Recommendation 30
Click here to download this recommendation. (30 K)	Click to comment on this recommendation.

May 12, 2000

Mr. Mark Walker
Director of Public Affairs
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Walker:

Attached, please find a recommendation for an amendment to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The recommendation addresses the administrative structures of the Council, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration they relate to the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Council's amendment process and applauds the Council for exercising leadership in establishing clearer goals and objectives for fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and recovery in the Columbia River Basin.

The proposed reforms to the Fish and Wildlife Program and the project selection process being considered by the Council are moving in the right direction, but to fully address the region's common challenges, the Council must go beyond changing procedures by considering changes to the structure of the Council, CBFWA and BPA.

Structural changes as proposed in this recommendation would allow fish and wildlife managers to spend less time in meetings, on conference calls and on paperwork. The changes would help policy makers more easily explain results to constituents by making the relationships among the partners in the Fish and Wildlife Program clearer and more streamlined.

More importantly, this recommendation would help ensure that project planning, review, implementation and management were more consistent, collaborative and transparent.

It certainly would be different than the way things are today, with management agencies separate from the Council and the Council separate from Bonneville. This separateness allows these parties to view each other as adversaries. The managers fight the Council, the Council criticizes the managers, and both sides criticize Bonneville for not simultaneously implementing and managing conflicting policy directions. And then, the public decries the lack of accountability for use of ratepayer money.

Finally, current budget and authority limitations result in limited effectiveness. Management agency staffs do not have the resources to work fully with outside parties to ensure public and political understanding and support for project priorities. The Council doesn't have the resources to fully monitor and analyze projects. BPA does not have the resources to follow planning and policy closely enough to ensure prompt, efficient project implementation and management.

The result is delay in decisions, payments and reviews; duplication of planning, research, process and review; confusion, conflict and criticism; and finally, a lack of consistent, well documented, objective information about goals, objectives, costs and results.

The region -- speaking through the governors, Congress and the public -- wants change. Comments from managers, policy makers, project reviewers and sponsors all focus on the challenges associated with the complex, cumbersome and often contentious processes surrounding fish and wildlife recovery. Virtually everyone wants change.

Now is the time to make it happen. Now is the time to create a more effective role for the Council, for managers and for the BPA fish and wildlife staff.

Beyond the scientific and procedural reforms it is currently considering, the Council also must consider administrative reforms designed to reduce or eliminate institutional constraints and duplication. The Council should adopt changes that improve coordination between the governors and their state agencies. The Council should adopt changes that improve coordination among the Council and the managers. The Council should adopt changes that improve tribal representation and coordination. And, finally the Council should adopt changes that eliminate existing incentives that cause people to act like enemies instead of allies.

In short, the Council should create new approaches to project planning, review, implementation and management that are more efficient and effective for everyone. Here's how:

• Institutionalize CBFWA and its caucuses as the implementation arm of the Fish and Wildlife Program within the Council.
• Redirect Council staff away from project review, implementation and management back toward supporting basinwide planning and policy development.
• Incorporate BPA contracting and management under the Council's administrative division.
• Use the savings to create a tribal liaison position at the Council and to provide funds to the tribal caucus for improved tribal coordination and participation at all levels of the program.

A unified structure like the one outlined above would ensure better coordination among state agencies and the Council and among the agencies, the governors and the Council. Bringing contracting in house at the Council would free Bonneville from the conflicts that inherently surround its obligation to provide mitigation for the hydrosystem. Tribal governments would have improved access to planning and decisions, resulting in improved certainty, less process and faster payments.

Realistically, unifying functions would not eliminate all policy differences. However, it would help clearly identify those differences and streamline the logistics for discussing and, with any luck, resolving them. The current divided structure often fails even in identifying policy issues hiding them behind debates about science, for example -- much less resolving them.

A unified approach would strengthen the managers' role in Council decision making. It would ensure Council accountability for decisions based on the ISRP review and it would ensure

managers are more accountable to the Council. More importantly, a unified approach to the program would help eliminate duplicative, time consuming and costly processes and give both the states and the tribes a stronger and clearer voice on critical regional fish and wildlife issues.

This proposal has merit if only in terms of scheduling meetings. How many times has a CBFWA, BPA or Council meeting been scheduled on top of another meeting? How many times have project sponsors, Council members and others had to explain their proposals to different audiences despite the fact that all the people receiving the presentations are working on the same program?

This proposal would require significant changes. It entails significant risks. On the other hand, it is consistent with contemplated reforms, complementary with many of the changes suggested in the Tribal Recovery Program and it responds to the governors' calls for institutional changes (without resorting to contentious, time-consuming legislative battles).

And let's face it, the current system is frustrating for everyone. Reforming the institutional structure of the Fish and Wildlife Program could help eliminate that frustration to the benefit of the fish, wildlife and people of the Northwest.

Sincerely,

Jim Middaugh
Citizen
3055 NE Davis Street
Portland, Oregon 97232-3238
Basildog@msn.com
 

Go to top | Go to index