U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

44–131 u WASHINGTON : 1997

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER

DRAWDOWN PROPOSALS

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 31, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–32

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

GEORGE MILLER, California

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

SAM FARR, California

ADAM SMITH, Washington

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

————— —————

————— —————

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel

VALERIE WEST, Professional Staff

STEVE LANICH, Democratic Staff
Page

III
Page

IV
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COLUMBIA/SNAKE

RIVER DRAWDOWN PROPOSALS

SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1997

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Lewiston, ID.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., at the

Grand Plaza Hotel, Lewiston, Idaho, Hon. John T. Doolittle, Chairman, presiding.

Members present: Representatives Doolittle, Chenoweth, and

Crapo.

Staff present: Valerie West, Legislative Staff; Lara Chamberlain,

Clerk; and Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Staff.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will

please come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning

the Columbia/Snake River drawdown proposals.

At the request of Congressman Chenoweth and Congressman

Crapo—two of my favorite colleagues, I might add—the Subcommittee has traveled to Lewiston for today’s oversight hearing.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses concerning proposals

to drawdown the four lower Snake River dams and the John Day

Dam.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. These proposals would have significant impacts

on the Pacific Northwest and severe economic consequences for this

area.

I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Chenoweth and Congressman Crapo to assure that the many complex issues surrounding these proposals will be aired here today.

We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on

salmon recovery efforts, both in the Pacific Northwest and in California. Because of the substantial impacts of these proposals, the

policies being considered must be thoroughly evaluated for their

benefits to the fishery as well as their cost to society.

The Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a feasibility study of permanent natural river level drawdown at the four

lower Snake River dams: Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor.

The Corps has made a determination that ‘‘based on estimated

biological benefits, costs and other environmental effects and re-
2

gional acceptance, the permanent natural river option is the only

drawdown alternative recommended for further study.’’

This analysis is supposed to be completed in 1999 as called for

in the National Marine Fisheries Service March 1995 biological

opinion on hydropower operations. It will be the basis for decisions

on whether the drawdowns should be implemented.

The ramifications of implementing the permanent natural river

alternative for the lower Snake dams are enormous. The permanent drawdown would radically alter or eliminate the current

multi-purpose uses of the lower Snake River. Irrigation facilities on

the four projects would be unusable without significant modifications. Commercial navigation on the lower Snake River from its

confluence with the Columbia River to Lewiston would be eliminated. Power production at all four dams would also be eliminated.

In addition, the Corps estimates that the construction cost to by- pass these four dams would be $533 million.

In addition to this proposal, there are proposals to draw down

John Day Dam on the main stem of the Columbia to spillway crest

or natural river levels.

While the Corps of Engineers has not prepared any preliminary

estimate of the social and economic impacts, either proposal would

definitely affect irrigation, power production, navigation and flood

control.

The Corps has taken the position that they cannot implement

these proposals without new statutory authority, since the proposed actions would eliminate or significantly affect specific project

purposes provided for in the authorizing legislation.

As Chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over

the Federal power marketing administrations and the Bureau of

Reclamation, I can tell you that I will be following these studies

over the next 2 years and will fully evaluate any recommendation

made. I will also be examining the scientific data on which these

decisions will be based.

I do, however, look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses as

we begin our ongoing oversight of these proposals. I would like at

this point to recognize the two representatives for the state of

Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth and Mr. Crapo, for any opening statement

they may wish to make.

Mrs. Chenoweth.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

At the request of Congresswoman Chenoweth and Congressman Crapo, the Subcommittee on Water and Power has traveled to Lewiston for today’s oversight hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses concerning proposals to drawdown

the four lower Snake River dams and John Day Dam. These proposals would have

significant impacts on the Pacific Northwest, and severe economic consequences for

this area. I appreciate the efforts of Congresswoman Chenoweth and Congressman

Crapo to ensure that the complex issues surrounding these proposals will be aired

here today.

We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually on salmon recovery efforts, both in California and the Pacific Northwest. Because of the substantial impacts of these proposals, the policies being considered must be thoroughly evaluated

for their benefits to the fishery as well as their costs to society.

The Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a feasibility study of permanent natural river level drawdown at the four Lower Snake River dams—Lower
3

Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor. The Corps has made a

determination that ‘‘based on estimated biological benefits, costs, other environmental effects, and regional acceptance; the permanent natural river option is the

only drawdown alternative recommended for further study.’’ This analysis is supposed to be completed in 1999, as called for in the National Marine Fisheries Service March 1995 biological opinion on hydropower operations. It will be the basis for

decisions on whether the drawdowns should be implemented.

The ramifications of implementing the permanent natural river alternative for the

lower Snake dams are enormous. The permanent drawdown would radically alter

or eliminate the current multi-purpose uses of the lower Snake River. Irrigation facilities on the four projects would be unusable without significant modifications.

Commercial navigation on the lower Snake River from its confluence with the Columbia River to Lewiston would be eliminated. Power production at all four dams

would also be eliminated. In addition, the Corps estimates that the construction

costs to bypass these four dams would be $533 million.

In addition to this proposal, there are proposals to drawdown John Day Dam on

the mainstem of the Columbia to spillway crest or natural river levels. While the

Corps of Engineers has not prepared any preliminary estimates of the social and

economic impacts, either proposal would definitely affect irrigation, power production, navigation and flood control.

The Corps has taken the position that they cannot implement these proposals

without new statutory authority, since the proposed actions would eliminate or significantly affect specific project purposes provided for in the authorizing legislation.

As Chairman of the House Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the federal power

marketing administrations and the Bureau of Reclamation, I can tell you that I will

be following these studies over the next two years, and will fully evaluate any recommendations made. I will also be examining the scientific data on which these decisions will be based.

I do, however, look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses as we begin our ongoing oversight of these proposals.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you so

much for bringing the Subcommittee on Water and Power to Lewiston, Idaho.

On behalf of my constituents, I just want to issue to you a hearty

Idaho welcome. My constituents and I are very grateful for this opportunity to be heard and to tell the committee our story.

I also want to welcome my friend and fellow member of the Subcommittee, Mike Crapo, to the 1st Congressional District. As a new

member of the Subcommittee, he has already distinguished himself

as a valuable member of the Resources Committee, and I am so

very pleased he was able to make this journey from Idaho Falls.

Mr. Crapo also serves on the House Commerce Committee, and

I think that the fact that he is here with me today would indicate

how we work through our problems in Idaho together. It is a joy,

a very sincere joy, to be able to serve with a man like Mike Crapo.

I also want to extend a warm and hearty welcome to all of our

witnesses, each of whom have sacrificed a beautiful and very exciting Saturday afternoon to be with us today. As I was in my room

just before coming down, I was viewing what could possibly have

been a tornado that was moving across on the prairie, and being

a girl from Kansas originally, I remember those signs.

Mr. Chairman, you heard me say over and over again in Washington, that in Idaho water is like gold. And I cannot stress this

enough. The Snake and Clearwater Rivers are truly the lifeblood

of our state. The various Federal, state and private water reclamation projects throughout Idaho have turned much of what was once
4

arrid lands in the south to now green, productive farms and

ranches which in turn have spawned our great cities in the south.

These projects have benefited wildlife, recreation and Idaho’s

quality of life.

And to the north, the management of the Port of Lewiston is of

vital concern to the entire northern area, as well as points east.

To that extent, we find ourselves today in an unfortunate decision. The various reclamation projects that this region is so dependent upon, cause harm to another of our valuable resources, our

fish, our salmon and our steelhead. Some will present this as a

Hobson’s choice. Mr. Chairman, I on the other hand believe we can

protect both our quality of life and our fish.

The reason I asked you, Mr. Chairman, to hold this hearing was

to help both us and the public better understand the situation that

we are in. The four lower Snake dams are operated now under the

National Marine Fisheries Service 1995 Biological Opinion, which

calls for flow augmentation, spill and barging.

And that was out without an act of Congress. That simply was

a biological opinion.

And as we will hear today, the National Marine Fisheries Service

is expected to issue a new biological opinion in 1999 on the salmon,

and to decide later this summer whether to list the steelhead.

These decisions may very well call for the removal of the four

lower Snake River dams as well as the John Day. This will severely damage the region’s economy and the people of my district.

And our people here must be made aware of this coming threat,

Mr. Chairman.

In fact, as we are here today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

has done a study to draw down to the natural river the lower

Snake dams. In the Corps’ Interim Status Report the Army states,

and I quote, ‘‘Based on estimated biological benefits, costs, other

environmental effects and regional acceptance, the permanent natural river option is the only drawdown alternative recommended

for further study.’’

This means, Mr. Chairman, that natural river breaching dams is

the only option to be studied.

In my mind this issue is not an either/or situation, and I am

deeply disturbed that the Federal entities appear to be making

such. Mr. Chairman, these decisions and actions have huge implications to the region, both in ecological and economical terms. We

must understand the ramifications of our decisions and actions.

Often, it appears to me, people are not understanding that the removal of the dams is a very real possibility.

As we look here today, a May 1997 University of Idaho study ties

4,830 high paying jobs to the three local ports, Lewiston, Clarkston

and Whitman County. Now, that may not sound like a lot of jobs

to an Easterner, but here in Lewiston, the loss of these jobs would

be devastating to the district and to my state.

Not only must we have all people making decisions, but if Idaho

chooses to commit the resources, including our water, to recovery

programs, we must ensure these programs are not purely hypothetical experiments, and that our efforts would yield tangible results.
5

Decisions must be made on fact-based, integrated science, not

emotionally driven rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, when the Columbia, Snake and Clearwater reclamation projects were undertaken, there was a clear goal to improve the region’s economy and at one point, help with the war effort.

We must now decide if our priorities have changed. What are our

goals? What best serves the Pacific Northwest?

My goals, Mr. Chairman, are to preserve the fish and the economy. In my mind, these are not mutually exclusive.

Any policy change to the Northwest Power Act and the missions

of the Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration

must be made by lawmakers, the elected officials responsible to the

citizens, and not by bureaucrats, agencies or executive orders.

We cannot, must not pit Northern Idaho against Southern Idaho,

the East against the West, and certainly not the fish versus the

people. We are all in this together and must work together to protect all of our interests.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I again want to thank you very much

for coming to Idaho. It is a great honor to have you here.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for bringing your subcommittee on water and

power to Lewiston, Idaho. On behalf of my constituents, welcome. My constituents

and I are grateful for this opportunity to be heard and to tell the committee our

story.

I also want to welcome my friend and fellow member of the subcommittee, Mike

Crapo, to the first congressional district. As a new member to the subcommittee, he

has already distinguished himself as a valuable member of the Resources Committee, and I am so very pleased he was able to make the journey from Idaho Falls.

I also want to extend a warm welcome to all of the witnesses—each of whom have

sacrificed this beautiful Saturday afternoon to be with us here today.

Mr. Chairman, you’ve heard me say it over and over again in Washington, ‘‘water

is like gold in Idaho.’’ I cannot stress this enough. The Snake and Clearwater rivers

are truly the lifeblood of our state. The various federal, state and private water reclamation projects throughout Idaho have turned much of what was once arid lands

to now green, productive farms and ranches, which in turn have spawned our great

cities. These projects have benefited wildlife, recreation and Idaho’s quality of life.

That being said, we find ourselves today in an unfortunate and difficult situation.

The various reclamation projects that this region is so dependent upon, cause harm

to another of our valuable resources, our fish—salmon and steelhead. Some would

present this as a ‘‘Hobson’s Choice.’’ I, on the other hand, believe we can protect

both our quality of life, and our fish.

The reason I asked you, Mr. Chairman, to hold this hearing, was to help both us

and the public better understand the situation we are in. The four lower Snake

dams are operated under the 1995 Biological Opinion, which calls for flow augmentation, spill and barging. And as we will heard, the National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS) is expected to issue a new biological opinion in 1999 on the

salmon, and to decide later this summer whether to list the steelhead. These decisions may very well call for the removal of the four lower Snake river dams, as well

as the John Day. This will severely damage the region’s economy, and the people

of my district must be made aware of this.

In fact, as we are here today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is studying and

planning to drawdown to natural river the lower Snake dams. In the Corps’ Interim

Status Report, the Army Corps states, (and I quote) ‘‘Based on estimated biological

benefits, costs, other environmental effects, and regional acceptance; the permanent

natural river option is the only drawdown alternative recommended for further

study.’’ This means, Mr. Chairman, that natural river (breaching dams) is the only

option being studied—and that scares the life out of me! In my mind, this issue is
6

not an ‘‘either-or’’ situation. And I am deeply disturbed that the federal entities appear to be making it such.

Mr. Chairman, these decisions and actions have huge implications to the region,

both in ecological and economical terms. We must understand the ramifications of

our decisions and actions. Often, it appears to me, people are not understanding

that the removal of the dams is a very real possibility. We must go into this with

our eyes wide-open.

As we will hear today, a May, 1997 University of Idaho study ties 4,830 high-paying jobs to the three local ports—Lewiston, Clarkston and Whitman County. Now

that may not sound like a lot of jobs to an Easterner, but here in Lewiston, the loss

of these jobs would be devastating to this region and to my state of Idaho.

Not only must we have all data before making decisions, but if Idaho chooses to

commit its resources, including our water, to recovery programs, we must ensure

that those programs are not mere hypothetical experiments, and that our efforts

will yield tangible results. Decisions must be made on fact-based, integrated

science—NOT emotionally driven rhetoric. And most of all, Mr. Chairman, Idaho

must be a full and willing partner, and must voluntarily deem this use of its water

as a beneficial use. Any commitment of Idaho resources must be done in full compliance with Idaho state law and procedure.

Mr. Chairman, when the Columbia, Snake and Clearwater reclamation projects

were undertaken, there was a clear goal—to improve the region’s economy and, at

one point, help with the war effort. We must now decide if our priorities have

changed. What are our goals? What best serves the Pacific Northwest? My goals,

Mr. Chairman, are to preserve the fish and the economy. In my mind, these are

not mutually exclusive.

Any policy change to the Northwest Power Act and the missions of the Corps of

Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration must be made by lawmakers—

the elected officials—and not by bureaucrats, agencies or Executive Order. We cannot and must not pit North Idaho against Southern Idaho, the East against the

West, and certainly not the fish against the people. We are all in this together, and

we must work together to protect all interests.

With that, Mr. Chairman, let’s hear from our witnesses.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Crapo is recognized

for his statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL CRAPO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And let me also add my voice to that of Representative

Chenoweth, in thanking you for coming to Idaho. I know how busy

your schedule is and I know how many demands you have for the

Committee’s time for the hearing of the critical issues in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. And I appreciate your attention to

this critical issue.

I also want to commend Representative Chenoweth for having

the perseverance and the ability to get you here. I know that your

demands are many, and that it is important that we have advocates like Representative Chenoweth who work so hard and effectively at Congress to make sure that attention is paid to these critical interests in our area.

I think the hearing is very timely. We are at a point in Idaho

and in the Pacific Northwest right now where we face not only the

critical issues of how to address the question of drawdowns or other

river management issues, but we are also looking at the nationwide, the issue of electric energy restructuring of the entire electric

energy industry.

And in the Pacific Northwest, that significantly involves hydropower decisions, which involves decisions relating to how we manage our rivers.
7

And I don’t think it’s any surprise to anybody, but often we have

to step back and think about the fact that people in the Pacific

Northwest, in fact people in the world, generally live near water,

because water is such a critical part of our lives. We live near it

for drinking water. In the Pacific Northwest we utilize our rivers

for flood control; our facilities for flood control, for irrigation, for

power generation, for fish and wildlife, and the tremendous environmental treasures which we have been blessed with here. I don’t

know if I mentioned recreation. I mean, the list goes on and on.

Transportation is a very critical issue that we will be addressing

here today I’m sure.

And the list goes on and on with regard to the purposes for

which the river system serves the people in the Pacific Northwest.

And whether it is under the Endangered Species Act with regard

to salmon recovery and steelhead, or whether, if it is with regard

to the issues that are being raised with regard to restructuring of

the electric energy industry, decisions that will be made hopefully

soon with regard to salmon recovery and hopefully well with regard

to salmon recovery and the energy and power issues, will dramatically impact Idahoans in every way.

And because of that, I believe it’s critically important that we address these issues properly here in the Pacific Northwest.

I just want to get a plug in right now, Mr. Chairman, as we go

into some of these battles, I’m going to be one that you will see

fighting very aggressively for regional control over decisions relating to management of our rivers here in the Pacific Northwest.

All too often I think we have seen that the decisionmaking structure that we have not only takes away from the people who live

here near the issues, the ability to control their destiny, but forces

us into a decisionmaking process that too often gives us low results

for the economy and low results for the environment.

And I agree with Representative Chenoweth, we don’t need to be

satisfied with that type of results. We can have results that are

better for the economy and better for the environment, if we move

to a decisionmaking process that lets the people of the region come

together and have the ability to make decisions about their future.

Our people will protect the fish. Our people will protect the economy. And they will do it with common sense solutions. And we

need to move in that direction.

I just wanted to indicate that I do have some pretty strong concerns about the process that is being followed, and hopefully as we

address not only the questions of the technology and the science

and the impacts that will result from some of the proposed solutions that we face, we also need to address the entire question of

how the process is addressed.

I believe that as we approach the energy restructuring issue, we

cannot separate it from the issue of river governance, and we must

put into place in the Pacific Northwest a system of river governance that deals with fish and wildlife, as well as power and many

other issues that are at stake; transportation, and flood control, irrigation and so forth. One which lets all of us participate in that

process and which allows all of those interests and concerns to be

brought to the table when issues are being made as to how we will

govern our river.
8

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for bringing this committee to

Idaho, and I’m sure that you will find a significant amount of important information that will help you better understand our issues

today.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Crapo may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

We have three distinguished panels of witnesses at today’s hearing.

On our first panel, we have Mr. Todd Maddock, who is a member

of the Northwest Power Planning Council. He will then be followed

by Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin, the Northwest Division

Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who will then be

followed by Mr. Jack Robertson, Deputy Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration. He will then be followed by Mr. William Stelle, Jr., Northwest Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. And then our final witness on this panel

will be Mr. Samuel N. Penney, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal

Executive Committee.

As is customary with this Subcommittee, we would ask you to

rise and to raise your right hands and take the oath. The witnesses

have been previously advised of the Subcommittee’s intention to

place all witnesses under oath. And if you would raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each responded in the

affirmative.

Under the Committee rules, we have these three lights before

you, and we would ask you to attempt to keep your testimony to

5 minutes. We have a number of witnesses today, and there is a

certain time constraint related to flights and the use of the room.

At the beginning of the fifth minute, the yellow light will go on,

just as a guide. We won’t cut you off when the red light goes on,

but try and wrap up as quickly as possible.

And with that, Mr. Maddock, I will recognize you for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TODD MADDOCK, MEMBER, NORTHWEST

POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

Mr. MADDOCK. I am having a little difficulty here with our

speaker, but, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman Chenoweth and

Congressman Crapo and other distinguished guests, I am Todd

Maddock, one of Idaho’s two representatives to the Northwest

Power Planning Council.

I am here today to present comments on behalf of Governor Phil

Batt. The Governor would like to extend his warm welcome for the

entire state of Idaho.

It’s a pleasure to have this committee in Lewiston to receive comments on river operations. The configuration of dams on the Snake

and Columbia Rivers are critical to the survival of our salmon and

steelhead, and to our water-based economy. Not just here in Lewiston, which is the furthest inland oceangoing port on the Columbia

and Snake River system, but also our salmon and steelhead fishermen and the commerce they generate, our river-based recreation
9

industries, and to the irrigated agricultural lands that lie upstream

in Southern Idaho.

These rivers, with their dams and anadromous fish, have caused

a public debate unparalleled in the Pacific Northwest. Regional and

Federal Governments, namely the National Marine Fisheries Service, will be deciding in 1999 which recovery path to follow toward

restoration of our salmon and steelhead runs.

Recovery options include dam modifications, adjustment of river

operations, perhaps including some various forms of drawdowns,

juvenile fish transportation, increased in-river juvenile migration,

which may include managed spills, and of course a combination of

all of these options.

More extreme measures are being proposed by various interests

and other Federal agencies. These issues are dam breaching and

heavy flow augmentation from upstream storage reservoirs. Both of

these methods have a devastating impact on Idaho’s economy.

Regional leaders and managers alike are on a quest for the best

biological, economical and social information in order to make these

important decisions by 1999.

A component of this decision path is the drawdown study of the

four lower Snake River dams. The Governor of Idaho continues to

request the best available information in order to resolve these

river management issues. He is not willing, however, to sacrifice

the Port of Lewiston, and is firmly committed to the continuation

of commercial barging on both river systems. He is also on record

supporting studies on John Day reservoir with all expediency so

that that regional decision can be made relative to drawdown.

Completion of these studies is essential to understanding all aspects of the issue and makes sound public policy.

Let me note that these economic and biological studies of John

Day are important because of its sheer size and because we know

less about this reservoir than any other on the system.

Funding is needed now so that we can proceed with studies that

do not duplicate other efforts already in progress. In 1996 and 1997

the state of Idaho proposed to the Federal agencies a sensible balance between juvenile transportation and in-river migration using

controlled spill. We called this policy ‘‘Spread the Risk’’ and believed that it balances the needs of fish with important economic

factors. Idaho’s ‘‘Spread the Risk’’ strategy will also provide the additional information that the region needs to make the best possible decisions.

Our policy has received positive response from the region but has

been met with continual resistance from the Federal implementing

agencies.

The Northwest can commit up to $435 million a year to these efforts. Roughly $250 million of that total are going to fish recovery

projects and research as well as capital improvements to the dams.

Such improvements include improved fish—juvenile fish bypass facilities, adult fish ladders, experimental surface collectors, improved barges, fish guidance screens, improved turbines, and advanced monitoring and tracking systems. The remaining dollars

are not actual expenditures but rather foregone revenue for the
10

Bonneville Power Administration, depending upon the amount of

spill and demand for electricity.

As the Northwest Power Planning Council, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, and other Federal and state agencies in the region

race to supply policymakers with economic and biological information, we must begin to make these hard choices concerning the recovery of our anadromous fish.

1999 is right around the corner, and we must be prepared to decide how to proceed.

The primary obstacle in finding a solution to these problems is

deciding once and for all what is the appropriate decisionmaking

process for the region. An effective salmon recovery and river governance process must include all responsible government entities in

the region, from Federal and state, to tribal and local. All must be

included if we hope to succeed.

The current Federal process is falling on hard times because critical players like the state of Montana and the lower river Tribes

are pulling out, citing National Marine Fisheries reluctance to

work with them in good faith.

Governor Batt also is disappointed in the Federal Government’s

reaction to Idaho’s initiatives and NMFS departure from proper

process in mid-river—mid-season river management.

I would like to add that the Endangered Species Act, as currently

written, works against regional efforts to recover the anadromous

fish runs and must be sensibly reformed.

The Governor is very troubled by the attitude of many that seek

to manipulate the process by lawsuits. The courts are not the proper place to resolve this critical issue.

The Pacific Northwest needs to come to closure on the issue of

river governance. If a particular process is endorsed by all government entities in the region, and full participation occurred, we

would not need to have Congressional hearings like the one here

today.

An effective river governance structure would put the decisionmaking authority firmly in the hands of the region’s policymakers,

as it should be. Federal agencies involved in this issue must actively support such a process and not merely provide lip service

and then invoke their veto authority and set separate policy.

In closing, the Governor would like to thank you for having this

important hearing in Idaho. Drawdowns is only one of the many

issues facing the region as we work to recover our anadromous fish

runs. All parties must first agree on a process if we ever hope to

make decisions necessary to see recovery realized.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Governor Philip E. Batt, Governor,

State of Idaho as presented by Mr. Maddock follows:]

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF HON. PHILIP E. BATH, GOVERNOR, STATE OF IDAHO

Congressman Doolittle, Congressman Crapo, Congresswoman Chenoweth and

other distinguished guests. I am Todd Maddock, one of Idaho’s two representatives

to the Northwest Power Planning Council. I am here today to present comments on

behalf of Governor Phil Batt. The Governor would like to extend his warm welcome

from the entire state of Idaho.

It is a pleasure to have this subcommittee in Lewiston to receive comments on

river operations. The configuration of dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers are

critical to the survival of our salmon and steelhead and to our water based economy.
11

Not just here in Lewiston—which is the farthest inland ocean-going port on the Columbia and Snake river system—but also to our salmon and steelhead fishermen

and the commerce they generate, our river based recreation industries, and to the

irrigated agricultural lands that lie upstream in Southern Idaho.

These rivers, with their dams and anadromous fish, have caused a public debate

unparalleled in the Pacific Northwest. Regional and federal governments, namely

the National Marine Fisheries Service, will be deciding in 1999 which recovery path

to follow toward restoration of our salmon and steelhead runs. Recovery options include dam modifications; adjustments to river operations, perhaps including some

various forms of drawdowns; juvenile fish transportation; increased in-river juvenile

migration which may include managed spills; and, of course, a combination of all

these options. More extreme measures are being proposed by various interests and

other federal agencies. These issues are dam breaching and heavy flow augmentation from upstream storage reservoirs. Both of these methods would have a devastating impact on Idaho’s economy.

Regional leaders and managers alike are on a quest for the best biological, economical and social information in order to make these important decisions by 1999.

A component of this decision path is the drawdown study of the four lower Snake

River Dams. The Governor of Idaho continues to request the best available information in order to resolve these river management issues. He is not willing, however,

to sacrifice the port of Lewiston, and is firmly committed to the continuation of commercial barging on both river systems. He is also on record supporting studies at

John Day Reservoir with all expediency so that a regional decision can be made relative to drawdown. Completion of these studies is essential to understanding all aspects of the issue, and to make sound public policy.

Let me note that these economic and biological studies of John Day are important

because of its sheer size, and because we know less about this reservoir than any

other on the system. Funding is needed now so that we can proceed with studies

that do not duplicate other efforts already in progress.

In 1996 and 1997, the state of Idaho proposed to the federal agencies a sensible

balance between juvenile transportation and in-river migration using controlled

spill. We call this policy ‘‘Spread the Risk’’ and believe that it balances the needs

of the fish with important economic factors. Idaho’s Spread the Risk Strategy will

also provide the additional information that the region needs to make the best possible decisions. Our policy has received positive response from the region, but has

been met with continual resistance from the federal implementing agencies. The Northwest can commit up to $435 million a year to these efforts. Roughly $250 million of that total are going to fish recovery projects and research as well

as capital improvements to the dams. Such improvements include improved juvenile

fish by pass facilities, adult fish ladders, experimental surface collectors, improved

barges, fish guidance screens, improved turbines, and advanced monitoring and

tracking systems. The remaining dollars are not actual expenditures, but rather,

forgone revenue for the Bonneville Power Administration depending upon the

amount of spill and demand for electricity.

As the Northwest Power Planning Council, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

and other federal and state agencies in the region race to supply policy makers with

economic and biological information, we must begin to make these hard choices concerning the recovery of our anadromous fish. 1999 is right around the corner, and

we must be prepared to decide how to proceed.

The primary obstacle for finding a solution to these problems is deciding once and

for all what is the appropriate decision making process for the region. An effective

salmon recovery and river governance process must include all responsible government entities in the region, from federal and state, to tribal and local. All must be

included if we hope to succeed. The current federal process is falling on hard times

because critical players like the state of Montana and the Lower River Tribes have

pulled out, citing the National Marine Fisheries Service’s reluctance to work with

them in good faith. Governor Batt is also disappointed with the federal government’s reaction to Idaho’s initiatives and NMFS’s departure from proper process in

mid-season river management.

I would like to add that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as currently written

works against regional efforts to recover the anadromous fish runs, and must be

sensibly reformed. The Governor is very troubled by the attitude of many that seek

to manipulate the process by lawsuits. The courts are not the proper place to resolve

this critical issue.

The Pacific Northwest needs to come to closure on the issue of river governance.

If a particular process was endorsed by all government entities in the region, and

full participation occurred, we would not need to be having congressional hearings

like the one here today. An effective river governance structure would put the deci-
12

sion making authority firmly in the hands of the region’s policy makers, as it should

be. Federal agencies involved in this issue must actively support such a process, and

not merely provide lip service and then invoke their veto authority and set a separate policy.

In closing, the Governor would like to thank you for having this important hearing in Idaho. Drawdown is only one of the many issues facing the region as we work

to recover our anadromous fish runs. All parties must first agree on a process if we

ever hope to make the decisions necessary to see recovery realized.

Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

Gen. Griffin, you are recognized for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT H. GRIFFIN,

NORTHWEST DIVISION COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS

Gen. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Committee members and distinguished guests. I am General Robert

Griffin, Commander of the newly formed Northwestern Division,

that was part of the 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act that said the Corps must get to between six and eight

divisions.

In the process there you might wonder what happened to North

Pacific Division that I took command of. It is now combined with

the Missouri River Division. So I have offices in both Portland and

Omaha. Clearly, by my being here today, those dual duties will not

take away from my salmon recovery efforts. That I can assure you.

I now have five districts. I lost Alaska. I have Seattle, Walla

Walla, Portland, Kansas City and Omaha.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. There

are three areas I want to touch on: the proposed drawdown studies

that we have on the lower Snake River, and the one that is currently in abeyance on the John Day reservoir; the potential effects

of drawdown options for the Snake River study; and also the regional coordination that we will do during the study process.

Sir, I have submitted detailed written testimony for the record.

And, sir, I would also like to add a lot of the points you made, I

am just going to reinforce some of them very quickly. Your opening

statement pretty well reflects my oral statement here.

The Corps in cooperation with the region is conducting a feasibility study of options for improving fish passage conditions over

the long-term in the lower Snake Reservoir, or river system.

The options are, Ma’am, I would like to reiterate, permanent natural river drawdown is one option, surface bypass is another, and

the existing condition with fish passage improvements is another.

We are doing this in accordance with the biological opinion, but

we are also doing these studies because we believe that these

drawdowns offer a potential for improved salmon survival at the

dams.

The drawdowns would likely provide better in-river conditions, it

would eliminate adult and juvenile salmon passage mortality at the

dams. And it will improve speed through the river system.

And the challenge is, sir, as we talked earlier, to quantify these

benefits and determine whether this will lead to recovery of the

salmon stocks.

Our charge is to perform a regional analysis to develop the best

scientific information. There will definitely be tradeoffs, sir, as you
13

admit, or stated there. We will not breech the damages, we would

in effect go around them. This is on the Snake River.

The powerhouses, spillways and navigation locks would be decommissioned, and in effect mothballed. The preliminary construction estimate to implement a permanent natural level drawdown at

the four dams is $530 million.

Sir, I would like to highlight that is a very preliminary number.

It is about 4 years old, taken out of a System Operations Review

study that we had done before. It does not include any mitigation

or any other impacts, such as lost revenue to BPA.

As you say, sir, it would radically change our multi-purpose

projects as we know them today. Facilities for irrigation, municipal

and industrial water supply would be rendered unusable without

costly modifications which at this point we estimate at about $35

million. Commercial navigation of the lower Snake River would be

eliminated. Our current study of natural river level drawdown is

a detailed engineering, biological, social, and economic analysis. So

it will look at all of those in great detail.

The report, sir, as you say, and the accompanying EIS, and that

is very important, these two documents go together. There will be

a report, and an Environmental Impact Statement, along with environmental assessment and the bilogical opinion done by National

Marine Fisheries Service. Those will be produced in 1999, according to the 1995 biological opinion.

This study will serve as a basis for decisions on whether

drawdowns or other alternatives, such as surface bypass or improvements to existing systems, should be implemented.

Regarding John Day reservoir drawdown, sir, we have already

looked at what is called minimum operating pool. We have studied

that. We will not study that again, and the Power Planning Council

also asked us not to do that. So we will not do that.

Our study of deeper drawdowns to spillway crest or natural river

was suspended pending scientific justification as a result of the

1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. We got

that justification from NMFS and have gone back to the two subcommittees, House and Senate. We asked for $1.5 million in study

money in 1997. And also $3.2 million in fisscal year ’98 to continue

the studies.

Sir, that request to continue the study and the documentation is

with the Subcommittees now, and we have not gotten a response.

So, on the John Day drawdown, I can neither give you a scope,

nor a schedule, until we get money back and can work with the region to scope this and then come up with a cost and time schedule.

Coordination, sir, on the lower Snake River feasibility, we see as

very important. We will work, coordinate closely with all interests

throughout the study and the EIS process.

In fact, we have regional groups working now to evaluate the biological benefits and economic effects. Two of those are the Drawdown Regional Economic Work Group and the PATH group, which

is the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypothese, It will provide

the scientific rigor we need for these studies.

We will conduct many public meetings, as required by NEPA,

and by our study process, and we will do workshops involving public interest groups, state and Federal agencies, Native American
14

Tribes and scientific groups. We will also communicate through existing work groups associated with the NMFS regional forum process.

And, sir, the final comment I would like to make and probably

the most important is, while we have the authority to do the study,

we don’t have authority to implement drawdowns without going to

Congress for project reauthorization. So we can study, but we’re

going to have to come back to Congress if we change the current

multi-purpose project authority that we have today.

Sir, that concludes my oral testimony.

[The prepared statement of Gen. Griffin may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Robertson is recognized.

STATEMENT OF JACK ROBERTSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,

thanks for the time this morning. I am going to ask again, as did

the General, that my full statement be submitted for the record,

and I am going to briefly summarize it.

I want to thank the Committee first for its help to Bonneville in

trying to get Bonneville stabilized and its financial condition

healthy in the last 3 years.

You are aware we have made a number of decisions, some of

which we couldn’t have made without the help of Congress and the

administration the effect of these decisions is that we have cut

$600 million in cost and $2,000 of our FTE. We have recontracted

for power sales for the next 5 years for two and a half billion dollars per year in revenues, and thereby have guaranteed revenues

in the bank for the next 5 years, to the year 2001.

We are making our $850 million treasury payment and our funding to fish and wildlife that are on the average above $400 million

per year. And we have had a number of tools that we needed to

get that done, and you helped us to do that, and I just wanted to

officially thank you while we are here.

We have completed an initial analysis of the effect of the drawdown of the lower Snake and John Day reservoirs.

We expected that our work on the power system effects will be

more refined and comprehensive as we participate with the Corps

and the other parties in their drawdown feasibility study.

Bonneville will review a range of alternatives and provide that

range for both public and independent review.

I am now summarizing my written, formal testimony.

First of all, there are two fundamental things regarding draw

down that I want to say today. First, there is a potential for lost

generation and there is a question of the total cost associated with

that, and I want to go through both of those things fairly quickly.

First of all, lost generation. The lower Snake projects generate

1,231 average megawatts of power, or about 12 percent of the total

Federal hydro system sold by Bonneville.

John Day Dam generates by itself an additional 1200 average

megawatts of power.
15

With the natural river drawdown at John Day all 1200

megawatts would be eliminated. Under a spillway crest drawdown

alternative, 560 average megawatts would be lost.

If the natural river drawdown option were chosen at all five

projects, a total of just over 2400 average megawatts of energy

would be eliminated.

The total energy capacity of these five projects is just under

6,000 megawatts. The loss of revenue, energy capacity and energy

reliability from these projects would, under existing law, be borne

by Bonneville’s system.

The five projects represent 24 percent of Bonneville’s system, or

about 10 percent of the total regional energy system.

To give a yardstick of comparison, in the last 17 years since the

Northwest Power Act passed, Bonneville has, through one of the

most aggressive conservation programs in the nation, saved 640 average megawatts of energy in the region.

The loss of 2400 average megawatts of generation from these five

projects represents over three times the energy conservation saved

in the region since 1980 through Bonneville’s conservation program.

Now let me quickly talk about cost implications. This analysis

only relates to energy costs. It does not include any costs associated

with the loss of transportation, recreation, irrigation, cultural resources or other issues. The Corps General has already indicated

those will also be studied as well.

The cost of assumptions here assume a medium forecast for energy prices.

In simple terms, when considering the effect of the natural river

drawdown, the lower Snake projects and John Day reservoir, there

are at least five categories, or tiers of cost, that need to be considered.

The first tier is debt. First there is an outstanding Federal appropriation or debt for the five dams. This debt is now the obligation of the Bonneville Power Administration and is paid by ratepayers of the Northwest. It totals $1.3 billion for the four Snake

dams and John Day.

The second tier is construction costs: bypassing the dams to create the natural river conditions. The Corps, as the General indicated, has already estimated preliminarily that the cost of lower

Snake drawdowns is just about $500 million.

Our analysis done for the Northwest Power Planning Council, assumes the cost of the John Day construction would be a little under

$1 billion. These are preliminary costs and they would total, if put

together, about $1.5 billion. That’s the second tier.

The third tier of costs is the largest, and that is related to the

energy revenue that would be lost to Bonneville as a result of bypassing generation at the projects.

Our initial assessment assumes again a medium price forecast

for energy, out into the future, and that the 1995 biological opinion

operations on the river, including flow and spill programs on the

Columbia system, remain in place. Changes in energy prices and

river operations could affect these numbers up or down.

With these assumptions, then, the net present value today of the

future lost revenues associated with electric generation at the
16

lower Snake projects, if they were removed, is $3.5 billion. On a

levelized annual basis, this would be about $208 million per year

over the next 50 years.

The value for lost generation, assuming natural river drawdown at John Day, is $228 million per year, or just over $4 billion in net

value for the next 50 years. Spillway crest drawdown at John Day would reduce the $228

million per year figure by roughly half.

Therefore, the total net present value of lost revenues from the

natural river drawdown at all five projects, to give this some context, would total just over $7.5 billion in today’s dollars. This value

accounts for $1.8 billion in costs, operating and maintaining and

rehabilitating these projects that will need to be invested in the

projects during their remaining life. So, in other words, that number is netted against the $1.8 billion

already.

There are two other tiers of potential costs that should also be

considered, although we don’t have specific numbers for them

today.

The first is electrical reliability. The loss in hydro generation capability of these projects may have serious electrical reliability implications. The scope of the impacts would depend on when, where,

how the lost generation was replaced and whether additional transmission lines would need to be built.

We used, for example, these projects quite extensively in the

freeze of 1989 when we were going beyond the regional energy system’s capacity by significant amounts, and they were very valuable

then.

Much more analysis needs to be done before we could judge the

cost associated with maintaining the reliability of the regional system.

No costs have been included in the analysis I just presented to

account for potential system reliability impacts.

Finally, air quality. The electric energy produced by these renewable hydro projects is energy that is compatible with clean air. Bonneville recently received an award from the National Resources Defense Council for having the lowest of air emissions of any electric

generation system in the west. Federal standards are being considered to place additional cost on electric generation from coal, oil or

natural gas to mitigate the pollution they cause, including CO2 pollution.

If the hydro generation from the four Snake projects alone were

lost and replaced by modern combustion, in other words, state-ofthe-art combustion turbines fired by natural gas, our preliminary

analysis indicates it would result in over four million metric tons

of CO2 per year in the atmosphere. Loss of John Day generation

would significantly increase likely double, this number.

So, finally, the cumulative rate impacts, which I will try to summarize here, because I am over my time. Despite our cost cuts,

Bonneville is still about 10, 20 percent above the marketplace right

now. We hope that the marketplace will change. Our contracts are

locked up for 5 years. We are looking to get our costs down to two

cents in 2000, and we think that will make us competitive. But

right now we are about 10 percent or 20 percent over market.
17

If we were adding together all of the costs I just described and

applying them to a rate impact, it would depend upon how many

of those tiers of costs were borne by the ratepayers versus the taxpayers, add 10 to 25 percent on our cost structure.

In today’s market conditions, we simply couldn’t do that without

ending up having serious economic impacts for the agency and the

U.S. Treasury. And what those would be, I think, requires further

analysis. We are committed to do that as a result of the Corps

study.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Stelle is recognized.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STELLE, JR., NORTHWEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Mr. STELLE. Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Crapo,

thank you for the invitation for us to testify here today before you.

I appreciate that.

I’m going to skip the details of my written testimony I would like

to submit it for the record and summarize a couple observations.

The NMFS role and the Federal role in the recovery and restoration of anadromous fish in the Snake basin is in some respects fundamentally fairly simple. It is to develop a restoration effort that

meets the requirements of Federal law that is biologically sound,

and legally defensible.

Those Federal laws include the Federal Endangered Species Act,

Clean Water Act, Northwest Power Planning Act, and importantly,

Federal trust obligations to the treaty Tribes of the Columbia and

Snake Basin.

The recovery effort is a comprehensive effort that involves all

stages of the life cycle. It involves improving and protecting freshwater spawning and rearing habitat, improving survivals through

the downstream migration through the hydropower corridor, improving survivals while the salmonids are in the ocean, and when

they return to their spawning grounds.

The restoration effort, thus, is a comprehensive cradle-to-grave

effort.

The topic that we will discuss today in more detail is but one

component of that larger effort. It is how do we improve survivals

of these salmonids through the main stem migration corridor that

is populated by at least eight major Federal dams.

The 1995 biological opinion by the National Marine Fisheries

Service found that the Federal hydropower system does jeopardize

the continued existence of these runs, and it needs to be improved.

The NMFS opinion developed an alternative that calls for interim measures to immediately improve salmon survivals while additional information is developed on the long-term options for the

system itself. Those decisions on the long-term are scheduled for

1999.

Going back to my first major point concerning a legally defensible and biologically sound approach, we are pleased that a Federal Court recently concluded that this opinion and its implementation by the Federal agencies meets the requirement of the Endangered Species Act and Federal law.
18

We have been and remain committed to a biologically sound and

legally defensible restoration strategy for anadromous salmonids,

and the decision of the court is gratifying.

We were furthermore impressed that Montana, Idaho, Oregon,

Washington, and Alaska all argued in the litigation for full and effective implementation of that opinion as the proper pathway.

Given the substantial disagreements over salmonid recovery here

in this system, that is progress indeed.

Today, as at the time when NMFS issued its the biological opinion, there is a rift on what is the best pathway to improve survivals

through the hydropower corridor.

One side argues that the runs have declined to the point of listing during the two decades that we have been barging fish around

the Federal dams instead of sending them through them, and it is

time to conclude that barging doesn’t work and to put the fish back

in the river because that will be a better course. And change the

configuration of the system by taking out some of the dams—Snake

dams or main stem dams.

The other side arguing that factors beside the hydropower system have led to the fishes’ decline, that juvenile fish transportation

provides about as much improvement in salmon survival as would

the removal of the Snake dams, and that given the present configuration of the dams, the best thing to do in the immediate term is

to transport as many fish as one can collect.

In light of these deep divisions within the region, NMFS has

identified several areas of uncertainty and committed to addressing

them with the Army Corps of Engineers, and with the states and

the Tribes in the region.

These questions include what is the mortality rate of fish migrating in the river, what is the ability of the transportation system to

mitigate for that mortality, what is the survival rate needed to ensure the survival and the recovery of these anadromous stocks, and

will either of the two major pathways, continued and improved

transportation, or natural river, get us there.

My testimony goes through a number of the empirical studies

that are under way to give us the data that will enable the region

to make better choices on which option is likely to get us to our

goal. I will not summarize those data efforts now.

I would only emphasize to you that it is very powerful work underway, and we need to maintain that work and remain committed

to it because it will give us the best information we can generate

on which option is the best option.

This decision cannot be by a flip of a coin. There must be a reasoned approach to an important decision facing the Pacific Northwest. The Federal agencies remain committed to that, and our role

in particular is to develop a set of options for salmonid recovery

and for the hydropower system to develop the information on what

each of those options may buy us and what they may cost us. And

then to engage in a discussion with the leadership of the Pacific

Northwest to answer the question, which option is the right option

for the region.

That is the pathway we are on. We remain committed to it. We

remain committed to a collaboration with the states and the Tribes

in that effort. And first and foremost and fundamentally, we re-
19

main committed to generating the best science we can to use as the

compass in that decisionmaking.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stelle may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Penney, you are recognized for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL N. PENNEY, CHAIRMAN, NEZ PERCE

TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. PENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representatives

Chenoweth and Crapo.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the Nez Perce

Tribe, and I would like to welcome you to Nez Perce country. The

Nez Perce Tribe originally occupied over 13 million acres which included Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington as well

as most of North Central Idaho.

I would also like to request my comments be submitted for the

record.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make some comments that

are not in my written testimony, and first of all, I think as far as

the Treaty reserved rights of the Columbia River Tribes that are

involved, that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution I think verifies

the rights that the Tribes have reserved.

Our treaties are not between any department, between any agency, or any Bureau. It is with the U.S. Government. And I think the

Article VI supports my statement in my written comments.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out, there were three

important scientific studies that have been completed in 1996.

One is entitled Return to the River, Restoration of Salmonid

Fisheries to the Columbia River Ecosystem, and that’s by the Independent Scientific Group submitted to the Northwest Power Planning Council.

There is a salmon decision analysis regarding the lower Snake

River feasibility study by Harza Northwest, that was submitted to

the Army Corps of Engineers in what they call PATH, Plan for

Analysing and Testing Hypotheses, conclusions of the fiscal year

1996 retrospective analysis. And that’s conducted by 22 authors,

and it was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

All three of these reports devote significant analysis to the drawdown proposals.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to submit for the record,

what is entitled the Spirit of the Salmon, which is the restoration

plan that the Tribes have proposed.

What’s interesting about the Spirit of the Salmon, is that the scientific conclusion of those various reports rendered in these studies, support some of the ideas in the Spirit of the Salmon.

And I think all three of the reports that I have referenced conclude that drawdowns of lower Snake River dams would bring the

salmon back to these areas.

There was also mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the role of the

Northwest Power Planning Council and the other agencies, as mentioned by Mr. Maddock.
20

But under the Northwest Power Act, it states that these Federal

operating and regulating agencies are directed by Congress to exercise their responsibilities in a manner consistent with the purposes

of the Act and other applicable laws to provide equitable treatment

for fish and wildlife.

And it also states in the purpose of that Act that it must also

counter past damage and work toward rebuilding those fish and

wildlife populations that have been hampered by the hydro system.

And we also realize, Mr. Chairman, that the Council must develop this program while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power source.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the conclusions as stated in my written testimony regarding the natural river drawdowns of the lower Snake

River dams, John Day pool to spillway crests, are critical to, one,

greatly increase spawning areas and production potential; No. 2,

ensure that adults reach spawning areas by reducing migratory energy demands; and three, reduce temperatures and dissolved gas;

four, scientifically increase juvenile travel time and reduce substantial juvenile mortalities through dams.

Mr. Chairman, I think as stated, you know, this should be a regional issue, and we believe that there is a critical need for an

inter-governmental decisionmaking process that will protect and

restore fish and wildlife, while allowing sustainable use of the

river, including power, irrigation and navigation.

I think our main point, Mr. Chairman, is that the status quo

that has been going on is totally unacceptable to the Tribes.

We are looking forward to engaging in discussions at the highest

level of the goverment- to-government level consultation, and we

are encouraged that the states, Federal Government and Tribes are

participating in a meeting next week on June 3rd among the

sovereigns to discuss beginning to work together to assure fish and

wildlife restoration in the face of energy deregulation as mentioned

by Congressman Crapo.

So we do believe that this is a complicated issue.

I appreciate having the hearing here to gather information on

how we can best address these problems, and can assure you, as

well as the others on the panel, that we’re committed to fishery

restoration.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Penney may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. The members will now have an opportunity to address questions to the panel.

Mr. Maddock, what is the current position of the Northwest

Power Planning Council with respect to juvenile fish transportation?

Mr. MADDOCK. We have a plan that was adopted in 1994.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Could you pull that mike a little closer, please?

Mr. MADDOCK. Our plan which was adopted in 1994, but which

is currently being amended, so I would have to say that question

remains open.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Any ideas which direction the amendment is

going to go?
21

Mr. MADDOCK. Well, clearly it’s a matter of learning each year

more about the survival that’s occurring, both in-river and through

transportation.

And that’s one of the reasons why the state of Idaho had taken

a ‘‘Spread the Risk’’ approach, was to gain better understanding

and a better comparison scientifically of what the best method

would be.

This year may be a critical year as far as understanding more

fully just what that comparison is. But we don’t have the results

this year in fully.

So I would have to say we don’t, at this point we wouldn’t be able

to answer that question until we have more information available.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And what has been the Northwest Power Planning Council’s position on Idaho’s ‘‘Spread the Risk’’ strategy?

Mr. MADDOCK. I think that’s been not something that’s been fully

endorsed by the Northwest Power Planning Council, but the council members, state of Idaho developed the program and have advanced it through the Executive Committee process, which includes—which is essentially the Federal agencies and the Northwest Power Planning Council and the tribal interests, that’s the existing process under which we’ve tried to work toward regional consensus.

And that’s what we were referring to in our comments, that we

didn’t find that to be completely implemented by the—by that executive committee process.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You stated that the Governor is not willing to

sacrifice the Port of Lewiston.

Could the Port survive if the permanent drawdown of the four

lower Snake River dams is implemented?

Mr. MADDOCK. Any operations of the Snake below minimum operating pool would stop transportation and navigation on the

Snake River.

So, drawdowns would eliminate that as an option.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Even if the permanent drawdown of the four

lower Snake dams is not adopted, could the Port survive if the

John Day Dam is drawn down below the minimum operating pool,

the spillway crest, or to natural river level?

Mr. MADDOCK. It’s my understanding that there is a reason to

believe that that’s worth—there’s additional information needed in

order to answer that question.

At one time there was some discussion that there might be possibly the ability to transport with a drawdown on John Day. But

that question I think remains open, and undecided.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Gen. Griffin, do you have an opinion on that

issue?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, if you go to spillway crest, I believe navigation

could continue, although the characteristics of the barges that

would be on the river would be different. They couldn’t draft as

much. Exactly how much, I’m not sure.

If you carry it all—and there would have to be some channel

deepening efforts that would have to go along with that, and there

would be an associated cost with that.

And so there would be a definite economic cost, mitigation cost,

if you will, if you tried to continue navigation and spillway crest.
22

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How many miles of deepening efforts would be

required, do you believe?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, I’m uncertain of that. I would not be able to

answer that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Well, let me go back to Mr. Maddock.

Do you think that the studies currently underway will provide

significant new data to the policymakers who are scheduled to

make important decisions on river operations in 1999?

Mr. MADDOCK. Oh, I think they definitely will.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you think the questions about what is effective and isn’t effective will be resolved by the time that study

comes out?

Mr. MADDOCK. I can’t attest that all that information will be

clear to us by that time, but we certainly will know a lot more, and

I think will be able to make better decisions, based on what we’re

currently doing today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. General.

Gen. GRIFFIN. In answer to your question, the river miles that

would be affected by spillway crest would be 20 to 25 miles.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So we would need to have that amount of dredging, then, to allow for the navigation?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir, some amount in there. And depending on

whether it’s hard pan or loose material, the cost could be high.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you.

Let me just indicate to the members, I think we will probably do

two rounds of questioning, so let me recognize Mrs. Chenoweth at

this point.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maddock, I’m very interested in both your comment and my

colleague’s comments, Mr. Crapo, about having a regional power

governance authority.

For the record, how does that relate to what is already in place

in the flow augmentation?

Mr. MADDOCK. Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Chenoweth, the

Northwest Power Planning Council is only one forum that is addressing regional issues. There has been, since—well, in the last 2

years, an Executive Committee approach that brought all of the

Federal agencies together, and was nominally chaired by NMFS,

and so that is a parallel process to the Northwest Power Planning

Council.

And of course some of the operating agencies have previously had

the system operations review which joined together the three major

Federal agencies as well.

So there are a variety of groups that are currently looking at

river management decisions right now due to the ESA, NMFS and

the Executive Committee decision approach have apparently the

most, strongest legal position in order to do this.

But that’s the one that was referred to in my comments, were

Montana and the lower Tribes have indicated that they no longer

want to participate in that process.

So we have a rather fragile and multifaceted system right now.

We really need to find a way to bring that all together.
23

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Maddock, could you explain for me how

the parallel organization that you referred to, parallel to your organization, has a stronger legal position?

Mr. MADDOCK. Well, I say that, and that’s speculation on my

part, but to the extent that the ESA has—is the authority under

which NMFS is looking, developing their recovery plan, that is the

legal authority for the Executive Committee approach. And it’s one

that does bring the various agencies together, including the Northwest Power Planning Council.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Maddock.

Gen. Griffin, welcome to Idaho.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I hope you enjoy your new huge responsibility,

half the country. My goodness.

You mentioned in your testimony, I’m not sure that you read this

part, that the Corps has eight major dams on the Columbia. And

those lower Columbia dams that we’re involved with here that help

provide for our Port, slack water for our Port, are the Ice Harbor

Dam, Lower Monumental Dam, Little Goose and the Lower Granite Dams.

In my opening statement I made mention of three feasibility—

three options in your feasibility study. And that the first two had

been determined not to be feasible to go ahead and study, and

that’s contained in your testimony in paragraph 2 on page 2, isn’t

that correct.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am. For drawdown options, the only drawdown option that is feasible is to natural river level. But there are

other options in the study that we’re looking at, which is current

condition and improved condition.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But those were determined not to be part of

this study.

Gen. GRIFFIN. No, ma’am, they are being evaluated as alternatives to drawing down the reservoirs.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Right. OK. I see that my light is on, Mr.

Chairman, and I had another question that I wanted to ask the

General.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Just go ahead and ask. As long as it is yellow.

Gen. GRIFFIN. I will just have to answer fast.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. General, on page 3, top of page 4, you indicate

that the impacts of natural river drawdowns on the lower Snake

river water and power users, your testimony goes through the impacts on fish passage, on irrigation, 1991 inventory, identified a

total of 31 withdrawal facilities on the four lower Snake projects,

on navigation you said, at the top of page 4, and I don’t believe this

was testified to, but all commercial navigation on the lower Snake

River from its confluence with the Columbia River to Lewiston,

Idaho, will be eliminated.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Isn’t that correct?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will

yield.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Crapo, you are recognized.
24

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to go first to Mr. Stelle. Surprise?

In your testimony you pretty well described some of the competing approaches to how we will protect the salmon and steelhead.

Could you compare for me the relative need for flow augmentation from storage water in Idaho between the two approaches that

you discussed?

Mr. STELLE. Yes. First of all, let me describe the function of flow

augmentation.

Mr. CRAPO. Sure.

Mr. STELLE. The function of flow augmentation under the current

operations is two fold, one of which is to try to operate this system

the way we have it in as most fish friendly way as possible in order

to best evaluate what kind of improvements in salmon survivals

can we milk out of this system as it is currently configured.

Based upon that, and based upon some general information that

flows help fish, we identified in the biological opinion some general

ranges of good flows that we believe represent good conditions for

migrating fish. And we have recommended to the Corps and Bureau that they pursue those flow objectives in the operation of the

system itself.

We are also then paralleling this operation with some very specific monitoring efforts on what are fish survivals in each of the

pools in each of the projects as we go down the river, for the entire

year, year by year.

And as we implement this operation, we will get very specific,

very hard data on what the fish are doing under a full range of environmental conditions that we experience over this four or 5 year

period.

The purpose of flow augmentation is to try to improve in-river

migration conditions as best we know how now so that we can also

measure it and see whether or not we can tease out any specific

hard data, correlating fish survivals with flows.

Mr. CRAPO. But as between the two competing approaches as to

how to best help the fish, in which—what’s the comparative need

for flow augmentation?

Mr. STELLE. To improve in-river conditions for in-river migrants.

Mr. CRAPO. Meaning that the in-river approach would require

more flow augmentation?

Mr. STELLE. Meaning that in order to maximize the survivals of

in-river migrants, we want to try to provide good water for those

fish, yes.

Mr. CRAPO. When you say good water, what are you talking

about?

Mr. STELLE. The flow objectives that we stipulate for spring,

summer Chinook, there are two sets of them, one for the Snake

system, one for the Columbia, and, Dave, you may need to help me

on this, but I think the Snake River flow objectives are around a

hundred kcfs for springtime; for spring Columbia River, it’s around

200, from 200 to 240, or something like that.

Mr. CRAPO. So are you saying that the natural river option would

require increased flow augmentation?

Mr. STELLE. The natural river option may or may not. It depends.
25

First of all, the natural hydrograph of the Snake, how did this

river used to work before we built the Hells Canyon complex, before we built the big project, the Bureau projects, before we built

the Corps lower Snake dams.

Well, the hydrograph, the way this river used to run, were big

powerful flows in the springtime that would taper off in the summer.

And you know this very well, I know, Congressman.

Under a natural river drawdown scenario, though, it is, and,

again, I am estimating here, flow augmentation in the springtime

may not be necessary, depending on how the Hells Canyon complex

is operated. If it holds all the water back in the springtime, fish

won’t do well.

So we are still going to have to have contributions in the springtime and for spring, summer migrants, given the fact that we have

the ability to control those upstream resources.

Mr. CRAPO. Would dam modifications of various types—What I

am talking about is the alternatives, looking at using the status

quo and then improving it, would dam modifications of various

types and other types of improvements increase or reduce the need

for flow augmentation?

Mr. STELLE. My guess at this stage, Congressman, is reduce.

Mr. CRAPO. Would you tell me exactly what the——

Mr. STELLE. And that applies both from the upper Snake and the

upper Columbia.

Mr. CRAPO. Could you tell me, when we talk about new and improved transportation packages, to try to improve the current system but keep it operational, what are we talking about there?

Mr. STELLE. Improving the ability to collect the little fish at the

dams, first and foremost.

Second, improving the ability of the big fish to get back home.

Mr. CRAPO. And those general categories you are talking about

there, if implemented properly, you believe will reduce the need for

flow augmentation?

Mr. STELLE. Those—Improving our ability to collect fish will

maximize the benefits, if there are benefits, to the transportation

system because more fish will be transported, less fish will be left

in the river to go through the turbines and die.

So the ability to—the improved ability to collect fish doesn’t necessarily tell you whether or not you will barge them or bypass

them back into the river. It simply means that you will reduce the

number of fish going through the turbines.

And fundamentally, if you are a little fish, you don’t want to go

through those turbines.

So the improved collections still leaves open the issue of whether

you want to barge them or do you have a healthy enough river environment that you want to put them back in the river.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I will followup

on the next round, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Stelle, you referred to sticking

to the best science, in your testimony.

Does the best current science show higher rates of survival for

out-migrating juveniles that are in in-river or those that are transported?
26

Mr. STELLE. Those that are transported.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right.

Mr. STELLE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes.

Mr. STELLE. I could describe to you the basis of that conclusion,

if you would like. I would simply note that there are very powerful

empirical studies underway now whereby we are getting very accurate information about what’s going on in the system with the fish.

And we are getting early returns this year to answer the question, who does better, and the data right now will be in this year

and next year, and basically we are seeing about a two to one benefit for those that migrate downstream in the barges.

You will lose 50 percent of the fish in the river, based on what

we know, if you leave them in the river.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, how will this be improved if transportation

is eliminated and if permanent drawdown is implemented?

Mr. STELLE. It wouldn’t. It would eliminate the transportation

option. Two questions.

First of all, what kind of survival benefits can we get from the

transportation system? And how do they compare to the survival

benefits we can secure through improved in-river migrations?

One is a comparative question, and then the larger, more fundamental question is, are either survival benefits enough to recover

and restore these stocks. That is basically the analytical approach

we are undertaking now.

If the decision of the region is to go with the natural river drawdown because it provides a higher probability of restoration over

the long-term, then it basically eliminates the transportation option. It’s a decision that we won’t go that pathway.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you have a sense in your own mind of which

is the more likely beneficial alternative?

Mr. STELLE. I think that most credible fishery scientists would

say that if the simple question you pose is what is the best longterm restoration strategy, regardless of other circumstances, they

would probably recommend natural river drawdown.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. There’s an Oregonian article, I have a copy of it

here.

Mr. STELLE. There are lots of them.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let’s see. Do I have a date on this one? The

17th, I believe, is the date, May 17th.

Mr. STELLE. Yes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Which states that NMFS has directed the Corps

to develop a list of all those holding permits to withdraw water

from the system, to rank them by the degree by which permit hurts

salmon.

Is that indeed what NMFS has done?

Mr. STELLE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, what we did is advise the Corps

that continued issuance of water withdrawal permits in the system

without regard to the cumulative impacts of those continuing withdrawals is no longer a good idea.

We are recommending that we do what every good farmer does,

and that is that recognize that there are limits in this system, that

if we are working hard, like Idaho is, to put more water in the sys-
27

tem, it makes no sense to turn right around and take it right out

again.

So the policy that we have recommended to the Corps is in essence a no net loss policy.

Water, new irrigation withdrawals would be permissible, but

only if they are offset so that we don’t further dig ourselves into

a hole.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Was this policy intended to apply to the existing

water rights holders or just to the new ones?

Mr. STELLE. It is intended not to apply retroactively to the existing 404 permit holders.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. For dredging, let’s suppose they do this dredge,

does that take a 404 permit?

Mr. STELLE. I think that if it’s a Corps project, it doesn’t technically require a 404 permit. But it is the same equivalent analysis

of pros and cons under the National Environmental Policy Act for

dredging operations.

Typically the Corps doesn’t permit itself, though.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, we have to go through the process, we will

still go to the various state and Federal agencies.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Now, we have had some problems with being

able to do dredging in the San Joaquin River, which is not in your

jurisdiction, I take it, but——

Gen. GRIFFIN. No, sir, it isn’t. I have a large area, but not that

big.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I think the contention was, because when

the dredge pulls up the material and water spills over the side, you

are putting water back into the river, and that somehow violates

somebody’s regulation.

Do you know anything about that?

Gen. GRIFFIN. No, sir.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How about you, Mr. Stelle?

Gen. GRIFFIN. I know you have to get a water quality certification from the state. It sounds like that is what it is tied up into.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You would think if it came out of the river, if it

spilled over the side, went back in, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Gen. GRIFFIN. No, unless there was a certain amount of turbidity

that is happening, or there could be a fish and wildlife impact.

They may have an endangered species there that is in jeopardy because of the turbidity of the water.

There are a number of things that you get into when you try to

permit. But we really have a good relationship here in the Pacific

Northwest.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, it is perhaps not as rosy a situation in

California. Which is why all of these people should be concerned,

because as bizarre as some of these ideas seem, it is entirely possible that they could come to pass.

Mrs. Chenoweth?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gen. Griffin, I wanted to return to questioning you. At the end

of your statement, didn’t you say that there would be no dams

breached? Did I understand that correctly?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Ma’am, what I had said was we are undergoing a

study. As part of the biological opinion, we have been charged with
28

doing a study for long-term improvements of the system for salmon.

Now, one of the options then is a removal of the dam, to go to

natural river condition.

What I said was, I am authorized by Congress, the Corps is authorized to operate our projects right now for multiple purposes;

recreation, hydropower, navigation, flood control, municipal and industrial water, and a few others. Fish and wildlife, of course, and

that’s why we’re here.

But if we were to alter those purposes, given Congress’ authorization to the Corps to operate these in such a way and to provide

money, funds to operate them in such a way, if we determined

through a study process, that we would cease to operate those

projects that way, we must go back to Congress to seek reauthorization.

And in this case, we would do the feasibility report, and if there

was a decision or recommendation were to go to natural river condition, and therefore bypass the dams, then we would provide a

Chief’s Report to the Congress requesting both authority and funding to proceed.

And my point there, ma’am, was we just simply couldn’t make

this decision and the Corps could go off and do it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I appreciate you’re saying that without the reauthorization of Congress, regarding your specific duties, it can’t be

done.

I just wondered, have you seen your Section 5, Interim Status

Report, by chance, or has anyone briefed you on this?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Is this the Harza report?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No. It is an internal report. It wasn’t sent to

me. I got it off the Internet.

Gen. GRIFFIN. I have not seen that report, per se. I could be familiar with the data in it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It does talk about the permanent natural river

scenario from all the other drawdown scenarios, structural modifications are undertaken at the dams, allowing reservoirs to be

drained and resulting in a free-flowing river that would remain

unimpounded. This is in paragraph number 2.

It goes on to say, for flows of 20,000 cubic feet per second, the

total drawdown below normal maximum pool levels would be approximately 150 feet at Lower Granite, 114 feet at Little Goose,

108 feet at Lower Monumental, and 97 feet at Ice Harbor.

It goes on to say the permanent natural river option would remove the earthen embankment section at Lower Granite and Little

Goose and form a channel around Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor Dams.

Your report goes on to say, it would be necessary to develop an

appropriate channel around the powerhouses, spillways and navigation locks and install protection measures at these remaining

structures.

Another report we pulled off the Internet, Section 7 of your Interim Status Report, indicates permanent natural river drawdown

has the greatest estimated benefits for juvenile salmon in the lower

Snake River, based on salmon passage model results, and elimination of reservoir and dam passage mortality once in operation.
29

So it looks like a foregone conclusion. It would be completely—

it would completely eliminate power production in the lower Snake

River and commercial navigation between Lewiston, Idaho, and

Pasco, Washington.

And then finally, your recommendation here, the Corps’ recommendation, is based on estimated biological benefits, other environmental effects and regional acceptance, the permanent natural

river option is the only drawdown alternative recommended for further study.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am. Well, of the drawdown options, it is

the only one we would look at.

Originally, when we started the study, we could go to a mid-level

drawdown or spillway crest drawdown.

So of the drawdown options, there is only one natural river option; current condition, you always look at; and the current condition with the surface bypass, which holds a lot of promise. I will

echo what Mr. Stelle said, is for the good of the salmon, to the exclusion of hydropower and all other purposes, if we were just doing

this for the salmon, probably the best thing is to remove the dams.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Has the Congress authorized you to invest

your time and energy and intelligence of this great Corps of Engineers to even investigate this? Have they funded it?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am. We are funded to do the study to execute part of the biological opinion.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I don’t think so.

Gen. GRIFFIN. That is just one——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. This is something we are working on.

Gen. GRIFFIN. I will say that of the drawdown options, the mid

drawdown or spillway crest, the impacts far exceed the benefits.

And we all agree to that.

And so in our recon report, or interim report, we looked at a

number of options, and now as we go into the feasibility report, we

eliminated all but these three options, which is natural river drawdown, with no intermediate look, because the benefits and costs are

just simply not worth the benefits to the fish, the cost to the system, and therefore we are looking at one drawdown option and

that’s natural river, and then the current condition, and the improved condition, which would be surface bypass, gas abatement

measures, and other measures that would make the system more

fish friendly.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are looking at, according to Section 5 of

your Interim Status Report at drawdowns at four dams that I just

mentioned, right? Not just one?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes, ma’am. It would be all four.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In fact, in the testimony that you didn’t read,

the very last sentence, ‘‘Preliminary returns from the 1995 groups,

which should be viewed with great caution at this time, show

transported fish returning at nearly twice the rate of in-river fish.’’

That seems to contradict your oral testimony, and I wanted to

give you a chance to explain that.

Mr. STELLE. My apologies. I hope that I was in fact intending to

say just that.

The returns that we have now from the larger transportation

evaluation begun in 1995, we’ve got that year class, about 30 per-
30

cent of those fish are back now, we expect about 70 percent will

come back next year. And that’s why you have to be cautious about

drawing any conclusions.

But basically, we’re getting I think as of last week, the reading

was about a 2.6 to one transport benefit for wild fish and about 1.9

to one for hatchery fish.

So it pencils out to at least a two to one benefit for transportation. That is what I was intending to say. Thank you. I apologize

for being obscure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Stelle, you have also testified, or indicated

on page 3 of your written testimony that you are formulating as

a third part of your strategy, in order to refine analytical tools

available for estimating results that you can expect,——

Mr. STELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have put together a working group called

the Plan for Analysing and Testing Hypothesis, otherwise known

as PATH.

Mr. STELLE. Yes. You are welcome to join, if you want, but I advise against it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No. I would like to.

Mr. STELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. This process includes the best analytical

minds the region has to offer. It is ably and independently facilitated to ensure objectivity and improve effectiveness and objectivity.

How is this financed?

Mr. STELLE. Bonneville Power. May I explain a little bit——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Sure.

Mr. STELLE. [continuing] what this group is trying to do?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. While you explain, let me just finish my question.

Mr. STELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to know what the peer review

process is, who is on the peer review panel that will be appointed

by you and the Northwest Power Planning Council, and who is on

the independent scientific advisory board appointed by you. All

right?

Mr. STELLE. Yes. Basically, this group has two principal functions. We will over the next, over the past couple years and over

the next 3 years, as I mentioned, generate some very powerful information that adds to the suite of hard data we have on what happens to fish in this system.

The difficulty with that is that that data will describe what happened to fish under a certain set of environmental conditions over

the years that the data was generated. But it will probably not represent the full range of environmental conditions that these populations will experience over time.

So we take that hard data on what did happen, but then we need

to develop the ability to project what will happen under a broader

suite of environmental conditions.

And one of the fundamental objectives of this group is to develop

a scientifically sound modeling system to be able to give us those

projections of what will happen over time. And by over time, I

mean over 25, 50 and a hundred year period, in order to better en-
31

able the region to answer the question under each particular option, what do we project will be the outcomes for the fish as well

as for others.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So the peer review process is simply reviewing

the work.

Mr. STELLE. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And not the decisions.

Mr. STELLE. No, ma’am. The peer review process is intended to

allow people who weren’t involved in developing the model and the

projections, and who are not sort of bought into it and who are

highly credible scientists, to take a look and say, does this hold up,

does it hold water, does it make sense.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I just have one more question,

if I might ask your indulgence.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Sure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, you operate, and the river apparently is

being governed by the biological opinion that the National Marine

Fisheries Service issued in 1995, correct?

Mr. STELLE. Technically, it’s being governed by the Record of Decision of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, which was based on the recommendation by NMFS. But, yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you do go on to say in your testimony on

page 6 that with regards to the potential benefits of drawdown, and

you are talking here about the John Day drawdown——

Mr. STELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You go on to say that these potential additional benefits would be expected to approve to species other than

the listed Snake River Chinook and Sockeye is that are the basis

of the NMFS opinion, and then you go on to say, they are also dependent upon a drawdown much deeper to natural river bed than

the near-term drawdown to the minimum operating pool required

by the biological opinion.

So the study, the natural river drawdown, even exceeds your own

biological opinion, is that not correct?

Mr. STELLE. The issue goes to, as I understand, goes to what

type of drawdown appears to make the most sense to take a look

at, and what stocks of fish are most likely to benefit from either

of those options.

The 1995 biological opinion in an effort to remain consistent with

the plan of the Northwest Power Planning Council did recommend

to the Corps a MOP operation at John Day if appropriate mitigation measures were made for the irrigators pulling water out of the

John Day pool. That has not occurred.

Subsequent to that recommendation, the Federal, state and tribal fishery agencies, looking further at that, and based on the information of the Return to the River report, decided to recommend to

the Corps that it suspend further specific evaluation of that MOP

operation because it was too marginal, and that it look at the two

more significant drawdown options, namely, spillway crest, or natural river.

That was I believe as close to a consensus recommendation to the

Corps as I am aware of here, that it didn’t make much sense to

put a lot of effort into the little incremental benefits of a MOP. If
32

you are going to do this, look at either spillway crest or natural

river.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Crapo?

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stelle, I’m going to come back to you, but hopefully just

briefly, and I just wanted to wrap up the question that I was asking on flow augmentation a minute ago. Maybe I could get to what

I was seeking in this way.

Under the status quo, we have flow augmentation coming from

Dworshak and Brownlee and the upper Snake, basically.

The 427,000 acre-foot figure from the upper Snake I guess you

could call status quo.

If we were to look to a year-round natural river option, would the

flow augmentation require it be higher or lower than status quo,

in your opinion?

Mr. STELLE. As a general matter, and I want to be careful here,

Congressman, to not go beyond what I know, as a general matter

I think that the need for flow augmentation is, as a general matter,

decreased where you have a natural river option and a run of the

river habitat.

Mr. CRAPO. I understand. And the reverse question would be, if

we went instead to the improved transportation system approach,

would, in general, the need for flow augmentation be increased or

decreased?

Mr. STELLE. Unless the—If the decision of the region was to

maximize transportation 100 percent, and that we were able to collect all of the little fish and barge them around the system, then

you could theoretically say you don’t need good water in the river.

I don’t think we’re going to be there, and my expectation is that

we will continue to try to improve in-river conditions, including

good water for fish.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. And I want to go to you with one more

question, but Gen. Griffin, I am going to come to you on this issue,

as well. So you could be prepared.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO. You indicate in your answers to my first round of

questions that the surface collection devices did not pre-determine

whether we would be putting fish, once they were past the dams,

in-river or in the river or in the barges.

There are those who have indicated that from what they can see,

the development of the surface collection devices are indeed being

designed to benefit the transportation system rather than leaving

the choice open.

And I know Gen. Griffin is going to have an opportunity to answer this. But could you tell me that the efforts to collect, identify

ways to get fish past the dams is not being manipulated or managed in a way to bias the decision there one way or the other?

Mr. STELLE. My understanding, Congressman, is that the surface

collective prototype that is being currently installed and being improved at Lower Granite, the upper dam, is specifically designed to

shunt fish into the bypass system, which in turn can enable you

to send them over the spillway or send them into the barges and

the bypass system, one way or the other.

So it’s designed to leave open both options.
33

Mr. CRAPO. Gen. Griffin, do you want to respond to that?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, I would say it is a two-part exercise.

The first exercise is with surface collection, if you can collect the

majority of the fish, and be successful there, that is one part of the

exercise, then you check them.

And then you have a second decision, you can either put them

back in the river, allowing easy bypass through of the dam, or you

can put them in a barge. So you collect them, and then what you

do with them after that is the best decision of do you barge or do

you do in-river transportation.

Mr. CRAPO. Are any funds being expended in other areas, other

than the surface collector funds, are any of the funds for improvement of the facilities or expansion of the facilities in the system

being expended for in-river migration purposes or for increased

transportation purposes?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, we are expending funds to do extended

length screens, and there again, it’s to catch fish, and once you

catch them, you check them, and then you can still barge them or

put them back in the river.

We are definitely spending money on extended length screens

and we are also looking at gas abatement measures, which are the

flip lips, and we are also doing a lot of work in that area.

Mr. CRAPO. All right. Thank you.

Let me go into another area, and I am going to ask a question

here which might be a little bit, a little fun at your expense, but

I hope that you can understand, I’m talking to all of you, I’m hoping that you can understand where I’m coming from when I ask the

question.

The question is, who’s in charge? And I think you can see where

I’m coming from.

Mr. Stelle?

Mr. STELLE. I think I can answer that with a high degree of specificity, if the issue is who is operating the Federal hydropower system. Is that what you’re asking? Who’s in charge of the Federal hydropower system?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. CRAPO. I thought that would be the answer for that part of

it.

Who is in charge of the decision regarding salmon and steelhead

recovery issues?

Mr. STELLE. Insofar as it relates to recommending to, for instance, the Corps of Engineers how to operate the system, for salmon restoration, National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for

formulating those recommendations. And there is a presumption

that the Corps will adhere to those recommendations.

Mr. CRAPO. OK. And who’s in charge of, I assume that the General’s going to claim there is one, who’s in charge of flood control?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Nobody wants that but me, sir.

Mr. CRAPO. OK. So if I am concerned about a decision that’s

being made on how the system is being operated for power production, and I go to you, General, and can you tell me that the buck

stops at your desk?

Gen. GRIFFIN. On power production, sir, we have—Well, it’s a

fairly complicated system.
34

Mr. CRAPO. I thought it would be.

Gen. GRIFFIN. We have meetings every week where we balance

the multi-purpose project purposes which are navigation, fish and

wildlife, which is the salmon recovery, and hydropower; those are

the big three, but also we’re trying to take care of irrigation.

All of that is balanced in the Division. And we do this week to

week, in a weekly TMT, technical management team that meets,

and decides these things.

And so, you know, in fact we’re the ones who are making those

decisions.

Mr. CRAPO. Does anybody else want to jump in and claim a piece

of this?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I guess I will. I just will put it this way: The

Federal Columbia River power system is run both by the Corps of

Engineers and by the Bureau of Reclamation, depending on which

dam is involved.

The system is being integrated across four states and an International boundary. Bonneville has responsibility, once the environmental sideboards, once the flood control sideboards are put on the

river. In other words, we meet biological opinion objectives, we

meet flood control objectives and so on, then Bonneville has an obligation to try to integrate the river to its most beneficial use.

So once those sideboards are put on, we integrate across Federal

Corps and Bureau responsibilities and NMFS responsibilities and

try to maximize the river’s values.

Mr. CRAPO. But to give you an example of what I am driving at

here, I understand the answers that have been given with regard

to the hydropower system, the answers that have been given with

regard to the Endangered Species Act and so forth and with regard

to power management, but it seems to me that those issues are

very integrally tied together, and the decision regarding hydropower impacts the fish, and a decision regarding fish impacts the

hydropower, and that one of the problems we have in the system,

we’ve got the Northwest Power Planning Council, we’ve got the

states, the Tribes, the Corps of Engineers, the BPA, NMFS, and I

haven’t listed others.

One of the problems we have is that we never seem to know

where the buck stops. And I asked the General earlier this week

in a private conversation, when you get to 1999, and you issue the

decision that will be made at that point in time, what if NMFS disagrees with your decision? And I think the point is, we have a

problem here, don’t we?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, in our conversation, we talked about

coming to an agreement, because there will be an Administration

position. Even if we disagree at our level, I believe I said that with

the Administration, we will come up with a position, because that’s

who we work for. And then that decision will be, or that recommendation will be made to the Congress, who then will either

authorize and appropriate money, or not.

Mr. CRAPO. OK. I know my time is up, so please be quick, Mr.

Stelle, if you want to respond to that.

Mr. STELLE. I will be very quick. Any long time salmon restoration strategy, if it is going to be successful, has to be implemented,

and if it’s going to get implemented, it will only get implemented
35

if it has the support of the Pacific Northwest. And I think we fully

recognize that.

The Tribes have to be a part of it. The states have to be a part

it. The regional leadership has to be a part of a decision on what

the long-term vision is for the Columbia and Snake River systems.

So this is not—this is not and will not be some simplistic decisionmaking behind closed doors. This will be an entirely public,

open process, and in my view, the tribal leadership and the state

leadership must be involved in making choices with the Administration on where we go for the long-term.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one followup

question on that point? I can’t resist.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Stelle, I understand what you just said.

The fact, however, is, and I understand your earlier answer that

NMFS is basically the controlling agency with regard to the fish

and wildlife issues, Endangered Species Act, and so forth.

The fact is, the state of Montana is not happy with the way

NMFS is handling this and has moved out of that process, and so

have a number of the Tribes. In the testimony today, from the Governor of the state of Idaho, there was serious disagreement and dissatisfaction expressed with the way that NMFS is managing that

process.

I have some concerns myself, not only there, but with regard to

other areas in dealing with NMFS and some of the other Federal

agencies in terms of managing other environmental issues.

I guess the question I have is, is NMFS, in this case, properly,

is NMFS truly and in good faith approaching the issue of bringing

everybody together for a collaborative decision, or is that something

where we are just inviting people to the table and then making

other decisions and moving ahead with it?

Mr. STELLE. Absolutely the former. Absolutely the former. The

entire array of activities that we and the other Federal agencies

are undertaking to implement the salmon recovery program are

completely open and participatory.

Decisions get changed, issues get reshaped because of the participation of the tribal and state members. We have distributed to the

Federal, the Federal Government has distributed to the states and

the Tribes in this region a set of proposals on how to improve that

inter-governmental machinery. And if the Tribes or the states have

ideas on how to make it better, we are all ears. I think that a volunteer invitational effort is essential here.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. I see that I have done away with my

time.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, if I may indulge, one comment I need to leave

you with, the way the Corps operates this system, there is an operating plan and there are rule curves, depending upon flows, and all

of this has been worked out.

I didn’t want to leave the impression that this system is operated

in a capricious manner. But that there are very strict rules of engagement, if you will, these operating plans, that have been worked

out for all the multi-purpose projects, so that navigation, flood control, hydropower all are balanced.
36

Sort of like raising kids, you never want to say one is more important than the other, and this operating plan, then, is how we

do our business.

And so there are rules that folks understand that we can’t vary

the levels more on a certain day than are required by these curves.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you. And thank you for your indulgence, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Gen. Griffin, your testimony states that, quote,

what cannot be determined with high confidence at this point is

the expected increased survival for both juveniles and adults out of

the Snake River from the permanent lower Snake drawdown, and

what contribution this would make to the overall salmon recovery

effort, end of quote.

You then go on to say that the analysis and national feasibility

study, meaning their 1999 report, right, should provide additional

information but not a definitive answer.

And my question to you is, are you really saying that we’re kind

of playing tag at these dams, ending power production and commercial navigation, devastating this region, when all we will have

at that time is something less than a definitive answer?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, on that issue there, the amount of information we’re gaining now is exponentially increased by some of the

surveys and these pit tags that we have and radio controls, transmitters that we are able to put into fish.

The information that we are gathering now is so much better

than 2 years ago. That’s why Mr. Stelle is able to say with a great

degree of confidence, our returns out of the barges now is two to

one over what we are putting in the river because of these tags we

are able to put into fish.

But, sir, I will tell you, I believe that in 2 years, we are going

to lean very heavily on the National Marine Fisheries Service and

the PATH team that we discussed to determine the best benefits

that removal of the dams would give.

But our belief is, sir, I don’t think you will ever say absolutely

what’s going to happen with the fish if anybody says that, I don’t

know how they could say that. We will have the best science, we

will put up the best science we can for the benefits, versus the cost.

The costs, sir, are very easy, relative to determining the benefits,

the economic impacts will be easier to determine than the benefits.

And that is what the study does. It lays out the costs and the benefits to the best of our ability.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What Mr. Stelle is talking about is developing a

model, making projections. In other words, it won’t be based on the

hard evidence. It will be based on what evidence there is, best

available data, which by the way is bad data, as to what it may

be in the future and projecting it out he said even to a hundred

years.

I mean, this is highly speculative, is it not?

Mr. STELLE. Two things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think some

of the hard data that the General is referencing is not speculative

at all. It’s as solid as a rock.

Having said that, again, those data will have been generated

over the environmental conditions which we have—will have experienced in a 10 or 20 year period.
37

We are talking long-term salmonid restoration for this system

over time, and we will therefore necessarily have to develop a better ability to project. You will not have all the answers and you will

not have all of the data governing all of the conditions.

So you use both the hard information you have, which may be

very high quality information, and your best ability to project and

extrapolate from that hard data. It’s an absolutely conventional scientific process.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Gentlemen, taking off your hats, as these important officials that you are, and just being citizens, and thinking

this through, does it trouble you that you would devastate a community in order to attempt to improve the population of salmon?

Does that bother you at all? That you put agriculture out of business, commercial navigation and so forth out of business, just on

the belief that you’re going to do something to improve the fishery?

I am troubled by that. I would like to know if that bothers you,

just as citizens of this great country. Or is the goal so worthwhile

that it doesn’t matter what the cost is?

I mean, Bonneville Power is going to lose, it looks like, almost

45 percent of its power generation, if I understood your testimony

right, if they do John Day and these four Snake River dams. Is

that right?

Mr. ROBERTSON. About 25 percent.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. 25 percent. All right. You are already 10 to 20

percent over market value in your power prices, and then you are

going to take a 25 percent hit here, as well as the cost of

mothballing.

That can’t improve your competitive position vis-a-vis the other

areas.

And certainly we buy your power down in California. I assume

we will have a harder time doing that if these ideas go through.

All right. Let’s hear your answer.

Mr. STELLE. I would like to go back to what I think Mrs.

Chenoweth spoke to earlier in her opening statement.

I don’t think anybody is proposing that these are black and

white, either/or propositions. Nor do I think that the issue before

the Pacific Northwest is do you want agriculture or do you want

salmon restoration.

I am utterly convinced that we can and should have both. And

the issue fundamentally for the region, I believe, is what are our

best options to secure those long-term goals. It is not either agriculture or salmon. It has to be both. And it can be both.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And by the way, I know Mr. Stelle, you’ve got

to leave to make that plane. So, please go when that time comes—

and that may by here right now.

Mr. STELLE. That was about 10 minutes ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the panel.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If there is anyone else that has that pressure, we

will just have to let you go, too. Thank you.

Well, Mr. Stelle indicated that we’ve got to have both, but if you

do the natural drawdown, we’re not going to have both, as I understand it. We’re not going to have power generated from these

mothballed facilities, and we are not going to have commercial

navigation.
38

If you told me that we are going to shut down the Port of Sacramento or the Port of Stockton, which are similar to this one, only

a lot closer to the ocean than this one is, that would be absolutely

unthinkable and intolerable, and anyone who suggested it would be

totally rejected.

But apparently it’s being seriously considered here. So let me

have your reaction, General.

Gen. GRIFFIN. The data we come up with must be biologically

sound to come up with a recommendation to mitigate whatever

costs there are for tearing out the dams. You know, if it is a billion

or 2 billion, if the benefits do not outweigh the costs, then we’re

not going to recommend that you go to natural river conditions.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How could the benefits possibly outweigh the

cost?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, that’s what the study is going to determine.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It doesn’t take a study for me to know the answer to that. Why does it take a study for us to know the answer

to that?

It says right here, based on estimated biological benefits cost,

other environmental effects, and regional acceptance, the permanent national river option is the only drawdown alternative recommended for further study.

Now, I recognize that was your choice of the three drawdowns.

But, this seems to be capturing people’s imagination, developing a

life of its own. I mean, there are other proposals, according to your

testimony, for dealing with this than a drawdown.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Absolutely. Sir, there are three alternatives that

we are looking at. Current condition, current condition with improvement, which is the surface bypass and other things that may

get you to where you want to be, where you can recover these endangered stocks.

If that does it, then that’s going to be the cheaper alternative

and that will be the recommendation. I mean, so I’m sorry that

happened, but I do understand the confusion.

Of the drawdown options that we were looking at, the sole option

to be looking at of the three that we are looking at is natural river

drawdown.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I didn’t get an answer from you. Mr. Stelle gave

me an opinion about this. Give me your opinion as a citizen. You

are in the middle of all of this mess with all of these regulations,

you see how absurd this situation is. What’s your impression as a

citizen? I mean, how do you feel about this?

Gen. GRIFFIN. Sir, if we are to recover these endangered species,

I don’t know that you necessarily can say that you only do it for

500 million or a billion or two billion. That’s something that the region is going to have to decide as we go through this.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If they get a chance, although the Endangered

Species Act doesn’t allow taking into account economic impact. So

the sky’s the limit. Tear down all the dams, restore it to the way

it was before Columbus landed. And in the opinion of many, apparently who have influence in this area, that is where they would like

to get. That is not where I would like to get. Yes, sir?

Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I guess back to the earlier question

from Congressman Crapo, regarding where the buck stops, I think
39

the Federal Government, the Tribes and the states need to work

more effectively, and that’s why I stated in my opening comment,

the Federal departments, bureaus, they are all under the umbrella

of the Federal Government.

Where we have a lot of problems is when some of the laws state

that there will be consultation with the Tribes, which there is from

time to time, but yet our input is not seriously considered in the

end product. That is where we have a lot of the problems.

To answer your question, as Chairman of our Tribe and as an individual tribal member, I think it is important to the tribe, and I

think the honor and integrity of the U.S. Government is at stake,

because they reserved that fishing right for the Tribes, and it is

very important to the Tribe, we would expect the United States to

uphold their obligation and trust responsibilities to the tribes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I wish time permitted to further go on, but we

have two more panels, a total of seven witnesses, and we are trying

to be done in an hour.

So unless my colleagues feel extremely—and of course it is up to

you, you are entitled to ask more questions, because I am on a

third round. But we may end up staying here longer.

Mr. CRAPO. No more questions for me.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I just have one.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just have one of the General.

In your testimony, General, on page 2, you do list those three options that you were talking to the Chairman about.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you do admit that on page 2 of your testimony, the first two options are no longer an option, and you deal

only with the third option, which is the permanent natural river

drawdown. So——

Gen. GRIFFIN. I would——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I will read your statement to you.

Gen. GRIFFIN. Actually, I have it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Your statement says it was determined that

further study of mid-level drawdowns, which was the first option,

was not warranted since extensive fish passage system and other

dam modification would be needed at a cost of over $1 billion in

10 years’ time, and evaluations indicate that salmon survival would

not be as high as undercurrent conditions.

Now, your second option, further study of seasonal natural river

drawdown was dropped due to the high cost and considerable detrimental environmental and cultural impacts.

Then the next section in your testimony goes to impacts of natural river drawdowns as at the Corps of Engineers.

So this whole testimony, or what you have presented to me, plus

the studies that I presented, only deal with the one option that

you’re looking at.

Gen. GRIFFIN. No, ma’am. We are dealing with three options, and

it’s in there.

We are dealing with current condition, current condition with improvements, and the natural river options. You’re right, we have

taken out the mid-river option, it is too expensive for the benefits

to the salmon, so we are no longer studying that option.
40

But of the options, the last option of three that we’re looking at,

because of the feasibility study we are looking at; current conditions, current conditions with improvement, and drawdown to natural river. We’ve thrown out the other two drawdowns of the river

and the only option, if you are going to draw down the river at all,

is to take it all the way down, or don’t study it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your

perseverance here and the information you have provided.

There may be additional supplementary questions we will tender

in writing and would ask you to respond expeditiously. The hearing

record would be left open for that purpose.

We will excuse the first panel, and invite panel No. 2 to come up.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, we have a guest in the audience; between panels, I would like to introduce him.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. He is a special friend of the three of us, and

he is here also in Lewiston, Idaho; he is our top gun—I think many

of you remember the movie Top Gun, and in part, this movie was

made on the life story and the heroics of one Duke Cunningham

in Vietnam—and we are privileged to serve with Congressman

Cunningham, and he is in the audience. I’d like for you to stand,

Congressman, and just give away, there is our top gun.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We are pleased to welcome you here to Idaho.

Great that you could join us.

We have as members of our second panel: Mr. Bruce Lovelin, Executive Director, Columbia River Alliance; Mr. Sherl L. Chapman,

Executive Director, Idaho Water Users Association; and Dr. W. G.

Nelson, Director of Public Affairs, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.

Would you gentlemen please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative.

We are now under the gun for time, so we will try to ask witnesses and members, and including the Chairman, to live within

the 5 minutes. The lights explain when you are getting near the

end. The yellow light is the beginning of the fifth minute.

And with that, Mr. Lovelin, we would welcome you, sir.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. LOVELIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COLUMBIA RIVER ALLIANCE

Mr. LOVELIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Chenoweth, and

Mr. Crapo. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

I have provided testimony and I would plan at this point, because of the need to abbreviate the testimony to speak about a few

elements of my testimony.

First off, our group is the Columbia River Alliance. We came together as multi-users of the Columbia and Snake River system.

We represent agriculture, both irrigation and dry land farming,

navigation, forest products, manufacturing and community organizations.

We come together with a real strong belief that we can help and

save these Northwest salmon, especially the Snake River endan-
41

gered salmon, while at the same time maintaining this multi-use

river system.

I think that, deviating a little bit from my testimony, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that a little more than 5 years ago, and I’m

not sure if you were here during that, but I am sure Mrs.

Chenoweth was, in March 1992, this community saw and felt the

effects of a drawdown. We did a test. We wanted to see if it could

be done, and it was a physical test.

We drew down the Lower Granite reservoir for about a month’s

period, and we decided to look at certain things, how much bank

was going to be exposed, and what kind of effects.

Well, it was only supposed to be a physical test. And the reason

for it, and the reason why they did it in March, Mr. Chairman, is

because they didn’t want any juvenile fish moving down the river

system or adult fish moving up the river system, because they were

concerned about the negative effects to those fish.

But what was interesting during that is that we did see some effects, some biological effects. We found dead resident fish throughout the system. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated

between 10,000 and 30,000 resident fish were dead from that 1-

month drawdown test.

It disrupted the ecosystem, the ecosystem that apparently we are

willing to put aside over some attempts to help the salmon.

In addition, though, it created an economic black cloud, black

cloud of uncertainty over this community. And, again, Mrs.

Chenoweth I am sure well knows, being from this community, that

everyone was very, very concerned about that.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that economic black cloud is still

here. It’s expanded over other parts of Idaho.

Another part of the district in Orofino, Idaho, Dworshak Reservoir, is drawn down 80 feet almost every year to help the salmon.

We cannot get the National Marine Fisheries Service to tell us

what are the benefits of that drawdown from the Dworshak Reservoir or what is the benefits of the 427,000 acre-feet that the

upper Snake irrigators are providing.

The thing that’s most frustrating with all of this is that we have

the most expensive environmental restoration program going on in

the history of the Endangered Species Act, paid for by Northwest

citizens, and it’s almost like, from the Federal Government’s perspective, this is not real money.

But it is real money. It is our money. And it’s our economic

growth potential that is really at stake right now.

Now, the National Marine Fisheries Service has basically developed a single-dimensioned salmon plan, one that is focused on the

dams. It’s a money source, but they are focusing right on the dams.

Peripheral to that is of impact to irrigators, to navigation, to others. But it is focused on the dams. And here we are 5 years after

the listing, and we still do not have a comprehensive salmon recovery in place yet, a plan which two independent science groups have

said needs to address fishery management practices, the use of gill

nets, the use of hatcheries, and it’s very, very frustrating to us that

we are focusing directly, and we still have this dam removal notion

on the table.
42

A few years ago it wasn’t really talked about, but now it is being

talked about relatively openly.

Now, to my chart, which is the enclosure 3; I believe that we are

at a crossroads, and I believe that the Pacific Northwest does not

have what it takes to make the decision. And I believe also that

the decision should be made now. And clearly, Mr. Chairman, from

some of your comments, I think Congress can help us make that

decision. We are at a crossroads.

The center of that diagram is the Harza Northwest Report. They

came out with a report last year which basically said that we are

really, we should make a right-hand turn or a left-hand turn. It’s

either dam removal, or the other side, is to keep the dams in-place

and improve the smolt transportation program.

Now, Mr. Stelle did say something particularly interesting, which

I need to emphasize, is that there’s real time investigations of

transportation of juvenile smolt, the benefits of those now, as compared to leaving them in the river.

In 1995 there was a test, we marked fish, those adults that came

back are coming back right now, they’re being caught 30, 40 miles

downstream in a trap.

What it’s showing is 2.7 times as many wild fish are coming back

that were transported than those left in the river. 170 percent increase over the fish left in the river. And to me, that helps us decide which path we want to go down.

Now, we can either wait until 1999, as the National Marine Fisheries Service wants us to do, or I believe that there is economic advantage for making the decisions now.

Again, the ports in this area, they have an economic black cloud

over them, economic development is important for them. Beyond

that, the power system, the Bonneville Power Administration, utilities are looking elsewhere for power supply. This brings a great uncertainty to them.

But I think through our Northwest congressional delegation support, through the support of the Congress, I think it’s time that we

do decide which fork in the road we are going to take, that we do

it in 1997 instead of 1999.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovelin may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I had Mr. Chapman next, but is it

your wish to have Dr. Nelson first?

Mr. NELSON. No.

STATEMENT OF SHERL L. CHAPMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Chairman Doolittle, Congresswoman Chenoweth,

Congressman Crapo, it is good to be here.

You have my written testimony, and because of the time constraints and your constraints, I’ll just talk about a couple of the

points within my testimony that I think are most important.

Mr. Lovelin referred to the Harza Report, and I think it is probably the best of the most recent reports that pull together what has

been happening in the Columbia and Snake River system.
43

One of the things that I drew from the report and the executive

summary was that there is little quantification and little justification for the benefits of all of the proposed programs or suggestions

for drawdown, for transport, for in-river conditions, with regard to

the fish.

It’s easy, as some other witnesses have talked about, to quantify

the economic impacts, the damages, so to speak, if you impose

drawdowns, if you impose flow augmentation.

But little has been done to quantify what the real benefits to the

fish are, if any.

There is some speculation, a lot of speculation, with regard to

what we get back for what we give up. And I’m not so sure that

the people in this region and in the West are willing to give up the

recreation, the cheap power, the agricultural community, for the

kind of benefits that are speculated on right now by the National

Marine Fisheries Service and others.

There are those that would suggest that we ought to just take

drawdown off the table and not consider it any more. I think if we

do that, we create perhaps more of a debate than exists now.

There are ongoing studies, as you have heard about, for—or with

regard to in-river survival. It is our understanding that those studies will be completed. And the Harza Report indicates that it’s

quite possible that in-river conditions, without drawdown, or with

drawdown, either way, may be superior to some of the other systems. They seem, however, to put a lot of emphasis on the transportation system.

As Mr. Lovelin pointed out, the preliminary results seem to indicate that transportation is probably going to be perhaps the saving

grace for the salmon.

We think that the options ought to be continued to be considered

until we get good data. I’m a hydrologist and a geologist by profession so I lean toward science. However, I’m not a biologist. But I

like to see the numbers. I like to see somebody quantify what the

benefits are, if they are going to take away my livelihood.

Mr. Stelle indicated that we can have agriculture and we can

have salmon, too. I think implicit in that is we can have some agriculture and we can have some salmon.

I think these kinds of issues get dehumanized. It’s all well and

good to talk about a reduction of 10 or 12 percent of your agricultural community as long as you are not in that 10 or 12 percent.

I think that’s inappropriate at this time.

The other issue that I’m deeply concerned about is augmentation.

We talked about flow augmentation and whether or not that need

or perceived need will stay or go away if we have drawdown or if

we have barging.

Mr. Stelle indicated that he felt that it would be reduced. In general, that’s probably true, that the demand for water out of Idaho

would be reduced if you implemented one or the other of these.

But the problem is, that it’s not reduced in the bad water years,

it’s not reduced in the 5-year droughts, as we have just experienced. And if it’s not reduced then, what you do is you destroy the

Idaho agricultural community.

There was a study done several years ago with regard to acquiring water that was projected as being needed for the National Ma-
44

rine Fisheries Service plans. And just so you can have a yard stick

to measure against, they use a figure of a million acre-feet of water

out of Idaho, out of the upper Snake River Basin from Idaho irrigation reservoirs.

Now, keep in mind, we are already giving up 427,000 feet voluntarily until the year 1999, at which time our statute that authorizes that stops, and I see no sympathy in our state to renew that

statute.

The cost for that million acre-feet out of Idaho, in the low water

years, was the drying up of somewhere between 444 and 570,000

acres of irrigated land, a cost of about $500 to $600 million per

year in lost revenue to our economy, and the loss of about 10 to

14,000 jobs in our state.

We can’t tolerate that. And we certainly couldn’t tolerate that if

you also destroy the Port of Lewiston and their industrial community.

We don’t think that that’s appropriate. We don’t believe that the

government has the numbers to justify that kind of sacrifice, or

even a request for that kind of sacrifice. Let them study these

issues, come back to us, and try and justify that.

But we think that some of the suggestions right now are inappropriate. We think that they are trying to really recover the salmon

at any sacrifice to the state of Idaho.

We are the sacrificial lamb at this time.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapman may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Nelson, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF W.G. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Dr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Chenoweth, Congressman Crapo, we in the Farm Bureau are particularly pleased

that you are here to listen to us and our concerns.

Mr. Stelle, Mr. Lovelin said Mr. Stelle impressed him with some

of the things that he said. One of the things that he did say that

made me awfully nervous is in this flow augmentation, he wants

good water. Good water for Idaho agriculture means our reservoir

water. It means the lifeblood of Idaho. And while I’m impressed to

have him call it good water, we know where it comes from. I’m

going to go home being considerably more nervous than when I arrived here.

The Idaho Farm Bureau policy is very clear and precise on this

issue. We believe all water in Idaho should be used beneficially. We

support the following salmon recovery alternatives. Physically modify the dams rather than tearing them down and lowering the

water levels, and improve barging, such as net barging and transportation.

The rest of the—of our philosophy I have outlined in my testimony, so I won’t go into those.

I have a few points that I want to make, though. Agriculture is

concerned with the drawdown proposals. All plans are solely focused on fish, with no consideration for the effects of such
45

drawdowns on humans or economic activity in the entire region.

Each plan has a variety of scientists, environmentalists, and fish

enthusiasts supporting the plan. But the science is really piecemeal, the speculation is really rampant, and the rhetoric confusing

to anyone who really is trying to get to the bottom of this and find

out which plan will be most effective.

Approximately 70 percent of the suitable habitat for salmon is

found in our state, indicating we’ve done pretty well at preserving

fish habitat.

Every plan we have reviewed includes a more normative river,

whatever that is, so that juvenile salmon can migrate to the sea

more quickly. There is considerable disagreement as to which strategy will be effective in bringing back the numbers which once made

up the Columbia/Snake salmon fishery. No study has been done to

assess the other ecological impacts of returning this permanently

modified area to a non-reservoir status.

We feel breaching the dams and tampering with the John Day

pool guarantees the termination of the inland waterway and will

destroy Idaho’s only seaport, the Port of Lewiston. As an inland

shipping state, Idaho needs the Port to remain competitive. Pacific

Northwest exports 90 percent of its wheat. 200 million bushels of

grain move through the port per year with a value of over $859

million. About 54 percent of the Idaho production moves through

this inland waterway and the lower barge rates at less than onehalf the cost of rail and one-third the cost of truck transportation,

directly helps farmers.

Idaho exports of wheat and barley total $350 million per year

and ending barging certainly would jeopardize a large portion of

these exports.

If the barge traffic would be transferred to truck and rail transportation, as some suggest, the environmental impacts would be

enormous. A 470 percent increase in emissions from rail and a 709

percent increase in emissions from trucks.

To meet the flow requirements, Idaho prominently figures in balancing the water needs of fish. This water will come at the expense

of agriculture, recreation and other users. Idaho agriculture is the

key to Idaho’s economy and provides between 25 to 30 percent of

our state’s economy in any given year. This segment of the Idaho

economy generates about $3.5 billion and we feel these drawdowns

will put that entire agricultural production in jeopardy.

Breaching the four lower Snake dams and lowering the John Day

pool will have a serious affect on our electric generation in the Pacific Northwest. We firmly believe that breaching the dams and

lowering the John Day pool will cost the the Bonneville Power a

full 10 percent of its revenues; with the current demands on dollars

in the power system, the cost just about guarantees a failure of

Bonneville Power, which would have to be bailed out by Congress.

In addition, it increases the chances of massive power outages,

large increases in food prices, and economic repercussions in about

every segment of Idaho business and economy.

We guarantee no amount of fishermen coming to drop a hook in

Idaho waters will begin to offset the economic chaos that the

breach of the four dams will bring to our state.
46

We in the Farm Bureau believe that removing the dams is the

most costly proposal being advanced for the recovery of salmon. We

feel eliminating barging and breaching the dams produces the lowest survival rate of the smolt that we have studied. The 66 percent

smolt survival rate of the dam removal scheme does not take into

account the effect of increases in adult travel times to travel the

river.

We do not believe the speculation in the plan and are convinced

that if it’s implemented it will have a disastrous effect on irrigated

agriculture, Idaho economy, electric generation, Bonneville Power,

and will lead to the need of large treasury bailouts to sustain the

plan.

We are convinced that this plan will cost over three-quarters of

a billion dollars per year and guarantees nothing to the fish, to the

States or to the Tribes. And if the plan includes lowering the John

Day pool, it will surely lead to floods in both Portland and Vancouver.

With that, I would conclude my testimony, and I thank you very

much for the opportunity to come and discuss it.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let me ask the three of you, Mr.

Stelle acknowledged the clear benefits to salmon that barging provides, and yet nevertheless indicated that in-river fish passage was

superior in the long run.

So, in your opinion, do you think there’s a bias in the scientific

community that is going to drive their decision toward permanent

drawdowns?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I’ll take the first crack at it and

let Mr. Lovelin have at me afterwards.

I have to believe that the way the debate has been structured,

for the most part in the past, that there is a press at least toward

moving toward in-river conditions; toward a restoration of a natural river. That’s the philosophy of many people in the scientific

community.

I won’t go so far as to say that many of them are anti-dam. But

I do know some people within that community personally, and they

have that philosophy.

There seems to be, to me, a bias in the biological community that

we ought to get back as close as we can to the natural conditions

to recover the natural fishery. That may be the case.

But it’s our position, as I think much of the public in the Pacific

Northwest, is that we’re not, probably not willing to give up what

it would require to go back a hundred years.

I think once the people understand what the benefits are, what

they have to give up, the decision will be clear.

Mr. LOVELIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Chapman.

I would say that Mr. Stelle is in a real tough spot. The honeymoon’s almost over for him. He’s come out to the Northwest, and

now Northwesterners, they want more salmon. And he’s been unable to deliver.

And I think that we’re going to start seeing, yes, something in

front of him which is hard, hard science, suggesting that barging
47

does work, despite our improvements on the river system, barging

does work, and it works actually quite well.

And so he’s been walking this tightrope, this political tightrope

of one-half, or part of the Northwest, the vocal part of the Northwest saying, let’s leave the fish in the river, let’s remove the dams,

and the other half saying, let’s try to manage within the system we

have, and if it works, let’s enhance upon that.

And so ultimately the National Marine Fisheries Service is going

to be called upon to deliver. And I think to some extent, that’s why

Mr. Stelle revised the state of Idaho’s attempts to leave more fish

in the river in this particular year, and put more in barges.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think that the science that

they are basing this on is in a continuous state of flux.

I really think they are finding that barging is pretty effective.

But when the smolt actually reach the Columbia—the ocean estuary—what the food source is there at that time is more of a determining factor on whether they are going to survive or not.

And so if they were to use the barging and fine tune the science

a little bit more as to when they should arrive and when they

should barge and get the time sequence down, I think they would

find that’s very effective. And this bias for just knocking out dams

would go away.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I’d like to ask you other questions, but I think

I’m going to recognize Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lovelin, I wanted to start out with you. Mr. Batt in his testimony claims that the Port of Lewiston is heavily subsidized. Do

you agree that the Port of Lewiston is heavily subsidized?

Mr. LOVELIN. No, I do not.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Mr. LOVELIN. Yes. The Port of Lewiston is actually very much of

a growing economic industry in itself. We had a tour of the facility

yesterday. And the growth that they’re having in both the container business and the grain export business has been just very

astounding. From the recent Tri-Port Economic Impact Study that

was just completed, suggests that businesses would lose about

$35.6 million if we remove the transportation activities. There’s

also another $81 million of impact related to those tri-ports that

would also be impacted by a river navigation drawdown.

But relative to subsidies, though, no, it’s not our belief that there

are the subsidies that some of the dam removal advocates have

been suggesting.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you think that the economic interests give

a fair consideration in the current salmon decisionmaking process

as it now stands?

Mr. LOVELIN. No, ma’am. We’re not. Simply we’re kind of a third

class citizen, I would call it that.

I think you heard Mr. Stelle talk about the sovereigns. Well,

we’re not part of the sovereigns. That’s the states, the Federal

agencies and the tribal interests.

The second class citizen has basically been the environmental interest. They have been allowed to go to court and to ask for judicial

review of Endangered Species Act issues. Not until, what, a month
48

or so ago with Bennett v. Spear, the Supreme Court decision, now

we have that same ability.

Unfortunately, we’re just called upon to pay the price. And it is

very, very frustrating for us because we know that it’s our economic livelihood is on the line, and it’s important for us to get

these salmon recovered at the least cost possible.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you explain for me on the record how

and when the Federal agencies become sovereign?

Mr. LOVELIN. Self-decree, ma’am.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask Sherl Chapman, you state in

your testimony that flow augmentation may continue under the

permanent drawdown option and gives us a good idea of the impact

on Southern Idaho. Does there also continue to be impacts on the

operation of the Dworshak within that framework?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes. I would anticipate that under any drawdown

scenario, that the water that is required, whether really required

or not, will come from the Southern Idaho reservoirs, the upper

Snake River system, above Brownlee Dam.

However, I don’t see any willingness or assertions or even any

suggestions by the Federal agencies that the pressure on Dworshak

will be lessened or discontinued at all.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I don’t like to hear that.

For Mr. Nelson, do you think that salmon harvest levels need to

be regulated more closely? Salmon harvest levels maybe out in the

ocean?

Dr. NELSON. Absolutely. I think, from all that I can read, and

certainly I’m not a fisheries expert, but the temperature of the

ocean and the catch in the ocean has a vital impact on what returns to Idaho.

If it was only our river, we wouldn’t be the only—we’d be the

only place in the upper—well, on the West Coast that would be experiencing this factor of diminishing returns. But most of the rivers

have experienced this. And many of them don’t even have dams.

So I think that the harvest and the conditions in the ocean are extremely critical to their survival.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And finally, Mr. Nelson, in the closing paragraphs of your testimony, your written testimony, you made reference to the Bevan plan. Is this plan being seriously considered

by any of the Federal agencies at this time? And why? What is it

about the Bevan plan that your organization prefers?

Dr. NELSON. Representative Chenoweth, we feel that any plan

that we’ve looked at that is strictly like what is being advanced

now, one-dimensional, cannot work, and is the most costly. The

Bevan plan actually retains the multiple uses, doesn’t call for destroying Idaho. As near as we can tell, you can recover the salmon

and also retain some economy in the area. And of course that

would be the kind of plan that we would recommend and endorse.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Crapo is recognized.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chapman, currently—I’m going to followup the line of questioning that I went through with the earlier panel with regard to

flow augmentation.
49

Currently we basically see Dworshak providing about 1.2 million

acre-feet, Brownlee about 240,000 acre-feet of water, and the upper

Snake about 427,000 acre-feet. That’s status quo. Could you give

me your opinion as to what the relative impacts on that demand

for flow augmentation will be under the competing approaching for

the salmon recovery that we are looking at?

And I’m talking about the natural river option, or drawdown approach, versus the current system with improvements in transportation and improvements in fish passage.

Mr. CHAPMAN. Based on the history, we have seen various proposals and plans that have been suggested in the past that range

from the status quo of about a million out of Dworshak and then

600,000-plus out of the upper Snake River Basin, to as much as 1.9

million acre-feet of water out of the upper Snake River Basin, in

addition to anything that was taken out of Dworshak.

Mr. CRAPO. Which would be about four-and-a-half times as much

water?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir. And the impact is fairly arithmetic. It’s

a straight line impact for some distance up above the million acrefeet, and I don’t recall where the break point is, but as I recall, at

about a million and three-quarters acre-feet of water taken out of

the Basin above Brownlee and Hells Canyon, then you essentially

take all of the water. The eight million acre-feet of water that we

have in the Snake River Basin.

And so you eliminate agriculture. You just destroy it.

Mr. CRAPO. And under which approach?

Mr. CHAPMAN. This would be the full flow augmentation approach with the existing reservoirs in place. That was the most

draconian of the plans that we had seen in the past, and they

dropped down to somewhere in the neighborhood of the 427,000

acre-feet, which we’ve agreed to produce during the NMFS experiment that’s going on until 1999.

Mr. CRAPO. And then what would happen if we went to a natural

river flow?

Mr. CHAPMAN. We’re not sure. As Mr. Stelle pointed out, generally he assumed that the request would lessen, or be less. To me,

that means it may be something less than the one-and-a-half to 2

million acre-feet we are sending down now.

But the concern that I have is that we in Idaho, as you remember well, have recently gone through a 5-year drought. And in 1992

had NMFS demanded even a 427,000 acre-feet of water, we could

not have provided it. All of our reservoirs were at rock bottom, and

at that point in time we would have lost most of Idaho agriculture.

Mr. CRAPO. So it would be risky under that scenario.

Mr. CHAPMAN. It would be risky, even under the status quo.

Mr. CRAPO. Dr. Nelson, you picked up on the comment about

good water that was made by Mr. Stelle. And to be honest, I am

sorry that he had to leave, because I would like to talk to him

about that, too.

But do you have any idea what that concept might mean? I noticed that you picked up on it. I am wondering what concerns it

raised in your mind.
50

Mr. NELSON. I suspect, Congressman, that it’s reservoir water

that comes from the bottom that’s colder than maybe natural flow

water.

Mr. CRAPO. So you are talking a temperature issue, as opposed

to the speed of the flow issue?

Mr. NELSON. I think so. And I think our water quality in Idaho

is pretty good. And this makes good water.

Mr. CRAPO. If the two of us are correct, surmising that that is

what he was referring to, let’s just make that assumption, whether

that is what he meant or not, with regard to that issue, what does

that say about flow augmentation under the various approaches?

Do you know? Do any of you know what that holds, what implications that holds for the amount of flow augmentation that would

be required under the natural drawdown or a natural river system,

as opposed to the current system with the operational transportation?

Mr. NELSON. We don’t know. You know, if you take the natural

flow in the spring, probably not much. But if we’re going to talk

about summer runs of Chinook, and try to get colder water and

what have you, it may mean an awful lot of good water.

So, we’re concerned. We don’t know for sure what that means.

Mr. CRAPO. Just one last question. I notice my time is about up,

and I would like to ask if any of you who want to respond quickly,

and this question is, as you will recall, my comments to Mr. Stelle

earlier about my concerns with regard to the process, there are already those pulling out of the process because they are unhappy

with it, and there has been an expression on this panel of not being

heard, or being a third class participant in the process.

Do you feel that the current process being operated basically by

NMFS in this arena, is adequately bringing to the table all of the

competing interests and letting them have a fair shot at having

their interests represented, understood, and involved in the ultimate decisionmaking?

Mr. LOVELIN. No.

Mr. NELSON. No.

Mr. CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. We thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance today. We will have further questions. Please respond to them

expeditiously. We will keep the record open for that point. And we

will excuse you. Thank you very much for your testimony.

And we will call up our last, but not least, panel No. 3, why don’t

you gentlemen come up and remain standing. We will administer

the oath here. As soon as you find out where you are sitting, if you

would please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me welcome to the panel Dr. James Anderson, Columbia Basin Research, University of Washington; Mr. M.

Steven Eldrige, General Manager of Umatilla Electric Cooperative;

Mr. Charles Ray, Wild Salmon Director, Idaho Rivers United; and

Mr. Mitch Sanchotena, Executive Coordinator, Idaho Steelhead and

Salmon Unlimited.

Gentlemen, we’re pleased to have you here, and I think you have

heard the routine probably about the lights, and we will recognize

Dr. Anderson for his testimony.
51

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. ANDERSON, COLUMBIA BASIN

RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Chenoweth,

thank you, Mr. Crapo, thank you for inviting me to testify.

In my written testimony I have detailed information on information related to what we are finding in the PATH process, of which

I am a member, on survival of fish down the river.

And some of the issues related to growth I’ve briefly addressed,

and I’ve also briefly addressed some of the benefits we may gain

by drawing down the reservoirs in terms of increased spawning

area.

But what I want to do, though, right now is discuss very briefly

some of the elements that I have in this one sheet that I gave you.

And basically what we’re trying to do in PATH is ask, if drawdown

will give us something better than what we now have in the river

system. And some of these answers, first order answers, are actually quite simple to obtain, and we have made some definite

progress, as Mr. Stelle has indicated.

And I’d like to address these items, starting with item A. That

we can make an estimate of what we will have with drawdown.

And it’s in terms of juvenile survival for spring Chinook. And it’s

about 66 percent.

We figure by comparison to other data, before we had the Snake

River dams, there was about 90 percent survival through that part

of the system. We know there’s about 10 percent mortality in each

dam. You put it all together. We would expect about 66 percent

survival.

Now, the question then is, is this better than what we have right

now or is it worse? Because that would be one of those clear definitive things that we could say about the system. We also believe

from the pit tag studies, there’s about 43, 40 percent survival,

somewhere in that range, of fish going through the river.

We also know, that’s the example B which I show, example C is

we have an estimate of what we get with transportation in terms

of the survival of collecting fish, putting them in barges and dropping them below Bonneville Dam. We know there’s almost a hundred percent survival in the process of transportation itself. And so

the survival down below Bonneville is about 70 percent.

If that was the issue, we would find—if that was the complete

story, we would find no real need to draw down the reservoirs in

terms of juvenile survival.

The issue then is, is there some additional mortality going on

after we release the fish from the barges. And we have been arguing that for a number of years. With particularly the 1995 returns

that comport very well with the survival studies, or the transport

survival studies that we have done since 1968, we get more fish

back in the barges than we do in the river.

And it appears to the best of our knowledge that there is no additional delayed mortality in barging.

So we might expect to find very high survival in the process of

picking fish up and putting them in barges and letting them go

through the river system. The fish have continued to decline,

though, in the last few years. So if it’s not in the barges, is there

some mortality someplace else that might be affected by reservoir
52

drawdown? And that’s one of the things that we’re starting to address in PATH.

On the back page I have some of the issues that we’re concerned

with right now. And as we know, both climate and the hydro system have affected the fish over the last hundred years. And this

is a diagram I put together, maybe you’ve seen this before, showing

the catch in the Columbia River from the beginning of the century

up to the present. Also with the step function right there showing

the increase in generating capacity, showing, as the dams have

been brought on, the stocks have gone down.

Now, we also know from a lot of recent information that climate,

particularly the wet and the dry cycles that have about a 20 year

period to them, through those cycles, that they appear to have a

great impact on the fish.

And we know that in the early 1920’s there was very high catch

in the system and it was a very wet period, and there seemed to

be a balance in the stocks for maintaining themselves. And about

1920 the weather shifted to a dry condition, the stocks started declining, and that was really about the time that we started the decline toward the ESA listings.

But it’s interesting to me that in the 1950’s, when the system

was being developed, hydro system, there was a very wet period,

and I think that that mitigated the impacts of that development.

Unfortunately, in 1977, the time that the Snake River dams were

finished, the times we started transporting fish, the weather

turned dry again and all those elements together made us think

that there was a problem with the system.

We now begin to think that maybe the transportation possibly

was not the problem, but actually it was something which has kept

the stocks from going extinct over the last few years.

But the issue is not solved then by transportation. The real question that we need to address is what is the impact of the hydro system on the response of, particularly the Snake River fish, to the

weather conditions. It’s something that we will be addressing in

the next few years.

I think my final point would be that we are carrying these analyses out through this PATH process, which is not entirely unlike

the rebellious British Parliament, I think. We go at the issues in

a very rigorous fashion.

And I think that we should be held accountable to review all of

the hypotheses and keep everybody at the table until we come up

with some very definite conclusions in terms of the probabilities

and risk analysis that science can then offer to the decisionmakers.

I will conclude my testimony with that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Eldrige, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF M. STEVEN ELDRIGE, GENERAL MANAGER,

UMATILLA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

Mr. ELDRIGE. Thank you. I would ask that you accept my written

testimony into the record.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.
53

Mr. ELDRIGE. And many of the things that I was going to say

have been touched on, so I will be as brief as I can.

I would like to start out by mentioning that I’m unique on any

of from people that you invited on the panel. Because I manage a

private, independent business that happens to be owned by the

people who we provide electricity to.

Now, while people like me are beginning to feel a little threatened; it remains to be seen if we will actually be listed as endangered.

When Bob Smith’s staff called and asked me to speak, he asked

if we would talk about the power impacts on energy supply and

that kind of thing. So that is what I would like to do.

I have been in the utility business for 25 years. I remember

about 20 years ago when there was a huge distortion in the Northwest system, started by an outage in Montana, and before it was

all over, most of the Bonneville Power system was out of power.

And if you will remember, there was a major outage last summer, due to a number of different factors, but I believe generally

due to a lack of capacity. Just as the outage that started in Montana years before, there was not enough generation available during an outage period to maintain load.

I will guarantee you, and I will say it as strongly as I can, if we

take 4,500 to 5,600 megawatts of capacity out of our generation

pool, and unless we replace it, we will have huge reliability problems and stability problems. It’s a guarantee. It’s not a question.

It’s just how much and how bad.

And the cost to replace hydro capacity has been way underestimated. It’s not if it’s going to cost more, it’s order of magnitude of

how much more.

And the reason is this. The way the system operates right now

is a hydro generator can be brought on line in a matter of minutes.

A thermal plant takes hours to bring on line. So we have this enormous peaking capacity instantaneously to meet load.

It makes economic these combustion turbine plants. You have

maybe heard the term firm and non-firm energy. There is a vast

amount of a kind of non-firm energy available. And it’s the mix of

the hydro system and the excess capacity and all of those kind of

things that makes for the low-cost power.

And everybody relies on the Federal hydropower system to make

their energy more valuable.

PacifiCorp in the Northwest is the single largest customer that

Bonneville has. And they buy non-firm energy. And then through

financial instruments and knowing the market, they sell that just

like it was firm energy, and they make money on it.

Now, if you replace this hydro generation with thermal plants,

and have the same kind of reliability and capacity, you’ve got to

have thermal plants running unloaded, spinning reserve, so that

when something drops off unexpectedly, there is still generation

there. That is going to raise costs.

And the other thing is, those plants, those new thermal plants,

because of where all our transmission plant is, have to be along the

Columbia River.

Now, just to give you an idea, Jack talked a little bit about the

environmental consequences. Let me tell you how bad it really is.
54

Now, these numbers I have a lot of confidence in, I can recreate

them for you if you need me to, but they are from Bonneville’s

Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement, and the methodology we used is suggested by the EPA, and what you do is you

take the emissions of the thermal plants and you make a carbon

equivalent, and this is how the numbers come out.

On an average energy basis these new plants will put out eight

million metric tons of pollutants each year. If you replaced capacity, it’s at a rate of 16 million metric tons of pollutants each year.

You’re going to see that in the air. That’s like three million new

cars driving 11,000 miles and at 20 miles a gallon. That’s a lot of

pollutant.

Now, I’m not here to make a value judgment on the rightness or

wrongness. But we must not underestimate the value from electric

prices to the kind of reliability we like, and to the environmental

cleanliness for air quality and other things, global warming, that

we get from our hydro system. Costs will go up very significantly,

I believe.

That concludes my remarks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eldrige may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Ray, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES RAY, WILD SALMON DIRECTOR,

IDAHO RIVERS UNITED

Mr. RAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Chenoweth,

Representative Crapo.

I want to pick a couple items out of my written testimony that

haven’t been covered very much today, and I think they do need,

in the investigation of this subcommittee, need to be covered thoroughly and repeatedly.

The first one is subsidy. At the same time the Federal hydropower system was being developed, massive subsidies were being

put into place. They have been well-identified. They include power

rate discounts to irrigation, to the aluminum industry, to the Bureau of Reclamation, and foregone power sales due to irrigation

water withdrawals, and the subsidy that’s enjoyed by the navigation industry.

These embedded subsidies have crippled the Bonneville Power

Administration, they have placed an undeserved financial burden

on the region’s ratepayers and taxpayers, and they have shifted

enormous debt on the backs of the fish and the economies that depend on healthy fish runs.

I’m really surprised today that this subcommittee doesn’t appear

to be interested in taking a hard look, taking as hard a look at

these massive subsidies that support some of the very industries

represented here today, as this subcommittee appears to be interested in looking at whether there are real or imagined impacts

from destroying these fish.

I think if the facts were openly presented, there is a real question of whether the lower Snake dams are really worth the fleecing

of the taxpayers and the ratepayers that’s going hand in hand with

the decline of salmon and steelhead.
55

This subsidy issue is inseparable from the fish issue and it is inseparable from any study of economics. Fairness and good public

policy demands as hard a look at the subsidies as the options to

restore the fish are receiving.

I really find it hard to believe that this Republican Congress, this

subcommittee and the members of this subcommittee really want

to perpetuate these massive public subsidies at the expense of ratepayers, taxpayers, good public policy, the fish, and the economies

that depend on the fish.

The second item I want to cover is honesty and promises. That’s

another issue that can’t be separated from this issue. When this

current system that we’re talking about, the Federal hydropower

navigation irrigation system, came into being, it came hand in

hand with a whole bunch of promises. Some of them started a lot

longer ago than that.

In 1855 our government, represented by representatives and

Congressmen today, made a promise to the Indian nations that

those fish runs would be perpetuated. That promise was reaffirmed

in U.S. v. Oregon, a landmark law decision in 1976.

Each one of those Federal dams was authorized with the implicit

promise that the fish runs would remain. In 1973 the Endangered

Species Act promised that these fish would be preserved. 1976 the

Northwest Snake River—lower Snake River Compensation Plan

promised Idaho fishermen that the salmon would be there for them

to catch. In 1980 the Northwest Power Act promised restoration of

the fish.

These promises haven’t been kept. And I think this breech of

trust is probably the biggest tragedy that has befallen this region

and its citizens.

The decline of these fish and the dependent economies and cultures is clear evidence of the failure of our government to honor

and keep these repeated and clear and unambiguous promises. The

citizens of this state, the region, and the nation, expect those promises to be kept. We’re not going to forget about them and they’re

not going to go away.

The public expects the return of the biological and cultural and

economical benefits that could be enjoyed from restored salmon and

steelhead runs. Restoration promised all the way back to 1855.

It’s far past time to correct the mistakes of the past, the lower

Snake and Columbia River dams, and begin keeping those promises.

I think it’s very clear that the real challenge facing the Federal

Government, the Federal agencies, the Congress, and this subcommittee is not to go out and hunt up all the reasons that we

can’t do what’s necessary to keep the promises and restore the

salmon and steelhead.

The real challenge and what the public is looking for you to do

is to recognize that it’s time to keep the promises and to find the

courage to do what it takes to restore these fish.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ray may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Sanchotena, you are recognized.
56

STATEMENT OF MITCH SANCHOTENA, EXECUTIVE

COORDINATOR, IDAHO STEELHEAD AND SALMON UNLIMITED

Mr. SANCHOTENA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative

Chenoweth and Representative Crapo. It’s been a long day.

On behalf of Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited and our

2000 members, we want to thank you, Chairman Doolittle, for coming to Idaho, and I want to compliment you on some of the questions I’ve heard you ask earlier. And if I may deviate from my testimony for a moment, I don’t feel that they have been properly addressed.

You asked a question, what is the Northwest Power Planning

Council’s plan? And Mike, you have said we ought to have regional

control over this issue. The 1994 strategy for salmon from the four

Governors of this region said something to the effect that, their recommendation is to decrease barging of anadromous juveniles and

to leave significantly more than half of the fish in the river, drawdown of John Day by 1996, and a drawdown of the lower Snake

by 1999.

So that’s the regional plan that this region has adopted. It has

not been changed. I don’t know whether the votes will be there to

change it. We’ll all be in that confrontation once again.

You also asked another very good question, Mr. Chairman, and

that was the question, as citizens, would we do what, one of the

alternatives being on the table, is to breach the dams.

And that question was asked by Greg Smith & Associates, and

by the way, an ex-Senator of Idaho, he did a poll, and that poll confirmed 49 percent of the Idaho residents, and the question was

asked, would you take out the dams to save salmon? 49 percent of

the respondents said yes. 47 percent were opposed. And 3 percent

was undecided.

So I think it was a very good question, and I am sorry they didn’t

give you that answer.

Mike, you asked a really good question along the lines of Mr.

Stelle, and it is unfortunate that he has not done his homework

and looked into this, would drawdowns take more Idaho water.

In 1992 an Army Corps of Engineers document—at that time we

were doing, we had just finished Senator Hatfield’s salmon summit,

and we were looking at a spillway crest drawdown—that Corps

document identified that the spillway crest, that the biological travel times of migrating juveniles from the lower Snake River could

be met 96 out of 100 years, simply with in-flow from the Salmon,

in-flow from the Clearwater and normal power generation from

Brownlee Reservoir.

So it appears to me that if we go to natural river, which is below

the spillway crest, it would alleviate any need for upper Snake

River water.

So I think those are awful good questions, and I appreciate you

giving me the time to respond to them.

One other thing I would urge the Committee to look into, I believe Mr. Chapman said that the 427,000 acre-feet of Idaho water

taken during drought years impacted Idaho farmers.

I would like to make it perfectly clear, look at the Bureau of Reclamation records, there was no irrigation water used, not one drop
57

of Idaho irrigation water was used in the 427, it was Showdam

water, it was Pocatello city water, and non-contracted.

So it’s unfortunate some of the things we have heard here along

those lines. But I think it ties in well with what I have to say, in

prepared testimony. And that is that Idaho sports fisherman were

the first to fall victim to the completion of the four lower Snake

River dams that were completed in 1975, and by 1978 Idaho’s once

productive general statewide Chinook salmon and fishing seasons

had been closed and they have never reopened as a result of that.

This is not about salmon, but it is also about wild steelhead, as

well. Keep in mind that wild steelhead have never recovered since

their simultaneous decline with Chinook salmon only 3 years after

Lower Granite was built. In spite of the sport fishing closures since

1982 wild steelhead hang precariously near extinction and will possibly be listed for protection by the Endangered Species Act later

this year.

There are 25,000 steelhead fishermen in Idaho that contribute

over $90 million annually to Idaho’s economy, and if salmon were

restored, that figure would go to in excess of $150 million. That

economy is seriously being threatened by the current operation of

these dams.

But Idaho fishermen are not the only victims of the dams. The

list has been expanded and it has been expanded in your state,

Chairman Doolittle. Fishermen from California to Alaska are now

also victims. This year the Pacific Fisheries Management Council

shut down salmon fishing off the coast of California to save a few

Snake River fall Chinook. Idaho ranchers and water users are also,

or soon will become, additional victims of these dams.

It has become explicitly clear that these dams continue to kill so

many salmon and steelhead this every wild spawner surviving to

adulthood and making it back to Idaho is so valuable to perpetuation of this species that land use actions must be shaped to protect

every one of the few that return.

I have two recommendations for how this committee, in focusing

on the lower Snake dams, can help restore Snake River steelhead

and salmon, as required by law and treaty.

My first recommendation concerns juvenile fish barging. For

nearly 20 years, the primary steelhead and salmon management

action undertaken at these dams have been the collection and artificial transportation of that fish in trucks and barges.

For nearly 20 years this action has been a failure. Finally, now

one scientific finding after another, along with some of the region’s

most noted scientists, are finally admitting what Idaho fishermen

have known over a decade, Idaho’s anadromous fish returns as

adults in far greater numbers when as smolts they are able to ride

a good spring freshet downstream to the ocean.

No one is interested in preserving wild steelhead and salmon as

museum pieces. Therefore, the Independent Scientific Advisory

Board’s peer review document, Return to the River, which states

that a ‘‘normative river system’’ is needed to restore the runs must

be the starting point for all discussions.

Those of you who have read the document will recall that the recent authoritative ISAB report called for the use of barging only experimentally and instead to focus on in-river migration.
58

Idaho Department of Fish and Game has very good documentation of this fact, and I would urge Idaho’s Congressional leaders to

rely more on the expertise of our own state’s biologists for what is

best for our anadromous fish resource.

Also I believe it is important to note that Governor Batt, Senator

Kempthorne, and Representative Crapo have now all joined ISSU

in calling or the feds. to wean themselves away from barging.

The administration currently plans to wait until 1999 to decide

whether to focus our limited salmon and steelhead funds on returning fish to the river, or trying instead to improve fish barging. This

delay will simply waste millions of dollars.

The scientific verdict is in, and the Idaho verdict is in from Governor Batt.

I urge this committee to recommend an immediate decision in

favor of the in-river path and I urge you, Representative

Chenoweth, to join Governor Batt, Senator Kempthorne and Representative Crapo in calling for an end to steelhead barging so we

can get on with restoring these fish.

Our second recommendation concerns the future of lower Snake

dams themselves. What Idaho fishermen already knew is reaffirmed by Dr. Don Chapman. Before a Senate Subcommittee

hearing chaired by Idaho Senator Kempthorne in Washington D.C.,

Dr. Chapman stated we will not go back to the way it once was.

Even if we want to go back to the harvest of the 1950’s, only 45

years ago, there is only one way to do that, take out four Snake

River dams and probably John Day, as well.

Those of you who know Dr. Chapman know that he is recognized

by many as one of the region’s leading anadromous fish experts

and in the past he has primarily represented Columbia River hydropower benefactors. Mr. Chapman’s honesty in making this

statement must be admired and respected. It also must be taken

seriously.

Dr. Chapman’s statement along with the Independent Scientific

Implementation Team’s peer review document stating that a ‘‘Normative River System’’ is needed to restore the runs must be the

starting point for many questions and subsequent decisions; i.e., to

what point does society want to restore the runs and how much are

they willing to pay. What are the societal, economic, and cultural

values of restored runs? What are the assets and liabilities of the

Four lower Snake River Dams and a drawdown of John Day?

All these questions, plus several others must be asked, and their

findings reviewed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just ask you, we’re over time.

Mr. SANCHOTENA. Right. ISSU therefore requests that this committee request both the General Accounting Office and the Office

of Management and Budget to conduct a thorough and unbiased

audit of the assets and liabilities of the four lower Snake River

dams and a spillway crest drawdown of John Day. We also request

that until the results of that audit are made public, all further

spending on these four dams which locks in the current failed management be suspended.

Right now the Army Corps of Engineers plans to spend literally

hundreds of millions of dollars in the next 5 years to gold plate

these dams and lock in the current failed fish barging program.
59

This committee can perform a real service to the taxpayers by urging that this spending cease until we decide as a region what the

future of these dams should be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanchotena may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Well, Dr. Anderson, from your testimony, I gather, looking at

these charts, particularly Exhibit 2, do you conclude, then, that

clearly the presence of the dams on the river has resulted in a substantial decrease in the fisheries?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it has been a mixed bag. I think the dams

have been detrimental to the fish in different periods of time.

In all the work that we’ve done, that I’ve done, that NMFS has

done, and the recent information suggests that we’re doing better

now with juvenile passage than any time in the past.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, what I find puzzling is, the graph you show

us here clearly indicates that the juvenile transportation is working, and the survival is higher with it than without it. And yet

there is intense opposition to it.

Our last witness here indicated apparently the Governor of Idaho

and the other Governors of this Northwest Council signed onto a

report that calls for these drawdowns.

Is that your understanding?

Mr. ANDERSON. I’m not fully aware of all of the political agendas.

I do know that Galileo had a similar problem, when he was saying that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other

way. And I think that eventually science, given a chance, will find

its way to proper conclusions.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is science, in your opinion, being given a chance,

or is it being replaced by pseudo science?

Mr. ANDERSON. My feeling is that within the process of PATH

and some of the formal analyses, which are very vigorous, that we

will get to some of these conclusions. What I worry about is when

scientists present hypotheses and then they are taken as proven

facts. And I think the scientific process should be allowed to consider all of the hypotheses and then come to conclusions on it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is a traditional process, but indeed

there are some within the scientific community who feel the issues

cry out for resolution, that it’s time to move away from judicial

science and on to projecting hypotheses.

Mr. ANDERSON. All we can do is state the numbers, look at the

correlations and look at the ecological basis of things, and that’s all

we can do as scientists.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I don’t think you really got into it today, but I

believe I’ve heard you testify before where you describe what appears to be an inverse relationship between the Alaskan salmon

populations and those off the Pacific Northwest.

Is that right?

Mr. ANDERSON. That was 2 years ago, and there’s been a considerable amount of extra, additional information that’s been documented since then, some good reports out.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And further validating——

Mr. ANDERSON. Further validating this inverse relationship. Ecological theories are being developed and I think will be available
60

at the end of this year to begin to test the mechanisms producing

these decadal shifts in stocks.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I wish our NMFS man was here, but he had to

leave.

What does he say when you present him with your studies on

these things, particularly about the inverse relationship? How do

they deal with that?

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, the inverse relationship, which I presented

a couple of years ago, was given to me by one of his employees. And

so I just presented things that they have been understanding, and

NMFS I believe, from my discussions with Mr. Stelle today, are

moving forward to try to identify some of these hypotheses, and

what types of research we need to do to further articulate where

things are happening, where the mortality is occurring, and if

there’s anything that we can do about them.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, you have developed some other things

here. But if that hypothesis were indeed correct, as what data you

have would seem to indicate, even if you did tear down all of the

dams, there wouldn’t necessarily be a restoration of the traditional

salmon run.

Is that correct?

Mr. ANDERSON. The weather is always going to be a factor. And

there’s a difference between tearing out the entire Columbia River

hydro system and tearing out part of the dams.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Namely, the four they are talking about here.

Mr. ANDERSON. And the simple, straight forward analysis that

we have done so far, is that we are not going to gain the benefits

we now have just by taking out the upper Snake dams, or the

Snake dams. That is the initial conclusion. We will consider this

in greater detail, and hopefully we will have the information to you

in time to make decisions.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that’s the lower Snake dams you are talking

about?

Mr. ANDERSON. The lower Snake dams.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. I would like to ask some more questions,

but it is Mrs. Chenoweth’s turn.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That’s all right.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, do we have time for that? Why don’t you

go ahead.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, all right.

Gentlemen, how do you react to his graphs and then the testimony he had about the correlation between the wet—low population salmon runs with the warm and dry years and higher population runs with cool and wet years?

Mr. SANCHOTENA. Well, first I think we need to recognize that

these weather patterns have been cycling for a millennium. They

have come and gone. We have had wet and dry periods, and yet

we have never had anadromous fish in the Snake River on the

brink of extinction until four dams were completed in the lower

Snake.

Second, I would like to point out, we have heard a lot today from

Mr. Stelle and Mr. Anderson and others about in-river.
61

But keep in mind, in-river is not normative river. In-river today

is likened almost to pouring these fish down, pardon a pun, down

a toilet bowl.

We have an overworked river that the Federal Government by its

own admission is admitting is lethal to juvenile fish. We have to

take them out of the river to give them any chance of survival.

So if we go to where the Independent Scientific Survival Board

is, we are making a fish friendly river, and that in-river migration

that we are talking about at that point changes drastically from a

river by the Federal Government’s own admission, the Army Corps

of Engineers, says we must take these fish out.

Second, the pit tag information I think is very immature, in fact

this year’s run is likened to the 1993 returns of adult salmon. That

return was 30 percent wild fish component in the run. This year

it was only 16 percent wild fish in the run, they listed species.

So in essence we will not even replace our 1993 population, and

we go further toward extinction.

So I wouldn’t buy into a lot right now on this pit tagging stuff.

The PATH process, we have a lot of confidence in. We will track

it and we would urge the Committee to track it. And let’s see

where this takes us as we get further down the road. But there’s

some real bogeymen hiding around here that I don’t think we

should right now base any information on what we’ve got and take

it to the bank, that it would be a good investment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Eldrige, did you want to comment?

Mr. ELDRIGE. Well, what I guess I would say is I think we need

to decide, are we really going to do this, no matter what the science

says. Are we really going to tear apart the system?

If we are really going to do that, well, then let’s start down that

path.

If we’re really not going to do it, the studies, the pit tags, all of

this other stuff, spending millions and millions of dollars on that,

you know, everybody knows it’s going to cost a lot of money, everybody knows it’s a question mark, but if we’re really not going to

go to natural river, I think we need to say so and get on with some

other things so that we can make it as best as we can.

If we are really going to do it, then, fine.

But I begin to feel a little like, you know, if you’re going to be

bled out, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a vein or an artery, but let’s

get going on it.

Mr. SANCHOTENA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that, I

think Mr. Eldrige has a very good point. I think this really is a societal, economic issue. I hate to see us continue to argument about

science. I really believe the science for the most part is in or nearly

in.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is what? I’m sorry.

Mr. ANDERSON. Is in or nearly in. So many scientific reports.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is such a fundamental thing—is barging good

or not? You are in disagreement here.

I mean, his graph shows that it works, and yet you are saying

apparently no one has corroborated your statement, but they

haven’t disputed it either, that the Governors of this region have

all signed off on eliminating barging.
62

Mr. RAY. If you would, Mr. Chairman, we have been barging fish

for over 20 years, and NMFS, National Marine Fisheries Service,

and the Corps of Engineers, up until about 4 years ago, caught

every single fish they could catch, and put them in the barges.

Now, in that 20 year period of time that we have been barging

nearly every single fish we could catch, the Idaho salmon season

is closed, statewide season never to reopen, Idaho coho salmon

were declared extinct in 1987, we had one Sockeye salmon come

back last year, and in 1994 and 1995 we had consecutive record

low returns of spring and summer Chinook, steelhead are now petitioned for ESA listing, returns, regardless of what returns of the

barged fish to the dams do, returns of wild fish to the spawning

ground, the true measure of the efficacy of barging, have consistently been low.

And for anybody to say that in the face of that indisputable evidence that barging works, I don’t understand it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I’m going to wrap up with this observation,

that Dr. Anderson’s testimony about the dry, warm years would account, as well, for a lot of that decline.

With that, let me recognize Mrs. Chenoweth, if you have further

questions. Yes, you do. You are recognized.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I noticed, and I called attention to Mr. Stelle’s testimony, that preliminary returns through

1995, which should be viewed with great caution at this time, said,

showed transported fish returning at nearly twice the rate of inriver fish.

And so I join the Chairman in showing a certain amount of concern, because transported fish are returning at twice the rate, Mr.

Stelle said.

So I just was hoping that we could have a consistent path here.

Mr. Sanchotena, you referred to Greg Smith’s survey.

Mr. SANCHOTENA. Excuse me. Was I supposed to respond to that

comment? I do have a response to that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, go ahead, please.

Mr. SANCHOTENA. As you said——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Make it real short. I didn’t anticipate that.

Mr. RAY. There is no data on the return of 1990 fish, there is

zero data, not a single data in at this time on return of 1995 out

migrants, wild fish to the spawning grounds, not a single data figure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wild fish.

Mr. RAY. Wild fish. The ESA listed fish, the fish that are driving

this entire process, not hatchery fish, not steelhead, ESA listed

wild fish.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Ray, I think the way the salmon was listed was by gene pool makeup, not whether they were wild or hatchery fish. And I think you know that, and I know you know that.

Mr. RAY. I don’t know that.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, Mr. Sanchotena, with regards to the

Greg Smith survey, I think that survey question that you indicated

read, would you be in favor of removing the dams to save the salmon?
63

Mr. SANCHOTENA. I believe that’s the way it was referenced in

the media.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I think that Mr. Smith’s survey

read, would you be in favor of removing a dam to save the salmon.

Mr. SANCHOTENA. I believe it was one or more, was the way it

was worded.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Would you do me a favor, and would

you please present us, send as an addendum to this hearing the actual questions? I would appreciate that very much.

And with that, due to the shortness of time, I want to thank all

of the panel members here for their testimony, very, very valuable.

And, Mr. Eldrige, I would like to speak to you in person, or

maybe you can supplement the record, with a comparison, not only

to gas fired turbine alternatives, but also to nuclear power, because

I think we are seriously looking at that.

Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Crapo is recognized.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I realize that we are

almost an hour over, if I see the time right, and I know there is

meetings we are supposed to be at, and I will just ask one question

quick and I will forego my other questions.

But each of the members of the panel, and probably to Mr. Eldrige, Mr. Ray and Mr. Sanchotena, because you represent groups

in the region, rather than a research perspective, my concern about

the process, I’d like to just very quickly have you respond to, do

you believe that the current process in which we are currently operating allows you to effectively present your information and you

feel that you are part of the table, that your concerns are being

taken into consideration, and that you have an opportunity to influence the outcome of the decisionmaking in a way that is satisfactory to you?

Mr. SANCHOTENA. No.

Mr. RAY. No.

Mr. ELDRIGE. No. And it is not collaborative either.

Mr. CRAPO. OK. I just wanted to be sure I let everybody who testified have a chance to get in n that. I won’t ask any more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I would like to thank of the witnesses for your testimony. And we would like to keep the record

open. We may have some additional questions that we would like

to submit to you.

Mr. Ray, I’ll just observe that I’m not, and this subcommittee

really isn’t big on subsidies. We had three major GAO reports

about PMAs and cost of recovery, talking about how we get there.

So I would just share with you, that I’m fairly anti-subsidy.

Mr. RAY. Well, I appreciate that. And I think that the subsidy

issue definitely demands, just as hard a look and just as intense

of scrutiny as any other item within this issue that has received

today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. RAY. I hope you can stay on track.
64

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We certainly intend to do so.

With that, we will—oh. Mr. Eldrige.

Mr. ELDRIGE. Just real quickly, do you know what the unsubsidized cost of a fishing license is?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. We will excuse this panel, and

the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
65

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR M. TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN, FISH, WATER, AND WILDLIFE

SUBCOMMITTEE, NEZ PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

My name is Arthur M. Taylor, I am a member of the Nez Perce Tribe. Also, I

am a member of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and the Chairman of

the Fish, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee. It is with the utmost respect and honor

that I am allowed to submit written testimony on behalf of my people. From time

immemorial, the Nez Perce People have utilized the fish, water, animals, and medicinal plants which have been produced by the Columbia River. All living creatures

which have been created by the Creator are considered sacred to the Nez Perce People. It is simply for this reason during the springtime, we honor these gifts which

have been bestowed upon the Nez Perce. We honor the return of the first salmon

back to the river, as well as, honoring the first roots and berries in special ceremonies. The Nez Perce People are proud of their heritage in the Pacific Northwest

and in particular our heritage along the Columbia River.

With the importance the Native Americans have played in helping restore the

salmon population back to the Columbia River, the four Columbia River Tribes

should have been invited to participate and give testimony to the Water and Power

Subcommittee. The four (the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Yakama Indian Nation, and the Confederated

Tribes of the Warm Springs) Columbia River tribes have treaty reserved rights on

the Columbia River and should be consulted when making decisions regarding our

reserved rights. Government to Government consultation is necessary when making

decisions concerning sovereign governments.

For the past several years, many federal agencies have completed several studies

on the Columbia River. This would include the barging of salmon through the dams,

using ‘‘flip’’ gates as a means of allowing fish to pass through the dam efficiently,

in effect less mortality, and have set up programs to limit the predation upon the

juvenile salmon while passing through the pool of each dam. These programs have

blatantly failed and we are no closer to restoring the salmon back into the Columbia

River Basin than we were several years ago; this has led to more species being listed as an Endangered Species or have the potential of being listed in the very near

future. There are many factors which must be considered when restoring salmon

back to the Columbia River Basin: the water temperature of the John Day Pool, the

dissolved gas issues, the quality of the water, and above all else, the quantity or

flow of the water. The flow of the water is extremely important for the migration

of juvenile salmon on their way to ocean. Anadromous fish utilize the flow of the

water in order to determine the direction of the ocean, however, man has taken

away the flow of water, whereby the migrating juvenile salmon are left to predation.

In order to restore the salmon back to the Columbia River Basin, we need to restore the natural river flow back to the Columbia River, which in essence would

lower the temperature of the John Day Pool making the habitat more sustainable

for the salmon. This issue should not be an issue solely for the ‘‘irrigators’’ who utilize the water for their personal benefit, but for the entire northwest. Restoring

salmon back to the Columbia River Basin would help to restore the economy and

make the Pacific Northwest once again known for it’s natural resources again. The

Nez Perce Tribe deserves to be recognized as a sovereign government because we

have inherent rights which are protected by Treaty, therefore, we should not be considered the ‘‘general public’’ such as all of these water user coalitions.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175