s 333.9517 N17FWP 2000 v^,^^|...^ _.:'!'^' ■— ;, ^i^^< -^^Jg-'^ftfT-^.- • ''^'^'''iS^ci*^ iiii Northwest Power Planning Council Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Tr?r,^[n^,'-'B''ARy 3 0864 0015 959^ 333.9517 NORTHWE SUMMARY BOOK 2000 DATE DUE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM-EXCUTIVE SUMMARY CD-ROM AT CIRC. DESK MONTANA STATE LIBRARY He I— :. /7 LU A , ,." . SEP 0 4 2001 FRANK U CASSIDY JR. "Larry" CHAIRMAN Washingion Tom KATicr Washrngton Jim hLempton Idaho Judi Danielson Idaho NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL 851 S.VV. SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1348 Fax: 503-820-2370 Phone: 503-222-5161 1-800-452-5161 July 2001 To the citizens of the Columbia River Basin: Internet: www.nucouncil.org ERIC J. BLOCII \1CECHAJRMA.V Orrgon John Brogoitti OrrRon Stan Grace Montana Leo A- Giacomcrto Montana The Northwest Power Planning Council is pleased to provide you with a copy of its 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the largest regional effort in the nation to recover, rebuild and mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife. Consistent with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980, the program is designed to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife, and related spawning grounds and habitat, of the Columbia River Basin affected by hydropower dams. The 2000 Program marks a significant departure from previous versions of the program, which the Council first adopted in 1982. Previous versions of the program consisted primarily of a collection of measures directing specific activities, but lacked an overall vision, goals and objectives. The 2000 Program establishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife — the intended, long-term outcome of the program — along with biological objectives and action strategies consistent with the vision. Ultimately, the program will be implemented through subbasin plans developed locally in the more than 50 tributary subbasins of the Columbia and amended into the program. As with previous versions of the program, the 2000 Program is a work in progress. For example, while the program articulates a broad strategy for hydrosystem passage and operations (Section D.6, Page 25), the program also calls for developing a specific plan for coordinating mainstem dam operations consistent with the vision, goals and objectives in the program. The Council is developing that plan in 2001 . As well, the Council will revisit the basin-level environmental characteristics described in the program Appendix and amend them if necessary, and also will continue to work with interested parties to develop potential goals, objectives and strategies at the level of ecological provinces, and also amend the program with subbasin plans as noted above. The Council will post information about these and related activities on our website, www nv\ council org. Thank you for your interest in the Council's fish and wildlife program. Sincere Steve Crow Executive Director p -.i«h f:\n 2ucuprn^rim«overlenrr doc MONTANA STATE LIBRARY PO BOX 201800 IHEUEM. MTT 59620-1800 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildli Program Northwest Power Planning Council Council document 2000- 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction A. The Northwest Power Plaiininy C\>uiK'il B. A New Program Structure C. The Framework Concept 7 9 9 9 9 IMPL"^"^" N Provisions 45 D. Implementation Durmg a Period ol' Transition II Basinwide Provisions 13 A. Vision for the Columbia River Basin 13 1 . The Overall Vision tor the Fish and Wildlife Program 1 3 2. Specific Planning Assumptions 13 B. Scientific Foundation and Principles 14 1. Purpose of the Scientihc Foundation 14 2. Scientific Principles 14 C. Biological Objectives 1 6 1. Overarching Objectives 16 2. Basin Level Biological Objectives 16 3. Further Deselopment of Biological Objectives at the Basin Le\ el I S 4. Significance of Objectives and Strategies 18 D. Strategies 19 1. Introduction 19 2. Linkage of General Biological Objectives w/ Strategies 19 3. Habitat Strategies 20 4. Artificial Production Strategies 22 5. Harvest 23 6. Hydrosystem Passage and Operations 25 7. Wildlife 30 8. Ocean Conditions 31 9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 32 Ecological Provinces 35 A. Geographical Structure 35 B. Prov ince Visions, Objectives, and Strategies 35 C. Ocean 35 SUBBASINS 39 A. Subbasin Plans 1. Required Flements of Subbasin Plans 2. General Principles for Subbasin Plans 3. Subbasin Assessment 4. Inventory of Existing Activities 5. Management Plan 6. Developing Plans at the Subbasin Level 7. Scientific Review of Subbasin Plans 39 39 39 39 40 41 41 43 A. Project lni|ilcnientation. Project Selection, and Management 45 1. Deadlines for Reports 45 2. Project Selection Basic Requirements and Roles 45 3. Project Selection — Province-based Project Review Process46 4. Project Funding Priorities 47 5. Coordination with Other Regional Programs 47 6. Project Management 48 7. Annual Report to Governors and the Region 48 8. Funding Agreement for Land and Water Acquisitions 48 B. Independent Scientific Review 49 1. The Independent Scientific Review Panel 50 2. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board 50 3. Administration of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, the Seientilic Peer Review Groups, and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board 5 1 preservation of trust and Treaty Rights and Water Rights 53 A. Recognition of Tribal Role 53 B. Water Rights 53 C. Role of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 53 Schedule FOR Further RuuEMAKiNGS 55 A. Mainstem Coordination Plan 55 B. Objectives for Basin Level Environmental Characteristics 55 C. Province Level Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 55 D. Subbasin Plans 55 Transition Provisions 57 Appendix 59 A. Glossary A-1 B. Hydroelectric Development Conditions B-1 C. Wildlife Provisions C-1 D. Provisional Statement of Biological Objectives for linvironmenlal Characteristics at the Basin Level l)-l E. Findings on the Rccoiiniiendations Submitted to the Council in 2000 for Amendments to the Fish and Wikllifc Program (available under seperate cover) T 61 Available one l)-R()M 3ASIN Fish and Wildlife Program Executive Summa Historically, salmon and stccllicad migrated through much of the Columbia River Basin, an area the size of France, that includes portions of seven states and British Columbia. These fish once spawned as far uprixer in the Columbia as the headwaters at Columbia Lake, Brit- ish Columbia, 1,200 miles from the mouth of the river near Astoria, Oregon. Salmon and steelhead migrated up the Snake River, the Columbia's largest tributai"y, as far as Shoshone Falls, 615 miles from the confluence and more than 900 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The Columbia River Basin also supported numerous populations of resident fish — those that don't migrate to the ocean — and wildlife. Beginning in the late 1800s and increasing from the 1930s on, there was a large decline of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River and its tributaries, from an estimated peak of 10-16 million adult fish returning to the basin each year to about 1 nnl- lion in recent years. While loss of habitat, harvest, and variable ocean conditions have all contributed to this decline, it is estimated that the por- tion of the decline attributable to the construction and operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin is, on average, about 5 million to about I 1 million adult fish. Hydroelectric dams also adversely affected resident fish and wildlife in the basin. In 1980, Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, which authorized the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to create the Northwest Power Planning Council. The Act directs the Council to prepare a program to protect, miti- gate and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin that have been affected by the constiiiction and operation of hydroelectric dams while also assuring the Pacific North- west an adequate, efficient, economi- cal and reliable power supply. The Act also directs the Council to inform the public about fish, wildlife and energy issues and to involve the public in its decision-making. The Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program is the largest regional effort in the nation to recover, rebuild, and mit- igate impacts on fish and wildlife. The Council adopted the first pro- gram in November 1982. The 2000 program marks a sig- nificant departure from past versions, which consisted primarily of a col- lection of measures directing specific activities. The 2000 Program estab- lishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife — the intended outcome of the program — along with bio- logical objectives and action strat- egies that are consistent with the vision. Ultimately, the program will be implemented through subbasin plans developed locally in the more than 50 tributaiy subbasins of the Columbia and amended into the pro- gram by the Council. Those plans will be consistent with the basinwide vision and objectives in the program. THE Four Hs and their impact on Fish and Wildlife HYDROPOWER The program recommends that resources and energy be directed away from breacliing the four federal dams on the lower Snake River, recog- nizing that the federal government has decided breaching will not occur in the next five years (coincidentally. that is the Council's statutory planning horizon for the fish and wildlife pro- gram ). Instead, the program recommends actions to improve dam-passage survival that are biologi- cally sound and economically feasible — actions that benefit the range of species in the river and fit natural hsh behavior patterns. Hatcheries The program requires that hsh hatcheries funded through the program operate consistent with refonns recommended to Congress by the ( 'ouii- cil in l')99, refonns that would shift hatchery production away from a primary focus on pro- viding fish for harvest to also providing lish to rebuild naturally spawning populations. HABITAT The program directs significant attention to rebuilding healthy, naturally producing fish and wildlife populations by protecting and restoring habitats and the biological systems within them. The program also recognizes the ocean as habitat and includes strategies to increase our understand- ing of its variable nature and, to the extent feasi- ble, separate the etTects of the ocean environment from those of the freshwater en\ ironment. HARVEST The program promotes increased fish harvest, consistent with .sound biological management practices, recognizing that harvest provides sig- nificant cultural and economic benefits to the reuion. 2000 Columbia river basin Fish and Wildlife p and its underlying foundation of eco- logical science. The 2000 program addresses all of the "Four Hs" of impacts on fish and w ildlife — hydropower, habitat, hatcheries and harvest. In preparing the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Prcigram. the Council solic- ited recommendations from the region's fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, and others, as required by the Northwest Power .'\ct. The agencies and tribes responded, and the Council also received proposals from other interested parties. In ail, the Council received more than 50 recommendations totaling more than 2,000 pages. After reviewing the rec- ommendations, the Council prepared a draft and then conducted an exten- sive public ciMiiment period before finalizing the program in December 2000. The Council's responsibility is to mitigate the impact of hydropower dams on all fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, including endangered species, through a pro- gram of enhancement and protection. As a planning agency required by law to balance fish and wildlife enhancement against impacts to the region's hydropower system, the Council is uniquely positioned as an honest broker among the agencies, tribes, electric utilities and environ- "Through its fish and wildlife program, the Council provides guidance and recommendations on hundreds of millions of dollars per year of Bonneville Power Administration revenues to mitigate the impact of hydropower on fish and wildlife." mental and business interests whose activities and legal rights involve the rivers, hydropower, fish and wildlife. In this role, the Council provides the most objective public forum to dis- cuss and debate fish and wildlife and energy issues. Through its fish and wildlife pro- gram, the Council provides guidance and recommendations on hundreds of millions of dollars per year of Bonn- eville Power Administration revenues to mitigate the impact of hydropower on fish and wildlife. That amounl is expected to increase in the future as enhancement efforts expand and accelerate. The funding is provided by Bonneville from the sale of elec- tricity generated at 29 federal hydro- power dams and one non-federal nuclear power plant in the Columbia River Basin. The Council ensures the public accountability of these expenditures by submitting each project proposed for funding under its program to a thorough review by the region's fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes, the public, and by an 1 1 -mem- ber panel of independent scientists, the Independent Scientific Review Panel. Established by Congress, panel members are appointed by the Council from recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. This program, and more infor- mation about the Council, its fish, wildlife and power planning activi- ties, and public imohement opportu- nities, can be found at the Council's website, vvww.nwcouncil.ora. y^ S ^s^'i^,.- i ■:! ■■ o <£Lr£L^S=£bi'^ciii f«.:x-Tr:V'*-^r''— T^; -wv* .--- 2000 C BASIN Fish and Wildlife Program Introduction A. The Northwest Power Planning Council The Noilliwcst Power Planning Council, an interstate compact agency of Idaiio, Montana, Oregon and Washington, was cstabHshed under the authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980. The Act directs the Council to develop a program to "protect, mitigate and enhance lish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat, on the Columbia River and its tribu- taries ... affected by tiie development, operation and management of [hydro- electric projects] while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, effi- cient, economical and reliable power supply." The Act also directs the Council to ensLire widespread public involvement in the formulation of regional power policies. This document is the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. As a planning, policy-making and review ing body, the Council develops and then moni- tors implementation of the program, which is implemented by the Bonn- eville Power Administration, the U.S. Amiy Coips of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fed- eral Energy Regulatory Commission and its licensees. The Northwest Power Act directs the Council to develop its program and make periodic major revisions by first requcstmg reconuuendations from the region's federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, appro- priate Indian tribes (those within the basin) and other interested par- ties. When the Council issues a draft amended program, an extensive public comment period is initiated that includes public hearings in each of the four slates and consultations with interested parties. After closing the coiument period, and following "In the future, the Council will amend into the program locally deveiupc..^ plans for the more than 50 tributary subbasins of the Columbia River and a plan for the mainstem." a review and deliberation period, the Council adopts the revised program. This must occur within a year of the deadline for receiving recommenda- tions for amendments. B. A NEW PROGRAM STRUCTURE This is the fifth revision of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program since the Council adopted its first program in Novem- ber 1982. This time, as in the series of program amendments between 1991 and 1995, the program is being revised in phases. Unlike past ver- sions of the program, which were criticized by scientists for consisting primarily of a number of measures that called for specific actions with- out a clear, programwide foundation of scientific principles, this version of the program expresses goals and objectives for the entire basin based on a scientific foundation of ecolog- ical principles. In the future, the Council will amend into the program locally developed plans for the more than ."^O tributai7 subbasins of the Columbia River and a plan for the mainstem. These plans will be con- sistent with the goals and objectives for the basin and also with goals and objectives that will be developed for the 1 1 ecological provinces of the basin. The provinces are groups of adjacent subbasins with similar eco- logical features. With the subbasin plans in place, the program will be organized in three levels: I ) a basinwide level that articulates objectives, principles and coordination elements that apply gen- erally to all fish and wildlife projects, or to a class of projects, that are implemented throughout the basin; 2) an ecological province level that addresses the 1 1 unique ecological areas of the Columbia River Basin, each representing a particular type of terrain and corresponding biologi- cal community; and 3) a level that addresses the more than 50 subba- sins, each containing a specific water- way and the surrounding uplands. The Council believes this unique program structure, goal-oriented and science-based, will result in a more carefully focused, scientifically credi- ble and publicly accountable program that will direct the region's substan- tial fish and wildlife investment to the places and species where it will do i the most good. C. The FRAMEWORK CONCEPT The program's goals, objectives, scientific foundation and actions are structured in a "framework," an organizational concept for fish and wildlife mitigation and recovei^ efforts that the Council introduced in the 1994-1995 version of the program. The 2000 program, orga- nized with the framework concept, is intended to bring together, as closely as possible. Endangered Species Act requirements, the broader require- ments of the Northwest Power Act and the policies of the states and Indian tribes of the Columbia River Basin into a comprehensive program that has a solid scientific foundation. The program also states explicitly what the Council is trying to accom- plish, links the program to a specific set of objectives, describes the strate- gies to be employed and establishes a scientific basis for the program. 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wn Thus, the program guides decision- making and provides a reference point for evaluating success. To develop a frameworiv for the program, in November 1 998 the Council initiated the Multi-Species Framework Project. The Framework Project was managed by a state-fed- eral-tribal committee and adminis- tered by the Council. The project brought together hundreds of indi- viduals representing state and federal agencies. Indian tribes, environmen- tal and industry' groups, and inter- ested citizens to propose and discuss potential fish and w ildlife recovery actions. The actions ranged from breaching dams to leaving them in place, and from shutting down fish hatcheries and fish harvest to boost- ing artificial production offish. From more than 100 actions pro- posed in the process, the Council assembled seven alternatives for anal- ysis using a state-of-the-art analytical system called Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT). The EDT analysis addressed the biological benefits of each alternative, and a separate Human Effects Analysis addressed the economic and social impacts and benefits of the alterna- tives. The Council did not choose a specific alternative for this version of the program. Rather, the goals and objectives in this program were derived from the recommen- dations received from the j}-,.:cr>-, region for amendments ^'S^-^\^-~ to this program and from among several of the Framework Project alternatives. Through an amendment proceeding that began in .lanuary 2()()(). the Council restruc- tured the program with a comprehen- sive, underlying framework of gen- eral scientific and policy principles that apply to the entire Columbia Ri\er Basin. The fundamental ele- ments of the program are: The vision, which describes what the program is trying to accomplish with regard to fish and wildlife and other desired benefits from the river; The biological objectives, which describe the ecological conditions needed to achieve the vision; and The implementation strategies, procedures and guidelines, which guide or describe the actions leading to the desired ecological conditions. In other words, the vision implies biological objectives that set the strat- egies. In turn, strategies address biological objectives and fulfill the vision. The scientific foundation links the components of the frame- work, explaining why the Council believes certain kinds of management actions will result in particular physi- cal habitat or ecological conditions of the basin, or why the ecological con- ditions will affect fish and wildlife populations or communities. Under the Northw est Power Act, the Council's fish and wildlife pro- gram is not intended to address all lish and wildlife problems in the basin from all sources. But the Council adopted the vision, objec- tives, strategies and scientific foun- dation with the belief that they will complement and help support other fish and wildlife recovery actions in the region. This program recognizes that others besides the Council are devel- oping plans and taking actions to address these issues. In particular, the four Northwest states and the Columbia Basin's 13 Indian tribes each have fish and wildlife initiatives under way. Many of these parties already have subbasin and watershed planning initiatives under way, and are also addressing Endangered Spe- cies Act concerns. Throughout the basin, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice are administering the Endan- gered Species Act, which requires infomiation gathering, planning, and mitigation actions. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the states and tribes, is taking actions to achieve com- pliance with the Clean Water Act. (As used elsewhere in this program, "applicable federal laws" includes both the Endangered Species Act and theClean Water Act.) This framework is not intended to pre-empt the legal authorities of any of these parties, but it does pro- vide an opportunity for each of these regional participants to coordinate information gathering, planning, and implementation of lecoverv' actions on a \oluntary basis. That is, the Council's program is designed to link to, and accommodate, the needs of other programs in the basin that affect fish and wildlife. lO BIA RrVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM This includes meeting the needs of the Endangered Species Act by describing the kinds of ecological change needed to impnnc the sur- vival and productivity of the diverse fish and w ildlife populations in the basin. Measures implementing this pro- gram are funded by the Bonne\ ille Power Administration through reve- nues collected from electricity rate- payers. ,'Mthough Bonneville has fish and wildlife responsibilities under both the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act. in many cases, both responsibilities can be met in the same set of actions. Therefore, in recommending projects for funding under this program. the Council will address both sets of responsibilities wherever feasible. .'\gain. knowledge of the plans and activities of other regional partici- pants will be essential for the Council to be able to assure that the projects it recommends for funding are coordi- nated with, and do not duplicate, the actions of others. D. Implementation During a period of transition In the future, the program will be implemented primarily through subbasin plans, which will be con- sistent with the programw ide goals, objectives and scientific foundation. While those plans are under develop- ment, the Council has provided for ongoing project review and funding. A subbasin assessment and plan- ning process will complete the pro- gram at the subbasin level and pro- vide the implementation plans out of which fish and wildlife projects are proposed for Bonne\ ille funding to implement the program. The subbasin assessment is a technical exercise designed to iden- tify the biological potential of each subbasin and the opportunities for restoration. Based on this, fish and wildlife managers, land managers, private landowners, and other people responsible for fish and wildlife and "Th habitat conditions in the respective subbasins can develop subbasin plans consisting of goals, objectives, strate- gies, and proposed actions that are consistent with the objectives and cri- teria in the program. Depending on the extent and qual- ity of past assessment and planning work, the planning process in a par- ticular subbasin could range from a relatively quick and straightforward review and updating of existing plans to a fundamental and extensive devel- opment process. Using the program amendment procedures in the North- west Power Act, the Council intends to review subbasin plans and adopt agreed-upon plans into the program. Meanwhile, the Council will con- tinue to make annual recommen- dations to Bonneville regarding fund- ing of projects to implement the program. The Council relies on the recommendations of the Indepen- dent Scientific Review Panel and the region's fish and wildlife managers as the basis for its funding recommen- dations. The Council and the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel also have a responsibility for reviewing other fish and wildlife projects pro- posed for funding by federal agencies and reimbursed by Bonneville. The program describes a rolling project review process in which one- third of the program and fish and wildlife projects funded by Bonn- eville are reviewed each year in some depth by the fish and wildlife managers, the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Council. An impoilant criterion tor a funding rec- ommendation is consistency with the vision, objectives and strategies in the revised program and in the rele- vant subbasin plan, when atloptcd. In the rolling project review, the priori- ties for actions at the basin, province, and subbasin level will be reflected as budget priorities for implementation of specific projects. The program includes proce- dures for monitoring and evaluating biological benefits gained by actions taken under the program. The evalu- ation process feeds information back into the program planning and proj- ect review process, with adaptive management mechanisms for revis- ing program objectives or actions if what has been adopted proves unsuc- cessful. Because this program has a signif- icantly different structure and imple- mentation procedure than past ver- sions of the program, the Council wanted to make a provision for proj- ects initially funded under previous versions of the program to continue — as long as they are reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel and recommended for funding by the Council. Thus, unless expressly modified by the provisions of this program, existing projects will continue to be in effect. Most of the existing projects in the program are specific items for implementation at specific locations. As part of the subbasin planning pro- cess described above, these measures will be reviewed, together with pro- posals for new measures, for inclu- sion in subbasin plans. When a sub- basin plan is adopted, it will include both the new measures for that sub- basin and the existing measures that will be continuing. At that time, the measures currently in the program for that subbasin will be replaced by the subbasin plan. 2000 Columbia river basin Fish 1 1 '2 2000 c i, RIVER Basin fish and Wildlife Program Basinwide Provisi A. Vision for the Columbia River Basin The vision is the oulcomc intended for this program. Actions taken at the basin, province, and subbasin levels should be consis- tent with, and designed to tulfili. this vision. Thus, this vision guides the choice of biological objectives and, in turn, the selection of strategies. 1. The Overall Vision for the Fish and Wildlife Program The vision for this program is a Columbia River ecosystem that sus- tains an abundant, productive, and diverse community offish and wild- life, mitigating across the basin for the adverse effects to fish and wildlife caused by the development and oper- ation of the hydrosystem and pro- viding the benefits from fish and wildlife valued by the people of the region. This ecosystem provides abundant opportunities for tribal trust and treaty right harvest and for non- tribal harvest and the conditions that allow for the recoveiy of the fish and w ildlife affected by the operation of the hydrosystem and listed under the Endangered Species Act. Wherever feasible, this program will be accomplished by protecting and restoring the natural ecological functions, habitats, and biological diversity of the Columbia River Basin. In those places where this is not fea- sible, other methods that are com- patible witii naturally reproducing fish and wildlife populations will be used. Where impacts have irrevocably changed the ecosystem, the program will protect and enhance the habitat and species assemblages compatible with the altered ecosystem. Actions taken under this program must be cost- effective and consistent with an ade- quate, efficient, economical and reli- able electrical power supply. "...this program will be accomplished by protecting and restoring the natural ecological functions, habitats, and biological diversity of the Columbia River Basin." 2, Specific Planning Assump- tions As part of this vision, the Council also adopts the following policy judgments and planning assumptions for the fish and wildlife program. • No single activity is sufficient to recover and rebuild fish and wild- life species in the Columbia River Basin. Successfiil protection, mitigation, and recovery efforts must involve a broad range of strategies for habitat protection and improvement, hydrosystem refiirm, artificial production, and harvest management. • The Bonneville Power Admin- istration should make available sufficient funds to implement measures in the program in a timely fashion. • This is a habitat-based program, rebuilding healthy, naturally pro- ducing fish and wildlife pop- ulations by protecting, mitigat- ing, and restoring habitats and the biological systems within them, including anadromous fish migration corridors. Artificial production and other non-natural interventions should be consis- tent with the central effort to pro- tect and restore habitat and avoid adverse impacts to native fish and wildlife species. Management actions must be taken in an adaptive, experi- mental manner because ecosys- tems are inherently variable and highly complex. This includes using experimental designs and techniques as part of manage- ment actions, and integrating monitoring and research with those management actions to evaluate their eflects on the eco- system. Actions to improve juvenile and adult fish passage through mainstem dams, including fish transportation actions and capital improvement measures, should protect biological diversity by benefiting the range of species, stocks and life-history types in the river, and should favor solu- tions that best fit natural behav- ior patterns and river processes, while maximizing fish survival through the projects. Survival in the natural river should be the baseline against which to mea- sure the effectiveness of other passage methods. For the purpose of planning for this fish and wildlife pro- gram, and particularly the hydro- system portion of the program, the Council assumes that, in the near term, the breaching of the four federal dams on the lower Snake River will not occur. However, the Council is obliged under law to revise its fish and wildlife program every five years, at a minimum. If, within that five-year period, the status of the lower Snake River dams or any other major component of the Federal Columbia River Power System has changed, the Council can take that into account as part of the review process. Mainstem hydrosystem opera- tions and fish passage efforts 2000 COLU 13 should be directed at re-estab- lishing natural ri\ cr processes where feasible and consistent with the Council's responsibility for maintaining an adequate, effi- cient, economical, and reliable power supply. ' The efifect of ocean habitat on salmonid species should be considered in e\aluating freshwa- ter habitat management to under- stand ail stages of the salmon and steelhead life cycle. ' Systeniw ide water management, includuig Mow augmentation from storage reservoirs, should balance the needs of anadromous species with those of resident fish species in upstream storage reservoirs so that actions taken to advance one species do not unnecessarily come at the expense of other species. There is an obligation to provide fish and wildlife mitiga- tion where habitat has been per- manently lost due to hydroelec- tric development. Artificial pro- duction of fish may be used to replace capacity, bolster pro- ductivity, and alleviate harvest pressure on weak, naturally spawning resident and anadro- mous fish populations. Resto- ration of anadromous fish into areas blocked by dams should be actively pursued where feasible. Artificial production actions must have an experimental, adaptive management design. This design will allow the region to evaluate benefits, address scientific uncer- tainties, and improve hatchery survival while minimizing the impact on, and if possible ben- efiting, fish that spawn naturally. Harvest can provide significant cultural and economic benefits to the region, and the program .should seek to increase harvest opportunities consistent with sound biological management practices. Harvest rates should be based on population-specific adult escapement objectives designed to protect and recover naturally spawning populations. • Achieving the vision requires that habitat, artificial production, harvest, and hydrosystem actions are thoughtfully coordinated with one another. There also must be coordination among actions taken at the subbasin, province, and basin levels, including actions not funded under this program. Accordingly, creating an appropriate structure for plan- ning and coordination is a vital part of this program. B. Scientific Foundation and Principles The scientific foundation reflects the best available scientific knowledge. The scientific principles summarize this knowledge at a broad level. The actions taken at the basin, province, and subbasin levels to fulfill the vision should be consi.stent with, and based upon, these principles. 1. Purpose of the Scientific Foundation In developing a program to fulfill the vision statement above, the Coun- cil is relying on the best available sci- entific knowledge. While the vision is a policy choice about what the program should accomplish, the sci- entific foundation describes our best understanding of the biological real- ities that will govern how this is accomplished. The program can suc- ceed only as it recognizes these reali- ties and builds upon them. Thus, the scientific foundation is the basis for the working hypotheses that underlie this program. It also provides specific guidance for pro- gram measures. For example, the strategies for the use of artificial pro- duction are an application of the scientific foundation to the use of hatcheries for raising fish within the Columbia River Basin. The scientific foundation consists of the scientific principles, a detailed discussion of those principles, the geographic structure of the program, and a set of more specific scientific rules and hypotheses. Only the sci- entific principles and the geographic structure appear in this volume of the program; the remainder of the foun- dation is in the Technical Appendix for this program. The rules and hypotheses in the Technical Appendix will change over time in response to new scientific information. These rtiles and hypoth- eses will continue to be evaluated as the program is implemented and will be revised as needed. In contrast, the scientific princi- ples below are intended to be rel- atively fixed points of reference. Although scientific knowledge will improve over time, modification of the principles should occur only after due scientific deliberation. The Council charges the Independent Sci- entific Advisory Board with the pri- maiy role in reviewing and recom- mending modifications to the scien- tific principles in the future prior to any major revision of this program. 2. Scientific Principles As part of the scientific founda- tion, the program recognizes eight principles of general application. It is intended that all actions taken to implement this program be consistent with these principles. The scientific principles are grounded in established scientific lit- erature to provide a stable foundation for the Council's program. A more detailed discussion of the implica- tions of these principles, together with citations to the supporting refer- ences, is included in the Technical Appendix. 14 iMBiA RIVER Basin Fish and Wildlife program Scientific Principles Principle 1. The abundance, productivity and diversity of"orpment of Bioh>^ical Objectives at the Basin Level Biological objectives, comprising both bit)logical performance and cn\ ironmental characteristic standards, will be established at the province level and subbasin level (in subbasin plans) in subsequent pro- gram amendments. However, the efforts at assessment and planning that will precede the fomial adoption of province and subbasin level bio- logical objectives may further infonn the basin level objectives adopted here. This is possible in two primaiy ways. First, assessment and planning at these levels should test the validity of the general basin level biological objectives, as previously described. Second, assessment and planning at these levels may identify more spe- cific, quantified biological objectives for the program as a whole. Exam- ples might include abundance and perfomiance objectives for fish pop- ulations that transcend more than one province, specific programwide objectives for improvement in certain habitat types, and specific objectives for water management and coordi- nated operation of the hydrosystem to benefit fish and wildlife. More specific basinwide objec- tives could help determine the amount of change needed across the basin to fulfill the vision. They will also help detemiine the cost-effec- tiveness of program strategies and provide a basis for monitoring, eval- uation, and accountability. These more specific objectives will be con- sidered as guidance for subbasin planning, and for adoption when the Council considers adoption of prov- - -^ ince level biological objectives and subbasin plans. 4. Sij»niticance of Objectives and Strategies These objectives and the strate- gies that follow are to be used as guidance for developing province and subbasin plans, as the basis for development of more specific objec- tives, and as a basis for Council recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration regarding proj- ect funding. Proposed measures will be evaluated for consistency with these objectives and strategies. A pri- mary function of the monitoring and evaluation components of this pro- gram is to measure progress toward achieving these objectives. All province and subbasin plans must be consistent with these objectives. jx- 18 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program D. Strategies Strategics are plans df action to accomplish tlie biological objectives. In developing strategies, the program lakes into acct)iint not only the desired outcomes, but also the physical and biological realities expressed in the scientific foundation. 1. Introduction This program anticipates that detailed plans, consistent with the bio- logical objectives, will be developed locally for each of the more than 50 subbasins in the Columbia River Basin. Because most of the specific actions will be addressed at the prov- ince and subbasin le\els, most of the strategies will be developed there. At the subbasin level, "strategies'" will include the particular measures to be implemented within a given subbasin. Thus, at the basin level, most of the strategies are guidelines for imple- mentation at other levels of the pro- gram. However, these strategies also include specific measures for subjects that transcend one or more of the provinces, such as data management, research, monitoring and evaluations. the In general, the puijiose of the strategies at the basin level is to allow maxiinum local flexibility while assuring that subbasin plans follow the best available scientific knowledge, are consistent with one another, and together, fonn a well- integrated, well-organized, and com- prehensive fish and wildlife program. These strategies are presumed to be applicable to all subbasin plans and projects proposed for fiinding. This presumption may be overcome by showing, to the satisfaction of the Council, compelling reasons why the particular action proposed will be a greater benefit to fish and wildlife than one that is in accordance with these strategies. In addition, in the case of subbasin plans, when a plan pro- posed for adoption is not consistent with these strategies, the proponent may also propose that these strategies be amended so that the plan will be in compliance. Again, such amendments will require a showing of compelling reasons why the amendment will result in greater benefit to fish and wildlife. 2. Linkage of General Biological Objectives with Strategies Because this is a habitat-based pro- gram, implementation strategies will vaiy depending on the cunent condition and the restoration potential of the habi- tat' for the species and life stages of interest. For example, with regard to fish spawning and rearing in either the inainstem or tributaries, the first consid- eration in any particular area is the cur- rent condition of the habitat for spawn- ing and rearing and the potential for pro- tection or restoration of that habitat for natural production. If the potential for restoring the natural production of the habitat is low, or the biological potential' ' As used in this section, "habitat" includes the ecological functions of the habitat and the habitat structure. -Tiie "biological potential" of a species means the potential capacity, productiv- ity, and life history diversity of a popula- tion in its habitat at each life stase. Criteria Examples of Strategies Habitat ^ Biological Condition Description Potential of Target Species ....,„, , Possible Artificial Habitat Strategy Production Strategy Intact Ecological functions and habitat structure largely intact High Preserve No artificial production Low Preserve Limited supplementation Restorable Potentially restorable to intact status through conventional techniques and approaches High Restore to intact Interim supplementation Low Restore to intact Limited supplementation Compromised Ecological function or habitat structure substantially diminished High Moderate restore Limited supplementation Low Moderate restore Supplementation Eliminated Habitat fundamentally altered or blocked without feasible option High Substitute Replacement hatchery Low Substitute Replacement hatchery 2000 Columbia river b H AND Wildlife 19 of the target population' is low because of sunival problems elsewhere in its life cycle, the area may become a candiciate for certain types of artiticia! protluction. The table on the previous page illustrates possible applications of this approach to strategies within this program. Intact habitat: Where the habitat for a target population is largely intact, then the biological objectives for that habitat will be to preserve the habitat and restore the population of the target species up to the sustain- able capacity of the habitat. When the biological potential of a target population is high, biological risk should be avoided and restoration should be by means of natural spawn- ing and rearing. When the biological potential of the target population is Hmited by external factors, such as the presence of mainstem dams or other factors, supplementation is a possible policy choice to augment natural capacity and productivity, in a limited fashion that ensures that the majority of production will be the result of natural spawning. Restorable habitat: Where the habitat for a target population is absent or severely diminished, but can be restored through conventional techniques and approaches, then the biological objective for that habitat will be to restore the habitat with the degree of restoration depending on the biological potential of the target population. Where the target popula- tion has high biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat to intact condition, and restore the population up to the sustainable capacity of the habitat. In this sit- uation, if the target population had been severely reduced or eliminated as a result of the habitat deteriora- tion, the use of artificial production 'Target species" or "target population" means a species or population singled out for attention because of its harvest sig- nificance or cultural value, or because it represents a significant group of ecologi- cal functions in a particular habitat type. "This progrann relies heavily on protection of, and improvements to, inland habitat as the most effective means of restoring and sustaining fish and wildlife populations." in an interim way is a possible policy choice to hasten rebuilding of natu- rally spawning populations after res- toration of the habitat. Where the target population has low biological potential — for exam- ple, when downstream rearing con- ditions severely limit the survival of juveniles from a given spawning area — the objective will be to restore the habitat to intact condition and consider sustained but limited supple- mentation as a possible policy choice. Compromised habitat: Where the habitat for a target population is absent or substantially diminished and cannot reasonably be fully restored, then the biological objective for that habitat will depend on the biological potential of the target species. Where the target species has high biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat up to the point that the sustainable capacity of the habitat is no longer a significant limit- ing factor for that population. The objective also is to restore the popula- tion of the target species up to the sus- tainable capacity of the restored habi- tat. Sustained supplementation in a limited fashion is a possible policy choice in this instance. Where the target species has low biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat up to the point that the sustainable capacity of that habitat is no longer a significant limiting factor for that population. In this instance, a possible policy choice is expanded artificial production that utilizes the natural selection capabili- ties of the natural habitat to maintain fitness of both natural and artificial production. Eliminated habitat: Where habi- tat for a target population is irre\ers- ibly altered or blocked, and therefore there are no opportunities to rebuild the target population by impro\ ing its opportunities for growth and sur- vival in other parts of its life history, then the biological objective will be to provide a substitute, in the case of wildlife, where the habitat is inundated, substitute habitat would include setting aside and protecting land elsewhere that is home to a simi- lar ecological community. For fish, substitution would include an alter- native source of harvest (such as a hatchery stock) or a substitution of a resident fish species as a replacement for an anadromous species. 3. Habitat Strategies Primary strategy: Identify the cur- rent condition and biological poten- tial of the habitat, and then protect or restore it to the extent described in the biological objectives. This program relies heavily on protection of, and improvements to, inland habitat as the most effective means of restoring and sustaining fish and wildlife populations. Howe\er. it also recognizes that depending on the condition of the habitat and the target species, certain categories of mitigation investments are likely to be more effective than others. Thus, an important function t)f this strategy is to direct investments to their most productive applications. Changes in the hydrosystem are unlikely within the next few years to fully mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife. However, the Northwest Power Act allows olT-site mitigation for fish and wildlife populations afTectcd by the hydrosystem. Because some of the greatest opportu- nities for improvement lie outside the innnediate area of the hydrosystem in the tributaries and subbasins olTthe 20 lA RIVER Basin Fish and Wildlife Program mainstem oftlic Columbia and Snake Rivers — this picitzram socks iiabitat improvements outside tiie iiydrosys- tem as a means of ofF-setting some of the impacts of tlic hydrosystem. for example, passage through tiie hydrosystem causes injury to spring Chinook. While measures at the dams can and should be taken to reduce this injury, as long as the dams exist they will continue to cause some of this injuiy As an otTset. the program may call for improvements in spawn- ing and rearing habitats in tributaries where there are no dams present. By restoring these habitats, which were not damaged by the hydrosystem, the program helps compensate for the existence of the hydrosystem. Habitat considerations extend beyond the tributaries, however. His- torically, the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers were among the most pro- ductive spawning and rearing habitats for salmonids and pro\ ided essential resting and feeding habitat for main- stem resident and migrating fish. Pro- tection and restoration of mainstem habitat conditions must be a critical piece of this habitat-based program. As explained further in other parts of this program, a specific plan will be developed for each of the subba- sins in the Columbia River Basin and for related sections of the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, as well as objectives and strategies for each ecological province. Each subbasin plan will begin with an assessment of the current physical and biological conditions, and then address the improvements that are needed. The Council believes there is a wide variety of potentially successful approaches that may be used to miprove and maintain habitat, and also believes that the choice of which approach to use is best left to a local, site-specitic decision, subject to scientific review. However, all subbasin plans, and measures within those plans, should be consistent with the vision and biological objectives, and the follow iim stratesiies: Build from Strength Efforts to improve the status offish and wildlife populations in the basin should protect habitat that supports existing populations that are rela- tively healthy and productive. Next, we should expand adjacent habitats that have been historically productive or have a likelihood of sustaining healthy populations by reconnecting or improving habitat. In a similar manner, this strategy applies to the restoration of weak stocks: the resto- ration should focus first on the habitat where portions of that population are doing relatively well, and then extend to adjacent habitats. Restore Ecosystems, Not Just Single Species Increasing the abundance of single populations may not, by itself, result in long-term recovery. Restoration efforts must focus on restoring habi- tats and developing ecosystem condi- tions and functions that will allow for expanding and maintaining a diver- sity within, and among, species in order to sustain a system of robust populations in the face of environ- mental variation. Use Native Species Wherever Fea- sible Even in degraded or altered environ- ments, native species in native hab- itats provide the best starting point and direction for needed biological conditions in most cases. Where a species native to that particular habi- tat cannot be restored, then another species native to the Columbia River [iasin should be used. Any proposal to produce or release non-native spe- cies must overcome this strong pre- sumption in favor of native species and habitats and be designed to avoid adverse impacts on native species. Substitution Mitigation in areas blocked to salnn)n and steelhead by the develop- ment and operation of the hydropower system is appropriate, and flexibility in approach is needed to de\elop a program that provides resident fish substitutions for lost salmon and steel- head where in-kind mitigation cannot occur. The "Compilation of Salmon and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia River Basin" and the "Numerical Esti- mates of Hydropower-related Losses" adopted in Appendices D and E of the 1987 program, and contained in the Appendix to this program together, are the starting place for the Council's approach regarding substitution. Include the Estuary The estuary is an important eco- logical feature that is negatively affected by upriver management actions and local habitat change. While less is known about the poten- tial for improvement in the estuary than is known about the potential for improvement in most other parts of the Columbia River Basin, there are indications that substantial improve- ments are possible and that these improvements may benefit most of the anadromous fish populations. The estuary will be included as one of the planning units for this program. (The freshwater plume and the ocean itself are also important habitats for salmon and are addressed in the Ocean Con- ditions section of this program.) Address Transboundary Species Because about 15 percent of the Columbia River Basin is in British Columbia, including the headwaters of the Columbia and several of its key tributaries, ecosystem restora- tion efforts should address trans- boundary stocks offish and wildlife and transboundary habitats. Where mitigation measures are designed to benefit both U.S. and Canadian fish and wildlife populations, U.S. rate- payer funding should be in propor- tion to anticipated benefits to the U.S. populations. 2000 COLUM' 21 4. Artificial Production Strategies Primary stratc}»y: Artificial pro- duction can be used, under llie proper conditions, to 1 ) comple- ment habitat improvements by sup- plementing nati\e fish populations up to the sustainable carrying capacity of the habitat with fish that are as similar as possible, in genet- ics and beha\ ior, to wild native fish, and 2) replace lost salmon and steelhead in blocked areas. The critical issue that the region faces on artificial production is whether artificial production activi- ties can play a role in providing significant harvest opportunities throughout the basin while also acting to protect and even rebuild naturally spawning populations. Arti- ficial production must be used in a manner consistent with ecologically based scientific principles for fish recovery. Fish raised in hatcheries for harvest should have a minimal impact on fish that spawn naturally. Fish reared in hatcheries or by other artificial means for the purpose of supplementing the reco\eiy of a wild population should clearly benefit that population. The science on this issue is far from settled. Improperly run, arti- ficial production programs can do damage to wild fish runs. However, when lish runs fall to extremely low levels, artificial production may be the only way to keep enough of that population alive in the short term so that it has a chance of recovering in the long term. What is not so clear is the extent to which artificially pro- duced fish can be mixed with a wild population in a way that sustains and rebuilds the wild population. The Council has weighed these uncertainties and, recognizing that inaction also holds a large risk, has adopted the strategies in this section. These strategies, which are summa- rized in the Biological Objectives table on page 15, are intended to address the limitations and opportuni- ties of specific habitat conditions. Implementation of Recommenda- tions from Artificial Production Review The Council and the region's fish and wildlife managers recently com- pleted a multiyear review of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin. This review established a set of standards to be applied in all artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin, and this pro- gram mcorporates these standards as minimum standards for all artifi- cial production projects. The full description of these standards is in the Artificial Production Review sec- tion of the Appendix. In summary, the policies are: • The purpose and use of artificial prt)duclK)n must be considered in the context of the ecological envi- i-onment in which it will be used. • Artificial production must be implemented within an exper- uiiental, adaptnc management design that includes an aggres- sive program to evaluate the risks and benefits and address scien- tific uncertainties. I lalcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be main- tained in order to sustain a system of populations in the face of environmental variation. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared populations, in regard to pop- ulation structure, mating proto- col, behavior, growth, moiphol- ogy, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics. The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should explic- itly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preserva- tion, research, or some combina- tion of those puiposes for each population offish addressed. Decisions on the use of the arti- ficial production tool need to be made in the context of deciding on fish and u ildlife goals, objec- tives and strategies at the sub- basin and province levels. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial propagation. Pfoduclion for hanest is a legit- imate management objective of artificial production, but to mini- mize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with har- vest management of artificially produced populations, haivest rates and practices must be dictated by the rec]uirements to sustain natu- rally spawning populations. 22 lA RIVER Basin Fish and Wildlife Program • Federal and otlier legal mandates and obligations for fish protec- tion, mitigation, and enhance- ment must be fully addressed. V\ ild Salmon Refuges Where the critical habitat is largely intact, artificial production is not currently occurring, and the fish population has good potential, then no artificial production should be used. Those populations and their associated spawning and early rearing habitat should be preserved and protected. Harvest Hatcheries Hatcheries intended solely to pro- duce fish for harvest may be used to create a replacement for the lost or diminished harvest. The hatchery must be located and oper- ated in a manner that does not lead to adverse efTects on other stocks through excessive straying or exces- sive take of weak stocks in a mixed- stock fishery. Restoration Except for wild salmon refuges or areas where the habitat is blocked or eliminated, supplementation of nat- ural runs with artificially produced tish may be used tor the puipose of rebuilding the natural runs, although the decision of whether to employ supplementation for this puipose is one that should be made locally, as part of the subbasin plan. The object of such supplementation is to restore and maintain healthy fish popula- tions, with sufficient genetic and life history diversity to ensure that eventually, after appropriate habitat impro\ements. they will become self-sustaunng. Experimental Approach In recognition of the risk and uncertainty associated with artilicial production, each artificial produc- tit)n activity must be approached experimentally with a plan detailing the purpose and method of opera- tion, the relationship to other ele- ments of the subbasin plan, includ- ing associated habitat and other proj- ects within the subbasin plan, spe- cific measurable objectives for the activity, and a regular cycle of evalu- ation and reporting of results. This approach v\ ill allow the region to address the remaining uncertainties on a case-by-case basis and quickly make adjustments in artificial pro- duction activities where warranted. Initial Review Over the next three years, evei'y artificial production program and facility in the basin, federal and non- federal, should undergo a review to detemiine its consistency with these strategies, scientific principles, and policies. These evaluations will be a prerequisite for seeking continued funding and/or adopting a subbasin plan into the program in the next phase of the amendment process. These evaluations must be guided in part by basin, province level and subbasin level visions, goals and objectives, and by overarching poli- cies for artificial production based on the policies stated earlier. Annual Reporting and Five-year Re>ie\v After five years, the Council, other regional decision-makers and Con- gress should assess whether existing review, funding and planning pro- cesses are successful in implement- ing needed refomis in artificial pro- duction practices. In the interim, the entities responsible for artificial production programs should issue annual reports on their progress in achieving the policies and standards called for in the Artificial Production Review. The Council will act as a clearinghouse to obtain, compile, and distribute these annual reports for review by decision-makers and the public. .Artificial Production Committee In order tt) achieve a regional per- j spective and a unified approach to artificial production reform, an advi- sory committee [o the Council will be created. The advisory committee will be tasked with reporting quar- terly on implementation of artificial I production reforms across the basin in a consistent, coordinated and cfTi- j cienl manner. A small team of agency personnel, independent sci- entists, and representatives of non- governmental organizations will be assigned to watch over and coordi- nate the refomi effort. One early task for the committee will be to fur- ther define the approach, work plan and decision points for evaluating the purpose of all the artificial pro- duction programs and facilities over the next three years. 5. Harvest Primary strategy: Assure that sub- basin plans are consistent with harvest management practices and increase opportunities for harvest I wherever feasible. The Council makes no claim to regulatoi7 authority over harvest of fish and wildlife. It recognizes and affinns the fish and wildlife manag- ers" legal jurisdiction and tribal trust and treaty rights. However, there is little point in recommending funding for imple- mentation of a subbasin plan when Fast Fact ■ I he Uirgcsl ijiajor tributary ■to the Columhici River Basin is the Snake River which is more than 1 .000 miles loii''. Jl^ 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FlSH AND WILDLIFE PR 23 the objectives for the plan caniun be reached under current har\ est regimes. 1 1", for example, a wildlite mitigation project aims to re-estab- lish an elk herd in a subbasin. and existing reguhitions will alk)\\ for overly aggressive harvest of the herd while it is first being established, there is good reason to dcnibt w hether the project can succeed. On the other hand, there is also no advantage to increasing lish popula- tions in the interest of greater harvest if the anticipated harvest regimes will not allow that har\est to take place. A hatchery that rears fish solely for har\est is of little benefit if the major- ity of those fish go uncaught becau.se the potential harvest is restricted by the presence of another, much weaker sUick. Therefore the Council adopts the following harvest strategies: Contributions to Harvest and Escapement Coals F.ach subbasin plan and hatchery management plan must explicitly describe the expected contribution to harvest for each of the harvested stocks or species. In the case of wildlife, the plan must indicate the area in which the v\ ildlife w ill be harvested. In the case of fish, the plan must indicate the expected con- tribution to specific fisheries. In both instances, the plan must iden- tify clear escapement goals for each species or stock and explain the basis on which that goal was chosen. Compatibility with Harvest Refjimes Each subbasin plan and hatchery management plan must state the A hatchery that rears fish solely for harvest is of little benefit if the majority of those fish go uncaught because the potential har- vest is restricted by the presence of another, much weaker stock." likelihood that adequate numbers of adults will reinain or return to the subbasin to assure reproductive suc- cess and meet subbasin goals for the next generation. If the escapement required for the plan to succeed is greater than that which occurs under current harvest regimes, then the plan should also indicate whether and how the current regimes will be adjusted and whether the managers for that harvest have concurred with the adjustment. Artificial Production Artificially produced fish created for harvest should not be produced unless they can be effectively har- vested in a fishery or provide other significant benefits. The appropriate refomi for artificial production pro- grams that do not meet this strategy is termination or revision so that the program complies with this strategy. Opportunities for Increased Har\'est Each subbasin plan and hatchery management plan should identify (a) where there is an oppt)ilunity for a terininal fishery and (b) any instance in which increased harvest is possible but will not occur under the existing harvest regime, and the changes that would be necessary to allow the harvest to occur. The plan may also identify, and propose for funding if needed, equipment, rnark- ing techniques, management costs, and monitoring and evaluation costs required to establish the feasibility of selective harvest techniques that allow for additional harvest of spe- cies and stocks originating in that subbasin or at that hatcherv. Monitoring and Reporting The Council recommends the fol- lowing practices in har\ est manage- ment, and will seek to encourage the region's fish and wildlife managers to adopt them: • Maintain an open and public pro- cess, allowing public obser\ation of harvest and allocation discus- sions and timely dissemination of harvest-related information in a publicly accessible manner. • Integrate harvest management to assure that conservation etTorts made in one fishery can be passed through subse- ^) qucnt fisheries. 24 < I "r - -|-i<.-"a«*M'| UMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM • Manage liar\est to ensure the risk of imprecision and error in pre- dicted run size does not threaten the survival and recovery of natu- rally spawning populations. • Monitor inriver and ocean fisher- ies and routinely estimate stock composition and stock-specific abundance, escapement, catch, and age distribution. F.xpand monitormg programs as neces- sary to reduce critical uncertain- ties. Manage data so that it can be easily integrated and readily available in real time. • Manage harvest consistent with the protection and recovery of naturally spawning populations. • Biennially, solicit scientific peer review of harvest management plans and analyses, stalling in January 2002. 6. Hvdrosystem Passage and Operations Primary strategy: Provide condi- tions within the hydrosystem for adult and juvenile fish that most closely approximate the natural physical and biological conditions, provide adequate levels of survival to support fish population recovery based in subbasin plans, support expression of life histoiy diversity, and assure that flow and spill opera- tions are optimized to produce the greatest biological benefits with the least adverse effects on resident fish while assuring an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply. The development and operation of the hydrosystem has major impacts on fish. These impacts are not restricted to anadromous fish. White sturgeon spau ning depends on certain patterns of spring flow; trout and other species migrate between resenoirs and adjoining streams and are afTected by reservoir levels. High rates of dis- charge from a reservoir may reduce the food supply available to fish in that "The Council i enact a n „.„m C' in containing nneasures for the hydrosysiL . „^ October 2001 in a subsequent phase of this program. " reservoir and even entrain those fish, sending them downstream. Even fish living in free-flowing stretches below reseiA-oirs can be strongly impacted by sudden changes in river elevation or water temperature resulting from operation of the upstream project. Wildlife are also affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric projects. In particular, reservoir levels greatly affect the I Major Impacts of the Hydrosystem on Fish: 1 . The dams thcmseK es are barriers to upstream and downstream migration. [ 2. The dams, and the reservoirs behind I them, reduce the velocity of tiic river, affecting juvenile and adult migration speed. 3. The storage, release, and impound- ment of water changes the pattern of water flows and water tempera- tures above, through and helow the hydroelectric dams and changes the charaetcri.stics of the estuai'y. 4. The resei"\'oirs eliminate spawning and rearing areas in the mainslem by uiereasing the river depth, decreasing water velocity, and retaining sediments. 5. Changes in reservoir elevation afTeet the access offish to adjoining streams, and aflect the availability of I'ood for lisli jiviiis; in the reservoirs. I L trees, shrubs, and grasses that would nonnally grow at the water's edge and provide wildlife nesting and feeding habitat. All of these impacts are basically habitat issues. The strategies iden- tified earlier in the habitat section are applicable here as well, and sev- eral of the strategies in this section are simply specialized applications of those in the habitat section. The Council recognizes that the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, acting under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, will be pre- scribing detailed conditions for the improvement and operation of the hydrosystem through the issuance of biological opinions. These condi- tions focus on the needs of listed spe- cies, especially migration and pas- sage needs. The Council plans to enact a mainstem coordination plan contain- ing measures for the hydrosystem by October 200 1 in a subsequent phase of this program. The puipose of these measures will be to recommend ways in which the hydrosystem operations called for in the biological opinions could be adjusted, so as to assure that those operations meet the needs of ESA-Iisted stocks and the dictates of the Northwest Power Act. The hydrosystem measures will also pro- vide necessary guidance to the Coun- cil's subbasin planning process. Until October 2001", when the Council plans to have these hydrosys- tem measures developed, the Council recommends that Bonneville, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, and other operating agencies not mov e fonv aid with prev iously called-for but unim- plemented measures in Sections 5 and 6 of the 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program (Council document 94-55) relating to hydrosystem operations, including specific flow augmentation measures, except to the extent the measures are fully consistent with the hydrosystem strategies outlined in this Phase One program. The Power Act requires the Coun- I cil, in this program, to adopt mea- 2000 COLUM Fish and Wild 25 sures to "protect, mitigate, and enhance" ail fish and wildlife atTected by the operation t)t'tiie hydrosystem, and to include mea- sures that provide for improved sur- \ival offish at hydroelectric facilities and for flows of sufficient quality and quantitv to improve production, migration and surv ival. The Act also requires the Council to assure that the measures in this program are consis- tent with "an adequate, economical, efficient, and reliable power supply." While the Council must consider the impacts of the conditions imposed by the federal agencies under the Rndangered Species Act, the Council has a broader mandate. As part of this mandate, the Council recognizes that the survival of li.sted species afYected by the hydrosystem must be an integral component of the Council's fish and wildlife plan. .'\ddressing Endangered Species Act requirements together with the long- term management of healthy stocks is a long-term planning objective of the Council. The Northwest Power Act requires that the Council must assure that the needs offish and wildlife are met as efficiently as possible, while also assuring the continued reliabil- ity, adequacy and affordability of the regional power supply. The Council believes that the federal agencies operating the hydro- sy.stem will have some flexibility in implementing the conditions imposed under the Hndangered Species Act. In addition, the manner in which the hydrosystem is operated outside of the circumstances regulated by the Endangered Species Act may still have important consequences for fish and wildlife. I he Council adopts the followin}» liN (lidsystein strategies: Strategy: Provide conditions in the hydrosystem for adult and juvenile fish that most closely approximate natural physical and biological conditions. In its Energy and Water Develop- ment appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1998, Congress asked the Council, with the assistance of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, to review the capital improvements at mainstem dams proposed by the Coips of Engineers. The reports produced by this review contain a set of technical findings and recommendations. The reports are included in the Technical Appen- di.x. Based on these reports, and the recommendations of others, the Council is adopting this general strategy, which includes, but is not limited to, the following elements: • Protect Biological Diversity Actions to improve juvenile and adult fish passage through main- stem dams, including the use of fish transportation, should protect biological diversity by benefiting the range of species, stocks and life-history types in the river, and should favor solutions that best fit natural behavior patterns and river processes. Survival in the natural river should be the base- line against which to measure the effectiveness of other passage methods. To meet the diverse needs of multiple species and allow for uncertainty, multiple Juvenile passage methods may be necessaiy at individual projects. • Juvenile Fish Passage To provide passage for juvenile fish that closely approximates natural physical and biological conditions, and to increase the energy produced by the hydro- system, the U.S. Amiy Corps of Engineers should I ) continue testing and developing surface bypass sy.stems, taking into account the widest range of bit)logical diversity, utilizing an expedited approach to prototype development, and ensuring full evaluation for the developmental phase; 2) relocate bypass outfalls in those circumstances where there are problems with preda- tion and juvenile fish injury and mortality; and 3) modify turbines to improve JuNcnile survival. Adult Passage The U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers should improve the overall effectiveness of the adult fish passage program. This includes expediting schedules to design and install improvements to fish passage facilities. Cool water releases from reservoirs should continue to be used to facilitate migration. More emphasis should be placed on monitoring and evaluation, increased accu- racy offish counts, installation of PIT-tag detectors, evaluation of escapement numbers to spawning grounds and hatcheries, research into water temperature effects on fish passage, and the connection between fish passage design and fish behavior. Annual Report on Capital Improvements The Corps of Engineers, work- ing within the regional fish and wildlife project selection pro- cess, should report to the Council annually on how the prioritiza- tion criteria and decisions on passage improvements take into account these principles. Implementation of These Principles The Council I ) expects thai the Independent Scientific Review panel will apply these principles during the pancEs review of the reimbursable portion of the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget, which includes the Corps' passage program; 2) will itself apply these staiuiards in its review of any Independent Scientific Review Panel wpovl and resulting recommcndalions to Congress on these passage budget items; and 3) will recom- mend to Congress, in its reim- bursable budget recommenda- tions, thai budgel requests from 26 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program the Corps of Engineers be evalu- ated tor consistency willi these principles. • Protect and Expand Mainstem Spawning and Rearing Habitat The operation of the iiydrosys- teni should protect, and w here possible, expand, mainstem spawning and rearing areas. In instances where this strategy con- flicts with flows for juvenile migration or temperature control, the system operators should iden- tity the potential conflict and seek recommendations from state and federal agencies and tribes on how to best meet the two needs. • Inriver Migration and Transportation Because the existence of the dams and reservoirs creates con- ditions that are not natural, the Council, while seeking to improve inriver conditions, recognizes that there are survival benefits from transpoilation of migrating juve- nile salmon. Therefore, the Coun- cil 1 ) accepts juvenile fish trans- portation as a transitional strat- egy; 2) will give priority to the fijnding of research that more accurately measures the ctTect of improved inriver migration compared to transportation; 3) will recommend increasing inriver migration when research demon- strates that salmon sur\'ival would be improved as a result of such migration; and 4) endorses the strategy of "spread the risk" which, depending on water and environmental conditions, divides migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead between inriver passage and transportation. Strateg) : Manage the hydrosystem so that patterns of flow more closely approximate the natural hydrographic patterns, and assure any changes in water management are premised upon, and propor- tionate to, fish and wildlife benefits. Balance Systemwide Water Man- agement Among Different Spe- cies and Life Stages Systemwide water management, including flow augmentation from storage reservoirs, should balance the needs of resident fish with those of anadromous fish, and the needs of migrating fish with those of spawning and rearing fish. In instances where flow management needs conflict with this program, the system operators should iden- tify the potential conflict and seek recommendations from the Coun- cil, fish and wildlife agencies and tribes and other atTected entities on how best to balance the dif- ferent needs. Conflicts shall be reported to the Council. Coordination In fulfilling the operating con- ditions for the hydrosystem established under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, the federal system operating agencies shall, to the fullest extent practicable, meet those conditions in a manner which protects other fish and wildlife species affected by the operation of the hydrosystem. In providing infomiation on operations to meet the needs of a particular species or set of species, the Fish Passage Center shall take into account, through consulta- tion with the fish and wildlife managers, the needs of other species and indicate how these needs can best be balanced or accommodated. The fish and wildlife managers should indi- cate to the Fish Passage Center whether such conflicts among the needs of different species exist and, when present, recommend remedies. On an interim basis, the operating conditions needed to meet the needs of these other species are those that were adopted by the Council in Sec- tion 10 of its 1^45 program amendments. When the main- stem coordination plan and sub- basin plans are adopted by the Council, the relevant conditions will be included in the plans. Strategy: Assure that flow and spill operations are optimized to produce the greatest benefits with the least adverse effects on resident fish while assuring an adequate, efficient, eco- nomical, and reliable power supply. The Council's program must be consistent with "an adequate, effi- cient, economical, and reliable power supply." The Council will analyze potential impacts to the power system of different water manage- ment and operation strategies, includ- ing proposed federal operations to meet Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements, deter- mine if the operations ensure an ade- quate, efficient, economical, and reli- able power supply, and recommend operational changes if not. The Council is particularly interested in the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations undertaken for fish and wildlife. The Council will be pre- paring recommendations that opti- mize energy production, capacity and especially reliability while meeting diverse fish and wildlife needs. • In-season Changes The Bonneville Power Admin- istration, in consultation with the Fast Fact / our .species of Paci/ic salmon — cliiiiii. chinook.ioho ami sockeye — and two species j of umidronioHS troiil^stecl- hciul and sea-run cutthroat — arc found in the Colund^ia . River Basin. 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reelaniation, before undertaking a partieuiar operation of the hydrosystein to benefit, or that will adversely atfeet, fish or w ildUfe, shall pro- vide a written statement of the estimated cost or benefit and impact on the power system of the proposed action. The Fish Passage Center, in consultation with the fish and wildlife man- agers, shall provide a brief writ- ten statement of the incremental benefit or detriment to tish or wildlife anticipated from the pro- posed change. In the event that a fish and wildlife agency or tribe believes that the proposed action \\ ill have an adverse effect on tish and wildlife, Bonn- eville should also obtain a brief written statement of the adverse effect. Copies of these state- ments should be fiimished to those parties considering the request, to the Council, and made available to the public. This provision shall not apply to an operation in response to a bio- logical opinion requirement if the requirement is so specific that it leaves essentially no discretion to the operating agencies on how to fulfill the requirement. Annual Hydrosystem Accountability Report Bonneville and the operating agencies shall assist the Council in producing a report that shall provide an accounting of Bonneville's fish and wildlife expenditures and hydiopouer operations costs. For example, the report should summarize 1 ) the oNciall cost and impact to the hydro and transmission system of operations for fish and wildlife and other non-power needs; 2) a summary of each change requested, the outcome of that request, and the reason for approving or denying that request; and 3 ) recommendations from fish and w ildlife managers and tribes for modifications to the operating regimes or investments in facilities to improve fish and wildlife habitat within the hydro- system without undue affect on the costs to, or impacts on, the hydrosystem. Annual Report on Flow Augmen- tation Bonneville, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall prepare an annual report based on scien- tific research for review by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board that documents the flow- augmentation actions taken, the benefits of flow augmentation for fish survival, and the precise attributes of flow that may make t beneficial. Fish Passage Center This program continues the operation of the Fish Passage Center The Council will estab- ish and appoint an oversight board for the Fish Passage Center, with representation from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the tribes, the Council, and others, to pro\ ide policy guidance and assure regional accountability and compatibility u ith the regional data manage- ment system. The Fish Passage Center shall prepare an annual report to the Council and the oversight board, sunnnarizing its activities and accomplishments. In-season Management Coordination Through the biological opin- ions, the federal agencies have established an implementation structure for annual and in-season operations and for recommen- dations on funding for passage improvements. It is the Council's perspective that the part of the implementation structure that allows for technical review func- tions adequately, although there is a need for greater participation by affected entities. The Council recommends to the federal agen- cies that the Technical Manage- ment Team and the Implementa- tion Team be jointly sponsored by the Council and the federal agen- cies, and allow for effective par- ticipation in these considerations by the relevant federal agencies, the Council and states, the tribes of the Columbia River Basin, and other affected entities, in a highly public fonim. The Council will initiate discussions to jointly sponsor these coordination teams. Annual Operating Plan The Council requests that each year, prior to March I, the in- season management participants prepare and make a\ailable to the Council and the public an annual operating plan, describing the specific hydrosystem opera- tions recommended for that year In those instances where specific operations have not been deter- mined as of March 1. the plan should identify the additional decisions that will need to be made, and the basis on which the participants expect to make them. Emergency Actions To ensure the reliability of the power supjils. |iower system 28 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program operators may curtail lish and w ildlifc operations temporarily diiruiy emergency situations/ A predetennined protocol should be established by the Technical Management Team and the Implementation Team for emer- gency actions. ' Ho\\e\er. the option of curtailing iish and wild- life operations during emergency situations should not be used in lieu of establishing an adec|uate and reliable power supply.'' Strategy: Establish and maintain a plan to assure coordination of mainstem operations and improve- ments. • Mainstem Coordination Plan The Council will assist inter- ested parties to de\elop and rec- ommend for adoption mto this program a mainstem coordi- nation plan, similar to the sub- ■* An emergency can occur due to a major temperature drop like those experienced in 1989 and 1990 or due to the temporary loss of generation from a maior resource like the Columbia Generating Station or a powerhouse at a mainstem dam, or the loss of a major portion of the transmis- sion capability on the noilhern or south- em interties. " in general, all existing resources in the Western Integrated System should be dispatched prior to curtailing fish and wildlife operations. All reasonable efforts should also be made to relieve the emergency using demand-side resources, including requests for customers to vol- untarily cut back use. During winter emergencies, water being held in reser- voirs for spring and summer tlow aug- mentation may be drafted. Once the emergency is resolved, any tlow aug- mentation water used should be replaced as soon as possible, to the extent pos- sible. During summer emergencies, bypass spill for lish may be curtailed or reduced or additional tlow augmentation water may be released. '' If the Northwest power system is deemed to be inadequate, new resources (whether generating or demand-side) should be developed to bring the system up to expected standards. Resources that integrate more ct1'ecti\cly with fish and wildlife operations should he given high- est priority for development. basin plans described in this pro- gram. I" his plan will develop standards for systemwide coor- dination, such as flow regimes, spill, reservoir elevations, water retention times, passage modifi- cations at mainstem dams, and operational requirements to pro- tect mainstetii spawning and rear- ing areas. This plan is in addi- tion to the annual operating plan described earlier. • Specific Biok>gical Objectives and Measures Relevant to Hydro- system Operations As the Council considers and adopts specific objectives and measures at the system, province, and subbasin levels, the Council may adopt more specific biologi- cal objectives and measures for mainstem operations. As pro- vided in the section on further rulemakings, page 51, the main- stem coordination plan will be the vehicle for considering and adopting these specific objectives and measures. Specific objectives and measures will be coordinated with the mainstem and hydrosys- tem standards and actions con- tained in the National Marine Fisheries Service's and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinions and with the require- ments of applicable federal laws. • Key Uncertainties As pai1 of its cycle for project funding recommendations, the Council will regularly convene a meeting offish and wildlife agencies and tribes and hydro- system operating agencies for the puqiose of identifying key uncertainties about the operation of the hydrosystem and assi>ci- ated mainstem mitigation activ- ities such as transportation of juvenile fish. This list of key uncertainties will be the starting point tor targeted requests for research proposals. Longer-term I'laiining Perspectives The region is in need of long- term planning regarding the cur- rent constraints on, and objec- tives of, water management, including current flood control requirements; the limitations on the purposes of managing water under the Columbia River Treaty; the requirements, opportunities and challenges of considering broader habitat needs, such as mainstem spawning and rearing habitat, estuary and plume impacts, and ocean habitat; and the region's long-term energy and capacity power system needs in the context of a changing energy industi^, and the potential implications for fish and wildlife. Working with federal agencies in the region, the tribes and the state fish and wildlife agencies, the Council will facilitate a long- term planning study to include consideration of reconfiguration and operational alternatives that could provide benefits for fish and wildlife on a broad scale. The study should also assess the economic and hydropower impacts of all reconfiguration and operational alternatives. Fast Fact III 1998. the Council des- ignated 44.001) miles dJ' river reaches in t/ie hasiii as "pro- tected areas " wliere Indroelec- tric developiiiciil woidd have endangered fish and wildlije and their liahitut. ■^^em 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife 29 Strategy: Assure that hydroelectric relicensing and future development provides protection for tish and wildlife. • H\(.lr()clcctric Development and Licensing The Council has adopted a set of standards for tiie Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and others to apply to the devel- opment and licensing of hydro- electric facilities in the Colum- bia River Basin. This includes designating certain river reaches in the basin as "protected areas," where the Council believes that hydroelectric development would have unacceptable risks of loss to fish and wildlife spe- cies of concern, their productive capacity, or their habitat. The standards, the river reaches to be protected, and the conditions relating to that protection, are identified in the Future Hydro- electric Development section of the Appendix to this program. 7. NMIdlite Primary strategy; Complete the current mitigation program for construction and inundation losses and include wildlife mitigation for all operational losses as an inte- grated part of habitat protection ^ and restoration. | Some previous versions of this fish and wildlife program have treated wildlife mitigation measures as separate from fish mitigation mea- sures. In this program, the Council has revised its approach, treating a given habitat as an ecosystem that includes both fish and wildlife. Table 1 1-4 of the Council's 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Pro- gram, which is included on pages C-4 thru C-7 of the Appendi.x to this program, estimated wildlife losses due to hydropower construction. The 1994-1995 Program called upon the fish and wildlife managers and Bonneville to use this table as the starting point for wildlife mitigation measures and short- and lona-temi mitigation agreements. The pro- gram also called upon these parties to reach agreement on how wildlife mitigation projects and fish miti- gation projects should be credited toward identified losses. A portion of the habitat units identified in Table 1 1-4 have been acquired in the wildlife mitigation projects to date, and some mitigation project agreements establish the basis on which the project will be credited toward these losses. However, no agreement has been reached on the full extent of wildlife losses due to the operations of the hydrosystem, nor has there been agreement on how to credit wildlife benefits resulting from riparian habitat improvements undertaken to benefit fish. The extent of the wildlife mit- igation is of particular importance to agencies and tribes in the so- called "blocked" areas, where anad- romous fish runs once existed but were blocked by development of the hydrosystem. While there are lim- ited opportunities for improv ing res- ident fish in those areas, resident fish substitution alone seldom is an ade- quate mitigation Given the vision of this program, the strong scientific case for a more comprehensive, ecosystem- based approach, and the shift to implementation of this program through provincial and subbasin plans, the Council believes that the v\ ildlife mitigation projects should be inte- grated with the fish mitigation proj- ects. Therefore the Council adopts the following wildlife strategies: Completion of Current Mitigation Program To prov ide an orderly transition between the pa.st fish and wildlife program and this program, Bonne- ville and the fish and wildlife man- agers should complete mitigation agreements for the remaining habitat units. These agreements should equal 200 percent of the habitat units (2:1 ratio) identified as unan- nuali/ed losses of v\ ildlife habitat from construction and mundalion of 30 LUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM the federal h\ dmpower system as identified in Table 1 1-4. which is included in the Appendix to this pro- gram. This mitigation is presumed to cover all construction and inun- dation losses, including annualized losses. In addition, for each wildlife agreement that does not already pro\ ide for long-tenn maintenance of the habitat. Bonne\ilie and the applicable management agency shall propose for Council consideration and recommendation a maintenance agreement adequate to sustain the minimum credited habitat values for the life of the project. • Allocation of Habitat Units Habitat acquired as mitigation for lost habitat units identified in Table 1 1-4 must be acquired in the subbasin in which the lost units were located unless other- wise agreed by the fish and wild- life agencies and tribes in that subbasin. • Habitat Enhancement Credits Habitat enhancement credits should be provided to Bonneville when habitat management acti\ - ities funded by Bonneville lead to a net increase in habitat value when compared to the level identified in the baseline habitat inventory and subsequent habitat in\entories. This determination should be made through the peri- odic monitoring of the project site usmg the Habitat f \aluation Procedure (HEP) methodology. Bonneville should be credited for habitat eniiancement effoils at a ratio of one habitat unit credited for every habitat unit gained. • Operational Losses An assessment should be c^)n- ducted of direct operational impacts on wildlife habitat. Sub- basin plans will serve as the vehicle to provide mitigation for direct operational losses and sec- ondary losses. Annualization 8. Ocean Conditions "Better understa^ ; the conditions s. „.. face in the ocbp suggest which factors will be most critical to survival, and thus give insight as to which actions taken inland will be the most valuable. " will not be used in detennining the mitigation due for these losses. However, where opera- tional or secondary losses have already been addressed in an existing wildlife mitigation agreement, the tenns of that agreement will apply. Implementation Guidelines Project selection will be guided by subbasin plans incorporatmg wild- life elements. The subbasin plans will reflect the cuiTcnt basin-wide vision, biological objectives and strategies, and will also outline more specific short-tenn objectives and strategies for achiev ing specific wildlife mitigation goals. The plans will act as work plans for the fish and wildlife managers and tribes, with an emphasis on fully mitigating the construction and inundation and direct operational losses by a time certain, and will be revisited reg- ularly as part of the pro\ incial re\ iew cycle. Mitigation programs should provide protection of habitat through fee-title acquisition, conser- vation easement, lease, or manage- ment plans for the life of the project. Primary strategy: Identify the effects of ocean conditions on anad- romous fish and use this infomia- tion to evaluate and adjust inland actions. The Council considers the ocean environment an integral component of the Columbia River ecosystem. Freshwater and marine env ironments are not independent from one another and are linked via large-scale atmo- spheric and oceanographic processes. The Council recognizes that these environments are utilized differently by different salmonid species and may serve different purposes. The ocean is not a constant envi- ronment. Variations in ocean con- ditions occur over relatively short periods of a few years, as well as over longer-temi cycles measured in decades. Within any time period, geographic variation in conditions can be pronounced as well. As a result, salmon populations are con- stantly fluctuating, and may pass through decade-long cycles of abun- dance, followed by equally long cycles of scarcity. While we cannot control the ocean itself, we can take actions to assure that the salmon of the Columbia River Basin are well pre- 1?^ -1 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Pr 31 pared to survive in varying condi- tions. Better imderstanding of tlie conditions salmon face in the ocean can suggest which factors will be most critical to survi\al. and thus gi\e insight as to which actions taken inland will be the most valuable. An accurate and timely under- standing of the sur\ i\al in the ocean of each of the Columbia River Basin stocks also helps us assess the value of measures undertaken in this pro- gram. Because the ultimate measure of success is the number of adult fish returning, accurate monitoring and evaluation of inland efforts depends on our ability to isolate the effects of the ocean on a stock from the effects of those inland actions. Without the ability to distinguish ocean effects from other effects, we may be tempted to confuse large returns with successful mitigation practices. Or, poor returns of adult fish may lead to abandonment of mit- igation actions that are in fact highly beneficial unless we can recognize that the poor returns are in spite of, and not because of, these mitigation actions. The estuary is addressed in the habitat strategy section because pro- tecting and restoring estuarine habitat is feasible and involves some of the same strategies as habitats farther inland. This section addres.ses the freshwater plume, the near-shore conditions, and the high seas, which are less subject to human control. The Council adopts the following ocean stratctjies: Manage for \'ariahility Ocean conditions and regional cli- mates play a large role in the sur- vival of anadromous fisii and other species in the Columbia River Basin. Management actions should strive to help those species accommodate a \ariety of ocean conditions by pro- viding a wide range of life history strategics. Distinguish Ocean Effects from Other Effects Monitoring and evaluation actions should recognize and take into account the effect of varying ocean conditions and. to the extent feasi- ble, separate the effects of ocean- related mortality from that caused in the freshwater part of the life cycle. 9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ' Primary strategies: 1 ) Identify and resolve key uncertainties for the program; 2) monitor, evaluate, and apply results; and 3 ) make infor- mation from this program readily available. The heart of this program is a set of immediate actions to improve con- ditions for fish and wildlife. Despite a large body of knowledge about the needs offish and wildlife, there are still many instances in which there is not yet enough infomiation to fully understand which actions will be most effective. The intention of the Council — and the Northwest Power Act — is for the region to make the best possible choice of actions based on the available information. Thus, lack of perfect information is not grounds for inaction. The purpose of the research strat- egies under this program is to iden- tify and resolve key uncertainties. The purpose of the monitoring and evaluation strategies is to assure tiiat the effects of actions taken Luider this program are measured, that these measurements are analyzed so that we have better knowledge of the effects of the action, and that this improved knowledge is used to choose future actions. The purpose of the data man- agement strategies is to support the research, monitoring, and evaluation strategies by making the results read- ily available. The data management strategy is also intended to increase the public accountability of this pro- gram by making the results acces- sible not only to specialists, but also to the public at large. Research Resarch Plan The Council will establish a basin- wide research plan, similar to the subbasin plans, which identifies key uncertainties for this program and its biological objectives and the steps needed to resolve them. The plan will identify major research topics, including ocean research, and estab- lish priorities for research funding. Coordination The research plan will be coordi- nated with the research elements of ■■■It, ■ —ir^ — ,^ 32 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program the mainslem plan and the subbasin plans. The process for developing the plan and associated budgets will ensure independent scientific review, input from fish and w ildlife agencies and tribes, independent scientists, and other interested parties ui the region. Open Access to Results All completed research fianded by Bonneville will be made readily available to all interested parties through the Internet and a library open to the public. This includes abstracts and information about how to obtain the full te.\t of any report. Research projects will be required to submit all necessary infomiation. including abstracts, within six months after research is conducted. "State of the Science" Review The Council will implement proj- ects to re\ iew the current state of the science in key research areas. This effort may include the use of reports, surveys, conferences, and journals. In particular, the Council will work with the Independent Sci- entific Advisory Board to develop a series of reports to surxey past research and summarize the state of the science in key areas. Monitoring and E> aluation Guidelines for Collectinj; Data and Reporting Results The Council will initiate a process involving all interested parties in the region to establish guidelines appro- priate for the collection and report- ing of data in the Columbia Ri\er Basin. Project Standards for Monitoring and Evaluation Except where these criteria are clearly inapplicable, each project proposed for funding under this pro- gram must satisfy the following nionilorinu anti c\aluation criteria: • The jirojecl must have mea- surable, quantitative biological objectives. (Related projects may rely on a single set of bio- logical objectives.) • The project must either collect or identify data that are appropri- ate for measuring the biological outcomes identified in the objec- tives. • Projects that collect their own data for e\aluation must make this data and accompanying metadata available to the region in elec- tronic form. Data and reports developed with Bonne\ ille funds should be considered in the public domain. Data and meta- data must be submitted within six months of their collection. • The methods and protocols used in data collection must be consis- tent with guidelines approved by the Council. Bonneville, in its contracting pro- cess, should ensure that each project satisfies these four criteria. Standards for Monitoring and Evaluation of Subbasin Plans Subbasin plans will contain biolog- ical objectives as well as a plan for monitoring and evaluation to assess whether the projects implemented under the subbasin plan are achiev- nig the objectives. The monitoring and evaluation portion of a subbasin plan should I ) identify the monitor- ing and e\aluation tasks related to the objectives; 2) identify who will do the evaluation and on what sched- ule; 3) explain what kind of mdepen- dent review will be incorporated if the main part of the monitoring and e\aluation w ill be done by a main participant in the plan implementa- tion; and 4) pro\ ide a budget for the monitormg and evaluation work. The project-specific monitoring and evaluation described abo\e should feed mformation into the subbasin level evaluation. Standards for Determining whether ()bjecti\es of the Pro- gram as a whole at the Basin and Province Levels are Being Achieved Program implementation must also include as a systemwide project a program to evaluate whether the individual actions in the various sub- basins are achieving the objectives of the program stated at the basin and province levels. The Council will work with other relevant parties in the basin to design this program -level monitoring and evaluation program, including describing the evaluation tasks, who will do the work, the possible budget, and the possible use of the independent sci- ence panels in assisting w ith this evaluation effoil. The goal should be for the Council to produce an annua! evaluation report of the suc- cess of the program in meeting its objectives. Data Management Data Gaps The Council vv ill initiate a process for identifying data needs in the basin, surveying available data, and filling any data gaps. Dissemination of Data Via the Internet The Council will initiate a process for establishing an Internet-based system for the efficient dissemi- nation of data for the Columbia Basin. This system will be based on a network of data sites, such as Streamnet, Northwest Habitat Insti- tute, Fish Passage Center, Columbia River Data Access in Real Time (DART), and others, linked by Inter- net technology. The functions of each data site, or module, will be clearlv articulated and defined. 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 33 3^ 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Ecological Pro The program organizes the more tlian 50 suhhasins of the Columbia Ri\er Basin into I I ecological provinces, which are groups of adjoining subbasins with similar climates and geology. Because each province has its own distinct environment and fish and wildlife populations, each will have its own vision, biological objectives, and strategies. Those elements will be adopted in a later rulemaking. The pro\ ince level visions, objec- tives, and strategies will be consistent with those adopted at the basin level. A. Geographical Structure The Columbia River is an inte- grated biophysical system, but the basin is too large and complex for us to understand or manage as a single entity. At the same time, man- aging each piece as an independent entity risks losing appreciation for the interaction between components and their collective perfoimance as a system. For this reason, the Coun- cil is adopting an ecologically based structure for the Columbia River eco- system that emphasizes the interrela- tionships of the parts, including the Canadian portion of the basin to the extent information is available. Within the Columbia River eco- system, the scientific foundation defines areas with distinct ecological character that it temied ecological provinces (Figure I). Ecological provinces are distinct subdivisions of the landscape containing ecologi- cally related subbasins. The prov- inces are distinguished primarily on patterns related to hydrology, clmiate and regional geology. These physical patterns relate to biological population patterns as well. Populations within a province are more likely to be related to other populations within that province than to populations in other provinces. Life history and other characteri.stics "...the Counci g an ecol^ structure for the Columbia River ecosystem emphasizes the interrelationship, parts, including the Canadian portion of the basin to the extent information is available." should group into patterns that reflect physical habitat structure. Each province consists of a set of adjoining watersheds with similar ecological conditions and tributaries that ultimately connect, flowing into the same river or lake. These provinces are thus appropriate units around which to organize and evalu- ate recovery objectives and efforts. For our purposes, a subbasin can only be in one province; boundaries do not cut across subbasins. Hydro- electric dams, including the major dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers, are also considered to be within provinces. Based on patterns of terrestrial vegetation, the headwaters of a sub- basin are often distinct from the lower reaches and have been put mto separate areas in other schemes. However, for purposes of planning, it makes little sense to split subbasins. Instead, we treat each subbasin as an integral component of a set of related subbasins forming a province. Table 1 displays the provinces and subba- sins of the Columbia River Basin. B. Province Visions, Objectives, and Strategies The Council has not yet adopted specific visions, objectives, or strategies for ecological provinces. Before otTering more specific guid- ance at the province level, the Council believes that it is important to com- plete a preliminai"y assessment at the province level, identifying the attri- butes, needs, and opportunities that are unique to each province. That as.sessment is expected to be com- pleted by early 200 1 . Upon comple- tion of subbasin planning, the Council expects to amend into the program appropriate visions, objectives, and strategies for the provinces. Biological objectives at the prov- ince scale guide development of the program at the subbasin scale. It is likely that there will be some iteration among biological objectives at the var- ious scales as infomiation is devel- oped. However, the Council intends to develop a provisional set of objec- tives at the province scale to provide planning guidelines for subbasin plan- ning. These may be revisited in the future to reflect the experience gained in planning at the subbasin level. Biological objectives at the prov- ince level will be used to 1 ) "size" the program and describe the amount of change needed across the prov ince; 2) help detennine cost effectiveness of program measures; and 3) provide the basis for program accountability and the monitoring, evaluation and research associated with this program. The biological objectives at the prov- ince level are not intended to be prescriptive or regulatoiy in nature. Instead, they provide guidance for planning at the subbasin level. C. Ocean For plannuig purpo.ses under this program, the Council also recog- nizes the N(Mlli Pacific Ocean as a geographic unit that should be con- sidered in research, monitoring, and evaluation actions. 2000 Columbia rivei Fish and w 35 I .-« t Vti < Q $ w 2 c E C ^ CO w D) ro O ^ QQ n ^ ^ D > 0) (0 q: ^ § 05 E ■a O 3 ro c O ^ > o (0 2 LL Q- 36 ivER Basin Fish and Wildlife Program a a E c = m ro O c ^ S c O W ra -^ = c c ,5 c o S 5 '^ « g S S a ^ 1 i i 1 ^ = o o :5 a v> m S E E 3 Q> O c 5 o Q. 3 J" m <" o l2 3-D ~ re 0) ra ro 5 o tC 1 O Q. O 1 o re o I' '^ '^ 3 lU 5 O b J3 S o E S; E E E E = 1 = = = fe O n O O O — (J -1 (J o o 3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H ^^^^^^^^^K : U ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^H ^^^^^^^^^■k. e ^^^^^^^^^^^HJ^^^^^^^I ^^^^^^^^H. ■" ^ ^^H^^^^^^^^ji ^^^1 ^^^^^^^^R c ^ ' • ^i..,.^^! ^^^^^^■' ^ ^^^^^^^^^1 ^^^^^^^^^^K CO ^^B ^^K. ^ ^H ^^^^B,. i > ^^H ^^^^^^^^B 2 ^ T^ .2 ; i .^^^jiM^^ Z E J^^^ " ^m ^^K 3 mJ^ V V P^^K -mMMi "o .^SF 1^^ # i_fcj ^-^^^^^K U Jm ^vS^^WTig'Z.- f c (0 CD CO r m T3 (D c o a5 o r ■D ■o cn o ■D •D CD CD -> O •> CO ■? U , c 0) ■n CD CD CD CD CD TO (U CD * * Q. O- u. S 5i 0) r CD CJJ CD o h Q. 13. Q. en o CD CL oj O CD 0) o E (D CO C CD o Q. c CD CO 1. CD C CO CD CD C CO -J CD -^ CD c CO _i CD -^ CD c CO CD CD -^ _^ CD CD C C CO CO CD CD C CO o c c CD o ^2 Umatilla Walla W Washou Weiser Wenatct" Willamet Wind Yakima (0 CNJ CO ^ in (0 r^ fT) m o ■<- r\j CO '^ IT) CO C^ on CD o -^ CM CO ■* un CD r-~ CO CJ) o T- c\] (0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^ -g- 1- "* M- ^ "* ■* 'J- ^ in uo in in un in uo Ln in in CD CD CD « ■Q 3 <0 c o E c cu < CD 0) o % n "D 1 n 0) a a CD -o is 0) C2. Q. 0) C o a. CO jc LU CD CD _] CD CD _) CD -J CD S(? I m ■o CD CD >> ._ c o 05 ■=; O x: o CD r; o CT3 If) "n -3 CD CD C D c o TO CD Q E O E o E O E O E o E o g o CD ^1 re b c CD CD cc: rande rays ood Imnaha John Da Kalama Klickitat Kootena < CD CO m CD m m U o o U U u U U CJ u CJ Q UJ UJ LL Ll_ C3 O I o ,_ CM CO M- en CO t^ cn cn o ,_ CN CO Tt in CD t^ CO CD O T- ^ CM CO 'a- in CD N- CO CJ> 1- ^ •>- C\J C\J C\] CM Cvl CSI CNJ CN OM CSI CO CO 2000 COLUM 37 Table 1 : Geographic Structure of the Cohimbia River Ecosystem Exckiding the Marine Landscape Landscape Province Subbasin Columbia River Estuary • Elochoman • Grays • Columbia Estuary (Columbia River and all other tributaries from the ocean upstream to the confluence with the Cowlitz river) • Cowlitz • Ralaina • lewis Lower Columbia • Sandy • Washougal • Willamette • Columbia Lower (Columbia River and all other tributaries upstream of the Cow litz to. but not including. Bonneville Dam) • Big White Salmon • Fifteenmile • Hood Columbia Gorge • Kliekital • Little White Salmon • Wind • Columbia Gorge (Columbia River and all other tributaries between, and including Bonneville and The Dalles dams) • Crab • Deschutes • John Day • Palouse • Tucannon Columbia Plateau • Umatilla • Walla Walla • Yakima • Columbia Lower Middle (Coluinbia River and all other tributaries upstream of The Dalles up to and including Wanapuin Dam) • Snake Lower (Snake River and all other tributaries between the confluence with the Coluinbia river and the confluence w ith the Clearwater River) • Entiat ' Lake Chelan • Methow Columbia Cascade • Okanogan • Wenatchee Columbia River Basin • Columbia LIppcr Middle (Columbia River and all other tributaries upstream of Wanapum Dam to, but not including, chief Joseph Dam) • Coeur d'Alene. including Coeur d'Alene Lake • Pend Oreille Intennountain • San Poil • Spokane • Columbia Upper (Columbia River and all other tributaries from Chief Joseph Dam to the international border) • Bitterroot Mountain Columbia • Blackf'oot • Clark Fork • Flathead • Kootenai • Asotin • Cirande Rondc Blue Mountain • Imnalia • Snake Hells Canyon (Snake River and all other tributaries upstream of the confluence with the Clearwater River to, and including. Hells Canyon Dam) Mountain Snake • Clearwater • Salmon • Boise • Bruneau • Burnt • Malheur • Owyhee Middle Snake • Payette • Powder • VVeiser • Snake Lower Middle (Snake Ri\er and all other tributaries upstream (MHells Canyon Dam to the confluence w ith the Boise River) • Snake l.'pper Miildle (Snake Rner and all other tributaries from the confluence with the Boise Ri\er upstream to the confluence with Clo\er Creek near the town of King Hill) Upper Snake • I ipper Snake (Snake River and tributaries froin Clover Creek upstream to the headwaters of the Henry's Fork) • Upper Closed Basin • Headwaters of the Snake (Snake River and all tributaries ft'om the Heise gauging station upstream to headwaters in Wyoming) 38 2C I UMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM SUBBASINS The preceding sections of this program address fish and \\ ildlil'e needs on two dit't'er- ent lc\cls: the Columbia River Basin as a whole and at the next le\el. the 1 1 ecological provinces within the basin. This section addresses the third le\ el. the more than 50 sub- basins within those ecological prov- inces. For each of these subbasins a locally developed "plan" will be adopted mto the program. Each plan will have its own vision and bio- logical objectives and will identify specific actions needed for fish and wildlife in that subbasin. The plans must be consistent with the visions, biological objectives, and strategies adopted at the basin and province levels, but otherwise are free to make unique choices and reflect local pol- icies and priorities. The subbasin plans w ill be the basis for review and fundmg of most fish and wildlife projects in this program. A. Subbasin Plans The fish and wildlife program is implemented principally at the subbasin level. It is at this subbasin level that the more general guidance provided by the basin and province level visions, principles, objectives, and strategies is refined in light of local scientific knowledge, policies, and priorities. The subbasin plans will be adopted into the program, becoming the third tier of the program struc- ture. If the vision for the basin is to be realized, it will be through suc- cessful selection and implementation of subbasin level goals, objectives, and strategies. Plans at this level will guide Bonneville funding offish and wildlife activities. Subbasin level plans should also provide an oppor- tunity for the integration and coor- dination of projects and programs funded by entities other than Bonn- eville, including Canadian entities in rf, ■ I" cc _.._, ....n bi^ strategies at th' and province levels.' transboundary areas of the subbasins. Subbasin plans will be reviewed for their consistency with biological objectives and strategies at the basin and province levels. Similarly, as subbasin plans are adopted into the program, higher level objectives and strategies may be modified to reflect and accommodate the infomiation and initiatives of the plan. Subbasin plans will also be the context for review of proposals for Bonneville funding each year by the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Council. Once sub- basin plans are approved, all of these entities will be able to review the projects proposed for Bonneville funding to detennine if they are sci- entifically sound in light of existing and desired ecological conditions in the subbasin and the goals and objec- tives presented in subbasin plans. 1. Required Elements of Sub- basin Plans For purposes of the program a subbasin level plan must include the following three general components in order to be eligible for adoption nito the fish and wildlife program: • A subbasin assessment prov iding a description of historical and existing conditions; • A clear and comprehensive inven- tory of existing projects and past accomplishments; • A 10-15 year management plan. Each of these components is dis- cussed below. The Technical Appen- dix contains a detailed description of each element and of the process that the Council will use to develop the subbasin level of the program. A template for the plan will be devel- oped collaboratively and included in the Technical Appendix. It is anticipated that subbasin plans will be revised and updated every three to five years as new infor- mation becomes available and condi- tions change. 2, General Principles for Subbasin Plans • Planning in any subbasin will start from the information con- tained in subbasin summaries and existing plans and docu- ments. The program will only fund new planning activities where there are clear gaps and omissions. • The Council's subbasin plans will not duplicate plans that have been developed or will soon be developed by others, including states, tribes, or the federal gov- ernment. • Wherever possible and scientifi- cally warranted, the Council will adopt existing plans into the sub- basin plans. • The final subbasin plan to be adopted by the Council should enjoy a wide range of support from all interested parties. 3. Subbasin Assessment The assessment is a technical phase that describes existing and his- toric resource conditions and char- acteristics. The assessment scope covers both aquatic and terrestrial 2000 Columbia Fish and Wild 39 environments and addresses anad- romous and resident fish, and \\i id- life. Tiiis initial assessment will rely primarily on existing information already eompiled by fish and wildlife ageneies. water resoiiree ageneies. and other interested parties w ilhin tlie subbasins. A template for siibbasin assess- ment has been developed for this program through the ct)llaborative efforts of regional seientists. This template has broad support, and will be accepted for both the plans adopted as part of the fish and wild- life program, for ESA recovery plan- ning activities, and for water quality management plans under the Clean Water Act. A full copy of the assessment template is contained in the Technical Appendix. The template has seven separate sections: • Background and Introduction • Subbasin description • Habitat condition and trends, his- toric and current (at a level of detail consistent with the 6"' level habitat unit code, HUC) • Synthesis and interpretation (nar- rative descriptions coupled with maps indicating habitats and spe- cies of interest) • Summary • Assessment validation and monitoring • References The Council will provide assis- tance and work with the region's fed- eral, state, and tribal fish antl wildlife managers and all other interested par- ties to complete assessments, using this template, for each of the sub- basins by early 2001 . These as.sess- ments will then be made available to local, state, federal, and tribal plan- ners to u.se as a ibundation lor devel- oping the management plan compo- nent of subbasin plans. In most subbasins, there are already several programs underway that in some way are involved in watershed planning or restoration. The Council believes that the projects funded under its program should take into account these existing pro- grams and be coordinaf'^^ >«'ith them. " The Council is aware that there is a large number of watershed and sub- basin level activities throughout the basin that are using a wide variety of formats for assessments and plan- ning. The Council intends to rely on the information gathered in those activities as much as possible and does not intend this template to undemiine or displace these on-going efforts. However, for purposes of this program it is important to com- pile this information in a consistent fonnat that permits the coordination of Bonneville-funded activities and planning under the Endangered Spe- cies Act and Clean Water Act. The Council expects that the ini- tial assessments in some subbasins will encounter significant data gaps requiring additional information. In such eases, the subbasin plan should identify this need, and include the measures necessaiy to meet it. In all cases, it is expected that the body of information on which the assessment is based will continue to grow and that, as a regular part of each project review and funding cycle, the assess- ments and plans will be updated. Most of the fish species of interest for subbasin planning move beyond their subbasins of origin for at least some stages of their life cycle. Sub- basin planners will need infonnation and analytical tools that allow them to understand the biological con- straints on their fish populations that stem from areas outside the subbasin, such as mainstem survival rates, ocean and inriver harvest rates, effects of interactions with fish from other subbasins, and ocean condi- tions. The Council will ensure that subbasin planners have access to information of this type. 4. Inventory of Existing Activities In most subbasins, there are already several programs underway that in some way are involved in watershed planning or restoration. The Council believes that the projects funded under its program should take into account these existing programs and be coordinated with them. This coordination will yield a more .scien- tifically and biologically sound fish and wildlife plan and reduce costs. Thus, the .second general compo- nent of a subbasin level plan will be a description of the existing fish and wildlife and habitat projects that are occuning, or have occurred, in the recent past in the subbasin. This ele- ment should include: 1 ) all activities that are taking place or are planned in the subbasin and 2) objectives related to protecting, mitigating or enhanc- ing fish, w ildlife, or their habitats, regardless of funding source or man- agement entity. Both implementa- tion and planning aetiv ities should be addressed. The description for each project or activity should include: • a description of activity, includ- ing its term, its monitoring and evaluation elements, and its goals and objectives • itlentilicalion of management or lead entities for each activity • identification of aulhori/ing pro- cess or entity (Northwest Power 40 UMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM f^laniiing Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fed- eral Energy Regulatory Commis- sion, state watershed plannmg agency, etc.) • identification of relationship to otiier acti\ ities in tiie subbasin • identification of funding source • a synopsis of accomplishments or failures of activity — related to established goals and objectives where possible • identification of limiting fiictors or ecological processes the activ- ity is designed to address 5. Management Plan The management plan is the heart of the subbasin plan. It sets foilh the strategies that will be implemented at a local level. The management plan should be the last major component of the subbasin plan to be developed because the goals and objectives that are included within it will need to reflect what is learned in the assess- ment and imentory work. It is in the management plan that policy, legal, and ecological considerations are merged. The management plan should have a 10-15 year horizon. Management plans adopted into the Council's program must be consistent with the Northwest Power Act and specifically section 4(h)(6) of the act. Neeessai'y elements of the manage- ment plan include: • A vision for the subbasin • Biological objectives for fish and wildlife that: - are consistent with province and basin level visions, objec- tives, and strategics adopted in the program - are responsive to the subbasin assessment findings - are consistent with legal rights and obligations offish and wildlife agencies and tribes "Starting in Council ir,.^..^^ .^ accepting sui plans for adopt: the program. with jurisdiction o\er fish and wildlife in the subbasin. and agreed upon by co-managers in the subbasin. Where there are disagreements among co- managers that translate into dif- fering biological objectives, the ditTerences and the alternative biological objectives should be fully presented - complement the programs of tribal, state and federal land or water quality management agencies in the subbasin - integrate Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements as ftilly as pos- sible - have measurable outcomes Strategies that will be employed over the tenn of the plan to meet the established vision and biolog- ical objectives, including: - an explanation linking the strategies to the established subbasin biological objectives and vision and the subbasin assessment - an explanation of how and why the strategies presented were selected over other alternative strategies (e.g. passive restt)ra- tion strategies v. intervention strategies) - a prop(«ed sequence and prioritization - additional steps required to compile a more complete or detailed assessment • A projected budget for the term of the subbasin plan, including: - a detailed three-year imple- mentation budget - a more general long-temi (10-15 year) budget • A monitoring and evaluation plan that will show v\ hethcr the actions taken to implement the subbasin plan are achieving their objectives • Any additional steps that are necessary to achieve compliance with Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements applicable to that subbasin 6. Developing Plans at the Subbasin Level Starting in 2001, the Council intends to begin accepting subbasin level plans for adoption into the pro- gram. The Council knows that this schedule is veiy aggressive. How- ever, there is little support in the region for either several more years of discussion and planning or for start- ing actions that are not grounded in science-based, subbasin level plans. The Council believes that the first attempt to develop comprehensive subbasin plans must be completed as soon as possible, and that improve- ments can be made as new infomia- tion and experience dictates. The Council sees subbasin plans as flexible documents that will be Fast Fact | LyJ the ori^iniil salmon itinl steelhead huhiuit avuihihlc in the Cohimhia River Basin. 55 I pereent of the area and 31 per- cent of the stream miles have been eliminated hv dam con- struction. 2000 COLUM Fish and Wild 41 revised and updated approximately ever>' tiircc years, l"or liidsc w lid are unable to parlieipate in tins tnne- frame, and for those topics that can not be addressed as fully as mav be ideal, there will be other opportuni- ties in the near future. The Council beliews that subbasin plans must be de\ eloped v\ithin an open public process that provides ample opportunity for participation by a wide range of slate, federal, tribal, and local managers, experts, landown- ers, local governments, and stakehold- ers. The details ol that process will vary from subbasin to subbasin, but there are essentially two stages. First, at the local level, interested parties need to work together to de\elop a plan that, as far as possible, embodies the knowledge, policies, and support of the people in that sub- basin. Recognizing that this eftbrt w ill need to be undertaken somewhat differently in each subbasin, the Council w ill work with state, tribal, federal, and local parties to detennine which approach is most likely to suc- ceed in a particular subbasin, and then help support that approach. The Council believes that other entities are better equipped to take the lead in the local effort, and does not intend to become a lead entity at the local level in the subbasin planning process. Second, when a subbasin plan is proposed for adoption into the program, the Power Act's program ..^•V.i^ '''. '• '.\v l>»-- ■ ■ ■x--:t. ^-^^ .. 'M amendment standards require a public process with full opportunity for public comment and participation. The Act also requires that, at the end of the process, the Council make a decision based on statutoiy standards. It is important to recognize that, while the Council can encourage interested parties to w ork together on a common plan for each subbasin, it cannot preclude any person from submitting a plan. Under the Power Act, the Council is obliged to con- sider and make a decision on each recommendation it receives. After the basin and province levels are fixed in the current pro- gram amendment cycle, the Council will: • Make subbasin assessments avail- able on its website and through other means to the planners, deci- sion-makers, and the public as soon as they are completed • Issue a formal notice and request for recommendations to amend the program. This notice will be limited, and explain that only recommendations at the sublxisin level of the program will be con- sidered • Take extra steps to target this subbasin notice at local gov- ernments, stakeholders, planners, watershed groups and land and water managers in each subbasin • Organize recommendations it receives subbasin by subbasin, for the statutory \ recommenda- tion com- mm " I nicni period. This is intended to facilitate coordination and dis- cussion by those that have made recommendations in any particu- lar subbasin • Assist in facilitating the discus- sions in the subbasins aimed at reconciling the recommendations and ensuring that the program standards for plans are met • Produce drafts of the subbasin plans that are crafted from the recommendations and the facili- tated discussions for public com- ment • Adopt into the program subbasin plans that meet the established standards. Where more time is needed, the Council may adopt placeholders for a subbasin, and establish a longer timeframe for adoption to facilitate continued discussions The Act directs the Council to give special consideration to the rec- ommendations of tribal, state and federal fish and wildlife management entities when considering matters related to fish and w ildlitc. There- fore, subbasin plans should be devel- oped with the participation offish and wildlife managers with jurisdic- tion in the subbasin. As outlined above, the Council will require that subbasin plans dem- onstrate their relationship to Endan- gered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements. This should best be achieved by the participation of the applicable regulatorv' entities in the subbasin level amendment. Because the Council cannot compel this participation, the Council hopes these entities will participate volun- :-..\'-;v',''V;''''ySV. ■ ■■■.. .. 42 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife program tarily. and the Coimcil expects that state and federal agencies and tribes will encourage and facilitate their involvement. Local, state, tribal and federal land and water management entities have programs, authority, and juris- diction beyond that of the fish and wildlife managers. The Council will not require the participation of these entities, but will e\aluate the level of inxoKemcnt pros ided to them in the planning process, and the level of agreement that the\ ha\e with the cotnpleted plan, w hen it consid- ers adopting a plan into the program and or in making its funding recom- mendations to Bonne\ ille. Finally, it is anticipated that the Council and its staff will assist in a facilitation role as plans are devel- oped, and will also seek to ensure that planners address all criteria that ultimately are developed. 7. Scientific Review of Sub- basin Plans The Council will utilize the exper- tise of independent scientists and boards to review subbasin plans. Examples of questions that may be asked of the rexiewers are: • Do the assessments contain the elements required by the criteria? • Are the goals, objectives, and strategies scientifically appropri- ate in light of the assessment and inventory? • Are the goals, objectives, and strategies consistent with those established at the province and basin levels? • r3o the plans tlemonstrate that alternative management responses have been adequately considered? • .-Xre subbasin plans within each province collectively consistent with the province goals, objec- tives, and strategies? In addition, the Council believes that independent review of the sub- basin plans will be an important part of ensuring they are appropriate and useful. 2000 COLUM Fish and Wild 43 44 UMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM Implementation Provisions m T his section contains the administrative pro\ isions for the program. A. Project Implementation, Project Selection and Management Because this program involves hundreds of projects and many millions of dollars per year in fund- ing, an orderly process is needed to decide which projects should be funded and to administer these deci- sions once they are made. This sec- tion describes that process. The procedures for implementing this program should ensure that plan- ning results in on-the-ground actions, and that those actions feed infomia- tion about their results back to the region to guide future decisions. The Council will use the procedures in this section to integrate Bonneville funding for this program with Endan- gered Species Act requirements and the collaborating programs of the states, tribes and federal and local governments. This section also incorporates the strides made in recent years to define improved selection and management practices for fiscal accountability and improved information about regional fish and wildlife efforts. This section is intended to outline the essentials of the project selection process. A more detailed description is included in the Technical Appendix. 1. Deadlines for Reports A number of the strategies in this program call for certain reports to be prepared on an annual or biennial basis. The Council will consult with the parties involved in preparation of these reports to establish the most appropriate time of the year for com- or „ „.jt th. ir' pletion of each report. Following approval by the Council, these dead- lines will be recorded in the Tech- nical Appendix. Deadlines estab- lished for these reports are subject to change by mutual agreement between the Council and the report- ing parties. Unless otherwise indi- cated, all reports are due beginning in calendar year 2002. 2. Project Selection — Basic Requirements and Roles While the Council has always been involved in efforts to ensure that the program it adopts is being imple- mented ctTectively, Congress gave the Council an increased and explicit role in program implementation in a 1996 amendment to the Power Act. The Act now charges the Council, with the assistance of the Independent Sci- entific Review Panel, to make annual recommendations to Bonneville on projects to be funded through the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget to implement the program. The Power Act specifies certain standards and minimum procedures for the project review process, but otherwise al'ibrds the Council broad discretion to deline the procedures for conducting project review and selection. The processes outlined below describe the statutory require- ments and the particular approach that the Council intends to use for the foreseeable future to address these requirements and implement the pro- gram. The Council will continue to refine and modify program imple- mentation measures it finds necessary to best accomplish the fish and wild- life purposes of the Act. In 1998, the U.S. Congress' Senate-House conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill directed the Council, again with the assistance of the Independent Sci- entific Review Panel, to also review on an annual basis the fish and wild- life projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by Bonneville (the "reimbursable programs"). The four major components of the reim- bursable program include the Colum- bia River Fisheries Mitigation Pro- gram (Corps of Engineers); Fish and Wildlife Operations and Mainte- nance Budget (Coips of Engineers); Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice); and the Leavenworth Hatchery (Bureau of Reclamation). It is the Council's intent to integrate to the maximum extent possible the review of these reimbursable programs with the review of the projects funded by Bonneville to implement the Coun- cil's program. Fast Fact (^ oliniihia River Basin resi- dent Jisli. which spend tlieir entire life cycle in freshwater, include: warm-water species, hass and walleve: and iold- water species, cutthroat, bull trout and kokanee. '^ ^■^^ 2000 45 Role of the Independent Seientitic Review Panel The 1 996 amendment to the Power Act directed the Council to tbnn the hidependent Scientilic Rc\ie\v Panel and Scientific Peer Review Groups to re\ iew projects proposed tor fund- ing to implement the Council's pro- gram through the Bonneville Power Administration's annual fish and w ildlife budget. The Act requires the Independent Scientific Review Panel to determine whether projects pro- posed for funding: • Are based on sound science prin- ciples • Benefit fish and wildlife • Ha\e clearly defined objectives and outcomes • Have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results • Are consistent with the program The Independent Scientific Review Panel then provides the Council its recommendations regarding project quality and prior- ities. The 1998 conference report directed the Independent Scientific Review Panel to also review the reimbursable projects using the same standards and provide recommenda- tions to the Council. Role of the Council The Council's primary role in the project review process is to decide which projects to recommend to Bonneville for funding to implement the program. The Council is also to provide recommendations to Con- gress and to the federal agencies on funding for the reimbursable pro- grams. Several considerations must go into those recommendations. The Council must allow for public review and comment on the projects proposed for funding and the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel's recommendations. The Council must fully consider and respond to the recommendations of the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel: the Council must review and determine for itself whether proposed projects are consistent with the Act and the program, mcluding adopted sub- basin plans. The Council must determine if proposed projects have met programmatic or project-spe- cific conditions. By statute, the Council must take into consideration the effects of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations and must determine that projects employ cost ctTective means to meet pro- gram objectives. Role of the Fish and Wildlife Managers Currently, the fish and wildlife managers, through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, develop a draft annual program implementation work plan from the projects proposed for funding. This draft annual work plan is the culmi- nation of a technical and manage- ment review of all proposed projects, and it establishes a proposed annual budget and project priorities. The Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Council review the projects proposed for funding in the context of the managers' draft work plan. The Council anticipates that the fish and wildlife managers will continue to organize themselves and jointly provide these recommendations in the work plan to the Council. The project reviews and advice of the fish and wildlife managers are valuable to the Council as it delib- erates on its funding recommenda- tions. With the program's focus on subbasin level plans as the guiding documents for program implemen- tation, it will be critical that the fish and wildlife managers involve others in the subbasins — ^-stakehold- ers, land owners and managers, other state and federal agencies, and other interested parties — in a meaningful manner in the development of draft work plans to be able to contuuic using these work plan recommenda- tions as the foundation for the Coun- cil's project recommendations. 3. Project Selection - Prov- ince-based Project Review Process The Council is shifting the annual project solicitation, review and selec- tion of projects from a basin-wide exercise to one that focuses on needs identified at a province and subbasin scale. This shift was made to better align the project selection process with this program's structure that focuses planning and implementation most directly at those levels. Further, in focusing the review on a limited number of provinces and subbasins each year, a more in-depth review of proposed projects can be accom- plished. This in-depth review, con- ducted within a more structured sub- basin and province context, will enable the Council to recommend multi-year funding for projects. Elements of province reviews include: • The Council provides for a province meeting to explain the review process to those inter- ested in how Bonneville funding may be used within that prov- ince. Lead groups are selected for each subbasin to develop sub- basin summaries or, where com- pleted and adopted by the Coun- cil, review subbasin plans to identify fish and w ildlife project needs that may be proposed for BonncN illc funding for the next three years • Fish and wildlife needs (from a summary or plan) are made widely available, and Bonnev ille solicits for project proposals to meet the identified needs • Sponsors of ongoing projects submit project renewal proposals that include plans for the next three years, descriptions oi' results to date, and briefings on background documents. Ongo- ing projects will also submit all relevant planning, research, and background documents. Spon- sors of new projects submit pro- 46 ^LUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM posals. All projects must be tied to the approved subbasin plan. Reimbursable programs that are within that province provide sim- ilar information Bonneville should review pro- posed projects and budgets to ensure that regulatoiy needs, including compliance with appli- cable federal law s, are considered, that questions about the adequacy or appropriateness of proposed budgets are resoKed in the Coun- cil's recommendation process, and that any concerns Bonneville has about the performance of ongoing projects are identified The Independent Scientific Re\ iew Panel re\ lews proposals and supporting documents in the context of subbasin plans and the fish and wildlife program The Independent Scientific Re\ iew Panel conducts subbasin province visits with project spon- sors, managers and others. The visit includes an oppoilunity for project sponsors to present their proposals and for a subse- quent question and answer ses- sion with the Independent Sci- entific Review Panel. In addi- tion, the Independent Scientific Review Panel may conduct proj- ect-specific visits After the visit, the Independent Scientific Review Panel produces a draft report on proposals rec- ommended for funding, includ- ing specific questions, and pro- vides it to project sponsors for comments and rc\ isions The project sponsors respond to the draft report The Independent Scientific Rc\ iew Panel addresses the responses and issues a final report and recommendations to the Council. The Council con- siders the Indepcntlcnt Scientific Review Panel report, other statu- tory and programmatic consider- ations, and makes final funding recommendations on program implementation to Bonne\ ille. The Council also makes recom- mendations on the funding of projects within the reimbursable programs to Congress and the relevant federal agencies • Systemwide projects will be reviewed as a separate unit within the review schedule. Wherever possible, projects within the mainstem will be re\ iewed as part of the review of the province in which they are located, although certain projects that concern systemwide passage, water management and dissolved gas issues may be reviewed as part of a separate category of integrated mainstem passage activities 4. Project Funding Priorities The Northwest Power Act estab- lishes Bonneville's obligation to fully mitigate for fish and w ildlife impacts tYom the development and operation of the hydropower system. The Council recognizes its obliga- tion, in turn, to construct a program that guides Bonneville's mitigation efforts. The Council recognizes that the work necessary to satisfy Bonn- eville's mitigation obligation must be staged to accommodate yearly budget limitations. The Council also believes that final determination of the yearly direct program budget may properly be reser\ed for a later phase of the program amendment process where the project funding needs will be more greatly intbrmed by subbasin planning. Funding for provincial budgets to implement subbasm plans v\ill be pail of the direct program budget along with any subsequent increases. The Council adopts the following funding principles to prioritize among the manv needs to address fish and wildlife impacts throughout the basin: • The Bonneville Power Admin- istration will fulfill its Fi.sh and Wildlife Funding Principles (September 16, 1998) including the commitment to "meet all of its fish and w ildlife obligations" • The detennination of provincial budget levels should take into account the level of impact caused by the federally operated hydropower system. Other fac- tors w ill also influence this deter- mination including opportunities for off-site mitigation • Wildlife mitigation should emphasize addressing areas of the basin w ith the highest propor- tion of unmitigated losses To prioritize among the many needs to address fish and wildlife impacts throughout the basin, the Council will maintain the current funding allocation for anadromous fish (70 percent), resident fish ( 15 percent), and wildlife ( 1 5 percent), until a new budget allocation is adopted. Funding Allocation 5. Coordination with Other Regional Programs The Council will pursue opportu- nities to integrate program strategies w ith other federal, state, tribal. Cana- dian, and volunteer fish and wildlife 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PR' 47 restoration programs. The Council will use tiie subbasin planning pro- cess to identity coordination needs and opportunities. Tiie subbasin planning process should inxcntory regulatory requirements, including Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act measures, clarify water and land management objecti\es affecting fish and wildlife, and fit program funding to other programs for the maximum benefit. As the Council refines the prov- ince-based project review and fund- ing process, it will tV)cus the infor- mation requirements of the process to identify how project sponsors may link their efforts to address program objectives with the objectives or requirements of other programs. The Ct)uncil will use the subbasin planning process to review Endan- gered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements in more detail and obtain independent scientific review of both the program measures and the requirements of applicable bio- logical opinions. The Council will present the results of these reviews and any revised recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider further revision or reconciliation of biological opin- ion requirements. Pursuant to the rcqunements of the 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, the Coun- cil will also report the results of these reviews to Congress as pail of the annual review of reimbursable proj- ects. The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to call on the federal action agencies to annually develop one- and five-year implementation plans and associated budgets for activities they intend to undertake to meet the perR)rmance standards and objectives for listed species. The Council endorses this approach, and once the requirement is further defined, will seek to incorporate these plans into the subbasin review process. For non-operational measures proposed by biological opinions for Bonneville funding (such as research "The Council will pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other federal, state, tribal, Canadian, and volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs. " or off-site habitat measures), the Council will call on Bonneville, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Ser\'ice to first define proposed projects consis- tently with the project proposal form and process for Bonneville's direct- funded program. The Council will seek review of these proposals with the other projects proposed in the project review process. 6. Project Management To facilitate multi-year funding and contracting, the Council will require projects to identify specific tasks, objectives, deliverables, and their associated costs. Bonneville and the Council will establish pro- tocols to ensure that projects stay within their approved scope and funding authorizations. Bonneville shall define terms and conditions for project contracts that support timely and complete reporting by contractors of expen- ditures and progress toward defined project objectives. These require- ments should ensure that project sponsors report expenditures and progress in enough detail to nK)nitor performance of the specific tasks and objectives identified in the original project propo.sal from the Council. 7. Annual Report to Gover- nors and the Region Bonneville and the federal oper- ating agencies will work coopera- tively w ith the Council to produce an annual report which will provide an accounting of its fish and wildlife expenditures and hydropower opera- tion costs. 8. Funding Agreement for Land and Water Acquisi- tions Experience implementing this program has shown great advantages in being able to move quickly and flexibly to acquire interests in land and water rights for the purpose of protecting or enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. Often the oppor- tunity for an important acquisition exists only for a short period of time, and often there is a substantial price advantage in being able to quickly close the transaction. The time and uncertainty of the current project selection process, and the procedural constraints on real estate acquisition by the federal agencies have made these transactions relatively difficult and more costly than necessary. The Council recommends that Bonneville establish a funding agree- ment for land and water acquisitions. The Council will establish a mech- anism, including an advisoiy entity, that can act flexibly, quickly, and responsibly in approxing t\inding tor land and v\ater acquisition proposals. The primary elements are: • A dedicated budget within Bonn- eville's fish and wildlife fimding establishing the amount of fund- ing for land and water acquisi- tions available per year, for a multi-year period. The budget would be known as the "Land and Water Acquisition Fund" • An advisory board appointed by the Council after consultations with reprcsentati\cs from Bonn- e\ illc. fcileral aiui state fish and wildlife and land manage- ment agencies. Columbia Basin Indian tribes, non-profu organiza- tions specializing in habitat and water acquisitions, and the Coun- cil. The board would recommend 48 UMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM for Council approval all land and water acquisitions from the dedi- cated budget. The Council will make all linal recommendations and decisions regarding land and water acquisitions from the fund • Specific procedures and criteria for the board to use in identifying, reviewing, and deciding whether to recommend proposals for land and water acquisitions. These cri- teria will be reviewed by the hide- pendent Scientific Re\ iew Panel, but specific land and water acqui- sitions would not require Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel review. An element of these cri- teria will be a preference for proposed actions that 1 ) address imminent risks to the survival of one or more species listed under the Endangered Species Act and 2) are broadly recognized as achieving direct fish and wild- life benefits. The criteria should emphasize consistency w ith the program's biological objectives and subbasin plans • Standardized terms for imple- menting acquisitions, including matters of contracting, manage- ment, crediting, operation and maintenance costs, and monitor- ing and evaluation requirements • Accountability provisions for reporting on monies spent, prop- erties acquired, biological gain, and consistency with program and subbasin objectives. The program as a whole will receive periodic Independent Scientific Review Panel review The Council will work with Bonn- eville and other mterested parties to establish the details of the acquisition fund and have it ready for acquisitions by Januaiy 1 , 2001 . All aciiuisilions must be on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, consistent with state water law, and consistent with the other provisions of this program. Council members will be notified of all acqui- sition proposals under consideration "The Council reco that Bonneville establish a funding agreement for land and water acquisitions." by the advisoty board. The fund will not be used for a proposed acquisition if both Council members from that state object to the acquisition. The fiind will not take title to acquisitions except on an interim basis, but will, for each transaction, identify an appropriate entity to hold the inter- est acquired. The fund will work in cooperation with other efforts that are already underway to benefit fish and wildlife through acquisitions of land and may provide cost sharing or full funding for transactions that have been aiTanged by others. In appropriate cir- cumstances, the fund may provide for the continuing payment of local taxes and fees on an acquisition. B. Independent Scientific Review An projects funded under this pro- gram are required by law to undergo review by an independent sci- ence panel. In addition, the program uses a second, related panel of scien- tists to provide advice to the region on key scientific issues. Independent scientific review is an established tradition in research and development programs in the United States and much of the world. Independent scientific review can help decision-makers separate sci- entitic variables from other consider- ations (political, economic, cultural, etc.) and help ensure that eiivH\)nmen- tal decision-making reflects the best scientific knowledge of the day. In Ihe Columbia River Basin, the magnitude of scientific research undertaken and uncertainties that remain are stagger- ing. Independent scientific review can identify strengths and weaknesses of scientific programs and critical infor- mation gaps that are most relevant to management and policy decisions. Independent scientific review for the fish and wildlife program is imple- mented by two grt)ups: the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. Each group provides unique services to the program. The indepen- dent Scientific Review Panel reviews individual projects in the context of the program and makes recommen- dations on matters related to those projects. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board provides an on-call scientific body for peer review of vari- ous reports, projects, and issues atTect- ing Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. The Independent Scientific Review Panel was created after the last Council program amendment, and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board's role was expanded from the 1 994- 1 995 Program to meet the National Marine Fisheries Service's needs. This program amendment for- malizes, distinguishes, and specifies the roles, responsibilities, and proce- dures of the two groups while main- taining a strong link between the groups. The background and respon- sibilities for each group, and a descrip- tion of the shared administrative pro- cedures for both groups follows. Fast Fact (^oliiinbia River Basin rcsi- deut fish, which spend their entire life cycle in freshwater, include: warm-water species, hass and walleve: and cold- water species, cutthroat, hull trout and kokanee. 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 49 1. The Independent Scientific Review Panel Kc\icn l^csponsibilities ^ »tfT^-l^^V " ~' I III! The 1 996 amendment to the Power Aet direeted the Couiieil to appoint an 1 1 -member panel of independent scientists and addi- tional peer review groups. These scientists provide advice and infor- mation regarding scientific aspects ot projects that the Council may rec- ommend for funding by Bonneville. The Independent Scientific Review Panel and peer review groups have responsibilities in three areas: • Review projects proposed for Bonneville funding to implement the Council's program The Power Act directs the Independent Scientific Review Panel to review annually projects that are proposed for Bonneville funding to implement the Coun- cil's program. The Act specifies the review standards that the Independent Scientific Review Panel is to use and the kinds of recommendations to make to the Council. The Council must fully consider the Independent Scien- tific Review Panel's report prior to making its funding recom- mendations to Bonneville, and must explain in writing w herever the Council's recommendations differ from the Independent Sci- entific Review Panel's. • Retrospective review of program accomplishments The 1996 amendment also directs the Independent Scientific Review Panel, with assistance from the Scientific Peer Review Groups, to annually review the results of prior-year expenditures based upon the project review criteria and submit its findings to the Council. 4 \S^^y The retrospec- v^^'j^*} tive review should focus on the measurable benefits to fish and wildlife made through projects funded by Bonneville and previously reviewed. The Independent Sci- entific Review Panel's findings should provide biological infor- mation for the Council's ongoing accounting and evaluation of Bonneville's expenditures and the level of success in meeting the objectives of the program, as described in the monitoring and evaluation section. Also as pail of the Independent Scientific Review Panel's annual retro- spective report, the Independent Scientific Review Panel should summarize its province review efforts and identify the major basinwide programmatic issues gleaned from the province reviews. Review projects funded through Bonneville's reimbursable pro- gram In 1998, the U.S. Congress' Senate-House conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appro- priations bill directed the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel to review the fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency bud- gets that are reimbursed by Bonneville, using the same stan- dards and making recommenda- tions as in its review of the projects proposed to implement the Council's program, further details of the Independent Sci- entific Revievs Panel's project review responsibilities are described earlier, in the section on project selection. The Independent Scientific Review Panel is a standing group that meets throughout the year. Recommendations from the Independent Scientific Review Panel are reached by consensus. The Independent Sci- entific Review Panel may enlist Peer Review Group members to assist in reviews. From the pool of Peer Review Group members, the Independent Sci- entific Review Panel selects reviewers who have the appro- priate expertise for the review at issue. The Independent Sci- entific Review Panel develops guidelines and criteria for reviews that include lists of mate- rials reviewed, site-visit proto- cols, and limits to re\ iewer and project sponsor communication. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service established the Independent Scientific Advisoiy Board to pro\ ide independent sci- entific advice to the region through measures described in the Council's 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Pro- gram and the National Marine Fisher- ies Service's I99S Proposed Recov- ery Plan for Snake Ri\cr Salmon. Rather than establish two groups, the National Marine Fisheries Ser\ ice and the Council created the Indepen- dent Scientific Advisory Board. In creating the Independent Scientific Advisoiy Board, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council hoped to a\oid gridlock o\ er scien- tific uncertainty, circumvent unneces- sary additional research, and resolve conflicting ad\ ice and opiniims on recovei"v issues and measures. 50 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Review Procedures The Independent Scientific Ad\ i- sory Board is a standing group that meets regularly throughout the year. Recommendations I'rom the Inde- pendent Scientific Advisory Board are reached by consensus. The Inde- pendent Scientific ,'\d\isory Board may enlist ad hoc members to assist in re\'ie\vs. Ad hoc members may include Independent Scientific Review Panel and Peer Review Group members. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board conducts reviews in a manner consistent vv ith its tenns of reference and procedures policy. Independent Scientific .\dvisory Board Administrative Oversight Panel A panel consisting of the chair of the Northwest Power Planning Council, the regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Ser\'ice. and a representati\e from the Columbia Basin Indian tribes provides administrative oversight for the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and approves the Independent Scientific Advisory Board work plan. The panel makes appointments to the Independent Scientific Advi- sory Board from a list developed by a Scientific Screening Commit- tee. Decisions of the panel shall be by majority vote. The Council shall work with the National Marine Fish- eries Service and the regional Indian tribes to amend the Independent Sci- entific Advisory Board's tenns of reference to provide this role for the regional Indian tribes, and to define protocols for the .Adminis- trative Oversight Panel that ensure the Independent Scientific Advisory Board's continued independence. Specific Tasks of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board • Evaluate the program's scientific principles to ensure they are con- sistent with the best available sci- ence Evaluate the fish and wildlife program on its scientific merits in time to infonn amendments to the fish and wildlife program and before the Council requests rec- ommendations from the region Evaluate National Marine Fish- eries Service recovery plans for Columbia River Basin stocks and aspects of the recovery process when requested - Review the scientific and technical issues associated with efforts to improve anadromous fish survival through all life stages, based on adaptive man- agement approaches - Review and provide advice on priorities for conservation and recovery efforts, includ- ing research, monitoring and evaluation Provide specific scientific advice on topics and questions requested from the region and approved by the oversight panel. Tribes, fish and wildlife agencies and others may submit questions to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board through the oversight panel. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board may also identify questions and pro- pose reviews. The oversight panel and the Independent Sci- entific Advisory Board reviews these questions in a timely manner and decides which are amenable to scientific analysis, are relevant to the Council's and National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice's programs, and fit within the Independent Scientific Advi- sory Board's work plan In 2000, The National Marine Fisheries Service established a Recovery Science Review Panel and Technical Review Teams that will provide scientific advice on West Coast salmon recovery efforts. The Independent Scien- tific Adv isory Board effort will be coordinated with The National Marine Fisheries Service's panel and teams to a\ ciid redundancy. 3. Administration of the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel, the Scientific Peer Review Groups, and the Independent Scientific Advi- sory Board Membership The Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board shall each be composed of eleven members. Peer Review Groups shall be com- posed of a pool of scientists sufficient in size and expertise to assist the Independent Scientific Review Panel in its review responsibilities. To ensure coordination and avoid redun- dancy of eftbrts between the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, at least two members of the Independent Scientific Review Panel shall be on the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. Other Independent Scientific Advisory Board members should be considered for appointment to the Peer Review Group. Membership for each group shall include, to the extent feasible, sci- entists with expertise in Columbia River anadromous and resident fish ecology, statistics, wildlife ecology, and ocean and estuary ecology, fish husbandry, genetics, geomorphology, social and economic sciences, and other relevant disciplines. There Fast Fact yy hile development of the hydrosysteiu harmed sonic spe- cies of widlife, others bene- fitted. Waterfowl, for example, gained new shoreline feeding and winterinii habitat when res- ' crvoirs filled behind ihuns. I L 2000 COLUMl 51 should be a balance between sci- entists witii specific i: .Vppointment Procedures The appointment procedures to till vacancies on the Independent Scien- tific Advisoi-y Board and the Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel, and to augment the pool of Peer Review Group members, follows three steps. Tiie lirst two steps are the same for each group. First, the Council, in cooperation with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board Oversight Panel, invites the region to submit nom- i n a t i o n s . Second, a three-mem- ber committee of the National Academy of Sciences, assisted by the National Research Council, evaluates the credentials of the nom- inees, submits additional nominees if necessaiy, and recommends a pool of qualified candidates for potential appointment. This pool of candidates should span the areas of needed expertise meet the membership critc- br the Independent Scien- tific Review Panel and Inde- pendent Scientific Advisory Board. The pool should be robust enough to last through several rounds of appointments. The third step, the appointment pro- cedure, varies for the Inde- pendent Scientific Advisory Board and Inde- pendent Scientific Review Panel. The Independent Scientific Advisoiy Board Oversight Panel appoints Independent Scientific \ Advisoi7 Board members. The Council alone OiflAvj- 'i..'i7»'>— T->>C.V.-, Lfi-Ji.' appoints Independent Scientific Review Panel and Peer Review Cjroup members. Conflict of Interest Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Independent Scientific Review Panel and Scientific Peer Review Group members are subject to the conflict of interest standards that apply to scientists performing comparable work for the National Academy of Sciences. At a mini- mum, members with direct or indi- rect financial interest in a project shall be recused from review of, or recommendations associated with, such a project. The Council may create a Conflict of Interest Policy that satisfies the needs of the pro- gram, applies to the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, and is at least as rigorous as the National Academy of Sciences standards. 52 LUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM Tribal Rights, Water Rich The role of Fish & Wildlif A. Recognition of Tribal Role Tlic Council recognizes tliat ihc Indian tribes in the Columbia River Basin lia\e vital inter- ests directly aftl'cted by activities cov- ered in this program. These Indian tribes are sovereigns with go\crnmen- tal rights over their lands and people, and with rights over natural resources which are reserved by or protected in treaties, executive orders, and fed- eral statutes. The United States has a trust obligation toward hidian tribes to preserve and protect these rights and authorities. Nothing in this program is intended to atTect or niodii\' any trust or treaty right of an Indian tribe. The Council also recognizes that imple- mentation of this program will require significant interaction and cooperation with the tribes, and commits to work- ing with the tribes in a relationship that recognizes the tribes" interests in co- management of affected fish and wild- life resources, and respects the sover- eignty of tribal governments. B. Water Rig As provided by the Northwest Power Act, nothing in this program shall atTcct the rights or jurisdictions of the United States, the states, Indian tribes, or other entities over waters of any river or stream or over any groundwater resources or otherwise be construed to alter or establish the respective rights of States, the United States, Indian Tribes, or any person with respect to any water or water- related right. C. Role of Fish and Wildlife Agencies The Northwest Power Act envi- sions a strong role for fish and wild- life agencies and Indian tribes in developing the provisions of this pro- gram. In Sections 4(h)(6)(A) and 4(h)(6)(D) of the Act, the Council is directed to include program measures that it detennines (A) "complement the existing and future activities of the Federal and the region's State fish and wildlife agencies and appropriate Indian tribes" and ( D) "will be con- sistent with the legal rights of appro- priate Indian tribes in the region." 2000 COLUM 53 54 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Schedule for Furti Rulemakings This program describes addi- tional amendment proceed- ings that are intended by tlie Council tor further revisions. In order to assure that these further revisions are adopted in an orderly manner, the Council commits to the following schedule: A. Mainstem Coordi- nation Plan On or before May 1 . 200 1 , the Council will solicit recommendations for a mainstem coordination plan, sim- ilar to a subbasin plan. The plan will consider ways in which the hydrosys- tem operations called for in the bio- logical opinions could be adjusted so as to assure that these operations meet the needs of ESA-listed stocks and the dictates of the Northwest Power Act. The hydrosystem measures con- tained in this plan will also provide necessary guidance to the Council's subbasin planning process. The plan will include, as appropri- ate, specific measures such as stan- dards for systemwide coordination, flow regimes, spill, resei"voir eleva- tions, water retention times, passage modifications at mainstem dams, operational requirements to protect mainstem spawning and rearing areas, and operational requirements to protect resident tish and wildlife. The Council plans to complete this rulemakmg by October 200 1 . B. Objectives for Basin level Envi- ronmental Charac- teristics The Council has requested review by the Independent Scientific Advi- sory Board of the basin level environ- menlal characteristics contained in the Appendix to this program by .lime 2001 . Following this review, if fur- ther changes arc merited, the Council will request recommendations on or before October 2001 and consider amendments to these objectives, with final amendments adopted by .luly 2002. The date of completion may vary depending on the comments received and issues raised. C. Province Level Goals, Objectives, AND Strategies The Council will continue to work with interested parties to develop potential goals, objectives, and strate- gies at the level of ecological prov- inces. The Council expects that the infomiation developed for, and in, the subbasin planning process will also infomi the province level elements, and help shape the subbasin plans so that they are coordinated with the plans of other subbasins in their province. At this time, the Council is not scheduling a further nilemaking for province level goals, objectives, and strategies. If further information is developed that merits such amend- ments, the Council will solicit recom- mendations and accept amendments. In the course of adopting subbasin plans, the Council will consider how the proposed plans fit with one another within and among provinces. The Council expects that, at the conclusion of the subbasin planning process, it will conduct a specific amendment process to incoiporate specific provincial visions, objec- tives, and strategies. D. Subbasin plans In .lanuai-y 2001. the Council will issue a call tor recommendations lor subbasin plans. Recommendations will be received on or before May 1,2001; November 1. 2001; May 1, 2002; November 1, 2002; May 1. 2003; November 1. 2003; May 1. 2004; and Ni)vember 1, 2004. fhe Council will make a decision on each subbasin plan within one year of its receipt, unless otherwise agreed by the recommending party. In other words, subbasin plans can be submitted on any of these dates during this three-year period, and the date e)f final decision will be one year or less after receipt. For example, a plan submitted on November 1, 2002, will be acted upon by November I, 2003. The Council is taking this approach to assure that subbasin plans can be submitted when ready, and also to assure that the parties working on a plan within a subbasin have a reasonable opportunity to come together on a common plan. The Council recognizes that the timing for submission of plans will vary depending on a number of fac- tors, including the level of inftirma- tion and planning already available in a subbasin and the working relation- ship among the participants. Under the Northwest Power Act, there is no requirement of consensus in order for a recommendation to be submitted to the Council and it is possible that different parties will submit different plans for a given subbasin. However, the level of sup- port by the affected parties in a sub- basin for a plan can be an important factor in gauging how well the plan meets the standards of the Northwest Power Act, and whether that plan can be effectively imple- mented. Thus, the Council strongly encourages interested parties to work together as much as possible to pres- ent a single, well-supported plan for each subbasin. Fast Fact 1 he Columhiu-Snake t River Svstcni is (1 unified trans- ■, porUtlion sv.swm with thirly- • six deep and slialhnv water ports. ^ 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PR 55 ^® 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM Transition Pro Continuation of existing measures Unless specifically stated other- wise, all measures not directly super- seded by this program v\ ill continue to have tbrce and effect until 1 ) a subbasin plan has been adopted by the Council for the subbasin in which the project is located (or, for research and mainstem measures, a research ormainstem plan); 2) the measure has been specifically repealed in a subsequent rulemaking; or 3) three years have elapsed following the final approval of this program, whichever occurs first. 2000 Co 57 ^^ 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Appendix The Appendix, u hicli follows in this volume, is legally part of the fish and wildlife pro- gram. The pro\ isions of this Appen- dix have been formally adopted by the Council and changes to this Appendix require formal amendment of the fish and w ildiife program. Appendix The contents of the .A.ppendix are: A. Glossary B. Hydroelectric Development Conditions: This section was pre\iousiy Section 12 ("Future Hydroelectric Development") of the 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program. This chapter contains conditions to protect fish and wildlife that are applicable to FERC-licensed projects and also designates certain areas as Pro- tected Areas, in which the Council recommends there be no new hydroelectric projects developed. C. Wildlife Provisions: These provisions were previously part of Section 11 ("Wildlife")' of the 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program, including Section 1 1.2E ("Mitigation Priorities"), Section 1 1.5A ("Mitigation Considerations in Dam Licens- ing") and Table 1 1 .4 ("Esti- mated Losses Due to Hydro- power Construction"). D. Pro\isional Statement of Bio- logical Objectives for environ- mental characteristics at the Basin level. E. Findings on the Recommenda- tions Submitted to the C^nincil in 2()()() for Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program (the findings are not contained in this volume. Ihey arc posted on the Council's website at http:// www.nwcouncil.org and will be available on the same CD-ROM with the Technical Appendix). 2000 Columbia river b 59 Technical App The Technical Appendix, which is published separately, contains reference materials which provide further information and assistance in implementing this program. In most instances, these materials amplify the provisions of the program with information at a greater le\el of detail than the main text of the program. The materials in the Technical Appendix have been approved by the Council for inclu- sion in the Technical Appendix, but have not been formally adopted as part of this program and may be changed without amending the pro- gram itself. To conserve paper, the full Tech- nical Appendix to this program is not attached, but is posted on the Council's website at http:// www.nwppc.org. The Council also intends to make the Technical Appendix available on a CD-ROM. Technical Appendix The contents of the Technical Appendix may be modified from time to time, but cunently include: A. The Scientific Foundation. This document is a more detailed discussion of the information underlying the scientific princi- ples and ecological provinces in the program. B. Artificial Production Review Report (text Warn the APR including policies and purposes for artificial production). C. Project management and imple- mentation guidelines, including the subbasin assessment tem- plate, the subbasin plan tem- plate, three step review pro- cedures and implementation of statutory requirements regarding cost-effectiveness and consider- ation of ocean conditions. D. Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Capital Construc- tion Program, a report of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (1W8). E. Schedule of dates for reports requested under this program. (To be approved by the Council following consultation v\ ith the atTected parties.) F. Estimates of hydropower-related losses, consisting of Appendix D "Compilation of Information on Salmon and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia River Basin" and Appendix E "Numerical Esti- mates of Hydropower-Related Losses" from the 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program. The Technical Appendix may be expanded as appropriate to include other documents that will be valu- able as references in implementing the Council's program. 2000 Columbia 61 Appendix A: Glossary The definitions in lliis list arc pro- vided for clarification of terms used throughout this program. Act — See Noilhwest Power Act. adaptive management A scientific policy that seeks to improve management of biological resources, particularly in areas of sci- entific uncertainty, by viewing pro- gram actions as vehicles for learning. Projects are designed and imple- mented as experiments so that even if they fail, they provide useful infor- mation for future actions. Monitoring and evaluation are emphasized so that the interaction of different elements of the system are better understood. anadromous fish Fish that hatch in freshwater, migrate to the ocean, mature there and return to freshwater to spawn. For example, salmon or steelhead. applicable federal laws The Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. biological diversity The variety of and \ariability among, living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. BicMogical diversity at its most basic level is the genetic diversity (genetic variation found within each species), phenotypic and morphologi- cal diversity (physical, life histoiy and behavioral variation found within each species), species diversity (number of species in a given ecosystem), and community/ecosystem diversity (vari- ety of habitat types and ecosystem processes extending over a region). biological performance The responses of populations to habitat conditions, described in terms of capacity, abundance, productivity, and life history diversity. biological potential The biological potential of a species means the potential capacity, produc- tivity and life history diversity of a pop- ulation in its habitat at each life stage. blocked areas Areas in the Columbia River Basin where hydroelectric projects have cre- ated pennanent barriers to anadro- mous fish iiins. These include the areas above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams, the Hells Canyon Com- plex and other smaller locations. Bonneville Power Administra- tion (Bonneville) The sole federal power marketing agency in the Northwest and the region's major wholesaler of electric- ity. Created by Congress in 1937, Bonne\ ille sells power to public and private utilities, direct service cus- tomers, and various public agencies in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana west of the Con- tinental Divide, (and parts of Mon- tana east of the Divide) and smaller adjacent areas of California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. The Northwest Power Act charges Bonneville with additional duties related to energy conservation, resource acquisition, and lish and wildlife. Bureau of Reclamation, V.S. Department of the Interior An agency that administers some parts of the federal program for water resource development and use in western states. The Bureau of Rec- lamation owns and operates a number of dams in the Columbia River Basin, including (irand Coulee and several projects on the Yakima River. bypass system A channel or conduit in a dam that provides a route for fish to move through or around the dam without going through the turbine units. captive broodstock Fish raised and spawned in captiv ity. carrying capacity The number of individuals of one species that the resources of a habitat can support. Columbia River Compact An interstate compact between the states of Oregon and Washington by which the states jointly regulate fish in the Columbia River. Columbia River System Tlie Coliunbia River and its tributeuies. Columbia River Treaty The treaty between the United States and Canada for the joint de\elopment of the Columbia River. It became effective on September 1 6, I %4. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army (Corps) An agency with the responsibility for design, construction and operation of civil works, including multipur- pose dams and na\ igation projects. cost-effective Where equally effective alterna- tive means of achieving the same sound biological objective exist, the 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program A-1 alternative with the minimum eco- nomic cost is considered tlie most cost-ettcctive measure. dissolved gas The amount of chemicals nomialiy occiuring as gases, such as nitiogcn and oxN'gen. that arc held in solution in w atcr, expressed in units such as mil- hgrams of the gas per liter of liquid. Supersaturation occurs when these solu- tions exceed the saturation ie\el of the water (beyond 100 percent). ecosystem The biological community consid- ered together with the land and water that make up its environment. environmental characteristics The environmental conditions or changes sought to achieve the desired changes in population characteristics. escapement The number of salmon and steel- head that return to a specified point of measurement after all natural mor- tality and harvest have occurred. Spawning escapement consists of those fish that surxive to spawn. estuary The part of the wide lower course of a river where its current is met and intluenced by the tides. extinction The natural or human-induced process by which a species, subspe- cies or population ceases to exist. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) The Commission issues and reg- ulates licenses for construction and operation of non-fcdcrai hydroelec- tric projects and advises federal agencies on the merits of proposed federal multipurpose water de\elop- ment projecls. fish and wildlife agencies This catcgoiy includes the Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Depailmcnt of the Interior; the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; the Montana Depart- ment of Frsh, Wildlife and Parks; the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce; the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- life; and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish Passage Center The center established under sec- tion III (DH6) of the program. flows The rate at which water passes a given point in a stream or river, usually expressed in cubic-feet per second (cfs). flow augmentation Increased flow from release of water from storage dams. H habitat The locality or external environ- ment in which a plant or animal normally lives and grows. As used ni this program, habitat includes the ecological functions of the habitat structure. harvest management The process of setting regulations for liic commercial, recreational and tribal fish harvest to achieve a speci- fied goal within the fishery. hydroelectric power or hydro- power The generation of electricity using falling water to turn turbo-clcctric generators. hydrosystem The hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries. I Implementation Team A policy-level working group established by the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide advice on the implementation of the bio- logical opinion on the effects of the federal dams in the Columbia River basin. The IT oversees the Technical Management Team, which deals with hydrosystem operations, and the System Configuration Team, which deals with structural changes at the dams to impro\ e fish passage. impoundment A body of water formed behind a dam. irrigation screens Screens using wire mesh placed at the point where water is diverted from a stream or ri\ en The screens keep fish from entering the diversion channel or pipe. juvenile Fish from approximately one year of age until sexual maturity. M mainstem The nuun channel of the rucr in a river basin, as opposed to the streams and smaller rivers that feed into it. In the fish and wildlife program, maiii- A-2 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM stem refers lo entirety ol'tlie Colum- bia and Snake rivers. mainstem passage Tiie movement of salmon and steelhead around or through the dams and reservoirs in the Columbia and Snake ri\ ers. mainstem survival The proportion of anadromous fish that survive passage through the dams and reservoirs while migrating in tiie Columbia and Snake rivers. metadata Data exist in two forms — primaiy data and metadata. Primary data are numbers or counts — for example, the number of adult fish counted in a given time period, interval and location. Metadata describe how those numbers were obtained, including the monitor- ing design (selecfion of times and loca- tions), objectives, and methods. mixed-stock fishery A harvest management technique by which different species, strains, races or stocks are harvested together. N iiatiirai production Spawning, incubating, hatching and rearing fish in rivers, lakes and streams without human intervention. naturally spawning populations Populations offish that have completed their entire life cycle in the natural environment and may be the progeny of wild, hatchery or mixed parentage. Northwest Power Act 1 he Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act ( 16 U.S.C. S3y et .scq.), which authorized the creation of the North- west Power Planning Council. The act ilirects the Council lo develop this program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat on the Columbia River and its trib- utaries, to establish an Independent Scientific Rev iew Panel to review projects implementing this program that are proposed for funding by Bonnev ille, and to make final recom- mendations to lionneville on imple- mentation projects. off-site mitigation The improvement in conditions for fish or wildlife species away from the site of a hydroelectric project that had detrimental effects on fish and/or wildlife, as part or total compensa- tion for those effects. An example of off-site mitigation is the fish passage restoration work being conducted in the Yakima River Basin for the detri- mental effects caused by mainstem hydroelectric projects. operational losses The direct wildlife losses caused by the day-to-day fluctuations in flows and resei^voir levels resulting Worn the operation of the hydrosystem. passage The movement of migratory fish through, around, or over dams, res- ervoirs and other obstructions in a stream or river. PIT tags Passive Integrated Transponder tags are used for identifying indi- vidual salmon fi>r monitoring and research purposes. This mmiaturized tag consists of an integrated micro- chip thai is programmed to identify indiv idual fish, fhe tag is inserted into the body cavity of the iisli and decoded at selected monilorina sites. plume The area of the Pacific Ocean that is influenced by discharge from the Columbia River, up to 500 miles beyond the mouth of the river. population A group of organisms belonging to the same species that occupy a well-defined locality and exhibit reproductive continuity from genera- tion to generation. powerhouse A primary part of a hydroelectric dam where the turbines and gener- ators are housed and where power is produced by falling water rotating turbine blades. rearing The juvenile life stage of anadro- mous fish spent in freshwater rivers, lakes and streams before they migrate to the ocean. reservoir A body of water collected and stored in an artificial lake behind a dam. resident fish Fish that spend their entire life cycle in fi^eshwater. For program pur- poses, resident fish includes landlocked anadromous fish (e.g., white sturgeon, kokanee and coho), as well as tradition- ally defined resident fish species. resident fish substitutions The enhancement of resident fish to address losses of salmon and steelhead in those areas per- manently blocked to anadromous (ocean-migrating) fish as a result of hydroelectric dams. 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM A-3 riparian habitat Habitat along the banks of streams, lakes or rivers. run A population of fish of the same species consisting of one or more stocks mieratina at a distinct time. salmonid A fish of the Saimonidae family, which includes soft-finncd fish such as salmon, trout and u hitefish. smolt A juvenile salmon or steelhead migrating to the ocean and undergo- ing physiological changes (smoltifi- cation) to adapt its body from a fresh- water to a saltwater existence. spa\> n The act offish releasing and fertil- izing eggs. species A group of individuals of common ancestry that closely resem- ble each other structurally and phys- iologically and that can interbreed, prt)ducing fertile offspring. spill Releasing water through the spillway rather than through the turbine units. spillway 1 he channel or passageway around or over a dam through which excess water is released or "spilled" past the dam without going through the turbines. A spillway is a safety valve for a dam and, as such, must be capable of discharging major floods without damaging the dam, while maintaining the reservoir level below some predetermined maximum level. stock A population offish spawning in a particular stream during a particular season. They generally do not inter- breed with fish spawning in a differ- ent stream or at a different time. suhbasin A set of adjoining watersheds with similar ecological conditions and trib- utaries that ultimately connect, flow- ing into the same river or lake. Sub- basins contain major tributaries to the Columbia and Snake rivers. supplementation The release of hatchery fiy and juvenile fish in the natural environ- ment to quickly increase or establish naturally spawning fish populations. subbasin planning A coordinated systemwide approach to planning in which each subbasin in the Columbia system will be evaluated for its potential to pro- duce fish in order to contribute to the goal of the overall system. The plan- ning will emphasize the integration of fish and wildlife habitat, fish passage, harvest management and production. target population A species or population singled out for attention because of its har- vest significance or cultural value, or because it represents a significant group of ecological functions in a particular habitat type. terminal tishery A fishery designed to increase har- vest of abundant fish stocks and min- imi/e cfTects on depleted stocks by focusing the fisheiy on locations where the abundant stocks are produced in net pens, for example and w here the fish also return to spaw n. Technical Management Team A technical working group estab- lished by the National Marine Fish- eries Service to provide advice on how to operate the federal dams in the Columbia River Basin in a manner that minimizes fish and wildlife impacts. The TMT deals with issues such as reservoir storage levels, flow augmentation, and spill. transboundary Refers to U.S. and Canadian border.. transportation Collecting migrating juvenile fish and transporting them around the dams using barges or trucks. tribes In this program, these include the Burns-Paiute Tribe; the Coeur d'Alene Tribes; the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; the Confederated Tribes of the Uma- tilla Reservation of Oregon; the Con- federated Tribes of the Wami Springs Reservation of Oregon; the Confeder- ated Tribes and Bands of the\'akama Nation; the Kalispel Tribe of Indians; the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho: the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; the Shoshone- Paiutes of the Duck Valley Reserva- tion; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Resenation; and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. w watershed The area that drains iiitt) a stream or river. A subbasin is typically com- posed of several watersheds. weak stock A stock offish where the long- term sur\ i\al of the stock is in doubt. TypicalK this is a stock where the population is small and is barely A 4 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM reproducing itsolfur is nut reproduc- ing itself. While ESA-listcd stocks are considered weak stocks, the term also includes other populations that would not yet quality for ESA listing. \>il(i populations Kish that ha\e maintained suc- cessful natural reproduction with little or no supplementation from hatcheries. 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM A-5 Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions Future Hydroelectric Development Much of this program has focused on mitigating damage done to Columbia Ri\er Basin fish and \\ ild- Hfe by hydropow er development and operations in the past. But the future is equally important. The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Recla- mation continue to study the need for additional federal hydroelectric proj- ects and to plan for new development in the basin. The Federal Energy Reg- ulaton. Commission has many per- mits and applications pending for hydroelectric development in Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Washington. Many of those applications and per- mits are for projects throughout the Columbia Ri\er Basin. Dozens of small or medium-sized hydroelectric projects are proposed for tributary drainage basins that contain impor- tant anadromous fish habitat. How- ever, most new hydroelectric develop- ment will be accomplished by private or non-federal public entities licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Many of the proposals are for hydroelectric projects that would produce less than 5 megawatts of electricity. Although individual small projects may have no significant adverse effects on the fish and w ildlife resources of the basin, the cumulative effects of such development through- out a ri\er basin could be quite harm- ful. These cumulative etYccts need to be taken into account fully. The Council estimates that 4,600 stream miles of C olumbia River Basin salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat have been lost to development, not mclud- ing losses of migration routes and of resident fish and wildlife habitat. Minimizing further habitat loss is especially important in view of the Council's goal of doubling salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia River Basin consistent with system policies (see Sections 2 and 4). Development in critical fish and wildlife areas leads to divisive and expensive conflicts that the Council believes can be avoided through resource planning. The Council finds that future hydroelectric developers in the basin should be required to mitigate harm to fish and wildlife and has adopted program measures calling for such mitigation. New hydroelectric devel- opment has the potential to cause fur- ther damage to the basin's fish and wildlife resources as well as to negate ongoing Council effbils to remedy damage caused by the existing hydro- power system. Federal agencies also should assess and mitigate the cumu- lative effects on fish and wildlife of multiple hydroelectric projects. The Council also intends to continue to review applications for Federal Energy Regulatory Commis- sion pemiits and licenses and for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation proposals for hydroelec- tric development. The puipose of this review is to identify program mea- sures related to the proposed devel- opment to ensure that any new devel- opment in the basin is consistent with this tish and wildlife program and the Council's Northwest Power Plan. The Council's reviews would com- plement and recognize, not supplant, the role of the fish and wildlife agen- cies and tribes in reviewing proposals for hydroelectric projects. 1. FUTURE HYDROELEC- TRIC DEVELOPMENT Conditions Federal Fneifjy Rejjulatory Commission, Corps of Engi- neers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonne\ille Do not license, exempt from license, relicense, propose, recommend, agree to acquire or wheel power from, grant billing credits lor, or othenv ise support any hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin without specifi- cally pro\ iding for these development conditions: • Consultation with the fish man- agers and the Council throughout study, design, constniction and operation of the project; • Specific plans for flows and fish facilities prior to construction: • The best available means for aiding downstream and upstream passage of anadromous and resi- dent fish; • Flows and reservoir levels of sufficient quantity and quality to protect spawning, incubation, rearing and migration; • Full coinpensation for unavoid- able fish losses or fish habitat losses through habitat restoration or replacement, appropriate prop- agation, or similar measures con- sistent with the provisions of this program; • Assurance that the project will not inundate the usual and accus- tomed, traditional or contempo- rary fishing places of any tribe without tribal approval; • Assurance that the project will not degrade fish habitat or reduce numbers offish in such a way that the exercise of treaty or executive order tribal rights will be dmiinished: • Assurance that all fish protection measures are fiilly operational at the lime the project begins opera- tion; • 1 he collection of data needed to B-1 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program monitor and evaluate the results of the fish proteetion eftbrts; and • Assuranee thai the project will not degrade water quality beyond the point necessary to sustain sensitive fish species (as desig- nated in consultation w ith the fish managers). Do not license, relieense, exempt from license, propose, recommend, agree to acquire or wheel power from, grant billing credits for, or otheru ise support any hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin without specifically providing for these development conditions: • Consultation with wildlife man- agers and the Council throughout study, design, construction and operation of the project; • Avoiding inundation of wildlife habitat, msofar as practical; • Timing construction activities, insofar as practical, to reduce adverse effects on nesting and wintering grounds; • Locating temporary access roads in areas to be inundated; • Constructing subimpoundments and using all suitable excavated material to create islands, if appropriate, before the reservoir is filled; • Avoiding all unnecessary or pre- mature clearing of land before filling the reservoir; • Providing artificial nest struc- tures when appropriate; • Avoiding construction, insofar as practical, within 250 meters of active raptor nests; • Avoiding critical riparian habitat (as designated in ecMisultation with the wildlife managers) when clearing, riprapping, dredging, disposing of spoils and wastes, constructing diver- sions, and relocating structures and facilities; • Replacing riparian vegetation if natural revegetation is inade- quate; • Creating subimpoundments by diking backwater slough areas, creating islands and nesting areas; • Regulating water levels to reduce ad\erse effects on wildlife during cntical wildlife periods (as defined in consultation with the fish and wildlife managers); • Improving the wildlife capacity of undisturbed portions of new project areas (through such activ- ities as managing vegetation, reducing disturbance, and sup- plying food, cover and water) as compen.sation for otherwise unmitigated hami to wildlife and wildlife habitat in other parts of the project area; • Acquiring land or management rights, such as conservation ease- ments, where necessary to com- pensate for lost wildlife habitat at the same time other project land is acquired and including the associated costs in project cost estimates; • Funding operation and manage- ment of the acquired wildlife land for the life of the project; • Granting management easement rights on the acquired wildlife lands to appropriate management entities; • Collecting data needed to moni- tor and evaluate the results of the wildlife protection efforts; • Assurance that the p!X)ject will not inundate the usual and accus- tomed, traditional or contempo- rary hunting places of any tribe without tribal approval; and • Assurance that the project will not degrade wildlife habitat or reduce numbers of wildlife in such a way that the exercise of treaty or executive order tribal rights \\ ill be diminished. Ensure that all licenses for hydro- electric projects or documents that propose, recommend or otherwise support hydroelectric development explain in detail how the provisions of this section will be accomplished or the reasons why the provisions cannot be incorporated into the project. 2. PROTECTED AREAS From the inception of this pro- gram, the Council has supported the concept of protecting some streams and wildlife habitats from hydro- electric de\elopment. where the Council belie\es such development would have major negative impacts that could not be reversed. Begin- ning in 1983, the Council directed extensive studies of existing habitat and has analyzed alternative means of protection. In 19di opowei construction at federal dams in the Columbia Ri\er Basin. Table 11-4 Estimated Los ses Due to Hydropower Construction (losses are preceded by a "- ", gains by a "+") Species Total Habitat Units Albeni Falls • Mallard Duck -5,985 • Canada Goose -4,699 • Redhead Duck -3,379 • Breeding Bald Eagle -4,508 • Wintering Bald Eagle -4,365 • B kick-Capped Chickadee -2,286 • White-tailed Deer -1,680 • Muskrat -1,756 • Yellow Warbler + 171 Lower Snake Projects • Dow ny Woodpecker -364.9 • Song Sparrow -287.6 • Yellow Warhler -927.0 • California Quail -20,508.0 • Ring-necked Pheasant -2,646.8 • Canada Goose -2,039.8 Anderson Ranch • Mallard -1,048 • Mink -1,732 • Yellow Warbler -361 • Black Capped Chickadee -890 • Ruffed Grouse -919 • Blue Grouse -1,980 • Mule Deer -2,689 • Peregrine Falcon -1,222 acres* * Acres of riparian habitat lost. Does not reqi ure purchase of any lands. Black Canyon • Mallard -270 • Mink -652 • Canada Goose -214 • Ring-necked Pheasant -260 • Sharp-tailed Grouse -532 • Mule Deer -242 • Yellow Warbler +8 • Black-capped Chickadee +68 Deadvvood • Mule Deer -2080 • Mink -987 • Spruce Grouse -1411 • Yellow Warbler -309 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM C-4 Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction (losses are pre ceded by a "-" gains by a "-!-') Species Total Habitat Units Palisades • Bald Eagle -5,941 breeding -18,565 wintering • Yellow Warbler/ -718 scrub-shrub • Black Capped Chickadee -1,358 forested • Hlk Mule Deer -2,454 • Waterfowl and Aquatic Furbearers -5,703 • RutTed Grouse -2,331 • Peregrine Falcon* -1,677 acres of forested wetland -832 acres of scrub-shrub wetland +68 acres of emergent wetland * Acres of riparian habitat lost. Does not require pui chase of any lands. Willamette Basin Projects • Black-tailed Deer -17,254 • Roosevelt Elk -15,295 • Black Bear -4,814 • Cougar -3,853 • Beaver -4,477 • Ri\er Otter -2,408 • Mink -2,418 • Red Fox -2,590 • Ruffed Grouse -11,145 • California Quail -2,986 • Ring-necked Pheasant -1,986 • Band-tailed Pigeon -3,487 • Western Gray Squirrel -1,354 • Harlequin Duck -551 • Wood Duck -1.947 • Spotted Owl -5,711 • Pileated Woodpecker -8,690 • .American Dipper -954 • Yellow Warbler -2,355 • Common Merganser + 1,042 • Greater Scaup +820 • Waterfowl +423 • Bald Eagle +5,693 • Osprey +6,159 Grand Coulee • Sage Grouse -2,746 • Sharp-tailed Grouse -32,723 • Ruffed (irouse -16,502 • Mourning Dove • -9,316 • Mule Deer -27,133 • White-tailed Deer -21,362 • Riparian Forest -1,632 • Riparian Shrub -27 • Canada Goose Nest Sites -74 C-5 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction (losses are preceded by a "- " , gains by a "+") Species Total Habitat Units McNary • Mallard (wintering) + 13.744 • Mallard (nesting) -6,959 • Western Meadov\ lark -3,469 • Canada Goose -3,484 • Spotted Sandpiper -1,363 • ^'ello\\ Warbler -329 • Downv Woodpecker -377 • Mink' -1.250 • California Quail -6,314 John Day • Lesser Scaup + 14,398 • Great Blue Heron -3,186 • Canada Goose -8,010 • Spotted Sandpiper -3.186 • Yellow Warbler -1,085 • Black-capped Chickadee -869 • Western Meadowiark -5.059 • California Quail -6.324 • Mallard -7.399 • Mink -1,437 The Dalles • Lesser Scaup +2.068 • Great Blue Heron -427 • Canada Goose -439 • Spotted Sandpiper -534 • bellow Warbler -170 • Black-capped Chickadee -183 • Western Meadowiark -247 • Mink -330 Bonneville • Lesser Scaup +2,671 • Great Blue Heron -4,300 • Canada Goose -2,443 • Spotted Sandpiper -2,767 • Yellow Warbler -163 • Black-capped Chickadee -1,022 • Mmk -1,622 Dworshak ' Canada (ioose-( breeding) -16 lilack-capped Chickadee -91 • River Otter -4,312 • Pileated Woodpecker -3.524 • Hlk - 1 1 .603 • White-tailed Deer -8.906 • Canada Goose (winterinu) +323 • BaldFaglc +2,678 ' Osprev +1,674 • Yellow Warbler + 119 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program C-6 Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Los. ies Due to Hydropower Construction (losses are preceded by a "- ", gains by a a in Species Total Habitat Units Minidoka • Mallard + 174 • Redhead +4,475 • Wcslem Grebe +273 • Marsh Wren +207 • Yellow Warbler -342 • River Otter -2,993 • Mule Deer -3,413 • Sage Grouse -3.755 Chief Joseph • Lesser Scaup + 1,440 • Sharp-tailed Grouse -2,290 • Mule Deer -1,992 • Spotted Sandpiper -1,255 • Sage Grouse -1,179 • Mink -920 • Bobcat -401 • Lewis' Woodpecker -286 • Ring-necked Pheasant -239 • Canada Goose -213 • Yellow Warbler -58 C-7 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Appendix D: Provisional Stateme Biological Objectives FOR Environmental Characteristics at the Basin Level The follow inii is a provisional set oj eiiviroiuueiilal cluiracleristic objectives for the hasiii level. The Council has asked the liulepeuilent Scientific Advisorv lioanl lo review these provisional basin level environ- mental eharaeleristics hy June 2001. The /SAB will report to the Council on the scientific soundness and basin- wide applicability of the environmen- tal characteristics, as well as their utility for further defining biological objectives at the province and sub- basin levels. As part of its review, the ISAB should consider and report to the Council on the applicability of these objectives in the most altered areas of the basin, the hloeked cnvas. The Council will make the ISAB 's report publicly available and seek views and comment from inter- ested parties. The Council will con- sider the report of the ISAB and the views and comments of others on the report, and will confirm or revise these basin level objectives for environmental characteristics for pur- poses of providing guidance for sub- basin level planning and further pro- gram amendments. Provisional biolofjica! objectives for environniental characteris- tics at the basin level Basin level environmental eiiarac- tcristies dcseribe the kinds ot ehanges that are needed across the Columbia basin to achieve the biological per- formance objectives called lor by the program. 1. Protect the areas and ecolojiical functions that are at present rel- atively producti\e Un hsh and vviidlife popuhitions (e.}^., the Hanford Reach tall chinook; spring chinook in the upper John I)a\ Ri\er) to provide a base for expansion of healthy populations as we rehabilitate degraded habitats in other areas. • Protect and enhance habitats and ecological fianction to allow for the restoration of more natural population structures, by allow- ing for the expansion of pro- tluctive populations and by habi- tat restoration actions that con- nect weak populations to stron- ger populations and to each other. Allow for the recovery of depleted and listed populations to at least the point of self-sustain- ability and a low probability of extinction. • Protection and expansion of hab- itats and ecological functions should allow for an increase in the number, complexity and range of multi-species fish and wildlife assemblages and com- munities, increases in the pro- ductivity, abundance, and life- histoiy diversity of specific fish and wildlife populations are dependent on, and should not be viewed in isolation from, these multi-species communities. 2. Protect and restore freshwater habitat for ail life history stages of the key species. Protect and increase ecological connectivity between aquatic areas, riparian /ones, fioodplains and uplands. • Increase the connections between rivers and their fioodplains, side channels and riparian zones. • Manage riparian areas to protect aquatic conditions and tbrm a transition to fioodplain terrestrial areas and side channels. • Identify, jirotecl and restore the lunctions of key alluvial river reaches. • Reconnect restored tributary hab- itats to protected or restored mamslem habitats, especially in the area of productive mainstem populations. 3. Allow patterns of water flow to move more than at present toward the natural hydro- graphic pattern in terms of quantity, quality and fluctua- tion. • Habitat restoration may be framed in the context of mea- sured trends in water quality. • Allow for seasonal fluctuations in flow. Stabilize daily fluctuations. • Increase the conespondence between water temperatures and the naturally-occurring regimes of temperatures throughout the basin. • Significantly reduce watershed erosion where human activities have accelerated sediment inputs. 4. Increase energy and nutrient connections within the system to increase productivity and expand biological communities. 5. Allow for biological diversity to increase among and within pop- ulations and species to increase ecological resflience to environ- mental variability. • Expand the complexity and range of habitats to allow for greater life history and between species diversity. • Manage human activities to mini- mize artificial selection or limita- tion of life histoiy traits. • Restoring habitat and access to habitat that establishes life his- tor\' diversity is a priority. 2000 COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM D-1 6. Increase genetic connections and gene Ho\> within the eco- logical system to facilitate devel- opment, expansion and protec- tion of population structures. • Increase the abundance and range of existing habitats and popula- tions. • Expand and connect existing habitat pockets to facilitate development of resilient popula- tion structures for aquatic com- munities. 7. Identity, 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 habi- tat changes to better understand the relationship between estuary and near-shore plume character- istics and the productivity, abun- dance and diversity of salmon and steelhead populations. 8. Enhance the natural expression of biological diversity in salmon and steelhead populations to accommodate mortality and environmental variability in the ocean. Accept signihcant 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 func- tions have increased sufficiently will be whether the system can accept normal environmen- tal variation without collapse of the fish and wildlife population and communitv structure. Basin and province level objectives must also describe expec- tations for the characteristics of the inainstem, estuary and ocean envi- ronments shared by all populations of salnu>n and steelhead in the subba- sins. In other words, subbasin plan- ners need to know what are the pro- gram 's expectations or assumptions for survival of their respective popu- lations in the parts of their life cvcles outside the subbasins, including sur- vival through the mainstem and in the estuary and ocean. For example, the objectives and strategies that plan- ners would choose for a subbasin might vaiy substantially if expecta- tions for juvenile survival through the mainstem over the planning period are 50 percent versus 90 percent. D-2 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program The Northwest Power Planning Council Central Office Northwest Power Planning Council 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue. Suite 1 100 Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Telephone: 503-222-5161 Toll Free: 1-800-452-5161 Ste\e Crow, executive director Bob Lohn, fish and wildlife director John Shurtz. general counsel Jim Tanner, administarive officer Mark Walker, public affairs director Dick Watson, power planning director Idaho Northwest Power Planning Council Mail: PO. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0062 Location: 450 West State (UPS only) Boise. Idaho 83720-0062 Telephone: 208-334-6970 Council Members: Mike Field Jim Kempton Montana Northwest Power Planning Council Capitol Station 1301 Lockey (UPS only) Helena, Montana 59620-0805 Telephone: 406-444-3952 Council Members: Stan Grace Leo A. Ciiacometto Oregon Northwest Power Planning Council 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue. Suite 1020 Portland. Oregon 97204-1348 Telephone: 503-229-5171 Council Member: Eric J. Bloch, Council vice-chair Northwest Power Planning Council 1 I S.W. Byers Avenue Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Telephone: 541-276-0657 Council Member: John Brogoitti Washington Northwest Power Planning Council Mail: PO. Box 2 187 Vancouver, Washington 98668 Location: 1 10 "Y" Street Vancouver, Washington 98661 Telephone: 360-693-695 1 Council Member: Frank L. Cassidy Jr., Council chair Northwest Power Planning Council Mail: 600 Capitol Way, N. Olympia, Washington 9850 1 - 1 09 1 Location: Natural Resources Building 1 1 1 1 Washington Street, S.E. Fifth Floor. MS 43200 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: 360-902-2302 Northwest Power Planning Council W. 705 First Avenue, MS- 1 Spokane, Washington 99201-3909 Telephone: 509-623-4386 Council Member: Dr. T(Mii Karier ns nrough d Columbia River Trust page 37 =*>■ Northwest Power Planning Council