Review of the Biological Objectives in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, document ISAB 2001-6

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

July 27, 2001 | document ISAB 2001-6

Executive Summary

Introduction

The 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:

biological performance, describing population responses to habitat conditions, and
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 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 a) adequate to achieve the vision, b) scientifically justified and consistent with the science foundation, c) applicable to all species of concern, d) 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 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, 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.

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 6^th-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 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.

^ top

Use Adobe Reader to
view PDF documents