Highlights of Three Agencies’

Endangered Species

Recovery Efforts for 2001

Citizen Update

Bonneville Power Administration • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bureau of Reclamation May 2002 • Issue 8

O verall, efforts by

 three federal agen-

 cies to help recover

 Columbia River

Basin fish are on track and

expected to meet 2003 benchmarks. That’s the message in

the Endangered Species Act

2001 Progress Report for the

Federal Columbia River Power

System released this month by

the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, and the Bureau of

Reclamation. These agencies

operate and maintain the federal system of dams on the

Columbia and Snake rivers for

multiple uses.

In December 2000, the

National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

issued Biological Opinions for

Federal Columbia River Power

System operations. In response,

the Action Agencies initiated

planning activities and completed many on-the-ground

actions that benefit endangered

salmon, steelhead, bull trout,

and sturgeon. See “Coming up to

speed” in this update for more

information.

In 2001 the Action Agencies began new

projects to improve spawning and

rearing habitat for fish.

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

T his Citizen Update is a summary of

 the Endangered Species Act 2001

 Progress Report for the Federal

Columbia River Power System by the three

federal action agencies.

The next update will cover progress by

other federal agencies in 2001 in support of

the All-H salmon recovery strategy. It will

also provide a summary of the National

Marine Fisheries Service response to all of

these progress reports.
variety of regional stakeholders

through the Northwest Power

Planning Council’s Fish and

Wildlife Program to supplement

these efforts.

The Action Agencies also

prepared a scientifically based

five-year implementation plan

for 2002 through 2006 and a

more detailed annual implementation plan for 2002. NMFS

reviewed these plans and

reports and will provide an

annual “findings letter” to the

Action Agencies. Actions in the

2002 plan are well underway.

In 2001, the Action Agencies

made modifications to hydropower system operations,

improvements to Columbia

River tributary and estuary

habitat, changes to hatchery

operations, and modifications to

the ways fish were caught, or

harvested. They also continued

ongoing efforts to support fish

recovery, such as improvements

to fish passage at the dams and

hatchery and habitat improvements. Many other projects

were funded by BPA and implemented by states, tribes, and a

Although hydropower operations and juvenile fish survival

were affected by last year’s

drought conditions and the

declaration of power emergencies, and although schedules for

some actions have slipped, the

vast majority of actions in the

2000 Biological Opinions were

implemented as anticipated.

This Citizen Update summarizes the Action Agencies’ first

progress report, which details

and documents Biological

Opinion implementation measures taken in 2001.

2

Figure 1: Action Agencies’ strategies to achieve Biological Opinion performance standards

A. Hydropower system

Strategy 1: Configure dam facilities to enhance

juvenile and adult passage and survival.

Strategy 2: Manage water to enhance juvenile

and adult fish survival.

Strategy 3: Operate and maintain fish passage

facilities to enhance fish survival.

B. Habitat

Strategy 1: Protect and enhance tributary

habitat.

Strategy 2: Improve mainstem habitat on an

experimental basis.

Strategy 3: Protect and enhance estuary

habitat.

C. Hatcheries

Strategy 1: Implement a safety-net program as

an interim measure to avoid extinction.

Strategy 2: Reduce potentially harmful effects

of artificial production to aid recovery through

hatchery reforms.

Strategy 3: Contribute to the development

and implementation of a comprehensive

marking plan.

D. Harvest

Strategy 1: Develop fishing techniques to

enable fisheries to target non-listed fish while

reducing harvest-related mortality on ESA-listed

species.

Strategy 2: Improve harvest management

assessments, decisions and evaluations.

Strategy 3: Support sustainable fisheries for the

meaningful exercise of tribal fishing rights and

non-tribal fishing opportunities consistent with

the recovery effort.

Strategy 4: Fishery effort reduction programs

E. Resident fish

Strategy 1: Promote the reproduction and

recruitment of Kootenai River white sturgeon.

Strategy 2: Determine the impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System on bull trout

and mitigate for those impacts.

F. Research, monitoring, and evaluation

Strategy 1: Status monitoring.

Strategy 2: Effectiveness monitoring and

research.

Strategy 3: Critical uncertainties research.
Comprehensive progress evaluations are planned for 2003,

2005, and 2008.

The 2001 ESA progress

report represents the beginning

of a 10-year commitment to

further the recovery of listed

fish and meet the performance

standards described in the

NMFS Biological Opinion. Over

time, the biological benefits of

this work will be realized as

environmental conditions in the

basin improve and fish populations increase. Implementation

efforts in 2002 will build on

2001 and earlier actions, with

the added benefits of coordinated implementation planning

and the knowledge gained from

experience.

Summary of 2001

recovery actions

I n 2001, the Corps,

 Reclamation, and BPA

 stepped up ongoing efforts

 to recover fish populations.

The agencies coordinated

activities with the Northwest

Power Planning Council’s Fish

and Wildlife Program as well as

with others such as the Lower

Columbia River Estuary

Partnership.

Many new projects focused

on the “All-H” conceptual

approach to salmon recovery.

In their one- and five-year plans,

the Action Agencies established key strategies, listed in

Figure 1, for all four areas over

the fish’s lifecycle — hydropower, habitat, hatcheries, and

harvest (the All-Hs). These

strategies encompass many

individual projects. Highlights of

these projects are provided

below. The complete list of

projects initiated and/or accomplished in 2001 is described in

the 2001 Progress Report.

Hydropower system

actions

Water management

Decisions in 2001 were

especially difficult because of

the low water and power emergencies. Water levels in the

system were much lower than

in a normal year so river flows

for juvenile fish migration fell

short of flow objectives in the

NMFS Biological Opinion.

However, sufficient water was

released from the Federal

Columbia River Power System

dams to help chum salmon

establish redds (or nests) in the

fall and to protect those redds

until most young fish emerged in

3

Setting the stage for 2001 for hydropower operations

Low snow pack and water runoff in the Columbia River

 Basin produced extremely low water levels in 2001.

 This second-worst water year in the basin’s record

created a poor environment for migrating fish and set the stage

for difficult decisions about how to operate a regional hydropower system.

Throughout 2001, the West Coast experienced very unstable

power markets and power shortages. While California’s energy

deregulation efforts deteriorated, the West Coast’s lack of

sufficient electrical generation and transmission facilities

sharply shifted the balance between supply and demand. Over

only a few months’ time, wholesale energy prices skyrocketed

to nearly ten times those of the previous year.

Very early in the year, when the Action Agencies first recognized the challenges of the coming low water year, they coordinated with other federal agencies and with states, tribal partners, utilities, and others to develop a regional response to

manage the threat of low water and power emergency conditions. Creative measures helped keep water in the rivers and

streams to benefit fish and produce power. BPA and other

regional utilities bought back contracted power from customers

to reduce the demand on the hydropower system, made arrangements with irrigators to reduce their use of water, and

promoted energy conservation. The people of the region responded with voluntary reductions of energy use, thereby

reducing the impacts of these power emergencies on

ESA-listed fish.

Despite these efforts, regional power supply projections

fell to levels that resulted in emergency declarations and curtailment of some of the Biological Opinion’s flow and spill

measures.
4

the spring. Water releases also

aided the nonlisted fall chinook

in the Hanford Reach on the

Columbia River and below

Bonneville Dam. Although spill

amounts for fish passage were

less than expected due to

constraints from the power

emergencies, the Action Agencies optimized the limited

amount of available spill to

benefit juvenile fish.

Juvenile fish passage

• Fish passage systems continued to operate at all eight

dams on the lower Columbia

and Snake rivers throughout

the migration season, providing safer, nonturbine routes

for juvenile fish to migrate

past dams.

• To help young fish migrate

during this low water year,

the Corps maximized use of

juvenile fish transportation in

the Snake River, as called for

in the NMFS Biological

Opinion during low flow

years. Fish were also collected in the McNary Dam

bypass systems and barged

to release points below

Bonneville Dam, the lowermost dam in the Federal

Columbia River Power

System.

• Spring and summer spills for

fish, although limited, were

targeted to optimize juvenile

fish passage benefits. Limited

spring spill at Bonneville

Dam and John Day Dam was

timed to coincide with the

peak passage of spring wild

juvenile migrants.

• The Corps made a number of

improvements at the dams

including:

– installation of additional

flow deflectors to reduce

water quality impacts

during spill at the dams;

– design of a new bypass

component at Bonneville

Dam expected to increase juvenile survival;

– modification of fish

release pipes to improve

fish passage at McNary

Dam; and

– installation of a removable spillway weir at

Lower Granite Dam to

continue testing for more

effective and efficient

spillway passage.

Adult fish passage

The Action Agencies also

implemented actions to help

adult fish move past dams as

they returned to their spawning

grounds. Existing fish ladders at

all eight mainstem dams allow

adult fish to successfully navigate the dams.

• At Ice Harbor Dam on the

Snake River, construction

began to upgrade adult fish

passage facilities to increase

their reliability.

• The agencies installed and

tested an adult passive

integrated transponder (PIT

tag) detection system at

Bonneville Dam. This system

will provide critical information and allow researchers to

track how well the fish are

doing.

Water quality

To improve the environment

for salmon, cool water stored in

the Dworshak Reservoir in

Idaho was released to lower the

water temperature in the lower

Snake River. In addition, the

Action Agencies coordinated

with other federal agencies to

develop screening criteria

for water quality monitoring

stations.

Habitat actions

In addition to ongoing recovery efforts, the Action Agencies

have begun new actions to

improve fish habitat in the

Columbia River Basin.

Tributary habitat actions

In the tributaries, more than

100 continuing and new projects

for habitat improvement were

conducted throughout 14 watersheds, or subbasins. Two high

priorities were to increase

water in streams and to reduce

barriers to fish passage.

• BPA and Reclamation funded

efforts to increase flows

during critical fish migration

periods in Idaho in the Lemhi

River, in Oregon in the Upper

Main and Middle Fork of the

John Day River and in the

Deschutes River, and in

Washington in the Yakima,

Methow, and Walla Walla

rivers.

• The Action Agencies initiated

many projects to remove

barriers to fish passage. For

example, Reclamation

worked with landowners to

eliminate or redesign several
This section provides general background information

for readers new to fish recovery issues or wishing some

review. To find additional

information on fish recovery

in the Columbia River Basin,

see the resources listed on the

last page of this insert.

S

almon have been an

 icon for the culture,

 history, and quality of

 life in the Northwest for

generations. The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and the

Bureau of Reclamation have been

engaged in programs on behalf of

fish since the dams

were first built.

Efforts include fish

ladders, bypass

systems, hatchery

construction, and

transportation

strategies to reduce

the impacts of the

dams. They have

also made major

changes to dam

operating strategies in collaboration with state, tribal, and

other federal advisors. Seasonal

reservoir storage operations

have been changed to improve

flows for spring and summer

juvenile fish migration. Reservoir drafts at several headwater

projects have been reduced to

improve conditions for resident

fish. Fish passage spills and

reduced reservoir levels are

provided at Corps dams to

improve salmon and steelhead

migration conditions.

Since 1982, BPA, in conjunction with the Northwest Power

Planning Council, has been

implementing a fish and wildlife

program to lessen the impact of

the construction and operation

of the federal dams on the

Columbia and Snake rivers and

to maintain the vital link between salmon and the natural

environment.

The Endangered Species

Act (ESA) became a major

factor for the operation and

configuration of the federal

hydropower system on the

Columbia and Snake rivers in

1991/1992 with the listing of

three Snake River salmon

populations. Now, 12 salmon

and steelhead populations

throughout the Columbia River

Basin are listed as threatened

or endangered along with two

freshwater fish (bull trout and

Kootenai River white sturgeon)

and several species of freshwater snails.

Guiding the

recovery effort

With the ESA

listings, many

federal agencies in

the region are now

involved in fish

recovery efforts

because the agencies have a responsibility to assure

that their actions do

not jeopardize the

listed species.

The regulatory

agencies are the

National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS). They have the

authority to enforce the EndanComing up to speed – 1

Coming

up to speed

on fish recovery
gered Species Act. NMFS has

authority over anadromous fish

such as salmon and steelhead

that are born in fresh water,

migrate to the ocean to mature,

and return to fresh water to

spawn. The USFWS has authority over resident fish such as

the bull trout and the Kootenai

River white sturgeon that live

out their lives in fresh water.

The Action Agencies operate and maintain the Federal

Columbia River Power System

on the Columbia and Snake

rivers. They are the:

• Bonneville Power

Administration

• Bureau of Reclamation

• U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

The Corps and Reclamation

operate and maintain the dams

while BPA transmits and sells

the electric power generated by

the dams.

Other federal agencies with

specific authorities and responsibilities for fish recovery

include the Environmental

Protection Agency, the

Bureau of Land Management,

the U.S. Forest Service,

National Park Service, the

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and

the Natural Resources Conservation Service. All these

agencies work together under

the Federal Caucus to coordinate fish recovery efforts.

The Northwest Power

Planning Council is a fourstate entity with broad authority

to develop a program to protect,

mitigate, and enhance fish and

wildlife that have been affected

by federal hydroelectric development in the Columbia River

Basin. The council’s original

1982 program and its successors have led to a wide variety

of projects benefiting salmon

and other fish and wildlife

species. Fish and wildlife

managers around the region,

Indian tribes, local governments, watershed groups, and

stakeholders, along with other

state and federal land and water

resource managers, coordinate

many efforts with the council to

further fish and wildlife recovery and protection.

A fish recovery glossary

All federal agencies are

required by the ESA to prepare

biological assessments to

determine if their actions may

affect a listed species or its

habitat.

If the biological assessment

determines that the proposed

action may adversely affect a

listed species or its habitat,

then the agency must formally

consult with NMFS or the

USFWS. After consultation, the

appropriate service issues a

Biological Opinion to indicate

whether the proposed action

will jeopardize a listed species.

If a jeopardy opinion is issued,

the service may recommend a

reasonable and prudent

alternative to the proposed

2 – Coming up to speed

Bureau of Reclamation employees study

an irrigation diversion in preparation

for improving fish passage.

Photo by Bureau of Reclamation
action that the action agency is

encouraged to undertake. This

alternative is the service’s

suggestion to the agency to

avoid jeopardizing the continued

existence of a listed species.

The All-H conceptual approach to salmon recovery

addresses human activities that

can affect fish recovery in four

areas over the fish’s life cycle.

Species recovery requires

efforts in all these areas across

the Columbia Basin:

• The habitat that supports

fish spawning, rearing, and

migration.

• The hydropower system

through which the fish

migrate.

• The harvest practices that

affect which and how many

fish are caught.

• The hatchery practices that

determine how artificial

propagation is used.

Milestones in the fish

recovery effort

The Final Basinwide

Salmon Recovery Strategy

is the document that lays out

the Federal Caucus’ integrated

(All-H) approach and options to

species recovery. Between

1999-2000, the draft paper and

approach were the focus of a

series of public discussions

throughout the region and

Alaska. Over 9,000 people

participated in these public

comment meetings, and 60,000

written comments contributed

to the development of the final

All-H paper. Both the draft and

final All-H papers played a

crucial role in the preparation of

the Biological Opinions. In

December 2000, the All-H

paper, in its final form after

public review and comment,

became the Federal Caucus’

conceptual plan for recovering

listed species in the Columbia

River Basin.

The NMFS and USFWS

2000 Biological Opinions for

the Federal Columbia River

Power System include recommendations to the Action Agencies on how they could avoid

jeopardizing the listed species.

The NMFS Biological Opinion

sets population growth rates for

ESA-listed fish and performance

standards for the hydropower

system to achieve by 2010. In

2003, NMFS will evaluate how

well the Action Agencies are

implementing the Biological

Opinion recommendations. In

2005 and 2008, NMFS will

evaluate the benefits to fish

from these recovery efforts.

Together, the Biological

Opinions and the Final

Basinwide Salmon Recovery

Strategy guide federal efforts to

recover listed fish in the Columbia River Basin.

Where we are now and where

we are going

The Federal Columbia River

Power System Action Agencies

began developing a plan to

implement the Biological OpinComing up to speed – 3

The Columbia River Basin

The Action Agencies implement projects throughout the Columbia

River Basin to recover threatened and endangered fish.
ions as soon as they were final.

Each fiscal year (which runs

from October 1 through September 30), the agencies will

produce three documents that

explain what they are doing to

implement the Biological

Opinions and what they have

accomplished.

The five-year implementation plan is the broad plan that

lays out the actions the agencies plan to take over a fiveyear period. This provides a

context and continuity for the

one-year plans and an opportunity for regional input and

involvement. These plans will

be updated annually to reflect

any new activities and necessary course corrections.

The annual implementation

plan presents the detailed

actions the agencies will take in

the upcoming fiscal year. A

2001 plan was not developed

4 – Coming up to speed

Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, and Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission employees

survey chum and chinook populations

near Ives Island in the Columbia River

below Bonneville Dam.

Photo by Bonneville Power Administration

since the Biological Opinions

were not finalized by NMFS

until December 2000, several

months after the fiscal year

began in October 2000.

The 2002 Annual Implementation Plan was published in

October 2001.

A progress report will be

issued each fiscal year to

describe the previous year’s

accomplishments.

These actions are coordinated and integrated with the

Northwest Power Planning

Council’s fish and wildlife

mitigation efforts, which include

state and tribal partners.

Together, these programs offer

significant opportunities to

create a unified action plan for

fish and wildlife recovery in the

Northwest. The combination of

the implementation plans and

progress reports allow the

agencies to adjust their management strategies in response to

new information and results.

For more information

For more information on the

All-H salmon recovery strategy,

the Action Agencies, other

Federal Caucus agencies, or

Columbia River Basin fish and

wildlife recovery, visit

www.salmonrecovery.gov. You

can also find previous Citizen

Updates and Internet links for

related activities and documents including the NMFS and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Opinions.

You can call toll free,

888-921-4886, or send e-mail to

federalcaucus@bpa.gov.

The mailing address is:

Federal Caucus

c/o BPA-KE

P.O. Box 3621

Portland OR 97208
irrigation diversions to keep

migrating fish out of irrigation systems. BPA funded and

Reclamation designed fish

screens that were installed at

the LaFortune/Powell and

Wilson Creek/Bull Ditch

diversions in the Yakima

River Basin.

• Reclamation initiated fish

passage and diversion

screening projects in four

subbasins identified as highpriority by the NMFS Biological Opinion: the Upper John

Day, Middle Fork John Day,

Lemhi, and Methow

subbasins.

• The Action Agencies acquired or protected productive nonfederally owned

habitat including Oxbow

Ranch, Ames Creek, and

Wagner Ranch projects in the

John Day subbasin.

Mainstem habitat actions

• The Action Agencies began

assessing the effectiveness

of protecting chum and fall

chinook in the Columbia

River downstream of

Bonneville Dam with pumping projects and habitat

improvements.

• Working with the fishing

industry and private anglers

to improve conditions for

ESA-listed fish, the agencies

stepped up promotions to

increase the catch of northern pikeminnow. See Predator Control box.

Estuary habitat actions

• In 2001, groundwork was laid

for an ecosystem approach to

salmon recovery in the

Columbia River estuary. The

Corps and BPA worked with

the Lower Columbia River

Estuary Partnership to

identify the full array of

habitat improvement and

research needs in the estuary. For example, planning

began on an important

estuary project to restore

30 acres of aquatic, riparian,

and floodplain habitat along

the lower Skipanon River in

Oregon. Research is underway to identify where and

how salmon use the estuary for feeding and rearing

and to gain other critical

information.

Hatchery actions

• In 2001, the Action Agencies

continued efforts to mark

hatchery fish in order to

differentiate them from wild

fish. The ability to differentiate helps scientists evaluate

and correct hatchery practices that might be harmful to

ESA-listed fish.

• The Action Agencies initiated

a Safety Net Artificial Propagation Program to determine

which stocks are at high risk

of extinction and develop and

implement a plan for hatchery intervention.

• BPA continued to fund state,

tribal, and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service programs for

captive brood stock rearing

of threatened Salmon,

Grande Ronde, and Tucannon

river spring/summer chinook

salmon populations and

endangered Snake River

(Redfish Lake) sockeye

salmon. Positive results are

being realized as adult

salmon from these programs

are returning.

• Development of three Hatchery and Genetic Management

Plans began in 2001. These

plans are intended to improve

5

Predator control aids

salmon recovery

Young salmon are a

food source for many

predators. Since 1990,

BPA has paid an incentive to

individuals for each northern

pikeminnow they catch.

Pikeminnow, formerly called

squawfish, consume an

estimated 10 million young

salmon per year. In 2001, an

estimated 240,000 pikeminnow were caught, including roughly 40,000 attributed

to an increased incentive.

These 40,000 pikeminnow

equate to about 2.8 million

young salmon not eaten

throughout the average sixto eight-year lifespan of the

pikeminnow.

Caspian terns also consume juvenile salmon. To

attract a Caspian tern colony

away from Rice Island, the

Corps improved habitat on

East Sand Island further

downstream in the Columbia

River estuary where salmon

are a smaller part of their

diet. This effort saved about

5.9 million young salmon

from the birds.
the operations and management of hatcheries to reduce

potential harm to endangered

fish stocks. The Action

Agencies submitted proposals to fund nearly a dozen

more plans through the

Northwest Power Planning

Council’s provincial review

and BPA’s funding processes.

Harvest actions

• The Action Agencies started

programs to evaluate the

ability of tangle-tooth and

floating trap nets to aid the

revival and release of wild

fish incidentally caught in the

same nets as hatchery fish.

Another program, aimed at

tribal commercial fisheries,

promoted the exchange of

existing gill nets for largermesh nets that will not trap

larger listed steelhead.

• The Action Agencies began a

study above Bonneville Dam

to determine if there are

significant numbers of lost

fishing nets in the Columbia

River and if they pose a

threat to adult salmon.

Resident fish actions

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Biological Opinion

covers two ESA-listed “resident” fish — bull trout and

Kootenai River white sturgeon.

Resident fish occupy the headwater reaches of streams and

rivers and are generally considered nonmigratory. Actions

taken this year include:

• Kootenai River white sturgeon were aided through a

conservation aquaculture

program and projects to

monitor sturgeon spawning

and juvenile survival.

• Water releases were provided from the reservoirs

behind Hungry Horse and

Libby dams in Montana to

improve conditions for bull

trout.

Research, monitoring, and

evaluation actions

Several 2001 projects involved monitoring the effectiveness of programs to benefit

ESA-listed fish. Monitoring

projects help assess the conditions and trends of adult and

juvenile fish populations and

key environmental conditions

that can affect them. Research

and studies improve the scientific understanding of how

various management actions

affect fish survival.

Fish survival in 2001

E ach year the action

 agencies track the

 number of anadro-

 mous fish returning as

adults. In addition, they track

the survival rates of juveniles as

they migrate through the hydropower system. The Action

Agencies’ progress report

provides a more detailed explanation of how these fish survival figures were calculated.

Figure 2 illustrates estimated

adult and juvenile fish survival

for 2001. The lower inset box in

Figure 2 shows 2001 estimated

total system survival results and

how they stack up against

NMFS performance standards.

Adult returns

Adult fish returned in nearrecord numbers last year on

their way upstream to spawn. A

combination of factors contributed to these large returns.

First, favorable conditions in

rivers and streams in 1998 and

1999 provided a supportive

environment as juveniles developed and migrated downstream.

Second, ocean conditions where

these fish matured were also

favorable. Together with the

benefits of several decades of

recovery efforts (such as

improved passageways at the

dams and in streams) these

factors resulted in high returns.

Adult fish survival

Between Bonneville and

Lower Granite dams, survival

was among the highest on

record. On average, 99 percent

of returning adults successfully

passed at each dam.

Juvenile fish survival

Juvenile fish migrating

downstream in 2001 had two

options for reaching the river

below Bonneville Dam: transportation by barge or staying in

the river. Of Snake River fish,

90 percent to 95 percent were

transported as recommended by

the NMFS Biological Opinion for

years with low flows. Approximately 40 percent to 50 percent

of the Upper Columbia fish were

also transported. The NMFS

Biological Opinion identifies

performance standards for both

fish migrating in-river and the

total system survival, which

includes both in-river and

transported fish.

6
7

Figure 2: Estimated fish survival in 2001
8

Total system survival

The estimated total system

survival for Snake River spring

migrants was within the range

of the NMFS performance

standard, while the results for

Columbia River chinook were

somewhat lower than the

performance standards. Survival estimates for Columbia

River steelhead were substantially lower than the performance standard range. These

fish may have lost their urge to

migrate in the low water conditions and remained behind in

lower river reservoirs or upstream tributaries. See Figure 2

for 2001 estimated total system

survival and Biological Opinion

performance standards.

In-river survival

The estimated survival of

juvenile fish that migrated

through the rivers in the Federal

Columbia River Power System

in 2001 was relatively poor

compared to recent years with

higher river flows and more

spill. In-river survival from

Lower Granite Dam to below

Bonneville Dam was the lowest

recorded in the past nine years

for both Snake River spring

chinook and steelhead. Although

the NMFS in-river performance

standards were missed, low

survival through the hydropower system during low flow

conditions was not unexpected.

Predation was also a factor. For

example, predation by Caspian

terns downstream of Lower

Monumental Dam accounted for

an estimated 14 percent loss of

migrating steelhead. See Predation Control box on page 5.

Conclusions and variances from this first year

of implementation

O verall, the imple-

 mentation of the

 Biological Opinions

 is on track and

expected to meet 2003 benchmarks. Although some difficulties were experienced in

2001, the Action Agencies

took hundreds of steps to

further fish survival, including

planning efforts and extensive

“on-the-ground” projects.

However, some actions were

not implemented last year as

expected. Key variances

noted in 2001 include:

• delaying development of a

removable spillway weir at

John Day Dam while

researchers evaluate

survival of juvenile fish

emerging below the dam;

• delaying the implementation of operational alternatives at Libby Dam while

environmental analysis is

completed;

• delaying the proposal of

an instream flow methodology to aid in water acquisition; and

• delaying the completion of

a comprehensive strategy

for marking hatchery fish to

allow regional coordination.

In 2002, the Action Agencies plan to continue overall

implementation of fish measures and to address these

changes to ensure they stay

on track to meet Biological

Opinion expectations.

For more information

For more information on the

All-H salmon recovery strategy,

the Action Agencies, other

Federal Caucus agencies, or

Columbia River Basin fish and

wildlife recovery, visit

www.salmonrecovery.gov. You

can also find previous Citizen

Updates and Internet links for

related activities and documents including the NMFS and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Opinions.

You can call toll free,

888-921-4886, or send e-mail to

federalcaucus@bpa.gov.

The mailing address is:

Federal Caucus

c/o BPA-KE

P.O. Box 3621

Portland OR 97208