Columbia River Watershed

1
Columbia River Watershed Span-of-Complexity
driving ME
2009
2
Columbia River Basin
268,000 square miles or
668,220 square kilometers
3
Engineers delight, Biologists nightmare

• Flow changes
• Temperature
• Dissolved gas
• Low velocities
• Fish mortality
• Predation
• Birds
• Fish
• Pinnipeds
• Non-natives
• Genetic fitness
• Habitat loss
• Climate change
• Etc

4
Problem I -- Columbia River Ecosystem Decline

• Prior to European settlement of the Northwest,
  Columbia Basin salmon populations were estimated
  to be 10 to 20 million.
• Fish populations began to decline dramatically by
  the early 1930s.
• There are 29 salmon stocks listed under ESA on
  the West Coast, 13 of these in the Columbia River
  Basin.
• 80 of the salmon in the Columbia Basin are
  hatchery fish.
• There is no single cause for decline of salmon,
  steelhead, sturgeon, lamprey and smelt
  populations - habitat loss and degradation,
  toxins, non-native fish introduction, hydropower
  development, temperature effects, over-harvest,
  hatchery genetic effects, and ocean conditions
  have all played a role.
• Also, loss of resident fish and wildlife habitat
  due to inundation.

5
Commercial Landings of Salmon Steelhead from
the Columbia River / 1866-1999
Hydrosystem Development
1935 Fishwheels prohibited
1988 Last sockeye season
1977 Last spring season
1950 Seines, traps, set nets prohibited
1965 Last summer season
Year
6
Chronology of Listings, Biological Opinions
and Other Related Processes
2008 BiOp
Snake River spring/ summer Chinook salmon
Bull Trout
Snake River steelhead
Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon Upper
Willamette River Chinook salmon Lower Columbia
River Chinook salmon Middle Columbia River Upper
Columbia River steelhead Columbia chum salmon
Snake River fall Chinook salmon
Kootenai River White Sturgeon
Lower Columbia River steelhead
Snake River Sockeye salmon
Upper Columbia River steelhead
Cumulative Evaluation
3 Year Implementation Plans
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

NOAABiOp
NOAABiOp
Adaptive BiOp
NOAABiOp
NOAABiOp Remand
Critical Habitat
NOAABiOp All-H Strategy
NOAABiOp UPA
USFWS BiOp
USFWS BiOp
USFWS BiOp
USFWS BiOp
USFWS BiOp
Subbasin Assessments Planning
NOAA Recovery Planning
Mainstem Amendments
2000 Council FW Program
2009 Council FW Program
7
Problem II Many Jurisdictions and Purposes

• 2 Countries
• 7 States in USA and two provinces in Canada
• 13 tribes of Indigenous people in USA
• 106 Counties in USA
• 255 hydropower dams in the U.S. Columbia River
  Basin (31 Federal owned)
• More than half of the PNW electricity generating
  capacity -- 30,896 MW
• Flood Control
• Irrigation
• Navigation freight barging

8
Management complexities

• Treaties with Indian tribes (harvest rights fish
  survival issues)
• Federal dam authorizations for specific purposes
• FERC non-federal dams (operations, mitigation)
• Columbia River Treaty between USA and Canada
  (hydropower, flood control)
• PNW Coordination Agreement (power system
  operations)
• Northwest Power Act (power system reliability,
  fish/wildlife)
• Endangered Species Act (biological opinions)
• Water rights western water law

9
Fish and Wildlife Legal Mandates
The FCRPS has fish and wildlife responsibilities
under the Endangered Species Act and the
Northwest Power Act, in many cases, both
responsibilities can be met in the same set of
actions.
1980 Northwest Power Act
Endangered Species Act - 1995, 2000, 2004 And
2008 Biological Opinions
Listed ANADROMOUS FISH RESIDENT FISH WILDLIFE

• The Administrator
• shall use the Bonneville Power
  Administration Fund to protect, mitigate, and
  enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected
  by development and operation of any hydroelectric
  project of the Columbia River and
• its tributaries.

Each Federal agency shall.insure that any
action authorized funded, or carried
out by such agency is not likely to
jeopardize continued existenceof any
endangered species or threatened species
Non-Listed FISH and WILDLIFE
Treaty and Non-Treaty Tribal Policy BPA will
consult with the Tribal governments prior to
taking actions, making decisions, or implementing
programs that may affect Tribal resources.
10
Problem III Need for Accountability
December 15, 1994 The Pacific Northwest
Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC)
recommended a set of specific amendments to
Section 3 that can be grouped into six
categories (1) consult with the Salmon
Oversight Committee recommended by the Snake
River Salmon Recovery Team (2) modify the role
of the Basin Oversight Group (3) strengthen the
Councils commitment to accountability and
cost-effectiveness (4) delete the implementation
planning process (5) delete the subregional
process and (6) delete a redundant Section 3.2F.
11

• Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending
• Expense (Action Plan/High Priority)

Dollars in millions
67
55.9
49.6
33
32.8
23
22.2
19.6
19.6
18.8
15.9
9.1
4.6
2.3
2.3
78-80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Year
12

• May 20, 1996
• 180-Day review of Fish and Wildlife Governance
• Report to Congress
• (Identified seven ways to improve fish and
  wildlife governance)
• Integrate the three existing fish and wildlife
  recovery plans (federal, tribal and the
  Councils).
• Establish clear responsibility for implementing
  the integrated plan.
• Establish dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Support watershed processes and integrate them
  into basinwide decision-making.
• Establish monitoring and evaluation programs that
  measure results and ensure accountability.
• Ensure credible scientific foundations for
  planning and implementation.
• Secure and allocate a reliable budget

13
October 1997 Fish and wildlife recovery in the
Pacific Northwest Breaking the DeadlockA draft
analysis by the Northwest Power Planning Council
staff This report recognizes that there are
economic benefits to be gained from a long term
plan for fish recovery, including improved
predictability and accountability for fish
measures paid for by the users of the Federal
Columbia River Power System.
14
January 26, 2000 Proposed interim project
renewal process for FY 2001 The Council has
asked for improved project contracting practices
to achieve greater fiscal accountability in
project funding. These practices require
additional budget estimate detail to implement.
The major change in the budget format is to
respond to Council guidance to improve fiscal
accountability and implement Bonnevilles
improved program management practices.
15
June 4, 2004 Subbasin plans will improve the
project selection and review process by providing
a more complete and specific base of information
on the status of fish and wildlife populations in
each tributary subbasin, said Council Chair Judi
Danielson, an Idaho member of the four-state
agency. They also will provide linkages to other
planning processes for improving fish and
wildlife survival. The plans will help us to
better target where we invest the publics
resources and will improve the financial
accountability of the program.
16

• Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending
• Expense (Action Plan/High Priority)

Dollars in millions
145.8
140.6
137.1
MOA Funding 1996-01
108.2
108.2
104.9
101.1
82.2
71.4
68.5
67
55.9
49.6
33
32.8
23
22.2
19.6
19.6
18.8
15.9
9.1
4.6
2.3
2.3
78-80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00 01 02 03 04
Year
17
Response to Problems Collaboration and Science

• Council 2009 Fish Wildlife Program
• BiOp Collaboration and Accords
• Recovery Planning
• Other regional processes

18
Evolution of the Fish Wildlife Program

• In 1982, the Council released the first FW
  Program.
• Earlier Council programs were premised on a three
  pronged framework for fish
• Passage, Production, and Harvest.
• 2000 program vision subbasin plans.
• 2000 program established scientific framework for
  the program
• 2004-05 Subbasin Plans (2 more coming this
  year)
• 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program
  
  focus is implementation and performance.

19
COLUMBIA BASIN 1980 TO
2004
20
Columbia Basin 2004 to
Present
21
ME in the 2009 Fish Wildlife Program - I

• Primary strategies
• Identify priority fish, wildlife, and ecosystem
  elements of the Program that can be monitored in
  a cost-effective manner, evaluate the monitoring
  data and adaptively manage the Program based on
  results
• research and report on key uncertainties
• make information from this Program accessible to
  the public and
• to the extent practicable ensure consistency with
  other processes.

22
ME in the 2009 Fish Wildlife Program - II
Guidelines for collecting and evaluating data
The Council recognizes there is a wide range of
parties involved in research, monitoring, and
evaluation for different and legitimate purposes
as well as a number of efforts to coordinate that
work. It will be critically important to
continue the collaboration and partnerships that
have been developed. The Council will involve a
wide range of parties in the region to establish,
oversee, and periodically adjust guidelines for
monitoring and evaluation efforts coordinated
through the Program
23
ME in the 2009 Fish Wildlife Program - III
This involvement will occur with representatives
from the Council, Bonneville, federal and state
fish and wildlife agencies, Tribes, the Corps,
the Bureau, and others as necessary. The Council
intends to use monitoring and evaluation
primarily to track progress toward meeting
Program goals and to adaptively manage the
implementation of priority tributary and mainstem
habitat, artificial production, fish passage and
research projects.
24
Basinwide M E Cycle

1. As much as possible, use other peoples
   information to compile maps, tables and graphs.
2. Produce annual report.
3. Identify data and coverage gaps.
4. Decide how important it is to fill the gaps.
5. Limit new me, and shift existing resources, to
   high priority gap filling.

25
Focus of this 5-day Workshop
FRESH WATER HABITAT
PREDATORS USFWS NOAA COE
States Tribes

• National Marine Fisheries Service
• Bureau of Land Management
• US Forest Service
• US Fish Wildlife Service
• States
• Tribes
• Counties
• Private Landowners

Eggs
Smolt
HATCHERIES National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish Wildlife Service States Tribes
HYDRO
HARVEST National Marine Fisheries
Service States Tribes
HYDRO Bonneville Power Administration US
Army Corps of Engineers US Bureau of
Reclamation Private Utilities Public Utilities
Adult
OCEAN
26
Next Steps (tentative timeframe)

• Sponsors BPA develop BiOp RPA gap filling
  proposals -- ASAP
• ISRP review of BiOp RPA gap filling proposals and
  changed-scope projects (6 weeks if no response
  needed)
• NPCC recommendations (ASAP after ISRP review is
  complete)
• BPA contracts for fast track RPA Gap-filling
  new and changed scope projects
• Basinwide ME Strategic framework development
  Mainstem, Estuary, Ocean, Habitat, Hatchery,
  Anadromous Fish, Resident Fish, Wildlife, Data
  management, . . . (preliminary draft December
  2009 - January 2010)
• NPCC RME AP Categorical Review of all ME, AP,
  Data management Coordination projects (begin
  February or March)
• ISRP review
• NPCC recommendations
• BPA contracts for new and changed-scope projects

27
Approximate Funding and Number of Projects by
Category