48 



Question 3: Bonneville asserts that its current financial condition will prevent or delay full 

 implementation of the Council's fish and wildlife program What measures can 

 Bonneville take to ensure more stable fiinding for the Council's fish and wildlife 

 programs, given its wide swings in revenues? 



Answer: As bacicground, the events that led to the reduction in the fish and wildlife budget 



was a dramatic decrease in BPA's financial health as a result primarily of the drought 

 and increased fish flows required by the Endangered Species Act It is important to 

 keep in mind that in spite of the financial situation being experienced by BPA, our 

 costs for fish and wildlife increased fi-om approximately $150 million in 1991 to over 

 $300 million in 1993. Enclosed is a chart that displays our overall trend for fish and 

 wildlife fiinding. The BPA effort may be criticized on the margins, but the overall 

 trend certainly reflects the region's increasing commitment to protect and enhance 

 fish and wildlife. 



Bormeville did not assert that our financial situation would prevent or delay fiill 

 implementation of the Council's program We have consistently stated that we are 

 committed to fiill implementation of the program as a comprehensive guide for 

 protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife impacts of Federal 

 hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin. However, in response to 

 Bonneville's extreme financial stress, we must carefully schedule and sequence 

 measures described in the program, and balance their pace of implementation with 

 BoimeviUe's other responsibilities. 



There are three-objectives which can help ensure adequate Bonneville funding for 

 the fish and wildlife program. Bonneville's Competitiveness Project, an effort 

 through which we are striving to become more results-oriented, cost-conscious, 

 customer-focused, and market-driven, is moving us to rethink how we accomplish 



