Recommendation 42
Click here to download this recommendation. (172 K) Click to comment on this recommendation.

May 12, 2000

Frank L. Cassidy, Chairman
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97204-1348

RE: Response to request for recommendations for NWPPC program amendments.

Dear Mr. Cassidy:

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe would like to take this opportunity to respond to your request for program amendment recommendations. We respectfully submit the following recommendations for amending the fish and wildlife program. Our submittal includes three general components that include: 1.) A series of general comments and concerns that we have with the current steps being taken to amend the program; 2.) An attachment that identifies a series of recommendations specific to the needs of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe; and 3.) An attachment that identifies a series of recommendations common to the Spokane Tribe, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, and Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

General Comments

The Coeur d'Alene Tribe would like to restate our earlier objection to the NWPPC adopting its amended program without first reconciling the amendment process with the federal process for modifying the NMFS and USFWS ESA Biological Opinions.

We would also like to further restate our earlier objection to the NWPPC’s implementation of its revised program before the program has been completely revised in a manner consistent with the agencies and tribes of the basin. We believe the NWPPC has inhibited meaningful deliberation and precluded all options for restructuring the program in any manner other than the manner predetermined by the NWPPC (Comprehensive subbasin plans were the only option considered).

Due to the confusion and uncertainty created by the NWPPC’s novel approach to revising its Program, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe specifically recommends that all measures incorporated in the NWPPC’s existing Fish and Wildlife Program continue to be funded for implementation until explicitly modified or replaced through a sub-basin planning process in which the Coeur d'Alene Tribe has participated as a sovereign tribal government.

The Coeur d'Alene Tribe would also like to express our desire to see the NWPPC adopt a program that makes a more substantive effort to protect, mitigate, and enhance resident fish and wildlife resources in a manner that is more equitable to the anadromous fish effort. The new program must not lose sight of the statutory obligation that the Power Act has established for mitigating and compensating impacts occurring in the Upper Columbia River, as well as the other blocked areas of the Basin. It is imperative that you keep this in mind so that the new program does not become merely another anadromous fish recovery plan that fails to address upriver tribal and societal losses or one that chooses to address these resources as a "lower or secondary" priority.

This principle must remain a very high priority in all decision making efforts, especially during resource allocation and accompanying prioritization efforts. The funding mechanisms within the existing program have continually failed to meet the protection, mitigation, and enhancement responsibilities in the upriver areas as well as BPA’s trust obligations to the Coeur d'Alene Tribe.

Specific Comments

  1. Northwest Power Planning Council’s Role in Upholding Bonneville Power Adminstration’s Trust Responsibility to Columbia Basin Tribes


    2. The Bonneville Power Administration has constitutionally mandated trust responsibilities to all Columbia Basin Tribes. The new fish and wildlife program must recognize and uphold these trust responsibilities. The NWPPC makes recommendations as to how the BPA spends Federal fish and wildlife mitigation funds, therefor these recommendations must remain consistent with BPA’s trust responsibilities to the tribes. We strongly recommend that the NWPPC help realize the fulfillment of this trust responsibility by paying deference to Tribal programs and projects that are consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Program.

  2. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Amendments


    3. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe is submitting amendment recommendations we feel are necessary for upholding the integrity of the Power Act as well as the trust responsibility the Bonneville Power Administration has to our people. Please refer to the attached document for specific recommendations.
     

  3. Provincial Boundaries


    4. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe agrees with the NWPPC's "strawman" that the Columbia River Basin is too large to manage as a single geographic area, and that management at the subbasin level is appropriate as long as the interrelationships of subbasins are acknowledged. However, we believe that the NWPPC's province level boundaries were not conformed appropriately with ecosystem characteristics and relevant management jurisdictions in mind. It is inefficient for the NWPPC to overlay a new set of artificial boundaries onto a map that already includes non-aligned boundaries for numerous state, tribal, local and federal watershed planning units.

    The Coeur d'Alene Tribe recommends that the province boundaries be restructured in a mannner that encompasses select subbasins from the Inter Mountain and Mountain Provinces. The new area could be referred to as the "Upper Columbia Blocked Area" and would include the management territories of the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) above the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams, as well as the watersheds within these management territories. The Spokane River should not be split between two provinces at Lake Coeur d'Alene, but should instead be included in its entirety, from its headwaters in the Coeur d'Alene Basin to its mouth at its confluence with the Columbia River, in the Blocked Area Province. The attached STI, Cd’AT, KT, and KTOI amendment recommendation outlines the specific goals, objectives, and strategies these Tribes have for the Upper Columbia Blocked Area in more detail.
     

  4. Participation Criteria for Subbasin Planning
The Coeur d'Alene Tribe recommends that subbasin planning be broadly inclusive of all governmental and non-governmental entities that have legitimate interests in the planning process. Decision-making, however, must be retained in the state, federal and Tribal governments through their fish, wildlife, water, and land managers. We support the need for fish and wildlife managers to coordinate fish and wildlife needs with other resource managers and stakeholders, however, it is clear that the ultimate responsibility for these resources lies solely within the appropriate government agencies.   Thank you for taking the time to incorporate our concerns into the new program. The future of the fish and wildlife mitigation program lies in the hands of both the Northwest Power Planning Council and the Columbia River Basin’s Fish and Wildlife Managers. It is imperative that we work together to ensure that fish and wildlife needs across the entire basin remain the priority during the amendment effort. An open and meaningful dialogue will have to occur throughout the entire amendment process if this new approach to amending the program is to be effective. This includes the NWPPC making it very clear that the deference still lies with the region’s federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife managers and that the NWPPC and the managers are unified in their approach. Sincerely,

Ernest L. Stensgar, Chairman

Attachments (2):
Coeur d'Alene Tribal Amendment Recommendations
STI, Cd’AT, KT, and KTOI Joint Amendment Recommendations

Go to top | Go to index