 |
1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
| Council document 94-55 | |
 |
|
3.1 Coordinate Implementation of Fish and Wildlife Program
Development and implementation of the Council's fish and wildlife program are complex and expensive undertakings central to the survival of the region's fish and wildlife populations. The Northwest Power Act requires that the Columbia River Basin be treated as a system. This, in turn, necessitates close coordination between planners and implementors of the program. In addition, the Act recognizes the expertise of the fishery managing agencies and tribes, accords due weight to their views and requires that this program complement their activities. Program success depends on Council recognition of the fishery agencies? and tribes? priorities and their prompt inclusion in the plan. At the same time, the success of the program depends on prompt implementation of program measures by all implementors, including the fishery managing agencies and tribes.
3.1A Basin Oversight Group
Council
3.1A.1 Organize and convene a Basin Oversight Group, consisting of policy-makers from the state and federal implementing entities and other interested parties, to aggressively pursue implementation of this program. The Basin Oversight Group will meet at least annually to address progress, problems and issues regarding program implementation. This group will review the annual implementation work plan and the annual program monitoring report. It will make recommendations to the Council by July 31 of each year. Meetings of the Basin Oversight Group will focus on needed actions and implementation problems, not routine reporting. All other committees identified in this program will coordinate with the Basin Oversight Group.
3.1A.2 Consult as a full Council on a quarterly basis with the directors of the fishery managing agencies, and on a government-to-government basis with the leadership of the Columbia River Basin tribes. The Council expects the consultations will focus on program development, modification and implementation. In particular, efforts will be directed at expediting measures to improve the survival of the basin's anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife populations and resolving any disputes that are hampering expeditious program implementation. As part of the consultations, the Council will also encourage the agencies and tribes to identify and resolve differences in their respective positions on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife issues. The Council further expects regular contact will be maintained between the staffs of the Council and the agencies and tribes.
3.1B Implementation and Monitoring
As the region moves forward to realize the ambitious goals of the fish and wildlife program, it will pursue two closely related parallel paths. One is the implementation path -- that is, taking specific actions identified in the annual implementation work plan. This path will include steps to address uncertainties and refine actions over time. The second path is evaluation. The evaluation path will monitor overall program implementation, evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken, and judge their scientific merits. One outcome will be an annual assessment of the program's performance -- the annual program monitoring report. This report can be used to determine the need, if any, for mid-course corrections.
A key component of program implementation is feedback, through implementation of actions and program monitoring, to facilitate the refinement of the program over time. For this, the program framework (described in Section 4) will act as a yardstick for evaluating the performance of the program.
There are many areas where current information is incomplete because we are unable to measure some key variables and because of the possibility of unforeseen events. The Council expects to revisit the schedules and targets, as necessary, based on information gathered by the monitoring program and evaluation of implemented actions. If progress toward the performance standards or meeting rebuilding schedules falls significantly short, the Council will revisit all or part of the program.
Bonneville's implementation of this program to date has been guided by an implementation planning process negotiated with the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes. In this section, the Council calls for this implementation process to be broadened to include land and water managers and other interested parties, to produce an annual implementation work plan and a monitoring report, and to provide for independent scientific review of the program and its implementation. The annual implementation work plan should reflect program goals and principles and any prioritization of measures developed by the Council.
The Council adopts the following implementation planning process in order to clarify the respective roles of the Council, Bonneville, the fish and wildlife managers and others in implementing the Council's program.
Council and Bonneville
3.1B.1 The Council and Bonneville will negotiate annual funding levels for the fish and wildlife program. This will include three categories: the amount for Council oversight of the program, the amount for Bonneville oversight of the program, and the amount available to fund fish and wildlife measures approved by the Council. The Council and Bonneville will communicate this latter amount to member agencies and tribes of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.
Fish and Wildlife Managers and Council
3.1B.2 The state, federal and tribal fish and wildlife managers, acting together through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority or some other institution or arrangement of their choice, are to recommend to the Council criteria for prioritizing proposed projects for funding. The Council will review the fish managers? recommended criteria in a public review process in which others may comment on the recommended prioritization criteria. The Council will then adopt criteria for prioritizing projects for funding and communicate those criteria to the fish and wildlife managers.
Fish and Wildlife Managers
3.1B.3 The state, federal and tribal fish and wildlife managers, acting together through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority or some other institution or arrangement of their choice, will annually develop a list of projects and estimated budgets, that represents the fish and wildlife managers? views on what it will take to fully implement the Council's program. The list should include anadromous fish projects, resident fish mitigation and resident fish substitution projects and wildlife projects. In developing the project list and estimated budgets, the fish and wildlife managers are to consider projects and estimates proposed by the managers, the Council, the general public and others. The fish and wildlife managers will use the prioritization criteria adopted by the Council to prioritize all the projects on the project list and recommend funding for a set of projects that matches the funding level negotiated by the Council and Bonneville. The fish and wildlife managers will submit the recommended prioritized project list and a workplan to the Council for review and approval.
Fish and Wildlife Managers and Council
3.1B.4 Utilizing its public process, the Council will review the prioritized project list and workplan for consistency with the program. If approved, the Council will forward the list to Bonneville for funding consistent with the negotiated budget. If not approved, the Council may revise and adopt an alternative project list and workplan for submission to Bonneville or send the list and workplan back to the fish and wildlife managers with comments. The fish and wildlife managers may then modify the list and workplan and resubmit them to the Council. This process may continue until the fish managers submit a project list and workplan that receives Council approval.
3.1B.5 The Council will use the fish and wildlife managers? project list to help determine program funding levels necessary to fully implement the program. The Council will then use this information to negotiate fixed annual funding levels with Bonneville for five years into the future.
Bonneville
3.1B.6 Consistent with the annual funding level agreed to between Bonneville and the Council, fund the prioritized project list and workplan approved by the Council as expeditiously as possible.
3.1B.7 Conduct a review to determine if internal costs for program oversight can be reduced, resulting in savings that can be added to the fish and wildlife program budget. Report findings to the Council by September 1995.
Bonneville, Fish and Wildlife Managers and Others
3.1B.8 Expand the implementation planning process so that participants coordinate implementation of all program measures, including research. Participants should include the Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, Bonneville, river operators, land and water managers, utilities, citizen groups and others.
3.1B.9 The annual implementation work plan should include actions to address key scientific uncertainties associated with the program and its measures (see Section 3.2C). In the course of its review of the workplan, the Council will review the list of key uncertainties and the manner in which the workplan proposes to address these uncertainties.
Federal Government, States and Tribes
3.1B.10 Review measures in this program that call for collective action by the states, tribes and other entities. Designate the appropriate entity to coordinate implementation of each measure. The designated entity should be responsible for preparing work plans and reporting progress. By June 30, 1995, report to the Council these designations. Where sources of funding are not identified, discuss the capabilities of the states, tribes and other entities to implement the measures with available resources. For each measure that cannot be met with available resources, and for which there is clearly no obligation of the Bonneville Power Administration under the Northwest Power Act, propose:
- an alternative funding source;
- the estimated cost for implementation; and
- the legal authority for allocating the necessary funds from the proposed source.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
3.1B.11 For measures addressed directly to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensees, or that are otherwise relevant to Commission decision-making, take measures into account to the fullest extent practicable.