335 



example, are meaningful salmon recovery actions currently being hampered by the existing 

 institutional/agency structures and relationship; is the real issue for some of the participants 

 engaged in the salmon recovery issue simply "control" over the hydro system for the sake of 

 control; would a "new regional entity" operate or take actions significandy different from the 

 region's current institutional arrangement; and is the overriding factor really the institutional 

 structure for decision making and action? 



While the answers to these questions may lead to some insightful observations about 

 regional politics, they will not substantiate a need to create a "new regional entity." The work 

 currently being pursued by the federal hydro system agencies £splays a concern for both 

 inunediacy and selecting recovery measures that will have long-term benefits for Columbia 

 River Basin salmon runs. 



The region's federal, hydroelectric resource managers have taken significant actions over 

 the past two years directly tied to salmon recovery efforts and conducted extensive recovery 

 measure evaluations, both of which are in full compliance with Endangered Species Act 

 requirements (Section 7 consultations). Today, these same agencies are prepared to move 

 forward with the actions recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service Salmon 

 Recovery Team. It would be politically naive or technically inexperienced to conclude that 

 these agencies have failed to act or have acted with impropriety. 



gi Transferring a lump sum in fish and wildlife funds from the BPA to fish and wildlife 



agencies to be administered separately bv those agencies for salmon recovery, while 

 providing accountability for the results of the work funded. 



Providing a fixed entitlement to the fish and wildlife agencies would ignore the key 

 purpose for Bonneville's hydro system responsibilities for fish and wildlife mitigation, and 

 would guarantee that no agency accountability would follow the use of the funds. 



First, the objective for hydro system responsibility is to identify those impacts directiy 

 caused by hydro system operations and provide appropriate mitigation. This requires that 

 Bonneville "target" its mitigation actions toward the source of the need for mitigation. Allocating 

 a fixed entitiement to resource agencies significantiy moves away from "targeting" hydro system 

 caused impacts; the agencies will have their own prerogatives for funding priorities, some of 

 which will have littie to do with hydropower mitigation. 



Second, by simply moving to an entitlement fund for the resource agencies, the need to 

 match funding resources to the areas that will foster tiie greatest benefits is no longer a 

 consideration. Within the resource agencies, the mid-level managers will readily adopt an attitude 

 of "how can I get some of that Bonneville money to fund my programs and projects?" 



An entitiement program would be among the least productive alternatives available to the 

 House committee. If implementing meaningful salmon recovery measures is the stated objective, 



10 



