1 Fish & Wildlife Managers Program Amendment Recommendations January 17, 2008

2 F&W Managers Amendment Recommendations The Fish and Wildlife managers are fulfilling their statutory responsibility as provided in the Northwest Power Act: Submitting measures and objectives as guidance for development of the next iteration of the Fish and Wildlife Program Recommendations are consistent with existing fish and wildlife plans Managers are working collaboratively to submit unified, consensus-based recommendations

3 Fish & Wildlife Managers Legacy of Stewardship The F&W Managers amendment recommendations represent a historic legacy of stewardship and implementation of the Northwest Power Act: 25 years as the recognized and practiced experts of fish and wildlife management for the Fish and Wildlife Program The F&W Managers amendment includes interim objectives and long term planning goals that establish a M&E framework to support adaptive management CBFWA has worked with the Council, BPA, regional utility customer groups, and F&W resource user groups to ensure recommendations are understood and expected

4 Members Action: CBFWA Members directed the Technical Committees to evaluate the existing Program by: Defining and clarifying terms (i.e. focal populations, objectives, how to express limiting factors, etcetera) Confirming population level biological objectives Ensuring that priorities of all plans affecting fish and wildlife are captured in this process Validating current limiting factors including out-of-basin affects Reviewing and building on strategies and actions necessary to reduce the limiting factors

5 F&W Managers Amendment Recommendations Recommendations establish the specificity necessary to guide BPA spending: Using best available science of fish and wildlife management Expressed within the context of BPAs obligations Achieve the greatest biological benefit at least cost

6 A Balanced Approach Scientific Foundations & Principles F&W MANAGERS AMENDMENTRECOMMENDATIONS Socio- Political Constraints

7 CBFWA Consultation Met with various stakeholders regarding F&W Managers amendment recommendations to ensure better understanding and expectations: Bonneville Power Administration Northwest Power & Conservation Council Regional Utility Customer Groups F&W Resource User Groups

8 Adaptive Management Framework Builds on 2000 Fish & Wildlife Program Harmonizes recovery plans to subbasin plans Links population objectives to regional goals via mid-level biological objectives Develops strategies and measures to achieve interim objectives and long term goals Addresses BPA Obligations Input Output Adaptive Management Framework Plan Implement Eva l uate

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

10 Summary of Draft Amendment Recommendations

11 Section Statutory Basis for Fish & Wildlife Managers Role in Program Section – Planning Establish basis for F&W Managers recommendations Section – Implementation Establish basis for F&W Managers participation and implementation Section – Evaluation Establish basis for F&W Managers role in monitoring and evaluation

12 Section 1.2 – Maintain Existing General Program Structure The F&W Managers support the existing geographic structure of the Program The F&W Managers support a goal oriented, science-based Program derived from subbasin plans

13 Section 1.3 – Adaptive Management Framework for the Program Section – Historical context for Adaptive Management Section – Descriptions and elements of Adaptive Management: Planning Implementation Evaluation

14 Section 1.3 – Adaptive Management Framework for the Program Input Output Adaptive Management Framework Plan Implement Eva l uate

15 Section 1.4 – Maintain an Integrated Program Incorporate FCRPS BiOps Incorporate Recovery Plans Fish and Wildlife Program FCRPS Biological Opinion(s ) Recovery Plans

16 Section Scope of the Program is Broader than BPA Program should describe all actions necessary to protect, mitigate and enhance all fish and wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin Program should include FERC actions within the Columbia River Basin The Program should describe a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan for the Columbia River Basin which includes status and trends of fish and wildlife populations, and implementation of mitigation and restoration actions

17 Section 1.6 – Program Should Define BPA Obligations Within the Regional Context The Program should identify specific measures to be implemented with BPA funding (5 – 10 year work plan) Measures should be scientifically tied to objectives with expected outcomes Measures should be set within the context of other known activities occurring within the subbasins

18 Section 2.0 – Adaptive Management Within Basinwide Provisions Section 2.1 Add adaptive management principles to scientific foundation in the 2000 Program Section 2.2 Describe adaptive management planning processes for the Program Section 2.3 Describe adaptive management implementation processes for the Program Section 2.4 Describe adaptive management evaluation processes for the Program Section 2.5 Describe process for changing Program direction over time

19 Linking Strategies to Objectives StrategiesFocal SpeciesLimiting Factors Modify hydro-operationsHabitat quality/quantityHarvest = average 300,000 Improve riparian habitatHabitat quality/quantity1,700 Chinook salmon

20 Objectives Status Monitoring Gap Limiting Factors Threats Strategies Measures Status & Trends Action Effectiveness Targeted Solicitation Scientific Framework to Support Adaptive Management

21 F&W Managers support the overarching biological objectives and recommend they remain in the Program The F&W Managers support the Mainstem Amendment biological objectives and recommend they remain in the Program Section 2.6 – Overarching Biological Objectives

22 Section – Anadromous Fish Align recovery plans with province level objectives, build from subbasins Section – Resident Fish Insufficient information to establish mid-level biological objectives for most resident fish Section Wildlife Mid-level biological objectives for wildlife are in the habitat ledger Section – Objectives for Hydroelectric Projects Called for the in Act, align with biological opinions and FERC settlement agreements (performance standards) Section 2.7 – Province Level Biological Objectives

23 Wildlife operational loss assessments Resident fish loss assessments These two efforts should be explicitly linked for development and implementation Section Further Development of Biological Objectives At the Basin Level

24 Section Programmatic Strategies & Measures Section Consider Clean Water Act implications Section Fund Development of Tools to Incorporate Climate Change and Population Growth Section Fund Efforts to Minimize the Spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species

25 Section 3.4 – Hydropower Operations Section FCRPS Operations (Mainstem Amendment modifications) Section Non-Federal Hydroelectric Projects

26 Section 3.5 – Programmatic Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Section M & E Plan Section Data Management Strategy Section Research Plan

27 Coordination Functions and Roles of Agencies and Tribes Coordination Functions and Roles of Membership Organizations Funding(?) Coordination definitions adopted by CBFWA in November 2007 Section 3.6 – Fish & Wildlife Manager Coordination

28 Section Harvest Management Section Artificial Production Section Research and monitoring and evaluation Section 4.1 – Anadromous Fish Programmatic Considerations

29 Section Mainstem Columbia/Snake Rivers Section Columbia River Estuary Province and Ocean Section Lower Columbia Section Columbia Gorge Section Columbia Plateau Section Columbia Cascade Section Blue Mountain Section Mountain Snake Section Intermountain Section Mountain Columbia Section Middle Snake Salmon & Steelhead Measures by Province

30 Basinwide Include critical uncertainties document Subbasins Measures identified by individual members Section Lamprey

31 Section Resident Fish Substitution Section Resident Fish Losses Section 5.0 – Resident Fish Programmatic Considerations

32 Section Mainstem Columbia/Snake Rivers Section Lower Columbia Section Columbia Gorge Section Columbia Plateau Section Columbia Cascade Section Intermountain Section Mountain Columbia Section Blue Mountain Section Mountain Snake Section Middle Snake Section Upper Snake Resident Fish by Province

33 Section Crediting Section Long Term Funding Agreements Section Ongoing Wildlife Projects Section 6.1 – Wildlife Construction / Inundation Losses

34 Developing a protocol to assess the wildlife losses due to operations of the FCRPS Section 6.2 – Wildlife Operational Losses

35 M&E needs adequate to: Track crediting Track trends in ecological functions and restoration effectiveness Complement larger scale efforts Focus on status/trend and effectiveness Use reference sites to define habitat objectives Section 6.3 – Wildlife Research, Monitoring & Evaluation

36 Section – In lieu funding restrictions Section – Carryover funding Section – Use of BPAs borrowing authority Section – Relationship between project funding and BPA rate case Section 7.1 – Implementation Funding

37 Incorporate ESA and non-listed species requirements Integration of longterm agreements Project funding duration to match project objectives Rely upon input from F&W Managers Identify role of ISRP Section 7.2 – Project Selection Process

38 Seek consensus on all aspects of recommendations Identify areas of disagreement and attempt resolution Remove sections to achieve consensus All fish and wildlife manager recommendations can follow a similar format to strengthen individual submissions Summary

39 Members approve scope and direction (consistent with amendment strategy adopted last year) CBFWA staff and MAG workgroup complete initial Draft and circulate among Members Agencies and Tribes perform internal reviews and provide feedback and edits CBFWA staff perform outreach with CBFWA Members and others Finalize draft and approve prior to April 4 Next Steps