FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan (AMIP)

1. FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan (AMIP) September 15, 2009 1

2. Administration Conclusions • As implemented with this new adaptive management implementation plan, the 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp): • Is biologically and legally sound • Is based on the best available scientific information • Satisfies the ESA jeopardy standard • The current BiOp reflects great regional consensus of states and tribes in support of a salmon plan for the hydropower system. • We would like to get to work and move on to implementation of salmon actions “on the ground.” It is time to end the litigation. 2

3. Administration Review • The Obama Administration engaged in a substantial review of the BiOp at Judge Redden’s invitation. Participants included agency leadership from NOAA, CEQ, DOI, DOD & DOE. • We conducted listening sessions with parties to the litigation and with agency and independent scientists. We also considered the points raised in a May 2009 letter from Judge James A. Redden. 3

4. Administration Review Our review indicated the science underlying the BiOp was sound, but that there was uncertainty in some predictions of future fish status. As a result, we have developed an insurance policy for the fish that will be implemented as part of the 2008 BiOp. 4

5. Adaptive Management Implementation Plan Accelerates and enhances certain BiOp mitigation actions Enhances research and monitoring to evaluate fish status and habitat conditions A new contingency plan to address the possibility of a significant decline in the abundance of listed fish and biological triggers that result in contingency actions Dam breaching studies as a contingency of last resort Ongoing commitments to regional collaboration and science review 5

6. Accelerated & Enhanced Actions • Commitments to additional Estuary restoration projects under a new agreement with the State of Washington • Efforts to control predators and invasive species • Biologically-based changes to spring and summer spill 6

7. Enhanced Research, Monitoring & Evaluation • What? • Improved adult status and trend monitoring • Improved Intensively Monitored Watersheds • Improved juvenile status and trend monitoring • Improved habitat monitoring • Enhanced Life -cycle modeling • Why? • To better measure effectiveness of BiOp actions • To better monitor climate change impacts • To collect additionalinformation to evaluate triggers 7

8. Biological Triggers for Implementation of Contingencies • Early Warning Indicator: tripped if the four-year average adult wild fish abundance for a species falls below the lowest 20th percentile of abundance, based on the currently available data • Significant Decline Trigger: tripped if the four-year average adult wild fish abundance for a species falls below the lowest 10th percentile of abundance, based on the currently available data • Additional triggers (including juvenile triggers) will be defined in the future through the collaborative Regional Implementation Oversight Group (RIOG). 8

9. Example: 9

10. Example: 10

11. Tripping the Early Warning Indicator • Within 120 days of NOAA Fisheries determining that an Early Warning Indicator was tripped, the Action Agencies (in coordination with NOAA Fisheries, the RIOG, and other regional parties) will: • Evaluate the likely status of the species in question; • Determine whether a Significant Decline Trigger is likely to be tripped; • If so, determine what Rapid Response Actions to take • Implement actions as soon practicable (not later than 12 months after indicator observed) 11

12. Tripping the Significant Decline Trigger Within 90 days of NOAA Fisheries’ determining that the Significant Decline Trigger was tripped, the Action Agencies (in coordination with NOAA Fisheries, the RIOG, and other regional parties) would: Determine which Rapid Response Actions to take for a particular species; and Implement the actions as soon as practicable (not later than 12 months after the trigger occurs) 12

13. Contingency Actions • Rapid Response Actions are to be implemented within one year of a trigger. • Examples: • Additional hydro operations • Increased predator control • Safety-net hatcheries • Certain harvest controls within existing agreements 13

14. Contingency Actions • Long-Term Contingency Actions are to be developed by 2011. • Examples: • Additional hydro system actions • Enhanced predator controls • Certain harvest controls • Conservation hatcheries • Species reintroduction • Study of operation of John Day Dam at minimum operating pool • Study of lower Snake River dam breaching 14

15. Lower Snake River Dam Breaching Studies • The Corps creates a study plan by March 2010, including scope, schedule and budget to complete technical studies and formulate a decision process • NOAA/ Region builds analytic tools by December 2012 for full Life-cycle analysis of all contingent actions • Upon Significant Decline Trigger— All-H analysis completed within six months to initiate technical studies. Corps conducts technical studies in two years (biology, economics, engineering, environmental impacts) • Then, Administration decides if evidence exists to move to EIS and Decision Process whether to request Congress authorize to breach one or more dams • Dam breaching is a contingency of last resort due to uncertainty of biological effects and significant impacts to local communities and the environment 15

16. Ongoing Regional Collaboration & Independent Scientific Review • To continue partnerships with states & tribes • To provide for ongoing science input • To ensure transparent reporting on progress 16

17. 17 17

18. Implementation • Science-based plan with commitment to implement it • Broad regional support • Commitment to fund • BPA new rates already in place 18