Report to Congress: A Review of Bonneville Power Administration
Reimbursable Account Programs Relating to Fish and Wildlife Expenditures
in the Columbia River Basin
June 9, 1999 | document 99-9
Jump to:
- Recommendations
- Appendix A. Review of the
BPA Reimbursable Account Programs in the Columbia River Basin as
Requested in the Senate-House Conference Report on Fiscal Year 1999
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (document ISRP 99-1).
- Appendix B. Executive Summary and
Background of the Report and Recommendations of the Northwest Power
Planning Council upon Review of the Corps of Engineers' Columbia River
Fish Mitigation Program (document 99-5).
Introduction
The Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 105-749) directed the Northwest
Power Planning Council and its Independent Scientific Review Panel to
review annually "the Columbia Basin fish and wildlife projects,
programs, or measures proposed in a Federal agency budget to be reimbursed
by the Bonneville Power Administration." The conferees directed the
Independent Scientific Review Panel (Panel) to complete its review by
April 1 of each year and the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) to
submit a report to the appropriations and authorizing committees in
Congress by May 15 of each year.
Congress asked the Panel to review reimbursable programs to determine
if they were consistent with the criteria included in section 4(h)(10)(D)
of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act as
amended in 1996. Those criteria require the Panel to determine if fish and
wildlife proposals 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." The Panel is to
include in its report to the Council "any recommendations that the
Panel considers appropriate to make the project, program, or measure meet
the criteria."
The Council is to make the panel's report and recommendations
available for public review and comment. The Council is then to
"fully consider" the panel's recommendation when making its
final recommendations to Congress on the reimbursable projects. If the
Council does not incorporate a recommendation of the Panel, the Council
must explain its reasons in writing.
This is the first year the Panel reviewed reimbursable programs.
Because the Council, the relevant federal agencies, and the Panel had
little time to organize the review this year, the Panel concluded it would
be impossible to do the kind of review necessary to offer specific
substantive recommendations relating to funding. The panel's report and
recommendations focused instead on how to structure the review process in
future years. A copy of the panel's report is attached as Appendix
A. The Council's report also focuses on recommendations for how to
conduct the review process next year and subsequent years.
Other Substantive Reviews
The fact that the panel's report and the Council's recommendations
focus on how to conduct a thorough review in the future does not mean the
Council or its independent scientific bodies have ignored the substantive
issues underlying the reimbursable programs. The panel's report and the
Council's recommendations should be viewed in the context of other
Congressionally directed and Council-sponsored reviews.
The first is the Council's recently completed Report
and Recommendations Upon Review of the Corps of Engineers?
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program (April 1999). The Corps?
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program consists largely of capital
modifications to the mainstem Columbia and Snake dams to improve fish
passage. Those modifications are paid for with Congressional
appropriations and reimbursed by Bonneville, forming a large part of the
reimbursable programs. Congress asked the Council to review the program in
1997. The Council's Independent Scientific Advisory Board (which
overlaps with the Panel) played an essential role in preparing the report.
The report includes recommendations to the Corps and Congress designed
to improve planning and financing for fish passage improvements at the
mainstem Columbia and Snake dams. The report also includes recommendations
to the Corps and other regional entities on biological and policy
considerations that should be central to decision making. Finally, the
report also provides recommendations to Congress on specific funding
priorities. The Council's recommendations from this report are included
as Appendix B.
The second Council-sponsored review, also called for by Congress,
involves federally-funded artificial fish production projects, which make
up another large component of the reimbursable budget. The Artificial
Production Review, as it is known in the region, will create formal
recommendations for a coordinated policy for the future operation of
federally funded hatcheries.
Finally, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently issued a
Biological Opinion on Columbia River Artificial Production. That opinion
took a thorough look at the artificial production programs paid for
through the reimbursable account. The opinion provided specific mandates
and recommendations for changes in hatchery operations, including making a
jeopardy finding regarding the effect of, among other programs, the
reimbursable Lower Snake River Compensation Plan activities on listed
Snake steelhead, and recommending reasonable and prudent alternatives.
These reviews and reports will or already have produced substantive
recommendations for Congress regarding reimbursable programs this year.
They also will provide valuable insights for future reviews.
Background on Reimbursable Programs
The panel's report summarizes the scope and function of the
reimbursable programs. The Council's report will not duplicate that
description. It is important to understand, however, that funding
procedures for major reimbursable programs have changed in recent years.
In 1996 and 1997, Bonneville signed Memoranda of Understanding with the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Army, respectively, to
directly fund operation and maintenance of the federal hydropower
projects. Bonneville sought the agreements to expedite necessary
maintenance at the dams. But these agreements also encompass the
reimbursable operations and maintenance expenses for the fish and wildlife
projects paid for by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
For the Corps, this includes the operation of fish facilities at the dams,
the hatcheries in the lower Columbia, Willamette, and Clearwater rivers,
and wildlife mitigation. For the Bureau, it includes the Leavenworth
Hatchery complex.
Congressional appropriations, the majority of which are reimbursed by
Bonneville, continue to pay for capital construction and research projects
for mainstem fish passage improvements at Corps dams. Reimbursed
appropriations also fund the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service and
Bonneville are discussing direct funding of that program.
The federal agencies also signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 1996
memorializing Bonneville's fish and wildlife budget commitment to
provide an average of $40 million for annual reimbursable operating costs
and another $100 million annually for direct funded projects until 2002.
An annex to that agreement described how the federal reimbursable programs
would provide budget information to ensure that the region's non-federal
agencies and tribes would have adequate opportunity to comment to Congress
on reimbursable budgets. This information sharing provision of the
agreement was complicated by the subsequent direct funding agreements, and
has not been completely implemented. However, these provisions will be
important to remember as Congress considers the panel's and the Council's
recommendations.
The panel's Recommendations
The Panel made four specific recommendations regarding future reviews
of the reimbursable portion of Bonneville's fish and wildlife mitigation
budget:
- All reimbursable projects should be evaluated using the criteria and
specifications used to review direct-funded programs. Specifically,
proposals, deadlines and other requirements should be consistent with
those for direct-funded programs.
- A staggered annual schedule should be established that prevents a
conflict between the timing of the reimbursable review and the review
of direct-funded projects.
- The Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau
of Reclamation should provide an inventory of research-related and
operations and maintenance projects to facilitate planning for future
reviews.
- A subcommittee of the Panel should work with Council staff to
develop a detailed plan for the review to be carried out in 2000.
The Council's recommendations, in response to the panel's report, are
described below. The recommendations focus on incorporating an annual
independent scientific review of reimbursable programs into federal
program planning, funding and implementation. As noted above, the Council
has or will address substantive issues presented by major portions
of the reimbursable programs in separate reviews this year.
Council Recommendations
1. The reimbursable project review should be timed and organized so
the Panel has adequate time and resources for a thorough review of the
reimbursable programs and Bonneville's direct fish and wildlife program
projects.
The Panel expressed concern that maintaining the current schedule for
the reimbursable programs poses a serious problem in allowing the Panel
and the Council to provide a quality review of both the direct and
reimbursable programs. The Council recommends that the review of
reimbursable programs be designed to avoid conflicts with other reviews.
The Panel recommended moving its annual reimbursables review to the second
half of the year, so that it would not overlap or conflict with the panel's
direct program review in the first half of the year as called for in the
Power Act amendment. However, this recommendation raises problems in two
particular areas:
(1) The current congressional report language requires the review of
reimbursable programs to be completed on April 1 of each year. This
deadline is tied to the schedule for the congressional appropriations
process, which the panel's and the Council's report is intended to
inform. A review by the Panel and the Council in the fall would be too
late to provide useful information for that year's congressional budget
decisions.
(2) Federal budget procedures limit access to program budget
information until the President's budget is submitted to Congress in
January or February, which would make it difficult for the Panel and the
Council to review the next year's budget proposals in the fall
and early winter.
To address this situation, the Council suggests establishing separate
types of scientific review for the distinct categories of reimbursable
programs. In addition, the Council makes the following recommendations:
1a. Reimbursable projects relating to artificial fish production and
wildlife mitigation should be reviewed during the review of direct
program projects.
The Council recommends that proposals for reimbursable expenditures
related to the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, the hatcheries funded
as part of the Corps? fish mitigation activities, and the Bureau of
Reclamation's Leavenworth hatchery complex be integrated into the review
of direct program production projects. The Council recommends the same
thing for the Corps? reimbursable expenditures for wildlife mitigation.
If this integration were to occur, the Panel would not deliver its
report and recommendations until June 15, and the Council would not
complete its final recommendations on these projects until September. Even
so, in its annual mid-May report to Congress, the Council would explain
what the Panel and the Council recommended in the past year on those parts
of the budget. The reimbursable artificial production programs do not
change significantly from year-to-year. Consequently, the review could
have the same impact as a review on the current schedule.
The Council would make this recommendation even if there were not a
timing problem. It makes sense to bring all the production programs
together in one independent scientific review. For example, the
reimbursable programs in the tributaries of the Snake River include the
Corps-funded Dworshak hatchery in the Clearwater and the Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan hatcheries in various subbasins. Direct program projects
implementing the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program also include artificial production programs in the same subbasins.
The direct program also funds a significant number of wildlife mitigation
programs that overlap with the Corps? wildlife mitigation projects.
These programs, and the region's ratepayers, would benefit from a more
coordinated scientific review.
In addition, the expenses for the Corps and Bureau hatcheries and for
Corps wildlife mitigation are directly funded by Bonneville, even though
they remain in the agency's "reimbursable" account. To
facilitate this change, the Council recommends that the Bonneville Power
Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service enter into a direct
funding agreement for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan program,
which would bring all of the reimbursable hatchery programs into the same
direct funding relationship.
1b. Projects relating to the Corps of Engineers? research should be
reviewed at the end of the calendar year as described below.
As described in the panel's report, every year the Corps funds a number
of research projects out of the reimbursable account, most relate to
mainstem fish passage issues. Part of the money spent on these projects
comes from the Corps? operations and maintenance budget. A larger part
comes from the Corps? general construction budget.
The best time for the review of the research program would be at the
end of the calendar year. At that time, the research plans for the next
spring/summer/fall research season would be reviewed. This would be after
the Corps? appropriations for that year had been enacted, so the Corps
would know the amount of research money it had to work with. For example,
a Panel review at the end of calendar year 2000 would focus on research
proposals for the 2001-research season. Projects for that season would be
paid for with money appropriated for Fiscal Year 2001.
This recommendation may provide the most value to the program because
every fall the Corps and other participants evaluate research results,
formulate workplans for the next season, learn what the budget amount for
research will be, and then evaluate and prioritize proposals for the
coming research season. The Corps then makes the final decisions and signs
the contracts around the beginning of the calendar year. The Council's
recommendation would insert the Panel and Council reviews after proposals
are developed and prioritized into an overall package against a set
budget, but before the Corps makes its final decisions.
If this procedure is implemented, the Council, in the annual mid-May
report to Congress, would explain what the Panel and the Council
recommended in the past year on the research part of the budget. Those
recommendations and projections for the next year could be used during the
appropriations process.
1c. The Council and the Corps of Engineers should organize the review
of the Corps? mainstem implementation and major study budget to allow
for optimum review by the Panel and the Council and to provide the
information needed by the Congress and the Corps to make decisions.
The third part of the reimbursable program consists of the capital
investments in fish passage projects and the major design/prototype
testing studies that are part of the Corps? Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Program. Examples of the former are the decisions to construct
the Bonneville Dam juvenile bypass out-fall, or to install extended-length
screens or flip lips at dams. Examples of the latter include the
study/prototype phase that the surface collector program is in, the
prototype testing of extended-length screens at the John Day Dam, the
study of alternative passage improvements at Bonneville's First
Powerhouse, and the Lower Snake River feasibility study.
The projects in this category are the most visible items in the Corps?
Columbia River fish and wildlife budget and in the reimbursable programs
as a whole. They are the budget items that are expensive and often
controversial. This program is subject to review and prioritization in the
region by the System Configuration Team, and was the subject of a recent
review by the Council and its Independent Scientific Advisory Board. See Appendix B.
The Council considered three different ways to structure the review of
the passage improvement construction/study program while addressing the
panel's concerns about their capacity to conduct such a review.
(1) The first approach would leave the review of these projects on the
current schedule set by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To
provide the Panel with the needed expertise, and to reduce the burden on
the panel's current members, the Council recommends that the size of the
Panel be expanded by allowing the Council to appoint two or three new
members with the capability to review mainstem projects. Rather than
increasing the number of members on the Panel, which might require an
amendment to the Northwest Power Act, the budget of the Panel could be
increased to provide for an additional peer review group (authorized under
the Act) with the needed expertise. The Council is concerned that the
panel's current budget may not be adequate to cover a thorough review of
the reimbursable program even if the schedule is changed and the existing
members are used.
If the review schedule is not changed and no additional financial
resources are available to augment the Panel, the Council strongly
recommends that the federal agencies should assist the Panel in completing
basic information gathering, analysis and review before the end of the
calendar year. The regional federal agencies have cooperated with the
Council and the Panel in providing what information they can, but as
described below, the agencies are constrained in how much information they
can provide. The Council and the agencies should work together to develop
an arrangement to obtain information needed for the review at an earlier
time. The early assistance from the federal agencies would help ensure a
thorough and timely product. Without that assistance or additional
personnel or financial resources, the quality of the review may suffer.
(2) The second possible approach would change the deadline for
completing the review from April 1 to a date in the fall or early winter.
The Panel recommended this approach. Under this scenario, the review and
recommendations would inform the budget recommendation the Administration
would propose after the turn of the year. Changing the date would help
distribute the panel's workload. The revised schedule also would offer
value to the Administration by providing independent review during the
development of its budget recommendations to Congress.
The Council recommends this change only if the relevant agencies
are able to provide adequate budget and project information on a timely
basis given current federal budget procedures. As noted, the regional
offices of the federal agencies have fully cooperated with the Panel and
Council in providing the project and budget information they are allowed
to provide. But the agencies are constrained by federal budget procedures
from offering specific information about what will be proposed for the
programs in the Administration's budget until the entire budget is
released by the Administration -- too late for a Panel review earlier than
March. The point of the recommendation is to allow the Panel and the
Council to conduct an earlier review by providing more and better budget
information in the fall and early winter, as the regional agencies and
then the central offices are preparing their budget requests.
In the Annex to the Bonneville fish and wildlife funding Memorandum of
Agreement, the federal executives at the cabinet level have committed to
"shar[ing] the greatest amount of federal budget information possible
in a timely fashion." This is to allow the Council and other regional
participants "to fully participate in the Bonneville fish and
wildlife budget management and allocation processes" so budget
requests from the regional federal agencies are made "in a manner
consistent" with recommendations from a regional review process. For
the review to work in the fall/early winter, the Panel and Council would
need hard information about what reimbursable programs are being proposed
in the Administration's budget.
(3) The third approach would shift the Panel and Council review away
from the annual budget cycle and direct it instead toward important
decision points for the Corps. That is, Panel and Council review would be
inserted before the Corps makes a decision to initiate a major study, at
critical midpoints in a study, and before final implementation decisions.
This kind of review could occur at any time of the year. The Council would
then, in its mid-May report to Congress, report on the results of any such
reviews in the previous year and provide funding recommendations to
Congress based on what was learned.
One reason to make this change is the fact that the Corps? budget
request each year for construction and major studies is composed mostly of
on-going projects. Even in this situation there could be some value in an
annual review of the budget package, but the focus would likely be
primarily on new projects included in the budget. If the point of the
review is to provide insight to the Congress and the Corps before major
investment decisions are made, it makes more sense to shift the review
process to before the Corps makes these decisions and places the items in
the budget.
A variation on this approach would be to arrange with the Corps to
allow the Panel to review tentatively proposed projects 15 months or so in
advance ? e.g., in the fall of 1999, the Panel would look at any project
being considered for possible implementation in the spring of 2001. Such a
review process might take place in two steps: first a review of the basic
concept underlying a possible proposed project more than a year in
advance; second a review of detailed implementation plans for selected
projects in the fall before implementation.)
If a shift of this type were made, the Corps of Engineers and other
participants in the region's System Configuration Team would need to
develop a firm schedule of when these decision points will occur so the
Panel and the Council could plan their workloads. Under this scenario, the
Council would still prepare a mid-May report to Congress, and it would
still make recommendations to Congress on the Corps budget based on
whatever review occurred prior to Congressional decision-making.
Although this approach is not directly connected to the congressional
budget cycle, we believe it offers the best opportunity for the Panel to
provide substantive recommendations to the relevant federal agencies. In
addition, the Council would still provide an annual report to Congress in
mid-May. Any relevant information produced by the reviews would be made
available at that time.
2. The federal agencies should provide thorough, accurate
information to facilitate scientific review using criteria consistent with
the review of direct program projects.
The Panel recommended that reimbursable program descriptions and
criteria for review be consistent with the project descriptions and review
criteria used for the direct program. The proposal format in the direct
program was developed collaboratively by Bonneville, Council staff, the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and the Independent Scientific
Review Panel. The proposal format collects information for use by each of
these entities and supports scientific peer review. The Panel has
repeatedly urged that projects use the project proposal guidelines
developed by the Scientific Review Group (SRG) in 1985. Those guidelines
are distributed with project proposal forms in Bonneville's direct
funded project selection process.
The Council concurs with the panel's recommendation. The Council will
work with the relevant federal agencies to improve the existing proposal
form so the federal agencies will be able to provide the Panel information
consistent with the SRG guidelines for project proposals. The information
collected also will be consistent with the information collected about
direct program projects.
3. The Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Bureau of Reclamation should create an annual inventory of reimbursable
research and operations and maintenance projects.
The Council concurs with the panel's recommendation that the Corps of
Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation
create an annual inventory of reimbursable research and operations and
maintenance projects. This recommendation is intended to streamline the
independent scientific review process. Many ongoing operation and
maintenance projects may not warrant annual independent scientific review.
A number of ongoing research and monitoring projects likely will fall into
the same category. The federal agencies should work with the Council to
create an annual inventory of reimbursable projects appropriate for
scientific evaluation. If there is a dispute about the appropriateness of
scientific review for a particular project, the Council recommends that
the project be subjected to such a review.
4. The federal agencies, the Council and the Panel should develop a
detailed plan for future annual reviews of reimbursable programs.
The Council believes this recommendation must move forward as soon as
possible. The plan must create an annual reimbursable review that provides
what the Congress, the Council and the federal agencies need in terms of
scientific review while also allowing the Panel adequate time to review
the direct program. The Council recommends that the appropriate federal
agencies participate in a work group with the Panel and the Council to
develop the plan.
Conclusion
Consistent with the original Congressional direction calling for the
Council to initiate an annual review of the Bonneville Power
Administration's reimbursable fish and wildlife programs, the Council
will forward a report to Congress on May 15th of each year. The
report will be based on the findings of the Independent Scientific Review
panel's reviews of 1) the reimbursable artificial production and
wildlife mitigation projects, 2) the Corps of Engineer's research
program relating to fish passage at its mainstem Columbia and Snake river
dams, and 3) the Corps? capital construction activities associated with
its Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program.
The reviews will be staggered throughout the year to ensure that the
Panel has adequate time and resources for a thorough examination of the
programs and projects. The artificial production and wildlife mitigation
projects will be reviewed in the spring and summer, concurrent with the
annual review of Bonneville's direct program expenditures. The review of
the Corps? research program will occur in the late fall, near the end of
the calendar year. The review the Corps? capital construction program
would occur prior to any significant decision to initiate a major study,
at critical midpoints in a study, and before final implementation
decisions. This kind of review could occur at any time during the year.
The Council will review the panel's recommendations pertaining to each
issue area and make its final recommendations in its annual, May 15th,
report.
The Council recognizes that this year's recommendations do not
address specific project funding questions. However, the Council believes
these procedural recommendations, if implemented, will allow the Panel to
help the Council, the federal agencies and the Congress make the best
possible decisions on fish and wildlife spending, instead of simply
allowing for criticism of the projects once they are proposed and poised
for implementation.
Appendix A. Review of the BPA
Reimbursable Account Programs in the Columbia River Basin as Requested in
the Senate-House Conference Report on Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill (document ISRP 99-1).
Appendix B. Executive Summary and
Background of the Report and Recommendations of the Northwest Power
Planning Council upon Review of the Corps of Engineers' Columbia River
Fish Mitigation Program (document 99-5).
^ top
|