Executive Summary 3

 Introduction 5

A. The Northwest Power Planning Council 5

B. A New Program Structure 5

C. The Framework Concept 5

D. Implementation During a Period of Transition 7

Basinwide Provisions 9

A. Vision for the Columbia River Basin 9

1. The Overall Vision for the Fish and Wildlife Program 9

2. Specific Planning Assumptions 9

B. Scientific Foundation and Principles 10

1. Purpose of the Scientific Foundation 10

2. Scientific Principles 10

C. Biological Objectives 12

1. Overarching Objectives 12

2. Basin Level Biological Objectives 12

3. Further Development of Biological Objectives at the 

Basin Level 14

4. Significance of Objectives and Strategies 14

D. Strategies 15

1. Introduction 15

2. Linkage of General Biological Objectives w/ Strategies 15

3. Habitat Strategies 16

4. Artificial Production Strategies 18

5. Harvest 19

6. Hydrosystem Passage and Operations 21

7. Wildlife 26

8. Ocean Conditions 27

9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 28

Ecological Provinces 31

A. Geographical Structure 31

B. Province Visions, Objectives, and Strategies 31

C. Ocean 31

Subbasins 35

A. Subbasin Plans 35

1. Required Elements of Subbasin Plans 35

2. General Principles for Subbasin Plans 35

3. Subbasin Assessment 35

4. Inventory of Existing Activities 36

5. Management Plan 37

6. Developing Plans at the Subbasin Level 37

7. Scientific Review of Subbasin Plans 39

Implementation Provisions 41

A. Project Implementation, Project Selection, and 

Management 41

1. Deadlines for Reports 41

2. Project Selection — Basic Requirements and Roles 41

3. Project Selection — Province-based Project Review Process42

4. Project Funding Priorities 43

5. Coordination with Other Regional Programs 43

6. Project Management 44

7. Annual Report to Governors and the Region 44

8. Funding Agreement for Land and Water Acquisitions 44

B. Independent Scientific Review 45

1. The Independent Scientific Review Panel 45

2. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board 46

3. Administration of the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel, the Scientific Peer Review Groups, and the 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board 47

Preservation of Trust and Treaty 

Rights and Water Rights 49

A. Recognition of Tribal Role 49

B. Water Rights 49

C. Role of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49

Schedule for Further Rulemakings 51

A. Mainstem Coordination Plan 51

B. Objectives for Basin Level Environmental 

Characteristics 51

C. Province Level Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 51

D. Subbasin Plans 51

Transition Provisions 53

Appendix 55

A. Glossary A-1

B. Hydroelectric Development Conditions B-1

C. Wildlife Provisions C-1

D. Provisional Statement of Biological Objectives for 

Environmental Characteristics at the Basin Level D-1

E. Findings on the Recommendations Submitted to the 

Council in 2000 for Amendments to the Fish and 

Wildlife Program E-1

Technical Appendix 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 7

Historically, salmon and steelhead migrated through much of the Columbia River 

Basin, an area the size of France, that 

includes portions of seven states and 

British Columbia. These fish once 

spawned as far upriver in the Columbia as the headwaters at Columbia 

Lake, British Columbia, 1,200 miles 

from the mouth of the river near 

Astoria, Oregon. Salmon and steelhead migrated up the Snake River, 

the Columbia’s largest tributary, as 

far as Shoshone Falls, 615 miles from 

the confluence and more than 900 

miles from the Pacific Ocean. The 

Columbia River Basin also supported 

numerous populations of resident fish 

— those that don’t migrate to the 

ocean — and wildlife.

Beginning in the late 1800s and 

increasing from the 1930s on, there 

was a large decline of salmon and 

steelhead in the Columbia River and 

its tributaries, from an estimated peak 

of 10-16 million adult fish returning 

to the basin each year to about 1 million in recent years. While loss of 

habitat, harvest, and variable ocean 

conditions have all contributed to this 

decline, it is estimated that the portion of the decline attributable to 

the construction and operation of 

hydroelectric dams in the Columbia 

River Basin is, on average, about 5 

million to about 11 million adult fish. 

Hydroelectric dams also adversely 

affected resident fish and wildlife in 

the basin.

In 1980, Congress passed the 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power 

Planning and Conservation Act, 

which authorized the states of Idaho, 

Montana, Oregon and Washington to 

create the Northwest Power Planning 

Council. The Act directs the Council 

to prepare a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife of 

the Columbia River Basin that have 

been affected by the construction 

and operation of hydroelectric dams 

while also assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply. The 

Act also directs the Council to inform 

the public about fish, wildlife and 

energy issues and to involve the 

public in its decision-making.

The Council’s Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 

is the largest regional effort in the 

nation to recover, rebuild, and mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife. 

The Council adopted the first program in November 1982.

The 2000 program marks a significant departure from past versions, 

which consisted primarily of a collection of measures directing specific 

activities. The 2000 Program establishes a basinwide vision for fish and 

wildlife — the intended outcome 

of the program — along with biological objectives and action strategies that are consistent with the 

vision. Ultimately, the program will 

be implemented through subbasin 

plans developed locally in the more 

than 50 tributary subbasins of the 

Columbia and amended into the program by the Council. Those plans 

will be consistent with the basinwide 

vision and objectives in the program, 

Hydropower

The program recommends that resources and 

energy be directed away from breaching the four 

federal dams on the lower Snake River, recognizing that the federal government has decided 

breaching will not occur in the next five years 

(coincidentally, that is the Council’s statutory 

planning horizon for the fish and wildlife program). Instead, the program recommends actions 

to improve dam-passage survival that are biologically sound and economically feasible — actions 

that benefit the range of species in the river and 

fit natural fish behavior patterns.

The Four Hs and their impact on Fish and Wildlife

Harvest

The program promotes increased fish harvest, 

consistent with sound biological management 

practices, recognizing that harvest provides significant cultural and economic benefits to the 

region. 

Habitat

The program directs significant attention to 

rebuilding healthy, naturally producing fish and 

wildlife populations by protecting and restoring 

habitats and the biological systems within them. 

The program also recognizes the ocean as habitat 

and includes strategies to increase our understanding of its variable nature and, to the extent feasible, separate the effects of the ocean environment 

from those of the freshwater environment.

 Executive Summary

Hatcheries

The program requires that fish hatcheries funded 

through the program operate consistent with 

reforms recommended to Congress by the Council in 1999, reforms that would shift hatchery 

production away from a primary focus on providing fish for harvest to also providing fish to 

rebuild naturally spawning populations.
8

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

“Through its fish and 

wildlife program, the 

Council provides 

guidance and 

recommendations 

on hundreds of millions 

of dollars per year of 

Bonneville Power 

Administration revenues 

to mitigate the impact 

of hydropower on fish 

and wildlife.” 

and its underlying foundation of ecological science.

The 2000 program addresses all 

of the “Four Hs” of impacts on fish 

and wildlife — hydropower, habitat, 

hatcheries and harvest.

In preparing the 2000 Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the Council solicited recommendations from the 

region’s fish and wildlife agencies, 

Indian tribes, and others, as required 

by the Northwest Power Act. The 

agencies and tribes responded, and 

the Council also received proposals 

from other interested parties. In all, 

the Council received more than 50 

recommendations totaling more than 

2,000 pages. After reviewing the recommendations, the Council prepared 

a draft and then conducted an extensive public comment period before 

finalizing the program in December 

2000.

The Council’s responsibility is to 

mitigate the impact of hydropower 

dams on all fish and wildlife in 

the Columbia River Basin, including 

endangered species, through a program of enhancement and protection. 

As a planning agency required by 

law to balance fish and wildlife 

enhancement against impacts to the 

region’s hydropower system, the 

Council is uniquely positioned as an 

honest broker among the agencies, 

tribes, electric utilities and environmental and business interests whose 

activities and legal rights involve the 

rivers, hydropower, fish and wildlife. 

In this role, the Council provides the 

most objective public forum to discuss and debate fish and wildlife and 

energy issues.

Through its fish and wildlife program, the Council provides guidance 

and recommendations on hundreds of 

millions of dollars per year of Bonneville Power Administration revenues 

to mitigate the impact of hydropower 

on fish and wildlife. That amount 

is expected to increase in the future 

as enhancement efforts expand and 

accelerate. The funding is provided 

by Bonneville from the sale of electricity generated at 29 federal hydropower dams and one non-federal 

nuclear power plant in the Columbia 

River Basin.

The Council ensures the public 

accountability of these expenditures 

by submitting each project proposed 

for funding under its program to 

a thorough review by the region’s 

fish and wildlife agencies and Indian 

tribes, the public, and by an 11-member panel of independent scientists, 

the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel. Established by Congress, 

panel members are appointed by the 

Council from recommendations of 

the National Academy of Sciences.

This program, and more information about the Council, its fish, 

wildlife and power planning activities, and public involvement opportunities, can be found at the Council’s 

website, www.nwcouncil.org.
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 9

A. The Northwest 

 Power Planning 

 Council

The Northwest Power Planning Council, an interstate compact 

agency of Idaho, Montana, Oregon 

and Washington, was established 

under the authority of the Pacific 

Northwest Electric Power Planning 

and Conservation Act of 1980. The 

Act directs the Council to develop 

a program to “protect, mitigate and 

enhance fish and wildlife, including 

related spawning grounds and habitat, 

on the Columbia River and its tributaries ... affected by the development, 

operation and management of [hydroelectric projects] while assuring the 

Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power 

supply.” The Act also directs the 

Council to ensure widespread public 

involvement in the formulation of 

regional power policies.

This document is the Council’s 

Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program. As a planning, 

policy-making and reviewing body, 

the Council develops and then monitors implementation of the program, 

which is implemented by the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

and its licensees.

The Northwest Power Act directs 

the Council to develop its program 

and make periodic major revisions 

by first requesting recommendations 

from the region’s federal and state 

fish and wildlife agencies, appropriate Indian tribes (those within 

the basin) and other interested parties. When the Council issues a 

draft amended program, an extensive 

public comment period is initiated 

that includes public hearings in each 

of the four states and consultations 

with interested parties. After closing 

the comment period, and following 

a review and deliberation period, the 

Council adopts the revised program. 

This must occur within a year of the 

deadline for receiving recommendations for amendments.

B. A new program 

 structure

This is the fifth revision of the Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program since the Council 

adopted its first program in November 1982. This time, as in the series 

of program amendments between 

1991 and 1995, the program is being 

revised in phases. Unlike past versions of the program, which were 

criticized by scientists for consisting 

primarily of a number of measures 

that called for specific actions without a clear, programwide foundation 

of scientific principles, this version 

of the program expresses goals and 

objectives for the entire basin based 

on a scientific foundation of ecological principles. In the future, the 

Council will amend into the program 

locally developed plans for the more 

than 50 tributary subbasins of the 

Columbia River and a plan for the 

mainstem. These plans will be consistent with the goals and objectives 

for the basin and also with goals and 

objectives that will be developed for 

the 11 ecological provinces of the 

basin. The provinces are groups of 

adjacent subbasins with similar ecological features.

With the subbasin plans in place, 

the program will be organized in 

three levels: 1) a basinwide level that 

articulates objectives, principles and 

coordination elements that apply generally to all fish and wildlife projects, 

or to a class of projects, that are 

implemented throughout the basin; 

2) an ecological province level that 

addresses the 11 unique ecological 

areas of the Columbia River Basin, 

each representing a particular type 

of terrain and corresponding biological community; and 3) a level that 

addresses the more than 50 subbasins, each containing a specific waterway and the surrounding uplands.

The Council believes this unique 

program structure, goal-oriented and 

science-based, will result in a more 

carefully focused, scientifically credible and publicly accountable program 

that will direct the region’s substantial fish and wildlife investment to the 

places and species where it will do 

the most good.

C. The framework

 concept

The program’s goals, objectives, scientific foundation and actions 

are structured in a “framework,” 

an organizational concept for fish 

and wildlife mitigation and recovery 

efforts that the Council introduced 

in the 1994-1995 version of the 

program. The 2000 program, organized with the framework concept, is 

intended to bring together, as closely 

as possible, Endangered Species Act 

requirements, the broader requirements of the Northwest Power Act 

and the policies of the states and 

Indian tribes of the Columbia River 

Basin into a comprehensive program 

that has a solid scientific foundation. 

The program also states explicitly 

what the Council is trying to accomplish, links the program to a specific 

set of objectives, describes the strategies to be employed and establishes 

a scientific basis for the program. 

“In the future, the Council 

will amend into the 

program locally developed 

plans for the more than 50 

tributary subbasins of the 

Columbia River and a plan 

for the mainstem.”

 Introduction
10 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Thus, the program guides decisionmaking and provides a reference 

point for evaluating success.

To develop a framework for the 

program, in November 1998 the 

Council initiated the Multi-Species 

Framework Project. The Framework 

Project was managed by a state-federal-tribal committee and administered by the Council. The project 

brought together hundreds of individuals representing state and federal 

agencies, Indian tribes, environmental and industry groups, and interested citizens to propose and discuss 

potential fish and wildlife recovery 

actions. The actions ranged from 

breaching dams to leaving them in 

place, and from shutting down fish 

hatcheries and fish harvest to boosting artificial production of fish. 

From more than 100 actions proposed in the process, the Council 

assembled seven alternatives for analysis using a state-of-the-art analytical 

system called Ecosystem Diagnosis 

and Treatment (EDT). The EDT 

analysis addressed the biological 

benefits of each alternative, and 

a separate Human Effects Analysis 

addressed the economic and social 

impacts and benefits of the alternatives.

The Council did not choose a 

specific alternative for this version 

of the program. Rather, the goals 

and objectives in this program were 

derived from the recommendations received from the 

region for amendments 

to this program 

and from 

among several of the Framework 

Project alternatives. Through an 

amendment proceeding that began in 

January 2000, the Council restructured the program with a comprehensive, underlying framework of general scientific and policy principles 

that apply to the entire Columbia 

River Basin. The fundamental elements of the program are:

The vision, which describes what 

the program is trying to accomplish 

with regard to fish and wildlife and 

other desired benefits from the river;

The biological objectives, which 

describe the ecological conditions 

needed to achieve the vision; and

The implementation strategies, 

procedures and guidelines, which 

guide or describe the actions leading 

to the desired ecological conditions.

In other words, the vision implies 

biological objectives that set the strategies. In turn, strategies address 

biological objectives and fulfill the 

vision. The scientific foundation 

links the components of the framework, explaining why the Council 

believes certain kinds of management 

actions will result in particular physical habitat or ecological conditions of 

the basin, or why the ecological conditions will affect fish and wildlife 

populations or communities.

Under the Northwest Power Act, 

the Council’s fish and wildlife program is not intended to address all 

fish and wildlife problems in the 

basin from all sources. But the 

Council adopted the vision, objectives, strategies and scientific foundation with the belief that they will 

complement and help support other 

fish and wildlife recovery actions in 

the region. 

This program recognizes that 

others besides the Council are developing plans and taking actions to 

address these issues. In particular, 

the four Northwest states and the 

Columbia Basin’s 13 Indian tribes 

each have fish and wildlife initiatives 

under way. Many of these parties 

already have subbasin and watershed 

planning initiatives under way, and 

are also addressing Endangered Species Act concerns. 

Throughout the basin, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are administering the Endangered Species Act, which requires 

information gathering, planning, and 

mitigation actions. In addition, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, in 

cooperation with the states and tribes, 

is taking actions to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

(As used elsewhere in this program, 

“applicable federal laws” includes 

both the Endangered Species Act and 

the Clean Water Act.)

This framework is not intended 

to pre-empt the legal authorities of 

any of these parties, but it does provide an opportunity for each of these 

regional participants to coordinate 

information gathering, planning, and 

implementation of recovery actions 

on a voluntary basis. That is, 

the Council’s program is designed 

to link to, and accommodate, the 

needs of other programs in the 

basin that affect fish and wildlife. 
11

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

habitat conditions in the respective 

subbasins can develop subbasin plans 

consisting of goals, objectives, strategies, and proposed actions that are 

consistent with the objectives and criteria in the program.

Depending on the extent and quality of past assessment and planning 

work, the planning process in a particular subbasin could range from a 

relatively quick and straightforward 

review and updating of existing plans 

to a fundamental and extensive development process. Using the program 

amendment procedures in the Northwest Power Act, the Council intends 

to review subbasin plans and adopt 

agreed-upon plans into the program.

Meanwhile, the Council will continue to make annual recommendations to Bonneville regarding funding of projects to implement the 

program. The Council relies on 

the recommendations of the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the 

region’s fish and wildlife managers as 

the basis for its funding recommendations. The Council and the Independent Scientific Review Panel also 

have a responsibility for reviewing 

other fish and wildlife projects proposed for funding by federal agencies 

and reimbursed by Bonneville.

The program describes a rolling 

project review process in which onethird of the program and fish and 

wildlife projects funded by Bonneville are reviewed each year in 

some depth by the fish and wildlife 

managers, the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and the Council. An 

important criterion for a funding recommendation is consistency with the 

vision, objectives and strategies in 

the revised program and in the relevant subbasin plan, when adopted. In 

This includes meeting the needs 

of the Endangered Species Act by 

describing the kinds of ecological 

change needed to improve the survival and productivity of the diverse 

fish and wildlife populations in the 

basin.

Measures implementing this program are funded by the Bonneville 

Power Administration through revenues collected from electricity ratepayers. Although Bonneville has fish 

and wildlife responsibilities under 

both the Endangered Species Act 

and the Northwest Power Act, in 

many cases, both responsibilities can 

be met in the same set of actions. 

Therefore, in recommending projects 

for funding under this program, 

the Council will address both sets 

of responsibilities wherever feasible. 

Again, knowledge of the plans and 

activities of other regional participants will be essential for the Council 

to be able to assure that the projects it 

recommends for funding are coordinated with, and do not duplicate, the 

actions of others.

D. Implementation 

 During a period 

 of transition

I

n the future, the program will 

be implemented primarily through 

subbasin plans, which will be consistent with the programwide goals, 

objectives and scientific foundation. 

While those plans are under development, the Council has provided for 

ongoing project review and funding.

A subbasin assessment and planning process will complete the program at the subbasin level and provide the implementation plans out of 

which fish and wildlife projects are 

proposed for Bonneville funding to 

implement the program.

The subbasin assessment is a 

technical exercise designed to identify the biological potential of each 

subbasin and the opportunities for 

restoration. Based on this, fish and 

wildlife managers, land managers, 

private landowners, and other people 

responsible for fish and wildlife and 

“The program includes 

procedures for monitoring 

and evaluating 

biological benefits...” 

the rolling project review, the priorities for actions at the basin, province, 

and subbasin level will be reflected as 

budget priorities for implementation 

of specific projects.

 The program includes procedures for monitoring and evaluating 

biological benefits gained by actions 

taken under the program. The evaluation process feeds information back 

into the program planning and project review process, with adaptive 

management mechanisms for revising program objectives or actions if 

what has been adopted proves unsuccessful.

Because this program has a significantly different structure and implementation procedure than past versions of the program, the Council 

wanted to make a provision for projects initially funded under previous 

versions of the program to continue 

— as long as they are reviewed 

by the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel and recommended for funding 

by the Council. Thus, unless 

expressly modified by the provisions 

of this program, existing projects will 

continue to be in effect.

Most of the existing projects in 

the program are specific items for 

implementation at specific locations. 

As part of the subbasin planning process described above, these measures 

will be reviewed, together with proposals for new measures, for inclusion in subbasin plans. When a subbasin plan is adopted, it will include 

both the new measures for that subbasin and the existing measures that 

will be continuing. At that time, the 

measures currently in the program for 

that subbasin will be replaced by the 

subbasin plan.
12 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 13

2. Specific Planning Assumptions

As part of this vision, the Council 

also adopts the following policy 

judgments and planning assumptions 

for the fish and wildlife program.

• No single activity is sufficient to 

recover and rebuild fish and wildlife species in the Columbia River 

Basin. Successful protection, 

mitigation, and recovery efforts 

must involve a broad range of 

strategies for habitat protection 

and improvement, hydrosystem 

reform, artificial production, and 

harvest management.

• The Bonneville Power Administration should make available 

sufficient funds to implement 

measures in the program in a 

timely fashion.

• This is a habitat-based program, 

rebuilding healthy, naturally producing fish and wildlife populations by protecting, mitigating, and restoring habitats and 

the biological systems within 

them, including anadromous fish 

migration corridors. Artificial 

production and other non-natural 

interventions should be consistent with the central effort to protect and restore habitat and avoid 

adverse impacts to native fish 

and wildlife species. 

• Management actions must be 

taken in an adaptive, experimental manner because ecosystems are inherently variable and 

highly complex. This includes 

using experimental designs and 

techniques as part of management actions, and integrating 

monitoring and research with 

those management actions to 

evaluate their effects on the ecosystem.

• Actions to improve juvenile 

and adult fish passage through 

mainstem dams, including fish 

transportation actions and capital 

improvement measures, should 

protect biological diversity by 

benefiting the range of species, 

stocks and life-history types in 

the river, and should favor solutions that best fit natural behavior patterns and river processes, 

while maximizing fish survival 

through the projects. Survival in 

the natural river should be the 

baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of other 

passage methods.

• For the purpose of planning 

for this fish and wildlife program, and particularly the hydrosystem portion of the program, 

the Council assumes that, in 

the near term, the breaching 

of the four federal dams on 

the lower Snake River will not 

occur. However, the Council is 

obliged under law to revise its 

fish and wildlife program every 

five years, at a minimum. If, 

within that five-year period, 

the status of the lower Snake 

River dams or any other major 

component of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System 

has changed, the Council can 

take that into account as part of 

the review process.

• Mainstem hydrosystem operations and fish passage efforts 

A. Vision for the 

 Columbia River

 Basin

The vision is the outcome intended for this program. Actions taken 

at the basin, province, and subbasin 

levels should be consistent with, and 

designed to fulfill, this vision. Thus, 

this vision guides the choice of biological objectives and, in turn, the 

selection of strategies.

1. The Overall Vision for the 

Fish and Wildlife Program

The vision for this program is a 

Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive, and 

diverse community of fish and wildlife, mitigating across the basin for 

the adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem and providing the benefits from fish and 

wildlife valued by the people of 

the region. This ecosystem provides 

abundant opportunities for tribal trust 

and treaty right harvest and for nontribal harvest and the conditions that 

allow for the recovery of the fish and 

wildlife affected by the operation of 

the hydrosystem and listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Wherever feasible, this program 

will be accomplished by protecting 

and restoring the natural ecological 

functions, habitats, and biological 

diversity of the Columbia River Basin. 

In those places where this is not feasible, other methods that are compatible with naturally reproducing 

fish and wildlife populations will be 

used. Where impacts have irrevocably 

changed the ecosystem, the program 

will protect and enhance the habitat 

and species assemblages compatible 

with the altered ecosystem. Actions 

taken under this program must be costeffective and consistent with an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable electrical power supply.

“...this program will be 

accomplished by 

protecting and restoring 

the natural ecological 

functions, habitats, and 

biological diversity of the 

Columbia River Basin.”

 Basinwide Provisions
14 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

should be directed at re-establishing natural river processes 

where feasible and consistent 

with the Council’s responsibility 

for maintaining an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable 

power supply. 

• The effect of ocean habitat 

on salmonid species should be 

considered in evaluating freshwater habitat management to understand all stages of the salmon and 

steelhead life cycle.

• Systemwide water management, 

including flow augmentation 

from storage reservoirs, should 

balance the needs of anadromous 

species with those of resident 

fish species in upstream storage 

reservoirs so that actions taken 

to advance one species do not 

unnecessarily come at the 

expense of other species.

• There is an obligation to 

provide fish and wildlife mitigation where habitat has been permanently lost due to hydroelectric development. Artificial production of fish may be used to 

replace capacity, bolster productivity, and alleviate harvest 

pressure on weak, naturally 

spawning resident and anadromous fish populations. Restoration of anadromous fish into 

areas blocked by dams should be 

actively pursued where feasible.

• Artificial production actions must 

have an experimental, adaptive 

management design. This design 

will allow the region to evaluate 

benefits, address scientific uncertainties, and improve hatchery 

survival while minimizing the 

impact on, and if possible benefiting, fish that spawn naturally.

• Harvest can provide significant 

cultural and economic benefits 

to the region, and the program 

should seek to increase harvest 

opportunities consistent with 

sound biological management 

practices. Harvest rates should 

be based on population-specific 

adult escapement objectives 

designed to protect and recover 

naturally spawning populations.

• Achieving the vision requires 

that habitat, artificial production, 

harvest, and hydrosystem actions 

are thoughtfully coordinated with 

one another. There also must 

be coordination among actions 

taken at the subbasin, province, 

and basin levels, including 

actions not funded under this 

program. Accordingly, creating 

an appropriate structure for planning and coordination is a vital 

part of this program.

B. Scientific 

 Foundation and 

 Principles

The scientific foundation reflects the best available scientific 

knowledge. The scientific principles 

summarize this knowledge at a broad 

level. The actions taken at the basin, 

province, and subbasin levels to fulfill 

the vision should be consistent with, 

and based upon, these principles.

1. Purpose of the Scientific 

Foundation 

In developing a program to fulfill 

the vision statement above, the Council is relying on the best available scientific knowledge. While the vision 

is a policy choice about what the 

program should accomplish, the scientific foundation describes our best 

understanding of the biological realities that will govern how this is 

accomplished. The program can succeed only as it recognizes these realities and builds upon them.

Thus, the scientific foundation is 

the basis for the working hypotheses 

that underlie this program. It also 

provides specific guidance for program measures. For example, the 

strategies for the use of artificial production are an application of the 

scientific foundation to the use of 

hatcheries for raising fish within the 

Columbia River Basin. 

The scientific foundation consists 

of the scientific principles, a detailed 

discussion of those principles, the 

geographic structure of the program, 

and a set of more specific scientific 

rules and hypotheses. Only the scientific principles and the geographic 

structure appear in this volume of the 

program; the remainder of the foundation is in the Technical Appendix 

for this program.

The rules and hypotheses in the 

Technical Appendix will change over 

time in response to new scientific 

information. These rules and hypotheses will continue to be evaluated as 

the program is implemented and will 

be revised as needed. 

In contrast, the scientific principles below are intended to be relatively fixed points of reference. 

Although scientific knowledge will 

improve over time, modification of 

the principles should occur only 

after due scientific deliberation. The 

Council charges the Independent Scientific Advisory Board with the primary role in reviewing and recommending modifications to the scientific principles in the future prior to 

any major revision of this program.

2. Scientific Principles

As part of the scientific foundation, the program recognizes eight 

principles of general application. It 

is intended that all actions taken to 

implement this program be consistent 

with these principles. 

The scientific principles are 

grounded in established scientific literature to provide a stable foundation 

for the Council’s program. A more 

detailed discussion of the implications of these principles, together 

with citations to the supporting references, is included in the Technical 

Appendix.
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 15

Principle 1. The abundance, productivity and diversity of organisms are integrally linked to the characteristics of their ecosystems. 

The physical and biological components of ecosystems together produce the diversity, abundance and productivity of plant 

and animal species, including humans. The combination of suitable habitats and necessary ecological functions forms the 

ecosystem structure and conditions needed to provide the desired abundance and productivity of specific species. 

Principle 2. Ecosystems are dynamic, resilient and develop over time.

Although ecosystems have definable structures and characteristics, their behavior is highly dynamic, changing in response 

to internal and external factors. The system we see today is the product of its biological, human and geological legacy. 

Natural disturbance and change are normal ecological processes and are essential to the structure and maintenance of 

habitats. 

Principle 3. Biological systems operate on various spatial and time scales that can be organized hierarchically.

Ecosystems, landscapes, communities and populations are usefully described as hierarchies of nested components distinguished by their appropriate spatial and time scales. Higher-level ecological patterns and processes constrain, and in turn 

reflect, localized patterns and processes. There is no single, intrinsically correct description of an ecosystem, only one 

that is useful to management or scientific research. The hierarchy should clarify the higher-level constraints as well as 

the localized mechanisms behind the problem.

Principle 4. Habitats develop, and are maintained, by physical and biological processes. 

Habitats are created, altered and maintained by processes that operate over a range of scales. Locally observed conditions 

often reflect more expansive or non-local processes and influences, including human actions. The presence of essential 

habitat features created by these processes determines the abundance, productivity and diversity of species and communities. Habitat restoration actions are most effective when undertaken with an understanding and appreciation of the 

underlying habitat-forming processes. 

Principle 5. Species play key roles in developing and maintaining ecological conditions.

Each species has one or more ecological functions that may be key to the development and maintenance of ecological 

conditions. Species, in effect, have a distinct job or occupation that is essential to the structure, sustainability and 

productivity of the ecosystem over time. The existence, productivity and abundance of specific species depend on these 

functions. In turn, loss of species and their functions lessens the ability of the ecosystem to withstand disturbance and 

change. 

Principle 6. Biological diversity allows ecosystems to persist in the face of environmental variation.

The diversity of species, traits and life histories within biological communities contributes to ecological stability in the face 

of disturbance and environmental change. Loss of species and their ecological functions can decrease ecological stability 

and resilience. It is not simply that more diversity is always good; introduction of non-native species, for example, can 

increase diversity but disrupt ecological structure. Diversity within a species presents a greater range of possible solutions 

to environmental variation and change. Maintaining the ability of the ecosystem to express its own species composition and 

diversity allows the system to remain productive in the face of environmental variation.

Principle 7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

The dynamic nature, diversity, and complexity of ecological systems routinely disable attempts to command and control 

the environment. Adaptive management — the use of management experiments to investigate biological problems and to 

test the efficacy of management programs — provides a model for experimental management of ecosystems. Experimental 

management does not mean passive “learning by doing,” but rather a directed program aimed at understanding key 

ecosystem dynamics and the impacts of human actions using scientific experimentation and inquiry.

Principle 8. Ecosystem function, habitat structure and biological performance are affected by human actions.

As humans, we often view ourselves as separate and distinct from the natural world. However, we are integral parts of 

ecosystems. Our actions have a pervasive impact on the structure and function of ecosystems, while at the same time, 

our health and well being are tied to these conditions. These actions must be managed in ways that protect and restore 

ecosystem structures and conditions necessary for the survival and recovery of fish and wildlife in the basin. Success 

depends on the extent to which we choose to control our impacts so as to balance the various services potentially provided 

by the Columbia River Basin. 

Scientific Principles
16 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

C. Biological

 Objectives

The biological objectives describe the conditions that are needed to 

reach the vision, consistent with the 

scientific principles. The program 

fulfills the vision by achieving these 

objectives.

1. Overarching Objectives

The Northwest Power Act directs 

the Council to develop a program 

to “protect, mitigate, and enhance” 

fish and wildlife of the Columbia 

River and its tributaries, including 

related spawning grounds and habitat 

affected by the development and 

operation of the federal hydrosystem. 

In the vision, the Council has stated 

four overarching biological objectives for this program. They are: 

• A Columbia River ecosystem 

that sustains an abundant, productive, and diverse community 

of fish and wildlife.

• Mitigation across the basin for 

the adverse effects to fish and 

wildlife caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem.

• Sufficient populations of fish 

and wildlife for abundant opportunities for tribal trust and treaty 

right harvest and for non-tribal 

harvest. 

• Recovery of the fish and wildlife 

affected by the development and 

operation of the hydrosystem that 

are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act.

The Council recognizes that 

achieving these broad objectives is 

not the sole responsibility of this fish 

and wildlife program nor the Bonneville Power Administration. Complementary actions by other governmental agencies and funding sources, 

including Canadian entities where 

appropriate, as well as the support 

and participation of the citizens of the 

Northwest, will be needed for these 

objectives to be fully achieved. Consequently, the focus of the program 

is limited to fish and wildlife affected 

by the development, operation, and 

management of the hydrosystem. 

2. Basin Level Biological 

Objectives 

Biological objectives describe 

physical and biological changes 

needed to achieve the vision, based 

on the information we now have 

and thereby fulfill the vision. Biological objectives have two components: 

(1) biological performance, describing responses of populations to habitat conditions, described in terms 

of capacity, abundance, productivity 

and life history diversity, and (2) 

environmental characteristics, which 

describe the environmental conditions or changes sought to achieve 

the desired population characteristics. 

Where possible, biological objectives 

are intended to be empirically measurable and based on an explicit scientific rationale. Objectives at the 

basin level are more qualitative, but 

objectives should become increasingly quantitative and measurable at 

the province and subbasin levels. 

These basinwide objectives will help 

determine the amount of change 

needed across the basin to fulfill the 

vision. They will also help determine 

the cost effectiveness of program 

strategies, and provide a basis for 

monitoring, evaluation and accountability. 

The Council will establish specific biological objectives at the 

province level and in subbasin plans 

identifying the changes needed in 

characteristics of the environment 

and target populations. The program 

provides the following biological 

objectives at the basin level.

Objectives for Biological 

Performance

The Council recognizes that 

significant losses of anadromous 

fish, resident fish, and wildlife 

and their habitats have occurred 

as a result of the development 

and operation of the hydrosystem. To be consistent with the 

Power Act, these losses establish the underlying basis for 

population objectives for the 

program as a whole. Collectively, specific biological objectives should represent what is 

considered to be mitigation for 

losses under the program. 

Anadromous Fish Losses

The Council recognizes that 

the scientific basis for biological 

objectives is not certain and will 

shift over time as our knowledge 

improves. Further, we expect to 

learn a great deal through the 

process of developing subbasin 

plans. The Council intends to 

review, and if necessary, revise 

these objectives in the course 

of adopting subbasin plans in a 

subsequent amendment process. 

On an interim basis, until subbasin plans identify actual targets, 

the Council adopts the following regional objectives for anadromous fish:

• Halt declining trends in 

salmon and steelhead populations above Bonneville 

Dam by 2005. Obtain the 

information necessary to 

begin restoring the characteristics of healthy lamprey 

populations.

• Restore the widest possible 

set of healthy naturally 

reproducing populations of 

salmon and steelhead in 

each relevant province by 

2012. Healthy populations 

are defined as having an 80 

percent probability of maintaining themselves for 200 

years at a level that can 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 17

support harvest rates of at 

least 30 percent.

• Increase total adult salmon 

and steelhead runs above 

Bonneville Dam by 2025 

to an average of 5 million 

annually in a manner that 

supports tribal and nontribal harvest. Within 100 

years achieve population 

characteristics that, while 

fluctuating due to natural 

variability, represent on 

average full mitigation for 

losses of anadromous fish.

Substitution for Anadromous Fish Losses

Part of the anadromous fish 

losses has occurred in the 

blocked areas. A corresponding part of the mitigation for 

these losses must occur in 

those areas. The program has 

a “Resident Fish Substitution 

Policy” for areas in which 

anadromous fish have been 

extirpated. Given the large 

anadromous fish losses in the 

blocked areas, these actions 

have not mitigated these 

losses. The following objectives address anadromous fish 

losses and mitigation requirements in all blocked areas:

• Restore native resident 

fish species (subspecies, 

stocks and populations) to 

near historic abundance 

throughout their historic 

ranges where original habitat conditions exist and 

where habitats can be feasibly restored.

• Take action to reintroduce 

anadromous fish into 

blocked areas, where feasible.

• Administer and increase 

opportunities for 

consumptive and 

non-consumptive resident 

fisheries for native, introduced, wild, and hatcheryreared stocks that are compatible with the continued persistence of native resident fish species and their restoration to near 

historic abundance (includes 

intensive fisheries within closed 

or isolated systems).

Resident Fish Losses

The development and operation 

of the hydrosystem has also resulted 

in losses of numbers and diversity 

of native resident fish, such as 

bull trout, cutthroat trout, kokanee, 

white sturgeon and other species. 

The following objectives address 

resident fish losses: 

• Complete assessments of resident fish losses throughout the 

basin resulting from the hydrosystem, expressed in terms of 

the various critical population 

characteristics of key resident 

fish species. 

• Maintain and restore healthy 

ecosystems and watersheds, 

which preserve functional links 

among ecosystem elements to 

ensure the continued persistence, health and diversity of 

all species including game fish 

species, non-game fish species, 

and other organisms. 

• Protect and expand habitat 

and ecosystem functions as the 

means to significantly increase 

the abundance, productivity, 

and life history diversity of resident fish at least to the extent 

that they have been affected by 

the development and operation 

of the hydrosystem. 

• Achieve population characteristics of these species within 100 

years that, while fluctuating due 

to natural variability, represent 

on average full mitigation for 

losses of resident fish.

Wildlife Losses

Development and operation of 

the hydrosystem also resulted in 

wildlife losses through construction 

and inundation losses, direct operational losses or through secondary 

losses. The program has included 

measures and implemented projects 

to obtain and protect habitat units 

in mitigation for these calculated 

construction/inundation losses. 

Operational and secondary losses 

have not been estimated or 

addressed. The program includes 

a commitment to mitigate for 

these losses. More specific wildlife 

objectives are:

• Quantify wildlife losses caused 

by the construction, inundation, 

and operation of the hydropower projects.

• Develop and implement habitat 

acquisition and enhancement 

projects to fully mitigate for 

identified losses.

• Coordinate mitigation activities 

throughout the basin and with 

fish mitigation and restoration 

efforts, specifically by coordinating habitat restoration and 

acquisition with aquatic habitats to promote connectivity of 

terrestrial and aquatic areas.

• Maintain existing and created 

habitat values.

• Monitor and evaluate habitat 

and species responses to mitigation actions.
18 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Objectives for Environmental 

Characteristics

Basin level environmental characteristics describe the kinds of 

changes that are needed across 

the Columbia Basin to achieve the 

changes in biological performance 

described earlier. Again, the intent 

is to achieve the vision and allow for 

mitigation under the Power Act for 

the fish and wildlife losses resulting 

from the development and operation 

of the hydrosystem. The Council 

is including in the Appendix of this 

program a provisional set of environmental characteristic objectives 

for the basin level.

The Council directs the Independent Scientific Advisory Board to 

review the basin level environmental 

characteristics in the Appendix by 

June 2001. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board should report to 

the Council on the scientific soundness and basinwide applicability of 

the environmental characteristics, as 

well as their utility for further defining biological objectives at the province and subbasin levels. As part 

of its review, the Independent Scientific Advisory Board should consider and report to the Council on 

the applicability of these objectives 

in the most altered areas of the basin, 

the blocked areas.

The Council will make the 

Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board’s report publicly available 

and seek views and comment from 

interested parties. The Council will 

consider the report of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and 

the views and comments of others 

on the report, and will confirm 

or revise these basin level objectives for environmental characteristics for purposes of providing guidance for subbasin level planning 

and further program amendments.

3. Further Development 

of Biological Objectives at 

the Basin Level

Biological objectives, comprising 

both biological performance and 

environmental characteristic 

standards, will be established at the 

province level and subbasin level (in 

subbasin plans) in subsequent program amendments. However, the 

efforts at assessment and planning 

that will precede the formal adoption 

of province and subbasin level biological objectives may further inform 

the basin level objectives adopted 

here. This is possible in two primary 

ways. First, assessment and planning 

at these levels should test the validity 

of the general basin level biological 

objectives, as previously described. 

Second, assessment and planning at 

these levels may identify more specific, quantified biological objectives 

for the program as a whole. Examples might include abundance and 

performance objectives for fish populations that transcend more than 

one province, specific programwide 

objectives for improvement in certain 

habitat types, and specific objectives 

for water management and coordinated operation of the hydrosystem to 

benefit fish and wildlife.

More specific basinwide objectives could help determine the 

amount of change needed across the 

basin to fulfill the vision. They will 

also help determine the cost-effectiveness of program strategies and 

provide a basis for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. These 

more specific objectives will be considered as guidance for subbasin 

planning, and for adoption when the 

Council considers adoption of province level biological objectives and 

subbasin plans.

4. Significance of Objectives 

and Strategies

These objectives and the strategies that follow are to be used as 

guidance for developing province and 

subbasin plans, as the basis for 

development of more specific objectives, and as a basis for Council 

recommendations to the Bonneville 

Power Administration regarding project funding. Proposed measures will 

be evaluated for consistency with 

these objectives and strategies. A primary function of the monitoring and 

evaluation components of this program is to measure progress toward 

achieving these objectives.

All province and subbasin 

plans must be consistent with 

these objectives.
19

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

D. Strategies

Strategies are plans of action to accomplish the biological 

objectives. In developing strategies, 

the program takes into account not 

only the desired outcomes, but also 

the physical and biological realities 

expressed in the scientific foundation.

1. Introduction

This program anticipates that 

detailed plans, consistent with the biological objectives, will be developed 

locally for each of the more than 

50 subbasins in the Columbia River 

Basin. Because most of the specific 

actions will be addressed at the province and subbasin levels, most of the 

strategies will be developed there. At 

the subbasin level, “strategies” will 

include the particular measures to be 

implemented within a given subbasin. 

Thus, at the basin level, most of 

the strategies are guidelines for implementation at other levels of the program. However, these strategies also 

include specific measures for subjects 

that transcend one or more of the 

provinces, such as data management, 

research, monitoring and evaluations.

In general, the purpose of the 

strategies at the basin level is 

to allow maximum local flexibility 

while assuring that subbasin plans 

follow the best available scientific 

knowledge, are consistent with one 

another, and together, form a wellintegrated, well-organized, and comprehensive fish and wildlife program. 

These strategies are presumed to 

be applicable to all subbasin plans 

and projects proposed for funding. 

This presumption may be overcome 

by showing, to the satisfaction of the 

Council, compelling reasons why the 

particular action proposed will be a 

greater benefit to fish and wildlife than 

one that is in accordance with these 

strategies. In addition, in the case 

of subbasin plans, when a plan proposed for adoption is not consistent 

with these strategies, the proponent 

may also propose that these strategies

be amended so that the plan will be in 

compliance. Again, such amendments 

will require a showing of compelling 

reasons why the amendment will result 

in greater benefit to fish and wildlife.

2. Linkage of General 

Biological Objectives with 

Strategies

Because this is a habitat-based program, implementation strategies will 

vary depending on the current condition 

and the restoration potential of the habitat1

 for the species and life stages of 

interest. For example, with regard to 

fish spawning and rearing in either the 

mainstem or tributaries, the first consideration in any particular area is the current condition of the habitat for spawning and rearing and the potential for protection or restoration of that habitat for 

natural production. If the potential for 

restoring the natural production of the 

habitat is low, or the biological potential2

Ecological functions High Preserve No artificial production

and habitat structure Intact

largely intact Low Preserve Limited supplementation

 Potentially restorable to High Restore Interim supplementation

 Restorable intact status through to intact

 conventional techniques

 and approaches Low Restore Limited supplementation to intact

 Ecological function or High Moderate Limited supplementation

 Compromised habitat structure

restore

 substantially diminished Low Moderate Supplementation restore

 Habitat fundamentally High Substitute Replacement hatchery

 Eliminated altered or blocked

 without feasible option Low Substitute Replacement hatchery

Criteria 

Habitat

Condition Description

Biological

Potential of

Target Species

Habitat Strategy Possible Artificial

Production Strategy

 Examples of Strategies

“In general, the purpose of 

the strategies at the basin 

level is to allow maximum 

local flexibility.”

1

 As used in this section, “habitat” 

includes the ecological functions of the 

habitat and the habitat structure.

2 The “biological potential” of a species 

means the potential capacity, productivity, and life history diversity of a population in its habitat at each life stage.
20

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

of the target population3 is low because 

of survival problems elsewhere in its life 

cycle, the area may become a candidate 

for certain types of artificial production. 

The table on the previous page 

illustrates possible applications of 

this approach to strategies within this 

program.

Intact habitat: Where the habitat 

for a target population is largely 

intact, then the biological objectives 

for that habitat will be to preserve the 

habitat and restore the population of 

the target species up to the sustainable capacity of the habitat.

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. 

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

Primary strategy: Identify the current condition and biological potential of the habitat, and then protect 

or restore it to the extent described 

in the biological objectives. 

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 

“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.”

3 “Target species” or “target population” 

means a species or population singled out 

for attention because of its harvest significance or cultural value, or because it 

represents a significant group of ecological functions in a particular habitat type.
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 21

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: 

Build from Strength

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.

Use Native Species Wherever Feasible

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. 

Substitution

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.)

Address Transboundary Species

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. 
22 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

4. Artificial Production 

Strategies

Primary strategy: Artificial production can be used, under the 

proper conditions, to 1) complement habitat improvements by supplementing native fish populations 

up to the sustainable carrying 

capacity of the habitat with fish that 

are as similar as possible, in genetics and behavior, to wild native 

fish, and 2) replace lost salmon and 

steelhead in blocked areas.

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.

Implementation of Recommendations from Artificial Production 

Review

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.
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 23

• Federal and other legal mandates 

and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and enhancement must be fully addressed.

Wild Salmon Refuges

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.

Harvest Hatcheries 

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 mixedstock fishery.

Restoration

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. 

Experimental Approach

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.

Initial Review

Over the next three years, every 

artificial production program and 

facility in the basin, federal and nonfederal, 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.

Annual Reporting and Five-year 

Review

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.

Artificial Production Committee

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 nongovernmental 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

Primary strategy: Assure that subbasin plans are consistent with 

harvest management practices and 

increase opportunities for harvest 

wherever feasible.

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 largest major tributary 

to the Columbia River Basin 

is the Snake River, which is 

more than 1,000 miles long.
24

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

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:

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. 

Compatibility with Harvest 

Regimes

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. 

Artificial Production

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.

Opportunities for Increased Harvest

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.

Monitoring and Reporting 

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.

“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.” 
25

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

• 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

Primary strategy: Provide conditions within the hydrosystem for 

adult and juvenile fish that most 

closely approximate the natural 

physical and biological conditions, 

provide adequate levels of survival 

to support fish population recovery 

based in subbasin plans, support 

expression of life history diversity, 

and assure that flow and spill operations are optimized to produce the 

greatest biological benefits with the 

least adverse effects on resident 

fish while assuring an adequate, 

efficient, economical, and reliable 

power supply.

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 meaMajor Impacts of the 

Hydrosystem on Fish:

1. The dams themselves are barriers to 

upstream and downstream migration. 

2. The dams, and the reservoirs behind 

them, reduce the velocity of the 

river, affecting juvenile and adult 

migration speed. 

3. The storage, release, and impoundment of water changes the pattern 

of water flows and water temperatures above, through and below the 

hydroelectric dams and changes the 

characteristics of the estuary. 

4. The reservoirs eliminate spawning 

and rearing areas in the mainstem 

by increasing the river depth, 

decreasing water velocity, and 

retaining sediments. 

5. Changes in reservoir elevation 

affect the access of fish to adjoining 

streams, and affect the availability of 

food for fish living in the reservoirs. 

“The Council plans to 

enact a mainstem 

coordination plan 

containing measures for 

the hydrosystem by 

October 2001 in a 

subsequent phase of 

this program. “
26 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

sures 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.” 

While the Council must consider 

the impacts of the conditions 

imposed by the federal agencies 

under the Endangered Species Act, 

the Council has a broader mandate. 

As part of this mandate, the Council 

recognizes that the survival of listed 

species affected by the hydrosystem 

must be an integral component of 

the Council’s fish and wildlife plan. 

Addressing Endangered Species Act 

requirements together with the longterm management of healthy stocks is 

a long-term planning objective of the 

Council. The Northwest Power Act 

requires that the Council must assure 

that the needs of fish and wildlife are 

met as efficiently as possible, while 

also assuring the continued reliability, adequacy and affordability of the 

regional power supply.

 The Council believes that the 

federal agencies operating the hydrosystem will have some flexibility in 

implementing the conditions imposed 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition, the manner in which the 

hydrosystem is operated outside of 

the circumstances regulated by the 

Endangered Species Act may still 

have important consequences for fish 

and wildlife. 

The Council adopts the following 

hydrosystem strategies:

Strategy: Provide conditions in the 

hydrosystem for adult and juvenile 

fish that most closely approximate 

natural physical and biological 

conditions.

In its Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for Fiscal 

Year 1998, Congress asked the 

Council, with the assistance of 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board, to review the capital 

improvements at mainstem dams 

proposed by the Corps of Engineers. 

The reports produced by this review 

contain a set of technical findings 

and recommendations. The reports 

are included in the Technical Appendix. Based on these reports, and 

the recommendations of others, the 

Council is adopting this general 

strategy, which includes, but is not 

limited to, the following elements:

• Protect Biological Diversity

Actions to improve juvenile and 

adult fish passage through mainstem dams, including the use of 

fish transportation, should protect 

biological diversity by benefiting 

the range of species, stocks and 

life-history types in the river, and 

should favor solutions that best 

fit natural behavior patterns and 

river processes. Survival in the 

natural river should be the baseline against which to measure 

the effectiveness of other passage 

methods. To meet the diverse 

needs of multiple species and 

allow for uncertainty, multiple 

juvenile passage methods may be 

necessary at individual projects.

• Juvenile Fish Passage

To provide passage for juvenile 

fish that closely approximates 

natural physical and biological 

conditions, and to increase the 

energy produced by the hydrosystem, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers should 1) continue 

testing and developing surface 

bypass systems, taking into 

account the widest range of 

biological diversity, utilizing an 

expedited approach to prototype 

development, and ensuring full 

evaluation for the developmental 

phase; 2) relocate bypass outfalls 

in those circumstances where 

there are problems with predation and juvenile fish injury and 

mortality; and 3) modify turbines 

to improve juvenile survival.

• Adult Passage

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should improve the overall 

effectiveness of the adult fish 

passage program. This includes 

expediting schedules to design 

and install improvements to fish 

passage facilities. Cool water 

releases from reservoirs should 

continue to be used to facilitate 

migration. More emphasis 

should be placed on monitoring 

and evaluation, increased accuracy of fish counts, installation of 

PIT-tag detectors, evaluation of 

escapement numbers to spawning 

grounds and hatcheries, research 

into water temperature effects on 

fish passage, and the connection 

between fish passage design and 

fish behavior.

• Annual Report on Capital 

Improvements

The Corps of Engineers, working within the regional fish and 

wildlife project selection process, should report to the Council 

annually on how the prioritization criteria and decisions on 

passage improvements take into 

account these principles. 

• Implementation of These Principles

The Council 1) expects that the 

Independent Scientific Review 

panel will apply these principles 

during the panel’s review of 

the reimbursable portion of the 

Bonneville fish and wildlife 

budget, which includes the 

Corps’ passage program; 2) will 

itself apply these standards in 

its review of any Independent 

Scientific Review Panel report 

and resulting recommendations 

to Congress on these passage 

budget items; and 3) will recommend to Congress, in its reimbursable budget recommendations, that budget requests from 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 27

amendments. When the mainstem coordination plan and subbasin plans are adopted by the 

Council, the relevant conditions 

will be included in the plans.

Strategy: Assure that flow and spill 

operations are optimized to produce 

the greatest benefits with the least 

adverse effects on resident fish while 

assuring an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.

The Council’s program must be 

consistent with “an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power 

supply.” The Council will analyze 

potential impacts to the power 

system of different water management and operation strategies, including proposed federal operations to 

meet Endangered Species Act and 

Clean Water Act requirements, determine if the operations ensure an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply, and recommend 

operational changes if not. The 

Council is particularly interested in 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

operations undertaken for fish and 

wildlife. The Council will be preparing recommendations that optimize energy production, capacity and 

especially reliability while meeting 

diverse fish and wildlife needs. 

• In-season Changes

The Bonneville Power Administration, in consultation with the 

the Corps of Engineers be evaluated for consistency with these 

principles.

• Protect and Expand Mainstem 

Spawning and Rearing Habitat

The operation of the hydrosystem should protect, and where 

possible, expand, mainstem 

spawning and rearing areas. In 

instances where this strategy conflicts with flows for juvenile 

migration or temperature control, 

the system operators should identify the potential conflict and seek 

recommendations from state and 

federal agencies and tribes on how 

to best meet the two needs.

• Inriver Migration and Transportation

Because the existence of the 

dams and reservoirs creates conditions that are not natural, the 

Council, while seeking to improve 

inriver conditions, recognizes that 

there are survival benefits from 

transportation of migrating juvenile salmon. Therefore, the Council 1) accepts juvenile fish transportation as a transitional strategy; 2) will give priority to the 

funding of research that more 

accurately measures the effect 

of improved inriver migration 

compared to transportation; 3) 

will recommend increasing inriver 

migration when research demonstrates that salmon survival would 

be improved as a result of such 

migration; and 4) endorses the 

strategy of “spread the risk” 

which, depending on water and 

environmental conditions, divides 

migrating juvenile salmon and 

steelhead between inriver passage 

and transportation.

Strategy: Manage the hydrosystem 

so that patterns of flow more 

closely approximate the natural 

hydrographic patterns, and assure 

any changes in water management 

are premised upon, and proportionate to, fish and wildlife benefits.

• Balance Systemwide Water Management Among Different Species and Life Stages

Systemwide water management, 

including flow augmentation from 

storage reservoirs, should balance 

the needs of resident fish with 

those of anadromous fish, and the 

needs of migrating fish with those 

of spawning and rearing fish. In 

instances where flow management 

needs conflict with this program, 

the system operators should identify the potential conflict and seek 

recommendations from the Council, fish and wildlife agencies and 

tribes and other affected entities 

on how best to balance the different needs. Conflicts shall be 

reported to the Council. 

• Coordination

In fulfilling the operating conditions for the hydrosystem 

established under the Endangered 

Species Act and Clean Water 

Act, the federal system operating 

agencies shall, to the fullest 

extent practicable, meet those 

conditions in a manner which 

protects other fish and wildlife 

species affected by the operation 

of the hydrosystem. In providing 

information on operations to 

meet the needs of a particular 

species or set of species, the 

Fish Passage Center shall take 

into account, through consultation with the fish and wildlife 

managers, the needs of other 

species and indicate how these 

needs can best be balanced or 

accommodated. The fish and 

wildlife managers should indicate to the Fish Passage Center 

whether such conflicts among the 

needs of different species exist 

and, when present, recommend 

remedies. On an interim basis, 

the operating conditions needed 

to meet the needs of these 

other species are those that were 

adopted by the Council in Section 10 of its 1995 program 

Four species of Pacific 

salmon—chum, chinook,coho 

and sockeye—and two species 

of anadromous trout—steelhead and sea-run cutthroat—

are found in the Columbia 

River Basin.
28 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, 

before undertaking a particular 

operation of the hydrosystem to 

benefit, or that will adversely 

affect, fish or wildlife, shall provide a written statement of the 

estimated cost or benefit and 

impact on the power system of 

the proposed action. The Fish 

Passage Center, in consultation 

with the fish and wildlife managers, shall provide a brief written statement of the incremental 

benefit or detriment to fish or 

wildlife anticipated from the proposed change. In the event that 

a fish and wildlife agency or 

tribe believes that the proposed 

action will have an adverse 

effect on fish and wildlife, Bonneville should also obtain a brief 

written statement of the adverse 

effect. Copies of these statements should be furnished to 

those parties considering the 

request, to the Council, and made 

available to the public. This 

provision shall not apply to an 

operation in response to a biological opinion requirement if the 

requirement is so specific that it 

leaves essentially no discretion to 

the operating agencies on how to 

fulfill the requirement.

• Annual Hydrosystem 

Accountability Report

Bonneville and the 

operating agencies 

shall assist the Council 

in producing a report 

that shall provide an accounting 

of Bonneville’s fish and wildlife 

expenditures and hydropower 

operations costs. For example, the 

report should summarize 1) the 

overall cost and impact to the 

hydro and transmission system of 

operations for fish and wildlife 

and other non-power needs; 2) 

a summary of each change 

requested, the outcome of that 

request, and the reason for 

approving or denying that 

request; and 3) recommendations 

from fish and wildlife managers 

and tribes for modifications to the 

operating regimes or investments 

in facilities to improve fish and 

wildlife habitat within the hydrosystem without undue affect on 

the costs to, or impacts on, the 

hydrosystem.

• Annual Report on Flow Augmentation

Bonneville, in consultation with 

the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, shall prepare 

an annual report based on scientific research for review by the 

Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board that documents the flow 

augmentation actions taken, the 

benefits of flow augmentation 

for fish survival, and the precise 

attributes of flow that may make 

it beneficial.

• Fish Passage Center

This program continues the 

operation of the Fish Passage 

Center. The Council will establish and appoint an oversight 

board for the Fish Passage 

Center, with representation from 

the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, the tribes, the Council, 

and others, to provide policy 

guidance and assure regional 

accountability and compatibility 

with the regional data management system. The Fish Passage 

Center shall prepare an annual 

report to the Council and the 

oversight board, summarizing its 

activities and accomplishments.

• In-season Management 

Coordination

Through the biological opinions, the federal agencies have 

established an implementation 

structure for annual and in-season 

operations and for recommendations on funding for passage 

improvements. It is the Council’s 

perspective that the part of 

the implementation structure that 

allows for technical review functions adequately, although there 

is a need for greater participation 

by affected entities. The Council 

recommends to the federal agencies that the Technical Management Team and the Implementation Team be jointly sponsored by 

the Council and the federal agencies, and allow for effective participation in these considerations 

by the relevant federal agencies, 

the Council and states, the tribes 

of the Columbia River Basin, 

and other affected entities, in a 

highly public forum. The Council 

will initiate discussions to jointly 

sponsor these coordination teams. 

• Annual Operating Plan

The Council requests that each 

year, prior to March 1, the inseason management participants 

prepare and make available to 

the Council and the public an 

annual operating plan, describing 

the specific hydrosystem operations recommended for that year. 

In those instances where specific 

operations have not been determined as of March 1, the plan 

should identify the additional 

decisions that will need to be 

made, and the basis on which the 

participants expect to make them.

• Emergency Actions

To ensure the reliability of 

the power supply, power system 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 29

operators may curtail fish and 

wildlife operations temporarily 

during emergency situations.4 A 

predetermined protocol should 

be established by the Technical 

Management Team and the 

Implementation Team for emergency actions. 5

 However, the 

option of curtailing fish and wildlife operations during emergency 

situations should not be used in 

lieu of establishing an adequate 

and reliable power supply.6

Strategy: Establish and maintain 

a plan to assure coordination of 

mainstem operations and improvements. 

• 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 longterm 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 longterm 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.

4

 An emergency can occur due to a major 

temperature drop like those experienced 

in 1989 and 1990 or due to the temporary 

loss of generation from a major resource 

like the Columbia Generating Station or 

a powerhouse at a mainstem dam, or the 

loss of a major portion of the transmission capability on the northern or southern interties.

5

 In general, all existing resources in 

the Western Integrated System should 

be dispatched prior to curtailing fish 

and wildlife operations. All reasonable 

efforts should also be made to relieve the 

emergency using demand-side resources, 

including requests for customers to voluntarily cut back use. During winter 

emergencies, water being held in reservoirs for spring and summer flow augmentation may be drafted. Once the 

emergency is resolved, any flow augmentation water used should be replaced 

as soon as possible, to the extent possible. During summer emergencies, 

bypass spill for fish may be curtailed or 

reduced or additional flow augmentation 

water may be released.

6

 If the Northwest power system is 

deemed to be inadequate, new resources 

(whether generating or demand-side) 

should be developed to bring the system 

up to expected standards. Resources that 

integrate more effectively with fish and 

wildlife operations should be given highest priority for development.

In 1998, the Council designated 44,000 miles of river 

reaches in the basin as “protected areas” where hydroelectric development would have 

endangered fish and wildlife 

and their habitat.
30 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Strategy: Assure that hydroelectric 

relicensing and future development 

provides protection for fish and 

wildlife.

• 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 

Primary strategy: Complete the 

current mitigation program for 

construction and inundation losses 

and include wildlife mitigation for 

all operational losses as an integrated part of habitat protection 

and restoration.

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 socalled “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, ecosystembased 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:

Completion of Current Mitigation 

Program

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 
31

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

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 

Primary strategy: Identify the 

effects of ocean conditions on anadromous fish and use this information to evaluate and adjust inland 

actions.

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 pre-

“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. “
32 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

pared 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:

Manage for Variability

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. 

Distinguish Ocean Effects from 

Other Effects

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 oceanrelated mortality from that caused in 

the freshwater part of the life cycle.

9. Research, Monitoring, and 

Evaluation

Primary strategies: 1) Identify and 

resolve key uncertainties for the 

program; 2) monitor, evaluate, and 

apply results; and 3) make information from this program readily 

available. 

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. 

Research

Resarch Plan

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. 

Coordination

The research plan will be coordinated with the research elements of 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 33

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.

Open Access to Results

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. 

“State of the Science” Review

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.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Guidelines for Collecting Data and 

Reporting Results

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.

Standards for Monitoring and 

Evaluation of Subbasin Plans

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.

Data Management

Data Gaps

The Council will initiate a process 

for identifying data needs in the 

basin, surveying available data, and 

filling any data gaps.

Dissemination of Data Via the 

Internet

The Council will initiate a process 

for establishing an Internet-based 

system for the efficient dissemination of data for the Columbia 

Basin. This system will be based 

on a network of data sites, such as 

Streamnet, Northwest Habitat Institute, Fish Passage Center, Columbia 

River Data Access in Real Time 

(DART), and others, linked by Internet technology. The functions of 

each data site, or module, will be 

clearly articulated and defined.
34 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 39

The preceding sections of this 

program address fish and 

wildlife needs on two different levels: the Columbia River Basin 

as a whole and at the next level, 

the 11 ecological provinces within 

the basin. This section addresses the 

third level, the more than 50 subbasins within those ecological provinces. For each of these subbasins 

a locally developed “plan” will be 

adopted into the program. Each plan 

will have its own vision and biological objectives and will identify 

specific actions needed for fish and 

wildlife in that subbasin. The plans 

must be consistent with the visions, 

biological objectives, and strategies 

adopted at the basin and province 

levels, but otherwise are free to make 

unique choices and reflect local policies and priorities. The subbasin 

plans will be the basis for review 

and funding of most fish and wildlife 

projects in this program.

A. Subbasin Plans

The fish and wildlife program is implemented principally at the 

subbasin level. It is at this subbasin 

level that the more general guidance 

provided by the basin and province 

level visions, principles, objectives, 

and strategies is refined in light of 

local scientific knowledge, policies, 

and priorities.

The subbasin plans will be 

adopted into the program, becoming 

the third tier of the program structure. If the vision for the basin is 

to be realized, it will be through successful selection and implementation 

of subbasin level goals, objectives, 

and strategies. Plans at this level will 

guide Bonneville funding of fish and 

wildlife activities. Subbasin level 

plans should also provide an opportunity for the integration and coordination of projects and programs 

funded by entities other than Bonneville, including Canadian entities in 

transboundary areas of the subbasins.

Subbasin plans will be reviewed 

for their consistency with biological 

objectives and strategies at the basin 

and province levels. Similarly, as 

subbasin plans are adopted into the 

program, higher level objectives and 

strategies may be modified to reflect 

and accommodate the information 

and initiatives of the plan. 

Subbasin plans will also be the 

context for review of proposals for 

Bonneville funding each year by the 

fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, 

the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel and the Council. Once subbasin plans are approved, all of 

these entities will be able to review 

the projects proposed for Bonneville 

funding to determine if they are scientifically sound in light of existing 

and desired ecological conditions in 

the subbasin and the goals and objectives presented in subbasin plans.

1. Required Elements of Subbasin Plans

For purposes of the program a 

subbasin level plan must include the 

following three general components 

in order to be eligible for adoption 

into the fish and wildlife program:

• A subbasin assessment providing 

a description of historical and 

existing conditions;

• A clear and comprehensive inventory of existing projects and past 

accomplishments;

• A 10-15 year management plan.

Each of these components is discussed below. The Technical Appendix contains a detailed description of 

each element and of the process that 

the Council will use to develop the 

subbasin level of the program. A 

template for the plan will be developed collaboratively and included in 

the Technical Appendix.

It is anticipated that subbasin 

plans will be revised and updated 

every three to five years as new information becomes available and conditions change. 

2. General Principles for 

Subbasin Plans

• Planning in any subbasin will 

start from the information contained in subbasin summaries 

and existing plans and documents. The program will only 

fund new planning activities 

where there are clear gaps and 

omissions.

• The Council’s subbasin plans 

will not duplicate plans that have 

been developed or will soon be 

developed by others, including 

states, tribes, or the federal government.

• Wherever possible and scientifically warranted, the Council will 

adopt existing plans into the subbasin plans.

• The final subbasin plan to be 

adopted by the Council should 

enjoy a wide range of support 

from all interested parties.

3. Subbasin Assessment

The assessment is a technical 

phase that describes existing and historic resource conditions and characteristics. The assessment scope 

covers both aquatic and terrestrial 

“Subbasin plans will be 

reviewed for their 

consistency with 

biological objectives and 

strategies at the basin 

and province levels.”

 Subbasins
40

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

environments and addresses anadromous and resident fish, and wildlife. This initial assessment will rely 

primarily on existing information 

already compiled by fish and wildlife 

agencies, water resource agencies, 

and other interested parties within the 

subbasins.

A template for subbasin assessment has been developed for this 

program through the collaborative 

efforts of regional scientists. This 

template has broad support, and 

will be accepted for both the plans 

adopted as part of the fish and wildlife program, for ESA recovery planning activities, and for water quality 

management plans under the Clean 

Water Act. 

A full copy of the assessment 

template is contained in the Technical 

Appendix. The template has seven 

separate sections:

• Background and Introduction

• Subbasin description

• Habitat condition and trends, historic and current (at a level of 

detail consistent with the 6th level 

habitat unit code, HUC)

• Synthesis and interpretation (narrative descriptions coupled with 

maps indicating habitats and species of interest)

• Summary

• Assessment validation and 

monitoring

• References

The Council will provide assistance and work with the region’s federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife 

managers and all other interested parties to complete assessments, using 

this template, for each of the subbasins by early 2001. These assessments will then be made available to 

local, state, federal, and tribal planners to use as a foundation for developing the management plan component of subbasin plans.

The Council is aware that there is 

a large number of watershed and subbasin level activities throughout the 

basin that are using a wide variety 

of formats for assessments and planning. The Council intends to rely 

on the information gathered in those 

activities as much as possible and 

does not intend this template to 

undermine or displace these on-going 

efforts. However, for purposes of 

this program it is important to compile this information in a consistent 

format that permits the coordination 

of Bonneville-funded activities and 

planning under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act.

The Council expects that the initial assessments in some subbasins 

will encounter significant data gaps 

requiring additional information. In 

such cases, the subbasin plan should 

identify this need, and include the 

measures necessary to meet it. In all 

cases, it is expected that the body of 

information on which the assessment 

is based will continue to grow and 

that, as a regular part of each project 

review and funding cycle, the assessments and plans will be updated.

Most of the fish species of interest 

for subbasin planning move beyond 

their subbasins of origin for at least 

some stages of their life cycle. Subbasin planners will need information 

and analytical tools that allow them 

to understand the biological constraints on their fish populations 

that stem from areas outside the 

subbasin, such as mainstem survival 

rates, ocean and inriver harvest rates, 

effects of interactions with fish from 

other subbasins, and ocean conditions. The Council will ensure that 

subbasin planners have access to 

information of this type.

4. Inventory of Existing Activities

In most subbasins, there are 

already several programs underway 

that in some way are involved in 

watershed planning or restoration. 

The Council believes that the projects 

funded under its program should take 

into account these existing programs 

and be coordinated with them. This 

coordination will yield a more scientifically and biologically sound fish 

and wildlife plan and reduce costs. 

Thus, the second general component of a subbasin level plan will be 

a description of the existing fish and 

wildlife and habitat projects that are 

occurring, or have occurred, in the 

recent past in the subbasin. This element should include: 1) all activities 

that are taking place or are planned in 

the subbasin and 2) objectives related 

to protecting, mitigating or enhancing fish, wildlife, or their habitats, 

regardless of funding source or management entity. Both implementation and planning activities should be 

addressed. The description for each 

project or activity should include:

• a description of activity, including its term, its monitoring and 

evaluation elements, and its goals 

and objectives

• identification of management or 

lead entities for each activity

• identification of authorizing process or entity (Northwest Power 

“In most subbasins, there 

are already several 

programs underway that in 

some way are involved in 

watershed planning 

or restoration. The 

Council believes that the 

projects funded under its 

program should take into 

account these existing programs and be 

coordinated with them. “
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 41

Planning Council, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state watershed planning 

agency, etc.)

• identification of relationship to 

other activities in the subbasin

• identification of funding source

• a synopsis of accomplishments or 

failures of activity — related to 

established goals and objectives 

where possible

• identification of limiting factors 

or ecological processes the activity is designed to address

5. Management Plan 

The management plan is the heart 

of the subbasin plan. It sets forth the 

strategies that will be implemented at 

a local level. The management plan 

should be the last major component 

of the subbasin plan to be developed 

because the goals and objectives that 

are included within it will need to 

reflect what is learned in the assessment and inventory work. It is 

in the management plan that policy, 

legal, and ecological considerations 

are merged. The management plan 

should have a 10-15 year horizon. 

Management plans adopted into the 

Council’s program must be consistent 

with the Northwest Power Act and 

specifically section 4(h)(6) of the act. 

Necessary elements of the management plan include:

• A vision for the subbasin

• Biological objectives for fish and 

wildlife that:

- are consistent with province 

and basin level visions, objectives, and strategies adopted in 

the program

- are responsive to the subbasin 

assessment findings

- are consistent with legal 

rights and obligations of fish 

and wildlife agencies and tribes 

with jurisdiction over fish and 

wildlife in the subbasin, and 

agreed upon by co-managers 

in the subbasin. Where there 

are disagreements among comanagers that translate into differing biological objectives, the 

differences and the alternative 

biological objectives should be 

fully presented

- complement the programs of 

tribal, state and federal land 

or water quality management 

agencies in the subbasin

- integrate Endangered Species 

Act and Clean Water Act 

requirements as fully as possible

- have measurable outcomes

• Strategies that will be employed 

over the term of the plan to meet 

the established vision and biological objectives, including:

- an explanation linking the 

strategies to the established 

subbasin biological objectives 

and vision and the subbasin 

assessment

- an explanation of how and why 

the strategies presented were 

selected over other alternative 

strategies (e.g. passive restoration strategies v. intervention 

strategies)

- a proposed sequence and 

prioritization

- additional steps required to 

compile a more complete or 

detailed assessment

• A projected budget for the term of 

the subbasin plan, including:

- a detailed three-year implementation budget

- a more general long-term 

(10-15 year) budget

• A monitoring and evaluation plan 

that will show whether the actions 

taken to implement the subbasin 

plan are achieving their objectives

• Any additional steps that are 

necessary to achieve compliance 

with Endangered Species Act and 

Clean Water Act requirements 

applicable to that subbasin

6. Developing Plans at the 

Subbasin Level

Starting in 2001, the Council 

intends to begin accepting subbasin 

level plans for adoption into the program. The Council knows that this 

schedule is very aggressive. However, there is little support in the 

region for either several more years of 

discussion and planning or for starting actions that are not grounded in 

science-based, subbasin level plans. 

The Council believes that the first 

attempt to develop comprehensive 

subbasin plans must be completed as 

soon as possible, and that improvements can be made as new information and experience dictates. 

The Council sees subbasin plans 

as flexible documents that will be 

Of the original salmon and 

steelhead habitat available in 

the Columbia River Basin, 55 

percent of the area and 31 percent of the stream miles have 

been eliminated by dam construction.

“Starting in 2001, the 

Council intends to begin 

accepting subbasin level 

plans for adoption into 

the program.”
42 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

revised and updated approximately 

every three years. For those who 

are unable to participate in this timeframe, and for those topics that can 

not be addressed as fully as may be 

ideal, there will be other opportunities in the near future. 

The Council believes that subbasin 

plans must be developed within an 

open public process that provides 

ample opportunity for participation by 

a wide range of state, federal, tribal, 

and local managers, experts, landowners, local governments, and stakeholders. The details of that process will 

vary from subbasin to subbasin, but 

there are essentially two stages.

First, at the local level, interested 

parties need to work together to 

develop a plan that, as far as possible, 

embodies the knowledge, policies, 

and support of the people in that subbasin. Recognizing that this effort 

will need to be undertaken somewhat 

differently in each subbasin, the 

Council will work with state, tribal, 

federal, and local parties to determine 

which approach is most likely to succeed in a particular subbasin, and 

then help support that approach. The 

Council believes that other entities are 

better equipped to take the lead in the 

local effort, and does not intend to 

become a lead entity at the local level 

in the subbasin planning process. 

Second, when a subbasin plan 

is proposed for adoption into the 

program, the Power Act’s program 

amendment standards require a 

public process with full opportunity 

for public comment and participation. 

The Act also requires that, at the end 

of the process, the Council make a 

decision based on statutory standards. 

It is important to recognize that, 

while the Council can encourage 

interested parties to work together on 

a common plan for each subbasin, 

it cannot preclude any person from 

submitting a plan. Under the Power 

Act, the Council is obliged to consider and make a decision on each 

recommendation it receives. 

After the basin and province 

levels are fixed in the current program amendment cycle, the Council 

will:

• Make subbasin assessments available on its website and through 

other means to the planners, decision-makers, and the public as 

soon as they are completed

• Issue a formal notice and request 

for recommendations to amend 

the program. This notice will be 

limited, and explain that only 

recommendations at the subbasin 

level of the program will be considered

• Take extra steps to target this 

subbasin notice at local governments, stakeholders, planners, 

watershed groups and land and 

water managers in each subbasin

• Organize recommendations it 

receives subbasin by subbasin, 

for the statutory 

recommendation comment period. This is intended 

to facilitate coordination and discussion by those that have made 

recommendations in any particular subbasin

• Assist in facilitating the discussions in the subbasins aimed at 

reconciling the recommendations 

and ensuring that the program 

standards for plans are met

• Produce drafts of the subbasin 

plans that are crafted from the 

recommendations and the facilitated discussions for public comment

• Adopt into the program subbasin 

plans that meet the established 

standards. Where more time is 

needed, the Council may adopt 

placeholders for a subbasin, and 

establish a longer timeframe for 

adoption to facilitate continued 

discussions

The Act directs the Council to 

give special consideration to the recommendations of tribal, state and 

federal fish and wildlife management 

entities when considering matters 

related to fish and wildlife. Therefore, subbasin plans should be developed with the participation of fish 

and wildlife managers with jurisdiction in the subbasin. 

As outlined above, the Council 

will require that subbasin plans demonstrate their relationship to Endangered Species Act and Clean Water 

Act requirements. This should best 

be achieved by the participation 

of the applicable regulatory entities 

in the subbasin level amendment. 

Because the Council cannot compel 

this participation, the Council hopes 

these entities will participate volun-
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 43

tarily, and the Council expects that 

state and federal agencies and tribes 

will encourage and facilitate their 

involvement. 

Local, state, tribal and federal 

land and water management entities 

have programs, authority, and jurisdiction beyond that of the fish and 

wildlife managers. The Council will 

not require the participation of these 

entities, but will evaluate the level 

of involvement provided to them in 

the planning process, and the level 

of agreement that they have with 

the completed plan, when it considers adopting a plan into the program 

and/or in making its funding recommendations to Bonneville. 

Finally, it is anticipated that the 

Council and its staff will assist in 

a facilitation role as plans are developed, and will also seek to ensure 

that planners address all criteria that 

ultimately are developed. 

7. Scientific Review of Subbasin Plans

The Council will utilize the expertise of independent scientists and 

boards to review subbasin plans. 

Examples of questions that may be 

asked of the reviewers are:

• Do the assessments contain the 

elements required by the criteria?

• Are the goals, objectives, and 

strategies scientifically appropriate in light of the assessment and 

inventory?

• Are the goals, objectives, and 

strategies consistent with those 

established at the province and 

basin levels?

• Do the plans demonstrate that 

alternative management 

responses have been adequately 

considered?

• Are subbasin plans within each 

province collectively consistent 

with the province goals, objectives, and strategies?

In addition, the Council believes 

that independent review of the subbasin plans will be an important part 

of ensuring they are appropriate and 

useful.
44 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 35

 “...the Council is adopting 

an ecologically based 

structure for the Columbia 

River ecosystem that 

emphasizes the 

interrelationships of the 

parts, including the 

Canadian portion of the 

basin to the extent 

information is available.”

The program organizes the 

more than 50 subbasins of 

the Columbia River Basin 

into 11 ecological provinces, which 

are groups of adjoining subbasins 

with similar climates and geology. 

Because each province has its own 

distinct environment and fish and 

wildlife populations, each will have 

its own vision, biological objectives, 

and strategies. Those elements will 

be adopted in a later rulemaking. 

The province level visions, objectives, and strategies will be consistent 

with those adopted at the basin level.

A. Geographical

 Structure

The Columbia River is an integrated biophysical system, but 

the basin is too large and complex 

for us to understand or manage as a 

single entity. At the same time, managing each piece as an independent 

entity risks losing appreciation for 

the interaction between components 

and their collective performance as 

a system. For this reason, the Council is adopting an ecologically based 

structure for the Columbia River ecosystem that emphasizes the interrelationships of the parts, including the 

Canadian portion of the basin to the 

extent information is available.

Within the Columbia River ecosystem, the scientific foundation 

defines areas with distinct ecological 

character that it termed ecological 

provinces (Figure 1). Ecological 

provinces are distinct subdivisions 

of the landscape containing ecologically related subbasins. The provinces are distinguished primarily on 

patterns related to hydrology, climate 

and regional geology.

These physical patterns relate 

to biological population patterns as 

well. Populations within a province 

are more likely to be related to other 

populations within that province than 

to populations in other provinces. 

Life history and other characteristics 

should group into patterns that reflect 

physical habitat structure. 

Each province consists of a set 

of adjoining watersheds with similar 

ecological conditions and tributaries 

that ultimately connect, flowing into 

the same river or lake. These 

provinces are thus appropriate units 

around which to organize and evaluate recovery objectives and efforts.

For our purposes, a subbasin can 

only be in one province; boundaries 

do not cut across subbasins. Hydroelectric dams, including the major 

dams on the Columbia and Snake 

rivers, are also considered to be 

within provinces. 

Based on patterns of terrestrial 

vegetation, the headwaters of a subbasin are often distinct from the 

lower reaches and have been put 

into separate areas in other schemes. 

However, for purposes of planning, it 

makes little sense to split subbasins. 

Instead, we treat each subbasin as an 

integral component of a set of related 

subbasins forming a province. Table 

1 displays the provinces and subbasins of the Columbia River Basin.

B. Province Visions,

 Objectives, and 

 Strategies

The Council has not yet adopted specific visions, objectives, or 

strategies for ecological provinces. 

Before offering more specific guidance at the province level, the Council 

believes that it is important to complete a preliminary assessment at the 

province level, identifying the attributes, needs, and opportunities that 

are unique to each province. That 

assessment is expected to be completed by early 2001. Upon completion of subbasin planning, the Council 

expects to amend into the program 

appropriate visions, objectives, and 

strategies for the provinces.

Biological objectives at the province scale guide development of the 

program at the subbasin scale. It is 

likely that there will be some iteration 

among biological objectives at the various scales as information is developed. However, the Council intends 

to develop a provisional set of objectives at the province scale to provide 

planning guidelines for subbasin planning. These may be revisited in the 

future to reflect the experience gained 

in planning at the subbasin level. 

Biological objectives at the province level will be used to 1) “size” 

the program and describe the amount 

of change needed across the province; 

2) help determine cost effectiveness 

of program measures; and 3) provide 

the basis for program accountability 

and the monitoring, evaluation and 

research associated with this program. 

The biological objectives at the province level are not intended to be 

prescriptive or regulatory in nature. 

Instead, they provide guidance for 

planning at the subbasin level. 

C. Ocean

For planning purposes under this program, the Council also recognizes the North Pacific Ocean as a 

geographic unit that should be considered in research, monitoring, and 

evaluation actions.

 Ecological Provinces
36 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Provinces and Subbasins
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 37 1 Asotin 2 Big White Salmon 3 Bitterroot 4 Blackfoot 5 Boise 6 Bruneau 7 Burnt 8 Clark Fork 9 Clearwater 10 Coeur D’Alene 11 Columbia Estuary 12 Columbia Gorge 13 Columbia Lower 14 Columbia Lower Middle 15 Columbia Upper 16 Columbia Upper Middle 17 Cowlitz 18 Crab 19 Deschutes 20 Elochoman 21 Entiat 22 Fifteenmile 23 Flathead 24 Grande Ronde 25 Grays 26 Hood 27 Imnaha 28 John Day 29 Kalama 30 Klickitat 31 Kootenai 32 Lake Chelan 33 Lewis 34 Little White Salmon 35 Malheur 36 Methow 37 Okanogan 38 Owyhee 39 Palouse 40 Payette 41 Pend Oreille 42 Powder 43 Salmon 44 Sandy 45 San Poil 46 Snake Headwater 47 Snake Hells Canyon 48 Snake Lower 49 Snake Lower Middle 50 Snake Upper 51 Snake Upper Closed Basin 52 Snake Upper Middle 53 Spokane 54 Tucannon 55 Umatilla 56 Walla Walla 57 Washougal 58 Weiser 59 Wenatchee 60 Willamette 61 Wind 62 Yakima

Subbasins

Columbia River Basin Including Canada
38 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Landscape

Columbia River Basin

Province

Columbia River 

Estuary

Lower Columbia

Columbia Gorge

Columbia Plateau

Columbia Cascade

Intermountain

Mountain 

Columbia

Blue Mountain

Mountain Snake

Middle Snake

Upper Snake

Subbasin

• Elochoman

• Grays

• Columbia Estuary (Columbia River and all other tributaries from the ocean 

upstream to the confluence with the Cowlitz river)

• Cowlitz

• Kalama

• Lewis

• Sandy

• Washougal

• Willamette

• Columbia Lower (Columbia River and all other tributaries upstream of the 

Cowlitz to, but not including, Bonneville Dam)

• Big White Salmon

• Fifteenmile

• Hood

• Klickitat

• Little White Salmon

• Wind

• Columbia Gorge (Columbia River and all other tributaries between, and including 

Bonneville and The Dalles dams)

• Crab

• Deschutes

• John Day

• Palouse

• Tucannon

• Umatilla

• Walla Walla

• Yakima

• Columbia Lower Middle (Columbia River and all other tributaries upstream of 

The Dalles up to and including Wanapum Dam)

• Snake Lower (Snake River and all other tributaries between the confluence with 

the Columbia river and the confluence with the Clearwater River)

• Entiat

• Lake Chelan

• Methow

• Okanogan

• Wenatchee

• Columbia Upper Middle (Columbia River and all other tributaries upstream of 

Wanapum Dam to, but not including, chief Joseph Dam)

• Coeur d’Alene, including Coeur d’Alene Lake

• Pend Oreille

• San Poil

• Spokane 

• Columbia Upper (Columbia River and all other tributaries from Chief Joseph 

Dam to the international border)

• Bitterroot

• Blackfoot

• Clark Fork 

• Flathead

• Kootenai

• Asotin

• Grande Ronde

• Imnaha

• Snake Hells Canyon (Snake River and all other tributaries upstream of the 

confluence with the Clearwater River to, and including, Hells Canyon Dam)

• Clearwater

• Salmon

• Boise

• Bruneau

• Burnt

• Malheur

• Owyhee

• Payette

• Powder

• Weiser

• Snake Lower Middle (Snake River and all other tributaries upstream of Hells 

Canyon Dam to the confluence with the Boise River) 

• Snake Upper Middle (Snake River and all other tributaries from the confluence 

with the Boise River upstream to the confluence with Clover Creek near the 

town of King Hill)

• Upper Snake (Snake River and tributaries from Clover Creek upstream to the 

headwaters of the Henry’s Fork)

• Upper Closed Basin

• Headwaters of the Snake (Snake River and all tributaries from the Heise gauging 

station upstream to headwaters in Wyoming)

Table 1: Geographic Structure of the Columbia River Ecosystem Excluding the Marine Landscape
A. Recognition of 

Tribal Role

The Council recognizes that 

the Indian tribes in the Columbia River Basin have vital 

interests directly affected by activities 

covered in this program. These Indian 

tribes are sovereigns with governmental rights over their lands and people, 

and with rights over natural resources 

which are reserved by or protected 

in treaties, executive orders, and federal statutes. The United States has a 

trust obligation toward Indian tribes to 

preserve and protect these rights and 

authorities. Nothing in this program is 

intended to affect or modify any trust 

or treaty right of an Indian tribe. The 

Council also recognizes that implementation of this program will require 

significant interaction and cooperation 

with the tribes, and commits to working with the tribes in a relationship that 

recognizes the tribes’ interests in comanagement of affected fish and wildlife resources, and respects the sovereignty of tribal governments.

Tribal Rights, Water Rights, and 

The role of Fish & Wildlife Agencies

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 53

B. Water Rights

As provided by the Northwest 

Power Act, nothing in this program 

shall affect the rights or jurisdictions 

of the United States, the states, Indian 

tribes, or other entities over waters 

of any river or stream or over any 

groundwater resources or otherwise 

be construed to alter or establish the 

respective rights of States, the United 

States, Indian Tribes, or any person 

with respect to any water or waterrelated right.

C. Role of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies 

The Northwest Power Act envisions a strong role for fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes in 

developing the provisions of this program. In Sections 4(h)(6)(A) and 

4(h)(6)(D) of the Act, the Council is 

directed to include program measures 

that it determines (A) “complement 

the existing and future activities of 

the Federal and the region’s State fish 

and wildlife agencies and appropriate 

Indian tribes” and ( D) “will be consistent with the legal rights of appropriate Indian tribes in the region.” 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 45

This section contains the 

administrative provisions for 

the program.

A. Project 

 Implementation, 

 Project 

 Selection and 

 Management

Because this program involves hundreds of projects and many 

millions of dollars per year in funding, an orderly process is needed 

to decide which projects should be 

funded and to administer these decisions once they are made. This section describes that process.

The procedures for implementing 

this program should ensure that planning results in on-the-ground actions, 

and that those actions feed information about their results back to the 

region to guide future decisions. The 

Council will use the procedures in 

this section to integrate Bonneville 

funding for this program with Endangered Species Act requirements and 

the collaborating programs of the 

states, tribes and federal and local 

governments. This section also 

incorporates the strides made in 

recent years to define improved 

selection and management practices 

for fiscal accountability and 

improved information about regional 

fish and wildlife efforts.

This section is intended to outline 

the essentials of the project selection 

process. A more detailed description 

is included in the Technical Appendix.

1. Deadlines for Reports 

A number of the strategies in this 

program call for certain reports to 

be prepared on an annual or biennial 

basis. The Council will consult with 

the parties involved in preparation of 

these reports to establish the most 

appropriate time of the year for completion of each report. Following 

approval by the Council, these deadlines will be recorded in the Technical Appendix. Deadlines established for these reports are subject 

to change by mutual agreement 

between the Council and the reporting parties. Unless otherwise indicated, all reports are due beginning in 

calendar year 2002. 

2. Project Selection — Basic 

Requirements and Roles

While the Council has always 

been involved in efforts to ensure that 

the program it adopts is being implemented effectively, Congress gave the 

Council an increased and explicit role 

in program implementation in a 1996 

amendment to the Power Act. The 

Act now charges the Council, with 

the assistance of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, to make annual 

recommendations to Bonneville on 

projects to be funded through the 

Bonneville fish and wildlife budget to 

implement the program. 

The Power Act specifies certain 

standards and minimum procedures 

for the project review process, but 

otherwise affords the Council broad 

discretion to define the procedures 

for conducting project review and 

selection. The processes outlined 

below describe the statutory requirements and the particular approach 

that the Council intends to use for the 

foreseeable future to address these 

requirements and implement the program. The Council will continue 

to refine and modify program implementation measures it finds necessary 

to best accomplish the fish and wildlife purposes of the Act.

In 1998, the U.S. Congress’ 

Senate-House conference report on 

the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations 

bill directed the Council, again with 

the assistance of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, to also review 

on an annual basis the fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures 

included in federal agency budgets 

that are reimbursed by Bonneville 

(the “reimbursable programs”). The 

four major components of the reimbursable program include the Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program (Corps of Engineers); Fish 

and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Budget (Corps of Engineers); 

Lower Snake River Compensation 

Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); and the Leavenworth Hatchery 

(Bureau of Reclamation). It is the 

Council’s intent to integrate to the 

maximum extent possible the review 

of these reimbursable programs with 

the review of the projects funded by 

Bonneville to implement the Council’s program.

“The procedures for 

implementing this program 

should ensure that 

planning results in onthe-ground actions and 

that those actions feed 

information about their 

results back to the region 

to guide future decisions. “

Implementation

 Provisions

Columbia River Basin resident fish, which spend their 

entire life cycle in freshwater, 

include: warm-water species, 

bass and walleye; and coldwater species, cutthroat, bull 

trout and kokanee.
46 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Role of the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel

 The 1996 amendment to the Power 

Act directed the Council to form the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel 

and Scientific Peer Review Groups 

to review projects proposed for funding to implement the Council’s program through the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s annual fish and 

wildlife budget. The Act requires the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel 

to determine whether projects proposed for funding:

• Are based on sound science principles

• Benefit fish and wildlife

• Have clearly defined objectives 

and outcomes

• Have provisions for monitoring 

and evaluation of results

• Are consistent with the program

 The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel then provides the 

Council its recommendations 

regarding project quality and priorities. The 1998 conference report 

directed the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel to also review the 

reimbursable projects using the same 

standards and provide recommendations to the Council.

Role of the Council

 The Council’s primary role in the 

project review process is to decide 

which projects to recommend to 

Bonneville for funding to implement 

the program. The Council is also 

to provide recommendations to Congress and to the federal agencies 

on funding for the reimbursable programs. 

 Several considerations must go 

into those recommendations. The 

Council must allow for public 

review and comment on the projects 

proposed for funding and the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s 

recommendations. The Council 

must fully consider and respond to 

the recommendations of the Independent Scientific Review Panel; the 

Council must review and determine 

for itself whether proposed projects 

are consistent with the Act and 

the program, including adopted subbasin plans. The Council must 

determine if proposed projects have 

met programmatic or project-specific conditions. By statute, the 

Council must take into consideration 

the effects of ocean conditions on 

fish and wildlife populations and 

must determine that projects employ 

cost effective means to meet program objectives.

Role of the Fish and Wildlife 

Managers

 Currently, the fish and wildlife 

managers, through the Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, 

develop a draft annual program 

implementation work plan from the 

projects proposed for funding. This 

draft annual work plan is the culmination of a technical and management review of all proposed projects, 

and it establishes a proposed annual 

budget and project priorities. The 

Independent Scientific Review Panel 

and the Council review the projects 

proposed for funding in the context 

of the managers’ draft work plan. 

The Council anticipates that the fish 

and wildlife managers will continue 

to organize themselves and jointly 

provide these recommendations in 

the work plan to the Council.

 The project reviews and advice 

of the fish and wildlife managers are 

valuable to the Council as it deliberates on its funding recommendations. With the program’s focus on 

subbasin level plans as the guiding 

documents for program implementation, it will be critical that the 

fish and wildlife managers involve 

others in the subbasins — stakeholders, land owners and managers, other 

state and federal agencies, and other 

interested parties — in a meaningful 

manner in the development of draft 

work plans to be able to continue 

using these work plan recommendations as the foundation for the Council’s project recommendations. 

3. Project Selection – Province-based Project Review 

Process

The Council is shifting the annual 

project solicitation, review and selection of projects from a basin-wide 

exercise to one that focuses on needs 

identified at a province and subbasin 

scale. This shift was made to better 

align the project selection process 

with this program’s structure that 

focuses planning and implementation 

most directly at those levels. Further, 

in focusing the review on a limited 

number of provinces and subbasins 

each year, a more in-depth review 

of proposed projects can be accomplished. This in-depth review, conducted within a more structured subbasin and province context, will 

enable the Council to recommend 

multi-year funding for projects. 

Elements of province reviews 

include:

• The Council provides for a 

province meeting to explain the 

review process to those interested in how Bonneville funding 

may be used within that province. Lead groups are selected 

for each subbasin to develop subbasin summaries or, where completed and adopted by the Council, review subbasin plans to 

identify fish and wildlife project 

needs that may be proposed for 

Bonneville funding for the next 

three years

• Fish and wildlife needs (from 

a summary or plan) are made 

widely available, and Bonneville 

solicits for project proposals to 

meet the identified needs

• Sponsors of ongoing projects 

submit project renewal proposals 

that include plans for the next 

three years, descriptions of 

results to date, and briefings on 

background documents. Ongoing projects will also submit all 

relevant planning, research, and 

background documents. Sponsors of new projects submit pro-
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 47

posals. All projects must be tied 

to the approved subbasin plan. 

Reimbursable programs that are 

within that province provide similar information

• Bonneville should review proposed projects and budgets to 

ensure that regulatory needs, 

including compliance with applicable federal laws, are considered, 

that questions about the adequacy 

or appropriateness of proposed 

budgets are resolved in the Council’s recommendation process, 

and that any concerns Bonneville 

has about the performance of 

ongoing projects are identified

• The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel reviews proposals 

and supporting documents in the 

context of subbasin plans and the 

fish and wildlife program

• The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel conducts subbasin/

province visits with project sponsors, managers and others. The 

visit includes an opportunity 

for project sponsors to present 

their proposals and for a subsequent question and answer session with the Independent Scientific Review Panel. In addition, the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel may conduct project-specific visits

• After the visit, the Independent 

Scientific Review Panel produces 

a draft report on proposals recommended for funding, including specific questions, and provides it to project sponsors for 

comments and revisions

• The project sponsors respond to 

the draft report

• The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel addresses the 

responses and issues a final 

report and recommendations to 

the Council. The Council considers the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel report, other statutory and programmatic considerations, and makes final funding 

recommendations on program 

implementation to Bonneville. 

The Council also makes recommendations on the funding of 

projects within the reimbursable 

programs to Congress and the 

relevant federal agencies

• Systemwide projects will be 

reviewed as a separate unit within 

the review schedule. Wherever 

possible, projects within the 

mainstem will be reviewed as 

part of the review of the province 

in which they are located, 

although certain projects that 

concern systemwide passage, 

water management and dissolved 

gas issues may be reviewed 

as part of a separate category 

of integrated mainstem passage 

activities

4. Project Funding Priorities

The Northwest Power Act establishes Bonneville’s obligation to 

fully mitigate for fish and wildlife 

impacts from the development and 

operation of the hydropower system. 

The Council recognizes its obligation, in turn, to construct a program 

that guides Bonneville’s mitigation 

efforts. The Council recognizes that 

the work necessary to satisfy Bonneville’s mitigation obligation must 

be staged to accommodate yearly 

budget limitations. The Council also 

believes that final determination of 

the yearly direct program budget 

may properly be reserved for a later 

phase of the program amendment 

process where the project funding 

needs will be more greatly informed 

by subbasin planning. Funding for 

provincial budgets to implement 

subbasin plans will be part of the 

direct program budget along with 

any subsequent increases. 

The Council adopts the following 

funding principles to prioritize among 

the many needs to address fish and 

wildlife impacts throughout the basin:

• The Bonneville Power Administration will fulfill its Fish 

and Wildlife Funding Principles 

(September 16, 1998) including 

the commitment to “meet all of 

its fish and wildlife obligations”

• The determination of provincial 

budget levels should take into 

account the level of impact 

caused by the federally operated 

hydropower system. Other factors will also influence this determination including opportunities 

for off-site mitigation

• Wildlife mitigation should 

emphasize addressing areas of 

the basin with the highest proportion of unmitigated losses

To prioritize among the many 

needs to address fish and wildlife 

impacts throughout the basin, the 

Council will maintain the current 

funding allocation for anadromous fish 

(70 percent), resident fish (15 percent), 

and wildlife (15 percent), until a new 

budget allocation is adopted. 

5. Coordination with Other 

Regional Programs

The Council will pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies 

with other federal, state, tribal, Canadian, and volunteer fish and wildlife 

Funding Allocation
48

2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

restoration programs. The Council 

will use the subbasin planning process to identify coordination needs 

and opportunities. The subbasin 

planning process should inventory 

regulatory requirements, including 

Endangered Species Act and Clean 

Water Act measures, clarify water 

and land management objectives 

affecting fish and wildlife, and fit 

program funding to other programs 

for the maximum benefit.

As the Council refines the province-based project review and funding process, it will focus the information requirements of the process 

to identify how project sponsors may 

link their efforts to address program 

objectives with the objectives or 

requirements of other programs.

The Council will use the subbasin 

planning process to review Endangered Species Act and Clean Water 

Act requirements in more detail and 

obtain independent scientific review 

of both the program measures and 

the requirements of applicable biological opinions. The Council will 

present the results of these reviews 

and any revised recommendations to 

the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to consider further revision 

or reconciliation of biological opinion requirements. Pursuant to the 

requirements of the 1998 Energy and 

Water Appropriations Act, the Council will also report the results of these 

reviews to Congress as part of the 

annual review of reimbursable projects.

The National Marine Fisheries 

Service intends to call on the federal 

action agencies to annually develop 

one- and five-year implementation 

plans and associated budgets for 

activities they intend to undertake 

to meet the performance standards 

and objectives for listed species. 

The Council endorses this approach, 

and once the requirement is further 

defined, will seek to incorporate 

these plans into the subbasin review 

process.

For non-operational measures 

proposed by biological opinions for 

Bonneville funding (such as research 

or off-site habitat measures), the 

Council will call on Bonneville, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

first define proposed projects consistently with the project proposal form 

and process for Bonneville’s directfunded program. The Council will 

seek review of these proposals with 

the other projects proposed in the 

project review process.

6. Project Management

To facilitate multi-year funding 

and contracting, the Council will 

require projects to identify specific 

tasks, objectives, deliverables, and 

their associated costs. Bonneville 

and the Council will establish protocols to ensure that projects stay 

within their approved scope and 

funding authorizations.

Bonneville shall define terms 

and conditions for project contracts 

that support timely and complete 

reporting by contractors of expenditures and progress toward defined 

project objectives. These requirements should ensure that project 

sponsors report expenditures and 

progress in enough detail to monitor 

performance of the specific tasks and 

objectives identified in the original 

project proposal from the Council.

7. Annual Report to Governors and the Region

Bonneville and the federal operating agencies will work cooperatively with the Council to produce 

an annual report which will provide 

an accounting of its fish and wildlife 

expenditures and hydropower operation costs.

8. Funding Agreement for 

Land and Water Acquisitions

Experience implementing this 

program has shown great advantages 

in being able to move quickly and 

flexibly to acquire interests in land 

and water rights for the purpose 

of protecting or enhancing fish and 

wildlife habitat. Often the opportunity for an important acquisition 

exists only for a short period of time, 

and often there is a substantial price 

advantage in being able to quickly 

close the transaction. The time and 

uncertainty of the current project 

selection process, and the procedural 

constraints on real estate acquisition 

by the federal agencies have made 

these transactions relatively difficult 

and more costly than necessary.

The Council recommends that 

Bonneville establish a funding agreement for land and water acquisitions. 

The Council will establish a mechanism, including an advisory entity, 

that can act flexibly, quickly, and 

responsibly in approving funding for 

land and water acquisition proposals. 

The primary elements are:

• A dedicated budget within Bonneville’s fish and wildlife funding 

establishing the amount of funding for land and water acquisitions available per year, for a 

multi-year period. The budget 

would be known as the “Land and 

Water Acquisition Fund”

• An advisory board appointed 

by the Council after consultations 

with representatives from Bonneville, federal and state fish 

and wildlife and land management agencies, Columbia Basin 

Indian tribes, non-profit organizations specializing in habitat and 

water acquisitions, and the Council. The board would recommend 

“The Council will pursue 

opportunities to integrate 

program strategies with 

other federal, state, 

tribal, Canadian, and 

volunteer fish and wildlife 

restoration programs. “
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 49

for Council approval all land and 

water acquisitions from the dedicated budget. The Council will 

make all final recommendations 

and decisions regarding land and 

water acquisitions from the fund

• Specific procedures and criteria 

for the board to use in identifying, 

reviewing, and deciding whether 

to recommend proposals for land 

and water acquisitions. These criteria will be reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, 

but specific land and water acquisitions would not require Independent Scientific Review Panel 

review. An element of these criteria will be a preference for 

proposed actions that 1) address 

imminent risks to the survival 

of one or more species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act 

and 2) are broadly recognized 

as achieving direct fish and wildlife benefits. The criteria should 

emphasize consistency with the 

program’s biological objectives 

and subbasin plans

• Standardized terms for implementing acquisitions, including 

matters of contracting, management, crediting, operation and 

maintenance costs, and monitoring and evaluation requirements

• Accountability provisions for 

reporting on monies spent, properties acquired, biological gain, 

and consistency with program 

and subbasin objectives. The 

program as a whole will receive 

periodic Independent Scientific 

Review Panel review

The Council will work with Bonneville and other interested parties to 

establish the details of the acquisition 

fund and have it ready for acquisitions 

by January 1, 2001. All acquisitions 

must be on a willing buyer, willing 

seller basis, consistent with state water 

law, and consistent with the other 

provisions of this program. Council 

members will be notified of all acquisition proposals under consideration 

by the advisory board. The fund will 

not be used for a proposed acquisition 

if both Council members from that 

state object to the acquisition.

The fund will not take title to 

acquisitions except on an interim basis, 

but will, for each transaction, identify 

an appropriate entity to hold the interest acquired. The fund will work in 

cooperation with other efforts that are 

already underway to benefit fish and 

wildlife through acquisitions of land 

and may provide cost sharing or full 

funding for transactions that have been 

arranged by others. In appropriate circumstances, the fund may provide for 

the continuing payment of local taxes 

and fees on an acquisition. 

B. Independent 

 Scientific Review

All projects funded under this program are required by law to 

undergo review by an independent science panel. In addition, the program 

uses a second, related panel of scientists to provide advice to the region on 

key scientific issues.

Independent scientific review is 

an established tradition in research 

and development programs in the 

United States and much of the 

world. Independent scientific review 

can help decision-makers separate scientific variables from other considerations (political, economic, cultural, 

etc.) and help ensure that environmental decision-making reflects the best 

scientific knowledge of the day. In the 

Columbia River Basin, the magnitude 

of scientific research undertaken and 

uncertainties that remain are staggering. Independent scientific review can 

identify strengths and weaknesses of 

scientific programs and critical information gaps that are most relevant to 

management and policy decisions. 

Independent scientific review for 

the fish and wildlife program is implemented by two groups: the Independent Scientific Review Panel and 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board. Each group provides unique 

services to the program. The Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews 

individual projects in the context of 

the program and makes recommendations on matters related to those 

projects. The Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board provides an on-call 

scientific body for peer review of various reports, projects, and issues affecting Columbia River Basin fish and 

wildlife. 

The Independent Scientific Review 

Panel was created after the last 

Council program amendment, and 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board’s role was expanded from 

the 1994-1995 Program to meet the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

needs. This program amendment formalizes, distinguishes, and specifies 

the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the two groups while maintaining a strong link between the 

groups. The background and responsibilities for each group, and a description of the shared administrative procedures for both groups follows.

“The Council recommends 

that Bonneville 

establish a funding 

agreement for land 

and water acquisitions.“

Columbia River Basin resident fish, which spend their 

entire life cycle in freshwater, 

include: warm-water species, 

bass and walleye; and coldwater species, cutthroat, bull 

trout and kokanee.
50 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

1. The Independent 

Scientific Review 

Panel

Review Responsibilities

 The 1996 amendment to the 

Power Act directed the Council 

to appoint an 11-member panel 

of independent scientists and additional peer review groups. These 

scientists provide advice and information regarding scientific aspects 

of projects that the Council may recommend for funding by Bonneville. 

The Independent Scientific Review 

Panel and peer review groups have 

responsibilities in three areas:

• Review projects proposed for 

Bonneville funding to implement 

the Council’s program

The Power Act directs the 

Independent Scientific Review 

Panel to review annually projects 

that are proposed for Bonneville 

funding to implement the Council’s program. The Act specifies 

the review standards that the 

Independent Scientific Review 

Panel is to use and the kinds of 

recommendations to make to the 

Council. The Council must fully 

consider the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s report prior 

to making its funding recommendations to Bonneville, and 

must explain in writing wherever 

the Council’s recommendations 

differ from the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s.

• Retrospective review of program 

accomplishments

 The 1996 amendment also 

directs the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel, with assistance 

from the Scientific Peer Review 

Groups, to annually review the 

results of prior-year expenditures 

based upon the project review 

criteria and submit its findings to 

the Council.

The retrospective review should 

focus on the measurable 

benefits to fish and 

wildlife made through 

projects funded by 

Bonneville and previously 

reviewed. The Independent Scientific Review Panel’s findings 

should provide biological information for the Council’s ongoing 

accounting and evaluation of 

Bonneville’s expenditures and 

the level of success in meeting 

the objectives of the program, 

as described in the monitoring 

and evaluation section. Also as 

part of the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel’s annual retrospective report, the Independent 

Scientific Review Panel should 

summarize its province review 

efforts and identify the major 

basinwide programmatic issues 

gleaned from the province 

reviews.

• Review projects funded through 

Bonneville’s reimbursable program

 In 1998, the U.S. Congress’ 

Senate-House conference report 

on the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations bill directed the Independent Scientific Review Panel 

to review the fish and wildlife 

projects, programs, or measures 

included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by 

Bonneville, using the same standards and making recommendations as in its review of the 

projects proposed to implement 

the Council’s program. Further 

details of the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s project 

review responsibilities are 

described earlier, in the section 

on project selection. 

The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel is a standing 

group that meets throughout 

the year. Recommendations 

from the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel are reached by 

consensus. The Independent Scientific Review Panel may enlist 

Peer Review Group members to 

assist in reviews. From the 

pool of Peer Review Group 

members, the Independent Scientific Review Panel selects 

reviewers who have the appropriate expertise for the review 

at issue. The Independent Scientific Review Panel develops 

guidelines and criteria for 

reviews that include lists of materials reviewed, site-visit protocols, and limits to reviewer and 

project sponsor communication.

2. The Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board

The Council and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service established 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board to provide independent scientific advice to the region through 

measures described in the Council’s 

1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 1995 Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. 

Rather than establish two groups, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the Council created the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. In 

creating the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and the Council 

hoped to avoid gridlock over scientific uncertainty, circumvent unnecessary additional research, and resolve 

conflicting advice and opinions on 

recovery issues and measures. 
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 51

 Review Procedures

 The Independent Scientific Advisory Board is a standing group that 

meets regularly throughout the year. 

Recommendations from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board 

are reached by consensus. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board 

may enlist ad hoc members to 

assist in reviews. Ad hoc members 

may include Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and Peer Review 

Group members. The Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board conducts 

reviews in a manner consistent with 

its terms of reference and procedures 

policy.

Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board Administrative Oversight 

Panel

 A panel consisting of the chair 

of the Northwest Power Planning 

Council, the regional administrator 

of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and a representative from 

the Columbia Basin Indian tribes 

provides administrative oversight for 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board and approves the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board work 

plan. The panel makes appointments 

to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board from a list developed 

by a Scientific Screening Committee. Decisions of the panel shall be 

by majority vote. The Council shall 

work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the regional Indian 

tribes to amend the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s terms of 

reference to provide this role for 

the regional Indian tribes, and to 

define protocols for the Administrative Oversight Panel that ensure 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board’s continued independence.

Specific Tasks of the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board

• Evaluate the program’s scientific 

principles to ensure they are consistent with the best available science

• Evaluate the fish and wildlife 

program on its scientific merits 

in time to inform amendments to 

the fish and wildlife program and 

before the Council requests recommendations from the region

• Evaluate National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plans for 

Columbia River Basin stocks and 

aspects of the recovery process 

when requested

- Review the scientific and 

technical issues associated with 

efforts to improve anadromous 

fish survival through all life 

stages, based on adaptive management approaches

- Review and provide advice 

on priorities for conservation 

and recovery efforts, including research, monitoring and 

evaluation

• Provide specific scientific advice 

on topics and questions requested 

from the region and approved 

by the oversight panel. Tribes, 

fish and wildlife agencies and 

others may submit questions 

to the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board through the 

oversight panel. The Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board may 

also identify questions and propose reviews. The oversight 

panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board reviews 

these questions in a timely 

manner and decides which are 

amenable to scientific analysis, 

are relevant to the Council’s and 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s programs, and fit within 

the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s work plan

In 2000, The National Marine 

Fisheries Service established a 

Recovery Science Review Panel 

and Technical Review Teams 

that will provide scientific advice 

on West Coast salmon recovery 

efforts. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board effort will 

be coordinated with The National 

Marine Fisheries Service’s panel 

and teams to avoid redundancy. 

 3. Administration of the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel, the Scientific Peer 

Review Groups, and the 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board Membership

The Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board shall each 

be composed of eleven members. 

Peer Review Groups shall be composed of a pool of scientists sufficient 

in size and expertise to assist the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel 

in its review responsibilities. To 

ensure coordination and avoid redundancy of efforts between the Independent Scientific Review Panel and 

the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board, at least two members of the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel 

shall be on the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board. Other Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board members 

should be considered for appointment 

to the Peer Review Group.

Membership for each group shall 

include, to the extent feasible, scientists with expertise in Columbia 

River anadromous and resident fish 

ecology, statistics, wildlife ecology, 

and ocean and estuary ecology, fish 

husbandry, genetics, geomorphology, 

social and economic sciences, and 

other relevant disciplines. There 

While development of the 

hydrosystem harmed some species of wldlife, others benefitted. Waterfowl, for example, 

gained new shoreline feeding 

and wintering habitat when reservoirs filled behind dams.
52 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

should be a balance between scientists with specific knowledge of 

the Columbia River Basin and those 

with more broad and diverse experience. Members should have a strong 

record of scientific accomplishment, 

high standards of scientific integrity, 

the ability to forge creative solutions 

to complex problems, and a demonstrated ability to work effectively in 

an interdisciplinary setting.

Independent Scientific Review 

Panel and Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board membership terms 

are for three years, not to exceed two 

terms. Term limits of the members 

are staggered to ensure continuity 

of effort. Peer Review Group members do not have specific terms, 

but the Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and the Council 

will review the pool of Peer 

Review Group members 

on an annual basis and 

update it when appropriate.

Appointment Procedures

The appointment procedures to fill 

vacancies on the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and the Independent Scientific Review Panel, 

and to augment the pool of Peer 

Review Group members, follows 

three steps. The first two steps 

are the same for each group. 

First, the Council, in cooperation 

with the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board Oversight Panel, 

invites the region to submit nomi n a t i o n s . Second, a three-member committee of the 

National Academy of 

Sciences, assisted by 

the National Research 

Council, evaluates the 

credentials of the nominees, submits additional 

nominees if necessary, and 

recommends a pool of 

qualified candidates for 

potential appointment. This 

pool of candidates should span 

the areas of needed expertise 

and meet the membership criteria for the Independent Scientific Review Panel and Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board. The pool should 

be robust enough to last 

through several rounds of 

appointments. The third 

step, the appointment procedure, varies for the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board and Independent Scientific Review 

Panel. The Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board 

Oversight Panel appoints 

Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board 

members. The 

Council 

alone 

appoints Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and Peer Review 

Group members.

Conflict of Interest

Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board, Independent Scientific 

Review Panel and Scientific Peer 

Review Group members are subject 

to the conflict of interest standards 

that apply to scientists performing 

comparable work for the National 

Academy of Sciences. At a minimum, members with direct or indirect financial interest in a project 

shall be recused from review of, or 

recommendations associated with, 

such a project. The Council may 

create a Conflict of Interest Policy 

that satisfies the needs of the program, applies to the Independent 

Scientific Review Panel and the 

Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board, and is at least as rigorous as 

the National Academy of Sciences 

standards.
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 57

Continuation of existing measures 

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all measures not directly superseded by this program will continue 

to have force and effect until 1) a 

subbasin plan has been adopted by 

the Council for the subbasin in which 

the project is located (or, for research 

and mainstem measures, a research 

or mainstem plan); 2) the measure 

has been specifically repealed in a 

subsequent rulemaking; or 3) three 

years have elapsed following the final 

approval of this program, whichever 

occurs first.

 Transition Provisions
58 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 55

This program describes additional amendment proceedings that are intended by the 

Council for further revisions. In 

order to assure that these further 

revisions are adopted in an orderly 

manner, the Council commits to the 

following schedule:

A. Mainstem Coordination Plan

On or before May 1, 2001, the 

Council will solicit recommendations 

for a mainstem coordination plan, similar to a subbasin plan. The plan will 

consider ways in which the hydrosystem operations called for in the biological opinions could be adjusted so 

as to assure that these operations meet 

the needs of ESA-listed stocks and 

the dictates of the Northwest Power 

Act. The hydrosystem measures contained in this plan will also provide 

necessary guidance to the Council’s 

subbasin planning process. 

The plan will include, as appropriate, specific measures such as standards for systemwide coordination, 

flow regimes, spill, reservoir elevations, water retention times, passage 

modifications at mainstem dams, 

operational requirements to protect 

mainstem spawning and rearing 

areas, and operational requirements 

to protect resident fish and wildlife.

 The Council plans to complete 

this rulemaking by October 2001.

B. Objectives for 

Basin level Environmental Characteristics

The Council has requested review 

by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board of the basin level environmental characteristics contained in 

the Appendix to this program by June 

2001. Following this review, if further changes are merited, the Council 

will request recommendations on or 

before October 2001 and consider 

amendments to these objectives, with 

final amendments adopted by July 

2002. The date of completion may 

vary depending on the comments 

received and issues raised.

C. Province Level 

Goals, Objectives, and 

Strategies

The Council will continue to work 

with interested parties to develop 

potential goals, objectives, and strategies at the level of ecological provinces. The Council expects that the 

information developed for, and in, the 

subbasin planning process will also 

inform the province level elements, and 

help shape the subbasin plans so that 

they are coordinated with the plans of 

other subbasins in their province.

At this time, the Council is not 

scheduling a further rulemaking for 

province level goals, objectives, and 

strategies. If further information is 

developed that merits such amendments, the Council will solicit recommendations and accept amendments.

In the course of adopting subbasin 

plans, the Council will consider how 

the proposed plans fit with one 

another within and among provinces. 

The Council expects that, at the 

conclusion of the subbasin planning 

process, it will conduct a specific 

amendment process to incorporate 

specific provincial visions, objectives, and strategies. 

D. Subbasin plans

In January 2001, the Council will 

issue a call for recommendations for 

subbasin plans. Recommendations 

will be received on or before May 

1, 2001; November 1, 2001; May 1, 

2002; November 1, 2002; May 1, 

2003; November 1, 2003; May 1, 

2004; and November 1, 2004. The 

Council will make a decision on each 

subbasin plan within one year of its 

receipt, unless otherwise agreed by 

the recommending party.

In other words, subbasin plans can 

be submitted on any of these dates 

during this three-year period, and the 

date of final decision will be one year 

or less after receipt. For example, a 

plan submitted on November 1, 2002, 

will be acted upon by November 1, 

2003.

The Council is taking this 

approach to assure that subbasin 

plans can be submitted when ready, 

and also to assure that the parties 

working on a plan within a subbasin 

have a reasonable opportunity to 

come together on a common plan. 

The Council recognizes that the 

timing for submission of plans will 

vary depending on a number of factors, including the level of information and planning already available in 

a subbasin and the working relationship among the participants.

Under the Northwest Power Act, 

there is no requirement of consensus 

in order for a recommendation to 

be submitted to the Council and it 

is possible that different parties will 

submit different plans for a given 

subbasin. However, the level of support by the affected parties in a subbasin for a plan can be an important 

factor in gauging how well the 

plan meets the standards of the 

Northwest Power Act, and whether 

that plan can be effectively implemented. Thus, the Council strongly 

encourages interested parties to work 

together as much as possible to present a single, well-supported plan for 

each subbasin.

Schedule for Further 

Rulemakings

The Columbia-Snake River 

System is a unified transportation system with thirtysix deep and shallow water 

ports.
56 2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Future 

Hydroelectric 

Development

Much of this program has focused on mitigating damage done to 

Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife by hydropower development and 

operations in the past. But the future 

is equally important. The Corps of 

Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation continue to study the need for 

additional federal hydroelectric projects and to plan for new development 

in the basin. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has many permits and applications pending for 

hydroelectric development in Idaho, 

Oregon, Montana and Washington. 

Many of those applications and permits are for projects throughout the 

Columbia River Basin. Dozens of 

small or medium-sized hydroelectric 

projects are proposed for tributary 

drainage basins that contain important anadromous fish habitat. However, most new hydroelectric development will be accomplished by private 

or non-federal public entities licensed 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission.

Many of the proposals are 

for hydroelectric projects that would 

produce less than 5 megawatts of 

electricity. Although individual small 

projects may have no significant 

adverse effects on the fish and wildlife 

resources of the basin, the cumulative 

effects of such development throughout a river basin could be quite harmful. These cumulative effects need to 

be taken into account fully.

The Council estimates that 

4,600 stream miles of Columbia 

River Basin salmon and steelhead 

spawning and rearing habitat have 

been lost to development, not including losses of migration routes and 

of resident fish and wildlife habitat. 

Minimizing further habitat loss is 

especially important in view of the 

Council’s goal of doubling salmon 

and steelhead runs in the Columbia 

River Basin consistent with system 

policies (see Sections 2 and 4). 

Development in critical fish and 

wildlife areas leads to divisive and 

expensive conflicts that the Council 

believes can be avoided through 

resource planning.

The Council finds that future 

hydroelectric developers in the basin 

should be required to mitigate harm 

to fish and wildlife and has adopted 

program measures calling for such 

mitigation. New hydroelectric development has the potential to cause further damage to the basin’s fish and 

wildlife resources as well as to negate 

ongoing Council efforts to remedy 

damage caused by the existing hydropower system. Federal agencies also 

should assess and mitigate the cumulative effects on fish and wildlife of 

multiple hydroelectric projects.

The Council also intends to 

continue to review applications for 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits and licenses and for 

Corps of Engineers and Bureau of 

Reclamation proposals for hydroelectric development. The purpose of this 

review is to identify program measures related to the proposed development to ensure that any new development in the basin is consistent with 

this fish and wildlife program and 

the Council’s Northwest Power Plan. 

The Council’s reviews would complement and recognize, not supplant, 

the role of the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes in reviewing proposals 

for hydroelectric projects.

1. FUTURE HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Conditions

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation 

and Bonneville

Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions

Do not license, exempt from license, 

relicense, propose, recommend, agree 

to acquire or wheel power from, grant 

billing credits for, or otherwise support 

any hydroelectric development in the 

Columbia River Basin without specifically providing for these development 

conditions:

• Consultation with the fish managers and the Council throughout 

study, design, construction and 

operation of the project;

• Specific plans for flows and fish 

facilities prior to construction;

• The best available means for 

aiding downstream and upstream 

passage of anadromous and resident fish;

• Flows and reservoir levels of 

sufficient quantity and quality 

to protect spawning, incubation, 

rearing and migration;

• Full compensation for unavoidable fish losses or fish habitat 

losses through habitat restoration 

or replacement, appropriate propagation, or similar measures consistent with the provisions of this 

program;

• Assurance that the project will 

not inundate the usual and accustomed, traditional or contemporary fishing places of any tribe 

without tribal approval;

• Assurance that the project will 

not degrade fish habitat or reduce 

numbers of fish in such a way 

that the exercise of treaty or 

executive order tribal rights will 

be diminished;

• Assurance that all fish protection 

measures are fully operational at 

the time the project begins operation;

• The collection of data needed to 

B-1
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

monitor and evaluate the results 

of the fish protection efforts; and

• Assurance that the project will 

not degrade water quality beyond 

the point necessary to sustain 

sensitive fish species (as designated in consultation with the 

fish managers).

Do not license, relicense, exempt 

from license, propose, recommend, 

agree to acquire or wheel power 

from, grant billing credits for, or 

otherwise support any hydroelectric 

development in the Columbia River 

Basin without specifically providing 

for these development conditions:

• Consultation with wildlife managers and the Council throughout 

study, design, construction and 

operation of the project;

• Avoiding inundation of wildlife 

habitat, insofar as practical;

• Timing construction activities, 

insofar as practical, to reduce 

adverse effects on nesting and 

wintering grounds;

• Locating temporary access roads 

in areas to be inundated;

• Constructing subimpoundments 

and using all suitable excavated 

material to create islands, if 

appropriate, before the reservoir 

is filled;

• Avoiding all unnecessary or premature clearing of land before 

filling the reservoir;

• Providing artificial nest structures when appropriate;

• Avoiding construction, insofar as 

practical, within 250 meters of 

active raptor nests;

• Avoiding critical riparian habitat 

(as designated in consultation 

with the wildlife managers) 

when clearing, riprapping, 

dredging, disposing of spoils 

and wastes, constructing diversions, and relocating structures 

and facilities;

• Replacing riparian vegetation if 

natural revegetation is inadequate;

• Creating subimpoundments by 

diking backwater slough areas, 

creating islands and nesting 

areas;

• Regulating water levels to reduce 

adverse effects on wildlife during 

critical wildlife periods (as 

defined in consultation with the 

fish and wildlife managers);

• Improving the wildlife capacity 

of undisturbed portions of new 

project areas (through such activities as managing vegetation, 

reducing disturbance, and supplying food, cover and water) 

as compensation for otherwise 

unmitigated harm to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat in other parts of 

the project area;

• Acquiring land or management 

rights, such as conservation easements, where necessary to compensate for lost wildlife habitat 

at the same time other project 

land is acquired and including the 

associated costs in project cost 

estimates;

• Funding operation and management of the acquired wildlife 

land for the life of the project;

• Granting management easement 

rights on the acquired wildlife 

lands to appropriate management 

entities;

• Collecting data needed to monitor and evaluate the results of the 

wildlife protection efforts;

• Assurance that the project will 

not inundate the usual and accustomed, traditional or contemporary hunting places of any tribe 

without tribal approval; and

• Assurance that the project will 

not degrade wildlife habitat or 

reduce numbers of wildlife in 

such a way that the exercise of 

treaty or executive order tribal 

rights will be diminished.

Ensure that all licenses for hydroelectric projects or documents that 

propose, recommend or otherwise 

support hydroelectric development 

explain in detail how the provisions 

of this section will be accomplished 

or the reasons why the provisions 

cannot be incorporated into the 

project.

2. PROTECTED AREAS 

From the inception of this program, the Council has supported the 

concept of protecting some streams 

and wildlife habitats from hydroelectric development, where the 

Council believes such development 

would have major negative impacts 

that could not be reversed. Beginning in 1983, the Council directed 

extensive studies of existing habitat 

and has analyzed alternative means 

of protection. In 1988, the Council 

concluded that: 1) the studies had 

identified fish and wildlife resources 

of critical importance to the region; 

2) mitigation techniques cannot 

assure that all adverse impacts of 

hydroelectric development on these 

fish and wildlife populations will be 

mitigated; 3) even small hydroelectric projects may have unacceptable 

individual and cumulative impacts 

on these resources; and 4) protecting 

these resources and habitats from 

hydroelectric development is consistent with an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply. 

The Council, relying on these studies, designated certain river reaches 

in the basin as “protected areas,” 

where the Council believes hydroelectric development would have 

unacceptable risks of loss to fish 

and wildlife species of concern, their 

productive capacity or their habitat.

River reaches to be protected are 

those reaches or portions of reaches 

listed on the “Protected Areas List” 

B-2
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

adopted by the Council on August 

10, 1988, and subsequently. For each 

river reach listed on the Protected 

Areas List, the fish and wildlife to be 

protected are those on the list. The 

Council will supply a copy of the 

Protected Areas List to any party free 

of charge.

Protect Areas From New 

Hydropower Development

The following are not affected by 

protected areas:

• Any hydroelectric facility or 

its existing impoundment that 

as of August 10, 1988, had 

been licensed or exempted from 

licensing by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission;

• The relicensing of such hydroelectric facility or its existing 

impoundment;

• Any modification of any existing 

hydroelectric facility or its existing impoundment; and

• Any addition of hydroelectric 

generation facilities to a nonhydroelectric dam or diversion 

structure.

• Transition projects: The Council 

recognizes that there exist, as 

of August 10, 1988, applications 

for hydroelectric projects that 

are in various stages of completion before the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. In 

many cases the applicants have 

made substantial investments 

and have completed, or nearly 

completed, agreements with all 

interested parties, including 

state fish and wildlife agencies. 

The Council recognizes that 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission may be obligated 

to complete its processes on 

these applications, but expects 

where possible that this measure 

will be taken into account to the 

fullest extent practicable.

The Council recognizes that 

there may exist preliminary permits or applications for licenses 

or exemptions for hydroelectric 

projects at sites that were not previously within protected areas, 

but which may be included 

within protected areas as a result 

of amendments approved by the 

Council. An important purpose of 

protected areas is to encourage 

developers to site projects outside protected areas. The Council 

therefore exempts from the effect 

of an amendment that designates 

a previously unprotected area as 

protected, any project for which 

the developer had obtained a preliminary permit or filed an application for license or exemption 

prior to the date on which the 

Council entered rulemaking on 

the amendment. However, it is 

the Council’s intention that the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission give full consideration to 

the protection of fish and wildlife 

resources located at these project 

sites and provide suitable protection and mitigation for such 

resources in the event that a 

license or exemption is approved.

• Effect on water rights and riparian areas: This measure should 

not be interpreted to authorize 

the appropriation of water by any 

entity or individual, affect water 

rights or jurisdiction over water, 

or alter or establish any water 

or water-related right. The Council does not intend this measure 

to alter or affect any state or federal water quality classification 

or standards, or alter any management plan developed pursuant 

to the national Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1601, et 

seq., or the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 

1701, et seq., except to the extent 

planning decisions are directly 

related to hydropower licensing 

and development. Nor should this 

measure be interpreted to alter, 

amend, repeal, interpret, modify, 

or conflict with any interstate 

compact made by the states. If 

this measure is found by a court 

or other competent authority to 

conflict with any other interstate 

compact, this measure will terminate with respect to the area 

involved, without further action 

of the Council.

 This measure applies to river 

reaches, or portions of river 

reaches, and to river banks or 

surrounding areas only where 

such areas would be directly 

affected by a proposed hydroelectric project. In adopting this 

measure, the Council has not 

attempted to balance all the factors that may be relevant to land 

management determinations.

Bonneville Power Administration

Do not acquire power from hydroelectric projects located in protected 

areas. The Council believes that the 

Long-Term Intertie Access Policy’s 

reliance on protected areas is consistent with the Council’s power plan 

and fish and wildlife program as 

they apply to fish and wildlife in the 

Columbia River Basin. The Council 

continues to recommend that Bonneville adopt a similar policy with 

respect to protected areas outside the 

Columbia River Basin.

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Under the Northwest Power Act, 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, and all other federal 

agencies responsible for managing, 

operating, or regulating federal or 

non-federal hydroelectric facilities 

located on the Columbia River or its 

tributaries are required to take protected area designations into account 

to the fullest extent practicable at 

all relevant stages of decision-making processes. The Council recognizes that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission makes licensing 

and exemption decisions for nonfederal projects, and does not expect 

B-3
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

that the Commission will abandon 

its normal processes with regard 

to projects located in protected 

areas. Rather, consistent with Section 4(h)(11) of the Northwest 

Power Act, the Council expects 

that the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission will take the Council’s 

judgment into account, and implement that judgment in licensing and 

exemption decisions unless the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s legal responsibilities require 

otherwise.

3. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND CONSISTENCY OF HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

Cumulative Effects 

Federal Project Operators and 

Regulators

Review simultaneously all applications or proposals for hydroelectric 

development in a single river drainage, through consolidated hearings, 

environmental impact statements or 

assessments, or other appropriate 

methods. This review shall assess 

cumulative environmental effects of 

existing and proposed hydroelectric 

development on fish and wildlife.

Ensure Consistency With This 

Program

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Require all applicants for licenses 

(including license renewals, amendments and exemptions) and preliminary permits in the Columbia 

River Basin to demonstrate in their 

applications how the proposed project would take this program into 

account to the fullest extent practicable.

Provide the Council with copies of 

all applications for licenses (including license renewals, amendments 

and exemptions) and preliminary 

permits in the Columbia River Basin 

so that the Council can comment in 

a timely manner on the consistency 

of the proposed project with this fish 

and wildlife program. This provision 

is not intended to supplant review 

of such applications by the fish and 

wildlife agencies and tribes.

Federal Land Managers and 

Federal and State Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies

Incorporate pertinent elements of 

the fish and wildlife program in 

the terms and conditions they apply 

to projects exempted from licensing 

under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission exemption procedures. 

The Council also requests federal 

land managers to incorporate this 

program into their permit procedures related to hydroelectric development on lands they manage.

Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

Reclamation, and any Other 

Federal Agency Studying or 

Proposing Hydroelectric Development in the Columbia River 

Basin

Provide opportunity for Council 

review and comment.

B-4
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Appendix C: Wildlife Provisions

Wildlife Provisions

Mitigation Priorities

Bonneville and Wildlife Managers

Ensure that wildlife mitigation 

projects implemented in fulfillment of this program are consistent 

with the basinwide implementation 

priorities described in Tables 11-1, 

11-2 and 11-3, below.

Table 11-1 Lower Columbia Subbasin Wildlife Mitigation Priorities

Habitat Types--Target Species Priority

Riparian/Riverine High

• Great Blue Heron

Old Growth Forest High

• Northern Spotted Owl

Wetlands High

• Great Blue Heron

• Band-tailed Pigeon

• Western Pond Turtle

Coniferous Forest Medium

• Ruffed Grouse

• Elk

• American Black Bear/Cougar

C-1
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

 Table 11-2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Wildlife Mitigation Priorities

Habitat Types--Target Species Priority

Riparian/River High

• Bald Eagle (breeding)

• Black-capped Chickadee

• Peregrine Falcon

Shrub-Steppe High

• Sharp-tailed Grouse

• Pygmy Rabbit

• Sage Grouse

• Mule Deer

Wetlands High

• Mallard

• Redhead

Islands Medium

• White Pelicans

Agricultural Lands Low

• Swainson’s Hawk

• Ring-necked Pheasant

 Table 11-3 Snake River Subbasin Wildlife Mitigation Priorities

Habitat Type--Target Species Priority

Riparian/Riverine High

• Bald Eagle (breeding)

• Bald Eagle (wintering)

• River Otter

• Black-capped Chickadee

• Peregrine Falcon

• Ruffed Grouse

Wetlands High

• Mallard

Native Grasslands and Shrubs Medium

• Mule Deer/Elk

• White-tailed Deer

• Sharp-tailed Grouse

Coniferous Forest Medium

• Elk

Old Growth Forest Medium

• Pileated Woodpecker

Lowland Forest Low

• White-tailed deer

C-2
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Monitor and 

Evaluate Wildlife 

Efforts at Nonfederal Projects

Non-federal hydroelectric projects 

are licensed by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. The Electric Consumers Protection Act of 

1986 (ECPA) mandates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

give equal consideration to the protection, mitigation of damage to, and 

enhancement of wildlife in licensing 

and relicensing decisions.

Mitigation Considerations in 

Dam Licensing Decisions

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

In developing license conditions, 

take into account to the fullest extent 

practicable the policies established 

in this section, and the measures 

taken by Bonneville and others to 

implement this section, and Section 

12.1A.2 of this program. In particular, it is important to take into 

account the mitigation projects at 

federal projects undertaken pursuant 

to this section, to ensure that license 

conditions are consistent with and 

complement these wildlife mitigation projects and contribute fully and 

proportionately to regional wildlife 

mitigation goals.

Council

The Council will monitor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

licensing and relicensing proceedings and comment or intervene 

where appropriate.

C-3
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Table 11-4 identifies the losses due to hydropower construction at federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. 

Table 11-4 Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction

 (losses are preceded by a “-”, gains by a “+”)

Species Total Habitat Units

Albeni Falls

• Mallard Duck -5,985

• Canada Goose -4,699

• Redhead Duck -3,379

• Breeding Bald Eagle -4,508

• Wintering Bald Eagle -4,365

• Black-Capped Chickadee -2,286

• White-tailed Deer -1,680

• Muskrat -1,756

• Yellow Warbler +171

Lower Snake Projects

• Downy Woodpecker -364.9

• Song Sparrow -287.6

• Yellow Warbler -927.0

• California Quail -20,508.0

• Ring-necked Pheasant -2,646.8

• Canada Goose -2,039.8

Anderson Ranch

• Mallard -1,048

• Mink -1,732

• Yellow Warbler -361

• Black Capped Chickadee -890

• Ruffed Grouse -919

• Blue Grouse -1,980

• Mule Deer -2,689

• Peregrine Falcon -1,222 acres*

* Acres of riparian habitat lost. Does not require purchase of any lands.

Black Canyon

• Mallard -270

• Mink -652

• Canada Goose -214

• Ring-necked Pheasant -260

• Sharp-tailed Grouse -532

• Mule Deer -242

• Yellow Warbler +8

• Black-capped Chickadee +68

Deadwood

• Mule Deer -2080

• Mink -987

• Spruce Grouse -1411

• Yellow Warbler -309

C-4
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction 

(losses are preceded by a “-”, gains by a “+”)

Species Total Habitat Units

Palisades

• Bald Eagle -5,941 breeding

-18,565 wintering

• Yellow Warbler/ -718 scrub-shrub

• Black Capped Chickadee -1,358 forested

• Elk/Mule Deer -2,454

• Waterfowl and Aquatic Furbearers -5,703

• Ruffed Grouse -2,331

• Peregrine Falcon* -1,677 acres of forested wetland

-832 acres of scrub-shrub wetland

+68 acres of emergent wetland

* Acres of riparian habitat lost. Does not require purchase of any lands.

Willamette Basin Projects

• Black-tailed Deer -17,254

• Roosevelt Elk -15,295

• Black Bear -4,814

• Cougar -3,853

• Beaver -4,477

• River Otter -2,408

• Mink -2,418

• Red Fox -2,590

• Ruffed Grouse -11,145

• California Quail -2,986

• Ring-necked Pheasant -1,986

• Band-tailed Pigeon -3,487

• Western Gray Squirrel -1,354

• Harlequin Duck -551

• Wood Duck -1,947

• Spotted Owl -5,711

• Pileated Woodpecker -8,690

• American Dipper -954

• Yellow Warbler -2,355

• Common Merganser +1,042

• Greater Scaup +820

• Waterfowl +423

• Bald Eagle +5,693

• Osprey +6,159

Grand Coulee

• Sage Grouse -2,746

• Sharp-tailed Grouse -32,723

• Ruffed Grouse -16,502

• Mourning Dove -9,316

• Mule Deer -27,133

• White-tailed Deer -21,362

• Riparian Forest -1,632

• Riparian Shrub -27

• Canada Goose Nest Sites -74

C-5
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction 

(losses are preceded by a “-”, gains by a “+”)

Species Total Habitat Units

McNary 

• Mallard (wintering) +13,744

• Mallard (nesting) -6,959

• Western Meadowlark -3,469

• Canada Goose -3,484

• Spotted Sandpiper -1,363

• Yellow Warbler -329

• Downy Woodpecker -377

• Mink -1,250

• California Quail -6,314

John Day

• Lesser Scaup +14,398

• Great Blue Heron -3,186

• Canada Goose -8,010

• Spotted Sandpiper -3,186

• Yellow Warbler -1,085

• Black-capped Chickadee -869

• Western Meadowlark -5,059

• California Quail -6,324

• Mallard -7,399

• Mink -1,437

The Dalles

• Lesser Scaup +2,068

• Great Blue Heron -427

• Canada Goose -439

• Spotted Sandpiper -534

• Yellow Warbler -170

• Black-capped Chickadee -183

• Western Meadowlark -247

• Mink -330

Bonneville

• Lesser Scaup +2,671

• Great Blue Heron -4,300

• Canada Goose -2,443

• Spotted Sandpiper -2,767

• Yellow Warbler -163

• Black-capped Chickadee -1,022

• Mink -1,622

Dworshak

• Canada Goose-(breeding) -16

• Black-capped Chickadee -91

• River Otter -4,312

• Pileated Woodpecker -3,524

• Elk -11,603

• White-tailed Deer -8,906

• Canada Goose (wintering) +323

• Bald Eagle +2,678

• Osprey +1,674

• Yellow Warbler +119

C-6
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Table 11-4 (cont.) Estimated Losses Due to Hydropower Construction 

 (losses are preceded by a “-”, gains by a “+”

Species Total Habitat Units

Minidoka

• Mallard +174

• Redhead +4,475

• Western Grebe +273

• Marsh Wren +207

• Yellow Warbler -342

• River Otter -2,993

• Mule Deer -3,413

• Sage Grouse -3,755

Chief Joseph

• Lesser Scaup +1,440

• Sharp-tailed Grouse -2,290

• Mule Deer -1,992

• Spotted Sandpiper -1,255

• Sage Grouse -1,179

• Mink -920

• Bobcat -401

• Lewis’ Woodpecker -286

• Ring-necked Pheasant -239

• Canada Goose -213

• Yellow Warbler -58

C-7
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

The following is a provisional set of environmental characteristic 

objectives for the basin level. The 

Council has asked the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board to review 

these provisional basin level environmental characteristics by June 2001. 

The ISAB will report to the Council 

on the scientific soundness and basinwide applicability of the environmental characteristics, as well as their 

utility for further defining biological 

objectives at the province and subbasin levels. As part of its review, 

the ISAB should consider and report 

to the Council on the applicability of 

these objectives in the most altered 

areas of the basin, the blocked areas.

The Council will make the 

ISAB’s report publicly available and 

seek views and comment from interested parties. The Council will consider the report of the ISAB and 

the views and comments of others 

on the report, and will confirm or 

revise these basin level objectives for 

environmental characteristics for purposes of providing guidance for subbasin level planning and further program amendments.

Provisional biological objectives 

for environmental characteristics at the basin level 

Basin level environmental characteristics describe the kinds of changes 

that are needed across the Columbia 

basin to achieve the biological performance objectives called for by the 

program.

1. Protect the areas and ecological 

functions that are at present relatively productive for fish and 

wildlife populations (e.g., the 

Hanford Reach fall chinook; 

spring chinook in the upper 

John Day River) to provide a 

base for expansion of healthy 

populations as we rehabilitate 

degraded habitats in other areas.

• Protect and enhance habitats and 

ecological function to allow for 

the restoration of more natural 

population structures, by allowing for the expansion of productive populations and by habitat restoration actions that connect weak populations to stronger populations and to each 

other. Allow for the recovery of 

depleted and listed populations to 

at least the point of self-sustainability and a low probability of 

extinction.

• Protection and expansion of habitats and ecological functions 

should allow for an increase 

in the number, complexity and 

range of multi-species fish and 

wildlife assemblages and communities. Increases in the productivity, abundance, and lifehistory diversity of specific fish 

and wildlife populations are 

dependent on, and should not be 

viewed in isolation from, these 

multi-species communities.

2. Protect and restore freshwater 

habitat for all life history stages 

of the key species. Protect and 

increase ecological connectivity 

between aquatic areas, riparian 

zones, floodplains and uplands.

• Increase the connections between 

rivers and their floodplains, side 

channels and riparian zones.

• Manage riparian areas to protect 

aquatic conditions and form a 

transition to floodplain terrestrial 

areas and side channels.

• Identify, protect and restore the 

functions of key alluvial river 

reaches.

• Reconnect restored tributary habitats to protected or restored 

mainstem habitats, especially in 

Appendix E: Provisional Statement of Biological Objectives 

for Environmental Characteristics at the Basin Level

the area of productive mainstem 

populations.

3. Allow patterns of water flow 

to move more than at present 

toward the natural hydrographic pattern in terms of 

quantity, quality and fluctuation.

• Habitat restoration may be 

framed in the context of measured trends in water quality.

• Allow for seasonal fluctuations in 

flow. Stabilize daily fluctuations.

• Increase the correspondence 

between water temperatures and 

the naturally-occurring regimes 

of temperatures throughout the 

basin.

• Significantly reduce watershed 

erosion where human activities 

have accelerated sediment inputs.

4. Increase energy and nutrient 

connections within the system 

to increase productivity and 

expand biological communities.

5. Allow for biological diversity to 

increase among and within populations and species to increase 

ecological resilience to environmental variability.

• Expand the complexity and range 

of habitats to allow for greater 

life history and between species 

diversity.

• Manage human activities to minimize artificial selection or limitation of life history traits.

• Restoring habitat and access to 

habitat that establishes life history diversity is a priority.

D-1
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

6. Increase genetic connections 

and gene flow within the ecological system to facilitate development, expansion and protection of population structures.

• Increase the abundance and range 

of existing habitats and populations.

• Expand and connect existing 

habitat pockets to facilitate 

development of resilient population structures for aquatic communities.

7. Identify, protect and restore 

ecosystem functions in the 

Columbia River estuary and 

nearshore ocean discharge 

plume as affected by actions 

within the Columbia River 

watershed.

• Evaluate flow regulation, river 

operations and estuary-area habitat changes to better understand 

the relationship between estuary 

and near-shore plume characteristics and the productivity, abundance and diversity of salmon 

and steelhead populations.

8. Enhance the natural expression 

of biological diversity in salmon 

and steelhead populations to 

accommodate mortality and 

environmental variability in the 

ocean.

9. Accept significant variation in 

the productivity, capacity and 

life-history diversity for any 

particular population over any 

particular time period, as part 

of the normal environmental 

condition. A measure of 

whether key ecological functions have increased sufficiently 

will be whether the system 

can accept normal environmental variation without collapse of 

the fish and wildlife population 

and community structure.

Basin and province level 

objectives must also describe expectations for the characteristics of the 

mainstem, estuary and ocean environments shared by all populations 

of salmon and steelhead in the subbasins. In other words, subbasin planners need to know what are the program’s expectations or assumptions 

for survival of their respective populations in the parts of their life cycles 

outside the subbasins, including survival through the mainstem and in the 

estuary and ocean. For example, the 

objectives and strategies that planners would choose for a subbasin 

might vary substantially if expectations for juvenile survival through the 

mainstem over the planning period 

are 50 percent versus 90 percent.

D-2
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

The following is a provisional set of environmental characteristic 

objectives for the basin level. The 

Council has asked the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board to review 

these provisional basin level environmental characteristics by June 2001. 

The ISAB will report to the Council 

on the scientific soundness and basinwide applicability of the environmental characteristics, as well as their 

utility for further defining biological 

objectives at the province and subbasin levels. As part of its review, 

the ISAB should consider and report 

to the Council on the applicability of 

these objectives in the most altered 

areas of the basin, the blocked areas.

The Council will make the 

ISAB’s report publicly available and 

seek views and comment from interested parties. The Council will consider the report of the ISAB and 

the views and comments of others 

on the report, and will confirm or 

revise these basin level objectives for 

environmental characteristics for purposes of providing guidance for subbasin level planning and further program amendments.

Provisional biological objectives 

for environmental characteristics at the basin level 

Basin level environmental characteristics describe the kinds of changes 

that are needed across the Columbia 

basin to achieve the biological performance objectives called for by the 

program.

1. Protect the areas and ecological 

functions that are at present relatively productive for fish and 

wildlife populations (e.g., the 

Hanford Reach fall chinook; 

spring chinook in the upper 

John Day River) to provide a 

base for expansion of healthy 

populations as we rehabilitate 

degraded habitats in other areas.

• Protect and enhance habitats and 

ecological function to allow for 

the restoration of more natural 

population structures, by allowing for the expansion of productive populations and by habitat restoration actions that connect weak populations to stronger populations and to each 

other. Allow for the recovery of 

depleted and listed populations to 

at least the point of self-sustainability and a low probability of 

extinction.

• Protection and expansion of habitats and ecological functions 

should allow for an increase 

in the number, complexity and 

range of multi-species fish and 

wildlife assemblages and communities. Increases in the productivity, abundance, and lifehistory diversity of specific fish 

and wildlife populations are 

dependent on, and should not be 

viewed in isolation from, these 

multi-species communities.

2. Protect and restore freshwater 

habitat for all life history stages 

of the key species. Protect and 

increase ecological connectivity 

between aquatic areas, riparian 

zones, floodplains and uplands.

• Increase the connections between 

rivers and their floodplains, side 

channels and riparian zones.

• Manage riparian areas to protect 

aquatic conditions and form a 

transition to floodplain terrestrial 

areas and side channels.

• Identify, protect and restore the 

functions of key alluvial river 

reaches.

• Reconnect restored tributary habitats to protected or restored 

mainstem habitats, especially in 

Appendix E: Provisional Statement of Biological Objectives 

for Environmental Characteristics at the Basin Level

the area of productive mainstem 

populations.

3. Allow patterns of water flow 

to move more than at present 

toward the natural hydrographic pattern in terms of 

quantity, quality and fluctuation.

• Habitat restoration may be 

framed in the context of measured trends in water quality.

• Allow for seasonal fluctuations in 

flow. Stabilize daily fluctuations.

• Increase the correspondence 

between water temperatures and 

the naturally-occurring regimes 

of temperatures throughout the 

basin.

• Significantly reduce watershed 

erosion where human activities 

have accelerated sediment inputs.

4. Increase energy and nutrient 

connections within the system 

to increase productivity and 

expand biological communities.

5. Allow for biological diversity to 

increase among and within populations and species to increase 

ecological resilience to environmental variability.

• Expand the complexity and range 

of habitats to allow for greater 

life history and between species 

diversity.

• Manage human activities to minimize artificial selection or limitation of life history traits.

• Restoring habitat and access to 

habitat that establishes life history diversity is a priority.

D-1
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

6. Increase genetic connections 

and gene flow within the ecological system to facilitate development, expansion and protection of population structures.

• Increase the abundance and range 

of existing habitats and populations.

• Expand and connect existing 

habitat pockets to facilitate 

development of resilient population structures for aquatic communities.

7. Identify, protect and restore 

ecosystem functions in the 

Columbia River estuary and 

nearshore ocean discharge 

plume as affected by actions 

within the Columbia River 

watershed.

• Evaluate flow regulation, river 

operations and estuary-area habitat changes to better understand 

the relationship between estuary 

and near-shore plume characteristics and the productivity, abundance and diversity of salmon 

and steelhead populations.

8. Enhance the natural expression 

of biological diversity in salmon 

and steelhead populations to 

accommodate mortality and 

environmental variability in the 

ocean.

9. Accept significant variation in 

the productivity, capacity and 

life-history diversity for any 

particular population over any 

particular time period, as part 

of the normal environmental 

condition. A measure of 

whether key ecological functions have increased sufficiently 

will be whether the system 

can accept normal environmental variation without collapse of 

the fish and wildlife population 

and community structure.

Basin and province level 

objectives must also describe expectations for the characteristics of the 

mainstem, estuary and ocean environments shared by all populations 

of salmon and steelhead in the subbasins. In other words, subbasin planners need to know what are the program’s expectations or assumptions 

for survival of their respective populations in the parts of their life cycles 

outside the subbasins, including survival through the mainstem and in the 

estuary and ocean. For example, the 

objectives and strategies that planners would choose for a subbasin 

might vary substantially if expectations for juvenile survival through the 

mainstem over the planning period 

are 50 percent versus 90 percent.

D-2
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

The definitions in this list are provided for clarification of terms 

used throughout this program.

A

Act — See Northwest Power Act.

adaptive management

A scientific policy that seeks to 

improve management of biological 

resources, particularly in areas of scientific uncertainty, by viewing program actions as vehicles for learning. 

Projects are designed and implemented as experiments so that even 

if they fail, they provide useful information for future actions. Monitoring 

and evaluation are emphasized so that 

the interaction of different elements 

of the system are better understood.

anadromous fish

Fish that hatch in freshwater, 

migrate to the ocean, mature there 

and return to freshwater to spawn. 

For example, salmon or steelhead.

applicable federal laws 

The Endangered Species Act and 

the Clean Water Act.

B

biological diversity

The variety of, and variability 

among, living organisms and the 

ecological complexes in which they 

occur. Biological diversity at its most 

basic level is the genetic diversity 

(genetic variation found within each 

species), phenotypic and morphological diversity (physical, life history and 

behavioral variation found within each 

species), species diversity (number of 

species in a given ecosystem), and 

community/ecosystem diversity (variety of habitat types and ecosystem 

processes extending over a region). 

biological performance

The responses of populations to 

habitat conditions, described in terms 

of capacity, abundance, productivity, 

and life history diversity.

biological potential

The biological potential of a species 

means the potential capacity, productivity and life history diversity of a population in its habitat at each life stage.

blocked areas

Areas in the Columbia River Basin 

where hydroelectric projects have created permanent barriers to anadromous fish runs. These include the 

areas above Chief Joseph and Grand 

Coulee dams, the Hells Canyon Complex and other smaller locations.

Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville)

The sole federal power marketing 

agency in the Northwest and the 

region’s major wholesaler of electricity. Created by Congress in 1937, 

Bonneville sells power to public and 

private utilities, direct service customers, and various public agencies 

in the states of Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, Montana west of the Continental Divide, (and parts of Montana east of the Divide) and smaller 

adjacent areas of California, Nevada, 

Utah and Wyoming. The Northwest 

Power Act charges Bonneville with 

additional duties related to energy 

conservation, resource acquisition, 

and fish and wildlife.

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior

An agency that administers some 

parts of the federal program for 

water resource development and use 

in western states. The Bureau of Reclamation owns and operates a number 

of dams in the Columbia River Basin, 

including Grand Coulee and several 

projects on the Yakima River.

bypass system

A channel or conduit in a dam 

that provides a route for fish to move 

through or around the dam without 

going through the turbine units.

C

captive broodstock

Fish raised and spawned in captivity.

carrying capacity

The number of individuals of one 

species that the resources of a habitat 

can support.

Columbia River Compact

An interstate compact between the 

states of Oregon and Washington by 

which the states jointly regulate fish 

in the Columbia River.

Columbia River System

The Columbia River and its tributaries.

Columbia River Treaty

The treaty between the United States 

and Canada for the joint development of 

the Columbia River. It became effective 

on September 16, 1964.

Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Department of the Army 

(Corps)

An agency with the responsibility 

for design, construction and operation 

of civil works, including multipurpose dams and navigation projects.

cost-effective

Where equally effective alternative means of achieving the same 

sound biological objective exist, the 

Appendix A: Glossary

A-1
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

alternative with the minimum economic cost is considered the most 

cost-effective measure.

D

dissolved gas 

The amount of chemicals normally 

occurring as gases, such as nitrogen 

and oxygen, that are held in solution 

in water, expressed in units such as milligrams of the gas per liter of liquid. 

Supersaturation occurs when these solutions exceed the saturation level of the 

water (beyond 100 percent).

E

ecosystem

The biological community considered together with the land and water 

that make up its environment.

environmental characteristics

The environmental conditions or 

changes sought to achieve the desired 

changes in population characteristics. 

escapement

The number of salmon and steelhead that return to a specified point 

of measurement after all natural mortality and harvest have occurred. 

Spawning escapement consists of 

those fish that survive to spawn.

estuary

The part of the wide lower course 

of a river where its current is met and 

influenced by the tides.

extinction

The natural or human-induced 

process by which a species, subspecies or population ceases to exist.

F

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC)

The Commission issues and regulates licenses for construction and 

operation of non-federal hydroelectric projects and advises federal 

agencies on the merits of proposed 

federal multipurpose water development projects.

fish and wildlife agencies

This category includes the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior; the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game; the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

U.S. Department of Commerce; the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife.

Fish Passage Center

The center established under section III (D)(6) of the program. 

flows

The rate at which water passes 

a given point in a stream or river, 

usually expressed in cubic-feet per 

second (cfs).

flow augmentation

Increased flow from release of 

water from storage dams.

H

habitat

The locality or external environment in which a plant or animal 

normally lives and grows. As used 

in this program, habitat includes the 

ecological functions of the habitat 

structure.

harvest management

The process of setting regulations 

for the commercial, recreational and 

tribal fish harvest to achieve a specified goal within the fishery.

hydroelectric power or hydropower

The generation of electricity using 

falling water to turn turbo-electric 

generators.

hydrosystem

The hydroelectric dams on the 

Columbia River and its tributaries.

I

Implementation Team 

A policy-level working group 

established by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service to provide advice 

on the implementation of the biological opinion on the effects of 

the federal dams in the Columbia 

River basin. The IT oversees the 

Technical Management Team, which 

deals with hydrosystem operations, 

and the System Configuration Team, 

which deals with structural changes 

at the dams to improve fish passage.

impoundment

A body of water formed behind a 

dam.

irrigation screens

Screens using wire mesh placed 

at the point where water is diverted 

from a stream or river. The screens 

keep fish from entering the diversion 

channel or pipe.

J

juvenile

Fish from approximately one year 

of age until sexual maturity.

M

mainstem

The main channel of the river in a 

river basin, as opposed to the streams 

and smaller rivers that feed into it. In 

the fish and wildlife program, mainA-2
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

stem refers to entirety of the Columbia and Snake rivers.

mainstem passage

The movement of salmon and 

steelhead around or through the dams 

and reservoirs in the Columbia and 

Snake rivers.

mainstem survival

The proportion of anadromous 

fish that survive passage through the 

dams and reservoirs while migrating 

in the Columbia and Snake rivers.

metadata

Data exist in two forms — primary 

data and metadata. Primary data are 

numbers or counts — for example, 

the number of adult fish counted in a 

given time period, interval and location. 

Metadata describe how those numbers 

were obtained, including the monitoring design (selection of times and locations), objectives, and methods.

mixed-stock fishery

A harvest management technique 

by which different species, strains, 

races or stocks are harvested together.

N

natural production

Spawning, incubating, hatching 

and rearing fish in rivers, lakes and 

streams without human intervention.

naturally spawning populations

Populations of fish that have 

completed their entire life cycle in 

the natural environment and may 

be the progeny of wild, hatchery 

or mixed parentage.

Northwest Power Act

The Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.), which 

authorized the creation of the Northwest Power Planning Council. The 

act directs the Council to develop 

this program to protect, mitigate and 

enhance fish and wildlife, including 

related spawning grounds and habitat 

on the Columbia River and its tributaries, to establish an Independent 

Scientific Review Panel to review 

projects implementing this program 

that are proposed for funding by 

Bonneville, and to make final recommendations to Bonneville on implementation projects. 

O

off-site mitigation

The improvement in conditions 

for fish or wildlife species away from 

the site of a hydroelectric project that 

had detrimental effects on fish and/or 

wildlife, as part or total compensation for those effects. An example of 

off-site mitigation is the fish passage 

restoration work being conducted in 

the Yakima River Basin for the detrimental effects caused by mainstem 

hydroelectric projects.

operational losses

The direct wildlife losses caused 

by the day-to-day fluctuations in flows 

and reservoir levels resulting from the 

operation of the hydrosystem.

P

passage

The movement of migratory fish 

through, around, or over dams, reservoirs and other obstructions in a 

stream or river.

PIT tags

Passive Integrated Transponder 

tags are used for identifying individual salmon for monitoring and 

research purposes. This miniaturized 

tag consists of an integrated microchip that is programmed to identify 

individual fish. The tag is inserted 

into the body cavity of the fish and 

decoded at selected monitoring sites.

plume

The area of the Pacific Ocean 

that is influenced by discharge from 

the Columbia River, up to 500 miles 

beyond the mouth of the river.

population

A group of organisms belonging 

to the same species that occupy 

a well-defined locality and exhibit 

reproductive continuity from generation to generation.

powerhouse

A primary part of a hydroelectric 

dam where the turbines and generators are housed and where power 

is produced by falling water rotating 

turbine blades.

R

rearing

The juvenile life stage of anadromous fish spent in freshwater rivers, 

lakes and streams before they migrate 

to the ocean.

reservoir

A body of water collected and stored 

in an artificial lake behind a dam.

resident fish

Fish that spend their entire life 

cycle in freshwater. For program purposes, resident fish includes landlocked 

anadromous fish (e.g., white sturgeon, 

kokanee and coho), as well as traditionally defined resident fish species.

resident fish substitutions

The enhancement of resident 

fish to address losses of salmon 

and steelhead in those areas permanently blocked to anadromous 

(ocean-migrating) fish as a result of 

hydroelectric dams.

A-3
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

riparian habitat

Habitat along the banks of 

streams, lakes or rivers.

run

A population of fish of the same 

species consisting of one or more 

stocks migrating at a distinct time.

S

salmonid

A fish of the Salmonidae family, 

which includes soft-finned fish such 

as salmon, trout and whitefish.

smolt

A juvenile salmon or steelhead 

migrating to the ocean and undergoing physiological changes (smoltification) to adapt its body from a freshwater to a saltwater existence.

spawn

The act of fish releasing and fertilizing eggs.

species

A group of individuals of 

common ancestry that closely resemble each other structurally and physiologically and that can interbreed, 

producing fertile offspring.

spill

Releasing water through the spillway 

rather than through the turbine units.

spillway

The channel or passageway 

around or over a dam through which 

excess water is released or “spilled” 

past the dam without going through 

the turbines. A spillway is a safety 

valve for a dam and, as such, must be 

capable of discharging major floods 

without damaging the dam, while 

maintaining the reservoir level below 

some predetermined maximum level.

stock

A population of fish spawning in 

a particular stream during a particular 

season. They generally do not interbreed with fish spawning in a different stream or at a different time.

subbasin

A set of adjoining watersheds with 

similar ecological conditions and tributaries that ultimately connect, flowing into the same river or lake. Subbasins contain major tributaries to the 

Columbia and Snake rivers.

supplementation

The release of hatchery fry and 

juvenile fish in the natural environment to quickly increase or establish 

naturally spawning fish populations.

subbasin planning

A coordinated systemwide 

approach to planning in which each 

subbasin in the Columbia system will 

be evaluated for its potential to produce fish in order to contribute to the 

goal of the overall system. The planning will emphasize the integration of 

fish and wildlife habitat, fish passage, 

harvest management and production.

T

target population

A species or population singled 

out for attention because of its harvest significance or cultural value, 

or because it represents a significant 

group of ecological functions in a 

particular habitat type.

terminal fishery

A fishery designed to increase harvest of abundant fish stocks and minimize effects on depleted stocks by 

focusing the fishery on locations where 

the abundant stocks are produced — in 

net pens, for example — and where the 

fish also return to spawn.

Technical Management Team

A technical working group established by the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide advice on 

how to operate the federal dams 

in the Columbia River Basin in 

a manner that minimizes fish and 

wildlife impacts. The TMT deals 

with issues such as reservoir storage 

levels, flow augmentation, and spill. 

transboundary

Refers to U.S. and Canadian 

border..

transportation

Collecting migrating juvenile fish 

and transporting them around the 

dams using barges or trucks.

tribes

In this program, these include 

the Burns-Paiute Tribe; the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribes; the Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation; 

the Confederated Salish-Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation of Oregon; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation of Oregon; the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 

Nation; the Kalispel Tribe of Indians; 

the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; the Nez 

Perce Tribe of Idaho; the ShoshonePaiutes of the Duck Valley Reservation; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

of the Fort Hall Reservation; and the 

Spokane Tribe of Indians.

W

watershed

The area that drains into a stream 

or river. A subbasin is typically composed of several watersheds.

weak stock

A stock of fish where the longterm survival of the stock is in doubt. 

Typically this is a stock where the 

population is small and is barely 

A-4
2000 Columbia river Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

reproducing itself or is not reproducing itself. While ESA-listed stocks 

are considered weak stocks, the term 

also includes other populations that 

would not yet qualify for ESA listing. 

wild populations

Fish that have maintained successful natural reproduction with 

little or no supplementation from 

hatcheries.

A-5