« PrécédentContinuer »
for construction of the Umatilla Hatchery. Bonneville, however, has agreed to fund a feasibility study in FY 1984 which will consider hatchery site and design alternatives.
Question: Does BPA intend to proceed with construction of fish passage facilities at Three Mile Dam in FY 1985? What is the funding and schedule profile for FY 1985? What is needed to complete construction in FY 1985? What is the total cost of the project?
Answer: Yes, BPA does intend to proceed with construction of fish passage facilities at Three Mile Dam in FY 1985. BPA is currently negotiating a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, the project owner, to resolve fish passage problems and provide adult collection facilities at Three Mile Dam. FY 1984 funds will be used to investigate various alternatives available to improve fish passage at the project, develop cost estimates, and prepare construction schedules. However, we intend to rely upon the expertise of the fishery agencies and Umatilla tribe in selecting the preferred design from the alternatives being analyzed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The current schedule we intend to follow will have the preliminary design alternatives identified by September 30, 1984. selection of the preferred preliminary design is expected to occur no later than January 31, 1985. Final design will be initiated upon selection of the preferred preliminary design, and construction is expected to begin in late FY 1985 or early FY 1986.
BPA's proposed budget for FY 1985 includes $264,000 for fish passage improvements at Three Mile Dam. These funds will be used to develop final design of the preferred alternative identified in the feasibility study, which will be conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation with BPA FY 1984 fish and wildlife funds. Current information suggests the cost of the project is between $1.5 million and $2.0 million.
Question: In your view, what should be done to accomplish flow augmentation in the Umatilla River system so that full anad romous fish population potentials can be reached?
Answer: BPA is keenly aware of the flow problems that exist in the Umatilia River Basin. These problems appear to be the result of over-appropriation of water resources, which includes usage of both the Umatilla River and ground water resources in that region. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently developing a plan for alleviating at least part of the Umatilla River Basin flow problem as it relates to fish survival. This plan proposes augmentation of instream flows by pumping from the Columbia River and construction of additional headwater storage reservoirs. Even with the Bureau's proposed flow augmentation plans, it appears that a reassessment of water usage in the Basin is needed to realize full anadromous fish population potentials in the Basin. BPA is closely monitoring the development of the Bureau's plan and other flow augmentation efforts needed to protect existing and future fishery investments BPA may make in that Basin.
Question: If Bonneville assumes responsibility for Mitchell Act hatcheries, what changes do you foresee making in their operation?
Answer: The Administration's bill to transfer funding responsibilities for the Mitchell Act hatcheries specifies that BPA shall give due weight to the recommendations and expertise of the Secretary of Commerce in determining necessary hatchery funding levels. BPA, as a power marketing administration with new fish and wildlife responsibilities, does not intend to supplant the management authorities or capabilities of State and Federal fishery agencies and Indian tribes.
It is my understanding that the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has been operating the hatchery system since its beginning, would still be the fisheries management entity that would develop recommendations for annual hatchery operations and, therefore, funding levels. The Planning Council would have an opportunity to review and comment on those recommendations. BPA would utilize such recommendations as the basis for determining the amount of funds to be budgeted for transfer annually to the NMFS for hatchery management. I would not anticipate BPA initiating any significant changes in the operation of the hatcheries by NMFS, provided the information supplied to BPA is sound and complete.
Question: Please provide for the Committee the legal basis for BPA's view that legislation is necessary to enable Bonneville to fund the operation of these facilities.
Answer: Section 4(h) (10)(A) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act provides that "(Fish and wildlife) expenditures of the (BPA) Administrator ... shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, other expenditures authorized or required from other entities ...."
Operation and maintenance costs for the Mitchell Act hatcheries are presently funded through appropriations to the National Marine Fisheries Service. This appropriations funding process has been utilized by NMFS and its predecessor, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, since the first Mitchell Act hatcheries were constructed in 1949. The operation and maintenance of the Mitchell Act facilities were therefore "authorized or required" to be funded by an "other entity" when the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act was passed in 1980. The House Interior Committee Report indicates that Congress intended "Other fisheries efforts outside (the Regional Act) ... to continue and to be funded separately." Accordingly, BPA ratepayers are precluded from paying for the operation and maintenance of the facilities absent an act of Congress.
Question: If enabling legislation is not enacted in FY 1985, what are your plans for the $8.2 million of borrowing authority included in the budget request?
Answer: The $8.2 million in BPA's FY 1985 budget for the Mitchell Act hatcheries is for operating expenditures, not borrowing authority. BPA's understanding is that we cannot assume funding responsibility for the hatcheries without congressional authorization.
Question: Provide the Committee with a status report on capital investments at Sunnyside Dam, Wapato Dam, Old Reservation Canal and Toppenish Creek/Satus Unit, including the need, the total estimated costs, proposed funding for each phase, and the proposed schedule under the budget request, and the optimal schedule. What additional authority, resources, or agreement is necessary to proceed with construction of these facilities in FY 1985?
Answer: Sunnyside Dam, Wapato Dam, and Toppenish Creek/Satus Unit are the three major capital projects in the Yakima Basin which are contained in BPA's budget for proposed funding in FY 1985. These facilities are major obstructions to salmon and steelhead passage in the lower Yakima River. The need for fish passage improvements exists at all the lower Yakima River diversion dams, with emphasis being placed on the lower mainstem Yakima River projects in FY 1985.
The funds will be used for the design and construction of fish screens and new fish ladders at the sites. Most of the fish screens and ladders are old, and the designs of the screens and passage facilities are outdated by current standards. No additional resources or agreement is necessary to proceed with the construction of these facilities in FY 1985 under the current budget schedule. The following table shows the funding levels by year and total costs for these projects. Old Reservation Canal's funding is included with Sunnyside Diversion Dam's funding.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
Question: Why is there no request in FY 1985 to proceed with Prosser Dam, Roza Dam, and Easton Dam improvements? Provide a complete project sheet on each of these projects, including total estimated cost.
Answer: BPA does not have the responsibility for those projects. We have forwarded your question and request for a project sheet to the Bureau of Reclamation, the owner of those facilities, for their response. Section 4(h) (10)(A) of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act provides that BPA may not assume the fish and wildlife obligations of other entities without Congressional authorization.
Question: Specifically, describe in detail any plans or schedule to proceed with the Prosser Dam modifications?
Answer: Since the Bureau of Reclamation, and not BPA, is currently responsible for any Prosser Dam modifications, your request for plans and schedule of such modifications has been forwarded to the Bureau for their response.
Question: Your statement on page 7 of the addendum indicates that there are 5 items where the Planning Council is concerned that BPA's program is inconsistent with their Two-Year Action Plan. Please comment on these differences and explain the reason for your allocation of funds?
Answer: Of the 96 conservation-related individual action items requested of BPA in the Northwest Power Planning Council's Two-Year Action Plan, BPA originally identified 12 which faced serious impediments to implementation. During the last several months, BPA and the Planning Council staff have had a number of consultations to narrow the differences between BPA programs and the actions identified in the Two-Year Action Plan. As a result of these meetings, the number of inconsistencies has been narrowed to six in five different sectors.
The Two-Year Action Plan requests that BPA develop and implement regionwide conservation programs which will acquire targeted levels of savings, within the two-year period, which the Planning Council argues is necessary to demonstrate the capability to acquire sufficient conservation savings if and when needed. The following table shows the six affected areas.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
Develop and implement a
Through staff-to-staff consultations, BPA and the Planning Council have jointly laid out a plan for developing capability to implement conservation programs in each of these sectors. However, we feel that the development and demonstration of capability does not require the attainment of the Council's targets in regionwide programs, especially in a period of power surplus.
BPA and the Council staff have agreed that the Street and Area Lighting Conservation Program should continue in FY 1984 and that they will consult further on whether to continue the program in FY 1985.
Question: Are there differences between the BPA program and the Council's plan in terms of the energy savings targets for FY 1984 through FY 1988?
Answer: The energy savings targets for those years are essentially the same. After making some necessary adjustments to the Planning Council's targets to allow comparison with BPA's targets, both total approximately 250 average megawatts of savings. The adjustments were made to account for the fact that some electric utilities in the region did not sign contracts with BPA to implement our conservation programs. I would like to present a table that shows the targets and distribution by sector. You will see that the distribution is also very similar.
Question: Explain your rationale for the proposed reduction of $12.8 million in residential weatherization from the FY 1984 level. What is the impact of the reduction? What would be the impact of another $10 million reduction in this portion of the conservation budget?
Answer: The proposed $12.8 million reduction in residential weatherization from the FY 1984 budget represents BPA's efforts to move the program to a minimum viable level that assures attainment of the least-cost mix of resources. Some disruption in the program may occur for weatherization contractors who are operating the program at a level that is higher than the minimum viable level. Disruption may involve personnel reductions and reduced consumer interest. At a minimum viable level, the program will remain administratively feasible and capable of being accelerated, if needed, to meet changed circumstances involving the regional load-resource balance. The impact of another $10 million reduction could drop the program below the minimum viable level.