Purpose and Legal Basis for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have developed the following recommendations for amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program (Program). The Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) requested amendment recommendations under Section 4(h)(2) of the Northwest Power Planning Conservation and Electric Act (the "Act") in a letter dated January 12, 2000.

These recommendations, developed by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation are based on several assumptions.

• The purpose of the Program is to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the federal hydropower system.
• There are three basic sources of the Bonneville authority for funding fish and wildlife activities: the Act; the Endangered Species Act; and legislation authorizing (and mitigating for) the federal hydropower system.
• The Bonneville fish and wildlife budget has three different kinds of costs which are treated differently, but are subject to review and coordination under the Program: Capital Investments (which require separate Congressional authorization); Reimbursables (which Congress adopts and Bonneville reimburses); and, Direct Expenditures (which Bonneville just pays).
• The Program amendments should be based on existing laws. No legislative actions are proposed.
• The current Program should be retained in the new program until amended by subbasin plans.
• The amended Program should delineate the decisions required, the process and criteria by which the decisions should be made, and the roles of those affected by the decisions.

First, the Program should have a clear description of a straightforward process by which the region makes decisions regarding Bonneville fish and wildlife funding. This process is based on existing legal authorities and should provide the basis for and spell out the roles of the involved parties.

Second, the Program should present the standards or criteria by which these decisions are made. This allows all participants in the Program to know how their efforts will be judged and allows for accountability.

Third, the Program should retain the current measures that serve as the basis for ongoing implementation. The amendment recommendation contains additional subbasin-specific guidance, or subbasin summaries, to aid decision-making until more complete subbasin plans are amended into the Program.

Regional Goals, And Objectives

The Fish and Wildlife Program should have an overall goal and a set of regional objectives such as that listed below.

• By 2005, implement actions sufficient to halt the declining trend in salmon and steelhead populations above Bonneville Dam.
• Restore healthy, naturally reproducing populations of anadromous fish in each subregion that historically supported anadromous fish. Healthy populations are defined as having an 80 percent probability of maintaining themselves for 200 years at a level that can support harvest rates of at least 30 percent.
• By 2001, obtain the information necessary to manage and restore Pacific lamprey.
• By 2025, increase the total adult salmon and steelhead returns above Bonneville Dam to 5 million annually in a manner that supports tribal and non-tribal harvest.
• Fully mitigate within 100 years for the annual losses of 5 to 11 million anadromous fish, as well as, resident fish, and wildlife.

• Fully mitigate and compensate for resident and anadromous fish losses caused by the construction and operation of federally operated and federally regulated hydropower projects.
• Substitute lost anadromous populations with resident populations to address the loss of salmon and steelhead in those areas currently blocked to anadromous fish as a result of the construction and operation of hydroelectric dams.
• Ensure the continued persistence, function , and diversity of existing resident fish species and their habitat
• Maintain and restore functioning ecosystems and watersheds, which provide functional links among biota to ensure the continued persistence, function and diversity of biota .
• Restore native resident fish species (subspecies, stocks and populations) to near historic abundance throughout their historic ranges where habitats exist and where habitats can be feasibly restored.

Provide opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive resident fisheries (support tribal and non-tribal harvest) for native, introduced, wild, and hatchery-reared stocks that are compatible with native resident fish management objectives.

• The wildlife goal is to achieve and sustain levels of habitat and species to mitigate for the wildlife losses that have resulted from the construction and operation of the federal and nonfederal hydroelectric system in the Columbia River Basin.
• Develop and implement mitigation plans that will fully mitigate for wildlife losses.

Statutory Standards

Principle 1: Management goals and objectives for altered systems must satisfy the resource demands that were supported by the natural system.

The change in population and community composition throughout the basin has shifted the pressures of resource utilization. Although important to protect, mitigate and enhance native species, resource managers must also meet the demands placed upon the resource by the "users" of the resources. In some areas, the shift has been dramatic (e.g., blocked areas) and lead to greater intensity of use on non-traditionally managed species. Therefore, resource managers within the basin must balance the management of today’s resources with the demands placed upon them by the resource users. For example, in the upper Columbia River blocked area, resource managers now focus upon resident fish (both native and non-native) and wildlife populations to meet the resource needs once met by anadromous fish.

Principle 2: The program preference is to support and rebuild native species in native habitats, where feasible.

Fish and wildlife habitat should be protected and restored to promote production of native species, especially if these species are capable of meeting the identified resource needs for that system. However, the Council has no interest in a program that does nothing more than simply protect fish populations from extinction at a non-fishable level, to the exclusion of developing thriving fisheries by substitution.

Principle 3: The availability and function of the habitats present in highly altered systems will dictate management decisions.

In certain instances fish and wildlife habitat has been altered to the extent that native species are ill adapted. In these situations, projects that enhance species adapted to the altered habitats are appropriate and may in fact be the only available form of mitigation. Efforts to promote alternative species must follow a thorough evaluation of the consequences, if any, to existing native species or the practicality of restoration of native species (NPPC 1994 Program Section 2.2.A). However, resident fish substitution activities using introduced species should not be terminated or de-ranked in prioritization on this basis alone, without further information demonstrating the native/non-native conflicts.

General Policies

The Program also has policies on a number of issues inherent in the subbasin plans. The Colville Confederated Tribes recommended the Program include positions or recommendations on these policies.

Regional Coordination

Section 4(h)(2)(C) of the NW Power Act identifies the need for inclusion of specific measures to provide for the coordination and funding of fish and wildlife management… that assist protection, mitigation, and enhancement efforts.

The Colville Confederated Tribes recommend that Bonneville make available to the fish and wildlife managers, comparable funds to those available to the Council and Bonneville for regional fish and wildlife management coordination. The objective of management coordination is to make timely, effective, and informed decisions regarding management of Columbia River fish and wildlife. This has two key aspects: 1) information management and 2) coordination of activities.

Budget Policy

BPA will make available sufficient funds to implement in a timely fashion the adopted subbasin plans, or subbasin summaries until subbasin plans are adopted.

The fish and wildlife managers should recommend to the Council the division of these funds among the programmatic budget categories and among the subbasins.

The Council should seek public comment on the recommendation and adopt a budget allocation recommendation to guide subbasin planning and BPA funding decisions.

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Policies

Policies dealing with research, monitoring and evaluation focus on three aspects:

• Identification of management questions needing research;
• Setting standards for monitoring efforts; and,
• Defining regional data management needs.

The policy on identification of questions whose answers would improve fish and wildlife management or "critical uncertainties" is important as a basis for prioritizing research. The purpose of this policy is to provide a mechanism to focus research on important questions and to screen research proposals. While there are many interesting and potentially valuable research possibilities in the Columbia Basin, it is not the responsibility of BPA to fund them all, nor is it prudent to utilize a large proportion of the direct program funds to complete research at the expense of on the ground projects that meet identified objectives. The Council program continues to advocate the adaptive management concept to implement its activities, complete with monitoring and evaluation.

There are five broad management questions on which further BPA-funded research would be beneficial.

What are the most effective approaches, methods, or tools to improve the survival of juvenile and adult migrant fish in the mainstem of the Columbia and Snake Rivers?

How can artificial production facilities be used to increase the numbers of adult fish with minimal harm to locally-adapted populations?

What habitat restoration methods are most effective in increasing populations of fish and wildlife?

What are the most appropriate methods, or suite of methods, to analyze efforts to increase fish and wildlife and estimate the benefits of those efforts?

What are the most effective approaches, methods, or tools to re-introduce anadromous fish into areas currently blocked by federal hydropower projects.

The resulting research plans will be submitted to the Council as an amendment to the Program. Research projects that are consistent with the plans will receive priority for BPA fish and wildlife funds over other research.

Grant Program for "Innovative" Research

The Colville Confederated Tribes recommend that the Council/ISRP grants program for "innovative" research be incorporated into the research decision making process outlined above. Innovative research funded by Bonneville under the Act should address aspects of important management questions through the research plan called for above and consume no more than two percent of the direct program expenditures.

Artificial Production Policy

The policies and standards adopted in the Artificial Production Review must be applied when considering the continued or new use of artificial production as a strategy within a subbasin plan or when proposing funding for new or existing artificial production facilities under the Program. The policies in general are:

• The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the context of the environment in which it will be used.
• Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and address scientific uncertainties.
• Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological systems constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors.
• A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a system of populations in the face of environmental variation.
• Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth, morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.
• The entities authorizing or managing a artificial production facility or program should explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of those purposes for each population of fish addressed.
• Decisions on the use of artificial production need to be made in the context of, and consistent with, goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province levels.
• Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using artificial propagation.
• Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.
• Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and enhancement must be fully addressed.

The program goal for resident fish emphasizes a future condition that supports both human settlement (support tribal and non-tribal harvest and cultural and economic practices), while providing long-term sustainability of native fish in native habitats where possible, while recognizing that where impacts have changed the native ecosystem, we can only protect and enhance the habitat and species assemblages that remain. This systemwide goal has implications for all resident fish program measures. In general, these measures fall into two distinct categories:

Additionally, it is the Council’s expectation that these fisheries shall be enhanced to allow for consumptive subsistence and recreational fisheries for the region’s Indian tribes, as well as consumptive and non-consumptive recreational fisheries for sport anglers. The Council recognizes that fishing pressure on inland fish of the Columbia River Basin has increased appreciably since curtailment of ocean salmon fishing seasons.

A number of resident fish populations throughout the basin are depressed to an extent that they require immediate attention. To be effective, the Fish and Wildlife Program must focus on funding measures that provide immediate on-the-ground benefits to fish and wildlife. To that end, the Council has established the following policies.

The Council accords highest priority to rebuilding to sustainable levels weak, but recoverable, native populations injured by the hydropower system, when such populations are identified by the fishery managers; then to resident fish substitution measures in areas that previously had salmon and steelhead, but where anadromous fish are now blocked by federally operated hydropower development. Because these losses have endured mostly unmitigated for more than 60 years, and because in-kind mitigation cannot occur, the Council intends that in any project ranking and selection process, projects satisfying these priorities be clearly distinguished from other projects. The distinction between these two highest priorities is a narrow one, applicable only to marginal choices among such projects and neither priority is meant to eclipse the other.

To satisfy mitigation responsibility, promote comprehensive and cooperative watershed management; ecosystem diversity; productivity and stability as integral components of fish management strategies in the Columbia River Basin; and to conserve the natural genetic diversity within native resident fish species, sub-species and unique stocks, the following principles shall be applied:

• Protect and improve existing habitats that support important fisheries management objectives whether native or non-native.
• Protect high quality native habitat and attempt to restore potential habitat for native fish.
• Substitution is appropriate for lost salmon and steelhead in areas that previously had anadromous fish, but where anadromous fish access is now permanently blocked by hydropower development and where in-kind mitigation cannot occur.
• In areas below storage projects, protect, mitigate and enhance resident fish that are affected by altered annual flow regimes, daily load following, temperature modifications, dissolved gas levels and nutrient trapping.
• Substitution should occur in the vicinity of the salmon and steelhead losses being addressed, but substitution and mitigation measures may occur on or off-site.
• For substitution purposes, resident fish may include landlocked anadromous fish (e.g., white sturgeon, kokanee and coho) as well as traditionally defined resident salmonids and other fish species (e.g. largemouth bass).
• Protect, mitigate and enhance fish populations to the extent they were or are affected by construction and operation of dams as identified by an approved loss statement
• Protect, mitigate and enhance resident fish in hydropower system storage projects to the fullest extent practicable from negative impacts associated with water releases.
• Have measurable objectives ecolgical (habitat and/or fish population) or management (catch-rates, harvest numbers, ect.).
• Use of non-native fish/non-native stocks for resident fish substitution is appropriate when available habitat is unsuitable for native fish, or when it is not economically feasible to restore the altered habitat. Substitution projects need to show that all reasonable precautions will be taken, based on the best available scientific knowledge, to not adversely affect habitat for native resident fish and anadromous fish.
• Resident fish populations shall be enhanced to allow for consumptive subsistence and recreational fisheries.
• Increase the abundance of resident fish to distribute energy and nutrients within freshwater areas, especially above anadromous blockages.
• Accord highest priority to rebuilding to sustainable levels of weak, but recoverable, native populations injured by the hydropower system.
• Accord highest priority for resident fish in areas that previously had anadromous fish, but where anadromous fish access is now permanently blocked by federally operated or regulated hydropower development.

• The Council accords highest priority for wildlife mitigation activities in two specific areas, first to areas which previously had anadroumous fish, but are now blocked by federally operated and regulated hydropower projects, then to areas that have the highest remaining proportional losses.

• Mitigation efforts for wildlife losses occurring within the blocked areas of the basin will be focused within the respective blocked areas. For example, wildlife losses attributable to Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, Albeni Falls, Willamette and Upper Snake will occur within the appropriate areas. Any mitigation activities occurring outside of the respective area will require involvement of all co-managers.
• Credit projects not specifically designed to mitigate for defined wildlife construction/inundation losses (e.g., watershed projects, fish habitat projects) against secondary losses.

• During annual prioritization activities, increased emphasis will be placed on addressing areas of the basin with the highest remaining proportion of losses.
• Habitat units will be the preferred unit of measurement for construction and inundation mitigation accounting unless the region's wildlife managers agree to another method that, in the Council's opinion, adequately takes into account both habitat quantity and quality adequate to mitigate for the identified losses.
• Baseline protection credits in the form of habitat units (HU’s) will be granted to BPA for each new habitat area protected or secured in perpetuity for mitigation. The determination of baseline protection credits should continue to be made through the application of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) methodology. Baseline protection credits will be granted to BPA at the rate of one HU credit for every three HU’s protected. (This ratio is the Wildlife Managers consensus alternative for baseline protection crediting of wildlife acquisition projects.).
• The Council's Program will address and mitigate the direct and indirect impacts of the "hydropower facilities" in the broad sense that Congress intended, including all effects traceable to any of the projects' purposes (i.e., construction and inundation, operational, and secondary impacts).
• Ensure that wildlife mitigation projects implemented to address construction and inundation losses in fulfillment of this Program are consistent with the basin-wide habitat implementation priorities.
• Mitigation of the remaining construction and inundation losses identified in the existing program is a priority for wildlife implementation in the basin.
• Habitat enhancement credits will be provided to BPA when habitat management activities made possible through BPA provided funding lead to a net increase in habitat value when compared to the level identified in the most recent habitat inventory. This determination will be made through the periodic monitoring of the project site via the habitat evaluation technique referred to as Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). BPA will be credited for habitat enhancement efforts at a ratio of one habitat unit (HU) credited for every one net habitat unit (HU) gained (1:1).
• Habitat units gained through the construction, inundation or operation of the basin's hydroelectric facilities should be recognized. The creation of new habitats does not replace the functions provided by the habitat types directly impacted by hydropower development. These gains are best suited for crediting to the secondary and operational components of the Program.
• Where practical, mitigate losses in-place, in-kind. When a wildlife measure is not in-place, in-kind, the habitat units protected, mitigated or enhanced by that measure will be credited against mitigation due for one or more appropriate hydroelectric projects with the knowledge and permission of the appropriate subbasin fish and wildlife managers.
• Provide permanent protection or enhancement of wildlife habitat in the most cost-effective manner.
• The hydropower system must protect, mitigate and enhance wildlife to the extent affected by FCRPS. This obligation will be discharged when these effects are fully addressed, i.e., when mitigation actually offsets the loss caused by a hydropower facility, and when the operator provides adequate operation and maintenance funding to sustain the mitigation in perpetuity. Funding for monitoring and evaluation will be used to determine if the predicted benefits were realized.
• Trust/settlement agreements and other mitigation programs shall demonstrate consistency with mitigation goals, objectives, and methods.

It is important to state explicitly the policy judgments and assumptions on which the Program is based. These standards are intended to provide pragmatic guidance to decision-makers regarding the Council’s interpretation of the Act’s standards for amending the Program, as well as the scientific principles and policies.

Strategies are plans of action to accomplish the objectives and thereby fulfill the vision. Since most of the specific actions will be addressed at the subbasin level, most of the strategies will be developed there. However, it is important that the strategies at the provincial and subbasin levels be consistent with basin-wide standards, guiding actions toward the basin objectives and goal. Thus, at the basin level, strategies will be developed in areas that transcend one or more of the provinces (e.g. hydrosystem structure and operation, data management, research, monitoring and evaluation).

What follows is a listing of the strategies and general implementation standards for program measures and standards for categories that address issues that transcend one or more provinces that might be adopted into the program.

Basin-Wide Implementation Standards

Protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures will:

• Be the least-costly way to achieve the biological objective.
• Provide direct on-the-ground benefit to fish and wildlife populations
• Provide for subsistence, ceremonial and recreational opportunities.
• Have measurable objectives.
• Protect high quality native or other habitat or species of special concern, whether at the project site or not, including endangered, threatened, sensitive species or species supporting important fisheries.
• Provide habitat that can provide dual benefits for both fish and wildlife whenever possible.
• Help protect or enhance natural ecosystems and species diversity over the long term.
• Complement the activities of the region's state and federal wildlife agencies and Indian tribes. In particular, state clearly how plans or projects would complement agency and tribal policies or programs to protect, mitigate, or enhance functioning ecosystems and species diversity over the long term.
• Encourage the formation of partnerships with other persons or entities, which would reduce project costs, increase benefits and/or eliminate duplicative activities.
• Not impose on BPA the funding responsibilities of others, as prohibited by Section 4(h)(10)(A) of the Northwest Power Act.

Hydrosystem management will be consistent with management and guidelines to protect, mitigate and enhance anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife, both in re-regulating and storage reservoirs.

• Specific storage -reservoir management guidelines include the following to address entrainment and forage production in Lake Roosevelt:

Period Elevation Retention
January upper flood control rule curve minimum of 35 days
February upper flood control rule curve minimum of 35 days
March-April upper flood control rule curve minimum of 35 days
May 1265 minimum of 35 days
June-July increase from 1265 to 1290 minimum of 45-60 days
August minimum elevation- 1280 minimum of 45 days
September-Dec. 1285-1290 minimum of 45-60 days, or
maximum historically achievable for each month

Actions taken under this program must be monitored and evaluated to determine whether they achieve the biological objectives established at the subbasin, province and basin levels. In the course of creating plans, and in implementing the program, the Council will work with interested parties to develop and recommend for funding specific monitoring and evaluation activities consistent with the following principles:

• Implement research, monitoring and programmatic evaluation as a major objective of the fish and wildlife program measures.
• Focus monitoring and evaluation efforts to determine the extent to which actions achieve biological and management objectives and goals at the subbasin, province and basin levels.

Effective transfer and dissemination of information within and between fish and wildlife managers, operators, policy/decision makers and public is critical to the success of the Councils Fish and Wildlife Program. At a minimum the following standards should be adopted into the program.

• All information collected as part of this program should be made freely accessible to all parties.
• Information identified as necessary for key monitoring and evaluation needs will be reported parties at specified regular intervals.
• All data collected by entities funded under this program shall include appropriate geospatial locators (e.g. GPS coordinates, LLID).

Subbasin planning efforts will describe the activities necessary to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife resources in the basin in coordination with Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery planning, land management and water quality planning and long-range BPA budget planning. Subbasin plans, at a minimum, will have four inter-related sections, Subbasin Assessment; a Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan; a Three-Year Implementation Plan; and monitoring and evaluation (Fig.1).

Subbasin Assessment

The subbasin assessment section will identify populations targeted for management and provide information on the current condition or status of the fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. This section will also detail the factors or conditions that limit or reduce the target fish and wildlife populations, based on the best science that is available.

Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan

The fish and wildlife strategic plan will define the management intentions of the tribes and agencies for the identified target populations under their jurisdiction. The strategic plan will include the managers’ goals, management objectives, biological objectives for fish and wildlife populations, the location and quality of the habitat needed in the subbasin, and recommendations for methods, approaches, or strategies to achieve the objectives.

The Three-Year Implementation Plan

The Three-Year Implementation Plan will detail specific actions or measures that the subbasin team recommends be carried out over the next three years and may also include descriptions of what has been accomplished for fish and wildlife. The implementation plan will be evolve over time as M&E provides information to update and or improve the subbasin plans.

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

The monitoring and evaluation plan will detail evaluation criteria for performance measures, performance standards, standardized methods, reporting criteria to access the relative effectiveness of actions implemented in the subbasin towards biological and management objectives and goals. The analysis results of monitoring and evaluation data will improve our understanding of the resource response to implementation actions and will be critical to improving a strategies and implementation plans over time.

Subbasin Decision Making Process

Different parties have legal authority over and responsibility for different parts of the subbasin plans. This division of responsibilities is outlined in Table 1. The fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have legal authority to manage fish and wildlife resources based on treaty and statute. To the extent that the fish and wildlife managers have jurisdiction over land and water (e.g., wildlife refuges and tribal lands), they will serve as land and water managers, as well. However, others manage most public and private lands, under separate authorities.

The Council recognizes that the Northwest Power Act provides it with limited authority in regard to implementing an ecosystem approach. Simply stated, the Council cannot mandate a system approach to all resource users and managers in the Columbia River Basin. Even if it could, this approach would not succeed without the cooperation and participation of all of the basin’s natural resource owners, users and managers. The success of a comprehensive ecosystem approach will hinge on extensive cooperation and initiative (NWPPC 1994 F&W Program Section 2).

Decision-making regarding BPA fish and wildlife funding should take place in three linked stages. These are summarized in Figure 2. First, locally based teams should develop draft subbasin plans. Next, the Council should review these plans in a rulemaking proceeding that amends the plans into the Program. Finally, Bonneville should use the amended subbasin plans as the basis for funding fish and wildlife activities.

Subbasin Planning

The first stage, subbasin planning, would start with the convening of subbasin teams in each subbasin (Figure 3). The subbasin teams are responsible for compiling the subbasin plans and assuring that they receive public review. The membership of the teams and the members’ roles are outlined in Table 1.

There are two sets of decisions to be made in this part of the process. The fish and wildlife managers must identify objectives and strategies for target populations and their habitats.

Second, the subbasin team must recommend actions, following the identified strategies, to meet the objectives in the fish and wildlife strategic plan.

The first task of the subbasin teams will be to develop the draft assessment and strategic plan. General responsibilities for compiling these materials are outlined in Table 1.

When the draft materials have been assembled, the Council fish and wildlife managers and CBFWA staff will take the lead in getting the draft plans reviewed by the public (Figure 2). Interested stakeholders will be involved at each step of the subbasin planning process. Although the fish and wildlife managers will have the ultimate responsibility for development of the fish and wildlife management objectives, they will be responsible for coordinating the development of these objectives in a public process. It is expected that land managers, watershed councils, private land owners and any other interested parties will also have an opportunity to participate in the development of strategies and actions. The subbasin team can incorporate any needed changes resulting from reviewer comments.

The key set of decisions to be made in subbasin planning involve the fish and wildlife managers choosing production and harvest actions and recommending habitat actions in coordination with the land and water managers. The actions chosen will be expected to contribute to achieving the population or habitat objectives. They must be consistent with the statutory standards, scientific principles and policies/principles governing the subregional rulemaking decisions. The implementation standards are intended to list the implications of the scientific principles and policies as decision guidance for the subbasin planners. While this guidance is not mandatory, these issues should be addressed in the subbasin plans to facilitate the subbasin rulemaking decisions. Finally, the choice of actions may be influenced by management considerations, such as management priority, appropriate sequence, or coordination with other activities.

The fish and wildlife managers recommend establishing a team of scientists familiar with fish and wildlife restoration and enhancement to be available to assist subbasin teams as needed. This science team may assist the subbasin teams to address questions regarding best available scientific information, the nature of limiting factors, and the assessment of risks and benefits of different strategies. It is hoped that members of the science team would be involved with the subbasin teams as they develop the draft subbasin plans.

Finally, the core members of the subbasin team will try to reach agreement among themselves and with other stakeholders in the subbasin prior to when the draft subbasin plan is forwarded to CBFWA for dissemination and review. Following CBFWA review, the subbasin plans will then be sent to the Council with a request that the plan be amended into the Program. If the subbasin team members have opinions not reflected in the draft plan, those opinions should be appended to the draft plan.

Subbasin Rulemaking

The most complex standards are those governing the Council’s subbasin rulemaking. The Council’s decision and its standards are defined by the Act. Their interpretation will benefit from clarifying scientific principles, policies and implementation standards discussed in previous sections.

The Council’s decisions in completing this part of the process involves making findings of consistency with the statutory standards of the Power Act. In particular, the Council must assure that their rulemaking effort complements the existing and future activities of the Federal and the region’s State fish and wildlife agencies and appropriate Tribes and that they remain consistent with the legal rights of appropriate Indian tribes in the region (Section 4(h)(6)).

As the plans for subbasins are completed, the Council will enter into a formal rule-making process to amend them into the Fish and Wildlife Program. This stage of the overall process is diagrammed in Figure 4.

Next, the Council will seek comment on the draft subbasin plans from the public through hearings in each of the four states and through formal consultations between the Council and the affected tribes.

The Council will develop draft findings regarding whether or not the draft subbasin plans are consistent with the standards of the Act in Sections 4(h)(5) and (6). The Council will provide its findings in draft for public comment before amending the subbasin plans into the Program. The subbasin teams will be given the opportunity to make revisions in the draft subbasin plans, as necessary, to respond to public or scientific comments, results of tribal consultations, and initial Council findings. If the Council finds inconsistencies with these standards, it must describe them in writing. Otherwise, the Council must amend the subbasin plans into the Program.

To provide guidance in making its findings, the Council will adopt, as part of the Program, regional goals and objectives, scientific principles, and policies to define the Council’s interpretation of the statutory standards of the Power Act.

Implementation

In the final implementation stage of the overall process (Figure 5) there are three general decisions to be made. First, the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), established under the 1996 Gorton Amendment, will review sufficient proposed projects to adequately ensure that the projects recommended for implementation "shall be based on a determination that proposed projects: are based on sound science principles; benefit fish and wildlife; and have a clearly defined objective and outcome with provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results" [16 USC Sec. 839 (h)(10)(D)(iv)].

Second, BPA will contract with the appropriate entities to implement the actions in the subbasin plans amended into the Program. These projects will have a three year Scope-Of-Work and budget that follow the actions and budgets in the three-year implementation plans. BPA will review and renew the Scope-Of-Work and budget annually.

The BPA decisions regarding contractors to carry out actions specified in the three-year implementation plans will be governed by its contracting regulations. BPA is currently revising these regulations as they relate to fish and wildlife activities.

Finally, both the fish and wildlife managers through CBFWA and the Council must approve any significant within-year deviations from these directions.

Annually, CBFWA will evaluate the results from projects and compile a report on Program accomplishments. The project results will also be used by the core members of the subbasin teams to update and improve the subbasin plans as necessary prior to their Council review every three years.

Interim Program

Phase II Amendments

The fish and wildlife agencies and tribes recommend that the Council enter into a second phase of this amendment process. The Council should issue a second request for amendment recommendations as soon as possible, but no later than the adoption of these Phase I amendments. The Phase II amendments would include specific measures or actions to be carried out in the Columbia River Basin and its tributary subbasins. The amendments should include specific systemwide measures and measures applicable to the configuration or operation of the federal hydropower system.

The Phase II recommendations could be for a single action or measure in a subbasin or for a partially-completed "subbasin plan." The managers recognize that more time will be needed to complete the scientific studies and stakeholder involvement required in a subbasin plan.

The fish and wildlife agencies and tribes recommend that the Council make Phase II amendment recommendations due on or before April 1, 2001 and that the Council complete the Phase II amendment process by July 31, 2001.

Upon adoption of the Phase II amendments, the managers recommend that the Council review the ISRP provincial review schedule and request that Bonneville solicit projects to start new initiatives.

Early Implementation Actions

Federal agencies have suggested that as planning and studies continue, immediate actions may be necessary to forestall further declines in Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. Authority for these high priorities, as early actions comes as a part of the trust responsibilities of the federal government to the tribes and from responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.

For a project to be considered for immediate action, all assessments and planning (e.g., NEPA) work should be completed so the project can begin before September 30, 2001. In addition, projects must fall in one or more of the following categories.

Category A: Tribal Trust Responsibilities

Meet the following criteria subject to agreement between the tribe and the federal government:

• Action represents a high-priority project/action approved by a tribal government.
• A plan/program or existing measure identifies the action as necessary to protect and rebuild fish and/or wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.

Meet one of the following criteria:

• The action restores or acquires potentially productive habitats that will be largely self-maintaining after the activities are complete.
• The action addresses imminent risks to survival of one or more species.
• The action results in substantial benefits to species survival in not less than 10 years after implementation, and these benefits are measurable.
• The action is part of an action plan that is derived from science-based assessment.
• The action addresses a habitat enforcement issue and results in the protection of aquatic habitats.
• The action secures a high priority habitat area that contributes to the fulfillment of a critical life requisite(s) for terrestrial wildlife species.
• Actions which address conservation mitigation as a result of Biologial Opinions and FCRPS operations.

• Fund the development and implementation of a pilot strobe light, fish entrainment deterrent system at Grand Coulee Dam as detailed in BPA Project # 9001800.

• Fund the design and construction of additional incubation and rearing capacity at the Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery to reduce densities of rainbow trout.

• Fully fund all existing Tier I and Tier II projects identified in the current Councils’ Fish and Wildlife Program.
• Fund Okanogan River summer steelhead acclimation facilities: The Upper Columbia River summer steelhead ESU, which includes Okanogan River summer steelhead, has been identified as one of the most "at risk" anadromous fish species in the Columbia River Basin. In 1999, upstream barriers to adult steelhead passage were removed on two major tributaries to the Okanogan River, Salmon and Omak Creek. This action restored an additional 35 miles of blocked spawning and rearing habitat that historically supported summer steelhead production. The proposed funding would be used to develop, operate, evaluate and monitor steelhead acclimation facilities and programs on Omak and Salmon Creek. These facilities will be associated with ongoing adult-based hatchery supplementation programs.

• Fund the reintroduction of Okanogan River spring chinook: Historically, the Okanogan River supported a population of spring chinook salmon, which today are considered extirpated. Habitat improvements in the Okanogan River sub-basin are currently being addressed and in some areas will now support the reintroduction of spring chinook salmon. The Tribe supports this action as a measure towards meeting the recovery of the Upper Columbia spring chinook ESU. In light of the increased adult spring chinook returns this year and expected good returns next year, the Tribe believes this project should begin immediately to take advantage of the projected surplus of spring chinook which have not been available in past years. Funds for this proposal would be used to develop, operate and evaluate a hatchery restoration program including broodstock collection and acclimation facilities. This may require a new hatchery facility or the expansion of existing hatchery facilities such as the existing Colville Trout Hatchery, which was designed and constructed under the NWPPC program to one day include anadromous fish production.

• Fund a Columbia River summer/fall chinook hatchery program at Chief Joseph Dam: In order for the federal government to meet their tribal trust responsibility, the Tribe proposes a harvest/supplementation based hatchery program be developed at the base of Chief Joseph Dam on the Colville Indian Reservation. Currently, the portion of summer/fall chinook that pass Wells Dam after August 28^th are not being artificially propagated for any program. The Tribe believes this program could serve to supplement natural production in the river, which is currently limited in the mainstem below the dam, while also offering an opportunity for a terminal tribal fishery. The Tribe has for years fished in this area for anadromous fish and this program would enhance the existing fishery. Funds would be used to develop, operate, maintain and evaluate a summer/fall chinook sub-yearling hatchery facility on the existing relief tunnel water supply at Chief Joseph Dam on the Collville Indian Reservation.
• Fund an Okanogan River sockeye salmon supplementation hatchery program: The Colville Tribe currently operate a pilot sockeye hatchery program on the Colville Reservation at the mouth of the Okanogan River as part of an existing mitigation program. The assurance of future year’s funding for this program is uncertain at this time. Additionally, this program is in need of more permanent facilities and could be expanded to more fully mitigate for hydrosystem impacts. The current Okanogan River sockeye salmon population, while not listed at this time, has been declining over the last 15 years with two of the poorest adult returns on record occurring in the mid-1990’s. Funds would be used to develop, operate, maintain and monitor an adult based Okanogan River sockeye salmon supplementation hatchery on the Colville Indian Reservation.

Subbasin Team Membership and Roles

• Fish and Wildlife Managers (including representatives of federal, state and tribal co-managers)

• Land/Water Managers (including federal, state, and tribal land managers, federal, tribal & state water quality managers, private land & water owners, and watershed councils in some circumstances)

• CBFWA Staff

• NWPPC Staff

• Other Public (e.g., conservationists and local officials)

• Fish and wildlife co-managers must all agree amongst themselves on draft materials.
• Differing opinions accompanied by alternative recommendations may be incorporated into the draft subbasin plans as appropriate.
• Interested stakeholders will be afforded the opportunity to be involved at during the subbasin planning process.
• Maintain consistency in subbasin team membership throughout all planning efforts

\\cb1\sys\data.net\work\active\amendments\2000_0501\amendment.doc

Go to top | Go to index