U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–377 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–355

COLUMBIA BASIN 2000 BIOLOGICAL PLAN FOR

ANADROMOUS FISH RECOVERY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,

WILDLIFE, AND WATER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE’S 2000 BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR ANADROMOUS FISH REGARDING THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN POWER SYSTEM

JUNE 24, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

RON WYDEN, Oregon

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

JUNE 24, 2003

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 43

Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ........................... 1

WITNESSES

Bogert, L. Michael, counsel, on behalf of Governor Dirk Kempthorne, State

of Idaho ................................................................................................................. 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Danielson, Judi, chairperson, Northwest Power Planning Council ..................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

Huffaker, Steve, on behalf of the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Authority 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84

Johnson, Anthony, chairman, Nez Perce Tribe ..................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88

Knieriemen, Colonel Dale, Deputy Commander, Northwestern Division,

United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................ 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Lohn, Bob, Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service ........................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

McDonald, J. William, regional director, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific

Northwest Regional Office ................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

Murillo, Nancy, chairperson, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes ...................................... 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90

Wright, Steven J., administrator and CEO, Bonneville Power Administration . 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

Statement, Ford, Pat, Save Our Wild Salmon ...................................................... 93

(1)

COLUMBIA BASIN 2000 BIOLOGICAL PLAN

FOR ANADROMOUS FISH RECOVERY

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in room

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo [chairman of

the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Senator Crapo.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. Good morning. This morning the Subcommittee

on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water will receive testimony on the implementation of the December 2000 Federal Columbia River Power

System Biological Opinion. This hearing will come to order. I want

to first thank all of the witnesses who have made the effort to prepare testimony and to come here yet once again to testify about

this critical issue.

In the more than 10 years that I have served in the U.S. Congress, recovering Pacific salmon has been one of my top priorities.

I have held hearings and traveled throughout the navigation system on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, looking at the hydroelectric projects and fish passage systems. I have urged transparency by the Federal agencies in the development of the biological opinions and required them to produce documents when I did

not believe they had proceeded in a transparent manner.

I have enlisted the help of the General Accounting Office in trying to understand how much and where salmon funding is spent.

I have developed a funding plan of my own for implementing the

December 2000 Biological Opinion. And every year, I have worked

to secure funding for conserving and recovering these incredible

fish.

I am certainly not suggesting that I am the only one, especially

of those here in this room, who have been working hard over the

last few years to help try to recover our salmon and steelhead. In

fact, I know that we are joined here by witnesses and there are

many others in the audience or who are listening in today who

have spent as much time, if not more, in fact many their entire careers working on this critical issue and dedicating themselves to restoring salmon and steelhead.
2

My point in saying this is simply that here we are again trying

to find the best path forward that will restore this incredible icon

of the Pacific Northwest. Although I am disappointed and frustrated, as I am sure many of you are, that we have come this far

and invested so much money that we must address the obstacles

that are currently before us and recommit to doing the best we can

to recover these fish.

Let me also say that understanding where we are with regard to

the BiOp implementation is in my opinion almost, if not equally,

important today as it was prior to the court’s ruling of just a short

time ago. I also realize that there is still a potential for an appeal

of that decision so we do not know what will be the outcome. But

if we go ahead, if there is an appeal and the decision is overturned,

we are still working with the biological opinion. If there is not an

appeal and there are proceedings under the court’s current approach, then there is going to be a reevaluation of the Biological

Opinion and there will be actions taken in some context to proceed

with developing a biological opinion that will pass court muster.

One way or the other, our evaluation today of where we are and

where we are headed with regard to implementation of procedures

to save the salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest is critical.

I want to also point out that from my perspective, one of the critical issues which was focused on by the court and which I believe

we are all going to be focusing on in whatever context we move forward is the resources that we will need to bring to bear from the

various sources of assistance that we can find to restore salmon

and steelhead. That is one of the focuses that you will find that I

will pay attention to throughout this hearing.

I would like to thank our witnesses today for taking the time to

be with us. At this point, I am going to lay out the ground rules

for the hearing and then we will proceed with the hearing. For

those of you who have been in hearings with me before, you will

know that I always try to encourage the witnesses to remember

that there is a 5-minute clock in front of you. I know that you all

have much more than 5 minutes worth to say, and believe me, we

will get into some discussions and questions where you will be able

to present your further thoughts. Your written testimony has been

received and will be reviewed thoroughly, so don’t feel that you

have to read word for word your written testimony.

I would like you to pay attention to the clock. When your 5 minutes is up, try to wrap up wherever you are and summarize your

statement. Then we will proceed with questions and answers from

there. If you are like me and you sometimes to see the clock, I may

tap the gavel up here a little bit to remind you to take a look at

it.

With that, let’s go ahead with our first panel. The first panel is

Mr. Bob Lohn, the Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries

Service; Mr. Steven J. Wright, who is the Administrator and CEO

of the Bonneville Power Administration. We have Colonel Dale

Knieriemen, who is the Deputy Commander of the Northwestern

Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and Mr.

Williams McDonald, Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation.
3

Gentlemen, we thank you all for being with us. Let’s go in the

order that I said your names rather than the order that you are

sitting. So Mr. Lohn, we will go with you first. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF BOB LOHN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Mr. LOHN. Good morning, Senator, and thank you for convening

this hearing. I also want to just testify to your interest and passion

on this subject. I have enjoyed working with you and your staff.

For the record, my name is Bob Lohn, Regional Administrator of

the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service,

also known as NOAA Fisheries. I appreciate the invitation to be

here with regional colleagues, tribal, State and other Federal colleagues. I am going to try to briefly talk about three points, and

certainly stand open for further questions on any of them. In addition, I have filed written testimony and I would appreciate if that

could be entered in the record.

Senator CRAPO. Let me just interrupt and say that the written

testimony of all witnesses will be accepted into the record without

objection. Thank you, sir.

Mr. LOHN. Three subjects I would like to touch very quickly on

are the status of the litigation involving the FCRPS biological opinion, the status of implementation, and finally briefly the status of

the listed ESUs, sort of where we stand on three fronts.

As you know, over the last 14 years, NOAA Fisheries has listed

26 separate populations of salmon and steelhead as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species Act in Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California. Of these listing, eight occur in the

Federal Columbia River Power System, or FCRPS, including four

in the Snake River.

When we list a species or a sub-species or a distinct population

segment, which these are, we are required to conduct a Section 7

consultation with Federal agencies who are proposing to take any

action that would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the species or adversely affect critical habitat. Out of that requirement, we conducted a consultation, and in the year 2000 issued

what is at least the third in a series of biological opinions. The

2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion determined that jeopardy would

flow from the action as proposed and called for 199 reasonable and

prudent alternatives. So there are other actions if taken that cumulatively would avoid jeopardy.

Soon after its issuance, it was challenged in court by various interest groups. On May 7 of this year, Judge Redden ruled that the

Biological Opinion was not adequate. I read the ruling and others

may read it in different ways, as basically a technical opinion. I am

not diminishing Judge Redden’s expertise. I think he wrote it very

carefully and very deliberately the way he did it, but a technical

opinion in which in particular Judge Redden said the mitigation as

described does not clearly fit into two categories established under

a 1985 rule adopted to implement the Endangered Species Act.

That rule requires that in looking at future actions, an agency such

as ours look only at, first, Federal actions that have been subject

to Section 7 consultation; and second, non–Federal actions that are,

quote, ‘‘reasonably certain to occur.’’ If things don’t fit in those cat-
4

egories under that rule, Judge Redden would say we would not be

allowed to take the into account.

In effect, this opinion says the judge is not certain how we categorized the various actions we were relying on. He is not certain

whether they fit these categories, and in effect his direction to us

at a minimum is to go back, review these actions, and determine

whether (A), the actions fit in these categories; and (B), whether

those that do fit are adequate to avoid jeopardy.

So on June 2, Judge Redden remanded the Biological Opinion to

us for further action. The court has agreed to give us up to 1 year

to revise the Biological Opinion in accordance with its rulings. Status reports are to be filed every 90 days followed 1 week later with

a conference of counsel to determine whether further actions need

to be taken.

Currently, as you noted, the court is considering a motion by the

plaintiffs to vacate the Biological Opinion while it is undergoing revision. Briefing on that motion to vacate was completed last week.

The court may rule at any time. A decision by the court to vacate

the Biological Opinion could leave us without clear guidance in the

interim as to what should be done and how the system should be

operated. So certainly we would see that alternative as leading to

chaos. I think the judge is well informed on that and we expect a

decision shortly from him. I am certainly hopeful that it leaves the

framework in place while we are revising the Opinion.

We are currently undertaking a very extensive review of the Biological Opinion. We are not just looking at patching up a few flaws,

but we are going back and reviewing the models used, certainly updating the assumptions and the science used in it. It is too early

to say what the outcome will be, but at a minimum I expect it to

reflect the best available science, including science that has come

available in the last couple of years.

The status of the current Biological Opinion is still relevant because whatever the constructs, Senator, I think the next opinion

also will be a mixture of actions within the mainstem and a series

of actions taken offsite, that is, in the tributaries of the Columbia

and Snake. Given those actions, the pattern will be the same and

it will be interested in implementing. The implementation status is

reported in the material I have provided for you. I will simply leave

it at that. I would say we are making good progress in most areas.

Sub-basin planning will be critical. In that area, I want to give

credit to the Power Planning Council and others for getting it underway. It has gotten off to a slower start through the fault of no

one and certainly not the Council, but I would rate that as making

good progress.

The second key element, monitoring and evaluation, the Administration has supported funding for it and did not receive it last

year. Additional funding to the tune of $15 million is in this year’s

budget. That will be important to measuring the effect.

Finally, Senator, there was a question about the status of stocks.

I have provided a brief summary in the form of graphs that cover

the status of the stocks since 1980. They show a sharp upward tick

recently. I do not consider that success. I do consider it a sign that

for the moment, the stocks are showing improvement, largely a

function of ocean conditions, also reflecting changes we have made.
5

Is it convincing that the problem is solved? Certainly not. Until we

now what the underlying problem is and really have identified at

a specific level, we will not know if we have fixed it. It is too early

to declare success.

Thank you, sir.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lohn.

Mr. Wright?

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. WRIGHT, ADMINISTRATOR AND

CEO, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am here today to discuss the implementation of the 2000 BiOp,

and I would like to start by saying I think we have some good news

to report. Despite the droughts of the last couple of years, the West

Coast energy crisis, the bad economy that we suffered in the Northwest, and higher rates, NOAA Fisheries has recently concluded

that the action agencies, the Corps, the Bonneville Power Agency,

are implementing 95 percent of the Biological Opinion requirements of the reasonable improvement alternatives.

Juvenile fish survival in the river today is now at the same rate

as in the 1960’s before the implementation of many of the dams in

the river. We have had excellent returns recently, including this

year. This is the first class of 2001 to return and of course this is

a great relief to me personally because 2001 was the year of the

drought and the year in which we implemented many of the power

system emergencies, reducing some of the BiOp implementation

measures because of the West Coast energy crisis. We are making

the BiOp work under extremely difficult circumstances.

The BiOp represents a fundamental change in thinking, I believe. It focuses on performance-based standards and allows cost effectiveness tests to be part of the equation as we go forward. This

is important because we know that the people of the region want

fish and wildlife in the rivers. We also know that they want the

programs to be cost efficient. EPA costs currently exceed $600 million annually for fish and wildlife mitigation efforts. It is not a

small part of our budget. It is a significant portion of our cost

structure. These costs reflect hydrosystem operations, support for

the integrated program, and debt service on measures that we have

implemented over the course of the last 20 years.

Two years ago, Bonneville implemented a 46 percent rate increase, and this year we are looking at another substantial rate increase in a region that has the highest unemployment in the Nation. We have sought cost efficiencies from every part of our budget, including fish and wildlife. Earlier this year, we worked with

the Northwest Power Planning Council to manage the 2003 budget

for fish and wildlife efforts. This was successfully completed and I

am appreciative of the difficult work accomplished by the Council

in getting us to where we needed to get to. Because we are looking

at potential further rate increases to cover costs, I do not expect

our efforts to manage costs to abate over the course of the next few

years.

As a result of the funding issues, many in the region have sought

greater predictability in funding from Bonneville. We have expressed a willingness to engage in discussions about a new funding
6

agreement, although spending levels must reflect both meeting our

obligations and the state of the regional economy.

In this regard, I was pleased by the four Governors’ recent statement and commitment to support defining objectives and a cost effective approach to meeting both our Endangered Species Act and

Northwest Power Act objectives. We also agree with our Federal

partners, the four Governors, and the Northwest Power Planning

Council that sub-basin planning and research monitoring and evaluation are key components to moving forward. As Mr. Lohn indicated, that was a critical finding in the findings letter from NOAA

Fisheries that came back to us.

Mr. Chairman, efforts to recover salmon and steelhead in the

Northwest is one of the Nation’s largest and most ambitious environmental recovery programs. We believe that we are seeing results as a result of the efforts that have been made over the course

of the last 20 years and the increased funding that has been provided. In the face of some extremely challenging financial circumstances, we remain fully committed to meeting our obligations.

We are focused on results and a cost effective approach for getting

there.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could make one comment with respect to your comments that you made earlier, I do want to say to

you that it is certainly my expectation that no matter what the

court rules with respect to vacating the Biological Opinion, it is our

intent to continue to implement the existing Biological Opinion

until at least we can come up with a new Biological Opinion and

address the concerns of the court.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.

Colonel Knieriemen?

STATEMENT OF COLONEL DALE KNIERIEMEN, DEPUTY COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Colonel Knieriemen. Mr. Chairman, committee members and distinguished guests, I am Colonel Dale Knieriemen, the Deputy Commander of the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the efforts to restore

the Columbia River Basin’s stocks of salmon and steelhead.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Congress

and the Northwest delegation for your overall support of the salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin. These efforts are well

underway, and overall there is good news to report. We have made

numerous improvements to dams and fish passage facilities

throughout the system. One of our best success stories worth mentioning is the removable spillway weir or RSW at Lower Granite

Dam. The RSW prototype allows juvenile salmon to pass the dam

nearer the water surface under lower velocities and lower pressures.

The RSW has the potential to provide not only fish benefits, but

also power savings to the region. We have tested for mechanical

and biological effectiveness and gotten good results. The RSW, in

conjunction with the surface collector and four-bay guidance structure at Lower Granite shows a seven-to-one effectiveness ratio
7

based on the first-year data. About 70 percent of the fish pass the

spillway with only about 10 percent of the river flow.

Besides these new technologies, we continue to make improvements to existing fish bypass systems. NOAA Fisheries’ research

on Snake River spring-summer chinook indicates that between 50

and 60 percent of juvenile fish that migrate in-river now successfully pass the eight Corps dams. This survival is similar to when

there were only four dams and is up from about the 10 to 40 percent in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

We continue to provide flows, spill, and other operational measures for fish during migration seasons. We are laying the groundwork for potential further operational adjustments. We barge the

majority of the Snake River juveniles in accordance with the Biological Opinion. While this transportation system is not everybody’s

favorite, studies indicate that transport can increase fish survival

as measured by smolt-to-adult return rates. This is especially true

for wild fish. Returns for transported wild steelhead are about 85

percent greater than in-river migrants, and for wild chinook about

30 percent greater.

At Libby Dam, the Corps began implementing the variable discharge alternative flood control plan operation, also known as

VARQ, on an interim basis in January of 2003. It is a key action

to protect the Kootenai River white sturgeon and salmon through

improved ability to provide spring and summer flows. We expect to

continue this interim operation until the environmental impact

statement on the potential long-term implementation is completed

in 2005.

We are also making progress in habitat restoration. We appreciate the boost to estuary habitat restoration efforts in the 2003 appropriations. We continue to work with regional partners such as

the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and others on the

planning efforts for several promising habitat projects in the Columbia River estuary. The Brownsmead project east of Astoria will

restore tidal flows to about 9.2 miles of sloughs. We have initiated

the Southwest Washington Stream Study to replace nine culverts

that are restricting access to small tributary streams to the Columbia River. A project at Crims Island would acquire and restore approximately 425 acres of tidal emergent marsh, swamp, slough and

riparian forest habitat in the Upper Columbia River estuary.

As we are collectively implementing regional efforts, we are witnessing some of the best adult fish returns we have seen in a

while. While much of the credit may be due to ocean conditions, we

can take some credit for getting more and more juveniles safely

through the migration corridor. The 2003 returns of the spring chinook salmon were the fourth largest since we started counting at

Bonneville Dam and the fourth year running of good numbers. This

is in spite of the drought conditions the juveniles faced during the

2001 out-migration.

Challenges remain. There is still a long way to go. We are in the

third year of a 10-year effort and must keep the momentum going.

One Biological Opinion goal is to restore 10,000 acres of estuary

habitat. This will be quite a push. Operation of Libby Dam will be

a challenge to balance the needs of fish and those of the public living downstream. Research monitoring and evaluation measures in
8

the BiOp are progressing, but remain a complex task. We are pursuing potential opportunities for linking to State, tribal, local and

other efforts of a similar nature as we set up these systems.

Overall, we believe the agencies are making very good progress.

However, there is much work ahead of us. We are hoping for even

better support from Congress as we progress toward the 2005 midpoint evaluation of our efforts. The President’s budget for the Corps

for Columbia River salmon activities is sufficient to keep us on

track and we respectfully request your full support for that budget.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Colonel Knieriemen.

Mr. McDonald?

STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM MC DONALD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, my name is Bill McDonald. I am the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region. As

the operator of two of the features of the Federal Columbia River

Power System, Reclamation bears or shares responsibility for about

one-third of the actions in the Biological Opinion’s reasonable and

prudent alternative. For my oral comments, I would like to focus

on those responsibilities which we have for making habitat restoration improvements under Action 149 of the RPA. This action calls

for a program to assist non–Federal water projects with passage so

that there is proper migration paths at their diversion dams and

also screening on these non–Federal structures.

While Reclamation has the authority to plan and design fish

screens and passage facilities for non–Federal projects, we lack the

authority to actually fund construction. In that regard, the Administration last October proposed legislation to Congress which, if enacted, would give Reclamation the requisite authority to provide financial assistance. I am pleased to report that Senator Smith just

this past Friday introduced S. 1307 which largely reflects the Administration’s proposal. We are certainly appreciative of the Senator’s support for that proposed legislation.

I am frequently asked if the court’s recent ruling to which you

have referred, Mr. Chairman, still leaves us in a position to need

that proposed legislation. What I would like to emphasize is that

it very much does leave us needing that legislation. Among the

things that the court found was that certain actions in the BiOp,

in the reasonable and prudent alternative, were not reasonably certain to occur. The proposed legislation as now introduced by the

Senator would allow us to provide financial assistance and is very

important in that it would remove some of the uncertainty about

which the court was concerned. So, we very much look forward to

working with the Northwest delegation and Congress in moving

forward a suitable bill because it is quite important to us still.

Finally, I would note relative to appropriations that Reclamation

has received substantial increases. Our appropriation in fiscal year

2001 was about $5.6 million. In the President’s proposed budget for

fiscal year 2004 it is about $19 million. Most of that increase is to

fund the offsite habitat mitigation for passage and screening, about
9

which I have just spoken. That funding is quite important to allow

us to go forward. We are certainly appreciative of the congressional

support for the program in that regard.

In conclusion, I would note that we are quite mindful of the importance and the magnitude of the task which lies before us, and

my written statement reflects a number of details in that regard.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Lohn, I am going to start with you. As we have already discussed today, a Federal judge has recently declared the 2000 Biological Opinion invalid on the Columbia River hydrosystem, and

basically gave your agency a year to rewrite the Biological Opinion.

The court’s decision specifically found that primarily the actions to

improve the nonmigratory habitats laid out in the plan were too

vague and were not reasonably certain to occur.

This, to me, would seemingly suggest at least two alternatives

during this rewrite period, and that is either we need to ensure

that these actions are reasonable and certain to occur or we need

to craft a plan with stronger measures addressed to these habitats

that are affecting the hydrosystem, or some combination of these

two alternatives. Can you just give me your plan right now for

where you are headed with regard to the new world we are approaching under the court’s order?

Mr. LOHN. I think you have captured the two alternatives correctly. Actually, we are looking at both. As to where we are headed,

as you know, these biological opinions have substantial technical

underpinnings. We are taking the modeling and the technical tools

we used last time, updating them with the most current information we have and looking at the results that will flow from that.

We expect that to take approximately 3 months and it is well underway at the moment.

Following that, we will step back and see what that information

is telling us as to whether or not we are still convinced that the

measures we are doing as we are seeing them evaluated in practice

are really the ones that are leading us to best success. The second

thing, Senator, that we are doing is developing a model to give us

greater precision in how we measure the effects of offsite mitigation, habitat improvements and the like. That is something where

I think we need to do a better job and we are moving forward on

that.

Along with that and parallel, the lawyers and others are working

carefully to determine how each of the existing RPAs, the 199 specific measures, do or do not meet Judge Redden’s standards for certainty and clarity, and what would be needed to in some instances

re-phrase or properly categorize those. So in effect, we are going

through the 1999 and determining which ones would fit these

standards.

We expect a major decision point to be, again, three to 4 months

from now when we have this information in front of us and look

at what counts, what value we have, and what we are able to

measure, and what the new science is showing us. At that time, I

think we will have a decision as to whether the current Biological

Opinion needs substantial amendment or whether in fact we need

to write one with a different foundation.
10

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

I personally believe that our objective in the Pacific Northwest

should be to restore the fish not just to the standards that the Endangered Species Act requires to avoid extinction, but to abundant,

self-sustaining, harvestable levels. With that goal in mind, what I

am going to refer to right now occurred before your tenure at

NMFS, and so I can say this without taking a personal shot at you,

but I have had some problems with NMFS over the last few years.

As the 2000 Biological Opinion was being developed, we held some

hearings here in Washington to get into that because frankly at the

time I felt that NMFS and the Federal Caucus were not working

collaboratively at all with the States and the tribes. Frankly, there

were decisions being made without the kind of collaboration and

input that needed to be happening in the Pacific Northwest. I was

very concerned about the 2000 Biological Opinion and what it was

going to contain.

When it came out, it was a done deal. Frankly, I was not too critical of it because I felt that at least we had something to work with

at the time and we needed to get going in trying to implement it.

I did feel that it created some political potential for problems down

the road in the way that it set up these mile-markers and that it

essentially set up a situation in which if we did not adequately

fund and implement its contents, that we could be facing serious

questions that the Biological Opinion avoided at the time.

The reason I go through that background with you is because we

are now at a time where perhaps we are going to be rewriting that

opinion. I want to be sure that NMFS does not follow the same

path that it followed before, to be honest with you, and that is to

leave the States and the tribes out of the process and to fail to conduct itself in a collaborative manner. Could you comment on that

please?

Mr. LOHN. Certainly. First of all, success, whether you are focusing only on endangered runs, and I agree that is the wrong focus.

Legally, of course, the Act takes us to part of that, but we do not

have to stop there. Whether you are focused on abundant runs, and

I accept that as something we should be looking at, in order to get

to success we have to rely not only on the efforts and knowledge,

but the support of people far away from the Federal family. This

is a regional effort, if we succeed. I will not be a Federal effort. We

have to provide the underpinnings, the funding, an outline, but we

need to draw on others.

In terms of how we get there from here, I think there are probably two elements. One, we do feel like we need to do a relatively

thoroughly technical analysis just to hone in on what seems to be

the problem. That we will do. The second question is, so as we look

at the activities to be undertaken or as we review our own technical analysis, how much do we involve others? That is something

that I am very interesting in reaching out to others. As I look at

it in a practical sense, I have to weigh that against the time allowed by the court and the desire to get an opinion completed. But

I will be very sensitive to that as we develop it, and I will look for

mechanisms to seek not only just regional review, but greater regional collaboration. I will be mindful of that.
11

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lohn. I appreciate

your commitment on that. I realize that you do not know exactly

the kind of timeframes and dynamics you will be working within,

but I encourage you very strongly to remember the States and the

tribes in the process here this time around.

Let me go to one other aspect of this. It is my understanding that

the use of both independent and Federal, State and tribal scientific

analysis was very useful in the mid-to the late–1990’s. At that

point, I think we called it PATH or other scientific efforts were underway. I do not know that an exact reconvening of PATH is what

I am talking about, but maybe. But I am wondering how and when

you intend to include the State and tribal fisheries biologists in

this process, as well as stakeholders.

Mr. LOHN. Senator, I would agree that PATH had a value in developing an understanding of the models used. I am afraid I do not

share your same enthusiasm for some of the outcomes there. For

example, the model that was developed by the larger group of participants in PATH by the coalition of States and tribes probably

would have predicted that the runs we are now seeing were impossible. That is not to fault the process. It is simply to say there was

both a process to understand and various agreements on modeling

tools.

We did not get to complete agreement on modeling tools, and I

am not suggesting our model was more perfect than the others. But

I think in making decisions, it is difficult to get the scientific community united on a single model. I am willing to try to be open and

transparent about what we are using and allow advice about the

adequacy or criticisms of that to come in. I am not sure that what

was attempted there was almost a model developed by committee,

and it ultimately led to a division of models, rather than an integration of models.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I appreciate your response on that.

I think my main objective here is to see that the States and tribal

fisheries, biologists and their information is incorporated. This gets

back to my other point about the fact that I felt last time around

that we had a closed-door process.

The BiOp looks at whether downriver smolt migration is helped

or hurt by summer spill. Do you know what the status is of the research on that, and are there any preliminary findings?

Mr. LOHN. Senator, that has been the subject of active discussion. Certainly, our planning council has suggested that we re-look

at that. I agree we need to. The problem with summer spill is that

in summer you have primarily fall chinook migrating. They are fish

that are not necessarily on a fast track to the ocean, but will sort

of spiral there, taking time to rear, choosing later to migrate. So

the value of spill to those fish is probably less than it is to spring

migrants who are looking for fast passage.

What we have determined is that in many instances late summer

spill in particular is known to be relatively costly and the biological

benefits are relatively low. That is, the number of fish aided by it

are a small percentage of the run. The question is, is there a better

way to achieve those biological benefits? That is really the heart of

the discussion we need to have. I know there is interest in looking

at it this year, and we are looking at what better alternatives we
12

might have to help those fish. So I agree it is an important question.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

I just want to go into one more thing with you, and I will probably go into this issue with each of the witnesses so you can play

close attention here and start formulating your own answers. By

way of prelude, one of the contentions that I have had over the

years is that although we have a significant commitment of resources from the rate-payers in the region to salmon and steelhead

recovery, and I think that is appropriate and I will be talking with

Mr. Wright about that in a minute, I also believe that it is entirely

appropriate and in fact necessary for the Federal Government to

weigh in much more heavily in other contexts with support from

the Federal budget.

The reason I say that is the actions that we are undertaking here

are being undertaken under the United States Endangered Species

Act, which is a policy that the U.S. Government has decided to implement in the entire country, and in this case in the region. Because we are accomplishing an objective that is not only important

to us in the Northwest, but as a part of Federal policy it is proper

that these mandates from the Federal Government be funded. It

gets back into the unfunded mandates aspect of the debates we

have been having here for a long time.

As you may know, I am sure you do, I have proposed a level of

Federal support for funding of salmon and steelhead recovery that

is far higher and above what the current level is, although I have

to applaud the Administration for its significant increases in support over the last couple of years. I am going to continue working

to lay the foundation to make the case to our Congress and to our

President that we need, even in these difficult budget times, to step

up to the bar and make certain that we provide the level of support

for salmon and steelhead recovery that is necessary.

So my question is, in the first place, do you agree that there is

a role for strong Federal support for these resources to be put into

effect?

Mr. LOHN. Senator, I very much agree. Of course, I realize there

are difficult budget decisions to be made within the Administration.

At the end of the day, I need to support them. But without the very

substantial support of yourself and other Members of Congress, we

would not have made anywhere near the progress that we have

made. It is critical.

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that. My next question is one which

may be encouraging you to climb out on a limb, and I would understand if you feel that you cannot answer this question, but I know

that in the court’s order, the court stated that one of the concerns

the court had was that it was not clear at all that the funding for

all of the Biological Opinion was going to be available, whether it

be Federal funding or whether it be support from States and tribes

and others that were expected in the Opinion. Do you believe that

the level of Federal funding support is adequate?

Mr. LOHN. Senator, for the very short term, which I must admit

is where I am focused at the moment, realizing that I am more interested in what we need to do to get through the next year while

we are revising the Opinion, and then I think we will have a much
13

better idea of what is required. For the short term, if we can get

the RM&E funding, I think we are at an adequate level. For the

long term, it is difficult to say. What would make the picture clearer are two things. One, when we finish the further analysis, we will

have a better idea of what matters and what doesn’t. Two, I cannot

overemphasize the importance of sub-basin planning. In effect, at

a watershed level, that is identifying the problems that need fixing.

At that point, as they become specifically identified, we have a

much better picture of costs.

Having said that, I have no doubt that long term, the cost of addressing those problems will be significant and require expenditures that are perhaps higher than the ones we are making.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lohn. I appreciate

your forthright responses to my questions. I am confident that the

level we are going to need to provide is much higher than what we

are providing. I look forward to working with you in trying to obtain those levels of support.

Mr. Wright, let me turn to you and let’s talk about the Bonneville Power Administration’s role in all of this. First of all, could

you go over with me, one of the issues that I know you are aware

has been out there is the fact that with the difficult economic pressures that have been facing the Bonneville Power Administration

in the energy arena and others has caused, I will put it in my

words, a justifiable effort to look at how you can control costs within your own budget and then, as you know or as you have testified,

propose a rate increase and manage the budget that you are dealing with. In this context, it is my understanding that the resources

available for salmon recovery have actually gone down. Could you

give me your perspective on that?

Mr. WRIGHT. I suppose I do have a different view of that. My perspective is that if you look at the accrual amounts, there has been

an increase in funding going back to, recall, Senator, I think you

were involved in the memorandum of agreement of 1996 that established the funding levels that Bonneville would provide for its

overall fish and wildlife efforts. There was a steady increase there,

with an average amount that was across the 1996–2001 period for

the direct program of a little less than $100 million a year. The direct program, which is the offsite habitat hatcheries and those

sorts of efforts, we are currently funded at above $135 million for

2002 and are headed, with the agreement that we have worked out

with the Council toward a similar sort of level for this coming year

for 2003. So I see an increase in funding there.

What we are seeking to do is manage the budget that we assure

that we do not exceed the levels that we had anticipated. That is

particularly important to us because we are struggling with our finances and trying to maintain liquidity. Things look a lot better

now than they did a few months ago in terms of that. But we are

also trying to keep the size of our rate increase as low as possible.

We believe that level of funding does meet our objectives consistent

with statute.

Senator CRAPO. The level, if I understand it, is, and I want you

to make sure I get it correct here, but the level that has been

reached is $139 million, but as I understand it, it is not expected

that there would be any fluctuation above that.
14

Mr. WRIGHT. That is what we are trying to, is manage the budget. Where we were headed earlier this year, in a letter that I sent

to the Power Planning Council about a year and a half ago, it indicated we would provide $150 million in expense money, which

turns out to be $139 million in accruals. For the $139 million level,

it appeared earlier this year that we were headed toward spending

closer to $180 million this year.

Our concern was it was unclear whether that was a spike or a

plateau. If it was going to be a plateau, then we were going to

greatly exceed the average of $139 million through the period. So

that is when we went to the Council and said we need to do something with respect to the spending for this year and try and make

sure that we are not going to exceed the $139 million average

across the period. We did also ask the Council as to whether it

would be possible to find efficiencies in the program and spend less

than $139 million a year.

Senator CRAPO. It seems to me that you are facing, I understand,

very difficult financial pressures because of the market and how

things have developed. Obviously, you are getting pressure from

every quarter, in your cost control efforts, not to control the costs

in their quarter. But it seems to me that salmon and steelhead recovery is one of those areas where it is going to be very difficult

to justify either putting a cap on the necessary requirements that

the Biological Opinion may impose, or reducing them. That is just

my personal opinion.

The question I have is, have you given consideration to some

other source of accounting for the salmon and steelhead recovery

portion of your budget? What I am getting at here is, have you considered something like setting up a restoration fund that is managed differently so that it is protected from the vagaries of other

market pressures and the like?

Mr. WRIGHT. That proposal has come to us in the past. It is difficult to figure how to do that because the Bonneville fund is a separate fund at the United States Treasury. We manage that fund as

a whole fund and are expected to manage it in that way. Having

said that, I think that the issue that fish and wildlife interests

have raised, and it is a legitimate issue, is the predictability of

funding from Bonneville; that there was a certain amount of predictability that came with the memorandum of agreement from

1996 to 2001, and there has been less predictability, I candidly

admit, with respect to where we are today, particularly given the

financial difficulties that we have encountered.

Where we have expressed a willingness to discuss with folks is,

can we move forward with something. It may not be the same as

the old MOA, which was a document that probably had 50 to 100

pages in it, but can we provide more predictability with respect to

funding on a going forward basis. That is a discussion that we are

interested in having. It was called for by the four Governors and

their recommendations. We are supportive of that recommendation

and want to figure out how to do that.

I will say that there are probably two parts to that. The first is

how we move through the remainder of this rate period, through

2006, and then longer term, where we go post–2006. In that regard, the Governors made another set of recommendations that I
15

thought was extremely important, and that is defining clear objectives for us, not just for our Endangered Species Act goals, but also

Northwest Power Act objectives. I think if we can create clarity

with respect to ratepayers that here are our objectives and we are

steadily moving toward accomplishing those objectives, it will create greater support, more broad support, let’s say, across the

Northwest for this program, which I think would be a good thing.

Senator CRAPO. I tend to agree with you, that if we can get that

kind of certainty. A part of this I think gets back right into the

court case, because as part of the court case is the concern about

reasonable certainty or reasonable likelihood of the activities of the

Biological Opinion to occur relates to whether there is funding for

them. And if we have a static system which is not responsive necessarily to the needs of the Biological Opinion, I think it raises a

legitimate question as to whether we can give certainty to the Biological Opinion.

On the other hand, I realized, and that is what I was talking to

Mr. Lohn about, that in my opinion there should be much more to

this than just the ratepayer aspect of the resources that are coming

into the system. We have to get both figured out and we have to

get both on a track where we as the public and those of us in policy

positions and those in implementation positions are aware of what

is expected, so that we can plug it in, and then start building the

public support and confidence for it.

In that context, if I understood what you said, you are willing to

work with the States, the tribes and the other members of the Federal family to put together some kind of an approach where we can

get a handle on it, or another MOU if necessary, on how we will

approach salmon and steelhead funding in the BPA portion of the

budget.

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I am. Let me say that that is an important

thing for us. I think we do need to accomplish that and I would

like to get it done. I do need to say, as I said in my oral testimony,

that there are some expectations out there with respect to level of

funding from Bonneville which I think is beyond our ability to provide. So a critical part here is the balance between meeting our objectives, Northwest Power Act, ESA, tribal trust responsibilities,

along with balancing the needs of the regional economy.

Senator CRAPO. I think that is correct. In fact, the General Accounting Office’s testimony at the recent Senate Indian Affairs

Committee hearing, and I believe you were at that hearing or testified at that hearing, their report highlighted what they called the

inherent conflict between BPA’s role as a supplier of economic electricity and as a protector or restorer of fish and wildlife. I think

that is what we have been talking about here, is when you get

budget pressures and financial pressures like we are seeing in today’s market, that inherent conflict that you have to manage becomes very difficult. It seems to me that that conflict is likely to

grow in coming years as power demands bump up against increased salmon and steelhead protection needs.

That is why I have proposed that you evaluate something like a

separate fund or some kind of a specific structure that will enable

you and all of us to identify over a multi-year period, and I am

talking about working with the States and the tribes and the Coun-
16

cil and others to put this together, but it will help us all to build

that partnership going forward and it will give us the certainty

that we can then have to work toward building the rest of the

pieces to this so that we have the resources committed to the salmon and steelhead that we need committed. So I appreciate your approach to that.

Mr. WRIGHT. If I could just add one thing, Senator.

Senator CRAPO. Yes?

Mr. WRIGHT. First of all, I hope what you heard from me is I do

not quite know a way to do a separate fund, but I do think there

is a way to do an MOA which I think will meet the objectives that

you are talking about. If I could just say, though, with respect to

the inherent conflict, there is an inherent conflict. There are a

number of conflicts. We share the conflicts with our partners here.

It is not just power and fish. It is navigation, irrigation, flood control and all of the things that we have to do in the system. I do

not believe that because there is inherent conflict means that it

can’t be done. These are a set of objectives that the Congress has

laid out for us. It is possible to satisfy these different objectives.

That is our goal and to figure out a way to meet them all.

Senator CRAPO. I certainly agree with you. I don’t know how

many times I have gone through the list of the various things that

the Columbia and Snake River systems provide for the people in

the Pacific Northwest, but it is everything from power to wildlife

and fish and environment, to flood control, to recreation, to economic development, to irrigation, and the list just goes on and on.

It is management of all of these critical aspects of our life in the

Pacific Northwest that makes this such a difficult and yet such an

important issue.

I certainly take my hat off to all of you and those in the room

and throughout the country who have been putting so much of your

life into this effort. I just want to continue to work with you on

that, in the hope that we can build it so that it works out in a way

that we can get the resources to the fish. I suppose one of the

things that I am angling at here with regard to all aspects of this

problem is that we have an Endangered Species Act that sets a

Federal policy that the salmon and steelhead need to be protected

and recovered and the court order is putting an exclamation point

on this. We have got make sure we have the resources to do it and

the plan that will make it happen. That is the primary purpose of

this hearing, which is to again focus on that.

Let me ask you, do you think it would be helpful in this process

as we approach the issue if your decisionmaking, and Mr. Lohn I

might come back to you for an answer to this same question, if you

had a clearer economic analysis than we have today that illustrated the economic benefits that the salmon and steelhead provide

to the economy and to the region, as well as, you know, we always

talk about them in terms of our environmental heritage. I know

there have been a lot of studies and a lot of talk about having studies with regard to what they mean economically, but do you believe

that having a thorough study of the economic meaning of restoring

our salmon and steelhead would be of benefit as we put together

this plan and this approach?
17

Mr. WRIGHT. I have to admit that that is a question that I have

not given a lot of thought to. So I am not sure that I have real

clear thoughts on it. I do know that there was a lot of work that

went into the Corps EIS on removal of the Snake River dams that

got to economic benefits of recreation, including fisheries. That has

been useful to us, at least as we have thought about these issues.

I think at least the starting point would be, what did we have

there and is there something that we would use to buildupon that.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Mr. Lohn, what would your thoughts be on that?

Mr. LOHN. Senator, I would be very enthusiastic in support of

that, because I share your belief, setting aside the ESA issues, that

an investment in a more abundant fishery, something that provides

a real basis for the local infrastructure and those who would go out

to enjoy the fish and to harvest them, my suspicion is that that

would provide benefits that far exceed the costs. Having a study

that begins to demonstrate that would be valuable.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wright, I just have one last question and it is coming back

to the question of summer spill. The question is, what is the lost

revenue value of summer spill? Do you know?

Mr. WRIGHT. It is substantial. In an average water year, it is probably in the $65 million to $80 million range. If market prices

were to stay where they are today, this year it could be in excess

of $100 million.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Knieriemen, you mentioned that one of the key aspects of

what you do is made possible by the budget that the Congress and

the President provide to you. I think in your testimony you encouraged our support of that budget, and I want to strongly tell you

that at least I personally strongly support the budget, and I am

going to be doing what I can to increase and strengthen not only

that budget, but the other budgets of the Federal agencies.

I want to come back to that question I said I was going to get

to with all the panel, and that is, do you agree, and I suppose that

your testimony already indicates agreement, but do you agree that

there is a strong needed role for Federal dollars to be coming into

our salmon and steelhead recovery process?

Mr. KNIERIEMEN. Yes, sir, I do. I think it is absolutely imperative

that we have a Federal contribution, that the Federal family take

the lead in trying to do what is necessary to not only recover, but

to, as you so aptly put it, make abundant the fish species that are

endangered right now.

Senator CRAPO. Again, I will ask you that question that you are

welcome to take a pass on if you don’t feel you are in a position

to be able to answer, but that is, do you feel that the current level

of commitment is adequate?

Mr. KNIERIEMEN. To be truthful with you, if we are basing our

numbers on the 2000 Biological Opinion, we believe our numbers

are adequate to do what is necessary to bring the species back from

the brink of extinction. But the question that really begs to be

asked is how will the Biological Opinion change a year from now,

and what are the actions that are going to be required to implement that, and that may be more expensive, we don’t know. That
18

is reading a crystal ball that I don’t have a very good ability to do,

sir.

Senator CRAPO. I can appreciate that. I thank you for taking a

stab at that tough question. It is always tough to put someone in

your position on the spot with regard to whether we have done

enough from our side of the podium here to do it.

Just another quick question. As I am sure you are aware, several

months ago the salmon advocacy folks published their annual report card that indicated that they felt that the Biological Opinion

was not proceeding very well. Can you explain the significant discrepancy between what the action agencies are saying in their testimony here today, and I am talking about mostly the written materials that we have received, and the salmon report card that

came out?

Mr. KNIERIEMEN. Sir, I believe maybe Mr. Lohn could answer

that a little better than I could. If he would be so willing to help

me with this.

Senator CRAPO. Bob, do you want to help out here?

Mr. LOHN. Senator, I thought the Colonel was doing just fine.

[Laughter.]

Mr. LOHN. Sir, a couple of comments about that. First of all,

much of that report was keying off of some cost estimates that

were sort of back-of-the-envelope cost estimates developed very

early on regarding the 2000 Biological Opinion. Those were rough

estimates without really knowing what needed to take place in specific areas. They were just guesses of we might need to do so many

examples of this thing, and this thing might cost a certain amount.

In effect, one of the conclusions drawn by that report card was that

not enough is being done because this level of money is not being

spent. I suppose I would be more cautious than that because my

desire is to see what really needs to be done, to measure it and

identify it, and then attach a cost to it. I would say it is way too

early to determine that.

The second observation is that that report card judged the BiOp

I think in ways that were premature, perhaps unfair. It first of all

looked at, the BiOp called for a series of things to take place over

10 years. The report card judged it as if all of those things should

be done now, and so found fault in a number of areas that were

not completed. In fact, of the as I recall 127 examples of things

that the BiOp required to be done by a specific deadline and that

deadline has passed, our review showed that all but seven of them

were essentially on track. So we reached different conclusions than

that.

Finally, Senator, an important difference was that in some instances the report used things that were set up in the Biological

Opinion not as requirements, but goals, and determined even

though those goals were acknowledged when they were set as

things that you could not meet every year, the report basically declared a failure if, for example, all of the resources of the FCRPS

had been used to deliver all of the available water to reduce temperatures in the Snake River, and at the end of it, having done all

that could be done, the temperatures were not low, that report basically said that is a failure. We would say, no, holding the temperatures low was a target, but the Biological Opinion was specific
19

that you could only use the water that existed, and beyond that

failure to sort of refrigerate the water of the Snake River was not

a practical failure of the BiOp.

So for a series of reasons, I think we would reach a different conclusion. Nonetheless, I take it as a prod to say folks are watching.

They are concerned about whether we are making progress and we

have an obligation to report accurately and honestly to the public

as to whether we are making that progress. So I take that side constructively.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lohn.

Mr. McDonald, let me come to you now and ask you the question

that I have been asking everybody else, and that is, do you agree

with my contention that there is a strong role for Federal resources

to be put into the system for salmon and steelhead recovery?

Mr. MCDONALD. I certainly do, Senator. As I indicated in my testimony, both oral and written, the Administration has been very

supportive of expanding our program in the last 3 years to undertake new activities required of us under the RPA.

Senator CRAPO. Do you feel that the current level of budget support that you are getting from the Federal budget is adequate?

Mr. MCDONALD. Very much so.

Senator CRAPO. Let me ask you also, you had mentioned in your

testimony Senator Smith’s legislation. Can you explain that to me

in a little more detail?

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. The key feature of the legislation introduced by Senator Smith is that it would provide Reclamation with

the authority to itself construct, or to provide financial assistance

to private parties to construct, fish passage and fish screening on

their non–Federal water diversion structures when Reclamation determines that it is an activity we need to undertake to avoid jeopardizing a species under a biological opinion, either for the FCRPS

Opinion that is in place, or for opinions on any other reclamation

projects located in Oregon or Washington. We have other consultations underway and it is conceivable that the concept of offsite

mitigation might apply in those other consultations.

Senator CRAPO. And does this apply only to Oregon and Washington?

Mr. MCDONALD. That is the way the bill was introduced, yes.

The Reclamation projects located in the Snake River basin in

Idaho, and in Eastern Oregon for that matter, are not covered by

this legislation.

Senator CRAPO. Are you aware of whether any opposition to this

legislation has been raised? I am thinking particularly, I don’t recall the specifics, but something is going on in the back of my mind

that some of the water users had some concerns about this issue.

Mr. MCDONALD. The water users had two or three reactions to

the bill proposed by the Administration. One was that the water

users under reclamation projects in Idaho did not want to be covered by the bill. That has been addressed by the form of the bill

introduced by Senator Smith. Probably the second principal issue

has been about the cost-sharing formula. The Administration’s proposal would have requires 35 percent non–Federal cost sharing.

The bill introduced by Senator Smith makes it a 100 percent Rec-
20

lamation cost. Those were the two major comments that I think the

Senator received from water user constituencies.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. I do have a lot more questions, but this day is rapidly getting away from us and we need to

get on to the other witnesses. I want to again thank all of you, not

only for your preparation for and attendance here at the hearing

today, but also for your efforts. I look forward to working with you

on these issues.

Thank you.

We will call up our second panel. While they are coming up, I

will announce who they are. The first member of the panel is Mr.

Michael Bogert, who is counsel to the Governor of the State of

Idaho, Governor Dirk Kempthorne. Our second witness is Ms. Judi

Danielson, who is the Chairperson of the Northwest Power Planning Council; and third, Mr. Steve Huffaker, on behalf of the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Authority. Again, three more folks

who have been giving significant parts of their life to this effort.

I appreciate not only that, but your effort to be here and prepared

to present testimony today.

Mr. Bogert, if you are ready, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF L. MICHAEL BOGERT, COUNSEL, ON BEHALF

OF GOVERNOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be remiss if I did

not begin by saying how much we have appreciated in Idaho working with Sharla Moffett Beall, who is going back to her home State

of Oregon. She has been a great resource and an asset for us, Mr.

Chairman. I know this is her second to the last hearing for you,

and she is moving back to beloved Oregon and we will miss her

dearly.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Before we start your time, I will say

I appreciated her too. I just don’t appreciate her going back to Oregon.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the committee

through a PowerPoint presentation on the Four Governors Recommendations that has been referred to by the prior panel. I apologize in advance if the pace of this slide presentation begins to look

like the Indy 500, but I am sensitive to the time.

Senator CRAPO. Go for it.

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to provide you with a

brief overview, a brief discussion of the recommendations that were

directed toward fish and wildlife recovery as well as Bonneville

Power Administration. And then I want to take you through the

Commitment of the Governors portion of the agreement.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the context of the recent June 5 meeting

was an effort by Governor Kempthorne to reach out to two new

Governors who were not parties to the July 2000 agreement. We

were pleased to host Governor Kulongoski and Governor Martz

over in Boise on the fifth of June.

The meeting occurred less than a month after Judge Redden

made his decision in the National Wildlife Federation case. The

process had been underway far before then and the Governors decided that this was an appropriate time to not necessarily revise
21

the old document, but perhaps take a new look at some other aspects to the first Four Governors’ Agreement.

The themes, Mr. Chairman, are first, a very strong commitment

to the All–H approach with a very strong statement on avoiding

dam breaching at all costs. Second, Mr. Chairman, the Governors

discussed Biological Opinion coverage, which is very much at issue

in light of the litigation. Third, fish and wildlife restoration—the

document before was very much focused on anadromous fish, but

this was particularly due to Governor Martz’s leadership on the

fish and wildlife piece. And finally, what we have already discussed

today—concern over BPA’s financial condition.

There are four separate pieces on the fish and wildlife restoration: fish and wildlife recovery, Federal agency funding, a statement by the Governors as it pertains to fish and wildlife programs,

and results, not more process.

Dealing with the fish and wildlife recovery, the Governors renewed their commitment to the All–H approach, which included a

very strong renewal and path forward on sub-basin planning which

is already underway. Addressing recovery planning, the Governors

made a very strong statement that they are hopeful that the Federal recovery planning process in the sub-basin plans be consistent.

Addressing recovery goals, the Governors asked that there be significant coordination between the technical recovery teams that are

already in place, Mr. Chairman, and the sub-basin planning that

is going on among the States. As you know, ESA assurances are

very important to our folks in Idaho. The Governors spent some

specific time addressing this and made a very strong statement

about incentives to participate in ESA processes.

With respect to monitoring and accountability, the Governors indicated that they are hopeful that there will be an integrated and

complementary monitoring system that includes research priorities.

On the Federal agency funding, the Governors were very strong

on continuing support for Federal action agency projects that have

All–H components in them. And something that you would be interested in, Mr. Chairman, the Governors strongly supported additional congressional funding as a region, for all the States.

Specifically, on the fish and wildlife programs, the Governors

strongly endorsed the Council’s fish and wildlife program, including

the recent mainstem amendments, and our Chair will be speaking

to that shortly. This was something that came up as well, Mr.

Chairman, that the Governors called for a new funding agreement,

and there was some prior discussion in an effort to make sure that

we all in the States know that we have some certainty with respect

to our project funding.

The Governors are grumpy about the process. They, too, Mr.

Chairman, share your concern about results on the ground. They

have asked that the Power Council prepare a report to the Governors on the status of the action items that the Governors have

called for in the 2000 Recommendations. This was actually an innovative recommendation. They have asked the Federal consulting

agencies for a State-by–State report on BiOp implementation by

the States.

This was already touched on earlier, Mr. Chairman, but the Recommendations very much have a theme that the Governors are
22

strongly supportive of maintaining the integrity and the benefits of

Bonneville to the region, this is our asset, this is our regional asset

and we strongly want to solve our own problems. The pieces to

that, Mr. Chairman, are protection of the regional and national

economy, and a clarification of BPA’s future in transmissions.

Addressing the regional and national economy, the Governors

have asked that the parties continue to stay at the table with Bonneville, the publics and privates that are currently in discussion

over the allocation of BPA’s benefits. They asked that BPA, in consultation with the Council, report to the Governors on the status

of what the Administrator was just talking about with respect to

his internal management review.

Addressing BPA’s future, the Governors asked for a continued regional dialog that be re-initiated between the Council and BPA on

long-term sustainability, and that that agenda, Mr. Chairman, include among others long-term contracts and what you raised earlier in terms of meeting fish and wildlife responsibilities.

Finally, the Bonneville piece ends with the commitment by the

Governors that if there is any restructuring of transmission by

FERC or those on Capitol Hill, that it must be compatible with the

infrastructure already in place at Bonneville and that those benefits be maintained in the region.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the document concludes with a commitment by the Governors for a balanced approach, that no one is an

advocate of power over salmon recovery or fish or vice versa. There

is a strong statement again to reinforce that all the avenues need

to be exhausted before dam breaching even becomes an option. The

Governors were very strong in terms of outside folks taking a look

into the affairs of BPA, and finally, a renewed commitment to protect the benefits of BPA within the region.

Mr. Chairman, that is my testimony.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I did not see any way you

were going to make it through all of that in 5 minutes. I appreciate

your being able to do it.

Ms. Danielson?

STATEMENT OF JUDI DANIELSON, CHAIRPERSON,

NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

Ms. DANIELSON. Thank you very much for the invitation, Mr.

Chairman.

Mindful of the time that we have here, the issues that Michael

Bogert brought up concerning some of the Council’s activities in the

mainstem are covered more in depth in our written testimony.

Senator CRAPO. And that is very good testimony and will be very

helpful and it is reviewed. So thank you.

Ms. DANIELSON. Good morning again, Senator Crapo, and thank

you for the opportunity to testify here today on implementation of

the NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion on hydropower operations for Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and steelhead in

the Columbia River Basin. I am Judi Danielson and I chair the

Northwest Power Planning Council. The Council is an agency of

the four Northwest States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Council was created by the State legislatures in 1981

under the authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Plan-
23

ning and Conservation Act which the Congress approved in December 1980.

The Power Act directs the Council to prepare a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River

Basin that have been affected by hydropower dams, while also assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and

reliable electric power supply. The Council implements the Power

Act through two broad integrated planning processes. One process

is for a Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan and the

other is for a Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Today, I will focus specifically on how the program incorporates

elements of the 2000 Biological Opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries

for four Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Kootenai River white sturgeon

and bull trout. The Council committed in its 2000 revision of its

fish and wildlife program to pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other Federal, State, tribal, Canadian and

volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs.

The Council also committed to use sub-basin planning to identify

coordination needs and opportunities that arise from the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and also water and land

management objectives affecting fish and wildlife. In this way, our

program funding can be used to coordinate activities that address

various legal requirements and provide the maximum benefit to

fish and wildlife.

It is important to point out that even though the Power Act is

a Federal law, the Council is not a Federal agency. Our fish and

wildlife program is not a recovery plan for purposes of the Endangered Species Act. The Council develops the program and recommends projects to implement. Consistent with a specific directive of the Power Act, these projects are funded by the Bonneville

Power Administration from the revenues it collects from electricity

customers. Implementation of the Council’s fish and wildlife program does not depend on consultations among Federal agencies or

appropriations by Congress or Federal agencies.

The caveat to this is while Bonneville pays for most of the salmon recovery and mitigation efforts in the Columbia River Basin,

some actions required by the BiOp address problems that were not

caused by the hydrosystem. Therefore, electricity ratepayers should

not be fiscally responsible for them. These actions include, for example, research needed to address some of the key scientific uncertainties identified in the BiOp. Last year, Congress denied a request for $10 million for these Federal mandates. We urge Congress to provide funding for them through the NOAA Fisheries

budget, which I think Director Lohn indicated was $15 million this

year. The Council’s program is the only other source of funding and

it should be reserved for actions that respond to hydrosystem impacts to avoid unintentional consequences of that system.

I have four main points to make today, and I am not going to

get them all out, either.

[Laughter.]

First of all, I am optimistic about the partnership between the

local, State, Federal and tribal governments that has developed to
24

implement the Council’s fish and wildlife program and elements of

the Biological Opinion.

Second, the Northwest Act authorizes Bonneville through the

Council’s fish and wildlife program to utilize offsite mitigation to

accomplish the purposes of protecting, mitigating and enhancing

fish and wildlife affected by hydropower systems.

Third, we are moving ahead with the sub-basin plans as a means

of identifying specific fish and wildlife needs in each of the 62 subbasins in the Columbia River Basin.

And fourth, the Council consistently has complied with the budgets established by Bonneville for implementing our fish and wildlife

program, including significant funding reductions for 2003.

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to implement and move ahead

with protection mitigation and enhancement of all fish and wildlife

in the region affected by the hydroelectric system.

Thank you very much for allowing me this time.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And your written testimony, even

though you did not get to cover it all, is here, it has been reviewed,

and we will be going over it. So I appreciate your watching the

clock.

Mr. Huffaker?

STATEMENT OF STEVE HUFFAKER, ON BEHALF OF THE

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Mr. HUFFAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for

your ongoing interest in this very important project.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Mr. HUFFAKER. I am here to represent the Columbia Basin Fish

and Wildlife Authority. The Authority is composed of 14 Indian Nations, four States and two Federal agencies, and we work by consensus. I think you know how difficult it is to reach consensus with

that many groups working together. So what I will say here reflects that consensus.

The Columbia and Snake Rivers used to produce 10 million to 16

million anadromous fish and other resident fish and wildlife benefits. After hydro development and the development of the Columbia

River, we currently stand at about one million fish and a lot of

other social benefits in the form of cheap electricity, navigation,

flood control and other things that go with development. But in

passing the Northwest Power Planning Act of 1980, the Federal

Government made a promise to the fish and wildlife resources of

the region to mitigate the losses that occurred due to the hydro development; all the losses, not just the ones that were attributable

to the listing of endangered species.

There are a lot of management plans in the region currently. Obviously, NOAA Fisheries has a recovery plan for listed salmon. The

Fish and Wildlife Service has recovery plans for bull trout and

sturgeon. We have the Northwest Power Planning Council program, the Fish and Wildlife plans. Sub-basin planning is a very important process. We have tribal plans and State wildlife agency

plans. All those need to come together.

I think the Four Governors document gives a very good template

for the broad over-arching needs for what to do. But all those plans

in order to be effective have to have three things. They have to be
25

coordinated and the implementers of those plans need to have accountability for what they said they were going to do. There needs

to be monitoring and evaluation. That is how we keep score. And

we have to have adequate funding and a commitment to that funding to get the job done.

In retrospect, it may have been naive in 1980 to think that Bonneville Power Administration could mitigate all the losses for the

development that has gone on in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Maybe the listing of so many species in the Northwest puts an exclamation point on that and correctly guides you to the conclusion

that the Federal agency budgets need to deal with the ESA. Maybe

that would free up Bonneville to deal with the broader mitigation

responsibilities that are under the supervision and direction of the

Power Planning Council.

I note that some of the Federal agencies have not been very well

represented in the Northwest salmon arena, although they do a lot

of work for salmon. Particularly the Department of Agriculture

agencies have not been significant players, and perhaps it is time

for them to step up and maybe to expand the GAO audit to look

at what everybody does in the Northwest for salmon. NRCS, the

Forest Service, BLM, they all spend a lot of money on salmon and

maybe identifying and clarifying those roles and responsibilities

across all the agencies would be insightful.

The agencies and tribes have developed and the four Governors

and the Power Council have endorsed a monitoring and evaluation

plan for how to keep track of benefits to fish and wildlife. We just

need to get on with that and get it adequately funded and put it

in place.

I can’t completely let Bonneville off the hook. They may need

some help, but I think they need to also look inwardly, Senator,

and I will note that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers a

$150 million Federal aid program to 50 States and as far out into

the Pacific as Guam, with an overhead of $3 million a year. So

maybe somewhere between where Bonneville currently funds their

overhead costs of the fish and wildlife program and where the Fish

and Wildlife Services does it, there could be some room for improvements there.

Defined and measurable results committed through a repeat of

the 1996 to 2001 MOA among Federal agencies, and perhaps expand it to additional agencies would I think help clarify for Congress and for ratepayers and for the citizens of the Northwest what

all is going on for salmon. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife

Authority, the agencies and tribes, would be happy to help in any

way we can help to bring that about.

Senator I will save you a couple of minutes.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much. You get extra

credit for saving a little time there.

I should announce to everybody that we expecting to have a vote

on the floor at 11 o’clock a.m., which is going to come before I am

done questioning this panel. So when that happens, what I will do

is recess. I think it is only one vote so it should not take long. We

will take a short break right then, and then we will come back and

then continue.
26

Let me start out with you, Mr. Bogert. Let me first of all just

go over some of the questions I have been going over with the

members of the other panel. That is, do you agree that there is a

strong role for Federal support? I think I saw it in your PowerPoint

presentation, but I want to have you say it again.

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, of course, because for us to assess

the habitat improvement activities specifically that we have undertaken through the sub-basin planning process and that we have

had funded through the Council’s recommendations, we view that

as essential in continuing the course for the projects and for the

needs.

Let me answer it this way, Mr. Chairman. Judge Redden ruled

that all of those activities were not reasonably certain to occur. As

I briefed him on the decision, and he is fiercely proud of the fact

that he is not a lawyer, he said, ‘‘Let me get this straight. All of

those projects that we have been doing for the last two and a half

years, this judge held were not reasonably certain to occur?’’ In his

mind, and this is a very strong theme of the four Governors, we

said are staying the course; we want Biological Opinion coverage

for the agencies; we are going to stay the course; and we will work

with our friends on the Hill to make sure that we can maintain the

continuity of our projects.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. In that context, I noted in the presentation you made, that the Governors are recommending that

there would be not only support for Federal agency budgets that

include the All H projects, but also support for funding to the

States. Are you talking about something that does not exist right

now? In other words, like us creating a Northwest fund that the

States would administer?

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have seen the authorization legislation come out of the House for the Pacific Coast

salmon recovery money.

Senator CRAPO. Right.

Mr. BOGERT. That is an effort that we have long looked at. I

know the Governor has spoken with you extensively about this. As

we move through that process, that should be included. Indeed,

that was one of the themes of the region, making sure that there

is strong support among the States to be included in the Pacific

Coast salmon funding process. That is something that we would be

looking at immediately, and there seems to be some effort to authorize the State of Idaho to be a part of that.

Senator CRAPO. As you know, we have tried that for several

years now. We are going to keep trying and hopefully we will have

success here in the Senate one of these days.

I have toyed around in my own mind and in discussion with

other senators of creating an additional fund. Part of the problem

we have with that fund is that in difficult budget times, as we all

face in terms of budget pressures, the States who are already participating in that fund do not want to see their shares reduced by

adding another State in. We don’t have an easy way to find another

piece of revenue to stick in there so that nobody gets hurt in terms

of the fund.

I know we are working in creative ways to solve that, but I have

also toyed around with the idea of creating another fund so that
27

States do not have to think they are getting short shrift of anything that is currently existing, and then trying to simply begin the

process of finding the resources for that fund. I assume the Governors would be supportive of something like that as well.

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, yes. I think this touches upon something Mr. McDonald mentioned in the last panel. I think some of

the issues that our Idahoans have had with the proposed legislation is that we paused to consider Federalizing ESA implementation in the State of Idaho, to the extent that one of Judge Redden’s

concern was funding for this, a commitment to move forward for

improvement, but not necessarily bringing in every action agency

under Section 7 to get everything done where we want to

incentivize this to private parties. We think that the funding

source and the availability of dollars to get those things done on

the ground would certainly improve the State of Idaho’s position

vis-a-vis the rest of the region.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

Now, shifting to the Bonneville side of this, the ratepayers form

of the funding that comes, I also noted that there was a strong concern raised by the Governors with regard to the circumstances at

Bonneville. I guess I would just like you to elaborate on that a little bit. What would the Governors like to see happen with regard

to the fish and wildlife budget that comes out of Bonneville or the

overall financial picture relating to Bonneville?

Mr. BOGERT. First, the Governors want to keep our problems

within the region so that we can work through them, No. 1. So we

are fiercely protective of our asset. Second, I think the Governors,

and one of the themes that comes out of the document, are expecting, if the administrators are saying we are staying the course on

the Biological Opinion, at least implementation for the short term,

I think the Governors agree with that. The subset of that, Mr.

Chairman, is making sure that the commitments that we have

made to our Idahoans that we are going to get some work done for

them can continue throughout the years.

If we have multi-or off-year budgeting commitments, I think the

Governors strongly expressed some support for some certainty to

that for fish and wildlife as well, Mr. Chairman, for that full commitment. I think that they are expecting to hear shortly about the

interplay between that fish and wildlife commitment piece, the internal cost review that the Administrator just talked about, and

then the path forward for full implementation and staying the

course of the Biological Opinion.

Senator CRAPO. You heard Mr. Wright testify about the potential

of another memorandum of understanding or the like that could

help us get some handle on this entire issue. Do you support that?

And also maybe you could give me your thoughts about the proposal of creating a separate fund at Bonneville that handles these

issues.

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, to address your first question first,

I think the Governors spoke to a need to reconfigure the memorandum of understanding for that piece of certainty that we have

been speaking about all morning. The separate fund, Mr. Chairman, it is a piece that at least for us in Idaho has not necessarily

entered into the discussion, as far as I know. I know it did not spe-
28

cifically attract the attention of the Governors when we were addressing some of the recommendations to Bonneville, but I think it

is a proposition that is worthy of consideration in the region.

The concept, it seems to me, would lend to that commitment toward certainty that the Governors strongly believed and became a

part of the document a couple of weeks ago.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

I also noted in the presentation that the Governors are proposing

that we have a State-by–State BiOp implementation report from

the agencies, rather than a regional report. Could you flesh that

out a little bit?

Mr. BOGERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the idea was that while regionalization and a commitment is fundamentally a good idea and

that the Governors are committed to that approach, for us in

Idaho, for example, it would be extremely useful for us to be working with the consulting agencies to see how our piece of the 199

separate action items called for, which belonged to Idaho, and how

are we doing.

I think it is part of an overall effort for the Governors to

prioritize those things that are important to be implemented, and

are we being held accountable. I think the other context, Mr.

Chairman, is that all the work we are doing on the sub-basin planning must be consistent with some of the recovery planning that

is already being undertaken, and that the sum of the parts all add

up to what we are all striving for, which is restoration and recovery

of the species.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Just one last area of inquiry, and that is, in my questions of Mr.

Lohn, I indicated that over the last few years, primarily leading up

to the Biological Opinion in 2000, that I had some significant concerns. If I remember at the time, the Governors testified that they

had the same concerns about having adequate input into the process. Do you feel, of course this is just now starting again, potentially, with the court’s order, but I guess speaking for the Governors, do the Governors feel that they had adequate input the last

time around, and are they looking for some assurances that they

will have a role in the development of the path forward under the

court’s order?

Mr. BOGERT. Generally for the Governors, I think there was

some concern about continuing to be involved in the process at the

highest possible altitude. But Mr. Chairman, I can say that since

the December 2000 Biological Opinion was released, and given the

Council’s commitment to sub-basin planning, I can say that the

Idaho case study on this is one that has proven very worthwhile

and very valuable for us to develop a relationship with our fisheries folks, Mr. Huffaker’s crew at the Idaho Department of Fish

and Game, our tribes that have a treaty interest in the recovery

issue, and all of the private stakeholders.

The sub-basin planning process has proven to be a way to begin

a meaningful dialog of input, and that was clearly lacking, I think

Mr. Chairman, prior to the release of the 2000 Biological Opinion.

The short answer is, things have gotten better and we are greatly

encouraged by the present Administration and their approach.

Senator CRAPO. Good. I appreciate that.
29

You just heard the bells go off. I am informed that we have two

votes. So what I am going to do, these are 15 votes theoretically,

and so I am going to wait about 10 or 12 minutes before I leave,

and then I will try to go vote at the tail end of one vote and then

catch the next vote. So hopefully I won’t have to stay away and

keep us shut down for the total period of two votes.

Mr. Danielson, let me turn to you. Let me ask you that last question while we are on the same thing. Do you feel that your role,

the Power Council’s opportunity to have input into the decisionmaking is improved over what it has been in the last five or 6

years?

Ms. DANIELSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, having not been on the

Council from that vantage point, I would have to probably agree

that it has improved. Do we need more improvement? More than

likely we do in light of the BiOp that is in front of us. Regardless,

yes, I do think that there can never been too much communication

and collaboration.

Senator CRAPO. I want to talk to you about the same line of

questioning that I have been going through with everybody. Partly,

I am just lining things up here for efforts here to get these budgets

strengthened, but I also want to make sure that we have everybody

on record with regard to this. So the question I want to get into

is the same one, namely, do you feel that there is a proper and

strong role for Federal budget support for salmon and steelhead recovery?

Ms. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. That has been a real

confusing thing for the Council at best, in light of there being so

many obligations regarding fish and wildlife, both for listed and

non-listed species. We could see other stocks listed if we don’t take

care of those that are not currently listed, too. And there are so

many mandates. Take, for instance, the BiOp mandates. If the Federal Government through appropriations does not fund those, then

it falls to either not being done or it falls to the ratepayers, through

Bonneville, to pay for those. Then it is a ripple effect. We have unintended consequences that will occur. And then, of course, there

is always a push and pull in the region.

So not only does NOAA, I would say, need the extra funding, but

if you go back to some of the things that you mentioned like summer spill, the Corps would definitely need some extra funding for

that, too. I mean, if they could just have stable funding, too, it

would make a big difference to the region.

Senator CRAPO. You mentioned the interplay between the Federal support and then the ratepayers through the Bonneville budgets. I note that you have expressed in a letter recently to Senator

Campbell concern about the picture that we are facing with regard

to the fish budgets at Bonneville. Could you elaborate? What kind

of concerns does the Council have with regard to the ratepayer side

of the funding that is being provided out of Bonneville?

Ms. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting balance that

we have to strike under the Northwest Power Act. There is a certain element of protection for those ratepayers and that resource

in the region. On the other hand, it is the Council’s belief, too, that

if we don’t fulfill our obligations for fish and wildlife, we do put
30

those ratepayers at risk. Of course, no one wants to see Bonneville’s financial stability more than the Council and the States.

But we are concerned that, and I think it goes back to the fish

and wildlife funding agreement discussion with Bonneville, that we

need to have some stability and certainty as far as budgets so you

can go through the planning process. Our concern was that we may

have been seen as reducing those budgets regardless of what the

needs were, and that is not accurate. Quite frankly, I don’t know

if there will ever be enough money for all that needs to be done,

but we can come very close.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

I have a question now. In fact, Mr. Wright, would you answer another question for me? You should have left the room, shouldn’t

you.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAPO. No, this is a process question. Please feel free to

take a chair. The question is, how does the budget for fish get established at Bonneville? In other words, is there a mandate? Are

there certain things that have to be done, and whatever those

costs, Bonneville has to do them? This is kind of a strange question

to be asking, but I am not sure how Bonneville establishes what

its commitment to salmon and steelhead recovery is.

Mr. WRIGHT. The way the current budget has been developed

was, going back to the 1996 through 2001 period, we developed a

process for figuring out how much money we were going to include

in our rates. In that process, we developed a range for what is

called the direct program that went from $100 million to $179 million. That was what was included in our rates.

In 2001, I sent a letter to the Council indicating that we wanted to manage to the mid-point of that budget, the $139 million in accruals. It was our view, based on a look at what was required by

the BiOp and what was going on with the recommendations of the

Power Planning Council that $139 million would meet our objectives. It still might be possible to do that.

Senator CRAPO. OK, let me interrupt then. So there are certain

mandates that you have under the BiOp that you have to do. And

there are certain recommendations or other proposals that come

from the Council that you would like to do, but they are not necessarily legally mandated?

Mr. WRIGHT. There are recommendations from the Biological

Opinion as well, although we have interpreted those as requirements. There are recommendations from the Power Planning Council that we take quite seriously a well, and try to figure out how

we can implement. We believe that we have implemented many, if

not most, of the recommendations of the Power Planning Council.

If we get to a point where there is conflict in terms of not enough

money, the $139 million doesn’t fund everything, then we go back

and try to figure out how important were all the requirements in

the BiOp and we work with Bob Lohn, and whether all of the

things that are there are absolutely necessary to get done in the

timeframe that is in the BiOp, and work with the Power Planning

Council with respect to their recommendations, as we did this year

for 2003 about what we can get done within the level of budget

that we have.
31

Senator CRAPO. And then this process that you are talking about,

where you do what you said, ultimately if you can you reach an

memorandum of agreement among the relevant parties that you

have it figured out right and then that is the memorandum of

agreement under which you operate.

Mr. WRIGHT. That would be on a going-forward basis. We do not

have a memorandum of agreement today, but yes, that certainly is

available to us as a tool. Again, I believe it would be an effective

way of creating predictability for the program.

Senator CRAPO. All right, thanks. You can slip away again if you

would like.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WRIGHT. I should slip away further this time.

Senator CRAPO. I promise I won’t come back again.

Let me go on to you, Mr. Huffaker. You raised a point that I find

very intriguing, and that is, you felt, this, to me seems to be very

intuitive, that it would be very helpful to identify the responsibilities across all the agencies and then, having identified those responsibilities, monitor whether they are being adequately funded

and implemented. The reason that is intriguing to me is because

when I tried to put together a proposal here for Congress for how

much we needed to put into salmon and steelhead recovery, that

is exactly what I had to do.

I had to go and look at every agency, what their role was, what

the Biological Opinion required, and what recommendations were

made from the Power Council. It was kind of a confusing thing because there were so many agencies, so many recommendations, so

many proposals. We could the BiOp as a guide, but it wasn’t necessarily the only thing to be working with, especially when the objective, as I have stated earlier, is not just compliance with the Endangered Species Act, but to achieve recovery to abundant and

fishable and harvestable levels of steelhead and salmon.

I found that at one point I thought, well, somebody has to have

already done this. I started looking around, and you know what?

Nobody has done it, at least to my knowledge. So I find it very refreshing that somebody is recommending that it be done. Because

it seems to me that one thing that we ought to be doing in terms

of salmon and steelhead recovery is identifying who the players

are, what the actions are that need to be undertaken, and creating

the grid, if you will, and then seeing where we are in terms of implementing that grid.

I am sure a lot of people who are listening to this are probably

saying, well, that’s already been done. A lot of people have created

a grid. The Biological Opinion has a grid or something where you

can go through what it talks about there. But my point is that we

are not all working off the same piece of paper. There are a lot of

people who have different approaches and different ideas to this.

So I agree with your proposal and perhaps, Mr. Lohn if you are

listening, this is something that we could have done as we approach revisiting the question of what we are going to do under the

Biological Opinion. It would seem to me that if we can get us all

working off of the same page, that we can then look at whether we

have adequate resources coming out of the Bonneville Power Ad-
32

ministration and the adequate resources coming out of the Federal

Government. We can also then better monitor.

So I just wanted to tell you, I love your idea. I think that it will

be very helpful.

I have just a couple of minutes left. If I just ask you a couple

of quick questions, we might be able to wrap this panel up and

then start the next panel when I get back.

The same question, do you feel that it is proper for a strong commitment of Federal funding in this whole process?

Mr. HUFFAKER. Absolutely. I think it is essential to get the whole

job done. The Power Council and Bonneville need to focus on the

broad mission of restoring fish and wildlife to the entire Columbia

Basin, the unlisted stocks and the wildlife and the resident fish, as

well as the listed anadromous fish. Other Federal agency budgets

will be required to do that.

Senator CRAPO. And how would you recommend that State fish

agencies and tribes be involved in the development of any new Federal salmon plan?

Mr. HUFFAKER. I think in the past, because of other Federal laws

and rules and procedures, and FACA being at the head of the list

I think, States to a lesser extent, but also tribes, were considered

as part of the public. They were welcome to have input, but that

input was considered along with all other public comments on the

proposal, and the Federal family went into the Federal box and

made the decisions.

I think in the case of fish and wildlife, the agencies and tribes

have a lot of expertise, spend a lot of time on the ground, and have

in many cases a lot more and richer data than the Federal agencies

do. There needs to be some mechanism I think through Section 6

of the Act, of the ESA, to allow the States and the tribes more access to the Federal process of decisionmaking.

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that answer and strongly agree with

you. At this point, we are not likely to be able to statutorily do that

because we haven’t got the time or the votes to do much at all in

terms of changing the Endangered Species Act at this point. But

Mr. Lohn has indicated his understanding of this and I am hopeful

that we will see some administrative approach to this that will

help us be sure that the States and tribes are adequately involved.

I have less than a minute left before I have to vote over on the

floor, so I am going to recess this committee at this point. I am

going to excuse this panel because although I do have a lot more

questions, we are as usual getting interrupted with other things

that are going on during the day. When I get back, which will be

as soon as I possibly can after the two votes that we take, we will

convene our third and final panel, and then proceed with the hearing.

We are now at recess, and thank you for your testimony and

your time today.

[Recess.]

Senator CRAPO. The hearing will reconvene. As you may have

noted if you are following C–Span, they called off our second vote,

so I was able to get back here just a little bit faster. I appreciate

everybody holding on and letting us have the interruption for our

votes.
33

We will now proceed to our third panel, which includes Mr. Anthony Johnson who is the Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe, and

Ms. Nancy Murillo, who is the Chairwoman of the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. We welcome you both here with us, and we appreciate

your willingness to come and provide your testimony and share

your insights with us.

We will begin with you, Mr. Johnson. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, NEZ PERCE

TRIBE

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Anthony Johnson. I am the Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe. I would

like to thank you for holding these hearings, first off. In my testimony, you will hear reference to two things, one being the package

you have been provided on unfunded projects, the other item is the

salmon plan report card as issued by the Save Our Wild Salmon.

Mr. Chairman, the importance of the Nez Perce Tribe salmon is

more than as an icon of the Pacific Northwest. They are crucial to

our culture, our way of life, our spiritual beliefs and our economy.

In short, salmon encompasses our human rights, as the first peoples of America. The impacts of the Federal hydropower system on

the salmon and our people have been devastating. Today, in large

part due to the Federal hydropower system, every run of Snake

River salmon that returns to the Nez Perce Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing places is either extinct or listed as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species Act. These include

Snake River coho, Snake River sockeye, Snake River spring, summer and fall chinook, and Snake River steelhead.

When the Nez Perce Tribe was placed on its reservation via treaty and cessations of lands, we were at that time placed on the best

fishing lands in the Northwest. That is documented in our treaty

minutes.

Today, you have invited me to speak on the implementation of

the NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion regarding the operation of the

Federal Columbia River power system. The Federal District Court’s

recent ruling that NMFS’s Biological Opinion for the FCRPS is illegal should come as no surprise. In 1994, Judge Malcolm Marsh declared that the hydropower system was literally crying out for a

major overhaul in one of the initial legal challenges to the FCRPS

operation under the Endangered Species Act, Idaho Department of

Fish and Games v. NMFS.

Senator Crapo, we know that you have carefully followed impacts

of the FCRPS on salmon over the years. You, like us, watched as

NMFS deferred the decision on a major overhaul for 5 years. You,

like us, watched as NMFS discarded the closest thing to true collaborative approach in the Columbia Basin: the PATH process,

which involved biologists from the States and the tribes, Federal

Government and independent scientists. Senator Crapo, you will

recall that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game testified before

you concerning NMFS’s departure from the conclusions reached by

PATH. NMFS’s departure from the PATH conclusion and its peer

reviewed recommendations appeared to be motivated by the fact

that the PATH had concluded that breaching the four lower Snake

dams was the best means for restoring Snake River salmon.
34

NMFS’s non-breach Biological Opinion appeared to the Nez Perce

Tribe and other salmon managers in the Columbia Basin to be biologically flawed. While NMFS’s Biological Opinion was billed as an

aggressive non-breach approach, upon closer examination it was

clear it was mostly hope and good intentions. The Nez Perce Tribe,

along with the State of Oregon, has actively participated in this

litigation to point out the flaws of the 2000 BiOp. One point the

Nez Perce Tribe made is that no matter which side of the litigation

the States and tribes ended up on in this litigation, the formal comments they submitted in the record all detailed the biological flaws

with NMFS’s approach.

The Federal court’s ruling regarding the illegality of NMFS’s

BiOp under the ESA cries out for leadership, the kind that you,

Senator Crapo, are showing by calling this hearing. Unfortunately,

others in the region appear to be placing their heads in the sand.

This lack of leadership will place the issue into the Nation’s hands

and increase the pressure for breaching the four lower Snake dams.

After the Federal court declared NMFS’s Biological Opinion for

the FCRPS illegal, the region’s four Governors in a testament to

the lowest common political denominator, pledged to ensure that

breaching the four lower Snake River dams is not on the table because, in their words, the issue is polarizing and divisive. While

paying lip service to supporting the Federal agencies budgets and

additional appropriations necessary to meet the non-breach support, the Governors refused to do so if it means adjusting power

rates sufficiently to meet the legal obligations under the Endangered Species Act or the Northwest Power Act’s equitable treatment mandate.

BPA is frustrating salmon recovery. After the Federal court declared NMFS’s Biological Opinion for the FCRPS illegal, Steve

Wright, the Administrator of Bonneville Power Administration, testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs regarding fish

and wildlife obligations to the Northwest tribes. Amazingly, he

completely failed to mention to the Senate that NMFS’s Biological

Opinion has been declared illegal.

At a time when the Federal court and salmon are crying out for

more fish and wildlife recovery, not less, BPA has announced reductions in its fish and wildlife investments. BPA’s indifference to

salmon restoration makes it nearly impossible for an aggressive

non-breach approach to occur. Simply put, the status quo is not

good enough to satisfy the Endangered Species Act, to say nothing

of the United States treaty trust obligation. The Save Our Wild

Salmon Coalition in its detailed report card on the implementation

of the BiOp found that Federal agencies received half the funding

required for the non-breach plan and accomplished less than 30

percent of the work.

We are disappointed that they are not here today, as we believe

they are partially responsible for this hearing occurring. To that

end, we would request that you pay special attention to the Save

Our Wild Salmon testimony which we understand has been submitted as part of the record. e request your leadership in three

ways. First, monitor the development of the new FCRPS BiOp as

in a way it rewrites its biological opinion. We urge you to monitor

this process closely. Neither we nor the salmon can afford to waste
35

more time. We urge you to urge NMFS and action agencies to ensure that they embark on salmon recovery strategies that are economically feasible, scientifically credible, and realistically achievable. We urge you and the subcommittee members to monitor this

process carefully.

Second, scrutinize BPA’s commitment to salmon recovery. We

urge your continued oversight of the actions of the Bonneville

Power Administration with respect to its fish and wildlife funding

obligations. The Nez Perce Tribe has shown its on-the-ground leadership in implementing salmon recovery projects funded by Bonneville, including award-winning habitat restoration actions and the

cutting edge Nez Perce tribal hatchery. Bonneville’s reluctance to

fund fish and wildlife recovery projects undermines its commitment

to a non-breach alternative. We urge you to urge the General Accounting Office to continue its ongoing investigation into Bonneville’s financial status and its fish and wildlife obligations.

Third, continue to support the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery

Program. Your support for the Pacific coastal salmon recovery has

begun to show results with the projects implemented by the Nez

Perce Tribe. We urge you to continue to ensure that this program

is implemented, including actions being implemented by the Nez

Perce Tribe.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to place before you and

this subcommittee that we, the Nez Perce people, are committed to

salmon recovery. As I stated, it is part of our human rights as indigenous people. As co-managers of the resource through court orders, we have committed to the survival of the salmon from the

moment I was a boy in the early 1980’s when we first started this

process. I urge you to do all you can to save this precious resource.

Thank you very much for your time, sir.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Ms. Murillo?

STATEMENT OF NANCY MURILLO, CHAIRPERSON, SHOSHONE–

BANNOCK TRIBES

Ms. MURILLO. Good morning.

Senator CRAPO. Good morning.

Ms. MURILLO. I am Nancy S. Murillo, the Chairman of the Fort

Hall Business Council of the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes in Fort

Hall, Idaho.

I first want to start out by asking you a question. We are a treaty tribe. We are a peace tribe. I would like to make note that Article 1, ‘‘From this day forward, peace between the parties to this

treaty shall forever continue. The Government of the United States

desires peace and its honor is hereby pledged to keep it. The Indians, the Shoshone–Bannocks, desire peace and they hereby pledge

their honor to maintain it.’’ Article 4 deals with our hunting and

fishing rights.

I am here to provide the perspective of tribes regarding the impacts on tribal fish and wildlife management in the Pacific Northwest, the BiOp, the BPA Administration funding, FERC relicensing, and the need for additional funding to fully analyze and

participate in the numerous Federal and private forums surrounding the operation of the Columbia River power system, and
36

its impact on the anadromous fish, and to implement the actions

necessary to protect and restore the fish and wildlife resources of

the Columbia River Basin.

We Shoshone–Bannock peoples were located in the headquarters

of four major river systems in the Western United States. We lived

long, utilized and traveled the rivers and tributaries of the Salmon

and the Snake which feed the Columbia River system. But we also

spent time on the rivers and tributaries leading to the Great Basin

and into the Missouri as well as the Colorado Rivers. The vast majority of our peoples live on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

We hold entitlements to these river systems which were bequeathed to us not only by our ancestral historic patterns, but by

treaties and other legal binding documents such as the Fort

Bridger Treaty of 1868. Our tribes have been involved for many

years in the numerous policy, production and management processes tied to the Columbia and Snake Rivers. We realize the importance of prioritization of the most important processes due to our

limited staff and resources. This includes active involvement in

prioritizing the absolutely critical threshold projects needed to implement a balance between a reliable and inexpensive energy supply with the fish and wildlife needs that are impacted by the Columbia River system.

One of the realities of the fisheries management is the fact that

the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes cannot do any management without

being completely absorbed by the Endangered Species Act. We

spend so much time on the processes that exist, that little time or

staffing is left to actually do production and management efforts to

promote recovery of the salmon. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service issue a Biological Opinion in December 2000 for

the operation and maintenance of the Federal Columbia River

power systems. We are concerned with the continuing modification

of past plans before they are implemented. We have been involved

with decades of planning that have not yet been implemented.

Once again, the 2002 implementation plans for the 2000 BiOp have

remained unsatisfactory to the needs of the endangered species, as

well as the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. Less than 30 percent of the

measures which were required to be completed by 2002 have been

accomplished. Yet water temperatures continue to increase and

water flows continue to decrease. Funding allocation remain inadequate to correct these major deficiencies.

For example, I am going to discuss hydro, habitat restoration,

hatchery reform and harvest. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have

long advocated breaching the four lower Snake River Dams, Ice

Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite

Dams.

Habit restoration. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes continuously

attempt to put and keep clean cold water into the streams without

migration barriers associated with irrigation diversions, de-watering and toxicity from mine effluent.

Hatchery reform. The tribes have been leaders in using low technology and inexpensive artificial propagation techniques. However,

the ambiguous genetic theories of modern science continuously impede these efforts, even after several of the Pacific Northwest tribes
37

have shown major success stories of these hatchery reform techniques.

Harvest. The mixed stock interception fisheries are inadequate to

the salmon resources and to our tribes. The Shoshone–Bannock

Tribes harvest wish in these areas and at levels the populations of

salmon can support, and we encourage all other entities to do the

same.

Simply put, we are trying to put water into the creeks, and fish

into the water. We are attempting to carry out the purposes of our

tribal policies and treaty commitments made in the 1868 Fort

Bridger Treaty by being actively involved in these forums to implement the ESA. It is our position that ESA must be implemented

in accordance with our treaty.

We, along with other tribes in the region, must constantly analyze the Federal actions to make sure tribal goals and priorities

have been incorporated in the action agency’s plans. We are constantly involved with the scientific, technical and policy forums to

protect our tribal treaty commitments. Both the process and the

modern science results in a huge financial burden placed on the

tribes and huge staffing needs to protect our concerns.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes received a $100,000 add-on to the

base fish and wildlife project management and development fund

in 1992. The Bureau has not increased this at all, not even a cost

of living increase. We have requested annually $550,000 to try to

maintain and keep up and have our needs met to our treaty obligations.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes’ policy is to treat the Snake and

Columbia Rivers as one river system that emphasizes the natural

riverine ecosystem, rather than up-river versus down-river conflicts. FERC is considering new regulations that propose to establish a new consultation policy that sets forth how FERC will complete government-to-government consultation with Indian tribal

governments. This is a step in the right direction since the present

policy as FERC dictates does not allow any meaningful involvement by tribal governments and there is no mandate for consultation with any tribe. We urge you, Senator Crapo and your committee, to oversee this process and conduct hearings on this tribal

involvement.

In summary, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes emphasize the Columbia–Snake River systems as one river. The tribes promote the

natural riverine ecosystem as a high significance to the Shoshone–

Bannock people and the culture. We thank you for this opportunity.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes are situated high at the headwaters

of the longest-traveled anadromous fish species in the world and

provide unique and proactive advice and techniques for the recovery and protection of these animals.

We invite the Senate committee, Mr. Crapo, your staff, to the

Fort Hall Indian Reservation to see what we have been doing, as

well as to our off-reservation areas to look at the management

about our subsistence practices in the managements of our production and habitat and harvest.

I thank you for your time.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.
38

I thank both of you for your time and preparation of this testimony.

Mr. Johnson, I will start with you with my questions. First, I will

get into the basic question I have been asking everybody. Do you

also agree that there is a need for strong Federal support in terms

of the funding provided to implement necessary actions to restore

salmon and steelhead?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. The Nez Perce Tribe and I am sure the

tribes in the Columbia Basin all support whatever it takes to restore salmon to our usual and accustomed areas, benefiting the Indian people as well as non–Indian people.

Senator CRAPO. From looking at the materials you have provided

here, I am assuming that your answer to the next question would

be no, but do you believe that the current level of Federal support

for this is inadequate?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Senator CRAPO. In looking at the materials you have provided

here with regard to unfunded fish and wildlife projects, can you

clarify for me what projects does this include. Are these projects required under the Biological Opinion, or does it include projects beyond those that are required under the Biological Opinion?

Mr. JOHNSON. Actually, my belief at this time is that it includes

the holistic approach of salmon recovery. In looking at this document that is provided, the Nez Perce Tribe through the Columbia

River Inter–Tribal Fish Commission, our joint efforts of the four

Columbia Basin treaty tribes, has put this together for us so we

could present it to you as a means of showing what is needed for

recovery and what is lacking as far as the commitment to restore

salmon holistically. If I could advocate one more thing, it would be

to ask you to also accept the testimony of the Columbia River

Inter–Tribal Fish Commission into this hearing as at least part of

the record, because salmon recovery knows no State boundaries as

at this point.

Senator CRAPO. Without objection, that testimony would be welcome.

We were talking earlier with Mr. Huffaker who was testifying

about the need to approach or develop a comprehensive identification of what needed to be undertaken. At the time, I told him I suspected there were people in the audience or elsewhere who had already developed such grids, and this appears to be a very thorough

approach at just that.

It seems to me that this kind of thing, you have even got it down

to the financial cost of the projects that need to be undertaken.

This kind of thing is exactly the kind of thing that we need to be

looking it. So I appreciate your providing this information to us.

You have indicated strong concern in the three requests that you

made at the conclusion of your testimony, a strong concern about

the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and making certain that

we get Idaho included into that fund and strengthen the fund in

terms of the resources provided. I will just tell you I strongly agree

with you on that, and in fact just had a conversation with Senator

Craig on the floor of the Senate when we had the recess, about the

status of those efforts. I will continue to advocate very aggressively

that Idaho be included in that fund and that the fund’s resources
39

be expanded so that the activities of other States not only are not

harmed, but that everyone can get additional resources for salmon

and steelhead recovery.

In that context, I would simply encourage you to use your resources through the tribes and their advocacy efforts to encourage

our Appropriations Committee to support that effort this year in

the Senate, because this is the year I am hopeful that we will be

able to succeed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. The Nez Perce Tribe will definitely

help in that endeavor. And also, like our neighbors to the south,

we would invite you to our homeland to come look at what we have

actually done with that fund. You will see a lot of good work done

in habitat road obliterations, streambed stabilization, and coho reintroduction. It is something you would definitely enjoy if you come

out to our country to see it, sir.

Senator CRAPO. I definitely would. As a matter of fact, on the occasions when I am able to visit both of your reservations, I have

been impressed by the level of commitment and the level of understanding of what needs to be done. I look forward to further and

future opportunities to visit there.

Let me ask you, do you believe, and in fact this question I think

I will ask both of you to respond to, so I don’t just have to go

through it twice. But do you believe that your interests and expertise has been fully ascertained and incorporated with respect to the

past biological opinions and hydro-management decisions? Basically, I am talking about the development of the Biological Opinion

in 2000 and other occasions of the kind.

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, I think at this point to work into what I want

to say, I want to go back to the beginning when we had the Bolt

decision. The tribes were challenged at that time to develop the expertise needed to be seen as co-managers of the fisheries resource.

Twenty-five years later, through the efforts of the Columbia River

Inter–Tribal Fish Commission, the Nez Perce Tribe, we have jointly

gotten to a point where we are standing on the cutting edge of

science. We have our own salmon recovery program or plan, Wy–

Kan–Ush–Mi Was–Kish–Wit [Spirit of the Salmon]—that was developed by the tribes and in a cooperative spirit. There is a lot of

good work in there that was developed and took a holistic approach. You have heard terms like ‘‘ridge top to ridge top.’’ We

have always declared that we were willing to share our expertise.

If you look at where that comes from, it is a simple concept. It is

the same traditional mother nature concept that the Earth has enjoyed since time immemorial. What we have done, and I use the

example of our Nez Perce tribal hatchery, is to try to mimic nature.

Our hatchery was developed to mimic Mother Earth.

So I would look at asking the Federal Government to not just

look at one way of accomplishing the same mission, but let’s take

a step back and look at what Mother Earth had done for herself.

In that manner, I would say we have a lot of expertise that has

come to the table. I guess one of the weaknesses is at the level of

participation. If we were, say, sitting at the table with the Power

Planning Council to provide input as they deliberate or to answer

concerns versus responding. It just seems to me that a higher level

of coordinated decisionmaking by the tribes, States, and Federal
40

agencies is needed to save the salmon. That is what I would advocate for, sir.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I have visited that fish hatchery you

talk about and it is very impressive. The potential for increasing

the survivability of the smolt seems to me to be significant, and I

am hopeful that the reality will show that that is the case.

Ms. Murillo, would you like me to re-state the question?

Ms. MURILLO. The need for a strong Federal support?

Senator CRAPO. Yes. The question here is, do you believe that

you and your tribe’s expertise and understanding has been adequately understood and incorporated into the decisionmaking process that we have gone through in the development of the salmon

recovery plans?

Ms. MURILLO. I think it has been an arduous task for our people

to be involved. As I mentioned, we have a lack of adequate staff;

a lack of adequate funding to get our people from Southeast Idaho

up to Portland whenever these meetings are. It takes a tremendous

amount of time and effort and money. So there has been some support there, but not as much as I believe we should have had.

Senator CRAPO. You raise an interesting point in your testimony,

and you just raised it again, that the endangered species process

that we are engaged in is absorbing most if not all of your time and

resources, just to be involved in the process, as opposed to on the

ground recovery efforts. So I assume one of the recommendations

that you would make, and that is my next question to both of you,

what recommendations would you make in terms of how we would

best improve the ability of the tribes to participate more effectively

in our decisionmaking processes? I assume one of your answers to

that would be to respond to you budget request to increase the support that we provide so that you can better participate.

Ms. MURILLO. That is correct. Increase the funding for the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes; in addition, to have the Federal agencies

work and consult with the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes, and also to

ensure that these plans are being transmitted accurately so there

can be adequate responses to these; and to ensure that the tribes,

as we are a treaty tribe, that we need that consultation. We need

to preserve the habitat for our future and for the seven generations

beyond that point. There needs to be more coordination. There

needs to be some sound decisions and planning. Apparently, our

staff is indicating these plans have been changed and modified, and

it is a continuous thing to stay on top of this. I think that is an

essential to have better planning.

Senator CRAPO. I agree with you.

Mr. Johnson, did you want to add anything about what can be

done to better incorporate the tribes into the decisionmaking?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. At this point, one of the weaknesses I see

is in the consultation process with the Federal Government, and

that being involved in not just ‘‘after the fact’’ consultation when

a decision has been made, but actively involved in coming to a decision or evaluating options and having our input taken into those

options. I think that would go a long way to address a lot of the

weaknesses at all levels.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Ms. Murillo, yes, go ahead.
41

Ms. MURILLO. I wanted to expand on my response to that on consultation. We have some consultation policies with some Federal

agencies that we are pursuing, for example, BPA. We would like

to see a technical consultation process and then a policy consultation process where the leadership would make the decisions on the

policies. If there are technical communications, then we can have

our technical biologists and those folks meet with the BPA.

We at times have BPA or any Federal agency for that matter, indicating that they have had discussions with the tribe, but they are

at the technical level or the clerical level, as opposed to the policy

decisionmaking level. So that needs to be stressed and implemented.

Senator CRAPO. That is an important point. So most of the interaction, then, at this point has been at the clerical or technical level,

as opposed to the policy level.

All right. Let’s get to the question on funding. You are the last

ones I have not asked that of, and that is, do you believe that there

is a proper role for strong Federal funding for salmon and

steelhead recovery?

Ms. MURILLO. Senator Crapo, insofar as the Shoshone–Bannock

Tribes, American Indian tribes, under our treaty, there is that

trust responsibility and obligation of the Federal agencies, Congress, to ensure that our treaties are complied with; that there is

that promise; there is that obligation. We are a peace treaty, Shoshone–Bannock Tribes, so there needs to be that type of consultation and support that we will be able to fulfill the needs.

As you know, we were put on reservations and we were a nomadic tribe and traveled vast areas. Reservations have kept us

from our economics, and we are still trying to play on a catch-up

basis.

Senator CRAPO. In terms of the need for Federal support, I think

you have raised an interesting aspect of this; that is, Federal support to the tribes so that they can fulfill their treaty, their portion

of the treaty responsibilities, and their role in salmon and

steelhead recovery in terms of participating in the process. How

about the resources that we need to actually implement salmon

and steelhead recovery on the ground? Do you feel that the Federal

support at that level has been adequate?

Ms. MURILLO. I do not believe it has, Senator Crapo, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. I believe we need to, and as the Chairman

from Nez Perce has indicated, that they have a budget. We have

some budgets tucked away, but we need to bring those out and give

you some foundation of what is necessary for us to continue the

work for the salmon recovery, and we will do that.

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate that. I will work with you to try to

make certain that we provide the adequate resources. As I indicated, one of the endeavors that I have been involved in and many

of us here in Washington have been involved in, is trying to get a

handle on just what the level of commitment needs to be at the

Federal level to help us achieve the objectives of salmon and

steelhead recovery. That obviously does not involve the equally important question of what should be those undertakings. Mr. Johnson has provided a list of the holistic approach to the issue that
42

needs to be undertaken with regard to unfunded projects and activities that need to be undertaken.

There are a lot of other ideas out there as well, but the bottom

line is that whatever the ultimate plan is, which the NMFS will

guide as the lead agency on this, whatever that is, we need to

make sure that we adequately implement it so that we know that

we have made the commitment in the region to at least implement

the BiOp and make certain that we are prepared to be confident

in that level so the report cards that come out on implementation

show adequate results, as well as our efforts to make certain that

we have adequate procedural participation by all of the participants, by all of the stakeholders.

I have concluded the questioning that I have on this issue. Before

I wrap up the hearing, since you are the last two panelists, I will

give each of you an opportunity if you care, if there is anything

that you feel like you have not had an opportunity to say that you

would like to or would like to emphasize, I will give each of you

an opportunity to conclude.

Mr. Johnson, is there anything further that you would like to

add?

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, all I would like to say is thank you for your

leadership on this issue. The Nez Perce Tribe stands ready to assist, as well as the organizations that we are part of, the Columbia

River Inter–Tribal Fish Commission. We have a whole wealth of

knowledge ready to assist in restoring these populations to a sustainable, harvestable levels.

In closing, thank you, sir.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Ms. Murillo?

Ms. MURILLO. Yes, on what other means can the Federal Government do, I think it is coordinating and emphasizing that Federal

agencies have that trust responsibility to Indian tribes. Likewise on

the easements for habitat restoration and preservation, that needs

to be looked at for us, for the salmon recovery. The Federal agencies, there seems to be a barrier in working with Indian tribes. At

least with the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes’ experience, there is a

lack of education on the treaties and what the responsibilities of

the Federal Government are. I think there needs to be a whole 101

on it, or maybe a senior level for folks to realize that we Indian

people are here and we are going to be here, just as the salmon

will be here.

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. That is very well-stated. I believe

that it is important for us to recognize that we not only operate

under the Endangered Species Act, but that we have treaty responsibilities that must be implemented and met here. That is one of

the reasons I wanted to have a separate panel with the sovereign

tribes to represent their interests in this matter as we proceed.

As we conclude this hearing, I want to thank all of the witnesses

again today for the time and effort that they have put into this. I

note that most, if not all, of the witnesses from the previous panel

have stayed and listened. I deeply appreciate that. I know that we

have a lot of diversity of opinion on how to proceed, and we face

the difficult issues that we have gone over thoroughly here in the
43

hearing today about how to finance proceeding on the plans that

we have.

Ultimately, I hope that we can all agree on the objective, that we

restore our salmon and steelhead to abundant, fishable, harvestable levels, and that that can be a significant economic benefit to

our region, not just in terms of the important environmental heritage that we face the potential of losing if we do not take the appropriate actions quickly and effectively, but also that we learn the

importance that it means to us economically.

I believe that sometimes those aspects of a decision are overlooked. I appreciate the support of everybody here today that has

been expressed for the need for our Federal Government to become

involved at even increased levels to make certain that we meet this

commitment.

With that, this hearing will be concluded.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this important hearing today. I commend you

for your leadership on this issue. I would just like to include this brief statement

in the record because although Montana does not have salmon and steelhead, we

are impacted by operations at Libby and Hungry Horse dams that are intended to

benefit those species.

Mr. Chairman, Montana has often felt a bit left out of the debate over the operations of the Columbia River System. Montanans understand our obligations as part

of the Columbia River Basin and the Northwest to do our part to help recover these

magnificent fish. But Hungry Horse and Libby dams are extremely important to the

economy of western Montana, for recreation, resident fish and wildlife, irrigation,

and flood control. Operations of these dams pursuant to the requirements of the

2000 Biological Opinion for the aid and recovery of Columbia River salmon impact

all of these Montana priorities.

I just want to make sure that Montana’s needs and concerns are considered seriously by the Federal Agencies involved in implementing the Biological Opinion, and

in adhering to their other duties under the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act. In particular, Montana has concerns about its own endangered,

threatened and sensitive species of fish and how the operations of Libby and Hungry Horse dams impact those species. Montana also does not want to wait at the

end of the line when it comes to sharing the benefits of the Columbia River System.

Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look

forward to submitting questions for the record to the witnesses, particularly the

Northwest Power Planning Council and the Bonneville Power Administration. I

thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to be here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF D. ROBERT LOHN, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION,

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Committee. For the

record, my name is Bob Lohn, Regional Administrator of the Northwest Region of

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). I appreciate the invitation

to be here today with fellow regional Federal colleagues, tribal, and State interests

to discuss the important subject of Pacific salmon, and specifically, the status of the

Federal Government’s progress in implementing the 2000 Federal Columbia River

Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion.

In my comments today, I would like to briefly touch upon three issues relevant

to our progress in carrying out the 2000 Biological Opinion on the operations of the

FCRPS, including the four lower Snake River dams. Those three issues are: (1) the

implementation status of the 199 action items contained in that Opinion; (2) a brief
44

update on the status of Columbia River and Snake River salmon, and (3) the status

of funding for the Biological Opinion and salmon recovery.

Let me provide some context for today’s discussion by first describing a few key

events leading up to the issuance of the 2000 Biological Opinion and significant

events that have occurred in the first 2 years since it was issued.

BACKGROUND OF THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION

As you know, over the last 14 years, NOAA Fisheries listed 26 separate populations of salmon and steelhead, termed Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), as

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act in Idaho, Washington,

Oregon, and California. Of these listings, 12 ESUs occur in the Columbia River

basin including 4 in the Snake River. Snake River sockeye were listed as endangered in 1991, Snake River spring and fall Chinook were listed as threatened in

early 1992, and Snake River steelhead were listed in 1997.

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies that propose to take actions that

may affect listed salmon and steelhead to consult with NOAA Fisheries to ensure

the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the fish or

adversely modify designated critical habitat. The section 7 consultation process results in NOAA Fisheries issuing a Biological Opinion detailing how the proposed actions would affect the species, and what prescriptions the agency recommends to address any concerns.

NOAA Fisheries issued its first Biological Opinion for the Federal power system

on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in 1992. The 1992 Biological Opinion, and another Opinion in 1993 called for measures to improve salmon survival and increased

research and analysis of certain proposed improvements. The 1993 Biological Opinion was challenged in Federal court. By the time the case was heard, NOAA had

issued a 1994–98 Opinion following the same general approach, and the court rejected the agency’s plan. NOAA Fisheries responded by preparing an interim Biological Opinion and committing to develop a new Biological Opinion and long-term

recovery plan by 1999. This new 1995 Opinion was also challenged, but the court

ultimately decided the case in favor of the Federal plan. Consultation was reinitiated in 1999 and this led to the current Biological Opinion, issued in December

2000.

Soon after its issuance, the 2000 Biological Opinion was challenged by various interest groups in Federal district court. On May 7 of this year, Judge Redden ruled

that the Biological Opinion did not take into account the proper ‘‘action area’’ and

the Opinion did not adequately consider whether the various conservation measures

discussed in the Opinion (reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs)) met certain

standards that they developed. The Court found that NOAA Fisheries should not

evaluate the future effects of actions in developing a reasonable and prudent alternative unless the results from either future Federal actions that have already undergone consultation under section 7 of the ESA or future non–Federal actions must

be determined to be ‘‘reasonably certain to occur.’’

On June 2, 2003, Judge Redden remanded the Biological Opinion to NOAA Fisheries for further action. The court is considering a motion by the plaintiffs to vacate

the Biological Opinion while it is undergoing revision. According to the briefing

schedule, full briefing of this issue was to be completed June 20. The court has

agreed to allow NOAA Fisheries up to 1 year to revise the Biological Opinion in accordance with the court’s ruling, with status reports to be filed with the court every

90 days. In the meantime, the current Opinion continues to be implemented.

However, the court is now considering a motion by the plaintiffs to vacate the Biological Opinion while it is undergoing revision. Briefing on the motion was completed June 20 and the court may rule at any time. A decision by the court to vacate

the Biological Opinion could have severe consequences on NOAA Fisheries, on the

Federal Action Agencies and on the entire Federal Columbia River Power System.

It would remove the incidental take protection that currently shields Federal employees from legal liability under the Endangered Species Act. It would also threaten the continuation of many Federal programs designed to help recover imperiled

salmon runs such as the demonstrably successful juvenile transportation effort.

Vacatur would destroy the current operational certainty for the highly complex

power system, and replace it with institutionalized uncertainty. This uncertainty

would arise from the continuing threat of judicial intervention to change current operations to meet the demands of the plaintiffs in the litigation regardless of the impacts of those changes on the power system or even on the imperiled fish. The reliability and economic efficiency of the power system would be damaged, with no clear

benefit for fish.
45

It is premature to comment on the extent to which the current Biological Opinion

may be revised over the next year. Nonetheless, today’s discussion about the implementation status of the 2000 Biological Opinion may be relevant to the revised

Opinion upon which we are now working.

STATUS OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION ACTION ITEMS

The 2000 Biological Opinion for the Columbia and Snake River hydro system concluded that jeopardy of listed salmon and steelhead could be avoided if certain conservation measures contained in a reasonable and prudent alternative were implemented by the Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (known as the Action Agencies) over a 10-year period

to 2010. In total, the Opinion’s RPA contains 199 actions.

The RPA defined a rolling annual and 5-year planning, implementation and review process. The FCRPS Action Agencies produce annual and 5-year implementation plans (IP) that describe progress to date, lay out details of the short-and longterm plans for achieving performance standards, propose adjustments to the RPA

Actions, and describe the rationale for those adjustments. NOAA Fisheries is required to review each year’s annual Implementation Plan through the issuance of

a ‘‘findings letter’’ to the Action Agencies.

In May 2002, the Action Agencies released a report detailing their progress in

2001 for implementing the 199 measures. As you know, 2001 water levels in the

Columbia and Snake River systems were some of the lowest ever, and created great

challenges for the Action Agencies to help meet water needs for listed fish as well

as for Northwest power, irrigation, and recreational needs.

In light of these challenges, I commend the Action Agencies for their extensive

efforts to coordinate with other Federal agencies, States, tribes, utilities and others

during a difficult year. As a result of their hard work in 2001, NOAA Fisheries advised the Action Agencies in a July 2002 letter that necessary hydro improvements

and offsite mitigation measures in the Biological Opinion were progressing sufficiently in 2001 through their ‘‘One Year Plan,’’ such that the Biological Opinion was

largely on track. That letter also emphasized certain areas where future efforts

should be focused.

On May 14 of this year, NOAA Fisheries issued its second ‘‘findings’’ letter, reviewing the implementation status of each of the 199 RPA actions and whether the

Action Agencies appear on track to meet the important 2003 ‘‘check-in’’ requirements set forth in the Biological Opinion (http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/). I am

pleased to report to you that of the 124 actions that require definition, implementation, or completion by or before 2003, 117 are being implemented either as expected

or with only minor modifications.

This leaves only seven out of 124 RPA actions (5 percent)—with implementation

schedules that have been modified in ways that represent any concern. Finally, of

the 75 Actions for which the Opinion provides no specific implementation schedule,

68 are currently underway or proposed for initiation in 2003.

This represents great progress, and I’d like to praise the Federal Action Agencies,

the States, tribes, local organizations, and citizens of the region for their rapid mobilization and good work. I am convinced that salmon recovery in this region depends

on this kind of widespread collaboration.

Some of the seven RPA actions that are behind schedule are of lesser consequence. There are, however, two areas of particular concern: development of

subbasin assessments and plans for priority subbasins (Action 154) and effectiveness monitoring for offsite mitigation actions (Action 183 and Research, Monitoring,

and Evaluation data base development identified in Action 198). Both of these areas

are behind the anticipated schedule, and both play an important role in the overall

success of the

Biological Opinion

Subbasin planning is the means by which the major limiting factors for listed

salmon and steelhead are defined, locally supported plans to address those factors

are established, and the foundation for comprehensive recovery plans laid. That ambitious process got off to a slow start, but is now rapidly coming up to speed. The

Bonneville Power Administration has provided substantial funding for subbasin

planning, and the Northwest Power Planning Council is devoting its energy and expertise to completing this effort.

Research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) is the means by which NOAA Fisheries and the Action Agencies evaluate the biological effects of our efforts under the

Biological Opinion, determine whether we are achieving the expected results, and

modify our efforts to achieve the greatest beneficial effect. While a significant
46

amount of RM&E is taking place, we do not yet have the analytical infrastructure

and tools needed to support this enormous recovery effort.

NOAA Fisheries is committed to working with the Action Agencies to develop and

implement the research, monitoring, and evaluation program under the Biological

Opinion. In the President’s 2003 Budget request, $12 million was proposed to fund

the RM&E needed under this opinion. Unfortunately, no money was appropriated

for this purpose in fiscal year 2003. The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget includes

$ 15.1 million for this purpose, and we hope that Congress will honor this important

request. In the meantime, NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Regional Office and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and other regional interests to develop the best RM&E program possible using existing tools and programs, and low-cost innovation.

Despite the challenges to meet the Biological Opinion’s requirements, I am very

encouraged by new technological developments and other research efforts by the Action Agencies to pursue exciting initiatives to aid the passage of juvenile salmon

through hydroelectric dams on the river system, such as the U.S. Army Corps’ removable spillway weir at Lower Granite Dam. Early study results indicate this technology could allow more fish to pass faster through the dam while less water is

being spilled.

Recently, NOAA Fisheries announced the creation of a new Salmon Recovery Division within our Northwest Region to focus on implementation of salmon recovery

initiatives within this region and to provide coordinated support to the myriad of

existing State, local and tribal salmon recovery activities throughout the Northwest.

For example, in 2002, over 260 Federal caucus-sponsored habitat restoration

projects were implemented in 25 subbasins, with high priority given to improved

water quality and fish passage. In addition, over 2,000 salmon habitat restoration

projects and activities in Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska have been

funded since 2000 through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and other

State funds. This new office will work with the region to identify the unique limiting

factors of salmon in specific watersheds and subbasins, pool existing and future resources, and prioritize recovery activities to address the greatest needs for salmon.

I am confident that the new division will not only increase the effectiveness of our

recovery effort, but will also allow the region to address its ESA responsibilities in

more efficient and collaborative manner.

CURRENT STATUS OF COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SALMON AND STEELHEAD

I’m pleased to report good news about the status of Pacific salmon in the Northwest, including listed species in the Snake River. Most Columbia River stocks are

enjoying a substantial upswing. For example, the fall chinook harvest group known

as Upper Columbia Brights—a group that includes both Hanford Reach and Lower

Snake River fall chinook, is forecast to enter the Columbia River this year with

280,000 adults. If the forecast is realized, this year’s return will be similar to last

year’s return, which was the largest return since 1988, and would be the fourth

largest since 1964.

The ESA-listed runs in Idaho are also showing considerable improvement over the

last few years. For example, in 2001, the most recent year for which we have complete results, 17,000 Snake River steelhead returned, versus a 5-year average of

9,400 at the time they were listed in August 1997. We also saw about 17,000 spring/

summer-run chinook, compared to a 10-year average of 9,674 at the time of their

listing in April 1992. And, 2652 fall-run chinook returned, compared to a 5-year average of 661 at the time of their listing in April, 1992. While the trends in Snake

River sockeye are not as meaningful, since they are mainly a function of the number

of hatchery-reared fish that are released, the 2002 return of 22 fish compares favorably with the 5-year average of only 3 at the time of listing. More importantly, the

fact that we are getting any sockeye back at all is a hopeful indicator that the experimental captive brood program may be capable of eventually re-establishing this

population.

While we will need to have the convincing assurance that these trends will continue before we are ready to declare any of these stocks to be recovered, the recent

trends are encouraging. Undoubtedly, improved ocean conditions are the single

greatest contributor to these increases. But I am firmly convinced that the additional protection and mitigation measures being implemented under this Biological

Opinion and the myriad of local, State, and tribal conservation efforts—particularly

those benefiting juvenile salmon—are playing a vital role.
47

FUNDING OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION ACTIONS

In Fiscal Year 2003, the President’s Budget requested a 19 percent increase over

Fiscal Year 2002 appropriations for salmon-related Federal activities in the Columbia River Basin. The President’s Fiscal Year 2004 discretionary appropriations

budget continues the increased support provided in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget for

salmon-related actions in the Columbia River Basin. Our findings letter reports that

all of the major action items called for in the Biological Opinion have been funded

except for the research, monitoring, and evaluation RPA discussed above. This includes more than $100 million in funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for

its entire Columbia River Salmon Program over the last 2 years. This also includes

substantial funding to the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in fish screening projects

and to purchase water from willing sellers to increase in-stream flows. As Colonel

Knieriemen’s testimony notes, although past funding has been available, the Corps

has a Fiscal Year 2003 shortfall in its funding for its Columbia River Fish Mitigation capital improvement items. There are two additional areas of concern, in addition to the RM&E funding.

First, the Biological Opinion contemplates that substantial mitigation activity will

be undertaken by Federal land management agencies such as the Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Management. Although these agencies are not action agencies under this Biological Opinion, their continued protection and improvement of

salmon habitat on Federal lands is an essential contribution to the range of habitat

restoration actions needed to recover listed salmon and steelhead stocks in the Columbia River Basin. Some benefits for listed salmon species will be achieved

through Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service actions through the National Fire Plan and Healthy Forests Initiative. Evaluation of those benefits and implementation of targeted salmon habitat restoration projects remain critical to the

success of the Biological Opinion.

Second, the subbasin planning process is intended to identify the major limiting

factors in each of the subbasins, and to propose locally supported solutions to those

limiting factors. Subbasin plans are a key step in recovery planning. Just as it is

unrealistic to estimate the cost of a new building until the blueprints are in hand,

so, too, it is premature to forecast the costs associated with implementing the solutions developed in subbasin planning. Furthermore, the Bonneville Power Administration is faced with extremely difficult financial circumstances. Although Bonneville’s costs in implementing this Biological Opinion have fallen within the range expected when the current power rates were set 3 years ago, we recognize that other

factors, including heavy losses due to the power crisis of 2001, and the current

lower-than-expected power revenues and snowpacks have placed them at risk financially. We are working closely with them to assure that this Biological Opinion is

implemented in a manner that is both biologically effective and financially sustainable.

I am encouraged, however, by the generous environmental improvement programs

in last year’s Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 that offer an unexpected source of additional funding to protect and improve riparian habitat in agricultural lands. Since this is some of the most important habitat for salmon and

steelhead, we see great potential in working with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to realize these on-the-ground benefits. We are just beginning to develop the kind of partnerships necessary to achieve these benefits, but the initial

indications are encouraging.

Each year, the Federal agencies active in the Columbia Basin work together

through the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental

Quality on their combined salmon recovery budgets, in order to ensure that we have

a coordinated budget. We will continue to compare the future mitigation needs for

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead as soon as those additional needs are identified in

the subbasin planning process or by other means—with the funding then available.

Only then will we know the true level of funding needed to fulfill the expectations

of this Biological Opinion.

In recent months, a number of parties have asserted that Federal agencies lack

the financial resources to recover salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin, citing needs in the range of $800–900 million per year. We believe the Federal dollars

identified in the President’s Budget submittals for Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year

2004 are adequate to do the job.

The hundreds of millions of dollars Federal taxpayers and regional ratepayers

spend each year for salmon recovery make this one of the largest restoration programs in the Nation. It is our intention to use this funding effectively and efficiently

to fulfill this Biological Opinion. The President’s budget matches the tasks and as-
48

signments at hand, but there are still some areas where Congress has not approved

proposed salmon budget items. We urge your support to fill these gaps.

Some additional comments may be appropriate here about the so-called ‘‘Salmon

Report Card’’ issued by certain interests groups a few months ago. I am well aware

that the positive outlook in our findings letter and in today’s testimony may differ

dramatically from the dire assessment presented in the report card released by certain interest groups.

The ‘‘Salmon Report Card’’ issued by these interest groups uses as its yardstick

the Biological Opinion as they would like it to be—not as it actually is written. They

confuse goal statements with requirements, when the Biological Opinion is quite

clear that certain goals such as flow targets cannot be achieved under many conditions. Second, the authors of the Report Card did not seem to recognize that we are

only a little more than 2 years into a 10-year Biological Opinion. Not all of the

Opinion’s measures will be fully implemented in its initial years nor does the Biological Opinion expect them to be. And finally, the Report Card simply includes incorrect information on what is actually being accomplished. The findings letter we

issued in May tells a very different story.

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, because I know there is considerable interest in the

status of hatchery fish, I would also like to briefly advise of the status of NOAA

Fisheries’ review of the 26 salmon and steelhead listings and hatchery listing policy.

NOAA’S HATCHERY LISTING POLICY AND STATUS REVIEWS

U.S. District Court Judge Hogan’s decision in the 2001 case of Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans led NOAA Fisheries to reevaluate how it treats hatchery fish in its

ESA listing determinations. The Alsea decision rejected NOAA Fisheries’ prior policy of excluding hatchery populations from listing decisions even though they were

determined to be part of the same ESU as listed naturally spawned populations.

NOAA Fisheries is currently developing a new hatchery listing policy that we

hope will more clearly articulate how the agency considers hatchery salmon in evaluating the risk of extinction for salmon and steelhead ESUs, in current and future

listing determinations under the ESA. Initially, the revised hatchery listing policy

was expected to be completed in late 2002. However, the agency has been carefully

reviewing comments from State and tribal co-managers to ensure the policy is based

on the best and most accurate scientific information available. We hope to have a

draft policy completed in the very near future and available for public comment and

review within a few months. We believe that artificial production facilities can make

an important contribution to salmon recovery in the Northwest.

In addition, in 2002, NOAA Fisheries published notices that it would initiate status review updates for 27 ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead, including 26 listed

ESUs and 1 candidate ESU. The status reviews were initiated in response to the

Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans decision, as well as separate listing and de-listing

petitions for 14 ESUs. On December 31, 2002 we expanded the status reviews to

also reconsider the relationship between steelhead and genetically indistinguishable

resident trout, since our past practice of listing only anadromous fish in our 10 listed steelhead ESUs that also contain such resident trout is susceptible to legal challenge on grounds similar to Alsea. The comprehensive status review updates are anticipated to be completed as soon as possible following the adoption of the hatchery

listing policy to provide guidance on the proper consideration of hatchery populations in ESA status reviews and listing determinations. The review is being conducted in two parts.

In part one, an expert team of Federal scientists, the Biological Review Team, is

reviewing the status of the naturally spawning portion of each ESU. Another group

of agency scientists is advising how closely related the hatchery stocks in each ESU

are to the naturally spawning portion of the ESU. In part two, NOAA Fisheries will

review overall extinction risks to the entire ESU, including hatchery spawned fish.

As required by the Endangered Species Act, the final determination of whether an

ESU should be listed will be based on the combined results of parts 1 and 2.

Recently, the science panel completed its preliminary report for part 1 and has

shared it with State, tribal and Federal co-managers to ensure that the findings are

technically accurate. These preliminary findings show the status of the naturally

spawning portion of each ESU and report on the relatedness of associated hatchery

populations. The preliminary findings do not take into account the future effects of

ongoing salmon conservation and recovery efforts. My staff will use this information

as part of our determination of which ESUs required continued protection as threatened or endangered species.

After the part 1 and part 2 reviews have been completed, NOAA Fisheries intends

to publish its proposed findings on each ESU and the basis for the findings, and
49

will seek public comment on those proposed findings. NOAA Fisheries anticipates

completing its review of all 26 salmon and steelhead ESUs, publishing those findings in the Federal Register, and seeking public comment before the end of 2003.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today, and also for your

demonstrated commitment and leadership on Pacific salmon recovery and other environmental issues of concern to Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. I look forward

to working with you to ensure that salmon recovery is successful, cost-effective and

yields benefits for generations to come. Thank you for the chance to appear before

you today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions, either at this hearing

or in subsequent submissions for the record.
50
51
52

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. WRIGHT, ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Wright. I am

the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). It is a pleasure

to appear before you today to discuss the progress we have made in salmon recovery

over the last 3 years, since the December 2000 release of Endangered Species Act

(ESA) Biological Opinions (BiOps) for listed salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and bull

trout.

Overall, I have good news to report. Despite drought conditions in 2001, dry conditions at the start of this year, and BPA’s poor financial circumstances, the Northwest region of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (‘‘NOAA Fisheries’’) recently verified that the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Action Agencies (i.e. BPA, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) are fully implementing over 95 percent of the measures called for in the

NOAA Fisheries BiOp. These ESA actions are also helping to fulfill our responsibil-
53

ities under the Northwest Power Act to protect and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the FCRPS. As you know, the Federal District Court has remanded the

NOAA Fisheries BiOp for revision, and NOAA has approximately 1 year to revise

it in accordance with the court’s ruling. While the BiOp is being revised, BPA will

continue to meet its 2003 and 2004 commitments under the Northwest Power Act

and the Endangered Species Act.

The court, however, is now considering a motion by the plaintiffs to vacate the

Biological Opinion while it is undergoing revision. Briefing on the motion was completed June 20 and the court may rule at any time. A decision by the court to vacate

the Biological Opinion could have severe consequences on NOAA Fisheries, on the

Federal Action Agencies and on the entire FCRPS.

Improved Fish Survival

As NOAA Fisheries will testify, the steps the FCRPS Action Agencies have taken

over the last decade have significantly improved juvenile fish survival through the

Federal hydro system. Today, young fish survive their passage downriver at roughly

the same rates as in the 1960’s, when fewer dams were in place.

In addition to improved survival rates through the dams and reservoirs, we are

seeing rebounds in the numbers of returning adult fish throughout the Columbia

River Basin. For example, in 2001, the upriver Spring Chinook return of 405,500

fish counted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at the

Bonneville Dam was the largest return on record (since 1938), and resulted in

172,000 fish counted by WDFW, over Lower Granite. This year (2003), we had the

third-highest return on record 195,770 despite the severe drought and emergency

power operations in 2001, when many of these returning adults were migrating to

the ocean. For the first time in many years, there are enough surplus fish to allow

full-scale commercial fisheries on this stock. Returns for other stocks have seen

similar results. For example, upriver steelhead saw record returns of nearly 640,000

fish. Generally good to excellent returns and spawning have continued for most

stocks in 2002 and so far in 2003.

Some of this recent good news is attributable to favorable ocean conditions, which

are cyclical. However, we believe it also reflects the combined benefits of FCRPS Action Agencies’ efforts to improve juvenile fish survival, habitat, hatchery management, and harvest control. We see these strong returns as indicators that we are

on the right long-term path with our salmon recovery program.

Today, I will review our progress to date under the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (Council) Fish and Wildlife Program and Endangered Species

Act mitigation. Jointly, these actions are coordinated and carried out through the

Council’s Fish & Wildlife Program and are referred to as the Integrated Program.

I will talk about the accountability that we have built into our fish and wildlife efforts, including our focus on monitoring and evaluation and other work that is laying the foundation for achieving biological benefits for the least cost. Finally, I will

address BPA’s financial situation and how it has affected our fish and wildlife efforts. We have continued to meet our fish and wildlife obligations despite our financial difficulties. But the unpredictability of water conditions and electricity prices

will continue to cause BPA’s revenues to fluctuate considerably from year to year.

In the face of this continued volatility, we are taking steps to provide greater budget

stability and predictability for our fish and wildlife efforts.

A Performance–Based Approach to Salmon Recovery

Before highlighting some of BPA’s specific fish and wildlife accomplishments, I

would like to summarize the approach we’ve been taking since the release of the

2000 BiOps. Earlier efforts, rather than targeting and measuring biological performance, merely specified actions habitat improvement, hatchery operations, and the

like. Starting with the 2000 BiOp, we began using a performance-based, least-cost

approach.

The transition to performance standards as the measure of fish enhancement has

been difficult at times. BPA has taken a leadership role in showing that it is not

how much money we spend that is the gauge of our success it is the results we have

to show for the money spent. In the words of the Northwest Power Act, the Council’s

Fish and Wildlife Program seeks to ‘‘utilize, where equally effective alternatives

means of achieving the same sound biological objectives exist, the alternative with

the minimum economic cost . . . .’’ Under this approach, we are using a biological

yardstick, while still keeping our eye on costs.

Consider spill for example. Under the BiOp, we are measuring the biological effectiveness of spill at individual dams. We have learned that spill is not a ‘‘one size

fits all’’ formula. Spill amounts and patterns vary in their effectiveness in supporting fish survival. BPA, together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
54

and the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), has analyzed river operations looking for

opportunities to achieve the BiOp performance standards while reducing costs. Research studies at John Day and Ice Harbor Dams have suggested that lower spill

levels (from those called for in the BiOp) may enhance juvenile passage survival

during spring and/or summer migration. This year, we are conducting tests of reduced spill levels at these projects, consistent with the BiOp implementation planning process, to determine optimum levels of spill for improved survival. In addition,

we are working with the Council and others to carry out the summer spill test recommendations in the 2003 Mainstem Amendment to the Council’s Columbia River

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

In a related area, we have seen some promising results at Lower Granite Dam

from the use of removable spillway weirs (RSWs), which may allow greater fish passage with less water spilled and less dissolved gas. As the Corps notes in its testimony, we are accelerating investigation of RSWs at key dams, with the endorsement

of the Council.

BPA’s Recent Accomplishments Under the Biological Opinion

I am proud of what BPA and its partners have accomplished for salmon recovery.

Here are some of our notable actions in 2002:

In the hydrosystem:

1. With the Corps and Bureau, we completed ten major configuration projects at

the Federal dams. With the completion of these measures, we have improved adult

fish passage at Bonneville, Ice Harbor, and Lower Granite, assisted adult fish migration in the Lower Snake River, and improved juvenile fish passage at Lower

Monumental and Lower Granite Dams.

2. Water management and fishery operations generally followed the expectations

in the BiOp. Over 21 million juvenile salmonids were collected, and approximately

14 million of those were transported by truck or barge and released below Bonneville Dam. The remaining seven million went through a bypass system to the

tailrace.

We managed flow and spill on the river to improve juvenile fish migration

through the spring and summer seasons, using the storage in the upriver reservoirs

to supplement natural stream flows.

To improve habitat:

3. BPA funded implementation of hundreds of new and continuing projects to protect and enhance habitats important to fish. Over 260 habitat projects were implemented in 25 subbasins.

Through the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, BPA acquired at least 164 cubic

feet per second (cfs) of instream tributary flow enhancements. We also removed or

improved more than 70 fish passage barriers to open nearly 700 miles of habitat.

Also through the Council’s program, we protected or enhanced over 198 river

miles and 19,600 acres of riparian buffers and habitat.

For hatcheries:

• The new Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery was completed and began operation.

• BPA funded the operation and maintenance of over 30 major anadromous fish

hatcheries.

• BPA funded four captive broodstock programs to protect the basin’s most endangered populations.

• The Kootenai River White Sturgeon aquaculture program produced and released juvenile resident fish.

• BPA funded development of hatchery genetic management plans for the

Grande Ronde and Tucannon spring/summer chinook safety net programs. The safety-net program is intended to provide artificial propagation contingency plans that,

if implemented, would prevent further decline in the status of the most at-risk ESAlisted species, to buy time for other recovery measures to take effect.

• BPA funded the marking of key populations of hatchery fish, protecting listed

fish by allowing more selective fisheries.

For harvest:

• BPA tested alternative fishing gears and provided improved gillnets to tribal

commercial fishers.

• BPA funded the location and removal of eight submerged fishing nets that

could have continued to take ESA-listed fish in the Columbia River.
55

In addition:

• Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E): We have developed a comprehensive RM&E program framework that will provide information to assess needs

of fish and the effect of mitigation efforts and continued to fund monitoring and research programs for dams, habitat, and hatcheries. • Subbasin Planning: Working with the Council, States, and Tribes, BPA has

funded a regional process of subbasin planning for 62 watersheds, with plans that

are locally developed under a common template, subject to independent science review, and coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) to ensure ESA consistency. This process is expected to be completed in 2004. Completed subbasin plans will further the protection of fish by identifying particular improvements and projects to undertake.

These efforts came at a substantial cost to the ratepayers of the Northwest. At an annual estimated cost exceeding $600 million, BPA believes its efforts to preserve salmon and other fish and wildlife species is among the largest and most notable environment mitigation programs in the Nation. Fish enhancement has become

one of our three largest responsibilities, along with power supply and transmission

service.

Funding for Fish and Wildlife

BPA is currently managing through a difficult financial situation. Since the West

Coast electricity crisis in 2000, we have had to raise rates by 46 percent. We have

recently proposed another rate increase. Through cost cuts and deferrals in the remainder of the wholesale power rate period, as well as the turn in water and market conditions, we have managed to reduce the size of this rate increase to under

5 percent. We will continue to work with our cost partners to reduce this further.

Throughout our efforts to manage costs, we have sought efficiencies from all parts

of our budget, including fish and wildlife. Key among these was that BPA faced a

potential liquidity problem and needed to manage to the budgeted accrual level for

the Integrated Program, which was $139 million. The $139 million is an increase

of almost 40 percent over our direct program spending for fish and wildlife in the

previous rate period. BPA also funds capital projects for fish and wildlife, including

physical improvements at the dams to improve fish passage and similar capital

projects. The Integrated Program level of available capital is $36 million a 33 percent increase over the previous rate period.

In the fall of 2002, internal estimates indicated that forecasted expenditures for the Integrated Program in 2003 could be as high as $180 million. The forecasted

overage (amounts above $139 million level) was the result of a number of complex

factors. It was not the result of poor planning by the Council.

In December 2002, BPA asked that the Council in consultation with the region’s

fish and wildlife managers take the lead to ensure that spending for the Integrated

Program did not exceed $139 million in fiscal year 2003. In addition, we asked the

Council to re-order priorities to create the opportunity to spend less than $139 million annually for the remainder of the rate period, through 2006.

BPA emphasized that the Council’s prioritization must assure that BPA meet its

obligations to fish and wildlife. Core to these obligations, we said, were projects

needed to meet the requirements of the various biological opinions that apply to

BPA, in particular for the 2003 and 2005 check-ins for the 2000 FCRPS BiOp. We

have made every effort in this process with the Council to ensure that our BiOprelated projects remain priorities.

I am pleased to report that the Council has responded affirmatively to our request. We are proceeding to work with the Council on implementing this approach,

consistent with our statutory responsibilities, for fiscal year 2003 and the remainder

of the rate period.

At the same time, the Council is understandably concerned about recent events.

The States and other parties have asked BPA to consider development of a longterm agreement to govern spending for the Integrated Program in the post–2006 period. Regional tribes and the four Northwest Governors have also asked BPA to clarify the process for planning and management of the program for the remainder of

the rate period. We agree this is an important matter to discuss. Our goal is to work

toward creating greater funding predictability, while also assuring we can manage

to budgets.

With the establishment of performance standards and related tools, we have made

tremendous progress defining benchmarks for evaluating progress toward meeting

the biological needs of ESA-listed species. To develop a successful long-term agreement for the fish and wildlife program, we must establish similar standards and

tools to gauge progress under the Northwest Power Act. Such a discussion would

make sense in parallel with the regional dialog discussions that we are having re-
56

garding BPA power service post–2006. I would hope it could clarify our joint objectives, priorities and a least-cost planning approach for the Integrated Program. It

could also look at management options for navigating through financially difficult

times, or during poor water years when the capability of the FCRPS is stretched.

Regional Cooperation and Coordination

With BPA’s difficult financial situation and the demand on the capabilities of the

FCRPS, BPA believes it is more important than ever that all of us work collaboratively to benefit the region’s fish and wildlife in the most cost effective way possible. The recent recommendations from the four Northwest Governors underscore

this same point.

A very positive foundation is our clear agreement with the States that successful

BiOp implementation is critical to the region. BPA is working closely with NOAA

Fisheries and others to ensure a coordinated position on what constitutes successful

implementation. BPA is particularly focused on carrying out a legally and scientifically sound program, achieving successful check-ins mandated by the BiOp for

2003, 2005, and 2008. Not only is this essential to verify that the Integrated Program is achieving the desired biological results, it is also critical to ensuring that

those results are achieved at the lowest cost.

We are in agreement with the four Northwest Governors that successful implementation of research, monitoring, and evaluation is key to assessing our progress

toward accomplishing biological objectives and meeting and refining performance

standards. We will work closely with our State, Federal, and tribal partners to take

advantage of ongoing efforts in RM&E, and integrate them with the new ones that

are needed.

Subbasin planning is also a key focus for BPA. With its watershed-by-watershed

approach, subbasin planning maximizes local participation, knowledge and consensus, involving States, tribes, and local entities. Consistent with the four Governors’ recommendations, BPA has provided substantial funding for development of

subbasin plans throughout the region. We expect that subbasin plans will provide

an important foundation for recovery planning throughout the Columbia River

Basin, and that they will guide habitat, hatchery and harvest actions in the years

to come.

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that BPA expenditures for salmon

recovery are mitigation for the power effects of the dams not for the impacts caused

by other users of the river basin. Every contributor to the salmon problem has a

share of the responsibility for achieving improved recovery.

Finally, we support the NOAA Fisheries and Corps budget requests in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 and the activities they are

targeted to fund. We join those agencies in asking Congress to provide support for

those requests. We also support the Bureau’s request for authority to conduct fish

restoration activities in the tributaries in the Columbia River Basin.

The other agencies in the Federal Caucus, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),

have worked successfully together over the years to implement habitat, water quality, fisheries management, and the multitude of other actions that contribute to an

‘‘All–H’’ (hydro, habitat, hatchery and harvest improvements) approach to salmon

recovery.

Conclusion

The effort to recover salmon in the Pacific Northwest is one of the nation’s largest

and most notable environmental recovery programs. We are collaborating on successful projects and implementing cutting edge actions throughout the Columbia

River Basin. In the face of some very challenging financial circumstances, BPA remains fully committed to meeting our obligations. Together with our partners, we

are focused on results, and we are getting them in the most cost effective way possible.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and would be pleased

to answer your questions.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL DALE KNIERIEMEN, DEPUTY COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS

OF ENGINEERS, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, and distinguished guests, I am pleased to

testify on US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) activities to restore Columbia River

Basin salmon and steelhead stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act. The
57

Corps appreciates the support of Congress and the Northwest delegation for salmon

recovery. Today, I have good news to report on these ongoing efforts.

The Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA), the ‘‘Action Agencies’’ for the Federal Columbia River Power System, are in

our third year of activities under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River

Power System. We are making significant headway in implementing most of the

measures in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. We have made and are making numerous improvements to dams and fish passage facilities throughout the system. We have implemented flow, release and other operational measures for fish

during fish migration seasons, and we are laying the groundwork for potential further operational adjustments. Habitat restoration actions are proceeding. We are

working closely with our partners to assure that our comprehensive research, monitoring and evaluation (RM&E) program will provide the answers we need to evaluate our progress and make course adjustments as we proceed. The Federal agencies

also are working collectively to ensure our efforts are compatible with those of the

States, tribes and others in this huge and very complex program.

The NOAA Fisheries Findings Letter for the Action Agencies 2003–2007 Implementation Plan identifies some areas of concern where the agencies have been delayed in implementation. Subbasin Plans, developed at the State and local level

with Northwest Power and Conservation Council assistance and BPA funding, are

underway but taking more time than initially projected. Completion of these non–

Federal plans is important because they are intended to guide habitat restoration

efforts in the basin and improve coordination. While slow to start, RM&E efforts

now are coming together and plans are taking shape. RM&E is critical to the 2005

check-in to measure effects of the Action Agencies’ restoration activities on recovering fish populations.

Columbia River Basin fish restoration is more than a one or 2 year effort. We

must remain committed for the 10-year period covered by the Biological Opinion.

Fish returns have been very good for the past 3 years, and we expect 2003 to be

another good year for returning adult salmon. But we must continue looking beyond

the immediate numbers and focus on the long-term trends. We have to sustain our

commitment to hydro, habitat, hatchery and harvest improvements to give these

fish a reasonable certainty of long-term recovery.

The Administration has supported the Corps Columbia River Salmon Program by

requesting $128 million and $125 million for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 respectively. These amounts include funding the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project

for configuration studies and actions at lower Columbia and Snake Dams, habitat

studies and actions, Chief Joseph Dam gas abatement, Willamette River temperature control construction and the appropriated portion of operation and maintenance

funding for fish facilities, juvenile fish transport and research. In addition we are

receiving about $33 million annually in direct funding from BPA for operation and

maintenance of fish facilities. Our budget requests have been based on our estimated requirements for a program to fully comply with the Biological Opinion for

the 10 year period through 2010.

The Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Bill funded specific Biological Opinion actions for

habitat restoration in the Columbia River Estuary as authorized in Section 536 of

the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as well as gas abatement measures

at Chief Joseph Dam and an investigation of System Flood Control under the Columbia River Fish Mitigation (CRFM) project. Each of these addresses important

elements in the Biological Opinion, and assists the Corps in meeting fish restoration

goals.

NWF et al v. NMFS et al

On May 7, 2003, Judge James A. Redden of the Federal District Court of Oregon

issued an opinion ruling in favor of a coalition of environmental groups in National

Wildlife Federation et al v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al. This case challenged the NOAA 2000 Fisheries Biological Opinion. The judge determined that the

NOAA Opinion was ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ He has remanded the Opinion to

NOAA Fisheries to address the deficiencies within 1 year and has required reports

to the court every 90 days. The judge has not yet ruled on whether to let the 2000

Biological Opinion stand during this period or to ‘‘vacate’’ the Opinion. He has asked

the parties to provide arguments that are expected to lead to a decision this summer. In the meantime, the Action Agencies will continue to implement the Biological

Opinion.

The court is now considering a motion by the plaintiffs to vacate the Biological

Opinion while it is undergoing revision. Briefing on the motion was completed June

20 and the court may rule at any time. A decision by the court to vacate the Biologi-
58

cal Opinion could have severe consequences on NOAA Fisheries, on the Federal Action Agencies and on the entire Federal Columbia River Power System. It would remove the incidental take protection that currently shields Federal employees from

legal liability under the Endangered Species Act. It would also threaten the continuation of many Federal programs designed to help recover imperiled salmon runs

such as the demonstrably successful juvenile transportation effort. Vacatur would

destroy the current operational certainty for the highly complex power system, and

replace it with institutionalized uncertainty. This uncertainty would arise from the

continuing threat of judicial intervention to change current operations to meet the

demands of the plaintiffs in the litigation—regardless of the impacts of those

changes on the power system or even on the imperiled fish. The reliability and economic efficiency of the power system would be damaged, with no clear benefit for

fish.

Progress Made

The Action Agencies recently released the Endangered Species Act 2002 Progress

Report for the Federal Columbia River Power System. This report documents many

accomplishments under the Biological Opinion, but two fish passage innovations

stand out.

One is the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse Corner Collector, a $55 million

project (includes entire project costs from design to post-construction monitoring)

with planned construction completion in December 2003. Federal biologists expect

this high flow surface bypass facility for young salmon to provide a 1 to 3 percent

increase in juvenile fish survival past the Bonneville Second Powerhouse. The corner collector will work in conjunction with the existing second powerhouse screened

juvenile bypass system. Together, these nonturbine routes should guide about 90

percent of all juvenile fish at the second powerhouse and achieve an estimated survival rate exceeding 95 percent.

The other fish passage innovation is the Removable Spillway Weir, or RSW, a prototype juvenile fish passage improvement installed at Lower Granite Dam in 2001.

Existing spillway gates at Lower Granite release water that is 50 feet below the surface at the dam face. Fish pass through these deep gates under high pressure and

velocities. The RSW allows juvenile salmon and steelhead to pass the dam nearer

the water surface under lower velocities and lower pressures, providing a more efficient and less stressful dam passage route. The RSW structure also is designed to

be ‘‘removable’’ by controlled descent to the bottom of the dam forebay. This capability permits returning the spillway to original flow capacity during major flood

events. Testing for mechanical and biological effectiveness has produced promising

results. The Lower Granite RSW working together with the existing prototype powerhouse surface collector and forebay guidance structure shows a seven to one effectiveness ratio based on first year data. This ratio means that about 70 percent of

the fish passed the spillway using about 10 percent of the river flow. Thus, the RSW

has the potential to provide not only fish benefits but also power savings to the region. We continued testing the ‘‘stand-alone’’ RSW at Lower Granite (without surface collector or forebay guidance structure) in 2003. We are also evaluating potential implementation of an RSW at Ice Harbor Dam by 2005 at an estimated cost

of $24.3 million.

Besides these new technologies, we continue to make improvements to existing juvenile and adult bypass systems at the eight lower Columbia and Snake River

dams. These improvements are in accordance with the Biological Opinion and include input from State, tribal and other Federal biologists and engineers through

the System Configuration Team and other regional forums. The juvenile fish bypass

systems guide fish away from turbines and through channels that run the length

of the dam. The fish are bypassed to the river below the dam, or they are routed

to a holding area for loading onto specially equipped barges or trucks. NOAA Fisheries research on Snake River spring/summer chinook indicates that between 50 and

60 percent of juvenile fish that migrate in-river successfully pass the eight Corps

dams on the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers. This survival is similar to when

there were only four dams, and is up from about a 10 to 40 percent survival rate

in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Operations for Fish

To the extent we can, the Action Agencies continue to operate the system of dams

and reservoirs in accordance with the NOAA Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) Biological Opinions. In this effort we get assistance from the Technical Management Team of State, tribal and Federal representatives who also receive input from other basin interests. Throughout the juvenile fish migration season, the team reviews flows, forecasts and fish movement and makes recommenda-
59

tions to adaptively manage the system to reflect changing conditions and demands

on the system. Water conditions in 2002 were close to normal; target flow conditions

were achieved for the most part, and spill was provided as planned.

The juvenile fish transportation program transported approximately 14.1 million

juvenile fish from collector dams to a release point below Bonneville Dam where

they continued their migration to the estuary and ocean. Most of these juvenile fish,

approximately 13.7 million, were barged and the remainder were transported by

truck. The estimated survival to the point of release was over 98 percent.

The Corps operates the juvenile fish transport program in accordance with the

NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion and with Technical Management Team input.

Four Corps dams are equipped to collect fish for transport: Lower Granite, Little

Goose, Lower Monumental, and McNary. Transported fish are released downstream

of Bonneville Dam. Studies indicate that transport can increase fish survival as

measured by smolt to adult return rates. This is especially true for wild fish (about

85 percent greater returns for transported wild steelhead versus inriver and about

30 percent greater for wild chinook).

The major issue is whether barge transportation can achieve the smolt-to-adult

ratio needed to halt the population decline and move to recovery. Differential delayed mortality (‘‘D’’) of transported fish is probably the single largest technical

question regarding the role of transportation in salmon recovery. It is uncertain if

differential delayed transport mortality is a natural process (i.e., some percentage

of fish will die whether they travel in barges or in-river), or if it is actually caused

by barging, for example, by releasing fish in the lower river without the experience

of migration. There are numerous theories; however, the phenomenon is probably

due to multiple causes rather than any single one. Regardless of ‘‘D,’’ transported

Snake River wild fish can return at a higher rate than those that remain in-river

during their out-migration. Until these uncertainties are resolved the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion calls for the Corps to continue improvements for fish survival through all routes of passage (spillway, bypass systems, turbines and transportation).

In January 2003 the Corps began implementing the VARQ alternative flood control plan operation on an interim basis at Libby Dam. (VARQ stands for variable

discharge, withbeing the standard engineering shorthand for discharge or flow.) Implementation of VARQ at Libby and Hungry Horse dams in Montana is part of both

the NOAA Fisheries and USFWS Biological Opinions. It is a key action to protect

threatened and endangered fish species including Kootenai River white sturgeon,

salmon, and bull trout, through improved ability to provide spring and summer

flows. Hungry Horse Dam, operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, began interim

implementation of VARQ flood control in 2002. This operation reduces releases from

Libby and Hungry Horse during the winter drawdown period of January through

April in most years (depending on forecasted water supply), providing better assurance of reservoir refill in the summer. This is accomplished by transferring flood

control storage requirements under some water runoff forecast conditions. Interim

VARQ flood control will continue until the Corps and Reclamation complete an Environmental Impact Statement on potential longer-term implementation expected by

2005.

Estuary Restoration Efforts

Planning efforts for several habitat restoration projects in the Columbia River Estuary continue in close coordination with regional partners. The Brownsmead

Project east of Astoria would restore tidal flow to about 9.2 miles of sloughs. We

have initiated study of a project in Southwest Washington to replace nine culverts

that are blocking or restricting access to small tributary streams to the Columbia

River. A project at Crims Island would acquire and restore approximately 425 acres

of tidal emergent marsh, swamp, slough, and riparian forest habitat in the upper

Columbia River Estuary to benefit fish and wildlife. Another is a project at Lena’s

Lake with USFWS to create around 1000 feet of spawning channel for Chum salmon. USFWS, NOAA Fisheries and the Corps are pursuing a project at Julia Butler

National Wildlife Refuge to restore approximately nine miles of secondary sloughs

to fisheries access.

In addition to project-specific planning, the Corps is working with the States of

Oregon and Washington, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and BPA

to initiate a strategic master plan to identify long-range projects to improve the ecological health of the river. The Action Agencies also continue to fund much-needed

research in the estuary.
60

Challenges Remain

We still have a long way to go. We are in the third year of a 10-year effort and

must keep the momentum going. In the estuary, the Corps is pushing hard to meet

the Biological Opinion measure to restore 10,000 acres of salmon and steelhead

habitat. We will continue to work with Oregon and Washington through the Lower

Columbia River Estuary Partnership to identify the most promising sites and leverage our resources to get the job done.

Operation of Libby Dam will be a challenge to balance the needs of both listed

and non-listed fish as well as those of residents living downstream of the project,

including Canada residents.

RM&E measures in the Biological Opinion are progressing but remain a complex

task for the Action Agencies and NOAA Fisheries. We are pursuing potential opportunities for linking to State, tribal, local and other efforts of a similar nature as we

set up these systems. NOAA Fisheries’ parallel RM&E effort has been delayed due

to constrained funding so we anticipate setbacks in the overall ability to monitor

whether our actions are working for increased fish populations.

Our fiscal year 03 appropriation for funding CRFM actions under the Biological

Opinion was $85 million, a reduction of $13 million from the budget request of $98

million. Savings and slippage further reduced the funds available to just under $70

million. We continue to meet with regional, State, tribal and Federal counterparts

in the System Configuration Team (another of the NOAA Fisheries regional forums

for coordinating Biological Opinion actions) to discuss and re-prioritize fish passage

improvements, planned research activities and studies for the 2003 program. Some

of our planned actions to comply with the Biological Opinion have been delayed.

What help we need

Overall we believe the Action Agencies are making very good progress toward the

2003 ‘‘check-in.’’ However, there is much work ahead of us before we reach the 2005

mid-point evaluation. Continued progress in meeting the 2005 ‘‘checkin,’’ which will

include measuring and evaluating effects on fish populations, will depend upon resources and funding. The President’s budget for the Corps for Columbia River salmon activities is sufficient to keep us on track, and we respectfully request your full

support for that budget.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any

questions.

STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM MCDONALD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST

REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

My name is J. William McDonald, Regional Director of the Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide this progress report

on Reclamation’s implementation of actions to benefit Columbia and Snake River

salmon and steelhead listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act. Reclamation is responsible for the Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse

Dams and Powerplants, which are two of the 14 projects which constitute the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). We work closely with the Army Corps

of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration in the operation of the

FCRPS and in addressing the ESA issues with which the FCRPS is confronted.

Reclamation has or shares responsibility for implementing over 60 of the 199 actions in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) in the National Marine

Fisheries Service’s (NOAA Fisheries’) December 2000 Biological Opinion (FCRPS

BiOp). This BiOp covers the continued operation and maintenance of the FCRPS

and of Reclamation’s Columbia Basin Project, and the aggregate hydrologic effects

on mainstem flows of the 19 Reclamation irrigation projects located in the Columbia

River Basin (exclusive of the Snake River Basin above Hells Canyon).

Reclamation is generally on track in implementing those actions in the RPA

which are our responsibility.

Our hydro-electric generation efforts under the FCRPS BiOp include the operation

of Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse Dams in a manner that assists in meeting certain flow targets and the annual acquisition of up to 427,000 acre feet of water in

the Snake River Basin from willing participants to improve spring and summer

streamflow conditions for juvenile fish migration.

Reclamation is on schedule on the implementation of the habitat restoration provisions of the RPA. As required by action 149 of the RPA, we have initiated programs in nine subbasins to assist with providing migration passage and screening

on non–Federal water diversion structures, and securing water and water rights

from willing sellers and lessors for instream flows in accordance with State law.
61

While Reclamation has the authority to plan and design fish screens and passage

for non–Federal water projects, we do not have the authority to fund construction.

Thus, Reclamation’s ability to fully accomplish this work will be hampered unless

we receive the statutory authority to construct, or provide financial assistance to

others to construct, fish passage and screening on non-federally owned diversion

structures beginning with fiscal year 2004.

In this regard, the Administration, in an October 30, 2002 letter from the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, proposed legislation to the Congress which, if

enacted, would give Reclamation the authority it needs to carry out activities in this

BiOp. We continue to work with congressional staff on that proposal. In the meantime, others, including BPA and State agencies in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington,

are providing some funding for the construction of these improvements at non–Federal water diversion projects.

Following the May 7, 2003, decision of the U.S. District Court for Oregon in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, many have asked

if this proposed legislation is still needed. I would like to emphasize the importance

of and need for this legislation. Among other things, the court found that certain

BiOp actions were not reasonably certain to occur. Reclamation’s proposed legislative provision of financial assistance to private parties for the construction of fish

passage and screening is one area where Reclamation is committed to the implementation of certain actions for which the BiOp’s RPA calls. Thus, I would reiterate

the need for this funding authority.

We are also implementing research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) activities, primarily in priority subbasins. This is important for determining the effectiveness of our actions and the status of the listed fish.

Reclamation has received sufficient appropriations to date to fund actions required in the FCRPS BiOp. Our appropriation for the Columbia/Snake Salmon Recovery Program has risen from $5.6 million in fiscal year 2001 to $15 million in fiscal year 2003. The President’s proposed level of funding is $19 million for fiscal year

2004. Most of this increase is needed to fund our offsite habitat improvements (i.e.,

passage and screening on non–Federal water projects) in the tributary subbasins,

and assumes enactment of legislation to provide the necessary authority. We appreciate your continued support of these efforts.

In conclusion, we are pleased with our progress to date in implementing the actions in the FCRPS BiOp for which we are responsible. At the same time, we are

mindful of the importance and magnitude of the task which lies before us.

STATEMENT OF JUDI DANIELSON, CHAIR NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

Good morning, Senator Crapo, and thank you for the opportunity to testify here

today on implementation of the NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion on Hydropower Operations for Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and steelhead in the

Columbia River Basin.

I am Judi Danielson, and I chair the Northwest Power Planning Council. The

Council is an agency of the four Northwest States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and

Washington. The Council was created by the State legislatures in 1981 under authority of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,

which the Congress approved in December 1980. The Power Act directs the Council

to prepare a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin that have been affected by hydropower dams while also assuring

the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable electric power

supply.

The Council implements the Power Act through two broad, integrated planning

processes. One process is for our Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan,

and the other is for our Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Today

I will focus my comments on implementation of our fish and wildlife program, and

specifically on how the program incorporates elements of the 2000 Biological Opinions issued by NOAA Fisheries for Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull

trout.

The Council committed in its 2000 revision of its fish and wildlife program to pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other Federal, State, tribal,

Canadian and volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs. The Council also

committed to use subbasin planning to identify coordination needs and opportunities

that arise from the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and also water

and land management objectives affecting fish and wildlife. In this way we can use
62

our program funding to coordinate activities that address various legal requirements

and provide the maximum benefit to fish and wildlife.

It is important to point out, first, that even though the Power Act is a Federal

law, the Council is not a Federal agency and our fish and wildlife program is not

a recovery plan for purposes of the Endangered Species Act. The Council develops

the program and recommends projects to implement it, as I will explain in more detail. Consistent with specific direction in the Power Act, these projects are funded

by the Bonneville Power Administration from a portion of the revenues it collects

from its electricity customers. Implementation of the Council’s fish and wildlife program does not depend on consultations among Federal agencies or appropriations

by Congress or Federal agencies.

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

First, I am optimistic about the partnership between local, State, Federal and

tribal governments that has developed to implement the Council’s fish and wildlife

program and elements of the biological opinion. This implementation begins at the

local level with locally developed plans. We are having successes, and our efforts are

being noticed and copied elsewhere in the Nation.

Second, the Northwest Power Act authorizes Bonneville, through the Council’s

fish and wildlife program, to utilize offsite mitigation to accomplish the purpose of

protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife affected by hydropower dams.

The Power Act, not the ESA, is the source of Bonneville’s authority to pursue offsite

mitigation activities in the Biological Opinion. The 2000 Biological Opinion acknowledges the importance of offsite mitigation as an aid to recovering threatened and

endangered species. Thus, our program integrates Biological Opinion and Power Act

requirements for enhancing and recovering fish and wildlife. This is cost-effective

and helps avoid duplication while providing benefits for ESA-listed and non-listed

populations.

Third, we are moving ahead with subbasin planning as a means of identifying

specific fish and wildlife needs in each of the 62 subbasins of the Columbia River.

This is one of the largest planning efforts of its kind in the world, and it is particularly significant because it is locally driven. Subbasin plans will focus implementation of our program and elements of the biological opinion to deliver the highest

benefits at the lowest cost.

Fourth, the Council consistently has complied with the budgets established by

Bonneville for implementing our fish and wildlife program, including a significant

funding reduction for 2003. But we are concerned that continued reduced funding

may jeopardize Bonneville’s ability to meet its legal requirements under the Northwest Power Act and the ESA. It is important to give equal priority to ESA-listed

and non-listed fish in our fish and wildlife program.

Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program and the Biological Opinions

The Council’s program is being implemented at the local level, in the tributary

subbasins of the Columbia, and also in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers

at the major hydroelectric projects. But most importantly for our purpose here

today, the program is being driven by locally developed assessments of fish and

wildlife mitigation needs. These plans account for elements of the biological opinion,

as I will explain in more detail in my testimony. The degree of local/State/Federal

collaboration is impressive and has been noticed by people elsewhere in the Nation

who are adapting the structure we developed for their own fish and wildlife mitigation efforts. In the State where you and I live, Mr. Chairman, there are impressive

collaborative efforts underway for the benefit of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead,

and other fish and wildlife, in the Salmon and Clearwater basins. The Idaho Department of Water Resources is coordinating an effort to develop a statewide water

transactions program to respond to a specific action item in the biological opinion

RPA Action 151—that calls for experimentation with innovative ways to increase

tributary water flows for the benefit of listed species.

Partners in these efforts include the local soil and water conservation districts,

Indian tribes, Idaho State agencies, the Power Planning Council and Governor

Kempthorne’s Office of Species Conservation. Similar efforts are underway for the

benefit of listed and unlisted species in Oregon, Washington and Montana. Throughout the Columbia River Basin, local entities are leading the planning efforts and

successfully integrating Federal recovery efforts with local efforts.

Key to these efforts is a foundation of solid science and a credible and independent scientific review. The Council takes a science-based, collaborative approach

to implementing its fish and wildlife program through projects that are designed to

make progress toward the goals and objectives of the program and the biological

opinion. Projects proposed for funding are reviewed by the Columbia Basin Fish and

Wildlife Authority and the 11-member Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP).
63

All projects are treated equally in this review. Project proposal that respond to action items in the biological opinion do not get special preference in the ISRP reviews.

The Council created the ISRP in 1997 in response to an amendment to the Northwest Power Act. In this way, the Council is responding to a 1996 independent scientific review of the program that concluded, among other things, that the program

lacked a process for prioritization of projects and provided, at the time, little guidance for annual implementation. The review recommended incorporating an integrated approach based on an overall, scientifically credible conceptual foundation.

The Council incorporated such a foundation into its most recent revision of the program, in 2000. The 2000 Program expresses goals and objectives for the entire Columbia basin based on a scientific foundation of ecological principles.

Section 9.5 of the NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion states that the development and implementation of the 5-year and 1-year implementation plans will be

coordinated through existing processes. Mentioned specifically in Section 9.5 is the

annual project prioritization conducted by the Council for implementation of our fish

and wildlife program. The Council believes this prioritization process is well designed to coordinate ESA needs with other Bonneville fish and wildlife funding obligations, and that this can be the principal device for coordinating implementation

among the many jurisdictions involved in the salmon restoration and recovery effort.

The Council is committed to collaboration with the NOAA Fisheries and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting requirements of the ESA and the Northwest

Power Act. We can incorporate the implementation sequence in the NOAA Fisheries

Biological Opinion into our fish and wildlife program implementation planning. The

biological opinion sets out a sequence of 5-year and 1-year implementation plans.

These are to be developed by the Action Agencies. The Council sees this sequence

of planning, particularly the 1-year plans, as ‘‘check-in’’ points to verify that the

Council’s schedule for implementation planning and program funding will address

the requirements of the biological opinion as well as the objectives of the program.

The Council’s project review process, which is accomplished at the ecological province level (there are 11 ecological provinces in the Columbia basin) permits focused

and considered scientific review and public involvement on Bonneville fish and wildlife funding decisions. The province-based review and approval process will lead to

longer periods of funding approval—three years in most instances.

Because the Council’s fish and wildlife program is designed to benefit all fish and

wildlife in the basin affected by the hydrosystem, it has been addressing ESA-listed

species through a number of actions. Some portion of the annual budget for the direct program over the last 5 years has benefited species of concern under the Endangered Species Act.

The NOAA Fisheries 2000 Biological Opinion includes numerous specific measures in the hydrosystem and new initiatives for improving salmon and steelhead

survival in the stages of their life-cycles that come before and after migration

through the mainstem Snake and Columbia—what we call ‘‘offsite’’ mitigation. http:/

/epw.senate.gov/108th/Danielson—062403.htm These measures are at the heart of

the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program.

The offsite measures include experimenting with new techniques, such as an experimental voluntary water rights brokerage, attempting to focus landowner enrollment in Farm Service Administration programs where salmon habitat needs the

most help and protecting specific reaches of existing high-quality habitat through

voluntary landowner agreements. The Council took primary coordinating responsibility for key elements of the offsite measures of the biological opinion for hatchery

reform and subbasin planning. Both of those initiatives are well underway with considerable collaboration of State and tribal agencies and local interests. In short,

many of the projects the Council recommends to Bonneville for funding implement

actions in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives of the two biological opinions.

I have included with my testimony a list of these projects from recent funding cycles.

Through our project selection process, independent scientific reviews and program

implementation we recognized the need for better monitoring and evaluation, and

data-gathering, than has been available in the past. Improved data management is

key to improved and more focused decisionmaking in the future. I am pleased to

say that the Council is moving ahead with a program to improve data management.

We have been working with an independent contractor to develop a more comprehensive, Internet-based data collection and repository system for the Columbia

River Basin, a system that will be available to all interested parties and that will

store data in uniform formats.
64

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

The 2000 Program established basinwide objectives for biological performance and

environmental characteristics. The 2000 Program also recognized that while impacts

such as overfishing and destruction of spawning and rearing habitat contributed to

the decline of salmon and steelhead runs prior to construction of the major hydropower dams in the Columbia basin, significant losses of anadromous fish, resident

fish and wildlife and their habitats have occurred as a result of the development

and operation of the hydrosystem. Biological objectives based on these losses provide

regional guidance for subbasin plans. For example, the 2000 Program—fs objectives

include increasing total adult salmon and steelhead runs above Bonneville Dam by

2025 to an average of 5 million annually in a manner that supports tribal and nontribal harvest. For resident fish, the 2000 Program recognizes the need for substitution for anadromous fish losses and restoration of native resident fish species

(subspecies, stocks and populations) to near historic abundance throughout their

historic ranges where original habitat conditions exist and where habitats can be

feasibly restored. For wildlife, the 2000 Program calls for development and implementation of habitat acquisition and enhancement projects to mitigate fully for identified losses.

The Council recognizes that achieving these broad objectives is not the sole responsibility of the 2000 Program or Bonneville alone. Complementary actions by

other governmental agencies and funding sources, including Canadian entities

where appropriate, as well as the support and participation of the citizens of the

Northwest, will be needed for these objectives to be fully achieved. However, the

focus of the 2000 Program is limited to fish and wildlife affected by the development, operation, and management of the FCRPS.

The 2000 Program organizes the Columbia River Basin into 11 ecological provinces. Within these provinces there are groups of adjoining subbasins with similar

physical and environmental conditions. These provinces are further subdivided into

two or more tributary subbasins. In all there are 62 tributary subbasins. The 2000

Program is implemented principally at the subbasin level. It is at this subbasin

level that the more general guidance provided by the larger province and basin-wide

level visions, principles, objectives, and strategies is refined in light of local scientific

knowledge, policies, and priorities.

Subbasin planning will facilitate, through a collaborative process, the development

of scientifically credible, locally implementable subbasin scale plans to serve the following purposes:

1. Protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife and related spawning grounds

and habitat impacted by the development and operation of the FCRPS;

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

subbasin plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Reclamation (BOR), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The Council will evaluate subbasin plan recommendations for their consistency

with biological objectives and strategies at the basin and province levels. Similarly,

as subbasin plan measures are adopted into the 2000 Program, higher-level objectives and strategies may be modified to reflect and accommodate the information

and initiatives of each plan.

The Council believes subbasin plans will establish scientifically sound restoration

strategies that rely on local leadership and clear implementation schedules. These

plans, once completed, will be the foundation for recovery planning under the Endangered Species Act as well as a broader base of credibility for the Council—fs program.

Subbasin plans will include three key elements: 1) an assessment of historical and

existing environmental conditions including abundance of fish and wildlife populations; 2) a clear and comprehensive inventory of existing projects and past accomplishments; and 3) a 10–15 year management plan. Subbasin planning will be coordinated by the States and tribes with local governments. The technical review

teams appointed by NOAA Fisheries will be involved to ensure consistency with
65

ESA recovery planning. Development of the plans will be funded by Bonneville and

administered by the Council.

We expect that subbasin plans will provide the basis for future implementation,

monitoring and evaluation of the fish and wildlife program. Subbasin plans also will

serve to meet ESA requirements in the short term. They will empower State, tribal

and local efforts in coordination with ESA recovery planning. And they will provide

a credible basis for other funding sources for fish and wildlife recovery , including

congressional appropriations.

In its 2000 Biological Opinion, NOAA Fisheries commits to rely heavily on the

Council’s subbasin planning process to identify offsite habitat mitigation opportunities. The heart of the Council’s offsite mitigation strategy is to complete subbasin

plans in each of the Columbia’s major tributaries. Earlier this month, the four

Northwest Governors endorsed subbasin planning as a means of consolidating recovery and enhancement actions. Specifically, the Governors said:

The hub for this Federal/regional/State/tribal effort is the subbasin planning

called for by the Council’s program. The biological opinions should continue to look

to these subbasin plans to guide habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions in the watersheds throughout the Columbia Basin in the coming years.

The Fish and Wildlife Budget

The Council believes that Bonneville’s funding obligation for the ESA is part of

its overall fish and wildlife responsibilities under the Northwest Power Act, and

therefore is tied to the adverse impacts caused by the hydrosystem. While Bonneville’s obligation and financial resources may be significant, Bonneville funds should

not be the exclusive source of ESA funding in the Columbia basin. Bonneville funds

for ESA-based actions should be combined with funds from other entities, especially

Federal agencies, that have legal and financial obligations to protect and enhance

threatened and endangered species. Some of the actions required by the biological

opinion address impacts on the listed species that are not the result of hydrosystem

impacts—reducing predation by birds on juvenile salmon and steelhead, for example, and implementing selective-harvest fisheries to reduce commercial fishing pressure on the listed stocks. These actions should be funded by agencies other than

Bonneville—by the nation’s taxpayers, not the region’s electricity ratepayers.

While the Council supports using the Bonneville fund for offsite mitigation, the

fund has limits. The Power Act does not permit the Bonneville fund to be used ‘‘in

lieu’’ of funding responsibilities of other entities. In addition, the Council notes that

Bonneville’s funding as part of its overall fish and wildlife funding obligations is

limited by its ability to ensure the region an adequate, economical, efficient, and reliable power supply. Federal agencies carry some of the responsibility for the loss

of salmon and their habitat through the actions of NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and

the Forest Service, quite distinct from the hydropower system. Therefore some part

of the financial responsibility for recovering endangered fish in the Columbia Basin

rests with the Federal Government.

In the past, we advocated a supplemental appropriation for actions that address

the reasonable and prudent alternatives in the biological opinions. We also urged

NOAA Fisheries to work with us to integrate ESA needs with others to be funded

by Bonneville in a way that permits Bonneville to meet all of its fish and wildlife

obligations in a cost-effective manner.

Until October 1995, there was no formal budget agreement for implementing the

Council’s fish and wildlife program. Late that month a draft agreement negotiated

by Bonneville Administrator Randy Hardy, National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Director Will Stelle and Power Planning Council Chair Angus Duncan was

memorialized in a letter from the Federal Office of Management and Budget to U.S.

Senator Mark Hatfield (R–Oregon). This was to forestall a legislated budget cap and

‘‘sufficiency’’ language regarding the fish and wildlife program budget. It took another year, until September 1996, to negotiate and execute the MOA institutionalizing the budget commitment.

The commitment was for an average budget of $252 million per year—$127 million to implement the Council’s program and measures in the 1995 Biological Opinions ($100 million in direct expenses and $27 million in capital funding), and $125

million per year for fish-related expenditures that Bonneville reimburses other Federal agencies (primarily the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation).

The two 1995 Biological Opinions were issued by the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) for Snake River salmon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

Kootenai River white sturgeon. Bonneville also accepted the financial impact of

power system operations that result from the biological opinions, estimated at $183

million per year. The budget figures were incorporated in a 6-year Memorandum of
66

Agreement in September 1996, signed by the Secretaries of the Army, Commerce,

Energy and the Interior.

The MOA resolved three key funding issues: 1) it provided greater financial certainty through a stable, multi-year budget; 2) it identified a budget sufficient to

meet Bonneville’s obligations under the fish and wildlife program and the biological

opinions, and 3) it provided mechanisms to ensure the money was spent wisely and

efficiently.

In early December 2001, following expiration of the MOA, the Bonneville Administrator said the agency would increase its spending during the current rate period

to an average of $36 million per year in capital funding and $150 million per year

in expense funding for the Council’s program and implementation of the 2000 Biological Opinions. Thus, the annual average would increase from $127 million to

$186 million. The Administrator said the commitment to $150 million for the expense part of the budget likely would yield an annual average of $139 million in

actual expenditures (‘‘accruals,’’ in Bonneville’s accounting terminology) consistent

with projections in Bonneville’s September 1998 Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles.http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Danielson—062403.htm

But a year later, in December 2002, the Administrator stated in a letter to the

Council that ‘‘already in the first year of the new rate period, Bonneville’s expense

accruals were $137 million’’ and that ‘‘this rapid increase in program spending has

surprised us. He asked the Council, in consultation with the region’s fish and wildlife managers, to take the lead to achieve at least three goals: 1) take steps to assure that spending for the fish and wildlife program not exceed $139 million in expense accruals in fiscal year 2003; 2) prioritize program spending ‘‘to create the opportunity to spend less than $139 million in expense annually through the 2003–

2006 period, and 3) establish criteria for setting priorities among projects that seek

funding to implement the program. He stated a preference for projects that would

help implement the biological opinions: ‘‘We believe that core among these are

projects needed to meet the requirements of the various biological opinions that

apply to Bonneville, in particular the 2003 and 2005 check-ins for the 2000 Federal

Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and to preserve previous important investments of the Fish and Wildlife Program.’’http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Danielson—062403.htm

The Council began this assignment with the understanding that Bonneville’s

power purchase costs during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 are at the heart

of the agency’s financial crisis, not fish and wildlife costs. In Fiscal Year 2001, during the West Coast energy crisis, Bonneville spent nearly $3 billion on power purchases, causing the agency’s cash reserves to decline by more than $800 million. In

November 2002, the Administrator announced Bonneville faced a revenue gap of

$1.2 billion for the 2002–2006 rate period.

In agreeing to help Bonneville identify fish and wildlife cost reductions and deferrals, the Council made clear that: • The financial burden is being borne by ratepayers, and Bonneville’s current financial uncertainty adds to that burden. • The direct fish and wildlife program is not over budget, but is within planned

spending levels. • The Council would review Bonneville’s program management and accounting

procedures and recommend reforms. • While Bonneville committed to use $36 million per year in borrowing authority

to capitalize fish and wildlife projects, less than one-third of that amount has been

made available. Failure to provide the $36 million, or shifting fish and wildlife funding from capital to expense, increases Bonneville’s cash requirements and exacerbates its current financial difficulties. • Reducing expenditures below $139 million per year jeopardizes Bonneville’s

ability to meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act and Northwest

Power Act.

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

• Maintain critical elements for the Biological Opinions’ 2003 and 2005 ‘‘checkin’’ requirements. • Maintain past investments in tributary passage and protection of currently

productive habitat (Operations and Maintenance, and Monitoring and Evaluation).

• Maintain current fish production programs as approved by the Council (Operations and Maintenance, and Monitoring and Evaluation).

• Balance other habitat investments within the budget allocations that remain

in the 11 ecological provinces.

• Projects that are focused on research, investigation or status reviews, and not

defined as critical for Biological Opinion check-ins, are given lower priority and deferred.
67

• Projects that do not immediately contribute to the productivity of a species affected by the hydrosystem are given lower priority and deferred. • Projects that were not reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel

and/or explicitly approved by the Council will be terminated (if ongoing) or deferred

(if new) unless specifically designated as critical for Biological Opinion ‘‘check-ins’’

in 2003 or 2005.

On February 21, 2003, the Council responded with what could be called a cash management approach to meet Bonneville’s $139 million spending target for the fish

and wildlife program. In general, three categories of projects were identified that

would yield savings in 2003, as well as one specific spending discrepancy that had

been resolved as a matter of policy last year. The three project categories that yielded reductions were:

• Projects that were planned for funding in 2002 but were carried over to 2003.

Unfinished Fiscal Year 2002 work cannot be caught up in Fiscal Year 2003 while

also performing all anticipated Fiscal Year 2003 project tasks. • Projects that were not reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel or

prioritized in the Council’s project review process. The Council recommended that

these projects not be funded because they did not meet scientific review and endorsement standards on a par with those that were reviewed. Within this category

are three projects, totaling $900,000 that must be added to Bonneville’s internal

overhead. • With regard to Biop projects, the Council staff focused on those identified by

NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville as critical for the upcoming check-ins. While the

Council and region put an emphasis on Biop implementation in the provincial reviews, this ‘‘critical-for-check-in’’ standard is a higher standard than was employed

during the provincial reviews.

The specific discrepancy was:

• Bonneville’s spending projections assumed that the implementation of the

‘‘water brokerage program’’ (RPA 151) would be funded from the fish and wildlife

expense program. This is inconsistent with specific Council action taken last year.

At the January 2002 Council meeting in Vancouver, the Council recommended that

$2.5 million of ‘‘Action Plan’’ funds made available by Bonneville’s Power Business

Line to address the impacts of the 2001 power emergency on anadromous fish be

protected in a placeholder for the specific purpose of funding the water brokerage

program which is required by the 2000 Biological Opinion. Bonneville has projected

spending on this program to be $700,000 for Fiscal Year 2003. This cost must be

funded from another source.

After applying the rules and standards noted above, the Council staff estimated Fiscal Year 2003 spending for expense projects at $114,614,422. When placeholders

for funding subbasin planning, independent science functions, and addressing ‘‘gaps’’

for research, monitoring and evaluation required by the 2000 Biological Opinion and

Bonneville’s overhead are added, the total projects spending forecast for Fiscal Year

2003 is $137, 364,422.

As I said, this is a cash-management response to Bonneville’s request and in no

way should be construed as a Council reprioritization of fish and wildlife program

spending. To make this approach successful, Bonneville is going to have to follow

actual project performance and its project and placeholder spending much more

closely than it ever has before. Bonneville must be able to report current project and

program-level spending twice a month beginning immediately. We see this as a necessary element in managing the program accounting under the ‘‘accrual’’ accounting

rules currently imposed by Bonneville.

This is an important point. Bonneville changed its accounting procedures for the

fish and wildlife program in 2002. On November 20, 2002, Bonneville’s fish and

wildlife director announced in a memorandum addressed to the Power Planning

Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority that ‘‘ we are moving

our administration of the [fish and wildlife program] from obligation-based budgeting to accrual-based budgeting.’’ The memorandum stated that under an obligations form of management, ‘‘ funds are made available for the full value of a project

or contract when it is approved even if all of the deliverables and resulting payments will not be made during the budget year the funds were first made available

(obligated).’’ In contrast, under an accruals form of management, ‘‘ funds are made

available for the amount of deliverables that will actually be received and paid for

(accrued) by BPA during the budget year.’’ Bonneville decided to make this change

because the fish and wildlife program was the last large program at the agency still

managed on an obligations basis, and ‘‘ by managing on an accrual basis, we can

better ensure that funds are available when needed without tying up potentially

millions of dollars in any 1 year for activities that do not need the money.’’
68

Importantly, according to the memorandum, ‘‘under the accrual-based system,

unspent funds from fiscal year 2002 are not carried over’’ to 2003. These unspent

but obligated funds totaled about $40 million, compounding the difficulty of

prioritizing, deferring and cutting program spending to fit within the spending cap

of $139 million in accruals imposed by the Administrator for Fiscal Year 2003. In

a December 31, 2002, letter to project contractors, Bonneville set guidelines for contract renewals, including a request that the contractors eliminate all ‘‘carry over’’

funding (contracted project balances) from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2003. The

accounting change also came without reliable tracking information to monitor and

compare the consistency of project implementation with ISRP-reviewed and Councilrecommended scopes of work.

To recap, in December 2001 Bonneville committed to an average annual budget of $186 million for the current rate period. Subsequently in 2002, the Council recommended a suite of new and ongoing projects, including approximately $40 million

in obligations carried over from the previous rate period, that totaled about $170

million well within the budget established by Bonneville. Then, in November 2002

Bonneville announced it would change its financial management of program expenses from an obligations basis, which allowed carry-over from 1 year to the next,

to an accruals basis, which does not. A month later, Bonneville announced it would

not allow accruals to exceed $139 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and asked the Council

to take the lead in ‘‘reprioritizing’’ existing and proposed new projects to fit within

the reduced budget.

Mr. Chairman, our review of Bonneville’s fish and wildlife spending uncovered

other issues that must be dealt with. First, we are tremendously concerned about

Bonneville’s overhead cost increases. In Fiscal Year 2001, Bonneville’s overhead

costs for this program were $ 7.4 million. Bonneville insists that it requires $12.1

million for its overhead costs in Fiscal Year 2003. This is an increase of 64 percent.

It is difficult to accept this rate of expansion, especially when these overhead costs

compete with on-the-ground fish and wildlife projects. Bonneville has not been effective in reducing its overhead costs. In addition, it has taken a great deal of time

and discussion to win Bonneville’s commitment to a more cost-effective approach to

monitoring and evaluation. This is not a problem created entirely by Bonneville.

However, we are calling on Bonneville to break free of the forces that would ignore

and compound the problem, and work with us on a solution.

As I have noted, the Council is concerned that a reduction in Bonneville’s spend- ing commitment below $139 million per year may jeopardize its ability to meet legal

requirements under the biological opinions and the Northwest Power Act. Critical

biological opinion check-ins are imminent, assuming the Court allows the opinion

to continue in force while NOAA Fisheries addresses the offsite mitigation issues

identified by the court. These are the funds that are necessary to implement many

of the important projects and programs that must be in place to succeed in those

evaluations. The reductions precipitated by Bonneville’s immediate switch to its ‘‘accrual rules’’ of accounting are going to have an impact on our fish and wildlife restoration efforts. We are concerned that deeper and sustained cuts in the out-years

may have serious impacts that could retard the progress we have been making.

We expect that as Bonneville’s financial situation improves, fish and wildlife funding will return to the level the Administrator committed to in December 2001 for

the current rate period and that the current-year funding reduction would be treated as a deferral that would be repaid to the program in future years. This would

be consistent with Bonneville’s agreement with its investor-owned utility customers

to defer $55 million in 2003 payments until 2007. We also believe that paying back

the fish and wildlife program should be accomplished without a rate increase. The

fish and wildlife budget is a small but critically important portion of Bonneville’s

total spending, and restoring full funding to the fish and wildlife program should

not be an excuse to raise rates.

We also are concerned about increasing financial pressure on Bonneville from the

salmon and steelhead biological opinion. Bonneville appears to want to pour all

funds possible into implementing that plan and, as a result, squeeze out critical

work for non-listed salmon, wildlife and resident fish that must be accomplished

under the Northwest Power Act. Bonneville coined the term ‘‘Integrated Program’’

to describe a vision of a coordinated and balanced approach to its Endangered Species Act and Northwest Power Act obligations. But this is problematic in that the

Council’s program responds to the Power Act, not the ESA, and Bonneville’s offsite

mitigation obligation authority is in the Power Act, not the ESA. Bonneville needs

to look more to the Council to make the vision of a coordinated and balanced approach a reality. The current Federal drift to a listed-salmon only fish and wildlife

program is not consistent with Bonneville’s vision of a coordinated and balanced approach and is not supported by sound science, sound public policy, or the law.
69

The Governors, in their recent recommendations, were critical of the increasing

focus on ESA-listed species. The Governors wrote:

‘‘The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to prepare a program to protect

and enhance fish and wildlife and mitigate habitat losses caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem. For the last decade, we have been largely

preoccupied with ESA-listed fish species in the Columbia Basin. Frequently, because

of limited resources, these two efforts are portrayed as being in opposition to each

other so that project funding for ESA-listed species is viewed as competing with

mitigation actions for non-listed species.

‘‘In our judgment, too much of a distinction between ESA-listed and non-listed fish

and wildlife species is being made in fish and wildlife planning and implementation

activities. When species are listed under the ESA, it means we may have failed in

our management responsibilities. By focusing planning and implementation on all

species, the Council’s proactive approach can work to prevent future listings of fish

and wildlife species under the ESA while addressing, as a subset, those that are

listed.

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

Columbia Basin.’’

The Council expects that full funding of our fish and wildlife program will be restored in future years as Bonneville’s finances improve. We also expect this to be

accomplished in a way that does not require a rate increase. Fish and wildlife

spending was not the root cause of Bonneville’s financial crisis, and the fish and

wildlife budget should not be permanently reduced in response to a temporary crisis

that evolved from Bonneville’s power supply contracts with its customers and the

agency’s exposure to the volatile prices of the West coast wholesale power market.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. The Council

is moving quickly, but carefully, in collaboration with State and Federal fish and

wildlife agencies and Indian tribes, and the Federal hydrosystem operating agencies, to develop and implement a scientifically credible, locally developed fish and

wildlife program. The Council is implementing the Northwest Power Act and the

relevant portions of the 2000 Biological Opinions in a manner that benefits all fish

and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin—ESA-listed populations and unlisted populations, too.

I will close my testimony by reiterating a portion of the commitment the four

Northwest Governors made in their recommendations on fish and wildlife recovery.

I think it precisely expresses the Council’s commitment, as well:

We acknowledge that the FCRPS benefits have come with a cost—adverse impacts

on the Columbia Basin’s fish and wildlife. With our locally based efforts in the watersheds, we are following through on our commitments while we are avoiding becoming sidetracked by issues that will only divert and divide us as a region. We will

stay the course and solve our problems as a region. We will continue to pursue full

implementation of the biological opinions to recover our salmon, steelhead and

freshwater species not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because the

failure to do so will jeopardize the Federal hydropower system.
70

Biological Opinion Projects recommended by the Council since Fiscal Year 2001

Note: As of the date of this hearing, Bonneville has not made funding decisions on the Council’s mainstem/systemwide project recommendations

FY Review cycle Project ID Title Council recommend. BPA funding decision

2001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001000021015 ....... Riparian Buffers ................................................................................................................................... 73414 734142001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001198805304 ....... Hood River Production Program—ODFW M&E ..................................................................................... 438000 4313312001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001198805307 ....... Hood River Production Program: Powerdale, Parkdale, Oak Springs O&M (88-053-07 & 88-053-08) 949198 7277332001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001199304000 ....... Fifteen mile Creek Habitat Restoration Project (Request For Multi–Year Funding) ........................... 223371 2200402001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001199506325 ....... Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation (Klickitat Only) .................................. 447723 4477232001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001199705600 ....... Lower Klickitat Riparian and In–Channel Habitat Enhancement Project ........................................... 313318 3133182001 .......... Columbia Gorge ............ CG2001199801900 ....... Wind River Watershed Restoration ....................................................................................................... 658532 6585322001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023001 ........ Protect Bear Valley Wild Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat .................. 320000 3200002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023002 ........ Ames Creek Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 170000 1700002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023007 ........ Conservation Easement, Baker Ranch, Salmon River East Fork ......................................................... 1415000 14150002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023012 ........ Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project ...................................................................................... 2500000 25000002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023032 ........ Return Spawning/Rearing Habitat to Anadromous/Resident Fish within the Squaw Creek to Papoose Creek Analysis Area Watersheds. 420000 ................................

2001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023036 ........ Evaluate live capture selective harvesting methods for commercial fisheries on the Columbia

River.

384285 384285

2001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023045 ........ Gourley Creek Dam Fish Ladder ........................................................................................................... 200119 2001192001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023046 ........ Increase In Stream Flows to De-watered Stream Reaches in the Walla Walla Basin ....................... 590000 5900002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023048 ........ Install Fish Screens to Protect ESA-listed Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Walla Walla Basin ....... 461700 4617002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023053 ........ Wagner Ranch Acquisition ................................................................................................................... 2658774 26587742001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023054 ........ Forrest Ranch Acquisition .................................................................................................................... 4184185 41841852001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023056 ........ Farmers Irrigation District Mainstem Hood River Fish Screen Project ................................................ 500000 5000002001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023073 ........ Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands. 481800 ................................

2001 .......... FY 2001 High Priority ... HP2001000023094 ........ Acquire 27,000 Camp Creek Ranch at Zumwalt Prairie ..................................................................... 2000000 20000002002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027001 ....... Asotin County Riparian Buffer and Couse and Tenmile Creeks Protection and Implementation

Project.

241000 241000

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027002 ....... Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed .............................................................................. 316885 3168852002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027014 ....... Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek Watershed ................................................................................ 121000 1210002002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027018 ....... Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province Fish Screening/Fish Passage. .................................................. 153314 1533142002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027021 ....... Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring—Imnaha River Subbasin ............................................................ 148967 1489672002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002000027022 ....... Wallowa County Culvert Inventory ........................................................................................................ 170603 1706032002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002198402500 ....... Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project .................................................................... 349386 3493862002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002198805301 ....... Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan .............................................................................................. 1000000 10000002002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002198805305 ....... Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning (ODFW) ................................................................................... 79376 79376
71

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199202601 ....... Implement the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration and Habitat Restoration

Projects.

961620 961620

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199202604 ....... Investigate Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde

River Basin and Monitor Salmonid Populations and Habitat.

888087 888087

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199401805 ....... Continued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects ............................ 271000 2710002002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199608300 ....... CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration ........................................................................................ 200000 2000002002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199701501 ....... Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification ............................................ 241570 2415702002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199800702 ....... Grande Ronde Supplementation: Lostine River O&M and M&E .......................................................... 545693 5456932002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199800703 ....... Facility O&M And Program M&E For Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead 640181 6401812002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199800704 ....... Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Implementation (ODFW) ........................................................................ 206048 2060482002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199801001 ....... Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program .................................................... 676906 6799062002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199801003 ....... Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon ................................................................ 174162 1741622002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199801004 ....... Monitor and Evaluate Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream Of Lower Granite

Dam.

287307 287307

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199801005 ....... Pittsburg Landing (199801005),Capt. John Rapids (199801007), Big Canyon (199801008) Fall

Chinook Acclimation Facilities.

682440 682440

2002 .......... Blue Mountain ............... BM2002199801006 ....... Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation ........................................................................................... 164260 1642602002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025003 ........ Forrest Ranch Acquisition .................................................................................................................... 169851 1698512002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025004 ........ Acquisition of Wagner Ranch ............................................................................................................... 108217 1082172002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025006 ........ Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman

County, Oregon.

71000 71000

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025010 ........ Regional Stream Conditions and Stressor Evaluation ......................................................................... 80000 800002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025011 ........ Assess Riparian Condition Through Spectrometric Imaging Of Riparian Vegetation ......................... 175000 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025013 ........ Restore Riparian Corridor at Tapteal Bend, Lower Yakima River ....................................................... 160500 1605002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025014 ........ Establish Riparian Buffer Systems ...................................................................................................... 67119 671192002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025017 ........ Fabricate and Install New Hunstville Mill Fish Screen ....................................................................... 120000 1200002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025021 ........ Implement Actions to Reduce Water Temperatures in the Teanaway Basin ...................................... 172950 1729502002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025022 ........ YKFP Big Creek Passage & Screening ................................................................................................. 175280 1752802002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025023 ........ Yakima–Klickitat Fisheries Project—Manastash Creek Fish Passage and Screening ....................... 6328352002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025024 ........ Yakima–Klickitat Fisheries Project—Wilson Creek Snowden Parcel Acquisition ................................ 206580 2065802002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025025 ........ YKFP Secure Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Habitat on the Upper Yakima River ......................... 2300000 23000002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025026 ........ Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP) ..................................................................... 750000 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025029 ........ Westland–Ramos Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration Pilot Project .............................................. 203020 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025032 ........ Wenas Wildlife Area Inholding Acquisitions ......................................................................................... 706143 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025036 ........ The Impact of Flow Regulation on Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems in the Yakima River Basin. ... 225495 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025047 ........ Morrow County Buffer Initiative ........................................................................................................... 75086 750862002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025049 ........ Numerically Simulating the Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Environment for Migrating Salmon in

the Lower Snake River.

207360 207360

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025056 ........ Conduct Watershed Assessments for Priority Watersheds on Private Lands in the Columbia Plateau. 1259725 1259725
72

Biological Opinion Projects recommended by the Council since Fiscal Year 2001—Continued

Note: As of the date of this hearing, Bonneville has not made funding decisions on the Council’s mainstem/systemwide project recommendations

FY Review cycle Project ID Title Council recommend. BPA funding decision

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025058 ........ Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective Actions on WDFW Lands in The Yakima Subbasin .............. 205300 2053002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025059 ........ Develop Progeny Marker for Salmonids to Evaluate Supplementation ............................................... 149655 1496652002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025060 ........ Burbank Sloughs and Mainstem Columbia River Shoreline/Side Channel/Wetland Habitat Restoration. 116000 ................................

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025062 ........ Growth Rate Modulation in Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation ............................................... 313294 3450882002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025064 ........ Investigating passage of ESA-listed juvenile fall chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam during

winter when the fish bypass system is inoperable..

176000 176000

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025066 ........ Manage Water Distribution in the Walla Walla River Basin ............................................................... 552525 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025067 ........ Manage Water Distribution in the John Day Basin ............................................................................. 251261 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025068 ........ Rock Creek watershed road and riparian corridor improvement project. ........................................... 96500 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025069 ........ John Day Salmonid Recovery Monitoring Program ............................................................................... 164133 1641332002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025073 ........ Wheeler SWCD Riparian Buffer Planning and Implementation ........................................................... 75086 750862002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025078 ........ Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Selah Gap to Union Gap Flood Plain, Yakima River

Basin, Washington.

875000 ................................

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025080 ........ Gilliam SWCD Riparian Buffers ............................................................................................................ 75086 750862002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025081 ........ Improve Upstream Fish Passage in the Birch Creek Watershed ........................................................ 374572 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025082 ........ Walla Walla River Flow Restoration ..................................................................................................... 478000 4780002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025086 ........ Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands. 22950 ................................

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025092 ........ Restoration of Healthy Watershed to Palouse River Drainage in Idaho ............................................. 100200 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025097 ........ Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP) ..................................... 522710 ................................2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025100 ........ Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat ..................... 349000 3490002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002000025102 ........ Columbia Plateau Water Right Acquisition Program ........................................................................... 149368 1493682002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198402100 ........ Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in The John Day Subbasin ...................................... 448500 4485002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198506200 ........ Passage Improvement Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 103400 1034002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198710001 ........ Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat ................................................................... 350000 3500002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198710002 ........ Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement ..................................................................................... 300264 3002642002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198902401 ........ Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin ............. 286427 2864272002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002198903500 ........ Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................... 889240 8892402002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199000500 ........ Umatilla Fish Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................. 626178 6261782002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199102900 ........ Understanding the effects of summer flow augmentation on the migratory behavior and survival

of fall chinook salmon migrating through L. Granite Res..

630375 630375

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199105700 ........ Fabricate and Install Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screens ................................................................ 159889 1598892002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199107500 ........ Yakima Phase II Screens—Construction* ........................................................................................... 600000 6000002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199206200 ........ Yakama Nation—Riparian/Wetlands Restoration ................................................................................ 1416580 294548
73

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199306600 ........ Oregon Fish Screening Project ............................................................................................................. 660870 6608702002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199401806 ........ Implement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat .............................. 252625 2526252002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199401807 ........ Garfield County Sediment Reduction and Riparian Improvement Program ........................................ 80000 800002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199404200 ........ Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project .............................................................................................. 358845 3588452002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199506325 ........ Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation ............................................................ 3835036 38350362002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199601100 ........ Walla Walla River Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvements ........................................................... 465300 4653002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199603501 ........ Satus Watershed Restoration Project ................................................................................................... 352966 3529662002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199604601 ........ Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement .................................................................................... 259660 2596602002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199703400 ........ Monitoring Fine Sediment Grande Ronde and John Day Rivers .......................................................... 40829 408292002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199705100 ........ Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Yakima Side Channels ............................ 565136 5651362002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199705300 ........ Toppenish–Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment ......................................................... 225000 2818302002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199801600 ........ Monitor Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook ............................... 1067328 10673282002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199801700 ........ Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams in Lower North Fork John Day ......................................................... 98333 983332002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199801800 ........ John Day Watershed Restoration .......................................................................................................... 447050 4470502002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199802000 ........ Assess Fish Habitat and Salmonids in the Walla Walla Watershed in Washington .......................... 163879 1638792002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199802200 ........ Pine Creek Ranch ................................................................................................................................. 172000 1720002002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199802800 ........ Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project ....................................................................................... 122115 1221152002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199803300 ........ Restore Upper Toppenish Watershed .................................................................................................... 196460 1964602002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199803400 ........ Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Reestablish Safe Access into Tributaries

of the Yakima Subbasin.

230000 ................................

2002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199901000 ........ Mitigate Effects of Runoff and Erosion on Salmonid Habitat in Pine Hollow and Jackknife ............ 21980 219802002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002199901300 ........ Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment ............................................................................................... 206999 2069992002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002200001500 ........ Oxbow Ranch Management and Implementation ................................................................................ 291898 2918982002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002200001900 ........ Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program ............................................................ 94509 945092002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002200003100 ........ North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project ...................... 228726 2287262002 .......... Columbia Plateau ......... CP2002200003900 ........ Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project ........................................ 498886 4988862002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002000024001 ....... Lake Pend Oreille Predation Research ................................................................................................. 141000 1360002002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002000024009 ....... Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho .. 350000 3500002002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002198806400 ....... Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture .............................................. 1160000 11600002002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002198806500 ....... Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations ................................................................................ 825391 8253912002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002199101903 ....... Hungry Horse Mitigation ....................................................................................................................... 982850 9828502002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002199404700 ....... Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project .......................................................................................... 362000 3620002002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002199404900 ....... Improving the Kootenai River Ecosystem ............................................................................................. 710891 7108912002 .......... Mountain Columbia ....... MC2002199500400 ....... Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam ............................................................. 805000 8050002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028001 ....... Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts .......................... 198738 1987382002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028008 ....... Riparian Conservation Easement Purchase of Scarrow Property on Lake Creek a Tributary to the

Secesh River, Idaho..

68500 68500

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028016 ....... Restoration of the Yankee Fork Salmon River ..................................................................................... 150000 1500002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028021 ....... Lower Clearwater Habitat Enhancement Project .................................................................................. 125000 ................................2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028025 ....... Potlatch River Watershed Restoration .................................................................................................. 200000 200000
74

Biological Opinion Projects recommended by the Council since Fiscal Year 2001—Continued

Note: As of the date of this hearing, Bonneville has not made funding decisions on the Council’s mainstem/systemwide project recommendations

FY Review cycle Project ID Title Council recommend. BPA funding decision

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028034 ....... Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification, South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. 500000 500000

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028036 ....... Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non–Federal Lands in the Pahsimeroi Watershed, Idaho 445000 4450002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028037 ....... Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non–Federal Lands in the Lemhi Watershed, Idaho ....... 332176 3321762002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028038 ....... Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non–Federal Lands, East Fork Salmon Watershed, Idaho 50000 500002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028039 ....... Holistic Restoration of Habitat on Non–Federal Lands, Middle Salmon–Panther Watershed, Idaho 115000 1150002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028040 ....... Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non–Federal Lands, Upper Salmon Watershed, Idaho .... 120000 1200002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028045 ....... Evaluating stream habitat using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed Monitoring

and Evaluation Plan.

200000 200000

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028047 ....... Restore and Protect Red River Watershed ........................................................................................... 95811 958112002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028048 ....... Protect and Restore Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area ................................................ 174482 1744822002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028050 ....... Protect and Restore Little Salmon River .............................................................................................. 162896 1628962002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028059 ....... Restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Lapwai Creek watershed. ................................................ 372060 3720602002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002000028061 ....... Safety–Net Artificial Propagation Program (SNAPP) ............................................................................ 523000 5230002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198335000 ....... Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery .................................................................................................................... 3583000 35830002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198335003 ....... Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation ........................................................................ 1791000 17910002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198909800 ....... Idaho Supplementation Studies ........................................................................................................... 996726 9967262002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198909801 ....... Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (ISS) ................................................................... 126320 1263202002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198909802 ....... Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers–Nez Perce Tribe .................................... 402038 4020382002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002198909803 ....... Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho–Shoshone–Bannock Tribes .............................................. 213569 2135692002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199005500 ....... Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers ........................................................................... 550982 5509822002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199102800 ....... Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon ....................................... 336050 3360502002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199107100 ....... Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat and Limnological Research ..................................................... 426277 4262772002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199107200 ....... Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Program ............................................................... 825000 8250002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199107300 ....... Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................... 827419 8274192002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199202603 ....... Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Administration/Implementation Support .............................. 333401 3334012002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199204000 ....... Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research ........................................ 713000 7130002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199303501 ....... Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat Within the Red River Watershed ................................ 209515 2095152002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199401500 ....... Idaho Fish Screen Improvement ........................................................................................................... 1000000 10000002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199405000 ....... Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M & E ........................................................................................ 248160 2481602002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199604300 ....... Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project ................................................................ 1098227 10982272002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199607702 ....... Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed .......................................................................................... 236296 2362962002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199607703 ....... Protecting and Restoring the Waw’aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw) Creek to ’Imnaamatnoon (Legendary Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area. 413288 413288

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199607705 ....... Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed ....................................................................... 332000 332000
75

2002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199608600 ....... Clearwater Focus Program ................................................................................................................... 103626 1036262002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199700100 ....... Captive Rearing Project for Salmon River Chinook Salmon ................................................................ 610500 6105002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199703000 ....... Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring ..................................................................................... 666000 6660002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199703800 ....... Preserve Salmonid Gametes and Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository ................. 288496 2884962002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199706000 ....... Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program—NPT ....................................................................... 218000 2180002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901400 ....... Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed–Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project ............................ 203340 2033402002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901500 ....... Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Watershed .......................................................... 60000 600002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901600 ....... Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed .............................................................................. 222380 2223802002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901700 ....... Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed ..................................................................................... 436600 4366002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901800 ....... Characterize and quantify residual steelhead in the Clearwater River, Idaho .................................. 101950 1019502002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199901900 ....... Holistic Restoration of the Twelvemile Reach of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho ................... 336050 3360502002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002199902000 ....... Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon .............................. 151700 1517002002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002200003500 ....... Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed—South Fork Clearwater River ............................................ 287732 2877322002 .......... Mountain Snake ............ MS2002200003600 ....... Protect & Restore Mill Creek ................................................................................................................ 74915 749152003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003000029026 ....... Hanan–Detwiler Passage Improvements .............................................................................................. 85000 ——2003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003000029027 ....... Comprehensive Inventory and Prioritization of Fish Passage and Screening Problems in the

Wenatchee and Entiat Subbasins.

277436 ——

2003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003000029033 ....... Design and Conduct Monitoring and Evaluation Associated With Reestablishment of Okanogan

Basin Natural Production.

480152 ——

2003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003199604200 ....... Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek ......................... 365819 7188832003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003200000100 ....... Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek ........................................... 121098 1165302003 .......... Columbia Cascade ........ CC2003200001300 ....... Evaluate An Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake ............................... 18096 180002003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030001 ........ Historic habitat opportunities and food-web linkages of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River

estuary: Implications for managing flows and restoration.

597559 597559

2003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030004 ........ Blind Slough Restoration Project—Brownsmead, Oregon ................................................................... 173550 1735502003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030005 ........ Grays River Watershed and Biological Assessment ............................................................................. 474734 ——2003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030006 ........ Effectiveness monitoring of the Chinook River estuary restoration project. ....................................... 124804 1248042003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030011 ........ Preserve and Restore Columbia River Estuary Islands to Enhance Juvenile Salmonid and Columbian White-tailed Deer Habitat.. 585473 585473

2003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030015 ........ Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management 260000 2600002003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003000030016 ........ Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and Lower Columbia River 1000000 10000002003 .......... Columbia Estuary .......... CE2003199801400 ........ Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume ........................................ 1767855 17489702003 .......... Lower Columbia ............ LC2003199306000 ........ Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project ................................................................................................. 1679564 16794932003 .......... Lower Columbia ............ LC2003199902500 ........ Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration ....................... 155562 1555622003 .......... Lower Columbia ............ LC2003200001200 ........ Evaluate factors limiting Columbia River gorge chum salmon populations. ..................................... 255211 2468202003 .......... Lower Columbia ............ LC2003200105300 ........ Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek ..................................... 381671 3816712003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035007 ....... Evaluate Restoration Potential of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat ................... 564200 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035012 ....... Spatial scales of homing and the efficacy of hatchery supplementation of wild populations ......... 370100 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035019 ....... Develop and Implement a Pilot Status and Trend Monitoring Program for Salmonids and their

Habitat in the Wenatchee and Grande Ronde River Basins.

1515000 ................................
76

Biological Opinion Projects recommended by the Council since Fiscal Year 2001—Continued

Note: As of the date of this hearing, Bonneville has not made funding decisions on the Council’s mainstem/systemwide project recommendations

FY Review cycle Project ID Title Council recommend. BPA funding decision

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035029 ....... Transfer IHN virus genetic strain typing technology to fish health managers .................................. 116479 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035033 ....... Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program. ........................................................ 968800 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035039 ....... The influence of hatcheries and their products on the health and physiology of naturally rearing

fish.

303448 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035046 ....... Estimate juvenile salmon residence in the Columbia River Plume using micro-acoustic transmitters.. 96300 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003000035047 ....... Evaluate Delayed (Extra) Mortality Associated with Passage of Yearling Chinook Salmon Smolts

through Snake River Dams.

1100000 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198201301 ....... Coded–Wire Tag Recovery Program ...................................................................................................... 2028757 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198201302 ....... Annual Stock Assessment—Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW) ........................................................... 217881 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198201304 ....... Annual Stock Assessment—Coded Wire Tag Program (WDFW) .......................................................... 319137 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198331900 ....... New Marking and Monitoring Techniques for Fish .............................................................................. 41900 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198712700 ....... Smolt Monitoring by Federal and Non–Federal Agencies .................................................................... 1910000 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198810804 ....... StreamNet ............................................................................................................................................. 2261033 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198906500 ....... Annual Stock Assessment—CWT (USFWS) .......................................................................................... 119268 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198909600 ....... Monitor and evaluate genetic characteristics of supplemented salmon and steelhead .................... 593900 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003198910700 ....... Statistical Support for Salmonid Survival Studies .............................................................................. 265850 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199007700 ....... Northern Pikeminnow Management Program ....................................................................................... 1435000 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199008000 ....... Columbia Basin Pit Tag Information System ....................................................................................... 2431442 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199009300 ....... Genetic Analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka (modified to include chinook salmon) ............................... 126436 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199105100 ....... Monitoring and Evaluation Statistical Support .................................................................................... 394655 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199302900 ....... Estimate Survival for the Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Dams and Reservoirs of the

Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers.

1884200 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199305600 ....... Assessment of Captive Broodstock Technologies ................................................................................ 1468100 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199403300 ....... The Fish Passage Center ...................................................................................................................... 1302904 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199601900 ....... Second–Tier Data base Support ........................................................................................................... 275111 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199602000 ....... Comparative Survival Rate Study (CSS) of Hatchery Pit Tagged Chinook & Comparative Survival

Study Oversight Committee.

1736542 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199602100 ....... Gas bubble disease research and monitoring of juvenile salmonids ................................................. 16885 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199606700 ....... Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project ................................................................................... 877600 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003199900301 ....... Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem

Dams.

779586 ................................

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003200000700 ....... Infrastructure to Complete FDA Registration of Erythromycin ............................................................ 160919 ................................2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003200001700 ....... Kelt Reconditioning: A Research Project to Enhance Iteroparityin Columbia Basin Steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss).

555121 ................................
77

2003 .......... Mainstem/Systemwide ... SW2003200100300 ....... ISO Adult Pit Interrogation System Installations ................................................................................. 1972106 ................................
78

In May, U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland remanded the 2000 Opinion to NOAA Fisheries, agreeing with plaintiffs in a lawsuit that the agency may

rely on offsite mitigation actions by non–Federal agencies, like those in the Council’s

fish and wildlife program carried out by States and Indian tribes, only if the actions

are ‘‘reasonably certain to occur.’’ The plaintiffs asserted, and the judge agreed, that

while it is likely that subbasin plans will be completed and will direct non–Federal

offsite mitigation actions, this is not a certainty and, similarly, it is not certain that

the non–Federal actions will be sufficient to avoid further jeopardy to the listed species.

Letter of Dec. 3, 2001, from the Administrator to the Chair of the Power Planning

Council, Page 3: ‘‘On a planning basis for fiscal year 2002–2006, an annual average

of $150 million a year of expense dollars is estimated by BPA for funding the offsite

ESA mitigation as described in the 2000 FCRPS BiOps and revised Council Program. This amount is 50 percent greater than the previous MOA and consistent

with the funding range assumed in the power rate case and with the Fish & Wildlife Funding Principles that projected an annual average of $139 million in accruals

for purposes of setting BPA’s revenue requirement. The $139 million represents a

weighted average of the 13 modeled alternatives having a range of $109–$179 million as identified in the fiscal year 02-06 rate period.’’

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

STATEMENT OF L. MICHEL BOGERT, COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR DIRK

KEMPTHORNE, STATE OF IDAHO

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNORS OF IDAHO, MONTANA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING COLUMBIA RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE AND

PRESERVING THE BENEFITS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM

I. Introduction

Three years ago, the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington released a landmark series of consensus policy recommendations for protection and

restoration of fish in the Columbia River Basin.

Issued in July 2000, the Four Governors’ Recommendations for the Protection and

Restoration of Fish in the Columbia River Basin (2000 Recommendations) acknowledged a broad regional responsibility and commitment to fish and wildlife recovery.

We also sought to provide useful guidance to Federal decisionmakers and Federal

action agencies.

Since we made our earlier recommendations, we have seen significant new pressures on the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) stemming from the 2001

drought and the high power prices that year, with lingering regionwide price impacts including increases in power rates to BPA customers.

In the Columbia River Basin, fish and wildlife are inextricably linked to the hydropower system, which provides a majority of the electricity produced in the region.

This statement builds upon our 2000 Recommendations and goes further to address

Columbia River system issues important to all Northwest citizens. We hereby make

the following specific policy recommendations on the resolution of issues related to

the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), including the

role of the region’s Federal power marketing agency, the BPA.

II. The Four Governors’ Recommendations for Protection and Restoration of Fish and

Wildlife

In December 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries)

and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued final Endangered

Species Act (ESA) biological opinions covering salmon, steelhead, bull trout and

white sturgeon in the FCRPS. The steps in the biological opinions were largely consistent with our July 2000 Recommendations, and many of our consensus policies

at that time have been carried out by the implementing Federal agencies with our

States as partners.

The Pacific Northwest has subsequently had nearly 3 years of experience in implementing the biological opinions and the ‘‘All–H,’’ full-lifecycle strategy we endorsed in July 2000. There have been some improvements in the fresh water and

ocean environments, and these improved conditions are yielding larger returns of

some salmon and steelhead runs. While the increases in some anadromous stocks

certainly are attributable to more favorable ocean conditions, we believe that the investments made by the region in habitat improvements and mainstem passage are

contributing to the positive results.
79

While we are pleased with the progress made since we offered our 2000 Recommendations, we are not complacent. There are new and additional pressures that

have come to bear on the tools we have at our disposal to achieve fish and wildlife

recovery. A recent Federal ruling questioned the adequacy of the NOAA Fisheries

2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion. The judge identified some shortcomings that may

need to be addressed under the Endangered Species Act, including the need for

stronger Federal commitments to species recovery and assurances that recovery activity will indeed occur.

Even though the court is being asked to vacate the biological opinion, we support

continued ESA coverage for the Federal action agencies during the interim as well

as implementation of the species conservation measures already undertaken. We

also believe the Federal Government should address the court’s concerns by taking

positive, measurable and cost-effective steps to benefit fish. These steps can be accomplished in the next year and continue to demonstrate the Federal Government’s

good-faith commitment to fish recovery.

As we discussed in our 2000 Recommendations, discussion of breaching the four

lower Snake River dams is polarizing and divisive. The Pacific Northwest made a

commitment to pursue a proactive fish and wildlife recovery strategy that avoids the

breaching of dams, and it remains a strategy we continue to strongly endorse.

We will continue to pursue full implementation of the biological opinions to recover our salmon, steelhead, and freshwater species because it is not only the right

thing to do, but also because the failure to do so can jeopardize the Federal hydropower system and re-ignite the controversy over dam breaching. The recommendations that follow will provide our region with confidence that the Northwest will continue on the course upon which we have already embarked and that we intend to

pursue the components of a workable and successful species recovery strategy.

A. Fish and Wildlife Recovery

1. The ‘‘All H’’ Approach

Background: Our 2000 Recommendations identified the key elements of a regional

approach to the recovery of salmonids and other aquatic species such as bull trout

and white sturgeon. Those recommendations remain just as valid today. We continue to believe that the recovery and restoration of fish in the Columbia Basin

must consider the entire life cycle of the species and that the burden of their conservation must be born equitably across the ‘‘H’s’’—Habitat, Hydroelectric System,

Harvest, and Hatcheries.

We also must continue to recognize that there is ‘‘Fifth H‘‘—the human element.

We cannot recover fish without obtaining the participation and support of those who

live and work in the watersheds. To do that, we must continue to insist upon clear

and reasonable goals to measure our successes and the means to ensure that we

are accountable for the actions that we take.

Further, we must build and rely upon partnerships to plan and implement recovery actions and ensure that those plans and implementing actions are based on

sound science. Securing the advantage of local knowledge and support for this work

and developing our information and objectives from the ‘‘bottom up’’ is essential to

this effort. The specific recommendations that we make below buildupon these key

principles.

Recommendations: The Federal agencies have made an important commitment to

improving habitat in the Columbia River tributaries in a manner consistent with,

and within the broader context of, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s

(Council) Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. At the State level, and

through the Council, we also are working with the regions’ Tribes as full partners

in the recovery effort. The Council in turn has emphasized the importance of implementing the fish and wildlife program in a manner that is integrated with each

State’s processes dealing with ESA-listed species, other fish and wildlife species and

watershed issues.

The hub for this Federal/regional/State/tribal effort is the subbasin planning

called for by the Council’s program. The biological opinions should continue to look

to these subbasin plans to guide habitat, hatchery, and harvest actions in the watersheds throughout the Columbia Basin in the coming years.

While we acknowledge the current legal uncertainty surrounding the biological

opinion for anadromous fish, fish and wildlife recovery in the Columbia Basin cannot occur without the subbasin planning program that has been put into place in

the Columbia Basin. It is an essential component of the All–H approach.

Through this program, a substantial investment of time and money has been

made by State and local governments, Tribal governments, volunteer groups and individual citizens. We need to honor and respect this commitment to fish and wildlife

recovery at the local level. We will do a great disservice to our fish and wildlife re-
80

covery effort and those involved with that effort if it is invalidated. We are on the

right path and must stay this course.

2. Recovery Plans

Background: Under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, subbasin planning

is underway in most of the Columbia Basin’s 62 subbasins. A template has been

provided to guide the components that must be included in the subbasin plans, including those habitat restoration and hatchery strategies that address ESA needs.

After these plans are submitted to the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)

for review, and after approval by the Council, completed subbasin plans, consistent

with the template, should be incorporated by NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS in

integrated draft recovery plans at the population and evolutionarily significant unit

(ESU) scales.

Each State does not now have clear guidance from the Federal Government about

the full suite of actions that constitutes a draft recovery plan so that their own processes can be used to develop the plans. In addition, USFWS bull trout recovery

planning efforts are not adequately coordinated with other plans.

Recommendation: Guidelines consistent with the ESA for both populationscale

and ESU-scale recovery plans may be prepared and submitted to NOAA Fisheries

and USFWS at the discretion of the individual States based on completed subbasin

plans. These Federal agencies should endorse such guidelines in a timely manner—

within 6 weeks of their submittal by individual States. The States have confirmation from NOAA Fisheries that the subbasin planning template provided by the

Council is adequate for population-scale recovery plans, but we require a similar

confirmation that our guidelines for developing ESU-scale recovery plans will be accepted.

By September 1, 2003, NOAA Fisheries should indicate by name those individuals

who will work with each State’s organizations responsible for recovery planning so

that they have continuous, accurate guidance from them as to what constitutes an

approved recovery plan. The USFWS should continue to work with each State to ensure that its expertise is available to subbasin planners and to ensure that subbasin

plans and ESA planning under its charge are consistent.

3. Recovery Goals

Background: We are particularly concerned that the pace of the Interior Columbia

Technical Recovery Team’s (TRT) efforts to establish the requisite fish and wildlife

recovery goals in the Columbia Basin is not well synchronized with each State’s fish

and wildlife recovery and protection planning.

The subbasins are developing their respective fish and wildlife subbasin plans

based on the template provided by the Council and with only interim abundance

based salmon recovery goals from NOAA Fisheries. Subbasin planning is proceeding

as rapidly as is possible and prudent, largely to meet the NOAA Fisheries demand

in its 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion.

We need to avoid a situation where the subbasin plans are finished on schedule

next spring only to find that they do not adequately address new or different recovery goals set forth in the separate TRT process that appears to be disconnected from

and on a slower schedule than subbasin planning.

Recommendation: The TRT process must ensure Federal recovery efforts are integrated with each pertinent State’s subbasin and regional processes, both substantively and in scheduling. Technical coordination between the TRT and State

subbasin planners and regional processes must occur as early as possible. The policy

implications of TRT products should be considered carefully and in coordination

with State, Tribal and local governments before release. There may be several alternatives to resolve this situation, including a contracting arrangement with each individual State in order to meet these objectives.

4. ESA Assurances

Background: Fish recovery under the ESA incorporates numerous actions involving local governments and private landowners on a geographic scope never before

attempted. Local governments and landowners are willing to develop incentivebased programs that address listed species concerns but, in so doing, they want assurance that they will be afforded some degree of legal protection under terms of

the ESA. In the absence of progress or such protection, there is little practical incentive to become active partners in a Federal recovery plan.

Recommendation: By the end of the year, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS should resolve with the Council and appropriate State organizations what types of legal assurances will be provided for approved subbasin plans and their implementation in

the Columbia Basin. As part of that resolution, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS should
81

define any procedural and/or review requirements that they believe are necessary

for each type of assurance that they will provide.

5. Monitoring and Accountability

Background: We are engaged in a long-term sustained initiative to recover salmon, steelhead, white sturgeon and bull trout in the Columbia Basin which involves

considerable effort and funding. Recognizing that steps have been taken in this direction, a comprehensive and integrated monitoring system needs to be put in place

so that we know whether—and the degree to which—we are making progress, and

whether we are getting results for the money expended. This is an important component for both biological opinions.

Efforts to design a monitoring and evaluation program to date have been dominated by the Federal agencies without appropriate regard for the work and programs already being designed or implemented by the States and without an appreciation for the reliance that a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system will

have on State, Tribal and local entities for implementation.

Recommendation: By this fall, the Council should convene meetings with the four

States, the Federal agencies and the fish and wildlife managers to design, by year’s

end, an integrated, complementary and scientifically sound monitoring system for

counting fish that includes budgets and priorities. Also, the Council, working closely

with States, Federal agencies and Tribes should develop, again by year’s end, a

draft systemwide research plan with budgets and priorities. An equitable plan for

funding the implementation of this program needs to be a part of what is provided.

The Council should report to the Governors on its progress in meeting this goal.

B. Federal Agency Funding

Background: The Federal ESA action agencies—BPA, Bureau of Reclamation, and

the Corps of Engineers—all have substantial commitments to fish and wildlife recovery in the region. While we recognize that we are in an era of constricted Federal

budgets, commitments for fish and wildlife funding need to be completed if we are

to comply with the requirements of the ESA and Northwest Power Act while meeting the broader economic and societal objectives in the region.

Recommendation: We support Federal agency budgets that reflect commitments

made to Columbia Basin fish and wildlife and the ‘‘All–H’’ approach. We also will

work as States with regional partners and with the Council, to secure congressional

support for separate appropriations—including additional appropriations to the

States—to meet these commitments.

C. Fish and Wildlife Programs

Background: The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to prepare a program

to protect and enhance fish and wildlife and mitigate habitat losses caused by the

development and operation of the hydrosystem. For the last decade, we have been

largely preoccupied with ESA-listed fish species in the Columbia Basin. Frequently,

because of limited resources, these two efforts are portrayed as being in opposition

to each other so that project funding for ESAlisted species is viewed as competing

with mitigation actions for non-listed species.

In our judgment, too much of a distinction between ESA-listed and non-listed fish

and wildlife species is being made in fish and wildlife planning and implementation

activities. When species are listed under the ESA, it means we may have failed in

our management responsibilities. By focusing planning and implementation on all

species, the Council’s proactive approach can work to prevent future listings of fish

and wildlife species under the ESA while addressing, as a subset, those that are

listed.

Recommendation: We strongly endorse the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program

as a comprehensive, integrated and preventive approach to address fish and wildlife

issues in the Columbia Basin.

The Council recently adopted a new Mainstem Plan as part of its Program with

a core principle being that the entire Columbia Basin ecosystem and hydroelectric

system must be considered as a whole. We urge the Federal action agencies to fully

implement the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program including the Mainstem Plan as

soon as is practicable.

The Council and Bonneville, in consultation with the four Northwest Governors

and the other Federal agencies, should develop a new funding agreement to provide

more predictability and certainty for fish and wildlife spending over the next few

years. This agreement should be in place for the next fiscal year beginning in October 2003.
82

D. Results, Not Process

Background: The challenge for the Columbia Basin is to overcome the propensity

for paralysis. The Basin consists of multiple jurisdictions involving international,

Federal, State, local and Tribal governments, and businesses and private landowners. We have initiatives underway for power, fish and wildlife, ESA, and predators, as well as the U.S. v. Oregon litigation dealing with hatcheries and harvest.

The challenge is how to effectively move forward together in all of these areas without getting bogged down where process substitutes for results.

Recommendation: In regard to ESA-listed species and the Council’s Fish and

Wildlife Program, we need to set clear goals for what we want, clear schedules for

when we want it, clear direction for who is responsible for taking action, clear identification of cost-effective approaches to meet our goals, and clear accountability to

measure whether or not we have accomplished what we set forth to do.

Our first step in this regard is to request that the Council provide us with a report on the status of these recommendations by the end of the year. We also request

a report from the Council and from NOAA Fisheries and USFWS on the implementation of the biological opinions in each State as part of this report. We also endorse

the use of the Council’s Regional Coordination Group to coordinate and oversee

subbasin planning where issues can be raised and solutions recommended regarding

implementation of the subbasin plans and planning and the relationship of those

efforts to ESA-based requirements.

III. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) was created 66 years ago. It was the

product of visionary leadership that believed the Columbia River could provide enduring social and economic benefits for our individual States and for our region as

a whole.

The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) brings renewable and nonpolluting electricity to our homes and businesses, and provides 75 percent of the region’s highest-voltage transmission. It provides a major navigation highway for the

Northwest and the Interior West, its flood control system protects our land and cities, and its water irrigates our crops and provides recreational opportunities. The

Columbia River not only ties us together as a region but also ties us to Canada and

California as part of a vast, integrated electricity system.

The BPA markets the power generated by the FCRPS. The FCRPS provides us

not only with a formidable economic engine for the region, but also with the ability

to meet our environmental and treaty obligations. It is our system, built by our

leaders and workers on our waterways and across our landscapes, and we must protect this valuable legacy.

We follow in the footsteps of earlier leaders who have stepped forward to meet

the challenges faced simultaneously by BPA and the FCRPS. Today, we again face

new threats to BPA, and threats to the customers who rely upon BPA. We have several recommendations in these areas.

A. Protect the Regional and National Economy

1. BPA’s Benefits

Background: The Pacific Northwest—and the nation—benefit from the FCRPS.

Recent events, including the combined effects of the volatile Western energy market,

lack of generation capacity, drought, BPA’s current financial position and unrealized

savings and revenues anticipated in prior rate making decisions, have placed serious

pressure on our power system and our State economies. In many areas, electricity

rates have increased significantly and are not expected to decline for the foreseeable

future. We are at risk of losing the advantages the region has enjoyed from low

power rates for over a half century.

Controversies over the allocation of Federal-based power continue to arise. BPA

must work within the region to ensure implementation of solutions to protect the

benefits of the Federal hydropower system.

Recommendation: We urge BPA’s customers, including public and private utilities,

to reach agreement on the sharing of BPA’s benefits. Parties to these discussions

should stay at the table and continue to work to find a solution that can enjoy broad

agreement and minimize or avoid the currently proposed BPA rate increase.

2. BPA Operations Review

Background: BPA faces tremendous financial challenges this year resulting from

the California and regional energy crisis and near record drought of 2001 and the

projected rate increases this year for its customers. To deal with this situation, BPA
83

has looked for ways to cut back on spending, including funding for the offsite habitat work called for in the biological opinions.

Given the vulnerable State of our regional economy, we believe Pacific Northwest

electricity customers are not prepared to absorb another large wholesale rate increase. BPA must do everything within its power to avoid or minimize rate increases now and for the remainder of the current rate period and place the agency

on a path to stable and affordable rates soon. We believe these efforts must include

securing all available efficiencies without compromising its essential functions.

We understand the need to find cost reductions in all areas, including fish and

wildlife. However, we are concerned that sustained or deep funding reductions by

BPA in its Fish and Wildlife Program could jeopardize the recovery progress we

have made and put BPA at legal and financial risk.

Recommendation: We acknowledge the difficulties currently confronted by BPA

managers, and we encourage their continued efforts to resolve them. We call upon

BPA, in consultation with the Council, to undertake a process to establish priorities

within its operations, and to focus its resources on those areas that are most critical

to its mission and bring the greatest benefit to the Pacific Northwest. Such a process should involve BPA management and employees, working with the Council, and

should provide external validation through participation and review by independent

persons with knowledge of and experience in energy, fish and wildlife operations,

budgeting, management experience and other relevant areas. We request that BPA

provide a report to the Governors on its progress on this matter by the end of the

year.

B. Clarifying BPA’S Future

Background: For several years, the region has been engaged in discussions over

the future of BPA, including the 1996 Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System. Last fall the region’s utilities unveiled a proposal to address BPA’s future.

The Council and BPA jointly engaged in a regional dialog on the proposal, which

is consistent with a recommendation of the Comprehensive Review and other efforts

to address BPA’s future. The Council submitted recommendations to BPA to resolve

some of the most important electricity policy questions currently facing the region,

especially the need to clarify responsibility for building new generating resources to

support load growth.

Recommendation: BPA must address its future in the region. There is considerable consensus among BPA’s customers and among regional energy policy leaders

as to the direction BPA should follow. We believe that the regional dialog should

be reinitiated immediately under the joint auspices of the Council and BPA. Joint

responsibility is necessary to afford credibility to the final results of the dialog.

We stress the importance of achieving a role for BPA that is sustainable for the

long term. The Council’s recommendations provide direction and include:

1) Long-term contracts to demonstrate a continuing commitment to meet the costs

of the Federal power system and related stewardship obligations. Committing to

long-term contracts will help preserve these benefits for the Pacific Northwest;

2) A limited role for BPA in serving the load growth of its customers. In most

cases when BPA accepts the obligation to meet load growth, it should be on a bilateral basis with customers bearing the full cost of resources acquired to meet their

needs;

3) Fulfillment of existing fish and wildlife obligations; and

4) Pursuit by BPA of regionwide conservation and renewable resource opportunities.

Until we accomplish these objectives construction of resources to meet new load

growth will be delayed, placing the region at risk of another electricity crisis.

C. Transmission

Background: Electricity in the Northwest is highly integrated with the BPA system that operates 75 percent of the highest voltage lines of the region’s transmission

system. In recent years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has attempted to continue standardizing the electric wholesale market and the structure

of the transmission system. The proposed rulemaking on Standard Market Design

is the most recent attempt. The debate on these issues has uncovered differences

in regional electricity markets and spotlighted the need for practical regional solutions rather than a single national design.

Recommendation: The FERC and Congress must ensure that any restructuring of

the transmission system in the Northwest is compatible with our regional system

as defined by our regional processes. For the Northwest, the FERC should support

the voluntary formation process of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs).
84

1The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority was established in 1987 to coordinate the

efforts of its Members to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources of the Columbia River

Basin through joint planning and action. The Authority provides a forum to facilitate the exchange of information among Members on matters affecting anadromous fish, resident fish, and

wildlife resources and their habitat. The Authority Members include: Burns–Paiute Tribe, Coeur

d’Alene Tribe, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Montana Department of

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Marine Fisheries Service, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Shoshone–Bannock Tribes, Shoshone–Paiute Tribes, Spokane

Tribe of the Spokane Reservation–Washington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

The Governors expect that any changes that are made to the operation of the transmission system in the Northwest will benefit the region.

IV. OUR COMMITMENT

The vitality of BPA and the health of our fish and wildlife in the Columbia Basin

are mutually dependent. We cannot focus on one side or the other, or promote one

at the expense of the other. Our leaders saw the necessity for this balanced approach between power and fish and wildlife two decades ago during the debate over

the Northwest Power Act. We remain committed to this balanced approach.

We acknowledge that the FCRPS benefits have come with a cost—adverse impacts

on the Columbia Basin’s fish and wildlife. With our locally based efforts in the watersheds, we are following through on our commitments while we are avoiding becoming sidetracked by issues that will only divert and divide us as a region. We will

stay the course and solve our problems as a region. We will continue to pursue full

implementation of the biological opinions to recover our salmon, steelhead and

freshwater species not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because the

failure to do so will jeopardize the Federal hydropower system. Breaching the four

lower Snake River dams must not be an option.

The Columbia River and all its tributaries have provided immense benefits to the

Northwest in natural resources and hydropower production. Despite the fact that

the hydropower system is indelibly woven into our region’s economy and natural environment, threats continue from outside the region that challenge our right to our

own resource. Certain interests outside the Pacific Northwest continue to covet the

benefits of the Columbia Basin, challenging our right to cost-based power and not

fairly crediting BPA with its assistance to California during that State’s energy crisis.

The Pacific Northwest Governors and other public officials of the region will maintain a united front to oppose any challenge to degrade the regional benefits provided

by the Federal hydropower system in the Pacific Northwest. Reliable, cost-based energy of the FCRPS is the bedrock of our regional economy, and the revenue it produces is the lifeblood for financing the restoration and protection of our fish and

wildlife as well as for meeting our Tribal treaty responsibilities.

We have accepted financial responsibility for this system, including the attendant

natural resource stewardship for many decades, and we will continue to do all we

can to protect and preserve the benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power System.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN M. HUFFAKER, DIRECTOR, STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND GAME, REPRESENTING COLUMBIA BASIN FISH AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Members1 of

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the implementation of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s

2000 Biological Opinion for listed anadromous fish regarding operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System. The 2000 Biological Opinion is the central document directing anadromous fish recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin, and

it affects the work of all fish and wildlife managers in the basin. Implementation

of this Biological Opinion is of great importance to us.

As fish and wildlife managers we expect our efforts to result in recovered, healthy,

fishable populations of anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest, just as we expect

as citizens that the lights will illuminate each time a switch is turned on. But the

inextricable linkage of fish and wildlife resources and hydropower in the Pacific

Northwest complicates our efforts and calls for great collaboration, commitment, and
85

2Northwest Power Planning Council Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Council Document 2000–19. 3The Action Agencies are U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and

the Bonneville Power Administration. 4Endangered Species Act–Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion, Reinitiation of Consultation on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, Including the Juvenile Fish

Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. Consultation Conducted by: National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region. Date Issued: December 21, 2000.

devoted implementation in order to progress toward fish and wildlife recovery. We

compliment your leadership, Mr. Chairman; in resolving the many issues the region

faces planning and implementing recovery actions. Your first-hand knowledge of the

people and fish and wildlife resources of the Pacific Northwest is a real asset to resolving the complicated and controversial issues we are addressing today.

My testimony will address a regional, integrated fish and wildlife program and

its relationship to the 2000 Biological Opinion. Fish and wildlife management does

not divide actions into discrete categories of Biological Opinion implementation

versus other mitigation or management actions. The fish and wildlife managers

view the Columbia River as ‘‘one river’’, an ecosystem which must be managed in

its entirety. Implementation of the 2000 Biological Opinion, which concerns only

ESA-listed anadromous fish, is part of a very large integrated effort to restore all

fish and wildlife and the habitats they depend on in the Columbia River Basin. The

Northwest Power Planning Council’s (NWPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program2 addresses both ESA-listed and unlisted species. Subbasin planning efforts led by the

NWPCC are intended to further integrate Federal, State, tribal and private efforts

on behalf of fish and wildlife resources.

We believe that satisfactory restoration of Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife

resources, with several resource plans functioning simultaneously, requires that the

following three conditions be met:

1. action implementers must be better coordinated and be held more accountable

for their actions;

2. there must be rigorous monitoring and evaluation protocols in place; and,

3. there must be adequate funding to get the job done appropriately. I will elaborate on each of these three conditions.

Coordination and Accountability

The fish and wildlife managers are concerned that roles and responsibilities of all

appropriate Federal agencies involved with implementation of the 2000 Biological

Opinion have not been defined, and coordination of activities among all Federal

agencies has not satisfactorily occurred. Specifically, the roles and responsibilities

of U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies do not appear to be adequately coordinated with the 2000 Biological Opinion. Defining the roles and responsibilities of the

various 2000 Biological Opinion Action Agencies3 and other Federal agencies is critical to improving coordination and accountability. Clearly defined responsibilities

will help accomplish several things: defined responsibilities will reduce duplication

of efforts among agencies and other action implementers and help assure that no

tasks are forgotten, defined responsibilities can serve as standards against which

Federal agency and other action implementer performances can be evaluated, allowing the region to answer the question, ‘‘Are the agencies getting their tasks done?’’,

and defining the responsibilities of all of the implementers will start addressing an

important concern of Bonneville Power Administration, that it should not have full

responsibility for recovering ESA-listed species and mitigating for fish and wildlife

loses in the Columbia River Basin.

NOAA Fisheries has made an important first step in defining responsibilities for

ESAlisted anadromous fish in its 2000 Biological Opinion, and is starting the effort

to hold the Action Agencies accountable with the 2003, 2005, and 2008 check-ins.

The 2000 Biological Opinion also states ‘‘Failure to achieve the population performance standards could trigger a number of options for the Federal Columbia River

Power System, including re-consultation and pursuing the dam breach option.4’’ At

a workshop this spring on Federal agency budgets hosted by NOAA Fisheries’ Implementation Team, several important Federal agencies did not participate, and

among those that did, most were unable to provide useable information on how

much they had spent or intend to spend on ESA-related work in the basin. A special

effort should be made to review Federal budgets in order to track spending on Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife recovery. We recommend the initiation of a

GAO review of what is being done in the Columbia River Basin by all Federal agen-
86

5Recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington for Protecting and Restoring Columbia River Fish and Wildlife and Preserving the Benefits of the Columbia River Power System. Delivered to the President of the United States, June 5, 2003. 6Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Bonneville Power Administration’s Financial

Commitment for Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Costs. Signed by the Secretaries of

Energy, the Army, Commerce, and the Interior on September 13–16, 1996.

cies for anadromous fish and other species and the costs associated with those actions.

The Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington (Four Governors) recent recommendations5 for preserving the benefits of the Columbia River power system make several excellent suggestions for improving accountability and are a start

at defining the States’ responsibilities to Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife.

The region’s States and tribes have their own fish and wildlife responsibilities and

plans to meet them. We support the Governors’ commitment to subbasin planning

as the means to integrate these State and tribal plans with Federal and private fish

and wildlife restoration efforts.

Monitoring and Evaluation

From a manager’s perspective, a sound monitoring and evaluation program is necessary to both evaluate the status of the resource being managed and assess the

effectiveness of actions implemented to improve the resource. This is especially true

for the 2000 Biological Opinion, where a large number of offsite mitigation actions

are called on to benefit anadromous fishes in the basin. The Four Governors recommended that a strong, integrated monitoring and evaluation program be in place

to assure that efforts to restore fish and wildlife are working and are cost-effective.

We agree with the Four Governors’ recommendation. The Columbia Basin Fish and

Wildlife Authority Members have developed a comprehensive plan for collaborative

monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. The NWPCC recently recommended this

project for funding to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and implementation is being negotiated with BPA and the NWPCC. This project would focus on the

issue of system wide monitoring and evaluation of fish status, addressing requirements of NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

and Recovery Plans as well as the NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

Adequate and Stable Funding

The fish and wildlife managers need assurances that adequate funding is available and accessible to implement priority actions for restoring and protecting all fish

and wildlife resources and their habitats. The NWPCC, under their Fish and Wildlife Program, recently completed a review of all subbasins in the United States portion of the Columbia River Basin. This review included a call for proposals regarding actions necessary to restore and protect fish, wildlife and habitat resources in

the basin. Over $344 million in annual projects that met rigorous scientific, management and public scrutiny were identified. These are opportunities that exist today

for recovery of listed species as well as protection and restoration of non-listed species. The NWPCC subbasin planning effort will provide a more definitive estimate

of the costs of resource restoration in the basin, costs that are likely to be even larger.

Current funding to implement these projects is insufficient. During Federal fiscal

year 2003, the BPA has limited spending in the NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program

to less than $139 million. Considering this funds BPA overhead for $12 million,

subbasin planning for $10 million and independent science review for $1 million,

less than $126 million supports for on-the-ground projects that directly benefit fish

and wildlife. Confounding this situation is the fact that insufficient funding has

been authorized for implementation of the 2000 Biological Opinion. Thus the

NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program, which addresses all fish and wildlife resources

in the basin, must now compete against the 2000 Biological Opinion for funds. This

creates a situation where funds are shifted from other Federal fish and wildlife mitigation obligations to the 2000 Biological Opinion.

It is important to us as fish and wildlife managers that the needs of all species

be met. The needs of resident fish and wildlife, particularly in areas blocked by the

dams, are not less important than the needs of ESA-listed anadromous species. The

first step to meeting these needs is assuring that adequate funding is available to

meet the Federal mitigation obligations. From 1996 to 2001 funding of Columbia

Basin fish and wildlife activities was guided by a Memorandum of Agreement6

(MOA) among the Federal Parties. That MOA resolved policy and procedural issues

related to funding Federal mitigation obligations. No new MOA was established fol-
87

7Northwest Power Planning Council Recommendations on the Future Role of Bonneville in

Power Supply. December 17, 2002. Council Document 2002–19. 8For example, the December 2002 report ‘‘The Economic Impact of the 2001 Salmon Season

in Idaho’’ prepared by Ben Johnson Associates, Incorporated, for the Idaho Fish and Wildlife

Foundation estimated the total economic impact of the 2001 salmon season in Idaho was

$89,880,015.

lowing expiration of the 1996–2001 MOA, and many of the policy and procedural

issues that led to that MOA are now re-appearing.

We believe a new MOA must be negotiated and established so that time, money

and energy currently spent on process issues can be redirected to on-the-ground resource enhancement actions. The MOA must resolve key issues such as budgeting

procedures, capital expenditure planning, habitat crediting, and the integration of

regional budgets with the congressional appropriations process. Also, the MOA must

define the responsibilities of all parties, including the U.S. Government trust and

treaty responsibilities to the tribes, and its development must include full consultation with the fish and wildlife managers in the basin.

The establishment of a formal MOA is also supported by the NWPCC. In a recent

publication,7 the NWPCC stated‘‘. . . the re-establishment of a process to develop

formal memoranda of agreement that would specify funding levels for Bonneville

rate periods, or some other period of time, would be welcomed in assuring the region’s fish and wildlife interests that Bonneville’s obligations will be met.’’ We agree

with the NWPCC that to ensure adequate funding levels‘‘. . . a transparent process

that involves all regional entities and the public must be established . . .’’.

In addition to assurances of meeting the current Federal fish and wildlife mitigation obligations, we need assurances that there will be adequate funding to satisfy

future needs. As mentioned in our introductory comments, the region is actively engaged in subbasin planning under the NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. We are

seeing BPA funds that support NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program activities being

diverted to implement the 2000 Biological Opinion. Because of this, there is no certainty that funds will be available to complete development of the subbasin plans,

implement the actions that they recommend, and monitor and evaluate the results.

We are involving the public and building public trust in the subbasin planning process, and do not wish to see this trust destroyed because lack of a funding-vision

brought subbasin planning to an end.

Closing Statement

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure you that the fish and wildlife

managers fully appreciate the importance and value of anadromous fish to the Pacific Northwest. I am sure you are well aware how in Idaho the improved salmon

and steelhead returns in recent years have created and supported both tribal and

sport fishing opportunities, and how small local communities have benefited from

the economic stimulus provided by the fisheries. That theme was repeated in other

areas of the Columbia River basin that salmon and steelhead migrate through or

have access to, and we would like to see it extended to all areas of the basin for

all species.

Direct expenditure on fish and wildlife restoration is a very good investment.

Many of the dollars go directly into local communities throughout the basin, paying

salaries and buying services and products. Economists can apply multipliers to the

dollars spent and show how their value increases as they circulate through the local

economy. Until recently the intangible number was the interest gained on that investment. Recent surveys8 have shown us that the return on those investments easily could be in the millions of dollars. Healthy fish and wildlife populations attract

people for a variety of reasons. That attraction leads to a redistribution of money

to small rural economies. There is a great societal benefit to restoring our natural

resources to healthy levels.

We urge you to strive for adequate funding concomitantly for both Biological

Opinion implementation (regardless of what Biological Opinion is considered) and

existing Federal mitigation obligations. Funding should not only be provided

through the BPA mitigation for the Federal Columbia River Power System, but by

all Federal agencies responsible for implementing the 2000 Biological Opinion. Adequate funding is an important step for integrating Federal, State, and tribal efforts

to restore and protect our fish and wildlife resources. We can manage the Columbia

River basin as an ecosystem and achieve basin-wide results only through a fully integrated program.
88

STATEMENT OF NEZ PERCE TRIBAL CHAIRMAN ANTHONY D. JOHNSON

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Chairman Crapo. My name is Anthony Johnson and I am Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe. I would like to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing.

THE SALMON’S IMPORTANCE TO THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE

The Nez Perce Tribe has fished since time immemorial, and in our 1855 Treaty

with the United States, our ancestors expressly reserved the right to take fish at

all our usual and accustomed places throughout the Columbia River Basin. For the

Nez Perce Tribe, salmon are more than an icon of the Pacific Northwest; they are

crucial to our culture, our way of life, our spiritual beliefs, and our economy. Without them, we are not Niimiipuu.

THE IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL HYDROPOWER SYSTEM HAS LED TO SALMON BEING

LISTED AS ‘‘ENDANGERED’’ OR ‘‘THREATENED’’

The impact of the Federal hydropower system on the salmon, and on our people

has been devastating. Today, in large part due to the Federal hydropower system,

every run of Snake River salmon that returns to the Nez Perce Tribe’s usual and

accustomed fishing places in the Columbia River Basin is either extinct, or listed

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. These include

Snake River coho, Snake River sockeye, Snake River spring, summer, and fall chinook, and Snake River steelhead.

TODAY’S HEARING THREE POINTS

Today, you have invited me to speak on ‘‘The implementation of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2000 Biological Opinion regarding the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.’’ I would like to make three points.

FIRST, THE FCRPS BIOLOGICAL OPINION HAS BEEN DECLARED ILLEGAL!

The Federal district court’s recent ruling that NMFS’ Biological Opinion for the

FCRPS is illegal should come as no surprise.

The ESA has highlighted that FCRPS cries out for a major overhaul In 1994,

Judge Malcolm Marsh declared that the hydropower system ‘‘was literally crying out

for a major overhaul’’ in one of the initial legal challenges to FCRPS operations

under the Endangered Species Act. (Idaho Department of Fish and Game v. NMFS).

NMFS has avoided facing reality shown it by the Basin’s salmon managers

Senator Crapo, we know that you have carefully followed impact of the FCRPS

on salmon over the years. You, like us, watched as NMFS deferred its decision on

a ‘‘major overhaul’’ for 5 years. You, like us, watched as NMFS discarded the closest

thing to a true collaborative approach in the Columbia Basin: PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses), which involved biologists from the States, the

tribes, the Federal Government, and independent scientists known as. Senator

Crapo, you will recall that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game testified before

you concerning NMFS’ departure from the conclusions reached by PATH. NMFS’ departure from the PATH conclusions, and its peer review, appeared to be motivated

by the fact that PATH had concluded that breaching the four lower Snake River

dams was the best means for restoring Snake River salmon.

NOAA’s flawed approach NMFS’ ‘‘non-breach’’ biological opinion appeared to the

Nez Perce Tribe and all the other salmon managers in the Columbia Basin to be

biologically flawed. And, while NMFS’ biological opinion was billed as an ‘‘aggressive

non-breach’’ approach, upon closer examination it was clear that it was mostly hope

and good intentions.

The litigation has exposed the biological concerns with NOAA’s approach The Nez

Perce Tribe, along with the State of Oregon, has actively participated in this litigation to point out the flaws in the 2000 FCRPS BiOp. One point the Nez Perce Tribe

made is that no matter which side of the litigation the States and tribes ended up

on in this litigation, the formal comments they submitted in the record, and all detail the biological flaws with NMFS’ approach.

SECOND, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Leadership Is Needed The Federal court’s ruling regarding the illegality of NMFS’

BiOp under the ESA cries out for leadership, the kind you, Mr. Crapo, are showing,

by calling this hearing. After the Court’s ruling, I stated that, ‘‘The decision gives
89

the Columbia Basin’s sovereigns a tremendous opportunity to ensure that salmon

are recovered by actions, not words.’’

The Lack of Leadership Will Place The Issue in the Nation’s Hands, and Increase

the Pressure for Breaching the Four Lower Snake River Dams Unfortunately, others

in the region appear to be placing their heads in the sand.

The Governors’ Lowest Common Political Denominator After the Federal court declared NMFS’ Biological Opinion for the FCRPS illegal, the regions’ four Governors,

in a testament to the lowest common political denominator, pledged to ensure that

breaching the four lower Snake River dams is not on the table, because, in their

words this issue is ‘‘polarizing and divisive.’’ While paying lip service to supporting

Federal agency budgets, and additional appropriations necessary to meet the ‘‘nonbreach’’ approach, the Governors refused to do so if it meant adjusting rates to meet

the legal obligations of the Endangered Species Act or the Northwest Power Act’s

equitable treatment mandate.

BPA is frustrating salmon recovery After the Federal court declared NMFS’ Biological Opinion for the FCRPS illegal, Steve Wright, the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (on June 4, 2003) regarding fish and wildlife obligations to the Northwest

Tribes. Amazingly, he completely failed to mention to the Senate that NMFS’ Biological Opinion had been declared illegal. At a time when the Federal court and the

salmon are crying out for more fish and wildlife recovery not less BPA has announced reductions in its fish and wildlife investments. BPA’s indifference to salmon

restoration makes it nearly impossible for an ‘‘aggressive non-breach’’ approach to

occur.

More than the status quo is required Simply put, the status quo is not good

enough to satisfy the Endangered Species Act, to say nothing of the United States’

treaty and trust obligations. The Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, in its detailed

‘‘Report Card’’ on the implementation of the BiOp, found that Federal agencies received half of the funding required by the ‘‘non breach’’ plan and accomplished less

than 30 percent of the work. We are disappointed that they are not here today, as

we believe they are partially responsible for this hearing occurring. To that end, we

would like to be sure that you pay special attention to the Save Our Wild Salmon

testimony, which we understand has been submitted as part of the record.

THIRD, WE CALL ON YOUR LEADERSHIP TO PROVIDE WHAT IS NEEDED

We request your leadership in three ways.

First, monitor the development of the new FCRPS BiOp As NOAA rewrites its

Biological Opinion for the FCPRS, we urge you to monitor this process closely. Neither we, nor the salmon, can afford to waste more time. We urge you to urge NMFS

and the ‘‘Action Agencies’’ (Bonneville, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Corps

of Engineers) to ensure that they embark on a salmon recovery strategy that is economically feasible, scientifically credible, and realistically achievable. We urge you

and the subcommittee members to monitor this process carefully.

Second, scrutinize BPA’s commitment to salmon recovery We urge your continued

oversight of the actions of the Bonneville Power Administration with respect to its

fish and wildlife funding. The Nez Perce Tribe has shown its on-the-ground leadership in implementing salmon recovery projects funded by Bonneville, including

award-winning habitat restoration actions and the cutting edge Nez Perce Tribal

Hatchery. Bonneville’s reluctance to fund fish and wildlife recovery projects undermines its commitment to a ‘‘non breach’’ alternative. We urge you to urge the General Accounting Office to continue its ongoing investigations into Bonneville’s financial and fish and wildlife obligations.

Third, continue to support the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program Your

support for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery has begun to show results with the

projects implemented by the Nez Perce Tribe. We also support your efforts, and

those of other members of the Idaho delegation, to see that the State of Idaho is

included as a full participant in this critical program. We urge you to continue to

ensure that this program is reauthorized for another 6 years, with increased funding for the tribes and States, in support of coordinated salmon restoration efforts,

including the actions being implemented by the Nez Perce Tribe.

CONCLUSION

I appreciate this opportunity for the Nez Perce Tribe to testify. I will be submitting amended written testimony for the record and ask that you also allow the written testimony of the other Columbia River treaty tribes to be included in the record.
90

STATEMENT OF NANCY MURILLO, CHAIRMAN, SHOSHONE–BANNOCK TRIBES

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Shoshone–Bannock

Tribes, I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments to you on the impacts

on Fish and Wildlife Management Programs in the Pacific Northwest.

As Chairman of the Fort Hall Business Council, governing body of the Shoshone–

Bannock Tribes, I provide the perspective of the Tribes regarding the impacts on

Tribal Fish and Wildlife Management Programs in the Pacific Northwest. The

Tribes’ testimony will focus on the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological

Opinion (BiOp); the BiOp Implementation Plans; the Bonneville Power Administration funding of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program through the

Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council under the Pacific Northwest

Power Planning and Conservation Act; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing; and the need for additional funding to fully analyze and participate in the

numerous Federal and private forums surrounding the operation of the Columbia

River Power System and its impact on anadromous fish and to implement the actions necessary to protect and restore the fish and wildlife resources of the Columbia River Basin.

In historic times, Idaho’s Shoshone and Bannock speaking peoples were located

at the headwaters of four major river systems in the western United States. They

lived along, utilized, and traveled the rivers and tributaries of the Salmon and

Snake, which feed the Columbia River system; but they also spent time on the rivers and tributaries leading to the Great Basin and the

Missouri, as well as, the Colorado Rivers. The vast majority of people descended

from these Idahoans now live on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southern Idaho

as enrolled members of the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. We hold entitlements to

these river systems which were bequeathed to us not only by our ancestors historic

patterns of use but also by the treaties and other legally binding agreements made

with the government of the United States (e.g., the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (15

Stat. 673). The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have treaty rights on all unoccupied lands

of the United States; and we manage our fisheries through our Treaty priority right

in conjunction with our efforts in the Federal case, U.S. v. Oregon.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have been involved for many years in the numerous policy, production and management processes tied to the Columbia and Snake

rivers. We realize the importance of prioritization of the most important processes

due to our limited staff and resources. This includes active involvement in

prioritizing the absolutely critical and threshold projects needed to implement a balance between a reliable and inexpensive energy supply with the fish and wildlife

needs that are impacted by the Columbia River Power System. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes are full supporters of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

as a coordinating body for much of these activities.

Endangered Species Act and the Columbia River Hydropower system

One of the realities of Fisheries Management is the fact the Shoshone–Bannock

Tribes cannot do any management without being completely absorbed by the Federal Endangered Species Act. We spend so much time on the processes that exist,

that little time or staffing is left for actual production and management efforts to

promote recovery of the salmon. However, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes continue

to prioritize on-the-ground implementation of actual production, hatchery reform,

and harvest management activities despite the overwhelming burden of process.

Our production efforts are also accomplished through U.S. v Oregon management

agreements, by ESA through National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Fisheries

(NMFS) processes, and often by unresolved scientific (i.e., genetic) uncertainty and

political infighting of the various governance structures.

The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) issued Biological Opinions (BiOps) in December 2000 for the operation and maintenance of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). This

complex of dams and reservoirs is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA), referred to

collectively as the Action Agencies. The Action Agencies first implementation plan

(The ESA Implementation Plan 2002–2006) was published as a draft in July 2001

and circulated for review; the 2002–2006 5-year plan was followed by the release

of the first annual implementation plan. The NMFS BiOp also calls for annual

progress reports as well as comprehensive check-ins in 2003, 2005, and 2008.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes are concerned with the continuing modifications of

past plans before they are implemented. We have been involved with decades of

planning that have not yet been implemented. Once again, the 2002, implementa-
91

tion plans for the 2000 BiOp have remained unsatisfactory to the needs of the endangered species and the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. Less than 30 percent of the

measures required to be completed by 2002 were accomplished; yet, water temperatures continue to increase, water flows continue to decrease, and funding allocations

remain inadequate to correct these major deficiencies. For example:

1) Hydro system—the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have recognized for many years

that the Columbia River Power System of dams and reservoirs impede salmon migration and return to over 900 miles of river system, and requires major system configuration modifications. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have long advocated breaching the four lower Snake River dams (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose

and Lower Granite dams), not only for the benefits to anadromous fish, wildlife and

clean water, but also for the major economic benefits that will result from more efficient alternative energy sources, additional recreation opportunities, preservation of

tribal cultural resources, and associated long-term savings in fish and wildlife mitigation. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have long maintained that the hundreds of

millions of dollars being spent on ‘‘fixing’’ these dams is a great waste, and that the

expenditures would be significantly less if instead the investment were to fix the

river by mothballing the dams.

2) Habitat restoration—the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have tried to acquire land

as conservation easements to return fragmented habit for fish and wildlife

connectivity. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have continuously attempted to put and

keep clean, cold water into the streams, without the migration barriers associated

with irrigation diversions, dewatering, and toxicity from mine effluent.

3) Hatchery-reform—the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have been leaders in using

low technology and inexpensive artificial propagation techniques that attempt to use

hatchery-origin fish to rebuild wild, naturally spawning populations of anadromous

fish. These efforts include side-stream egg incubators, and adult and smolt outplants

of hatchery fish into wild fish areas. However, the ambiguous genetic theories of

modern science continuously impede these efforts, even after several of the Pacific

Northwest tribes have shown major success stories of these hatchery reform techniques.

4) Harvest the mixed stock interception fisheries are inequitable to the salmon resource and the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes. Selective fisheries should be initiated

based on fishing area rather than gear restrictions. Releasing harvested salmon

after being caught does not aide salmon recovery. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes

harvest fish in areas and at levels the populations of salmon can support and encourage all other entities to do the same.

Simply put, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes are trying to put water into the creeks,

and fish in the water. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes attempt to carry out the purposes of our Tribal Policies and the Treaty commitments made in the 1868 Fort

Bridger Treaty by being actively involved in the numerous forums that are designed

to implement the ESA. It is our position that the ESA must be implemented in accordance with our Treaty.

It is difficult for Indian people to understand why the Northwest doesn’t recognize

what the native people have long known; fish need clean natural rivers to survive,

just as the human being needs clean water to replenish our bodies. The Federal Action Agencies implementation plan does not promote clean, cool water for anadromous fish. Storage reservoirs have not been refilled, salmon flow targets have not

been meet, Potlatch continues to discharge 90 plus degree water and tributary habitat continues to be degraded. Likewise, the Treaty commitments and Trust Responsibility that has been statutorily assigned to the Federal family has not been

upheld. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes along with other tribes in the Region must

constantly analyze the Federal actions to make sure that the Tribal goals and policies have been incorporated in the Action Agencies plan(s). In addition, we are constantly involved with the scientific, technical and policy forums to protect our Tribal

Treaty commitments. Both the process and the modern science results in a huge financial burden being placed on the Tribes and a huge staffing need to protect our

concerns.

Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Funding

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have received funding for Fish and Wildlife

projects pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (Council) processes for several years. We are very concerned with the political influences

that impact Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) funding of the Columbia

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have been

sponsors of several fish and wildlife project proposals that ranked higher in both

the fish and wildlife managers’ and the Independent Scientific Review Panel review

and prioritization based on scientific validity, only to get bumped out of the process
92

by lower scientifically ranked proposals, due to recommendations made by Governorappointed Council members. For example, in the East Fork Salmon River, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes proposed to use Bonneville funds to purchase land that included fish acclimation ponds and prime fish and wildlife habitat as a conservation

easement, including the suspension of irrigation to allow more water to remain in

the stream and tributaries. This proposal ranked very high and was recommended

for Bonneville funding in both scientific reviews, yet the Council did not recommend

funding to Bonneville. The Idaho Governors Office of Species Conservation sponsored a similar proposal further up the East Fork Salmon River, for a similar

amount of land but that did not include fish acclimation ponds and did not suspend

irrigation. The Governor’s Office proposal ranked low and was not recommended for

funding in either of the scientific reviews, yet moved forward from the Council with

a recommendation to fund. To the best of our knowledge, now, 2 years later, the

acquisition of the property the Governor’s office sponsored has fallen through because the landowner cannot maintain his private-only use of the property as was

proposed and as is not allowed with Federal funds. This is from the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes view as well as the expertise of independent scientific peers, is but one

of many examples of the politically driven funding decisions that are not critical for

fish and wildlife recovery, and that resemble fraudulent waste of Federal funds.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish and Wildlife Funding

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes received a $100,000 add-on to the base Fish and

Wildlife Program Management and Development fund in 1992. Despite repeated requests for at least $550,000 annually to meaningfully participate in the myriad of

process and implementation activities related to anadromous fish management, the

Shoshone–Bannock Tribes have received no additional funding for over a decade. Inadequate funding prevents the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes from meaningfully participating in ocean harvest forums (Pacific Fisheries Management Council and U.S.—

Canada Treaty); Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council activities; Columbia River Power System forums and processes (Fish Passage Advisory Committee, Fish Passage Center Oversight Board, System Configuration Team, Technical Management Team, Implementation Team, Executive Committee, Water Quality Team), Action Agency forums, and FERC relicensing.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes policy is to treat the Snake and Columbia rivers

as one river system that emphasizes the natural riverine ecosystem, rather than

upriver (storage reservoirs, resident fish species) versus downriver (riverine, anadromous fish species) conflicts. The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes were major participants in the Watershed Equity Team that drafted a way to operate and configure

the Columbia River Power System to meet both the upriver and downriver biological

objectives. The Tribes also were leaders in working with the 13 federally recognized

Columbia Basin Indian Tribes to develop a draft Unified Tribal Vision Paper on the

Columbia River fish and wildlife resources and how to achieve that vision; and a

Red Paper on river governance that afforded the technical, policy and legal authorities and responsibilities to the three sovereigns (tribal, State and Federal). These

past activities were supported by the BIA funding, which now is severely constricted

due to the significant increase in process for the Columbia River basin fish and

wildlife management and recovery.

FERC Re-licensing and the Federal Energy Bill

The proposed Energy Bill, Title V, Federal Power Act Amendments—The proposed

changes would affect some tribes directly: those with dams on their Reservations.

This includes the American Falls Reservoir and its impacts on the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and also down river flows for salmon . The bill would amend in two

ways Sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act as they relate to mandatory conditions imposed on licensed projects to protect Indian Reservations and fish passage.

First, additional procedural protections would be granted to hydro licensees. Second,

licensees would have equal status as governmental agencies to propose conditions

for the protection of Indian Reservations and fish. Section 4(e) requires that the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) take measures to protect Indian

Reservations when hydro projects are located within and, affect those Reservations.

It provides that the FERC can impose mandatory conditions on the license as recommended by the Secretary of the Interior:

‘‘Provided, that licenses shall be issued within any reservation only after a finding

by the Commission that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the

purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired, and shall be subject

to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection

and utilization of such reservation.’’
93

Clearly, when viewed alone this proposed section is designed to arm hydro developers with further procedural mechanisms to challenge conditions imposed to protect Indian people and fish. This will further delay and frustrate the implementation of measures to protect Tribal interests. However, when viewed together with

additional rights hydro developers would have under this bill, their rights would become even more oppressive. What is remarkable is proposed Section 33 of the bill.

It would allow licensees the opportunity to recommend their own proposed protective measures under Sections 4(e) and 18. The criteria for acceptance of the developers’ proposals will include cost reduction and improved electricity production. This

bill would give licensees greater rights than sovereign nations and would reduce

consideration of Tribal interests considerably. Disputes on whether to accept the developers’ proposals would be referred to the FERC’s Dispute Resolution Service. The

non-binding advisory of the Dispute Resolution Service would go to Secretary of the

Interior for acceptance or rejection, which is then submitted into the FERC record.

At that point, the procedural protections discussed above would apply. This bill

would significantly dilute Tribal interests and would defer the protection of Federal

trust obligations to private parties. Only Congress can abrogate protections of tribal

trust resources which must be done expressly and specifically. This bill sets a dangerous precedent.

FERC is considering new regulations that propose to establish a new Consultation

Policy that sets forth how FERC will complete Government-to–Government consultation with Indian Tribal governments. This is a step in the right direction since

the present process does not allow for any meaningful involvement by Tribal governments and there is no mandate for consultation with any Tribe. We would urge this

Committee to oversee this process and possibly conduct hearings on Tribal involvement.

In summary, the Shoshone–Bannock Tribes emphasize the Columbia and Snake

river systems as one river system. The Tribes promote the natural riverine ecosystem as a High Significance to the Shoshone and Bannock people and culture. We

appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee

on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water.

The Shoshone–Bannock Tribes are situated high at the headwaters of the longesttraveled anadromous fish species in the world, and provide unique and proactive advice and techniques for the recovery and protection of these animals. We invite the

Senate Committee and staff to travel to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and to

the off-Reservation management areas to learn more about our subsistence practices, and the management of our production, habitat, and harvest programs.

STATEMENT OF PAT FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR WILD SALMON

On behalf of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition (SOS) and our combined membership of more than four million people nationwide, I thank Chairman Crapo and

members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing today. Northwest sport and

commercial fishermen and women, fishing businesses and conservationists thank

you for this leadership.

Chairman Crapo, you render a service to your State and region by inquiring into

the status of Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery efforts, including the status of current Federal and regional financial investments. Wild salmon and steelhead are an icon of the Northwest, deeply woven into the lives, communities, economies, and cultures of its people. Salmon and steelhead support many

thousands of family wage jobs, bring hundreds of millions of dollars into Northwest

communities every year, help assure community stability and health, signify

andassure clean water for millions of people, and nourish the spiritual and material

cultures of the Northwest. We also note that abundant wild salmon and steelhead

in the rivers and streams of the Columbia Basin constitute a major part of the solemn promises made in the treaties between our country and the native people of

the Northwest. Those promises have been sorely neglected. We thank you for seeing

further and more deeply into the real stakes, values, and benefits of salmon and

steelhead recovery.

This subcommittee has asked those testifying to assess the status of Columbia

and Snake River wild salmon and steelhead recovery. Since December 2000, the

Federal salmon plan—also known as the 2000 Biological Opinion for the Federal

system of dams—has governed those efforts. This plan acknowledged that partial removal of four dams on the lower Snake River is the surest scientific means to restore Snake River salmon, but opted instead for an everything-but-dam-removal approach. Federal, State, and tribal representatives estimated the plan’s implementation cost at nearly $1 billion annually. Its implementation requires close coordina-
94

1 United States General Accounting Office, Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies’ Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions, July 2002 (GAO–02–6 12). 2 Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Biological Review Team Draft Report of Updated Status

of Listed ESUs of Salmon and Steelhead, 2003. 3 National Marine Fisheries Service, Findings Regarding Adequacy of the Endangered Species

Act 2003/2003–2007 Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System, May

14, 2003. 4 Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and Environmental Team, U.S. GAO, Testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (June 4, 2003). 5 Northwest Power Planning Council, Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework

Alternatives, February 2000.

tion amongst 13 Federal agencies, 13 federally recognized Indian nations, four

States, and many local governments and private entities. Most Northwest elected

leaders, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, generally supported this plan—but you

were one of the few to note at the time the profound managerial and fiscal challenge

that implementing it presented.

Your fears were justified. In 2001 and 2002, Save Our Wild Salmon released detailed report cards on Federal implementation of this plan. We found that the Federal agencies are implementing less than 30 percent of the plan’s required measures, and receiving about 50 percent of its required funding. Those two Report

Cards are attached here for the record.

If this pattern of failure to implement the plan is examined more closely, one

finds the failure greatest in precisely those measures which scientific analyses have

repeatedly shown are the most beneficial to salmon and steelhead: those which restore stream, river, and estuary habitats,

including of course the critical migratory habitat. Put simply, fish need water,

Fish need functioning rivers. Yet these are the areas where the least has been done

to protect fish.

Others have reached similar conclusions. In 2002, the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO), at your request, analyzed salmon recovery spending to date and what

that spending had accomplished. GAO found that more than $3.3 billion had been

spent on salmon recovery in the previous 20 years, with little to no measurable improvement for that investment.1 NOAA Fisheries (formerly the National Marine

Fisheries Service) released a report finding that, despite recent adult salmon returns, wild Snake River salmon are in as bad shape now as when they were listed

more than 10 years ago.2 NOAA’ s recent analysis of the implementation of the Federal salmon is also illuminating. That analysis states‘‘. . . unless we can quickly develop alternative means of assessment, at the 2003 check-in NOAA Fisheries will

need to evaluate whether there will be greater uncertainty associated with the

Opinion’s reliance on offsite mitigation that will remain beyond the 2005 check-in

and any significance for avoiding jeopardy.’’3 And, as we now know, the salmon plan

which the Administration has failed to implement was itself not sufficient to meet

the test of law; a Federal court has ruled it illegal.

As you know, in recent months, the flurry of concern around BPA’s management

of both its fiscal and public purpose responsibilities has been swirling. Congress has

requested GAO reports that focus on BPA’s financial situation and fish and wildlife

obligations. Similarly, regional concern (noted in editorials, hearings, etc.) has risen

greatly. Earlier this month, GAO testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee stating that ‘‘BPA’s two roles, as supplier of economical and reliable power

and as protector of fish and wildlife, inherently conflict . . . [this conflict] will likely

become more intense if growing power demands bump up against increased efforts

to mitigate damage to fish and wildlife.’’4 BPA’s financial troubles are exacerbating

this conflict of interest.

None of this is surprising. In 1995, a NOAA Fisheries endorsed group of independent, tribal, State, and Federal biologists, after 4 years of investigation and $7

million, found that partial removal of the four lower Snake River dams was the surest and best means to restore abundant Snake River salmon. In 2000, the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin showed that lower Snake River dam removal would significantly increase Snake River salmon populations at a competitive cost when compared with

other alternatives that would require costly and truly aggressive ‘‘offsite’’ measures

involving significant water acquisitions and severe land management restrictions.5

And just earlier this month, the scientific journal, Conservation Biology published

a study by a U.S. Fish & Wildlife fisheries biologist that shows once again that partial dam removal was the surest and best option for recovery of Snake River salmon
95

6Wilson, Paul H., Using Population Projection Matrices to Evaluate Recovery Strategies for

Snake River Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon, Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No. 3, June

2003.

and steelhead.6 Taking science and law together, we have just two real options for

salmon recovery—partial removal of the lower Snake River dams or significant

water acquisition and severe land management restrictions.

The Northwest Governors recently sent a letter to President Bush suggesting that

the rewrite of the Federal salmon plan should largely stay on the current course.

We strongly disagree. As a matter of law and treaty, minor changes will not suffice.

The people and communities of the Northwest need a real plan. Staying the course

ensures several things that none of us wants: it ensures the ultimate extinction of

salmon in the Snake River and the jobs and communities dependent upon them.

Staying the course means the ship of salmon recovery will hit the rocks and break

apart. Clearly the sirens of the status quo were singing and clouding the judgment

of our regional leaders.

We urge you to close your ears to those sirens of status quo, to chart a safer, more

productive path for the future of Pacific Northwest salmon. We urge you to press

this Administration to craft a plan that is achievable; that follows the science; and

that protects salmon-based communities and our nation’s treaty obligatiOns by ensuring self-sustaining harvestable salmon.

In particular we ask you to:

(1) secure an Administration process on the rewrite of the Federal salmon plan

that formally involves the States and Tribes, and that provides opportunity for public comment;

(2) ensure that all options for salmon recovery are on the table, including the partial removal of the four lower Snake River dams;

(3) urge an independent regional economic analysis of the benefits now derived

from salmon and steelhead, and the benefits available if abundant harvestable wild

salmon and steelhead are restored to the Columbia and Snake River Basin;

(4) support an assured, multi-year, dependable salmon investment fund at BPA

in the amount of at least $230 million/year, with fishery agencies and Tribes sharing formal decisionmaking on its spending with the Federal representatives.

As the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark begins, we hope that this hearing is simply the start of our nation’s efforts to chart a new course on salmon recovery, to

think critically, act honestly, and restore fully salmon and steelhead to the Snake

and Columbia rivers. These fish—the same fish that saved the Lewis and Clark expedition from starvation—are a part of our nation’s history, the essence of our moral

and legal obligations to the Native Peoples of the Northwest, integral to cultures

and religions, and essential to the economic fabric of the region.

Thank you again for holding this hearing and for beginning a process to shed light

on how best to protect this economic, religious, and magical resource for generations

to come. SOS stands ready to assist you in those efforts.

Æ