U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Research and Development Office Denver, Colorado September 2011

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs: A Summary of 16 Programs and Shared Institutional Challenges Prepared for

River Restoration: Exploring Institutional Challenges and Opportunities September 14 & 15, 2011, Albuquerque, New Mexico A conference hosted by the Bureau of Reclamation and The Utton Center at the University of New Mexico School of Law

Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Contents

Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Definitions for the Roles Matrix Found in Each Program Summary .............. 3

River Restoration Programs ................................................................................ 5 Intake Diversion Dam Modification, Yellowstone River ................................. 6 Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan..................................................... 8 Platte River Recovery Implementation Program ............................................ 11 Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program .................................. 13 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ........................ 15 Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project ................................ 19 Central Valley Project Improvement Act ....................................................... 21 San Joaquin River Restoration Program ......................................................... 23 Trinity River Restoration Program ................................................................. 26 Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program Tributary Habitat Activities .... 28 Methow River M2 Project Restoration ........................................................... 32 Savage Rapids Dam Removal Project ............................................................ 35 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ...................................... 37 Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program ................... 40 Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program .......................... 43 San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program ............................. 45

Institutional Challenges ...................................................................................... 47 Governance Arrangements for Large Scale River Restoration ....................... 48 Geographic Complexity and Timescales of Restoration ................................ 52 Progress Toward Restoration .......................................................................... 55 Support and Investment in Reclamation’s River Restoration Programs ........ 61 Organizing Science in Large-Scale River Restoration Programs ................... 67 How River Restoration is Shaped by Law and Policy .................................... 72

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

1

Introduction This report presents summary information regarding 16 different Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) river restoration or species recovery programs. While not all of Reclamation’s restoration activities are covered, this report represents a thorough cross section of the ongoing programs. In order to facilitate discussion and dialogue, program managers responded to questionnaires regarding six potential institutional challenges that the restoration and species recovery programs may face. The summaries represent personal opinions of the respondents, not Reclamation, and have been compiled to provide information regarding particular program challenges and strategies that may be available to overcome those challenges. These summaries are provided to help foster a constructive dialogue regarding these issues. River Restoration Programs.—A brief sketch of each program is provided, covering its purpose, strategic value, and benefits. Also included are the program’s initiation date, specific legislative authorities, funding history, web page and contact information, and a matrix of participating partners and their roles. A legend providing definitions for each of the roles that a program partner may play is found on the next page. Each restoration program is built on numerous partnerships with Federal, State, and local agencies, organizations, and Tribes. These 16 restoration programs alone involve more than 200 partners — a remarkable scope of collaboration. The roles matrix for each program gives a snapshot of both the diversity of participants and roles, and the way governance for each program is structured. Institutional Challenges.—The organizers of the workshop identified six institutional questions that restoration programs face. In brief, they are:

1. Governance Arrangements for Large Scale River Restoration: How do we organize participants and structure the deliberative, decision making, and business processes that guide a program?

2. Geographic Complexity and Timescales of Restoration: How do we cope with the very large geographic scales of river restoration, as well as the long time scales over which Program implementation and species response occur?

3. Progress Toward Restoration: How do we define and evaluate progress toward restoration?

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

2

4. Support and Investment in Reclamation’s River Restoration Programs: How are political support and funding maintained?

5. Organizing Science in Large Scale River Restoration Programs: How is science effectively organized and used within programs?

6. How River Restoration is Shaped by Law and Policy: How do policy and legal authorities support or constrain programs?

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

3

Definitions for the Roles Matrix Found in Each Program Summary

1. Program partner: plays an active role in decision making, implementation, outreach, or other support activities.

2. Decision maker: is formally designated in program authorization or charter as a member of the decision making body (e.g. Trinity Management Council; Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Working Group; Platte River Governance Committee).

3. Formal Advisor: is formally designated in program authorization or ‘charter’ as a member of a non-technical advisory group (FACA or otherwise formally designated).

4. Funder: provides program funding, resources, or other in-kind services (e.g. Congressional appropriation, CVPIA Restoration Fund, State bond funding, In-Kind-Services, etc.).

5. Funds Manager: is legally responsible for management and distribution of program funds (e.g. Reclamation for the MSCP, and the Nebraska Community Foundation for the Platte Recovery Program; or Tribes under Title I or Title IV of P.L. 93-638; or 2 Federal agencies with separate appropriations; or a State agency managing monitoring activities related to the program).

6. Implementer: actively implements program actions.

7. Legal Beneficiary: obtains legal compliance through implementation of the program (e.g. ESA, NEPA, or other regulatory compliance, or compliance with a court settlement).

8. Regulatory/Oversight: determines sufficiency of program or components to comply with law or regulation (e.g. NMFS or USFWS Section 7 consultations; State Regulatory requirements such as riparian replacement requirements, water temperature targets).

9. Outreach/Support: actively undertakes public education and communication, or solicitation of public and political support for program.

10. Science: undertakes scientific and/or research studies to address questions important to the program (science includes studying both cause & effect, & conducting related analyses).

11. Monitoring: undertakes monitoring of significant program resources, actions, or outcomes, separate from science studies (e.g. fish counts, water releases).

12. Peer Review: has formal responsibility to peer review or otherwise judge the technical soundness of program science and data.

5

River Restoration Programs

6

Intake Diversion Dam Modification, Yellowstone River Project Summary: The Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, The Nature Conservancy, and Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Districts are working together at the Intake Diversion Dam in Montana to provide fish passage and entrainment protection for pallid sturgeon in the lower Yellowstone River. New headworks and rotary-drum fish screens to prevent entrainment are under construction and will be completed in 2011. Passage options are being reevaluated with construction on those facilities expected to commence in 2013. Strategic Value: The project is in compliance with sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act by the Bureau of Reclamation and the USACE for continued operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project. Benefits: Reclamation and USACE have entered into a partnership to aid in the recovery of the endangered pallid sturgeon by opening 165 additional miles of the river and its tributaries for spawning while continuing to deliver water to irrigate approximately 55,000 acres of land in

eastern Montana and North Dakota. The project is intended to improve passage for pallid sturgeon to historic spawning habitat, increase the larval-drift distance, minimize entrainment of pallid sturgeon and other native fish into the Main Canal, contribute to the restoration of the lower Yellowstone River ecosystem, and continue operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project. An additional

Intake Diversion Dam Modification, Yellowstone River, Montana

Intake Diversion Dam and Headworks

Pallid Sturgeon

Intake Diversion Dam Modification, Yellowstone River

7

160 miles of riverine habitat will be available to the pallid sturgeon for spawning and will provide that distance for larval fish to drift and develop before encountering Lake Sakakawea headwaters. Program Start: 2008 Initiating Agreement: 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU No. 05AG602052) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Montana, and The Nature Conservancy for Fish Passage, Entrainment Protection and Monitoring of the Lower Yellowstone Diversion Dam (Intake Diversion Dam). On file, Montana Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana. Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Section 3109 of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorizes the Corps to use funding from the Missouri River Recovery and Mitigation Program to assist Reclamation with compliance with Federal laws, design, and construction of modifications to the Lower Yellowstone Project for the purpose of ecosystem restoration. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$303,000 $561,000 $251,000 $711,000 $87,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $156,487 $2,103,060 $5,561,273 $12,139,553

Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/gp/mtao/loweryellowstone/index.html Contact info: Gary Davis, jgdavis@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Intake Diversion Dam Modification, Lower Yellowstone Project, Montana

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X

Corps of Engineers, NW Division X X X X X X X X X X

State of Montana X X X X X X

The Nature Conservancy X X

Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Districts X X X

USFWS X X X X

8

Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan Project Summary: The Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan is being led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and in consultation with the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee, in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The purpose of the plan is to determine actions necessary to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, aid in the recovery of federally listed species, and restore the ecosystem to prevent further declines among other native species. The plan focuses on Missouri River ecosystem resources and three focal species: interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon. The planning effort includes 12 Federal agencies (including Reclamation), eight States, and seven formally participating Indian tribes, with outreach to additional tribal communities. As part of the process, the USACE will produce an integrated environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzes the environmental effects of restoration, recovery, and mitigation activities recommended in the plan. Strategic Value: The goal of this planning effort is to develop and implement a single, comprehensive plan to guide implementation of Missouri River Basin mitigation, recovery, and restoration efforts by the USACE, which can also be used to guide activities undertaken by other Federal and State agencies and tribes. Benefits: The final product of the planning process will be a document that outlines a future vision for the river that restores the ecosystem, mitigates habitat loss, and recovers fish and wildlife, and identifies the tools needed for implementation. Over time, a restored river could also contribute to the revitalization of social, recreational, and business opportunities along the Missouri River, benefiting local citizens, local businesses, guides, outfitters, and recreational and commercial interests. The collaborative plan development process gives tribes, Federal and State agencies, and basin stakeholders an opportunity to:

• Actively engage in the design of a basin-wide plan for restoring the Missouri River • Shape the desired future condition of the Missouri River natural resources • Aid in alignment and prioritization of restoration and recovery projects, programs, and policies across

governmental agencies and non-governmental institutions • Identify criteria and opportunities for future restoration projects • Encourage partnerships to develop and implement restoration efforts

The Missouri River from its “headwaters” at Three Forks, Montana, to its confluence with the Mississippi River.

Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan

9

Program Start: 2008 Initiating Agreement: Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Section 5018, required a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine actions required to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; to recover listed species under ESA; to restore the ecosystem to prevent further declines among other natives. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$0 $0 $0 $15,000 $35,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $3,220,000 $3,220,000 $3,220,000 $3,220,000

Web links: http://www.moriverrecovery.org/mrrp/f?p=136:11:4081899210642920::NO Contact info: Doug Epperly, depperly@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X

US Army Corps of Engineers X X X X X X X X X X

US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X X

Bureau of Indian Affairs X X

Environmental Protection Agency X X X X

Federal Emergency Management Agency X X

Maritime Administration X X X

National Park Service X X X

Natural Resources Conservation Service X X X X

NOAA/National Weather Service X X X X

Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

US Coast Guard X X

US Geological Survey X X X X

Western Area Power Administration X X

State of Iowa X X

State of Kansas X X

State of Missouri X X

State of Montana X X

State of Nebraska X X

State of North Dakota X X

State of South Dakota X X

State of Wyoming X X

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Ft. Peck X X

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe X X

Eastern Shoshone Tribe X X

Northern Arapaho Tribe X X

Oglala Sioux Tribe X X

Osage Nation X X

Yankton Sioux Tribe X X

11

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Project Summary: The Department of the Interior and the States of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska are diligently working on a Federal/State basin-wide Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program) for endangered species in the Central Platte River in Nebraska. The Program addresses the recovery of four species: the endangered whooping crane, interior least tern, pallid sturgeon, and the threatened piping plover. The 13-year-long Program began on Jan. 1, 2007. The total cost of the Program is estimated at approximately $317 million, of which $157 million is the Federal share and $160 million is from the three States in direct funding and in-kind contributions. Strategic Value: The Program serves as the Endangered Species Act reasonable and prudent alternative for existing and certain new water-related activities that affect the target species in the Central and Lower Platte River. The Governance Committee consists of one representative each from the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; one representative each from the Colorado Water Users, Downstream Water Users, and Upper North Platte Water Users; one representative each for the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; and two representatives from environmental entities in the three States. Benefits: The Program provides measures for the recovery of four endangered or threatened species. The goals of the Program include 1) to protect and, where appropriate, restore 10,000 acres of habitat; and 2) to provide at least an average of 50,000 acre-feet per year of shortage reduction to target flows. The 50,000 acre-feet per year is in addition to the 80,000 acre-feet per year which is being contributed by three projects in the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. The State of Nebraska has implemented the Environmental Account in Lake McConaughy, and the State of Colorado has completed the Tamarack Project. Work has begun on the modification of Pathfinder Dam (a Bureau of Reclamation facility), which is a contribution by the State of Wyoming that, when completed, will provide up to approximately 34,000 acre-feet of water per year for the benefit of the target species as a part of the 80,000 acre-feet being contributed by the three State projects. The Program is also in the process of entering into a contract with the State of Wyoming for water from the Wyoming Account, which is a part of the modification of Pathfinder Dam. This contract will provide an average of up to 4,800 acre-feet of water per year to the Program for the benefit of the target species through the remaining 8 years of the first increment. The Program has acquired an interest in approximately 7,800 acres of land for species habitat, which represents 78 percent of the 10,000-acre goal for the first increment. Feasibility studies are being conducted for two water action plan projects, one of which is a re-regulation reservoir which, if constructed, could have the ability to retime approximately 40,000 acre-feet of excess flows for the benefit of the target species.

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program: Habitat Restoration

Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

12

Program Start: 2007 Initiating Agreement: Final Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, October 24, 2006. http://www.platteriverprogram.org/PubsAndData/ProgramLibrary/Platte%20River%20Recovery%20Implementation%20Program%20Document.pdf Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Legislation has been passed which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to participate in the Program, and includes the authorization to provide Federal funding. This legislation can be found in Title V, Section 515 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (122 Stat 847, Public Law 110-229). Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$2,000,000 $9,208,000 $10,350,000 $12,105,000 $12,209,000

Total Partner funding

$2,000,000 $9,208,000 $10,350,000 $12,105,000 $12,209,000

Web links: http://www.platteriverprogram.org Contact info: John H. Lawson, jlawson@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X State of Colorado X X X State of Nebraska X X State of Wyoming X X X Upper North Platte Water Users X X

Downstream Water Users X X Colorado Water Users X X Environmental Groups X U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service X X X Nebraska Community Foundation X

Headwaters Corporation X X

13

Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program Project Summary: As a result of a 1994 Endangered Species Act consultation, Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service crafted a suite of conservation measures to offset impacts of the Central Arizona Project to threatened and endangered fishes of the Gila River basin, Arizona-New Mexico. Together the measures comprise a program that assists with the recovery of native fishes by monitoring the spread and impacts of nonnative invasive fishes, erecting physical and electrical barriers to limit the spread of nonnatives, providing funding to further control invasive fishes and conserve native species, and educating the public about the value of native fish and the problems nonnatives can create for them. This long-term program encompasses many goals of

the America’s Great Outdoor’s initiative, including the protection and renewal of rivers and streams, engagement of youth in the conservation of the natural environment, and enhancing the Government’s role in recovering the fish and wildlife of the nation and its people. Strategic Value: The Gila River basin is home to 19 native freshwater fishes, seven of which are found nowhere else in the world. Situated within one of the hottest and most arid environments on earth, the Gila River basin is an exemplar of the conflicts between developing water for a burgeoning human population while protecting and sustaining the fishes that need that same water to survive. A result is that 13 of the 19 fishes are either listed or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act and one is recently extinct. This unique fauna cannot be recovered unless water is maintained in their rivers and streams, and their interactions with nonnative invasive fishes are limited or removed. The Gila River Basin

Native Fishes Conservation Program confronts these problems with an array of proven techniques that is showing significant progress in restoring these remarkable species across their former ranges. Benefits: Recovery of federally listed fishes will assist with the broad goals of the Endangered Species Act to conserve the various species of fish and wildlife facing extinction while allowing the continued delivery of Central Arizona Project water. As the factors that limit survival of native fishes are addressed and species are recovered, ecosystems upon which they depend are also restored. As species and ecosystems are restored, land and water use restrictions on human uses can be eased, thereby benefiting the nation’s economy. Through informational programs, the public is educated about the values of native biota and healthy ecosystems, and how they can improve the human environment.

Gila River Basin

Fish Barrier in a desert stream

Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program

14

Program Start: 1994 Initiating Agreement: Final Biological Opinion on the Transportation and Delivery of Central Arizona Project Water to the Gila River Basin, April 20, 1994 Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: None Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$1.774,490 $4,475,087 $2,259,500 $2,124,420 $5,440,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/biology/azfish/aznativefish.html Contact info: Robert Clarkson, rclarkson@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X

US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. X X X

New Mexico Dept of Game and Fish X X X

US Forest Service X

Bureau of Land Management X

15

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Project Summary: The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) is a multi-stakeholder, Federal and non-Federal partnership which seeks to balance the use of Colorado River water resources with the conservation of native species and their habitats in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In April 2005, then-Secretary Gale Norton signed the Record of Decision for this 50-year program, with implementation beginning in FY2006. The LCR MSCP area extends over 400 miles of the lower Colorado River from the lower end of the Grand Canyon to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. The LCR MSCP incorporates many aspects of the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, including riparian, marsh, and aquatic habitat protection and restoration; conservation of native species; and engagement of youth in the conservation of the environment. Strategic Value: LCR MSCP funding is a based on a 50/50 cost share between the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Reclamation, and non-Federal partners within Arizona, California, and Nevada. Reclamation is the implementing agency for the LCR MSCP. Partnership involvement occurs primarily through the LCR MSCP Steering Committee, currently representing 56 entities including State and Federal agencies, water and power users, and other interested parties, which provides input and oversight functions in support of LCR MSCP implementation. The LCR MSCP provides ESA compliance for covered actions undertaken by Federal agencies and non-Federal partners. Covered actions include operations and maintenance activities on the lower Colorado River; the delivery of up to 9 million acre-feet of water to Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico; and power produced by six dams located on the lower Colorado River. ESA compliance is obtained through the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that describes conservation measures for 31 native species, including six currently listed under the ESA as endangered.

Benefits: The goals of the LCR MSCP include conserving habitat and working towards the recovery of native species currently listed under the ESA while reducing the likelihood of additional listings. At the same time, the program accommodates current water diversions and power production and optimizes opportunities for future water and power development. Implementation of the LCR MSCP will benefit currently threatened and endangered species, reduce the likelihood of other species native to the Colorado River ecosystem from becoming listed, benefit other species that utilize the Colorado River including migratory species, and provide benefits to the Southwest by insuring water and power supplies for agricultural, municipal, environmental, recreational and other uses.

Map of Multi-Species Conservation Program area.

Created Cottonwood-Willow Habitat

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

16

Program Start: 2005 Initiating Agreement: Record of Decision, Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan, April, 2005. http://www.lcrmscp.gov/publications/RODApril05.pdf Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Implementing Agreement, April 4, 2005. http://www.lcrmscp.gov/publications/FinalIA.pdf Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L.111-11). Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$9,603,000 $7,859,000 $8,050,000 $13,054,000 $16,449,000

Total Partner funding

$6,541,054 $11,788,348 $6,784,470 $7,255,458 $16,400,070

Web links: http://www.lcrmscp.gov/ Contact info: John Swett, jswett@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X

US Fish & Wildlife Service X X X X X X

National Park Service X X X

Bureau of Land Management X X X

Bureau of Indian Affairs X X X

Western Area Power Administration X X X

Arizona Department of Water Resources X X X X X

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative X X X X X

Arizona Game and Fish Department X X X X X X X

Arizona Power Authority X X X X X

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Central Arizona Water Conservation District X X X X X

Cibola Valley Irrigation & Drainage District X X X X X

City of Bullhead City (AZ) X X X X X

City of Lake Havasu City (AZ) X X X X X

City of Mesa (AZ) X X X X X

City of Somerton (AZ) X X X X X

City of Yuma (AZ) X X X X X

Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County(AZ) X X X X X

Golden Shores Water Conservation District X X X X X

Mohave County Water Authority X X X X X

Mohave Valley Irrigation & Drainage District X X X X X

Mohave Water Conservation District X X X X X

North Gila Valley Irrigation & Drainage District X X X X X

Town of Fredonia (AZ) X X X X X

Town of Thatcher (AZ) X X X X X

Town of Wickenburg (AZ) X X X X X

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District X X X X X

Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District X X X X X

Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District X X X X X

Yuma County Water Users' Association X X X X X

Yuma Irrigation District X X X X X

Bard Water District X X X X X

Coachella Valley Water District X X X X X

Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Colorado River Board of California X X X X X

Imperial Irrigation District X X X X X

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California X X X X X

Palo Verde Irrigation District X X X X X

San Diego County Water Authority X X X X X

Southern California Public Power Authority X X X X X

Basic Water Company X X X X X

Colorado River Commission of Nevada X X X X X

Nevada Department of Wildlife X X X X X X

Southern Nevada Water Authority X X X X X

California Department of Fish and Game X X X X X

Colorado River Commission Power Users X X X

Quad State County Government Coalition X X X

Desert Wildlife Unlimited X X X

Hualapai Tribe X X X

Colorado River Indian Tribes X X X

Ducks Unlimited X X X

Lower Colorado River RC&D Area X X X

The Nature Conservancy X X X

Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District X X X X X

City of Needles (CA) X X X X X

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power X X X X X

Southern California Edison Company X X X X X

19

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Project Summary: The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project in northern California is among the largest cold-water anadromous fish restoration efforts in North America. The project involves removal of five hydropower diversion dams and construction of fish screens and ladders on three hydropower diversion dams in order to open 48 miles of premium fish spawning habitat in Shasta and Tehama counties near Manton, Calif. The project implements a 1999 Memorandum of Understanding, which was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In addition, the project embodies the America's Great Outdoors Initiative in many respects, including expansive ecological restoration. The project, which began with a groundbreaking in late 2010, is expected to be completed in 2015. Strategic Value: The program seeks to achieve two primary goals: Restoration of one of the most important anadromous fish spawning streams in the Sacramento River system and minimizing the loss of hydropower

production for electric customers in California. Habitat restoration and enhancement will enable safe passage, growth and recovery for threatened and endangered Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout. The restoration of Battle Creek is especially important to species such as winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead, which are dependent on cool water stream habitats. Battle Creek has reaches that are kept cool year-round by natural springs. Benefits: The project is focused on increasing water flow releases and providing fish passage along 42 miles of Battle Creek and an additional six miles along its tributaries. This project would enhance natural production of endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead, while also benefitting other fish, native plants and wildlife. Improvement of fish populations would improve the reliability in State and Federal water project operations and the salmon harvest. The project also minimizes loss of clean and renewable energy produced by the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project by removing selected dams at locations in the watershed where the hydroelectric values were marginal. The public has become involved with the Restoration Project, with participation that includes the Greater Battle Creek Watershed Working Group and the Battle Creek Watershed Conservancy.

Excavating for a fish screen and ladder.

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

20

Program Start: 1999 Initiating Agreement: 1999 Memorandum of Understanding. The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project is a collaborative effort between Reclamation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. 2005 Final EIS/EIR & Record of Decision, January 20, 2009. Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$2,500,000 CALFED

$1,700,000 $1,400,000 CALFED

$9,859,000 ARRA

$188,000 CALFED

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $49,250,000 $0 $0

Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/battlecreek/status.html Contact info: Mary Marshall, mmarshall@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X National Marine Fisheries Service X X X X X X X X X

California Department of Fish & Game X X X X X X X X X

Pacific Gas and Electric Company X X X X X X X X X X

The Packard Foundation X The California Wildlife Conservation Board X

The California Department of Transportation X

The Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council X

21

Map of the Central Valley Project

Central Valley Project Improvement Act Project Summary: Restoration of rivers in California’s Central Valley Project is one of the primary requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. The CVPIA amends previous authorizations of the CVP, which is one of the world’s largest systems for storing and moving water, to include fish and wildlife protection and mitigation as project purposes that have equal priority with irrigation, domestic uses and power generation. From 1993-2010, Reclamation's CVPIA Program completed several major river projects, including restoration of Butte Creek and installation of fish screens in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District. Overall, the CVPIA Program completed 98 actions from the river restoration plan in 26 watersheds throughout the Central Valley, focusing on removal of barriers from rivers, flood plain restoration and riverbed gravel supplementation. Reclamation also has assisted the State of California in construction of 29 fish screen diversions ranging from 11 to 960 cubic feet per second (cfs), for a cumulative total of more than 4,800 cfs. CVPIA river restoration embodies the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative in many respects, including expansive ecological restoration. Strategic Value: River restoration within the CVP is a key aspect of meeting the CVPIA fisheries goal, which is to double the natural production of anadromous fish on a sustainable basis. The current scope of the CVPIA includes 15 programs that fall into three resource areas: fisheries, refuges, and other resources. Major ongoing fishery projects include the San Joaquin River Restoration Program in central California; and the Red Bluff Fish Passage Improvement Project and the Trinity River Restoration Program in northern California.

Benefits: River restoration is an important aspect of meeting CVPIA requirements for fish and wildlife mitigation as the CVP meets its water supply responsibilities. The CVP has long-term agreements to supply water to more than 250 contractors in 29 of California's 58 counties. Deliveries by the CVP include providing an annual average of 5 million acre-feet of water for farms; 600,000 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial uses; and water for wildlife refuges and maintaining water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Channel rehabilitation on the Trinity River

Central Valley Project Improvement Act

22

Program Start: 1992 Initiating Agreement: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PL 102-575 Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PL 102-575 Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding*

$64,400,000 $52,830,000 $91,550,000 $194,820,000 $97,110,000

Total Partner funding

$1,300,000 $1,100,000 $5,200,000 $2,200,000 $6,500,000

*Includes Reclamation funding from Trinity River Restoration Program. Total Reclamation funding includes funds from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/docs_reports/index.html Contact info: Shana Kaplan, skaplan@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Central Valley Project Improvement Act

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X X

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X X X

CA Department of Fish and Game X X X X X X X X

NMFS/NOAA X X X X X

CA Department of Water Resources X X X X X X X

23

San Joaquin River Restoration Program Project Summary: The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is a comprehensive, long-term effort to restore flows to the San Joaquin River, from Friant Dam to the confluence with the Merced River, a distance of 153 miles. The program aims to restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery in the river while reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts from restoration flows. The program implements the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC et al. v. Rodgers et al., and resolves more than 18 years of litigation related to Reclamation’s operation of Friant Dam. Interim flow releases from Friant Dam started in October 2009 and the San Joaquin River was reconnected to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in March 2010, a stretch of about 330 miles -- a circumstance that has not occurred in more than 60 years, with the exception of flood flow releases. This program is consistent with the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative in many respects, including expansive ecological restoration.

Strategic Value: The program seeks to achieve two primary goals: Restoration and water management. The restoration goal is to restore and maintain fish populations in good condition in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish. The water management goal is to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that may result from interim and restoration flows provided for in the Settlement. The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Settlement.

Benefits: The program is focused on restoring flows and fish, including Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River, while maintaining water deliveries to the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project consistent with the water supply contracts between the Friant Division water users and Reclamation. The Friant Division provides agricultural, municipal and industrial water supply to 28 long-term contractors which serve over a million acres of land in Fresno, Kern, Madera, and Tulare counties. The program will have wide-reaching benefits, including: restoring riparian habitat to more than 30 miles of the San Joaquin River; restoring ecosystem function and aquatic, riparian, and upland species habitats along the river; improving river channel capacities and flood control operations; and reconnecting the upper San Joaquin River to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Beyond the scope of the Settlement, a restored river will enhance recreational access and opportunities for many communities along the river. Many local organizations engage in activities with local schools to participate in learning opportunities for a restoration undertaking of this magnitude. Several non-profit conservation organizations working on the program formed a collaborative partnership to maximize the

environmental, social, and economic benefits this restoration program brings to the people of California.

The San Joaquin River before restoration began (left), and after(right).

Map of San Joaquin River Restoration Area

San Joaquin River Restoration Program

24

Program Start: 2006 Initiating Agreement: Litigation - Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC, et al., v. Rodgers, et al. as authorized and directed in the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (PL 111-11) Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Title X, Subtitle A of PL 111-11 Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$3,000,000 $7,200,000 $20,100,000 $12,000,000 $21,400,000

Partner funding

$1,800,000 $4,600,000 $6,700,000 $11,300,000 $16,300,000

Web links: http://www.restoresjr.net./program_library/01-General_Outreach/2010SJRRPAnnualReportweb.pdf Contact info: Alicia Forsythe, aforsythe@usbr.gov

San Joaquin River Restoration Program

25

Roles Matrix: San Joaquin River Restoration Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X National Marine Fisheries Service X X X X X X X X

State of California, Department of Water Resources

X X X X X X X X

State of California, Department of Fish and Game X X X X X X X X

Friant Water Authority X X X Chowchilla Water District X X Natural Resources Defense Council X X X

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority X

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency X

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers X State of California, State Water Resources Control Board

X

U.S. Geological Survey X X SJR Restoration Administrator and Technical Advisory Committee

X X

26

Trinity River Restoration Program Program Summary: The Trinity River Restoration Program is a long-term, comprehensive effort to restore fish and wildlife populations in the Trinity River below dams that are part of California's Central Valley Project. The restoration work is underway as part of meeting requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, which includes fish and wildlife protection and mitigation as CVP purposes that have equal priority with irrigation, domestic uses and power generation. The Trinity River program includes flow management, channel rehabilitation, sediment control, and watershed restoration. The results are monitored and assessed to incorporate experience into future restoration efforts through adaptive management. This program is consistent with the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, including expansive ecological restoration of river processes and fish and wildlife habitat. Strategic Value: The program takes a riverine approach to create a dynamic river capable of building and maintaining sufficient habitat system-wide. The program's goals are to complete necessary infrastructure modifications to allow implementation of higher peak releases; to create sufficient suitable habitat through achievement of healthy river attributes; and to predict, measure, and evaluate progress toward long-term goals that also influence short-term management actions. Benefits: Restoration of the Trinity River in northern California is an important aspect of meeting CVPIA requirements for fish and wildlife mitigation as the CVP meets its water supply responsibilities. The CVP has long-term agreements to supply water to more than 250 contractors in 29 of California's 58 counties. Deliveries by the CVP include providing an annual average of 5 million acre-feet of water for farms; 600,000 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial uses; and water for wildlife refuges and maintaining water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Indian Creek mechanical channel rehabilitation site during construction (left) and after (right).

Map of Trinity River Restoration Program

Trinity River Restoration Program

27

Program Start: 2000 Initiating Agreement: Record of Decision Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report http://odp.trrp.net/Library/Details.aspx?document=227 Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: P.L.98-541. An act to provide for the restoration of the fish and wildlife in the Trinity River Basin, California, and for other purposes. PL-104-143. Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Reauthorization Act of 1995. Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PL 102-575, Section B1 (Other), and Section B23 (Flow Related) Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$8,000,000 $11,000,000 $7,900,000 $8,500,000 $12,800,000

Total Partner funding

$2,200,000 $2,200,000 $2,500,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000

Web links: http://www.trrp.net/ Contact info: Robin Schrock, rschrock@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Trinity River Restoration Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X USFWS X X X X X X X X NOAA Fisheries X X X X USDA Forest Service X X X X X X X X X California Dept. of Fish & Game X X X X X X X X

California Dept. of Water Resources X X X X X X X X

Hoopa Valley Tribe X X X X X X X Yurok Tribe X X X X X X X Trinity County X X X X Stakeholders X X X X

28

Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program Tributary Habitat Activities Project Summary: The Bureau of Reclamation participates in planning, developing, and implementing spawning and rearing habitat improvement projects in collaboration with local watershed groups in several Columbia River tributaries in the Pacific Northwest to improve the survival of salmon and steelhead trout listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These tributary habitat efforts are associated with a Biological Opinion (BiOp) on operation and maintenance of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The FCRPS BiOp also includes hydrosystem, harvest, hatchery, predator control, and estuary habitat actions intended to improve salmon and steelhead survival. The Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Reclamation jointly implement the FCRPS BiOp in close collaboration with Pacific Northwest States, and Native American Tribes.

Strategic Value: Before settlement in the mid-1800s, the Columbia Basin river system was one of the largest producers of wild salmon and steelhead in the world. The demands of development by a growing population since then contributed to the decline of salmon and steelhead populations. This decline led to the current ESA listing of 13 of the salmon and steelhead species that are born and grow to juveniles within the basin and then migrate to the ocean to become adults. Reversing this decline with habitat improvement actions is one part of the larger efforts intended to increase the overall numbers of salmon and steelhead and provide for a Columbia Basin river system that can support thriving human, salmon, and steelhead populations. Benefits: Improvement to spawning and rearing habitat conditions are intended to increase the number of juveniles that head to the ocean, and ultimately, the number of adults that return to spawn. Fish screen, barrier removal, and channel complexity projects are examples of the types of habitat actions used to improve spawning and rearing habitat. Fish screens are associated with water diversions (or returns) to keep fish in the river and prevent stranding. Removal or replacement of in-stream diversion structures and culverts that block access to quality habitat restores the unimpeded

Salmon and steelhead trout are the primary beneficiaries of tributary habitat improvement projects implemented for the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion in the Columbia River Basin of the Pacific Northwest.

This diversion dam was a major barrier to fish passage.

A series of weirs and pools now provides fish passage past the water diversion.

Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program Tributary Habitat Activities

29

movement of adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead at critical migration times. Channel complexity projects develop pools, resting areas, spawning areas, and in-stream cover and side channel reconnections that increase the amount of in-stream rearing and overwintering habitat. These restoration efforts are part of Reclamation’s commitment to provide power and satisfy water delivery obligations by maintaining continued operations at Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse Dams under the 2010 FCRPS Biological Opinion. Program Start: 2001 Initiating Agreement: 2000, 2004, & 2010/2008 FCRPS NOAA BiOps, including all 73 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions and the adaptive management implement plan with amendments https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/sxn7.pcts_upload.download?p_file=F25013/201002096_FCRPS Supplemental_2010_05-20.pdf Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

Reclamation funding

$0 $0 $17,500,000 $18,000,000 $18,000,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000

Web links: http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/BiologicalOpinions/FCRPS/BiopImplementation/BiOpImplementation2009.aspx http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/fcrps/thp/index.html Contact info: Kate Puckett, kpuckett@usbr.gov

Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program Tributary Habitat Activities

30

Roles Matrix: Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

X X X X X X X X X X

States of Washington, Idaho, Montana X X X X X

Native American Indian Tribes: Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation Confederated Collville tribes Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

X X X X

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission X X X X X

NW Power & Conservation Council X X X

Research and Monitoring Washington and Oregon Depts. of Fish and Wildlife Idaho Dept of Fish and Game Pac NW Aquatic Monitoring Partnership NW Fisheries Science Center USGS USFS-PIRO University of Idaho WA Governor's Salmon Recovery Board NOAA Fisheries/USFWS/USCOE

X X X X

WA Dept of Ecology

Oregon State University

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program Tributary Habitat Activities

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

WA Habitat Implementation Partner agencies- Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation Cascadia Conservation District Chelan County Natural Resources Department

X X X

OR Habitat Implementation Partner agencies- Grand Ronde Model Watershed Grant SWCD Union SWCD Wallowa SWCD

X X X

ID Habitat Implementation Partner agencies- Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Custer SWCD

X

All States- Habitat Implementation partner organizations-Trout UnlimitedThe Nature Conservancy

X X X

32

Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation Twisp Ponds Restoration site

Upper Columbia River steelhead spawning in the Twisp Ponds

Methow Valley Irrigation District East Diversion Modification Project: looking downstream showing the fenced intake structure and riparian bench with covered pipeline

Methow River M2 Project Restoration Project Summary: The Methow Subbasin habitat improvement efforts meet Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion commitments. Reclamation funds project design and supports project sponsors in carrying out habitat projects, while the Bonneville Power Administration funds actual project construction. This work is coordinated through the regional Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and the local Methow Restoration Council. Reclamation partners with the Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF) and Trout Unlimited to restore fish passage to historic habitat; assess habitat conditions; improve habitat, fish screens and river flows. Reclamation, MSRF and the Yakama Nation are working on a reach-based effort that will enhance habitat over eight miles of the Methow River. Habitat conditions and opportunities to protect and improve habitat were identified in the Middle Methow Reach Assessment. Strategic Value: The work addresses a specific reach of the river, resulting in a scientific approach to sustainable habitat improvement that focuses on restoring natural river function. Value is gained through integration with a robust effort to build community understanding and support of habitat projects. The projects in the reach include land protection through easements and acquisition, side channel reconnections, levee removal and addition of large wood structures. In addition, partners have worked with local landowners to increase flows on the Methow Valley’s many critical rivers and creeks by improving irrigation efficiency and converting river diversions to groundwater wells. Benefits: These projects help repair the river, promote natural fish production, and accommodate the vision of landowners and the community. The success of this reach-based effort will be assessed through a robust scientific study carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey in partnership with Reclamation. Projects to date have significantly increased the amount of water left in streams through completion of: 16 fish passage

projects, 12 fish screen installations, seven habitat improvement projects, four habitat assessments and 11 water efficiency improvements. These projects allow for continued operation’s of Reclamation’s projects as part of the 2010 FCRPS Biological Opinion activities.

Methow River M2 Project Restoration

33

Program Start: 2008 Initiating Agreement: 2010/2008 FCRPS NOAA BiOp, including all 73 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions and the adaptive management implement plan with amendments http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/BiologicalOpinions/FCRPS/BiopImplementation/2009FCRPSBiOpProgressReport.aspx Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$0 $900,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000

Web links: www.methowsalmon.org Contact info: Jennifer Molesworth, jmolesworth@usbr.gov

Methow River M2 Project Restoration

34

Roles Matrix: Columbia Snake Salmon Recovery Program - Methow Sub-basin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation US Geological Survey X X X X US Forest Service X X X X X X X X X US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X X X National Marine Fisheries Service X X X X X X X X X

Bonneville Power Administration X X X X X X

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife X X X X X X X X

Washington Department of Ecology X X X X X X X

Washington Department of Natural Resources X X

Okanogan County Planning X X X X X X

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board X X X X X X X X

Yakama Nation X X X X X X X Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation X X X X X X X

Trout Unlimited Western water Project Washington X X X X X X X

Watershed Resource Solutions X X

Methow Conservancy X X X X X

Methow Arts Alliance X

Wildfish Conservancy X X X

Methow Watershed Council X X X Methow Valley Irrigation District X X X

Bonneville Environmental Foundation x x

Landowners X

Town of Twisp X X X

35

Savage Rapids after dam removal and construction of the new pumping plant

Savage Rapids Dam Removal Project Project Summary: The Savage Rapids Dam was constructed in 1921 by the Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID). Fish passage improvements in the 1930s, 1950s and late 1970s helped reduce losses, but fish passage and screening problems continued and support to remove the dam grew. In 2003, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to construct pumping facilities on the Rogue River to supply irrigation water to GPID and subsequently remove the dam to permanently resolve fish passage issues. Major milestones in the dam removal project are:

• 2001: The Grants Pass Irrigation District signed a Federal Court consent decree agreeing to stop diverting water from Oregon’s Rogue River using the district-owned Savage Rapids Dam..

• 2002: Congress appropriated money to Reclamation to evaluate pumping alternatives at Savage Rapids Dam.

• 2003: Public Law 108-137 authorized the construction of pumping facilities to supply irrigation water to Grants Pass Irrigation District and the removal of the dam to permanently resolve fish passage issues at the site.

• 2004: Congress appropriated funds to Reclamation for final design/construction contracts for a new irrigation pumping system and removal of Savage Rapids Dam.

• 2005: The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board awarded GPID $3 million for dam removal. • 2006: Reclamation awarded the construction contract to Slayden Construction and construction began

in October; total estimated project cost is $39.3 million; contributing partners include the GPID, the Oregon Water Enhancement Board and Waterwatch.

• 2009: Removal was largely completed.

Strategic Value: The Rogue River offers scenic beauty, world-class whitewater and a renowned salmon and steelhead fishery. The Savage Rapids Dam obstructed native salmon and steelhead trout during their migration upstream from the ocean to spawn in-river. More than 500 miles of spawning habitat is upstream of the dam.

Benefits: On October 9, 2009 the radial gates at Savage Rapids Dam were closed, returning the Rogue River to its historic stream channel for the first time since 1921, and allowing salmon and trout the opportunity to migrate freely past the site on their way to and from the Pacific Ocean. A pumping plant was built downstream of the dam site to meet irrigation needs in the area. The total estimated project cost is about $39.3 million, which includes a grant for $3 million from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board for dam removal. The project also provides permanent protection of significant stream flows in the Rogue River and has removed an obstacle to boating. In addition, water deliveries to Grants Pass Irrigation District are maintained while complying with ESA-related fish passage issues.

Savage Rapids Dam Removal Project

36

Program Start: 2007 Initiating Agreement: United States District Court Consent Decree `United States, et al., v. Grants Pass Irrigation District, Civil No. 98-3034-HO' (August 27, 2001) Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: The project was authorized by Section 220 of PL 108-137. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$13,000,000 $14,760,000 $3,000,000 $1,160,000 $0

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $2,932,500 $0 $0

Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/lcao_misc/savage/index.html Contact info: Robert J. Hamilton, rhamilton@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Savage Rapids Dam Removal Project, Oregon

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X Grants Pass Irrigation District X X X X X Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board X X X

WaterWatch of Oregon X Oregon Water Resources Department X

Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife X X X X

National Marine Fisheries Service X X X

Fish and Wildlife Service X US Forest Service X Bureau of Land Management X Federal Emergency Management Agency X

37

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Project Summary: The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was established following the 1996 Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) of 1992. It provides an organization and process to ensure the use of scientific information in decision making for Glen Canyon Dam operations and protection of downstream resources consistent with the GCPA. A major initiative of the program is developing a set of desired future conditions for important resources within the Glen Canyon National Recreational Area and Grand Canyon National Park that will provide opportunities to balance competing demands on dam operations. This and other GCDAMP activities and programs are consistent with the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative since their intent is to restore and protect riparian, aquatic, historic and cultural resources on the Colorado River within highly valued public lands. The GCDAMP represents a long-

term commitment by the Secretary of the Interior to ensure appropriate management, restoration and protection of valuable resources. Strategic Value: Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area are among the most treasured of “America’s Treasured Landscapes.” Protection and restoration of resources affected by the operation of Glen Canyon Dam not only ensures the continued fulfillment of Reclamation’s mission, it also provides a public and transparent opportunity to assure that highly valued natural and cultural

resources are preserved and protected for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future generations. Benefits: Successful execution of GCDAMP programs and activities will result in healthier riverine and riparian environments, improved recreational resources and opportunities, and protection or recovery of endangered species, while ensuring that water storage and delivery commitments to the Lower Colorado Basin States are fulfilled and clean hydropower is provided to the region.

Project location map

Grand Canyon below Glen Canyon Dam

Endangered humpback chub

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

38

Program Start: 1997 Initiating Agreement: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Colorado River Storage Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement; http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/gc/gcdOpsFEIS.html Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Public Law No: 102-575; Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 Public Law No: 106-377; An Act making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding* FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$3,979,000 $3,934,000 $0 $1,892,000 $2,096,000

Total Partner funding

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

*Excludes funding from power revenues. Web links: http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html Contact info: Glen Knowles, gknowles@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X

Western Area Power Admin. X X X X X

Bureau of Indian Affairs X X X X X X X

National Park Service X X X X X X X X X

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X

U.S. Geological Survey X X X X X X X X

Arizona Game and Fish Dept. X X X

Arizona X X X

California X X X

Colorado X X X

Nevada X X X

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

New Mexico X X X

Utah X X X

Wyoming X X X

Dept. of Interior X X X

Hopi Tribe X X X X

Hualapai Tribe X X X X

Navajo Nation X X X X

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe X X X X

Southern Paiute Consortium X X X X

Pueblo of Zuni X X X X

Grand Canyon Trust X X X

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council X X X

Colorado River Energy Distributors X X X

Utah Associated Municipal Power X X X

Grand Canyon River Guides X X X

Federation of Flyfishers X X X

Upper Colorado River Commission X X

40

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Project Summary: The Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program (Collaborative Program) is a partnership involving Federal, State, tribal and local signatories organized to protect and improve the status of endangered species along the Middle Rio Grande of New Mexico while protecting existing and future regional water uses. Two species of particular concern are the Rio Grande silvery minnow and Southwestern willow flycatcher. Program activities include habitat restoration, endangered species monitoring, silvery minnow propagation and rescue, water acquisition and management, and water quality studies. The Collaborative Program is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Together, Reclamation and the Collaborative Program have funded more than 1,000 acres of habitat improvement and restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande. This work goes hand in hand with the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative. The river and surrounding area are being restored to create more habitat for endangered species and for future generations to enjoy. Strategic Value: The Rio Grande has long been viewed as one of the most essential resources in New Mexico from a cultural, agricultural, environmental, and economic perspective. The wooded area surrounding the Middle Rio Grande is known as the Rio Grande Bosque. This area has become increasingly important in recent years as a place for recreation, especially within Albuquerque. The wooded areas are popular for hiking, exercising, picnicking and bird watching.

Benefits: The main purpose of the Collaborative Program’s habitat restoration work is to benefit the Rio Grande silvery minnow and Southwestern willow flycatcher in order to fulfill the requirements of a 2003 biological opinion. A key objective for the Habitat Restoration Work Group of the Collaborative Program is to provide technical assistance in coordinating reach specific habitat improvement and long-term, basin-wide habitat effectiveness monitoring plans. These plans will actively integrate river function, riparian community, and hydrology, resulting in improved habitats for endangered species. These projects vary in complexity, but typically lower the bank lines of the Rio Grande to reconnect with the river and clear non-native

Habitat restoration project funded by the Collaborative Program on Sandia Pueblo

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

41

species. In some cases, they reintroduce native plant species and create shallow ephemeral channels or low-velocity habitats important for Rio Grande silvery minnow egg and larval development. The Collaborative Program helps to provide Endangered Species Act coverage under the 2003 biological opinion for the Middle Rio Grande project, allowing continued delivery of approximately 350,000 acre feet of water annually to about 90,000 acres of land, including 30,000 acres of Indian water rights lands within the project. Program Start: 2000 Initiating Agreement: Memorandum of Understanding: Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program; http://www.middleriogrande.com/Default.aspx?tabid=222 Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Public Law No: 110-161; 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$10,989,000 $8,621,000 $9,769,000 $12,426,000 $11,334,000

Total Partner funding

$1,945,000 $619,000 $799,000 $1,533,000 $1,395,000

Web links: http://www.middleriogrande.com/ Contact info: Yvette McKenna, ymckenna@usbr.gov

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

42

Roles Matrix: Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers X X X X X X X X X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X NM Interstate Stream Commission X X X X X X X X

NM Department of Game and Fish X X X X X X X

NM Attorney General's Office X X X X Santo Domingo Pueblo X X X X X X Pueblo of Santa Ana X X X X X X Pueblo of Sandia X X X X X X Pueblo of Isleta X X X X X X Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District X X X X X X X X

City of Albuquerque X X X X X X X Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority X X X X X X X X

Assessment Payers Association of the Middle Rio Grande

X X X X X

NM Department of Agriculture X X X X University of New Mexico X X X X X X

43

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project Summary: The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program) is a unique partnership of local, State and Federal agencies; water and power interests; and environmental groups working to recover the endangered fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub and bonytail), while water development proceeds in accordance with Federal and State laws and interstate compacts. This major undertaking involves restoring and managing stream flows and habitat, boosting wild populations with hatchery-raised endangered fish, and reducing negative interactions with certain non-native fish species. The goal of recovery is to achieve natural, self-sustaining populations of the endangered fish so that they no longer require protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Recovery Program provides Endangered Species Act compliance for continued operation of State, Federal and private water and power projects in accordance with project purposes. With its demonstrated successes, the Recovery Program has become a national model for its collaborative conservation efforts to protect endangered species. Strategic Value: The Recovery Program is a unique partnership whereby divergent stakeholder groups work together to pursue the common goals of endangered species recovery and water development. Benefits: The Recovery Program has consistently demonstrated significant progress toward endangered fish recovery and continues to provide Endangered Species Act compliance to more than 1,800 water projects (Federal and non-Federal) depleting more than 3.7 million acre-feet per year. While species recovery and water development are the primary benefits of the Recovery Program, recovery activities such as instream flow protection and habitat restoration will also likely result in healthier riverine and riparian environments in national parks, wildlife refuges and on other public lands enjoyed by outdoor recreationists and nature enthusiasts.

Map of Upper Colorado River Basin, including the San Juan River.

Green River in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado.

Biologist with endangered Colorado pikeminnow.

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

44

Program Start: 1987 Initiating Agreement: Final Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents-publications/foundational-documents/1987BlueBook.pdf Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Public Law No: 106-392; An Act to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. Public Law 109-183; Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2005. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding* FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$4,042,000 $2,833,000 $6,383,000 $2,725,000 $7,887,000

Total Partner funding

$617,427 $0 $0 $0 $0

*Excludes funding from power revenues. Web links: http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/ Contact info: David Speas, dspeas@usbr.gov Roles Matrix: Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X X X US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X X X National Park Service X X X X X X X X X Western Area Power Administration X X X X X X X X

State of Colorado X X X X X X X X X X State of Wyoming X X X X X X X X X State of Utah X X X X X X X X X X Colorado River Electrical Developers Association X X X X X X X

Water Development (collectively represented) X X X X X X X X X

Nature Conservancy/Western Resource Advocates X X X X X X X

45

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Project Summary: The purpose of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (Recovery Program) is to protect and recover endangered fishes in the San Juan River Basin while water development proceeds in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws. Endangered species include the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. The specific goals of the Recovery Program are:

• To conserve populations of the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the Basin consistent with recovery goals established under the Endangered Species Act.

• To proceed with water development in the San Juan River Basin in compliance with Federal and State laws; interstate compacts; Supreme Court decrees; and Federal trust responsibilities to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation and Navajo Nation.

Recovery Program activities involve restoring and managing stream flows and habitat, boosting wild populations with hatchery-raised endangered fish and reducing negative interactions with certain non-native fish species. Strategic Value: The Recovery Program affords a unique opportunity whereby all entities that have potential or opportunity to recover or protect the river environment are involved directly in the recovery process. Benefits: While species recovery and water development are the primary benefits of the Recovery Program, recovery activities such as instream flow protection and habitat restoration will also likely result in healthier riverine and riparian environments in national parks, on tribal lands, and on other public and private lands enjoyed by outdoor recreationists and nature enthusiasts. The San Juan Recovery Program provides Endangered Species Act compliance for over 300 water development projects in Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. In addition, it is anticipated that actions taken under the Recovery Program will provide benefits to other native fishes in the San Juan Basin and prevent them from becoming endangered in the future.

San Juan River

Fish passage on San Juan River

Endangered razorback sucker

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program

46

Program Start: 1992 Initiating Agreement: Cooperative Agreement for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; http://www.fws.gov/southwest/sjrip/DR_PGD.cfm Program-Specific Legislative Authorities: Public Law No: 106-392; An Act to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. Public Law 109-183; Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2005. Funding history:

Approximate Annual Funding* FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Reclamation funding

$152,000 $358,000 $193,000 $261,000 $50,000

Total Partner funding

$456,000 $730,713 $0 $0 $0

*Excludes funding from power revenues. Roles Matrix: San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Program Partner

Dec

isio

n M

aker

Form

al

Adv

isor

Fund

er/

In-K

ind

prov

ider

Fund

s M

anag

er

Prog

ram

Im

plem

ente

r

Lega

l B

enef

icia

ry

Reg

ulat

ory/

O

vers

ight

Out

reac

h/

Supp

ort

Scie

nce

Stud

ies

Mon

itorin

g

Peer

Rev

iew

Reclamation X X X X X X X X US Fish and Wildlife Service X X X X X X X X US Bureau of Indian Affairs X X X X US Bureau of Land Management X X X

State of Colorado X X X X State of New Mexico X X X X X X State of Utah X X X Navajo Nation X X X X X X Jicarilla Apache Nation X X X X Southern Ute Indian Tribe X X X X Ute Mountain Ute Tribe X X X X Water Development X X X X The Nature Conservancy X X Peer Review Group-4 members X

47

Institutional Challenges

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

48

This section describes ways that the 16 river restoration programs are addressing six institutional challenges. For each program, the program manager responded to a questionnaire regarding six potential institutional challenges that the restoration and species recovery programs may face. The questionnaire responses are summarized in italics below. The summaries represent personal opinions of the respondents, not Reclamation, and have been compiled to provide information regarding particular program challenges and strategies that may be available to overcome those challenges. These summaries are provided to help foster a constructive dialogue regarding these issues.

Governance Arrangements for Large Scale River Restoration

1. Does the program experience ongoing debates or conflict over the program objectives, stakeholder representation, or the decision making process? Half of the Programs said no, half yes. For example,

No, due to the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding that describes the project objectives and decision making process and the 2005 Final EIS/EIR which provides clear documentation. The Program does not currently experience any ongoing debates or conflict over the Program’s objectives, stakeholder representation, or the Program’s decision-making process. Decision-making is pretty simple, especially since we have a Program Document that outlines how it will be done and who participates The (Program) experiences an ongoing debate over program direction and objectives. A long-term issue has been the lack of clearly defined objectives for the (Program) There is continuing debate about the inclusion of tributaries in the program. Yes, with the new consultation process underway, there is much uncertainty about the overall Program structure, objectives, and decision-making process.

Keys to avoiding ongoing conflict appear to be: 1. don’t start or continue a program without a clear, well-defined governance process; 2. ensure that no parties hold reservations regarding the governance process; 3. establish early the goals, objectives, and targets for the program/project, and then to keep them before the partners and staff.

Institutional Challenges

49

2. Has the governing body been able to adopt annual work plans and then delegate implementation without ongoing involvement of stakeholder representatives or the governing body? Only one or two Programs mentioned significant delegation challenges. Most others indicated that they had a process for planning work and getting it approved by the decision making body, and then implementing. The chief challenge appears to be when partners want to be included in every aspect of the program, and in every decision, regardless of whether policy or technical. This behavior might be avoided by setting of a clear, well-defined governance roles and process (see question 1). 3. Please provide an example of a program governance process or design that has been particularly successful. There is a wide variety of governance structures throughout Reclamation river restoration programs/projects. Most have both “policy” level groups to make final decisions on plans and budgets, or to resolve conflicts, and “technical” committees that address implementation of the work plans, analysis of data, oversight of contract work, etc.

The basic organizational structure of the program being a functional Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee provides for a good organizational design for this type of program. The Regional Implementation Oversight Group (RIOG) process is working. One dispute has come from the technical level to the RIOG level in 2011 - information was shared, the issue was discussed, a vote was taken and the decision maker moved forward based on this information/process. The regional entities involved accepted this decision. The use of a locally placed Sub-basin liaison position and use of local project sponsors allow full integration into local communities. This leads to a bottom up or grass roots approach to ecological restoration and increases local trust, acceptance and long-term investment in the outcome. When the Collaborative Program By-laws and process are followed and when participants have reviewed the materials provided and have been briefed by their technical representatives, the ability for activities to get prioritized and moved up from the workgroups to the CC for recommendation, and to the EC for decision making, is usually successful. The process the Program uses to acquire land has been particularly successful. Executive Director’s Office staff locates tracts of land which meet the standards for inclusion into the Program. These individual tracts are then evaluated by a team of individuals which consist of Program stakeholders and Executive

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

50

Director’s Office staff. An Evaluation Report is prepared, which is then presented to the Land Advisory Committee (LAC). The LAC reviews the Evaluation Report, and in turn makes a recommendation to the Governance Committee to either pursue negotiations and acquisition of the land tract or turn the tract down. To be honest, I can't think of one. We are currently looking at our governance structure to see if we can find something more successful. The use of Peer Review has been especially useful. They provide input at all stages of project formulation, design, and analysis. They also provide advice on overall Program direction with respect to reaching the goals and objectives. The Peer Reviewers are comprised of four permanent reviewers, although we often augment them with assistance from other reviewers when we have workshops or have a specific topic where we might need advice.

Top-to-bottom, transparent communication paths seem to be a pre-requisite for a successfully functioning governance structure. Separation of policy from technical roles, as much as possible, also appears helpful. FACA provides a process for strategic deliberation which, while somewhat burdensome, creates clear business procedures that can reduce role confusion and lapses in communication and documentation. Peer Review also appears to be a key to successfully matching governance with science. External review increases confidence in scientific conclusions while reducing parochialism. 4. Please list and briefly describe one or more areas of governance or decision-making that remains particularly challenging. The challenges in governing river restoration programs are similar to the management of any large group endeavor. Reclamation does not operate in a vacuum anywhere; we have many partners, cooperators, collaborators, contractors, stakeholders, consultants, etc.. Challenges include maintaining cooperation among participants, keeping participants to their defined roles, and resolving conflicts.

Working with the steering committee continues to be challenging because some of the participants at the table are also litigating the adequacy of the Program. We strived to limit the recommendations of the (executive committee) on annual budgets to policy-level issues, and to attempt to resolve technical issues more informally at the technical group level. The Steering Committee is made by of representatives from 7 participant groups, including Federal agencies and States, Native American participants, Conservation groups, and other interested parties. Each participant group comes with its own priorities and biases, and wants to focus efforts in their own jurisdiction.

Institutional Challenges

51

Flood control actions (riprap) under a different Federal authority resulting in bank hardening and over simplified habitat without local coordination with local and regional salmon recovery plans. A conflict of interest arises when partners are applying to the Program for financial assistance to implement a project. We have no structure that gives Program partners a clear role and then holds them accountable for achieving certain actions or goals. Instead of seeking to work out issues among partners, program partners and parties bring issues to Reclamation to resolve. We attempt to resolve the issues with the parties, however, in many cases, they are not willing to budge or think that Reclamation can just find a way to "fix it" and meet the expectations of both parties. We are typically put in the "middle" of many issues, allowing partners to blame us for their issues and/or the resolutions that they don't like with little accountability or ownership on their part. A super majority is required to pass motions of the Management Council. Certain parties are represented by private consulting firms which include scientists that have worked on these fish for their entire careers. I believe that the private biologists all have the best interest of the fish in mind, but their ideas can be clouded by the fact that they would also like to be doing the work. At some point all of these programs are "JOBS PROGRAMS" and you have to be careful that you don't lose sight of the bigger picture of improving recovery for the fish, wildlife, plants, and habitat. One frequently recurring conflict in the Program is between hydropower interests and recovery advocates over release of water to benefit endangered fish at the expense of hydropower revenues. This is usually "resolved" through adaptive management processes which rely on best available science, but the solutions are usually short term and case-specific; despite the adaptive management mechanism, partners will always be faced with differing perspectives and goals.

Accountability to the governance process is mentioned often in the questionnaire responses. It is difficult to hold partners accountable if they do not have a legal responsibility for the program or a strong sense of ownership. Programs always are addressing multiple goals which involve competing interests. Rarely is the precise priority of these interests defined for a program. Therefore, many programs have mechanisms for asking higher authorities to set priorities or resolve conflicts. One of the hallmarks of an effective governance process is its ability to resolve disputes and set priorities without letting these issues fester at the technical level, but also without needing to elevate these issues to agency and political leadership where the stakes become much higher.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

52

Geographic Complexity and Timescales of Restoration

1. Please describe one way that the program has coped with either the timescales of recovery or the geographic scope of actions. River restoration programs aim to improve the ecological functioning of river systems or increase the populations of species they support. Progress is challenged by the sheer scale of the systems, by great natural variability in flows and other important factors, by the relatively small scale of management actions compared to overall system dynamics, and by the very long timescales over which the system responds to restoration actions. The geographic scale also challenges coordination of actions, communication with all stakeholders, and monitoring of results. The long system response times complicate attempts to understand the system, to show progress and returns on investments, and to maintain public and political support for the programs. Below are examples of ways that programs have tried to cope with these challenges. Undertake interim actions or set interim goals

While the main project is being implemented, interim instream flows are helping to cope with the timescales of recovery. We are considering setting annual goals with the program partners because measuring progress and setting expectations is difficult when many of our projects take years to plan and implement.

Establish long-term restoration commitments

The agreement to use habitat improvement offsets that have known long time scales helped set the stage for a longer time commitment. In general, improvements are considered to be permanent. The program has a Long-Term Plan with activities and projects that are designed to reach the goals within a specified period of time. Additionally, our authorizing legislation is also long-term--it is helpful having a known amount of funding to work with every year.

Accelerate learning about the river system

River restoration projects around the world may provide the evidence that our program has not yet had time to accumulate. Increasingly the program is looking outside its borders to inform program science.

Institutional Challenges

53

Prioritize restoration efforts

The scope of the fish and wildlife restoration efforts covers 27 watersheds. The program has focused on high priority areas using criteria such as biological benefits, willing partners/cost-share, etc. The first cycle is funding is intended to target implementation of large, complex or reach-based actions to address the highest biological priorities With respect to geographic scope of actions, the Program has supported re-introduction efforts for the target species outside the main study area in order to establish a second population

Invest in communication and coordination

Program addresses 153 miles of river, with potential impacts both upstream, downstream, and with the entire service area. Lots of outreach and meetings has been our solution. Getting habitat improvement projects and associated monitoring on the ground while coordinating with the public and local landowners and staying within the BiOp timeframe is challenging. We have attempted to meet this challenge by placing staff in the locations where we are implementing habitat improvement projects to work with the local community… In order to create a signal that fish will measurably respond to requires a substantial effort that includes levee removal where feasible, installation of large log structures, and re-connection of isolated off channel areas. This work is being done on private land on a voluntary basis and in a reach heavily used for recreation. Great care needs to be taken to continuously share information and build trust and understanding. The outreach portion of this effort cannot be overstated.

2. Please describe a situation where either the timescales for restoration or the geographic scale remain a particular challenge for the program. Large geographic areas and long timescales create challenges to restoration programs trying to spread limited resources over very large geographic areas, dealing with geographic restrictions on legal authority, implementing long-term restoration with short-term budgets, offsetting adverse factors outside of program control, discerning where to focus limited resources, and coordinating actions and stakeholder communications.

Ocean patterns can impact the population of fish beyond our ability to predict or control.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

54

The geographic scope of what successful recovery on the landscape would look like seems immense compared to the small-scale projects we have been able to implement thus far. The issue of timescales of recovery is a significant challenge in linking biological models that consider a 50-100 year timeframe with 10-year hydrologic models. The Program tries to cover its bases throughout the range because often the Recovery Goals require it. But you can't help but wonder sometimes if more prioritization is needed. Because it is a long-lived species, these changes in its status can take time to detect, and understanding the relationship between cause and effect will be difficult. Our fish barrier construction program has only been able to build once every several years primarily due to environmental compliance issues, and we are frustrated that more cannot be done during the short duration of the program lifespan. There is continuing debate about the inclusion of tributaries in the program. Tributaries provide substantial flows and habitat for the three species. However, there has been reluctance to broaden the scope of the program/analysis because the scale of the project is already very large. project sponsors need funding streams that cover multiple years from planning through monitoring. Typical funding is on a one to two year basis while the life of a project is five to ten years. This leads to money being spent writing grants instead of implementing projects. Our authorizing legislation for certain activities runs out in 2011….so this disconnect between the authorizing legislation and recovery activities has given us some problems in that now we do not have a guaranteed funding stream for some activities. Restoration sites are designed and implemented whenever the alignment of landowner permissions, funding/contracts and water years allow. The fact that sites are designed independently by different design groups with different design philosophies and the river is not treated as a whole reduces the ability to model and project changes in the river brought by successive projects. The geographic scale of recovery is daunting. There are several hundred miles of critical habitat. About half of that is infested with nonnative fish of one species or another and spreading an annual budget across that scale creates challenges.

Institutional Challenges

55

Progress Toward Restoration

While all restoration programs have similar goals, establishing specific objectives and measuring progress is difficult, but essential. 1. What is (are) the overall program goal(s)? Nearly all of the river restoration programs were developed to address ESA issues. Restore anadromous fisheries to pre-dam levels

recover populations of Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail and razorback sucker

Most aim to avoid jeopardy, while some include conservation efforts or measures to reduce the likelihood of further listings. Alleviate jeopardy to the listed species in the Program area

….conserve populations of the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the Basin consistent with recovery goals … reducing the likelihood of future listings of other species found in this area

A small number include broader goals of ecosystem or river functioning, mitigation of impacts on non-ESA species, or other goals such as cultural and recreation resources. …restore the ecosystem to prevent further decline among other native species. Restore the river to a functioning alluvial system. … including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use. Nearly all programs also include the goal of maintaining water deliveries or increasing water development. …continue delivery of irrigation water

…accommodate present water and power uses while optimizing future water and power development

…proceed with water development in the Basin Protect existing and future water uses…

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

56

2. List established quantitative program objectives (both short- and long-term). Almost all programs have quantitative objectives for restoration, typically for increased land and water habitat, improved flows, fish stocking or natural production and recruitment, fish passage, or reduction in predation by non-native species. In nearly all cases, these objectives relate to listed species. In several cases, program objectives also include defined additional quantities of water development, in addition to providing ongoing ESA compliance for defined existing water uses. Specificity of objectives varies from the broad goal of “species reintroduction” to extremely detailed criteria for achieving species de-listing or down-listing. Examples below:

double the natural production of six anadromous species Juvenile salmon dam passage performance standards - 96% percent average relative dam survival Provide ""up to" 487,000 acre-feet flow augmentation Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish Document reduced entrainment of pallid sturgeon augment native fish populations by raising and stocking approximately 1.2 million native fish developing and managing conservation areas totaling at least 8,132 acres; implement projects to achieve a 6 percent Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring Chinook habitat quality Improvement by 2018 and a 4 percent UCR steelhead habitat quality improvement by 2018 a total of 1600 acres of habitat restored by 2013. reduce shortages to target flows in the Platte River by an average of 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet (AF) per year Reintroduce spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 62,000 natural fall-run Chinook salmon escapement Downlisting can occur if, over a five-year period: 1. genetically and demographically viable, self-sustaining populations are maintained in the Green River subbasin and EITHER in the Upper Colorado River subbasin or the San Juan River subbasin such that:

(a) the trend in adult (age 4+;>400mm TL) point estimates for each of the two populations does not decline significantly;

Institutional Challenges

57

(b) the mean estimated recruitment of age-3 (300-399 mm TL) naturally produced fish equals or exceeds mean annual adult mortality for each of the two populations; and (c) each point estimate for each of the two populations exceeds 5,800 adults (5,800 is the estimated minimum viable population [MVP] needed to ensure long-term genetic and demographic viability)

3. Briefly describe progress toward those objectives. Reports of progress generally cover three categories: (1) program actions taken to achieve objectives; (2) program actions taken to improve understanding of the ecosystem and the effectiveness of recovery strategies, and (3) attainment of program objectives (e.g., habitat gained, populations increased). Examples of each are shown below. Actions to achieve objectives

A diversion dam was removed in 2010 Significant flow augmentation has been provided in every year under all 3 BiOps To date, approximately 175,000 native fish have raised and stocked partnerships have resulted in 16 fish passage projects, 6 fish screen installations, 6 habitat improvement projects, 3 habitat assessments, 7 water efficiency improvements, and 13.5 cfs of saved water. Dam removed and cofferdam breached to restore river to natural channel Feasibility studies have been conducted for two major Water Action Plan projects, a ground water recharge project and a reregulation reservoir project To date, the Program has acquired an interest in 8,617 acres of land towards the goal of 10,000 acres. Common carp have been almost extirpated through this project and the lowest catch rates for channel catfish in the Program's history have been achieved Late summer flows in the Yampa River were augmented for the fourth year using releases from Elkhead Reservoir. Minimum instream flow target increased from 93 cfs to 134 cfs 2,900 af of water per year has been made available from the Daniels Diversion; thru voluntary participation

In 2011, CDOW removed harvest limits on illegally-introduced walleye in McPhee

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

58

A total of 104,716 af was added to baseflow in water year 2010 The Grand Valley Water Management Project reduced irrigation diversions by 24,001 af in water year 2010 The fish passage operated continuously April 16 to October 15, 2010. In that time, 18,390 fish used the passage ,including 16,358 native fishes. Significant flow augmentation has been provided in every year under all 3 BiOps.

Actions to improve understanding

The GCDAMP continues to test High Flow Experiments to manage tributary sediment inputs Interim (experimental) flow releases begun…

Attainment of objectives

significant progress in protecting some populations has occurred, but that success may not be keeping up with losses of other populations Humpback chub have improved from a low of about 5,000 adult fish to approximately 7,650 fish Approximately 1,900 acres of cottonwood-willow riparian, honey mesquite, marsh, and backwater habitat has been established and managed The largest number of razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow larvae and adults in San Juan River sampling history were captured in 2010 The program has met or exceeded its stocking goals for the two endangered fish for the last 5 years providing continuous ESA coverage for over 1,800 individual water development projects Although populations fluctuate, a significant increasing trend in adult fish abundance was detected This coordination has led to the formation of a highly functional Watershed Action Team leading to integration of multiple salmon recovery objectives. Since 2000, Reclamation has acquired about 350,000 acre-feet of supplemental, imported San Juan-Chama Project water from willing lessors to meet BO flow targets.

Institutional Challenges

59

4. Describe one area where progress has been particularly challenging.

Progress in river restoration depends on many parties working together with sufficient resources and sufficient understanding of both the problem and solutions. Accomplishment of objectives can be limited in many ways, including factors beyond the program’s control, internal debates, limited funds, or limited knowledge. A few of the more common hurdles are illustrated. Problematic statement of program objectives

Estimating natural production is inherently problematic under the present condition. The result is that the baseline is unreliable and natural production levels are actually unknown. Estimating changes in the natural production in a meaningful manner is similarly problematic given that the variances (presumably large) of the population estimates have not been calculated.

…authorizing legislation does not fully address the problems and issues. …two key aspects of the objectives are not yet established: the desired future conditions and recovery goals for the species the expectation of providing broad Endangered Species Act (ESA) coverage to non-Federal partners creates challenges with Reclamation's limited discretion, budgetary and resource constraints;

Limited understanding of the ecosystem and how it responds to management actions.

due to armoring of the banks by nonnative vegetation, the program flows have not been as successful as predicted in creating and maintaining the habitat. Pallid sturgeon life history and recruitment is still not clearly understood, and there was significant reluctance from portions of the public to spend money for a project that could not be proven beforehand to accomplish its goals

Difficult to adjust Program goals based on new knowledge

Partners are not allowing any revisit of the science that established the program goals.

the lack of flexibility in water management options due to the BO prescribed flow targets, and the ability to meet those targets in an era of less available supplemental water;

External forces limit program effectiveness

Oceanic patterns can impact the population of fish beyond our ability to predict or control. Fluctuations of the California Current and the North Pacific Gyre are

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

60

just now beginning to be understood. Long range weather patterns are impossible to predict, yet they control the amount of water that is available for managing the system.

Introduction and proliferation of nonnative, predatory fish such as northern pike and smallmouth bass continue to be a huge drain on financial and labor resources of the Recovery Program.

Multiple challenges of project planning, funding, and construction

Construction of fish passage barriers has been much slower than initially anticipated due to the myriad land use restrictions

the expectation of providing broad Endangered Species Act (ESA) coverage to non-Federal partners within Reclamation's limited discretion, budgetary and resource constraints;

1) developing agreements with Program stakeholders for the construction and operation and maintenance of the projects; 2) acquiring all of the necessary regulatory permits required by Federal and State agencies; and 3) appropriating funding sufficient to implement the projects.

Obtaining support from participants

…all of the parties and program partners wanted to be involved in the planning and design efforts. Coordination has increase substantially and expectations have ballooned. Program partners that are also regulatory agencies find it difficult to accept risk in these projects and therefore, re-designs are needed and costs are growing substantially. The challenge is finding a balance amongst stakeholders that leads to effective actions instead of endless planning. …there was significant reluctance from portions of the public to spend money for a project that could not be proven to accomplish its goals beforehand. A panel of experts concluded the preferred alternative was a reasonable attempt to improve passage and contribute to recruitment, but did nothing to reduce some public opposition. Considerable time and money was expended to attempt to resolve public concerns that could have been used toward the project.

Institutional Challenges

61

Support and Investment in Reclamation’s River Restoration Programs

There are over 200 formal partner agencies and organizations collaborating with Reclamation on 16 river restoration programs. This involvement varies from fully supporting and participating in the programs with funding, staff, and assistance to only providing advice on program activities (Figure 1). Many other agencies, institutions (especially universities), companies, and consultants also provide assistance and guidance to these programs in various ways.

Figure 1. Participation by Reclamation’s partners in 16 river restoration programs. Total partners represents the total number of formal partners in the 16 programs. The ways in which the partners contribute varies depending on activity. Budgets for the 16 river restoration programs varied over time, increasing from $116 million in 2007 to $194 million in 2011 (Figure 2). Some of these funds were provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Reclamation’s partners increased their funding during that same period, contributing $17 million in 2007 and $71 million in 2011, with a high of $90 million in 2009. The ratio of funding supplied by other partners in Reclamation’s 16 river restoration programs increased from approximately 0.15 in 2007 to 0.37 in 2011 (Figure 3), with the largest ratio of 0.52 in 2009.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

62

Figure 2. Total funding for Reclamation’s 16 river restoration programs from 2007-2011.

Figure 3. The ratio of funding supplied by other partners for Reclamation’s 16 river restoration programs from 2007-2011. A ratio of 1.0 equals the same level of funding that Reclamation provided, or a 1:1 match.

1. Please provide an example of the way the program has maintained public and

political support and investment. All programs invest substantially in educating partners and the public about their activities, involving multiple stakeholders in program planning and implementation, and

Institutional Challenges

63

reporting to the public and political representatives on program accomplishments. Examples of outreach and involvement activities include: Dedicated Information & Education (I&E) programs and local consultation

…the program has a dedicated I&E group that works on this …support from the public comes through public outreach efforts with the stakeholder members …open houses, press releases, tribal meetings, and consultation with the committees Reclamation has a liaison located in the sub-basin and uses a local project sponsors to implement projects, this makes the salmon recovery effort very visible and respected by the community and makes it a locally based effort. Approximately three to four times a year, the Program staffs a booth at area environmental fairs. The Program produced a video which was widely distributed to interested parties, prepares an annual report, maintains a website, and utilizes a vast email distribution list to disseminate information. …continuous outreach to landowners within project area, the general public, the Conservancy, the Restoration Council and the Recovery Board to gain understanding, acceptance and support.

Broad participation of stakeholders in program

We have stakeholder and public meetings and workshops to present agency plans, solicit input and negotiate activities to be conducted. Reclamations project water users, political leaders and local community members have been supporters of the programs that provide stop gap funding for irrigators that do not receive water and programs that continue the gathering of water quality data to better understand water quality problems in the upper basin. …the program leads have made considerable effort to engage a broad spectrum of public, political, and special interest groups in the program Many of the partners and cooperators are located in the same office — this strengthens relationships, communication and support for projects. …a governing committee that relatively represents the majority, if not all, of the stakeholders in the three States and the Federal Government

Frequent trips and updates on progress to members of Congress

…the partners routinely brief congressional representatives and conservation groups on the merits of the project.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

64

Several of the non-Federal partners have made trips to Washington, D.C. to advocate for the Program. …best thing is an annual trip to D.C. each year coordinated by the States and the Water Development group, with the Tribes often sending representatives. The group informs many members of the House and Senate and their staff of our activities, and provides information in the form of pamphlets, leaflets, and one-on-one meetings. All Program meetings are open to the public and are routinely attended by local congressional staffers.

Programs emphasize consistently that they provide compliance with ESA while allowing deliveries of water and power to continue

… the program provides the necessary scientific elements, e.g., hydrology, and habitat suitability to support several anadromous fish species. In addition, the project maximizes fish habitat restoration, while maintaining clean and renewable power production. DOE works hard to keep the rate payers informed of costs related to the BiOp. All stakeholders understand that addressing ESA issues in the river through the Program is far more efficient that what any one stakeholder could do… threat of having to conduct Endangered Species Act consultations individually on their respective water related projects has maintained strong support for the Program. …authorizing legislation provided many protections for "third parties." Clear, consistent messaging on how we are going to protect these downstream landowners and irrigation districts is key in keeping public and political support.

Regularly hosting open houses and field trips

… the program has town hall and open house meetings, we partner with the RCDs for outreach, we have a dedicated office with staff responding directly to queries, and we provide public tours of river sites. Many of the partners, esp., the Water Development group, are highly supportive and write articles and travel around spreading good news. ..the Program has hosted annual technical symposiums, and in the Fall of 2009 hosted an Open House geared toward the public. This Fall the Program is planning on hosting a joint technical session and open house with public participation.

Institutional Challenges

65

2. Please describe a situation where maintaining support and investment is a particular challenge.

All programs struggle to (1) maintain public support for funding when budgets are tight, (2) maintain cooperation among partners with very different interests, and (3) maintain program continuity as participants and political leadership change. Examples of these challenges include:

It is difficult to support programs in tough economic times and with diminishing budgets and increased expectations.

The (stakeholders’) financial support of the Program via surcharges on water deliveries has dwindled because those stakeholders have taken the position that the goals of Program have been substantially completed and funding should be reduced. Funding for the Program is capped by a prior year’s Appropriations Bill; getting additional funds remains an open question. Maintaining annual funding has been challenging with budget reductions of 15% or more. …much concern within the other primary Federal agency concerning spending $50M on a Reclamation project when they have a significant O&M backlog. … the Program was funded through write-ins for various activities. In this climate it has been and will be increasingly difficult to generate support for ESA-driven activities. … with increasingly tightened budgets it is getting harder to justify capital projects spending. Even though we have the authority to spend the money, getting the appropriation is difficult. …it has become difficult to convince congressional leaders that the program represents an efficient way to comply with ESA and avoid court costs.

Ongoing litigation or conflict among program participants, or other regulatory issues, hinder progress.

The ongoing litigation on the BiOp is a continuing challenge that bleeds time, effort, and resources away from implementation. …success of the program hinges on the ability to control or eliminate nonnative fishes, which typically requires use of piscicides (rotenone), which is very controversial. Individual partners have their own self-interest and are often unwilling to work with other partners.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

66

Partners not completely supporting the programs and undermining the activities;

… (States) are not especially supportive of the Program Some of our partners feel the restoration is a “make-work” program for activities that do not support program goals.

Changes in membership of the committees

Changes in partner agencies, such as Board elections, means that we continually educate partners on the need for the program. Many of the people involved in the planning and beginning phases of implementation have or will soon move on to other challenges.

Changing program focus creates new demands on participants

The shift from site-specific to reach-scale project planning has increased complexity and cost. …effort is dependent on landowner support for 5–10 years and landowners want guaranteed support for a projects life span and they grow weary of the intrusions onto their land. …expectations change and our focus and activities change to address the new challenge.

Working on fish that are not considered ‘useful’ or ‘beneficial” is also difficult

Working with fish that were once viewed as "trash fish or rough fish" can also be difficult. The fact that these fish aren't seen as "beneficial" to many people and there will likely never be an industry for fishing for them or eating them, even once they are recovered.

Institutional Challenges

67

Organizing Science in Large-Scale River Restoration Programs

1. How is the program structured to provide review of science?

Most programs or projects are large programs with significant science reviews. The science review process is highly variable. In a few cases Reclamation projects have a formal academic science review process.

Science review occurs at multiple levels and by multiple entities. Specific issues are sent to… Independent Scientific Review Board and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board… Scientific field protocols and methods, and data QA/QC issues are addressed This work will get independent review through the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, under contract with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and through peer reviewed papers.

Other projects have informal independent science review by academic scientists, and/or regular science review by resource managers from Government agencies and tribes.

...performed independent technical review and developed findings and recommendations. We have convened one external panel of experts to review science… Other panels may be convened as required. (it is )relatively early in the process, but … will use internal agency scientists, the cooperating agency team, …Implementation Committee with their working groups/peer review subcommittee to review science. For two years…utilized an independent peer review process for certain scientific and habitat restoration studies. Each project is managed and completed independently by the various organizations. Each year annual reports are completed for each project and reviewed by all participants, as well as the Peer Reviewers. At a preliminary annual meeting each year the results of the work are critically analyzed and critiqued by professional biologists and the Peer Reviewers…Reclamation and the USFWS meet with the Peer Reviewers to review the information provided at the meetings and draft a Sufficient Progress Report as well as the next years Annual Workplan.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

68

Some projects have internal peer review processes coupled with presentations at professional society meetings or workshops.

The internal technical committee is expected to ensure that program tasks reflect the best and most recent science. Peer review is conducted internally in the MSCP office and in other Reclamation offices. …work is published in scientific journals and goes through the normal science review process. Results are presented at professional meetings… Other workshops are conducted to get input on MSCP projects. Periodically, we schedule workshops to cover particularly vexing topics, such as nonnative fish removal, stocking, model development, or habitat monitoring to do a more in-depth analysis of each project. At these meetings we often bring in other outside peer-reviewers that have expertise in these particular topics.

Sometimes reports are subjected to review by standing committees which may meet annually or more often as needed.

There is a project level scientific review for biological benefits by the Regional Technical Team and there is internal review as a project is developed.

Science review sometimes consists mainly of agency expert review without the benefit of formal independent scientific study design and analysis.

There is a need for an established internal or external science review process for the programs.

2. How has program science or monitoring been used to improve either the program objectives or the design of restoration actions?

Most programs report the use of science to affect program objectives through adaptive management.

Each year, as part of the Annual Progress Report development, new scientific information is considered by the technical leads and changes to the program linked to this new information are discussed and considered. Information from independent technical review findings and recommendations have been incorporated into project designs and an adaptive management plan.

Institutional Challenges

69

Monitoring of fish barrier effectiveness, however, has resulted in several changes to how barriers are designed so as to improve effectiveness while minimizing environmental impact. the Peer Reviewers pushed us to do more in that part of the system. In 2011 we started an intensive project in (reservoir), with some very interesting and startling results. We found many fish in (reservoir), including a large number that we believe may have been wild spawned and naturally recruited. These results suggest that there is a need for additional science.

In some cases, but not all, science is done through formal experiments and hypothesis testing.

Individual study plans … enumerate and prioritize information needs and hypotheses to be tested and also identify either existing monitoring projects that could be used to address these items or recommends new projects…Results of investigations are then used to refine management strategies and/or develop new experiments. …uses adaptive management and the Peer-Reviews and process to design experiments to test hypothesis concerning survival of endangered fish as well as the removal of nonnative fish.

3. Please provide an example of the program’s management of science that has

been particularly successful.

Generally, reviewers reported that science has improved overall program success. The use of models has helped decision making. Interagency science review processes have supported the implementation of successful management strategies.

The salmon life stage model that was used to evaluate BiOp alternatives received multiple scientific reviews (and associated improvements) over a series of years. Although no model will be accepted by all in the region, there is broad support for this model and its use.

Science has improved management techniques. It has also helped to set management priorities.

…research and monitoring are conducted…to complete the conservation measures in a biologically effective and cost efficient manner. All habitat creation sites are monitored after before and development to determine if the sites were created as planned and if they're meeting expectations. Results are used for future creation designs. In addition, monitoring and research data have been used to make modifications to several conservation measures during the first five years of the program.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

70

We have funded independent reviews of two primary science areas of the program…The first review supported the primary approach taken to implementing the program, and the second made several recommendations to improve aspects of the program. Restoration goals and objectives have been designed based on… reach Assessment and limiting factors identified in Recovery Planning. The Pre-project monitoring being carried… is being used to help target key life stages and habitat features targeted for restoration actions. The results of these studies will inform adaptive management and will help develop future projects. Project monitoring is also used to identify potential adaptations to projects if they are not performing as intended. Use of Reclamation Reach Assessments to identify existing conditions to recommend priorities to restore river function. The reach assessments have been very helpful in understanding the geomorphology of the reach. The USGS studies are illuminating energy pathways that may help target restoration strategies and key habitat features. The Collaborative Program is in the process of implementing low and high intensity effectiveness monitoring to determine the outcomes of various restoration techniques and activities in order to revise habitat restoration criteria and designs. In April 2010, the Collaborative Program adopted a "Scientific Code of Conduct" to establish a standard code of professional conduct among the Collaborative Program signatories and participants with respect to all scientific activities. The Collaborative Program has conducted scientific studies that have helped answer important questions needed to develop population viability analysis

New tools are available to make science more accessible and transparent.

The most successful aspect of the Program's management of science lies in its accountability and transparency. Each and every project has its origins in well-documented meeting summaries and can be traced through scope-of-work development, approval, execution, and reporting. All of this is available online in an extremely well-organized and convenient format and can be navigable by anybody for nearly any purpose, including scientific soundness, level of review, design, analysis, project tracking, expenditures, etc.

4. Please list an area in the management of science that remains particularly challenging.

An independent technical monitor was a part of the program in the past, but the position was eliminated several years ago because of conflicts with program partners.

Institutional Challenges

71

Data management. No one has the time or funding to properly document or analyze data that has been collected. while the scientists will have a solid understanding of ecosystem principles they may not fully understand dam facility operations and associated limitations, or power and flood control operations and associated limitations. The final conclusions and results from the scientific studies will not be available for many years after the projects have been built. Landowners, permitting agencies, and partners would like more immediate certainty of success prior to supporting the project with significant resources. The program is debating how to use the results of independent peer review, how they will be prioritized, implemented, agreed upon, etc., and how to capture the decision making discussions and outcomes. The interpretation of existing science has been particularly challenging in the development of multiple biological models through a consensus-driven process.

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

72

How River Restoration is Shaped by Law and Policy

Introduction The 16 programs were asked to identify the primary legal drivers for their program, whether there is specific legislation for the program, and whether they felt that additional authorities or policies would significantly assist Reclamation in accomplishing the program goals. Every one of the 16 programs address endangered species issues, and cite to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as one of the program authorities. Several also cite Tribal trust issues as a factor in the program. Thirteen of the sixteen programs are based upon, or directed by, specific legislation, such as the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act. These Acts often provide Reclamation with project-specific authorities — for example, authority to acquire lands and water — that might otherwise be unclear. It is notable that two of the larger restoration programs, the Columbia-Snake and the Methow program, do not have project-specific legislative authorities, but rely on general authorities under the ESA. These two programs also cite authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for their restoration work outside the main stem of the river where Reclamation projects are located. A few of the programs indicated that additional authorities or policies would be helpful:

• Clear direction on source of potential funding to support certain river restoration activities.

• Streamlined permits or exemption from permits/ consultation for habitat actions sanctioned under biological opinions. It should not be easier to fill a wetland for development, or rip rap a river bank, than to implement a habitat based ESA recovery action.

• Clarification of authority to compensate landowners for adverse impacts of program actions, outside the Federal Court of Claims.

• Having broader authority to conduct work, especially for non-listed, but imperiled species would be useful to allow us to get out ahead of future potential listings.

Existing Reclamation Authorities The following is a discussion of the authorities under which Reclamation can undertake river restoration activities absent specific legislation for a restoration program. In reviewing Reclamation authorities under existing law that could potentially be used to support river restoration activities, there are fundamental questions that must be asked. The most important of these questions are what is the authority to undertake this specific

Institutional Challenges

73

action and how will it be funded/who is paying for it. When reviewing potential river restoration activities it is important to be mindful of the intent of Congress when authorizing the Reclamation program- to reclaim the arid west- and that only over time has Congress authorized actions to mitigate for the potential environmental impacts from constructing and operating these projects and there is still no broad, overarching authority for enhancement and restoration. Moreover, one of the additional core principles of the Reclamation program is that those who are benefiting from the development of these projects are responsible for paying their fair share of the costs of constructing and operating these projects. Conversely, there are also potential opportunities within most Reclamation projects to provide benefits for the river ecosystems on which they are located. Below are a series of steps to help guide managers, water users, and the public on how to analytically identify the nature and extent of Reclamation’s authority in any river system.

I. Steps to Determine Extent of Authority

A. What is the project authorization? Is it a single purpose project (e.g. irrigation only) or is it a multi-purpose project. This question helps to determine the extent of discretion (more on that later) that might be available. When reviewing a potential action for legal sufficiency, always start with the project authorization before looking at Reclamation-wide authorities.

B. What is the specific action? Identifying the specific, discrete actions is imperative. Even if the overall goal is to seek involvement at a broad and programmatic level, all of the underlying actions must be clearly indentified. In order to achieve river restoration goals, what is specifically being asked of Reclamation? Is there flexibility in the timing of the action?

C. What is the nature of the action? Under Reclamation law, all actions are classified as either operations and maintenance (O&M) or construction. These are important classifications as it determines whether the costs are due in advance (O&M) or may be paid over time. Generally speaking, changes in the release pattern of water from the project is O&M whereas things like adding to storage capacity could be construction. It is sometimes difficult to tell the two apart but the distinction is very important.

D. Is the action mitigating for the construction and operation of the project or is it enhancement? Is there a nexus between what the river restoration is seeking to accomplish and the Reclamation project? Due to the nature of Reclamation’s authorizations there needs to be a connection between the project and the goals of the restoration project. Without this nexus, there is no authority.

II. Determine Extent of Discretion

A. Is there operational flexibility that could be utilized to optimize benefits to river system? Regardless of the nature and extent of the authorization, ever at single purpose projects, there might be opportunities to retime operations to optimize benefits for the river system. Work with your project manager to

Bureau of Reclamation River Restoration Programs

74

evaluate contract obligations to determine if there is any flexibility in when and how releases are made that might allow for tweaks to the operational hydrograph that could bring about significant benefits to the environment. In searching for ways to optimize benefits, be mindful that any potential changes must not be deemed to impair the efficiency of the project.

B. Are there Reclamation-wide authorities that are available? Once the project specific authorities are determined, there are some Reclamation-wide authorities that could be utilized to provide benefits to the river system. For example, the SECURE Water Act or Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.1

C. Are there other authorities in the Department that could be utilized? Under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950, it is possible that other authorities, such as Fish and Wildlife authorities, could be delegated to the Commissioner. Such a delegation would allow for Reclamation to undertake specific actions under these authorities. Be mindful, however, that such expenditures are still project costs and must be evaluated and allocated to water and power users in accordance with the project cost allocation (see below).

D. Does ESA provide the authority? If ESA is the ultimate reason why we are undertaking a particular restoration action, why not say ESA is the authority. This is a very complicated question that deserves much discussion.

III. Other Considerations

A. Is it reimbursable to water and power contractors? All project costs, whether O&M or construction, must be accounted for where, depending on the project and its authorization, a certain percentage of the costs are allocated to water and power contractors.

B. Are other entities providing financial support? Reclamation has authority under the Contributed Funds Act to accept monies from outside sources to undertake actions authorized under Reclamation law. Are there entities willing to provide financial support?

C. Is there authority to pay land owners for certain damages that could occur as a result of restoration? The Solicitor’s Office is reviewing 43 U.S.C. 377

1 This recent Act (Omnibus Public Land Management of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) Subtitle F – SECURE

Water), authorized Reclamation to continually evaluate and report on the risks and impacts from a changing climate and to identify appropriate adaptation and mitigation strategies utilizing the best available science in conjunction with stakeholders. Section 9503(b)(4) indicates that these mitigation strategies may include development of new water management, operating, or habitat restoration plans, water conservation, improved hydrologic models and other decision support systems, and ground water and surface water storage needs. Further, Section 9504(a) and (g) provide Reclamation authority to fund or undertake planning, designing, or constructing any improvement to prevent the decline of species that are proposed or candidates for listing, or to accelerate the recovery of threatened species, endangered species, and designated critical habitats that are adversely affected by Federal reclamation projects or are subject to a recovery plan or conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) under which the Commissioner of Reclamation has implementation responsibilities.

Institutional Challenges

75

as a potential source of authority to make payments to landowners for damages that occur as a result of Reclamation operations.

IV. Conclusion

Understanding Reclamation law, with its project-specific and Reclamation-wide enactments can be a difficult and complex undertaking. But understanding how these authorities work along with understanding cost allocations and discretion within certain actions can provide meaningful tools for addressing river restoration issues without the need to seek congressional authorization.