85 



15 percent. In addition. Hardy reduced the agency's fish and wildlife budget for Fiscal Year 

 1994 from $95 million to $80 million. > 



We were concerned about the impact on salmon measures. The initial budget 

 overlooked certain measures important to the recovery of weak stocks. In a related budget 

 matter. Mr. Hardy expressed a clear intention to delay funding new resident fish and wildlife 

 measures, which the Council released in draft form for public comment this summer, until 

 1996. 



These proposals appeared insufficient to implement the fish and wildlife program, and 

 the Council advised Bonneville that unless these proposals were changed, they could lead to 

 a Council determination that Bonneville's actions are inconsistent with the program. The 

 Council also expressed this concern to the Northwest Congressional delegation and notified 

 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that we may choose to file a request for late 

 intervention in the Commission's process of reviewing Bonneville's rate proposal. The 

 Commission must approve Bonneville's rates before they go into effect. 



The Council is not seeking an unlimited amount of funding for the fish and wildlife 

 program. Nor is the Council attempting to set the specific level of Bonneville's budget. It is. 

 however, the Council's responsibility to specify the actions needed to protect, mitigate and 

 enhance fish and wildlife, and it is Bonneville's obligation to develop a budget sufficient to 

 implement these actions. We believe it is dangerous and ultimately more expensive to delay 

 implementation of the Council's Strategy for Salmon and to defer important resident fish and 

 wildlife mitigation until 1996. 



Last July, when Bonneville announced its rate increase, critical actions in the 

 Council's Strategy for Salmon were delayed or not funded These included: 



• Setting rebuilding targets for each run or naturaUy spawning salmon; 



• Identifying the status and population trends of naturaUy spawning salmon; 



• Scheduling pilot projects for new fishing techniques in the lower Columbia 

 River in order to protect weak stocks such as Snake River chinook and 

 sockeye; 



' This is not the total cost of the program, however, as lost revenues also are included. Increasing water 

 storage to provide increased spring flows means that dam operators forego some hydropower generation during 

 winter months. The Council estimates that the value of this lost hydropower production would average $40 

 million to $70 million annually. The cost could be higher or lower depending on water conditions. In 1993, for 

 example, the total cost of the Council's recommended spring salmon actions, not counting the cost for the 

 existing water budget volume or the cost of fish spill, was $74 million. In 1 992, the amount was about $ 10 

 million. In wet years, the cost could be zero. In extremely dry years, it could be as high as $190 million. 



