JUDI DANIELSON

CHAIR

Idaho

 

Jim Kempton

Idaho

 

NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

851 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 1100

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1348

 

TOM KARIER

VICE-CHAIR

Washington

 

Frank L. Cassidy Jr.

"Larry"

Washington

 

Gene Derfler

Oregon

 

Melinda S. Eden
Oregon

Fax:

503-820-2370

 

Phone:

503-222-5161

1-800-452-5161

Internet:

www.nwcouncil.org

Ed Bartlett

Montana

 

John Hines

Montana

 

Testimony of Judi Danielson, Chair

Northwest Power Planning Council

Before the

Subcommittee on Fisheries Wildlife and Water

Committee on Environment and Public Works

Washington, D.C.

June 24, 2003

 

            Good morning, Senator Crapo, and thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on implementation of the NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion on Hydropower Operations for Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.

 

            I am Judi Danielson, and I chair the Northwest Power Planning Council.  The Council is an agency of the four Northwest states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.  The Council was created by the state legislatures in 1981 under authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, which the Congress approved in December 1980.  The Power Act directs the Council to prepare a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin that have been affected by hydropower dams while also assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable electric power supply.

 

            The Council implements the Power Act through two broad, integrated planning processes.  One process is for our Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, and the other is for our Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.  Today I will focus my comments on implementation of our fish and wildlife program, and specifically on how the program incorporates elements of the 2000 Biological Opinions issued by NOAA Fisheries for Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout.

 

The Council committed in its 2000 revision of its fish and wildlife program to pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other federal, state, tribal, Canadian and volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs.  The Council also committed to use subbasin planning to identify coordination needs and opportunities that arise from the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and also water and land management objectives affecting fish and wildlife.  In this way we can use our program funding to coordinate activities that address various legal requirements and provide the maximum benefit to fish and wildlife.

 

 

            It is important to point out, first, that even though the Power Act is a federal law, the Council is not a federal agency and our fish and wildlife program is not a recovery plan for purposes of the Endangered Species Act.  The Council develops the program and recommends projects to implement it, as I will explain in more detail.  Consistent with specific direction in the Power Act, these projects are funded by the Bonneville Power Administration from a portion of the revenues it collects from its electricity customers.  Implementation of the Council’s fish and wildlife program does not depend on consultations among federal agencies or appropriations by Congress or federal agencies.

 

            I have four main points to make today, Senator Crapo:

 

 

 

 

 

Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program and the Biological Opinions

 

            The Council’s program is being implemented at the local level, in the tributary subbasins of the Columbia, and also in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers at the major hydroelectric projects.  But most importantly for our purpose here today, the program is being driven by locally developed assessments of fish and wildlife mitigation needs.  These plans account for elements of the biological opinion, as I will explain in more detail in my testimony.  The degree of local/state/federal collaboration is impressive and has been noticed by people elsewhere in the nation who are adapting the structure we developed for their own fish and wildlife mitigation efforts.  In the state where you and I live, Mr. Chairman, there are impressive collaborative efforts underway for the benefit of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, and other fish and wildlife, in the Salmon and Clearwater basins.  The Idaho Department of Water Resources is coordinating an effort to develop a statewide water transactions program to respond to a specific action item in the biological opinion -- RPA Action 151 -- that calls for experimentation with innovative ways to increase tributary water flows for the benefit of listed species.

 

Partners in these efforts include the local soil and water conservation districts, Indian tribes, Idaho state agencies, the Power Planning Council and Governor Kempthorne’s Office of Species Conservation.  Similar efforts are underway for the benefit of listed and unlisted species in Oregon, Washington and Montana.  Throughout the Columbia River Basin, local entities are leading the planning efforts and successfully integrating federal recovery efforts with local efforts.

 

Key to these efforts is a foundation of solid science and a credible and independent scientific review.  The Council takes a science-based, collaborative approach to implementing its fish and wildlife program through projects that are designed to make progress toward the goals and objectives of the program and the biological opinion.  Projects proposed for funding are reviewed by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and the 11-member Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP).  All projects are treated equally in this review.  Project proposal that respond to action items in the biological opinion do not get special preference in the ISRP reviews.

 

The Council created the ISRP in 1997 in response to an amendment to the Northwest Power Act.  In this way, the Council is responding to a 1996 independent scientific review of the program that concluded, among other things, that the program lacked a process for prioritization of projects and provided, at the time, little guidance for annual implementation.  The review recommended incorporating an integrated approach based on an overall, scientifically credible conceptual foundation.  The Council incorporated such a foundation into its most recent revision of the program, in 2000.  The 2000 Program expresses goals and objectives for the entire Columbia basin based on a scientific foundation of ecological principles. 

 

Section 9.5 of the NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion states that the development and implementation of the five-year and one-year implementation plans will be coordinated through existing processes.  Mentioned specifically in Section 9.5 is the annual project prioritization conducted by the Council for implementation of our fish and wildlife program.  The Council believes this prioritization process is well designed to coordinate ESA needs with other Bonneville fish and wildlife funding obligations, and that this can be the principal device for coordinating implementation among the many jurisdictions involved in the salmon restoration and recovery effort. 

 

The Council is committed to collaboration with the NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting requirements of the ESA and the Northwest Power Act.  We can incorporate the implementation sequence in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion into our fish and wildlife program implementation planning.  The biological opinion sets out a sequence of five-year and one-year implementation plans.  These are to be developed by the Action Agencies.  The Council sees this sequence of planning, particularly the one-year plans, as “check-in” points to verify that the Council’s schedule for implementation planning and program funding will address the requirements of the biological opinion as well as the objectives of the program.

 

            The Council’s project review process, which is accomplished at the ecological province level (there are 11 ecological provinces in the Columbia basin)  permits focused and considered scientific review and public involvement on Bonneville fish and wildlife funding decisions.  The province-based review and approval process will lead to longer periods of funding approval -- three years in most instances.

 

Because the Council’s fish and wildlife program is designed to benefit all fish and wildlife in the basin affected by the hydrosystem, it has been addressing ESA-listed species through a number of actions.  Some portion of the annual budget for the direct program over the last five years has benefited species of concern under the Endangered Species Act.

 

The NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion includes numerous specific measures in the hydrosystem and new initiatives for improving salmon and steelhead survival in the stages of their life-cycles that come before and after migration through the mainstem Snake and Columbia -- what we call “offsite” mitigation. [1]   These measures are at the heart of the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program.

 

            The offsite measures include experimenting with new techniques, such as an experimental voluntary water rights brokerage, attempting to focus landowner enrollment in Farm Service Administration programs where salmon habitat needs the most help and protecting specific reaches of existing high-quality habitat through voluntary landowner agreements.  The Council took primary coordinating responsibility for key elements of the offsite measures of the biological opinion for hatchery reform and subbasin planning.  Both of those initiatives are well underway with considerable collaboration of state and tribal agencies and local interests.  In short, many of the projects the Council recommends to Bonneville for funding implement actions in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives of the two biological opinions.  I have included with my testimony a list of these projects from recent funding cycles.

 

            Through our project selection process, independent scientific reviews and program implementation we recognized the need for better monitoring and evaluation, and data-gathering, than has been available in the past.  Improved data management is key to improved and more focused decision-making in the future.  I am pleased to say that the Council is moving ahead with a program to improve data management.  We have been working with an independent contractor to develop a more comprehensive, Internet-based data collection and repository system for the Columbia River Basin, a system that will be available to all interested parties and that will store data in uniform formats.

 

Subbasin plans are the means of integrating Power Act and ESA obligations

 

The 2000 Program established basinwide objectives for biological performance and environmental characteristics.  The 2000 Program also recognized that while impacts such as overfishing and destruction of spawning and rearing habitat contributed to the decline of salmon and steelhead runs prior to construction of the major hydropower dams in the Columbia basin, significant losses of anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife and their habitats have occurred as a result of the development and operation of the hydrosystem.  Biological objectives based on these losses provide regional guidance for subbasin plans.  For example, the 2000 Program’s objectives include increasing total adult salmon and steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam by 2025 to an average of 5 million annually in a manner that supports tribal and non-tribal harvest.  For resident fish, the 2000 Program recognizes the need for substitution for anadromous fish losses and restoration of native resident fish species (subspecies, stocks and populations) to near historic abundance throughout their historic ranges where original habitat conditions exist and where habitats can be feasibly restored.  For wildlife, the 2000 Program calls for development and implementation of habitat acquisition and enhancement projects to mitigate fully for identified losses.

 

The Council recognizes that achieving these broad objectives is not the sole responsibility of the 2000 Program or Bonneville alone.  Complementary actions by other governmental agencies and funding sources, including Canadian entities where appropriate, as well as the support and participation of the citizens of the Northwest, will be needed for these objectives to be fully achieved.  However, the focus of the 2000 Program is limited to fish and wildlife affected by the development, operation, and management of the FCRPS.

 

The 2000 Program organizes the Columbia River Basin into 11 ecological provinces.  Within these provinces there are groups of adjoining subbasins with similar physical and environmental conditions.  These provinces are further subdivided into two or more tributary subbasins.  In all there are 62 tributary subbasins.  The 2000 Program is implemented principally at the subbasin level.   It is at this subbasin level that the more general guidance provided by the larger province and basin-wide level visions, principles, objectives, and strategies is refined in light of local scientific knowledge, policies, and priorities.

 

Subbasin planning will facilitate, through a collaborative process, the development of scientifically credible, locally implementable subbasin scale plans to serve the following purposes:

 

1.               Protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife and related spawning grounds and habitat impacted by the development and operation of the FCRPS;

2.               Guide Bonneville’s expenditures by giving priority to strategies for ESA recovery activities as Bonneville implements the Council's 2000 Program through subbasin plans.

3.               Provide a context for scientific review of program measures;

4.               Provide the foundation for NMFS/USFWS ESA recovery planning efforts;

5.               Provide stability and certainty for local planning efforts during federal recovery planning;

6.               Improve coordination of other state, tribal, federal and private fish and wildlife mitigation efforts within the Columbia River Basin; and

7.               Integrate Bonneville funding with funding from other sources such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

 

The Council will evaluate subbasin plan recommendations for their consistency with biological objectives and strategies at the basin and province levels.  Similarly, as subbasin plan measures are adopted into the 2000 Program, higher-level objectives and strategies may be modified to reflect and accommodate the information and initiatives of each plan.

 

The Council believes subbasin plans will establish scientifically sound restoration strategies that rely on local leadership and clear implementation schedules.  These plans, once completed, will be the foundation for recovery planning under the Endangered Species Act as well as a broader base of credibility for the Council’s program.

 

            Subbasin plans will include three key elements:  1) an assessment of historical and existing environmental conditions including abundance of fish and wildlife populations;  2) a clear and comprehensive inventory of existing projects and past accomplishments;  and 3) a 10-15 year management plan.  Subbasin planning will be coordinated by the states and tribes with local governments.  The technical review teams appointed by NOAA Fisheries will be involved to ensure consistency with ESA recovery planning.  Development of the plans will be funded by Bonneville and administered by the Council.

 

            We expect that subbasin plans will provide the basis for future implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the fish and wildlife program.  Subbasin plans also will serve to meet ESA requirements in the short term.  They will empower state, tribal and local efforts in coordination with ESA recovery planning.  And they will provide a credible basis for other funding sources for fish and wildlife recovery , including Congressional appropriations.

 

In its 2000 Biological Opinion, NOAA Fisheries commits to rely heavily on the Council’s subbasin planning process to identify offsite habitat mitigation opportunities. The heart of the Council’s offsite mitigation strategy is to complete subbasin plans in each of the Columbia’s major tributaries.  Earlier this month, the four Northwest Governors endorsed subbasin planning as a means of consolidating recovery and enhancement actions.  Specifically, the Governors said:

 

The hub for this federal/regional/state/tribal effort is the subbasin planning called for by the Council’s program.  The biological opinions should continue to look to these subbasin plans to guide habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions in the watersheds throughout the Columbia Basin in the coming years.

 

 

The Fish and Wildlife Budget

 

The Council believes that Bonneville’s funding obligation for the ESA is part of its overall fish and wildlife responsibilities under the Northwest Power Act, and therefore is tied to the adverse impacts caused by the hydrosystem.   While Bonneville’s obligation and financial resources may be significant, Bonneville funds should not be the exclusive source of ESA funding in the Columbia basin.  Bonneville funds for ESA-based actions should be combined with funds from other entities, especially federal agencies, that have legal and financial obligations to protect and enhance threatened and endangered species.  Some of the actions required by the biological opinion address impacts on the listed species that are not the result of hydrosystem impacts -- reducing predation by birds on juvenile salmon and steelhead, for example, and implementing selective-harvest fisheries to reduce commercial fishing pressure on the listed stocks.  These actions should be funded by agencies other than Bonneville -- by the nation’s taxpayers, not the region’s electricity ratepayers.

 

While the Council supports using the Bonneville fund for offsite mitigation, the fund has limits.  The Power Act does not permit the Bonneville fund to be used “in lieu” of funding responsibilities of other entities.  In addition, the Council notes that Bonneville’s funding as part of its overall fish and wildlife funding obligations is limited by its ability to ensure the region an adequate, economical, efficient, and reliable power supply.  Federal agencies carry some of the responsibility for the loss of salmon and their habitat through the actions of NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service, quite distinct from the hydropower system.  Therefore some part of the financial responsibility for recovering endangered fish in the Columbia Basin rests with the federal government.

 

In the past, we advocated a supplemental appropriation for actions that address the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the biological opinions.  We also urged NOAA Fisheries to work with us to integrate ESA needs with others to be funded by Bonneville in a way that permits Bonneville to meet all of its fish and wildlife obligations in a cost-effective manner.

 

Until October 1995, there was no formal budget agreement for implementing the Council’s fish and wildlife program.  Late that month a draft agreement negotiated by Bonneville Administrator Randy Hardy, National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Director Will Stelle and Power Planning Council Chair Angus Duncan was memorialized in a letter from the federal Office of Management and Budget to U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon).  This was to forestall a legislated budget cap and “sufficiency” language regarding the fish and wildlife program budget.  It took another year, until September 1996, to negotiate and execute the MOA institutionalizing the budget commitment.

 

The commitment was for an average budget of $252 million per year -- $127 million to implement the Council’s program and measures in the 1995 Biological Opinions ($100 million in direct expenses and $27 million in capital funding), and $125 million per year for fish-related expenditures that Bonneville reimburses other federal agencies (primarily the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation).  The two 1995 Biological Opinions were issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Snake River salmon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Kootenai River white sturgeon.  Bonneville also accepted the financial impact of power system operations that result from the biological opinions, estimated at $183 million per year.  The budget figures were incorporated in a six-year Memorandum of Agreement in September 1996, signed by the Secretaries of the Army, Commerce, Energy and the Interior.

 

The MOA resolved three key funding issues:  1) it provided greater financial certainty through a stable, multi-year budget;  2) it identified a budget sufficient to meet Bonneville’s obligations under the fish and wildlife program and the biological opinions, and 3) it provided mechanisms to ensure the money was spent wisely and efficiently.

 

In early December 2001, following expiration of the MOA, the Bonneville Administrator said the agency would increase its spending during the current rate period to an average of $36 million per year in capital funding and $150 million per year in expense funding for the Council’s program and implementation of the 2000 Biological Opinions.  Thus, the annual average would increase from $127 million to $186 million.  The Administrator said the commitment to $150 million for the expense part of the budget likely would yield an annual average of $139 million in actual expenditures (“accruals,” in Bonneville’s accounting terminology) consistent with projections in Bonneville’s September 1998 Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles.[2]

 

But a year later, in December 2002, the Administrator stated in a letter to the Council that “already in the first year of the new rate period, Bonneville’s expense accruals were $137 million” and that “this rapid increase in program spending has surprised us.  He asked the Council, in consultation with the region’s fish and wildlife managers, to take the lead to achieve at least three goals:  1) take steps to assure that spending for the fish and wildlife program not exceed $139 million in expense accruals in FY 2003;  2) prioritize program spending “to create the opportunity to spend less than $139 million in expense annually through the 2003-2006 period, and  3) establish criteria for setting priorities among projects that seek funding to implement the program.  He stated a preference for projects that would help implement the biological opinions:  “We believe that core among these are projects needed to meet the requirements of the various biological opinions that apply to Bonneville, in particular the 2003 and 2005 check-ins for the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and to preserve previous important investments of the Fish and Wildlife Program.”[3]

 

            The Council began this assignment with the understanding that Bonneville’s power purchase costs during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 are at the heart of the agency’s financial crisis, not fish and wildlife costs.  In Fiscal Year 2001, during the West Coast energy crisis, Bonneville spent nearly $3 billion on power purchases, causing the agency’s cash reserves to decline by more than $800 million.  In November 2002, the Administrator announced Bonneville faced a revenue gap of $1.2 billion for the 2002-2006 rate period. 

 

In agreeing to help Bonneville identify fish and wildlife cost reductions and deferrals, the Council made clear that:

·       The financial burden is being borne by ratepayers, and Bonneville’s current financial uncertainty adds to that burden.

·       The direct fish and wildlife program is not over budget, but is within planned spending levels.

·       The Council would review Bonneville’s program management and accounting procedures and recommend reforms.

·       While Bonneville committed to use $36 million per year in borrowing authority to capitalize fish and wildlife projects, less than one-third of that amount has been made available.  Failure to provide the $36 million, or shifting fish and wildlife funding from capital to expense, increases Bonneville’s cash requirements and exacerbates its current financial difficulties.

·       Reducing expenditures below $139 million per year jeopardizes Bonneville’s ability to meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act and Northwest Power Act.

    

The Council developed the following principles to guide its cost review:

 

 

On February 21, 2003, the Council responded with what could be called a cash management approach to meet Bonneville’s $139 million spending target for the fish and wildlife program.  In general, three categories of projects were identified that would yield savings in 2003, as well as one specific spending discrepancy that had been resolved as a matter of policy last year.  The three project categories that yielded reductions were:

 

·       Projects that were planned for funding in 2002 but were carried over to 2003.  Unfinished Fiscal Year 2002 work cannot be caught up in Fiscal Year 2003 while also performing all anticipated Fiscal Year 2003 project tasks.

 

·       Projects that were not reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel or prioritized in the Council’s project review process.  The Council recommended that these projects not be funded because they did not meet scientific review and endorsement standards on a par with those that were reviewed.  Within this category are three projects, totaling $900,000 that must be added to Bonneville’s internal overhead. 

 

·       With regard to Biop projects, the Council staff focused on those identified by NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville as critical for the upcoming check-ins.  While the Council and region put an emphasis on Biop implementation in the provincial reviews, this “critical-for-check-in” standard is a higher standard than was employed during the provincial reviews.

 

The specific discrepancy was:

 

·       Bonneville’s spending projections assumed that the implementation of the “water brokerage program” (RPA 151) would be funded from the fish and wildlife expense program.  This is inconsistent with specific Council action taken last year. At the January 2002 Council meeting in Vancouver, the Council recommended that $2.5 million of “Action Plan” funds made available by Bonneville’s Power Business Line to address the impacts of the 2001 power emergency on anadromous fish be protected in a placeholder for the specific purpose of funding the water brokerage program which is required by the 2000 Biological Opinion. Bonneville has projected spending on this program to be $700,000 for Fiscal Year 2003.  This cost must be funded from another source.

 

After applying the rules and standards noted above, the Council staff estimated Fiscal Year 2003 spending for expense projects at $114,614,422.  When placeholders for funding subbasin planning, independent science functions, and addressing “gaps” for research, monitoring and evaluation required by the 2000 Biological Opinion and Bonneville’s overhead are added, the total projects spending forecast for Fiscal Year 2003 is $137, 364,422.

 

As I said, this is a cash-management response to Bonneville’s request and in no way should be construed as a Council reprioritization of fish and wildlife program spending.  To make this approach successful, Bonneville is going to have to follow actual project performance and its project and placeholder spending much more closely than it ever has before. Bonneville must be able to report current project and program-level spending twice a month beginning immediately.  We see this as a necessary element in managing the program accounting under the “accrual” accounting rules currently imposed by Bonneville.

 

This is an important point.  Bonneville changed its accounting procedures for the fish and wildlife program in 2002.  On November 20, 2002, Bonneville’s fish and wildlife director announced in a memorandum addressed to the Power Planning Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority that “… we are moving our administration of the [fish and wildlife program] from obligation-based budgeting to accrual-based budgeting.”  The memorandum stated that under an obligations form of management, “… funds are made available for the full value of a project or contract when it is approved even if all of the deliverables and resulting payments will not be made during the budget year the funds were first made available (obligated).”  In contrast, under an accruals form of management, “… funds are made available for the amount of deliverables that will actually be received and paid for (accrued) by BPA during the budget year.”  Bonneville decided to make this change because the fish and wildlife program was the last large program at the agency still managed on an obligations basis, and “… by managing on an accrual basis, we can better ensure that funds are available when needed without tying up potentially millions of dollars in any one year for activities that do not need the money.”

 

            Importantly, according to the memorandum, “under the accrual-based system, unspent funds from FY 2002 are not carried over” to 2003.  These unspent but obligated funds totaled about $40 million, compounding the difficulty of prioritizing, deferring and cutting program spending to fit within the spending cap of $139 million in accruals imposed by the Administrator for Fiscal Year 2003.  In a December 31, 2002, letter to project contractors, Bonneville set guidelines for contract renewals, including a request that the contractors eliminate all “carry over” funding (contracted project balances) from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2003.  The accounting change also came without reliable tracking information to monitor and compare the consistency of project implementation with ISRP-reviewed and Council-recommended scopes of work.

 

            To recap, in December 2001 Bonneville committed to an average annual budget of $186 million for the current rate period.  Subsequently in 2002, the Council recommended a suite of new and ongoing projects, including approximately $40 million in obligations carried over from the previous rate period, that totaled about $170 million -- well within the budget established by Bonneville.  Then, in November 2002 Bonneville announced it would change its financial management of program expenses from an obligations basis, which allowed carry-over from one year to the next, to an accruals basis, which does not.  A month later, Bonneville announced it would not allow accruals to exceed $139 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and asked the Council to take the lead in “reprioritizing” existing and proposed new projects to fit within the reduced budget.

 

Mr. Chairman, our review of Bonneville’s fish and wildlife spending uncovered other issues that must be dealt with.  First, we are tremendously concerned about Bonneville’s overhead cost increases.  In Fiscal Year 2001, Bonneville’s overhead costs for this program were $ 7.4 million. Bonneville insists that it requires $12.1 million for its overhead costs in Fiscal Year 2003.  This is an increase of 64 percent.  It is difficult to accept this rate of expansion, especially when these overhead costs compete with on-the-ground fish and wildlife projects.    Bonneville has not been effective in reducing its overhead costs.  In addition, it has taken a great deal of time and discussion to win Bonneville’s commitment to a more cost-effective approach to monitoring and evaluation.  This is not a problem created entirely by Bonneville.  However, we are calling on Bonneville to break free of the forces that would ignore and compound the problem, and work with us on a solution.    

 

As I have noted, the Council is concerned that a reduction in Bonneville’s spending commitment below $139 million per year may jeopardize its ability to meet legal requirements under the biological opinions and the Northwest Power Act.  Critical biological opinion check-ins are imminent, assuming the Court allows the opinion to continue in force while NOAA Fisheries addresses the offsite mitigation issues identified by the court.  These are the funds that are necessary to implement many of the important projects and programs that must be in place to succeed in those evaluations.  The reductions precipitated by Bonneville’s immediate switch to its “accrual rules” of accounting are going to have an impact on our fish and wildlife restoration efforts.  We are concerned that deeper and sustained cuts in the out-years may have serious impacts that could retard the progress we have been making.

 

We expect that as Bonneville’s financial situation improves, fish and wildlife funding will return to the level the Administrator committed to in December 2001 for the current rate period and that the current-year funding reduction would be treated as a deferral that would be repaid to the program in future years.  This would be consistent with Bonneville’s agreement with its investor-owned utility customers to defer $55 million in 2003 payments until 2007.  We also believe that paying back the fish and wildlife program should be accomplished without a rate increase.  The fish and wildlife budget is a small but critically important portion of Bonneville’s total spending, and restoring full funding to the fish and wildlife program should not be an excuse to raise rates. 

 

We also are concerned about increasing financial pressure on Bonneville from the salmon and steelhead biological opinion.  Bonneville appears to want to pour all funds possible into implementing that plan and, as a result, squeeze out critical work for non-listed salmon, wildlife and resident fish that must be accomplished under the Northwest Power Act.  Bonneville coined the term “Integrated Program” to describe a vision of a coordinated and balanced approach to its Endangered Species Act and Northwest Power Act obligations.  But this is problematic in that the Council’s program responds to the Power Act, not the ESA, and Bonneville’s offsite mitigation obligation authority is in the Power Act, not the ESA.   Bonneville needs to look more to the Council to make the vision of a coordinated and balanced approach a reality.  The current federal drift to a listed-salmon only fish and wildlife program is not consistent with Bonneville’s vision of a coordinated and balanced approach and is not supported by sound science, sound public policy, or the law.

 

The Governors, in their recent recommendations, were critical of the increasing focus on ESA-listed species.  The Governors wrote:

 

The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to prepare a program to protect and enhance fish and wildlife and mitigate habitat losses caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem.  For the last decade, we have been largely preoccupied with ESA-listed fish species in the Columbia Basin.  Frequently, because of limited resources, these two efforts are portrayed as being in opposition to each other so that project funding for ESA-listed species is viewed as competing with mitigation actions for non-listed species.

“In our judgment, too much of a distinction between ESA-listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species is being made in fish and wildlife planning and implementation activities.  When species are listed under the ESA, it means we may have failed in our management responsibilities.  By focusing planning and implementation on all species, the Council’s proactive approach can work to prevent future listings of fish and wildlife species under the ESA while addressing, as a subset, those that are listed.

“We strongly endorse the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program as a comprehensive, integrated and preventive approach to address fish and wildlife issues in the Columbia Basin.

 

The Council expects that full funding of our fish and wildlife program will be restored in future years as Bonneville’s finances improve.  We also expect this to be accomplished in a way that does not require a rate increase.  Fish and wildlife spending was not the root cause of Bonneville’s financial crisis, and the fish and wildlife budget should not be permanently reduced in response to a temporary crisis that evolved from Bonneville’s power supply contracts with its customers and the agency’s exposure to the volatile prices of the West coast wholesale power market.

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.  The Council is moving quickly, but carefully, in collaboration with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes, and the federal hydrosystem operating agencies, to develop and implement a scientifically credible, locally developed fish and wildlife program.  The Council is implementing the Northwest Power Act and the relevant portions of the 2000 Biological Opinions in a manner that benefits all fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin -- ESA-listed populations and unlisted populations, too.

 

I will close my testimony by reiterating a portion of the commitment the four Northwest governors made in their recommendations on fish and wildlife recovery.  I think it precisely expresses the Council’s commitment, as well:

 

We acknowledge that the FCRPS benefits have come with a cost -- adverse impacts on the Columbia Basin’s fish and wildlife.  With our locally based efforts in the watersheds, we are following through on our commitments while we are avoiding becoming sidetracked by issues that will only divert and divide us as a region. We will stay the course and solve our problems as a region. We will continue to pursue full implementation of the biological opinions to recover our salmon, steelhead and freshwater species not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because the failure to do so will jeopardize the federal hydropower system.

 


Biological Opinion Projects recommended by the Council since Fiscal Year 2001

 

Note:  As of the date of this hearing, Bonneville has not made funding decisions on

the Council’s mainstem/systemwide project recommendations

 

FY

Review cycle

Project ID

Title

Council

recommend.

BPA funding decision

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001000021015

Riparian Buffers

 73,414

 73,414

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001198805304

Hood River Production Program - ODFW M&E

 438,000

 431,331

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001198805307

Hood River Production Program: Powerdale, Parkdale, Oak Springs O&M (88-053-07 & 88-053-08)

 949,198

 727,733

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001199304000

Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project   (Request For Multi-Year Funding)

 223,371

 220,040

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001199506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation (Klickitat Only)

 447,723

 447,723

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001199705600

Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project

 313,318

 313,318

2001

Columbia Gorge

CG2001199801900

Wind River Watershed Restoration

 658,532

 658,532

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023001

Protect Bear Valley Wild Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat

 320,000

 320,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023002

Ames Creek Restoration

 170,000

 170,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023007

Conservation Easement, Baker Ranch, Salmon River East Fork

 1,415,000

 1,415,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023012

Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project

 2,500,000

 2,500,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023032

Return Spawning/Rearing Habitat to Anadromous/Resident Fish within the Squaw Creek to Papoose Creek Analysis Area Watersheds

 420,000

 

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023036

Evaluate live capture selective harvesting methods for commercial fisheries on the Columbia River

 384,285

 384,285

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023045

Gourley Creek Dam Fish Ladder

 200,119

 200,119

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023046

Increase In Stream Flows to De-watered Stream Reaches in the Walla Walla Basin

 590,000

 590,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023048

Install Fish Screens to Protect ESA-listed Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Walla Walla Basin

 461,700

 461,700

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023053

Wagner Ranch Acquisition

 2,658,774

 2,658,774

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023054

Forrest Ranch Acquisition

 4,184,185

 4,184,185

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023056

Farmers Irrigation District Mainstem Hood River Fish Screen Project

 500,000

 500,000

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023073

Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands

 481,800

 

2001

FY 2001 High Priority

HP2001000023094

Acquire 27,000 Camp Creek Ranch at Zumwalt Prairie

 2,000,000

 2,000,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027001

Asotin County Riparian Buffer and Couse and Tenmile Creeks Protection and Implementation Project

 241,000

 241,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027002

Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed

 316,885

 316,885

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027014

Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek Watershed

 121,000

 121,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027018

Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province Fish Screening/Fish Passage.

 153,314

 153,314

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027021

Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring - Imnaha River Subbasin

 148,967

 148,967

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002000027022

Wallowa County Culvert Inventory

 170,603

 170,603

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002198402500

Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project

 349,386

 349,386

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002198805301

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan

 1,000,000

 1,000,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002198805305

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning (ODFW)

 79,376

 79,376

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199202601

Implement the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration and Habitat Restoration Projects

 961,620

 961,620

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199202604

Investigate Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde River Basin and Monitor Salmonid Populations and Habitat

 888,087

 888,087

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199401805

Continued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects

 271,000

 271,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199608300

CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration

 200,000

 200,000

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199701501

Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification

 241,570

 241,570

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199800702

Grande Ronde Supplementation: Lostine River O&M and M&E

 545,693

 545,693

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199800703

Facility O&M And Program M&E For Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead

 640,181

 640,181

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199800704

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Implementation (ODFW)

 206,048

 206,048

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199801001

Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

 676,906

 679,906

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199801003

Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon

 174,162

 174,162

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199801004

Monitor and Evaluate Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream Of Lower Granite Dam

 287,307

 287,307

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199801005

Pittsburg Landing (199801005),Capt. John Rapids (199801007), Big Canyon (199801008) Fall Chinook Acclimation Facilities

 682,440

 682,440

2002

Blue Mountain

BM2002199801006

Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation

 164,260

 164,260

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025003

Forrest Ranch Acquisition

 169,851

 169,851

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025004

Acquisition of Wagner Ranch

 108,217

 108,217

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025006

Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman County, Oregon

 71,000

 71,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025010

Regional Stream Conditions and Stressor Evaluation

 80,000

 80,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025011

Assess Riparian Condition Through Spectrometric Imaging Of Riparian Vegetation

 175,000

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025013

Restore Riparian Corridor at Tapteal Bend, Lower Yakima River

 160,500

 160,500

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025014

Establish Riparian Buffer Systems

 67,119

 67,119

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025017

Fabricate and Install New Hunstville Mill Fish Screen

 120,000

 120,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025021

Implement Actions to Reduce Water Temperatures in the Teanaway Basin

 172,950

 172,950

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025022

YKFP Big Creek Passage & Screening

 175,280

 175,280

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025023

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project - Manastash Creek Fish Passage and Screening

 632,835

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025024

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project  -  Wilson Creek Snowden Parcel Acquisition

 206,580

 206,580

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025025

YKFP -- Secure Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Habitat on the Upper Yakima River

 2,300,000

 2,300,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025026

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP)

 750,000

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025029

Westland-Ramos Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration Pilot Project

 203,020

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025032

Wenas Wildlife Area Inholding Acquisitions

 706,143

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025036

The Impact of Flow Regulation on Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems in the Yakima River Basin.

 225,495

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025047

Morrow County Buffer Initiative

 75,086

 75,086

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025049

Numerically Simulating the Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Environment for Migrating Salmon in the Lower Snake River

 207,360

 207,360

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025056

Conduct Watershed Assessments for Priority Watersheds on Private Lands in the Columbia Plateau

 1,259,725

 1,259,725

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025058

Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective Actions on WDFW Lands in The Yakima Subbasin

 205,300

 205,300

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025059

Develop Progeny Marker for Salmonids to Evaluate Supplementation

 149,655

 149,665

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025060

Burbank Sloughs and Mainstem Columbia River Shoreline/Side Channel/Wetland Habitat Restoration

 116,000

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025062

Growth Rate Modulation in Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation

 313,294

 345,088

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025064

Investigating passage of ESA-listed juvenile fall chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam during winter when the fish bypass system is inoperable.

 176,000

 176,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025066

Manage Water Distribution in the Walla Walla River Basin

 552,525

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025067

Manage Water Distribution in the John Day Basin

 251,261

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025068

Rock Creek watershed road and riparian corridor improvement project.    

 96,500

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025069

John Day Salmonid Recovery Monitoring Program

 164,133

 164,133

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025073

Wheeler SWCD Riparian Buffer Planning and Implementation

 75,086

 75,086

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025078

Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Selah Gap to Union Gap Flood Plain, Yakima River Basin, Washington

 875,000

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025080

Gilliam SWCD Riparian Buffers

 75,086

 75,086

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025081

Improve Upstream Fish Passage in the Birch Creek Watershed

 374,572

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025082

Walla Walla River Flow Restoration

 478,000

 478,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025086

Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands

 22,950

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025092

Restoration of Healthy Watershed to Palouse River Drainage in Idaho

 100,200

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025097

Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP)

 522,710

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025100

Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat

 349,000

 349,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002000025102

Columbia Plateau Water Right Acquisition Program

 149,368

 149,368

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198402100

Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in The John Day Subbasin

 448,500

 448,500

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198506200

Passage Improvement Evaluation

 103,400

 103,400

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198710001

Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat

 350,000

 350,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198710002

Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement

 300,264

 300,264

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198902401

Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin

 286,427

 286,427

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002198903500

Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance

 889,240

 889,240

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199000500

Umatilla Fish Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation

 626,178

 626,178

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199102900

Understanding the effects of summer flow augmentation on the migratory behavior and survival of fall chinook salmon migrating through L. Granite Res.

 630,375

 630,375

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199105700

Fabricate and Install Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screens

 159,889

 159,889

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199107500

Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction*

 600,000

 600,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199206200

Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands Restoration

 1,416,580

 294,548

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199306600

Oregon Fish Screening Project

 660,870

 660,870

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199401806

Implement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat

 252,625

 252,625

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199401807

Garfield County Sediment Reduction and Riparian Improvement Program

 80,000

 80,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199404200

Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project

 358,845

 358,845

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation

 3,835,036

 3,835,036

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199601100

Walla Walla River Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvements

 465,300

 465,300

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199603501

Satus Watershed Restoration Project

 352,966

 352,966

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199604601

Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement

 259,660

 259,660

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199703400

Monitoring Fine Sediment Grande Ronde and John Day Rivers

 40,829

 40,829

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199705100

Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Yakima Side Channels

 565,136

 565,136

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199705300

Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment

 225,000

 281,830

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199801600

Monitor Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook

 1,067,328

 1,067,328

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199801700

Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams in Lower North Fork John Day

 98,333

 98,333

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199801800

John Day Watershed Restoration

 447,050

 447,050

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199802000

Assess Fish Habitat and Salmonids in the Walla Walla Watershed in Washington

 163,879

 163,879

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199802200

Pine Creek Ranch

 172,000

 172,000

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199802800

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project

 122,115

 122,115

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199803300

Restore Upper Toppenish Watershed

 196,460

 196,460

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199803400

Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Reestablish Safe Access into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin

 230,000

 

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199901000

Mitigate Effects of Runoff and Erosion on Salmonid Habitat in Pine Hollow and Jackknife

 21,980

 21,980

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002199901300

Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment

 206,999

 206,999

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002200001500

Oxbow Ranch Management and Implementation

 291,898

 291,898

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002200001900

Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

 94,509

 94,509

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002200003100

North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project

 228,726

 228,726

2002

Columbia Plateau

CP2002200003900

Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project

 498,886

 498,886

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002000024001

Lake Pend Oreille Predation Research

 141,000

 136,000

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002000024009

Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho

 350,000

 350,000

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002198806400

Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture

 1,160,000

 1,160,000

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002198806500

Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations

 825,391

 825,391

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002199101903

Hungry Horse Mitigation

 982,850

 982,850

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002199404700

Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project

 362,000

 362,000

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002199404900

Improving the Kootenai River Ecosystem

 710,891

 710,891

2002

Mountain Columbia

MC2002199500400

Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam

 805,000

 805,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028001

Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts  

 198,738

 198,738

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028008

Riparian Conservation Easement Purchase of Scarrow Property on Lake Creek a Tributary to the Secesh River, Idaho.

 68,500

 68,500

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028016

Restoration of the Yankee Fork Salmon River

 150,000

 150,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028021

Lower Clearwater Habitat Enhancement Project

 125,000

 

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028025

Potlatch River Watershed Restoration

 200,000

 200,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028034

Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification, South Fork Salmon River, Idaho

 500,000

 500,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028036

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Pahsimeroi Watershed, Idaho

 445,000

 445,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028037

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Lemhi Watershed, Idaho

 332,176

 332,176

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028038

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, East Fork Salmon Watershed, Idaho

 50,000

 50,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028039

Holistic Restoration of Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Middle Salmon-Panther Watershed, Idaho

 115,000

 115,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028040

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Upper Salmon Watershed, Idaho

 120,000

 120,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028045

Evaluating stream habitat using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

 200,000

 200,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028047

Restore and Protect Red River Watershed

 95,811

 95,811

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028048

Protect and Restore Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area

 174,482

 174,482

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028050

Protect and Restore Little Salmon River

 162,896

 162,896

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028059

Restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Lapwai Creek watershed.

 372,060

 372,060

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002000028061

Safety-Net Artificial Propagation Program (SNAPP)

 523,000

 523,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198335000

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

 3,583,000

 3,583,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198335003

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation

 1,791,000

 1,791,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198909800

Idaho Supplementation Studies

 996,726

 996,726

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198909801

Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (ISS)

 126,320

 126,320

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198909802

Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers- Nez Perce Tribe

 402,038

 402,038

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002198909803

Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

 213,569

 213,569

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199005500

Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

 550,982

 550,982

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199102800

Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon

 336,050

 336,050

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199107100

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat and Limnological Research

 426,277

 426,277

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199107200

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Program

 825,000

 825,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199107300

Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation

 827,419

 827,419

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199202603

Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Administration/Implementation Support

 333,401

 333,401

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199204000

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research

 713,000

 713,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199303501

Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat Within the Red River Watershed

 209,515

 209,515

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199401500

Idaho Fish Screen Improvement

 1,000,000

 1,000,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199405000

Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M & E

 248,160

 248,160

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199604300

Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project

 1,098,227

 1,098,227

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199607702

Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed

 236,296

 236,296

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199607703

Protecting and Restoring the Waw'aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw) Creek to 'Imnaamatnoon (Legendary Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area

 413,288

 413,288

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199607705

Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed

 332,000

 332,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199608600

Clearwater Focus Program

 103,626

 103,626

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199700100

Captive Rearing Project for Salmon River Chinook Salmon

 610,500

 610,500

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199703000

Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring

 666,000

 666,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199703800

Preserve Salmonid Gametes and Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository

 288,496

 288,496

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199706000

Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - NPT

 218,000

 218,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901400

Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project

 203,340

 203,340

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901500

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Watershed

 60,000

 60,000

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901600

Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed

 222,380

 222,380

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901700

Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed

 436,600

 436,600

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901800

Characterize and quantify residual steelhead in the Clearwater River, Idaho

 101,950

 101,950

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199901900

Holistic Restoration of the Twelvemile Reach of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho

 336,050

 336,050

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002199902000

Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon

 151,700

 151,700

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002200003500

Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed - South Fork Clearwater River

 287,732

 287,732

2002

Mountain Snake

MS2002200003600

Protect & Restore Mill Creek

 74,915

 74,915

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003000029026

Hanan-Detwiler Passage Improvements

 85,000

 -  

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003000029027

Comprehensive Inventory and Prioritization of Fish Passage and Screening Problems in the Wenatchee and Entiat Subbasins

 277,436

 -  

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003000029033

Design and Conduct Monitoring and Evaluation Associated With Reestablishment of Okanogan Basin Natural Production

 480,152

 -  

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003199604200

Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek

 365,819

 718,883

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003200000100

Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek

 121,098

 116,530

2003

Columbia Cascade

CC2003200001300

Evaluate An Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake

 18,096

 18,000

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030001

Historic habitat opportunities and food-web linkages of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River estuary: Implications for managing flows and restoration

 597,559

 597,559

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030004

Blind Slough Restoration Project - Brownsmead, Oregon

 173,550

 173,550

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030005

Grays River Watershed and Biological Assessment

 474,734

 -  

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030006

Effectiveness monitoring of the Chinook River estuary restoration project.

 124,804

 124,804

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030011

Preserve and Restore Columbia River Estuary Islands to Enhance Juvenile Salmonid and Columbian White-tailed Deer Habitat.

 585,473

 585,473

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030015

Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management

 260,000

 260,000

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003000030016

Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and Lower Columbia River

 1,000,000

 1,000,000

2003

Columbia Estuary

CE2003199801400

Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume

 1,767,855

 1,748,970

2003

Lower Columbia

LC2003199306000

Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project

 1,679,564

 1,679,493

2003

Lower Columbia

LC2003199902500

Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration

 155,562

 155,562

2003

Lower Columbia

LC2003200001200

Evaluate factors limiting Columbia River gorge chum salmon populations.

 255,211

 246,820

2003

Lower Columbia

LC2003200105300

Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek

 381,671

 381,671

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035007

Evaluate Restoration Potential of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat

 564,200

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035012

Spatial scales of homing and the efficacy of hatchery supplementation of wild populations

 370,100

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035019

Develop and Implement a Pilot Status and Trend Monitoring Program for Salmonids and their Habitat in the Wenatchee and Grande Ronde River Basins

 1,515,000

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035029

Transfer IHN virus genetic strain typing technology to fish health managers

 116,479

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035033

Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program.

 968,800

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035039

The influence of hatcheries and their products on the health and physiology of naturally rearing fish

 303,448

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035046

Estimate juvenile salmon residence in the Columbia River Plume using micro-acoustic transmitters.

 96,300

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003000035047

Evaluate Delayed (Extra) Mortality Associated with Passage of Yearling Chinook Salmon Smolts through Snake River Dams

 1,100,000

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198201301

Coded-Wire Tag Recovery Program

 2,028,757

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198201302

Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW)

 217,881

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198201304

Annual Stock Assessment - Coded Wire Tag Program (WDFW)

 319,137

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198331900

New Marking and Monitoring Techniques for Fish

 41,900

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198712700

Smolt Monitoring by Federal and Non-Federal Agencies

 1,910,000

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198810804

StreamNet

 2,261,033

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198906500

Annual Stock Assessment - CWT (USFWS)    

 119,268

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198909600

Monitor and evaluate genetic characteristics of supplemented salmon and steelhead

 593,900

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003198910700

Statistical Support for Salmonid Survival Studies

 265,850

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199007700

Northern Pikeminnow Management Program

 1,435,000

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199008000

Columbia Basin Pit Tag Information System

 2,431,442

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199009300

Genetic Analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka (modified to include chinook salmon)

 126,436

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199105100

Monitoring and Evaluation Statistical Support

 394,655

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199302900

Estimate Survival for the Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Dams and Reservoirs of the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers

 1,884,200

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199305600

Assessment of Captive Broodstock Technologies

 1,468,100

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199403300

The Fish Passage Center

 1,302,904

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199601900

Second-Tier Database Support

 275,111

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199602000

Comparative Survival Rate Study (CSS) of Hatchery Pit Tagged Chinook & Comparative Survival Study Oversight Committee

 1,736,542

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199602100

Gas bubble disease research and monitoring of juvenile salmonids

 16,885

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199606700

Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project

 877,600

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003199900301

Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams

 779,586

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003200000700

Infrastructure to Complete FDA Registration of Erythromycin

 160,919

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003200001700

Kelt Reconditioning: A Research Project to Enhance Iteroparityin Columbia Basin Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

 555,121

 

2003

Mainstem/Systemwide

SW2003200100300

ISO Adult Pit Interrogation System Installations

 1,972,106

 

 

 

______________________________________

 

p:\mw\ww\senate epw hearing june03.doc



[1] In May, U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland remanded the 2000 Opinion to NOAA Fisheries, agreeing with plaintiffs in a lawsuit that the agency may rely on offsite mitigation actions by non-federal agencies, like those in the Council’s fish and wildlife program carried out by states and Indian tribes, only if the actions are “reasonably certain to occur.”  The plaintiffs asserted, and the judge agreed, that while it is likely that subbasin plans will be completed and will direct non-federal offsite mitigation actions, this is not a certainty and, similarly, it is not certain that the non-federal actions will be sufficient to avoid further jeopardy to the listed species.

[2] Letter of Dec. 3, 2001, from the Administrator to the Chair of the Power Planning Council, Page 3:  “On a planning basis for FY 2002-2006, an annual average of $150 million a year of expense dollars is estimated by BPA for funding the offsite ESA mitigation as described in the 2000 FCRPS BiOps and revised Council Program.  This amount is 50 percent greater than the previous MOA and consistent with the funding range assumed in the power rate case and with the Fish & Wildlife Funding Principles that projected an annual average of $139 million in accruals for purposes of setting BPA’s revenue requirement.  The $139 million represents a weighted average of the thirteen modeled alternatives having a range of $109-$179 million as identified in the FY 02-06 rate period.”

[3] Letter of Dec. 10, 2002, from the Administrator the chair of the Council, Page 2.