[6] Power Council Miffed At BPA's Final F&W Budget Decisions

With the region nearly halfway through fiscal year 2007, BPA has finally released its final budget document for fish and wildlife spending for the next three years. But after complaints from several members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council at their meeting last month in Portland, the agency pulled back its document for a bit of wordsmithing and re-released it on Feb. 26.

The Council's objection had to do with language that described BPA's view of how its actions are consistent with the program, a tender issue after the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court to re-instate funding for the Fish Passage Center. The language seemed to disregard the issues brought up by the decision, but it was excised and substituted with boilerplate language from the NW Power Act in the revised version.

Council members were also miffed that BPA had added some projects to the budget that had not passed scientific review, but had dropped others at the expense of tailoring a program more to the needs of anadromous fish, effectively short-changing resident fish projects above Grand Coulee and Hells Canyon.

But after the complaints, the changes to specific Council-approved proposals have stayed in place, and BPA says it plans to manage spending at an average of $143 million per year, along with about $36 million per year in the capital category.

The Council's Fish and Wildlife Committee met Mar. 5 to discuss the situation. BPA's changes re-allocated the standard 70-15-15 formula in the Council's program (70 percent for anadromous fish, 15 percent for resident fish, 15 percent for wildlife) to a 73-17-7 split for FY 07, compared to the Council's 70-21-7 breakout of spending for this fiscal year.

BPA's numbers add up to decreases in spending for five of the 11 provinces, with the Intermountain province taking the largest hit, with a $6-million cut from the nearly $46 million recommendation over the next three years, but the Middle Snake province received the largest percentage hit, more than half of its $10-million budget.

But the other six provinces received increases, with the Columbia Cascade province getting nearly twice the Council-recommended amount of $9 million.

All in all, the BPA decision added up to $15.6 million more than the NPPC version, for total direct-program spending of $416 million for FY 2007-09.

Greg Delwiche, BPA's vice president for Environment, Fish and Wildlife, told the committee that the final budget included over 90 percent of projects that were recommended by the Council. He explained that the agency's scrutiny over the proposed 07-09 budget had several sources--the large number of projects starting, implications of the agreement with five basin tribes for 2007 that funded a number of projects in return for their support of hydro operations, and implications of within-year changes, projects stopping and starting.

"We felt like we needed to be absolutely sure that our decision added up to something that fit within the budget. In particular, my worst fear was that, right out of the chute in FY 07, we could, if we didn't undertake a fair amount of scrutiny, on a project-by-project basis, find ourselves in a situation at the end of FY 07, where we potentially could greatly exceed the annual average for the three-year budget, putting us behind the eight-ball in years two and three..."

Delwiche said the changes from Council recommendations reflect a "minor" policy shift to more on-the ground spending and less in the realm of research, monitoring and evaluation. He said there was an additional $17 million to $20 million to fund additional projects--and with the Council's help, could fund projects in those provinces that have come up short.

Delwiche stressed the importance of how to move forward, "as partners," in implementing these projects over the next several years.

Idaho Council member Bill Booth said his state was seeing more than $7 million in reduced funding from the final budget. Delwiche said the "in lieu" situation had a lot to do with the changes, where BPA has determined that other entities should shoulder some of the costs.

Washington Council member Larry Cassidy said when BPA has made adjustments to 151 out of 291 projects sent to the power agency by the Council, "I would interpret that as some repudiation of our process." He said he didn't see the partnership with BPA is as strong as it was six months ago.

Cassidy raised the question of whether BPA should be putting up additional funding to satisfy ESA requirements instead of putting the burden on the fish and wildlife plan that deals with both listed and unlisted fish and wildlife populations.

Delwiche said he thinks the region has chosen to integrate the Power Act and ESA obligations because so many of the activities affect both listed and non-listed fish.

F&W committee chair, Rhonda Whiting said she was pleased to hear about the extra $20 million being out there but another process should be clarified to make sure that all entities have an equal opportunity to access those funds. She said her goal is to get both the Council and BPA to work better together.

Next week the full Council will discuss these issues at their meeting in Boise and decide whether to make a formal response to BPA's latest budget revisions. -B. R.

The following links were mentioned in this story:

FY 07-09 Fish and Wildlife Project Selection Decision Letter Enclosure (Revised) (02/26/07)

Subscriptions and Feedback
Subscribe to the Fishletter notification e-mail list.
Send e-mail comments to the editor.

THE ARCHIVE :: Previous NW Fishletter issues and supporting documents.

NW Fishletter is produced by Energy NewsData.
Publisher: Cyrus Noë, Editor: Bill Rudolph
Phone: (206) 285-4848 Fax: (206) 281-8035