• OUR PLANNING PROCESS
• NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

Our Planning Process: Direction from Congress

Congress specified the Commission's program focus on four key factors. The program should employ:

• An Ecosystem Approach
• Public Involvement
• Measures Based on Best Available Scientific Knowledge
• Partnerships

CUPCA also directed that the planning process be guided by priorities established by the Commission.

Planning Rule

The Commission developed a Planning Rule (43 CFR Chapter III Part 10005), based on Congressional direction, to define its process for developing the Mitigation Plan and to provide information to other agencies and the public about how they might participate. 

The planning process involves three steps: solicitation, evaluation and public review. The Commission accepts recommendations for new programs, program direction, or potential projects throughout the year. The Commission meets formally on about a monthly basis. The public is notified of agenda items in advance of meetings and is invited to comment on proposed Commission activities at the meetings. In addition, the Commission formally solicits proposals from the public and partner agencies when it releases its draft annual report for the year prior to issuing a combined five-year plan and annual report.

The Plan as a Budget Aid

The Mitigation Plan does not constitute a commitment of resources for any given project. The commitment to expend resources is dependent upon Congressional approval of annual appropriations and, since 2014, on Title IV Account interest earnings.

Following receipt of annual funds, Commission approval of specific projects is required; this occurs during public meetings of the Commission as previously described. The Commission will rely on the Mitigation Plan as the primary source of information for developing its annual budget request; however, any agency's budget request may undergo substantial alteration and adjustment before the appropriation process is completed. The President's budget and subsequent Congressional appropriation statute enacted each year establishes the appropriated funding levels for carrying out the Mitigation Plan.

The Commission has more discretion regarding the Title IV Account interest earnings. By choosing which investments to make with the Title IV Account corpus, the Commission can garner higher than prevailing interest rates, which results in higher interest payments that can be retained for program expenditure. Generally, higher interest rate investments require either a greater length of investment (2+ years), or higher initial premium payment to "buy in" to a particular investment, or both. In this way, the Title IV Account can be managed to produce high interest payments, which can be expended to accomplish Commission programs. The effect on the Title IV Account, though, is a reduced corpus value.

Plan Amendments

The Commission recognizes three types of revisions it may choose to make to its Mitigation Plans: Comprehensive, Substantive or Technical. The public may also petition the Commission to open the plan to amendment.

Comprehensive Revision
At the end of each 5-year period or as otherwise needed, the Commission undertakes a comprehensive review of the Plan to determine its adequacy and need for revision. Comprehensive revisions may be undertaken before the 5-year period, if the Commission deems it appropriate.

Substantive Revision
From time to time a substantive change to the Mitigation Plan may be needed. Typically, this would take the form of substituting one Plan element with another, making changes to a specific Plan element, or making significant modifications to a program. If the Commission determines there is a need for such substantive changes, a formal announcement is made and interested parties given the opportunity to provide recommendations. Portions of the Plan proposed for modification are released in draft form, with the public given 30 days to provide comments prior to formal adoption by the Commission.

Technical Revision
Technical revisions include changes that correct inadvertent errors, provide new information or other minor revisions that do not substantively modify the Plan. Technical revisions do not constitute a formal amendment to the Plan and do not require the notification and reporting procedures of a formal amendment. Affected agencies and interests will, however, be consulted and the rationale for making the technical revision documented.

Public Petitions
Agencies and members of the public have the right, at any time, to petition the Commission to open the plan to comprehensive or substantive amendments. Petitions must be made in writing and should state the specific reason why action is requested. Petitions will be reviewed by the Commission, and if accepted, will be subject to review procedures established for the five-year plan (see Section 1005.21 (b) of the Planning Rule (43 CFR 10005)). Proposals for technical amendments do not require a formal petition. Written requests for technical amendments will be acted upon by the Commission in a timely manner.

Commission Priorities

The Commission established four distinct priorities for completing the environmental program under CUPCA:

Priority 1 Complete unfulfilled mitigation commitments of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project as per the 1988 Definite Plan Report (1988 DPR).

Priority 2 Implement mitigation and conservation measures required as a result of the environmental review (NEPA-see below) process and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or Endangered Species Act compliance for Bonneville Unit Project features constructed pursuant to Title II of CUPCA.

Priority 3 Implement conservation projects within the Bonneville Unit area that restore fish and wildlife habitats and species populations and/or that provide related outdoor recreation opportunities.

Priority 4 Implement conservation projects that lie outside the Bonneville Unit that have substantial potential to restore fish and wildlife habitats and species' populations, or that provide habitats, populations and related recreation opportunities similar to those lost in the Bonneville Unit area due to CUP development.

Implementing Projects

Partnerships are important in moving projects forward, and the Commission generally gives priority to cost-share partners. Cost-sharing can be contributions of funds, in-kind staff time, and/or long-term operation and maintenance responsibility and funding.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, was passed by Congress to promote informed decision-making. The Commission is required to apply the NEPA process whenever it proposes an action, for example the Provo River Restoration Project, that may have an affect on the environment. While it is a federal requirement, the Commission also regards NEPA as a useful planning tool. The NEPA process, involving five steps, is a logical approach to problem solving that involves the public. Steps are as follows:

• Develop a statement as to project Purpose and Need - "Why Here, Why Now?"
• Develop an initial Proposed Action that addresses the Purpose and Need
• Interested publics are contacted for their Issues or concerns about the Proposed Action
• Alternatives to the Proposed Action are developed that still meet project Purpose and Need, but also address Issues
• All alternatives are evaluated for Environmental Affects

This five step process is documented in either an environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA) or categorical exclusion (CX). An EIS is required when the Commission anticipates a proposed action may have significant effects. An EA is prepared when there are no significant effects. A CX is prepared when effects are minimal.

The Commission uses the EIS, EA, or CX analysis to make their decision. This decision is documented in a record of decision, if based on an EIS; a finding of no significant impact, if based on an EA; and in a categorical exclusion checklist, if a CX.