384 



Some Examples of the BPA "Msion" for Salmon 



Regrettably I must tell you this morning that the Bonneville Power 

 Administration — despite its protestations to the contrary — does not share 

 this vision. Here are just a few of the most telling examples: 



• During the Salmon Summit, deputy administrator Jack Robertson told The 

 Oregonian that a "worst case" sahnon recovery effort which nobody ever 

 proposed would cut hydropower production by 1 1,000 megawatts — a 

 deliberate act of disinformation designed to sow pubUc panic and hostility 

 toward salmon recovery. Neither Mr. Robertson nor the agency has 

 retracted or clarified this inaccurate and irresponsible statement to the 

 press. 



• Recently this same ofiicial misread, tortured, and twisted research by the 

 Idaho Department of Fish and Game to reach the conclusion that free- 

 flowing rivers kill migrating juvenile salmon. Apparently in his mind, this 

 did not beg the obvious question of how the salmon survived and thrived in 

 the free -flowing Columbia Basin over millenia. It does follow to the ludicrous 

 notion that the way to save Snake River salmon is to build more dams. 



• Despite an internal fish and wildlife staff of 60, BPA this year let multi- 

 thousand dollar contracts for technical reports in support of the agency's 

 positions on salmon recovery. The reports contained no new data; the 

 prime contractor as well as by and lai^ge the subcontracted biologists have 

 long-standing ties as paid consultants to the regional utility industry. 



• BPA's two computer models — known by their acronyms SLX3M and CRiSP 

 — which the agency developed to forecast salmon production and spawning 

 escapement can not accurately "back-cast." That is, the computer models 

 do not spit out even remotely the same numbers for paper fish as for salmon 

 actually observed in the Columbia Basin historically. Nonetheless, Bonneville 

 insists upon using its computer models to evaluate salmon recovery 

 measures. 



BPA Is Not a Fisheries Agency, But Makes Decisions Anyway 



Unfortunately these are not isolated instances of a BPA ofiflcial cutting 

 the fabric of biology to fit the pattern of BPA's goals for fish policy. BPA's 

 practice of defensive biology is inappropriate for two reasons. First, under 

 • the Northwest Power Planning Act and the Endangered Species Act, the 

 Congress gave the responsibility to the Northwest Power Planning Council 

 and the National Marine Fisheries Service respectively — not to BPA — to 

 make determinations on the biology of salmon recovery. 



Second, BPA has no credibility. Asking BPA how to save the salmon is 

 like inviting Japan or Germany to write U.S. trade pxjlicy. Yes, the Japanese 



SierraChib — Page2 



