650 



ma 



Natural Resources 

 Defense Council 



~1 Slatnsofi Strefl 



Via Fagsimiig ^,5 777.^220 



October 8. 1993 



The Honorable Peter DeFazio, 

 Members of the BPA Task Force 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 



Re: Supplemental Comments on Salmon Issues 



Dear Chairman DeFazio and Members of the Task Force: 



On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, I would like to express my 

 appreciation for the leadership you showed at the September 24 hearing on salmon. If the 

 federal agencies under your jurisdiction were managed with the intelligence, thoughtfulness 

 and creativity members of the Task Force brought to that hearing, Columbia Basin salmon 

 would have far better prospects for recovery than they do at present. 



This letter responds to a question Chairman DeFazio posed to me during the hearing, 

 challenges a seleaive list of statements made by other panelists, and further develops some 

 of NRDC's recommendations. 



1. Is BPA's Lump Sum Funding Agreement with Montana a Useful Model for the 

 Transfer of Fish and Wildlife Program Funds? 



I understand that the Montana agreement takes the form of a settlement of BPA's mitigation 

 responsibility for wildlife habitat. Mitigation for wildlife habitat inundated by a dam is 

 more amenable to settlement than is BPA's salmon mitigation obligation for the operation 

 of federal dams. Inundation happens only once. The funds provided by BPA compensate 

 Montana for that loss on an acre-by-acre basis, allowing the state to restore habitat 

 elsewhere. 



By contrast, BPA has an ongoing responsibility under the Power Act to protect and restore 

 salmon. This responsibility includes managing the dams in a way that provides equitable 

 treatment for fish -- an operational obligation not easily transferred to another entity 

 through a lump sum payment. The Council's Fish and Wildlife Program consists of both 

 modifications in dam operations (such as flow releases and reservoir drawdowns) and other 

 aaivities BPA must fund. The funded activities include research, monitoring, hatchery 

 construction, installation of screens at diversion facilities, and other measures. They aim to 

 increase the effectiveness of changes in dam operations, but by no means eliminate the need 

 for those changes. 



A direct transfer of funds for those activities to another entity could not, therefore, 

 indemnify BPA from its operational obligations under the Power Act (or the ESA) as the 

 Montana arrangement did for a limited wildlife mitigation responsibility. On the other 



■iC Wtil 20lh Str,-c: :;5C\m YMAn. MV cI7 imlli Oir.i ~:-m 21 2 Mmlumt it . Sir.h 2.\^ 



Self y,)rk. Nrti' Y.'^ l.Vn l-V.is/miel.'n DC 2CC03 Lm Anaeln CA J.VJJ Honoiiihi. Hnwai 1 9c>l- 



212727-2700 2C>27^i.7SC0 212S92-15CC ;>0S5i3-1C75 



hix212 727-Vy Fax 202 7^! -5i'17 Fiix 2U c2->-5.-r^ F.ix ^OS 521-c^41 



