140 



Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Since there is a minute left, Mr. Webb, 

 do you want to add anything at the outset, or do you just want to 

 respond to questions? 



Mr. Webb. Just questions. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Again, I thank the gentleman for his suc- 

 cinct testimony. I have a number of questions and I will defer to 

 my colleague, Mr. LaRocco, and we may do a couple of rounds here. 

 We will do 10-minute roimds on questions for these folks, because 

 I have quite a few. 



You mentioned the congressional oversight, Mr. Grace, and to see 

 that full implementation happens. I coiUd not help but notice a 

 rather public exchange of letters and concerns recently between 

 BPA and the Council regarding the fish and wildlife funding. Has 

 that been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council at this point 

 in time? 



Mr. Grace. It has. 



Mr. DeFazio. It has. 



Mr. Grace. Yes. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. To Mr. Hardy, would you like to comment 

 on the implementation of the resident fish and wildlife program? 

 And I have got to start with a caveat. You know, I cannot resist 

 being a bit parochial. I do represent the State of Oregon and it 

 seems that the other States in the operating region have entered 

 into agreements regarding resident fish and wildlife, somewhat dif- 

 ferent agreements I imderstand, for Idaho and Montana, versus 

 Washin^on that recently got a large allocation of funds fi-om BPA, 

 but that suddenly when it comes time for the Oregon resident fish 

 and wildlife program, there is no more money. Could I get a time- 

 table and some idea of BPA's commitment? I am certain there must 

 be some resident fish and wildlife concerns in Oregon if there are 

 such concerns in other States. 



Mr. Hardy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me describe what we have 

 done so far and how the Oregon alternative fits into that. 



Mr. DeFazio. As briefly as possible, yes. 



Mr. Hardy, We have developed a trust for the State of Montana, 

 which basically fiilfills all of our obligations there, and a trust for 

 the Dworshak mitigation for the State of Idaho. We have also de- 

 veloped an interim wildlife agreement for the State of Washington. 

 We have provided the State of Oregon with $150,000 to develop 

 their negotiating strategy to take to the table to engage us in nego- 

 tiations on a wildlife trust for Oregon. The ball is in Oregon's court 

 and has been for the last year. I am assured by Mr. Dimcan and 

 others that they are coming to the table quickly, and I have indi- 

 cated our openness to engage them on a discussion of a trust, a 

 wildlife trust for the State of Oregon. If that does not work, then 

 we can fall back to the project-by-project approach that the Council 

 has used before. 



We have funded wildlife projects in Oregon — Burlington Bottoms 

 and Conforth Ranch, to cite two of four or five projects. We are 

 ready to go and I think it is more a case of getting the requisite 

 things together for the State to be prepared to get to the negotiat- 

 ing table. Oregon's council members have indicated that they are 

 anxious to do that and anticipate doing that in the relatively near 

 future. 



