Dear Mr. Cassidy:

We are pleased to provide recommendations to the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) as you begin the process of amending the Regional Fish and Wildlife Program. We also commend the members of the Council for their efforts over the past two years to complete the Multi-Species Framework Process that brought focus to and highlighted the critical need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to fish and wildlife mitigation in the Columbia River Basin. The Program Amendment Process now underway is the logical next step towards establishing a sound scientific foundation including broad policies, goals and objectives at both the Columbia River Basin and ecological province levels for future actions within the Program. We are in agreement with the Council’s approach as outlined in the Strawman document and ask that the Council clearly describe its goals and objectives for the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Our recommendations fall into several categories summarized briefly in this cover letter. A more detailed description of these points, where needed, is contained in the Enclosure(s). Please also incorporate by reference the Federal Caucus’ Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish – Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan (formerly known as the All H Paper) when it is released in several weeks. In it are coordinated recommendations from the agencies comprising the Federal Caucus. These recommendations outline a conceptual recovery plan that reflects the Administration’s views on the steps necessary to address survival and recovery issues for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species across their life cycles. Integrating these steps into the program would be a major step toward uniting two of the Region’s most promising mitigation and recovery planning processes.

Fish and Wildlife Budget Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) - As described in an April 3, 2000, letter to you and Council, the BPA Administrator addressed the fact that the expiration of the MOA covering Bonneville’s funding commitment for implementation of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinions will occur on September 30, 2001. She also addressed the disposition of the unspent carryforward funds originally planned for the FCRPS capital improvements as part of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation budgets and future fish and wildlife funding after the term of the MOA. Those points are still applicable and are summarized below.

Bonneville is committed to meeting its fish and wildlife obligations once they have been established, including its trust and treaty responsibilities, as stated in the Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles that Vice President Gore announced in September 1998. We are committed to funding the Bonneville share of the Regional Plan, as identified through both the Council’s Program and the FCRPS Biological Opinions, and have positioned ourselves financially through the rate setting process to abide by our commitment. For those funds budgeted for repayment to the Federal Treasury for Corps and Bureau capital improvements, a substantial amount remains unexpended due primarily to Congress’ decision not to appropriate funds along the timeframe originally estimated when the MOA was established. As we committed in the fish budget MOA, we will keep any funds planned, but unspent, available for the benefit of fish and wildlife and will not reprogram them for non-fish and wildlife use.

Additional funding needs that arise prior to the expiration of the MOA for actions identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion(s) for the protection of ESA-listed species, or for focused immediate actions to benefit fish and wildlife arising prior to the completion of a Regional Plan, are anticipated to be handled under existing MOA limits. We would look first to any unallocated funds in the Direct Program budget, second to any savings from completed projects through deobligations from their closed contracts, and finally, if necessary to reallocation between categories under the MOA. We believe, however, that an immediate focus upon reallocation under the MOA would shift the Region’s attention away from the development of a sound Regional Plan, part of which include Council’s efforts to establish a firm scientific basis, clear goals and measurable objectives for the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Improvements for Fish & Wildlife Project Implementation and Financial Management Standards - Our staff, in coordination with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), the Council, and others have been developing draft policies and procedures for our overall management of Bonneville-funded fish and wildlife projects. We have specifically focused upon improving the contracting, tracking, reporting for results, budgeting and invoicing by task, and overall data management for fish and wildlife expenditures of ratepayer funds. Once these policies and procedures have been completely developed and shared, we will require full support from the Council and the Columbia River stakeholders to begin implementation of all Bonneville-funded fish and wildlife contracts consistent with these standards.

The question of data management remains the key accountability issue for the regional fisheries managers. We are awaiting the results of the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s recent review of the regional data systems as well as the four Northwest Governors first annual report on past fish and wildlife investments through the Council’s Program. We feel these efforts will assist the Region’s stakeholders for use in future decision making.

Performance Standards for Projects – The concept of performance standards is gaining acceptance in the Region as a means by which attainment of specific recovery and/or mitigation objectives can be measured. They also serve as a more methodical basis for adaptive management. Several definitions should be clarified. A performance measure is a biological or environmental condition, e.g., survival or dissolved oxygen, which, when measured, indicates success or failure in advancing toward some specified objective or performance standard, e.g., 95% survival or 20% dissolved oxygen. For example, in the draft Mid-Columbia Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), one key performance measure is smolt survival passing a dam. The parties participating in the HCP have specified the performance standard as 95% smolt survival. Other performance measures and associated standards may emerge from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s long-term biological opinions or regional analytical forums such as Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH), Cumulative Risk Assessment or Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT).

Performance measures and standards are a valuable way to prioritize actions and assess progress toward clearly stated recovery or mitigation objectives. Bonneville recommends that the Council include recovery and/or mitigation objectives, performance measures and performance standards in its Fish and Wildlife Program. For example, the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program’s biological objectives might include numbers of adult anadromous and resident fish produced and relative proportions of wild, hatchery, or supplementation fish in any particular watershed or stream reach. In addition, performance measures and standards should be consistent with those under development by the Federal Caucus as outlined in its draft "Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish – Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan." Performance measures and standards should be developed and applied, recognizing that their application across all four "Hs" will affect a variety of state, Federal and Tribal jurisdictions. The integrated approach of performance standards across all life stages and all H’s is necessary to ensure continuity of population rebuilding and recovery strategies, connectivity of habitat and proper functioning of ecosystem processes, and ultimately, the population level performance necessary to lead to rebuilding and recovery. The integrated approach also provides the opportunity to best allocate available resources to achieve the greatest potential benefit to fish and wildlife.

Overall Coordination and Consistency of Council Program with Current Processes – The following regional processes affect fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin to some extent: The Federal Caucus’ Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish – Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan, Draft Biological Assessment on Operation and Configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and the soon to be released Biological Opinions on that subject, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Columbia Basin Forum, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lower Snake River Feasibility Study EIS, Clean Water Act TMDL development, various State and Tribal resource management plans, and U.S. v. Oregon. Coordination and consistency among these processes, particularly those requiring Bonneville’s compliance under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)and implementation of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program is essential for development and implementation of a comprehensive, scientifically sound, and cost-effective regional plan that will enable progress towards recovery of ESA-listed anadromous and resident fish populations.

Close coordination between the Program and the hydrosystem biological opinions for ESA compliance is essential. Given the urgent need for BPA to devote ratepayer resources to ensuring the avoidance of jeopardy to and aiding in recovery of ESA listed species, there is no room for conflicting mandates or duplicative processes. Consequently, BPA hopes that the program structure is such that when BPA meets its hydrosystem management obligations developed through processes specified in the forthcoming biological opinions, then those actions should be consistent with the Program. Where the Program addresses hatchery and habitat actions, especially immediate actions, BPA hopes that coordinated subbasin planning results in opportunities for achieving increased production and survival in those subbasins with listed species. Appreciating that the Council makes recommendations to BPA regarding priorities of measures, participants in the amendment process must remember that BPA and other federal agencies remain accountable for achievement of satisfactory progress and results.

Subbasin Assessments and Plans – The Council’s plan to support the Fish and Wildlife Program with a set of standardized subbasin assessments and plans is commendable. We believe this process should be accelerated so that, wherever possible, subbasin assessments, plans and subsequent provincial plans are finished within two years. The current time schedule needs to be accelerated to be effectively coordinated with the federal "Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish – Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan," and potential FCRPS Biological Opinion habitat actions.

Criteria for Prioritization of Possible Actions, Including High Priority Immediate Actions – Bonneville recognizes the importance of a process with clear criteria for early identification of critical actions in all program areas, especially hatcheries and habitat, that can help achieve progress towards recovery of salmon and steelhead stocks. We also realize the value of subbasin assessments and planning as valid tools for evaluating what has been accomplished to date in a geographic area, what biological gaps or needs still exist and for identifying new strategies to meet and resolve these needs. Bonneville emphatically does not wish to circumvent this valuable planning process for rigorous evaluation of projects for funding. We also appreciate the valuable work ongoing in these subbasins by the various stakeholders, particularly the local governments and the private landowners. We fully support the use of watershed assessments and plans for coordinating mitigation. Our proposed criteria outlined in the attachment to this letter respects the importance and value of the watershed assessment and planning process, as well as the need for the involvement of local groups and landowners in the planning, evaluation, selection and implementation of whatever actions are recommended. Consequently, we expect only a focused number of projects to be agreed upon regionally as actions that require an expedited evaluation and consideration for immediate implementation. Immediate action items benefiting critical need populations should fit a time frame for implementation by the end of 2001 and must have measurable, beneficial effects on these populations in the short term. We fully support and strongly encourage the Council to use their existing within-year process for considering immediate, high priority actions brought forward by the resource managers and others for implementation.

Continued Importance of Independent Science Review of Proposed Actions –Scientific review of projects by the Independent Scientific Review Panel since the inception of the Fish & Wildlife Budget MOA has strengthened the credibility of projects recommended by the Council and funded by Bonneville. We heartily recommend the continued rigorous review of criteria for the selection of projects, both early action and those reviewed on a rolling basis during the Council’s Provincial Review Process, and the projects themselves to help ensure that the most sound, scientifically-based projects are chosen for ratepayer funding. Those projects recommended by USFWS and NMFS for ESA compliance by Bonneville may also be reviewed for their scientific merit prior to implementation.

Comments on Current Program Issues: Crediting for Wildlife and Establishing a Crediting System for Offsite Mitigation– The Council’s crediting plan for past wildlife losses due to the operation of the FCRPS has been the prime example of accountability for mitigation actions within the region. Well over 50% progress has been achieved to date for these losses within the Basin with some projects approaching 100% mitigation or greater of the original construction losses. As project prioritization shifts to a geographic and ecologically based province and subbasin approach, how the present crediting plan for wildlife fits is unclear. If wildlife needs are subsumed within those identified within each geographic area, the present crediting plan may not be an appropriate gauge for mitigation. Conversely, using a quantifiable system for measuring progress towards a goal, such as the past wildlife crediting system, may be the best approach for gauging progress towards whatever goals are established for all other offsite mitigation funded under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

Bonneville has funded a wide range of activities as offsite mitigation, protection, and enhancement for fish & wildlife losses due to the construction and operation of the FCRPS since the passage of the Northwest Power Act in 1980. With the exception of wildlife, we have not received mitigation credit for these projects. As described in the "Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish" Paper, the Federal Caucus is considering establishing a tiered structure of performance standards including those across all of the H’s. This new concept of performance standards will allow a mix of measures to be chosen for achieving established performance objectives for survival increases along different salmon and steelhead life stages. Coupled with appropriate monitoring and evaluation, a record of progress towards achievement of these standards can be documented. We suggest the Council work closely with the Federal Caucus to establish a consistent set of performance standards and crediting system for all of the H’s . We also suggest the current wildlife crediting approach be the basis for how the region measures progress towards these performance goals.

In lieu policy – Consistent with the Northwest Power Act,BPA may use the Bonneville Fund to protect, mitigate, or enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development and operation of the FCRPS. Bonneville may do so as long as no other entity already has the authority or requirement pursuant to law or contract to make that expenditure. To ensure projects recommended by the Council meet this legal standard, Bonneville proposes that between the project prioritization stage and Council’s approval stage, projects that may possibly violate the in lieu funding prohibition be submitted to Bonneville for legal review. Bonneville would provide initial review within 10 days of a project’s submission. If Bonneville believes the project may violate the in lieu provision, Bonneville will provide a written explanation of why and work with the Council and the project proponent as needed to clarify the proposal and Bonneville’s decision.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your call for recommendations to the Amendment Process.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Austin
Deputy Director for Fish and Wildlife
Enclosure

bcc:
J. Johansen A-7
S. Wright K-7
K. Hunt KR-7
Smith KE-4
S. McNary KEW-4
M. Shaw KEWN-4
J. Rowan KEWI-4
J. Taves KR-7C
J. Smith KT-Spokane
P. Key LN-7
C. Whitney PL-6
Official File KEW (FW-24-11)

Go to top | Go to index