FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan AMIP

1
FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan
(AMIP)
September 15, 2009
1
2
Administration Conclusions

• As implemented with this new adaptive management
  implementation plan, the 2008 Biological Opinion
  (BiOp)
• Is biologically and legally sound
• Is based on the best available scientific
  information
• Satisfies the ESA jeopardy standard
• The current BiOp reflects great regional
  consensus of states and tribes in support of a
  salmon plan for the hydropower system.
• We would like to get to work and move on to
  implementation of salmon actions on the ground.
  It is time to end the litigation.

2
3
Administration Review

• The Obama Administration engaged in a substantial
  review of the BiOp at Judge Reddens invitation.
  Participants included agency leadership from
  NOAA, CEQ, DOI, DOD DOE.
• We conducted listening sessions with parties to
  the litigation and with agency and independent
  scientists. We also considered the points raised
  in a May 2009 letter from Judge James A. Redden.

3
4
Administration Review
Our review indicated the science underlying the
BiOp was sound, but that there was uncertainty in
some predictions of future fish status. As a
result, we have developed an insurance policy for
the fish that will be implemented as part of the
2008 BiOp.
4
5
Adaptive Management Implementation Plan

• Accelerates and enhances certain BiOp mitigation
  actions
• Enhances research and monitoring to evaluate fish
  status and habitat conditions
• A new contingency plan to address the possibility
  of a significant decline in the abundance of
  listed fish and biological triggers that result
  in contingency actions
• Dam breaching studies as a contingency of last
  resort
• Ongoing commitments to regional collaboration and
  science review

5
6
Accelerated Enhanced Actions

• Commitments to additional Estuary restoration
  projects under a new agreement with the State of
  Washington
• Efforts to control predators and invasive species
• Biologically-based changes to spring and summer
  spill

6
7
Enhanced Research, Monitoring Evaluation

• What?
• Improved adult status and trend monitoring
• Improved Intensively Monitored Watersheds
• Improved juvenile status and trend monitoring
• Improved habitat monitoring
• Enhanced Life -cycle modeling
• Why?
• To better measure effectiveness of BiOp actions
• To better monitor climate change impacts
• To collect additional information to evaluate
  triggers

7
8
Biological Triggers for Implementation of
Contingencies

• Early Warning Indicator tripped if the
  four-year average adult wild fish abundance for a
  species falls below the lowest 20th percentile of
  abundance, based on the currently available data
• Significant Decline Trigger tripped if the
  four-year average adult wild fish abundance for a
  species falls below the lowest 10th percentile of
  abundance, based on the currently available data
• Additional triggers (including juvenile triggers)
  will be defined in the future through the
  collaborative Regional Implementation Oversight
  Group (RIOG).

8
9
Example
9
10
Example
10
11
Tripping the Early Warning Indicator

• Within 120 days of NOAA Fisheries determining
  that an Early Warning Indicator was tripped, the
  Action Agencies (in coordination with NOAA
  Fisheries, the RIOG, and other regional parties)
  will
• Evaluate the likely status of the species in
  question
• Determine whether a Significant Decline Trigger
  is likely to be tripped
• If so, determine what Rapid Response Actions to
  take
• Implement actions as soon practicable (not later
  than 12 months after indicator observed)

11
12
Tripping the Significant Decline Trigger

• Within 90 days of NOAA Fisheries determining
  that the Significant Decline Trigger was tripped,
  the Action Agencies (in coordination with NOAA
  Fisheries, the RIOG, and other regional parties)
  would
• Determine which Rapid Response Actions to take
  for a particular species and
• Implement the actions as soon as practicable (not
  later than 12 months after the trigger occurs)

12
13
Contingency Actions

• Rapid Response Actions are to be implemented
  within one year of a trigger.
• Examples
• Additional hydro operations
• Increased predator control
• Safety-net hatcheries
• Certain harvest controls within existing
  agreements

13
14
Contingency Actions

• Long-Term Contingency Actions are to be developed
  by 2011.
• Examples
• Additional hydro system actions
• Enhanced predator controls
• Certain harvest controls
• Conservation hatcheries
• Species reintroduction
• Study of operation of John Day Dam at minimum
  operating pool
• Study of lower Snake River dam breaching

14
15

• Lower Snake River Dam Breaching Studies
• The Corps creates a study plan by March 2010,
  including scope, schedule and budget to complete
  technical studies and formulate a decision
  process
• NOAA/ Region builds analytic tools by December
  2012 for full Life-cycle analysis of all
  contingent actions
• Upon Significant Decline Trigger All-H analysis
  completed within six months to initiate technical
  studies. Corps conducts technical studies in two
  years (biology, economics, engineering,
  environmental impacts)
• Then, Administration decides if evidence exists
  to move to EIS and Decision Process whether to
  request Congress authorize to breach one or more
  dams
• Dam breaching is a contingency of last resort due
  to uncertainty of biological effects and
  significant impacts to local communities and the
  environment

15
16
Ongoing Regional Collaboration Independent
Scientific Review

• To continue partnerships with states tribes
• To provide for ongoing science input
• To ensure transparent reporting on progress

16
17
17
17
18
Implementation

• Science-based plan with commitment to implement
  it
• Broad regional support
• Commitment to fund
• BPA new rates already in place

18