332 



benefits of enhanced flow regimes, if any, would be due to increasing the collection rate of 

 snwlts at Lower Granite and Little Goose dams, for transport below the Bonneville Project. 



The Alliance strongly supports research efforts conducted by NMFS and the Corps that will 

 collect baseline data for analysis, and that will not injure the river-dependent industries and 

 communities. 



Is implementation of the Strategy for Salmon on track for timely completion? How well are 

 federal and state agencies coordinating their activities with each other and with the Council to 

 achieve timely implementation? 



The deterioration of Columbia River Basin salmon runs occurred over more than a 

 century, and the restoration of the runs will at least require several decades. The primary federal 

 agencies involved— the Corps of Engineers, Bonneville, and the Bureau of Reclamation— have 

 worked with NMFS to meet fully the Section 7 consultation requirements of the Endangered 

 Species Act The agencies have put into place substantial flaw regimes in 1992 and 1993 as 

 requested; the costs of flaws and other salmon mitigation actions has now reached about $300 

 million annually, a dramatic increase over the past few years. As well, the federal agencies have 

 enacted other measures to comply with habitat restoration concerns. 



However, while the hydropower system operators have taken aggressive measures at the 

 request of NMFS, it is unclear whether progress is being made by federal and state agencies to 

 deal effectively with ocean and in-river harvest management. The inability to make significant 

 harvest reductions— based on predesignated escapement goals at the Lower Granite Dam— will 

 continue to detract from the ability to rebuild Snake River fall chinook runs. Certainly, the 

 harvest issue requires more effort by the responsible state and federal agencies, and the tribes. 



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 funding for the Council's fish and wildlife programs, given its wide swings in revenues? 



The issue here is not one of stable funding by Bonneville. The federal power agency 

 has in the past, currently is in the present, and will be in the future committing hundreds-of- 

 nuUions of dollars each year to protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife resources. The 

 issue is setting priorities for the dollars being spent. 



The Council's recent concern about the fish and wildlife program's funding level should 

 draw attention to their lack of setting priorities. Several of the items included within the 

 Council's program are not on a "critical path" for implementation given the emphasis that must 

 be placed on ESA-related actions. During the Council's "Phase 11" review process, the Bonneville 

 Administrator requested the Council to set funding priorities, and the Council disregarded the 

 request 



