384 



Mr. Crow 

 August 13. 1993 

 Page 2 



We question the value - to the resource, to the region and to the ratepayers - of forging blindly ahead 

 with Phase IV. Phase IV will cost between 500 Million and 1.5 Bilbon dollars. BPA is facing a 14-16 

 percent rate increase and a 20 perceot reduction in budget. BPA can't pay for the projects already in the 

 program and will not be able to fund new projects until FY 1996. 



Thii it your opportunity to apply adaptive inatiagfment to fl>e program withoot ddaying 

 knitanBitadMi. Please take the time now lo build a con ceptu al foundation and to thoroughly evaluate 

 the program goals and priorities. Draw a clear map of where you want to go and how you will know 

 wfaeo you get there. Then, when funds are available in FY 1996. the r^on will be in a good position 

 to choose the most biologically sound and cost-effective fish and wikflife projects. 



Pleue consider the following: 



ir The Omndl has pnposed a nmnber of measures wtddi exceed its antbority and/or do not 

 address a dwtii n»««»H federal taydropower-related loss. The Northwest Power Aa requires 

 that the taiqsayers shall pay for fish and wildlife mitigation only to the fMnP tff'"'^ ^"^ federal 

 hvdropower develotmem . This definitely precludes any mitigation for - or studies of - losses 

 above FERC-licensed projects. It also does not allow mitigation for cultural losses. Further, the 

 •in lieu or clause in the Act [Section 4(h)(10)(A)] and Section 4(hX8KQ prevent the CouncU 

 from intruding in the congressionally-amhorized Lower Snake Con5)ensation Plan. 



The measures proposing U.S. ratepayer-funded snjdies and mitigation in Canada are the most 

 glaring examples of where the CouncU has gone beyond its authority. W^ ^9m\y <?PP<??^ tltese 

 niy!i ^T>< Mitigation ta Canada is deariy outside the Council's authority and is iUegal. The 

 CouncU cannot obUgate U.S. doUan to Canadian mterests. Only Congress can do this. Congress 

 specifically limited the Council's jurisdiction. The Council is to develop a isgiaa^ plan. Section 

 3(14XA) of the Aa defines the region as "the area consisting of the States of Oregon. 

 Washington, and Idaho, the portion of the State of Montana west of &t Contineoial Divide, and 

 such portions of the States of Nevada. Utah, and Wyoming as are within the Columbu River 

 drainage basin." This definition cannot be construed in any way to mclude any portion of 

 Canada. 



it Hw Conndl't Fl«h and WUdlife Program is not fomded on a dear itatcmoit of how the 

 m^ior Moiogical and physical components of the Columbia River ecosystem (headwaters, 

 _t.^..„^ tgtaarj, ocean) flt togedier. In other words, it lacks a conceptual fouitdation and 

 b b wH on questionable assumptions. We. as a region, do not have a clear idea of where we 

 wmt to go, how we will get there, and whether what we are proposing will get us there. 



ir lite Coadl wants to bofld its program on tbe ■eoosystcm approadi,'' but the proposed 

 Bnf,t,hff«wt« cuntc that can't happen. For exan^Ie. the measures which allow or promote 

 mitigxtion for leaidea fiih losses caused by tnadromous fish mitigation violate the whole concept 

 of 'ecosystems.* Odxr measures fbcns on managmg or mitigating for a single species instead 

 of looking a bow tbe aquatic and terrestrial communities function as a whole. Still other 

 measures promote put-and-take-fisberies strioly for harvest or recreational purposes which could 

 adversely impaa sensitive species. Further. aUowing passage beyond namral barriers will create 

 havoc hi the fKi^ing ecosystem and could be grounds for fimire ESA actions. 



PNUCC ADCM13.1993 -a- "*'" 



