382 



The Honorable Larry LaRocco 

 October 22. 1993 

 Page Two 



• In addition, BPA is making significant Tinancial investments (over $48 

 million to date) in new salmon and steelhead hatcheries in the basin. 

 Examples include the Northeast Oregon, Yakima, and Umatilla hatcheries. 

 These large-scale hatcheries could adversely affect salmon stocks listed 

 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). BPA could more effectively meet 

 its ESA obligation and better target its investment by first determining the 

 impact these hatcheries may have on listed stocks — before proceeding with 

 design and construction. 



• Similar problems now threaten to crop up for resident fish and wildlife 

 programs. I have enclosed a copy of a Pacific Northwest Utilities 

 Conference Committee letter that highlights some of these same concerns 

 with respect to the Power Planning Council's Phase IV amendments for 

 resident fish and wildlife. 



Even BPA admits its priorities are skewed, as evidenced by this statement in the 

 Executive Summary of its function-by-function review: "Fish and wildlife mitigation 

 for the FCRPS is largely planned and implemented in the region based on program 

 inputs — dollars, coordination processes, regional agreements, and organizational 

 issues, rather than program outputs — expected fish and wildlife saved or produced." 



We believe that to rectify that situation. BPA and the Power Council must establish 

 clear biological goals and objectives for its fish and wildlife programs and prioritize 

 program activities. BPA also should hold the sute fish agencies and tribes account- 

 able for producing measurable resu..^ with the BPA funds they receive. The Task 

 Force could serve the region well by pursuing a more in-depth scrutiny of BPA's fish 

 and wildlife expenditures. 



I hope you find this information helpful. 



Sincerely, 



Enclosure \^ 



c w/encl.: Congressman Peter A. DeFazio 

 Ms. Linda Stevens, 



House Committee on Natural Resources 



