AMERICAN RIVERS · CONSERVATION LEADERS NETWORK · EARTHJUSTICE · DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE · ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION · ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE · FRIENDS OF THE EARTH · HEADWATERS. INC. · KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RIVER GUIDES · OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION · OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL · OREGON TROUT · PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS · TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE · UMPQUA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY · U.S. PIRG · WATERWATCH OF OREGON · WWF- KLAMATH-SISKIYOU REGIONAL OFFICE

August 20, 2002

The Honorable C.W. Young
Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable David R. Obey
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Elk Creek Lake, OR Project in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (as reported by the subcommittee)

Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey:

Our organizations are writing to urge you to remove the rider language in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill restricting the expenditure of funds for the Elk Creek Lake, OR project. We commend the subcommittee for committing important funds to address the problem of declining coho salmon runs in the Rogue River watershed. However, these funds should not be wasted on the costly "trap and haul" alternative, simply to preserve the structure of an incomplete and unused dam at the expense of destroying a run of threatened salmon, as the current rider language would require.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's own cost analysis clearly shows "notching" the dam to be the least expensive alternative for restoring coho salmon in Elk Creek, while at the same time preserving the remaining partially completed dam structure. The limitation language in the bill would prevent the Corps from taking this approach, both costing the taxpayers more money and directly overriding the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion under the ESA in January 2001, finding that any option other than notching the dam and providing free passage would likely lead to a threatened salmon species' extinction. NMFS concluded that continuing already failed attempts at fish passage around the unfinished structure would cause "jeopardy" to the threatened coho salmon. NMFS further stated that other alternatives to notching the dam also could adversely affect chinook salmon and steelhead. In response to the Biological Opinion, the Corps concluded that of their four alternatives for restoring coho in Elk Creek, only the fourth alternative, notching the dam, would avoid jeopardizing the federally listed salmon.

The inclusion of the rider to prevent notching in order to protect possible future completion of the dam is both unwise and unnecessary. Completion of Elk Creek Dam, the distant hope that has led to the inclusion of the rider language, would be fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unsound. A 1982 GAO report titled "Corps of Engineers Should Reevaluate The Elk Creek Project's Benefits and Costs" showed a return of about 10 cents for every dollar spent on the dam, finding the Corps' economic feasibility analysis inadequate because, among other concerns, it was "based on methods involving questionable assumptions and not supported by complete analysis." Most recently, in this year's Corps testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, the Corps submitted a Justification Sheet showing that the remaining benefit-cost ratio, ignoring past construction costs, is only 0.61 to 1. If the entire project cost is included, that benefit-cost ratio drops to a meager 0.36 to 1.

However, even if the Appropriations Committee wishes to leave open the possibility of future completion of the dam, the notching process will not preclude completion of the dam in the future. The Corps designed the notching plan to leave the essential components of the dam in place so that future completion remains an option. In fact, the Corps found in its own Design Memorandum for the Elk Creek Lake project dated June 2000 and then restated in its February 2002 Cost Justification that it would be more cost-effective to notch the dam immediately to provide fish passage and then, if needed, rebuild the structure in ten years, than to construct, maintain and operate a less effective trap and haul facility for the same period.

We urge you to remove the language in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill limiting the expenditure of funds on the Elk Creek Lake project, and allow the Corps to bring this failed project into compliance with the Endangered Species Act while taking the most cost-effective path to coho restoration in the Rogue River. Please oppose this and all other anti-taxpayer, anti-environmental riders.

Sincerely,

Cc: House Appropriations Committee

###