1

Fish & Wildlife Managers

Program Amendment Recommendations

January 17, 2008

2

F&W Managers Amendment Recommendations

The Fish and Wildlife managers are fulfilling their statutory responsibility as provided in the Northwest Power Act:

• Submitting measures and objectives as guidance for development of the next iteration of the Fish and Wildlife Program

• Recommendations are consistent with existing fish and wildlife plans

• Managers are working collaboratively to submit unified, consensus-based recommendations

3

Fish & Wildlife Manager’s Legacy of Stewardship

The F&W Manager’s amendment recommendations represent a historic legacy of stewardship and implementation of the Northwest Power Act:

• 25 years as the recognized and practiced experts of fish and wildlife management for the Fish and Wildlife Program

• The F&W Manager’s amendment includes interim objectives and long term planning goals that establish a M&E framework to support adaptive management

• CBFWA has worked with the Council, BPA, regional utility customer groups, and F&W resource user groups to ensure recommendations are understood and expected

4

Members Action:

CBFWA Members directed the Technical Committees to evaluate the existing Program by:

• Defining and clarifying terms (i.e. focal populations, objectives,

how to express limiting factors, etcetera)

• Confirming population level biological objectives

• Ensuring that priorities of all plans affecting fish and wildlife are captured in this process

• Validating current limiting factors including out-of-basin affects

• Reviewing and building on strategies and actionsnecessary to reduce the limiting factors

5

F&W Manager’s Amendment Recommendations

Recommendations establish the specificity necessary to guide BPA spending:

• Using best available science of fish and wildlife management

• Expressed within the context of BPA’s obligations

• Achieve the greatest biological benefit at least cost

6

A Balanced Approach

ScientificFoundations& Principles

F&W MANAGERSF&W MANAGERSAMENDMENTAMENDMENT

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Socio-Political

Constraints

7

CBFWA Consultation

Met with various stakeholders regarding F&W Manager’s amendment recommendations to ensure better understanding and expectations:

• Bonneville Power Administration

• Northwest Power & Conservation Council

• Regional Utility Customer Groups

• F&W Resource User Groups

8

Adaptive Management Framework

•Builds on 2000 Fish & Wildlife Program•Harmonizes recovery plans to subbasin plans

• Links population objectives to regional goals via mid-level biological objectives

• Develops strategies and measures to achieve interim objectives and long term goals

• Addresses BPA Obligations

Input OutputAdaptive Management Framework

Plan

Implem

ent

Evaluate

9

Summary

This amendment recommendation will move the Program and the region from discussions regarding adaptive management to building the explicit architecture and processes necessary to implement adaptive management

10

Summary of Draft Amendment Recommendations

11

Section 1.1 - Statutory Basis for Fish & Wildlife Managers Role in Program

Section 1.1.1 – PlanningEstablish basis for F&W Managers

recommendations

Section 1.1.2 – ImplementationEstablish basis for F&W Managers

participation and implementation

Section 1.1.3 – EvaluationEstablish basis for F&W Managers role in

monitoring and evaluation

12

Section 1.2 – Maintain Existing General Program Structure

The F&W Managers support the existing geographic structure of the Program

The F&W Managers support a goal oriented, science-based Program derived from subbasin plans

13

Section 1.3 – Adaptive Management Framework for the Program

• Section 1.3.1 – Historical context for Adaptive Management

• Section 1.3.2 – Descriptions and elements of Adaptive Management:

Planning

Implementation

Evaluation

14

Section 1.3 – Adaptive Management Framework for the Program

Input OutputAdaptive

Management Framework

Plan

Implem

ent

Evaluate

15

Section 1.4 – Maintain an Integrated Program

Incorporate FCRPS BiOps Incorporate Recovery Plans

Fish and Wildlife Program

FCRPSBiologicalOpinion(s)

Recovery Plans

16

Section 1.5 - Scope of the Program is Broader than BPA

Program should describe all actions necessary to protect, mitigate and enhance all fish and wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin

Program should include FERC actions within the Columbia River Basin

The Program should describe a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan for the Columbia River Basin which includes status and trends of fish and wildlife populations, and implementation of mitigation and restoration actions

17

Section 1.6 – Program Should Define BPA Obligations Within the Regional Context

• The Program should identify specific measures to be implemented with BPA funding (5 – 10 year work plan)

• Measures should be scientifically tied to objectives with expected outcomes

• Measures should be set within the context of other known activities occurring within the subbasins

18

Section 2.0 – Adaptive Management Within Basinwide Provisions

Section 2.1 Add adaptive management principles to scientific foundation in

the 2000 Program

Section 2.2 Describe adaptive management planning processes for the

Program

Section 2.3 Describe adaptive management implementation processes for

the Program

Section 2.4 Describe adaptive management evaluation processes for the

Program

Section 2.5 Describe process for changing Program direction over time

19

Linking Strategies to Objectives

Strategies Focal SpeciesLimiting Factors

Modify hydro-operations Habitat quality/quantity Harvest = average 300,000

Improve riparian habitat Habitat quality/quantity 1,700 Chinook salmon

20

Objectives Status

Monitoring

Gap

Limiting Factors

ThreatsStrategies

Measures

Status&

Trends

ActionEffectiveness

Targeted Solicitation

Scientific Framework to Support Adaptive Management

21

F&W Managers support the overarching biological objectives and recommend they remain in the Program

The F&W Managers support the Mainstem Amendment biological objectives and recommend they remain in the Program

Section 2.6 – Overarching Biological Objectives

22

Section 2.7.1 – Anadromous FishAlign recovery plans with province level objectives, build from subbasins

Section 2.7.2 – Resident FishInsufficient information to establish mid-level biological objectives for most resident fish

Section 2.7.3 - WildlifeMid-level biological objectives for wildlife are in the habitat ledger

Section 2.7.4 – Objectives for Hydroelectric ProjectsCalled for the in Act, align with biological opinions and FERC settlement agreements (performance standards)

Section 2.7 – Province Level Biological Objectives

23

Wildlife operational loss assessments

Resident fish loss assessments

These two efforts should be explicitly linked for development and implementation

Section 2.8 - Further Development of Biological Objectives At the Basin Level

24

Section 3.0 - ProgrammaticStrategies & Measures

Section 3.1 - Consider Clean Water Act implications

Section 3.2 - Fund Development of Tools to Incorporate Climate Change and Population Growth

Section 3.3 - Fund Efforts to Minimize the Spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species

25

Section 3.4 – Hydropower Operations

Section 3.4.1•FCRPS Operations (Mainstem Amendment modifications)

Section 3.4.2•Non-Federal Hydroelectric Projects

26

Section 3.5 – Programmatic Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

Section 3.5.1 - M & E Plan

Section 3.5.2 - Data Management Strategy

Section 3.5.3 - Research Plan

27

Coordination Functions and Roles of Agencies and Tribes

Coordination Functions and Roles of Membership Organizations

Funding(?)

Coordination definitions adopted by CBFWA in November 2007

Section 3.6 – Fish & Wildlife Manager Coordination

28

Section 4.1.1•Harvest Management

Section 4.1.2•Artificial Production

Section 4.1.3•Research and monitoring and evaluation

Section 4.1 – Anadromous Fish Programmatic Considerations

29

Section 4.2 - Mainstem Columbia/Snake Rivers Section 4.3 - Columbia River Estuary Province and OceanSection 4.4 - Lower ColumbiaSection 4.5 - Columbia GorgeSection 4.6 - Columbia PlateauSection 4.7 - Columbia CascadeSection 4.8 - Blue MountainSection 4.9 - Mountain SnakeSection 4.10 - IntermountainSection 4.11 - Mountain ColumbiaSection 4.12 - Middle Snake

Salmon & Steelhead Measures by Province

30

Basinwide•Include critical uncertainties document

Subbasins•Measures identified by individual members

Section 4.13 - Lamprey

31

Section 5.1.1•Resident Fish Substitution

Section 5.1.2•Resident Fish Losses

Section 5.0 – Resident Fish Programmatic Considerations

32

Section 5.2 - Mainstem Columbia/Snake Rivers Section 5.3 - Lower Columbia Section 5.4 - Columbia GorgeSection 5.5 - Columbia PlateauSection 5.6 - Columbia CascadeSection 5.7 - IntermountainSection 5.8 - Mountain ColumbiaSection 5.9 - Blue MountainSection 5.10 - Mountain SnakeSection 5.11 - Middle SnakeSection 5.12 - Upper Snake

Resident Fish by Province

33

Section 6.1.1 •Crediting

Section 6.1.2•Long Term Funding Agreements

Section 6.1.3•Ongoing Wildlife Projects

Section 6.1 – Wildlife Construction / Inundation Losses

34

Developing a protocol to assess the wildlife losses due to operations of the FCRPS

Section 6.2 – Wildlife Operational Losses

35

M&E needs adequate to:

Track creditingTrack trends in ecological functions and restoration effectivenessComplement larger scale effortsFocus on status/trend and effectivenessUse reference sites to define habitat objectives

Section 6.3 – Wildlife Research, Monitoring & Evaluation

36

Section 7.1.1 – In lieu funding restrictions

Section 7.1.2 – Carryover funding

Section 7.1.3 – Use of BPA’s borrowing authority

Section 7.1.4 – Relationship between project funding and BPA rate case

Section 7.1 – Implementation Funding

37

Incorporate ESA and non-listed species requirements

Integration of longterm agreements

Project funding duration to match project objectives

Rely upon input from F&W Managers

Identify role of ISRP

Section 7.2 – Project Selection Process

38

Seek consensus on all aspects of recommendations

Identify areas of disagreement and attempt resolution

Remove sections to achieve consensus

All fish and wildlife manager recommendations can follow a similar format to strengthen individual submissions

Summary

39

Members approve scope and direction (consistent with amendment strategy adopted last year)

CBFWA staff and MAG workgroup complete initial Draft and circulate among Members

Agencies and Tribes perform internal reviews and provide feedback and edits

CBFWA staff perform outreach with CBFWA Members and others

Finalize draft and approve prior to April 4

Next Steps