SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-019

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 11, lines 16-17.

In this section, CRITFC states that "\[t\]he Administration committed
that the implementation of the Endangered Species Act would complement
the obligation to restore our Treaty fishery." Please provide the
documentation of the Administration's position upon which this statement
is based. Please also provide documentation of the extent to which the
Treaty fisheries include listed species, and if so, whether the overall
harvest and catch rates have increased or decreased over the past decade

**Response:**

Please see attachments BPA-CR-019A&B.pdf. This is a July 21, 1998 letter
from Terry Garcia, the Deputy Administer of NOAA to Ted Strong, who was
then the executive director of CRITFC. He states "it is our policy that
the recovery of salmonid populations must achieve two goals: 1) the
recovery and delisting of salmonids listed under the provisions of the
ESA; 2) the restoration of salmonid populations, over time, to a level
to provide a sustainable harvest sufficient to allow for the meaningful
exercise of tribal fishing rights. We see no conflict between the
statutory goals of the ESA and the federal trust responsibility to
Indian tribes. Rather, the two federal responsibilities complement each
other." The letter also states that ..."the tribes may reasonably
expect, as a matter of policy, that tribal fishing rights will be given
priority over the interests of other entities, federal and non-federal,
that do not stand in a trust relationship with the United States."

We note that the federal government has a long way to go toward
achieving even interim targets for the tribal fishery. In the 1995
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, the tribes' interim tributary return goals
totaling 1,379,635 salmon and steelhead. These numbers reflect a
combination of spawning and harvest goals in the tributaries. These
numbers do not include mainstem harvest. The tribes identified a goal of
326,000 upriver spring chinook. Counts of spring chinook at Bonneville
Dam have exceeded that number only once since 1976 and have exceeded
100,000 only 11 times during that same period. The return of adults in
2000, prior to mainstem fishing and dam conversion, was about 950,000.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-019

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-020

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 19, lines 24-28

In this section, CRITFC states that capitalizing land and water
acquisitions and certain propagation facilities "is appropriate and
would lessen the rate effects." Please identify which propagation
facilities BPA is not planning to capitalize. Please explain the basis
of the determination that capitalization of these objects is appropriate
and document your answer. Please identify other utilities that
capitalize fish and wildlife habitat acquisitions and if possible
document their justification for doing so.

**Response:**

The Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 71 allows
utilities to capitalize long-lived facilities that produce revenue. To
be capitalized, non-revenue producing facilities (such as those
associated with fish and wildlife mitigation) must be identified in the
rate case as facilities for which rates will be collected. BPA must also
identify facilities to be capitalized in the Executive Budget each year.

Following Section 4(h)(10)(B) of the NW Power Act, "capital facilities"
costing more than \$1 million and having a useful life exceeding fifteen
years must be capitalized. In the past BPA has defined capital
facilities indirectly through its practices. It has:

-   Capitalized the planning and design costs as well as the
    construction costs;

-   Combined costs of several small separate facilities to meet the
    threshold (e.g., Yakima Phase II Screens); and,

Aggregated costs over several years (i.e., costs less than \$1 million
in any one year).

The Executive Budget for FY 2003 summarizes BPA's intended use of
capital borrowing for fish and wildlife:

> Bonneville's fish and wildlife capital program is directed at
> activities that increase numbers of Columbia River Basin fish and
> wildlife resources including projects designed to increase juvenile
> and adult fish passage in tributaries and at mainstem dams, increase
> fish production and survival through construction of hatchery and
> acclimation facilities, fish monitoring facilities, and fish habitat
> enhancement. Funding is also included for pre-engineering design and
> studies for new and developing projects. The priority for capital
> project funding will focus first on implementing the reasonable and
> prudent alternatives contained in the NMFS and USFWS Biological
> Opinions, and second on implementing the Planning Council's Fish and
> Wildlife Program...

In addition to a number of specific hatchery and tributary passage
programs, the Executive Budget identifies the following facilities that
BPA intends to capitalize in FY 2003:

-   Construct habitat improvement, passage projects and small irrigation
    screening projects including development and enhancement of model
    watersheds. The design and construction is expected to continue.

-   Continue implementation of high priority Endangered Species Act
    related projects, and activities associated with the USFWS BO and
    the NMFS BO.

The fish and wildlife managers have developed a definition for BPA
capital facilities that is similar to those used by other public
agencies, which we shared with BPA. (See attached February 18, 2003
letter to Therese Lamb, BPA-CR-020B.doc) It is:

> Additional borrowing authority made available under this provision
> \[providing \$700 million in additional BPA borrowing authority\]
> shall be used to implement the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
> Program and the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion. Specifically,
> Bonneville may use its permanent borrowing authority to acquire land
> and interests in land, water or water rights, and to finance
> construction of capital facilities and improvements to land including,
> but not limited to, buildings, roads, culverts, stream bank
> stabilization, fences, utilities, sewage treatment and discharge,
> diversion screens and ladders, instream structures, fish propagation
> facilities, and other tangible improvements.

We recommend that BPA specifically include this definition in the rate
case to be clear that it intends to collect revenue from rates to
purchase land.

Based on the above requirements, we identified current BPA-funded fish
and wildlife projects that could be capitalized and compared the list
with those projects that BPA actually capitalized in FY 2002. The
attached table indicates that, although BPA had the ability to fund \$36
million in fish and wildlife capital projects, it chose to capitalize
only \$5.9 million (see BPA-CR-020A.xls).

BPA has not yet identified which projects it intends to fund in FY 2003,
so it is not possible to identify which facilities it is not planning to
capitalize. However, the attached table lists \$81 million in FY 2003
projects that meet the above requirements for capitalization.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-020

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-021

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 23, lines 14-22, page 23, lines 1-2.

In this section, CRITFC questions whether BPA has adequately addressed
non-listed species in its rates proposal. Please provide a list of
contracts CRITC or its member tribes have with BPA for projects that
benefit non-listed species and specify the amounts BPA has expended or
agreed to expend since October 1, 2000, under any such contracts.

**Response:**

Projects by CRITFC and its member tribes proposed for funding, with
evaluations by the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Columbia
Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority are available on the CBFWA web site
([www.cbfwa.org](../www.cbfwa.org)). Many of the projects in the Fish
and Wildlife Program potentially have benefits for non-listed species.
For example, habitat improvements to benefit one species will generally
improve the habitat for the other species dependant on that habitat.
Thus most of the projects that CRITFC and its member tribes are carrying
out will benefit non-listed species. Unfortunately, BPA does not have
readily accessible information on the amounts that it has spent on
projects, so we are unable to provide "amounts that BPA has expended or
agreed to expend since October 1, 2000."

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-021

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-022

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 31, lines 11-16

In this section, CRITFC states: "Adding approximately \$100 million per
year for habitat restoration and the construction and operation of
propagation facilities would provide jobs and economic development for
rural communities." Next, the testimony says, "as fish and wildlife
populations increase, as a result of Bonneville's investments and for
other reasons. . . ." Please clarify whether it is CRITFC's intent to
support the proposition that the more money BPA spends on fish and
wildlife the more fish and wildlife population's increase. If this is
CRITFC's position, please provide documentation supporting it. Please
also identify and provide documentation of the other reasons for fish
and wildlife increases.

**Response:**

CRITFC and the Yakama Nation believe that fish and wildlife need habitat
and passage conditions that meet their biological needs. In many cases,
funding is needed to restore those properly functioning habitat
conditions. On the other hand, spending money on projects that do not
restore the habitat and passage conditions that fish and wildlife need
will not likely restore populations. There is a broad scientific
consensus that fish and wildlife populations need habitat conditions
that support their survival and increase their productivity. Our goal is
to achieve the habitat and other conditions that fish and wildlife need
to produce harvestable, sustainable populations. A critical aspect of
anadromous fish habitat is the existence and operation of the federal
hydropower system. Its dams and reservoirs are a continuing drain on the
productivity of anadromous species that must pass through them twice.
The need for improved habitat is the underlying premise of the 2000
Biological Opinions that suggest an aggressive program to improve
offsite habitat. Other sources that summarize the scientific consensus
on the need for improved habitat can be found in the following
references. We assume that BPA has these documents, but we would be
happy to provide them for the record if you want them.

-   PNUCC, 1987. PNUCC, Dams & Fish. A Primer. 24 p.

-   CBFWA, 1991. Columbia Basin System Planning Salmon and Steelhead
    Production Plan. Integrated System Plan. NW Power Planning Council
    Document 91-16. 527 p.

-   Don Chapman, et al., 1991. Status of Snake River Chinook Salmon.
    PNUCC. 407+ p. & Appendices.

-   Rhodes, J. J., McCullough, D. A., & Espinosa, F. A, 1994. A Coarse
    Screening Process for Evaluation of the Effects of Land Management
    Activities on Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA
    Consultations. CRITFC Tech. Report 94-4. 127 p., & Appendices.

-   CRITFC, 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit. Spirit of the Salmon: The
    Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce,
    Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes. 2 vol.

-   NMFS, 1995. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. 374+ p.,
    & Appendices.

-   National Research Council, 1995. Upstream. Salmon and Society in the
    Pacific Northwest (prepublication copy). 388 p.

-   Independent Scientific Advisory Board, 1999. Looking for Common
    Ground. Comparison of Recent Reports Pertaining to Salmon Recovery
    in the Columbia River Basin. ISAB report #99-3. 42 p.

-   Independent Scientific Group, 2000. Return to the River. Restoration
    of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. NPPC Document
    #2000-12. 538 p.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-022

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-023

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 25, lines 3-8

In this section, CRITFC indicates that the Fish and Wildlife program is
intended to meet some but not all of the needs of listed species under
the ESA. Please clarify the meaning of this statement. Does it mean the
Program is inadequately scoped because it does not include all actions
necessary to meet the requirements of the Biological Opinions? Please
explain and identify the sources relied upon for both the original
statement and the response.

**Response:**

The Fish and Wildlife Program and the Biological Opinions on the Federal
Columbia River Hydropower System were developed to meet different goals
and purposes but, in several cases such as Snake River sockeye salmon,
deal with the same species. Thus to the extent that they both propose
actions to increase numbers of these species the two overlap. The Fish
and Wildlife Program is not "inadequately scoped because it does not
include all actions necessary to meet the requirements of the Biological
Opinions." It is not intended to meet all of the Biological Opinion
requirements. We also note that the Provincial Review was not designed
to address all of the RPAs. For example, the monitoring and evaluation
activities are being addressed in a different process.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-023

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-024

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 33, lines 14-22 through page 35, line
20.

In this section, CRITFC relies extensively on YN attachment
SN-03-E-CR-01JJJ. Please provide the entire draft budget including but
not limited to actual dollars in millions for each action identified in
each budget category and any documentation relied upon to establish the
basis or rationale for each assumption in the Notes & Sources.

**Response:**

Please see the response for BPA-CR-009. We also relied on the FCRPS
Biological Opinion and the Councils Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program. Both documents are in the public record.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-024

SN-03-CR/YA Data Response

**Request No.:** BPA-CR/YA-025

**Request:** Witnesses: Sheets, et al

Exhibit: SN-03-E-CR/YA-01, Page 28, lines 3-20.

In this section, CRITFC identifies reasons why it believes some sources
of future fish and wildlife cost increases are not addressed in the
Provincial Review estimates. Please provide any documentation or
evidence you have that the fish and wildlife needs left unaddressed by
the Provincial Review are a BPA responsibility, that they are not
authorized or required of other entities, and that they must be begun
during the remainder of this rate period.

**Response:**

It is important to understand that the Provincial Review focused on
BPA's portion of the Biological Opinion and the Council's Fish and
Wildlife Program. Other federal activities, for example, habitat
restoration on federal land, were not included in the Review. If BPA
does not implement these activities, we are not aware of other federal
agencies that have these responsibilities.

In 2000, the staff of the federal Council on Environmental Quality
compiled estimated funding needs for all federal agencies with
responsibilities in restoration and recovery of Columbia Basin aquatic
species (see attachment BPA-CR-025A.xls, tab "CEQ"). This serves as an
approximate allocation of responsibility among the federal agencies.
BPA's share was estimated to be almost \$445 million in FY 2003 or 46
percent of the total estimated federal need. These BPA cost exceed the
estimates from the Provincial Review for BPA funding by a significant
amount. This CEQ estimate did not account for inflation or additional
species listings, and so would most likely be higher now.

We conclude from this information that both BPA's current fish and
wildlife funding, and the funding levels identified in the Provincial
Review are less than the allocation of costs prepared by CEQ to
implement the Biological Opinions. We also note that to the extent that
other federal agencies do not implement the RPAs that were assigned to
them, BPA may need to fill in to ensure that the RPAs are implemented
and that BPA and the FCRPS are not in violation of the ESA. Please see
the response to BPA-CR-001.

We also note that putting off required work will increase its cost due
to inflation, escalating land prices, and costs to restart programs
currently being "down-sized" by the ongoing reductions in BPA's Fish and
Wildlife budget.

April 29, 2003 Data Response:BPA-CR/YA-025