anadromous fish agreements and habitat conservation plans · 1. introduction 2. overview of ferc...

Anadromous Fish Agreements and Anadromous Fish Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans Habitat Conservation Plans

Wells Wells –– 840 MW840 MW

Rock Island Rock Island Rock Island –– 624 MW624 MWRocky ReachRocky ReachRocky Reach Rocky Reach –– 1,280 MW1,280 MW

Outline of HCP Technical Presentation

1.1. IntroductionIntroduction

2.2. Overview of FERC Filed DocumentsOverview of FERC Filed Documents

–– Applications & Supporting DocumentsApplications & Supporting Documents

–– AttachmentsAttachments

3.3. HCP Chapter Reviews HCP Chapter Reviews ––

–– Questions following each ChapterQuestions following each Chapter

4.4. Benefits of the HCPBenefits of the HCP

5.5. Need for Expedited Approval from FERCNeed for Expedited Approval from FERC

Introductions

PresentersPresenters•• Shane Bickford Shane Bickford –– Douglas PUD Douglas PUD •• Steve Hays Steve Hays –– Chelan PUD Chelan PUD •• Ritchie Graves Ritchie Graves –– NOAA FisheriesNOAA Fisheries•• Kris Petersen Kris Petersen –– NOAA FisheriesNOAA Fisheries

Map courtesy of the US Army Corps

Columbia River Basin

Overview of FERC Filed Documents

Applications for Approval of the 3 HCPs

Attachment A – Anadromous Fish Agreementsand Supporting Documents A - D

Aquatic Species and Habitat Assessment (1998)

Biological Assessment and Management Plan (BAMP) Mid-Columbia Hatchery Program (1998)

Briefing Paper: Estimating Survival through Mid-Columbia Projects (2002)

Tributary Plan, Project Selection, Implementation and Evaluation (1998)

Overview of FERC Filed Documents

Attachments B - H to the 3 FERC Applications

Attachment B – NMFS & USFWS Consultation LettersAttachment C – ESA Hydro Permits & RODs

(Hydro Permits: 1391, 1392 & 1393)

Attachment D – Biological Opinions for Hydro PermitsAttachment E – Draft and Final EISAttachment F – Hatchery Permits 1395, 1347 & 1196Attachment G – Applicant Prepared BA/EAAttachment H – Letter of Support from the NWPPC

National Marine Fisheries Service

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Chelan County PUD

Douglas County PUD & Its Power Purchasers

Parties to the Agreements

“Plan Species” Covered by HCPs

• Chinook– Spring– Summer/Fall

• Steelhead

• Sockeye

• Coho (Reintroduced Stock)

• 50 year Agreement starting on the day the Agreement is Approved by FERC

• Staggered Effective Dates (Chelan Projects only)– Coordinating Committees– Dispute Resolution Process– Interim Operations

Section 1. Term of Agreement

Agreement Terminates Automatically if:

• 50-year Term of Agreement Expires• FERC Issues a Non-Power License• FERC Orders Dam Removal or Drawdown of a

Project• PUD Withdraws (Elective Withdrawal)

Section 2. Termination (Chelan Section 1)

Section 2. Termination

Parties Can Elect to Withdraw if:

• Enough Already• Non-Compliance by a Party to the Agreement• Government Action• Impossibility• Revocation of Permit

Section 3. No Net Impact

• Survival Standards– 91% Combined Adult & Juvenile Project Survival (or)

– 93% Juvenile Project Survival (or)

– 95% Juvenile Dam Passage Survival measured (or)

– 95% Juvenile Dam Passage Survival calculated

Section 3. Survival Standards and NNI

YESPhase III

(Standard Achieved)

NOPhase II

(Interim Tools)

YESIs 91% Combined Adult

and Juvenile Survival StandardBeing Achieved?

YESPhase III

(Standard Achieved)

YESPhase III

(Provisional Review)

NOPhase II

(Interim Tools)

NOIs Survival less than 93%but Greater than or Equal

to 91%?

YESIs Juvenile Project

Survival Greater thanor Equal to 93%?

YESPhase III

(AdditionalJuvenile Studies)

NOPhase II

(Interim Tools)

YESIs 95% StandardBeing Achieved?

YESPhase III

(AdditionalJuvenile Studies)

NOPhase II

(Interim Tools)

Is 95% JuvenileDam Passage Survival

Being Achievedvia Calculation?

NOThen CalculateJuvenile Dam

Passage Survival

NOCan Juvenile DamPassage Survival

Be Measured?

NOCan Juvenile Project

Survival Be Measured?

Can the Combined Adult andJuvenile Survival Standard

Be Measured?

Wells HCPSurvival Standard Decision Matrix

Section 4. Passage Survival Plan (Chelan Section 5)

Survival Standard Decision Matrix

• Phase I: (Testing)– 5-year period to implement measures and evaluate

survival standards

• Phase II: (Standards not Achieved)– Up to a 3-year period to implement Interim Tools /

Additional Tools as determined by Coordinating Committee and to reevaluate survival standards

Section 4. Passage Survival Plan


• Phase III - Standard Achieved– 91% Combined Adult and Juvenile Project Survival or

93% Juvenile Project Survival Achieved

• Phase III - Provisional Review– Juvenile Project Survival > 91%, but < 93%– 5-year period to implement additional measures or

conduct additional studies

• Phase III – Additional Juvenile Studies– Juvenile Dam Survival (Measured or Calculated) >95%– 5-year period to implement studies after Coordinating

Committee approves use of new survival methodologies

Survival Study Protocols– Valid Study Conditions

• Flow Duration Curve• Normative Project Operations during study

– Statistical Precision• 95% confidence level with error less than 5%

– Number of Years of Study• 3 years per species


Section 5. Reservoir as Habitat (Chelan Section 6)

• The PUD shall consider cumulative impact effects when making land use or related permit decisions and will notify the Parties

• The PUD will notify all applicants for permits that such use may result in incidental take of listed species and require advance authorization from NMFS or USFWS

• Parties recognize there are potential water quality issues related to cumulative hydropower operations and will work together to address them.

Section 6. Coordinating Committee (Chelan Section 4)

Policy Committee

Coordinating Committee

Hatchery Committee Tributary Committee

• Composition: Representative of each signatory party

• Voting: Decisions require a unanimous vote

• Chair: Parties choose & the PUDs funds a chair• Authority:

– Establishes protocols and procedures– Determines validity of study results– Determines Achievement of Standards– Determines Additional Measures (Phase II Interim /

Additional Tools)• Progress Reports: Annual Report with 2013

Comprehensive Review (and at successive 10-year interval)

Section 6. Coordinating Committee

Section 7. Tributary Conservation Plan

• Tributary Plan Objectives– 2% Off-Site Compensation for Unavoidable Losses– Protect, Enhance, and Restore Plan Species Habitat

• Tributary Funds (About $46 million over 50 years)*– Wells Fund ($9.9 million) - 15 year option– Rocky Reach Fund ($11.5 Million) – 15 year option– Rock Island Fund ($24.3 Million) – 15 year option– Tributary Assessment Program ($200 k per HCP)

• One time payment to evaluate the effectiveness of the first 10-years of funding

*1998 dollars adjusted annually for inflation


• Tributary Committee– Projects will be selected and prioritized based upon

criteria contained within Supporting Documents A & D and

• Power and Conservation Planning Council -Sub-basin Planning

• Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board –Tech. Team

– State Salmon Recovery Board – Tech. Panel– NOAA Fisheries – ESA Tech. Recovery Team

– Non-voting participation on this committee could include agencies, watershed groups, and local cities and counties

• Fund Accounting– PUDs will hold money in trust for Tributary Committee– Full Disclosure/Conflict of Interest– Annual Administration costs shall not exceed $80 k – PUD holds title– Geographically limited and coordinated with other

regional conservation plans– If adult survival > 98% and juvenile survival > 93%, the

fund shall be reduced accordingly for each Permit Species


• HCP Objective– Artificial propagation to compensate for:

• Inundation– levels remain unchanged from

previous agreements• Passage mortality

– level of 7% or measured survival rates

Section 8. Hatchery Compensation Plan


• Propagation Objectives– Rebuilding natural populations, maintaining

genetic and ecological integrity• Abundance• Population Growth Rate• Population Spatial Structure• Diversity

– Support harvest

• Hatchery Committee– Similar format to Coordinating Committee

• Disputes elevate to Coordinating Committee• Implement Artificial Propagation Programs

– Adjust strategies to meet objectives– Research, monitoring, and evaluation



• Propagation Program Commitments– Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

• Annual Reports• May result in implementation modifications • Five year plans

– Periodic Adjustment• Comprehensive 10-year reviews• Production level adjustment• (First in 2013)


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Springchinook

Summerchinook

subyearlings

Summerchinook

yearlings

Steelhead Sockeye

Num

ber o

f fis

h (T

hous

ands

) No HCPInundationPassage


0500

1,0001,500

2,0002,500

3,0003,500

4,000

Springchinook

Summerchinook

subyearlings

Summerchinook

yearlings

Steelhead Sockeye

Num

ber o

f fis

h (T

hous

ands

)

Wells DamRocky Reach Dam Rock Island Dam

• ESA Artificial Propagation Permits– Jointly held by WDFW, Chelan PUD and Douglas

PUD in support of the HCPs*• Permit 1395 (Steelhead)• Permit 1196 (Spring Chinook Salmon) • Permit 1347 (Non-Listed Plan Species)

* Attachment F of the FERC Applications


• Regulatory Approval Without Change– Any Party may withdraw from HCP if agreement is

changed as a result of NMFS or FERC actions• Release

– Release PUDs from all claims relating to Plan Species except for obligation to provide compensation for original construction impacts

• Relicensing– Parties agree to support a new project license

applications during the term of the HCP– HCPs constitute the Parties FPA Terms, Conditions,

and Prescriptions for Plan Species only• Vernita Bar

– HCP does not affect the Vernita Bar Agreement

Section 9. Assurances

• Permit Issuance– NOAA Fisheries has already issued incidental

and direct take permits– As provided in Section 2, the HCP is not limited

by NOAA Fisheries’ “No Surprises Policy”• Withdrawal from the HCP• Revocation of the Permit

– Hatchery Permits at 10-year intervals• Permit Modifications

– altered prescriptions due to adaptive management does not require modifications of the HCP or amendment of the Permits

Section 10. Endangered Species Act

Stages of Dispute Resolution– Stage 1: Coordinating Committee has 20

days to resolve the dispute

– Stage 2: Policy Committee has 30 days to meet and resolve the dispute

– If the dispute is not resolved, after the Policy Committee meeting any Party may pursue any right they otherwise have

Section 11. Dispute Resolution

Section 12. Miscellaneous– Amendment of Agreement– Force Majeure– Indian Tribal Treaty or Reserved Rights– US v Oregon– No Precedent / Compromise of Disputed Claims

Section 13. Definitions

Section 12-13. Other Sections and Appendices

Benefits of the HCP

• Passage Survival Plan Comparison– 1990 Settlement protects 80% of spring and summer

migrations (101 days of spill)– HCP protects 95% of spring and summer migrations

(138 days of spill)

• Wells Settlement Allows up to 14% unavoidable loss at Wells Dam.

• HCP Allows up to 9% unavoidable loss at Wells Dam.• ESA only protects listed steelhead and spring chinook.• HCP protect all anadromous salmon and steelhead that

migrate through the dam.

Benefits of the HCP

Figure 1. Bypass Protection Program at Wells Dam under 1990 Wells Long-Term Fish Settlement Agreement (FEIS, 2002). Protects 80% of

Spring and 80% of summer migrations.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

13-M

ar

27-M

ar

10-A

pr

24-A

pr

8-M

ay

22-M

ay

5-Ju

n

19-J

un

3-Ju

l

17-J

ul

31-J

ul

14-A

ug

28-A

ug

11-S

ep

Date

Ave

rage

Obs

erve

d O

utm

igra

tion

(Wel

ls)

Benefits of the HCP

Figure 2. Bypass Protection Program at Wells Dam under the Proposed Wells HCP (FEIS, 2002). Protects 95% of spring and summer migrations.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

13-M

ar

27-M

ar

10-A

pr

24-A

pr

8-M

ay

22-M

ay

5-Ju

n

19-J

un

3-Ju

l

17-J

ul

31-J

ul

14-A

ug

28-A

ug

11-S

ep

Date

Ave

rage

Obs

erve

d O

utm

igra

tion

(Wel

ls)

Benefits of the HCP

• Wells Settlement does not include fish recently reintroduced: – Methow River coho – Okanogan spring chinook

• ESA only protects steelhead and spring chinook• Wells HCP protects:

– Steelhead – Spring chinook and– Summer/fall chinook– Sockeye– Coho

Benefits of the HCP

• Passage Survival Plan Comparison– Rock Island Agreement limits spill to a cost cap

($3,364,000 in 2003), which at current power costs is equivalent to 8% spill level over 95% of migration.

– HCP spill must meet survival levels, with 2003 spill equivalent to 20% spill level over 95% of migration.

• Rock Island Settlement Allows up to 14% unavoidable loss at Rock Island Dam.

• HCP Allows up to 9% unavoidable loss at Rock Island Dam.

• ESA only protects listed steelhead and spring chinook.

• HCP protects all anadromous salmon and steelhead that migrate through the dam.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1-Apr 16-Apr 1-May 16-May 31-May 15-Jun 30-Jun 15-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 29-Aug

Num

ber o

f Sm

olts

Per

Day

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Perc

ent o

f Flo

w S

pille

d

2003 Smolt Timing

10-Year Average

HCP Spill 2003

RI Agreement Spill

Benefits of the HCP

Spill Protection Program at Rock Island Dam under the Proposed Rock Island HCP (FEIS, 2002). HCP Provides Spill Levels to Meet 93% Juvenile Passage Survival (Eliminates Rock Island Agreement Spill Cost Cap)

Bypass Protection Program at Rocky Reach Dam under the Proposed Rocky Reach HCP (FEIS, 2002). HCP Provides Bypass, With Spill As Necessary, to Meet 93% Juvenile Passage Survival (Replaces Interim Stipulation – 30 Days of 15% Spill in Spring, 34 Days of 10% Spill in Summer, Plus Prototype Bypass Operation)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

15-Mar 5-Apr 26-Apr 17-May 7-Jun 28-Jun 19-Jul 9-Aug 30-Aug

PER

CEN

T FI

SH IN

BYP

ASS

STEELHEAD BYPASS EFFICIENCY

SPRING CHINOOK BYPASS EFFICIENCY

SUMMER CHINOOK BYPASS EFFIC IENCY

SOCKEYE BYPASS EFFICIENCY

FISH BYPASS SPILL (% OF FLOW SPILLED)

RUN TIMING95% OF MIGRATION

2003 HCP FISH SURVIVAL MEASURES

Benefits of the HCPs


• Tributary Conservation Plan Comparison– $46 million in total funds will be important

seed money for conservation and enhancement activities in the tributaries

• Hatchery Compensation Plan Comparison– Improvements in hatchery programs to promote

recovery, the achievement of NNI and to promote harvest would be not be enacted without the HCPs


• Artificial Propagation Programs– Managed dynamically in response to directed

research and monitoring• PUDs fund monitoring in the natural environment• Resource management agencies define the specific

program objectives

– Five year monitoring plans– Ten year comprehensive reviews

Request for Expedited Approval

• Allow full implementation of HCPs in 2004

– Committees and Adaptive Management Process

– Hatchery Improvements and Evaluations

– Funding of Tributary Habitat Enhancement Programs

• Availability of analysis from NOAA Fisheries biological opinions on issuance of Incidental Take Permits

Questions