planning.

In effect, province plans could unify the plans of their subbasins. To function effectively,

province plans need to be much more than simply the aggregate of subbasin plans. Each

province should have its own level-specific objectives, strategies, and actions that address

province-wide recovery problems and guide the formation of subbasin plans. Subbasin

plans, in turn, should be evaluated in terms of their consistency with province objectives

as well as the basin vision, scientific principles, and objectives. The utility of provincescale planning has been compromised because the logical process of developing province

objectives, strategies, and actions prior to engaging in subbasin planning has not

occurred. Subbasin planning is beginning, yet province objectives, strategies, and

proposed actions have not been developed. It is unclear what parties will be responsible

for province planning and monitoring and evaluation, in part because provinces are

distinguished based on ecological characteristics rather than on geographic or

jurisdictional boundaries.

7. Are the biological objectives at the Columbia River Basin scale, including biological

performances and environmental characteristics, sufficient to guide development of more

specific biological objectives and strategies at the province and subbasin levels?

Development of objectives, strategies, and actions at the subbasin level could be

encumbered by the rather confusing terminology and structure of the planning

framework, the apparent lack of connection between objectives for biological

performance at the basin level and the scientific principles, the differing levels of

specificity between basin level biological objectives and environmental characteristics,

and the lack of clarity and quantitative or qualitative rationale justifying the basin-level

biological performance objectives and timeframes for their accomplishment. As general

guidelines, the strategies (pp. 22-45 in the FWP) could be more helpful to subbasin

planners than the biological objectives because they outline specific approaches to

different issues. As stand-alone recommendations, they appear to be consistent with

current science, although there is insufficient linkage among strategies across each of the
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

12

categories (i.e., artificial production, harvest, habitat, hydropower, wildlife, oceans,

research and monitoring). One notable exception is the table on page 23, that shows how

habitat and artificial production strategies might vary depending on habitat conditions.

More tables are needed showing how other strategies could be linked.

8. Is EDT the proper analytical tool to link strategies and actions, environmental

attributes, and biological performances to determine if the biological objectives are

accomplishable?

EDT is a useful analytical tool but it should not be the only analytical tool used in

assessments. The EDT tool is limited to predicting biological response within the

constraints of the environmental characteristics that define the survival landscape of

select species. It is a species-centered, not an ecosystem-centered, model. It is, however,

landscape-based in the sense that it predicts survival at the scale of 6th-field watersheds,

which can be pieced together to create a landscape mosaic over an entire subbasin. This

characteristic will be helpful in setting restoration priorities within subbasins and

provinces.

One of the chief advantages of EDT is that the rule sets forming the basis for equilibrium

forecasts are explicit and can be altered easily, as more accurate data become available.

As a result, EDT can be calibrated with local data to improve forecasting ability; in fact,

the more local data that are available, the greater is its predictive value.

EDT does not appear to be able to determine whether biological objectives are

accomplishable. The designers of EDT emphasize that it is best used as a tool for

hypothesis generation and for predicting survival improvements from various restoration

actions that can be tested on the ground. The question of whether broad biological

objectives are accomplishable goes beyond potential biological response to political and

cultural issues. The value of EDT, or any other biological response model, would be

limited if the management action being modeled could not be implemented for other

reasons.

EDT has another limitation with respect to long-term biological objectives. It is an

equilibrium model that assumes that once a biological response to a change in an

environmental attribute occurs, the magnitude of the response thereafter remains

constant. This assumption does not reflect ecological reality. Furthermore, recovery goals

often designate specific timeframes within which they are to be achieved. Since EDT

focuses on the equilibrium state and not the time required to reach that state, it is not

useful for assessing whether recovery goals can be met in the specified time. Given the

inevitability of climate change and other long-term environmental trends (including

human development), EDT predictions will have a very high level of uncertainty over

periods of decades or centuries.
ISAB 2001-6 Biological Objectives Review

13

9. At the Columbia River Basin scale, is there sufficient logical and conceptual

consistency between the scientific foundation, the biological objectives, and strategies

and actions to provide a reasonable chance of fulfilling the vision?

The development of scientifically sound, coordinated subbasin plans seems to be at the

heart of the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program. The scientific principles on pages 15-16

provide a good conceptual foundation. Because the subbasin assessment and planning

process is just getting started, it is too early to determine if the principles will be taken

seriously in the planning process, or if the subbasin plans will revert to previous

restoration approaches. The ISAB is concerned about the adequacy of the operational

linkages between vision and principles, basin-scale objectives, and subbasin-scale

objectives, strategies, and actions. The scientific principles are too general to provide

specific guidance for development of objectives, constraints imposed by the principles

are not clearly specified. The objectives for biological performance are unclear, not well

justified, and not especially consistent with the principles.

The Fish and Wildlife Program assumes existing organizations and institutional

relationships will remain in place. If this is the case there must be widespread agency,

tribal, and interest group agreement on the principles, objectives, and strategies for the

plan to have a reasonable chance of fulfilling the vision. How this consensus can be

achieved, if at all, is unknown.

________________________________________

________________________________________

\\nwppcu3\fish\em\ww\isab\1 isab final reports\isab 2001-6 bio obj.doc