Subbasin Planning and the Endangered Species Act

The National Marine Fisheries Service has responded to the Council's question on whether the Council's guidance for subbasin planning is adequate for Endangered Species Act purposes. NMFS's letter to the Council and local recovery plan guidelines detail their position.

For more information, contact Elizabeth Gaar at 503-234-5434.

Related links

Questions from the letter:

What is the relationship between subbasin planning and the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion?

When will biological recovery goals be available to use for subbasin planning?

What is the relationship between subbasin plans and recovery plans?

What elements do subbasin plans need to have to be part of a recovery plan adopted by NMFS?

What is needed beyond the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program for a local recovery plan?

Who should do recovery plans?

What is the role of federal lands in subbasin planning?

What if subbasin plans address only habitat restoration actions and not the full suite of subbasin recovery plan elements?

What assessments and plans need to be complete for a subbasin plan/ local recovery plan?

What is the relationship between subbasin planners and the TRT?

What is the relationship between subbasin assessments and the work of the TRTs?

Can NMFS provide ESA assurances for subbasin planning?

How will subbasin plans affect the discharge of other NMFS ESA responsibilities?

Answers:

Q: What is the relationship between subbasin planning and the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion?

A: Under the 2000 FCRPS BiOp, NMFS expects the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation to meet their ESA obligations in part through offsite mitigation. Subbasin plans are a substantial component of offsite mitigation. The BiOp relies on subbasin plans to identify and prioritize specific actions needed to recover listed salmon and steelhead in tributary and estuary habitats and to provide context for determining how much benefit is likely from each action or set of actions.

The Council's program is established for the purpose of guiding BPA revenues to mitigate the impact of hydropower on fish and wildlife. The Council's 2000 program amendment requires subbasin planning for these purposes. The BiOp contemplates that subbasin plans will be developed through the Council's program and that they will be fully integrated with appropriate state and tribal planning programs. Although not named specifically in the BiOp, such programs would include the Columbia Basin treaty tribes? plan for salmon recovery, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit and planning through the State of Washington's Fish Recovery Boards and the State of Oregon's Watershed Enhancement Board. Specifically, the 2000 FCRPS BiOp requires the BPA to ?work with the NPPC (Council) to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006" (Action 154).

NMFS expects subbasin plans to include implementation of the BiOp's offsite mitigation actions in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA). In particular, subbasin planning should provide for RPA habitat actions 149 through 163 and the harvest and hatchery RPA actions 164 through 178 that pertain to and require local planning and management. NMFS also expects subbasin plans to incorporate the research, monitoring and effective strategies and actions, particularly those described in RPA action 179, 180, and 183.

The BiOp also requires recovery goals for all listed salmon ESUs in the Columbia Basin by 2003 (Action 179). The BiOp requires a finding in the 2003 annual report regarding the action agencies? use of ESU-specific strategies developed through subbasin and watershed assessments and plans to ensure that the agencies are on track with meeting the BiOp's offsite mitigation standards (BiOp section 9.5.2.2). NMFS has worked closely with the Council to develop the Technical Guide so that Council-approved subbasin plans can meet the BiOp requirements and thus help form the basis of ESA recovery plans.

^ top

Q: When will biological recovery goals be available to use for subbasin planning?

A: It helps to first explain NMFS? recovery planning obligations and time frames, and then relate those obligations to subbasin planning. NMFS has a statutory obligation in section 4(f) of the ESA to develop recovery plans for all salmon and steelhead listed as threatened or endangered. The ESA requires recovery plans to contain objective, measurable criteria for de-listing, site specific actions designed to promote recovery, and an estimate of the time and cost required to achieve recovery. There are 12 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead presently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA that spawn and rear in the Columbia Basin. In its ?Recovery Guidance for West Coast salmon (www.nwfsc.noaa.gov), NMFS identified ?recovery domains? or recovery planning units for addressing multiple ESUs.

The Columbia Basin includes the Willamette/Lower Columbia (WLC) (from the estuary to the Dalles Dam), with five listed ESUs, and the Interior Columbia Domain (the rest of the Basin), with seven listed ESUs. Most ESUs in the Columbia Domains contain multiple populations.

NMFS established Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs) for both the WLC and Interior Columbia domains. Their purpose is to develop biological de-listing criteria for recommendation to NMFS and to analyze the factors limiting each ESU and each population. As required in the FCRPS BiOp, the biological de-listing criteria (or biological goals) for Columbia Basin ESUs will be complete by September 2003. Preliminary recommendations that identify the populations and that recommend approaches to viability criteria have been completed by the WLC TRT and are out for technical and policy review. We expect their final recommendations and resulting NMFS decisions before the end of 2002. We expect subbasin plans in the WLC area to be able to incorporate the biological de-listing criteria developed through that process.

For the Interior Columbia subbasins, NMFS identified tentative spawning aggregations, which should be similar to independent populations ultimately identified by the TRT, and provided interim abundance and productivity targets for those aggregations (letter from Bob Lohn to Larry Cassidy April 3 2002). Those interim targets will remain effective until replaced by final biological delisting criteria.

Estimated time frames for Interior Columbia TRT products include:

September 2002 - TRT's preliminary population identification;
December 2002 - NMFS adopts final population identification;
January 2003 - TRT's preliminary population viability goals for abundance, productivity, spatial distribution and diversity;
April 2003 - NMFS adopts final population viability goals
September 2003 - TRT's recommendations for ESU wide delisting scenarios;
December 2003 - TRT's recommendations for habitat characterizations and for limiting factors/factors for decline analyses based on the integration of their analyses with subbasin/watershed assessments;

To the extent that the population viability goals expected in April 2003 are not timely for use in the present round of subbasin planning, subbasin planners can and should use the Interior Columbia interim targets for abundance and productivity as a starting point. For subbasin plans that are getting a later start, NMFS encourages subbasin planners to use the more fully developed TRT and NMFS products, as they become available.

^ top

Q: What is the relationship between subbasin plans and recovery plans?

A: Recovery plans need to address the levels of both the ESU and the independent population. The area inhabited by independent populations is an appropriate scale for addressing tributary habitat, the potential role of local artificial production, and local harvest objectives. Subbasin plans should be meaningful to the scale of the independent population to the greatest extent possible given available information. Ultimately, because many ESUs inhabit more than one subbasin, subbasin plans will need to be ?rolled up? or integrated into ESU-scale recovery plans.

NMFS intends to build its ESU-scale recovery plans from the present round of subbasin plans (scheduled for submittal to the Council from 2002 to 2004) and from ?out of subbasin? components including large scale harvest, large scale hatchery, mainstem hydropower, assumptions about ocean survival and natural variability, integrated monitoring, evaluation and research, and an economic assessment. It is likely that a formal recovery plan that contains all of these components will not be complete before the present round of subbasin plans are complete. Therefore, we envision a phasing in process where NMFS will treat subbasin plans developed in the present round of planning like interim local recovery plans while formal ESU- scale recovery plans are being completed. When formal ESU- scale recovery plans are complete, they may identify some adjustments that are needed to local recovery plans. These adjustments could occur as a result of ESU- scale considerations relevant to the populations or as a result of new data from research and monitoring. Unless there is new information that compels an immediate adjustment, NMFS would expect any adjustments to be made in the subsequent round of the Council's subbasin planning.

NMFS strongly encourages the Council and subbasin planners to develop subbasin plans that can be the local recovery plan chapters in an ESU-wide recovery plan. NMFS has worked closely with the Council in its development of the Technical Guide and in its development of the budget and infrastructure for subbasin planning. Subbasin plans that are developed according to this guidance and that address NMFS? ESA legal requirements for recovery plans will be treated by NMFS as interim local recovery plans. In the enclosure, we enumerate guidelines for local recovery plans that are organized according to the Council's Technical Guide. This organization demonstrates that there is good potential for subbasin plans to meet many needs for local recovery plans in the present round of subbasin planning. NMFS has noted a few instances in the guidelines where they go beyond the Council's Technical guide. These instances result from NMFS? specific ESA legal obligations that are articulated in the statute and in case law.

^ top

Q: What elements do subbasin plans need to have to be part of a recovery plan adopted by NMFS?

A: The closer that a subbasin plan comes to addressing the guidelines in enclosure 1, the more likely that NMFS can adopt it as the local recovery plan for that area.

^ top

Q: What is needed beyond the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program for a local recovery plan?

A: A local recovery plan needs to piece together all programs that influence the recovery of listed salmon in the area. While the Council's authority is to implement only BPA's program, their subbasin planning initiative creates a key opportunity to coordinate with other essential programs. State, tribal and local governments, federal land managers and other federal agencies have the authority and responsibility to regulate land and water management and to implement key conservation programs. These programs should be integrated through key components such

as assessments, data, goals, priorities, schedules and monitoring. These are the components that we must have coordinated in order to be accountable and in order to know whether we are succeeding in recovery - what is working, what is not, and what has not been done.

^ top

Q: Who should do recovery plans?

A: In its ?Recovery Guidance for West Coast Salmon,? NMFS described a recovery planning process with two phases. Phase one entails objective; science- based products (population definition, viability criteria, ESU-wide population scenarios, habitat characterization, factors for decline/limiting factors review and research, monitoring and evaluation advice); Phase two entails the planning and policy phase to develop broader sense recovery goals and to develop actions to meet the goals.

While NMFS is ultimately responsible for approving and adopting recovery plans, we believe that ESU-scale recovery plans, like subbasin plans, will most likely be successful if they are developed in partnership with those with the interest, responsibility and authority to implement the needed actions. NMFS is interested in working with local entities that take the lead in coordinating the development of recovery plans at the ESU scale. This would work best with entities that will also be coordinating subbasin plans and have the ability to integrate subbasin plans to the ESU level. NMFS would work closely with these entities to provide the highest possible likelihood of success. It is worth noting that this coordination needs to occur across land ownerships and across programs. For example, federal land managers, tribes and local governments all need to be key players in recovery planning. Where ESUs, spawn within the boundaries of more than one state, a forum to coordinate the multiple states will also be necessary.

In coordination with the Council, NMFS is having discussions with members of existing organizations such as Washington's Lower and Upper Columbia River Fish Recovery Boards, the Willamette/Lower Columbia ESA Executive Committee, and with the state governors? offices and tribes and other federal agencies regarding the means for implementing Phase two of ESU-level recovery plans. It is crucial that Phase two builds upon local efforts, including subbasin planning, that are already underway.

^ top

Q: What is the role of federal lands in subbasin planning?

A: Federal lands comprise over 60 percent of currently accessible spawning and rearing habitat for listed species in the Columbia Basin. The habitat strategy in FCRPS Biop and in The Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish, Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (All H paper) are premised on a close linkage between federal and non-federal habitat efforts and on the assumption that federal lands have the potential to provide a strong foundation for salmon recovery. Furthermore, for recovery to be measurable and accountable, federal and non-federal lands need to share integrated goals, data, assessments, priorities, funding strategies, and monitoring programs. NMFS is presently exploring the relationship between these needs and the federal land managers? land management plans and section 7 consultations.

^ top

Q: What if subbasin plans address only habitat restoration actions and not the full suite of subbasin recovery plan elements?

A: Habitat restoration actions are necessary but not alone sufficient for a local recovery plan. Protection of existing productive and potentially productive habitats and the ecosystem processes that form those habitats is also essential because it is unlikely that the value of restoration can be realized and accounted for if the habitat continues to degrade. It is crucial that restoration actions are determined based on a sound science based assessment and a good understanding of management and protection programs. Without this context, it will be difficult to determine the value of the restoration actions to the listed species.

^ top

Q: What assessments and plans need to be complete for a subbasin plan/ local recovery plan?

A: As required by the Council's program, technically sound subbasin-level assessments need to be complete before credible subbasin-level management plans can be developed. Also, as described earlier, assessments and plans should address the scale of the population or some analogous spatial scale.

One of the components in subbasin assessments and plans should be the identification of priority watersheds at finer scales (e.g. 6^th field HUCs) for further assessment, planning, and action. In some cases, finer-scale assessments and plans may already be available and they should be used. In cases where finer scale watersheds that may be protection and restoration priorities do not have assessments and plans, those watersheds should be targeted for funding in the Council's next funding cycle and in other state and federal watershed plan programs.

^ top

Q: What is the relationship between subbasin assessments and the work of the TRTs?

A: The TRTs are responsible for recommending to NMFS viability criteria that will be the foundation of biological delisting criteria. NMFS also has charged the TRTs with developing relationships between habitat characteristics and population productivity and with providing specific advice about limiting factors. There is obvious overlap between the TRT responsibilities and the requirements for subbasin assessments. NMFS worked closely with the Council in the Technical Guide's development to ensure this overlap. There should be efficiencies from fully coordinating and making consistent the TRT products and subbasin assessments.

It is crucial that the TRTs have early and continued involvement in subbasin assessments. The TRTs can assist and work with local technical and regional experts to: (a) define the specific relationships between habitat and population productivity; (b) develop and refine assumptions that are used consistently in developing recovery goals and assessments; c) obtain consensus on key data gaps and monitoring priorities; (d) define working hypotheses; (e) work together on limiting factor analyses; and (f) clarify the technical products needed for ESA purposes. NMFS believes that the regional and statewide technical teams, identified in the Council's February 25, 2002 subbasin plan funding decision documents, should be established immediately. These teams would be effective forums for coordinating the needs described above.

^ top

Q: What is the relationship between subbasin planners and the TRT?

A: NMFS envisions that the TRTs will provide technical support to subbasin planning as described above. Also, the biological delisting criteria that the TRT recommends to NMFS should provide a foundation for the development of broad sense recovery goals that go beyond viability.

The TRTs should also provide technical support to subbasin planners by providing technical input to and review of the suites of strategies or actions as they are developed for subbasin plans.

^ top

Q: Can NMFS provide ESA assurances for subbasin planning?

A: NMFS will work through subbasin planning to provide ESA assurances for the actions anticipated through the plan. We will take a flexible approach to address the range of actors and actions encompassed in a plan. NMFS can provide assurances through one or a combination of ESA tools. First, NMFS would like to adopt subbasin plans as local recovery plans. This would ensure subbasin plan participants that they are implementing what is needed to recover the ESU. Also, actions described in a subbasin plan may be eligible for protection from incidental take violations if they are described in sufficient detail, are adequate to provide for the biological requirements of the population and ESU, and their implementation is assured. If there is a federal connection, NMFS can issue an ?incidental take statement? to the federal agency following a section 7 consultation. The incidental take statement can cover the actions of local governments, tribes, or private actors who are authorized or funded by or managed in concert with the federal agency. NMFS may also consider appropriate parts of the subbasin plan for treatment as a ?habitat conservation plan? or HCP under section 10 of the ESA. If the subbasin plan meets the requirements of section 10, NMFS may then issue an incidental take permit to local governments, tribes or private actors. Finally, subbasin plans should also provide context for entities developing programs for approval under some of the ?4(d) rule's? limited take prohibitions promulgated by NMFS in July 2000 (65 Fed Reg. 42422, July 10, 2000). For example, the limits covering Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans and Municipal, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development and Redevelopment and restoration actions could easily give rise to programs that become components of subbasin plans.

^ top

Q: How will subbasin plans affect the discharge of other NMFS ESA responsibilities?

A: Done right, subbasin planning should provide the context for all other ESA decisions in the area. For example, if a subbasin plan identified a particular area as high quality habitat targeted for protection, NMFS would consider that advice when faced with a proposed federal action that would decrease the value of that habitat. Also, NMFS intends to make recovery and subbasin goals, assessments, strategies, actions, and monitoring requirements paramount considerations when discharging our ESA responsibilities in section 7 consultations, section 10 habitat conservation plans, and 4d rule limits.

^ top