River salmon and steelhead restoration efforts, if existing fish passage problems can be overcome. BPA, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Yakima Indian Nation, the Washington Department of Ecology, various Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, the City of Yakima, and local irrigation districts, is working to solve these passage problems. BPA's FY 1985 budget proposes approximately $1.5 million in borrowing authority and $.3 million in revenue financing to begin design and construction of fish screens and new fish ladders at Sunnyside Dam, Wapato Diversion Dam, and the Toppenish Creek/Satus Unit Diversion, and to begin the necessary National Environmental Policy Act studies. The following chart shows funding levels by year and total costs for the three major Yakima Basin Projects. Old Reservation Canal's funding is included with Sunnyside Diversion Dam's funding.

The proposed appropriation language would also approve design and construction activities at the Bureau of Reclamation's Three Mile Diversion Dam, located on the Umatilla River, Oregon. Three Mile Dam is an irrigation diversion dam, located three miles from the Umatilla's confluence with the Columbia River. It currently has inadequate upstream and downstream fish passage facilities, which causes significant mortality to both adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead. Construction is expected to include renovation of existing adult passage facilities, installation of new or additional passage facilities, and installation of adult collection and counting facilities. These modifications will improve upstream and downstream survival of salmon and steelhead; allow the collection and development of Umatilla River salmon and steelhead brood stock; allow the enumeration of adult salmon and steelhead using the Umatilla River; and compliment and enhance results of other BPA funded fisheries activities in the Umatilla River Basin. BPA's FY 1985 budget includes $264,000 for the design of the Three Mile Dam project. The project's estimated construction costs are expected to range between $1.5 million and $2.0 million.

Finally, BPA has included $644,000 in its FY 1985 budget to begin construction of a fish hatchery near Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, as I mentioned earlier. The total cost to BPA is expected to be from $1.0 million to $1.2 million, and the hatchery is expected to be completed in FY 1986 or FY 1987. This hatchery is being constructed to mitigate the dual impact on Lake Pend Oreille kokanee populations of hydroelectric development and of introduction of Mysis shrimp into the lake, a failed management strategy. The establishment of Mysis shrimp was an attempt to supplement the adult kokanee's food base. This enhancement attempt by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game failed because the Mysis

A

compete for the same food source as the juvenile kokanee. significant point to make regarding this project is the cooperative nature of its development. BPA is negotiating an agreement with The Washington Water Power Company and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in which BPA and The Washington Water Power Company will fund hatchery design and construction and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will operate and maintain the facility with State funds. The hatchery is expected to restore the Lake Pend Oreille kokanee fishery to a level of 744,000 harvestable adults annually, from its current level of approximately 200,000 adults.

Question: Provide an object class breakdown, in terms of various responsibilities, including the FY 1985 staffing level or FTE levels, for BPA's Fish and Wildlife Division.

Answer: BPA's FY 1985 Fish and Wildlife Division expenditures for implementing the Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program are captured in three object classes. The following table shows these object classes and their associated dollar levels.

1/ Does not include approximately $500,000 distributed to BPA's Fish and Wildlife Program for BPA-wide administrative and overhead expenses.

The Division of Fish and Wildlife presently has an authorized staffing level of 25 people. We expect that the Division will not exceed this level in FY 1985. This is consistent with what BPA believes is a regional desire that BPA not develop a large fish and wildlife staff that would duplicate existing capabilities within the region's fish and wildlife agencies. The Division consists of two branches: the Biological Studies Branch, which is authorized 14 full time personnel and the Systems Integration Branch which is authorized 8 personnel. The remaining three are the Division Director and his staff of two.

The Biological Studies Branch and the Systems Integration Branch each have responsibility for developing and administering contracts through which BPA implements and accomplishes the objectives of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Each is also responsible for coordinating activities with the region's state and Federal fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, land management agencies, utilities, and others in implementing the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

There is one significant distinction in the functions of the two branches. The Biological Studies Branch contains most of the Division's biological expertise and is the major technical liaison with the fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes. The Systems Integration Branch is staffed to work with operational issues, such as the Water Budget, and related activities. In addition, the latter branch reviews and analyzes BPA's proposed policies, programs, and plans for their consistency with the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program.

We have a total of approximately $26 million available for funding in FY 1985. Of this, about $17 million will be administered by the Biological Studies Branch. Activities to be addressed include salmon and steelhead migration, habitat and passage improvements, fish culture, and wildlife mitigation.

The Systems Integration Branch will administer about $9 million of the budget. Activities toward which this money will go include studies to measure the effectiveness of the Water Budget, the development of anadromous fish goals and objectives, the Yakima River Basin Project, resident fish mitigation, and activities attendant to development of new hydroelectric facilities.

Question: How much has been allocated for contracts to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in FY 1985? List the contract areas and total amounts allocated to each area.

Answer: Of the $27.1 million available to fund BPA's fish and wildlife projects in the Columbia River Basin, $25.7 million will be available for fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement contracts. Dollar obligations by contract area will depend heavily on the consultative process through which we identify specific projects to fund each year, and on the negotiations that take place as part of the procurement process. The following table details these planned expenditures.

In addition, $8.2 million is included in BPA's FY 1985 budget for the operation and maintenance of the Mitchell Act hatcheries and rearing ponds.

Question: Please describe the procurement process BPA uses to solicit proposals and fund measures to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife.

Answer: There are two parts to your question: First, the process through which a program measure is carried to a stage of development and definition that allows a procurement solicitation to be developed, and second, the solicitation of proposals and negotiation of contracts. Each of these activities involves different procedures and time commitments.

I have charged my Fish and Wildlife staff with implementation of those measures which are adequately defined, evaluated, and assessed. By this, I mean those which show a sufficient understanding of such matters as objectives, scope, design, project setting, relationship to other projects, probable methodologies,

and means of measurement which enable us to examine a project for technical merit and coordination, and to develop a procurement solicitation for it. In FY 1984, BPA's staff carried out the process of developing projects to a stage ready for procurement solicitation through numerous informational mailings, public meetings, workshops, and other consultation with the fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, the Northwest Power Planning Council, and other interested parties. This process was undertaken because of BPA's policy to rely on the expertise of the agencies and Tribes and to fulfill one of BPA's agency goals, which is to work closely with Federal agencies, the Council, Indian tribes, and other entities in implementing the fish and wildlife provisions of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act.

The process used in FY 1984 has taken a great deal of time and effort by all concerned. However, I believe this can be ascribed to the newness of the program, the complexity of the issues it raises, and the multiplicity of participants with often conflicting jurisdictions and viewpoints. I believe that in the future the implementation planning process will be more efficient, simply because participants will have a better understanding and expectation of the process.

Regarding our procurement process, the solicitation of proposals and funding of measures is accomplished through the normal Federal procurement process. That is, a solicitation document is developed, proposals are submitted to BPA in response to the solicitation document, proposals are reviewed for technical adequacy and cost, and a proposal is selected, negotiated and ultimately funded. Initiation of the procurement process to contract signing normally takes four to six months, the longer period being required for more complex projects.

Question: BPA has stated that it has "problems" with funding operating costs of fish enhancement projects identified in the Council's program. Please explain the nature of BPA's concern about funding operating costs.

Answer: BPA is uncertain of the source of the statement you refer to. BPA presently pays for much of the operating costs of Columbia River mitigation facilities. For example, the ratepayers assume the power share of the cost of operation and maintenance associated with all Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, including costs for fish and wildlife purposes. In FY 1984 it is estimated BPA will reimburse the U.S. Treasury $11.4 million for the fish and wildlife portion alone.

The Council's Fish and Wildlife Program urges BPA to assume the operating costs of many new facilities planned in the Columbia River Basin. While some of these costs are appropriate for BPA ratepayers to bear, others are not. We do not believe Congress intended that BPA should bear the full cost of fish and wildlife mitigation, but that costs, where appropriate, be shared with other users and beneficiaries of the Columbia River as well. Assumption of operating costs by others for facilities paid for by BPA helps ensure the incorporation of more economic design features, and more efficient operation, than if BPA were to provide the funds. This is particularly true at project sites where fish and wildlife problems were caused by other than hydroelectric development.

We have issued neither a blanket approval nor disapproval with regard to funding the operation and maintenance of hatcheries, passage facilities, fish screens, or habitat improvements. Rather, we will carefully weigh the prudence of each request received for operation and maintenance funding on its individual merits and in the light of the prohibition in the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act against BPA's making expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law.

Question: What is BPA's position with respect to the transfer of funds to the Bureau of Reclamation for design and/or construction of fish passage facilities at all Yakima River sites specified in Section 900 of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, prior to enactment of S. 1027 or similar legislation?

Answer: Within the limitations of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act and the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, BPA has agreed to transfer funds so that the Bureau may conduct preliminary investigation and design work on Yakima fish facilities. Without passage of S. 1027, BPA is uncertain whether key elements of the Yakima fish enhancement program will be authorized or constructed. Prior to authorization, BPA cannot fund major projects in the Basin. Although BPA has sufficient authority to fund contruction of less expensive upstream facilities, the effectiveness of such action would require reevaluation since the Yakima facilities are inter-dependent.

Question: Will funding be available to construct the Minthorn Springs facility so that the facility is functional for acclimation of juveniles in the spring of 1985 and the holding of adults in the fall of 1985? If not, what schedule does BPA intend to follow?

Answer: Yes, funding is available for construction of the Minthorn Springs acclimation facility so that it will be functional by the spring of 1985. We are presently proceeding with the development of a contract for its final design. Construction is scheduled to begin upon approval of the design by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our present expectation is to have available a fully functional juvenile acclimation and adult holding facility at Minthorn Springs by April 1, 1985.

Question: Are funds for proceeding with the design and construction of the Umatilla hatchery included in the FY 1985 budget? What specific authority and/or funding is needed to proceed with and complete construction in FY 1985?

Answer: Funds are not included in BPA's FY 1985 budget for design and construction of the Umatilla Hatchery. Section 704(i)(1) of the Council's program recommends design, construction, operation, and maintenance of juvenile salmon and steelhead release and adult collection and holding facilities, not the construction of the Umatilla hatchery. The referenced facilities are the Bonifer Springs Acclimation Pond, already constructed, and the aforementioned Minthorn Springs Acclimation Pond. The Council is presently considering an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Program which would incorporate a measure calling