603 



Response : 



The Power Act is incomplete with regard to actually mandating mitigation and recovery actions 

 for the fish and wildlife because the fishery managers are not mandated to plan and implement 

 those activities. Congress should authorize some forum with full authority to manage river 

 operations in such a way as to assure the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Fish and 

 wildlife resource protection is the priority that all other uses of the rivers need to adhere to. A 

 major concern of the BPA and the BR and Corps (Operating Agencies) is that they seem to feel 

 that they are mandated (somewhere) to balance the multiple uses of the Snake and Columbia 

 rivers in their hydrosystem, fiood control, and navigation operations. The Shoshone-Bannock 

 Tribes maintain that the Operating Agencies are not mandated to integrate all multiple uses of 

 the river system under their hydrosystem operations. 



e) Transferring a lump sum in fish and wildlife funds from BPA to fish and wildlife 

 agencies to be administered separately by those agencies for salmon recovery, 

 while providing accountability for the results of the work funded: 



Response : 



This alternative needs to include the tribes along with the "agencies" as the fishery managers. 

 The following response assumes that tribes are included in this alternative. The savings in 

 overhead would be significant, and the appropriate activities that are required on the ground 

 would stand a much better chance of occurring rather than endless stacks of words on paper. 

 An allocation formula between the different fishery managers could be successfully structured, 

 as the fishery managers have successfully ranked the needs of the fish and wildlife resource in 

 past proposal efforts. There is a history of the agencies and tribes successfully wrestling with 

 these difficult allocation issues in the recent past - witness the management forum under the 

 auspices of the Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act and the annual work 

 plans developed by the members of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. The 

 problem has been more with BPA's unwillingness to fund those projects which the CBFWA have 

 deemed important. If the IPP was to be effectuated, the process for collaboration among the 

 BPA and agencies and tribes could be resolved. 



Through the thorough technical reviews that the fishery managers can do best, the resolution of 

 any differences stand the best chance to be done based on a scientific rather than political basis. 

 The fishery managers know how to implement the Fish and Wildlife Program. However, when 

 the fishery managers go to the BPA for funding, BPA seems to think that BPA (or their hired 

 consultants) can do the job even better. The BPA funds very highly paid consultants, who rely 

 heavily on computer models and obscure evaluation techniques. The consultants spend an 

 inordinate amount of the BPA budget simply arguing the solutions that the fishery managers have 

 drafted. This process has gone way beyond unbiased third party review. The bottom line is that 

 the BPA should fund the fishery managers to protect and enhance the natural resources, with 

 thorough accountability (reports) through which a determination of success can be made. 



Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Testimony P^S^ ^ 



BPA Task Force Hearings 



