protection of the status quo. Allowing BPA to be in charge of for- 

 mulating federal anadromous fish policies in the Columbia River is 

 like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. Under BPA's lead- 

 ership, the fox is eating between 70 and 90 percent of the juvenile 

 salmon. This must be changed if there is any hope of saving the 

 salmon. 



BPA is a power marketing agency, not a fishery agency. The only 

 purpose of its legion of fisheries biologists is to justify its power 

 marketing strategy. This is not what Congress envisioned when 

 BPA was created. BPA should be stripped of its fish and wildlife 

 programs and the money saved should be given to the fishery agen- 

 cies and tribes in a lump sum along with the responsibility to per- 

 form. 



The growth in staffing in Bonneville's fish and wildlife program 

 should be checked and even reversed, through a policy similar to 

 the way federal block grants are provided to the States. Bonneville 

 asserts that its current financial condition will prevent or delay fiill 

 implementation of the Power Council's fish and wildlife program, 

 but it is useful to consider Bonneville is quite willing to spend 

 money to stalemate efforts to address mainstem passage. 



Also recall that Bonneville refused to provide increased spill for 

 juvenile fish imtil litigation with Idaho forced good faith bargain- 

 ing. 



Finally, Bonneville and its customers are very proficient at deter- 

 mining the cost to the federal power system to provide legally man- 

 dated fish protection and the ensuing rate impacts, yet they ignore 

 the cost to the region of decades of depleted anadromous fish runs 

 in the Columbia because of the mainstem hydrodams. It seems pre- 

 sumptuous to calculate a cost of foregone revenues for operations 

 that conflicts with federal law. The BPA's shopworn billion dollars 

 spent in the 1980s is no more than an estimate of foregone reve- 

 nues based on a notion of opportunity cost that stretches credibil- 

 ity. 



There has also been discussion of the adequacy of current institu- 

 tions and agency authorities to manage the recovery of salmon 

 runs. We believe the authorities are in place to provide the protec- 

 tion and recovery to the salmon. The Northwest Power Planning 

 Council has had the authority for IS years to provide a salmon re- 

 covery plan that the federal agencies must follow. The main prob- 

 lem has been that until recently the Coimcil has been reluctant to 

 assert its authority, and BPA and the Corps have openly resisted 

 the Council's authority. 



Idaho believes that the Council's Strategy for Salmon, with 

 prompt and full implementation, can be the first step to reverse 

 decades of neglect. It provides the underpinning for returning the 

 Snake River salmon to fishable levels. Full implementation, in Ida- 

 ho's opinion, goes beyond short-term measures for the salmon. 

 Long-range planning must take hold or the strategy will become 

 just another plan to save fish runs that was lost in agency intran- 

 sigence. 



The strength of the Strategy for Salmon is its regional consensus. 

 Four States support rebuilding the salmon runs. The development 

 of the plan was open and all mterested parties were provided full 

 opportunity to participate in the process. The plan addresses every 



