Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Reclamation -- Water Management & Environmental Mitigation Assessment

The Bureau of Reclamation will institute a Reclamation-wide program of regular data collection on project specific mitigation actions.

The Bureau of Reclamation will develop Policy and/or Directives and Standards for the Mitigation Program.

The Bureau of Reclamation will improve the linkage between program performance and program budget requests.

Measure: Average dollars spent Reclamation-wide per environmental recommendation implemented.

Explanation:Reclamation's Activity Based Costing (ABC) process includes the category 8K, defined as "implementing recommendations to address ongoing operations and new species as specified in plans developed according to environmental laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), other environmental and fish and wildlife laws and regulations, and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)." As mitigation recommendations are specific to the project and impact, this measure provides an index of the cost of implementing recommendations. Reclamation-wide, in FY 2006, Reclamation spent $128,645,847 implementing 551 recommendations. The goal is based upon Reclamation's history of increasing costs for mitigation activities (see, for example, Reclamation's record of ESA expenditures, in the evidence book). Future targets are computed based upon containing costs to within the Treasury Department's implicit price deflator (defined as 112.129 in IRS Bulletin 2066-09, July 17, 2006).

Measure: Percent of fish hatchery mitigation targets met annually.

Explanation:The construction and operations of reservoirs and the diversion of water to irrigation and/or municipal and industrial uses changes the aquatic environment and often affects fish populations. This measure captures Reclamation's success in providing mitigation fish, whether sport fish such as rainbow trout, or threatened and endangered fish such as salmon or Rio Grande silvery minnow. The authority to take these actions is under laws such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), which provides authority to mitigate for impacts to sport fishing, or the Endangered Species Act, which mandates that federal agencies avoid jeopardizing the existence of endangered fish through their actions. This measure provides information on the direct success of Reclamation to provide such mitigation. The goal for this measure reflects success for all but one of Reclamation's hatchery activities. Occasional events beyond our ability to completely control, including disease outbreaks, brood stock failures, and water supply interruptions, can cause the loss of production for the entire year.

Measure: Percent of environmental recommendations implemented with official partners.

Explanation:This measure captures Reclamation's cost-effectiveness and collaboration in working with other Federal agencies, states, local governments, tribes, and other entities in cooperatively meeting mitigation objectives. Each year, the new 8K commitments are totaled and the number of those new commitments with partners is determined. The partners are defined in formal agreements or contracts or other documents, and are based on in-kind or dollar contributions to the mutual mitigation goal.

Measure: Percent of parcels acquired and administered for mitigation purposes, that meet purchase requirements.

Explanation:This measure captures Reclamation's efforts to assure mitigation lands acquired continue to meet their mitigation purposes with regular inspections. The goal is tied to the existing lands review which is on a 5 year cycle, meaning that while a variable amount of parcels may be examined in any one year (the annual goal is 20%), 100% of Reclamation lands are surveyed every 5 years. The target of 100% will be met every 5 years.

Measure: Percent of commitments for water release or storage met during a 5 year period. Percent of required, designated, or defined water releases or storage levels (commitments) met during each year of a 5 year period that meet biological requirements from Records of Decisions, Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, Reasonable and Prudent Measures.

Explanation:This measure reflects water release or storage mitigation requirements conducted under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to listed species or as part of a final decision upon project operations (i.e., in the Record of Decision), specifically addressing Reclamation's success in meeting established commitments to mitigate. This goal is dependent upon a rolling average of 5 past years. The baseline year represents the initial year used to meet the goal. Reclamation's annual targets will remain 90%, but the accomplishment of the goal will reflect the actual result achieved over a 5 year period. This rolling average is ambitious and necessary because water releases and storage are dependent upon a variety of natural conditions that Reclamation cannot control, such as weather and the ability to physically deliver the water to non-Reclamation facilities.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose defined as "Reclamation's Environmental Mitigation Program" is intended to avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse environmental conditions that are the result of existing water management activities. The purpose is derived from a variety of Federal environmental laws, including but not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (PL 91-190, section 101), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (PL 94-325, section 2(b)), the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251, sections 404, and 402(a)), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (PL 85-624, section 1). Mitigation and compliance with these and other environmental laws is collectively referred to as "the program" for this PART. Reclamation has policies in place related to the NEPA and ESA. These documents serve as the overarching framework of requirements that are incorporated into decentralized project operations or implementation. Compliance with one or another of these laws is typically considered a "project activity" and is accomplished at the project level, utilizing project authorities.

Evidence:

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the continuing need to address adverse effects on environmental conditions that result from Reclamation's water management activities. As new Reclamation discretionary actions are implemented, new impacts upon the environment can occur, resulting in new mitigation needs. Additionally, mitigation activities may be necessary on a continuing basis for some past effects. The program includes activities established by the NEPA process (commitments made in a Record of Decision or in the project description), accepted by Reclamation under the FWCA (Section 2(b)), mandated by the ESA (as an accepted "reasonable and prudent alternative" (RPA) or required "reasonable and prudent measure" (RPM)), and conditioned by CWA permits (sections 404 and 402(a)).

Evidence: It should be noted that each authorized project in Reclamation has its own localized, specific environmental needs or impacts that are addressed. The different laws focus on different aspects of the environment - NEPA is the most general, ESA is restricted to impacts to listed species and designated critical habitat, CWA section 404 is focused on impacts related to dredge and fill materials in waters of the United States, CWA section 402 is focused upon water quality, and FWCA is focused upon fish and wildlife resources, especially as related to water bodies and impacts from construction activities. As a result, there is considerable variability from project to project in the actions that are undertaken in the "mitigation program."

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program is designed to implement mitigation measures that are appropriate for Reclamation's projects and activities, and does not excessively overlap or duplicate other entities' mitigation for their actions upon the environment. No other Federal, state, local, or private program has this as its fundamental purpose. Reclamation maintains ESA and NEPA teams to assure expertise in meeting the requirements of these laws for Reclamation actions. The language of NEPA (PL 91-190, section 101), ESA (PL 94-325, section 2(b)), CWA permits (sections 404, and 402(a)), and the FWCA (PL 85-624, section 1), are the principle authorities for most of Reclamation's mitigation program activities. The principle focus is to respond to the impacts of Reclamation's project operations upon the environment and encourage partnerships with state, local, tribal and other entities in that response. While other Federal agencies, states and local entities may mitigate for their actions, no other existing program mitigates for Reclamation's actions. It is inefficient for uninvolved agencies to assume responsibility for Reclamation's mitigation needs because Reclamation is responsible, under NEPA, for the analysis of those needs and has the best understanding of Project authorities, actions, and impacts. Where states or local governments have similar laws or regulations that require mitigation, Reclamation's mitigation activities are designed to be complementary. Reclamation seeks to involve affected states or municipalities as partners when a proposed action has Federal as well non-federal components to assure that mitigation is complementary, and not competitive.

Evidence: For example, California is often a co-lead in the NEPA process for actions within California, New Mexico is commonly a co-lead in major Reclamation actions (i.e., actions requiring an Environmental Impact Statement) within New Mexico, and North Dakota is currently a co-lead for the on-going Red River Water Supply EIS. Another California example is that Reclamation's Tracey Fish Facilities Loss Program is closely coordinated with the state's Four Pumps Program, and is designed to mitigate losses of fish species of concern to the state and Federal government. In addition to the California examples, the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the City of Aurora Proposed Excess Capacity Contracts, (Colorado) identifies the specific mitigation actions to be carried out by both Reclamation and the City of Aurora. The Environmental Assessment assigns each entity the appropriate actions assuring that mitigation is not redundant or duplicative. A second specific example is the Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the City of Albuquerque Drinking Water Project. In this example, the required mitigation commitments were assumed by the City of Albuquerque as the project beneficiary. As the City has assumed the responsibility for the commitments, Reclamation's role is one of oversight, thereby avoiding redundancy and duplication of effort.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: No major flaws with the program have been identified. The Program has been defined with a specific purpose (to avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse environmental conditions that are the result of existing water management activities) and a specific scope (includes various mitigation activities which address the adverse effects of Reclamation's existing water management upon the environment). The program performance measures are responsive to the numerous actions Reclamation implements in accordance with the program purpose and within the defined scope. To illustrate, the lands acquired for mitigation purposes are tracked, reviewed and maintained to ensure the mitigation purposes are retained; water operations/management actions identified for mitigation purposes are tracked and reviewed to ensure that the mitigation requirements are met; the fisheries mitigation commitments are tracked and reviewed in order to ensure that the mitigation requirements are met; and, the costs of commitments are tracked. The program performance measures were designed to ensure the program was operating efficiently by measuring not only short term goals, but these short term goals will in turn provide long term efficiency measures when tracked and evaluated over a period of time. Internal controls for this program are provided by established policy concerning NEPA (ENV P03) and ESA (PO4). The NEPA policy directs alternatives be developed for actions which may significantly affect the environment and references the required compliance with NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. Reclamation's ESA compliance policy (ENV P04) requires that Reclamation assure that its actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat and also references the required compliance with 50 CFR part 402. External reviews have taken place on various aspects of the program which provided, and continue to provide, an opportunity to identify any major flaws that would limit the programs effectiveness and/or efficiency. Thus far, no major flaws have been identified. Specifically, the National Academy of Science reviews of projects/programs (Platte River Recovery Program, Klamath Project and Glen Canyon Operations) have not identified programmatic deficiencies. In addition, independent external reviews of project activities are conducted by the appropriate regulatory agencies (FWS for ESA, EPA for NEPA, and USCOE for CWA 404 permitting) to ensure that the data used and descriptions of effects are scientifically based, appropriate to the action, and in compliance with law and regulation. Reclamation has defined Reclamation-wide specialist teams for NEPA and ESA to identify and address major issues relative to NEPA and ESA and to assist Projects in meeting policy and legal responsibilities. Neither these teams, nor the regulatory agencies involved in Reclamation's mitigation program (including the EPA, FWS, Corps, etc.) have identified major flaws on a programmatic level which they believe must be corrected to improve the program's efficiency or effectiveness.

Evidence: For example, the FWS independently reviews any proposed project activities for impacts to listed species and designated critical habitat. For long-term actions, FWS and/or NMFS also provides annual reviews of sufficient progress in compliance with mitigation commitments under the ESA. Specific examples include the Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Program and the Federal Columbia River Power System, both of which receive such reviews and sufficiency memos. Under regulatory authority (Sec. 309 of the Clean Air Act), EPA reviews all Environmental Impact Statements proposing new actions or major revisions to existing actions. These reviews specifically address the adequacy of the analysis of impacts and mitigation and the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed action. These are rated separately, with ratings ranging (for environmental impact) from a "Lack of Objections" to "Environmentally Unsatisfactory". The ratings system for adequacy of the analysis ranges from "Adequate" through "Insufficient Information" to "Inadequate". FWS/NMFS regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402.14 (g-i)) describes how they review the information provided by the action agencies and how they develop their biological opinion(BO). FWS/NMFS responsibilities include: 1) reviewing all relevant information provided, which may include conducting an on-site inspection; 2) evaluating the effects of the current status of the species; 3) evaluating the effects of the agency action and cumulative effects; 4) formulating its biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species; 5) discussing with the Federal agency their evaluation, the basis for any finding in the BO, and the availability of any reasonable and prudent alternatives that can be taken by the agency to avoid violation of Section 7 of the ESA; 6) formulating any discretionary conservation measures which will assist the agency in reducing or eliminating the impacts of the proposed action on listed species; 7) formulating a statement concerning incidental take of listed species; and 8) utilizing the best scientific and commercial data available, including giving appropriate considerations to any beneficial action taken by the Federal agency. In developing their BO, FWS/NMFS is also required to include a statement concerning incidental take, if appropriate, that includes: 1) the amount or extent of any incidental take; 2) the reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse impacts; 3) the terms and conditions (including but not limited to reporting requirements) that must be complied with by the Federal action agency and 4) any monitoring or reporting requirements on the progress of the action and impacts. Reclamation has defined Reclamation-wide specialist teams for NEPA and ESA to identify and address major issues relative to NEPA and ESA and assist Projects in meeting policy and legal responsibilities. Neither these teams, nor the regulatory agencies involved in Reclamation's mitigation program (including the EPA, FWS, Corps, etc.) have identified major flaws on a programmatic level which they believe must be corrected to improve the program's efficiency or effectiveness. Additionally, many of our project specific mitigation programs (e.g. Multi-species Conservation Program, Platte River Restoration, Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program, and the Federal Columbia River Power System) include elements of adaptive management. Adaptive management is just one tool to assure, where there are uncertainties in a system, that the program can be changed - or adapted - as new information becomes available to assure effectiveness.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program only addresses environmental issues, offsetting or mitigating for, Reclamation's water management actions. The beneficiaries (i.e., the environment and the benefits to the public) are directly addressed by the program. The language of NEPA (PL 91-190, section 101), ESA (PL 94-325, section 2(b)), CWA permits (sections 404, and 402(a)), and the FWCA (PL 85-624, section 1), which are the principle authorities for most of Reclamation's mitigation program activities, are specific to responding to Reclamation's impacts, or are specific that Reclamation work in partnership with state, local, or other entities for the mitigation of environmental impacts. For example, the fish hatchery performance measure is designed to address specific benefits to the public relative to sport fish or threatened and endangered fish.

Evidence: Funding for environmental commitments (i.e., mitigation) is tracked within Reclamation's activity based costing system. One example from the Pacific Northwest Region is the technical assistance provided for the removal of fish passage barriers, allowing increased salmonid spawning opportunities. This activity is tracked by an individual cost number through the activity based costing system. Funding is reported quarterly, and Regional Financial Officers are required to assure costs are correctly recorded for the intended purpose. For ESA and CWA elements of the mitigation program, conditions and monitoring are required and reporting of results must be sent to the applicable reporting agency (FWS, Corps, applicable state, or EPA), which acts as an independent review and assures that the intended environmental benefits occur.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long-term performance measures (covering multi-year time periods) are specific to the individual Reclamation projects and its mitigation measures. Under the ESA, the long-term performance measures that Reclamation shares with other agencies such as the FWS are either 1) ensuring that Reclamation's actions avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of endangered species, or 2) recovering the species to the point of delisting.

Evidence: This target is reflected in the hatchery performance measure (especially where endangered fish are being reared) and in some project specific components of the water performance measure. Long-term measures include: 1) The Land performance measure is a long-term measure because the lands are retained by Reclamation to continuously meet mitigation requirements. Lands have generally been acquired to replace species habitat that was lost as a result of project construction and operations. These lands are inventoried on a 5-year cycle to ensure they are maintaining or meeting the mitigation commitment. 2) The Water performance measure is an annual measure, but the cumulative, long-term effect relative to ESA is to meet the goals of avoiding jeopardy for Reclamation's projects, and assist in the recovery of threatened and endangered species. As such, it has been defined as both a long term and annual goal. This acts as a long-term measure because Reclamation's obligation is to mitigate for its present and future effects on the resource(s) resulting from the construction and continuous operations of projects. There is no mitigation requirement to "improve" habitat beyond its condition before Reclamation's action occurred, and this requirement is reflected in the mitigation program definition. Annual measures having a cumulative long-term effect are applicable to most of Reclamation's performance measures. For example, hatchery targets are defined and measured annually, but their underlying goal is to support populations of sport and listed fish species over a number of years (indefinitely, in some cases). Water acquisitions and releases, while an annual measure, provide multi-year support for existing populations of listed fish. Partnering targets are designed to provide long-term support for mitigation activities in an efficient and effective manner through multi-party and multi-year efforts.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: We have targets that are ambitious over the long-term, mostly related to ESA compliance. Performance of these goals will require effective partnership coordination, the ability to adapt to variables outside of Reclamation's control, and the necessity of addressing often conflicting funding priorities. Similarly, Reclamation's land condition performance measure is specific to meeting land acquisition purposes over the long term and requires effective partnerships with managing entities (often states) with their own set of priorities and funding procedures. All these measures are constrained by natural conditions and must adapt to changing conditions to assure that the appropriate environmental conditions on the land are achieved and maintained.

Evidence: The ambitious targets can be demonstrated by looking at individual Reclamation projects such as the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), and the Platte River Restoration Program. The long term target under FCRPS is the removal of the system's contribution to jeopardy for 12 listed salmonid runs in the Columbia River. Each run has its own timing and location for reproductive activities, and efforts to remove jeopardy causing conditions require cooperation and collaboration among 10 partners consisting of Federal agencies, state and local governments and tribes. The Platte River Restoration targets removal of conditions leading to jeopardy in a reach of the Platte River in Central Nebraska. Conditions have and are continuing to develop which reduce the river sandbar habitats important to whooping cranes, piping plovers, and interior least terns. Reclamation, along with a number of partners, including 3 states, water districts, and private organizations, are working together to address the issue. The first cycle of activities is scheduled to occur over a 12 year time frame.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Reclamation's two specific annual goals are: Percent of fish hatchery targets met and the cost per environmental recommendation implemented (based upon activity based costing). Each of these goals is measured annually (and the activity based costing is reported quarterly).

Evidence: The fish hatchery goal, for those hatcheries which produce listed fish, support long-term recovery of listed species, a requirement of the ESA, and the environmental recommendations recorded in activity based costing include both short term and long term activities. Recommendation specific information has not been collected Reclamation wide prior to FY 2006. However, the total funding for ABC Code 8K is available for mitigation (minus about $125,000,000 those activities covered by CVPIA, power, and land management, separately PARTed) for both FY 2005 and FY 2006. These data show that in FY 2005, total expenditures were about $84,099,000, and for FY 2006, total expenditures were about $105,473,000, an increase of 25%, which reflects expected cost growth - and supports the future performance measure targets as ambitious. To demonstrate progress toward achieving the long term goals of the program, Reclamation also uses the percent of commitments for water release or storage met during the fiscal year as a performance measure. This measure is also long term/annual in nature and, while met annually, is responsible for maintaining long-term habitat conditions for target resources.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: FY 2006 data has established the baseline information for performance. The defined targets reflect both this baseline information and projections of future activities and needs. Existing baselines for each of the performance measures have been developed using FY 2006 data. Targets have been projected at least two years into the future.

Evidence: Many of the specific mitigation activities, as reflected in the targets, are the result of compliance activities under ESA or the CWA, and future needs will be defined by compliance requirements. Additionally, all Reclamation discretionary actions which may significantly affect the environment are reviewed under the NEPA process, which requires the development of alternatives, identification of impacts, and consideration of any reasonable actions to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation actions for implementation, developed in the NEPA process, are defined in Records of Decision. Often these targets reflect the need to maintain existing conditions under changing future conditions, rather than to show continuous improvement. These goals are ambitious because many factors outside Reclamation's control affect performance as fish hatchery production is not easily predicted. Where natural returning fish are used for brood stock - the case for salmon - ocean conditions or other unknown factors can reduce returning stock to levels that are unable to produce adequate numbers of young. Another example of the unpredictability of production is the potential for disease, such as whirling disease, to impact the survival rates of hatchery reared fish. Reclamation has 24 fish hatchery commitments and 23 were met in the baseline year, FY 06. Given the factors discussed above the goal of 96 percent for hatchery targets is ambitious, in that only one commitment can be missed for Reclamation to still meet this goal. It remains unclear how Reclamation developed the estimated the targets for the "average dollars spent" performance measure.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: When Reclamation has a mitigation requirement that is not being directly managed by Reclamation (as is often the case), an agreement is established with the managing partner defining the management goals, and assuring their support for those management goals. Each agreement establishes reporting requirements, but, for lands acquired by Reclamation, including those managed by a partner, reviews are completed on a 5-year cycle to assure they are meeting the purpose for which they were acquired.

Evidence: For example, on the Republican River, Reclamation's lease agreement with the State of Nebraska specifically identifies mitigation lands to be managed by the State and outlines conditions for management. These lands are inspected at least once every 5 years to assure their purposes are met.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Reclamation has brought in independent, outside peer reviewers as needed to evaluate scope and quality of mitigation. As needed, Reclamation has had the National Academy of Science evaluate or report on the mitigation goal and needs at specific projects. Examples include the Platte River Recovery Program, the Klamath Project, and Glen Canyon Operations. Another example is on the Republican River, where Reclamation established an inter-agency team (including 2 states and the EPA) to develop and evaluate data on selenium in the basin and determine what (if any) mitigation actions would be appropriate and effective. In addition, Reclamation's ongoing compliance with NEPA for proposed actions with potentially significant effects upon the environment is reviewed by the EPA for adequate data as well as acceptable environmental effects. The EPA is charged with providing an independent review of the proposed action, its effects upon the environment, and the adequacy of the data presented. These reviews specifically address the adequacy of the analysis of impacts and mitigation and the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed action. These are rated separately, with ratings ranging (for environmental impact) from a "Lack of Objections" to "Environmentally Unsatisfactory". The ratings system for adequacy of the analysis range from "Adequate" through "Insufficient Information" to "Inadequate".

Evidence: Reclamation's ongoing formal consultations related to the Endangered Species Act (section 7) with the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (designated as the expert agencies with respect to ESA issues), provide independent evaluations of the proposed mitigation as it relates to listed species. The Biological Opinion (BO) is produced by FWS/NMFS as part of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process in their role as the regulatory agency. The Section 7 consultation process requires Reclamation to identify the effects of the proposed action upon threatened and endangered species. The BO responds to the data and conclusion contained in the Biological Assessment and is FWS/NMFS' independent review of the document and findings. FWS/NMFS regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402.14 (g-i)) describe how they review the information provided by the action agencies and how they develop their BO. FWS/NMFS responsibilities include: 1) reviewing all relevant information provided, which may include conducting an on-site inspection; 2) evaluating the effects of the current status of the species; 3) evaluating the effects of the agency action and cumulative effects; 4) formulating its biological opinion as to whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species; 5) discussing with the Federal agency review their evaluation, the basis for any finding in the BO, and the availability of any reasonable and prudent alternatives that can be taken by the agency to avoid violation of Section 7 of the ESA; 6) formulating any discretionary conservation measures which will assist the agency in reducing or eliminating the impacts of the proposed action on listed species; 7) formulating a statement concerning incidental take of listed species; and 8) utilizing the best scientific and commercial data available, including giving appropriate considerations to any beneficial action taken by the Federal agency. In developing their BO, FWS/NMFS is also required to include a statement concerning incidental take, if appropriate, that includes: 1) the amount or extent of any incidental take; 2) the reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse impacts; 3) the terms and conditions (including but not limited to reporting requirements) that must be complied with by the Federal action agency and 4) any monitoring or reporting requirements on the progress of the action and impacts. For long-term actions, such as Columbia River Operations, annual reviews of progress by FWS or NMFS are performed. See, for example, the Findings Report from NMFS regarding adequacy of the Action Agencies' 2002 Annual Implementation Plan, a review which occurs annually for Reclamation (along with the Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration). Reclamation's ongoing mitigation under the Clean Water Act section 404 requires consultations with the Corps and with states with delegated authority, which serve as independent reviews of the effects Reclamation actions may have on waters of the United States and wetlands, and the mitigation measures proposed or implemented. These reviews are a result of the Corps regulatory authority and are independent of Reclamation's proposed action. A similar review is required with the states for section 402 of the Act. These reviews are on-going for each new action and Reclamation is required to report to FWS or NMFS monitoring results to assure activities are meeting the defined needs. All future actions where compliance with NEPA, ESA, and CWA is required will include planning to determine the appropriate mitigation and implementation.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Individual mitigation elements within Reclamation projects have specific budget requests that are critically evaluated through Reclamation's Budget Review Committee process. However, there is no clear linkage between budget requests and performance.

Evidence: Reclamation's environmental managers develop annual work plans (or work plans on longer cycles such as 10 year construction projects) that are submitted to the appropriate area office and then regional office committee for scrutiny. The work plans have specific mitigation targets tied to the goals for the mitigation action, and to the budget request. After peer review at the various hierarchical levels within Reclamation, the work plans and budget request are submitted to Washington. The major program elements will clearly relate to specific program goals and related budget requests. An example is the temperature control device installed at Flaming Gorge Reservoir (for trout mitigation). This project was planned, approved, budgeted and implemented to support mitigation at Flaming Gorge. Mandatory elements of the program (such as ESA and CWA compliance) are funded within project operations. Additionally, large scale programs, such as the Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) (Lower Colorado Region) and Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) (Upper Colorado Region), have been developed and budgeted to address an identified unacceptable environmental condition associated with Reclamation water operations. In the recently established MSCP, the loss of native habitat has been recognized as a significant environmental condition, and a contributing factor in the listing of several species (Yuma clapper rail, southwest willow flycatcher, etc.). The MSCP has been steadily increasing in budget to address the identified needs. For the RIP (a more established program), budget data shows a leveling of costs as program activities are implemented. When new specific items are identified for the RIP (such as a new fish ladder at an irrigation diversion dam, for example) those items are budgeted and constructed to meet the need.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Reclamation has acted to correct its strategic planning deficiencies by developing a suite of long-term, annual and efficiency measures to help monitor the program's performance. Baselines have been established for all measures and ambitious targets set for its annual and long-term measures.

Evidence: An example of one such measure is "average dollars spent Reclamationwide per environmental recommendation implemented." This efficiency measure is designed to ensure that costs are contained for implementing environmental recommendations to address ongoing operations and new species as specified in plans developed according to environmental laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), other environmental and fish and wildlife laws and regulations, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The measure provides an index of the cost of implementing recommendations. Because of significant differences between what may be recommended for similar or different actions, this is more an index of efficiency as opposed to a direct measure of efficiency. Nonetheless, the measure provides useful data in determining the program's performance and possible areas for improvement. Another efficiency measure, "Percent of environmental recommendations with official partners," is designed to capture Reclamation's cost-effectiveness and collaboration in working with other Federal agencies, states, local governments, tribes, and other entities in cooperatively meeting mitigation objectives. The partners are defined in formal agreements, contracts or other documents, and are based on in-kind or dollar contributions to the mutual mitigation goal. The program has also adopted two measures as long-term performance indicators. The first measure is both an annual and long-term performance indicator, "Percent of parcels acquired and administered for mitigation purposes that meet purchase requirements." This measure captures Reclamation's efforts to assure mitigation lands acquired continue to meet their mitigation purposes with regular inspections. The goal is tied to the existing lands reviews which are on a 5-year cycle. Another long-term measure developed by the program is the "percent of required, designated, or defined water releases or storage levels (commitments) during the fiscal year that meet biological requirements from RODs, RPAs, and RPMs". This measure reflects water release or storage mitigation requirements conducted under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to listed species or as part of a final decision upon project operations (i.e., in the Record of Decision), specifically addressing Reclamation's success in meeting established commitments to mitigate. Baselines have been set for all measures developed by the program and targets set through 2009. The program will continue to monitor its performance to determine if additional measures are warranted or more suitable for facilitating program management and decision-making.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Data on the performance measures are collected at least annually and the activity based costing data are collected quarterly. Interior has required each bureau to report activity based costing activities, starting in FY 2004. Such reporting requires both financial and output reporting for each activity on a quarterly basis. The majority of ESA related mitigation actions include monitoring for effectiveness or for the 'take' of listed species. These data are collected by Reclamation and are reviewed by FWS or NMFS for sufficient progress in meeting established goals. Even where sufficient progress exists (which is usually the case), FWS or NMFS makes recommendations on program improvement, based upon the performance data. These data and recommendations are considered by Reclamation in development of annual work plans and future budget proposals. Contract reviews and sufficiency reviews involve various different partners when assessing performance. Partners commonly manage Reclamation's lands, including mitigation lands. At least once every 5 years, those lands are reviewed to assure they are meeting project (i.e., mitigation) purposes. Where partners are involved in water releases (for example, where a water district has operational responsibility for a Reclamation diversion structure), Reclamation monitors releases to assure require mitigation releases are made (or restrictions upon diversion enforced). Much of the work in this program is performed by contractors or cooperators (key partners for those elements of the program); there is oversight and validation of performance through monitoring and inspecting of contractors and cooperators. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (CO) oversee the contract performance. COs are responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with all terms and conditions of an existing contract, and safeguarding the interests of the US in its contractual relationships. The COR performs timely monitoring of contract performance by performing technical oversight and administration of the contract to ensure timely inspection, rejection, or acceptance of contract deliverables. Cost data for environmental recommendations is reported throughout the year via the bureau's activity based costing system. The data is made available to managers throughout Reclamation for consideration in program management. It is also reported to Interior on a quarterly basis. This data is still relatively new for Reclamation and is undergoing refinement and analysis to utilize it more effectively. A process through which Reclamation will utilize this data to adjust program priorities, allocate resources, and take other management actions is under development. The program has collected baseline data for each of its measures and has set meaningful, ambitious performance targets to facilitate improved performance. Where adaptive management is in place, element specific goals are established and reviewed as part of the adaptive management program. Where adequate progress is not being made to meet defined goals, the actions will be modified in a further attempt to meet those goals. A major example is Glen Canyon Dam, where high flows have been released to support habitat in the Grand Canyon. Each of these test flows has been evaluated to determine whether the habitat goals have been met.

Evidence: The evidence book contains examples of how this works for the Colorado Upper Basin Fish Recovery Program. There is an annual meeting to review data from the previous field season, and recommendations for improvement are made for the coming year. Nonnative fish removal (specifically addressing concerns with channel catfish) is an issue addressed at the February and April meetings, and, as a result of data collected and discussed (with key program partners), increased control efforts have been appended to the workplan proposal. Thus, data collected in the program (high channel catfish populations) lead directly to a change in program management (increased control efforts) to support program goals (supporting listed native fish) and improve performance. Another specific example of how Reclamation collects program performance information, including from partners, and uses it to manage an environmental program and improve its performance is the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). This is a partnership of Federal and non-Federal Stakeholders responding to the need to balance the use of the lower Colorado River water resources and the conservation of native species and their habitats in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Funding and Management Agreement (FMA) establishes Reclamation as the entity responsible for implementing the LCR MSCP, and a Steering Committee to provide input and implementation oversight. Currently there are 56 members of the Steering Committee. In accordance with the FMA an Implementation Report, Work Plan and Budget (Annual Report) is submitted to the Steering Committee annually. The Work Plan is developed utilizing data gathered relative to prior activities and their impacts, or on new information. Based on the program goals and data used to develop activities and schedules, the Work Plan identifies a broad range of proposed activities and is reviewed and approved by both the Steering Committee and the FWS. In addition to the annual Work Plan, the LCR MSCP Adaptive Management Program (AMP) addresses uncertainties encountered during implementation of the conservation measures outlined in the Habitat Conservation Plan. The program has three central components: a) gauge the effectiveness of existing conservation measures; b) propose alternative or modified conservation measures, as needed; and c) address changed and unforeseen circumstances. The Steering Committee and the FWS review and approve the alternative or modified conservation measures as indicated by ongoing monitoring and data collection. A typical example of the relationship of data collection and program management and improvement is in the Lower Colorado Region, where data is continually collected for implementation of the MSCP. In one case, they experienced issues with riparian tree plantings in land that was previously agricultural. After planting monitoring indicated that the trees were being choked by a weed called morning glory, reducing success. Subsequent planting management was modified to include pre-emergent spraying, plowing after watering, but before tree planting to reduce morning glory populations, and other methods to improve the effectiveness of the establishment of riparian vegetation.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Reclamation managers are responsible for cost, schedule and performance results for mitigation program elements. While Reclamation managers are required to demonstrate performance results through appropriate annual performance standards, there are no clearly defined or quantifiable performance standards applied to all Reclamation contracts. Accountability is also through the oversight and monitoring of contracts with program partners. Reclamation has a number of Directives and Standards which define BR-wide contract conditions related to contract performance. These include: LND 08-01 (Land Use Authorizations), WTR 08-01 ((Periodic District Reviews of Water Deliveries with Respect to Contract Terms - Process for Resolving Unauthorized Use), and PEC 05-01 (Water-Related Contract and Repayment Principles and Requirements), among others. These represent a sub-set of the types of contracts Reclamation may grant with mitigation elements, but establish that Reclamation-wide standards do exist for these types contracts. Generally, contracts and agreements contain explicit requirements for performance or compliance reporting. For example, the program results in the award of grants and cooperative agreements. Under OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110, recipients are required to submit performance reports. These are carefully tracked to ensure performance. Furthermore, contracts specify a fixed price along with the performance period to ensure accountability for both costs and schedules.

Evidence: Specific examples, including partners, are the Platte River Governance Committee and the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program Management and Biology Committees, which track costs, schedules, and performance. In addition, the Lower Colorado River MSCP's Funding and Management Agreement describes the duties of Reclamation's Program Manager including: 1) administering and implementing the LCR MSCP in a manner that complies with the requirements of the ESA, other applicable Federal and state laws, and the Program Documents; 2) directing the preparation of the LCR MSCP implementation schedules and cost estimates, an annual program Implementation Work Plan and Budget, and periodic contribution payment schedules, and, as necessary, directs the preparation of any changes to these documents; 3) establishes one or more Program Accounts, as deemed necessary and appropriate, for the administration of funds from any contributor or other participant in the LCR MSCP; and 4) reviews and discusses with, and attempt to seek a consensus among, members of the Steering Committee and its subcommittees and work groups, and attempts to resolve any disputes.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Reclamation and partners involved in collaborative efforts for mitigation, such as the MSCP and the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program develop work plans and schedules for activities addressing mitigation. The work plans and schedules are approved by an executive committee, comprised of the partner organizations, including Reclamation. Funds are obligated in a timely manner in accordance with the work plans and schedule. Expenditures and implementation are monitored in accordance with the partner agreements.

Evidence: Expenditures are reviewed using activity based costing. All purchase requisitions are reviewed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and approved by the appropriate approving official or budget officer to ensure availability and appropriate use of funds. "The COR monitors contract performance and compliance with contract payments and completion requirement to ensure accurate payments" as stated in Procurement, Obligations, and Disbursement process memorandum. The project manager is provided fund utilization reports, usually on a monthly basis, to ensure appropriate financial oversight. The FY 2006 enacted budget for the MSCP was $9,456,000 of which $1,734 was carried over into FY 2007. The Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program's enacted budget was $12,300,000 and the FY06 unobligated balance of approximately $12,000 was carried over into FY 2007. Larger program elements generally have a separate reporting requirement for performance. For example, the Multi-Species Conservation Plan has a plan for the current year (FY 2007) and prepares an accomplishment report annually (current to FY 2005). Another principle reporting mechanism is the annual ESA Expenditure Report. Reclamation carefully tracks ESA expenditures by species and reports this annually to the FWS who in turn provides the report to Congress. Reclamation has developed and documented several internal control process memos to ensure strong financial reporting such as Process Memos for: 1) Reporting, 2) Budgeting, and 3) Procurement, Obligations, and Disbursements. As stated in the Reporting process memo, Reclamation's annual report, required by the CFO Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform act of 1994 is prepared in accordance with guidance contained in OMB Circular A-136 "Financial Reporting Requirements". Reclamation uses an integrated budgetary and proprietary accounting system, the Federal Financial System (FFS), to ensure timely financial information and perform reconciliations and reviews of financial information to ensure accuracy. Information on obligations, expenditures, and fund balances, etc. is updated daily to provide accurate and timely financial information

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The acquisition of goods and services is done competitively, in full compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations. In addition, assistance instruments (grants, cooperative agreements) are also awarded under the administrative requirements of OMB Circulars A-110 and A-102. Finally, value engineering is done for construction projects as directed by Reclamation Policy (CMP P05) and Directives and Standards (CMP 06-01). Examples where value engineering has been applied include Lower Yellowstone Diversion Dam, A-Canal Fish Barrier in the Klamath Project, and Roza Rollergate Replacement in Yakima.

Evidence: Reclamation's efficiency measures for PART are: average dollars spent Reclamation-wide per environmental recommendation; and percent of fish hatchery mitigation targets met annually. Baselines for both these measures are defined by FY2006 data and targets have been established. Reclamation follows the Federal Acquisition Regulations for acquisition of services and supplies, including acquisition of mitigation services as appropriate. Additionally, Reclamation has policy in place (ACM P01) which requires management control assessments/reviews on a regular basis. These reviews are intended to ensure, among other things, that Reclamation's contracting program is achieving its intended results and resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Policy requires that 25 percent of contracting activity is reviewed each year, so that 100% is reviewed every 4 years. An example of a specific cost comparison analysis is the 2006 M&I Water Rate Survey Data Report. In the report, Reclamation updated its database of non-Reclamation Municipal & Industrial (M&I) water rates being charged in Reclamation project areas. The data is for use by Reclamation as a source of information for local M&I water rates in urban areas near Reclamation projects when negotiating contracts. Where only retail (finished water) rates were available, these were converted to wholesale rates using EPA surveys for the western U.S. The wholesale market rates are more appropriate for use by Reclamation, which usually acts as a wholesaler, rather than a retailer. These rates are appropriate for use as an upper bound to what Reclamation should pay for water associated with environmental purposes, as they represent the value of the water in what is likely its highest valued use. Although the water Reclamation seeks to acquire for environmental purposes may currently be put to a lower-valued use, the current user would be able to obtain a price equivalent to what it could be sold to M&I users for. These M&I market rates are therefore an appropriate proxy of the actual value of the water supply.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Reclamation collaborates with other Interior agencies such as the FWS, and with other bureaus within Interior who also have mitigation responsibilities under Federal environmental laws and regulations.

Evidence: Examples include the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program and the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. These programs include substantial Reclamation involvement (as managers of the major water storage facilities in the program area) and have in excess of 20 stakeholders involved in meeting Interior-defined environmental goals. In the Central Valley Project Conservation Program Reclamation collaborates with the FWS to determine which mitigation projects to undertake, and then the Interior agencies collaborate with non-Federal partners to implement mitigation. The Federal Columbia River Power System has 10 stakeholders involved in the recovery of salmon and steelhead throughout the Pacific Northwest, with Reclamation playing a substantive role in modifying water operations of Grand Coulee Dam (WA) and Hungry Horse Dam (MT) based upon stakeholder input. The Lower Colorado Region's Multi-species Conservation Program has 70 actively involved stakeholders who are working together to assure effective implementation of the program and to meet ESA and state mitigation goals and mandates. Reclamation, as water master for the Lower Colorado River, uses this input in water management and mitigation planning activities (the annual work plans for the Multi-Species Conservation Plan).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Reclamation uses strong financial management practices. Through the independent audit of Reclamation's FY 2006 Financial Statements by KPMG, Reclamation received an unqualified audit opinion and no material internal control weaknesses were identified. Furthermore, Reclamation has developed and documented several internal control process memos to ensure strong financial reporting such as Process Memos for: 1) Reporting, 2) Budgeting, and 3) Procurement, Obligations, and Disbursements.

Evidence: As stated in the Reporting process memo, Reclamation's annual report, required by the CFO Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 is prepared in accordance with guidance contained in OMB Circular A-136 "Financial Reporting Requirements". Reclamation uses an integrated budgetary and proprietary accounting system, the Federal Financial System (FFS), to ensure timely financial information. Reclamation also performs reconciliations and reviews of financial information to ensure accuracy. Information on obligations, expenditures, and fund balances, etc. is updated daily to provide accurate and timely financial information. In addition, expenditures are reviewed using activity based costing. All purchase requisitions are reviewed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and approved by the appropriate approving official or budget officer to ensure availability and appropriate use of funds. "The COR monitors contract performance and compliance with contract payments and completion requirement to ensure accurate payments" as stated in Procurement, Obligations, and Disbursement process memorandum. The project manager is provided fund utilization reports, usually on a monthly basis, to ensure appropriate financial oversight. Larger program elements generally have separate reporting requirements for performance. For example, the Multi-Species Conservation Program has a plan for the current year (FY 2007) and prepares an accomplishment report annually (current to FY 2005). Another principle reporting mechanism is the annual ESA Expenditure Report. Reclamation carefully tracks ESA expenditures by species and reports this annually to the FWS, who in turn provides the report to Congress. Reclamation received an unqualified audit opinion and no material internal control weaknesses were identified. Although five reportable conditions were identified, they were not considered to be material weaknesses. Reclamation partially concurred with one recommendation and nonconcurred with the remaining four, which were resolved and closed by the Department of the Interior's Office of Financial Management. An action plan was developed and quarterly status reports are provided to the Department to address the open recommendation and to ensure corrective action is taken.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: All purchase requisitions are reviewed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and approved by the appropriate approving official or budget officer to ensure availability and appropriate use of funds.

Evidence: "The COR monitors contract performance and compliance with contract payments and completion requirement to ensure accurate payments" as stated in Procurement, Obligations, and Disbursement process memorandum. Because this is a new program, no program-wide management deficiencies have been specifically identified. Reclamation Policy (ACM P01) requires regular management control assessments/reviews for its contracting activities, and this requirement applies to mitigation service contracts. These reviews are intended to ensure, among other things, that Reclamation's contracting program is achieving its intended results and resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Policy requires that 25 percent of contracting activity is reviewed each year, so that 100% is reviewed every 4 years. Larger elements of the program generally involve multiple stakeholders. For example, the Lower Colorado Region's Multi-species Collaborative Program has 70 actively involved stakeholders who review past performance and future plans. Many involved stakeholders are cost share partners for implementation, and are thus directly motivated to assure management deficiencies are few and quickly addressed. At this time; they have identified no significant management deficiencies.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program's measures have been approved by OMB and Reclamation is on track to meet its long term goals. Ambitious targets and timeframes have also been set for the measures.

Evidence: At this point, historical data is somewhat limited. As previously mentioned, the long-term performance goals are generally specific to both individual environmental laws and individual Reclamation projects; however, Reclamation's mitigation program has demonstrated considerable success. In the area of ESA compliance, the majority of Reclamation projects with listed species are in compliance with an existing biological opinion received from the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This demonstrates that the mitigation program is, to an extent, meeting long-term performance goals. Programmatic long-term performance goals have been established for the first time for this PART review and baseline data has been collected for FY 2006. Reclamation is on track for meeting the long-term goals, based upon the baseline data and the establishment of future targets. Specific successful progress includes the installation of temperature control devices at Shasta Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam. These capital construction projects were installed to allow Reclamation to control temperatures downstream of the dams, which facilitated improved reproduction for listed salmonids and sport fish. These actions reflect a Federal goal of listed species recovery in one project and the other reflecting a mitigation goal to replace lost sport fishing opportunities. Finally, activity based costing indicates continued progress to implement environmental mitigation commitments by documenting costs for mitigation commitments, and reporting data quarterly.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As noted in the response to questions 2.3 and 2.5 annual performance goals have been established, the baseline established and targets are being met.

Evidence: As just one example from the MSCP, Work Task E5 has a purpose of creating habitat on a total of 1319 acres. The Work Task includes FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008 planning estimates for funding and performance in terms of number of acres created in each year. So, while the goal for the property is to create "as much viable habitat as possible", annual goals of 86 acres (FY 06), 80 acres (FY 07) and 80 (FY 08) have been established to reach that long-term goal. Both long-term and adaptive management involve actions that occur, and can be reported, annually, but major decision points often only occur at extended intervals (12 years for the Platte, for example).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Reclamation has met its efficiency goal as defined by Question 3.4, based upon FY 2006 baseline year data.

Evidence: Individual Reclamation projects and compliance efforts have been shown to be efficient and cost effective. One example is the Garrison-Red River Water Supply Project mitigation that is ahead of schedule. A competitive bid process is also being used on a more regular basis to ensure cost effectiveness in obtaining goods and services for the program. Reclamation Manual ACM-P01 requires annual acquisition and assistance management reviews to comply with OMB Circular A-123. These reviews are intended to ensure, among other things, that Reclamation's contracting program is achieving its intended results and resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Policy requires that 25 percent of contracting activity is reviewed each year, so that 100% is reviewed every 4 years. An example of improving efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals is the use of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts. Before procuring services from ID/IQ Contractors associated with environmental mitigation, a government estimate is conducted by Reclamation to determine if those same services could be performed by Reclamation staff at a lower cost. The results of this analysis are used to determine the best value for carrying out the mitigation and to determine whether to contract out those mitigation services.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While some other agencies (TVA and Corps) programs contain elements that are similar to Reclamation's mitigation program, their scope is different enough that no direct comparison is possible. However, Reclamation's mitigation activities are often in partnership with other Federal agencies (FWS, Bonneville Power Administration) and jointly developed to assure proposed actions compare favorably with their mitigation activities. Larger program elements (Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Platter River Restoration Program, etc.) are also jointly implemented with each involved Federal, state or other entity assuring the actions taken compare favorably to any actions undertaken individually.

Evidence: The Colorado River Recovery Implementation Plan includes Federal, State, and local partners, working together for a common mitigation goal (endangered fish recovery). Each of these entities may, in different circumstances, perform actions under the plan. However, the decision to implement any particular action is collaborative; in which the involved parties jointly determine that the proposed action will favorably affect the plan's goal. This collaboration assures that any individual actions proposed - including Reclamation's - are comparable to other possible actions in meeting program goals. The Corps projects on the Missouri River store and deliver water. Continued project operations on the Missouri River required the Corps to enter into formal consultations with the FWS under the ESA. The resulting recovery program under the jurisdiction of the Corps incorporates a multi-state advisory committee, but does not include cost share partners. Reclamation large scale mitigation programs (MSCP and Platte River, for example) always include cost share partners comparing favorably to Corps practice on the Missouri River.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Every mitigation activity undertaken through this program with any effects upon listed species or designated critical habitat has been independently reviewed by the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service for ESA effectiveness; every Reclamation mitigation action involving dredge and fill activities has been independently reviewed by the Corps; and every Reclamation construction action involving bodies of water (greater than 10 acres in size) has been reviewed by the FWS under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. These reviews have found that Reclamation's environmental mitigation program is effective in achieving results or have proposed action specific mitigation alternatives.

Evidence: The EPA is charged with providing an independent review of the proposed action, its effects upon the environment, and the adequacy of the data presented. These reviews specifically address the adequacy of the analysis of impacts and mitigation and the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed action. These are rated separately, with ratings ranging (for environmental impact) from a "Lack of Objections" to "Environmentally Unsatisfactory". The ratings system for adequacy of the analysis range from "Adequate" through "Insufficient Information" to "Inadequate". Reclamation's ongoing consultations related to the Endangered Species Act (section 7) with the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (designated as the expert agencies with respect to ESA issues), provide independent evaluations of the proposed mitigation as it relates to listed species. The Biological Opinion (BO) is produced by FWS/NMFS as part of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process in their role as the regulatory agency. The Section 7 consultation process requires Reclamation to identify the effects of the proposed action upon threatened and endangered species. The BO responds to the data and conclusion contained in the Biological Assessment and is FWS/NMFS' independent review of the document and findings. Additionally, Reclamation is often required to report to FWS or NMFS monitoring results to assure activities are meeting the defined needs. See, for example, the Findings Report from NMFS regarding adequacy of the Action Agencies' 2002 Annual Implementation Plan, a review which occurs annually for Reclamation (along with the Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration). Reclamation's ongoing mitigation under the Clean Water Act section 404 requires consultations with the Corps and with states with delegated authority, which serve as independent reviews of the effects Reclamation actions may have on waters of the United States and wetlands, and the mitigation measures proposed or implemented. These reviews are a result of the Corps regulatory authority and are independent of Reclamation's proposed action. A similar review is required with the states for section 402 of the Act. These reviews are on-going for each new action and Reclamation is required to report to FWS or NMFS monitoring results to assure activities are meeting the defined needs. Reclamation receives "sufficient progress" letters from the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to progress made in achieving recovery, which is essence serves as an independent review of Reclamation's activities. For example, the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program has had sufficient progress letters issued by the FWS since the program's inception. Letters received to date confirm that, while specific concerns always exist, Reclamation is making sufficient progress in attaining the defined mitigation targets.