ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project Improvement Act Assessment

Program Code 10003726
Program Title Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project Improvement Act
Department Name Department of the Interior
Agency/Bureau Name Bureau of Reclamation
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2006
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 80%
Strategic Planning 75%
Program Management 86%
Program Results/Accountability 47%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $52
FY2008 $52
FY2009 $49

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2007

Develop options to adjust program goals and allow for greater flexibility to focus budgetary resources on achieving those goals.

Action taken, but not completed To be incorporated into the Long Term Plan
2007

Develop and implement a plan to conduct an independent evaluation.

Action taken, but not completed This action responds to deficiencies identified in questions 2.6 and 2.7. Two independent evaluations have been initiated. Expected completion date of this action reflects the completion of the first indepenent evaluation.
2007

Develop and implement a long-term action plan to achieve the performance goals.

Action taken, but not completed This action responds to deficiencies identified in questions 4.1 and 4.4. Also, the recommended actions would respond to question 4.3.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2007

Develop a more robust justification for Reclamation's annual CVPRF funding request, with clear links between funding levels and progress toward meeting goals.

Completed This action will help to address the inadequate budgetary oversight of the CVPRF.
2007

Develop a CVPIA programmatic cost estimate.

Completed This action responds to the program design deficiencies identified in question 1.4.
2007

Develop an efficiency performance measure to demonstrate effective program management.

Completed Efficiency measure approved 2/28/2008.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of representative fish counted.


Explanation:Natural Production of Anadromous Fish: The goal is to increase long-term, sustainable, natural production of anadromous fish populations by 2012, the re-established timeframe to double populations. Sustainable natural production of adult fall run Chinook salmon (escapement data in terms of numbers of fish) in the major Central Valley watersheds of the upper Sacramento River Basin, the lower Sacramento River Basin, Delta tributaries, and the lower San Joaquin River Basin serve a the representative fish counted. Because of the cyclic nature of fish populations, works continues to define the appropriate methodology and timeframe (e.g. running-year average, etc.) in demonstrating sustainability. Escapement data from Grand Tab (1992 to present) and escapement data from Mills and Fisher (1967- 1991) are converted to production data and doubling goal graphs using CHINOOKPROD and are analyzed annually to evaluate progress toward fish population doubling goals. This measure is the primary long-term environmental restoration goal defined by the Act. The measure captures the long-term results expected. Grand Tab, California Department of Fish and Game. Data from this publication was used to generate natural production estimates for the doubling goal, 1952 through 1966, and the doubling period, 1992 through 2001. Central Valley Anadromous Sport Fish Annual Run-size, Harvest, and Population Estimates, 1967 through 1991, Mills and Fisher, August 1994. Data from this publication was used to generate natural production estimates for the doubling goal baseline period, 1967 through 1991. AFRP Doubling Goal Graphs [http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/documents/Doubling_Graph_Caveats_12-21-05.pdf]. CHINOOKPROD - a spreadsheet that was developed through formulas in the Working Paper on Restoration Needs, Volume 2, pages 2-IX-14 through 2-IX-18, and the Final Restoration Plan for the AFRP: January 9, 2001, Appendix A-11 through A-18.

Year Target Actual
1992 Baseline 374,202
2002 750,000 526,113
2003 NA 526,143
2004 NA 495,644
2005 NA 443,753
2006 NA 224,814
2009 625,000
2012 750,000
Annual Output

Measure: AF of optimum refuge water supply delivered.


Explanation:Wetlands Habitat: The goal is to provide incremental Level 4 (optimum) water supply annually to refuges in the CVP service area measured as acre-feet (AF). The CVPIA assumes that this action will result in increased quantity and quality of wetland habitat in the Central Valley of California on refuges managed by non-Reclamation entities. As identified in the March 1989 Bureau of Reclamation Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigation and the Department of the Interior's April 1989 San Joaquin Basin Action Plan, the total water supply needed for specific Federal, State and private Central Valley refuges (Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, Sutter, San Luis, Merced, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges; Gray Lodge, Mendota, Volta, Los Banos and North Grasslands State Wildlife Area; and private wetlands within the Grassland Resource conservation district) is 555,515 AF. Of this total 103,163 AF was the amount of water available prior to passage of the Act. The level 2 water added 319,088 AF to that baseline. The third increment of water supply referred to as Level 4 is 133,264 AF. It is this incremental Level 4 water measured in terms of AF that appears at Target and Actual data. To make the Level 4 water available at the specified points of delivery, Reclamation acquires water, enters into wheeling agreements, and constructs needed conveyance facilities. Full Level 4 delivery is contingent upon each of these three factors. This measure reflects annual water delivery targets while the full Level 4 delivery target was re-established to 2012 for attainment. Level 1 and Level 2 supplies totaling 422,251 AF have been available since 1993. Prior to CVPIA, reliable water supplies were extremely limited and forced wetland managers to concentrate their water deliveries in the early winter period, hoping that sufficient rainfall would supplement and allow for habitat to be provided all winter long. With the passage of CVPIA, this base amount of water increased and became more reliable to wetland managers - however, it still left habitat dry the remaining nine months of the year. The Level 4 amounts of water delineated below allow wetland managers to expand their management to the entire twelve months of the year, on the same land on which Level 2 water is applied. This is a critical because waterfowl and other water-dependant wildlife have biological requirements that span the entire twelve months of any particular year. Level 4 water provides wetland managers the ability to greatly improve the health, and increase the diversity of habitats available to wildlife. This, in turn, translates into a more diverse number of species using this year-round habitat, and healthier wildlife as well. Level 4 water allows refuge managers to: 1) provide habitat for the earliest migrating waterfowl arriving in the Valley in August and September; 2) provide maintenance flows all winter long, thus improving water quality of wetland units; 3) extend flooding into late winter and early spring to the benefit of waterfowl trying to fatten up on foods for the long flight north to the breeding grounds; 4) provide nesting and brood habitat in the spring and early summer for colonial nesting birds like egrets, herons and ibis, as well as a smaller group of waterfowl which remain in the Valley all year long; 5) improve the quality of existing riparian habitat in sloughs and streams; and, 6) provide critical habitat for other wildlife which require flooded areas throughout the summer months, such as the giant garter snake A yearly delivery of the 133,264 AF of water will allow refuge managers to optimally manage their habitat, while amounts below this level limit the diversity and availability of this habitat to wildlife. Annual targets for 2002 through 2006 reflect Annual Work Plan targets based on funds available (or as Congressional appropriated).

Year Target Actual
1992 Baseline 0
2002 36,149 80,050
2003 30,000 70,000
2004 27,212 67,710
2005 53,153 78,024
2006 77,202 83,822
2007 40,573 41,111
2008 48,000
2009 69,000
2010 90,000
2011 111,000
2012 133,264
Annual Output

Measure: AF of water provided as flow for fish habitat.


Explanation:Water Operations for Fish Habitat: The goal is to dedicate and manage flows for fishery habitat in Central Valley streams and the Delta measured annually in terms of acre-feet (AF). This measure assesses the achievement of planned water operations for fishery habitat contributing to the long-term fishery restoration goals. The Act and subsequent program planning specify several actions for enhancing water operations for fish flows and instream/Delta habitat, including Section 3406 (b)(2) dedicated CVP yield, Section 3406 (b)(3) water acquisition; and Section 3406 (g) Ecosystem and Water System Operations Models. (b)(2)-dedicated, annual water quantities are specified in the Act at 800,000 AF of CVP yield for the primary purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes of CVPIA. (b)(3)-water is defined by the Act as water to supplement (b)(2). An annual acquisition quantity of 200,000 AF was determined by the Department of the Interior and is stated in the CVPIA ROD as the target average for fish and wildlife water acquisition on tributaries of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers to assist in meeting increased flow needs like those identified in associated Section 3406 (b)(1) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) and for the San Joaquin River Agreement (SJRA). This program comprises primarily acquisitions for the SJRA, with an annual target of up to 38,500 AF. A study is currently under way to refine the 200,000 AF target. Preliminary draft numbers indicated that the target may be above the original 200,000 AF estimate. Section 3406(g) currently includes of Vernalis Adaptive Management Agreement (VAMP) water with an annual target of up to 110,000 AF. The water acquisitions from this program assist in the development of supporting data for improved scientific understanding concerning measures needed to restore anadromous fisheries to optimum and sustainable levels, and implementation of operational regimes at State and Federal facilities to benefit anadromous fisheries. 3406(g) acquisitions are counted toward the 200,000 AF target identified in (b)(3). Together these three programs (provisions) have an actual annual acquisition target of 1 million AF. However, annual targets for FY 2002 through FY 2006 reflect Annual Work Plan targets to acquire fish flows based on funds available (or as Congressionally appropriated). The up-to target range is necessary to account for water year type uncertainty and the resulting VAMP requirements. Annual targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008 include fiscal constraint.

Year Target Actual
1992 Baseline 0
2001 838,500-948,500 909,785
2002 838,500-948,500 861,105
2003 838,500-948,500 887,526
2004 838,500-948,500 898,211
2005 838,500-948,500 838,500
2006 838,500-948,500 948,500
2007 838,500-948,500 902,645
2008 838,500-948,500
2009 838,500-948,500
2010 838,500-948,500
2011 838,500-948,500
2012 838,500-948,500
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Cost per AF of acquired water.


Explanation:Efficiency of Water Acquisition: The goal is to reduce or aggressively manage the long-term costs of water acquisition. Water acquisition is a substantial cost of implementing the CVPIA program. This measure examines the annual average cost to Reclamation for acquired water used in implementing CVPIA environmental restoration actions. Although the market rate for water is highly variable depending on water year type, purchase timing, and purchase location, this measure may show trends in water costs and assist the program plan actions to reduce costs or making recommendations to address the issue. The Program is exploring the potential for establishing targets based on annual market price of water transfers and acquisitions in the California water market. Source for Actual figures is the Mid-Pacific Region, Division of Resources Management.

Year Target Actual
2001 N/A $84
2002 N/A $112
2003 N/A $95
2004 N/A $102
2005 N/A $106
2006 N/A being revised
2007 N/A being revised
2008
Long-term Output

Measure: Percent complete of structural fish restoration actions.


Explanation:Accomplishment of Structural Actions: The goal is to complete (by 2012, the re-established timeframe to double natural production of anadromous fish populations) structural fisheries restoration actions defined by the Act and the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) Plan measured in terms of per-cent (%) accomplished. The Act and the subsequent AFRP specify 73 structural actions to improve fish habitat and survivability in the Central Valley. This measure tracks progress toward completion of the structural actions to help achieve the overall fish doubling goal. Tracking and reporting on completion of these actions is a key element of the CVPIA Restoration Fund program management.

Year Target Actual
1992 Baseline 0%
2000 25% 29% (21 of 73)
2001 30% 30% (22 of 73)
2002 35% 34% (25 of 73)
2003 40% 34% (25 of 73)
2004 45% 36% (26 of 73)
2005 50% 38% (28 of 73)
2006 55% 40% (29 of 73)
2007 60% 42% (31 of 73)
2008 65%
2009 70%
2010 75%
2011 80%
2012 100%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA or Act) clearly describes the purposes of the Act as the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and associated habitats; and for the contribution to the State of California's interim and long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary. Overall, the CVPIA seeks to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project (CVP) water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, and agricultural, municipal and industrial, and power contractors. The Act also establishes the Restoration Fund which is the primary funding resource to accomplish these purposes. In this PART, the Program and its scope are defined as those elements of CVPIA eligible for funding from the Restoration Fund - however, Reclamation does undertake other activities that could reasonably be construed as being driven by CVPIA compliance. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has primary responsibility for managing the Restoration Fund and the engineering, operation, design, and construction related Program activities. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has primary responsibility for the biological activities of the Program. Passed in 1992, CVPIA was based on best available science and information. The CVPIA actions as prescribed were expected to not only fully mitigate for the impacts (construction, operation, and maintenance) of the CVP, but to also provide extended environmental benefits. The authors of the CVPIA believed the environmental restoration program activities could be reasonably accomplished within the authorization provided by the Act, the completion of which would result in a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of CVP water. While the purposes of the Act are specified, the environmental outcomes and their baselines were not. For example, prior to significant construction of CVP facilities, wetlands habitat in California had dropped from 3.7 million acres in 1906, to 1.2 million acres in 1922, and to 0.7 million acres in 1954. The impact of the CVP on the remaining wetlands remains unclear given the extent of construction activities by state, local and private entities, past and present.

Evidence: Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992, directed the Department of the Interior (Interior) to accomplish six interrelated purposes. The law specifies those purposes as: a) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California; b) to address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats; c) to improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project; d) to increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water conservation; e) to contribute to the State of California's interim and long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; f) to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors. Document 1A. Interior Memorandum Dated February 25, 1993, establishes the Program implementation responsibilities and provides clarity to Reclamation and the Service for Program purposes. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989.

YES 20%
1.2

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

Explanation: The program is intended to mitigate the pre-1992 purposes of the CVP (irrigation, domestic water supply, and power generation within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta)) by addressing the impacts those project purposes have had and continue to have on the environment. In general the need is clear, although when applied to particular situations the application of the CVPIA is not always as obvious. Agricultural and municipal development, as well as construction and operation of water and flood control systems, have degraded the quality of habitat that supports fish and wildlife resources in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins. In addition, the hydrologic cycle of dry years and wet years further contributes to conflicts between water consumers and the environment. The water conflicts and the need for fish and wildlife habitat restoration continue today. However, as authorized, implementation of CVPIA was intended to fully mitigate for CVP impacts. In addition to mitigation, actions authorized under the Act provide expanded environmental benefits to serve the public interest. These expanded environmental benefits provided by the program help to offset the environmental impacts of other past and present actions by state, Federal and local entities.

Evidence: For decades, water in California has been the focus of competing economic, ecological, urban and agricultural interests. These conflicting demands have resulted in declining wildlife habitat, native plant and animal species becoming threatened or endangered, and degradation of reliable, quality water supplies. CVPIA directed Interior to accomplish the authorized purposes and activities stated in 1.1 Evidence. Document 2. Environmental Defense recently published "Finding the Water" which provides that organization's perspective on the current problem. Finding the Water, New Water Supply Opportunities to Revive the San Francisco Bay-Delta Ecosystem, Spreck Rosekrans and Ann H. Hayden, Environmental Defense, 2005.

YES 20%
1.3

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

Explanation: While similar in intent to other adaptively managed environmental restoration programs, this program is designed to address the Central Valley ecosystem, its unique combination of geomorphologic factors, hydrology, and the resulting distinctive fish and wildlife species. The actions identified in the Act are specific to the Federal CVP operated by Reclamation. While a method or procedure may duplicate other restoration programs (e.g. dispersion of spawning gravel into river beds), the intended result is geographic and species specific and, therefore, neither redundant nor duplicative. To ensure the implementation actions of CVPIA do not duplicate any other Federal, state, local or private effort, the Act requires the CVP to be operated in compliance with state and Federal law. This includes, but not limited to, the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. s 1531, et seq., and all decisions of the California State Water Resources Control Board establishing conditions on applicable licenses and permits for the project.

Evidence: The authorization identified in 1.1 Evidence, is specific and directive, establishing Interior as the agency to address the impacts of the CVP. The authority to address CVP impacts is also identified in the California Water Security and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108-361, October 25, 2004) contributing to the advancement of the CALFED-Bay Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision. Document 3. California Water Security and Environmental Improvement Act, Public Law 108-361, 108th Congress, October 25, 2004. Document 4. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Programmatic Record of Decision, August 28, 2000.

YES 20%
1.4

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

Explanation: The program has challenges with its funding mechanism, allocation of resources between beneficiaries, and in achieving its ambitious goals. The program began ambitiously, but 14 years after enactment it is apparent that the program is not effectively designed to achieve its goals. At least some of these challanges have their root in the program's design. Adequate annual funding is continuously cited as a barrier to timely accomplishment of the Act's purposes by many of the Program's activity managers. Even though the Secretary of the Interior collects the maximum amount allowed in annual mitigation and restoration payments from Central Valley water and power contractors and other sources as cited in the Budget Justifications, the formula-driven Restoration Fund is capped by the Act and Congressional appropriations. Restoration funds appropriated by Congress do not necessarily reflect the costs for full performance necessary to meet the targets established by the Act or reestablished by Agency Program planning. While there was no cost estimate associated with CVPIA in 1992, it was assumed appropriations and cost sharing would provide adequate financial resources to accomplish the specified target outcomes and outputs. It was also assumed that the environmental purposes and goals of the Act were achievable and realistic. As 14 years of Program and adaptive management continue to contribute to scientific understanding of environmental restoration, recommendations for realignment of the Program's biological expectations, costs, and timeframes and/or modification to the Program design may be forthcoming. Generally, the design of an adaptive management program supports specific and periodic changes based on sufficient evidence. However, it is not clear that the program is designed to give a science-based adaptive management program enough flexibility to address changing program needs.

Evidence: Document 8. The Program has a process in place to align resources with priorities through the Annual Work Plans (AWPs). The creation of AWPs substantiates how the Program activities are targeted, establishes annual goals, and provides a mechanism to evaluate performance and assure the resources are targeted at the Program priorities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Fiscal Year 2007, Budget Justifications.

NO 0%
1.5

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

Explanation: Resources are targeted direclty at activities designed to achieve the program's purpose. Due to a combination of disagreements between program constituents and legal actions that have complicated program implementation, resources have not always reached beneficiaries in a timely fashion. However, this is less a result of faulty program design than of a contentious political environment. The principle beneficiary of the CVPIA is the environment (ecosystem) of the Central Valley of California, and constituents who rely on those natural systems. The benefit to the environment results from the specific outputs authorized by and funded through the CVPIA authorization. Although finite resources must be portioned out among many legislatively-determined goals, in general the system is designed so that resources are directed toward achieving those goals. There is some tension in the program, however, between constituents in the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed and those in the Trinity River watershed - thus there is disagreement among constituents about whether the funds are in fact reaching all the intended beneficiaries. To ensure the Program is effectively targeted, sections of the Act were assigned to Program activity managers from Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Generally, one of the Program activity managers is designated the lead agency responsible for implementating specific portions of the Act, although both have equal responsibility to work together to develop Program activity Annual Work Plans (AWPs), and involve other agencies and interested groups in the development and refinement of the AWPs. Interior has developed numerous partnerships and extensive coordination linkages with local, state, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and private groups.

Evidence: The Program has a process in place to align resources with priorities through the AWPs. The creation of AWPs substantiates how the Program activities are targeted, establishes annual goals, and provides a mechanism to evaluate performance and target resources at Program priorities. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 80%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

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: Reclamation and the Service have developed five Performance Goals for the Program that track achivement of the program's long-term goals. One of these (Performance Goal #1 - Natural Production of Anadromous Fish) is a specific long-term, outcome based measure of increasing sustainable, natural production of anadromous fish populations consistent with Section 3402 (a), (b), (c), and (f), purposes of the Act. The Act requires the development and implementation of a program that makes all reasonable efforts to double fish populations by the year 2002. The Act also defines specific structural fish restoration actions which were subsequently augmented by the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) Plan. The Agencies have established a long-term, output based measure (Performance Goal #5 - Accomplishment of Structural Action) that focuses on contributing to the achievement of the anadromous fish population (Performance Goal #1) outcome.

Evidence: Evidence: Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

YES 12%
2.2

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

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures, but it is not clear whether the current program is design is sufficient to allow the program to achieve these goals. The Act includes ambitious targets for the long-term measure and timeframe of increasing sustainable, natural production of anadromous fish populations (Performance Goal #1). The target for doubling the natural, sustainable population of anadromous fish was not achieved by the 2002 timeframe established in the Act. The Agencies have maintained the ambitious target of doubling fish populations, but re-established a long-term timeframe for meeting the doubling target to be 2012. Work is underway to improve understanding of fish population dynamics, the effectiveness of actions to date, and to refine to targets and timeframes as necessary. The Agencies have accomplished 38 percent of the structural actions for fisheries restorations and have established a long-term timeframe of 2012 to achieve 100 percent of the actions (Performance Goal #5 - Accomplishment of Structural Actions) that have been specifically identified and designed to contribute to and achieve the doubling goal.

Evidence: Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

YES 12%
2.3

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: The program has four annual goals that track achievement of the program's long-term fish restoration goals, although the efficiency measure is of minimal use. The Program has developed five Performance Goals. Two of these include annual performance measures that contribute to the long-term anadromous fish restoration goal (Performance Goal #3 - Water Operations for Fish Habitat and Performance Goal #4 - Efficiency of Water Acquisition). Performance Goal #3 measures the water dedicated and managed annually for Central Valley and Delta fish habitat. The second (Performance Goal #4) measures the cost of water acquired by Reclamation used in implementing CVPIA environmental restoration actions, a portion of which is for fish flows. These actions are either defined by the Act itself or specifically identified in the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) and the Annual Work Plans (AWPs). Accomplishment of these actions in combination with completion of the structural fish restoration actions (Performance Goal #5) will contribute to the long-term fish doubling goal and are designed to maximize the opportunities for environmental restoration success. A third measure (Performance Goal #2 - Wetlands Habitat), measures annual accomplishment toward delivering optimum refuge water supply. This accomplishment contributes to the purposes of the Act contained in Section 3402 (a), (b), (d), and (f) which capture the intent of the Program's overall goal of environmental restoration.

Evidence: Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992U.S. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

YES 12%
2.4

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

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures, although many of these targets have been revised as the program failed to meet its original targets. The Program has baselines and ambitious targets, as established by the Act, set from 1992 for Performance Goal #2 - Wetlands Habitat, and Performance Goal #3 - Water Operations for Fish Habitat. The target set for Goal #2 represents an ambitious increase of water supplies as specified in the Act and beyond the Level 1 and Level 2 refuge water supplies required by the Act. Combined, Levels 1, 2 and 4 refuge water supplies represent an increase of more than 400 percent from pre-Act conditions and is considered logistically ambitious, although the actual biological need for more than Level 4 refuge water may be demonstrated as the Program is adaptively managed. While the original targets set forth in the Act for reaching full Level 4 deliveries to refuges in 2002 was not met, the Agencies have re-established the target timeframe to be 2012. The annual targets remain ambitious considering the acute, continued competition and demand for reliable water in California and the highly variable market rate for water purchases. The target for Performance Goal #3 varies by water year type and represents as much as an additional million acre-feet of water supply for fishery habitat from that in the 1992 baseline. Some experts believe the annual fishery flow need could be as much as two million acre-feet. As the fish restoration needs are further explored through Program adaptive management, additional data and analysis for modifying annual targets for both Goal #3 - Water Operations for Fish Habitat and Goal #2 - Wetland Habitat may be developed and recommended.

Evidence: Document 1. Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992 Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006. Document 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

YES 12%
2.5

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: The contentious, complex environment surrounding implementatoin of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act requires a great deal of cooperation and coordination among the many stakeholders. Most of these stakeholders work toward the long-term goals of the program. However, some water users in recent years have not supported further efforts to implement the actions necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Central Valley Project. Reclamation and the Service have developed many partnerships and coordination linkages as stated in Explanation 1.5. Some of these partnerships were established prior to passage of CVPIA and subsequently have been augmented to include Program activities. For example, the Program is coordinated with the State of California's efforts to restore salmon and steelhead populations, the California's State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and the CALFED's Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP). In addition, most Program activities are developed and/or implemented in conjunction with local interest groups, many of them formed specifically for this purpose. These partnerships, together with the AWPs, provide the communications and roadmap to highlight and align partner commitments with Program goals. These reports reflect the extent and variety of commitments made by the various partners in the Program. Many of these commitments include financial participation.

Evidence: Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005. Document 12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, 10 Years of Progress, Fiscal Years 1993-2002, February 2005. Document 13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 10 Years of Progress, 1993-2002, February 2005.

YES 12%
2.6

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: The program has been subjected to continuous and sharp scrutiny since its inception, yet overall the evaluations do not meet the standards of regularity, independence, quality, and scope to quality for a 'yes' answer. For instance, while reviews conducted by environmental advocacy groups or water and power users may provide valuable insights, they do not meet standards for independence. Reivewers such as these clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluation. Reviews and audits by the Inspector General (IG) or Government Accounting Office (GAO) have been limited to an IG single audit in 1998 described in Evidence. (Document 14 below.) Recently, Environmental Defense also conducted a review of portions of the Program; the water and power contractors produced their own independent assessment late in 2005. Reclamation and the Service are actively reviewing CVPIA Program activities to better identify performance improvements in order to achieve the stated purposes of the Act. Specifically, Reclamation and the Service review AWPs each year with stakeholders through the CVPIA Restoration Fund Roundtable.

Evidence: Document 14. U. S. Department of the Interior Inspector General audit Report 98-I-383 presented the results of their review of the Restoration Fund. The audit found that "??Reclamation was in compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement Act as they pertained to the Restoration Fund assessment, collections and expenditures." Document 7. Status of the CVPIA Program Assessment Review is posted on the Reclamation website at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/docs_reports/. Document 15. A fact sheet prepared by Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife, describes the Program Assessment Review. Document 2. Environmental Defense recently published "Finding the Water" to provide the organization's perspective on Program accomplishments and needs. Finding the Water, New Water Supply Opportunities to Revive the San Francisco Bay-Delta Ecosystem, Spreck Rosekrans and Ann H. Hayden, Environmental Defense, 2005. Document 15A. Northern California Power Agency letter to Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, December 2005.

NO 0%
2.7

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: In general budget requests are minimally tied to accomplishment of the annual goals; the connection to achieving the long-term goals has been less clear. This lack of transparency for achieving the long-term goals has hindered budget decisions. This situation is exacerbated when combined with the fact that the selection of CVPRF projects to be funded in any given year is determined by a group (the Reclamation fund Roundtable) that is outside of the normal budget development process. These projects, in turn, are seldom clearly linked to achievement of any of the program's annual or long-term goals. The formulation of the Program budget for the various Program activities is based on the information provided in AWPs written by each Program activity manager. The AWPs describe the objective of the Program activity, current and future actions, benefits achieved and projected, funding needs with out-year needs (5-year), and proposed current fiscal year actions.

Evidence: AWPs are jointly written by the lead Reclamation and Service Program activity managers and coordinated with the Restoration Fund Roundtable. The AWPs are finalized in August after review and comment from the Restoration Fund Roundtable. In September/October and in April/May of each year, Reclamation and the Service conduct a public meeting to present the Program activity proposed current fiscal year actions and the associated budget. These meetings are closely coordinated with the Restoration Fund Roundtable (e.g., dates, times, location, and topics for presentation). The AWPs are posted on Reclamation's website at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/docs_reports/. (Document 7). AWPs are dynamic documents that can be adjusted throughout the year as necessary to adapt to changing conditions. When an AWP is written for the upcoming fiscal year (e.g., FY 2007), the accomplishments achieved during the closing fiscal year (e.g., FY 2006) are reported. The Restoration Fund Roundtable holds a meeting shortly after the February release of the President's Budget for the upcoming fiscal year to discuss funding issues and plan implementation. Budget justification documents tie the funds requested to specific sections of the authorizing Act and describe the use of those funds. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Fiscal Year 2007, Budget Justifications.

NO 0%
2.8

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

Explanation: The program is intended to be an adaptive management program, and within its legal constrains it has taken steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies, such as by re-evaluating its performance targets when it became clear they were overly ambitious. Reclamation and the Service in coordination with the Restoration Fund Roundtable have developed a strategic planning process that is based on a 5-year action plan. The action plan reflects funding and Program activities based on the concept of biological focus areas. The focus areas are represented by three parameters: the species of greatest concern, factors most influencing the fish and wildlife populations, and the geographic areas of habitats critical to those populations. The three restoration objectives requiring focus and action include anadromous fish restoration, water supplies for refuges and other waterfowl habitats, and mitigation for other CVP fish and wildlife impacts. To assist in ranking specific actions and assigning priorities for measures within specific program focus, Reclamation and the Service have established a list of biological, implementation, and economic considerations through the adaptive management process. This process has resulted in a priority setting strategy that supports long-term performance goals and funding decisions.

Evidence: Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005. Document 12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation , Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, 10 Years of Progress, Fiscal Years 1993-2002, February 2005. Document 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Report to Congress Six-Year Plan and Budget for Implementing the Central Valley Improvement Act, Fiscal Years 1999-2000, June 1999.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 75%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

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: Annual accomplishment reports quantitatively and qualitatively describe Program accomplishments. Tables and narrative explanations explain the benefits and significance of the activities. All accomplishment reports identify partners and their performance and contributions. The performance reports are used by the Program activity managers to adjust priorities and activities. Data collected is used to evaluate the success of the various Program activities, assess the benefits relative to the input and assist the re-evaluation of priorities and needs. This process allows the Program to adapt to changes that provide the greatest benefit for the resources available.

Evidence: Reclamation publishes an annual report identifying individual and programmatic accomplishments and provides that information to Congress, the Executive Branch, water and power customers and interested public. The information is also available on Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife websites. Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005.

YES 14%
3.2

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: Managers are held accountable for performance through a variety of means. Before funds are released, Program activity managers must identify planned costs, schedule, and performance results in their AWPs. Program performance is monitored throughout the year using data available in existing financial systems and the accomplishments stated in Program/activity progress reports. The Program and specific activity management is continually scrutinized by water and power customers, and environmental interests as well as cost-sharing partners.

Evidence: AWPs provide the justification, planned use and schedule for individual projects/activities. The annual performance report identifies specific performance on the same projects/activities. The locally written automated computer program and database (MRB) provides funds status at object class level compared to budget amounts, for each activity and program. Information is provided monthly to project and program managers for use in funds management. Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005.

YES 14%
3.3

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

Explanation: Most Reclamation funds are obligated on schedule and very few funds are carried over to the next year. The Restoration Fund obligation rate exceeds the Reclamation-wide average obligation rate. Funds available in the Restoration Funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for their intended purpose. Funds are available to be obligated as they are collected. The obligation rate is monitored monthly through a variety of financial reports. The Restoration Fund obligation has averaged approximately 99 percent for the last five years and nearly 100 percent for the last two years.

Evidence: Obligation rates for Reclamation have consistently been 95 to 97 percent. The Restoration Fund has obligated nearly 100 percent of the funds available for the last two years. The attached memo from MP 3200 to MP 120, dated April 7, 2006 includes a table reflecting actual obligations for the last five years (Document 17). Additionally, Reclamation prepares an annual financial report as required by Congress. Document 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Annual Financial Report, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV. September 2005 is the most recent report. An Office of the Inspector General noted some accounting challenges in the early years of program implementation, but those problems appear to have been addressed.

YES 14%
3.4

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 program has an efficiency measure relating to the coste of water, but this measure lacks targets, and is also out of the control of the program (it depends on the market price of water), therefore it is only minimally useful in achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The program does have other practices that should improve efficiency and effectiveness. For example, a portion of the work under the program is contracted, and thus the competitive acquisition processes require consideration of project costs and alternatives, which lends itself toward improving efficiency. Peer review, value analysis and architectural and engineering services also help assure efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

Evidence: Competitive acquisition assists in ensuring least-cost or best value construction contracts. Value Engineering Reviews provide for identification of cost-effective alternatives. Peer reviews provide quality assurance and quality control. Document 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Value Engineering Final Report, Reclamation District 2035 Fish Screen Project, 100-Percent, Woodland, California, September 2004.

NO 0%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Reclamation and the Service, through this Program, collaborate with stakeholders, cost-sharing partners, other Federal agencies, the State of California, Tribes, local agencies, and a variety of non-profit organizations. The Program uses a variety of Interior and non-Interior scientific and subject matter experts in other Federal, state, local and private entities.

Evidence: The Restoration Fund Roundtable and CALFED are primary vehicles for programmatic coordination. Significant numbers of partnerships and extensive coordination with local and state agencies and private groups are essential to the success of CVPIA. A comprehensive example is contained in the CVPIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004-July 2005 (Document 11).

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Federal Finance Accounting System is used to track obligation and expenditures against each section of the Act and project on a monthly basis or more frequently as deemed necessary. Tracking includes auditing categories of expenditures to ensure consistency with Program intent. As appropriate, certain contracts have a financial plan supervised by the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) and the Contracting Financial Officer (CFO). The COTR certifies that information is accurate and timely. The CFO assures that Reclamation systems meet all legal and financial requirements.

Evidence: Strong Program financial management practices are fully documented in an Independent Auditors' Report on Reclamation's financial statements for FY 2004 and FY 2005 (December 28, 2005 Memorandum from the Office of Inspector General to Reclamation, Document 5). The Mid-Pacific Region has a budget team that monitors obligations and expenditures, accomplishes necessary analysis and provides timely reports to all levels of management, stakeholders and others. A review of a Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General report on this program shows that in the early years of implementation the program had several weaknesses, which it addressed.

YES 14%
3.7

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

Explanation: Reclamation has a process in place to address any identified management deficiencies. The position of audit liaison provides quarterly status of all audit recommendations and the corrective action status to all levels of management on a quarterly basis. The program has demonstrated that it has taken steps to address financial management deficiencies. In other areas, there is little agreement between the many stakeholders on what constitutes 'deficiencies', and these issues are sometimes resolved by the courts instead of administratively. Reclamation incorporates information from a year-end Program-wide review of each Program activity into its Program management. This review includes an assessment of planned work as documented in the AWP compared to actual accomplishments based on fiscal year funding. The results of this review are incorporated into subsequent fiscal year AWPs and the budget planning process. The CVPIA Annual Reports to Congress document these findings.

Evidence: Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005. Independent Auditors' Report for FY 2004 and FY2005 (December 28, 2005, Memorandum from the OIG to Reclamation, Document 5) found a single material weakness. This weakness was identified as a result of implementation of a new accounting principle. Corrective action is underway and is to be completed by June 30, 2006. The identified weakness was activity between the Reclamation fund and WAPA and did not apply to the Restoration Fund.

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 86%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

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

Explanation: The Program has demonstrated some progress in achieving its long-term goals, but has failed to meet legislatively-determined targets, has revised deadlines, and even with this much change faces an uncertain future in its ability to meet its long-term goals. Progress toward the long-term goals for Performance Goal #1 - Natural Production of Anadromous Fish and Performance Goal #5 - Accomplishment of Structural Actions. As of 2005, the Program has achieved 66 percent of its target accomplishment for doubling fish (Goal #1) as represented by fall run Chinook salmon. Because of the cyclic nature of fish runs, this calculation represents the average of 2002 - 2005 actual fish counts. And, because of the uncertainty and impact of external factors anadromous fish runs, the long-term timeframe was reestablished to be 2012. The Program has achieved 38 percent (28 of 73 Structural Actions, Goal #5) missing the established 50 percent accomplishment target. Many actions are in progress or are physically complete and undergoing comprehensive multi-year evaluation. While they can contribute to biological performance, they are not formally characterized as complete.

Evidence: Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.2

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

Explanation: The program has largely met its annual targets for two of its three annual output measures. The Program has exceeded annual targets for Performance Goal #2 - Wetlands Habitat (measured by refuge water supply delivered) and has met the targets for Performance Goal #3 - Water Operations for Fish Habitat (water provided as flow for fish habitat).

Evidence: Document 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Fiscal Year 2006, Annual Work Plans, October 1, 2005. Document 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, January 9, 2001. Document 10. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations Central Valley Hydrologic Basin, California, March 1989. Document 11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement act, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004, July 2005. Document 12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 10 Years of Progress, 1993-2002, February 2005. Document 13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 10 Years of Progress, 1993-2002, February 2005. Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April 2006.

LARGE EXTENT 13%
4.3

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

Explanation: The Program has established a performance goal measuring the efficiency of water acquisition (Performance Goal #4 - Efficiency of Water Acquisition), but this measure largely depends on the market price of water, and thus is out of the program's control, and is not effective at demonstrating improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness. Furthermore, targets are still under development. This goal may be historically informative, but is only minimally useful for planning or program management.

Evidence: Document 21. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Supporting information for CVPIA PART Performance Measures, to Allan Oto, April. 2006. Document 22. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Memorandum, Development of PART Efficiency Measures, from Dan Meier, April 2006.

NO 0%
4.4

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

Explanation: Although there are few programs that similarly combine a legislated directive for water management, ecosystem restoration, and adaptive management, the program is similar to another program established in the same authorizing act. Namely, the water management and ecosystem restoration program established for the Central Utah Project (CUP), while smaller in scope, has similarities in purpose and design. There are no offical comparisons between the two programs, but a comparison of this PART to the 2005 PART for the Central Utah Project shows that the CUP has been somewhat more successful in meeting its legislatively mandated ecosystem restoration goals than has the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

Evidence: Title XXXIV-Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. Titles II-VI, Central Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. Document 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on Compact Disc (CD). The 2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool evaluation for the Central Utah Project.

LARGE EXTENT 13%
4.5

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

Explanation: Over the years the program has been subjected to significant scrutiny, although none of the evaluations that have been conducted meet all of the criteria for scope, quality, independence, and timeliness. In general they have found the program effective, but a perusal of the evaluations also suggests that some of them have been undertaken with a less than objective agenda, such as the recent water and power contractors assessment. Examples of the types of reviews that have focused on the program include reviews by user groups, an Inspector General audit, GAO reports on related activities of the Central Valley Project (although none on the CVPIA per se). Each Program activity undergoes review and evaluation at several levels. There is also an open forum with the Restoration Fund Roundtable, the transparent method of Program development, accomplishment and review.

Evidence: Document 14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, Bureau of Reclamation, Report No. 98-I-383, March 1998. Document 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Performance Review Fact Sheet, March 2006. Document 15A. Northern California Power Agency letter to Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, December 2005.

LARGE EXTENT 13%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 47%


Last updated: 09062008.2006SPR