Comment on subbasin plan draft amendments:
Additional comment requested for specific issues on the amendment process
Related link: Response to
these comments (Mar 2005)
October 22, 2004
Dear Interested Parties:
On October 13, 2004, the Council decided to release a set of 29
subbasin plan recommendations for public review and comment as draft
amendments to the Council?s Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
On October 18, 2004, the Council issued a Notice
of Opportunity to Comment on those draft subbasin plan
amendments.
This letter is to invite additional comment on several issues or topics
raised during the amendment process to date that relate more generally to
subbasin planning and fish and wildlife program amendment processes.
Specifically, the purpose of the letter is to initiate a subbasin planning
dialogue related to issues variously addressed in terms of:
- subbasin implementation specificity
- subbasin ?roll-up?as related to basinwide fish and wildlife
objectives
- project selection/prioritization
- recovery planning under the federal Endangered Species Act; and
- adopting and then updating the management plan components of
subbasin plans into the program.
The Council is inviting views and comments from as broad a range of
regional interests as possible on these matters.
Background and context for this issue paper and invitation for
comment
By May 28, 2004, 59 subbasin plan documents were submitted to the
Council as recommended amendments to the fish and wildlife program. As
required by the Northwest Power Act, the Council made these
recommendations available for public review and comment and began to seek
the views and information on the subbasin plan recommendations from
regional interests. As the amendment record developed through the middle
of October 2004, comments submitted were in two categories ? comments
related directly to the adequacy of particular proposed subbasin plans,
and comments about the subbasin planning and fish and wildlife program
amendment processes generally.
The Council seeks to more fully develop the regional dialogue on that
second category of comments addressing broader issues as part of this fish
and wildlife program amendment process. The Council is not at this time
committing to resolve any of the following issues within the current fish
and wildlife program amendment proceeding that it formally initiated in
August 2002, or alter the schedule the Council released on October 18,
2004, for adopting final subbasin plan amendments. The Council believes
that additional regional dialogue is needed before it can make a decision
on the appropriate substantive and procedural treatment of these issues,
and is committed to the timely adoption of the subbasin plan
recommendations it has received.
Issues for comment
A. Level of specificity in the subbasin plans ? some comments
encourage the addition of more specific implementation plans or more
specific implementation actions to the subbasin plans. This is an
issue about the level of specificity of the actions included in the
subbasin plans and the program. Several of the comments couch the issue in
a legal position about the definition of the term ?measures? as used
in section 4(h) of the Power Act. The term ?measures? is not
specifically defined by the Act or the adopted fish and wildlife program.
Some comments question if the objectives, strategies and other provisions
currently included in the subbasin plans are adequate to serve as the ?measures?
for the fish and wildlife program as envisioned in the act.
The Council is not inviting a legal debate over the definition of the
term ?measures.? However, it is clear that the issue is raised
out of a desire to ensure that subbasin plans well serve their fundamental
function of guiding the allocation of Bonneville resources to the most
biologically and cost-effective activities, and it is right to focus more
attention on these matters.
At this point in time, and with careful consideration as to how the
next project review and recommendation process will be structured, the
Council believes that adopted subbasin plans have sufficiently detailed
provisions (primarily their ?strategies?) to guide a 4(h)(10)(D)
project selection process. That is, a 4(h)(10)(D) process would call for
proposals for particular projects that are demonstrably linked to the
objectives and strategies in a subbasin plan.
The public is invited to comment on whether the strategies in draft
subbasin plan amendments are sufficiently specific to guide the
development of project proposals and then the review and selection of
projects for Bonneville funding. If a reviewer forms the opinion that the
plans cannot guide a project development and review process, the commenter
should also suggest the appropriate process to employ to obtain this
greater level of specificity for the plans. There are a number of process
alternatives that the Council or others have noted as options,
including, but not limited to:
- After the subbasin plans are adopted into the program, calling for
more specific implementation plans outside of a statutory
program amendment process, but prior to or as part of the 4(h)(10)(D)
project review process;
- Using the period of review of draft subbasin plan amendments in this
current amendment process to receive lists of more specific
actions or implementation plans from interested parties that the
Council would add to the subbasin plans before their final adoption
into the program;
- Adopting a decision-making structure or management framework and the
subbasin plans as ?reference documents? and explaining how the
plans will be used, and prescribe a process and schedule for adding
specificity to the subbasin plans (outside of an amendment process)
over the next few years;
- Having the Council follow the current subbasin plan amendment
process with another program amendment process specifically
calling for recommendations for program amendments to add specific
implementation plans to the program that are consistent with the
adopted subbasin plans.
B. ?Roll-Up? ? The relationship of subbasin plans to province
or ESU objectives, to the basinwide biological objectives in the Council?s
program, and to related matters of prioritization/allocation between
subbasin plans. Comments and consultations generally acknowledge that
if each of the 59 subbasin plans is independently sound they will
certainly improve our ability to guide actions ? particularly habitat
related actions ? within each subbasin. However, commentors are asking
two questions about the plans as a collective body of work: 1) do the
plans ?add up? to meet the objectives established at the basin level
in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, and/or 2) because there are always
limited resources, can the plans inform decisions about dedicating
resources to one subbasin or type of strategy over another?
With regard to the first question, the Council believes that the
administrative record supports a finding that the proposed subbasin plans
are generally consistent with the 2000 Program basin level objectives.
Comments submitted by independent scientists and a significant number of
others, including fish and wildlife managers, support this.
With regard to the second question, the Council thinks that there may
be general trends or patterns emerging from the subbasin plans that could
inform resource allocation across subbasins, but the trends would require
additional study and regional discussion before they would significantly
influence allocation choices across subbasins or alternative strategies.
The Council believes that while subbasin plans at this time can provide a
sound basis for allocating resources to priority areas within a
subbasin, they do not give us a compelling basis to prioritize work in one
subbasin over another.
Notwithstanding the current positions stated above, the Council
acknowledges that working with subbasin plans as a collective body of work
? a ?roll-up?? may strengthen the relationship of the plans to
broader fish and wildlife program objectives and help inform resource
allocation issues. Therefore, the public is invited to offer views and
information on the best way to accomplish a ?roll up? of the subbasin
plans. In providing advice, it would be important to carefully explain
what purpose or purposes this exercise would serve. The Council is
interested in hearing perspectives on the following: 1) what is the
preferred process vehicle ? should it be initiated as a Power Act
amendment process; 2) is there technical or scoping work that should be
undertaken before a formal amendment process is started; and 3) should
subbasin ?roll-up? precede adding more specifics (Issue A above) to
subbasin plans that have been developed?
C. Project review and recommendation process. Some commentors
have asked questions and stated concerns about the design of future
4(h)(10)(D) project review processes. The questions have included: how
will subbasin plans be used in project selection processes; what will be
the timing and elements of that process; how will available resources be
allocated among the provinces and subbasins; how will proposed projects be
reviewed for consistency with subbasin plans and by whom; and will the
planning groups or other subbasin level groups formed to develop and
recommend subbasin plans also have a role in project selection? Some
commentors make clear they are reluctant to support adoption and use of
subbasin plans without more information on such questions.
Several of the fundamental project review particulars are clear and
were set forth in the 2000 Program. For example, once adopted into the
program, subbasin plans indeed will be the program?s cornerstone for
project definition and review. That is, projects proposed for funding will
be evaluated for consistency with the relevant subbasin plans, and not
recommended for funding if inconsistent. The Council has made this
information available to the region over the last few years in guidance
and informational materials. Additionally, it should be recognized that
the subbasin planning initiative did not, and cannot, change the Act
itself. The provisions of Section 4(h)(10)(D) will continue to supply the
basic legal requirements and procedures for project review; including
independent scientific, public and Council review of projects proposed for
funding.
While commentors may provide advice on how the Council should conduct
the project review process to implement subbasin plans in response to this
letter, it may be more appropriate and timely for interested parties to be
involved in shaping these issues in other places such as the Regional
Coordinating Group meeting scheduled for November 1, 2004.
D. Relationship to recovery planning under the federal Endangered
Species Act. A concern expressed in some of the comments appears to
stem from statements in Council documents and from NOAA that subbasin
plans might be the ?foundation? for recovery plans or ?interim local
recovery plans? under Section 4 of the ESA for listed salmon and
steelhead ESUs. Commentors? level of concern about the subbasin plans
would be high if the Council were in fact to offer plans in their current
state as completed and fully adequate ESA recovery plans, or if NOAA
Fisheries were to accept them as such.
The Council?s position always has been that it is pursuing the
development of subbasin plans to meet the statutory obligation under the
Power Act to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by
the development and operation of the FCRPS hydrosystem. If those plans
also prove useful in the effort to address the requirements of ESA for
those same populations, all the better. The Council believes the technical
and planning work represented by the subbasin plans is of such a caliber
and at such a depth that NOAA Fisheries would be remiss not to make use of
that work in developing recovery plans. The products of subbasin planning
are realistic ?foundations? to build upon by those working on ESA
recovery plans. The point is, the Council has no legal obligation, nor
does it have any sort of commitment from NOAA Fisheries, to automatically
make subbasin plans final ESA recovery plans. Commentors should let the
Council know if this point is not clear or if they see or seek a different
relationship between the subbasin plans and recovery planning.
E. Improving subbasin plans - the ?living document.?
The Council proposes to adopt the management plan portions of subbasin
plans into the fish and wildlife program, not the technical assessments or
inventories. Part of the reason for this is simply to ease the burden of
managing the program. But another part of the reason has been that the
assessments are technical documents that underlie the objectives and
measures. Moreover, the assessments ought to be in a posture that they can
be modified relatively easily if and when new information arises.
There is some concern that management plans will be made permanent by
adoption into the program, and not subject to modification or improvement
even if partially flawed or easily improved, without a major
program amendment process. Commentors have suggested that the Council may
want to establish a mechanism or procedure (short of the full program
amendment process) for considering and approving modifications to any
portion of a subbasin plan when appropriate, including modifications to
the management plan portions that have been adopted into the program. If
commentors believe this proposal is important, thoughts on the following
types of detail are encouraged:
- On what basis should the Council approve a proposed modification to
a plan
- How can the Council assure that management plan modifications are
still derived from and linked to the technical assessments
- Regarding procedure, should the Council consider and approve minor
amendments to the program through a notice and comment procedure that
does not require all of the procedures for major amendments in Section
4(h) of the Power Act
- Should the Council write into the program at the time of adoption of
the subbasin plans an adaptive management process for considering and
approving modifications to the management plan portions of the
subbasin plans outside of any program amendment process?
Thank you for your continued interest and assistance in this important
work.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Crow, Executive Director
^ top
|
home
