Download beyond VSP monitoring - Northwest Power and Conservation

Columbia River Watershed
Span-of-Complexity
driving M&E
2009
Columbia
River
Basin
268,000
square miles
or
668,220
square
kilometers
Engineers
delight,
Biologist’s
nightmare
Flow
changes
Temperature
Dissolved gas
Low velocities
Fish mortality
Predation
Birds
Fish
Pinnipeds
Non-natives
Genetic fitness
Habitat loss
Climate change
Etc…
Problem I -- Columbia River
Ecosystem Decline
 Prior to European settlement of the Northwest, Columbia Basin salmon
populations were estimated to be 10 to 20 million.
 Fish populations began to decline dramatically by the early 1930s.
 There are 29 salmon stocks listed under ESA on the West Coast, 13 of these in the
Columbia River Basin.
 ~80% of the salmon in the Columbia Basin are hatchery fish.
 There is no single cause for decline of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, lamprey and
smelt populations - habitat loss and degradation, toxins, non-native fish
introduction, hydropower development, temperature effects, over-harvest,
hatchery genetic effects, and ocean conditions have all played a role.
 Also, loss of resident fish and wildlife habitat due to inundation.
Commercial Landings of Salmon &
Steelhead from the Columbia River /
1866-1999
Millions of Pounds
50
45
Hydrosystem Development
40
35
1935 Fishwheels prohibited
30
1988 Last
sockeye season
25
20
1977 Last
spring season
15
10
1950 Seines, traps,
set nets prohibited
5
0
1866
1965 Last summer season
1874 1882
1890 1898 1906
1914 1922
1930 1938
Year
1946 1954
1962 1970 1978
1986
1994 1999
Chronology of Listings, Biological Opinions and
Other Related Processes 2008
Snake River
spring/
summer
Chinook
salmon
T
Snake
River
Snake
River
fall
Sockeye Chinook
salmon
salmon
T
E
91
92
93
Snake
River
steelhead
T
Kootenai
River
White
Sturgeon
94
Bull
Trout
T
Lower
Upper
Columbia Columbia
River
River
steelhead steelhead
E
95
NOAA
BiOp
USFWS USFWS USFWS
BiOp
BiOp
BiOp
96
T Middle Columbia River
T Upper Columbia River steelhead
97
98
Cumulative Evaluation
T Columbia chum salmon
T
E
BiOp
E Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon
T Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon
T Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon
99
NOAA NOAA
BiOp BiOp
00
01
02
NOAA
BiOp
All-H
USFWS Strategy
BiOp USFWS
BiOp
3 Year Implementation Plans
03
04
05
NOAA
NOAA
BiOp
Remand BiOp
06
07
08
09
10
Adaptive
BiOp
Critical
Habitat
UPA
Subbasin
Assessments & Planning
NOAA
Recovery Planning
Mainstem Amendments
2000
Council F&W Program
11
2009
Council F&W Program
Problem II
Many Jurisdictions and Purposes









2 Countries
7 States in USA and two provinces in Canada
13 tribes of Indigenous people in USA
106 Counties in USA
255 hydropower dams in the U.S. Columbia River Basin (31 Federal owned)
More than half of the PNW electricity generating capacity -- 30,896 MW
Flood Control
Irrigation
Navigation – freight barging
Management complexities








Treaties with Indian tribes (harvest rights; fish
survival issues)
Federal dam authorizations for specific purposes
FERC: non-federal dams (operations, mitigation)
Columbia River Treaty between USA and Canada
(hydropower, flood control)
PNW Coordination Agreement (power system
operations)
Northwest Power Act (power system reliability,
fish/wildlife)
Endangered Species Act (biological opinions)
Water rights – ‘western water law’
Fish and Wildlife Legal Mandates
The FCRPS has fish and wildlife responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and the
Northwest Power Act, in many cases, both responsibilities can be met in the same set of actions.
1980
Northwest
Power Act
“The Administrator
shall use the Bonneville Power
Administration Fund to protect,
mitigate, and enhance fish and
wildlife to the extent affected by
development and operation of any
hydroelectric project of the
Columbia River and
its tributaries.”
Non-Listed
FISH and
WILDLIFE
Listed
Endangered Species
Act - 1995, 2000, 2004
And 2008 Biological
Opinions
ANADROMOUS
FISH
RESIDENT
FISH
WILDLIFE
“Each Federal agency
shall….insure that any
action authorized funded,
or carried out by such
agency is not likely to
jeopardize continued
existence…of any
endangered species
or threatened
species…”
Treaty and Non-Treaty Tribal Policy
BPA will consult with the Tribal governments prior to taking actions,
making decisions, or implementing programs that may affect Tribal
resources.
Problem III
Need for Accountability
December 15, 1994
The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee
(PNUCC) recommended a set of specific amendments to
Section 3 that can be grouped into six categories: (1)
consult with the “Salmon Oversight Committee”
recommended by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Team;
(2) modify the role of the Basin Oversight Group; (3)
strengthen the Council’s commitment to accountability and
cost-effectiveness; (4) delete the implementation planning
process; (5) delete the subregional process; and (6) delete a
redundant Section 3.2F.
Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending
Expense (+Action Plan/High Priority)
Dollars in millions
$140
$120
$100
$80
67
$60
49.6
55.9
$40
32.8
19.6
$20
2.3
2.3
4.6
9.1
19.6
22.2
18.8
33
23
15.9
-
78 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Year
May 20, 1996
180-Day review of Fish and Wildlife Governance
Report to Congress
(Identified seven ways to improve fish and wildlife governance)
•Integrate the three existing fish and wildlife recovery plans (federal,
tribal and the Council’s).
•Establish clear responsibility for implementing the integrated plan.
•Establish dispute resolution mechanisms.
•Support watershed processes and integrate them into basinwide
decision-making.
•Establish monitoring and evaluation programs that measure results and
ensure accountability.
•Ensure credible scientific foundations for planning and implementation.
•Secure and allocate a reliable budget
October 1997
Fish and wildlife recovery in the Pacific
Northwest: Breaking the Deadlock;
A draft analysis by the Northwest Power
Planning Council staff:
This report recognizes that there are economic
benefits to be gained from a long term plan for fish
recovery, including improved predictability and
accountability for fish measures paid for by the
users of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
January 26, 2000
Proposed interim project renewal process for FY 2001
The Council has asked for improved project contracting
practices to achieve greater fiscal accountability in
project funding. These practices require additional budget
estimate detail to implement.
The major change in the budget format is to respond to
Council guidance to improve fiscal accountability and
implement Bonneville’s improved program management
practices.
June 4, 2004
“Subbasin plans will improve the project selection
and review process by providing a more complete
and specific base of information on the status of
fish and wildlife populations in each tributary
subbasin,” said Council Chair Judi Danielson, an
Idaho member of the four-state agency. “They also
will provide linkages to other planning processes
for improving fish and wildlife survival. The plans
will help us to better target where we invest the
public’s resources and will improve the financial
accountability of the program.”
Fish and Wildlife Integrated Program Spending
Expense (+Action Plan/High Priority)
Dollars in millions
145.8
$140
140.6
MOA Funding
1996-01
$120
104.9
$100
137.1
108.2 108.2
101.1
82.2
$80
71.4 68.5
67
$60
49.6
55.9
$40
32.8
19.6
$20
2.3
2.3
4.6
9.1
19.6
22.2
18.8
33
23
15.9
-
78 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Year
Response to Problems:
Collaboration and Science
 Council 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program
 BiOp Collaboration and Accords
 Recovery Planning
 Other regional processes
Evolution of the Fish & Wildlife Program
 In
1982, the Council released the first F&W Program.
 Earlier Council programs were premised on a three
pronged framework for fish:
Passage, Production, and Harvest.
 2000 program vision = subbasin plans.
 2000 program established scientific framework for the
program
 2004-05 Subbasin Plans
(2 more coming this year)
 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program
focus is implementation and performance.
COLUMBIA
BASIN
1980
TO
2004
Columbia
Basin
2004
to
Present
M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - I
Primary strategies:
1) Identify priority fish, wildlife, and ecosystem
elements of the Program that can be monitored in a
cost-effective manner, evaluate the monitoring data
and adaptively manage the Program based on results;
2) research and report on key uncertainties;
3) make information from this Program accessible to the
public; and
4) to the extent practicable ensure consistency with other
processes.
M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - II
Guidelines for collecting and evaluating data: The
Council recognizes there is a wide range of parties
involved in research, monitoring, and evaluation for
different and legitimate purposes as well as a number of
efforts to coordinate that work. It will be critically
important to continue the collaboration and partnerships
that have been developed. The Council will involve a
wide range of parties in the region to establish, oversee,
and periodically adjust guidelines for monitoring and
evaluation efforts coordinated through the Program
M&E in the 2009 Fish & Wildlife Program - III
This involvement will occur with representatives from
the Council, Bonneville, federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies, Tribes, the Corps, the Bureau, and
others as necessary. The Council intends to use
monitoring and evaluation primarily to track progress
toward meeting Program goals and to adaptively
manage the implementation of priority tributary and
mainstem habitat, artificial production, fish passage and
research projects.
Basinwide M & E Cycle
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As much as possible, use other people’s
information to compile maps, tables and
graphs.
Produce annual report.
Identify data and coverage gaps.
Decide how important it is to fill the gaps.
Limit new m&e, and shift existing
resources, to high priority gap filling.
Focus of this 5-day Workshop
FRESH WATER
HABITAT
PREDATORS
USF&WS
NOAA
COE
States
Tribes
Eggs
Smolt
National Marine Fisheries Service
Bureau of Land Management
US Forest Service
US Fish & Wildlife Service
States
Tribes
Counties
Private Landowners
HATCHERIES
HYDRO
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish & Wildlife Service
States
Tribes
HARVEST
National Marine
Fisheries Service
States
Tribes
HYDRO
Adult
OCEAN
Bonneville Power
Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Bureau of Reclamation
Private Utilities
Public Utilities
Next Steps (tentative timeframe)

Sponsors & BPA develop BiOp RPA gap filling proposals -- ASAP
– ISRP review of BiOp RPA gap filling proposals and changed-scope projects
(6 weeks if no response needed)
– NPCC recommendations (ASAP after ISRP review is complete)

BPA contracts for ‘fast track’ RPA Gap-filling new and changed scope projects

Basinwide M&E Strategic framework development: Mainstem, Estuary, Ocean,
Habitat, Hatchery, Anadromous Fish, Resident Fish, Wildlife, Data
management, . . . (preliminary draft December 2009 - January 2010)

NPCC RME& AP Categorical Review of all M&E, AP, Data management &
Coordination projects (begin February or March)
– ISRP review
– NPCC recommendations

BPA contracts for new and changed-scope projects
Approximate Funding and Number of
Projects by Category
$40 MM
120
114
Dollars
$35 MM
100
# of projects
$30 MM
80
$25 MM
$20 MM
60
58
51
$15 MM
40
40
35
$10 MM
20
$5 MM
10
$0 MM
0
Wildlif e
slide 27
RM&E plus
Hatchery
Reg. Coord. Resident Fish Anad. Habitat