nwcouncil.org document

Council comments on the draft one and five-year implementation plans for the implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System

September 11, 2002

Action Agencies Implementation Plan
C/o BPA-KEWS
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, OR 97208

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft one and five-year implementation plans for the implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System. The Council provided comments on the initial implementation plans prepared in 2001. Our comments focused on issues of coordination and collaboration in implementation planning, particularly in the off-site mitigation measures of the FCRPS Biological Opinions.

In these areas, the Council has continued to complete the initial round of provincial reviews with the objective of integrating the off-site measures with state, local and tribal priorities for fish and wildlife restoration. This draft implementation plan and the recent Progress Report confirm that the provincial review process is delivering proposals and projects that meet the FCRPS? off-site mitigation requirements. This process has done so with an unprecedented level of independent scientific review, local involvement and management review. The Council has worked to recommend three-year provincial implementation packages that are within Bonneville's rate case assumptions for an integrated implementation package, although the appropriate funding level for the fish and wildlife program as a whole requires additional review.

The Council is also continuing to develop program amendments for hydrosystem operations. Current draft proposals specifically consider balancing system operations for listed salmon and steelhead with the needs of resident fish and non-listed fish. We have not set a final schedule for adoption of amendments but will be conducting a public comment process on amendment proposals this fall and winter. It will be very important to have the full participation of the federal action agencies in this amendment process, particularly to assist us in evaluating the flexibility of operations prescribed by the Biological Opinion and other operational alternatives. We expect to also address research priorities for hydrosystem operations.

Use of these implementation plans:

The Council remains supportive of using one and five year implementation plans to refine the FCRPS response to the Biological Opinions. Where there is specificity about implementation actions and sequences, particularly in the section on hydrosystem configuration, the plans offer a basis for regional review and comment. The off-site mitigation sections remain more general and do not clearly focus issues to be reviewed and resolved within the region. It would be useful, for example, to have a clearer summary of the implementation schedules for the offsite habitat measures to ensure that the implementation plans recommended by the Council in the provincial reviews are on schedule.

We do have questions about how the action agencies intend to use these planning documents to engage the region in meaningful review and comment. This draft suggests that the annual Progress Reports are ?a good starting point? for state and tribal involvement in implementation planning (p. 9). This appears to direct the region away from fully addressing the implementation issues raised by the one and five years plans. The Progress Reports, which at least in the initial version published in May, 2002, summarize past actions rather than develop strategies for implementation moving forward. It would seem more useful to develop a more meaningful planning and consultation process around the implementation plans. We would appreciate more discussion of the action agencies? intent of their suggestion as the final draft is prepared.

Regional coordination

The Council appreciates the acknowledgement by the draft implementation plan of several initiatives to integrate Biological Opinion implementation with broader fish and wildlife restoration initiatives. In particular, the action agencies? continued support for subbasin planning and the Artificial Production Review and Evaluation is essential. We appreciate Bonneville's cooperation in contracting for these major initiatives.

As we commented last year, we think the best progress for implementation will occur through reliance on existing state, local and tribal processes where available. The draft implementation plan notes in each section where opportunity for regional coordination is available. As much as possible, the Council urges the action agencies to make the best use of existing processes and to avoid creating new work groups.

Research, monitoring and evaluation

The draft proposes broad initiatives for monitoring and evaluating population status and the effectiveness of restoration actions. These actions rely on substantial coordination with state and tribal managers. As the Council has continued to complete provincial review funding recommendations, the action agencies have in a number of cases requested additional review and delay of recommended projects to integrate a regional research, monitoring and evaluation strategy. The focus of the action agencies should be to make the best use of existing state and tribal protocols before ?starting from scratch?.

There is no question that integrating monitoring and evaluation on a regional scale has been a longstanding challenge for the region. However, it appears from recent comment and response to the Council's provincial review recommendations that the action agencies are not according existing state and tribal protocols as the foundation of a regional-scale program, particularly when those programs have had significant independent scientific review. Should the action agencies have specific concerns or questions about these existing protocols, such issues should be identified specifically and reviewed with the Council.

In the meantime, the Council continues to support every effort to integrate monitoring and evaluation for the Biological Opinions as it has done by attempting to incorporate identified implementation needs in the mainstem/systemwide proposal solicitation. As that solicitation review proceeds, it will be very important to have as specific definition of needs and implementation schedules as possible.

The 2000 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program calls for the development of a research plan to guide regional priorities for addressing critical uncertainties. The Council staff has drafted an approach to research planning with an index to current research projects. The Council is continuing to revise its proposal but expects to initiate a public process to develop programmatic research priorities this winter. The Council will seek full involvement of the action agencies in this process.

Funding responsibilities of other agencies

In section 4.1, the implementation plan discusses the funding responsibilities of other federal agencies under the ?All-H? strategy: ?More importantly, the All-H strategy addresses fish recovery actions by all federal agencies. The Federal Caucus is currently discussing how to track implementation progress by other agencies, who must do their fair share to aid listed species?. This issue, and particularly how it has introduced possible rejection by Bonneville of proposals recommended in the provincial review process is a significant concern for the Council. Recently, the Council reviewed themes raised by Bonneville in comments on provincial reviews as reasons for opposing certain proposals. The issue arose with Bonneville's proposed policy for funding projects on federal lands.

The Council has demonstrated vigilance in reviewing proposals for the appropriateness of funding with ratepayer dollars. These are issues that should properly be reviewed and resolved after the fullest consultation with the Council. As discussed previously, the Council has conducted the provincial review process within the budget targets established in Bonneville's current rate case and with the demonstrated record of meeting Bonneville's off-site mitigation requirements under the Biological Opinions. In doing so, the provincial review process has balanced these requirements in the best concert with state, local and tribal priorities. The provincial review process has also been the most exhaustive scientific, management and public review process yet used in the region.

We believe that the questions of the action agencies for appropriate funding responsibilities should be questions resolved in open dialogue with the region. The Council stands ready to engage such questions, as we have in the past, but with the full participation of regional stakeholders. We should not be dealing with these fundamental issues on a project-by-project basis at the close of lengthy provincial implementation decisions.

As we offered last year, the Council is an effective forum for identifying implementation funding requirements and working with the Congressional delegation to secure needed appropriations beyond the Bonneville fund.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and to bring these issues of continued regional collaboration to your attention.

Sincerely,

s/s Frank L. Cassidy, Jr.
Chairman

Fish & wildlife
	Council comments on the draft one and five-year implementation plans for the implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System September 11, 2002 Action Agencies Implementation Plan C/o BPA-KEWS P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft one and five-year implementation plans for the implementation of the Biological Opinions for the Federal Columbia River Power System. The Council provided comments on the initial implementation plans prepared in 2001. Our comments focused on issues of coordination and collaboration in implementation planning, particularly in the off-site mitigation measures of the FCRPS Biological Opinions. In these areas, the Council has continued to complete the initial round of provincial reviews with the objective of integrating the off-site measures with state, local and tribal priorities for fish and wildlife restoration. This draft implementation plan and the recent Progress Report confirm that the provincial review process is delivering proposals and projects that meet the FCRPS? off-site mitigation requirements. This process has done so with an unprecedented level of independent scientific review, local involvement and management review. The Council has worked to recommend three-year provincial implementation packages that are within Bonneville's rate case assumptions for an integrated implementation package, although the appropriate funding level for the fish and wildlife program as a whole requires additional review. The Council is also continuing to develop program amendments for hydrosystem operations. Current draft proposals specifically consider balancing system operations for listed salmon and steelhead with the needs of resident fish and non-listed fish. We have not set a final schedule for adoption of amendments but will be conducting a public comment process on amendment proposals this fall and winter. It will be very important to have the full participation of the federal action agencies in this amendment process, particularly to assist us in evaluating the flexibility of operations prescribed by the Biological Opinion and other operational alternatives. We expect to also address research priorities for hydrosystem operations. Use of these implementation plans: The Council remains supportive of using one and five year implementation plans to refine the FCRPS response to the Biological Opinions. Where there is specificity about implementation actions and sequences, particularly in the section on hydrosystem configuration, the plans offer a basis for regional review and comment. The off-site mitigation sections remain more general and do not clearly focus issues to be reviewed and resolved within the region. It would be useful, for example, to have a clearer summary of the implementation schedules for the offsite habitat measures to ensure that the implementation plans recommended by the Council in the provincial reviews are on schedule. We do have questions about how the action agencies intend to use these planning documents to engage the region in meaningful review and comment. This draft suggests that the annual Progress Reports are ?a good starting point? for state and tribal involvement in implementation planning (p. 9). This appears to direct the region away from fully addressing the implementation issues raised by the one and five years plans. The Progress Reports, which at least in the initial version published in May, 2002, summarize past actions rather than develop strategies for implementation moving forward. It would seem more useful to develop a more meaningful planning and consultation process around the implementation plans. We would appreciate more discussion of the action agencies? intent of their suggestion as the final draft is prepared. Regional coordination The Council appreciates the acknowledgement by the draft implementation plan of several initiatives to integrate Biological Opinion implementation with broader fish and wildlife restoration initiatives. In particular, the action agencies? continued support for subbasin planning and the Artificial Production Review and Evaluation is essential. We appreciate Bonneville's cooperation in contracting for these major initiatives. As we commented last year, we think the best progress for implementation will occur through reliance on existing state, local and tribal processes where available. The draft implementation plan notes in each section where opportunity for regional coordination is available. As much as possible, the Council urges the action agencies to make the best use of existing processes and to avoid creating new work groups. Research, monitoring and evaluation The draft proposes broad initiatives for monitoring and evaluating population status and the effectiveness of restoration actions. These actions rely on substantial coordination with state and tribal managers. As the Council has continued to complete provincial review funding recommendations, the action agencies have in a number of cases requested additional review and delay of recommended projects to integrate a regional research, monitoring and evaluation strategy. The focus of the action agencies should be to make the best use of existing state and tribal protocols before ?starting from scratch?. There is no question that integrating monitoring and evaluation on a regional scale has been a longstanding challenge for the region. However, it appears from recent comment and response to the Council's provincial review recommendations that the action agencies are not according existing state and tribal protocols as the foundation of a regional-scale program, particularly when those programs have had significant independent scientific review. Should the action agencies have specific concerns or questions about these existing protocols, such issues should be identified specifically and reviewed with the Council. In the meantime, the Council continues to support every effort to integrate monitoring and evaluation for the Biological Opinions as it has done by attempting to incorporate identified implementation needs in the mainstem/systemwide proposal solicitation. As that solicitation review proceeds, it will be very important to have as specific definition of needs and implementation schedules as possible. The 2000 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program calls for the development of a research plan to guide regional priorities for addressing critical uncertainties. The Council staff has drafted an approach to research planning with an index to current research projects. The Council is continuing to revise its proposal but expects to initiate a public process to develop programmatic research priorities this winter. The Council will seek full involvement of the action agencies in this process. Funding responsibilities of other agencies In section 4.1, the implementation plan discusses the funding responsibilities of other federal agencies under the ?All-H? strategy: ?More importantly, the All-H strategy addresses fish recovery actions by all federal agencies. The Federal Caucus is currently discussing how to track implementation progress by other agencies, who must do their fair share to aid listed species?. This issue, and particularly how it has introduced possible rejection by Bonneville of proposals recommended in the provincial review process is a significant concern for the Council. Recently, the Council reviewed themes raised by Bonneville in comments on provincial reviews as reasons for opposing certain proposals. The issue arose with Bonneville's proposed policy for funding projects on federal lands. The Council has demonstrated vigilance in reviewing proposals for the appropriateness of funding with ratepayer dollars. These are issues that should properly be reviewed and resolved after the fullest consultation with the Council. As discussed previously, the Council has conducted the provincial review process within the budget targets established in Bonneville's current rate case and with the demonstrated record of meeting Bonneville's off-site mitigation requirements under the Biological Opinions. In doing so, the provincial review process has balanced these requirements in the best concert with state, local and tribal priorities. The provincial review process has also been the most exhaustive scientific, management and public review process yet used in the region. We believe that the questions of the action agencies for appropriate funding responsibilities should be questions resolved in open dialogue with the region. The Council stands ready to engage such questions, as we have in the past, but with the full participation of regional stakeholders. We should not be dealing with these fundamental issues on a project-by-project basis at the close of lengthy provincial implementation decisions. As we offered last year, the Council is an effective forum for identifying implementation funding requirements and working with the Congressional delegation to secure needed appropriations beyond the Bonneville fund. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and to bring these issues of continued regional collaboration to your attention. Sincerely, s/s Frank L. Cassidy, Jr. Chairman ^ top