U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

59–375 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–453

SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN:

REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND DRINKING WATER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE PROPOSED DECISION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO

RECOVER ENDANGERED SALMONID STOCKS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER

BASIN, AND SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ‘‘4-H’’ DOCUMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CAUCUS

JUNE 23, 1999

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

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

JIMMIE POWELL, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND DRINKING WATER

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

REID, HARRY, Nevada

LAUTENBERG, FRANK R., New Jersey

WYDEN, RON, Oregon

GRAHAM, BOB, Florida

BARBARA BOXER, California

(II)
CONTENTS

Page

JUNE 23, 1999

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada .................................. 53

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington .......................... 14

WITNESSES

Ausman, Lynn, grower, Waitsburg, WA, on behalf of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington Barley Commission .................... 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho .................................... 13

Dunn, Mark, director of government affairs, J.R. Simplot Company, Boise,

ID ........................................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71

Faber, Scott, director, Floodplains Program, American Rivers ........................... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus .............................. 70

Frampton, George, Acting Chair, Council on Environmental Quality ................ 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Baucus .......................................................................................... 59

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 56

Senator Reid .............................................................................................. 58

Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Governor, State of Idaho ............................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Statement, Northwest Power Planning Council ............................................ 8

Lothrop, Robert C., manager for policy development and litigation support,

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR ......................... 33

Prepared statement of Donald Sampson ........................................................ 59

Report, executive summary of ‘‘Wa-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit’’, Columbia

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission ........................................................... 61

Squires, Owen, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, Lewiston, ID .......... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72

Stearns, Tim, policy director, Save Our Wild Salmon, Seattle, WA .................... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73

(III)
(1)

SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN:

REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,

AND DRINKING WATER,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in room

SD–406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Crapo and Wyden.

Also present: Senator Craig.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. The hearing will come to order.

This is the hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,

and Drinking Water of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Today we will review the 1999 Columbia River Basin salmon recovery decision, and the 4-H Paper.

We would like to welcome Idaho’s Governor Kempthorne, the

former chairman of this committee, to testify today.

Before we proceed to the testimony, I would like to make a brief

opening statement. Today, the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking

Water Subcommittee will take up the issue of the Columbia River

Basin recovery efforts, the 1999 decision, and the 4-H Paper.

In November 1991, the first Snake River species, the sockeye

salmon, was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species

Act. It is disheartening that nearly 8 years later 12 stocks of Columbia Basin salmonids are listed and we still have no plan in

place for recovering this Pacific Northwest icon. I can say that we

have done a good job of creating working groups and methods for

analyzing data and engaging in process. In fact, I see an interesting chart here that I think the Governor might talk about relating

to that process. But it seems that the process has become the product. One of those processes, the 4-H Paper of the Federal Caucus

is the focus of today’s hearing.

After I first learned of the 4-H Paper and the efforts of the Federal Caucus, I raised concerns about it at an Energy Committee

hearing in Hood River, Oregon. It was astonishing that although

we were only months away from the 1999 decision date, a new

process had been undertaken, as the National Marine Fisheries
2

Service Regional Director Will Stelle put it, to ensure that the Federal agencies did their homework in preparing for the decision.

It has been 4 years since the National Marine Fisheries Service

issued its Biological Opinion in March 1995 and set out to develop

a long-term recovery plan by December 1999. But it isn’t the eleventh-hour establishment of this working group that causes me the

greatest degree of concern. I have encountered stakeholders from

both sides of this debate—tribal officials, State, other Government

officials—who have shared their apprehensions about the way in

which the Federal Caucus has conducted meetings regarding the 4-

H Paper. I understand that these meetings have been in private,

that they have declined to share substantive information regarding

the development of the approach that is being taken, and, furthermore, that the Federal Caucus has precluded the public from participating in or providing input into the process, and, finally, that

there are no plans for independent peer review of this Caucus’ activities and its work product.

With so many ongoing processes related to salmon recovery, one

might wonder why this particular process would raise so much concern. It has become clear from conversations with Federal Caucus

staff that the 4-H Paper is synonymous with the terms of ‘‘conceptual recovery plan’’ and the ‘‘Federal consensus.’’ It isn’t surprising

that these terms like a ‘‘conceptual recovery plan’’ or developing a

‘‘Federal consensus’’ on salmon recovery would create angst among

the States, the tribes, and the interest groups, and other people of

the Pacific Northwest when they believe they are being excluded

from a process that will lay the groundwork for the 1999 decision.

This decision will have profound impacts on the entire Pacific

Northwest. It is no wonder that the people, the interest groups,

and the Governments are so vigilant about their collective future.

That is why today I am submitting a Freedom of Information Act

request to all of the Federal agencies involved in the so-called Federal Caucus. There is no doubt that any product resulting from

salmon recovery deliberations is going to be contentious, but the

Federal Government is setting itself up for failure if the process is

not carried out in an open and transparent manner. This is not intended to be a punitive action or a tactic to slow the process. In

fact, the purpose of these FOIA requests is quite the contrary. I am

confident that by opening up the process now and letting in the

light of day on these very important efforts, further delays are

going to be averted as we move closer to a decision.

Our citizenry is politically astute and active. The people of the

Pacific Northwest want to save the salmon but they will not tolerate being brushed aside as issues of this magnitude are decided.

Any salmon recovery plan is only going to be as successful as the

amount of public understanding and support that it enjoys. I look

forward to hearing how the agencies plan to inform the citizenry

of their activities and how they plan to explore the alternatives

with the public. I am also interested in hearing from the stakeholders in the region and their suggestions about how to best proceed.

With that, we will now proceed with our first witness. As I indicated, our first witness is Governor Dirk Kempthorne. Dirk, I already called you Senator earlier today when I was referring to you

because I have become so accustomed to that. We certainly wel-
3

come you back here to the Senate and back here to this committee.

We would like to ask you to keep your testimony as close as you

can to 5 minutes. We welcome you here Governor Dirk Kempthorne

and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

GOVERNOR, STATE OF IDAHO

Governor Kempthorne. Chairman Crapo, thank you very much,

and thank you for the invitation to speak before this committee. As

you noted, I at one time had the honor of being the chairman of

this subcommittee. I have great memories of the friendships I had

with those members that served on the subcommittee as well as

the staff that support this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say with all sincerity how proud I am

that you are the Chairman. You are doing a tremendous job. You

serve not only Idaho well, but the entire Nation in this current

leadership capacity. I commend you for that.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Governor Kempthorne. I can affirm that this subcommittee confronts some of the toughest issues in the Senate, and the matters

before you greatly impact my home State of Idaho and the other

States that make up the Pacific Northwest region of our country.

By definition, all of those States are an integral partner in resolving many of the tough fish recovery issues presently being

grappled with by the Federal agencies, as you have noted, Mr.

Chairman. The States have their role to play in this process, and

as I have visited with the other Governors in the Northwest, we

are all in agreement that we must work together on salmon recovery.

As you know, the Endangered Species Act consultation process

has been ongoing, and soon the work of the Federal resource agencies will be compiled into what is being referred to as the 1999 Decision—the document which will set forth proposed alternatives in

dealing with the fish issues in the Columbia River Basin System.

As could be expected, the States have long been preparing for

this process.

The Multi-Species Framework, funded by the Bonneville Power

Administration, has been working diligently to develop and analyze

alternatives from both a biological and human effects perspective.

That process is expected to be completed by this fall.

Recently, under the able leadership of Governor Kitzhaber in Oregon, the Columbia River Basin Forum was formed to provide an

appropriate setting for the States, the affected Indian tribes, and

the Federal agencies to fully discuss the key issues facing them

under the Endangered Species Act. I am pleased that Idaho is participating in the Forum, and I look forward to dedicating the necessary resources to help this process succeed.

Notwithstanding the many dollars, the human resources, the effort dedicated to these existing processes, it has come to my attention that the Federal agencies playing a key role in the 1999 Decision have formed what has become known as the Federal Caucus,

an interagency working group with a most ambitious agenda.

Headed up by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Caucus

is staffed with senior officials from such agencies as the Bureau of
4

Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as

other key Federal agencies. To its credit, the Caucus has amassed

the right people at the right time to begin working on the 1999 Decision.

I am not concerned that the Federal Caucus is moving ahead and

getting its work done on the 1999 Decision. Instead, what troubles

me about the Federal Caucus is that its work is being done behind

closed doors.

In a recent letter I wrote to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt

and Commerce Secretary William Daley, I made it clear that the

States impacted by the 1999 Decision have assumed from the start

that they would be treated as partners by the Federal Government

as it attempts to forge a solution to the problem of sustainable

salmon and steelhead recovery in the Northwest.

Additionally, I am uncertain that the agencies making up the

Federal Caucus are using the most recent research data to make

their scientific assumptions. There have been no requests to the

State of Idaho by the agencies of the Federal Caucus to submit any

of our data or analysis on these issues.

I am not asking that the States intrude upon the deliberations

and otherwise impede the progress of the work being performed by

the Federal agencies responsible for the 1999 Decision. What I am

asking is for the States to be given a seat at the table and the opportunity to be fully involved in the process sooner rather than

later.

Let me reference a diagram of all the different agencies that are

working on various aspects of salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, that

indicates all of the different agencies. Now there is a new player,

and it is called the Federal Caucus.

[The referenced chart follows:]
5

I hear Federal officials say that the States hold the key to the

ultimate solution. Well, curiously, Mr. Chairman, their new approach totally leaves the States out of the picture.

So the question is, when do the States get their legitimate role

acknowledged, and when do we become an integral part of this

process?

If it is not until after a decision is reached by the Federal agencies, then what role does that leave for the States?

We have assumed that the States, the tribes, the Federal Government were all working together on a Multi-Species Framework

process which will help the region come to a common resolution on

salmon recovery, only to discover in a February 1999 memo that
6

the Federal Caucus intends to develop its own 4-H process without

any input by the States or the tribes. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the entire text of my opening statement be made part of the record. I would also ask that comments that I made to the Northwest Power Planning Council April

7, 1999, be made part of this record as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by simply saying, and reiterat- ing, time and time again, I have had high ranking Federal officials

make it very clear that the States hold the key and that it must

be a regional approach. The Governors are ready to work in a regional approach, in a bipartisan approach. Yet this latest effort by

the Federal Caucus does not include the States. It doesn’t make

sense to me. I don’t think it will lead to the solution that we’re

after.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, there is the challenge. I applaud your efforts, as evidenced by this hearing today. [The prepared statement of Governor Kempthorne and accompanying material follow:]

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE, STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be back with

you today. I have many fond memories of the friendships we established and the

work that we accomplished together. This is the subcommittee I once chaired. I can tell you in all sincerity that this subcommittee is in good hands. I’m proud of my good friend, Mike Crapo. I’m proud

to call you Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and all the members of this subcommittee for the work you do. I can affirm that this subcommittee confronts some of the toughest issues in the Senate, and the matters before you greatly impact my home State and the other

States that make up the Pacific Northwest region of our country. By definition, all of those States are an integral partner in resolving many of the tough fish recovery issues presently being grappled with by the Federal agencies.

The States have their role to play in this process, and as I’ve visited with the other

Governors in the Northwest, we are all in agreement that we must all work together

on salmon recovery. As you know, the Endangered Species Act consultation process has been ongoing, and soon, the work of the Federal resource agencies will be compiled into what is

being referred to as the ‘‘ 1999 Decision’’—the document which will set forth proposed alternatives in dealing with the fish issues in the Columbia River Basin System.

As could be expected, the States have long been preparing for this process.

The Multi-Species Framework, funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, has been working diligently to develop and analyze alternatives from both a biological and human effects perspective. That process is expected to be completed by this

fall.

Recently, under the able leadership of Governor Kitzhaber in Oregon, the Colum- bia River Basin Forum was formed to provide an appropriate setting for the States,

the affected Indian tribes and the Federal agencies to fully discuss the key issues

facing them under the Federal Endangered Species Act. I am pleased that Idaho is

participating in the Forum and I look forward to dedicating the necessary resources

to help this process succeed.

Notwithstanding the many dollars, human resources and effort dedicated to these

existing processes, it has come to my attention that the Federal agencies playing

a key role in the 1999 Decision have formed what has become known as the ‘‘Federal Caucus,’’ an inter-agency working group with a most ambitious agenda.

Headed up by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Caucus is staffed with

senior officials from such agencies as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other key Federal agencies. To its credit, the

Caucus has amassed the right people at the right time to begin working on the 1999

Decision.

I am not concerned that the Federal Caucus is moving ahead and getting its work

done on the 1999 Decision. Instead, what troubles me about the Federal Caucus is

that its work is being done behind closed doors.
7

In a recent letter I wrote to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and Commerce Secretary William Daley, I made it clear that the States impacted by the 1999 Decision have assumed from the start that they would be treated as partners by the

Federal Government as it attempts to forge a solution to the problem of sustainable

salmon and steelhead recovery in the Northwest. Additionally, I am uncertain that the agencies making up the Federal Caucus are using the most recent research data to make their scientific assumptions. There

have been no requests to the State of Idaho by the agencies of the Federal Caucus

to submit any of our data or analysis on these issues. I am not asking that the States intrude upon the deliberations and otherwise im- pede the progress of the work being performed by the Federal agencies responsible

for the 1999 Decision.

What I am asking for is the States to be given a seat at the table and the oppor- tunity to be fully involved in the process sooner rather than later. Let me reference a diagram of all the different agencies that are working on var- ious aspects of salmon recovery. Now, there’s a new player, and it’s called the Federal Caucus.

I repeatedly hear Federal officials say that the States hold the key to the ultimate solution. Curiously, their new approach totally leaves the States out of it. So, the question is, when do the States get their legitimate role acknowledged, and when do we become an integral part of this process? If it is not until after a decision is reached by the Federal agencies, then what role does that leave for the States?

We have assumed that the States, the tribes and the Federal Government were

all working together on a Multi-Species Framework process which will help the region come to a common resolution on salmon recovery, only to discover in a February, 1999 memo that the Federal Caucus intends to develop its own ‘‘4-H’’ process

without any input by the States or the tribes. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the States and tribes have already invested a great deal of time and money into this process. The Bonneville

Power Administration funds the regional fish recovery program, including the MultiSpecies Framework, to the tune of $215 million per year, paid for by the ratepayers

and the taxpayers. Despite that significant investment, we have no assurance that the Federal Cau- cus intends to utilize the resources of the Multi-Species Framework as it conducts

its work on the 1999 decision.

In fact, we may not know what the intention is of the Federal Caucus until after their work product is completed.

In addition to finding out about the progress of the work of the Caucus, we are interested in knowing about the fundamental assumptions for the decisions being

made. The following example illustrates my point.

In Idaho, fish hatcheries are playing an important role in the current recovery effort. Will the Caucus develop alternatives based upon recoverable wild fish, or will

they take into consideration the many hatchery stocks?

Such an assumption is critical because the continued viability of Idaho’s fish

hatcheries will be at stake. This will be an important component of the 1999 Decision, and we should have input on the direction being considered by the Federal

Caucus.

Mr. Chairman and members, my concern is not that the Federal agencies are

working hard on the 1999 Decision.

Rather, I am fearful that given the ambitious goals and objectives of the Caucus,

the time and opportunity for meaningful State participation in the process is rapidly

waning.

When I left the U.S. Senate to become Governor of Idaho, I wanted to continue

to be an active participant in forging regional consensus solutions for fish recovery.

I strongly believe that active State participation is critical to ensuring the success

of the 1999 Decision.

Instead, the response from the Federal Government has been just the opposite.

I reiterate that I have no desire to invade or impede the progress being made by

this interagency working group as they ‘‘get their house in order.’’

But the work of the Federal Government, especially on a decision that will have

broad environmental and economic impact on the Pacific Northwest, must be conducted in the spirit of partnership and cooperation. To date, this has not occurred,

but I look forward to joining in this process to ensure its ultimate success.

Let me give you a specific example. While this new Federal bureaucracy builds,

so does the Caspian tern population on Rice Island—a federally, man-made island

in the estuary of the Columbia River that serves as a temporary home for these

birds while they feast on millions of endangered salmon smelt.
8

After meeting with a number of Federal agencies last year, they agreed to move forward on an environmental assessment. Then, almost as soon as the EA was completed, we saw the Federal agencies accusing each other of inaction or impeding another agency’s ability to get work completed. The States are just a pawn in this ‘‘hide the ball’’ scheme which results in no solu- tions and continual surprises for the Federal agencies and the States. There is, however, no easy solution to the issue of salmon recovery. If it were

easy, it would have been done already. I believe we will only be successful in our

efforts to recover fish when we work together to address the causes of mortality.

Mr. Chairman, when the Northwest Power Planning Council recently met in

Boise, I discussed a number of broader recovery issues, including predation, harvest,

and the elements of river governance. I would ask that my statement to the Council

be included as part of the record.

With that, I thank you for the invitation to be with you again and I’d be happy

to answer any questions.

COMMENTS OF GOVERNOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE TO THE NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING

COUNCIL, BOISE, IDAHO, APRIL 7, 1999

To all members of the Northwest Power Planning Council, welcome to Idaho. This

is the first opportunity that I’ve had to meet with you since assuming this new role.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, we’re very proud to have you as the chairman,

and with your colleague, Mike Field, again, Idaho is well-served.

I look forward to working with this Council and I applaud you for many of the

things you have done. I believe this Council is going to continue to be extremely

important to the well-being of the region.

I’d like to acknowledge a few of the items that the Council has certainly been

working on recently.

The Council’s work in the Lemhi and Clearwater Basins of Idaho, as well as other

watersheds in the region, is another example of cooperative regional efforts.

The irrigation consolidations, fish screening, and habitat improvement are very

important recovery actions that the Council has contributed to over the years.

The Artificial Production Review process has raised concerns for some, but it is

another good example of a regional effort to use our resources wisely and efficiently.

It is important that the region decide how to best use artificial production in the

Columbia River Basin for sustainable populations of fish that supports harvest and

other resources.

Having served as a United States Senator, I can tell you that solutions to many

of the issues you deal with as a Council will not be solved by the U.S. Congress.

States united will provide solutions for education, welfare, corrections, and many

natural resource issues including endangered and threatened species.

Let me briefly give you my perspective on ESA. We had the ball on the one-yard

line as time ran out on the clock. We were very close to getting real reforms to the

ESA that would have helped States and regions deal with this critical issue.

I doubt we will see reforms anytime soon because of the Presidential election and

the time needed to reassemble the supportive coalitions.

So, we will need to press ahead as States and regions helping the Federal agencies implement recovery efforts and finding solutions for our threatened and endangered species.

One of the solutions holding promise for dealing with threatened and endangered

species is the Multi-species Framework.

The Framework project is an obvious outgrowth of the Northwest Power Act’s

mandate to enhance, protect, and mitigate fish and wildlife species in the Basin.

Council members and Council staff are integrally involved in the Framework, and

are helping make it a success.

The Northwest received national attention last month when the Federal Government listed several more species of salmon and steelhead as threatened or endangered. As a result, practically every major watershed in the region is now affected.

We have listings on top of listings, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is

on the verge of becoming a one-stop shopping center for all the region’s regulatory

needs.

Two weeks ago, NMFS and other Federal agencies announced that it wouldn’t be

wise to deal with each listed species on an individual basis, so they announced their

intention to adopt a multi-species approach.

They realized that with so many listed species in the Basin, they would not have

the luxury of focusing on each individual species without regard to impacts on other

species. Whether they got the idea from the regions Framework process or developed
9

it on their own, I am glad they finally decided to embrace the multi-species recovery

approach.

We must work with the Federal Government, but we can’t wait for them to come

up with solutions. I think the region has to lead to recovery.

You have heard this time and time again, but I want to say it again with more

emphasis, this is a critical time for the region to work together and speak with one

voice.

We have to decide as a region what our recovery strategy will be. If we don’t have

the strength and leadership to do it as a region, Congress will do it for us.

I am committed to working cooperatively with the other Northwest Governors

Governor Racicot, Governor Kitzhaber, and Governor Locke—to chart that strategy.

The region has been well-served by these three gentlemen along with my predecessor Governor Batt.

I look forward to continuing this spirit of cooperation and teamwork.

It is important that we put more emphasis on recovery actions that will give some

immediate relief to the listed fish stocks.

One example of that is mitigating the impacts of the terns.

The Caspian tern colony on man-made Rice Island are responsible for harvesting

upwards of 25 percent of the 100 million smolts that migrated past Rice Island in

1998.

I have been to Rice Island. I went last Fall and saw where crews had combed the

sandy beaches of that island in search of pit tags from the smolt we send down to

the estuary.

I met with the Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS to address the impacts the

terns were having on Idaho’s migrating smolt.

They committed to work on a research project that would discourage the terns

from nesting on Rice Island by encouraging them to use East Sand Island which

lies 15 river miles downstream in an area with a more diverse prey base.

There is no sense in spending 200 million dollars in producing smolts that have

survived to the estuary and then allowing terns exclusive feeding rights.

It is my understanding the Corps and cooperating agencies will finish work for

the first year’s test on the islands this weekend.

I commend the Council for participating in this effort.

But it just continues to amaze me that we make the effort to provide better passage for the smolt only to have up to 25 percent of them consumed as they prepare

to enter the ocean.

We must be more aggressive in fixing this problem. We don’t need more tests. We

don’t need more data. We need to get these fish to the ocean, and stop worrying

about the social engineering of a non-threatened bird that is consuming our endangered fish.

How serious are we about saving fish when we are reluctant to move a nonthreatened bird that are setting up shop on a government-made island and eating

our smolt?

Let me remind you, nothing being suggested here would endanger the terns. All

we are doing is relocating the birds.

Continuing research on ocean conditions is as important as any of the current programs being funded in the region. There are many unknowns, however, without research we may learn we’re spending billions to restore fish in the region only to find

they are disappearing in the ocean.

When you ask NMFS what is happening in the ocean, they acknowledge quite

candidly that no on knows. It’s is a ‘‘black box.’’

At some point, we must have some serious discussions about some of the harvest

issues—in the Columbia River Basin and with Canada and Alaska.

Once these magnificent fish have survived 2 to 3 years in the ocean, they face

another predator.

Without getting into all the specifics, the Marine Mammal Protection Act has

been highly successful. Just this decade, we have seen a sixfold increase in the number of West Coast Sea Lions.

When the Marine Mammal Protection Act was put in place, there were an estimated 7,000 sea lions. Today, there are close to 170,000.

Is that having an effect on our adult salmon attempting to return to Idaho to

spawn? Absolutely.

One out of every four adult salmon observed at Lower Granite Dam shows signs

of interaction with marine mammals.

This is yet another clear example of a single species management plan that

doesn’t take into account the fact that the mammals are preying on an endangered

species.
10

Isn’t it time that we address the problems created by an increase in the mammals through a multi-species approach? How serious are we about saving these endangered fish when we allow non- threatened birds and non-threatened mammals to consume endangered fish at both

ends of the process?

One solution that came from this region was the concept of advanced hydro tur- bines.

As we look at some of the longer-term actions and research, it is critical we use our resources wisely and efficiently. One of those actions I am particularly interested in is the minimum gap runner technology. As you know, when the blades of a traditional Kaplan turbine are slanted at cer- tain angles, gaps are formed that can kill or injure fish. The minimum gap runner is a runner designed to eliminate the gaps in the tur- bine blades that fish enter when the turbine is operating. With existing turbine conditions, estimates of fish survival through the turbines vary from 89 to 94 percent. With the installation of minimum gap runners, engineers are predicting up to a 4 percent improvement. Even a 4 percent improvement increases the survival range

up to 93 to 98 percent. Any improvement multiplied by the number of turbines in

the Columbia-Snake dams would be significant. As we rehabilitate these turbines, it makes good sense that we replace the old runners with minimum gap runners that improve fish passage and in some instances also increase power generation. As a United States Senator, I was successful in getting Congress to put funds into this promising research for each of the last 4 years, and last year, the Clinton Administration stepped up to the plate and included those in its budget request to

Congress. The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended in their November 1997 report to accelerate R&D to develop advanced hydro turbines and low-head run-of-river turbines. They recommend $4M in fiscal year 1999,

$8M in fiscal year 2000, $11M in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $12M in fiscal

year 2003. I would be pleased to join the other Governors of this region and send a joint let- ter to our congressional delegations stating our endorsement and any enhancement

of this recommendation.

At a Senate hearing I conducted on this technology, the Corps of Engineers af- firmed to me they will install minimum gap runners in two of the units at Bonneville Dam this year. After the migration season this year in late summer or early fall one of the units will be tested for effects on fish. Hatchery fish will be used in the test. We await the results, but we may have the opportunity to improve fish passage

and increase generation capacity at the same time.

From your meeting with Dick Fisher of Voith Hydro you heard the same information that I did. The numbers are there. More fish will survive, and we need to be

aggressive as a region in replacing these antiquated turbines.

I applaud the Council’s effort to help move this program forward.

Now, having said all this, I, like Governor Locke of Washington, don’t see a scenario anytime soon where the breaching of dams will occur.

I know you are aware of Karl Dreher’s presentation from the Idaho Department

of Water Resources that says flow augmentation is not feasible.

Until the region stops focusing on breaching and flow augmentation as the keys

to salmon recovery, I don’t see serious efforts being made to help the fish right now.

The region must set the standard for helping the fish right now looking at harvest, predation and a multi-species management approach.

There is no easy solution to the issue of salmon recovery. If it were easy, it would

have been done already. I believe there are areas where we can make improvements

that will have immediate benefits for the fish.

We will only be successful in our efforts to recover fish when we work TOGETHER to address the causes of mortality in all four phases of their life cycle.

Again, welcome to Idaho. I want you to know that I intend to be an advocate for

the Northwest Power Planning Council and with the other Governors of the Northwest, we will use the Council to further the region’s efforts.

I look forward to working with you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Governor Kempthorne.

We expect that Senator Wyden from Oregon and Senator Reid

from Nevada will be here. We also may see some of the other Senators from the Pacific Northwest show up. Senator Craig is at a
11

very important caucus right now and will try to break away to

come here. But until they get here, I get to ask questions first, and

maybe I will take up their time too.

Governor, the Federal Government in its various forms, the various agencies that we’ve dealt with in the Pacific Northwest have

frequently stated in forums like this that they have to move forward, they cannot change the way they are going about business

due to the statutory impositions that they face and the deadlines

that they face under statute.

I see Senator Craig has just entered the room. Senator, please

feel free to join us. In fact, if you would like, you can make a brief

opening statement. We’re just barely getting into this.

Senator CRAIG. I don’t have any statement at this time.

Senator CRAPO. Governor, as I indicated, the Federal agencies

have frequently stated in forums such as this that they can’t

change the way they’re going about business due to statutory deadlines and parameters that they’ve got to live within. How would

you suggest that the Federal Caucus best include the States at the

roundtable while maintaining their momentum and moving toward

the 1999 Decision?

Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, the vehicle is there.

Again, I think we are all dedicated to the recovery of the salmon.

There is nothing—nothing—in statute that would preclude a Federal agency from sitting down and having a good, meaningful discussion with the States. In fact, in all of the things that this subcommittee is going to be dealing with, Mr. Chairman, I believe that

when we saw progress it is when we undertook a collaborative

process; when you had the Administration working with Congress,

when it was bipartisan, and when all of the affected and impacted

parties had a place at the table. That is what I’m asking for. Again,

that is what I think is a formula that leads us to results and to

stop the rhetoric.

Senator CRAPO. Later in the hearing today, we expect to hear

from several other interest groups. We have already heard from

various tribes and other interest groups, people representing many

different aspects of the issues that we face in the Pacific Northwest

who also seek a seat at the table, so to speak.

In terms of designing what I call a collaborative process to build

a consensus that we can move forward on in the Northwest, when

you look at that process, I have no disagreement with you the

States should be at the table and in a very big way. What about

these other interest groups, the tribes and the other interest

groups, some of which are not governmental entities, do you have

an opinion or a position on how we should approach their participation in the process?

Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, I think you see probably

listed up there most of the groups that are impacted. Again, if

you’re impacted, you probably have part of the solution. Again, I

think there are certainly ways. We have demonstrated there are

models that can be utilized. However, when I hear that a chairman

of a subcommittee is filing a Freedom of Information Act request

to find out what a Federal Caucus is doing, Federal agencies, about

one of the most critical issues of the Northwest—salmon recovery—

it suggests to me that we don’t have the correct process in place.
12

Here you have a group of Governors—now, today, I can only represent myself—but I do know the other Governors, in a collaborative effort would love to work with the respective Federal agencies, with other impacted parties. As we reference Multi-Species

Framework, the Columbia River Basin Forum, we are together at

a variety of times. So let’s just have the Federal Government, especially the Federal Caucus, open the doors. I am representing the

State of Idaho. We have the resources. We are going to be impacted

by this. We want to see the recovery of the salmon. So, again, I am

saying to those in the Federal Government that say that we play

a critical role and that we are going to be a partner, this partner

is ready.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I will just ask one more question at

this time, and then I am going to turn it over to Senator Craig for

any statement that he would like to make as well as questions.

You have indicated that you don’t really object to the Federal

agencies communicating with each other and seeking to fulfill their

statutory obligations as they are obligated to move forward, and as

we hope that they will properly move forward, under the statutory

requirements that we live with. I don’t have that concern either.

The concern that I see is that when we hear and understand that

what is happening in the Caucus is the development of a conceptual framework for a recovery plan or that type of activity, it raises

a significant level of concern. It seems to be putting the cart before

the horse in the sense that if a conceptual recovery plan is identified or created and then the States are brought to the table, it

seems to me that the opportunity of the States, or the tribes, or

other interest groups is focused only into what has already been

predetermined and limits the outcome. To me, that is the concern

I am addressing.

I wanted to just get your approach to that. I know you indicated

that you were not suggesting that we eliminate the ability of the

agencies to communicate. What is it that you see as the problem

and what is it that you see as the solution. I know I’m asking for

a little bit of repetition there.

Governor Kempthorne. Sure. Chairman Crapo, a slogan that I

like is ‘‘The best surprise is no surprise.’’ So, with all of the good

faith effort by the States of this region that want to bring about

the recovery of salmon, if they are not allowed to be part of what

ultimately is a recommendation and we are simply to see the final

product when it is finally completed without any input, I think we

have little recourse but to be surprised by that. Then what posture

are we to take? That as sovereign States, well, that’s fine, we

would have liked to have seen it done otherwise.

But now that the Federal Government has come up with this

process of their own without input by the States that are comprising the United States of America, I think it does not bode well and

it does not spell out a formula for partnership and for results. We

are after results.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, offer a quick example. You referenced

the point about Federal agencies communicating together. For the

past few years I have been working on the Caspian tern issue.

Here we have Rice Island which has been created by the Corps of

Engineers by dredging the Columbia so that it is navigable. We
13

have seen created, therefore, a man-made island, 230 acres. Caspian tern is now located there. It has been established that upwards of 25 million smolt are being consumed by the Caspian tern

before these smolt can get to the ocean.

Sitting in your chair, Mr. Chairman, I had received assurances

from the Federal agencies that they would communicate, they

would collaborate, they would work to get the solutions, and that

for this season they would get a Caspian tern population down to

500 to 1,000 nesting pair. Well, the working group now affirms that

there is anywhere from 6,500 to 9,000 nesting pair on Rice Island.

Again, I have sat down with these different agencies and they

have told me, well, it is not our agency that objects to relocating

the birds, it is another agency. Then that agency says, no, we really

can’t do it without the agreement and sign-off by this other Federal

agency, and it goes on and on.

So the fact of the matter is, on a federally-made island you now

have a non-threatened, a non-endangered bird consuming an endangered species, a smolt. It just stands to reason, if you can get

25 million smolt to the ocean, you probably have a little bit better

chance of getting them back. It is an absolute failure thus far on

this Caspian tern. So, how serious is the Federal Government?

That’s the question I would pose.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Senator Craig, please make any statement and ask any questions

you may have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for

holding this hearing. Let me especially thank you for your bold

stroke in using FOIA to get at what is a problem for us in the Pacific Northwest delegations. I won’t speak for Senator Wyden since

he is here, but I can I think speak for those Senators, Democrat

and Republican, in the Pacific Northwest and the affected States

who have stood with relative unity on this issue. We must be kept

aware at all times of the information and the activity concerning

this matter.

As you know, Senator Crapo, when Senator Smith hosted our

hearing at Hood River, this became an issue. I was frankly frustrated by the cavalier attitude on the part of the Will Stelle: ‘‘Gee,

we’re not keeping any secrets, we’re just meeting in private.’’ Well,

they don’t have that right, bluntly put. That doesn’t mean that individual A doesn’t have a right to communicate with individual B.

When they sit down and discuss frameworks, however, we want to

be aware of how that process works. I am not now suggesting, as

I was so abrupt as to suggest at that time, that I wanted to intervene, but I certainly want to know.

So now we will know, thanks to your stroke. If it doesn’t work,

well, I see George Frampton sitting behind the Governor. George,

we will call upon you to do what is responsible for you to do at the

Council of Environmental Quality. I see Donna Darm and Donna

has been before our committee. We have had these rounds before.

I hope it has now registered on you that this is one of the most

important issues that the Pacific Northwest States and delegations
14

involved will face in many years. Decisions and plans that will be

made could well affect thousands and thousands of people along

with the species in question. We simply must know.

It is always a pleasure to have Governor Kempthorne back and

to work with him in the role that he has taken on this very important issue. The Governor works very closely with the Idaho congressional delegation so that we all are together on it.

I have no questions, but I wanted to stop by and applaud you for

what you are doing. I just came from Interior Appropriations markup and I visited with Senator Gorton about this. If this isn’t

straightforward in coming, we will just tag it on to your money.

Get the message. We will be kept informed. We will be a part of

the loop. We will not expect surprises. That’s the way the public

process works. I hope that message is made clear today. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Senator Craig.

Senator Wyden, Governor Kempthorne has just finished his testimony and we’re at questions. Please make any opening statement

and then feel free to ask questions.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. We have an Energy and Natural Resources hearing in

a little bit on a Douglas County matter for Oregon, so, like many

of our colleagues, I’m trying to be in two places.

I just want to begin by welcoming our good friend Governor

Kempthorne. I still wish that we could have gone forward with all

of your exceptionally important efforts on the Endangered Species

Act in the last Congress. As you know, it tracks very well with the

Oregon coastal salmon plan and really takes us where I think we

ought to be for the 21st century with respect to endangered species;

and that is, encouraging these home-grown, locally-driven kinds of

approaches. So, we miss you, Dirk, and know that it will always

be good to have your counsel.

Governor Kempthorne. Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. Incidentally, I was in Boise recently with Senator Crapo and we are working hard to try to bring back Amtrak

coverage from Portland to Boise. We’re encouraged and so we’re

going to try to rope you into that exercise before long as well.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment with respect to

the principal topic we are delving into today, and that is the question of dams and salmon restoration. I see Mr. Frampton is here.

Please accept my apologies as well for not being able to stay.

One of the principal concerns I have this afternoon, based on discussions that I have had with folks in the Pacific Northwest, is the

concern that decisionmaking authority is going to be able to stay

in the region. I think there is great concern in the Northwest now

with all of the various Federal agencies trying to look at ways to

evaluate the science and take steps, which are completely appropriate, that this in some way is going to lead to the region losing

the authority that is so important to actually make decision that

best address the needs of the Pacific Northwest.
15

As a corollary of that, I want to impress upon Mr. Frampton the

need to have all the stakeholders at the table. I know that there

are a number of groups that have contacted us, wheat growers and

others, that are very concerned that they won’t have an opportunity for input. Exports, of course, are an enormous part of the

Northwest economy; they create jobs all the way through the Pacific Northwest. I may possibly be able to get back before the end

of Mr. Frampton’s testimony, but know that those are two concerns

raised in the last few weeks that have been important in the region. To ensure that as what has become known as the Federal

Caucus, the various agencies that are having discussions about

salmon and dams, goes forward, we do want to keep the authority

within the region and we do want to make sure that principal

stakeholders like wheat growers are not left behind.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Possibly I may get back.

To Governor Kempthorne, I look forward to working with him. My

apologies to Mr. Frampton for having to take off so quickly. Thank

you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Did you have any questions for the

Governor?

Senator WYDEN. No questions.

Senator CRAPO. Governor Kempthorne, before we release you, I

actually had two other questions but one of them was on the Caspian terns and you answered that as a part of the last question.

So, really, the last question that I have relates to the Multi-Species

Framework. I don’t know if we signalled to you that we were going

to ask this question, so you may not be prepared to respond, but

if you can, I would appreciate your doing so.

The question I have is whether you are satisfied with the work

product of the Multi-Species Framework that is underway right

now, and whether you believe Idaho’s issues are being adequately

addressed in that whole part of the process.

Governor Kempthorne. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to

respond to that. I want to add how much I appreciated Senator

Craig’s and Senator Wyden’s comments. As a member of this subcommittee and the full committee, Senator Wyden was someone

that we were able to find good partnership with. So as we look at

Federal-State relationships, again, you have a good group of colleagues who can forge some results.

With regard to the Multi-Species Framework, it is multi-faceted.

I think you have very talented individuals working on it. The idea

is for them to identify the science, the alternatives, the options,

and to just lay it before decisionmakers. I have met with leadership

of the Multi-Species process and they have said that their intent

is to come up with the data so that decisionmakers can then pick

and choose what they think makes the most sense for the region

in an approach to recover the salmon in balance with the economy

of the region. They are moving ahead. I am anxious to see the

array of options and information that they provide. But it is in

place.

I am supportive of that particular aspect, but it is not comprised

of the decisionmakers. It is to lay before those who can make decisions what they think should be the ultimate solution. To me, it

provides a great deal of information that in that collaborative proc-
16

ess I’ve referenced we would have information that would be of

benefit. So, I’m supportive of it at this point.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Governor Kempthorne, we also are

supportive of your efforts in making sure that the voice of not only

the State of Idaho, but the other States in the region be heard in

this issue as well as others. Your advocacy for States’ rights is one

which earned you the support of the people of Idaho as Governor

and which will serve them well.

I should tell you before we conclude that there are a number of

issues where we would like to see States have a louder voice in

managing issues. I note that you have been working very hard in

the Superfund arena to try to get Idaho’s voice better heard as we

face some significant questions in the Silver Valley. Hopefully, possibly we will be able to get this committee or some part of the Environmental and Public Works Committee to come to Idaho and

hold some hearings or take at least some action out there to assist

you in those efforts as well.

So, unless you have anything further to say, we will conclude

your part of the testimony. Thank you once again very much for

coming.

Governor Kempthorne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again,

thank you for your leadership. We would welcome any committee

activity in the State of Idaho and we would be honored to have you

there. Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much.

Senator CRAPO. Our second panel today will be—actually, I’m

looking at my agenda here, we didn’t even count you as a panel,

Governor Kempthorne, we counted you as a special witness. So our

first panel is the Honorable George Frampton, the Acting Chair of

the Council on Environmental Quality, who will be accompanied by

Ms. Donna Darm, with the National Marine Fisheries Services; Mr.

Witt Anderson, of the Army Corps of Engineers; and Mr. Stephen

Wright, of the Bonneville Power Administration. We welcome all of

you.

Mr. Frampton, please feel free to begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR,

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before you today to testify about the Federal role in salmon

recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin. Since the role of CEQ

in this effort is largely a strategic one, it is one of making sure that

Federal agencies have the resources they need, are working together, the process is working right.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent this panel of regional

agencies who are part of the operational effort. Donna Darm is the

Assistant Regional Administrator for NMFS in the Northwest, Witt

Anderson, is a Fisheries Biologist with the Corps of Engineers in

Portland, and Steve Wright is the Vice President, Corporate for

Bonneville Power Administration.

We all know that a lot of salmon runs in the Northwest are in

deep trouble. Some are near extinction. I think we’re all beginning

to realize that this is also a bigger issue than just salmon. Salmon

are a keystone species, they serve as indicators of the health of wa-
17

tersheds and clean water. So, although the Endangered Species Act

may have pointed the way here in a sense, this is not just an Endangered Species Act issue, and it is not even a salmon issue. It

is really, in part, about the vision that people in the region have

about their future.

We are committed to salmon restoration and convinced that the

restoration of salmon runs, the continued promotion of a vibrant

economy in the region, and a fine quality of life are three things

that go together; indeed, they probably have to go together. You’re

not going to have one of those without the other two.

What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is just make a few points

that I hope will be responsive to the concerns that you have expressed, and Governor Kempthorne expressed, Senator Craig expressed this morning about the process and the Federal Caucus. I

hope to clear up those concerns because I think to some extent they

are based on a misconception of what it is that the Federal agencies are doing.

There are four points I guess I want to make in my oral testimony, Mr. Chairman.

First, if you recall, going back to 1993 when the Clinton Administration came in, we were faced with a very highly balkanized debate in the Pacific Northwest over forest management. That was in

some part because the Federal agencies were really working at

cross-purposes. They were self-defeating and there was no discipline for the Federal family to work together. So making sure

that the Federal agencies work together has really been a hallmark

of this Administration. It was through interagency partnership that

we were able to forge a Northwest forest plan that protected forests

and provided for a sustainable timber economy.

It is our commitment to try to make sure that that interagency

partnership is there on salmon recovery efforts. That is the reason

why the Federal Caucus exists. The Federal Caucus really represents our commitment to making sure that the Federal family

works together. It’s very simple.

Second, the so-called 1999 Decision, which is a decision about the

future configuration, operations of the Columbia River Power System and its impact on endangered salmon runs, is necessarily focused on hydropower operations to a large extent. Those good decisions can’t be made unless they are seen in the context of all of the

four H’s—hydropower impacts, habitat protection, hatchery policy

and operations, and harvest regimes.

So the 4-H Paper is not so much a piece of paper, as a process

or a place where the Federal agencies can talk to each other about

this larger context in which the 1999 Decision is going to have to

be made. It is a place where strategies and ideas can be shared

among the Federal agencies. It is not a decisionmaking process. I

see that Governor Kempthorne took his chart down. I’m sorry he

did because I thought it was Frampton Exhibit No. 1.

Senator CRAPO. We will have it put back up for you.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you very much. When you look at that, if

there isn’t one place there where the Federal agencies can talk to

each other, we’re in trouble. That’s really what the 4-H Paper is

about.
18

Third, even though Federal agencies ultimately have statutory

responsibilities and operational responsibilities and have to make

decisions, I think this Administration has made the point that we

believe the best solution—the best strategy for salmon restoration

and a healthy economy—has got to be developed in the region. This

is not a platitude, it is not a cover for the Feds to go behind doors

and make the decisions. Nor is it an abdication of responsibilities

which the Federal agencies ultimately have to make decisions that

fit into a strategy. It is a recognition that contributions to salmon

recovery, if we’re to have a successful strategy, have to come from

States and local governments and from private interests. Habitat

protection on private lands, for example, is going to be a terribly

important element of any successful regional program.

So we need the active engagement and the leadership of State

governments and local governments and private sector at all levels.

Without strong regional public support for such a strategy to create

that kind of engagement, we’re not going to be able to meet this

challenge. So this is a real commitment.

Finally, in order to forge a successful regional strategy, it is clear

that we need a robust, open, public debate in the region about the

real choices here—the real costs, the real alternatives, the real benefits, the risks of various alternatives. We need a debate without

presuppositions, nothing off the table, an honest evaluation of what

the science can tell us and what it can’t tell us, an honest evaluation of the costs and who are going to bear the costs of various alternatives, and how we cushion those costs or develop transition

programs where they are required. The Administration is committed and I am committed to such a debate.

So the Federal Caucus process and the 4-H Paper process is not

the Federal agencies going behind closed doors with their cards

held close to their chests and making up their minds. It is a place

where the Federal agencies together can develop some ideas and

then take those ideas and put them into various public processes.

For example, the 4-H Paper process is now in the course of being

married with the Multi-Species Framework, the Power Planning

Council’s Multi-Species Framework. They share common subcommittees.

The point of the 4-H Paper process is to get ideas into the MultiSpecies Framework context and into the Columbia River Basin

Forum process so that all stakeholders can start considering those

ideas, developing strategies, and ultimately, in a broader way, getting those proposed strategies and alternatives out for public debate. After all, part of what the Federal agencies have to do, and

they are on a very tight time schedule, is to develop these draft

documents like the Snake River Feasibility Study, EIS, and scientific assessments and put them out there for public review and

for public debate. That is what we’re about.

I am very happy to have heard Governor Kempthorne say good

things about the Multi-Species Framework process. I think that is

a process in which all of the stakeholders are at the table. That is

the process in which initially, as I think he pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the alternatives are going to be developed, but the decisions

are not even going to be made then. The decisions are going to be

made only after a full public debate. What we have to do is make
19

sure that that debate is made with the best information, and that

it is an honest debate that looks at what the information can help

tell us and what it can’t.

That’s my closing thought I guess is that ultimately there aren’t

going to be any silver bullets here. There aren’t going to be any

easy choices. Some very difficult choices are going to have to be

made. No easy decisions. I don’t think that science is going to dictate one decision or another, and I doubt that the economics is

going to dictate one decision or another.

Ultimately, we are going to be making some policy choices about

the future of the region and those decisions ideally need to be made

in the region with strong public support from the region, based on

a full understanding of what the real choices are and what our vision is of the future. We’re committed to that process.

As I listened to you and the Governor, I understood perfectly well

your nervousness about the Feds getting together at the last

minute in a closed room someplace and making up the playbook.

Well, we may be drawing up some ideas about the playbook, but

the game is going to be out on the field. Everybody is going to be

involved, and we’re committed to that kind of a process.

Thank you very much for having us here today and giving us an

opportunity to respond to these concerns. I hope that what you will

hear from me and others today will make a lot of people easier

about what is going on, the process. The Federal Government and

the Administration commit to an open process, to State involvement, and to a very robust public debate before any decisions are

made. Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. I appreciate also your appearance here and those

who have come with you. I am sure we will have an opportunity

to hear from them as questions may elicit responses in which they

can assist in providing information.

As a prelude to my questions, let me just elaborate a little further on some of the concerns. I have heard it said, and I’ve heard

this attributed to a number of different people, so I don’t know who

really said it, but I’ve heard it said that some prominent political

figure has stated ‘‘If you give me control of the process, I can control the outcome.’’ I believe that. That is one of the reasons we have

such a big concern.

I want you to give us more detail about what actually is going

on inside the Federal Caucus and what is happening in the meetings. As you talked about it today, you shared the fact that alternatives were being developed, that it was a location where strategies and ideas are being shared. You did indicate that it is not a

decisionmaking process, but, frankly, I find it very hard to understand because just controlling the process can help generate the result. You talked about developing alternatives or sharing strategies

and that they will be the framework. Developing the framework for

recovery is a term that has been used, not by you today but by others. When those kinds of terms are used, they evoke a question as

to whether a framework going to be established. Could you respond

to that?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, my sense is that the real definition of the range of alternatives is going to occur in the Northwest

Power Planning Council’s Multi-Species Framework. That’s the
20

forum in which we are trying to develop the alternatives that will

be the basis of public debate. I think the Federal Caucus right now

is really involved in feeding ideas into the Multi-Species Framework.

I think I would like to ask Donna Darm to talk a little bit more

in detail about what is happening in the 4-H Paper process and the

relationship between that process and the Multi-Species Framework.

Senator CRAPO. Please.

Ms. DARM. Thank you. I think that Mr. Frampton actually captured it perfectly in saying that the Framework is the place where

alternatives are being developed. Keep in mind, when we first

started the Federal Caucus in February, it wasn’t entirely clear

where the Framework would end up. The schedule that they were

on had them developing alternatives at the beginning of the summer, which would have then fed well into a draft 4-H Paper and

Biological Assessments for Section 7 consultations in the fall.

As it has turned out, our two processes have merged and, in effect, as Mr. Frampton said, the workgroups are one and the same

essentially for investigation of all of the different H’s in the development of the alternatives. Frankly, the way things have turned

out, it is primarily Council staff and Federal agency staff who are

staffing those workgroups and doing most of the work.

So there is heavy participation and interaction between the

Council and the Federal agencies on the development of those alternatives.

Senator CRAPO. Well, what is it exactly that is happening in the

Federal Caucus meetings that is not happening in the other meetings which have more public involvement?

Ms. DARM. You will have a chance to see some of that when you

get the documents, which, by the way, we would be happy to provide without a FOIA request.

Senator CRAPO. Good.

Ms. DARM. And you will be bored. There’s a lot of discussion

about things like what we do after the consultation, do we need to

have NEPA documentation, do we need to have records of decision,

that sort of thing. There is a lot of discussion about the Clean

Water Act and the role of the Clean Water Act in the decision.

There is quite a bit of discussion about the alternatives as they are

being developed.

The other big area that we have focused on and that I think we

all should be focused on, Mr. Frampton alluded to this, is the development of the science. The National Marine Fisheries Service, in

particular, views it as one of our jobs to provide for the public debate the best scientific information available on the status of salmon stocks and on the likely impacts of any of the management alternatives on those stocks. So we spent a lot of time in the Caucus

workgroup focusing on what sort of analyses are available, how we

can get all of the data together necessary, how we can collaborate

with the Framework analytical process.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Senator, if I could make an observation about

some of the practicalities of this.

Senator CRAPO. Yes. Go ahead.
21

Mr. FRAMPTON. A little bit perhaps before I came to CEQ, my

sense is that the formation of the Federal Caucus and the 4-H

Paper helped to accelerate the Multi-Species Framework process

and get it moving forward. Now we are finding these things are

coming together.

But if you go back 5 or 6 months, if you were a Federal official

with responsibility for participating in decisions a year down the

road or 15 months down the road and you were totally dependent

for the development of alternatives outside of a Federal process

doesn’t go forward or gets delayed. Then you come to a position in

late 1999 as a Federal official in which you are faced with a statutory deadline or a court-ordered deadline and you have not met

your statutory responsibilities to prepare for that decision.

That would be a terrible situation for the Federal agencies to be

in. They need to start a process, if only as a backup, that guarantees that they are at least diligently moving forward to exercise responsibilities that are going to be triggered a year from now. I

think that originally may have played some part in the formation

of the Federal Caucus.

Now the more open, more inclusive, more public process is working and the two are dovetailing.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, could I add to Mr. Frampton’s answer?

Senator CRAPO. Yes, please.

Mr. WRIGHT. One other piece. I think it has been our perspective

for some time now that it is not important just to develop a plan,

but to develop a plan that will be implemented. The only way you

are going to get to implementation is if you have some form of regional consensus. For that reason, the States have had difficulty

providing adequate funding for the Multi-Species Framework process and have come to us and asked us for funding support. In fact,

Bonneville has I believe provided the majority of the funding for

the Multi-Species Framework process, excuse me, Bonneville and

the Corps.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAPO. We’ll give the Corps its credit.

Mr. WRIGHT. For just that reason, our belief is the only way this

can work is if we bring the region along with us as we go along

here.

Senator CRAPO. There are a number of questions I want to ask.

Let me clear up one little issue first. Donna, you indicated that you

would provide the documentation we’re asking for without the

FOIA request. I appreciate that. But it was my understanding that

the Federal agencies had been very closed-mouthed and unresponsive to requests from people or groups in the region as to what was

going on or documentation of the meetings. Is that not the case?

Have you always been willing to provide this information?

Ms. DARM. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any requests we

have received for documents that we have produced. We have, however, been participating with the Framework over the last several

months, going out to the public and explaining to people what the

Federal Caucus is and what its role is in the development of alternatives and so forth. So we have been quite open about what the

Caucus is doing.
22

Senator CRAPO. Well, there seems to be a pretty strong feeling

in the region that nobody knows what is going on in these meetings

and nobody can really ascertain what it is. But maybe this hearing

will help clear up a lot of that.

Let me go back to another line of questioning to try to further

plumb the issue of why the concern, and whether the concern is

something that we should be worried about or it is just a misunderstanding.

Mr. Frampton, would you agree that it is the Federal agencies

under Federal law that will ultimately make the decision?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, the Federal agencies have operational and

statutory responsibilities that together will result in a decision or

series of decisions, that’s correct.

Senator CRAPO. That’s my understanding. That is the answer

I’ve received to that question when I’ve asked it at various hearings, although different agencies think that it is other agencies who

have more power than they do. We are all, including the Federal

agency officials, trying to figure out who really is going to make the

decision. Maybe it will be Congress that ultimately makes the decision. I don’t know. But the point is that a Federal decisionmaking

forum or a Federal agency, either alone or in collaboration in conjunction with other Federal agencies, will make the decision, as the

statutes require.

With that understanding in place, there is a big concern about

what we are achieving when we seek and ask for public input. Let

me explain what I’m getting at here. In one context, one of the concerns that I have about our Federal environmental decisionmaking

process which is required by Federal law today is that the public

input or the public participation is by statute and by regulation far

too often designed to create conflict or to create battlegrounds on

which conflict can take place, rather than to build consensus and

further collaboration. What I am saying is, far too often Federal

agencies, as they operate under their statutory mandates, go

through a process of decisionmaking; they make a decision. Then

they put out a document in which public comment is invited. They

get comments from many people and the various interest groups,

and then if a public hearing is held, it becomes a place where competing interest groups, in my opinion, stage their arguments for the

hearing officer to try to make sure their arguments are in the

record, and often do so hoping that the television cameras and

radio stations and newspapers are there to report the eloquence of

their arguments to the public. But it doesn’t really amount to sitting around a table with the various interest groups and building

a collaborative process that should yield some type of effort to find

common ground and build consensus.

Whether you agree with me or not on that, that is a perspective

that I think is very widely shared in the Pacific Northwest, if not

across the country, about the process that we go through. It generates, frankly, quite a bit of cynicism; cynicism because the perception is there that the decision has already been made, cynicism

that the public opportunity for input is more of a show than a reality, or that it does not have an impact on the ultimate outcome,

and cynicism because of the complicated process and the time

delays that occur.
23

With that kind of perspective, to then find out that the Federal

agencies that are making the decision are meeting because they

have an impending statutory deadline coming and they’ve got to

get ready for it and they’ve got to be prepared to make decisions,

and they are putting together—Donna, did you say the best way to

describe it is that they were developing the framework? What was

your wording of what the best description of the Federal Caucus

was?

Ms. DARM. Actually, I think it was Mr. Frampton who mentioned

it.

Mr. FRAMPTON. I think it was feeding ideas into the Multi-Species Framework process, is the way I think I characterized it.

Senator CRAPO. Is that how you would characterize it?

Ms. DARM. I think that’s a good characterization. I generally

think of it as the context for the hydropower decision.

Senator CRAPO. Okay. The agencies are putting together the

ideas or putting together the framework. A lot of words that have

been used here today. In that context, if that is all set up and then

the public is invited in to participate, then hasn’t a significant part

of the decision in fact been made?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, Senator, if that’s the way this were going

to go, we would lose probably the key opportunity for building public support for a workable strategy in the region.

Senator CRAPO. I agree.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Which is why we don’t want to go that way. I

think you made a very accurate, very general observation about the

way most of our Federal environmental laws were structured from

the early 1970’s, because they are principally designed around Federal decisionmaking.

What we have found in the last few years is that on these big,

very difficult regional ecosystem issues, the traditional Federal decisionmaking process, irrespective of public input and NEPA process, is not sufficient to build a regional consensus and develop a

successful regional strategy. I’ve worked on a number of these

projects, from the Everglades, which is a State-Federal-local-landowner project, to California water issues.

Each of these requires really an architect-designed, collaborative

process. Federal statute didn’t create the Multi-Species Framework

process. We had to develop it to fit the need for State-private-Federal-tribal collaboration. But we need that process and we need to

use that process if we’re going to develop a successful strategy.

Because we want to have a successful strategy, we are going to

be committed to the process in which the decisions are really

shaped is inclusive and beyond that, a public process.

Senator CRAPO. Let me try an analogy. That’s always dangerous

because I’m not sure I can create an analogy that will work here

exactly, so please cut me a little slack on this. To make the point

that I’m making, let’s analogize it with sports. If there is a group

that gets together and decides the rules of the game that will be

played. They get to decide, for example, that one of the alternatives

will be that the ball is shaped a certain way. If they say that the

field will be 100 yards long, it will have to be played outdoors as

opposed to indoors on hardwood floors, with goal posts instead of

hoops. No one will be surprised that the game will be football rath-
24

er than a basketball. You change the game by the rules that you

decide to apply.

When they invite the participants to play, they can’t choose between basketball or football. That has been decided. They might decide what plays to run on the football field, but they won’t decide

what plays to run on the basketball court. Maybe basketball would

have been the better game.

The point I am making is that the ability to control the development of alternatives, the ability to control the rules of the game

can dramatically change the direction of the decisionmaking and

the participation of those who are ultimately invited to participate.

In that context, it seems to me that there is a very real concern.

I am saying that you haven’t calmed my concern that there is a

real problem here in the decisionmaking. I believe is going on

among the Federal agencies without the participation of the States

and the tribes and the people in the region. What I am also saying

is I don’t think we are really yet getting to that collaborative process. Maybe we are moving to one at the tail-end. Like I say, we can

collaborate about what plays to run, but it is going to be in a football game, not in a basketball game. That is the concern I have.

Do you not feel that the decisionmaking that the Federal Caucus

is engaged in is going to have a dramatic impact on the alternatives and the outcomes that are possible or achievable in the

process?

Ms. DARM. Can I jump in on that?

Senator CRAPO. Certainly. Go ahead.

Ms. DARM. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The alternatives are being

developed in the framework and they are being developed in collaboration with everyone who participates. Not all parties participate particularly at the technical level very fully. But it is open to

everyone to participate. The alternatives are being vetted throughout the region right now. It is not like there is a huge range of alternatives that are possible. Our decision space isn’t that large.

I think maybe what you were driving at earlier, Mr. Chairman,

is once these alternatives are all on the table and we know what

they are, and the analyses are all on the table and we know which

of the alternatives might have a chance of getting you where you

want to go, what happens then. When we get to that point, will the

Federal agencies have already come to some conclusion about

which is the preferred alternative among those alternatives?

To be quite frank about it, we have been grappling with that decision ourselves. In fact, earlier this week a couple of representatives from the Federal agencies met with representatives from the

Power Planning Council to talk about whether it would be possible

to have a joint public process once everything is on the table. Once

all the alternatives are on the table, the analyses are on the table,

is there some way for the Power Planning Council, the Forum, the

Federal agencies, all of the governmental parties in the region to

get together on a joint process so we aren’t all off going in some

different direction, asking the public to participate in some different process, and essentially competing with one another.

Senator CRAPO. Let me ask you, once the alternatives are on the

table and the science has been done and we’re at the point of making the decision, what reason is there at that point for a Federal
25

Caucus to operate unless it is to make decisions? If so, how can

they involve the community in the making of that decision?

Ms. DARM. The idea at that point would not be for the Federal

Caucus to be the governmental entity that interfaces with the public. It still will be necessary for the Federal agencies to do their

homework, to have a place where they can communicate with one

another. Whether it is called the Caucus, or a regular meeting of

the Federal agencies, or something else, we will still need to talk

with one another. But in terms of the public process, in terms of

getting input on the alternatives that have been developed, in

terms of getting review of the analyses, the scientific, economic, social analyses that have been done, in terms of testing those analyses, that sort of thing, that needs to be a public process.

Senator CRAPO. Are you telling me then, I can have your assurance that the Federal Caucus is not developing alternatives?

Ms. DARM. The Federal Caucus is working—may I elaborate a

little bit?

Senator CRAPO. Sure.

Ms. DARM. The way that the Framework process started was a

little bit different from the direction we might have gone. They

started by soliciting from the region visions of the river—what do

you want the river to look like in 20 years. They talked about river

as ecosystem, river as machine, those kinds of things. From that

process they have distilled seven alternatives essentially.

Senator CRAPO. Who distilled those alternatives, the Caucus?

Ms. DARM. The Framework. No, no, this is all the Framework

process.

Senator CRAPO. All right.

Ms. DARM. The Federal agencies have a narrower mandate.

We’re looking at listed species. The Framework is looking at the

entire ecosystem and all species. The Caucus is looking at listed

aquatic species. So we have come at it from a little bit different

angle, which is people talk about the four-H’s—habitat, harvest,

hatcheries, hydropower. For each of the four H’s there is a limited

number of alternatives that you can pursue. You can mix and

match those alternatives in different ways. For example, if you

don’t want to take out dams, is there something you can do in harvest or in habitat to get an increase in survival to make up for the

fact that you haven’t taken out dams, just to pick an example. You

can mix and match those scenarios for each of the H’s in different

ways than the Framework has developed them.

So our approach, at least through the analytical part of what

we’re doing, is to try and test the sensitivity of the listed species

to various mixes and matches of scenarios. We are doing that

through a scientific process. The Framework scientific group is involved in that. We’re trading information, we’re using the same

databases.

Senator CRAPO. If I understand you right, it is a much broader

analysis because you’re not looking at only listed species. You’re

looking at an ecosystem approach.

Ms. DARM. The Framework is looking at the entire ecosystem.

Senator CRAPO. So then back to my question. I would interpret

your answer to mean that in the context of the question of whether

the Caucus is developing alternatives, maybe alternatives isn’t the
26

right word because that’s in the context of species recovery, but you

are developing I’ll use the word approaches to ecosystem management. Is that a fair statement?

Ms. DARM. That isn’t quite how I would put it. I would say we

are working with the Framework to develop the range of possible

actions for each H.

Senator CRAPO. For each agency?

Ms. DARM. Each H—I’m sorry, it’s regional jargon—hydropower,

harvest, hatcheries, and habitat. The Framework has already decided how it will mix and match those H’s in its alternatives. Other

combinations are possible and we would like to at least analytically

explore the other combinations.

Senator CRAPO. So you’re looking at the alternatives that the

Framework has generated with the various mixes and matches of

the H’s.

Ms. DARM. Exactly.

Senator CRAPO. But you are also looking at other mixes and

matches of the H’s?

Ms. DARM. Yes. Right. Same choices, different mixes and

matches.

Senator CRAPO. Now that tells me that you are looking at other

alternatives.

Ms. DARM. We’re looking at different mixes of the same alternatives.

Senator CRAPO. All right.

Ms. DARM. Alternative scenarios. It gets confusing what you call

them. I am not trying to dodge.

Senator CRAPO. I understand. I don’t think you’re trying to play

word games with me.

Ms. DARM. No. I’m trying to be clear.

Senator CRAPO. But you are looking at different mixes of the alternatives than the Framework is?

Ms. DARM. Yes.

Senator CRAPO. Different mixes of the H’s than the alternatives

that the Framework is using?

Ms. DARM. That’s the idea.

Senator CRAPO. Let’s assume that one of those different mixes

looks pretty good but it is not something that the Framework generated. At that point, nobody in the Pacific Northwest but the Caucus knows that or has been working on that or has had input on

that. That, to me, would seem to be a procedural problem, because

maybe there is a real serious defect that the Governor of the State

of Idaho could have pointed out had he been able to be there to

participate in the evaluation of this different mix of the H’s.

Ms. DARM. I had mentioned this was an analytical exercise. For

the purpose of analysis, we are mixing and matching these H’s in

different ways. In mid-August we will have completed at least the

preliminary exercise of doing that and we will be hosting a regional

workshop to display and discuss those mixes and matches of alternative scenarios. In addition, all of the technical staff from the Federal agencies, as I mentioned before, are participating heavily in

the Framework workgroups. So there is plenty of opportunity. If we

learn something surprising that comes out of this mixing and
27

matching analytical exercise, there is plenty of opportunity to share

it and discuss it regionally.

Senator CRAPO. Let me take this a step further. Analysis is being

undertaken of different mixes and matches which can go beyond

the mixes and matches that have already been done by the Framework. I would assume that the analysis is going to generate among

the Federal Caucus members some mixes and matches that they

think aren’t very workable, some that they think are workable but

have problems, and some that they think are more workable than

others. Which begins to be the development of a preference. Will

the Federal Caucus determine a preferred mix and match or a preferred alternative?

Ms. DARM. This was a discussion that we had in our conversation

with the Power Planning Council earlier this week because the

Power Planning Council, in their rulemaking process, will take

some subset of the alternatives being looked at in the Framework

and proceed to their rulemaking. So we were talking to the Council

about what mechanism would make the most sense to narrow the

range of alternatives that we should look at.

From our perspective, because we’re implementing the Endangered Species Act, we will be most interested in those alternatives

that meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The

Council has somewhat broader mandates and so we will be looking

at other factors as well.

Senator CRAPO. When you say ‘‘we,’’ it is the Federal Caucus that

you’re talking about.

Ms. DARM. I can’t remember how I used it in that sentence. It

was either the Federal Caucus or the Federal Caucus and the

Power Planning Council.

Senator CRAPO. But in any event, it is not the Framework.

Ms. DARM. The Framework was set up to generate alternatives.

It is not a decisionmaking exercise.

Senator CRAPO. Okay. But, see, what I’m hearing you say is that

the alternatives have now been generated by the Framework and

the Caucus is taking it to the next step, which is to analyze the

alternatives as well as to mix and match beyond those alternatives

with the various options, and then to determine which of those best

satisfy the needs of the Endangered Species Act, which, as I understand you, the next step would be those then would be the preferred approaches—maybe that’s not the legal terminology—but

those will be the approaches that gain the support of the participants in the Federal Caucus as the decision is being made. Have

I incorrectly stated the process that you’re following?

Ms. DARM. No.

Senator CRAPO. You don’t see a problem there? Because, as I see

it, that’s a problem. The problem is that the Federal Caucus is now

evaluating the various four H’s, including, but not limited to, the

mixes that have been put together by the Framework, going beyond

that and looking at other mixes and matches, concluding which of

those have the most merit, and then proceeding toward a decision

on those. Certainly, at some point I assume you’re going to open

it up for public comment and public participation. But I’m getting

more and more concerned rather than less and less concerned

about the process you’re describing.
28

Mr. FRAMPTON. Senator, it seems to me, and I’m listening to

some of this detail as a little bit of an outsider as well, but my understanding is that the purpose of this sharpening process is to

make sure that the alternatives that go out to the public for broad

public debate through the Framework process are the best possible

set of alternatives. The proof of the pudding here is whether ideas,

better ideas, the best ideas, set of ideas, a broad set of ideas, alternatives, well-documented in the sense of some understanding of the

costs and risks of the various alternatives that go out through the

Multi-Species process to the public for public debate, if that is a

good set of alternatives, that is a broad set of alternatives. That

will be the test of this. That is not the endpoint; that is the beginning of public debate.

Senator CRAPO. Oh, I don’t think it’s the beginning. I think it is

pretty well down the road toward the end. That’s maybe where we

are having our difference of opinion. Let me put it this way. As you

determine the best options to put forward for the public participation, options will be rejected and options will be accepted, and the

preferred options will be those put forward to the public. But the

public has not had the opportunity, the Governor of Idaho, the Governors of the States, the tribes, the other people, have not had an

opportunity to participate in a collaborative process to help generate the selection of those options to then put forward.

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is what the Multi-Species Framework accomplishes. To the extent that that is the lead process, that is the

process that is going to put forth the alternatives, and that process

increasingly becomes completely married to what the Federal Caucus is doing, then you have a completely transparent alternatives

process.

Senator CRAPO. I have two comments on that though. First, if

the Caucus takes the work product of the Multi-Species Forum——

Ms. DARM. Framework.

Senator CRAPO. Framework. I’ll remember that. The Multi-Species Framework and then makes its own independent judgment on

which of those alternatives are best, then for some reason you don’t

have the collaborative process deciding which of the alternatives

are best any more, you have got a filter now—the Federal Caucus

filtering which ones will go forward. That’s my first concern.

The second concern is that, if I understand the testimony correctly here today, the Federal Caucus will go further than that and

they will actually evaluate other alternatives, other mixes that

were not put forward by the Framework process and either reject

or accept some of those and put those forward.

The question I come down to again is, why does it take a closed

process in which Federal agencies meet to do that filtering? Why

can’t we have an open, collaborative process to identify the alternatives? If we need more analysis and more mixes and matches,

why can’t we have a collaborative, open process? Because I’m very

concerned, notwithstanding all of the expertise and wisdom that

may reside in the agencies, there is not going to be agreement at

the public level, at the level of the States, the tribes, and the community if they believe that the options they are allowed to have

public input on at some point have been generated by a closed process.
29

Ms. DARM. I understand your point. I see what you are saying

and it makes sense. I am trying to think how to accommodate those

concerns in the timeframe that is available and given some of the

constraints we have. I mentioned before that the Federal agencies

have, as you said, statutory obligations. Options that lead to extinction of species, it is going to be hard for us to put those forward

as real options. What I am concerned about is the Federal agencies,

or any process if it is a joint process, which I think would be the

ideal, putting out options that ultimately don’t have a chance of

passing the final test.

Senator CRAPO. I’m not so concerned as to which options come

out. I would assume that the collaborative process that I am advocating would also reject options that do not protect the species because I truly believe that there are very few, if any, groups that

would support the elimination of a species if there are options for

protection of the species that will work.

What I am talking about more so is the process by which those

options are created, evaluated, and then filtered and then put forward to the public. It gets back to my stated concern earlier. If the

process that we are involved in ultimately is one in which a Federal agency, or in this case Caucus, makes a decision, or maybe

several possible decisions, but filters the decision and then puts forward a selected set of alternatives, then the public is invited to

give comment or to participate in evaluating those alternatives,

then the very purpose of the collaboration, the very option of collaboration has been severely limited. Therefore, the opportunity for

developing public support for whatever decision is ultimately put

forward is significantly limited. That is the concern I have.

Mr. FRAMPTON. That concern is based on an assumption that the

Federal Caucus controls the Multi-Species Framework.

Senator CRAPO. Well, it is based on the assumption that the——

Mr. FRAMPTON. If the Multi-Species Framework process only

takes what it gets from the Federal Caucus as opposed to—if the

Federal Caucus comes up with a slightly revised version or better

idea, feeds it into the Multi-Species Framework process, which

then takes it, for whatever it’s worth, in the larger, more open and

public context—if the Multi-Species Framework of the Power Planning Council stakeholder, public-driven process were circumscribed

by what the Federal agencies give it, then it wouldn’t be a very

useful process even if the Federal Caucus didn’t exist if it only

could take what the Federal agencies told it to take and consider.

Senator CRAPO. Let me ask a quick question here. Do the Federal agencies have any statutory obligation to follow the recommendations of the Multi-Species Framework?

Mr. WRIGHT. To the extent that the Framework process results

in something that would be adopted by the Northwest Power Planning Council, Bonneville at least is required to act consistent with

the actions that would come up from the Council.

Could I add to that?

Senator CRAPO. Sure.

Mr. WRIGHT. I would like to add to some of the responses, if I

could, Mr. Chairman. A couple of thoughts. First of all, this is an

evolving process. As Ms. Darm described, we are having discussions even this week about how to better involve the region and the
30

Framework process and others in this. I think you’re expressing a

concern about how this process will evolve, and I think those concerns can be taken into consideration as we develop this process.

Of course, we want to because, in the end here, we need a plan

that is not thrown out and is rejected by the region out of hand.

That doesn’t serve our interest, the region’s interest, anyone’s interest. So we certainly want to accommodate the concerns of those

in the region.

But I do want to say that I’ve sat in hearings before and talked

with many folks in the region and the fundamental criticism of the

Federal agencies probably a year ago was that you don’t speak with

one voice; that you come to us and we talk to NMFS and they say

one thing, we talk to Bonneville and they say another thing. So in

order to address that concern——

Senator CRAPO. I share that concern, by the way.

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, in order to address that concern, we do have

meetings where we get together and we seek to resolve our disagreements so that we’re not telling people different things. In any

process that evolves here, we would continue to have discussions

amongst the Federal agencies where we seek to resolve our differences so that we’re not sending different signals.

Senator CRAPO. I don’t think anybody is saying that the agencies

shouldn’t communicate, because, believe me, we don’t like those

kind of charts any better than you don’t like those charts. Did I interrupt you? Did you want to say anything more?

Mr. WRIGHT. Just to finish on that. So, we would continue to

have those kind of discussions. Our thinking at least has been that

we can have those kinds of discussions where we can resolve our

disagreements and at the same time work with the Multi-Species

Framework process, and that those come together because we will

be using the information that we get out of the Multi-Species

Framework process in terms of educating our own discussions

amongst ourselves about where we want to go.

So we’ve seen these as processes that to some extent are parallel

but also are integrated. You need to have, in fact, both of those

going at the same time.

Senator CRAPO. I know that I’ve been kind of beating this maybe

to the point of futility, so I won’t belabor this too much longer. But

I want to try to maybe just put it in a different perspective. If there

was an entity that you were dealing with that was making an important decision about your life, it was a group of different entities

or people who were involved who were making that decision, and

they agreed that they would allow for public comment and public

input on the decision they were going to make, but before they did

so they got together in a closed room and kind of decided what approaches to the decision they thought were the workable ones and

what ones they didn’t think were the workable ones and then they

came out and let the public give input on the ones that they had

chosen as the options they thought were the preferred approaches,

wouldn’t you feel a little concerned? Wouldn’t you feel like maybe

they left one in the room that they didn’t bring out on the table

that would have been better for you?

Mr. WRIGHT. Since you’re looking at me, I’ll be happy to take

that one.
31

Senator CRAPO. Go ahead.

Mr. WRIGHT. Certainly. Absolutely, no question about it. That

would be a concern. That’s the problem that we’ve got. When we

seek to have discussions where we resolve disagreements among

ourselves so that we speak with one voice, the concern is, so what’s

really going on inside that room?

Senator CRAPO. Right.

Mr. WRIGHT. Unfortunately, I think in order to address the criticism of we need to speak together with one voice, there will always

be that concern about, so what did you really talk about that you

haven’t told us about?

Senator CRAPO. Exactly.

Mr. WRIGHT. But the goal here is, again, we see the end game,

and the end game is we have to come up with a product that the

region finds acceptable. The only way you can do that is by having

an awful lot of discussion with folks. In our discussions amongst

ourselves, we’re talking about what works here for the region. I

think the commitment that we can make to you is that that is our

goal. We want something that works for the region.

Senator CRAPO. I am just going to make a statement after which

I’ll be glad to give you, Mr. Frampton, the last word to respond.

I believe that you’ve got to be very attuned to the fact that when

the people of the Pacific Northwest say they want input, they’re not

saying that they want to have the ability to comment on a selected

set of alternatives. They are saying they want to be a part of the

decision. They want to have their thoughts, their feelings, their economics, their concern for the species and the ecosystem, and their

approach to solutions considered and they want to be a part of the

discussion. They don’t just want to be able to submit comments for

a hearing record, whether it be a formal hearing or submitting

written testimony or written comments. They want to be a part of

the decision.

The reason for that is because there is a very healthy distrust

of the Federal agencies. I think there would be the same distrust

of the State agencies if they were making the decision, or Congress,

or whoever it is. There is a healthy distrust of the decisionmakers,

which is I think healthy. It is important that there be a concern

by the public in that regard. I’ll go back to something that you indicated at the beginning of your testimony, Mr. Frampton, to kind of

illustrate my point here.

You indicated in your first point that we have a need for the

agencies to coordinate so we can get good public policy. One of the

examples that you used was achieving a sustainable timber economy in terms of a timber plan. I’ll tell you right now, there is a

very big disagreement in the Pacific Northwest as to whether the

Federal Government achieved anything close to an acceptable Federal plan with regard to developing a sustainable timber economy.

Yet the Federal process that yielded the current situation we have

in the timber economy in the Pacific Northwest probably dotted all

the i’s and crossed all the t’s and satisfied the requirement for public input. I believe that there are probably those who participated

in the process who believe that they’ve found the right balance in

terms of protecting the forest ecosystems and creating a sustainable timber harvest. But I don’t think they did and I think I’m in
32

the vast majority in terms of the way the public feels in the Pacific

Northwest.

That’s just one example of how there may be different points of

view as to whether the right result got achieved as a result of the

process that we followed. It is that that leads to the healthy suspicion of whether a Federal process or any process that does not

involve a very open, collaborative system is going to yield a decision that can be accepted. So that’s the concern that I raise.

If you would like to add anything further, Mr. Frampton, please

feel free to.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Only, Senator, to agree with your stated goal and

to say that I think that is the Federal agencies’ aspiration also, to

have meaningful regional participation in the decisionmaking itself,

not something that is mere window-dressing. That is because, as

a number of my colleagues have said, to develop a successful regional plan to restore salmon, we are going to have to have strong

public support, and participation is probably the best way to get

that support.

In my reference to the Northwest forest plan, I was referring

really to Oregon and Washington, the west side plan. I think there

is very strong public support there for that plan. I realize that east

of the mountains we’re still struggling.

Senator CRAPO. It’s a different picture.

Mr. FRAMPTON. If I could, I’m reminded that I forgot to ask for

the record that my written statement be included.

Senator CRAPO. Oh, definitely. It will be.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. I forgot I have another question, so I am going

to go back and ask one more. One of the issues that has been

raised to me is whether the outcome of the Federal Caucus’ deliberations is going to be subject to scientific peer review. From your

discussion today, I assume that what you’re contemplating is that

will happen but that it will happen in some subsequent context.

Could you, either Mr. Frampton or Donna, could you respond to

that?

Ms. DARM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would think that it is

fair to say we haven’t entirely thought through this. The scientific

analysis that we’ll be using to evaluate the alternatives will be subjected to peer review. The final decision in terms of what is in the

Biological Opinion will be subjected to scientific review as well. The

timing of that most likely will be once at least a preliminary decision has been made. But I have to say we really haven’t thought

through all of the steps that need to take place.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Let me just say, as we conclude with

this panel, there are three or four things that I would like to very

heavily emphasize. First, you’ve already answered, at least for

NMFS you have, the FOIA request, and we’ll get that out today.

I would ask that all of the agencies very promptly and thoroughly

respond. If there is any problem with that, I would ask that the

agencies get to me right away so we can figure out what any problem may be.

Second, I strongly ask that the Federal Caucus stop meetings

that are held in private that do not involve the States, the tribes,

and the other participants so that we can move toward a collabo-
33

rative process. I think that’s kind of twofold. I’m not saying that

the Federal agencies should not have the opportunity to meet and

discuss among each other and try to get past some of the complications that are present in the statutory systems within which we operate. But I am saying that the evaluation of alternatives and the

development of the mixes and matches and so forth should happen

in wide open public view with full participation. I don’t see any

need for a Federal Caucus there.

I think that part of that encouragement is that the Federal agencies aggressively push for a meaningful collaborative decisionmaking process as we try to achieve exactly what you’ve described here.

I have no problem with what you have described. I just think it

needs to be a collaborative process at a much earlier stage; namely,

from the outset.

Then, finally, with regard to independent scientific review. I

think that any outcomes of this process must be independently reviewed in terms of an independent scientific review.

Again, I appreciate your testimony here today. If you would like

to respond to any of those, I will give you the last word right now

before we finish.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you all very much. This panel will be excused.

Senator CRAPO. We now go to Panel II. Mr. Robert C. Lothrop,

manager of policy development and litigation support of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, from Portland, Oregon.

Mr. Lothrop, we welcome you today. I am sorry we went on so

long but I wanted to get through some questions there with the

previous panel. Please proceed with your testimony. Again, I ask

you to try to watch the lights and we’ll hope to keep the hearing

under a time control. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. LOTHROP, MANAGER, POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LITIGATION SUPPORT, COLUMBIA RIVER

INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OREGON

Mr. LOTHROP. Mr. Chairman, the Commission is honored by the

invitation to testify here today. Mr. Sampson sends his apologies.

He had a death in the family this week and so he was unable to

make the hearing today. So I am here in his place.

Senator CRAPO. Please give him our condolences.

Mr. LOTHROP. I will.

As you know, the Commission has four member tribes—Nez

Perce, Warm Springs, Yakama, and Umatilla tribes. They are all

located in the central Columbia River Basin, in the heart of the

salmon territory of the Columbia River Basin, and have fished for

thousands of years on the salmon returning to the streams and

their homelands.

As I sat and listened to the preceding panel, I heard a lot that

struck a chord with the Commission’s policies and some new information, and I’m still puzzling through some of that new information. Our testimony to a certain extent addresses the Federal Government’s 4-H Paper. We now know that it is a 4-H process. But

it is difficult to comment on the substance of that because we

haven’t seen it. It has been something that has evolved behind
34

closed doors to date. It appears that the doors are opening, but it

seems unsettled as to how they are opening.

As Ms. Darm said, it is at least our impression that the information that is being prepared as part of this 4-H process will, in their

words, ‘‘help answer whether sufficient survival improvements can

be achieved in the hydropower system to contribute to the recovery

of listed stocks, or whether large survival improvements must be

achieved in other sectors’’—or by the other H’s.

The Commission and its member tribes have for a long time recognized that one cannot assess or manage the various mortality

sectors, the four H’s in isolation. In fact, the Commission has firmly taken a position that all mortality sectors must be addressed,

and we have called this ‘‘gravel-to-gravel management.’’ I learned

that when I came to the Commission in 1981.

In order to control the various sources of salmon mortality and

manage them to achieve rebuilding, it is necessary to develop goals

and objectives for the affected salmon stocks that are consistent

with law and based on sound biology. When assembled into a comprehensive package, the measures adopted to achieve these goals

and objectives must add up to rebuilt salmon runs.

Over 4 years ago, the Commission and its member tribes pub- lished ‘‘Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit’’ (The Spirit of the Salmon)

plan. The plan encompasses the 4-H and includes quantitative

goals and objectives. It uses the best available science and provides

for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management. I believe it

is still the only plan for Columbia River Basin salmon restoration

that quantitatively assesses the measures recommended against

the adopted goals and objectives and addresses all four H’s in a

manner consistent with applicable laws.

For decades, the primary approach to conserving Columbia River

Basin salmon has been to constrain harvest. The tribes have not

had a commercial fishery on spring chinook since 1977, or summer

chinook since 1964, or sockeye since 1988. Despite such restrictions, the runs have continued to decline to where they are now

listed as either ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered.’’

To prevent the extinction of Snake River spring/summer chinook,

it is essential to develop a plan that addresses all four H’s. Yet,

given the Federal Government’s current restrictive policies, particularly with regard to artificial propagation, rebuilding of summer and spring chinook will have to be implemented solely by making significant changes in the hydro system and habitat management policies.

A reasonable 4-H analysis must be firmly grounded in the best

available science. The policy of deference to agency expertise does

not always foster the use of best available science. We call for independent scientific review. Any 4-H analysis developed by the Federal Government should be subject to thorough independent science

review with the input of the scientific views of the tribes and the

States.

In closing, we believe that in order to meet its obligations to protect and rebuild salmon, the Federal Government must conduct an

analysis of what must be done in each of the four H’s in order to

meet reasonable goals and objectives. These goals and objectives

must be based on the biological needs of salmon and the Federal
35

Government’s legal obligations. These legal obligations include not

only the ESA and treaties with Indian tribes, but a variety of other

Federal laws. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Lothrop. First of all, I would like

to ask if you would be kind enough to send me a copy of your ‘‘Spirit of the Salmon’’ document.

Mr. LOTHROP. Absolutely.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I would like to go first into the question of independent scientific review. You were here I assume during the testimony of the Federal officials.

Mr. LOTHROP. Yes.

Senator CRAPO. From what you heard, do you believe that it is

necessary that whatever the Federal Caucus process generates

needs to be submitted to a rigorous independent scientific review?

Mr. LOTHROP. Yes. Absolutely. Governor Kempthorne’s remarks

struck a chord with me, too. I think in the course of that scientific

review, the States should be able, as well as the tribes and others,

to offer their science to that independent review so that all the

data is on the table, all the cards are on the table available for

scrutiny by independent scientific review.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. You also I’m sure were here when we

had the testimony from them with regard to the process they are

following and heard the colloquy that we had. Do you have a concern about whether the tribes’ and your interests are going to have

the opportunity to participate in the process fully enough, given the

understanding that you achieved from what you heard today?

Mr. LOTHROP. Yes. I think Steve Wright said that the process is

evolving. I think it is probably highly evolutionary right at this

point. That leaves us playing catch-up, quite frankly. It appears

that the National Marine Fisheries Service staff and Northwest

Power Planning Council staff are moving forward with scientific

analyses and have been working on the alternatives. But as this

picture comes into focus, for us, I’m concerned that we get to the

game on time, so to speak. There’s lots of talk about the playing

field. The Federal Government has a much bigger team than the

tribes do and our ability to interact timely with them is critical.

Senator CRAPO. So, if I understand you right, you are concerned

that they are evaluating options that go beyond the Multi-Species

Framework process?

Mr. LOTHROP. The tribes have some concerns with the alternatives as they have been currently developed in the Framework

process. We are making our concerns known to the Framework

process. But, ultimately, I believe the tribes will test the output of

the Framework against ‘‘Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit’’ and whether it can achieve the goals and objectives that are in the tribal

plan.

I sensed a little maybe dichotomy between Governor

Kempthorne’s perception of the Framework, which I think is generally shared by the tribes. It is something to put the information

on the table. It is not the decisionmaking process. The Federal Government was focusing more attention on the Framework not as a

decisionmaking process, but an input process for decisionmaking.

That is still a little bit unclear to me, and I am concerned about

that.
36

Senator CRAPO. Did you have any concern about the testimony

that the Federal Caucus is putting together various mixes and

matches of the four H’s and the science that we see on those that

go beyond what has been generated by the Framework?

Mr. LOTHROP. The tribes are greatly concerned by finding the appropriate mix of the four H’s. Having the Federal Government do

that in isolation from the tribes is troubling. Governor Kempthorne

said he knows of no law, and I know of no law, that prevents the

Federal Government from sitting down with the tribes and having

an honest conversation about the four H’s and what is needed to

recover salmon.

Senator CRAPO. So what I hear you saying is that in this extended analysis of the four H’s and what mixes and matches will

work, you feel the tribes have something to add and you would like

to be at the table in a position to add it.

Mr. LOTHROP. Absolutely.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. We appreciate your testimony here with us today.

Mr. LOTHROP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAPO. We will now go to Panel III. Mr. Scott Faber, the

Director of Floodplains Programs, American Rivers, Washington,

D.C.; Mr. Mark Dunn, the Director of Government Affairs of the

J.R. Simplot Company, from Boise, Idaho; Mr. Owen Squires, the

Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, from Lewiston, Idaho;

Mr. Tim Stearns, the Policy Director of Save Our Wild Salmon,

from Seattle; and Mr. Lynn Ausman, a grower from Waitsburg,

Washington, on behalf of the Washington Association of Wheat

Growers, and Washington Barley Commission.

Gentlemen, we would like to ask you to proceed in that order.

This is the last panel. We are running a little later here. I apologize I spent so much time on the other panel. But I do want to hear

your testimony. I would like to ask you to try your best to keep

your oral testimony to the 5 minutes, as indicated by the lights,

and then we will have a chance to have some colloquy afterwards.

Mr. Faber?

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, DIRECTOR, FLOODPLAINS

PROGRAM, AMERICAN RIVERS

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Faber and I am Director of Floodplain Programs for American Rivers. With me today is

Justin Hayes, Associate Director for Public Policy for American

Rivers.

Let me just start by saying that I am not an expert on Snake

River salmon but I may be of more value to this particular hearing

because I’ve spent the last 6 years working with the Corps of Engineers to reform the management of the Mississippi and Missouri

Rivers. I believe that many of the lessons that we’ve learned on

those rivers could be applied to the Columbia and Snake.

Like you, 6 years ago we were very frustrated by the Corps’ decisionmaking process. Rather than working with stakeholder groups

and States to develop consensus, the Corps conducted studies and

developed management alternatives in isolation, all of which probably sounds familiar to you now, and, after spending years and mil-
37

lions of dollars, mechanically sought our input through public hearings which provided wonderful theater but really very little more.

But in the Midwest, we have pursued a different course that you

might consider in the Pacific Northwest. We persuaded the Corps

and other Federal agencies to develop a wide range of sciencebased management alternatives and then simply ask the public to

decide the fate of our rivers. On the Upper Mississippi River, for

example, which stretches from St. Paul to St. Louis, the Corps

worked with American Rivers and Mark 2000, which represents

waterway users and farmers, to create the Upper Mississippi River

Summit, which is an annual forum of farmers, conservation groups,

and waterway users, and asked them to set management goals for

the river together. Rather than having States or the Corps run that

process, I run that process with my colleague who represents the

navigation industry.

On the Missouri River, the Corps’ held public workshops on a

wide range of management alternatives that were selected in part

by the public, and then asked river stakeholders to seek consensus

on how the river’s dams should be managed. In both cases, the

Corps provided sound science-based information and then got out

of the way and asked the public to make the tough calls.

It has not been easy and it has not been perfect, but it has dramatically changed river management on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers for the better and, for the first time, brought the rivers’ economic and environmental interests together.

This model could be applied to the Columbia and Snake. But I

believe there is one problem, which is that the Corps has not developed all of the information that people need in order to make a real

choice, as Mr. Frampton said earlier. In particular, the Corps has

failed to really anticipate the social and economic impacts of dam

removal and propose measures that could offset those impacts. Obviously as an outsider, it is clear to me that the decision to remove

Snake River dams is a difficult decision and one that will not be

made lightly. But the Corps I think is not allowing you to make

a real choice because they have not developed plans and put those

plans before you that would mitigate the impacts of dam removal

on waterway users. There is, obviously, no question that removing

dams and doing nothing more would increase transportation costs.

But I think we can do more. We will not be able to really make

that choice, that real choice until the Corps works with stakeholder

groups to develop a transportation mitigation alternative or a series of potential alternatives. It is clear to us that wheat farmers

and other waterway users cannot shoulder the burden, and should

not shoulder the burden, of salmon recovery alone.

That’s why American Rivers recently hired Dr. Edward Dickey,

the former Assistant Secretary to the Army for Civil Works under

the Bush Administration and an expert on the transport of commodities, like wheat, to develop a transportation mitigation plan

for the Snake. Although Dr. Dickey’s proposal is not yet complete,

options might include enhanced rail and road infrastructure, additional rail cars, additional facilities to store or transfer grain, and

other investments designed to reduce transportation costs. Obviously, there will be other beneficiaries, not just waterway users,

from these sorts of investments.
38

I am sure you know that building consensus about any river, and

particularly the Snake River, is not an easy task. Right now, river

interests are polarized, unwilling to consider management alternatives that both save salmon and meet the needs of waterway

users. But I think this committee can help partly by holding field

hearings to encourage discussion about transportation mitigation

alternatives, by directing the Corps to develop those mitigation alternatives as part of their DEIS, and by directing the Corps to hold

workshops designed to build consensus between groups like American Rivers and the American Farm Bureau Federation and others.

Of course, it is absolutely critical that the Corps use the best

science and economic information available. I think right now there

is some reason to be concerned that they are not doing that. Let

me just give you one quick example before I finish up.

Recently, the Corps has conducted surveys in California to gauge

likely interest in Snake River fishing and recreation if dams were

removed. But the Corps ultimately refused to include the potential

benefits of recreation from those people originating in California

when they ultimately calculated the economic benefits of dam removal. They also ignored the relatively greater economic value of

tourists who come from out of State and assumed that local communities like Lewiston wouldn’t try to capture that new recreation

by building boat ramps and trails and other things designed to attract tourists and other kinds of visitors.

Let me just finish by saying that 6 years ago no one believed

that Mississippi River stakeholders could put aside our differences

and develop a vision for the river. But we did that and we’re now

working together, farmers and environmentalists, to implement our

vision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Dunn?

STATEMENT OF MARK DUNN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. DUNN. Thank you, Chairman Crapo. My name is Mark

Dunn. I am Director of Governmental Affairs for the J.R. Simplot

Company. I am here primarily today, however, in my capacity as

Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee of the Northwest

Food Processors Association, which is a regional trade association

representing the $6 billion fruit and vegetable processing industry

in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic that is

of critical concern to our industry and, in fact, the entire Pacific

Northwest. Protecting and recovering endangered salmon and

maintaining the economic viability of the Northwest are not mutually exclusive, in our opinion. In fact, the recovery of salmon is dependent on industries such as food processing.

Food processing is the largest manufacturing employer in the

State of Idaho and the second largest in the States of Oregon and

Washington. Our companies provide the tax revenues and economic

stability the region requires to focus on such an enormous task.

However, to be successful, the region must have a common vision,

a vision that is shared by all parties, including the Federal agencies.
39

The Federal Caucus does not currently seem to be a part of that

shared vision for the Northwest. They continue to send conflicting

messages and have failed to coordinate with critical regional initiatives. This uncertainty leads to increased conflict in the region and

to decreased effectiveness of the regional process. As you can imagine, it is hard to motivate business leaders to participate in a process that, in the end, means nothing because NMFS or one of the

other agencies decides to go a different direction.

In my written testimony, I provided a couple of examples. The

first one was the 4-H Paper that I think you’ve discussed, so I am

going to skip over that, and just mention the second example,

which shows our concern for what appears to be extremely serious

coordination issues among the Federal agencies.

The Bonneville Power Administration is currently in the middle

of a controversial rate case that will have long-term impacts on the

Pacific Northwest. In September 1998, after nearly a year long

public process, Vice President Gore announced a set of ‘‘Fish and

Wildlife Funding Principles’’ which would be incorporated into the

new BPA rate case. These principles were formally incorporated

into BPA’s Record of Decision for the Power Subscription Strategy

issued in December 1998.

Last month, we learned that three Federal bureaucrats from

NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and EPA, each of whom are members of the Federal Caucus, had drafted a 17-page memo titled

‘‘Preliminary Cost Estimates for Two Fish and Wildlife Alternatives.’’ This memo, which was circulated to key Administration

officials, attempts to make a case for further rate increases for BPA

from 10 to 22 percent in the 2002 to 2006 period. This is on top

of the excessive reserves BPA already plans to accumulate using its

adopted ‘‘Fish Funding Principles.’’

While the contents of this memo are of critical concern to the region’s industry, possibly the most shocking part of this incident is

that the memo was never shown to the officials at the Bonneville

Power Administration prior to being circulated among top Administration officials.

If the Caucus cannot or will not coordinate such an important

initiative, how can we as economic stakeholders hope to work with

them? How can we trust their statements, and, even more concerning, what is coming next?

The future of the Northwest will be shaped by the decisions that

are made within the next few years. With so much on the line, we

cannot afford to have Federal bureaucrats pursing their personal

agendas outside of the accountability of the formal regional process.

Regional elected officials, leaders, and stakeholders are forging a

vision for the future of the Northwest. This leadership I believe

was clearly articulated by Governor Kempthorne today. It is a vision that includes protecting and restoring salmon runs while continuing to support the economic engine that makes it all possible.

It is a vision that will focus on a balanced, cost effective, and scientifically sound recovery measures.

The Federal agencies, obviously, will play a major role in implementing and influencing these measures. However, it is not appropriate for them to attempt to circumvent the will of the region. I

urge you, on behalf of all Northwest economic interests, to continue
40

to press the Federal agencies to cooperate with the region and

make sure they are supporting the implementation of regionallybased solutions.

In closing, I would like to personally thank you, Senator Crapo.

This hearing is typical of your desire to reach out and bring people

together to solve problems. We want you to know that we appreciate your leadership on this critical issue.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Squires?

STATEMENT OF OWEN SQUIRES, PULP AND PAPERWORKERS

RESOURCE COUNCIL, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. SQUIRES. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman and

members of the committee, my name is Owen Squires. I am the

Rocky Mountain Regional Director of the PPRC, the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council. We are an organization of 300,000

members across the United States deeply committed to the conservation of our natural resources. I will be glad to be able to go

home today and tell my fellow Union members and brothers and

sisters that an analytical mix and match of the four H’s by the Federal Government, and I can also tell the 1,200 shut down mills and

40,000 out of work timber workers, that Mr. Frampton says it is

all under control. It scares us to death to tell you the truth.

As an example of the Federal family left alone to their own devices, an example of that is what they have done with the PATH

process. They are using 20-year old data—it isn’t current data, it

isn’t new data, it isn’t pit-tag data—to make a case for dam breaching. In their ‘‘spread the risk’’ policy, the National Marine Fisheries

Service told the Corps of Engineers to drive super saturation levels

out of Lower Granite Dam to the maximum, 130 percent. That kills

fish. We know it kills fish, they know it kills fish, the Corps of Engineers knows it kills fish.

On June 9, the Army Corps of Engineers agreed with the request

of KBTV, a national NBC affiliate out of Boise, to have Mr. John

McKern interviewed to talk about dams, fish, and fish survival.

The day before they showed up, Mr. McKern wasn’t available. John

McKern is probably one of the most honest people I know and we

couldn’t get a reason out of him why he wasn’t available to be

there.

I represent labor—working people of this country. We are scared

that they will do to us in this issue what they did to us in the timber issue. Our State has been devastated. We are torn apart. If the

Government does not work in the open democratic process, we have

no chance. We need to be there, labor, all of us.

Out where I come from in Idaho we say that 35 years ago the

‘‘suits’’ showed up and they built the dams. We protested it. We

talked about it. We talked about the very issues that we are talking about here today—anadromous fish. We were told by the Government they had the solution. Now the suits are back, different

faces, different haircuts, but they are back again and this time they

have the solution again, with no input from us.

We are the people that pay the bills. We are labor. We will ultimately pay the sacrifice and bear the burden. We must have a

place there. We must be there, the tribes must be there, scientists
41

must be there, all of us there to seek a balanced solution to this

problem. Because it is not just the economy of the Northwest, it is

anadromous fish. We work with local area high schools and we

planted over 100,000 to teach children the wonders of God’s magnificent creatures.

We have to find a solution. But we can’t find that solution if the

Government conducts their hearings behind closed doors. We must

be there. They must be in the open or this thing will not work. I

thank you, Senator, for your time.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Squires.

Mr. Stearns?

STATEMENT OF TIM STEARNS, POLICY DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR

WILD SALMON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Mr. STEARNS. Senator Crapo, thank you again for holding this

hearing. In the last few years, you have done the region a great

service by continuing to pull us all together into a mid-course correction on process. I think today you’ve obviously talked about how

we define the field, and that’s what I am particularly interested in

here.

My name is Tim Stearns and I am the Policy Director of Save

Our Wild Salmon. For the last 8 years I’ve sought to help the region the region adapt to salmon recovery and to force the decisions

to do that. I could go on at length about my frustrations with State,

Federal agencies, but I won’t. I don’t really believe that there is a

conspiracy theory here. What I think is really a problem is that

there hasn’t been a clear goal and a clear set of political guts to

go towards that goal.

We have spent a long time dealing with this issue. Declining

salmon are not new. Dams in this region cut off thousands of miles

of habitat once and for all. It is clear the dams have problems—

passage, flow, cumulative effects problems. We tried one fix in 1980

with the Northwest Power Act. It didn’t work. The ESA has kicked

in in 1991. The Northwest Power Planning Council and the region

tried a regional fix in 1994. We didn’t implement it. We’ve lost control of it. It has gone to the Feds.

Unfortunately, the Feds have had to step in. I certainly wouldn’t

agree that they’ve done a particularly good job. They don’t implement their Biological Opinions, they don’t necessarily enforce them,

they haven’t met their flow targets, they haven’t modified projects

they pledged to. They have had a difficult time with competing priorities. Unfortunately, the previous Administration and this Administration both under-estimated the challenge. They didn’t really

establish a framework to make decisions. They didn’t really put together the analytical capabilities they needed to work through

these issues. They have never given us clear time lines. There has

been ambiguity from the beginning.

We had a process called the PATH process which was inclusive.

It included absolutely every interest, from the States, the Feds, and

the tribes. Yet, NMFS put out a Fish Appendix that they rewrote.

There is a problem.

I think a bigger problem though is that our Biological Opinions

have been inconsistent, they haven’t been coordinated, they haven’t

been enforced. During this whole process the science has changed.
42

The scientific paradigm that we’re working on is different than it

was in 1980, different even than it was in 1991. Fish need rivers,

they need watershed processes. We need to use technology to work

with those issues.

The court reluctantly approved the Federal plan in 1995 because

the Clinton Administration committed to making long-term decisions in 1999. We want to hold them to that set of decisions. Now,

one of the key elements of that process was a Corps EIS. It is about

6 months behind. It is clearly too limited to one H, the hydro system. It doesn’t look at the full Columbia. It hasn’t consulted with

all the interested parties from Alaska to California and throughout

the region. They have had a difficult time on when and how to release information. So the Corps clearly has a series of analytical

problems.

We also have put a lot of faith and hope in this ill-defined

Framework process. We are full participants in the Framework but

I caution anyone from putting too many eggs in that basket. I

would also suggest that this process is not funded by Bonneville.

It is funded by ratepayers, which is all of us. It is not funded by

the Corps. It is funded by ratepayers who pay those bills. So let’s

not over dramatize that Federal agencies are the ones carrying this

ball. It is everybody in the region who has an interest here.

The Federal 4-H Paper, I think there are three reasons for it,

and they are pretty good reasons. It is clear the Corps EIS is way

too limited and too narrow.

The second reason is the Biological Opinions we are operating

under are incomparable, inconsistent, they are not coordinated. Let

me just give you an example. Under the 94–98 Hydro Biological

Opinion, we allow the hydro system to kill 99 percent of migrating

smolts and over 60 percent of migrating adults. Under the Harvest

Biological Opinion, we allow only the harvest of 24 percent—60

percent versus 24 percent. I think the tribes have a pretty strong

case to say it is not equitable, it does not meet the Federal test.

We don’t even define the habitat and hatchery problem in those Biological Opinions. Until we get them all on the same page, we have

got a problem.

The third main reason, the Feds do not speak with one voice. It

would be great if we could get George Frampton to be the sole representative of the Federal Government. The practical effect is he is

not going to be there. We’re going to need all the Federal agencies.

The Federal agencies need to talk. I normally am an absolute critic

of openness and want openness. But, frankly, if we open this process up so that we have to go and monitor each and every Federal

meeting when they talk to each other anywhere and everywhere,

you can look at your own diagram, we’re exhausted with the excess

of process. So it is not really a big win for the region if you go and

say let’s open up every single meeting.

What the Feds really need to do is to finally put their options

on the table. They need to take comment, they need to respond,

they need to hold hearings around the region. Each and every option that is viable needs to go through the same scientific and economic filter. What we can no longer have is anecdotal recovery

plans—it’s the ocean, it’s the turns, it’s the Alaska fishermen, it’s
43

the dams. What we have to do is have a rigorous disciplined process to go through.

At the same time, we have been asked to approve a credible financing plan, a financing plan for the future of salmon recovery.

Right now, it is going to pit salmon recovery versus treasury repayment. I have a 7-year-old. Today I save for his college. I am not

sure he’s going to go to college, I’m not sure what college he’s going

to go to, but I want to be ready for each and every option. We know

that in the next 10 years salmon recovery is going to cost money

and, at least for this transition period, it is going to cost a substantial amount of money. The sooner we save for that inevitable rainy

day, the better off we’re going to be.

Let me close with what I think are five things that this committee can continue to do for us. We need one set of hearings. We need

them before Thanksgiving or after the first of the year; we don’t

need them in the holiday season and ruin the holiday for us. This

process ruins the holiday for us already. But it has got to talk

about the Corps EIS, it has got to talk about the draft Biological

Opinions, it has got to talk about the 4-H Paper, it has got to put

the Framework on the table. But one set of hearings that go from

Alaska to California and throughout the region.

We need to lay out all of our alternatives and take them to

PATH, take them to the ISAB, take them to the IEAB, take them

to the Framework. We ought to peer review this thing to death.

The second major thing is we have got to make decisions prior

to the migration. We fear nothing more than this will become an

election football again and we will put off decisions. Not making decisions makes this a disaster for everybody in the region.

Third, the Feds should make no binding decisions before they

fully consult, meet their obligations to consult with the States and

tribes. But they also have to do that within two very narrow parameters. It has got to follow the law, it has got to meet the scientific tests.

Fourthly, we need to keep our options open. Dam removal is an

uncomfortable thing to advocate. But the science says it makes

some sense. What we can’t do is take any option off the table right

now. We have to send them through the same scientific and economic filter.

Finally, whatever we do, in the words of my 86 year-old father,

he’s seen a lot of changes in his life and he’s been against every

single one of them, change is going to hurt. We have to deal with

the people who have to change and build real transition plans. I

guess I would just close by saying change is overdue in this system.

Change is inevitable. It is better for us to embrace change and

move on together.

I would like to thank you again for at least getting the Federal

agencies here at the beginning of the hearing. It is always a frustration when we’re here to listen to them and then they go away.

Senator CRAPO. I notice a couple of them stayed in the audience.

I hope that they will have a transcript of this. We’ll make sure they

do have one.

Mr. STEARNS. Just a final remark. Ted Strong, who used to run

the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, suggested that

we’ve had a lot of thunder and a lot of rain dances, but we haven’t
44

had much rain. It is time that we make this system rain. Thank

you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. Ausman?

STATEMENT OF LYNN AUSMAN, GROWER, WAITSBURG, WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF

WHEAT GROWERS, AND THE WASHINGTON BARLEY COMMISSION

Mr. AUSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington Barley

Commission, it gives me great pleasure to talk to you this afternoon on these important issues.

I am a barley grower and wheat grower in Asotin County in the

State of Washington. Asotin County is bordered on the north by the

Snake River and Lower Granite dam is the first of four dams that

we’ve heard much about. There are four grain receiving stations in

Lewis Clark Valley.

As the Governor put it, ‘‘The salmon fisheries of this State have,

in the past, been wonderfully productive. Of late, however, evidence

of a decrease in the run is apparent, and all are agreed that something ought to be done to prevent the final extinction of a great industry.’’ This Governor was John R. Rogers, not our present Governor Gary Locke, and he said it in 1899, not 1999.

Our Association thinks this puts salmon restoration problems in

the proper perspective as we deal with it today. In our area there

is strong support to increase the salmon runs in our river system.

There is also almost total agreement that breaching the lower

Snake River dams will not be the answer to the problem.

The members of our association are growing increasingly frustrated as we have watched the ongoing analysis of salmon restoration in the Snake River system focus almost solely on dam breaching. We were told from the beginning that there would be four H’s

to be considered—habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatchery management. However, it has become increasingly clear that the Federal agencies are not focusing on these other H’s.

In the past few year of watching the process of salmon recovery

efforts, it has become apparent to us that this problem is one of

more complex issues of scores of years. It starts with the very definition of salmon species to continue on to include the variance of

ocean temperatures. A marine biologist expressed the belief that

there weren’t ten reasons for fish run declines or even a hundred,

but he thought a thousand reasons would be more in the ballpark.

I would submit to you that the problems we have with fish population is not what we think we know but the many things we need

to learn.

A computer model called PATH, which stands for Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, is held up as a reason for dam removal. It is important to note that there is no empirical data to

prove that destroying the four dams would lead to recovery of the

salmon. It is simply a computer model. This model makes some assumptions that do not follow known facts. For example, according

to the recent salmon tag studies, over 50 percent of the smolts

moving in the Snake River reach salt water. However, one PATH
45

model predicts only 20 percent, and other PATH model predicts

only 30 percent. Therefore, I would hate to base a decision as monumental as dam removal on such hypotheses. There are questions.

The environmental effects of breaching are another matter. The

Corps of Engineers estimates that there are 100 to 150 million

cubic yards of sediment behind the four dams. This would create

30,000 acres of mud flats. With dam removal, this material would

move down stream for several years and this would cause much

harm to the existing habitats as they are today. The use of this

river system is also environmental choice because of emissions.

Navigating the river system will use 40 percent less fuel per ton

mile than rail, assuming there would be cars and power units

available, which we highly question. Compared to trucks, the

Snake River system will use 110 percent less fuel per ton mile. According to the Washington Wheat Commission, if grain barge traffic was halted, the industry would have to locate 120,000 additional

grain cars, and 700,000 semi-trucks. This is an enormous cost of

building of the roads and rail necessary for infrastructure. All this

will affect our grain industry by raising costs to the industry that

is already suffering economic depression.

So, what should we do to increase the fish runs in our Snake

River system?

Continue to improve the transportation of smolt. Address and

solve the predator harvest problems. Modify hatcheries to improve

their contribution to an overall solution. Look into commercial fishing harvest to better understand their impact on the fish. Modify

turbine gaps, turbine blades, blade coatings, and hydraulic conditions into and out of the turbines. Add surface collectors to move

smolt around the dams. Continue to pursue technological alternatives that are scientifically sound.

If we can get by the unfortunate notion that breaching of the

lower Snake River dams is a possible solution to the problem at

hand, we can then work together to solve the problem. Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Ausman.

I have a couple of specific questions to members of the panel, and

then I would like to toss out some questions in general and just ask

all the members of the panel if they would like to respond to them.

First, Mr. Faber. I realize that your experience in the collaborative process is not in the Pacific Northwest but I think it is illustrative of what can be done. As you heard the discussion and the

testimony that took place today with the Federal officials, did it

raise concerns to you? I guess I would just like you to comment on

what you heard in terms of us seeking to achieve what you’ve done

in the area where you work.

Mr. FABER. I would be happy to share some thoughts. In fact, I

found myself sharing your frustrations quite a bit. Six years ago,

when we first began working on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, we faced the same sort of problem: agency officials deciding

what alternatives should be considered, putting them before the

public and asking for perfunctory comments. They were surprised

to find out that nobody liked the alternatives they were coming up

with. In fact, they themselves became so frustrated that they said,

‘‘Okay, why don’t you American Rivers, and you the navigation industry, and you the corn growers association tell us what alter-
46

natives you think we should be looking at.’’ It strikes me that this

is a process that has been led too much by the agencies and not

enough by the public.

We certainly don’t agree on everything on the Mississippi and

Missouri Rivers, but what we have been able to do is find areas of

commonality. That in turn has given agencies like the Corps a

sense of where consensus lies and how to change their river management decisions to reflect that consensus.

Senator CRAPO. We face very serious timeline pressures here.

There is strong concern about, first of all, there are statutory requirements that we make prompt decisions, and then, second, there

are strong concerns that if we don’t make prompt decisions and if

they’re not the right ones, that it could have very severe consequences for the saving of the species.

First of all, was that present in your circumstance? Second, given

that dynamic, do we have time for a collaborative process?

Mr. FABER. We certainly have the same certain time issues on

the Missouri, where we have federally listed endangered species

and a court waiting to intervene if necessary. I think the way to

look at it is you can go down two paths right now, and I’m not referring to the acronym. One is the Corps and NMFS and the other

agencies continue to put together alternatives that none of us,

whether it is Mr. Ausman or Mr. Faber, particularly like and the

whole thing ends up before Judge Marsh and maybe in 5 years we

have a decision from the court, of all places. That’s not an alternative I think any of us particularly want.

Another alternative is to try and quickly create a collaborative

process perhaps led by a conservation group and a farm group, or

a navigation industry group, to really begin to seek consensus. The

role I think the agencies play is by providing information, information that is requested by the public. For example, I know Mr.

Ausman was talking about some of the information he feels the

Corps hasn’t developed sufficiently. We certainly feel that they

haven’t developed realistic transportation mitigation alternatives.

Just as an example, what we found on the Missouri River was that

when the Corps, at the urging of Senator Kerrey, developed more

information about a split navigation season which would have suspended navigation in the summertime, it turned out that the industry was actually not as opposed to that as we would have

thought.

So when you let the public lead these processes, sometimes you

wind up with a better outcome.

Senator CRAPO. Now it seems to me that you have been able in

the Mississippi arena to achieve a circumstance in which the actual

decision is made by the collaborators. Who is it led by?

Mr. FABER. In Mississippi, it is led by American Rivers and Mark

2000, which represents the navigation industry and farm groups,

everyone from——

Senator CRAPO. So constituency or interest groups in the region

are leading the collaborative effort.

Mr. FABER. Exactly.

Senator CRAPO. Are the decisions of the collaborative group binding?
47

Mr. FABER. They are not binding because that would be creating

a sort of a Basin Commission. Yet, we have found that when we

have reached consensus on dam operations on the Mississippi

River, for example, the Corps of Engineers jumps for joy. They finally could implement a hydrologic regime and change their dam

operations to meet the needs of nature and navigation and could

stop shooting in the dark, trying to guess what consensus looks

like.

Senator CRAPO. One last quick question to you in this context.

If it were possible for us to modify the Federal law to allow statutorily for the creation of this type of entity and give it binding decisionmaking authority, would you think that’s a positive move?

Mr. FABER. I think that’s a terrific step in the right direction, but

it also has to be accompanied by the Corps’ willingness to develop

the right information.

Senator CRAPO. At that point, the agencies, instead of becoming

the decisionmakers as they are now, supply the expertise and become the support group, if you will, for the collaborators.

Mr. FABER. That’s right. We have found it’s not a perfect process

but what it has done is allowed us to identify common ground and

then allow the agencies in turn to implement those recommendations on the Mississippi. I would be happy to share this with your

staff.

Senator CRAPO. The agencies provide the support and implementation in the model we’re talking about here. They are not the

decisionmakers.

Mr. FABER. That’s right. Ultimately, they are taking their cue

from the consensus that is developed through the Upper Mississippi River Summit. Agencies have varied in terms of their compliance. Frankly, the Corps has been the most responsive of all the

agencies. The Department of Interior has been somewhat less responsive. In general, agencies have been happy that the stakeholders, who oftentimes show up at public hearings to entertain one another with their rhetoric, have finally sat down and really gotten

down to brass tacks.

Senator CRAPO. One last question. I realize that we’re talking

about something we would like to see created in Federal law. What

you have been able to create de facto in your region. But do you

think we would have a shot at that in the Pacific Northwest?

Mr. FABER. There’s no reason you can’t. I’m an outsider and I

have to say there is probably a little bit more sensibility to folks

in the Midwest than maybe anywhere else in the country. But it

seems to me that the Corps now has the authority to go ahead and

invite private groups to lead that process. They don’t need you to

act through WRDA or some other mechanism. But what they could

probably use is some direction, whether that’s in a letter or in some

other means, that says here’s a process that has worked on the

upper Mississippi River, why don’t you give this a try on the Snake

and see where it goes.

I will add one thing. I don’t want to lecture the law to someone

who has probably practiced law longer than I have been alive.

Senator CRAPO. I welcome it.

Mr. FABER. But one problem with the process is the way the

Corps has interpreted NEPA. They often do a scope of work and
48

do all of their alternatives and run those alternatives before the

public is even invited to provide comment. If NEPA were changed,

or the Corps interpreted NEPA to require them to bring the public

in early in the scoping process, then a lot of the problems that

we’re seeing here today wouldn’t be happening I think.

Senator CRAPO. That’s exactly the point that I was trying to

make with the Federal officials here today. Do you agree from what

you heard today that that’s the dynamic we’re seeing develop?

Mr. FABER. Absolutely. I think it is a matter of bad law and bad

habit. Some agencies—and I think it is changing in different parts

of the country—do not see the public as a collaborator but merely

as the end of the process. I’ll just end with this anecdote. My father

was in the Corps of Engineers in the 1950’s, and he said that in

the 1950’s we didn’t care what the public thought, we just did what

we wanted and what Congress wanted. When we started 6 years

ago the Corps said, well, if everybody is unhappy, we must be

doing something right. Now I think, at least in our part of the

country, the Corps is saying keeping everyone unhappy is not a

good way of doing business and we’ve got to figure out how to bring

the public into this decisionmaking process here.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you.

I am going to give each of you an opportunity to discuss this concept. But before I do, I had a couple of specific questions for Mr.

Stearns.

You had indicated that you’re not as concerned with the Federal

Caucus developments that we’ve had discussed here for several

reasons. I understand your point. In fact, one of your points was

that we don’t want to have that chart magnified by having to open

every single meeting that the Federal agencies have to public participation, and I certainly don’t want to see that happen either.

In one of your five recommendations at the end, No. 3 it was, you

wanted to see no binding decisions made before there is consultation with the public and the public is involved. The question I have

is, don’t you have a concern that if the decisionmaking, and officials in this case, the Federal officials, even if they haven’t made

a binding decision, if they have been in a closed room making tentative decisions or evaluating the options and starting to reach conclusions, not making it binding, but then come out for public input,

don’t you believe that is a little bit late in the game for the public

input?

Mr. STEARNS. Recognize that all of us have access to all of the

Federal agencies all the time. What they don’t do is if they don’t

get together and come up with their own vision of where they are

headed as an administration, they basically aren’t responsive on

anything. Frankly, they give us multiple stories. It is much better,

and it is long overdue, for them to speak with one voice on this

issue. I look at the Federal problem on this river is that they have

not formally and informally got together and come up with a common vision.

All I am suggesting is that I just don’t think that it is a reasonable standard to suggest that the Federal agencies can’t meet together and figure out their administration program and put it out

on the table. I think all of us at this table are fully capable of
49

shooting down every stupid idea they come up with. We do it over

and over and over again.

Let me just describe one frustration. This Framework process, we

had a big regional confab in November, there were 28 different alternatives put into it; we put in one, the State of Oregon put in

three, the State of Idaho didn’t put in one, the Federal Government

didn’t put in one. It was an absolute frustration that the Federal

Government would say everybody else come to the party and put

your ideas on the table but we’re not even going to bring what we

think. My goal here is to smoke them out. Get them thinking. Get

them to put their ideas on the table and have it go through a process.

Senator CRAPO. I certainly agree with the objective, and I think

most people would, that the Federal Government should speak

more with one voice, not with this kind of process and non-voice,

and also that we don’t want to slow the process down by creating

a multiplication of difficult processes and creating even more difficult problems for the Federal agencies who do have the requirement under the statutes to act. So I understand your point.

Let me just go to the whole panel now and ask, in the context

of what you have heard today in the testimony from the Federal

officials who testified, and from what you now understand about

their explanation for what the Federal Caucus is and what it is

doing, what your reaction to that is? Have your concerns been satisfied, or have they been increased, or do you have a comment on

it?

I guess, Mr. Faber, we have really already gone through that

with you. I am going to pass you this time, and we’ll go right to

you Mr. Dunn for any comments you might have.

Mr. DUNN. Just briefly, to say, unfortunately, our concerns were

not alleviated by their comments today. We would encourage you

and other members of this committee to continue to pursue them

being open in their Federal Caucus process.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Squires?

Mr. SQUIRES. Senator, before I came to this hearing I had some

concerns. Now I’m scared. This is probably, when I listened to them

here today talk, it was probably the most frustrating thing I’ve

done since we tried to talk to them about the chicken complex fire

which raged in Idaho. I do not believe that this agency has a clue.

Our biggest fear is that the anadromous fish problem in the Pacific

Northwest will be politically driven, not fish driven. I think that

they proved that here today. Thank you.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Stearns?

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I won’t say that I don’t share concerns. I

think I would agree with Mr. Squires that I’m still scared. What

I think is more important though is that Mr. Frampton suggested

that the administration recognizes that they have a strategic role

to play here, that there is both an economic set of decisions and

a scientific set of decisions, and that they feel that the Federal

Government needs to speak with one voice. I would have to admit

that I am somewhat reassured by that.

I am not overly sanctimonious about any Federal agencies. I

have dealt with them my entire career and they have Congress

pushing them, they have their constituencies pushing them, they
50

have the press pushing them; they respond to pressures. But I

guess what I would say more than anything is we were relieved

when they said they were getting together because we thought they

were 2 or 3 years behind. Now that they’ve said that they are doing

something, we certainly ought to mistrust what they’re doing and

make them put it on the table. But whether I am more alarmed

after this, I don’t know.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Mr. Ausman?

Mr. AUSMAN. I am very concerned with the closed door concept.

But I think in listening to you I feel better about it. I feel with people like you here that helps. But I am concerned with the closed

door concept.

Senator CRAPO. All right. Let me just conclude with another

question which I would like everyone on the panel to talk about.

Again, Mr. Faber, if you want to pitch in, feel welcome to do so,

but I really want to get the feeling of the panel with regard to the

idea that I’ve already explored with you. The question is on the

broader question of moving to a system of environmental decisionmaking in which we have a collaborative process in which the collaborators actually make decisions and are empowered to do so,

preferably by law, in my opinion, but whether it is by law or by

de facto arrangement.

I would like to know what the panel thinks about that arrangement in terms of both salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest

and in terms of environmental policy in general in this country.

Anybody want to go first?

Mr. Dunn?

Mr. DUNN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is something that

we could certainly support in the Pacific Northwest. I think that

process would guarantee that regional interests would be included.

I think it has been a frustration that, for example, Northwest

Power Planning Council has been charged with some oversight yet

has been given no authority to really do much in terms of river operation or other environmental policy. So I think that is an avenue

fruit processors would definitely support.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Squires?

Mr. SQUIRES. I think it is something that is long overdue, if it

can be achieved. PPRC in our model, as you know, we’re seeking

balance. We have got to get both sides to the table here and get

something that will work and find a balanced solution for these

problems. I think that would be the answer ultimately. I would like

to see the Federal Government take that role, as Mr. Faber said,

somebody that would give information, somebody that would be a

clearinghouse, but without an agenda, to help bind this thing together and find a solution for the fish and for the region. I think

that is something that could be done.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. Mr. Stearns?

Mr. STEARNS. Senator Crapo, with all due respect, I think one of

the wisest things a legislator can do is not legislate. This is one of

those situations where I don’t think we necessarily need it in Federal law. We certainly could use your push and your help. It is not

to say for an instant that we don’t need these kinds of collaborations.
51

I want to tell you that I have participated in a number of them,

some successful, some frustrations. We have successfully relicensed

the projects in the Skagit with Seattle City Light. We are going to

successfully relicense projects owned by two of the three mid-Columbia utilities, Chelan County PUD and Douglas County PUD. No

gun to anybody’s head. We all showed up, agreed we wanted a solution. We felt that they had something to protect and worth valuing.

They said we’ll put a checkbook on the table but we’re not signing

it until we have a deal. I just don’t want us to go and try to put

guns to anybody’s head.

What I would suggest though is that there are three things that

make a collaboration work. One is that you agree that you’re going

to comply within the law and within treaties. Second, that you’re

going to work only on solutions that are within the boundaries of

science. Third, that you go and commit a finite time period to come

to a deal. The ones that fail are the ones that string out on and

on and on. So, clearly, we are open.

Frankly, I think dam removal is something that has to be on the

table. Is it the only recovery package that is going to work here?

No. I think if we’re willing to make some other really significant

situations, we could do that. But I think people also have to come

to the table with an open mind of what the possibilities are and

work through them.

Let me close with one thing. Bill Ruckleshaus is working on a

process that is based primarily in the Puget Sound area, but he

went and described that the Federal agencies and the States

weren’t talking particularly well and we needed a new Federal official. Very quickly the press and some politicians jumped on it and

said ‘‘Bill Ruckleshaus calls for a salmon czar.’’ The last thing we

need is a salmon czar. What we need is a salmon shuttle diplomat;

somebody who goes around and doesn’t try to impose solutions but

listens to everybody, gets them to listen to everybody, and work for

commonalities.

I want workers that have living wage jobs, I want food on my

table, and a healthy rural eastern economy. I think these guys

want salmon. I think there are solutions here. But, clearly, we all

have our blinders. I just think that if we live within the law, we

live within the science, we agree to disagree and do it in a timely

fashion, we can get somewhere.

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Ausman?

Mr. AUSMAN. Being a farmer, back to the grassroots. The farming community in eastern Washington is working with the salmon

recovery. We have a couple of different model watersheds. We feel

that we’re not getting recognized for what we are contributing to

the situation right now is one of our problems, our frustrations.

Senator CRAPO. Good. Did you want to say something, Mr.

Faber?

Mr. FABER. Just to add that I think Mr. Stearns has made an

important point, especially in your context, which is the timing. In

this case, what you might think about, and then I’ll go back to the

Midwest where I can do more harm probably, is to say let’s have

a process that is led by stakeholders like the ones right in front of

you, give it X amount of time to work, in this case we’re talking

about months, obviously, not years. If that doesn’t work and these
52

folks can’t find consensus, at least we can say we’ve tried. Ultimately, I think all of us would prefer to be making that decision,

the public would prefer to make that decision rather than to allow

the Government or, God forbid, a judge make that decision for us.

That creates a lot of pressure.

Senator CRAPO. Those are good comments.

I really appreciate the effort that all of you have gone through

to come here and testify. I know you’ve sat through the whole hearing, so you get the special ‘‘at-a-boys’’ for perseverance today. I appreciate your insight. Obviously, this is a difficult issue and there

are a lot of very valid points of view that need to be brought together.

My objective in this hearing was to focus on what I think is a

very serious process error that is underway right now. Frankly, before the hearing, I thought that there may be a chance that we

could get it resolved, that maybe our concerns would be alleviated.

But I don’t think that that has happened. I think that the concerns

I had before the hearing are still concerns, and I know that a lot

of you share those concerns as well. I know the Federal agency officials are sincerely trying to work this out from their perspective.

We’re going to continue from our perspective to try to push this in

the right direction, both on the specifics of salmon and steelhead

recovery, and on the general issue of how we approach environmental decisionmaking.

I agree with you, by the way, Mr. Stearns, that there certainly

is a question as to whether Congress can improve or screw things

up worse in terms of trying to take a good idea and make it work.

But there is also the question of whether the Federal laws are already fouled up and we may need to improve them somewhat or

at least correct them in ways that have been suggested.

So on both a specific level and on a general level, I think there

are some ideas that have been generated by this hearing. I hope

that the Federal agencies who were invited to be here and who will

receive the FOIA requests will take off their blinders to the extent

possible and try to find a way forward. I hope for a way forward

that is very consistent with what Mr. Faber has identified as a way

that we can without statutory changes at this point, because we

don’t have the time, maybe de facto, find a way forward in terms

of a collaborative model that will work.

Once again, I thank all of you for your time and effort and your

ideas and your comments.

Mr. Stearns, did you want to say something?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, just a final point. I hope nobody

holds it against you that you agreed with me on something. But

more importantly, the Framework is a process that I think right

now is once again one that is being agency and bureaucrat-driven

and there is a possibility of getting more stakeholders, make it

more stakeholder-driven. I would suggest that immense pressure

from a highly influential Senator would be a good step.

Finally, in the last hearing on this issue Congressman Weldon

suggested that if you wanted the people in the plane crash at the

end, then you better get them on at the take-off. I thought it was

an interesting malapropism in how we should go forward. Thank

you.
53

Senator CRAPO. That’s a good analogy. But we will make this

plane land safely if we can do it.

Thank you all very much for coming.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing on

one of the most complicated and controversial wildlife issues in the Northwest, if

not in the entire country.

It is due to the very complexity of the issues involved that I think this hearing

is so important. Rather than focusing on the issues themselves (there will be plenty

of time for that later), we are going to take a look at the processes being employed

by the federal government, in particular, in setting out a plan for recovering the

many species of salmon in the Northwest.

In reading through the testimony for today’s hearing, it seems that most of the

stakeholders in the Northwest agree on two things (and maybe not a lot else) when

it comes to the salmon.

First, everyone agrees that what we are doing now to protect and recover the

salmon is not working. That cannot continue. By examining all of the possibilities

and leaving no stone unturned, it is our obligation to future generations to make

sure that salmon not only survive, but thrive in the Northwest.

Secondly, everyone seems concerned that the federal caucus of nine agencies and

departments is going off to work out a federal solution behind closed doors.

I read all of the testimony last night from what I believe to be a relatively wellbalanced panel and was surprised at the level of consistency I found across interested parties.

From the Tribal witness: ‘‘Since the federal government is developing its 4-H

paper behind closed doors, it is somewhat difficult for us to comment on the substance of it.’’

From the agri-business witness: ‘‘[The Corps] send[s] conflicting messages and has

failed to coordinate with regional initiatives.’’

American Rivers: (speaking about similar efforts on the Missouri and Mississippi):

‘‘. . .Corp conducted studies and developed management alternatives in isolation

and, after spending years and tens of millions of dollars, mechanically sought our

input through public hearings which provide wonderful theater but little more.’’

While I do not endorse some of the more overblown rhetoric that is sprinkled

throughout some of the testimony, I am concerned that the nine federal agencies

that are participating in this process as members of the ‘‘Federal Caucus’’ are making a key blunder if they are not planning to take advantage of every opportunity

to involve the public in both the process and substance of this undertaking.

I encourage each of the agencies individually and as a group to make their findings available for substantive public comment and peer review, and to make their

final decisions in the open.

Whatever findings result from this process, and I am in no way prejudging any

options or series of options, will be controversial.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR., ACTING CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to

appear before you today to testify about the Federal role in salmon recovery efforts

in the Columbia River Basin, particularly long-term decisions regarding the Federal

Columbia River Power System. I have invited senior representatives from the regional agencies which are providing the lead role in this effort.

I am pleased to be accompanied today by senior agency representatives from the

region who are providing the lead role in this effort: Donna Darm, Assistant Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Witt Anderson,

Fisheries Biologist in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland of rice and by

Steve Wright, Vice President, Corporate of the Bonneville Power Administration.

They are key members of the Administration’s northwest salmon recovery team and

here to respond to your questions.
54

Before delving into the specifics of the Columbia Basin, let me first provide several points of context.

Many salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest and California are in

deep trouble. Several runs are, according to our fishery scientists, at serious risk

of extinction. From Puget Sound to Central California, these runs need our help if

we are to pass this important legacy to our children and to future generations. Extinction is not an option. This Administration, along with the people of the Northwest, is firmly committed to doing what we must to restore our precious salmon

runs.

Salmon are a keystone species which serve as an important indicator of the health

of our streams and river systems overall. Healthy salmon runs require clean,

healthy river and stream systems, which define our Northwest landscape.

Healthy, productive landscapes and a strong economy go hand in hand. The Pacific Northwest, and the nation as a whole, is reaping the benefits of a glowing and

expanding economy that is unprecedented in our time. Jobs, wages, and opportunity

are bounding forward, hand in hand with a growing commitment to protecting our

environment. The people insist upon both, and they are right. We reject the false

choice of protecting either the economy or the environment: we have proven that we

can do both.

The salmon challenge poses special opportunities upon which we should act.

While the Federal Endangered Species Act has served as a call to arms in the salmon effort, the solutions lie greatly in the realm of state and local commitments.

Healthy streams and rivers are the keys to salmon recovery, since it is in those

streams and rivers that the salmon are born and to which they return to continue

their cycle of life. State, tribal and local authorities are instrumental in managing

the many activities which affect clean water and healthy streams. We are therefore

committed to building partnerships with state, tribal and local governments and the

private sector to enlist the full range of capabilities and experience in getting the

job done. Accordingly, that is why this Administration has entered into precedentsetting efforts with California Oregon, Washington and local governments to craft

solutions to the salmon challenge. And that is why this Administration has proposed

a $100 million dollar Pacific Coastal Salmon Fund to assist the states and tribes

in recovery efforts outside the Columbia and Snake Rivers for the coming fiscal

year. We urge your support for this important effort.

You have heard much discussion of the ‘‘Four H’s’’ which have been the principal

human causes of the declines in salmon runs the last half of this century. They are:

habitat, hydropower, hatcheries and harvest. Regarding the issue of harvest, I

would urge you and your colleagues in the strongest possible terms to embrace the

historic agreement we recently brokered with Canada under the auspices of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the leadership of the state and tribal governments. This

agreement, which is dependent upon your support and Federal dollars, is essential

to solving the harvest side of the problem, which in turn is essential to salmon recovery along the coast. Please do not let this opportunity slip by. Help us seize the

moment.

Next, allow me to turn to the matter of the Federal Columbia River Power System

and its role in both the recovery of salmon stocks in the Columbia and Snake system, and the Four H recovery strategy.

The genesis of the so-called ‘‘99 Decision’’ is the requirement under the Endangered Species Act that Federal agencies avoid actions that jeopardize the continued

existence of threatened and endangered species. In 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) consulted with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),

the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation on the impacts

of the Federal Columbia River Power System on three runs of Snake River salmon

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. At that time,

NMFS concluded it needed more information to be able to give its scientific opinion

on whether the Snake River salmon runs could recover under various long-term operations and configurations of the Power System. NMFS said it would revisit that

question in 1999 after it had gathered more information and pursued, with the operating agencies, an aggressive program to improve salmon survivals in the interim

and generate better information about longer-term remedies.

In 1999, the situation is different than it was in 1995. There are now 12 runs

of salmon and steelhead stocks as well as sturgeon, bull trout, and snails in the Columbia River Basin that are listed under the Act. The operation and configuration

of the Federal power system affects all of these runs—some significantly, others less

so. Federal agencies are now examining the impacts of the system not just on Snake

River salmon, but on all listed species. In short, it is no longer simply a question

of the Snake River stocks, it is a multispecies recovery effort.
55

For a number of important reasons, the NMFS and the other Federal agencies be- lieve it is important to view the effects of the Federal dams in the context of all

human activities that affect the fish. First, they will have to judge whether the fish

are likely to survive and recover with the impacts from the Federal dams together

with all other impacts. To make this judgment, they will need to estimate what is

likely to happen to the fish in the other areas of their life cycle; in harvest, hatcheries and habitat. For the fish to survive and recover there must be firm and reliable improvements in their survival across their extraordinary lifecycle. Improvements in survival through the Federal power system are essential. So too are improvements in the productivity of the river and stream systems in which the young

salmon grow and to which the adults return. Substantial reforms in harvest management and improvements in the hatchery practices throughout the Basin are essential.

Second, creating this Four-H context helps remind people that there is no silver bullet that will solve the salmon crisis. The action-by-action consultation approach

of the ESA promotes the tendency of people to believe there is a single solution to

a very complex problem. The Federal hydropower system is a major source of mortality for salmon, and the debate about dam operation and configuration creates an

understandable opportunity for controversy and polarization. By creating a Four-H

context, the Federal agencies aim to remind everyone that it is the entire range of

human activity that got the fish into trouble, and it will take work in that entire

range of human activity to get them out of trouble. Are we prepared to address the issue of harvest? I am heartened to report that

the answer is yes, if we implement the necessary agreements under the Salmon

Treaty now before you. Are we prepared to address the issue of hatcheries? Again,

my reply is yes. Are we developing a long-term plan for reducing predation by Caspian terns in the estuary? Of course. And what about the all-encompassing issue

of healthy streams and tributaries, the crucial link in the salmon lifecycle? Frankly,

the issue is open, and it depends in part on state, local and tribal commitments to

protect and restore that habitat.

We believe a home-grown regional solution is best if it is scientifically sound. We have directed the federal agencies with disparate missions to work together and

with the region to develop a solution to the salmon challenge. The Federal agencies

have been meeting for several months now to do their homework on these issues,

and have been working closely with the states and tribes through the Multispecies

Framework Project to develop alternative solutions to the salmon challenge. These

alternatives include a broad range of strategies, from improving the hydropower system with all dams in place, to removing one or more projects. We support a regional

strategy, and will continue to emphasize that it must be biologically sound to stand

the test of time.

We expect the results of regional analyses of the alternatives to be available in

the fall. It will be especially instructive to have completed the biological analyses

that gives us an indication of whether threatened and endangered fish can be expected to recover under different sets of alternatives. Both the Federal agencies and

the Multispecies Framework Project are coordinating on the scientific analysis. Economic analysis is being conducted both through the Corps’ EIS on Snake River

drawdown and through the Multispecies Framework Project. We also hope to have

information on opportunities to mitigate economic impacts on local communities.

Through this regional coordination on the analytical tools, we can develop a common

understanding of the biological and economic impacts of the choices.

The Federal agencies have committed to share their analyses and their ideas with

the other governments of the Region through the Columbia River Basin Forum, and

we stand by that commitment. Once we have the initial results of the biological and

economic analyses this fall, the region can decide what alternatives it would like to

explore further both in terms of biological effects and economic impacts. No final

Federal decisions relating to the future operation or configuration of the Federal

Power System will be made by Federal agencies until after the issues are raised and

discussed with the other governments through the Forum and other mechanisms.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that all of us allow the region to work

through these issues. From an Administration perspective, that is our approach and

preference. This fall the Framework will lay the options in front of the Region, and

no doubt lively debate will ensue. The Administration will pay close attention to

that debate, and will ensure that the Regional agencies are fully engaged. But we

will not prejudge the outcome, nor try to steer it in a particular direction.

This Administration is proud of its record of protecting the environment and promoting a strong economy in the Pacific Northwest. We bring the same principles to

this very complex issue and are committed to finding outcomes that strengthen the

fabric of this region.
56

In closing, let me reiterate my strong request for your support for the Salmon Treaty agreement, for the Pacific Salmon Fund, and for regional decision making.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important matters with you today.

My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions you might have.

RESPONSES OF GEORGE FRAMPTON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAPO

Question 1. Uncertainty with respect to future measures for salmon recovery makes economic investment decisions in the region more difficult. What period of

time will the 4-H paper cover?

Response. The 4-H paper will cover hydropower system actions, tributary habitat

and hatchery approaches, and harvest programs for the next 20-25 years.

Question 2. You didn’t mention ocean conditions in your testimony. Isn’t it true

that scientists are increasing focusing on the impact of ocean conditions on the

health and survival of salmon? As I understand, NMFS’ own scientists, as well as

many others, recognize oceans as part of the problem. Will oceans be analyzed or

considered as part of the ‘‘H for Habitat’’ of the 4-H process?

Response. We will take into account the role of future ocean conditions on the future biological performance of the fish, considering a range from continuing poor

conditions to a return to good conditions. It is important to recognize the overall role

of ocean conditions in influencing salmon survival. While ocean conditions can have

a serious effect on salmon survival—good or bad—they are but one of a multitude

of variables which, taken as a whole, bear on salmon recovery.

Question 3. Federal decisions of the magnitude being discussed for the Lower

Snake require a record to be developed and a National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) strategy in order to withstand court challenge. It appears that the COE’

EIS is focused only on the questions of the Lower Snake Dams. Is an EIS being prepared which covers all 4-H’s, and if not, will the Federal agencies only have a limited array of choices (i.e., dam breaching or not) to choose from in a manner which

is sustainable in court?

Response. Yes, the COE EIS is limited to the Lower Snake projects. The Interior

Columbia Basis Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) focuses only on Bureau

of Land Management and Forest Service administration Federal of land within the

Basin. (The ICBEMP is a comprehensive, land management strategy designed to not

only address anadromous fish, but also the forest and rangeland health and socioeconomic issues facing the interior basin.) The Administration expects the NWPPC

and the NMFS to recommend mitigation and recovery actions that are beyond the

scope of these documents. Many of those recommendations will undoubtedly fall to

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for funding. Actions that are not covered by

the COE or ICBEMP EIS’s, or other existing EIS’s, will need additional NEPA review—i.e. a new EIS.

Given BPA’s role in implementation, BPA is initiating a Regional Fish and Wildlife Policy EIS. This EIS will cover a broad range of alternatives that embrace the

alternatives generated in the Framework and the 4-H paper. The new Policy EIS

will show decisionmakers the relative merits of the options available for mitigating

and recovering fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.

Question 4. The focus of the Federal Caucus discussions has always appeared to

be on salmon and steelhead. Yet there are many resident fish that are affected by

upper basin reserves operations, including the Kootenai sturgeon in north Idaho.

Will the 4-H paper integrate the impact on nonanadromous species? If so, where is

the data being gathered to provide the environmental evaluation and how will the

people in the affected areas be given a chance to provide their views?

Response. As you indicated in your question, upper basin reservoir operations impact resident fish and other aquatic species such as the Snake River listed snails.

The 4-H paper will address the biological requirements of resident fish and other

aquatic species affected by the hydrosystem by establishing goals, objectives, and

strategies to ensure their long-term persistence and by integrating actions into the

alternatives packages that specifically address the needs of resident fish and other

aquatic species. Members of the Federal Caucus have been participating in meetings

of the multi-species Framework Hydro Group to ensure that alternatives are crafted

that include hydro actions that benefit resident fish and other aquatic species, as

well as salmon and steelhead.

Data on the needs of resident fish and other aquatic species for the environmental

evaluation are being gathered through the Framework and the Federal Caucus.

Under the Federal Caucus field biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) and other Federal agencies are collecting the data on resident fish and
57

other aquatic species for the environmental evaluation. In most cases this is information that has been generated through studies conducted by state fish and wildlife

agencies and Indian Tribes. For example, USFWS is relying heavily on flow studies

by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to define the needs of bull

trout in the Kootenai River below Libby Dam. The draft 4-H paper will be provided

for public review in the fall of 1999, and we intend to hold meetings in Idaho and

Montana to discuss the contents and to provide opportunities for comment.

Question 5. The alternatives in the current COE’ EIS would suggest that the only

choices are to breach the four Lower Snake dams, increase transportation, or retain

the status quo. If the Administration proposes dam breaching, it seems clear that

the obvious questions will be what could be accomplished by changing practices in

hydro, harvest, hatcheries, but short of dam breaching. It would be unfortunate if

the response was that we do not have adequate information in the other 3-H’s to

make this decision. We hope that as a result of this hearing, we will not be confronted with this problem a year from now.

Response. The Federal agencies are examining the same range of alternatives as

the NWPPC Framework process. These include a total of seven alternatives, including four nonbreaching alternatives. We have recommended to the Framework that

its range include an alternative that has a very aggressive program in all H’s, short

of breaching. The purpose of the 4-H paper is to consolidate known data in all four

‘‘H’s’’ to produce life-cycle recovery options that constitute the most complete picture

we have been able to produce to date. Of course, salmon science is incomplete across

a range of factors. There is much about salmon we simply do not know. That is why

monitoring and evaluation, and basic biological research, are such an important part

of our ongoing efforts. The more we study the species down to the sub-basin level,

the greater confidence we will have in developing effective recovery measures.

Question 6. Will there be an independent science review of the alternatives developed by the Federal Caucus?

Response. Yes, there will be independent scientific review of our scientific analysis

of alternatives, as well as of our final recommendations, in accordance with standard National Academy of Sciences guidelines.

Question 7. Are you developing a nonbreaching alternative? If so, how far along

is it?

Response. Yes. As mentioned above, the Federal agencies are examining the same

range of alternatives as the Framework. These include nonbreaching alternatives.

We have recommended to the Framework that the range include an alternative that

has a very aggressive program in all H’s, short of breaching. The Federal 4-H analysis, which is designed to analyze recovery alternatives encompassing the entire

salmon life cycle, should be available in preliminary form by early Fall 1999. We

will provide this information to the Framework, the NWPPC, and the Northwest

Governors’ Columbia River Basin Forum and the public.

Question 8. The memo announcing the formation of the Federal Caucus indicated

work products would be completed by this time. Are these products done, and if not,

what is the current schedule?

Response. The draft Federal Caucus products planned for May and June of this

year will be available in the fall of 1999. After the memo you reference was issued,

the Federal Caucus initiated much closer coordination with the Framework products

and schedules. Since the draft Framework analysis and alternatives were due in the

fall, the Federal Caucus revised its schedule so that the products from the Federal

Caucus would be able to consider and incorporate the Framework alternatives.

Question 9. When will the COE’ EIS and draft BA and draft 4-H Paper be released for public review?

Response. The drafts of the COE’ EIS, the BA, and the 4-H paper are all scheduled for release in fall of 1999.

Question 10. What is the relationship of Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan to the 4-H Paper?

Response. ICBEMP is a long-term, comprehensive strategy for managing Bureau

of Land Management and Forest Service administered lands in the Interior Columbia River Basin; addressing broad-scale issues such as forest and rangeland health,

socio-economics, and anadromous fish. The public lands included in the Project area

provide critical habitat for salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and make up the federal habitat portion of the 4-H’s. The National

Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency have been full partners in the development of the ICBEMP strategy,

and integral to the development of the Project’s aquatic health measures, especially

as they relate to ESA listed salmon and steelhead. The 4-H paper will incorporate
58

the aquatic results of ICBEMP which apply to salmon and steelhead habitat on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service-administered lands.

Question 11. What is the relationship of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the U.S.

v Oregon harvest management plans related to the 4-H Paper?

Response. At a minimum, the 4-H paper will incorporate harvest improvements

derived from the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and any such improvement negotiated within the U.S. v. Oregon structure. In addition, both the Framework process and the

4-H paper may provide opportunity to analyze impacts of different harvest and

hatchery strategies in combination with different habitat and hydro strategies,

which in turn may provide standards or goals for Treaty negotiators to work toward.

Question 12. What processes will the Federal government use to consider hatchery

practices in the region?

Response. Each hatchery within the critical habitat of a listed species will pass

through the ESA consultation or permitting processes under section 7 and section

10, respectively. Hatchery analyses and strategies are being developed jointly and

on a coordinated basis within the NWPPC’s Framework and Artificial Propagation

Review processes, the Federal 4-H Paper, and the U.S. v. Oregon process. On a policy level, NMFS’ goal is to ensure the debate in each of these forums is coordinated,

resulting in a set of hatchery reforms that can pass through an ESA screen while

addressing other legal mandates on a consistent and complimentary basis.

Question 13. Can you guarantee that if the four Lower Snake dams were breached

that no water would be taken anywhere else in Idaho?

Response. No. Studies show that the primary benefits of breaching four Lower

Snake River dams would be improved spawning habitat and decreased travel time

from spawning areas to the estuaries. Regardless of breaching, water temperatures,

water quality, and quantity of flows to facilitate travel time and keep spawning

areas watered still pose real issues for salmon recovery. Therefore, it is not reasonable at this time to rule out the possibility that in some years flow augmentation

from Dworshak and the Upper Snake might continue to be important.

RESPONSES OF GEORGE FRAMPTON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR REID

Question 1. Federal Agencies and the Administration are working hard to make

long-term salmon decisions by early 2000. The Committee is concerned that in your

haste to assemble the scientific information you need to make the decisions, you are

neglecting to study the means of minimizing the negative human impacts of these

decisions. Will you describe the work underway to address these concerns? And, will

you commit to crafting mitigation and transition proposals to minimize these impacts in a timely manner so that they can be considered by the region during the

decisionmaking process? How do you propose to do this?

Response. The Federal agencies and other regional entities involved in salmon recovery efforts are very concerned with potential impacts of their decisions on the

people of the region. The Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility

Study is examining three main alternatives for configuration and operation of the

four lower Snake River dams for improved salmon passage. A Drawdown Regional

Economic Workgroup (DREW) of economists, social scientists and other professionals have been tasked to analyze and describe social and economic effects associated with alternative recovery measures. The potential for negative human impacts

is being evaluated in the study, both on a national and on a local level. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has done some broad analysis of possible compensation/mitigation actions that could be taken in the event of dam breaching for parties

negatively affected by dam removal. If the preferred alternative identified in the

draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes dam breaching, a more defined plan for compensation would be included in the final EIS.

In addition, the regional Multi-Species Framework Project (Framework) is currently initiating a mitigation and transition study to describe alternative paths and

tools that lead to long-term economic adjustment. It would focus on mitigation programs to facilitate transition to economic and social recovery under the seven

Framework alternatives. This information will be available in the fall to help the

region understand the range of mitigation response tools that may be available.

Question 2. Please describe the relationship between the Federal Caucus and the

Northwest Power Planning Council’s (NWPPC) Multi-Species Framework. Will the

alternatives that the Framework is crafting be officially incorporated into the range

of alternatives that the Administration (be that National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) or COE) considers when choosing a preferred management alternative?
59

Response. The attached letter, dated June 22, 1999, from the Federal Caucus and

the Framework describes how the various processes and products will be coordinated in the salmon decision. The Framework is developing the fundamental options

and outcomes that will be needed to make informed management decisions. The

Federal Caucus will work with the Framework so that the alternatives that the

Framework develops and analyzes can be incorporated into the 4-H paper the Federal Caucus is preparing. The Framework and Federal Caucus are working on the

development of alternative hydropower system actions and alternative tributary

habitat and hatchery approaches that both processes can use.

Question 3. The public has a need to be informed and involved in salmon decision.

Please assure the Committee that the COE and the other Federal agencies will create a single public involvement process that encompasses the various Federal forums.

Response. The Federal agencies initiated the Federal Caucus to ensure coordination of issues and processes among the COE Snake River EIS, the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), and the 1999 decision for salmon

recovery. We have successfully negotiated with each other to have all of these draft

products available in October for public dialogue. We are actively exploring coordination of public involvement meetings for the combination of these issues, including

meetings throughout the region, in the October through January timeframe. We are

also in discussion with the Forum and Council to see if further coordination of public involvement is possible.

RESPONSES OF GEORGE FRAMPTON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

BAUCUS

Question 1. Please explain the role of the stakeholder groups in the COE’ DREW

process. Is the COE currently utilizing the stakeholder workgroups—especially the

recreation workgroup—to review and comment on the studies prior to the release

of preliminary and draft documents?

Response. Early in the study process, DREW invited participation by all interested parties. Representatives from industry associations, irrigators, other water

users, Columbia River tribes and representative tribal associations, environmental

groups, regional Federal and State agencies and others responded and have participated in the study. The participants helped develop the methodology and shape the

analysis, provide input and ‘‘reality checks,’’ and review and provide comment on

preliminary and draft reports. They have identified shortcomings in the analysis

and provided feedback on whether the results were reasonable. The products prepared by DREW are being incorporated into the final EIS.

Question 2. There is uncertainty about how the various Federal and non-Federal

salmon forums and processes merge together and contribute to making decisions regarding the long-term recovery plan for salmon. Will you please provide the committee with a ‘‘roadmap’’—with time lines—that explains the expected ‘‘output’’ of each

process, how these processes relate to each other and how these products and processes will be integrated to produce a single decision?

Response. The attached letter from the Framework and the Federal Caucus, dated

June 22, 1999, describes the various processes to develop a long-term recovery plan

for salmon, the products of these processes, and how the processes relate to one another. Also attached is a draft timeline that gives a roadmap for how they will be

produced. Following public comment on drafts of these products, they will be finalized in the winter of 1999. The NMFS will use the analysis, findings, and decisions

reflected in these products to issue its final Biological Opinion on hydropower in the

spring of 2000.

STATEMENT OF DONALD SAMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA RIVER INTERTRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the ‘‘4-H’’ paper being developed by the federal agencies with management authority over Columbia River

basin salmon listed pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.

Since the federal government is developing its ‘‘4-H’’ paper behind closed doors,

it is somewhat difficult for us to comment on the substance of it. However, it is our

understanding that the ‘‘4-H’’ paper is intended to provide a ‘‘context’’ or ‘‘backdrop’’

for the federal government’s decision regarding the future of the Federal Columbia

River Power System.
60

It is well recognized that the hydrosystem causes significant impacts on salmon. In fact, the incidental take permit that NMFS has granted the hydrosystem operators allows the hydrosystem to take 24% to 86% of the juvenile Snake River spring/

summer chinook and 21% of the adult spring/summer chinook. Similarly, the

hydrosystem is allowed to take 62% to 100% of the juvenile Snake River fall chinook

and 39% of the adult fall chinook. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s biological

opinion on the hydro-system states that the existing operation of the hydrosystem

does jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River salmon. This ‘‘state of jeopardy’’ is allowed on a temporary basis so that the federal government could gather

the information it needs to make an informed decision regarding the proper configuration of the hydrosystem. Under the biological opinion, this information gathering

and analysis process will culminate in a final decision in late 1999. NMFS’ biological opinion recognizes that it is important to quantify the level of mortality imposed by the hydrosystem. This information ‘‘will help answer whether

sufficient survival improvements can be achieved in the hydropower system to contribute to the recovery of the listed stocks, or whether large survival improvements

must be achieved in other sectors.’’

The Commission and its member tribes have long recognized that one cannot as- sess or manage the various mortality sectors, the ‘‘4-H’s,’’ in isolation. Hence, the

Commission’s member tribes have long advocated for ‘‘gravel-to-gravel’’ management. This requires addressing the entire lifecycle of the salmon. To ensure that a

species will rebuild all sources of mortality must be addressed. In order to control

the various sources of salmon mortality and manage them to achieve rebuilding, it

is necessary to develop goals and objectives for the affected salmon stocks that are

consistent with law and based on sound biology. When assembled into a comprehensive package, the measures adopted to achieve these goals and objectives must add

up to rebuilt salmon runs.

Over four years ago, the Commission and its member tribes published a salmon restoration plan entitled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the Salmon).

This plan encompasses the ‘‘4-H’s’’ and includes quantitative goals and objectives.

It uses the best available science and provides for monitoring, evaluation, and

adaptive management. This is still the only plan for Columbia River basin salmon

recovery that quantitatively assesses the measures recommended against the adopted goals and objectives and addresses all 4 ‘‘H’s’’ of salmon management in a manner consistent with applicable laws.

The federal government is the biggest dam operator, land owner, and hatchery manager in the Columbia River basin. It also has significant harvest management

authorities. The federal government can and must set the tone for salmon rebuilding. The federal government cannot meet its legal obligations simply by complying

with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is only one of the laws that governs federal actions affecting fish. Other critically important laws governing federal action

include the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Pacific

Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and treaties

with Indian tribes. Most of these laws contemplate salmon population and harvest

levels considerably higher than the ‘‘survival’’ and/or ‘‘recovery’’ levels that NMFS

believes meet the requirements of the ESA. The federal government is legally obligated to use all of its authorities to ensure that Columbia basin salmon runs are

rebuilt to support salmon harvest both within the Columbia River and in the ocean.

For decades, the primary approach to conserving Columbia basin salmon has been

to constrain harvest. This has not been effective. For example, hardly any spring

or summer chinook are harvested in fisheries above Bonneville Dam. In fact, the

tribes have not had a commercial fishery on spring chinook since 1977 or on summer chinook since 1964. Despite these severe restrictions, these runs have continued

to decline to the point where Snake River spring/summer chinook are now endangered. Clearly, to prevent the extinction of Snake River spring/summer chinook, it

is essential to develop a plan that addresses all 4 ‘‘H’s.’’ Yet, given the federal government’s current restrictive policies on the use of artificial propagation, rebuilding

of spring/summer chinook will have to be implemented solely by making significant

changes in the hydrosystem and habitat management policies.

It has been frustrating for the tribes to watch the great salmon debate proceed

with no real links to legal obligations and sound biological objectives. Instead, the

focus is more on whether dam breaching is on the table or off the table or whether

the Bonneville Power Administration will manage its finances so that salmon, taxpayers, and ratepayers are all given a fair shake. While these are important issues,

one cannot reach a reasonable judgment about them unless they are placed in the

context of legal obligations and sound biological objectives. Neither the tribes nor

probably anyone else would suggest breaching any dams unless it is necessary to
61

meet legal obligations and sound biological objectives. A reasonable ‘‘4-H’’ analysis

should delineate all legal obligations and biological objectives so that one can clearly

see what actions are needed.

A reasonable ‘‘4-H’’ analysis must be firmly grounded in the best available science.

The policy of deference to agency expertise does not always foster the use of the best

available science nor does it foster acceptance and support by affected interests. The

federal government and its scientists have been making the decisions about what

salmon protection measures are implemented in the hydrosystem, in hatcheries, and

on federal lands. While non-federal entities can provide comments or make recommendations, the final decisions have continued to rest with federal scientists and

policy-makers. We see the fruits of their ‘‘expertise’’ in the empty waters and degraded streams in the basin.

Any ‘‘4-H’’ analysis developed by the federal government must be subject to thorough review by independent scientists. For example, the PATH process is a scientifically rigorous and independent process for reaching scientific conclusions. In contrast, NMFS scientists at the Coastal Zone and Estuarine Services in Seattle have

too often rushed to broadcast their results before undergoing any external peer review process. We are very concerned that the federal government will develop its

‘‘4-H’’ paper without reasonable and necessary scientific peer review. We are not

talking some sort of public comment process. The federal government has ignored

our comments, to the detriment of salmon and the region, too many times. We suggest that, to the greatest extent possible, the federal government employ existing,

thorough-going peer review processes such as the PATH or ISAB as a means of developing and reviewing scientific judgments.

In closing, we believe that in order to meet its obligations to protect and rebuild

salmon, the federal government must conduct an analysis of what must be done in

each of the 4 ‘‘H’s’’ in order to meet reasonable goals and objectives. These goals

and objectives must be based on the biological needs of salmon and the federal government’s legal obligations. These legal obligations include not only the ESA, but

also the Clean Water Act and treaties with Indian tribes. In evaluating the efficacy

of various actions for each of the 4 ‘‘H’s,’’ the federal government must be guided

by the best available science. In addition, the federal government must submit its

scientific determinations to rigorous independent review.

WY-KAN-USH-MI WA-KISH-WIT

SPIRIT OF THE SALMON

THE COLUMBIA RIVER ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PLAN OF THE NEZ PERCE,

UMATILLA, WARM SPRINGS, AND YAKAMA TRIBES

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to all life on this earth, before our time and long after we

are gone.

We did not inherit this earth or its natural resources from our ancestors, we are

only borrowing them from our children’s children; therefore, we are duty bound and

obligated to protect them and use them wisely until such time that they get here,

and then they will have the same obligations.

——EUGENE GREENE, SR., Chairman Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

PREFACE

The salmon’s spirit—Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit—is sacred life. The salmon

was provided a perfect world in which to enjoy its existence. For thousands of years,

the salmon unselfishly gave of itself for the physical and spiritual sustenance of humans. The salmon’s spirit has not changed; the human spirit has.

Today the perfect world of the salmon is in total disarray. Even its very existence

and worth are being debated. Human arrogance has brought the salmon to the

brink of extinction.

Rather than a dignified cultural icon, the salmon is being redefined as a problem,

as something that makes unacceptable the human laws designed to protect the environment. In spite of the state of crisis, crude science and perilous politics have reduced the salmon and its habitat to a struggling species living in a polluted and

life-threatening home.
62

The four Columbia River treaty tribes, who are keepers of ancient truths and laws of nature, employ the depths of their hearts and the expanse of their minds to save

the salmon.

Respect and reverence for this perfect creation are the foundation for this plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Indians of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, recognize that our fisheries are a basic and important natural resource and of vital concern to the

Indians of these states and that the conservation of this resource is dependent upon

effective arid progressive management. And it is further recognized that Federal

court decisions have specifically established that the tribes have treaty rights to an

equitable share of the Columbia Basin fishery resource. We further believe that by

unity of action we can best accomplish these things, not only for the benefit of our

own people but for all the people of the Pacific Northwest.

——Preamble to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission

The Columbia River Watershed is world renowned for its salmon populations. Historical estimates of average annual salmon runs exceeded 5–11 million fish in the

portion of the watershed now above Bonneville Dam. When Lewis and Clark

reached the Columbia River, they were amazed by the abundance of the salmon. Yet

today, fewer than 500,000 fish return above Bonneville and approximately 80 percent of these are produced in hatcheries. Some stocks have already been lost, three

have been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, and the majority of the remaining stocks are declining.

These reduced runs of salmon are surely cause enough for alarm, yet the issue comprises far more than salmon. Tribal culture, the identity of all the people, and many

of the species that constitute the Pacific Northwest—essentially the integrity of the

entire Columbia River Watershed—are at stake.

If salmon are to survive in the Columbia River Watershed, we must face the challenges before us with our goals clearly in mind, in heart, and in spirit. We must

now begin to respect, to reestablish, and to restore the balances that once enabled

this watershed to perform so magnificently. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit: The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration

Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakarna Tribes provides a

framework to restore the Columbia River salmon, simply stated: put the fish back

into the rivers. Yet making this happen has become increasingly difficult because

of the decades of poorly guided and deeply entrenched fish management policies.

More than science and its limits, the problems have almost always involved people

and their institutions— whether government, business or otherwise. Much of what is recommended to benefit salmon is what has been needed and

known for a long time. More than 50 years ago, Federal biologists warned that the

consequences of continued habitat degradation and additional hydroelectric development would be devastating to salmon populations. They were joined by tribal leaders and through the years, by government commissions and citizen groups. However, until the enactment of the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Con- servation Act of 1980 and its fish and wildlife program, there was no comprehensive

salmon restoration program. for the Columbia Basin. Had the Northwest Power

Planning Council’s salmon plan been implemented, the people of the Northwest

would not be today facing a salmon crisis. It was known that the passage conditions in the mainstem Columbia River were inhospitable to salmon. Yet changes in river operation were minute, especially given

the prevailing drought conditions. It was also known that many salmon runs and

stocks had declined to such an extent that their best hope was the application of

artificial propagation strategies. But hatcheries were eschewed without regard to

the best available science. Instead some of the stocks that might have been helped

by enactment of the fish program measures became listed under the Endangered

Species Act. And it was known that many environmental laws have been ignored,

exacerbating the crisis in the Columbia River Watershed.

Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit is the culmination of the leadership and wisdom of

the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama fish and wildlife committees

and the technical work of reservation fisheries and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission staffs. This tribal salmon restoration plan outlines the cultural,

biological, legal, institutional and economic context within which the region’s salmon

restoration efforts are taking place. This long-term plan addresses virtually all

causes of salmon decline and roadblocks to salmon restoration for all anadromous

fish stocks: chinook, coho, sockeye, steelhead, chum, eels (Pacific lamprey) and sturgeon, above Bonneville Dam. This area, encompassing about three quarters of the
63

Columbia River Basin, is where most of the tribes’ treaty-reserved fishing places

and fish resources are located.

The Columbia River treaty tribes take a holistic ‘‘gravel-to-gravel’’ approach to the

management of the salmon, which differs from approaches of many other groups in

a variety of respects. This approach focuses on the tributary, mainstem, estuary,

and ocean ecosystems and habitats where anadromous fish live. This focus on passage, habitat, harvest and production requires substantial changes in current practices and specific actions to recover from historical destructive impacts.

Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit integrates this gravel-to-gravel approach into an

adaptive management framework. The tribes agree with others who advocate an

adaptive approach that requires action even in the face of uncertainty. According

to adaptive management principles, that action must be carefully monitored and

evaluated so that natural resource managers learn and change their actions on the

basis of what they have learned. Using an adaptive framework, this plan identifies

the survival changes in current water, land and fish management needed to produce

the necessary survival rates. The actions endorsed in this plan are designed to

measure whether or not survival levels are being achieved. Should the recommended measures not attain sufficient rates of survival, the plan calls for modifications and additional actions.

This plan goes far beyond those plans currently offered by other sovereign governments—the Federal plan for endangered Snake River salmon by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington fish and

wildlife mitigation plan by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). The plan

not only makes recommendations, but more importantly begins to provide a context

for decisionmaking: scientific and legal justifications, directions for implementation,

and analyses of expected outcomes are provided.

Unlike other plans, this plan establishes a foundation for He United States and

its citizens to honor their treaty and trust obligations to the four tribes. If implemented, it would at least begin to meet ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial

needs of tribal members and to return fish to many of the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing places, as guaranteed in the 1855 treaties. If these obligations were

met, the non-Indian public would be a beneficiary, enjoying its legal allotment of

harvestable salmon and sharing a healthier, more natural river system.

What often sets policy development apart from other decisionmaking is the tribal

conviction that not all societal decisions can be properly weighed in terms of costs

and economics. The costs of restoration must be at least equated with the value of

restoration. That value includes the spirit of the salmon (Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi ?Wa-KishWit). Tribal peoples can feel the yearning of salmon to serve its life purpose. There

is no model that can factor in spirituality nor the ultimate value of living creatures.

The tribes would hope that those who read, study and use this plan, consider it

a work-in-progress and invite readers to join in refining it. The tribes believe that

the plan’s approach can help give direction to a region whose salmon recovery is

floundering without real political vision and genuine scientific guidance.

If the reader can reconcile the truths of the past with the dreams for tomorrow,

then today’s work can be found. This plan calls on the collective human spirit to

bring cultured and hereditary strengths to bear upon the need for salmon restoration.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF TRIBAL FISH RESTORATION

PUT THE FISH BACK INTO THE RIVERS!

GOALS

Restore anadromous fishes to the rivers and streams that support the historical

cultural and economic practices of the tribes. (These are generally areas above Bonneville Dam.)

Emphasize strategies that rely on natural production and healthy river systems

to achieve this goal.

Protect tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.

Reclaim the anadromous fish resource and the environment on which it depends

for future generations.

OBJECTIVES

Within 7 years, halt the declining trends in salmon, sturgeon, and lamprey populations originating upstream of Bonneville Dam.
64

Within 25 years, increase the total adult salmon returns of stocks originating above Bonneville Dam to 4 million annually and in a manner that sustains natural

production to support tribal commercial as well as ceremonial and subsistence harvests.

Within 25 years, increase sturgeon and lamprey populations to naturally sustain- able levels that also support tribal harvest opportunities.

Restore anadromous fishes to historical abundance in perpetuity.

Specific Contents of the Plan

If the actions outlined in the plan are taken, the four tribes believe the salmon

decline can be halted within 7 years and salmon populations rebuilt to annual run

sizes of four million above Bonneville Dam within 25 years. Interim adult return

goals for each subbasin and species are listed in Table 1.1 and in Volume II of this

plan. Allowing for additional escapement needs and anticipated passage losses,

about two million salmon will be available for harvest in mainstem fisheries.

Longer-term goals will depend in part on the success of the proposed actions. Habitat-based methods indicate the possibility of achieving larger adult returns over the

long term. Goals in this plan will be reviewed periodically as part of the adaptive

management process. To accomplish these objectives, the first volume of the plan sets out 10 proposals for institutional change, along with 13 scientific hypotheses and the recommended

actions associated with each. The second volume contains subbasin-by-subbasin return goals and the restoration actions that must be undertaken to achieve them.

Tribal Culture and History

To understand the approach the four Columbia River tribes have taken to anadromous fish restoration, key aspects of tribal culture and history are described, including the importance of salmon, tribal governmental structures and the traditional tribal management philosophies that continue to guide the tribes as they

have since ancient times.

Biological Perspective

Outlined in this section are the survival requirements for salmon and measures

to improve survival of Pacific lamprey and white sturgeon. While their requirements, such as cool, clean water and complex stream systems, remain virtually the

same as they have for hundreds of years, the conditions under which these anadromous fish must now live have been dramatically altered in a relatively short time.

These changes and their consequences are summarized here and are the bases for

many of the recommendations presented in this plan. The tribes have set survival

standards by life history stage required to meet restoration goals for spring and fall

chinook (Table 1.2).

Legal and Institutional Context

The tribes in the Northwest have a unique place in the legal and regulatory

scheme of natural resource management. To provide some understanding of why

this is so, tribal sovereignty, treaty-reserved rights, trust responsibility and other

legal matters pertaining to the governmental status of the tribes are explained. This

section also describes the institutional structures already in place which recognize

the tribes as resource co-managers and that can serve as the framework for accomplishing most restoration actions. An analysis of the successes and failures of these

institutions and of numerous legislative initiatives is offered.

Table 1.1. Interim adult return goal to each subbasin within the next 25 years.

Most goals represent a combination of spawning needs plus tributary harvest opportunities; exceptions are footnoted.

Subbasin

Chinook Coho SockeyeSteelhead Total Spring Summer Fall Summer Winter

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM (Bonneville Dam –> McNary Dam)

Wind River1 ............................... 5,000 .............. .............. 200 .............. 2,000 200 7,400

Little White River1 ..................... 2,000 .............. 200 200 .............. .............. .............. 2,400

Big White River1 ....................... 500 .............. 100 100 .............. 4,800 800 6,300

Klickitat River2 .......................... 20,000 .............. 40,000 50,000 .............. 25,000 .............. 135,000

Hood River2 ............................... 1,700 .............. .............. .............. .............. 8,000 5,000 14,700

Deschutes River2 ....................... 10,250 .............. 11,000 .............. 5,000 19,000 .............. 45,250

Fifteen Mile Creek3 ................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 300 300
65

Subbasin

Chinook

Coho Sockeye

Steelhead

Total

Spring Summer Fall Summer Winter

John Day River2 ......................... 7,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. 45,000 .............. 52,000

MID-COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM (McNary Dam –> Chief Joseph Dam)

Umatilla River2 ......................... 11,000 .............. 21,000 6,000 .............. 9,670 .............. 47,670

Hanford Reach3 ......................... .............. .............. 40,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. 40,000

Walla Walla River2 .................... 5,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. 11,000 .............. 16,000

Yakima River2 ........................... 26,300 12,000 4,700 5,000 .............. 29,700 .............. 77,700

Wenatchee River2 ...................... 21,000 10,000 .............. .............. 35,000 6,410 .............. 72,410

Entiat River1 ............................. 750 .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,000 .............. 3,750

Methow River1 ........................... 2,000 3,000 .............. .............. .............. 10,000 .............. 15,000

Okanogan River1 ....................... 1,000 2,000 .............. .............. 15,000 10,000 .............. 28,000

LOWER-SNAKE RIVER MAINSTEM (Ice Harbor Dam –> Hells Canyon Dam)

Snake River2 ............................. .............. .............. 18,300 .............. .............. .............. .............. 18,300

Tucannon River2 ........................ 3,000 2,000 .............. .............. .............. 2,200 .............. 7,200

Clearwater River2 60,000 50,000 50,000 14,000 .............. 93,100 .............. 267,100

Grande Ronde River2 ................ 16,000 .............. 10,000 3,500 2,500 27,500 .............. 59,500

Salmon River2 ........................... 128,000 60,200 5,000 20,000 44,500 192,900 .............. 450,600

Imnaha River1 ........................... 5,740 .............. 3,000 .............. .............. 4,315 .............. 13,055

TOTAL ............................... 326,240 140,200 202,300 99,000 102,000 503,595 6,300 1,379,635

1 Harvest goal only 2 Harvest and spawning goal 3 Spawning goal only

Table 1.2. Survival rates of Snake River spring and fall chinook under NMFS and

Tribal restoration plans. From Table 5C.2.

LIFE HISTORY STAGE OR MORTALITY SOURCE

SPRING CHINOOK FALL CHINOOK

NMFS 1995 Plan

Tribal 25-yr

Strategy

Option 3

NMFS 1995 Plan

Tribal 25-yr

Strategy

Option 3

Egg –> Smolt ................................................................................. .045 .10 .50 .50

Juvenile Passage ............................................................................. .24 .71 .19 .36

Early Ocean ..................................................................................... .16 .16 .20 .20

Ocean Natural ................................................................................. .50 .50 .50 .50

Ocean Harvest ................................................................................. 1.00 1.00 .79 .85

In-river Harvest ............................................................................... .90 .61 .85 .28

Adult Passage ................................................................................. .70 .91 .55 .83

Pre-spawning .................................................................................. .85 .85 1.00 1.00

Lifetime Total (x10¥3) ................................................. .46 2.69 3.51 3.56

Spawner/Spawner Ratio .............................. 1.16 6.74 6.04 6.13

Tribal Recommendations

The tribal plan generally offers three types of actions within the recommendations

section: institutional, technical, and watershed- or subbasin-specific. Recommendation descriptions and highlights follow.

Institutional

The tribal salmon restoration plan urges that existing institutional frameworks be

used to manage and achieve anadromous fish restoration. The framework provided

by the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, Pacific Salmon Treaty, Northwest

Power Planning Act, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides the

structure for the sovereign governments of the Northwest to plan, coordinate and

direct major restoration actions. The tribes contend that the failure of these existing

mechanisms is a failure to act by responsible parties. The success of these existing

institutional frameworks requires true co-management by the tribes instead of unilateral decisions by the state and Federal Governments.
66

1Short term: Draw down John Day to minimum operating pool and Lower Granite to 705′

mean sea level; Long term:

Option 1: John Day and Lower Granite to natural river level:

Option 2: John Day to spillway crest: Ice Harbor and Lower Monumental to natural level:

Option 3: John Day and four lower Snake dams to natural river level.

The institutional recommendations propose, for the most part, modest changes to

the procedures adopted under the authority of U.?. v. Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act to improve harvest and production management and to coordinate policies and resolve disputes, particularly for

hydro operations, public lands management and research. The recommendations attempt to join accountability with responsibility for fish restoration by shifting the

funding prioritization process to the tribes and agencies and transferring certain

federally funded hatcheries to the tribes. The recommendations seek to limit policy

barriers to the use of artificial propagation as a tool for restoration. The institutional changes also address private land management by recommending support for

watershed initiatives and for enforcement of environmental laws.

Institutional Recommendations

1. Rather than create a new Federal bureaucracy, use the Columbia River Fish

Management Plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, and orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as a basis for management.

2. Plan and implement production called for in the Columbia River Fish Management Plan.

3. For public lands and water project management, implement a dispute resolution process similar to Columbia River Fish Management Plan and Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission processes.

4. Establish a new state and tribal fish and wildlife entity using Bonneville Power

Administration funding.

5. Support ongoing and implement new subbasin planning through a Columbia

Basin watershed trust program.

6. Base Endangered Species Act listing on the status of species throughout a significant portion of its spawning and rearing range. In the absence of scientific proof,

the National Marine Fisheries Service should withdraw its Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) interim policy as a basis for Endangered Species Act listings.

7. Transfer federally funded hatcheries located on reservations and at other

upriver sites to tribal control.

8. State, tribal and Federal fish agencies coordinate and set priorities for research,

monitoring and evaluation programs.

9. Continue development of and make research and monitoring data available

through a coordinated information system.

10. Update provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia River Fish

Management Plan based on the latest survival rate and catch level information.

11. Continue coordinated harvest law enforce 12 meet; develop habitat protection

law enforcement.

Technical Recommendations

1. Begin improving in-channel stream conditions for anadromous fish by improving or eliminating land-use practices that de Technical grade watershed quality.

2. Protect and increase instream flows by limiting additional consumptive water

withdrawals, using the most efficient irrigation methods, preventing soil compaction

and riparian vegetation removal and wetland destruction; where necessary. restore

soil, restore riparian vegetation and re-create wetlands.

3. Actively restore watersheds where salmon populations are in imminent danger

of extirpation. Use ‘‘Coarse Screening Process’’ to develop demonstration projects.

4. Use supplementation to help rebuild salmon populations at high demographic

risk of extirpation.

5. Use supplementation to reintroduce salmon to watersheds from which they

have been extirpated.

6. Use flow, spill, drawdowns 1, peak efficiency turbine operation, new turbine

technology, and predator control projects to improve inriver juvenile salmon survival; avoid fluctuations caused by power peaking operations.

7. Protect and restore critical estuary habitat.

8. Establish Alaskan and Canadian ocean fisheries based on chinook abundance.

9. Use stored cold water, additional ladders, ladder improvements and ladder

maintenance to enhance mainstem adult passage; incorporate 24-hour video fish

counting.
67

10. Improve water quality by eliminating sources of toxic pollution that accumulates in fish tissue and by reducing discharges of other contaminants to meet water

quality criteria for anadromous fish.

11. Closely monitor tributary production and escapement to improve management.

12. Conduct research on Pacific lamprey and design artificial propagation strategies to supplement natural production.

13. Develop artificial propagation and management strategies for white sturgeon

populations above Bonneville Dam.

Technical

The tribal technical recommendations are presented in sets of hypothesis statements that summarize various restoration problems. The hypotheses are organized

by salmon life cycle stages. Individually, they propose near- and long-term actions,

identify expected results and name the institutional and decisional processes required to carry out the recommended actions.

Habitat Restoration

To protect and recover tributary habitat, the plan proposes that land and water

users and managers meet a series of habitat conditions associated with survival

rates, for example, 10 percent egg-to-smolt survival for Snake River spring and summer chinook. The use of the ‘‘Coarse Screening Process,’’ where applicable, will determine the allowable level of watershed impacts. This process requires Federal and

state land and water managers to maintain or improve fish habitat. If they do not

meet the habitat standards—for example, water temperatures can be no higher than

60 F—land and water managers must take action that will achieve compliance.

Other important Coarse Screening standards include limits on the amount of sediment in spawning habitat and in streams generally, and the establishment of riparian reserves to protect vegetation and soils. So that anadromous fish are able to

again thrive in their natural environment, other necessary measures are recommended, including reconnecting habitat areas that support salmon. Badly degraded habitat may be directly downstream or upstream of salmon-supporting habitat. As migratory fish, salmon require decent habitat throughout their life-cycle

range.

Production

The tribal goal to put fish back in the rivers means literally putting the fish back.

To do that requires returning more of the basin’s fish production to the rivers and

streams where they come from. Young salmon, if released at the proper time and

manner, will return as adults to spawn in the same area they were released as juveniles. Rather than continuing current hatchery rearing and release methods, the

plan outlines the development of new propagation strategies to reestablish naturally

spawning salmon runs. With so many Columbia basin stocks at such low numbers,

supplementation, which is what the tribes call their propagation proposal, is now

an indispensable part of any restoration plan. While accounting for genetic concerns,

the tribal plan asserts that increasing likelihood of further extirpations is in fact

the far greater genetic risk.

Passage

In the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers where more than a dozen massive

dams dominate riparian habitat, the plan also calls for putting the fish back in the

river: Young migrating salmon are now being transported in trucks and barges. Stop

collecting them for transport, the plan urges, and let them swim down the river to

the ocean on their own. To support anadromous fish, mainstem habitat must be returned to natural conditions which are linked to a 71 percent downstream passage

survival rate, closer to those that existed prior to construction of the dams. This can

be done by providing additional spill and water flows, among other measures. The

plan recommends actions that can begin restoration of mainstem habitat, including

provisions to address toxic pollution as well as provisions for additional spill and

water flows. The plan also addresses estuary and ocean problems.

Harvest

Plan recommendations include proposals for reducing chinook mortalities in North

Pacific fisheries and the adoption of abundance-based salmon management in ocean

fisheries. The plan addresses the problem of incidental mortalities and other harvest

issues.

Watershed Actions

In Volume II of this plan, the subbasin plans that were part of the earlier Northwest Power Planning Council fish and wildlife program have been updated and are
68

included as a key part of this plan. Detailed recommendations are provided for 23

major watersheds above Bonneville Dam. The measures focus on habitat protection

and rehabilitation and on returning fish to these streams using supplementation

techniques. It is envisioned that these actions will be accomplished through a watershed restoration trust fund, under the leadership of the Columbia River treaty

tribes.

Economic Context

In this section, the tribes’ plan acknowledges the cost of salmon restoration but

provides a different look at valuation. The tribes contend that the people of the

Northwest can afford salmon restoration and that calculating foregone hydro-electric

cost is not the only measure of the salmon’s worth. The annual costs of salmon restoration measures are estimated to be half a percent of the region’s annual personal

income. The loss of salmon has also meant the loss of revenue for tribal economies

historically dependent on salmon with an estimated loss for tribal economies of billions of dollars so far. The estimated annual cost of the plan, $195-$325 million, is

similar to the cost range of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Columbia Basin

Fish and Wildlife Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Snake River

Recovery Plan.

In conclusion, the tribes urge the region to adopt a single plan for Columbia Basin

anadromous fish—one that is mutually acceptable to the four tribes, the United

States and the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The tribes ask citizens and

their government representatives and officials to use this plan and its framework

as the basis for salmon restoration.

BPA energy-related subsidies. From Table 6.1

BPA DISCOUNTS ANNUAL SUBSIDY (1994)

Bureau of Reclamation irrigation

pumping.

$32. million

Private irrigation pumping .................... $13.5 million

Direct Service Industries (primarily aluminum smelting).$179. million

Residential loads of Investor-Owned

Utilities.

$210 million

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, DIRECTOR OF FLOODPLAINS, AMERICAN RIVERS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Scott Faber, and I am Director of Floodplain Programs for American

Rivers. For the past six years, I have worked daily with my colleagues at the Corps

of Engineers to reform our management of the Missouri River, the nation’s longest

river, and the Mississippi River from the Twin Cities to Saint Louis. Many of the

lessons we have learned could be applied to the Columbia and Snake.

The parallels to the Snake and Columbia Rivers are striking. The Missouri, Mississippi, Columbia and Snake Rivers all support commercial barge traffic, generate

hydroelectric power, and serve as important recreational resources. Changes made

to support barge traffic on each river have placed native species on state and federal

watch lists. On the Missouri, more than 100 species are in trouble; on the Mississippi, more than 50 species are in trouble, and, of course, Snake River salmon

are on the verge of extinction.

Like my colleagues in the Northwest, we were frustrated by the Corps’ decisionmaking process. Rather than working with stakeholders to develop consensus about

the management of our natural resources, the Corps conducted studies and developed management alternatives in isolation and, after spending years and tens of

millions of dollars, mechanically sought our input through public hearings which

provide wonderful theater but little more.

It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of what the Corps should do—

and, indeed, the opposite of what Congress sought when you passed the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In the Midwest, we persuaded the Corps that

agencies must do more than simply consider the impacts of proposed actions—they

must ‘‘use all practicable means’, to balance our human needs with the needs of our
69

1 42 U.S.C. 433

natural resources.1 Instead, the Corps should develop science-based management al- ternatives and ask the public to decide the fate of our natural resources.

On the Upper Mississippi River, for example, the Corps worked with American

Rivers and MARC 2000, a navigation industry trade association, to create the Upper

Mississippi River Summit, which brings farmers, conservation groups, waterway

users together to set management goals for the river. On the Missouri River, the

Corps has held public workshops that provided information on a wide range of management alternatives for the Missouri’s dams, and then asked the stakeholders, led

by basin states, to seek consensus. In both cases, the Corps provided sound, science-based information and asked

river stakeholders to make the tough calls. It’s not easy. But, it has dramatically

changed river management for the better, and brought the river’s economic and environmental interests together. This model could be applied to the Columbia and Snake Rivers as well. But, the

Corps has not developed the right information, and has not shown a willingness to

let the public decide the fate of our public resources. The Corps is rushing headlong

into making a decision without anticipating or preparing to mitigate the social and

economic impacts of this decision—the human impacts of dam removal. Rather than

simply measuring the likely effects of dam removal, the Corps should also anticipate

social and economic impacts and propose measures that could offset these impacts.

This committee can fix this problem, I believe, by the doing the following:

1) First, the Committee should direct the Corps to develop a wide range of trans- portation mitigation alternatives. Whether we should remove four dams from the Snake River will force the nation

to make a difficult choice. But, in reality, the Corps’ current decision-making process

will not allow us to make a choice at all—because they have not developed a plan

to mitigate the impacts of dam removal on waterway users. There is no question

that removing dams and doing nothing more—will increase transportation costs. If

we are going to be able to make a real choice, the Corps must help stakeholders

develop a transportation mitigation plan that would accompany dam removal. Directing the Corps to develop transportation mitigation alternatives is not the same

as directing the Corps to remove dams. Rather, directing the Corps to develop transportation mitigation alternatives will help all river stakeholders make better decisions. The committee should instruct the Corps to work with the U.S. Department

of Transportation and state and local of finials to quickly develop a variety of transportation mitigation alternatives. Wheat farmers and other waterway users must not shoulder the burden of salmon recovery alone. That’s why American Rivers recently hired Dr. Edward Dickey,

former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works under the Bush Administration and an expert on transport of commodities like wheat, to develop a transportation mitigation plan for the Snake River. Although Dr. Dickey’s proposal is not

yet complete, options might include enhanced rail and road infrastructure, additional rail cars, additional facilities to store or transfer grain, and other investments

designed to reduce transportation costs. In addition to current waterway users,

these investments will benefit other businesses that rely upon transportation. 2) Second, the Committee should hold field hearings on transportation mitigation alternatives.

Building consensus about the future of the Snake River will not be easy. Right now, river interests are polarized, unwilling to consider management alternatives

that save salmon and meet the needs of current waterway users. Following the development of transportation mitigation alternatives, the Committee should hold field

hearings to encourage debate and discussion, and direct the Corps to hold workshops designed to build consensus between groups like American Rivers and the

American Farm Bureau Federation.

3) Third, the Committee should direct the Corps to use sound science and credible

economic analyses. It is absolutely critical that decisions be based on the best available scientific and economic information. Currently, the Corps’ is relying upon documents that are incomplete, insufficient or analytically flawed. Let me give you two examples. Currently, the Corps’ DEIS is disproportionately based upon the life histories on two of the five types of Snake River salmon listed

as endangered species. Of course, salmon have very different life histories, and management decisions must reflect these differences. Or consider another example—

after creating economic workgroups to review economic studies, the Corps has not

allowed members of these workgroups to review and comment on preliminary reports.
70

Perhaps the best example is the Corps’ failure to properly measure the potential value of recreation following dam removal. The Corps has conducted surveys in California to gauge public interest in Snake River fishing and recreation. However, the

Corps does not want to include information about the reported economic value of

vacationing and fishing Californians in its study. So the Corps released its own report, without consulting the workgroups, which questioned the validity of the California numbers and offers an analysis excluding Californians. The Corps also ignored the relatively greater economic value of tourists who originate from cities and

counties that do not border the Snake, and assumed that local communities would

not build new boat ramps and other facilities to capture the economic benefits of

increased tourism and recreation. This sort of unjustifiable, ad hoc action calls the

Corps’ entire study into question.

4) Finally, the Committee should direct the Corps to craft a citizen-led, consensus

building process.

Holding field hearings on transportation mitigation alternatives could jump-start

a citizen-led process to build a consensus vision for the Snake River. Six years ago,

no one believed that Mississippi River stakeholders could put aside long-held antagonisms and develop a vision for the river that meets our economic and environmental needs. But, we did, and now we are working together, farmers and environmentalists, to implement our vision.

This sort of vision could also be developed for the Snake. But, unless the Corps

develops the information necessary to support this process, I expect that the future

of the Snake will be no less polarized than it is today. The Committee should direct

the Corps to support this process by using sound science and economics to support

a range of management alternatives, including transportation mitigation alternatives. The Corps should also clarify the roles of current workgroups and forums,

and work with their federal partners to make certain that these workgroups and

forums support informed decision-making by the public.

Right now, few local residents understand how the myriad workgroups, forums,

studies and other processes fit together, or whether they fit together at all. It would

be too complicated to simply collapse these existing processes, given the number of

agencies involved and their conflicting mandates. What is needed is better coordination, including an interagency communication and public involvement plan. We are

anxious to work with the Committee to ensure that the federal agencies provide a

sensible and timely roadmap to their decision-making processes.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

RESPONSES OF SCOTT FABER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BAUCUS

Question 1: The Administration is preparing to make major salmon recovery decisions by the end of this year. Do you think there is time to study the mitigation

and transition issues that you are proposing?

Response. I do not believe that the Administration and Congress can actually

make informed decisions without this information. Similarly, if the Corps and the

other Federal agencies move ahead and make their decisions without providing the

people of the region with credible proposals to deal with the negative impacts, the

decisions will be virtually un-implementable. We need decisions that work for the

fish and that work for the people. The Corps is capable of providing the needed information within the time constraints of the upcoming decision. However, they need

to begin this work with earnest.

The Corps needs to investigate the human impacts that might result from both

dam removal and the non-dam removal options. For instance, if the dams stay, it

is likely that more Idaho water will be called for in an attempt to improve downstream river conditions—if another 1 million acre feet of water is called for from

Idaho irrigation reservoirs, this will have a tremendous human impact. The Corps

needs to look at this and propose a means of mitigating or minimizing these impacts. The same types of proposals must be made regarding possible impacts on

sport and commercial fishing, timber and mining if these activities are greatly curtailed as part of a recovery plan. Conversely, if the dams are removed, there will

be an impact on those that currently use the waterway to ship commodities. This

impact needs to be investigated and a proposal developed to minimize this impact.

Proposals for minimizing the negative, human impacts need to be developed for all

options being considered.

Additionally, the various Federal and state processes moving forward in the region (Corps DEIS, NMFS Bi-Op, the 4-H paper and the Framework) need to be coordinated and integrated so that information provided in one study can be brought

to bear on questions raised in another. And finally, there needs to be a formal, ro-
71

bust public participation process undertaken throughout the effected area to provide

the public with the information they need, and to solicit their input and concerns.

The people of the Northwest need to be substantively involved in these decisions.

Question 2: In your testimony you expressed concerns about the Corps’ economic

study on recreation. How can we address your concerns?

Response. I am concerned with the economic analyses being conducted through

the he Corps of Engineers’ Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup (DREW).

The DREW was established to ensure a balanced, thorough economic analysis addressing all significant issues. It consists of Federal, state, tribal, and interested

party participants who have been jointly working toward this end. Early on, DREW

participants agreed to a process for expert oversight by the Independent Economic

Advisory Board (IEAB) and refinement of each analysis by the individual

workgroups responsible for discrete issues, such as recreation or power supply. Unfortunately, major sections of the appendix, including the commodity transportation,

recreation, regional, and social analyses, have not been provided to non-Corps

DREW participants or the IEAB for review and critique.

This short-circuiting of the proper review process for the analysis creates the very

real possibility that key decisions on Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery

may be based on inaccurate and incomplete economic information.

I urge your Committee to take the following steps to ensure that the best economic information is presented in a timely fashion. First, all unreviewed or incomplete draft reports should be reviewed immediately by the designated DREW

workgroups to identify necessary revisions. Second, the preliminary draft economic

appendix and any subsequent drafts should be provided to all DREW participants

and the IEAB for review at the same time they are distributed to the Federal agencies. This will ensure that a thorough review by all key players takes place as early

as possible, providing the Army Corps with the information and time it will need

to prepare a high-quality economic appendix for inclusion in the DEIS.

STATEMENT OF MARK DUNN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, J.R. SIMPLOT

COMPANY

Chairman Crapo and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Mark

Dunn. I am Director of Governmental Affairs for the J.R. Simplot Company in

Boise, Idaho, a diversified agribusiness, headquartered in the Northwest and operating in 23 states. I am here today primarily in my capacity as Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee of the Northwest Food Processors Association, a regional

trade association representing the $6 billion fruit and vegetable processing industry

in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic that is of critical interest

to our industry and the entire Pacific Northwest. I would like to focus my comments

today on the role of the federal Caucus in developing salmon recovery efforts in the

Northwest.

Protecting and recovering endangered salmon and maintaining the economic viability of the Northwest are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the recovery of salmon

is dependent on industries like food processing.

Food processing is the largest manufacturing employer in the state of Idaho and

the second largest in the states of Oregon and Washington. Our companies provide

the tax revenues and economic stability the region requires to focus on such an

enormous task. However, to be successful, the region must have a common vision.

A vision that is shared by all parties, including the federal agencies.

The federal caucus does not currently seem to be a part of that shared vision for

the Northwest. They continue to send conflicting messages and have failed to coordinate with critical regional initiatives. This uncertainty leads to increased conflict in

the region and to decreased effectiveness of the regional process. It is hard to motivate business leaders to participate in a process that, in the end, means nothing

because NMFS or one of the other agencies decides to go its own direction. I will

give you a couple of examples.

At this time last year, the Northwest Food Processors Association, as a part of

a comprehensive coalition of Northwest economic interests, agreed to support and

participate in the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Framework process. As you

know, the purpose of the Framework is to assess a number of potential recovery alternatives for the Columbia/Snake system. We agreed to participate because the

Framework was to include all of the affected parties; tribes, economic interests, federal agencies and environmental groups, in a process that would be open, fair and

scientifically valid.
72

The federal caucus supported and encouraged the Framework process. Danny Consenstein, Columbia Basin Coordinator for NMFS, serves as one of the executive

management team members for the Framework. However, once the project was

funded and well under way, the federal caucus announced that they would be developing a separate vision for recovery, commonly referred to as the 4-H paper. This

process is happening behind closed doors, with no outside involvement. The agencies

are still participating in the Framework, but how can the process have any chance

for success when the federal agencies that hold the regulatory hammer are developing their own separate vision for the region?

A second example shows our concern for what appears to be extremely serious coordination issues among the federal agencies.

The Bonneville Power Administration is currently in the middle of a controversial

rate case that will have long term impacts on the Pacific Northwest. On September

21, 1998, after nearly a year long public process, Vice President Gore announced a

set of ‘‘Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles’’ which would be incorporated into the

BPA rate case. These principles were formally incorporated into BPA’s Record of Decision for the Power Subscription Strategy issued in December of 1998.

Last month, we learned that three federal bureaucrats, from NMFS, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife and EPA, each of whom are members of the federal caucus, had drafted

a seventeen page memo titled ‘‘Preliminary Cost Estimates for Two Fish and Wildlife Alternatives.’’ This memo, which was circulated to key Administration officials,

attempts to make a case for further rate increases for BPA from 10-22% in the 2002-

2006 period. This is on top of the excessive reserves BPA already plans to accumulate using its adopted ‘‘Fish Funding Principles.’’

While the contents of the memo are of critical concern to the region’s industry,

possibly the most shocking part of this incident is that the memo was never shown

to officials at the Bonneville Power Administration prior to being circulated among

top Clinton administration officials.

If the caucus cannot or will not coordinate such an important initiative, how can

we as economic stakeholders hope to work with them? Can we trust their statements and even more concerning, what is coming next?

The future of the Northwest will be shaped by the decisions that are made in the

next few years. With so much on the line, we cannot afford to have federal bureaucrats pursuing their personal agendas outside the accountability of the formal regional process.

STAEMENT OF OWEN C. SQUIRES, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION PRESIDENT, PULP AND

PAPERWORKERS RESOURCE COUNCIL, REPRESENTING PAPER, ALLIED-INDUSTRIAL,

CHEMICAL, AND ENERGY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 712

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is

Owen Squires. I am before you today in my capacity as Regional Director of the

Rocky Mountain Region of the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council or PPRC.

Our over-300,000 members across the United States are deeply committed to the

conservation of America’s natural resources in ways that protect the wild community and benefit people.

I am here to appeal to you to restore credibility to the process of deciding what

to do to help our anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest. Federal officials have

once again concluded that the processes of democratic government are just too

messy. Their response has been to form a federal commission, a small body of top

federal executives who call themselves the Federal Caucus. Their purpose is to blow

through the really tough process of working out what to do with our fish. In his

letter dated February 16, 1999, Mr. Stelle says he will make an attempt to work

with the rest of us. But if that attempt moves too slowly to meet his artificial

timeline, he’ll move ahead with a decision anyway, right or wrong, good or bad [last

sentence on page 3 of the Federal Caucus letter].

That’s particularly interesting about this approach, Mr. Chairman, is that these

members of the Federal Caucus are the sardine people who have made the rest of

us wait forever, time and again, for reasons of their own. What’s the rush today?

It appears else answer is that the Federal Caucus has already made up its mind

and is moving through a speedy trial to a speedier hanging and American Labor

and all working people in the Northwest are the defendants. We have a right to

speak in our own defense. But this is not a trial. This is the formulation of public

policy, policy that does not affect Mr. Stelle at all in the sense that he doesn’t live

here and he will not have to live directly with the consequences of his decision.

It’s easy to make decisions in small groups behind closed doors. It’s not easy to

implement those decisions, however The bright light of day is not kind to smoke-
73

filled rooms. How can Mr. Stelle hope to find solutions if he isn’t willing to involve

the people?

Those who would be king have told the rest of us not to worry, they have the an- swers, they’ll take care of us. We don’t believe it. Mr. Chairman, we need a seat at the table if this is going to work. The Federal Caucus needs to open the doors and let their light so shine that the truth becomes

plain to all of us. They must listen to the expertise in the region and then ace on

that expertise to help solve our common problems. And they must make time. Answers to complex questions do not come quickly or easily. It’s not Federal.. they

don’t happen overnight. And it’s not Burger King.. we don’t always get it OUt way.

We’re credible people and it’s OK to ask us to participate.

Over thirty five years ago, the United States government told us, over our objections, that if we’d just go along with dam building our lives would improve and our

region would prosper. They were right. We have prospered.

We cannot now undo the past without vast consequences for the future.. our future. We are not interested in the settlements of decision brokers and lawyers in

the back alleys of government. We are committed to working locally, thinking globally, and finding solutions we can all live with.

Open the federal caucus and make it live for all of us in the refight Columbia

River basin.

Thank you. I stand for questions.

STATEMENT OF TIM STEARNS, POLICY DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR WILD SALMON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to

testify.

My name is Tim Stearns. I am the Policy Director of Save Our Wild Salmon. For

the past eight years I have sought to help the Northwest adapt to and make decisions about how best to stabilize and restore populations of wild salmon and

steelhead on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and the ecosystems on which they depend. Save Our Wild Salmon is a coalition of sportsfishing, commercial fishing, traditional environmental groups and salmon-based businesses. Prior to that I worked

on the implementation of the Northwest Power Act, since its passage in 1980, where

the Northwest sought to survive the failure to build nuclear plants, implement costeffective conservation programs and build the power system of the future.

I wanted to offer our observations on problems in the decisionmaking and analytical processes being used to make long term decisions.

Declining salmon is not a new issue. It has existed since the arrival of white settlers. Increasing competition for fish, technological improvements, new people, development and resource use have all contributed to the decline. The Northwest has

tried repeated technological interventions to stave off the declines. The single most

destructive set of activities on the Snake and Columbia River has been the damming

of rivers. In this testimony, I will not focus on the causes, but how to work toward

solutions.

Since the mid 1970’s and the completion of the Lower Snake dams the Northwest

has wrestled with the Endangered Species Act. The Northwest Power Act sought to

fix two major problems—first the energy situation—including inefficient energy use,

increased demand, huge cost increases from new thermal projects, poor forecasting

and closed planning processes. It also sought a fix to declining stocks of anadromous

fish, namely salmon and steelhead. The Northwest agreed to protect, mitigate and

enhance salmon and steelhead, provide flows of sufficient quality and quantity, provide equitable treatment and defer to agency and tribal experts. The Power Act delayed implementation of the Endangered Species Act until 1991 when it was apparent our efforts were insufficient and probably misguided.

The Northwest Power Planning Council made one last attempt to retain regional

control of the issue with its 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. The new Council, Bonneville Power Administration and Congress treated that program like a cafeteria

implementing some measures and ignoring others, the Federal Government never

embraced it and implemented measures of their own.

The National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration assured

the region and nation it could handle this problem without additional staff or appropriations. Unfortunately, this decision did not allow the administration to develop

a strategic approach or the people power necessary to analyze, assess and implement measures. NMFS has proved to be a bottleneck—I would suggest they have

since somewhat geared up to take on the challenge since then, but too little too late

resulting in bad feeling on the ground. NMFS has not consistently enforced its Biological Opinions. In our view NMFS never developed the independent scientific and
74

economic tools necessary to work through these issues. NMFS continues to be dependent on the Bonneville Power Administration and Northwest Power Planning

Council for hydrosystem economic information. NMFS has involved scientists who

designed and study the passage measures at dams and the barging program instead

of developing a separate scientific group. During this time period the science has significantly changed the playing field and our outlook. Until the mid 1990’s the region and nation believed we could engineer

our way through every salmon problem. In fact we deluded ourselves into believing

we could do things better than mother nature. The state of the science was encapsulated in two watershed reports—Upstream by the National Research Council and

Return to the River by the Independent Science Advisory Board concluded that

salmon convolved with their watersheds and thus, needed restored watersheds processes. The scientists went to great lengths to suggest that human development and

technology could be compatible with sustainable salmon runs; however, they did

suggest that we need to be increasingly cognizant of the needs of salmon, that technology should be used to complement and recreate watershed processes and that virtually everything we do should be treated, monitored and adapted like an experiment.

After a series of litigation that found the interim recovery measures adopted by NMFS inadequate, NMFS proclaimed to the Federal Court they would make decisions by December of 1999. The Court reluctantly deferred to the discretion of the

federal government. NMFS sketchily laid out its decisionmaking and research plan.

In the 1995 Biological Opinion NMFS proposed interim flows, a spill program and

modification of the John Day dam. Unfortunately, the flow targets have never been

met during the summer months and the administration never sought did the Congress approve the John Day modifications. The spill program has improved after relentless prodding. NMFS launched its limited research program and called upon the

Corps of Engineers to study the alternative measures for restoring Snake River

salmon.

The Corps Lower Snake River Leasability study has been rife with problems: it is over six months behind scheduled; it is limited to three mainstem Snake River

options; it does not encompass the broad range of alternatives or impacts throughout the Columbia ecosystem—for instance the future operation and configuration of

John Day dam is being addressed in a separate EIS; harvest, hatcheries and habitat

are being dealt with in many processes. It does not have a well defined protocol for

releasing information—thus officially releases some information and allows other information to be embargoed resulting in charges of leaks, spin control frustration by

interested parties and media. Recently participants in the economic analysis have

supported open dissemination of final reports creating a more open availability of

information and encouraging a more open debate. The Corps has consulted with

some parties and affected communities, while ignoring others—the Corps appropriately did a series of meetings with communities near the river that would be directly affected by changing. Unfortunately the Corps did not hold similar meetings

with coastal communities or parties who would benefit from either improved fisheries and recreation, or those who implement infrastructure improvements. Finally,

the Corps has not focused on how we would solve problem, mitigate damages or implement thoughtful transitions for affected parties.

The states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, the 13 tribes adjoining the

Snake and Columbia and the federal government have launched an analytical process called the Framework and a discussion forum called the Columbia Basin Regional forum. The Framework is still somewhat undefined as to what its analysis

will be and whether it will be available on time. It has its problems and limitations.

We are participating and hoping it will provide useful information on which to base

decisions. It is certainly not clear whether Council is capable of adopting a scientifically sound program.

The Federal government has launched a parallel process they call the 4 H paper.

Some are suspicious of this project. We share the skepticism, but believe it is overdue and necessary. First the Corps EIS is clearly too limited and probably won’t

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act because of its limited scope and

problems. Second the NMFS biological opinions covering harvest, the operation of

the Columbia River power system, hatchery system and habitat are incomparable,

inconsistent and are not coordinated making them ripe for challenge. For instance

the 94-98 hydro biological opinion allows 99% of smolts to die migrating through the

hydrosystem, while it allows over 60% of adults to die returning. The harvest biop limits harvest on healthy fall chinook to 24% to protect endangered stocks. The

inequitability is clear. Thirdly, the federal government does not speak with one voice

on salmon recovery. It is long overdue for this administration to develop one unified

and coordinated policy.
75

The federal government needs to put its options out for state and tribal consultation and public review. We have called for this openness in this process. We reject

the notion that the administration should not meet privately to develop its positions.

The administration has the legal obligation to implement the Endangered Species

Act, Clean Water Act, tribal treaties, Forest Land Management Act and the U.S.-

Canada treaty.

I understand the suspicions of the federal government and share the frustration

and usually champion openness; however, it is vitally important and long overdue

that the administration get its act together and puts its alternatives and proposals

on the table and leads a public discussion. We have urged and many members of

Congress have urged that proposals go through the same set of economic and scientific analytical filters to ensure the region and nation can understand the tradeoffs, consequences and transition opportunities.

The Bonneville Power Administration is about to enter into its rate setting process to establish electric rates from 2001 to 2006. The Administration adopted Fish

Funding Principles to ensure that adequate dollars would be available to implement

recovery measures. Unfortunately the rate proposal by BPA puts too much risk on

fish recovery and could require a substantial rate increase in 2007. This could have

easily been avoided. The Senate has adopted language to prevent the establishment

of a recovery fund to be used in a future rate period. Bad water years, changes in

market conditions and economic downturn could create a crisis pitting salmon recovery against repaying the Treasury. This will either invite out of region intervention

or delay salmon recovery. hope the Administration will revise the proposal so it becomes solid. I am not sure whether my 7 year old son will go to college or where

nor how long my retirement will be, but I have started saving so I can ensure that

options exists. Salmon recovery will cost money in the next 10 years to modify

hatcheries, buy habitat, change fishing practices or modify dams. The Northwest

only deserves the benefits of this unique power system if we meet treaty obligations,

comply with federal laws and implement public purposes.

With regard to public process, we have urged the administration to hold one set

of hearings throughout the region, on the coast and in Washington, DC before

Thanksgiving or after the New Year (if information is delayed) on its draft Biological Opinions, 4 H paper, the Lower Snake Feasibility study and other relevant documents. We want to avoid the chaotic holiday season to ensure the discussion is as

fruitful and inclusive as possible. We want to ensure that the Framework produce

its information for inclusion in the same set of hearings.

This committee can play a vital role to ensure the decisionmaking is done

thoughtfully, orderly and on time.

1) Demand that the alternatives being considered by the federal government be

submitted to the following entities for review and comment: Process for Analyzing

and Testing Hypothesis Independent Science Advisory Board Independent Economic

Advisory Board Framework process.

We assume the Corps will discuss it with its Drawdown Regional Economic

Workgroup.

2) Urge the Clinton Administration to make its final decisions prior to the 1999

salmon migration as it committed to in Federal Court. Ensure those decisions comply with all applicable federal laws and treaties.

3) Urge the Clinton Administration to fully consult with the affected states and

tribes and respond to substantive comments before making decisions.

4) Urge all parties in the region to consider all options. It is premature to rule

out any option. Opposing dam removal is not a recovery plan. Opposing increased

flows is also not a recovery program.

5) Ensure that appropriate mitigation and transition plans are developed so we

can ensure that affected parties are dealt with fairly.

Clearly this issue is contentious. The longer we put it off the more difficult and

expensive recovery will be. The longer we continue out of compliance of federal laws

the more legal, political and congressional pressure we should expect. The longer we

wait the longer the uncertainty prevents people from moving forward. The changes

needed will be difficult, but we must keep our eyes on the prize—a sustainable economy that works for salmon, people and the future. Together we can work through

these changes.

Thank you.
76
77

STATEMENT OF LYNN AUSMAN, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF

WHEAT GROWERS AND THE WASHINGTON BARLEY COMMISSION

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington Barley Commission,

it is a great pleasure to talk with you this afternoon about these important issues. I am a barley and wheat grower in Asotin county in the state of Washington. Asotin county is bordered on the north by the Snake River and Lower Granite dam

is the first of the four Snake River dams we all hear so much about. Four grain

receiving elevator have barge loading facilities on the Snake River. As our governor put it; ‘‘The salmon fisheries of this state have, in the past, been wonderfully productive. Of late, however, evidence of a decrease in the run is apparent, and all are agreed that something ought to be done to prevent the final extinction of a great industry.’’ This governor was John R. Rogers not our present governor Gary Locke and he said it in 1899, not 1999. Our Association thinks this puts

the salmon restoration problem in the proper perspective, as we deal with it today.

In our area there is strong support to increase the fish runs in our river system.

There is also almost total agreement the breaching of the four lower Snake River

dams will not be the answer to this problem.

The members of our association are growing increasingly frustrated as we have

watched the ongoing analysis of salmon restoration in the Snake River System focus

almost solely on dam breaching. We were told from the beginning that there were

four H’s to be considered: habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatchery management.

However, it has become increasingly clear that the federal agencies are only focusing on one of these H’s, hydropower.

In the past few years of watching the process of salmon recovery efforts it has

become apparent to us that this problem is one of the most complex issues of this

score of years. It starts with the very definition of salmon species to continues on

to include the variance of ocean temperature. A marine biologist expressed the belief

that there weren’t ten reasons for fish run declines or even a hundred but he

thought a thousand reasons were more in the ballpark. I would submit to you that

the problems we have with fish populations is not what we think we know but the

many things we need to learn.

A computer model called PATH which stands for Plan for Analyzing and Testing

Hypotheses is held up as a reason for dam removable. It is important to note that

there is no empirical data to prove that destroying the four dams would lead to recovery of the salmon. It is simply a computer model. This model makes some assumptions that do not follow known facts. For example, according to the recent

salmon tag studies, over 50% of the smolts moving in the river system reach salt

water. However, one PATH model predicts only 20% and another PATH model predicts only 30%. Therefore, I would hate to base a decision as monumental as dam

removal on a set of hypotheses that are in question.

The environmental effects of breaching are another matter. The Corps of Engineers estimates that there are 100-150 million cubic yards of sediment behind the

four dams. This would create 30,000 acres of mud flats. With dam removal this material would move down stream for several years and this would cause much harm

to the existing habitats as they are today. The use of this river system is also environmental choice because of emissions. Navigating the river system will use 40%

less fuel per ton/mile than the rail system (assuming there would cars and power

units available, which we highly question). And compared to trucks, the river system will use 110% less fuel per ton/mile. According to the Washington Wheat Commission, if grain barge traffic was halted, the industry would have to locate 120,000

additional grain cars, and some 700,000 semi-trucks. There is also the enormous

cost (and environmental impact) of building the roads and rail necessary for infrastructure. All this will affect our grain industry by raising costs to an industry that

is already suffering in an economic depression.

So, what should we be doing to increase wild fish runs in our river system?Continue to improve the transportation of smolt

Address and solve the predator harvest problemModify hatcheries to improve

there contribution to an overall solutionLook into the commercial fishing harvest to

better understand their impact on the fisheryModify turbine gaps, turbine blades,

blade coatings, and hydraulic conditions into and out of the turbinesAdd surface collectors to move smolt around the damsContinue to pursue other technological alternatives that are scientifically sound

If we can get by the unfortunate notion that breaching of the four lower Snake

River Dams is a possible solution to the problem at hand, we can then work together to solve the problem we all want to solve.

Thank you.
78Æ