212 



The purpose of the Resources for the Future (RFF) contract is to help 

 develop tools that can be used to manage the fish and wildlife prog ram , 

 in a cost-pffpptive manner . RFF has used available information and I 



developed analyses that can help the region decide which measures in the ' 

 Council's Fish and Wildlife Program are cost-effective and which are not. 

 Preliminary results are available on a system- wide basis, which indicate that 

 we are not on a least-cost path toward fish enhancement. This information 

 should be used to redirect the Fish and Wildlife Program and as part of the 

 NMFS Recovery Plan. There is no other available comprehensive source on 

 the cost-effectiveness of the region's expenditures in this area. Two recent 

 GAO reports note that there is currently no evidence of the cost- 

 effectiveness of either past or .proposed fiiture actions. The analysis by RFF 

 is one critical component of a least-cost fish enhancement and recovery plan. 



(p.6,Q6) 



Has BPA contracted with the University of Washington to do a modeling 

 effort that is similar to one already conducted by the Northwest Power 

 Planning Council? If so, what is the purpose of this contract and how much 

 will it cost? 



The BPA modeling effort is important because it is an alternative to. not 

 a duplication of. the Council and state models . BPA's model is more 

 comprehensive than the Council's model, allows for consideration of 

 alternative measures and answers different questions; it goes far beyond the 

 Council's model. Also, the other models were not developed in the same 

 open arena as the BPA model. 



(p6,Q8) 



How much has BPA budgeted for the squawfish program in FY 1994? Of 

 this amount how much will go directly for the payment of bounties to 

 fishermen? Please describe the status and results of research on the 

 effectiveness of the squawfish program. 



PPC supports predator control as part of a comprehensive program of 

 salmon recovery. We are concerned that administrative costs appear to 

 comprise a disproportionate share of progra m costs. 



-8- 



