2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan: 2008-2017 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion

Privileged and Confidential – PREPARED FOR LITIGATION PURPOSES --- Do Not Distribute
DRAFT 2009 FCRPS Adaptive Management Plan

2009 Adaptive
Management
Implementation Plan
2008-2017
Federal Columbia River Power System
Biological Opinion
Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 1 of 25
BR202

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
BR203

Seems to me that a there are repetitive sections.
Moreover the appendices have much of the same
language. I would refer to the Appendix and as Rock
suggests spend more time on summary and
conclusions in this document.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Summary of the Administration Review and Conclusions
B. Summary of the Adaptive Management Approach
C. Relationship to the RPA Actions
II. Immediate Implementation Actions

A. Estuary MOA with the State of Washington
B. Predator control and Invasive Species
C. Reintroduction
D. Research, Monitoring and Evaluation
1. Enhanced Lifecycle Monitoring for Evaluation of Contingencies
2. Enhanced Habitat Monitoring/ Intensively Monitored Watersheds
3. Climate Change Information
III. Contingency Actions in Case of Unexpected Fish Declines

A. Expanded Contingency Triggers Deleted: Supplemental
1. Unexpected Severe Decline Trigger for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead

2. Early Warning Trigger for Chinook salmon and steelhead
B. Rapid Response Actions
C. Long Term Contingency Plans
IV. Adaptive Management Transparency, Science Review and

Reporting
Appendices
Appendix 1: Court Challenges & Obama Administration Review
Exhibit A: Lists of participants
BR204

FCRPS Listening Sessions 1-5
FCRPS Science Workshop
Exhibit B: List of questions
Exhibit C: List of materials for FCRPS Science Workshop
BR205

Appendix 2: Adaptive Management Framework from the FCRPS BA

Appendix 3: Estuary MOA with the State of Washington
Exhibit A: List of Projects

Appendix 4: Key Elements of Life-Cycle Model
Appendix 5: Development of the Unexpected Severe Decline Trigger
Appendix 6: Implementation of the Early Warning Trigger

Appendix 7: Details of Rapid Response Actions
Appendix 8: Details of Long-Term Contingency Plans

Appendix 9: Memorandum in Response to Judge Redden’s May 18,
2009 Questions
BR206

I. Introduction

This Adaptive Management Implementation Plan (AMIP) was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), and NOAA Fisheries. It is the result of the Obama Administration’s review of the 2008
Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (2008 FCRPS BiOp) and Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) over the past several months. This AMIP describes the
implementation of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp adaptive management framework, providing
additional details and describing enhancements within the framework of the FCRPS BiOp and
RPA.
Deleted: This 2009 Adaptive
Management Implementation Plan
This AMP describes the administration’s review of the 2008 BiOp (Section I), immediate (AMP) was prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
implementation actions (Section II); contingency actions in case of unexpected fish declines Reclamation, Bonneville Power
(Section III); and adaptive management transparency, science review and reporting (Section IV). Administration, and NOAA Fisheries. It
is the result of the Obama
Nine appendices provide specific technical details that support the AMP. The new Administration’s review of the 2008-
Administration has included Snake River dam breaching in the AMP as a long term 2017 Biological Opinion (BiOp) and
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
contingency. Though they are not initiating new feasibility studies at this time, NOAA Fisheries (RPA) for the Federal Columbia River
Power System (FCRPS) over the past
and the Action Agencies will be developing a more advanced lifecycle model that will allow several months. It describes current plans
evaluation of the net biological benefits of Snake River dam breaching and other long term to implement the 2008 FCRPS RPA by,
providing additional details and
contingency actions. Developing the capability to perform the life-cycle modeling through a enhancements within the adaptive
management framework of the FCRPS
scientifically peer reviewed process is a high priority for the adaptive management program. BiOp and RPA. ¶
A. Summary of the Administration Review and Conclusions
The Obama Administration, represented by: NOAA Administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco; Council
on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army, Terrence “Rock” Salt; Department of the Interior Associate Deputy Secretary, Laura
Davis; and, Bonneville Power Administration Regional Administrator, Steve Wright, have
engaged in a process involving a thorough and substantive consideration of the 2008 FCRPS
BiOp, the available science on which it is based, issues raised by litigants, independent
scientists’ recommendations, and Judge Redden’s perspectives in his May 18, 2009, letter. (For a
detailed description of this review process, see Appendix 1).
The Administration leadership gathered on several occasions, both in the Columbia River Basin,
and in Washington D.C., to gather facts and perspectives concerning the 2008 FCRPS BiOp and
issues in litigation. They visited Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams in May 2009, where
they received a tour and briefings on dam operations by the Corps and NOAA, including an Deleted: and the BPA
opportunity to view a Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) and fish passage facilities. They
listened, discussed, and considered the individual views of the scientific basis for the 2008
FCRPS BiOp with scientists who had participated in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp’s development, and
with scientists from the affected states, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the
Technical Recovery Teams and Independent Science Advisory Board. They held listening
BR207

sessions with representatives of four Pacific Northwest states and eight Indian tribes, from the
National Wildlife Federation coalition of plaintiffs, and from the various defendant interveners in
the litigation.
Following the initial overview and listening sessions, Dr. Lubchenco and the other federal
executives decided that it would be helpful in their efforts to fully understand the 2008 FCRPS
BiOp to convene a two-day workshop of some of these same independent expert scientists on
July 7 and 8, 2009. NOAA provided the 2008 FCRPS BiOp and supporting papers and analyses
used in its development to the scientists, and the scientists were asked to focus on the following
five areas: the quality of the scientific analysis, the effectiveness of the Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative (RPA), the effectiveness of measures used to monitor the species’ status, the
adequacy of the contingency measures, and the adequacy of the analysis of climate change
impacts on the species. The workshop then proceeded with presentations by NOAA Fisheries of
the work underlying recovery planning and the specific analyses used in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, Deleted: time among
followed by discussion with the independent scientists on the five areas identified. The scientists Deleted: The Administration principals
were individually briefed by their
reported their findings orally to the administration principals and others. respective agency staffs and also
collectively met to discuss the science
and implementation of the RPA.
The new Administration thoroughly considered the BiOp, the available science on which it was Comment [S1]: The Corps suggests
based, the issues raised by the litigants and independent scientists, and the Court’s letter of May listing bullets with corresponding
questions that the scientists were
18, 2009. This review highlighted a number of important questions regarding implementation provided
within the 2008 FCRPS BiOp adaptive management framework -- centered on precautionary Deleted: Its review highlighted a
implementation and rapid response to indications of declining fish status. What conditions are number of important questions regarding
implementation within the FCRPS BiOp
we monitoring? How rapidly would the Action Agencies and NOAA be able to respond to a adaptive management framework --
centered on precautionary
precipitous decline in a listed species? What if climate change leads to extreme swings in habitat implementation and rapid response to
and fish status? Are available mitigation actions that might have immediate fish survival indications of declining fish status.
benefits -- such as more aggressive control of predators or invasive species, harvest reductions, Formatted: Highlight
and re-establishment of extirpated populations -- getting sufficient attention and could they be Deleted: ¶
quickly implemented? Structured answers to these questions (the AMP) are considered Deleted: The Administration principals
have concluded that the BiOp is
“precautionary implementation” of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. In essence, if ESA-listed salmon and fundamentally sound and that
implementation of the BiOp would
steelhead status is not responding to the RPA actions as predicted in the BiOp, then “on-the- benefit from more structure and detail, so
shelf” procedures and actions are ready for immediate use to remedy the problem. that these questions can be more fully
answered. In keeping with the Judge’s
suggestions, they have decided to use
In keeping with the Judge’s suggestions, the Federal agencies have decided to use the 2008 adaptive management framework within
the 2008 FCRPS BiOp to provide
FCRPS BiOp adaptive management framework to describe in detail immediate implementation additional details regarding immediate
implementation actions and research,
actions and research, expanded biological triggers for contingencies, rapid response actions in supplemental biological triggers for
case contingencies are triggered, and advance planning for scientifically targeted long-term contingencies, rapid response actions in
case contingencies are triggered, and
contingencies, including breaching lower Snake River dam(s). In response, the Action Agencies, advance planning for long-term
contingencies, including Snake River
with the full support of NOAA and the Administration leadership, have developed this AMIP. dam breaching. In response, the Action
(NOAA Fisheries intends to include equivalent trigger and contingency provisions into its Agencies, with the full support of NOAA
and the Administration leadership, have
Columbia Basin recovery plans and future Biological Opinions.) developed this 2009 FCRPS AMP.
(NOAA Fisheries intends to include
equivalent trigger and contingency
provisions into its Columbia Basin
recovery plans and future Biological
Opinions.)¶
BR208

The Administration principals have concluded that the BiOp is fundamentally sound and that
implementation of the BiOp would benefit from more structure and detail, so that these questions
can be more fully answered.
The Judge’s guidance letter has been most helpful to the Administration in the course of its Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
review. While the AMIP responds to the questions and recommendations identified in the
Judge’s letter, a more comprehensive response to the questions is provided in the Appendix 9 Formatted: Highlight
Technical Memo.
Deleted: The Judge’s guidance letter
has been most helpful to the
B. Summary of the Adaptive Management Approach Administration in the course of its
review. While the 2009 FCRPS AMP
responds to the questions and
The BiOp RPA incorporates adaptive management to respond to results of new research and recommendations identified in the
Judge’s letter, a more comprehensive
scientific information on fish survival. As more is learned, mitigation actions and studies are response to the questions is provided in
expected to be updated to reflect the best available science information and to achieve the the Appendix 8 Technical Memo.¶
biological performance standards and survival improvements in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. See Deleted: RPA (RPA Action 1-3 and 50-
73) relies on adaptive management to
Figure A, Adaptive Management Framework incorporate the r
The adaptive management framework incorporated into the BiOp was an outgrowth of the
remand collaboration process directed by Judge Redden. Its specific components are described
in the August 2007 FCRPS Biological Assessment (See Appendix 2). The framework provides
accountability for results in a number of ways: specific hydro and habitat performance
standards, an extensive research and monitoring program, a transparent process for annual
progress reporting to the region, and full involvement of the sovereigns’ Regional
Implementation Oversight Group (RIOG). It also includes a contingency plan process to address
unexpected declines in the abundance trends or productivity of listed fish. Developed through
the remand collaboration process, the contingency plan includes biological triggers at the ESU
level and an “All H Diagnosis” to determine appropriate contingency actions.
Through this AMP, the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries are clarifying and committing to Deleted: 2009
the Court and to the region how we will plan for and implement actions, research, and
contingencies for Columbia Basin ESUs/DPSs within the 2008 FCRPS BiOp adaptive
management framework. Key elements of the 2009 adaptive management activities are: Deleted: 2009
▪ Immediate Implementation Actions: The federal agencies are moving out on aggressive
implementation of the 2008 BiOp RPA actions and the Fish Accords, including hydro actions
(e.g. configuration improvements, flow, spill, transport) predator management, estuary
habitat projects, and tributary habitat projects. This includes projects that will be
implemented as a result of the Washington Estuary MOA. In addition, in order to support
contingency planning, we are expanding and targeting the scope of our research, monitoring
and evaluation program. This includes lifecycle modeling for evaluation of effectiveness of
Rapid Response Actions and Long-Term Contingencies, enhanced habitat monitoring,
BR209

climate change information, adult fish in-juvenile fish out monitoring, and evaluation of Formatted: Highlight
predators and invasive species. Deleted: <#>Immediate

Implementation Actions: The federal
agencies are moving out on aggressive
▪ Fish Abundance Trigger for Contingencies: Expanding biological triggers to include one implementation of the 2008 BiOp and the
Fish Accords, including flow, spill,
for Unexpected Severe Fish Decline that can be evaluated annually for each ESU/DPS, based estuary habitat, and tributary habitat.
on a rolling average of four consecutive years of low adult abundance. This trigger would This includes the Washington Estuary
MOA. In addition, in order to support
automatically result in implementation of Rapid Response Actions. contingency planning, we are expanding
and targeting the scope of our research
monitoring and evaluation. This includes
▪ Early Warning Triggers for Contingencies: Expanding biological triggers to include one lifecycle modeling for evaluation of
contingencies, enhanced habitat
for “Early Warning” of such a future fish decline, which would trigger closer scrutiny of monitoring, climate change information,
adult fish in-juvenile fish out monitoring,
available science information. Early Warnings might occur through a combination of fish and evaluation of predators and invasive
status and natural disasters, such as forest fires and volcanic eruption. Depending on the species.¶
¶
circumstances, Early Warning triggers could result in implementation of appropriate Rapid <#>Fish Abundance Trigger for
Response actions or advance planning for implementation of Long-Term Contingencies. Contingencies: Adding a new,
supplemental biological trigger for
Unexpected Severe Fish Decline that can
be evaluated annually for each ESU/DPS,
▪ Rapid Response Actions: Identification of potential “Rapid Response Actions” to be based on four consecutive years of low
implemented immediately (within less than 12 months) in the event that the Unexpected adult abundance. This trigger would
automatically result in implementation of
Severe Decline trigger is tripped. Rapid Response Actions will be targeted to the Rapid Response/Short Term contingency
actions. ¶
ESU/MPG/population at issue. ¶
<#>Early Warning Triggers for
Contingencies: Adding a new,
▪ LongTerm Contingency Plans: Providing a menu of potential long-term contingency supplemental biological trigger for Early
Warning of such a future fish decline,
actions for which a study plan and implementation milestones will be developed by 2012. which would trigger closer scrutiny of
“Long-Term Contingency” actions are items that would take more than 12 months to available science information. Early
Warnings might occur through a
implement, and that would be implemented in the event that Rapid Response actions prove combination of fish status and natural
insufficient. disasters, such as forest fires and volcanic
eruption. Depending on the
circumstances, Early Warning triggers
could result in advance implementation
▪ Transparency, Independent Science Review, and Regional Collaboration: All of these of some Rapid Response actions or
AMIP activities will be discussed and vetted with the sovereign states and tribes through the advance planning for implementation of
contingencies.¶
RIOG. Instances in which there is disagreement among sovereigns on specific issues will be ¶
<#>Rapid Response/Short Term
submitted for independent scientific review. Contingency Actions: Providing a
series of potential Rapid Response
actions to be implemented immediately
The addition of the Early Warning and Unexpected Fish Decline triggers will ensure (within less than 12 months) in the event
precautionary implementation of the BiOp and increase its responsiveness to emerging climate that the Unexpected Severe Decline
trigger is tripped. Rapid Response
change information. Together with the Rapid Response Actions and Long-Term Contingency actions will be targeted to the
ESU/MPG/population at issue.¶
plans, this will ensure that there is a rapid response by the federal agencies collectively, in ¶
collaboration with regional sovereigns and, when appropriate, independent science review, in <#>Long Term Contingency Plans:
Providing a menu of potential long term
the event of a precipitous fish decline and/or extreme habitat disturbance affecting interior contingency actions for which a study
plan and implementation milestones will
Columbia Basin fish. Implementation of rapid response and longer term contingency actions be developed by 2012. Long term
would be taken by Action Agencies or NOAA Fisheries, depending on the responsive action(s) contingency actions are items that would
take more than 12 months to implement,
in question. Figure B (Contingency Plan Flow Chart) displays the expanded contingency and that would be implemented in the
implementation process. event that Rapid Response actions prove
insufficient. The Long Term
Contingency actions include [Snake
River] dam breaching.¶
C. Relationship to the RPA Actions ¶ ... [1]
BR210

As noted above, adaptive management is a key element of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp and its RPA
(RPA actions 1-3 and 50-73). For each component of the AMIP, the applicable RPA action is
identified and the adaptive management application is described.
II. Immediate Implementation Actions Deleted: As noted above, adaptive

management is a key element of the 208
FCRPS BiOp and its RPA (RPAs 1-3 and
50-73). For each action in the 2009
The Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries have worked to further define implementation actions FCRPS AMP, a specific RPA is
raised by the Court and the Administration science review, within the adaptive management identified and the nature of the adaptive
management is described.¶
provisions of the BiOp. In this section of the 2009 FCRPS AMP, we explain the ¶
Administration’s intent and how the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries plan to implement Formatted: Highlight
these enhanced actions. These immediate implementation actions have received substantive and
deliberate consideration and have been developed and refined based on the best available
science.
A. Estuary MOA with the State of Washington
The Columbia River estuary represents a critical environment supporting the life cycle of Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt
salmon and steelhead, providing refugia from predators and offering a rich feeding environment
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left:
where individuals can grow to larger sizes that improve their probability of survival in the 3.6 pt, No bullets or numbering
ocean. Under RPA Actions 36 and 37, the Action Agencies are committed to implementing a
major program of estuary habitat restoration and research, much increased from the 2000
FCRPS BiOp. The Estuary Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Washington (Estuary
MOA) will enhance this effort significantly. It has been developed to identify and describe
estuary projects to augment the suite of actions in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. The MOA provides
additional certainty of implementation and adds to the Action Agencies’ BiOp commitments to
ESA–listed steelhead and salmon by nearly doubling estuary habitat funding, and providing Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt
more assurance that estuary habitat projects will occur.
Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt, Highlight
The Estuary MOA commits additional funds of $4.5 million annually from the Action Agencies Formatted: Font: Times New
to Washington for estuary habitat projects. This is an increase in funding for all estuary habitat Roman, 12 pt
actions of approximately $40.5 million over the nine year term of the MOA. A number of Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt, Highlight
biologically important and productive projects will result from this new partnership.
Implementation will begin in 2010 and continue throughout the term of the BiOp. Roman, 12 pt
In selecting the projects for inclusion in the Estuary MOA, an initial suite of potential projects, Roman, 12 pt
was refined to 21 sites. Projects were evaluated by Washington Department of Fish and Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt, Bold
Wildlife (WDFW) scientists for biological benefits and certainty of success, using the science
methodology described in 2008 BiOp. Appendix 3 provides a list of Estuary MOA Projects, a Roman, 12 pt
map showing their location, and a sample benefits calculation. Comment [S2]: delete because costs
will fluctuate
In addition to “on the ground” projects, the Estuary MOA relies on a significant estuary Formatted: Font: 12 pt
research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) effort. . This RME helps evaluate progress toward Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman, 12 pt
BR211

implementation objectives and assists in determining biologically beneficial actions for the Deleted: The Columbia River estuary
Action Agencies and regional partners. Evaluation of actions under the Washington MOA will represents a critical major environments
supporting the life cycle of salmon and
be integrated into the Action Agencies’ evaluations for the entire estuarine ecosystem. An steelhead, providing refugia from
predators and offering a rich feeding
expert regional technical group has been established to support and guide these actions. environment where individuals can grow
to larger sizes that improve their
probability of survival in the ocean. All
B. Predator Control and Invasive Species salmon and steelhead stocks in the
Columbia River Basin spend time in the
estuary before migrating to sea. Estuarine
The scientists consulted by the Administration identified predation by non-native species and habitats must be available throughout
time and space at sufficient quantities to
invasive species as a major factor in salmon and steelhead survival. Currently, the 2008 FCRPS support more that 150 distinct salmon and
steelhead populations, which represent 13
BiOp includes a number of RPA actions addressing predation by sea lions (RPA action 49), birds Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU),
(RPA actions 45-48), and fish (RPA action 43-44). each capable of expressing a variety of
different fresh-water and ages of estuary
entry; periods of estuary residence; and
To address fish predation, the Action Agencies are implementing an effective pikeminnow sport times, sizes, and ages of seaward
migration. Under RPA 36 and 37, the
reward fishery program, which results in [fill in] each year. However, predation and other Action Agencies are committed to
implementing a major program of estuary
impacts from other non-native fish are still considered cause for concern. Smallmouth bass, habitat restoration and research, much
channel catfish and American shad are all introduced species in the Columbia Basin. With the increased from the 2000 FCRPS BiOp.
Estuary habitat projects are implemented
exception of American shad, they are also predators on juvenile salmon. American shad do not in cooperation with the Lower Columbia
River Estuary Partnership and local
consume juvenile salmon, but are thought to substantially affect food webs in the mainstem technical experts. In addition, projects
migration corridor. In addition, the nutrients provided by juvenile American shad in the fall may receiving BPA funding are screened by
the Independent Science Review Panel. ¶
serve to increase condition and survival of predators, therefore increasing net predation on ¶
juvenile salmon. Conversely, they may reduce predation rates on subyearling Chinook salmon by The Estuary Memorandum of Agreement
with the State of Washington (Estuary
providing an abundant, alternative source of food to predators. MOA) will enhance this effort
significantly. It has been developed to
identify and describe estuary projects to
Under RPA action 44, the Action Agencies have moved ahead in developing a regional strategy augment the suite of actions in the 2008
FCRPS BiOp. The MOA provides
to increase fish survival by reducing non-native piscivorous predation on juvenile salmon. additional certainty of implementation
and adds to the Action Agencies’ BiOp
Under this 2009 FCRPS AMP, we are describing new information and details regarding commitments to ESA–listed steelhead
implementation. and salmon by nearly doubling estuary
habitat funding, and providing more
assurance that estuary habitat projects
will occur.¶
In the fall of 2008, the Action Agencies hosted a non-native species predation workshop with ¶
approximately 100 in attendance -- representing 18 federal, state and tribal entities, and several The Estuary MOA commits additional
funds of $4.5 million annually from the
regional universities. A report on the proceedings [name and web link] identified a number of Action Agencies to Washington for
predation management strategies, most requiring a level of basic field research as a first step in estuary habitat projects. This is an
increase in funding for all estuary habitat
implementing full-scale management actions. A follow-up meeting occurred in May of 2009 to actions of approximately $40.5 million
over the nine year term of the MOA. A
narrow the focus to a few high priority approaches warranting further development. Based on number of biologically important and
this regional consensus, the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries will be moving ahead in the productive projects will result from this
new partnership. Implementation will
three highest priority areas to establish a base for future predator control: begin in 2010 and continue throughout... [2]
Deleted: 2
 Shad: documentation of the influence of juvenile shad on the growth and condition of Deleted: B
introduced predators in the fall as they prepare for overwintering Deleted: C
Deleted: C
 Catfish: documentation of the predatory impact of channel catfish Deleted: S
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
BR212

 Smallmouth Bass: document whether localized removals of smallmouth bass may reduce Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
Tabs: 18 pt, List tab + Not at 25.2
the predatory impact on juvenile salmonids in areas of intense predation. pt
Once this research supports a specific management strategy, then site-specific removals of
smallmouth bass and adult shad exclusion from upper mainstem dams could occur as early as
2012. [Rock notes that this section seems to restating what the AA’s are already doing – does not Formatted: Highlight
signal an enhancement or acceleration.]

Deleted: ¶
Delete this for the court filing? At the regional scale, it is necessary to assess the impacts of
non-native species. This will include combining spatially explicit information on non-native
species populations (abundance, size, etc.) and mechanisms and magnitudes of impact to identify
areas where risks to salmon are the greatest and where management strategies are needed to
minimize these impacts. We will evaluate multiple mechanisms of impact (predation,
competition) for a number of key taxa (including but not excluded to shad, brook trout,
smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and walleye). These assessments are needed
to identify regions in the Columbia with greatest potential impacts from non-native species. In
addition, results of this effort can be linked with proposed climate studies that will identify ESUs
that are most susceptible to the effects of climate change to help identify potential synergistic
interactions between climate and non-native species.
(MAN: I think we need to plan on a solicitation of innovative projects for bass control – see my
earlier comments.)
C. Reintroduction
The scientists consulted by the Administration identified reintroduction of salmon and steelhead
to locations where extirpation has occurred as a key mitigation strategy. By making Deleted: is occurring
unoccupied/low abundance habitats accessible, reintroductions have the potential to enhance

abundance and productivity, as well as spatial structure and diversity. Under the BiOp and
related programs, the Action Agencies are currently implementing a number of small scale,
passive reintroduction efforts and larger scale active efforts to reestablish functioning
populations in several areas of the Columbia basin under RPA actions 34 and 35..
The Action Agencies implementation of passage improvements, removal of barriers, and Deleted: On a small scale,
instream flow restoration has opened up fish access to habitat ranging from a few miles to dozens Deleted: t
of miles. Two recent examples from 2008 implementation are in the XX River, where flows Deleted: or
were restored to provide fish access [website ] and in the XX River, where a small dam was
removed. [weblink].
NOAA, the Action Agencies and others are also advancing reintroduction of extirpated Deleted: T
populations on a much larger scale. These plans include the development of passage facilities for Formatted: Highlight
FERC-licensed projects (e.g., dams on the Cowlitz, Lewis, Deschutes) and potential dam
removal in the case of Condit Dam on the White Salmon River. Other unblocked areas are being
BR213

actively repopulated with fish, primarily through outplanting of hatchery-propagated fish. These
include Action Agency programs, in partnership with tribes and states, for ESA-listed spring
Chinook salmon in the Okanogan River basin, listed chum salmon in Duncan Creek (lower Deleted: L
Columbia), and listed sockeye into Pettit and Alturas Lakes (Snake River). Reintroduction of
listed spring/summer Chinook salmon into Panther Creek (Snake River) is in the proposal stage.
Ongoing or planned restoration efforts for non-listed stocks of fish include sockeye into Lake Cle
Elum and the Deschutes River basin (Mid-Columbia), coho into the Wenatchee and Deleted: C
Methow/Okanogan rivers (Upper Columbia), and spring Chinook into the Walla Walla River
(Mid-Columbia).
Deleted: ¶
Delete this per the Execs decision?:
NOAA Fisheries is evaluating additional opportunities for reintroduction of listed fish in the The first step toward the reintroduction of
interior Columbia basin ESUs into large,
Basin. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center will be examining the benefits from additional blocked areas has been taken by the
reintroductions, considering locations where reintroduction would advance recovery and further ICTRT, which assessed the change in risk
at the ESU level that would result from a
lower the risk of extinction. This evaluation will include the following elements: successful reintroduction into historically
occupied areas. However, a thorough and
systematic evaluation of the benefits to
▪ Conditions under which reintroductions would be suitable versus unsuitable. Reintroducing population status (reduction in extinction
risk) and the necessary actions to affect a
fish in some situations, e.g. where there is high quality habitat, is more likely to be reintroduction successfully has not
successful. In other instances, such as when unoccupied habitat has been severely degraded occurred.¶
or current abundance is extremely low, reintroduction may not be the best strategy. In still Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
other cases, removal of or passage over a barrier could be insufficient to support a successful Deleted: be
reintroduction. NOAA Fisheries will evaluate the conditions under which reintroduction is a
robust strategy and describe the relative costs and benefits in other situations.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 7.2 pt
▪ Reintroduction techniques. Reintroductions can occur naturally, by allowing fish to stray as Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
they normally would. Alternatively, artificially propagated fish can be outplanted in

currently unoccupied areas. NOAA Fisheries will evaluate the costs and benefits of
alternative reintroduction strategies and techniques.
This thorough evaluation of the potential for reintroduction and the conditions for successful
reintroduction will lead to more effective recovery efforts in the future.
[Rock notes that this section seems to restating what the AA’s and NOAA are already doing – Formatted: Highlight
does not signal an enhancement or acceleration.]

Deleted: ¶
D. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) is an essential component of the adaptive

management framework in the BiOp. The scientists consulted by the new Administration
considered RME critical to address areas of current data uncertainty and to guide the contingency
process. The 2008 FCRPS BiOp analysis included a number of assumptions about the effects of
RPA actions and effects on fish, which the scientists thought were reasonable based on the best
available data, but which warranted more focused research to address uncertainties.
Consequently, the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries are enhancing RM&E to address
BR214

uncertainties. These enhancements will improve available data, add greater certainty to the
information needed for decision-making, and support the evaluation of long term contingency
actions.
(MAN: WHY WAS THIS REF TO TE SCIENTISTS DELETED HERE BUT NOT IN THE
IMW SECTION BELOW?) Currently, the FCRPS BiOp includes a substantial RM&E Deleted: Research, Monitoring and
Evaluation (RME) is an essential
commitment from the Action Agencies totaling over $75 million per year (including status component of the adaptive management
framework in the BiOp. The scientists
monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and critical uncertainties research in each of the “All H” consulted by the new Administration
categories). These are described in RPA actions 50-73. NOAA Fisheries also has a major RME considered RME critical to address areas
of current data uncertainty and to guide
program linked to the ESA in the Columbia Basin. (MAN: CITATIONS?) Under the adaptive the contingency process. The 2008
management framework, RME results can lead to changes based on new information to optimize FCRPS BiOp analysis included a number
of assumptions about the effects of RPA
fish survival. Results are reported each year in annual progress reports to the region and the actions and effects on fish, which the
scientists thought were reasonable based
RIOG. This includes reporting on the annual abundance of natural fish at the ESU/DPS level on the best available data, but which
based on dam counts, the metric used for the new contingency triggers. warranted more research going forward.
Consequently, the Action Agencies and
NOAA Fisheries are
enhancing/expanding RM&E actions
Since the release of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, NOAA Fisheries and the Action Agencies have been within the BiOp. These enhancements
jointly reviewing existing federal RME efforts to identify and address critical gaps in, or will improve available data, add greater
uncertainty and support evaluation of
potential enhancements to these programs. This review is being conducted in partnership with long term contingency actions. ¶
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife ¶
Authority. This summer, BPA, CBFWA, NOAA Fisheries and NPCC are convening a series of Formatted: Font: Bold
sub-regional workshops with state and tribal co-managers to develop a shared Columbia Formatted: Font: Bold
Basin Monitoring Strategy. This goal of these workshops is to develop an efficient salmon Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
and steelhead monitoring framework and implementation strategy that will support a variety Deleted: will
of needs, including those of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, recovery plans, regional fisheries Deleted: meets the needs of the
management objectives, and other programs. By fall 2009 this collaborative process is
expected to be complete.
1. Enhanced Lifecycle Monitoring for Evaluation of Contingencies

Need a lead in explaining why this expansion of the life-cycle model is needed and responsive to Formatted: Highlight
the independent scientists’ recommendations
The BiOp used a combination of life-cycle modeling and passage modeling (COMPASS) for
evaluation of impacts and All H actions. These analyses provided state of the art evaluations
based on the best available science information on fish status, hydropower effects, mitigation
actions, and ocean/climate scenarios to estimate how changes in life-stage specific survival affect
long term viability metrics (productivity, mean abundance and probability of quasi-extinction).
Based on the best available science, the existing models can be expanded further in order to
explicitly evaluate a variety of other factors, described below. In addition, the expanded models
can be developed to estimate the likelihood that early-warning and contingency triggers might be
met under alternative scenarios of climate change and management strategies.
BR215

Starting in 2010, NOAA and the Action Agencies will jointly fund and implement updates to the
existing lifecycle models.
Deleted: ALT 1: The BiOp used a
combination of life-cycle modeling and
These updates will address the following new areas, among others: passage modeling (COMPASS) for
 Emerging climate data and its application evaluation of impacts and All H actions.
These analyses provided state of the art
 Hatchery effects and monitoring evaluations based on the best available
science information on fish status,
 Habitat effects and monitoring hydropower effects, mitigation actions,
 Spatially explicit monitoring (be more specific) and ocean/climate scenarios.
Nevertheless, RME efforts could be
 Interspecific interactions improved in a number of key areas to
improve decision-making, particularly for
 John Day at MOP evaluation of contingencies. ¶
 Short-term, transitional and long term effects of dam breaching ¶
OR ¶
¶
ALT 2: The BiOp used a combination of
More details regarding modeling updates are set out in Appendix 4. These model updates will be life-cycle modeling and passage
developed using the same approach as for the COMPASS model using a similar, transparent modeling (COMPASS) to estimate how
changes in life-stage specific survival
process that included an independent science peer review. Model progress and outputs will be affect long term viability metrics
coordinated and reported through the RIOG. (productivity, mean abundance and
probability of quasi-extinction). These
analyses adequately expressed population
viability and effects of hydropower
2. Enhanced Habitat Monitoring/Intensively Monitored Watersheds system operations and configurations on
smolt survival and alternative
ocean/climatic scenarios. The existing
The scientists consulted by the new Administration confirmed the high value of the Intensively models can be expanded further in order
to explicitly evaluate a variety of other
Monitored Watershed (IMW) approach for assessing habitat effectiveness. An IMW is a large factors, described below. In addition, the
scale study intended to resolve the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as the effects of expanded models can be developed to
estimate the likelihood that early-warning
habitat conditions on fish abundance and productivity. They involve watershed monitoring of a and contingency triggers might be met
under alternative scenarios of climate
variety of habitat treatments and controls, as well as biological indicators. The basic structure of change and management strategies. ¶
the IMW provides a good opportunity to collect additional information related to habitat ¶
Starting in 2010, NOAA and the Action
condition, climate change, and overall fish abundance. The scientists noted that coordinating Agencies will jointly fund (equal sharing
juvenile abundances with adult abundances (i.e., “fish in/fish out”) within populations will allow of expenses) and implement updates to
the existing lifecycle models. ¶
a better understanding of productivity, better life-cycle modeling, and rapid responses to sharp
population declines, as described in Section III.
The Action Agencies are implementing IMWs under RPA action 56, for fish status monitoring
Deleted: ¶
and habitat effectiveness monitoring. Under the BiOp, the Action Agencies are currently
implementing IMWs in the John Day, Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Lemhi, South Fork Salmon
basins, while NOAA funds additional IMW studies in Oregon, Washing and Idaho. The Action
Deleted: D
Agencies’ IMWs have been through independent science evaluation and review by the
Deleted:
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Under the BiOp framework, significant
enhancements to these efforts are already underway.
Starting in 2010? NOAA and the Action Agencies will update their IMW efforts to add the
following additional data collection at an appropriate scale:
 Adult fish in-juvenile fish out monitoring
 Flow
 Temperature
BR216

In collaboration with regional parties, the Action Agencies are revising or augmenting ongoing
fish-in/fish-out monitoring to ensure the coverage of at least one population per MPG. These
monitoring improvements will be coordinated with improvements to ongoing habit monitoring as
part of the FCRPS action effectiveness evaluations (RPA actions 56 and 57). It is anticipated that
implementing an improved fish-in/fish-out, fish size, and habitat effectiveness monitoring
strategy will include the implementation of additional IMW studies and other habitat monitoring
programs paired with fish-in/fish-out monitoring. [Need to confirm that fish in-out for one
population per MPG is budgeted. New IMWs are not budgeted.]
The Action Agencies are also planning to collect and coordinate tributary climate change
information, including flow and temperature monitoring. These improved and better-coordinated
monitoring designs will contribute to adaptive management, identification of climate change
impacts, and evaluations for contingencies.
IMW updates will go through an independent science review process and review by the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Results will be coordinated and reported through
the RIOG.
3. Climate Change Information
The scientists consulted by the new Administration emphasized the importance of monitoring
climate change developments and research results. The 2008 FCRPS BiOp includes a
commitment from the Action Agencies to report annually in their progress reports on climate
change research. The Federal agencies will expand and strengthen this approach through joint
NOAA Fisheries and Action Agency review of climate change information.
▪ Habitat and Ocean Conditions: Under RPA actions 56-61, ongoing and enhanced
tributary habitat and ocean research will provide a data base on freshwater habitat and ocean
conditions, allowing tracking of changes over time.
▪ Annual Reports: RPA action 2 requires inclusion of new, pertinent climate change or
research in the Action Agencies’ annual Progress Reports. To ensure this will be
accomplished each year, by June 1, NOAA Fisheries will provide to the Action Agencies a
survey of any new climate change studies, scientific papers or modeling work relevant to
2008 FCRPS BiOp implementation and fish status.
▪ Habitat Project Priorities: RPA actions 35 and 37 require that new climate change
information be used to guide tributary and estuary habitat project selection and prioritization
and other aspects of adaptive management. The NOAA Fisheries review described above
will also be used for this purpose.
BR217

▪ Forecasting and Modeling: RPA action 7 requires investigation of the impacts of possible
climate change scenarios on listed salmon and steelhead. As part of this effort, new climate
change information will be used to model possible future climate change scenarios and
investigate possible adaptation strategies for the system. The Action Agencies have already
made significant progress on this task and are incorporating climate change modeling from
the University of Washington’s Climate Change Impacts Group in developing the data sets
that will be considered in the agencies’ longer term water management planning.
Climate change information will be reported and discussed annually through the RIOG.
III. Adaptive Management: Contingency Plans In Case of Unexpected Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 18 pt,
Tabs: 81 pt, List tab + Not at 72 pt
Fish Declines
A. Expanded Contingency Triggers Deleted: Supplemental
The 2008 FCRPS BiOp requires annual progress reports and comprehensive evaluations,
including fish status, habitat conditions, progress in meeting performance standards, climate
change information, and RME results. The adaptive management framework in the 2008 BiOp
and the 2007 BA establishes contingency planning if fish abundance and productivity are Deleted: /
decreasing at the time of the 2013 and 2016 Comprehensive Evaluations. As described in the
2007 FCRPS BA, decreasing abundance in 30% to 50% of an ESUs populations (as indicated by
evaluations of R/S, Lambda, etc. as part of the evaluation of productivity, biological, and
environmental metrics), would initiate an All H diagnosis to address the appropriate limiting
factors.
Deleted: would trigger implementation
of Rapid Response Actions. ¶
As part of the Administration’s review of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, scientists suggested that a
refinement of the BiOp’s adaptive management and contingency planning processes could
provide more precautionary implementation. Specifically, the scientists suggested that fish
abundance information should be used to trigger “rapid responses” in case of unexpected severe
declines. In addition, they suggested that “early warning” information should be used to trigger
closer scrutiny of an impending severe fish decline. Early warning information would include
large scale natural disasters or environmental degradation (either biological or environmental) in
combination with preliminary abundance indicators. They further advised that these triggers
should be based on simple metrics that are readily available.
This 2009 FCRPS AMP describes two triggers – as refinements of the adaptive management and Formatted: Highlight
contingency planning processes – that are responsive to the scientists’ advice, are transparent to Deleted: advice
ongoing regional processes, and are not likely to result in a series of “false-positive” events. The Comment [K3]: Explain or delete
relationship of these triggers to the 2008 FCRPS BiOp adaptive management and contingencies Formatted: Highlight
framework is shown in Figure B. The first trigger (Unexpected Severe (MAN: HOW DO WE Deleted: ¶
DEFINE SEVERE? AS DEFINED BELOW.) Declines) relies upon 4-year rolling averages of
BR218

the estimated numbers of naturally produced adults at key locations (typically dams where fish
can readily be counted) in the Snake and Columbia rivers. Deleted: R
Deleted:
The second trigger (Early Warning) complements the Unexpected Severe Decline trigger. The
second trigger is tripped if preliminary abundance information, combined with adverse biological
or environmental conditions, strongly (MAN: HOW DO WE DEFINE STRONGLY? OKAY,
WE SHOULD SAY HERE THAT WE DEFINE THIS BELOW.) suggest substantially reduced
productivity for several additional, consecutive years. The Unexpected Severe Decline and Early
Warning triggers together provide a mechanism to detect potential threats and take appropriate
contingency actions. Evaluation of these triggers will occur at least annually.
Deleted: The second trigger (Early
Warning) complements the Unexpected
Given current fish abundance, it is not expected that proposed Unexpected Severe Decline or Severe Decline trigger. It occurs if
preliminary abundance information,
Early Warning Triggers within the term of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp would be triggered. Based on combined with adverse biological or
anticipated results of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp improvements, abundance of Columbia Basin fish environmental conditions, strongly
suggest substantially reduced productivity
species, on average, are expected to increase over time. However, recognizing the unforeseen for several additional, consecutive years.
could occur and the independent scientists’ advice, the inclusion of these expanded triggers as The Unexpected Severe Decline and
Early Warning triggers together provide a
part of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp's adaptive management and contingency implementation mechanism to detect potential threats and
take appropriate contingency actions.
processes provides additional assurances that the 2008 FCRPS BiOp is implemented in a Evaluation of these triggers will occur at
precautionary fashion from the perspective of the ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species. least annually. ¶
Deleted: However, inclusion of these
triggers as part of the 2008 FCRPS
1. Unexpected Severe Decline Trigger for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead BiOp's adaptive management and
contingency implementation processes
The purpose of this trigger is to detect unexpected and severe declines in the abundance of ESUs provides additional assurances that the
so that rapid response actions can be implemented in a timely fashion to minimize or mitigate for 2008 FCRPS BiOp is implemented in a
precautionary fashion from the
an unforeseen downturn. The metric of exceptionally low abundance of natural fish measured perspective of the ESA-listed salmon and
over a four-year period was selected as a trigger for Rapid Responses actions for several reasons. steelhead species.¶
First, this metric is relatively easy to measure through dam counts and is easily interpretable. Deleted: in a rapid manner
The four-year period corresponds approximately to a generation for most ESUs, and the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recommends examining population
declines over a time period representing one generation. Furthermore, the ICTRT risk
assessments incorporated a quasi extinction threshold expressed in terms of a 4-year sum of
abundance.
 The Unexpected Severe Decline trigger will be met when average four year adult abundance Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
is at or below the 90th percentile based on historical data, roughly similar to adult fish pt + 36 pt
abundance in the early 1990s. This is a “hard” trigger, which necessitates Rapid Response
contingency actions.
 In addition, four year adult abundance at or below the 80th percentile has been identified as a Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
“soft” trigger that would engage closer examination and potential readying of Rapid pt + 36 pt
Response actions for implementation if the ESU(s) in question continue to decline. [Summer
spill and fall chinook?]
BR219

For ease in implementation, the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries have translated this
trigger into an objective indicator for each interior basin ESU. A four year average below this
level would signal a substantial, unexpected decline in the number of wild adults for a particular
ESU, triggering implementation of Rapid Response Actions. Further explanation of the
Unexpected Sever Decline Trigger is provided in Appendix 5.
2. Early Warning Trigger for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead

The Early Warning Trigger relies on preliminary biological and environmental metrics to
indicate that the Unexpected Severe Decline ESU 1 abundance levels are likely to be reached
within one to two years. The trigger indicates whether an ESU is likely to have substantially
reduced abundance (and productivity) in the future, based on two years of adult return
information, preliminary biological information and environmental indicators or known natural
disasters. These indicators may include, but are not limited to, low jack counts or juvenile Deleted: d
migrants (biological), indicators of ocean conditions predicting very low abundance of adult
returns for recent outmigrant (environmental indicators), or wide-spread forest fires, increased
distribution and virulence of pathogens, new invasive species, prolonged severe droughts etc.
(natural disasters).
The result of this trigger would be further consideration by the Action Agencies and NOAA, in
consultation with the RIOG, of the available scientific information to assess if the event warrants
the implementation of Rapid Response Actions and/or planning for implementation of long-term
contingencies
Deleted: The result of this trigger
would be further consideration by the
In the future, biological and environmental indicators for Early Warning could also include Action Agencies and NOAA, in
consultation with the RIOG, of the
factors such as unusual outbreaks of pathogens or increased virulence of those pathogens, the available science information to assess if
ratio of hatchery- to natural-origin fish on the spawning grounds, juvenile fish size, etc. This the event warrants the implementation of
some Rapid Response Actions and/or
information is not widely available at the current time, although much is currently planned or planning for implementation of other
underway for certain watersheds/populations. contingencies. ¶
Initial assessments suggest that juvenile monitoring (numbers, sizes, condition, etc.) of interior
Columbia River basin ESUs (or MPGs or a subset of populations) at dams and in tributaries
would likely provide information that could complement the adult monitoring information and
further enhance the Early Warning Trigger in the future. The Action Agencies and NOAA
Fisheries will consider the results of the current monitoring program review and assess how best
to use this information to inform the Early Warning Trigger.
Further explanation of the Early Warning Trigger is presented in Appendix 6.
B. Rapid Response Actions (Immediate Implementation within 6-12 Months)

1
ESU-level adult abundance information is the most readily available information at present. Where feasible, future
refinements of the Early Warning trigger could potentially be extended to the Major Population Group (MPG) or the
population level.
BR220

Rapid Response Actions for immediate implementation have been developed by the Action
Agencies, NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS. The Rapid Responses below are Deleted: .
a menu of short term “emergency” contingency actions and a decision-making process for Formatted: Highlight
implementing these actions within 12 months. Most if not all actions included in the rapid
response plans will be temporary in nature. More details for each of these actions are set out in
Appendix 7. Deleted: Attachment X
The Rapid Response Actions have been identified for their potential to immediately improve fish Deleted: a
survival. The needed regulatory process for their implementation is already largely in place. In
other words, they are actions that could be implemented relatively quickly (within 1 year) and
provide immediate survival benefits, if the evaluations of productivity, biological, and
environmental metrics (Figure B, Box 4) indicates that triggers have been tripped (Figure B, Formatted: Highlight
Boxes 5 - 8). The Rapid Response Actions will be held at the ready, and implemented, if Formatted: Highlight
necessary (Figure B, Box 9). Formatted: Highlight
The following are the identified Rapid Response Actions. More details for each of these actions
are set out in Appendix 7.
 Hydro Actions: The Action Agencies would implement, within the adaptive management Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
Tabs: Not at 36 pt
framework of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, additional hydrosystem actions that would increase the
survival of the ESU/DPS, even beyond the juvenile dam passage performance standards.
Rapid Response Actions for hydro would include continuing summer spill through August 31
if Snake River fall Chinook triggers are tripped. Specific actions would be based on the most
recent data available and might include targeted spill and changes in fish transportation
operations based on recent survival data. The Action Agencies would define and implement
any such actions, within six to 12 months of the trigger.
 Predator Control: The Action Agencies, in combination with the USFWS and the States, Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
would implement more aggressive targeted efforts to control and eradicate predatory fish, + 54 pt
avian predators, and invasive species to increase survival of listed fish. This would include a
temporary increase in the pikeminnow sport fishery bounty program, increased hazing of
birds in close proximity to the dams, and potential shift of avian removal permits to the
mainstem. The Action Agencies would define and implement any such reductions within six
to 12 months of the trigger being tripped.
 Harvest: NOAA Fisheries would implement lower harvest rates within the framework of Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
existing harvest agreements and, if appropriate, negotiate with US v. Oregon parties (under + 54 pt
Court supervision) and others to seek emergency reductions in the non-tribal harvest rates
below the lowest rates currently provided. In implementing these steps, the federal agencies
actions will be consistent with tribal and treaty and trust responsibilities. NOAA and
USFWS would define and implement any such reductions within six to 12 months of the
trigger.
BR221

Deleted: <#>Hydro Actions: The
Action Agencies would implement,
 Safety Net Hatchery Programs: The Action Agencies and NOAA would use safety net within the adaptive management
framework of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp,
hatcheries to immediately improve survival and address short term extinction risk. During additional hydrosystem actions that
2010, the agencies will consult with the RIOG and identify opportunities for safety net would increase the survival of the
ESU/DPS, even beyond the juvenile dam
facilities for each interior ESU. The Action Agencies would define and implement safety net passage performance standards. Rapid
actions within 6 to 12 months of the trigger being tripped. response actions for hydro would include
continuing summer spill through August
31 if Snake River fall Chinook triggers
are tripped. Specific actions would be
Safety Net Hatchery Programs: based on the most recent data available
and might include targeted spill and
changes in fish transportation operations
NOAA Fisheries, the Action Agencies, the hatchery operators, and the co-managers will develop based on recent survival data. The
Action Agencies would define and
a Plan of Action during 2010 for use of safety net hatcheries if needed. For each interior implement any such actions, within six to
Columbia Basin ESU, this would include the following: 12 months of the trigger.¶
¶
<#>Predator Control: The Action
1. Location of existing hatcheries that might be used, in part, as a safety-net hatchery Agencies, in combination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the States,
would implement more aggressive
targeted efforts to control and eradicate
2. Describe existing regulatory hurdles (authorities, impacts on production and existing predatory fish, avian predators, and
agreements, etc) and processes to resolve. Further identify the likely action needed invasive species to increase survival of
listed fish. This would include a
including any hatchery retro-fit needs, anticipated production needs and goals, monitoring temporary increase in the pikeminnow
sport fishery bounty program, increased
plan, funding authority, cost estimate, and risk estimate. hazing of birds, and potential shift of
avian removal permits to the mainstem.
The Action Agencies would define and
3. Approval of safety-net conservation action by NoAA, state and tribal authorities implement any such reductions within six
to 12 months of the trigger being tripped.¶
¶
4. Annual reporting requirements <#>Harvest: NOAA Fisheries would
implement lower harvest rates within the
framework of existing harvest agreements
5. Adapative management plan. and, if appropriate, negotiate with US... v.
[3]
Comment [k4]: All of this wording
should be replaced by what is in appendix
Corps would like to clarify production of mitigation fish may not be the same as production of 8 – safety net or see my suggestions.
listed fish] Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
If triggered, ESU/DPS-specific actions will be implemented at the appropriate scale [how Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12
determined?](ESU/MPG/population). These may be followed by an All-H Diagnosis and pt, Bold
implementation of longer-term contingency actions if warranted. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
Hanging: 21.6 pt
When Rapid Response Actions have been insufficient to improve the declining fish status of a
Formatted: Font: Not Bold,
listed ESU, the Action Agencies and NOAA will engage in a lifecycle and life stage analysis for Highlight
the ESU/MPG/population in question.
Deleted: Existing hatchery facilities
can provide immediate increases in the
egg-to-smolt survival of listed species
Rapid Response Actions will be re-evaluated by the Action Agencies based on updated science (Table 1- Listing of Listed Population
... [4]
information as part of the 2013 and 2016 Comprehensive Evaluations. Any revisions to the Formatted: Normal, Tabs: 0 pt, Left
action list will be made in collaboration with the RIOG. Deleted: If triggered, ESU/DPS-
specific actions will be implemented at
the appropriate scale
C. Long Term Contingency Plans (Greater Than One Year to Implement) (ESU/MPG/population). These may...be[5]
BR222

Potential Long-Term Contingency Actions -- have been identified by the Action Agencies,
NOAA, and USFWS. A study plan and implementation milestones for potential long term
contingency actions would be developed by 2012, which may include scope and schedule, as
well as a decision-making process. [note – change sentence to address process for dam
breaching] Unlike the Rapid Response Actions, these Contingency Actions would be longer-
term actions that (See Figure B, Box 11) following an All H Diagnosis, or in the event that the
Rapid Response Actions are determined to be insufficient, would be evaluated for
implementation. While Rapid Response Actions are considered temporary in nature,
consideration of continuing a Rapid Response Action for the long-term, could be evaluated by
including such action in the life cycle model analysis and decision making process on long term
In the ultimate selection of long term contingencies for a particular ESU, emphasis will be on Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
actions that would significantly improve fish survival. Implementation of longer term actions is
likely to require negotiations to modify existing agreements, regulatory compliance (e.g.
permits), and administrative planning (e.g. environmental review seeking additional authorities,
and potentially additional ESA consultation or re-consultation). Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 36
pt + Tab after: 54 pt + Indent at:
54 pt, Tabs: 18 pt, List tab + Not at
The following actions have been identified as potential Long-Term Contingencies More details 54 pt
for each of these are set out in Appendix 8. Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 pt
 Phase II Hydro Actions: The Action Agencies could implement additional hydro system Tabs: 18 pt, List tab + Not at 36 pt
+ 54 pt
actions identified as Phase II actions in the Configuration and Operational Plans (COPs).
Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 pt, No
bullets or numbering, Tabs: Not at
 Reintroduction: The Action Agencies and NOAA, in coordination with the States, could 54 pt
implement the re-establishment of salmon populations that are functionally extirpated to Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
increase the diversity and abundance of an ESU overall. + 54 pt
 Predator Control: The Action Agencies, in combination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 54 pt
Service and the States, could implement more aggressive efforts than those described in the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
RPA and rapid response actions; i.e., those that require regulatory or administrative changes, Tabs: 18 pt, List tab + Not at 36 pt
+ 54 pt
to control and eradicate predatory fish, avian predators, and invasive species to increase
survival of listed fish. bullets or numbering, Tabs: Not at
54 pt
 Harvest: NOAA could change existing harvest agreements and biological opinions as they Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
are expire and are re-negotiated + 54 pt
 Conservation Hatcheries: Safety net programs could be converted to longer term bullets or numbering, Tabs: Not at
54 pt
conservation hatchery programs where appropriate.
 John Day MOP: Assuming survival benefits are confirmed, the Action Agencies could + 54 pt
pursue authority to mitigate for operating John Day at MOP from April through June. Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 pt, No
54 pt
BR223

 Hatchery Reforms: The Actions Agencies and NOAA Fisheries will ensure that hatchery Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 18
programs funded by the FCRPS Action Agencies are not impeding recovery of ESA listed pt + Tab after: 0 pt + Indent at: 36
salmon ESUs or steelhead DPSs. pt
Formatted: Not Highlight
 Breaching lower Snake River Dam(s): The approach taken for consideration of dam Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 pt
breaching as a long term contingency is to first develop new analytical tools (life cycle Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt,
modeling) to evaluate the short-term, transitional and long-term effects of dam breaching. If + 54 pt
warranted based on biological triggers for Snake River ESUs, and the new life-cycle model Deleted: Long-Term Contingency
provides information sufficient to demonstrate breaching dam(s) is the only action that would Actions -- including [Snake River] dam
breaching -- have been identified by the
address the species(s) status, the Action Agencies will prepare a detailed study plan to layout Action Agencies, NOAA, and FWS. For
each item on this "menu" of potential
the scope, schedule and budget for an overall technical evaluation of breaching one or more contingency actions, a study plan and
of the lower Snake River dams, and initiate those studies. implementation milestones would be
developed by 2012, including scope and
schedule, as well as a decision-making
Ultimately, the choice of longer term contingency actions for implementation will depend on the process. Unlike the Rapid Response
actions, these Contingency Actions would
All H Diagnosis, a science analysis of the circumstances, options, and limiting factors for the be longer-term actions that could be
implemented (See Figure B, Box 11),
ESUs in question, as described below. The All H Diagnosis process, in collaboration with the following an All H Diagnosis, in the
RIOG, will evaluate Long-Term Contingency Actions for the ESU in question. Based on this event that the Rapid Response Actions
are determined to be insufficient.
review, the Action Agencies and NOAA will select an action, or suite of actions, to address the Because Rapid Response actions are
considered temporary in nature, their
downward abundance trends (beyond the Rapid Response actions). continuation would be addressed in the
longer term plans.¶
¶
Following adoption of Contingency Actions, the Action Agencies and NOAA would In the ultimate selection of long term
immediately implement the appropriate study plans and take necessary steps (regulatory contingencies for a particular ESU,
emphasis would be on actions that would
approvals, environmental reviews, ESA consultations, etc.) to complete the adopted Contingency significantly improve fish survival.
Implementation of longer term actions
Actions as soon as practically possible. might require negotiations, regulatory
compliance, and administrative planning
(e.g., changes in harvest agreements or
Long Term Contingency Plans completed in 2012 will be re-evaluated by the Action Agencies dam breaching studies, see below, etc.) .
They might also require permits and
based on updated science information as part of the 2013 and 2016 Comprehensive Evaluations. approvals, environmental review, changes
Any revisions to the plan will be made in collaboration with the RIOG. to existing legal agreements with other
parties, the need to seek additional
authorities, and potentially additional
IV. Adaptive Management: Transparency, Science Review and ESA consultation or re-consultation. ¶
¶
Reporting The following actions have been
identified as Long Term Contingencies.
More details for each of these are set out
in Appendix 8.¶
The 2008 FCRPS BiOp envisions a collaborative and transparent adaptive management process ¶
with the region’s sovereigns, building off the base of the remand collaboration. Since the 2008 <#>Phase II Hydro Actions: The
Action Agencies could implement
FCRPS BiOp was released, the RIOG has met a number of times and has developed initial additional hydro system actions identified
as Phase II actions in the Configuration
... [6]
operating guidelines. The RIOG is currently considering the staffing for its supporting senior
technical teams.
Deleted: Ultimately, the choice of a
Progress Reports: Each fall, the Actions Agencies will prepare and discuss annual progress longer term contingency actions for
reports with the RIOG, including progress on specific performance standards and targets and implementation will depend on the All H
Diagnosis, a science analysis of the
progress on implementation of the RPA. circumstances, options, and limiting
factors for the ESUs in question, as
described below. The All H Diagnosis
process, in collaboration with the RIOG,
... [7]
BR224

Adaptive Management and Tech Teams: As new data and information become available from
the extensive monitoring and new lifecycle analysis, that information will be also be included in
the annual progress report and vetted with the RIOG technical and senior technical teams, made
up of regional scientists and experts. As discussed in the climate section of this plan, annual
progress reports will include a survey of any new climate change studies, scientific papers or
modeling work relevant to BiOp implementation and fish status.
Potential adjustments to RPA actions will be discussed by the various senior technical teams
along with specific recommendations for adaptations to the RIOG. RIOG senior policy
representatives will further discuss adaptive measures so that they may be captured in upcoming
implementation plans. The RIOG has already developed initial operating guidelines to ensure
transparency throughout this adaptive management process.
Dispute Resolution and Independent Science Review: The RIOG procedures also address
dispute resolution for both scientific and policy issues. Senior technical teams will be responsible
for outlining the elements in dispute, to include relevant science information and various
sovereign viewpoints. At any time, the RIOG may seek independent scientific review of science
disputes from the ISAB, IRSP or other body. For policy disputes, the RIOG may also seek an
opportunity for public input into a policy issue or dispute. If so, timely notice and relevant
materials will be made available to the public.
If resolution is not achieved within the RIOG process, a RIOG member may appeal the matter to
the regional federal executives, who will make a final decision, taking into account the RIOG's
recommendations.
This goes into the Response to Court Questions Document?: Summer Spill Program.
The Flow Discussion, which I deleted, should also go there.
The BiOp specifies the use of a biological trigger for determining when summer spill for fish Deleted: voluntary
passage will be terminated in August at the four Snake River projects (see RPA Action 29 and
RPA Table 2). Namely, when fish collection numbers of subyearling Chinook fall below 300 fish
per day for 3 consecutive days at Snake River collector projects. In the event that collection
numbers exceed 500 fish per day for 2 consecutive days after spill termination, spill would
resume until the 300 fish per day trigger was tripped again. Thus, under this program spill could
be terminated as early as August 1 at Lower Granite Dam, but no later than August 31. The LRT
Fish Accords modify the implementation of this requirement so the trigger is applied at each dam
and the cessation of spill progresses downstream so that spill ceases at Little Goose no earlier
than 3 days after cessation at Lower Granite, Lower Monumental ceases no earlier than 3 days
after Little Goose and Ice Harbor ceases no earlier than 2 days after Lower Monumental.
Since 2005, a Court-ordered spill program continues spill at the four Snake River projects
through August 31 – regardless of the number of smolts that are observed at these projects.
While continuing spill through August would not harm SR fall Chinook salmon, it also fails to
provide a substantial benefit as there are simply too few fish affected (as a proportion of the
BR225

entire ESU) to influence the productivity (Recruits per Spawner, etc.) of the ESU in any
significant way. For example, the date by which 95% of the PIT tagged natural origin fish from
the Snake River (not the Clearwater River) have passed the Snake River collector projects has
ranged from July 8 (2005) to Aug 5 (2008) since 2002.
Corps thinks there should be a Summary and Conclusion paragraph to the AMIP. Formatted: Highlight
Deleted: ¶
BR226
Page 9: [1] Deleted MerlinS 8/10/2009 10:16:00 AM
Immediate Implementation Actions: The federal agencies are moving out on
aggressive implementation of the 2008 BiOp and the Fish Accords, including flow,
spill, estuary habitat, and tributary habitat. This includes the Washington Estuary
MOA. In addition, in order to support contingency planning, we are expanding and
targeting the scope of our research monitoring and evaluation. This includes
lifecycle modeling for evaluation of contingencies, enhanced habitat monitoring,
climate change information, adult fish in-juvenile fish out monitoring, and evaluation
of predators and invasive species.
Fish Abundance Trigger for Contingencies: Adding a new, supplemental

biological trigger for Unexpected Severe Fish Decline that can be evaluated annually
for each ESU/DPS, based on four consecutive years of low adult abundance. This
trigger would automatically result in implementation of Rapid Response/Short Term
Early Warning Triggers for Contingencies: Adding a new, supplemental

biological trigger for Early Warning of such a future fish decline, which would
trigger closer scrutiny of available science information. Early Warnings might occur
through a combination of fish status and natural disasters, such as forest fires and
volcanic eruption. Depending on the circumstances, Early Warning triggers could
result in advance implementation of some Rapid Response actions or advance
planning for implementation of contingencies.
Rapid Response/Short Term Contingency Actions: Providing a series of

potential Rapid Response actions to be implemented immediately (within less than
12 months) in the event that the Unexpected Severe Decline trigger is tripped.
Rapid Response actions will be targeted to the ESU/MPG/population at issue.
Long Term Contingency Plans: Providing a menu of potential long term

contingency actions for which a study plan and implementation milestones will be
developed by 2012. Long term contingency actions are items that would take more
than 12 months to implement, and that would be implemented in the event that Rapid
Response actions prove insufficient. The Long Term Contingency actions include
[Snake River] dam breaching.
Transparency, Independent Science Review, and Regional Collaboration: All of

these actions would be discussed and vetted with the sovereign states and tribes
through the RIOG.
Perhaps most importantly, the addition of the Early Warning and Unexpected Fish
Decline triggers will ensure precautionary implementation of the BiOp and increase its
responsiveness to emerging climate change information. Together with the Rapid
BR227
Response Actions and Contingency Plans, they will ensure that there is a rapid response
by the Federal agencies collectively in the event of a precipitous fish decline and/or
extreme habitat disturbance affecting interior Columbia Basin fish. Implementation of
rapid response and longer term contingency actions would be taken by Action Agencies
or NOAA Fisheries, depending on the responsive action(s) in question. Figure B
(Contingency Plan Flow Chart) displays the expanded contingency implementation
process.
The Columbia River estuary represents a critical major environments supporting the life
cycle of salmon and steelhead, providing refugia from predators and offering a rich
feeding environment where individuals can grow to larger sizes that improve their
probability of survival in the ocean. All salmon and steelhead stocks in the Columbia
River Basin spend time in the estuary before migrating to sea. Estuarine habitats must be
available throughout time and space at sufficient quantities to support more that 150
distinct salmon and steelhead populations, which represent 13 Evolutionary Significant
Units (ESU), each capable of expressing a variety of different fresh-water and ages of
estuary entry; periods of estuary residence; and times, sizes, and ages of seaward
migration. Under RPA 36 and 37, the Action Agencies are committed to implementing a
major program of estuary habitat restoration and research, much increased from the 2000
FCRPS BiOp. Estuary habitat projects are implemented in cooperation with the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership and local technical experts. In addition, projects
receiving BPA funding are screened by the Independent Science Review Panel.
The Estuary Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Washington (Estuary MOA)
will enhance this effort significantly. It has been developed to identify and describe
estuary projects to augment the suite of actions in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp. The MOA
provides additional certainty of implementation and adds to the Action Agencies’ BiOp
commitments to ESA–listed steelhead and salmon by nearly doubling estuary habitat
funding, and providing more assurance that estuary habitat projects will occur.
The Estuary MOA commits additional funds of $4.5 million annually from the Action
Agencies to Washington for estuary habitat projects. This is an increase in funding for all
estuary habitat actions of approximately $40.5 million over the nine year term of the
MOA. A number of biologically important and productive projects will result from this
new partnership. Implementation will begin in 2010 and continue throughout the term of
the BiOp.
In selecting the projects for inclusion in the Estuary MOA, an initial suite of potential
projects, was refined to 21 sites. Projects were evaluated by Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife scientists for biological benefits and certainty of success, using the
science methodology described in 2008 BiOp. Appendix 3 provides a list of Estuary
MOA Projects, a map showing their location, and a sample benefits calculation.
BR228
In addition to “on the ground” projects, the Estuary MOA relies on a significant estuary
research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) effort totaling approximately $ million per
year. This RME helps evaluate progress toward implementation objectives and assists
implementation of actions being taken by the Action Agencies and regional partners.
Evaluation of actions under the Washington MOA will be integrated into the Action
Agencies’ evaluations for the entire estuarine ecosystem. An expert regional technical
group has been established to support and guide these actions.
Hydro Actions: The Action Agencies would implement, within the adaptive
management framework of the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, additional hydrosystem actions
that would increase the survival of the ESU/DPS, even beyond the juvenile dam
passage performance standards. Rapid response actions for hydro would include
continuing summer spill through August 31 if Snake River fall Chinook triggers are
tripped. Specific actions would be based on the most recent data available and might
include targeted spill and changes in fish transportation operations based on recent
survival data. The Action Agencies would define and implement any such actions,
within six to 12 months of the trigger.
Predator Control: The Action Agencies, in combination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the States, would implement more aggressive targeted efforts to
control and eradicate predatory fish, avian predators, and invasive species to increase
survival of listed fish. This would include a temporary increase in the pikeminnow
sport fishery bounty program, increased hazing of birds, and potential shift of avian
removal permits to the mainstem. The Action Agencies would define and implement
any such reductions within six to 12 months of the trigger being tripped.
Harvest: NOAA Fisheries would implement lower harvest rates within the
framework of existing harvest agreements and, if appropriate, negotiate with US v.
Oregon parties (under Court supervision) and others to seek emergency reductions in
the non-tribal harvest rates below the lowest rates currently provided. In
implementing these steps, the federal agencies would act consistent with tribal and
treaty and trust responsibilities. NOAA and FWS would define and implement any
such reductions within six to 12 months of the trigger.
Existing hatchery facilities can provide immediate increases in the egg-to-smolt survival
of listed species (Table 1- Listing of Listed Population and associated Hatchery Programs
according to ESU). Mitigation funds (Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Mitchell Act funds support these
hatchery programs. Some programs already culture listed populations as captive
broodstock where fish are retained full-term through all life stages in order to accelerate
increases in effective population size. The artificial propagation of these populations from
the egg stage through smolt stage reduces natural mortality rate as compared to the
BR229
natural environment. These programs do have risks (genetic and ecological) that are
regulated and managed through NOAA approved Hatchery and Genetic Management
Plans (HGMPs). Programs already in place can serve as a part of a short-term
contingency plan.(WILL FUTURE ESA CONSULTATIONS INCLUDE THIS
ALTERNATIVE USE, ISSUE FOR USBR)

If triggered, ESU/DPS-specific actions will be implemented at the appropriate scale
(ESU/MPG/population). These may be followed by an All-H Diagnosis and
implementation of longer-term Contingency Actions if warranted.
When Rapid Response Actions have been insufficient to improve the declining fish status
of a listed ESU the Action Agencies and NOAA will engage in a rapid lifecycle and life
stage analysis for the ESU/MPG/population in question. An “All-H Diagnosis,”
performed in collaboration with the RIOG, would be used to determine both likely causes
of continued decline and which Long Term Contingency Action(s)should be
implemented to improve fish survival of the affected ESU.
Rapid Response Actions will be re-evaluated by the Action Agencies based on updated
science information as part of the 2013 and 2016 Comprehensive Evaluations. Any
revisions to the action list will be made in collaboration with the RIOG.
Long-Term Contingency Actions -- including [Snake River] dam breaching -- have been
identified by the Action Agencies, NOAA, and FWS. For each item on this "menu" of
potential contingency actions, a study plan and implementation milestones would be
developed by 2012, including scope and schedule, as well as a decision-making process.
Unlike the Rapid Response actions, these Contingency Actions would be longer-term
actions that could be implemented (See Figure B, Box 11), following an All H Diagnosis,
in the event that the Rapid Response Actions are determined to be insufficient. Because
Rapid Response actions are considered temporary in nature, their continuation would be
addressed in the longer term plans.
In the ultimate selection of long term contingencies for a particular ESU, emphasis would
be on actions that would significantly improve fish survival. Implementation of longer
term actions might require negotiations, regulatory compliance, and administrative
planning (e.g., changes in harvest agreements or dam breaching studies, see below, etc.) .
They might also require permits and approvals, environmental review, changes to
existing legal agreements with other parties, the need to seek additional authorities, and
potentially additional ESA consultation or re-consultation.
The following actions have been identified as Long Term Contingencies. More details
for each of these are set out in Appendix 8.
BR230
Phase II Hydro Actions: The Action Agencies could implement additional hydro
system actions identified as Phase II actions in the Configuration and Operational Plans
(COPs).
Reintroduction: The Action Agencies and NOAA, in coordination with the States,
could implement the re-establishment of salmon populations that are functionally
extirpated to increase the diversity and abundance of an ESU overall.
Predator Control: The Action Agencies, in combination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the States, could implement more aggressive efforts than those
described in the RPA and as short-term actions (section 2.1.2); i.e., those that require
regulatory or administrative changes, to control and eradicate predatory fish, avian
predators, and invasive species to increase survival of listed fish.
Harvest: NOAA could change existing harvest agreements and BiOps as they are
expire and are re-negotiated
Conservation Hatcheries: Safety net programs could be converted to longer term

conservation hatchery programs where appropriate.
John Day MOP: The Action Agencies could pursue authority to operate John Day
at MOP from April through June, assuming survival benefits and economic mitigation
are confirmed.
Hatchery Reforms: The Actions Agencies and NOAA Fisheries will ensure that
hatchery programs funded by the FCRPS Action Agencies are not impeding recovery of
ESA listed salmon ESUs or steelhead DPSs.
Dam Breaching: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could implement feasibility
studies and pursue the authority to breach [Snake River] dams, depending on which
ESU is declining. This could have negative near-term consequences.
Ultimately, the choice of a longer term contingency actions for implementation will
depend on the All H Diagnosis, a science analysis of the circumstances, options, and
limiting factors for the ESUs in question, as described below. The All H Diagnosis
process, in collaboration with the RIOG, will evaluate long term Contingency Actions for
the ESU in question. Based on this review, the Action Agencies and NOAA will select
an action, or suite of actions, to address the downward abundance trends (beyond the
Rapid Response actions).
Following adoption of Contingency Actions, the Action Agencies and NOAA would
immediately implement the appropriate study plans and take necessary steps (regulatory
BR231
approvals, environmental reviews, ESA consultations, etc.) to complete the adopted
Contingency Actions as soon as practically possible.
Long Term Contingency Plans will be re-evaluated by the Action Agencies based on
updated science information as part of the 2013 and 2016 Comprehensive Evaluations.
Any revisions to the plan will be made in collaboration with the RIOG.

BR232

2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan: 2008-2017 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan: 2008-2017 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Privileged and Confidential – PREPARED FOR LITIGATION PURPOSES --- Do Not Distribute

DRAFT 2009 FCRPS Adaptive Management Plan

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 1 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 2 of 25

II. Immediate Implementation Actions

III. Contingency Actions in Case of Unexpected Fish Declines

1. Unexpected Severe Decline Trigger for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead

IV. Adaptive Management Transparency, Science Review and

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 3 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 4 of 25

Appendix 2: Adaptive Management Framework from the FCRPS BA

Exhibit A: List of Projects

Appendix 5: Development of the Unexpected Severe Decline Trigger

Appendix 6: Implementation of the Early Warning Trigger

Appendix 8: Details of Long-Term Contingency Plans

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 5 of 25

A. Summary of the Administration Review and Conclusions

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 6 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 7 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 8 of 25

predators and invasive species. Deleted: <#>Immediate

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 9 of 25

II. Immediate Implementation Actions Deleted: As noted above, adaptive

A. Estuary MOA with the State of Washington

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 10 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 11 of 25

signal an enhancement or acceleration.]

unoccupied/low abundance habitats accessible, reintroductions have the potential to enhance

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 12 of 25

they normally would. Alternatively, artificially propagated fish can be outplanted in

does not signal an enhancement or acceleration.]

D. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) is an essential component of the adaptive

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 13 of 25

1. Enhanced Lifecycle Monitoring for Evaluation of Contingencies

the independent scientists’ recommendations

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 14 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 15 of 25

3. Climate Change Information

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 16 of 25

A. Expanded Contingency Triggers Deleted: Supplemental

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 17 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 18 of 25

2. Early Warning Trigger for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead

Further explanation of the Early Warning Trigger is presented in Appendix 6.

B. Rapid Response Actions (Immediate Implementation within 6-12 Months)

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 19 of 25

necessary (Figure B, Box 9). Formatted: Highlight

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 20 of 25

implementation of longer-term contingency actions if warranted. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 21 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 22 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 23 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 24 of 25

Adaptive Management Plan ▪ Page 25 of 25

Fish Abundance Trigger for Contingencies: Adding a new, supplemental

Early Warning Triggers for Contingencies: Adding a new, supplemental

Rapid Response/Short Term Contingency Actions: Providing a series of

Long Term Contingency Plans: Providing a menu of potential long term

Transparency, Independent Science Review, and Regional Collaboration: All of

Page 21: [5] Deleted MerlinS 8/10/2009 10:45:00 AM

Conservation Hatcheries: Safety net programs could be converted to longer term

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi