Draft FY 1998 Annual Implementation Work plan - policy issues and Council recommendations

Draft Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Implementation Work Plan
General Policy Issues and Council Recommendations for Resolution

September 1997

[Note: The actual work plan has not yet been posted.]

Artificial production (page 3)
Habitat project selection criteria and procedure (15)
Increasing long-term operation and maintenance costs/large capital construction costs (18)
Research ? programmatic/ISRP issues (19)
1. Competitive grants process (19)
2. Mainstem habitat and population structure research (20)
3. Ocean/estuary research (24)
Mainstem actions ? evaluation of assumptions and high-cost programs in the mainstem (27)
Projects subject to ISAB review in FY97: Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project and Hatchery PIT Tagged Chinook Study (36)
White sturgeon program ? various issues (37)
Wildlife (39)
1. Monitoring and evaluation -- extend to include some population monitoring (39)
2. Acquisition of land and land easements (40)
Information for the project selection process/coordinated information service (41)
1. Project selection process and information (41)
2. Coordinated regionwide information service (42)

General Policy Issues and Council Recommendations for Resolution

1. Artificial production

a. Comprehensive review of Columbia basin artificial production

Issue: The Council?s Program funds a number of artificial production initiatives in the basin, including state and tribal efforts at tributary production of anadromous fish and state and tribal resident fish production in tributaries and in mainstem reservoirs. The federal government funds a number of hatcheries in the basin independent of the Council?s Program under the Mitchell Act, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, and other programs. And there are still more artificial production facilities funded by state governments, utilities and other private entities.

A major concern is that these artificial production efforts do not fit into a coherent, consistent and coordinated policy on the use of artificial production. A call for a basinwide review of artificial production has come from several directions. Section 7.0D of the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program calls for a comprehensive environmental analysis of federal production activities. Federal agencies produced a draft programmatic environmental impact statement on production activities earlier this year, but the draft EIS failed to answer some of the major questions about artificial production. Three independent scientific panels (the Independent Scientific Group, the National Research Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service?s Snake River Recovery Team) have completed reports over the last several years that call for a review of Columbia Basin artificial production, all critical of current production policy and noting the need to integrate artificial production with natural production in a biologically sound manner.

The Independent Science Review Panel has added its recommendation that the Council "implement a comprehensive review of artificial propagation in the basin," covering "all propagation activities including hatcheries funded by sources outside the Council?s Program." The Council should not approve funding for the "construction and operation of new artificial propagation programs" until the comprehensive review of existing hatchery programs "adequately addresses Measures 7.0D [comprehensive environmental analysis], 7.1A [evaluation of carrying capacity], 7.1C [inventory of wild and naturally spawning populations], 7.1F [systemwide and cumulative impacts of artificial production], and until at least a preliminary policy addressing Measure 7.1D [wild and naturally spawning population policy] has been drafted." The Panel noted that resident fish propagation facilities and projects should be included in the comprehensive review. The Panel?s recommendation overlaps with the language in the Senate appropriations committee report (not yet enacted into law) calling on the Council to work with the Independent Science Advisory Board [ The Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB) was chartered and appointed by the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1995 to be available to provide independent science review of particular issues as needed by the Council or NMFS. The Independent Science Advisory Board evolved out of and replaced the Council?s Independent Scientific Group (ISG). The Independent Science Review Panel is the group specifically called for in the 1996 Power Act amendment. Because of certain statutory requirements for the makeup of the Panel, it was not possible just to name all of the members of the existing Independent Science Advisory Board to the Panel when the Council needed to first appoint the Panel. Instead, the two groups overlap substantially in membership, but are not identical. The Council?s expectation is that eventually we will have one group of independent scientists, serving the functions of both the ISAB and the Panel.] to conduct a review of federal hatchery programs and report to Congress by October 1998 with recommendations for a coordinated production policy that aids fishery restoration in a cost effective manner.

For this reason the Council, the Council staff and others have discussed over the last several months how to organize a basinwide review of artificial production. The Council?s staff?s most recent description of how the review might be organized was in a July 30 memorandum from John Marsh to the Council ("Review of Columbia Basin Artificial Production"). This memo discussed the possible scope and elements of the review, how and who might organize it, possible schedule and budget, and more.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends that a comprehensive production review be conducted over the next year, and that Bonneville reserve from $700,000 to $1,000,000 in the FY98 budget to fund the review. The staff will work with the Independent Science Advisory Board and others, as described in the July 30 memo (attached as an appendix to this document), to design the review more precisely and estimate its cost, returning to the Council in early October for review of the design and approval.

The Council agrees with the Panel recommendation that all production activities, including resident fish production, be included within the comprehensive review. The Council recognizes that to be practical the plan for the review might segment review of some production activities and might not review all the minor production activities in the basin.

Finally, the Council emphasizes that the comprehensive review is to be of all production in the basin, not just production activities funded under the Northwest Power Act. This review will need active cooperation and coordination with the federal agencies that oversee the Mitchell Act, Lower Snake River Compensation Program and other federal production activities. Funding for the review should be shared by the federal agencies and not be paid for solely out of the Bonneville direct program. Thus part of the process of designing the review should be arranging a cost share. In addition, a basinwide comprehensive review of production will have to at least take into consideration hatchery production funded by entities other than the federal government, such as hatcheries funded by utilities, and that these entities should also share in the funding of the review. The means of reviewing this production will be addressed during the design process.

b. Interim review of production activities proposed for funding/case-by-case review/ independent scientific review

Issue: The issue that arises in light of the recommendation to conduct a comprehensive review and reconsideration of production policy is what to do in the interim -- how to respond to requests for FY98 funding for production programs? The Panel recommended that while the comprehensive production review is underway, the Council "not approve funding for the construction and operation of new artificial propagation programs in the FY98 program," with this exception:

"To prevent a complete moratorium on new production, the ISRP recommends that the Council permit funding for an individual project only if the project proponents can demonstrate they have taken measures 7.0D, 7.1A, 7.1C, and 7.1F into account in the program design and the Council concurs. To ensure that standard is met, the individual projects should be funded only after a positive recommendation from an independent peer review panel."

The Panel added that "individual [resident fish] substitution projects" should be reviewed "prior to authorization" by this same "artificial production review panel." [ Resident fish substitution projects in the Council?s Program are intended to develop or enhance resident fish populations to mitigate for the loss of anadromous fish by dam blockages, such as by Grand Coulee. See Council?s Program, Section 10.8. Not all substitution initiatives involve artificial production -- improving habitat to increase the numbers of a native resident fish species to mitigate for salmon losses can be a substitution project. The Council understands the Panel?s recommendation, at least for the purposes here, to concern substitution by the use of artificial propagation to introduce fish, especially non-native fish, into altered ecosystems.]

The Council?s staff and others have outlined for the Council the questions raised by the Panel?s recommendation -- the nature of a moratorium or conditional moratorium and the legitimacy of holding up funding for projects ready or nearly ready for construction funding; how to organize such a review; how to determine which funding requests represent "funding for the construction and operation of new artificial propagation programs," etc. The Council?s staff has also discussed with the Council and others a somewhat different way to approach this issue, based on a multi-step review and approval process inherent in any decision to initiate new production and the use of independent science review in that process.

This issue has been the most controversial and the subject of the majority of the comments received by the Council, especially concerns from tribal representatives that production projects under the Program in which they are involved have already been subject to intense scrutiny and need not be subject to an additional independent science review.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends an approach to this issue built upon the existing multi-step design and review process recognized (directly and by inference) in the Program and used by Bonneville for the design, review, approval and implementation of new production initiatives. This is an interim approach intended to capitalize on the existing procedures and standards in the Power Act as amended, in the Council?s Program, and in the project review and funding process. The comprehensive review of production policy may identify whether the Council?s Program needs a new approach to production, with a revised foundation and incorporating new procedures and standards, which would be considered by the Council in a Program amendment process.

To summarize this recommendation: New production initiatives go through a basic development process that has three main steps or components: (1) conceptual planning, represented under the Program primarily by master plan development and approval; (2) preliminary design and cost estimation, as well as environmental (NEPA and ESA) review; (3) final design review prior to construction. The Council, with the assistance of the agencies and tribes, will identify which stage each production activity in the Program is at. The Council will also identify how quickly a project is moving through these stages, the nature of the review that the project has already undergone, and the nature of the review commensurate with whatever stage a project is in, including appropriate forms of independent science review.

Based on this review, the Council will recommend funding only for the activity specifically associated with the stage in the development process where a project is located. For example, if a project has completed the conceptual and preliminary design/NEPA review phases, but has not produced final designs and cost estimates and received final design approval for construction and operation, funding will be recommended only for final design work, not for construction and operation. For a project at this stage it may be appropriate, however, to set aside a construction funding reserve or placeholder to be available once project approval obtained.

The Council also recommends making use of independent or peer review for projects at each stage of the development process, although the scope of the independent review and the questions asked of the review will be different at the different stages, and presumably more limited in the latter stages of the development and review process. To perform the peer review function, the Council recommends naming a production peer review group under the Independent Science Review Panel. To explain this peer review recommendation in more detail:

Thorough independent scientific review of production initiatives is especially appropriate during the early development stages, when the scientific validity of a production proposal and its effect on the environment should be most heavily scrutinized. Forms of independent peer review may be utilized at these stages, although more needs to be done to ensure a uniform review.

Many of the production projects that are part of the Council?s Program are in or nearly in the final design/implementation stage. The issue is whether and how to incorporate independent scientific review into this third or final design review stage of the production projects prior to beginning construction or implementation. If the development review process has gone as it should have and included rigorous scientific review at earlier stages, then the questions that should be relevant at this latter stage involve fiscal and technical questions that are not appropriate for independent science review. Still, independent scientific review of a more limited type may be appropriate for projects at that stage, essentially (a) to make sure that the project did indeed receive the type of scientific scrutiny that it should have in the past to ensure consistency with the policies in Section 7.1 of the Council?s Program and elsewhere, and (b) to check whether changes in the project or in the underlying science counsel further review, especially when there has been a significant time lag between conceptual or preliminary approval and final design review. A vehicle for this type of review has already built into the new Power Act provisions for project funding -- the Act directs the Panel annually to subject projects proposed for funding to independent scientific review and to make use of peer review groups that the Council may appoint to assist the Panel.

On this basis, the Council intends, in consultation with the Panel and others, to name a production peer review group under the Panel as authorized in Section 4(h)(10)(D) of the Power Act. Production initiatives that are in the final design stage of the project approval process will be reviewed by Council and staff, in consultation with the project sponsors and other relevant entities, on a case-by-case basis to determine whether final design review should be accompanied by a certain level of scientific review, and whether that review needs to be assisted by the peer review group. Assuming yes to both questions, the peer review group will be asked to review the final design and the project history in an expedited fashion and to advise the Council on specifically directed questions, such as:

Has the project been through appropriate independent science review in the past?
Have the project sponsors demonstrated adequately in the past that the project is consistent with the Council?s policies on artificial/natural production in Section 7 (the specific concern of the Panel)? If not, can these points be demonstrated now?
Is the final design of the project consistent with any master plan and preliminary design?
If not, do the changes raise any underlying scientific questions for further review?
Has information about the project or its purposes changed in such as way to raise new scientific concerns?
Has the underlying science or the way it is understood changed so as to raise new scientific issues?
How technically appropriate are the monitoring and evaluation elements of the project?
Are there ways to obtain the same production benefits with facilities that are lower in cost or less permanent should monitoring and evaluation later indicate that the effort be abandoned?

The peer review group?s responses will be advisory; the Council will consider but not be bound by positive or negative responses by the peer review group. The Council?s review will be public, with an opportunity for others to review and comment.

The Council is in the process of identifying which production projects are at a stage where the project sponsors are proposing to implement new production activities, defined generally to include projects seeking funding to (a) construct significant new production facilities; (b) begin planting fish in waters they have not been planted in before; (c) increase significantly the number of fish being introduced; (d) to change stocks or the number of stocks; or (e) change the location of production facilities. These may not be the definitive criteria for defining "new" production activity; the distinguishing criteria will be further examined when the Council is ready to make a final determination of the status of the projects. Anadromous fish and resident fish production projects are both subject to this review. Based on the project descriptions, the Council staff tentatively identified the following projects as possibly within this category:

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery
Grande Ronde NEOH outplanting and acclimation facilities
Grande Ronde spring chinook captive broodstock facility
Hanford K-Basin fall chinook acclimation facilities
Wenatchee/Methow coho supplementation
Johnson Creek supplementation facilities
Umatilla satellite facilities
Walla Walla facilities
Yakima Hatchery facility construction
Yakima River coho supplementation
Yakima River fall chinook supplementation
White sturgeon experimental aquaculture
Coeur d?Alene fisheries enhancement -- production component
Lake Roosevelt kokanee net pens
Nez Perce trout ponds
Lake Billy Shaw reservoir development

The other production projects funded under the Council program have tentatively been identified either (1) as in the middle of planning and design work, with no chance of implementation in FY98, or (2) as on-going and not new production. It may be that some of the production projects on the above list also fall into these latter two categories. The Council will within three weeks of its decision on these general policy issues review all the production projects and make a final recommendation as to which projects are in the category of seeking and actually being able to use funding in FY98 for new production activities and therefore subject to review. For those within the category, the Council will also recommend the nature and timing of the necessary review. The Council recognizes that some of these projects may require review on an expedited schedule to satisfy carefully considered biological needs, and the Council will take what steps it can to assure that expedited review.

Finally, the Council agrees with the Panel?s recognition that some of the best designed and implemented production projects in the basin are in the Council?s Program. The Council is concerned that the Program production initiatives are subject to this level of peer review and other scrutiny for funding while other production activities in the basin (such as the Congressionally funded production under the Mitchell Act, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and the Corps of Engineers mitigation programs) are not. The Council recommends communicating to the NW Congressional delegation and the federal agencies that in order to receive federal funding these other production activities should undergo at least the same level of scrutiny, including independent peer review, that the Council, the states and the tribes ask of the production projects funded under the Council?s Program through Bonneville?s direct fund. If and when direct funding agreements between Bonneville and other federal agencies bring other production activities within Bonneville?s direct program fund, the Council expects that these production projects will receive the same scrutiny and type of review that production initiatives under the Council Program have received.

c. Captive broodstock projects

Issue: The production projects recommended for funding by the Basin Authority include ten projects involving the study or use of captive broodstock technology:

One project is sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service is the on-going systemwide assessment of captive broodstock technology, seeking $1.25 million.
Two more constitute the on-going Redfish Lake sockeye captive broodstock, in which IDFG and NMFS seek $1.2 million in operation, maintenance and evaluation funding. See Program Section 7.5A.
Six others are the component parts of two captive broodstock initiatives, one in the Grande Ronde River and one in the Salmon River [ The Grande Ronde and Salmon River captive broodstock initiatives were part of the supplementation project package (as #s 4 and 5) reviewed by the Council in 1996. It is not stretching matters too much to say that these were originally supplementation projects, at least in large part, that changed during the review and approval process into captive broodstock projects (due to the very weak status of the runs in these two subbasins and due to the possible impact on listed stocks), and that appear still to include elements of a supplementation project as well as what might be thought of as a "pure" captive broodstock effort.] :
- Three projects are components of the Grande Ronde spring chinook captive broodstock effort sponsored primarily by ODFW, seeking approximately $1.5 million in construction, operation and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation funding, on top of approximately $2 million allocated last year for design and construction.
- Two make up the Salmon River spring chinook captive broodstock program, sponsored primarily by IDFG and seeking more than $200,000 for final design work this year, with a multi-million dollar construction funding request due in the next year or two.
- One project seeks nearly $400,000 for operation and maintenance of NMFS? Manchester captive broodstock facility that supports both the Grande Ronde and Salmon River efforts.
The last project is a listed stock gamete preservation effort in the Salmon and Clearwater basins, sponsored primarily by the Nez Perce Tribe and seeking $140,000 in operations funding.

The captive broodstock projects total more than $2 million in construction and operations funding and are projected to stay at a comparable level of funding well into the next decade.

The Council is concerned that a high-cost investment in the implementation of captive broodstock techniques for Snake River spring chinook is being recommended without proper review of the feasibility of the technology. Section 7.4D. of the program calls on NMFS and Bonneville to produce a scoping or feasibility study identifying captive broodstock research needs, and then upon completion of the scoping study to fund development of captive broodstock technology and implementation of captive broodstock programs to aid in recovery of severely depleted stocks of salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Section 7.4D.2 calls on Bonneville to fund captive broodstock demonstration projects identified under the coordinated habitat and production process. In 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service completed "An Assessment of the Status of Captive Broodstock Technology for Pacific Salmon." NMFS and Bonneville have not reviewed with the Council the results of this study or its implications for further work and funding. The 1995 assessment is full of cautionary remarks to the effect that captive rearing of Pacific salmon is "problematic," and "experimental," its "success is uncertain," and the existing captive broodstock programs "have not been thoroughly evaluated," even as it concluded that it is worth exploring whether the technique might help forestall extinctions in certain geographical areas. Other management entities have raised concerns about the extent to which high-cost implementation of captive broodstock activities have gone beyond the experimental status of the technique and have gotten out of sequence ahead of the need for further feasibility evaluations. The Panel criticized the high priority placed on captive broodstock programs in the managers? recommendations (ISRP report at pg. 33), although the Panel did not make this the subject of one of its specific recommendations.

For these reasons the Council and its staff have been raising concerns with the captive broodstock implementation and assessment projects as part of a Program consistency review. The issue has been clouded by confusion over whether these are Endangered Species Act projects and thus not funded through the Power Act as part of the Council?s program. These are not ESA projects. Although part of the draft Recovery Plan and the Biological Opinion for federal agency production activities, captive broodstock activities are not part of the reasonable and prudent alternatives in NMFS? hydropower Biological Opinion under the ESA, and thus are not imposed on Bonneville under that Opinion. The projects are being funded as part of the Council?s Program.

Council recommendation: First, the Council recommends that the captive broodstock projects be categorized along with the other production projects in terms of the development review process discussed above. Continue funding the sockeye activity and the planning and design work for the Grande Ronde and Salmon River projects. Construction and operation funds for these latter two sets of projects should be held in reserve pending further evaluation of the feasibility of captive broodstock technology by the Council, in consultation with NMFS and the state agencies and tribes, and with the assistance of the production peer review group described above. Due to the pending construction status of the Grande Ronde facility, the Council will expedite its decision on review of this project.

With regard to the systemwide assessment project, the Council is concerned about the increase in the budget for this project and about the nature of this project in relation to 1995 assessment produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Council recommends that funding for this project be reserved pending a review by NMFS with the Council of the budget and scope for this project and the feasibility of the technology.

d. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan as a project sponsor

Issue: The FY98 production projects include seven supplementation/captive broodstock projects that list the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan as a "sponsor." It is not clear why the LSRCP is listed as a "sponsor," rather than the Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that manages Compensation Plan activities. LSRCP activities are funded by Congress and reimbursed by Bonneville in a different budget category from the direct program. Bonneville, the Fish and Wildlife Service and others are engaged in discussions about shifting the LSRCP activities to a direct funding arrangement, using the same money but just reallocated to a different category and method of funding.

The Council?s concern has been whether these projects represented LSRCP activities encroaching on and demanding a share of the existing direct program funds, while also carrying an outside-the-Power-Act, non-discretionary status. After further review, the Council is comfortable that the projects involved here are not core LSRCP production activities moving into the direct program, and that there does not appear to be an "in lieu" problem under the Act, or a problem under the Bonneville budget Memorandum of Agreement that allocated budget amounts to the different category. Six of the seven projects are part of the new supplementation initiatives approved in 1996. They appear to have received the additional LSRCP label because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided some assistance in design, review and construction funding. But the Service has done so always with the understanding that these activities are part of the direct program and not the distinct LSRCP activities and funding. The seventh project funds monitoring and evaluation of Snake River fall chinook above Lower Granite, apparently an activity that is associated with assuring that production and supplementation projects do not adversely affect the listed fall chinook and which the Service has not intended to cover and cannot cover out of the funding for its traditional LSRCP activities.

Council recommendation: Despite what the label says, these projects are Power Act projects funded by Bonneville through the Council?s Program and Bonneville?s direct program fund. The fact that these projects carry the LSRCP as a sponsor does not give them a particular or distinct status within the direct program. These projects are discretionary projects subject to project review.

The possibility of direct funding LSRCP activities in general is a separate issue that is under regional discussion.

e. Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT)

Issue: The Council?s Program created the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) to develop standards and criteria to improve existing hatchery production. The Program then calls on Bonneville to fund independent audits of existing hatcheries to determine if they are operating consistent with the reformed hatchery standards and criteria. The Program asks IHOT to review the hatchery audits, develop recommendations for corrective actions, and report annually to the Council and others. See Council?s Program, Sections 7.2A, 7.2B. IHOT has been working with the independent auditor to review the hatchery audits.

For the FY97 budget, the Council recommended that funding for IHOT remain at the $465,000 level, with the expectation that IHOT would use those funds to complete the review of the hatchery audits. The hatchery audit review could not be completed this year, primarily because the audit contractor working with IHOT was still completing its work product for final IHOT review.

For FY98, IHOT requested another $635,000, which the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority reduced to $465,000. Completion of the audit review appears to be most of what these requested funds will be used for. One issue is why additional funds are needed to complete the audit review. Another has been whether IHOT has any other role in the emerging effort for a comprehensive review of hatchery policy.

Council recommendation: The Council does not recommend another block of funding for IHOT, what has been essentially a funding of delegated staff position and not tasks, to complete the review of hatchery audits. The Council recommends instead:

First, the Council staff, hatchery managers, and Bonneville are to work together to identify what work still needs to occur to finish the audit process. The Council expects this to include two tasks: (1) Complete the audit reviews. (2) Recommend a procedure to ensure that the audits and audit reviews will be made available to the hatchery managers, to guide the managers in making any needed reforms in their operations, including a reporting element to assure accountability. The staff and the others are also to estimate what it would cost to complete these two tasks on a task-and-time accounting method, using the most cost-effective approach possible. This may mean continued use of all or some of the IHOT personnel or through some other type of contractor.

Bonneville is then to determine whether funds remain available from the FY97 budget to fund these two tasks. If more funds are necessary to complete the reviews and develop the procedure for using the audits, return to the Council for review and a funding recommendation with a description of what work needs to be funded, who will do the work and what the additional amount is.

The Council expects in future years that hatchery operations funded through the Council Program will explain how they have responded to the hatchery audits to justify continued operations funding. The Council also expects that the comprehensive review of artificial production will review and produce recommendations about operations at existing hatcheries, the value of the current standards and criteria for those operations, and the value of continued hatchery audits and audit reviews.

f. Coded wire tagging

Issue: Bonneville is projected to spend approximately $2.8 million on coded-wire tagging and recovery in FY98. Tagging throughout the basin and coast-wide has primarily benefited the states? harvest regulation activities, not an area of Power Act/Council concern or authority, although in the last few years the information apparently has also been used to track the impact of production facilities in a broader sense. The Council?s program calls for some marking of hatchery salmon, in Section 8.4C. The issue is whether the level of Bonneville funding for coded wire tagging is out of proportion with what could be considered Bonneville?s "fair share" of the coded wire tagging program, whether that share is based on the proportional number of fish from direct program-funded hatcheries that must be tagged or on the amount of information gleaned from the tags that is relevant to the Council?s program.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends that funding be approved as proposed for FY98. The Council?s staff is in the process of fleshing out the details of the coded wire tagging funding by Bonneville and the policy implications underlying any calculation of what would be Bonneville?s "fair share." The Council will work with Bonneville and the affected agencies and tribes to review the program over the next year in an attempt to determine Bonneville?s fair share of the program?s costs in future fiscal years, and to determine how the information from the tagging is relevant to the Council?s Program.

2. Habitat project selection criteria and procedure

Issue: It has long been a goal of the Council?s program to develop a more coordinated and guided process for determining how to invest Bonneville funds in tributary habitat and watershed improvement projects. See Program Sections 3.1D, 7.0B. 7.0C, 7.6. The Panel?s recommendations are consistent with this goal. The Panel recommended that habitat policies and objectives be established for each subbasin and coordinated with production goals, that development of reliable watershed assessment procedures be given high priority, and that the watershed assessments precede implementation of restoration projects. When discussing the resident fish portion of the Council?s Program, the Panel similarly recommended that the Council require a basin-wide systematic inventory of native resident fish populations and their status, assessments upon which "opportunities for restoration and rebuilding native resident fish populations can be identified and prioritized." With certain exceptions (e.g., the Hungry Horse mitigation program in Montana), funding for stock and loss assessments for resident fish has been minimal, due to an understandable desire to direct money to mitigation efforts and not evaluations. But the Panel wondered "how restoration opportunities for native resident fish can be identified and prioritized without having completed a basin-wide inventory of resident fish populations and their status."

The fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, the Council staff and others are in the process of developing both a procedure and criteria for evaluating and selecting watershed habitat projects for funding. The Independent Science Advisory Board recently reviewed draft criteria, and had both praise and criticism. The Council is awaiting further review by the fish and wildlife managers in response to the Board?s review. The criteria and selection procedures will not be ready for Council review until late fall at the earliest. Selection of habitat projects for FY98 funding is not likely to occur until early 1998. Money will need to be reserved to fund the set of habitat projects to be selected later in the fiscal year. Agency and tribal managers in general agree with this approach, although some are concerned about losing the certainty of selecting projects and beginning the contracting of these projects at the start of the fiscal year. Also, this has been primarily an effort of the anadromous fish managers. It is the sense of the Council that the habitat criteria development and watershed assessment efforts should incorporate resident fish as well as anadromous fish, both in the shared streams below the blocked areas and in the resident fish-only areas above the blockages. This is consistent with Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the Council?s program, which call for the application of watershed principles and coordinated habitat procedures and objectives in the resident fish program.

Council recommendation: The Council concludes that the development of the habitat/watershed criteria and procedure is consistent, so far, with the policy direction in the Council?s Program and with the Panel recommendations. The Council recommends this process continue and that funding for habitat projects be deferred until the development of the criteria and then its application to select projects for funding. The Council also agrees with the Panel that watershed assessments must guide the selection of habitat projects; the Council understands watershed assessments to mean assessments which describe the habitat conditions in the relevant watershed and the needs and opportunities for habitat restoration for the stocks inventoried in that watershed. The Council also agrees that stock and hydropower loss assessments for the resident fish part of the Program need greater attention than they now have, and that to be consistent with the Program and the Panel?s general recommendations, stock and loss assessments for resident fish should be developed not in isolation but as part of watershed assessments. The development process for the project selection criteria and procedures needs to integrate the resident fish and wildlife parts of the Program.

Based on these considerations, which are derived largely from the Panel? report and the ISAB?s review of the draft criteria, the Council recommends the following guidance to those developing the habitat criteria and procedures:

Watershed assessments should precede implementation of restoration activities, with limited case-by-case exceptions. The watershed assessments will provide better understanding of the needs of each watershed, allowing for prioritization of projects within each watershed. It is likely that much of the relevant information and even assessments already exist or are in development, through the subbasin planning process that has been part of the Council?s Program since the 1980s, on-going Program assessments in the resident fish areas, the Interior Columbia Basin EIS analysis, the local watershed initiatives around the basin, and more.
The watershed assessments and the habitat project selection criteria and procedures should take into account all of the fish and wildlife values and needs of a watershed, including resident fish and wildlife and not just anadromous fish.
The Council?s goal is the development of integrated or coordinated habitat project selection criteria and procedures to be used to select all habitat projects funded under the Program, whether for anadromous fish, resident fish, wildlife, or some combination of these. The Council understands that the draft criteria have, so far, been the product primarily of the anadromous fish managers, and thus that one of the next steps is for them to work with the resident fish and wildlife managers to agree on criteria acceptable to all managers. Also, the Council does not mean that all the three types of projects must be evaluated against each other under one unified set of criteria. The development process should yield criteria and procedures that are integrated in certain ways but also coordinated and distinct in others. The Council expects that the development of integrated or coordinated criteria and procedures will not affect the application of the current budget allocation between anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife as described in the Council?s Program.
The habitat project selection criteria and procedures should allow for evaluation of projects not just within a subbasin but also between subbasins. That is, the procedure should allow the managers and the Council to identify which basins provide the best opportunities for investments to protect and restore populations.
If the project selection procedure chosen allows for a policy- or management-level review and prioritization by the managers after projects are evaluated on the basis of technical criteria, the procedure must provide clear standards and explanations for how that management review has altered the technical evaluations.
The habitat project evaluation and selection process should include provisions to ensure that StreamNet is used to coordinate, accumulate, store and make available the relevant watershed information, assessments and projects. The Council recommends that approximately $100,000 of the reserved habitat funds be dedicated to this purpose. On-going or new assessments seeking funding, such as the Kalispel Tribe stock assessment study proposed for funding in FY98, should be coordinated through Streamnet with this broader effort.
The Council further recommends that funding for all of the tributary/watershed habitat projects, both existing and newly proposed, be held in reserve and the projects be placed into the habitat project selection process for review when it is developed. This applies to anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife projects. The Council recommends three exceptions to this general rule:
To avoid jeopardizing funds already invested, the Council recommends that FY98 funding for maintaining existing projects be authorized at the start of the fiscal year, as interim protection for these projects pending completion of the habitat project selection process. The Council will work with Bonneville, the managers and the project sponsors to determine the appropriate level of maintenance funding.
Projects that fund the regional irrigation diversion screening program should continue. This program is substantially funded by Congress under the Mitchell Act, and the Council recommends that projects linked to this program continue as proposed due their function in supplying the screens for the Congressionally appropriated regional program. The Council also recommends approval of the funding for the Yakima Phase 2 screens.
Finally, the Council recommends interim funding for watershed coordination.

The subbasin-by-subbasin/project-by-project guidance that follows will identify what maintenance, screening and coordination funding is involved. The exceptions do not mean these projects will not be reviewed as part of the project selection process, only that the Council recommends funding continue in the interim.

The final issue is the amount of FY98 funds to be reserved for habitat projects. The recommended reserve amount will be a combination of the amount already identified by the fish and wildlife managers for habitat projects plus whatever amounts the Council recommends be allocated to habitat projects from the total amount that may be available after reductions in other areas. The Council expects to preserve the Program?s overall budget allocation while identifying the amount reserved for habitat projects. The Council will make a final recommendation of a reserve amount after further review of the FY98 budget allocation. The Council expects the amount to be available for habitat projects to be approximately [$15 million? 20 million?].

3. Increasing long-term operation and maintenance costs/large capital construction costs

Issue: The Council identified two general issues regarding operation and maintenance costs for production and habitat projects. First, a number of the on-going production projects show a substantial increase from what was projected in FY97 to be the FY98 operations and maintenance costs and the subsequent FY98 request for operations and maintenance funding. A few habitat projects show operations and maintenance increases of similar magnitude. A broader issue is that the funding of major new production programs (especially) and habitat work means that the Council?s Program is creating an ever increasing obligation for funding operation and maintenance, which may not be adequately accounted for and described. The issue for the Council has been how to define what are appropriate operations and maintenance costs and to ensure that long-term operations and maintenance obligations are accurately described and understood. In addition, some projects have committed and propose to commit significant amounts of the Bonneville direct capital. For example, $12 million in capital funds are recommended in FY98 to complete facilities at the Cle Elum hatchery.

Council recommendation: Project specific operations and maintenance issues and explanations are provided in the project-by-project guidance that follows. Also, the Council expects that more rigorous attention by the Council during the final design phase of production projects, as described above, will help ensure more complete and clear operations and maintenance expectations.

More important are three general points: First, the Council recommends that the operations and maintenance costs set forth in the project descriptions by the project sponsors and the CBFWA draft work plan be treated by Bonneville, the managers and the project sponsors as estimates, and not as the amount of money to be allocated or reserved to the project for operations and maintenance expenses. The actual budget allocation for operations and maintenance expenses should be determined during contracting for the project by Bonneville and the project sponsor with review by the Council.

Second, the Council recommends that Bonneville work with the Council staff and the project sponsors to develop better long-term operations and maintenance projections for projects prior to next year?s funding process. The Council requests a report midway through this fiscal year on long-term operations and maintenance expectations. This tasks includes agreeing to standards as to what are appropriate expenditures for operations and maintenance.

Third, for FY98 the Council recommends fiscal review by the Council of the any project that will commit a significant amount [5 million?] of Bonneville direct capital before the Council will make a final recommendation on the funding for that project in FY98.

4. Research ? programmatic/ISRP issues

a. Competitive grants process

Issue: The Independent Science Review Panel recommended that the Council "implement a competitive grants program" for selecting research projects for funding, a key element in a set of recommendations intended to inject a greater degree of independent peer review into the project selection process. While the merit in this proposal is obvious, so are some of the drawbacks, including the possibility of an excessive expense of money and time developing and operating a competitive grants process.

A related point emphasized by the Panel is that research, monitoring and evaluation activities need to be better coordinated, integrated and prioritized across the Council?s Program and between the Council?s Program and other research activities in the basin. The development of a coordinated research, monitoring and evaluation framework is needed, a process already begun in connection with the multi-year implementation planning process over the last year.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends the development of a competitive grants program for funding research projects in FY99, pending Council review and approval of the design and budget for such a process. The Council?s staff is to work with the Panel, in consultation with the agencies and tribes, the National Marine Fisheries Service and Bonneville, to develop a proposal for such a process and its estimated cost, with the aim of submitting the proposal to the Council in late fall. One issue to be worked out in developing the proposal will be the relationship between a competitive grants process for research projects and the Power Act provisions for annual review of projects recommended for funding by the Panel. This may mean, to avoid duplication, that the Panel or a peer review group under the Panel should conduct the competitive grants process.

Another relevant issue concerns who will define research needs for the competitive research grants process and how. By the FY99 project selection process the Council expects not only to develop a competitive grants process but also at least an interim or preliminary coordinated research, monitoring and evaluation framework to identify priority research needs for the project selection process. The Council recommends that the Council, the Independent Science Advisory Board, and the fish and wildlife managers work together to define the interim research framework and the research needs and the requests for research proposals. This will be an interim research framework because a more comprehensive framework may take longer to develop than is possible for the FY99 funding process, and because developing a research framework could be influenced by a Council Program amendment process.

The Council is recommending that a relatively small amount of FY98 funds be reserved for scoping/initiating three new research activities. The Council also recommends that its staff work with the Panel to develop a bid process to select the people who will undertake these studies.

b. Mainstem habitat and population structure research

Issue: The issue for the Council is whether to recommend that a reserve amount set aside to initiate a research project or projects to assess mainstem habitat and population structures. Section 7.1A of the Program calls for an evaluation of the conditions, ecology, carrying capacity and limiting factors in the mainstem. This has become more critical now, given that in response to a Council program measure, the Independent Science Group (now the Independent Science Advisory Board) proposed in its scientific review of the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program, Return to the River, a conceptual scientific foundation for the Council?s Program that pays special attention to mainstem habitat conditions. The Return to the River report recommended that a critical component of Columbia River salmon restoration should be protecting and restoring mainstem habitat, especially mainstem spawning and rearing habitat for core populations in a metapopulation structure, habitat that has been destroyed, inundated, blocked or degraded by mainstem hydropower development. If mainstem habitat and metapopulation/core populations structures are indeed critical to Columbia River salmon restoration work in the future, and thus to the Council?s program during a Program amendment process, more needs to be learned about the nature of Columbia River mainstem habitat, how productive it was and where, what was the population structure in that habitat, how the hydropower system damaged that habitat and the population structure, what might be done to protect and restore mainstem habitat, and what might be the affect on population structure.

The Panel was critical of the fact that none of the mainstem research, analysis and monitoring and evaluation in the program is directed toward this priority and the wide array of mainstem habitat characteristics that need study. The Panel recommended that funds be set aside for what they called a risk-benefit analysis of tradeoffs to create mainstem habitat and a food web quantification analysis.

Council recommendation: Return to the River raises important questions about mainstem habitat conditions and mainstem population structure. To help the Council and the region evaluate these questions, the Council recommends that an amount of money be set aside for two studies, one on mainstem habitat and one on population structure, briefly described below. What the Council recommends here are studies that involve primarily a review of existing research literature and then analytical work based on that review, not extensive ( or even any) new field work research. The studies should also be developed to capitalize on related work going on in the basin and to be coordinated with those efforts. The Council recommends that significant funds not be allocated to new mainstem habitat research initiatives until the studies described here are completed and reviewed. The Council directs its staff to work with the Independent Science Advisory Board and others to produce a more formal description of these study proposals and competitive bid process to select who will undertake the described studies. The two studies are as follows:

Assessment of the impacts of development and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system on mainstem riverine processes and salmon habitats

Development of the Columbia River hydroelectric system has significantly altered the character of the Columbia River. Major areas were blocked to passage of anadromous fish, riverine processes were disrupted, habitats were eliminated or greatly modified and river foodwebs and ecological processes were modified. Recent scientific syntheses regarding fish recovery in the Columbia River have emphasized the importance of the mainstem areas and normal riverine processes. Proposals are now being considered to return a portion of the lost habitat by breaching or drawing down mainstem hydroelectric projects. However, to date, no systematic assessment has been made of the extent and types of habitat modifications that have occurred, potential locations for restoration or of the potential benefits.

This project would assess the extent of riverine habitat lost to development and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system and the types of ecological modification that have occurred, and suggest areas or actions with particular potential for restoration of riverine habitat and processes. The assessment should describe the historical use of the mainstem river by chinook and other species and estimate the amount of habitat lost as a result of development and operation of the hydroelectric system. Impacts of the hydroelectric system should include habitat blockages as well as habitat and ecological modification in areas still accessible to anadromous fish. The project would rely largely on existing information sources; no new fieldwork is envisioned at this stage. Development of information relating to mainstem habitat in the area of the four Lower Snake River projects should be coordinated with ongoing studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Information should be organized within a Geographic Information System, which also might be used to examine the impacts of drawdown or other mitigation strategies. The project should also propose and assess options for testing riverine habitat restoration hypotheses, especially drawdown of one or more mainstem reservoirs.

Specific objectives:

On the basis of an assessment of historical records and photographs, identify the amount of mainstem river fish and wildlife habitat lost as a result of development and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system.
Building on recent scientific assessments, identify historical "hot spots" for salmon spawning and production that existed prior to development of the hydroelectric system, especially those that existed below the present limits to anadromous fish passage.
If possible, assemble the above information as a Geographic Information System. To the maximum extent, make use of the existing resources of the StreamNet system.
Develop a list of options for restoration of mainstem habitats for salmon in the area below the present migration limit for anadromous fish and for resident fish in areas above this point.
Identify opportunities to test strategies for restoration of mainstem habitat.

Application: This project is intended to contribute to regional discussions regarding restoration of mainstem habitats including development of the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program. It should also contribute to the assessment of losses of fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin resulting from development and operation of the hydroelectric system.

Suggested budget estimate: $200,000

Assessment of population structure in Columbia River chinook

salmon and its application to existing populations

Population structure is based on the extent and nature of genetic communication between populations and natural selection exerted by the local environment. The existing population structure of chinook salmon in the Columbia River reflects the progressive fragmentation and degradation of habitat and is likely a remnant of a more continuous and connected historical population structure. To the extent that population structure is an adaptive trait (i.e. is the result of natural selection and is a species adaptation to particular habitats and environments) understanding changes in population structure and the relationship of past and present structure to habitat conditions could be a key to restoration of salmon throughout the basin.

This project would assess the application of theories, such as the metapopulation concept, to chinook salmon population structure in the Columbia River and the relationship to habitat structure and variation. It would then examine how population structure concepts would apply to fish recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin. Finally, it would assess the value and possibilities for restoration of a suitable population structure. Initially, the project should focus on the likely nature of chinook salmon population structure in the Columbia River including the applicability of the metapopulation concept. It should rely heavily on existing data sources and literature to describe the possible population structure in existing chinook salmon populations. A later phase could test this description through field studies or other methods.

Specific objectives:

Review of literature and research pertaining to fish population structure including metapopulation theory and its application to Pacific Salmon and other fish species.
Assessment of the application of a population structure concept to Columbia River salmon and other fish species.
Development of a conceptual description of fish population structure for Columbia River salmon and other fish species including the relationship of this structure to spatial and temporal habitat variation.
Bench testing of the concept using existing inventories of salmon and other fish species in the Columbia River Basin. This phase should utilize the resources of the StreamNet system whenever possible.
Recommendations regarding the utility of using population and habitat structure as a basis for structuring recovery efforts of salmon and other fish species in the Columbia River Basin.

Application: Results from this study would contribute to the development of a scientific foundation and framework for the Council?s Program and other regional efforts. It should help to structure these efforts and identify suitable conservation and management population units. It would also help to formulate strategies for restoration of a desirable fish population structure.

Suggested budget estimate: $100,000 for phase one.

c. Ocean/estuary research

Issue: A number of developments point to a need to learn more about the ways in which the conditions in the ocean and estuary affect Columbia River salmon and steelhead, the ways in which humans have changed the estuary and nearshore ocean plume that adversely affect anadromous fish, and what if anything we can do to restore more appropriate conditions in the estuary and nearshore. The region has become more aware in the last few years how much anadromous fish are affected by changes in estuary, nearshore and ocean conditions, human and non-human induced. The Council?s program calls for carrying capacity and evaluation work in the estuary and nearshore. E.g., Program Section 7.1A.1. The Independent Science Group?s Return to the River recommended further efforts to understand the impacts of ocean, estuary and nearshore conditions and the interaction of human management actions and ocean conditions.

The 1996 Power Act amendment added to these concerns by calling for the Council to consider the impact of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations in making funding recommendations. The Council staff developed an issue paper in May of this year, Consideration of Ocean Conditions in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, to assist the Council in satisfying the new Power Act requirement. In June, the Council adopted the recommendations in the paper as policy guidance for this process. The paper has been attached to this document, along with a brief discussion of how recommendations in paper are being implemented. The paper recommends, among other things, implementing the Council?s program by recommending one or more projects to evaluate estuary and near-shore productivity. A key area of uncertainty directly associated with the Council?s Power Act mandate to mitigate for the impact of the hydropower system on salmon survival is the way the hydropower system has affected the estuary and nearshore plume to the detriment of anadromous fish. The Panel noted, however, that no funds have been requested for research or other work in the estuary, nearshore or ocean, although the Panel did not make a specific recommendation about funding.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends that an amount of money be reserved in the FY98 budget for a research project as described below, to study the impact of the hydroelectric development and operation on the Columbia River estuary and nearshore plume. The proposed study calls for a review of existing research literature and associated analytical work, not new field work. The Council?s issue paper identified a number of ocean, estuary and climatic programs in the Pacific Northwest. This study is intended to capitalize to the greatest extent possible the work going on in the programs and to be coordinated with and not duplicate those efforts. The Council knows of no efforts to study the impact of hydropower development and operation on the nearshore plume and the related impacts on salmon productivity. The Council directs the Council staff to work the ISAB and others to produce a more formal statement of the study requested, and a competitive bid process to select who will undertake the study.

Impact of hydroelectric development and operation on the

Columbia River estuary and nearshore plume

The amended Northwest Power Act calls on the Council to consider the effects of the ocean in implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program. To date, the impact of the hydroelectric system has been considered almost solely from the perspective of direct impacts to the area above Bonneville Dam. However, there is substantial reason to expect that the construction and operation of the hydroelectric system has had a significant impact on the estuary and nearshore river plume. Many actions in the Columbia River watershed funnel down to the estuary, which becomes the recipient of pollutants, sediments, debris and water that is produced or managed in upriver areas. In addition, all salmon originating in upriver must pass through the estuary as juveniles and adults. Changes in the flow regime through the estuary and into the freshwater plume may have substantially altered the conditions that supported salmon survival through this life stage and thus undermined salmon survival in ways that are not well understood.

This project would (1) provide an assessment of the importance of the estuary to fish and wildlife recovery efforts, and (2) an analysis of the impacts of the construction and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system on the hydrology, habitats and ecology of the Columbia River estuary and river plume and opportunities for management action related to the estuary. It is intended to be synthesis of mostly existing information into an assessment of the extent of impacts especially on anadromous salmon and steelhead. No fieldwork is envisioned in this project. It should rely heavily on existing sources of information. However, it may be feasible to use modeling techniques to examine the impact of, for example, flow regulation on estuarine habitats and the river plume.

Specific objectives:

Analyze and assess the impacts of development and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system on the hydrology of the Columbia River estuary and nearshore plume.
Review the theories, models and empirical information pertaining to estuary use by anadromous fish in the Columbia River.
Examine the impacts of changes in hydrology, sediment input or other factors caused by development and operation of the hydroelectric system on anadromous fish life histories and on historical and existing habitats of the estuary and plume.
Assess the impacts of any changes in hydrology and habitat on life history and migration patterns of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River.
On the basis of this analysis, suggest management and operational changes that might benefit the estuary and plume and recommend any additional study needed to develop operational strategies.
The project should be coordinated with ongoing estuary research including the efforts of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Estuary Program and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (including the Corps? evaluation of the possible impacts from proposed channel deepening).

Application: Information from this project will be used to assess the need to modify upriver hydroelectric system operations to enhance conditions in the estuary and nearshore ocean plume. It supplies information pertinent to the question of carrying capacity in the estuary and should help management of hatcheries and other actions affecting conditions in these areas. The project should also contribute to the assessment of losses of fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin resulting from development and operation of the hydroelectric system.

Suggested budget estimate: $150,000

As noted in the study description, the results of such a study should be relevant to the Council?s planning and funding responsibilities in a number of ways. Two are further emphasized here: First, a review of literature and analysis as described here would assist the Council in determining whether this hydrosystem impact can be measured, understood and addressed. This would allow the Council and the managers to make a decision whether more research and planning funds should be allocated to addressing estuary and near-shore conditions affected by the hydropower system. Second, the information gained in this study could be immediately useful in understanding whether the Columbia flow regime might be re-regulated to improve estuary and nearshore conditions for anadromous fish. Reservoir operations and flow management will be critical issues in a Council Program amendment process. The Council will be better prepared to address the flow issues if it has an understanding of impacts other than just above Bonneville.

5. Mainstem actions ? evaluation of assumptions and high-cost programs in the mainstem

a. Evaluation of migration-related assumptions/coordination of migration-related research

Issue: The Independent Science Review Panel recognized the emphasis placed in the Program and in regional salmon recovery efforts on measures to improve juvenile migration through the mainstem. But the Panel also concluded that the present level of "ecological and hydrodynamic understanding of juvenile fish migration" is an inadequate base for the various juvenile migration measures implemented in the basin. Thus the Panel recommended, among other things, "quantitative evaluation of assumptions (e.g., flow-survival) upon which structural (e.g., passage facilities) and operational (e.g., flow augmentation) measures" are based. (The Panel also recommended at this point that all migration-related research, monitoring and other management activities be coordinated and integrated, and studies to quantify food web dynamics and other habitat conditions in mainstem reservoirs and a risk-benefit analysis of tradeoffs required to create normative conditions and habitat in the mainstem -- recommendations discussed above.) The Panel?s recommendations are consistent with the mainstem hypotheses and experiment described in Section 5.0 of the Council?s Program and in the preamble to Section 5, as recognized by the Panel.

Council recommendation: As noted in a number of the comments, what is known as the PATH processes is pursuing quantitative evaluation of the assumptions upon which structural and operational measures for juvenile migration are based. The PATH project is discussed in more detail below. The focus in PATH has been narrow so far -- on listed Snake River chinook and migration through the lower Snake River dams -- but what is learned from PATH about migration assumptions should be useful for evaluating anadromous fish migration in the lower Columbia and elsewhere. The Council does not recommend any funding for additional evaluations at this time.

The Council agrees with the Panel that more needs to be done to coordinate mainstem research, monitoring and evaluation, as discussed above. This is not an issue for a funding recommendation, however, and should be addressed in other ways. Work did start at one time on a coordinated research framework, an effort that stalled. The Council recommended above that an interim coordinated research framework be developed as part of the development of a competitive grants research process, and that the topic be further addressed in the Council?s upcoming Program amendment process. Central to that amendment process will be to complete and the on-going efforts to develop a proposed integrated framework for the Program, which is also a recommendation of the Panel.

b. Peer-review of effectiveness of high-cost mainstem actions, in general

Issue: The Panel recommended "thorough peer-review evaluation of the effectiveness of high-cost actions" in the mainstem, specifically naming the smolt monitoring program, predator control bounty and biological studies of gas supersaturation.

Council recommendation: The Council does not recommend the creation of a separate peer review process to precede this year?s funding recommendation for a whole range of mainstem actions. Instead, the Council recommends a case-by-case approach to the review of specific program areas mentioned by the Panel and others, as described in the pages that follow -- the Council concluded that some actions would not benefit from peer review this year, that others do need a project review during the year that includes reference of questions to independent scientific review, and that some programs should be reduced based on what we already know. More general considerations of whether and how to evaluate the high-cost mainstem actions may be a subject of a Program amendment process.

c. Smolt monitoring

Issue: The Panel acknowledged that the smolt monitoring work funded under the Council?s Program is of high quality. But the Panel questioned whether the project gives insufficient attention "analyses that try to answer critical uncertainties about various alternative management approaches." The issue for the Council is whether it wants to review and refine the smolt monitoring program for this year, or whether this is something to work on over time with the managers and the Independent Science Advisory Board, with the aim of influencing the design of the program for future years.

Council recommendation: The Council does not recommend a review of the smolt monitoring program this year. It provides, as the Panel noted, high quality monitoring data that is used for in-season management. The assumptions underlying the value of that information, and what better information could be collected, is being or will be addressed in a number of other ways, including through the PATH process, the reach survival research directed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (which has focused on the Snake, and should begin in the lower Columbia), and a Council Program amendment process.

d. Predator control program (squawfish)

Issue: The Panel criticized the squawfish control program as expensive "even though predation is likely the secondary end-result of other control multiple stresses and habitat degradation." The Panel suggested instead that "[t]he primary causes of stress . . . might better receive both additional study and attention to remedies." As part of its program management review, the Council reviewed the squawfish program earlier this year, tentatively concluding that portions of the program have merit -- certain angling methods that are used -- but asking the managers to review and recommend more cost effective ways to administer the program.

Council recommendation: Based on what the Council learned during the project review earlier this year, and additional review and considerations by staff, the Council recommends continued funding for certain portions of the program and a cessation in funding for the rest of the program. First, the Council recommends that what appears to be the really effective portion of the program -- the bounty angling for squawfish -- be funded. Bonneville and the project sponsors should investigate whether there are more cost effective ways to pursue this activity. Second, the less effective squawfish control activities, including the dam angling, should not be funded. Third, the Council concludes that this program has been so successfully monitored and evaluated that we now have a good understanding of the predatory habits of the squawfish, the benefits of catching which fish, and where and how to catch them. Thus it should be possible to cut significantly the evaluation portion of the program, funding only the basic work of monitoring the catch and squawfish populations.

It is not yet clear to the Council precisely how the project funding needs would be affected by these recommended changes in the program. The Council staff should work quickly with Bonneville and the project sponsors to develop a revised project funding estimate.

The list of projects also includes a study of predation by birds, funded in FY97 for $119,000 and recommended in FY98 for an increase to $280,000. The Council recommends that this project should be held pending project sponsor review of the project with the Council.

e. Biological studies of gas supersaturation

Issue: There are four projects recommended for funding to evaluate the effects of dissolved gas supersaturation, totaling $2.5 million. The Panel questioned whether gas supersaturation research should receive the attention it does "even though the physical causes and engineering solutions are known and the general biological detriment of high gas supersaturation is well proven." The Panel concluded that the current research effort is pursuing details "as an excuse for not making the obviously needed engineering corrections at the dams." The Council staff has also advised the Council that we lack a clear statement of the information that the region still needs from the gas research -- what are the management uncertainties that affect regional decisions involving spill and total dissolved gas, and what kind of research information is necessary to address those needs?

A Dissolved Gas Team formed under NMFS? and the Council?s oversight is working with a set of research needs identified by NMFS and is developing a gas supersaturation research plan. It is unclear how the on-going activities represented by the projects will relate to or fare under this effort by the Dissolved Gas Team. It is not clear how the gas research, monitoring and evaluation funded under the direct program relates to gas research, monitoring and evaluation funded by Congress through the Corps of Engineers.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends that the funding for these projects be held in reserve pending the development by the Dissolved Gas Team of a coordinated research plan for the gas supersaturation evaluations and associated recommendations for FY98 project funding. The research plan and project recommendations are to be reviewed by the Independent Science Advisory Board and reviewed and approved by the Council prior to funding.

f. Law enforcement

Issue: The law enforcement program funded under the Council?s program has been a focus of controversy for some time. The project began in the early 1990s as a three-year demonstration or pilot project, and has since grown into an on-going, permanent law enforcement venture that may be the most costly single project ($4 million) in the direct program outside of capital construction costs for new hatcheries. Questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the program, about whether the program is worth its high cost whatever its effectiveness, and whether its peripheral connection to hydropower impacts and the fact that law enforcement is a traditional activity of state, tribal and federal governments makes it appropriate for Bonneville funding through the Council?s program.

The Council reviewed the law enforcement program during the past year, with an inconclusive result. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the program is underway, with a further report due later in the year. The Panel recommendation on peer review of high-cost mainstem actions did not specifically mention the law enforcement program, but the accompanying text did. The Panel noted that there is "little substantiation that illegal catches are a major problem for salmon survival," yet the program is "a major drain on funds needed for work to protect juvenile salmonids."

The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority?s proposed funding recommendation for FY98 for the law enforcement program has been reduced approximately $600,000 from last year?s level. It appears that the funding reduction was not specific to any particular portion of the law enforcement program. CBFWA?s expectation is that the Columbia Basin Law Enforcement Council will determine the allocation later.

Council recommendation: After further review of the information about the program, review of the comments, and public discussions, the Council recommends that Bonneville funding for the law enforcement program be discontinued. The Council will consider proposals to fund specific law enforcement tasks that are tied to the core purposes of the Act, do not present an "in lieu" issue under the Act, and are associated with activities funded under the Program, such as protecting habitat investments under the Program.

The Council makes this recommendation for reasons that have little do with whether the law enforcement is "effective" or not. The main concern is that a fish and wildlife program measure that was intended as a pilot program, in which Bonneville money would be used as seed money to purchase equipment and develop techniques and training for fisheries law enforcement and public outreach, has turned into an on-going, high-cost, permanent funding of fisheries law enforcement activities on the Columbia River by Bonneville ratepayers. There are several reasons why Bonneville direct program funding for law enforcement should not go beyond the pilot program stage. The connection of the project to mitigation of hydropower impacts is tenuous. Although the project might be classified as an off-site hydropower mitigation activity, there appears to be an "in lieu" issue, as Bonneville funding is being used to supplement or replace what is a traditional function of state, tribal and federal law enforcement.

Bonneville funding has contributed significantly by allowing the law enforcement agencies to increase their material and technical capabilities. In a time of tight budgets, when important mainstem actions and research and tributary habitat and natural production activities are not being funded, using Bonneville funding under the hydropower mitigation obligation of the Power Act and the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program for law enforcement activities is at best a very low priority.

g. PATH/Bonneville non-discretionary

Issue: The Panel did not mention the PATH project in its report, but the Council and its staff have identified this project as another high-cost mainstem program that could benefit from closer scrutiny as to its cost, components, direction, oversight, expectations, and relative value. There are two issues here. The first has to do with the core work of the PATH group. PATH is most directly linked to the National Marine Fisheries Service?s hydropower Biological Opinion, making it a non-discretionary ESA expense, although PATH also has its origins in the Council Program?s mainstem hypotheses. The Council does not suggest that PATH?s work is not of value or should be discontinued. But the cost is relatively high (well more than $1 million), and the focus has been correspondingly narrow so far (essentially how to understand and improve juvenile migration survival for the listed stocks at the lower Snake River dams), justifying scrutiny along with the other high cost mainstem projects. A number of questions for cost and management review arise: Is it appropriate to fund the PATH activities by essentially funding full or part FTEs? Are there ways to control or reduce the costs, perhaps by shifting to a "task and time accounting" system such as is used with the Independent Science Advisory Board? Is it appropriate to fund participation in PATH by NMFS personnel? If the main point of PATH is to inform the federal agencies? 1999 mainstem configuration decision under the Endangered Species Act, is there reasons to evaluate whether the work of the group should continue at approximately $500,000 per year for a number of years after 1999? Finally, are there ways to expand the scope of PATH?s work to make it more relevant to the systemwide concerns of the Council?s program, especially to extend the assessment work to the issues in the lower Columbia?

The second issue has to do with a number of projects associated with the PATH effort. Bonneville, in a May 9 letter to the Council, identified eight modeling, data collection and analytical projects as non-discretionary (totaling $1.7 million) that Bonneville labeled as directly necessary to support the Biological Opinion and PATH activities, or as necessary to allow Bonneville to fulfill its internal requirements to provide river operations that support the Biological Opinion and other Bonneville obligations. Bonneville did not explain the projects as related to the Council?s Program. The Bonneville letter also did not make clear how these projects are necessary under the ESA requirements and the Biological Opinion. It is also not clear the level of importance that NMFS puts on these projects. The Basin Authority, of which NMFS and the agencies and tribes that participate in PATH are members, did not request funding for some of these projects and significantly reduced funding for others.

Council recommendation: On the first issue, concerning funding for the core activities of PATH, the Council recommends that the funding for PATH occur on a time-and-task accounting basis. Bonneville and the project sponsors should review with the Council how that might affect the funding for the project. Funding for state and tribal participation should be held at the actual FY97 funding level ($605,000) pending the time-and-task accounting review. The Council also requests that a thorough cost and management review of PATH be scheduled for sometime in the year, to address the issues noted above and others that may arise. The Council staff should coordinate the review with NMFS, Bonneville and the PATH participants.

On the second issue, the Council does not believe it is appropriate for Bonneville to unilaterally label as non-discretionary a significant level of funding for these (or any other) projects without first notifying the Council and the agencies and tribes of an intent to declare the projects as non-discretionary and explaining the designation. Bonneville is part of the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget Memorandum of Agreement and the commitments in the MOA?s Annex on budget allocation. Under the Power Act, Bonneville is to use its fund "in a manner consistent with" the Council?s Program; under the ESA Bonneville has concluded that it must fund expenditures identified in the reasonable and prudent alternative to NMFS? hydropower Biological Opinion; and under the budget MOA, Bonneville agreed to work with the regional prioritization process to determine how to allocate its direct fund account to these activities. The Council recognizes that the ultimate funding decisions are Bonneville?s, guided by the requirements of the Power Act and other laws, and that the recommendations of the Council and the agencies and tribes are just that -- recommendations entitled to a certain amount of consideration and weight. Bonneville?s determinations should be preceded by a meaningful dialogue with the Council and the agencies and tribes. The Council directs the Council staff to work with Bonneville and the agencies and tribes to develop a better procedure for designating non-discretionary projects in the future.

With regard to these projects in particular, Bonneville has begun working with Council staff to provide more information as to how these projects are linked to Bonneville?s ESA requirements or internal needs, and to explain how Bonneville has worked with NMFS and the PATH participants to arrive at a coordinated understanding of what type of modeling and analytical activities are necessary for PATH?s work and for implementing the river operations portion of the Biological Opinion. The Council recommends that the funding for these Bonneville?s non-discretionary activities also occur on a time-and-task accounting basis, and that Bonneville review the implications of that with the Council. The Council also recommends that before the next funding cycle, Bonneville review with the Council the work these projects fund and the reasons for their designation as non-discretionary. Finally, the Council will specifically request ISRP review of these projects in next year?s project review process.

The Council withholds any recommendation on the propriety of funding these projects, at the levels proposed by Bonneville, until it has an opportunity to review an exchange of information and views with Bonneville. [Option: The Council recommends that funding for these projects be held pending Council review of the projects.]

6. Projects subject to ISAB review in FY97: Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project and Hatchery PIT Tagged Chinook Study

Issue: The Council requested review by the Independent Science Advisory Board of two study projects last year, the Lake Pend Oreille Fisheries Recovery Project and the Hatchery PIT Tagged Chinook Study. The ISAB responded with reports on the two projects, criticizing elements of the study design of both and recommending revisions. The ISAB and the Council forwarded the report on the Lake Pend Oreille project to the project sponsor. With regard to the Hatchery PIT Tag Study, the Council sent both the report and a letter recommending certain changes in the study based on the ISAB?s report. It is unclear from the project descriptions for FY98 funding or from the Basin Authority?s draft workplan how the project sponsors for these two projects have responded to the ISAB reviews.

Council recommendation: The Council requests that the project sponsors explain to the Council how they have responded to the reports of the ISAB. The Council also recommends that funding for these two projects be held in reserve pending review by the Council of the explanations. As guidance for future project selection processes, the Council is going to expect that project sponsors whose projects are subject to ISAB or ISRP review and criticism explain at the time of the next project selection process how they have responded to the reviews.

7. White sturgeon program ? various issues

Issue: The Program activities to evaluate the status of white sturgeon populations was the subject of a Council review earlier in the year. The Council required nothing specific of this program at the end of the review. Neither the Panel nor the Council staff identified fundamental concerns with the project, but the Council staff saw the need to review questions raised in the project review and frame funding recommendations for the Council to consider. The key concern has been whether implementation and possibly production activities are getting out of sequence, ahead of what are intended at this stage to be research and evaluation projects.

Section 10.4A of the Council?s Program calls for a series of evaluations of the status of white sturgeon populations and of the potential for rebuilding those populations, including evaluations of the potential for using artificial production to supplement sturgeon populations. Recommendations to implement production efforts or develop an experimental white sturgeon research facility are to be submitted to the Council for review and approval prior to implementation. The white sturgeon project derived from Section 10.4A is actually a set of activities in different parts of the Columbia arm of the river to study and evaluate sturgeon populations, most combined together under the umbrella administration of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in a project totaling $2.16 million in the FY98 project recommendations. The Nez Perce Tribe has a separate white sturgeon evaluation project in the Snake basin. Finally, under Section 10.4B of the Program, Bonneville funds a variety of activities by the Kootenai Tribe that are attempting to restore the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon.

Specific issues are outlined and addressed in the following Council recommendation:

Council recommendation: Combined project/priority. Various white sturgeon evaluation tasks in the Columbia are integrated into one project for review and prioritization. Putting them together this way makes it difficult to determine if all of the elements of the white sturgeon effort are equally effective and warrant funding and whether all of the ranking criteria and scoring apply equally to all elements, making them of equal priority. A response has been that the Council?s Program calls for these tasks to be integrated, that administrative efficiencies are gained by combining them together and that other projects in the fish and wildlife program also bring together various activities and project sponsors. This last point is true, but few if any projects link together disparate activities spread out over such a large geographical area as the white sturgeon project. The Council recommends that during the FY99 project review process that the information about the project be presented so that the ISRP will be able to review the component parts of the white sturgeon project.

Evaluation/implementation/artificial production. Questions have been raised as to whether statements of work for this project indicate funding is being sought for implementation of restoration measures involving production that have not yet been reviewed with the Council. For example, project sponsors apparently have concluded that experimental transplants of wild fish from below Bonneville into The Dalles reservoir have been a success, and they would like to explore the use of supplementation into reservoirs. The Council recommends that any proposed white sturgeon supplementation activities need to be treated as are the other production activities in the basin, that is, as candidates for inclusion in the comprehensive review of artificial production and as subject to the interim approach for reviewing hatchery investments described above. Supplementation and aquaculture activities should not expand without Council review. The Council requests that the project sponsors develop for Council review an explanation as to how they expect the white sturgeon production initiatives to move through the Council?s production review process. Bonneville should not allocate funding for implementation until the proposed implementation measures and the evaluation work they are based on are submitted to the Council for public review.

Kootenai River white sturgeon program. This is an entirely separate project based in Section 10.4B of the Council?s Program, which funds a number of activities that are attempting to restore the endangered Kootenai white sturgeon. The production portion of this program will need to be evaluated as part of the comprehensive review of production. In addition, the production activities have had operational problems that may indicate the need for project review or for more support. FY98 funding for the project should continue, but the Council requests the project sponsors review with the Council immediately the management and funding needs of the project.

8. Wildlife

The Panel made a number of recommendations regarding the Wildlife portion of the Council?s Program, most of which are addressed in the explanations in response to the Panel?s recommendations that follow the specific project descriptions. Two key or programmatic issues require attention here:

a. Monitoring and evaluation ?extend to include some population monitoring

Issue: In evaluating the wildlife section of the Program, the Panel concluded that use of the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) for determining wildlife losses was reasonable and appropriate for quantification of the value of potential projects, and that the decision to mitigate at the level of habitat was prudent. However, the Panel pointed out that one drawback of HEP is that it does not capture wildlife population dynamics directly. The Panel recommended that monitoring and evaluation be extended to include a requirement for some degree of direct monitoring of wildlife populations.

Council recommendation: The Council agrees that HEP has a weakness with regard to landscape level changes and population dynamics. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority has recommended continued funding for the development of a regional monitoring and evaluation process for wildlife mitigation projects, consistent with the Draft Wildlife Plan (Appendix G of the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program). [ The Draft Wildlife Plan has remained a draft while Bonneville has been completing an Environmental Impact Statement on its funding of wildlife mitigation projects. Bonneville completed the EIS this summer. The Council will act soon to finalize the Wildlife Plan. Nothing in the EIS, or in the Panel?s report, has undermined the fundamental principles and approach of the Draft Wildlife Plan. In fact the Panel?s recommendations are largely consistent with and an endorsement of what is in the Wildlife Plan.] The Draft Plan explicitly recognizes the need to include some level of population monitoring as part of the procedure. The Council recommends that the development of this monitoring and evaluation process continue, and that its development be coordinated with the Panel.

b. Acquisition of land and land easements

Issue: The Panel recommended that acquisition of land and land easements continue to be given a high priority in the Wildlife Program.

Council recommendation: The Council agrees with this recommendation and believes that it is consistent with the Council?s Wildlife Program goals and criteria. The Council also concludes that the wildlife projects recommended by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority are consistent with this recommendation, with nearly 90% of the recommended funding being directed toward easement and acquisition projects.

9. Information for the project selection process/coordinated information service

a. Project selection process and information

Issue: The Panel faulted the Council and other participants in the project selection process for the quality of information generated for the project review process, in terms of both (a) the information about the projects themselves and evaluations of those projects, and (b) the lack, in their view, of a systematic inventory of what has been done and not done to implement the Council?s program. The Panel?s recommendations include improvements in the project information format, development of uniform standards and policies on project review, annual project evaluations and detailed peer review of on-going projects every three to five years, a "more information-rich accounting and reporting system," the funding of the comprehensive management review called for in Section 3.1E of the program, and more.

Council recommendation: The Council directs its staff to explore with the Panel and with Bonneville and other participants what is currently being done in the way of obtaining information about the projects and the Program and what reforms should be made before next year?s project selection process begins. The Council expects an update report before the beginning of the FY99 project selection process. See also the explanations in the document that directly respond to each recommendation of the Panel.

b. Coordinated regionwide information service

Issue: A coordinated, regionwide Internet-based information service to collect, organize and post research findings, policy statements and other documents regarding Northwest fish and wildlife recovery actions would be useful to implementers of the Council?s Fish and Wildlife Program and other recovery efforts. However, the scope and potential for such a service is not clear at this time.

Council recommendation: The Council recommends that any decision to fund such a service be deferred, while the Council, Bonneville and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority form a team to assess current information sources, identify information needs, develop a proposal for a coordinated system to meet those needs, including a proposal for how to select the contractor to develop and maintain the system. This team should be formed no later than October 1, 1997, with a report from the team within one month. Until this assessment is completed, the Council recommends that not more than $90,000 be reserved in the FY98 budget for this purpose, as determined by Bonneville?s current allowance for a similar service. The Council will make a recommendation about whether and how to spend that reserved amount after reviewing the assessment.

^ top

Draft Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Implementation Work Plan General Policy Issues and Council Recommendations for Resolution

Contents

General Policy Issues and Council Recommendations for Resolution

Draft Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Implementation Work Plan
General Policy Issues and Council Recommendations for Resolution