Columbia River Ecosystem Decline and Management Complexities

1. Columbia River Watershed Span-of-Complexity driving M&E 2009

2. Columbia River Basin 268,000 square miles or 668,220 square kilometers

3. Engineers delight, Biologist’s nightmare • Flow changes • Temperature • Dissolved gas • Low velocities • Fish mortality • Predation • Birds • Fish • Pinnipeds • Non-natives • Genetic fitness • Habitat loss • Climate change • Etc…

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

5. Millions of Pounds 1866 1874 1882 1890 1898 1906 1914 1922 1930 1938 1946 1954 1962 1970 1978 1986 1994 1999 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Commercial Landings of Salmon & Steelhead from the Columbia River / 1866-1999 Hydrosystem Development 1935 Fishwheels prohibited 1988 Last sockeye season 1977 Last spring season 1950 Seines, traps, set nets prohibited 1965Last summer season Year

6. T T T T T T T T T T E E E E Chronology of Listings, Biological Opinions and Other Related Processes 2008 BiOp Snake River spring/ summer Chinook salmon Bull Trout Snake River steelhead Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Middle Columbia River Upper Columbia River steelhead Columbia chum salmon Snake River fall Chinook salmon Kootenai River White Sturgeon Lower Columbia River steelhead Snake River Sockeye salmon Upper Columbia River steelhead Cumulative Evaluation 3 Year Implementation Plans NOAABiOp NOAABiOp Adaptive BiOp NOAABiOp NOAABiOp Remand Critical Habitat NOAABiOp All-H Strategy NOAABiOp UPA USFWS BiOp USFWS BiOp USFWS BiOp USFWS BiOp USFWS BiOp Subbasin Assessments & Planning NOAA Recovery Planning Mainstem Amendments 2000 Council F&W Program 2009 Council F&W Program

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

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

9. Fish and Wildlife Legal Mandates The FCRPS has fish and wildlife responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act, in many cases, both responsibilities can be met in the same set of actions. 1980 Northwest Power Act “The Administrator shall use the Bonneville Power Administration Fund to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by development and operation of any hydroelectric project of the Columbia River and its tributaries.” Endangered Species Act - 1995, 2000, 2004 And 2008 Biological Opinions Listed ANADROMOUS FISH RESIDENT FISH WILDLIFE “Each Federal agency shall….insure that any action authorized funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize continued existence…of any endangered species or threatened species…” Non-Listed FISH and WILDLIFE Treaty and Non-Treaty Tribal Policy BPA will consult with the Tribal governments prior to taking actions, making decisions, or implementing programs that may affect Tribal resources.

10. Problem III Need for Accountability December 15, 1994 The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) recommended a set of specific amendments to Section 3 that can be grouped into six categories: (1) consult with the “Salmon Oversight Committee” recommended by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Team; (2) modify the role of the Basin Oversight Group; (3) strengthen the Council’s commitment to accountability and cost-effectiveness; (4) delete the implementation planning process; (5) delete the subregional process; and (6) delete a redundant Section 3.2F.

11. $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending Expense (+Action Plan/High Priority) Dollars in millions 67 55.9 49.6 33 32.8 23 22.2 19.6 18.8 19.6 15.9 9.1 4.6 2.3 2.3 78-80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Year

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

13. October 1997 Fish and wildlife recovery in the Pacific Northwest: Breaking the Deadlock;A draft analysis by the Northwest Power Planning Council staff: This report recognizes that there are economic benefits to be gained from a long term plan for fish recovery, including improved predictability and accountability for fish measures paid for by the users of the Federal Columbia River Power System.

14. January 26, 2000 Proposed interim project renewal process for FY 2001 The Council has asked for improved project contracting practices to achieve greater fiscal accountability in project funding. These practices require additional budget estimate detail to implement. The major change in the budget format is to respond to Council guidance to improve fiscal accountability and implement Bonneville’s improved program management practices.

15. June 4, 2004 “Subbasin plans will improve the project selection and review process by providing a more complete and specific base of information on the status of fish and wildlife populations in each tributary subbasin,” said Council Chair Judi Danielson, an Idaho member of the four-state agency. “They also will provide linkages to other planning processes for improving fish and wildlife survival. The plans will help us to better target where we invest the public’s resources and will improve the financial accountability of the program.”

16. $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending Expense (+Action Plan/High Priority) Dollars in millions 145.8 140.6 137.1 MOA Funding 1996-01 108.2 108.2 104.9 101.1 82.2 71.4 68.5 67 55.9 49.6 33 32.8 23 22.2 19.6 18.8 19.6 15.9 9.1 4.6 2.3 2.3 78-80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Year

17. Response to Problems: Collaboration and Science • Council 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program • BiOp Collaboration and Accords • Recovery Planning • Other regional processes

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

19. COLUMBIA BASIN 1980 TO 2004

20. Columbia Basin 2004 to Present

21. M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - I • Primary strategies: • Identify priority fish, wildlife, and ecosystem elements of the Program that can be monitored in a cost-effective manner, evaluate the monitoring data and adaptively manage the Program based on results; • research and report on key uncertainties; • make information from this Program accessible to the public; and • to the extent practicable ensure consistency with other processes.

22. M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - II Guidelines for collecting and evaluating data: The Council recognizes there is a wide range of parties involved in research, monitoring, and evaluation for different and legitimate purposes as well as a number of efforts to coordinate that work. It will be critically important to continue the collaboration and partnerships that have been developed. The Council will involve a wide range of parties in the region to establish, oversee, and periodically adjust guidelines for monitoring and evaluation efforts coordinated through the Program

23. M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - III This involvement will occur with representatives from the Council, Bonneville, federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, Tribes, the Corps, the Bureau, and others as necessary. The Council intends to use monitoring and evaluation primarily to track progress toward meeting Program goals and to adaptively manage the implementation of priority tributary and mainstem habitat, artificial production, fish passage and research projects.

24. Basinwide M & E Cycle • As much as possible, use other people’s information to compile maps, tables and graphs. • Produce annual report. • Identify data and coverage gaps. • Decide how important it is to fill the gaps. • Limit new m&e, and shift existing resources, to high priority gap filling.

25. Focus of this 5-day Workshop FRESH WATER HABITAT PREDATORS USF&WS NOAA COE States Tribes • National Marine FisheriesService Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service US Fish & Wildlife Service States Tribes Counties Private Landowners Eggs Smolt HATCHERIES National Marine FisheriesService US Fish & Wildlife Service States Tribes HYDRO HARVEST National Marine FisheriesService States Tribes HYDRO Bonneville Power Administration US Army Corps of Engineers US Bureau of Reclamation Private Utilities Public Utilities Adult OCEAN

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

27. Approximate Funding and Number of Projects by Category