When the biological potential of a target population is high, biological risk should be avoided and restoration should be by means of natural spawning and rearing. When the biological potential of the target population is limited by external factors, such as the presence of mainstem dams or other factors, supplementation is a possible policy choice to augment natural capacity and productivity, in a limited fashion that ensures that the majority of production will be the result of natural spawning.

Restorable habitat: Where the habitat for a target population is absent or severely diminished, but can be restored through conventional techniques and approaches, then the biological objective for that habitat will be to restore the habitat with the degree of restoration depending on the biological potential of the target population. Where the target population has high biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat to intact condition, and restore the population up to the sustainable capacity of the habitat. In this situation, if the target population had been severely reduced or eliminated as a result of the habitat deterioration, the use of artificial production in an interim way is a possible policy choice to hasten rebuilding of naturally spawning populations after restoration of the habitat.

Where the target population has low biological potential — for example, when downstream rearing conditions severely limit the survival of juveniles from a given spawning area — the objective will be to restore the habitat to intact condition and consider sustained but limited supplementation as a possible policy choice.

Compromised habitat: Where the habitat for a target population is absent or substantially diminished and cannot reasonably be fully restored, then the biological objective for that habitat will depend on the biological potential of the target species.

"This program relies heavily on protection of, and improvements to, inland habitat as the most effective means of restoring and sustaining fish and wildlife populations."

Where the target species has high biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat up to the point that the sustainable capacity of the habitat is no longer a significant limiting factor for that population. The objective also is to restore the population of the target species up to the sustainable capacity of the restored habitat. Sustained supplementation in a limited fashion is a possible policy choice in this instance.

Where the target species has low biological potential, the objective will be to restore the habitat up to the point that the sustainable capacity of that habitat is no longer a significant limiting factor for that population. In this instance, a possible policy choice is expanded artificial production that utilizes the natural selection capabilities of the natural habitat to maintain fitness of both natural and artificial production.

Eliminated habitat: Where habitat for a target population is irreversibly altered or blocked, and therefore there are no opportunities to rebuild the target population by improving its opportunities for growth and survival in other parts of its life history, then the biological objective will be to provide a substitute. In the case of wildlife, where the habitat is inundated, substitute habitat would include setting aside and protecting land elsewhere that is home to a similar ecological community. For fish, substitution would include an alternative source of harvest (such as a hatchery stock) or a substitution of a resident fish species as a replacement for an anadromous species.

3. Habitat Strategies
 

This program relies heavily on protection of, and improvements to, inland habitat as the most effective means of restoring and sustaining fish and wildlife populations. However, it also recognizes that depending on the condition of the habitat and the target species, certain categories of mitigation investments are likely to be more effective than others. Thus, an important function of this strategy is to direct investments to their most productive applications.

Changes in the hydrosystem are unlikely within the next few years to fully mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife. However, the Northwest Power Act allows off-site mitigation for fish and wildlife populations affected by the hydrosystem. Because some of the greatest opportunities for improvement lie outside the immediate area of the hydrosystem — in the tributaries and subbasins off the mainstem of the Columbia and Snake Rivers — this program seeks habitat improvements outside the hydrosystem as a means of off-setting some of the impacts of the hydrosystem.

For example, passage through the hydrosystem causes injury to spring chinook. While measures at the dams can and should be taken to reduce this injury, as long as the dams exist they will continue to cause some of this injury. As an offset, the program may call for improvements in spawning and rearing habitats in tributaries where there are no dams present. By restoring these habitats, which were not damaged by the hydrosystem, the program helps compensate for the existence of the hydrosystem.

Habitat considerations extend beyond the tributaries, however. Historically, the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers were among the most productive spawning and rearing habitats for salmonids and provided essential resting and feeding habitat for mainstem resident and migrating fish. Protection and restoration of mainstem habitat conditions must be a critical piece of this habitat-based program.

As explained further in other parts of this program, a specific plan will be developed for each of the subbasins in the Columbia River Basin and for related sections of the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, as well as objectives and strategies for each ecological province. Each subbasin plan will begin with an assessment of the current physical and biological conditions, and then address the improvements that are needed.

The Council believes there is a wide variety of potentially successful approaches that may be used to improve and maintain habitat, and also believes that the choice of which approach to use is best left to a local, site-specific decision, subject to scientific review. However, all subbasin plans, and measures within those plans, should be consistent with the vision and biological objectives, and the following strategies:

Efforts to improve the status of fish and wildlife populations in the basin should protect habitat that supports existing populations that are relatively healthy and productive. Next, we should expand adjacent habitats that have been historically productive or have a likelihood of sustaining healthy populations by reconnecting or improving habitat. In a similar manner, this strategy applies to the restoration of weak stocks: the restoration should focus first on the habitat where portions of that population are doing relatively well, and then extend to adjacent habitats.

Restore Ecosystems, Not Just Single Species

Increasing the abundance of single populations may not, by itself, result in long-term recovery. Restoration efforts must focus on restoring habitats and developing ecosystem conditions and functions that will allow for expanding and maintaining a diversity within, and among, species in order to sustain a system of robust populations in the face of environmental variation.

Even in degraded or altered environments, native species in native habitats provide the best starting point and direction for needed biological conditions in most cases. Where a species native to that particular habitat cannot be restored, then another species native to the Columbia River Basin should be used. Any proposal to produce or release non-native species must overcome this strong presumption in favor of native species and habitats and be designed to avoid adverse impacts on native species.

Mitigation in areas blocked to salmon and steelhead by the development and operation of the hydropower system is appropriate, and flexibility in approach is needed to develop a program that provides resident fish substitutions for lost salmon and steelhead where in-kind mitigation cannot occur. The "Compilation of Salmon and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia River Basin" and the "Numerical Estimates of Hydropower-related Losses" adopted in Appendices D and E of the 1987 program, and contained in the Appendix to this program together, are the starting place for the Council’s approach regarding substitution.

Include the Estuary

The estuary is an important ecological feature that is negatively affected by upriver management actions and local habitat change. While less is known about the potential for improvement in the estuary than is known about the potential for improvement in most other parts of the Columbia River Basin, there are indications that substantial improvements are possible and that these improvements may benefit most of the anadromous fish populations. The estuary will be included as one of the planning units for this program. (The freshwater plume and the ocean itself are also important habitats for salmon and are addressed in the Ocean Conditions section of this program.)

Because about 15 percent of the Columbia River Basin is in British Columbia, including the headwaters of the Columbia and several of its key tributaries, ecosystem restoration efforts should address transboundary stocks of fish and wildlife and transboundary habitats. Where mitigation measures are designed to benefit both U.S. and Canadian fish and wildlife populations, U.S. ratepayer funding should be in proportion to anticipated benefits to the U.S. populations.

4. Artificial Production Strategies
 

The critical issue that the region faces on artificial production is whether artificial production activities can play a role in providing significant harvest opportunities throughout the basin while also acting to protect and even rebuild naturally spawning populations. Artificial production must be used in a manner consistent with ecologically based scientific principles for fish recovery. Fish raised in hatcheries for harvest should have a minimal impact on fish that spawn naturally. Fish reared in hatcheries or by other artificial means for the purpose of supplementing the recovery of a wild population should clearly benefit that population.

The science on this issue is far from settled. Improperly run, artificial production programs can do damage to wild fish runs. However, when fish runs fall to extremely low levels, artificial production may be the only way to keep enough of that population alive in the short term so that it has a chance of recovering in the long term. What is not so clear is the extent to which artificially produced fish can be mixed with a wild population in a way that sustains and rebuilds the wild population.

The Council has weighed these uncertainties and, recognizing that inaction also holds a large risk, has adopted the strategies in this section. These strategies, which are summarized in the Biological Objectives table on page 15, are intended to address the limitations and opportunities of specific habitat conditions.

The Council and the region’s fish and wildlife managers recently completed a multiyear review of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin. This review established a set of standards to be applied in all artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin, and this program incorporates these standards as minimum standards for all artificial production projects. The full description of these standards is in the Artificial Production Review section of the Appendix. In summary, the policies are:

• The purpose and use of artificial production must be considered in the context of the ecological environment in which it will be used.
• Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate the risks and benefits and address scientific uncertainties.
• Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors.
• A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a system of populations in the face of environmental variation.
• Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth, morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.
• The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of those purposes for each population of fish addressed.
• Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province levels.
• Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial propagation.
• Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.
• Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and enhancement must be fully addressed.

Where the critical habitat is largely intact, artificial production is not currently occurring, and the fish population has good potential, then no artificial production should be used. Those populations and their associated spawning and early rearing habitat should be preserved and protected.

Hatcheries intended solely to produce fish for harvest may be used to create a replacement for the lost or diminished harvest. The hatchery must be located and operated in a manner that does not lead to adverse effects on other stocks through excessive straying or excessive take of weak stocks in a mixed-stock fishery.

Except for wild salmon refuges or areas where the habitat is blocked or eliminated, supplementation of natural runs with artificially produced fish may be used for the purpose of rebuilding the natural runs, although the decision of whether to employ supplementation for this purpose is one that should be made locally, as part of the subbasin plan. The object of such supplementation is to restore and maintain healthy fish populations, with sufficient genetic and life history diversity to ensure that eventually, after appropriate habitat improvements, they will become self-sustaining.

In recognition of the risk and uncertainty associated with artificial production, each artificial production activity must be approached experimentally with a plan detailing the purpose and method of operation, the relationship to other elements of the subbasin plan, including associated habitat and other projects within the subbasin plan, specific measurable objectives for the activity, and a regular cycle of evaluation and reporting of results. This approach will allow the region to address the remaining uncertainties on a case-by-case basis and quickly make adjustments in artificial production activities where warranted.

Over the next three years, every artificial production program and facility in the basin, federal and non-federal, should undergo a review to determine its consistency with these strategies, scientific principles, and policies. These evaluations will be a prerequisite for seeking continued funding and/or adopting a subbasin plan into the program in the next phase of the amendment process. These evaluations must be guided in part by basin, province level and subbasin level visions, goals and objectives, and by overarching policies for artificial production based on the policies stated earlier.

After five years, the Council, other regional decision-makers and Congress should assess whether existing review, funding and planning processes are successful in implementing needed reforms in artificial production practices. In the interim, the entities responsible for artificial production programs should issue annual reports on their progress in achieving the policies and standards called for in the Artificial Production Review. The Council will act as a clearinghouse to obtain, compile, and distribute these annual reports for review by decision-makers and the public.

In order to achieve a regional perspective and a unified approach to artificial production reform, an advisory committee to the Council will be created. The advisory committee will be tasked with reporting quarterly on implementation of artificial production reforms across the basin in a consistent, coordinated and efficient manner. A small team of agency personnel, independent scientists, and representatives of non-governmental organizations will be assigned to watch over and coordinate the reform effort. One early task for the committee will be to further define the approach, work plan and decision points for evaluating the purpose of all the artificial production programs and facilities over the next three years.

5. Harvest
 

The Council makes no claim to regulatory authority over harvest of fish and wildlife. It recognizes and affirms the fish and wildlife managers’ legal jurisdiction and tribal trust and treaty rights.

However, there is little point in recommending funding for implementation of a subbasin plan when the objectives for the plan cannot be reached under current harvest regimes. If, for example, a wildlife mitigation project aims to re-establish an elk herd in a subbasin, and existing regulations will allow for overly aggressive harvest of the herd while it is first being established, there is good reason to doubt whether the project can succeed.

On the other hand, there is also no advantage to increasing fish populations in the interest of greater harvest if the anticipated harvest regimes will not allow that harvest to take place. A hatchery that rears fish solely for harvest is of little benefit if the majority of those fish go uncaught because the potential harvest is restricted by the presence of another, much weaker stock.

Therefore the Council adopts the following harvest strategies:

"A hatchery that rears fish solely for harvest is of little benefit if the majority of those fish go uncaught because the potential harvest is restricted by the presence of another, much weaker stock."

Contributions to Harvest and Escapement Goals

Each subbasin plan and hatchery management plan must explicitly describe the expected contribution to harvest for each of the harvested stocks or species. In the case of wildlife, the plan must indicate the area in which the wildlife will be harvested. In the case of fish, the plan must indicate the expected contribution to specific fisheries. In both instances, the plan must identify clear escapement goals for each species or stock and explain the basis on which that goal was chosen.

Each subbasin plan and hatchery management plan must state the likelihood that adequate numbers of adults will remain or return to the subbasin to assure reproductive success and meet subbasin goals for the next generation. If the escapement required for the plan to succeed is greater than that which occurs under current harvest regimes, then the plan should also indicate whether and how the current regimes will be adjusted and whether the managers for that harvest have concurred with the adjustment.

Artificially produced fish created for harvest should not be produced unless they can be effectively harvested in a fishery or provide other significant benefits. The appropriate reform for artificial production programs that do not meet this strategy is termination or revision so that the program complies with this strategy.

Each subbasin plan and hatchery management plan should identify (a) where there is an opportunity for a terminal fishery and (b) any instance in which increased harvest is possible but will not occur under the existing harvest regime, and the changes that would be necessary to allow the harvest to occur. The plan may also identify, and propose for funding if needed, equipment, marking techniques, management costs, and monitoring and evaluation costs required to establish the feasibility of selective harvest techniques that allow for additional harvest of species and stocks originating in that subbasin or at that hatchery.

The Council recommends the following practices in harvest management, and will seek to encourage the region’s fish and wildlife managers to adopt them:

• Maintain an open and public process, allowing public observation of harvest and allocation discussions and timely dissemination of harvest-related information in a publicly accessible manner.
• Integrate harvest management to assure that conservation efforts made in one fishery can be passed through subsequent fisheries.
• Manage harvest to ensure the risk of imprecision and error in predicted run size does not threaten the survival and recovery of naturally spawning populations.
• Monitor inriver and ocean fisheries and routinely estimate stock composition and stock-specific abundance, escapement, catch, and age distribution. Expand monitoring programs as necessary to reduce critical uncertainties. Manage data so that it can be easily integrated and readily available in real time.
• Manage harvest consistent with the protection and recovery of naturally spawning populations.
• Biennially, solicit scientific peer review of harvest management plans and analyses, starting in January 2002.

6. Hydrosystem Passage and Operations

The development and operation of the hydrosystem has major impacts on fish.

These impacts are not restricted to anadromous fish. White sturgeon spawning depends on certain patterns of spring flow; trout and other species migrate between reservoirs and adjoining streams and are affected by reservoir levels. High rates of discharge from a reservoir may reduce the food supply available to fish in that reservoir and even entrain those fish, sending them downstream. Even fish living in free-flowing stretches below reservoirs can be strongly impacted by sudden changes in river elevation or water temperature resulting from operation of the upstream project.

Wildlife are also affected by the development and operation of hydroelectric projects. In particular, reservoir levels greatly affect the trees, shrubs, and grasses that would normally grow at the water’s edge and provide wildlife nesting and feeding habitat.

All of these impacts are basically habitat issues. The strategies identified earlier in the habitat section are applicable here as well, and several of the strategies in this section are simply specialized applications of those in the habitat section.

The Council recognizes that the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, acting under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, will be prescribing detailed conditions for the improvement and operation of the hydrosystem through the issuance of biological opinions. These conditions focus on the needs of listed species, especially migration and passage needs.

The Council plans to enact a mainstem coordination plan containing measures for the hydrosystem by October 2001 in a subsequent phase of this program. The purpose of these measures will be to recommend ways in which the hydrosystem operations called for in the biological opinions could be adjusted, so as to assure that those operations meet the needs of ESA-listed stocks and the dictates of the Northwest Power Act. The hydrosystem measures will also provide necessary guidance to the Council’s subbasin planning process.

Until October 2001, when the Council plans to have these hydrosystem measures developed, the Council recommends that Bonneville, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other operating agencies not move forward with previously called-for but unimplemented measures in Sections 5 and 6 of the 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program (Council document 94-55) relating to hydrosystem operations, including specific flow augmentation measures, except to the extent the measures are fully consistent with the hydrosystem strategies outlined in this Phase One program.

The Power Act requires the Council, in this program, to adopt measures to "protect, mitigate, and enhance" all fish and wildlife affected by the operation of the hydrosystem, and to include measures that provide for improved survival of fish at hydroelectric facilities and for flows of sufficient quality and quantity to improve production, migration and survival. The Act also requires the Council to assure that the measures in this program are consistent with "an adequate, economical, efficient, and reliable power supply."

• Mainstem Coordination Plan

The Council will assist interested parties to develop and recommend for adoption into this program a mainstem coordination plan, similar to the subbasin plans described in this program. This plan will develop standards for systemwide coordination, such as flow regimes, spill, reservoir elevations, water retention times, passage modifications at mainstem dams, and operational requirements to protect mainstem spawning and rearing areas. This plan is in addition to the annual operating plan described earlier.

• Specific Biological Objectives and Measures Relevant to Hydrosystem Operations

As the Council considers and adopts specific objectives and measures at the system, province, and subbasin levels, the Council may adopt more specific biological objectives and measures for mainstem operations. As provided in the section on further rulemakings, page 51, the mainstem coordination plan will be the vehicle for considering and adopting these specific objectives and measures. Specific objectives and measures will be coordinated with the mainstem and hydrosystem standards and actions contained in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinions and with the requirements of applicable federal laws.

• Key Uncertainties

As part of its cycle for project funding recommendations, the Council will regularly convene a meeting of fish and wildlife agencies and tribes and hydrosystem operating agencies for the purpose of identifying key uncertainties about the operation of the hydrosystem and associated mainstem mitigation activities such as transportation of juvenile fish. This list of key uncertainties will be the starting point for targeted requests for research proposals.

• Longer-term Planning Perspectives

The region is in need of long-term planning regarding the current constraints on, and objectives of, water management, including current flood control requirements; the limitations on the purposes of managing water under the Columbia River Treaty; the requirements, opportunities and challenges of considering broader habitat needs, such as mainstem spawning and rearing habitat, estuary and plume impacts, and ocean habitat; and the region’s long-term energy and capacity power system needs in the context of a changing energy industry, and the potential implications for fish and wildlife.

Working with federal agencies in the region, the tribes and the state fish and wildlife agencies, the Council will facilitate a long-term planning study to include consideration of reconfiguration and operational alternatives that could provide benefits for fish and wildlife on a broad scale. The study should also assess the economic and hydropower impacts of all reconfiguration and operational alternatives.

• Hydroelectric Development and Licensing

The Council has adopted a set of standards for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and others to apply to the development and licensing of hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River Basin. This includes designating certain river reaches in the basin as "protected areas," where the Council believes that hydroelectric development would have unacceptable risks of loss to fish and wildlife species of concern, their productive capacity, or their habitat. The standards, the river reaches to be protected, and the conditions relating to that protection, are identified in the Future Hydroelectric Development section of the Appendix to this program.

7. Wildlife

Some previous versions of this fish and wildlife program have treated wildlife mitigation measures as separate from fish mitigation measures. In this program, the Council has revised its approach, treating a given habitat as an ecosystem that includes both fish and wildlife.

Table 11-4 of the Council’s 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program, which is included on pages C-4 thru C-7 of the Appendix to this program, estimated wildlife losses due to hydropower construction. The 1994-1995 Program called upon the fish and wildlife managers and Bonneville to use this table as the starting point for wildlife mitigation measures and short- and long-term mitigation agreements. The program also called upon these parties to reach agreement on how wildlife mitigation projects and fish mitigation projects should be credited toward identified losses.

A portion of the habitat units identified in Table 11-4 have been acquired in the wildlife mitigation projects to date, and some mitigation project agreements establish the basis on which the project will be credited toward these losses. However, no agreement has been reached on the full extent of wildlife losses due to the operations of the hydrosystem, nor has there been agreement on how to credit wildlife benefits resulting from riparian habitat improvements undertaken to benefit fish.

The extent of the wildlife mitigation is of particular importance to agencies and tribes in the so-called "blocked" areas, where anadromous fish runs once existed but were blocked by development of the hydrosystem. While there are limited opportunities for improving resident fish in those areas, resident fish substitution alone seldom is an adequate mitigation

Given the vision of this program, the strong scientific case for a more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach, and the shift to implementation of this program through provincial and subbasin plans, the Council believes that the wildlife mitigation projects should be integrated with the fish mitigation projects. Therefore the Council adopts the following wildlife strategies:

To provide an orderly transition between the past fish and wildlife program and this program, Bonneville and the fish and wildlife managers should complete mitigation agreements for the remaining habitat units. These agreements should equal 200 percent of the habitat units (2:1 ratio) identified as unannualized losses of wildlife habitat from construction and inundation of the federal hydropower system as identified in Table 11-4, which is included in the Appendix to this program. This mitigation is presumed to cover all construction and inundation losses, including annualized losses. In addition, for each wildlife agreement that does not already provide for long-term maintenance of the habitat, Bonneville and the applicable management agency shall propose for Council consideration and recommendation a maintenance agreement adequate to sustain the minimum credited habitat values for the life of the project.

• Allocation of Habitat Units

Habitat acquired as mitigation for lost habitat units identified in Table 11-4 must be acquired in the subbasin in which the lost units were located unless otherwise agreed by the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes in that subbasin.

• Habitat Enhancement Credits

Habitat enhancement credits should be provided to Bonneville when habitat management activities funded by Bonneville lead to a net increase in habitat value when compared to the level identified in the baseline habitat inventory and subsequent habitat inventories. This determination should be made through the periodic monitoring of the project site using the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) methodology. Bonneville should be credited for habitat enhancement efforts at a ratio of one habitat unit credited for every habitat unit gained.

• Operational Losses

An assessment should be conducted of direct operational impacts on wildlife habitat. Subbasin plans will serve as the vehicle to provide mitigation for direct operational losses and secondary losses. Annualization will not be used in determining the mitigation due for these losses. However, where operational or secondary losses have already been addressed in an existing wildlife mitigation agreement, the terms of that agreement will apply.

Implementation Guidelines

Project selection will be guided by subbasin plans incorporating wildlife elements. The subbasin plans will reflect the current basin-wide vision, biological objectives and strategies, and will also outline more specific short-term objectives and strategies for achieving specific wildlife mitigation goals. The plans will act as work plans for the fish and wildlife managers and tribes, with an emphasis on fully mitigating the construction and inundation and direct operational losses by a time certain, and will be revisited regularly as part of the provincial review cycle. Mitigation programs should provide protection of habitat through fee-title acquisition, conservation easement, lease, or management plans for the life of the project.

8. Ocean Conditions

The Council considers the ocean environment an integral component of the Columbia River ecosystem. Freshwater and marine environments are not independent from one another and are linked via large-scale atmospheric and oceanographic processes. The Council recognizes that these environments are utilized differently by different salmonid species and may serve different purposes.

The ocean is not a constant environment. Variations in ocean conditions occur over relatively short periods of a few years, as well as over longer-term cycles measured in decades. Within any time period, geographic variation in conditions can be pronounced as well. As a result, salmon populations are constantly fluctuating, and may pass through decade-long cycles of abundance, followed by equally long cycles of scarcity.

While we cannot control the ocean itself, we can take actions to assure that the salmon of the Columbia River Basin are well prepared to survive in varying conditions. Better understanding of the conditions salmon face in the ocean can suggest which factors will be most critical to survival, and thus give insight as to which actions taken inland will be the most valuable.

An accurate and timely understanding of the survival in the ocean of each of the Columbia River Basin stocks also helps us assess the value of measures undertaken in this program. Because the ultimate measure of success is the number of adult fish returning, accurate monitoring and evaluation of inland efforts depends on our ability to isolate the effects of the ocean on a stock from the effects of those inland actions.

Without the ability to distinguish ocean effects from other effects, we may be tempted to confuse large returns with successful mitigation practices. Or, poor returns of adult fish may lead to abandonment of mitigation actions that are in fact highly beneficial unless we can recognize that the poor returns are in spite of, and not because of, these mitigation actions.

The estuary is addressed in the habitat strategy section because protecting and restoring estuarine habitat is feasible and involves some of the same strategies as habitats farther inland. This section addresses the freshwater plume, the near-shore conditions, and the high seas, which are less subject to human control.

The Council adopts the following ocean strategies:

Ocean conditions and regional climates play a large role in the survival of anadromous fish and other species in the Columbia River Basin. Management actions should strive to help those species accommodate a variety of ocean conditions by providing a wide range of life history strategies.

Monitoring and evaluation actions should recognize and take into account the effect of varying ocean conditions and, to the extent feasible, separate the effects of ocean-related mortality from that caused in the freshwater part of the life cycle.

9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

The heart of this program is a set of immediate actions to improve conditions for fish and wildlife. Despite a large body of knowledge about the needs of fish and wildlife, there are still many instances in which there is not yet enough information to fully understand which actions will be most effective. The intention of the Council — and the Northwest Power Act — is for the region to make the best possible choice of actions based on the available information. Thus, lack of perfect information is not grounds for inaction.

The purpose of the research strategies under this program is to identify and resolve key uncertainties.

The purpose of the monitoring and evaluation strategies is to assure that the effects of actions taken under this program are measured, that these measurements are analyzed so that we have better knowledge of the effects of the action, and that this improved knowledge is used to choose future actions.

The purpose of the data management strategies is to support the research, monitoring, and evaluation strategies by making the results readily available. The data management strategy is also intended to increase the public accountability of this program by making the results accessible not only to specialists, but also to the public at large.

The Council will establish a basinwide research plan, similar to the subbasin plans, which identifies key uncertainties for this program and its biological objectives and the steps needed to resolve them. The plan will identify major research topics, including ocean research, and establish priorities for research funding.

The research plan will be coordinated with the research elements of the mainstem plan and the subbasin plans. The process for developing the plan and associated budgets will ensure independent scientific review, input from fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, independent scientists, and other interested parties in the region.

All completed research funded by Bonneville will be made readily available to all interested parties through the Internet and a library open to the public. This includes abstracts and information about how to obtain the full text of any report. Research projects will be required to submit all necessary information, including abstracts, within six months after research is conducted.

The Council will implement projects to review the current state of the science in key research areas. This effort may include the use of reports, surveys, conferences, and journals. In particular, the Council will work with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board to develop a series of reports to survey past research and summarize the state of the science in key areas.

The Council will initiate a process involving all interested parties in the region to establish guidelines appropriate for the collection and reporting of data in the Columbia River Basin.

Project Standards for Monitoring and Evaluation

Except where these criteria are clearly inapplicable, each project proposed for funding under this program must satisfy the following monitoring and evaluation criteria:

• The project must have measurable, quantitative biological objectives. (Related projects may rely on a single set of biological objectives.)
• The project must either collect or identify data that are appropriate for measuring the biological outcomes identified in the objectives.
• Projects that collect their own data for evaluation must make this data and accompanying metadata available to the region in electronic form. Data and reports developed with Bonneville funds should be considered in the public domain. Data and metadata must be submitted within six months of their collection.
• The methods and protocols used in data collection must be consistent with guidelines approved by the Council.

Bonneville, in its contracting process, should ensure that each project satisfies these four criteria.

Subbasin plans will contain biological objectives as well as a plan for monitoring and evaluation to assess whether the projects implemented under the subbasin plan are achieving the objectives. The monitoring and evaluation portion of a subbasin plan should 1) identify the monitoring and evaluation tasks related to the objectives; 2) identify who will do the evaluation and on what schedule; 3) explain what kind of independent review will be incorporated if the main part of the monitoring and evaluation will be done by a main participant in the plan implementation; and 4) provide a budget for the monitoring and evaluation work. The project-specific monitoring and evaluation described above should feed information into the subbasin level evaluation.

Standards for Determining whether Objectives of the Program as a whole at the Basin and Province Levels are Being Achieved

Program implementation must also include as a systemwide project a program to evaluate whether the individual actions in the various subbasins are achieving the objectives of the program stated at the basin and province levels. The Council will work with other relevant parties in the basin to design this program –level monitoring and evaluation program, including describing the evaluation tasks, who will do the work, the possible budget, and the possible use of the independent science panels in assisting with this evaluation effort. The goal should be for the Council to produce an annual evaluation report of the success of the program in meeting its objectives.

The Council will initiate a process for identifying data needs in the basin, surveying available data, and filling any data gaps.