1

A publication of the Federal Caucus, Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Recovery

Citizen Update

Conservation of

Columbia Basin Fish

Endangered Species Act Implementation Plan: A Blueprint for Columbia Basin Fish

Summer 2001 • Issue 7

The responsibility for recovering populations

of fish listed as threatened or endangered

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is

broad and diverse.

In December 2000, the Federal Caucus, a

group of nine agencies, released its long-term

“All-H” strategy for endangered fish recovery in

the Pacific Northwest. Key elements of this strategy are the 2000 Biological Opinions issued by

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Those

Biological

Opinions

recommend

actions for the

three federal

“action” agencies that operate the network of federal

dams and

reservoirs on

the Columbia

and Snake

rivers to avoid

further harm

to fish. The

Action Agencies are the

Bonneville

Power Administration (BPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation). The NMFS Biological Opinion

follows the All-H approach by relying on a combination of hydro system improvements and other

enhancements in the hatchery, habitat and harvest

life stages of salmon and steelhead.

To implement the Biological Opinions in a

timely and coordinated way, the Action Agencies

have been drafting an Implementation Plan since

the Biological Opinions were finalized. The plan

will guide actions for the agencies to meet their

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.

It provides a

blueprint to

coordinate

actions from

both the NMFS

and FWS

Biological

Opinions.

This

Citizen Update

offers an

executive

summary of the

Action Agencies’ draft

Implementation Plan and

proposed

actions for the

years 2002

through 2006. The Action Agencies will use this

and future issues of the Citizen Update to keep the

Ladders help fish overcome barriers on their migration upstream to spawning grounds.
2

region informed of progress toward implementation of the Biological Opinions. The full Federal

Caucus (which includes the Action Agencies) will

also continue to report progress on the All-H

strategy.

The draft Implementation Plan will be finalized in Fall 2001. Each year the Action Agencies

will update the five-year

actions. In addition, a

more detailed annual

action plan and a

progress report will be

issued. Anyone interested

in learning more should

monitor the http://

www.salmonrecovery.gov/

Biops_implementation.shtml

Web site. The Web site

describes highlights of

the full draft, and the full

text is available for

printing or downloading.

Goals and Performance Standards

The goals of the Implementation Plan are

simple yet daunting: to assist in meeting recovery

standards for Columbia Basin salmon, steelhead,

bull trout, sturgeon and other aquatic species

affected by the Federal Columbia River Power

System (FCRPS); to conserve critical habitats on

which the listed species depend; and, when integrated with the Northwest Power Planning

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, to balance

recovery efforts with the needs of other fish,

wildlife and humans; and to honor the traditional

cultural resources of the Columbia Basin tribes.

As broad as the goals are, they are monitored

by tangible measurements called performance

standards. The standards are specified targets, or

numbers, that are necessary for population survival. Performance standards are assigned at

various levels, or tiers, to track the consequences

of specific actions. Tier 1 performance standards,

or population level performance standards, assign

targets for the population growth rate that are

necessary to avoid extinction. Tier 2 performance

standards track improvements, in particular, life

Examples of Potential Performance Standards

Tier 4 Management Actions • number of surface bypasses built

• number of riparian zones fenced

• number of barriers removed

Tier 3 Performance Standards • number of healthy habitat units secured

(Physical/Environmental Conditions) • improved measurement of temperature,

stream flows, total dissolved gas (TDG)

Tier 3 Performance Standards • percent of egg-fry survival

(Biological) • percent of dam survival

• distribution/habitat use

Tier 2 Performance Standards • percent of egg-to-smolt survival

(Life-Stage Survival) • percent of migrant survival

Tier 1 Performance Standards • population growth rate

(Population Responses) • abundance estimates

Extended-length screens,

like this one at McNary

Dam, guide more fish away

from turbine intakes.
3

stages of salmon and steelhead. For example,

improvements in dam passage should result in

survival improvements during the juvenile and

adult life stages. Tier 3 performance standards

measure physical or biological responses of a

particular action or set of actions, such as change

in stream temperature. Tier 4 or “programmatic

standards” measures whether an

action was fully

implemented. For

example, if one

plants trees along

a riparian habitat

(Tier 4), then one

might expect the

shade provided

by the trees to

lower the stream

temperature and improve water quality (a Tier 3

measure).

Monitoring

There are three types of monitoring:

• Status Monitoring assesses the status of

fish and their environment over time.

Status monitoring is not designed to

assess effects of management actions on

fish and their environment, rather they

simply track trends over time.

• Effectiveness Monitoring assesses the

effects of management actions on fish and

their environment. Here the purpose is to

use valid studies to assess the success of

management actions.

• Research explores areas of critical uncertainty (e.g., delayed mortality, reproductive success of wild and hatchery fish,

stray rates of wild fish).

NMFS anticipates that achieving these performance standards may take ten years or more.

NMFS will check in on the Action Agencies each

year by reviewing the agencies’ plan for implementing the Biological Opinion and their progress

reports. After three, five and eight years, NMFS

will assess whether the Action Agencies are on

track for achieving performance standards.

How Will We Know the Actions Are

Working? – Research, Monitoring and

Evaluation (RM&E)

 To carefully track actions and their consequences, the Action Agencies are developing a

program of research, monitoring and evaluation

(RM&E). Scientific research will help the Action

Agencies assess the needs of each species. Monitoring will allow the Action Agencies to track results

and measure the physical and biological responses.

Evaluation will help align field results with

research and scientific data.

Biologists collect data to assess environmental conditions.

Healthy tributaries provide important

habitat for spawning and rearing.
4

Habitat Strategies

The objective of the habitat strategy is to improve lifestage survival by protecting and enhancing the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem so it

functions properly. Efforts will focus on the estuary,

mainstem and tributary habitats on non-federal lands.

There are three key strategies:

• Protect existing high-quality habitat;

• Enhance degraded habitat; and

• Prevent further degradation of tributary and estuary

habitat and water quality.

These objectives will be met through sub-basin assessments and projects that promote improvement in:

• Water quantity;

• Water quality;

• Passage and diversion improvements;

• Watershed health;

• Mainstem habitat; and

• Estuary improvement.

Hydro Strategies

The objective of the hydropower strategy is to increase

the survival of listed fish at FCRPS dams and reservoirs.

More specifically, the primary strategies are to:

• Improve project configuration and operations to

increase adult and juvenile survival at dams;

• Improve juvenile survival in reservoirs;

• Improve adult survival; and

• Improve water quality.

In addition, a number of related strategies are to:

• Seek opportunities to acquire additional water for

improving fish survival;

• Transport juvenile fish where opportunities for

improved survival exist;

• Manage available storage to improve survival in

reservoirs and rivers;

• Protect bull trout and sturgeon from adverse

effects of salmon operations through flows and

ramping rates; and

• Consider and address effects on cultural resources.

Example: Tributary and Estuary Projects

There are many potential actions to improve fish habitat

in spawning and rearing areas, as well as in the Columbia River estuary. For example, in streams and tributaries, screens can be positioned at irrigation ditches so

that juvenile fish are not diverted from streams when

water is diverted for irrigation. The Bureau of Reclamation is working with appropriate parties to design fish

screens and other improvements so that by next year

construction can begin in targeted sub-basins.

 In the Columbia River estuary, the Corps and BPA

are coordinating with the Lower Columbia River

Estuary Program to identify near-term actions that will

benefit listed fish, while research and planning efforts

help to lay out a long-term plan. Near-term actions

might include improving tidal wetlands and shallowwater habitat.

Example: Configuration Projects

When fish pass through dams, they may go through

turbines, spillways, bypass systems or are transported

around the dam via barges. Configuration projects

focus on altering the shape and operation of fish

passage options to improve survival. Examples of

configuration projects include modifying fish ladders

for adults and modifying spillways to improve water

quality. Each year, the Army Corps of Engineers

completes numerous engineering projects to improve

juvenile and adult survival.

From Strategy to Action
5

Harvest Strategies

The Action Agencies do not have a primary role in

harvest management. General strategies for harvest

reflected in the All-H Paper are to prevent over-harvest,

provide for sustainable fisheries, increase harvest

selectivity and increase escapement rates.

The harvest strategy has three areas of emphasis:

• Develop selective fisheries to reduce harvest-related

mortality on ESA-listed species;

• Support research to improve harvest management

assessments, decisions and evaluations; and

• Support sustainable fisheries for the meaningful

exercise of tribal fishing rights and non-tribal fishing

opportunities consistent with the recovery effort.

Example: Hatchery Genetic Management Plans

In order to reform hatcheries, the Action Agencies will

produce a series of Hatchery Genetic Management

Plans, or HGMPs. The HGMPs will include population

assessments and identifications of biological needs. The

draft Action Plan for 2002-2006 lays out a schedule and

work plan for completing HGMPs. Upon completion

and approval by NMFS, the Action Agencies will begin

to implement the recommendations.

Hatchery Strategies

The objective of the hatchery strategy is to reduce or

eliminate adverse genetic, ecological and management

effects of artificial production on natural production,

while retaining and enhancing the potential of hatcheries to contribute to basin-wide objectives in conservation and recovery.

The hatchery strategy has three parts:

• Reduce potentially harmful hatchery practices;

• Use a safety net program on an interim basis to

avoid extinction while other recovery actions take

place; and

• Use hatcheries in a variety of ways and places to aid

recovery and address harvest mandates.

Example: Testing Selective Gear

In order to improve the selectivity of in-river commercial harvest, the Action Agencies will test new gear for

its effectiveness in catching fish alive so that they may

be sorted. Wild fish can then be returned to the river

unharmed, while the commercial harvest can continue

for targeted species.

Getting to Priorities

In order to assure that efforts are focused on the specific needs of the listed species, the

Action Agencies propose to apply the following criteria to proposed projects:

1. Does the action provide measurable survival benefits that are immediate or significant?

2. Does the action affect stocks that the science analysis shows need the most survival

improvements?

3. Can the action provide broad ecological benefits to multiple life stages, species, stocks

or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)?

4. Does the action reduce critical uncertainties or provide information needed to support

adaptive management, accountability or crediting?

5. Does the action support efficient and feasible implementation?

6. Does the action build on or complement ongoing, beneficial actions?
6

Each level of performance standards requires

its own unique aspect of monitoring. To measure

Tier 1 progress, population monitoring assesses

annual population growth. At Tier 2, life-stage

survival monitoring describes egg-to-smolt

survival, juvenile migration survival, estuary and

ocean survival, and adult migration survival. At

Tier 3, biological

monitoring

assesses environmental factors

such as reproductive success,

habitat use,

genetic variability,

and fish conditions, health and

growth. Physical/

environmental

monitoring assesses attributes associated with

properly functioning condition, resource availability, temperatures, total dissolved gases, and

distribution and abundance of competitors and

predators. Finally, at Tier 4, compliance monitoring assesses whether management actions have

been implemented properly and maintained.

From Strategy to Action

To achieve performance standards in a tenyear time frame, the Action Agencies grounded the

Implementation Plan in a science-based framework. Performance standards will set the goals,

and research, monitoring and evaluation will track

progress. The draft Implementation Plan describes

strategies which explain how the Action Agencies

intend to achieve the performance standards

across the hydro system, habitat, hatcheries and

harvest.

The Biological Opinions contain more than

200 specific actions for addressing needs for listed

species at the dams, in spawning and rearing

habitats, at the hatcheries and in managing

harvest. Since as a practical matter the Action

Agencies would not be able to address all of these

actions immediately, they have developed criteria

for prioritizing actions. These criteria will help

effectively translate strategies into on-the-ground

projects. (See green box on page 5.)

The draft Implementation Plan also presents a

series of tables that summarize specific actions and

projects being considered for the 2002-2006 time

frame. The tables summarize specific project

information and will be described in greater detail

in the 2002 Annual

Plan. A draft of the

initial 2002 Annual Plan

is anticipated for midsummer. These tables

are available at http://

www.salmonrecovery.gov/

Biops _implementation

.shtml.

Biologists monitor returning fish runs.

Screening irrigation diversions

prevents fish from taking fatal water

routes.
7

Regional Coordination

The draft Implementation Plan will inform

other parties about the federal ESA obligations and

specific actions to achieve performance standards

established in the Biological Opinions. The Action

Agencies will work closely with regional partners,

such as the Northwest Power

Planning Council

(NPPC), states,

tribes and other

federal agencies to

coordinate planning and implementation. The

Action Agencies

will work through

the teams of the

Regional Forum

to address hydro

system operations, configuration and water quality

issues. Habitat and hatchery actions will be integrated through the NPPC’s fish and wildlife

program. New habitat and hatchery actions will

undergo environmental review and compliance

with cultural resources requirements. The Action

Agencies hope that by coordinating actions with

other regional entities, it will be possible to leverage partnerships and resources.

Fish recovery in the Columbia Basin challenges everyone, across all jurisdictions, landscapes

and views, to work together.

How to Get Involved

If you would like to follow the implementation of the NMFS and FWS Biological Opinions,

please log on to http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/

Biops_implementation.shtml to learn more about

specific projects that may take place in your

watershed.

How to Get More Information

For more information on the All-H Salmon

Recovery Strategy, the Federal Caucus, the Action

Agencies’ draft Implementation Plan, or Columbia

River Basin fish and wildlife recovery, please visit

the Federal Caucus Web site at www.salmonrecovery.gov. This Web site also includes information about annual implementation issues, including the 2001 FCRPS Operations Plan. You can also

find previous issues of Citizen Updates, internet

links for related activities and documents including the NMFS and FWS Biological Opinions.

You can call the Federal Caucus toll free

at 1-888-921-4886, or e-mail them at

federalcaucus@bpa.gov.

The mailing address is:

Federal Caucus

c/o BPA-P

P.O. Box 3621

Portland, OR 97208

A new outfall at Bonneville Dam for

juvenile fish moves them two miles

downstream to an exit that is less

hospitable to predators.

Photos courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division.