651 



Members of the BPA Task Force 

 October 8, 1993 

 Page 2 



hand, accountability for the success of projects funded under the Council's Program can 

 and should be transferred along with the funds. 



NRDC considers a contract a far more appropriate vehicle for the proposed funding 

 transfer than a settlement agreement. A contract could ensure accountability through an 

 arrangement such as the following: an entity such as the Council or the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service would prepare a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the fish agencies 

 and Tribes; the plan would include performance standards, monitoring and reponing 

 requirements; continued funding for a particular activity would be conditioned on meeting 

 performance standards or making necessary adjustments; the Council would approve the 

 plan and oversee implementation. 



Indemnification for BPA from responsibility for fish survival would be appropriate, in my 

 view, only under an agreement that required federal agencies to meet adequate mainstem 

 flow or travel-time objectives. NRDC would oppose an alternative in which BPA provides 

 the fish agencies with a lump sum to fund projects and purchase fish flows, in return for 

 relieving BPA of further salmon obligations. We believe that scenario conflicts with the 

 directives for equitable treatment in a number of ways. It improperly eliminates biology as 

 a driver of salmon restoration measures. It restricts operational changes based on how 

 much they cost when system operations are being maximized for power (rather than 

 optimizing the system for fish and power, as required under law). It provides no incentive 

 for BPA to manage the energy system more compatibly with salmon flow needs (through 

 seasonal rates, conditions in power sales contracts, etc.), and otherwise reduce the cost of 

 salmon recovery. It does nothing to compel progress toward reservoir drawdowns. In 

 short, it would perpetuate many of the problems the Task Force heard described in Boise. 



2. Disputable Statements 



John Day. If I heard correctly. General Harrell said the Army Corps is preparing an 

 environmental impaa statement on the lowering of John Day pool. Yet the Corps says it 

 will not "accelerate the John Day option in advance of the System Configuration Study 

 (SCS) process."' The Corps hopes to finish the SCS in 1998 or 1999, by preliminary 

 estimates. That means an EIS for John Day might be completed within 5 or 6 years! 



In fact, there is every reason to accelerate the EIS on John Day. Congress authorized $2 

 million to be spent in 1993 on planning and design of the John Day pool lowering. The 

 Council's Program calls for implementation of the pool lowering in 1994. After the Boise 

 hearing. Corps staff told me the agency now plans to gather information on John Day for 

 the next 2 years, then allow the region to decide whether to break John Day out of the SCS 



' Army Corps of Engineers. Salmon Passage Notes, September 1993, p. 5. 



