rans would have to be increased by afaclor ofthree to reach the bottorrvend of this range 

 an increase that may not be feasible. Until it is more apparent that the low end of the range 

 may be achieved, ttie Council has chosen not to attempt a more refined judgment of 

 hydropower responsibility. 



The range is stated m terms of a net loss or reduction in run size. It does not take into 

 account the hydropower-caused losses of salmon and steelhead each year since 

 hydropower development started. Of course, such cumulative losses would be far 

 beyond the 5 to 1 1 million range. 



It is clear that hydropower development and operations are not the only causes of 

 declines in salmon and steelhead runs and diminishment of their habitat. Irrigation, fishing, 

 and other factors also share in the total responsibility for the losses. Moreover, the 

 hydropower system's responsibility should not be seen in isolation. The Council 

 recognizes that the activities of the fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, land managers, and 

 water managers could affect the success of ratepayer investments in improving salmon and 

 steelhead production. The Northwest Power Act suggests the development of agreements 

 to coordinate administration and funding of measures addressing hydropower impacts with 

 those activities addressing nonhydropower impacts (16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(8)(C)). The Council 

 urges such agreements to ensure that nonhydropower activities do not negate the effects of 

 expenditures under the Council's program. 



Analysis of the hydropower responsibility issue is limited by availability of data. Yet it 

 is unlikely that new information will become available because the necessary historical data 

 were not collected at the time losses occurred and cannot be reconstructed with 



