ENDANGERED SPECIFS ACT 

VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

91-344 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

LOCAL IMPACTS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

APRIL 24, 1995-VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 

Serial No. 104-15 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON ; 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047433-7 
COMMI'ITEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califunlia 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, Califonlia 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califonlia 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Califonlia 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., MAINE 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, Califonlia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califonlia 

CARLOS A ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, Califonlia 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DANIEL VAL KisH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES 

RICHARD POMBO, Califonlia, Chairman 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califonlia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

WES COOLEY, Oregon W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

LINDA SMITH, Washington SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

~:S.=~~e~1 ~~b!~: 1995 ......................................... ................................. ........ . 

Chenoweth, Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ................................ .. Cooley, Wes, a U.S. Representative from Oregon ........................................ .. Cubin, Barbara, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming .............................. .. Hastings, Richard (Doc), a U.S. Representative from Washington ............ .. Metcalf, Jack, a U.S. Representative from Washington .............................. .. Pombo, Richard W., a U.S. Representative from California, and Chairman, Task Force on Endangered Species Act ............................................ . 

smi:;:-:Et:d:. ~ta~S.R!p~~~t~ti~~ r~~ w~~hi~it~~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Statement of Witnesses: Birkmaier, Mack, Joseph, Oregon .................................................................. . Prepared statement plus attachment .................................................... .. Campbell, Leslie Stevenson, Bingen, Washington ........................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Colyer, Sherry, Bruneau Valley Coalition ................................ ........ ............ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Friedman, Mitch, Bellingham, Washington .................................................. . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Hamilton, Liz, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association ...................... . Pre:eared statement ................................................................................. .. James, Olivia, The River Company ............................................................... .. Prepared statement ..................... ........... .................................................. . Lee, Dr. Robert, University of Washington .................................................. .. Prepared statement ......................................... .. ....................................... . Marcellus, Earl, Chelan County Commissioner ............................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . McGlenn, Michael, Back Country Horsemen ................................................ . Mercer, Bud, Columbia/Snake River Irrigators Association ........................ . Prepared statement .. ................. ............................................................... . Morris, Christine, Randle, Washington ............................................... .......... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Oliver, Dr. Chad, University of Washington ................................................ .. Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Palmisano, Dr. John, Beaverton, Oregon ...................................................... . PreEared statement ................................................................................. .. Pearce, Sen. Drue, Alaska State Senate ........................................................ . Prepared statement ......................................... ......................................... . Prescott, Gaylan, Reynolds Metal Company ................................................ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Shaufler, Stan, Lake Bay, Washington ........................................................ .. 

Spai~Cl~~dp~~}i~~!st·F~d~~~ti~~ ~fFl~h~~-~~~~ ~~~~i-~ti~~~· :: :: :::: : Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Starke, Gretchen, Vancouver Audubon Society ........................................... .. Prepared statement ................................................................ .................. . Tilly, Barbara, Chelan Public Utility District Commissioner ...................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Van Hoover, Lois, Boise, Idaho ..................................................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Wasserman, Larry, Laconner, Washington .................................................. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Zepponi, David, Klamath Basin Water Users Association .......................... .. 

(III) 

Page 

1 

6 

5 

4 

6 

6 

1 

2 

3 

46 

233 

9 

89 

73 

295 

67 

291 

33 

171 

44 

222 

16 

135 

14 

133 

69 

43 

218 

7 

86 

18 

142 

41 

208 

63 

239 

38 

191 

10 

98 

32 

156 

12 

104 

38 

196 

64 

261 

39 

203 

65 
IV 

Statement of Witnesses-Continued 

Zepponi, David, Klamath Basin Water Users Association -Continued 

Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material supplied: Johnson, Senator Rod (Oregon Senate) ............................................ ............ .. Hamilton, Liz (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA)): 

NSIA member listing ............................................................................... . Excerpts from study done by Tony Fedler, Ph.D., American 

Sportfishing Assn., 1995 ...................................................................... . Upper Columbia Chinook Runs 1938--94 (population trend line), 

ODF&W ...................................................................................... ........... . Chan~es in Emplo~ent in ~ac~fic Northwest E~onomy ...................... . Amencan Sportfishing Assoctation: Salmon Decline Impacts .............. . Northwest Marine Trading Association: Recreational Fishing "Export" ................... ................................................................................... .. Seattle Post-Intelligencer: A Will to Save Salmon .......... ...................... . 

Pea!:;i~~f ~~!~aP~ia ~· s~~~~~j ~ Ai~'k;; ·s~~···&~~~- ~d .. 'ii~~~~ Issue Paper-Endangered Species Act Reauthorization .......................... .. 

Starke, Gretchen (Vancouver Audubon Societli: 

Tes~~ttd:~ ~~~~hr:: ~~~~~: ...... ~~ ... ~~~~~~ ... ~~ ... ~~~~~~ Muldoon, Katy (Oregonian, April 20, 1995): Songbirds: Singing a Sorrowful Tune ..................................................................................... . Starke, Gretchen (Columbian, April 18, 1995): Threads of Destruction ........................................................................................................ .. Pissot, Jim (The Washington Post, April 2, 1993): Timber Troubles .. .. Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Department of Political 

Science: Endangered Species Listing and State Economic Perform- ance ........................................................................................................ . National Wildlife Federation: The Endangered Species Act: Myth vs. Reality .......... ............................................................................. ....... . Kates, Robert W. (Scientific American, October 1994): Sustaining 

Life on Earth ......................................................................................... . Van Hoover, Lois: Exhibit A: Excerpts from the court transcript "Yellow Pine Road 

Case" ...................................................................................................... . Exhibit B: Excerpts from the Biological Opinion by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service ..................................................................................... . Exhibit C: Correspondence between U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Biological Opinion and 

Yellow Pine residents ........................................................................... . Exhibit D: Inland native fish strategy .................................................... . 

E~~~!:e~:n~e~~ f~~--~~~- ~~~~~~~~-~:.~~~~--~~~~~-~~~~ -~~~~~ Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Representative from Oregon: Rosen, Rudolph (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife): Scientific 

review of testimony given to Committee by Dr. John Palmisano ...... Chamberlain, T.W., R.D. Harr and F.H. Everest: Abstract "Timber 

Harvesting, Silviculture, and Watershed Processes" from American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-205. 1991-Full text 

may be found in Committee files ........................................................ .. 

Page 

286 

299 

182 

182 

183 

184 

185 

187 

189 

188 

249 

112 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

125 

267 

270 

272 

274 

285 

320 

325 
v 

Additional material supplied-Continued 

Below are articles submitted by Hon. Rosen which are too 

lengthy to print and may be found in the Committee files: Bisson, P.A., T.P. Quinn, G.H. Reeves and S.V. Gregory: Best Management Practices, Cumulative Effects, and 

Long-Term Trends in Fish Abundance in Pacific Northwest River Systems-Chaper 7-Watershed Management-Balancing Sustainability and Environmental 

Change 

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Regier, M. Sobel, 

L. Talbot and L. Simpson: Status and Future of Salmon 

of Western Oregon and Northern California: Findings and 

Options 

Meehan, William R.: Influences of Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats 

Communications submitted: Letters to Resource Committee regarding the Endangered Species Act: 

Kimmel, Reida and Charles ...................................................... .............. . McConnaughey, Evelyn ................................................................. ........... . McConnaughey, Bayard H ................................. ................... .................. .. Blaha, Richard, and Valerie Graber ..................................................... .. . Carson, Geoffrey G ................................................................................... . Hutton, Patricia ........................................................................................ . Snow, Hank ............................................................................................... . Lacy, Robbin ................................................................... ......... .... ............. . Johannes, James ...................................................................................... . 

~c~~~~:.ehlfch~~i L· ··::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::: ::: ::: :::::::: :: :::::::::: ::: McKinney, Ann ............................................................... .... ...................... . 

~=~ri~~a7~nd~ .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Pili• 

303 

304 

305 

306 

309 

308 

310 

311 

312 

314 

315 

316 

317 

318 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT-VANCOUVER, 

WASHINGTON 

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The task force met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in the Red 

Lion Inn at the Quay, Vancouver, Washington, Hon. Richard W. 

Pombo [Chairman of the Task Force] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Mr. POMBO. This hearing of the Endangered Species Act Task 

Force will come to order. I want to welcome all of you today to this 

hearing of the Endangered Species Act Task Force. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Linda Smith and her staff for 

all the hard work that has gone into organizing this hearing. I also 

want to thank the _people of Vancouver for their outstanding hospitality to the Task Force and to all of those for attending this hearing today. 

The Task Force was established by Chairman Don Young as a 

special subcommittee of the Committee on Resources with the mission of examining the way in which the Endangered Species Act 

has been implemented. This is the fifth in a series of seven field 

hearings conducted in various areas of the country. Our goal in 

picking the locations of these field hearings is to take this Task 

Force to the people most affected by the Endangered Species Act. 

That means that we have taken these hearings to areas where 

there are significant numbers of listed species and where the local 

people have had first-hand experiences in dealing with the Act and 

its workings. 

In every area of the country where the Task Force has held hearings, we have seen a great deal of interest in the Act and in the 

work of the Task Force. These hearings, like most congressional 

oversight hearings are fact-finding in nature and are for the purpose of gathering information on the impacts of the Act. Many of 

you have requested the opportunity to testify, but unfortunately 

time will not allow us to take oral testimony from everyone who 

has made a request. However, we are interested in hearing your 

views and encourage you to submit written testimony for the 

record. If you have your testimony with you today, we have a box 

set up for accepting your testimony. If you wish, you may mail your 

(1) 
2 

testimony to the Committee at 1320 Longworth, Washington, DC 

20515. 

In putting this hearing together, I have instructed the staff to 

use witnesses with diverse views representing different sectors of 

the public so that the witness panels can be as balanced as possible. However, what you quickly learn as you talk to people 

around the country is that there are not just two sides to any issue. 

In fact, there are many different sides and different views about 

the approach Congress should take as we begin the effort to reauthorize ESA. I am sure that every witness you will hear from today 

believes in protecting the environment and ensuring that our great 

natural resources are conserved and protected for future generations. However, there are problems with the Act and also with the 

way it is sometimes carried out. Our mission is to identify the 

problems with the Act; identify the parts of the Act that work well 

and to work together to solve problems. Hopefully, when this session of Congress is adjourned in October, we will send to the President an ESA that balances species protection and the needs of people. I believe that the bill that we will send to the President will 

continue to protect the endangered and threatened species, but it 

will do so in a compassionate and just manner. 

There have been rumors that there will be attempts to disrupt 

this hearing. I hope that those were just baseless rumors and that 

all of you will give these witnesses an opportunity to be heard and 

that you will extend every courtesy to everyone present today. 

Many of you have come long distances to be part of this hearing. 

I thank you for coming and your patience. 

I also have a statement that I will ask to be included into the 

record at this point. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W . POMBO, CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED 

SPECIES 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be in Vancouver today 

for the fifth in a series of field hearings on the subject of the direction of our na- tional polic;r. on endangered species. 

I would like to welcome all Members, witnesses and guests to this morning's hearing. I would also like to thank Resources chairman, Don Young, for allowing me to come here today to hear from those who have been directly impacted by the imple- mentation of this well-intended-but often misused, Federal law. 

Chairman Young has asked specifically that these hearings take place outside 

Washington, DC, for it is in places like Vancouver-and not our nation's capitolthat the outcome of this Congress' efforts to reform the Endangered Species Act will 

have lasting consequences on both species and people. 

As you all know, the Pacific Northwest has been seriously impacted by the Endangered Species Act. Home to the northern spotted owl, this area has exposed to the 

nation the consequences of protecting species regardless of the economic or social 

impacts. With recent data showing the owl is more prevalent than previously 

thought, the need for changin~ the ESA to allow for sound science and adequate 

peer review of species listings Is all the more critical. Simply stated, from the spotted owl to the Columbia River salmon, the citizens of the Pacific Northwest have 

pRid a heavy price for endangered species protection. I am a fourth-generation rancher from the city of Tracy in California's Central 

Valley. Though the species may be different, my constituents are suffering from the same problems that are being dealt with here in the Pacific Northwest. Many of my 

constituents are frustrated and angry about a law that allows government bureaucrats to put the protection of an owl, or a fairy shrim~r any other species-above 

the lives and safety of human beings. They are frustrated because they believe that the balance of wildlife protection 

has swung too far away from the reality of meeting the needs of the people of this 
3 

country for food, clothing, housing, fuel and other vital public goods and servicemany of which are produced right here. 

They are also angry that the implementation of the Endangered Species Act has 

maliciously infringed upon their civil right to private property ownership under the 

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. 1 firmly believe that when the government places restrictions on a landowner, as it often does in the name of the Endangered 

Species Act, it has the responsibility to ensure that such laws are equitable and that 

the public beneflts derived from them are paid for by the entire public, not by a select few whose only crime is that they own private property. 

As farmers and ranchers, their entlre lives have been shaped by the traditions 

and values associated with the proper stewardship of the land. Yet they are considered to be the bad guys by government bureaucrats who think that only they know 

how to best protect endangered species. 

The people of the 11th congressional district sent me to Congress to bring some sanity and reason back to the way in which we manage our natural resources-to 

search for a new equilibrium between conserving the land and meeting the needs 

and rights of people. As we conduct these hearings around the country, we want 

to look at the true impacts and costs involved in endangered species protection. 

With your input, the 104th Congress will pass an Endangered Species Act that re- places the regulatory nightmare that this law has become with an incentive-based 

approach towards the protection of species. By providing incentives, and not threats, 

the American people will find ways to conserve our biological resources without the 

heavy hand of a central government bureaucracy. That is how best to save threatened or endangered species. 

TheJ'ob of this task force is to bring to~ether the information that will lead us to goo public policy. We hope that the Witnesses we will hear from today and in 

the conung weeks will help us to make the best policy possible for achieving both 

the conservation of our resources and compassion for our people. Thank you all very 

much for contributing to this process. 

Mr. POMBO. At this point, I would like to turn to Congresswoman 

Linda Smith for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM WASillNGTON 

Mrs. SMITH. First, I want to thank the Chairman and the other 

members for agreeing to bring this hearing to southwest Washington. I think this hearing represents the politics of the future. Congress is now leaving Washington, DC and coming out to the people. 

I was warned that if we came out to the people that the people 

would be too interested, too involved and that they might get excited; and I said, yes, they are interested, they are involved and 

they are excited, but that is the reason that we should move these 

hearings out to the people. As it has been, only those with enough 

money to get to Washington, DC or lobbying groups that could get 

someone to Washington, DC, otherwise more money, got to talk to 

Congress. I believe that Washington-southwest Washington being 

the most affected area by the ESA deserves this hearing. 

I also believe that the fears that we are not civilized-and by the 

way, the east coast does think a little odd of us on the west coast. 

They do still think that we are a little wild, but they are wrong. 

We are able to carry out a debate to determine our own life and 

we do not believe that Washington, DC has to make all of our decisions for us. I would ask you though to represent that. I believe 

that the only way we are going to bring congressional hearings out 

again and in the future is if we show Congress that it is a safe 

thing to do, both physically and that we can actually accomplish 

something in writing law. 

So with that, again, I want to thank everyone for coming. This 

is our break, by the way. We are given a couple of weeks break 
4 

after the first 3 months with very little break. And some of these 

members have come at a time that would have been nicer for them 

to take a rest with their families. So, I want to personally thank 

them. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

At this point in the record, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all members be allowed to introduce any opening statements that they may have. If any of you have something that you 

want to add at this point I can open it up. But your full opening 

statements will be included in the record in their entirety. 

Mrs. Cubin, did you want to say something? 

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WYOMING 

It is a pleasure to be here today for this hearing on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and especially their suggestions on how to 

make this law more effective, less costly and less burdensome to 

American citizens. We all agree that preservation of truly endangered species is important and a worthwhile endeavor; however, 

there seems to be sharp disagreement on how to achieve this goal. 

We are not about the notion of weakening environmental laws in 

order to endanger the environment-rather, we have just seen how 

costly and inefficient a huge, cumbersome, centralized bureaucracy 

can be. A government has become too large to set proper priorities 

when it can spend literally millions of dollars reintroducing the 

gray wolf into Yellowstone and parts of Idaho when there are 

60,000 gray wolves existing on the North American continent. I 

think we have to answer the question what really constituteswhat makes a species an endangered species. If someone draws an 

imaginary line around an area and a species does not exist there, 

and yet there are 60,000 on the continent, does that constitute that 

species being endangered? We have to answer that question. 

We are not out to protect large corporations at the expense of the 

environment-rather, we believe that the rights and the needs of 

human species should be taken into account during the implementation of these laws. 

I think those of you who chuckled need to realize that we have 

families, we live on this planet earth, we want generation after 

generation after generation to be able to live on this planet with 

a clean environment. I am from the State of Wyoming. I am very 

proud of our environment. Our environmental laws are more stringent than most any place in the whole world. So we have a huge 

investment-every one of us up here, a huge investment in preserving this planet and the species on it. 72,000 jobs will be lost in 

Washington, Oregon and California because of a single species, the 

spotted owl. And I understand many people believe that the listing 

of the spotted owl was not necessarily considered on scientific 

means. That is something that I need to find out. We are here to 

learn. We are here to listen. We are trying to be here with no preconceived agenda. We want to do the best for this world and we 

want to do the best for the people in it. 
5 

The Federal Government has grown too large and arrogant when 

it believes that it can take property without just compensation. We 

are all too familiar with the countless examples of burdens put on 

private property owners under the guise of the Endangered Species 

Act. We want a good Endangered Species Act, but we need to know 

what that is. In order for the Act to become more effective-and I 

would note that so far it has not been responsible for saving a single species-then we must work to achieve a proper balance. That 

is why we are here. We want to achieve a balance. 

Instead of the heavy-handed approach that threatens the private 

property owner, we must look at providing tax incentives to encourage proper management. We need State and local input in all of 

these decisions. 

This is a big problem because we disagree. But listen, folks, we 

are Americans. There is not a problem that is bigger than we are. 

The wisdom that is out there among you is sufficient for us to be 

able to come to some kind of a compromise to balance everyone's 

interest. We Americans have won two world wars, we put a man 

on the moon, there is not a problem that is too big for us to solve 

if we will work together and cooperate. So that is why I am here 

today. I hope that we all can work in a spirit of cooperation to try 

to achieve the best for us and for our world. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Wes Cooley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES COOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OREGON 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the people from eastern Oregon and Oregon 

that had an opportunity to come out here and see these hearings 

and understand the process. I think it is very important to participate in the process to see how these things resolve. 

I also want to thank the Chairman, Mr. Pombo, and also Chairman Young for selecting me to be on the Endangered Species Rewrite Task Force. I think it is very, very important for the people 

that I represent to make sure that we do truly have a reform. A 

reform that puts in the equation not only the species, but also adds 

the human being involved in the process and the communities, 

which this particular piece of legislation has adversely affected. 

I think that we are getting a very, very good cross section of 

America as we go through these hearings and I think that we are 

being informed by the people that this law has affected and I think 

we are getting a pretty good idea of what reforms need to be put 

into the law. 

So I thank all of you for coming, on both sides of the issue. I 

think you will find this a very informative hearing, both pro and 

con on the law, and I think that we will go away with a better idea 

of exactly how the law will be reformed and how it will take shape 

when we come back for the reauthorization of it this year. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Chairman, Pombo. 
6 

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

I just want to thank Chainnan Young and Chainnan Pombo for 

their work on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. 

To keep this whole thing in perspective, we have got to remember 

that this Act was constructed and passed in 1973 to sunset in 1993, 

and but for the financial reauthorization by the Democrat Congress 

who failed to reauthorize the Act, if we did not have these hearings 

and if we failed to finance the Act, it would not exist any longer. 

And so it is not a matter of tweaking something that is already in 

existence, because you have got to realize, all we would have to do 

is zero out the budget for the ESA, because it has already sunset 

in 1973. And so I really appreciate Chainnan Pombo and Chainnan 

Young for their sincerity in taking all of us all over the country for 

these fact-finding hearings in a real sincere desire to reach and 

strike the balance in the future Endangered Species Act. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Metcalf. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK METCALF, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON 

It is obvious to me, and to the whole nation, that the Endangered 

Species Act is not working very well. We need to refonn it. We 

need to make it work and we need to devise a system that really 

does protect endangered species. Now it seems to do a pretty good 

job at protecting lawyers and their income. 

I was Chainnan of the Environment and Natural Resources 

Committee of the Washington State Senate for five years and I · have had some experience with balance, and that is the key to everything as has been mentioned; to protect the environment and 

the species and also the protection of people's rights and their 

rights to proper use of resources. 

Personally, I welcome you. We were asked awhile ago, well, are 

you not concerned about all the interest and the attention and everything? We have spent our political lives trying to get people interested enough to come out to meetings and I just welcome you and say thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Hastings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I want to thank you 

and Chainnan Young for scheduling a hearing here in the northwest. 

We in the northwest have been hit kind of with a double whammy with the spotted owl and now with the listing of the salmon, 

particularly on the Snake River system. And it has had an impact. 

And frankly, it had an impact in my district in central Washington 

and in the northern part in the forest area up there, and certainly 

in the irrigated part because the Columbia River goes right smack 

through my district. So I think it is appropriate that we should 

come out here and hear input from those of you on both sides of 

it that are impacted, that have strong feelings on this issue. 
7 

I would just like to piggyback a bit on what Mrs. Chenoweth 

said, and I think it is important. This Act should have been reauthorized in 1993 and should have been reauthorized again in 1994, 

failing to be reauthorized in 1993, but it was not. And as a result, 

there was a great deal of political pressure that was building because of the failure to step up to the plate. So as a result-the reason that we are going around the country then to get input from 

people that are directly impacted is a result of inaction frankly two 

years ago. Political pressure has built. I am sure we will hear a difference of opinion on the witnesses here. That is perfectly appropriate. That is what America is all about. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

look forward to the testimony of the panels that we have in front 

of us today. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome our first panel to the hearing. We have 

Ms. Chris Morris from Randle, Washington; Leslie Stevenson 

Campbell from Bingen, Washington. And if I mess up any of these 

names, I apologize in advance. 

Mrs. SMITH. Bingen. 

Mr. POMBO. Bingen? 

Mrs. SMITH. Bingen. 

Mr. POMBO. OK. Stan Shaufler from Lake Bay, Washington; 

Gretchen Starke from the Vancouver Audubon Society; Earl 

Marcellus, a Chelan County Commissioner; Dr. Robert Lee, University of Washington and Dr. Chad Oliver, University of Washington. 

Welcome to our Task Force hearing today. 

I would like to point out that we have some lights down here in 

the front. The rules of the Committee are that we allow five minutes for oral testimony. I would ask you to summarize your written 

statements. Your written statements will be included in the record. 

All of us have had the opportunity to see your complete written 

statements. They will be included in the record in their entirety. 

But I would request that you stick to the five-minute rule so that 

we have the opportunity to ask questions about both your oral and 

written testimony. The lights-it will be green when you can go; 

yellow when you need to hurry up and red when you need to stop. 

When the red light comes on, I do not want to be rude or anything, 

but we will have to stop you because we have to keep it going because we have a very full day ahead of us. So, I would just ask you 

to be courteous and try to stick to the five-minute rule. 

Having said that, Ms. Morris, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE MORRIS, RANDLE, WASHINGTON 

Ms. MORRIS. Thank you. 

On behalf of the 30,000 timber workers represented by the Western Council of Industrial Workers, I would like to thank the members of this Task Force for convening these hearings. I also want 

to recognize Congresswoman Linda Smith who represents my home 

State. 

My union strongly supports the goals of the ESA, but we are extremely concerned about the job losses and the economic impacts 

resulting from the Act. In our view, the Act has failed to consider 

these issues adequately. Adjustments are required. 
8 

I am a third generation millworker. I currently work as a safety 

program coordinator at Cowlitz Stud Company in Randle, Washington. Like me, many of our union members have spent their lives 

living and working in and around Federal forests. Our livelihoods 

depend on a strong strategy for preserving the environment. My 

union brothers and sisters and I have fought long and hard to find 

balanced solutions to protect our environment, to preserve job opportunities for American workers and to protect the economic stability of timber-dependent communities. 

We do not believe that these goals are in conflict. But we also 

know that there is a stark difference between sound environmental 

protection and rigid environmental policies that ignores economic 

realities. 

Timber, pulp and paper workers in the northwest have felt the 

heavy blow of an unbalanced Endangered Species Act. Our communities are reeling from the impact of efforts to protect the northern 

spotted owl. Option nine virtually prohibits timber harvesting on 

88 percent of Federal lands in the spotted owl habitat regions of 

Oregon, Washington and northern California. The ESA has further 

restricted harvesting activities on State and private lands. The result has been mill closures and job lay-offs. Over 200 mills have 

closed in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana since 

1990. Almost 18,000 men and women working in those mills have 

lost their jobs. Our timber-dependent communities have seen their 

tax bases erode as unemployment rises and social services are overburdened. 

In my hometown of Randle, the local two-by-four mill has laid off 

workers because of a lack of timber supply. We have already seen 

reduced shifts. Last year, the mill laid off the workers for five 

weeks. People cannot afford to be out of work for that long. You 

cannot pay your bills and you do not feel comfortable with knowing 

that any minute the mill may close its doors. 

The ESA affects more than just timber workers. In a small town 

there are not a lot of jobs outside of these mills. Everything is dependent on these mills. When the mills go, the towns go. 

Already the situation is killing our town. The timber receipts 

that help fund the town are down. As a result, we are concerned 

our emergency medical services and our fire department may suffer. Businesses are closing up shop. The number of people who 

come to the food bank has doubled in the last year or so. We have 

seen depression, alcoholism and even suicide. 

We hear about retraining workers but it is not that easy. It is 

hard to get the funds and the programs do not work. Some of these 

programs are a step in the right direction, but most provide only 

seasonal jobs at below family-level wages. 

Mr. Chairman, too often we have seen the livelihoods of working 

men and women run headlong into inflexible legislation or unbalanced national policy. We need to make changes in the ESA and 

avoid the mistakes and take the human element into consideration. That is why my union supports the Endangered Species Act Reform Amendment of the 1995 bill sponsored by Senator Slade Gorton. This bill will help strike the critical balance between people, 

wildlife and the environment. 
9 

Efforts to protect endangered species must continue. But the 

search for environmental protection must include a close look at 

who pays the costs. For too long, working people have been paying 

the costs with our jobs. It is time to close the tab. Failure to do 

so results in adding one more species to the ranks of the en dangered-the American worker. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Ms. Stevenson Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE STEVENSON CAMPBELL, BINGEN, 

WASHINGTON 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Task Force, 

I am Leslie Stevenson Campbell, one of the owners of SDS Lumber 

Company, a family-owned wood products company from Bingen, 

Washington. The Endangered Species Act, the President's F'orest 

Plan, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area Act make it increasingly difficult to manage our privatelyowned forest land and successfully operate our mills. I appreciate 

this opportunity to share with you our concerns about the Endangered Species Act. 

SDS Lumber Company is the largest private employer in the Columbia River Gorge. Many of our employees are life-long members 

of the community. The Stevenson family has owned and operated 

the company since 1946. In the late 1970's, we employed approximately 475 people in our mills. We harvested 20 million board-feet 

per year from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest which had a timber sale program of about 330 million board-feet per year. The Gifford Pinchot timber sale program has evaporated. We now have 

fewer than 350 employees and are searching for wood from Alaska 

to Montana to supply our mills. 

Private lands are more important than ever to our survival. The 

ESA is now being used to disrupt management of private lands. 

Since the 1970's, we have invested over $25 million in renovating 

our facilities, including the addition of capacity to process small 

logs. Despite our state-of-the-art milling facilities, our future is 

clouded and our incentive for further investments is limited because of the Endangered Species Act. 

Our company owns approximately 53,000 acres of forest land 

north of the Columbia River and along the eastern slopes of the 

Cascades. Most of our forest land is 40- to 60-year-old young forests 

that are intensively managed and thinned. According to the best 

science on which the listing of the spotted owl was based, there 

should be no spotted owls associated with the young forest on SDS 

property. In fact, the owls are thriving in our area, and parts of 

28 owl territories fall on SDS lands, restricting our management. 

As you develop modifications to the ESA, please consider the following recommendations. I have five or six here. In my full testimony there are eight. 

1. Please encourage private landowners to maintain habitat but 

do not penalize an owner for doing so. 
10 

Ai3 our company intensively manages its young stands, we are 

promoting the growth of an understory forest which enhances the 

conditions for spotted owls and actually produces spotted owl habitat. If the ESA will be applied to severely constrained management 

of a threatened species habitat through civil and criminal penalties, then the Act is actually creating disincentives for owners to 

grow new and better owl habitat. Our company is proud of the way 

we manage our timber lands and we want to continue good forest 

practices on our lands. 

2. Lawful land management activities should not be classified as 

a take of a threatened or endangered species. SDS has no objection 

to ESA prohibitions against actually killing or directly injuring the 

individuals of a listed species, but we strongly oppose extending the 

take definition to preclude harvest of habitat 1.8 miles from an owl 

site. 

3. What qualifies as the best science and how that science is used 

in the listing process must be better defined. The spotted owl was 

listed based on theoretical scientific models and scientific population projections which have turned out to be wrong. The owls are 

thriving in multi-aged forests and in stands thought to be too 

young to support spotted owls. 

We strongly recommend that extensive field science be required 

to justify a listing decision. The field science used to justify the listing of the spotted owl was studies of exclusively old growth forests 

with a few radio collars placed on a handful of birds. Such a reliance on a narrow band of habitat with a small sample should not 

be permitted under the ESA. 

4. Develop an alternative to habitat conservation plans where it 

is impractical or too expensive for a landowner. 

5. The agency or a private citizen must have the burden of proof 

to challenge private landowner activity, particularly when the landowner was engaged in otherwise lawful land-use activities. 

6. Compensate private landowners for ESA restrictions of their 

lands. When the application of the ESA denies the private landowner the use of property, the government should compensate the 

landowner by land trades or fee purchase. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Shaufler, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STAN SHAUFLER, LAKE BAY, WASHINGTON 

Mr. SHAUFLER. Gentlemen and gentlewomen of the Task Force, 

I am truly honored to be here before you today and have the opportunity to speak. My name is Stan Shaufler and I live in Lake Bay, 

Washington. 

Today as I sit and watch the news of the aftermath of the explosion in Oklahoma City, I cannot help but notice the sense of compassion shared by the survivors and rescue workers on the scene--

a mutual effort at restoring a sense of order amidst overwhelming 

chaos. Perhaps when the chips are down, really down, we as a people can rise up to any challenge laid before us. In light of the fact 

that there are truly bad people in the world, we can take solace in 
11 

the fact that adversaries like those who are attending these hearings on the Endangered Species Act can share their differences 

without the least hint of violence or misanthropy. With extensive career experience in both educational and industrial settings, I have had many opportunities to gain a thorough 

perspective regarding diverse viewpoints on human activities and 

the need for a balanced outlook toward the natural environment 

from which we all sustain ourselves. 

As a sawmill owner in the Pacific Northwest, I too long for the 

opportunity to be both closely dependent upon, yet respectful of the 

natural forces that influence all life on earth, to own my own business and take pride in my work and ethic. 

The old growth logs I milled represented centuries of growth. Their renewability seemed more and more doubtful in the light of 

vast clear-cuts. Just as wooden ships that plied these once rich waters in abundance, it seemed another era was fast coming to a 

close. Indeed, it has. The hundreds of small sawmills that once dotted the northwest have all but virtually disappeared. Change was 

in the wind, but it was a change we welcomed as an alternative 

to the full-scale liquidation of the old growth forests in our backyard. It seemed logical to many of us in the local communities that 

the collusion between big private timberland owners and the environmental laws were devised to put the independents out of business and drive up the cost of privately held timber. Many of us 

never doubted for one minute the likely linkage thus between big 

timber and environmental law. We knew that in the 1990's jargon 

of political spin and public malaise we as independent sawmill 

owners were doomed. 

We still believe the practice of growing and cutting trees should 

be given the utmost priority as we seek to search for the materials 

with which to continue our existence. Surely anyone can see the 

preference to the continued existence of forests, albeit it commercial, over the open pit mine or the shaft. However, the logging of 

the national forests was a disgrace at the rates instituted and 

maintained by our expert forest managers. Sustainability of old 

growth was not in the plan. The fact that the wooden boat schools 

of the northwest must now use South American wood instead of 

drawing from their own once bountiful backyard is a disgrace. As a sawmill owner, I personally can attest to the fear and frustration of having one agency after another march into my office 

with another list of demands upon my time, resources and money. 

Water quality, air quality and a host of other authorities seemed 

to be singling me out for a closer look at what I believe to be totally 

benign activities. I longed for the cooperative business environment 

I had heard existed in places like Japan where the government 

agencies actually helped a business succeed. But like any strong 

ship, we weathered the storm. Time and again they came, the local 

bureaucrats greedily usurping their powers to dictate and mandate 

more hoop jumping. I eventually sold my business, in part, I must admit, because I 

had become tired and financially weak at the prospect of the never 

ending chains of bureaucracy being placed around my feet. Yet, 

poor initial implementation aside, we all felt change was needed. 
12 

As a currently unemployed head of household with four children, 

I too know the fear of losing one's livelihood in middle age. The 

story has been repeated thousands of times here in the northwest. 

I know too that these changes are occurring all over our country 

as we choose to buy more imports and continue to export less from 

our factories and more from our forests. Whether or not we realize 

it, we all vote every day on the issues which affect the national 

debt and unemployment rates by how we spend our money. 

As I travel the great woods of the northwest looking for a new 

epiphany, I can still marvel at what is left. Just two days ago, I 

watched with my children as a magnificent herd of elk grazed nearby. This spring, I watched countless salmon leap and lunge to their 

deaths in the shallow waters of Mill Creek. The life forces that 

have existed here for thousands of years are still here. 

Yet, there is a profound change occurring upon the land. I do not 

believe the steady progression of development and encroachment of 

our daily activities upon these life forms we call wild can continue. 

I believe few people do. The day after I watched that herd of elk, 

Lorina, my wife, and I were in awe as we saw them darted and 

airlifted to a new location because they were creating a nuisance 

to some homeowners. How many seasons and how many generations had come and gone to come to this ignoble end? 

We even wonder if the growth management acts of today will dictate the same treatment of those of us who stray tomorrow. I think 

we will continue to face some tough choices as we continue to learn 

about what we should and should not do. In response to these hearings on the value of the Endangered Species Act, I must reflect 

loudly and I must reflect strongly on the side of those things wild. 

Finally, as a teacher at a State prison, I saw many examples of 

men who had lost their will to dig at their inner strengths and survive like the wild things. We are not in prison, we are in paradise. 

Instead of seesawing of environmental regulation, the American 

people want a steady and true course toward environmental protection. This mandate is clear. 

I am an optimist. Like my forefathers, I have to be. I believe that 

my children will have a chance to enjoy the wild things, and in 

them, to see themselves and their place on earth. Our elected officials will do no one a service in the long run by now retreating 

from choices we must make. The coward will always give up 

ground gained by the heroic efforts of others. 

I thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaufler can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Ms. Starke, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN STARKE, VANCOUVER AUDUBON 

SOCIETY 

Ms. STARKE. My name is Gretchen Starke and I am speaking on 

behalf of the Audubon Society and for a strengthened Endangered 

Species Act. I wish to thank the Task Force for the opportunity to 

speak here today. 

Virtually all biologists agree that biodiversity is important, even 

essential to the well-being of humans. As we are losing habitats 
13 

and species, we are losing irreplaceable resources. One of the habitats being lost in the Pacific Northwest is the old growth forest, 

home of the much maligned northern spotted owl, and of the marbled murrelet, pileated woodpecker, pine marten, Larch Mountain 

salamander, flying squirrels and numerous songbirds. 

We humans also depend on the old growth system. We need it 

not only for the obvious benefit of providing wood products and jobs 

for workers, but also for clean water, for holding soil in place, for 

moderating the climate and for the beauty that calms and inspires 

the spirit of human beings. 

But our old growth forests are fast disappearing. The problem is 

that the old growth forests have been mined, not harvested. Logging might not have been so bad if it had not been so excessive. 

Logging skyrocketed, starting in the 1960's. Before then, for example, the volume of timber cut in the Mt. Hood National Forest was 

below 50 million board-feet a year. It increased to above 300 million board-feet a year in the 1970's and 1980's with the exceptions 

being during the recession of the early 1980's. This could not be 

sustained. 

Timber companies had hit their own lands hard. They had taken 

all of their old growth and converted the land to single species 

plantations due to be harvested in as little as 50 years. Because 

they had over-cut their own lands, they were hoping the Federal 

lands would fill in for them until their plantations were ready. 

They saw no reason that Federal lands should not be converted to 

tree farms, too, and were pressuring the agencies and Congress to 

ensure that would happen. And the Forest Service was pressured 

into cutting more than the highest recommendation that they had 

made several times during the 1980's. 

The northern spotted owl has been blamed for the human misery 

caused by the destruction of our forests. This bird is such a convenient scapegoat, that if it did not exist, the timber companies would 

have had to invent it. The fact is, loggers and mill workers have 

lost most of their jobs not because of the spotted owl and other listed species, but because of factors inherent in the timber industry 

itself. These factors include the cyclical nature of growth and recession in the homebuilding industry, plant modernization, log exports 

and the cut and get out mentality of the timber companies. 

Enter environmentalist litigation. The effort to turn national forests into national tree farms violated the National Forest Management Act. Federal judges agree that the law is being violated. That 

is what shut down the logging, not the owl. 

As the pressure to get out the cut was colliding with realities on 

the ground, it became increasingly clear that the populations of 

spotted owls were declining. It was then that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service was told by a judge to listen to their own scientists and finally listed the owl. So the ESA became both a messenger to us 

that something was seriously wrong in the forest and a mechanism 

to save both spotted owls and old growth ecosystems. 

Tinkering with the ESA will make the threats to biodiversity 

worse, not better. The ESA does not need to be fixed because it is 

not broken. It is working well. Its enemies have distorted the way 

it works. 
14 

The criteria for listing is scientific only. That is the way it should 

be. Should Congress make any criteria other than scientific for listing, then the Congress will be asking the Federal agencies to do 

a totally dishonest thing. The list of endangered species will no 

longer be a list of those that are likely to become extinct and a list 

of threatened species no longer those that are likely to become endangered. The list will become a list of plants and animals that we 

might try to save if it is not too inconvenient to do so. 

Once a species is listed, however, and a recovery plan is being 

prepared, there is plenty of opportunity to consider economic and 

sociological factors under the ESA now. The ESA is flexible. It does 

take jobs into account; it does provide for consultation; it even provides for incidental-that is, accidental or unintended-take. It 

may surprise you to know that between 1979 and 1991 fewer than 

one percent of over than 120,000 projects that required a permit 

under the ESA were found to jeopardize a listed species and only 

34 were canceled. 

I will close by asking the moral question: whatever one's religious beliefs, surely destruction of our earth cannot be sanctioned. 

Do we as a single species have the moral right to wipe out all those 

forms of life that do not serve our immediate economic gain? 

It is absolutely essential that the best tools we Americans have 

to prevent this disastrous loss of biodiversity, the Endangered Species Act, be strengthened, not weakened. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Starke can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Marcellus, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF EARL MARCELLUS, CHELAN COUNTY 

COMMISSIONER, CHELAN COUNTY 

Mr. MARCELLUS. Chairman Pombo and distinguished Committee 

members, I want to thank you-sincerely thank you for allowing us 

to be here today to briefly tell why there is a need to amend the 

Endangered Species Act. 

I am Earl Marcellus, a Commissioner from Chelan County, a 

rural county located in north central Washington and impacted by 

more than 60 pairs of owls. I would like to just briefly mention a 

few of the numerous negative impacts of the listing of the spotted 

owl. There has been a number of resultant socio-economic and natural resource losses. For example, the timber-generated funds from 

Federal public lands for school construction and roads have virtually dried up. Thousands of high-paying, product-producing logging and sawmill jobs have disappeared. 

Many private property owners have lost the right to harvest timber on their own lands. I would like to give you one specific example. The Johnson family in Leavenworth, Washington. Two years 

ago, they were offered $350,000 for approximately 50 percent of the 

standing green timber on their land that would have been removed 

in a selective harvesting operation. They were denied a harvesting 

permit because of the roosting owls on adjacent Federal lands. That 

was until the wild fires of 1994 consumed their timberland. Now 

they have the privilege of going in and virtually clear-cutting their 

blackened timber at a loss of more than half the original market 

value that existed before the fires. 
15 

The dead and dying timber throughout the northern spotted owl 

range has virtually gone unsalvaged over the last five years, which, 

of course, has been a tremendous negative impact on our raw material, but also has resulted in a tremendous amount of fuel loading 

that intensifies forest fires. And in 1994 in our little rural county 

alone, 200,000 acres of timberland was consumed and with that the 

destruction of the very wildlife habitat that supposedly was being 

preserved for the spotted owl and the many other species that reside in our forests. 

In addition, the watersheds, so absolutely imperative for the protection of our water quality and fish habitat was destroyed. Recreational opportunities were destroyed and, of course, the natural 

beauty of our forested mountains were just decimated. 

I think it is also important to note that the privately owned 

timberlands where harvesting permits are still obtainable are being 

liquidated or converted at an alarming rate. Their forest management practices today are based on fear-the fear that some species 

soon will get them and their rights to harvest their timber. So instead of using sound sustainable multiple-use principles that have 

been applied in the past, they have to operate from fear because 

of the abuse of the Endangered Species Act and other onerous envi- ronmental regulations. 

I would conclude by giving a few specific suggestions on how the 

Endangered Species Act might be amended. First, I believe we 

need to continue to recognize the need for maintaining a healthy 

natural environment. But we must make mandatory provisions for 

protecting the unique human environment in which we live, which 

includes jobs and affordable housing, food and clothing. 

Second, we need to better define what constitutes a species and 

a subspecies. 

Third, we need to make provisions whereby administrative appeals of timber sales, grazing permits and so forth would be considered only when they are based on sound, verifiable, peer-reviewed 

scientific data, not emotionalized rhetoric. 

Fourth, I truly believe we need to move the decisionmaking 

power back to the States so that qualified local people can develop 

reasonable management plans to protect our species. That would 

fulfill, I believe, the intent of our founding fathers as expressed by 

James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 45, where he said, 

''The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal 

Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the 

State governments are numerous and indefinite." Thus, they gave 

us the lOth Amendment. 

I trust that you will be successful in your attempts to bring common sense and truly good science into the efforts of protecting the 

environment while still preserving our unalienable rights to life, 

liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the great American tradition. 

Thank you so very much. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marcellus can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. PoMBO. Dr. Lee, you may proceed. 
16 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

Dr. LEE. My name is Robert G. Lee. I serve as Professor of Forest 

Resources in the College of Forest Resources at the University of 

Washington in Seattle where I specialize in the sociology of natural 

resources. I spent over 10 years in the Pacific Northwest studying 

wood-producing communities and during the last five years have 

concentrated on how the reduction in Federal timber harvests have 

affected individuals, families and communities. I have also looked 

at some of the cultural conflicts that have gone along with that. 

I am here to report the results of my research, and will not take 

a position on whether or how the Endangered Species Act should 

be reformed. I will try to look at four questions in doing this. 

First Question. What do we know about the effects of timber harvest reductions on individuals, families and communities? In the 

five years since the listing of the northern spotted owl, no Federal 

or State studies have systematically analyzed human impacts or 

monitored the success of retraining and job creation programs. Research has not been systematic enough to permit anyone on any 

side of this issue to make scientifically-grounded generalizations 

about human impacts in the three-State owl region as a whole. In 

the absence of sound scientific information about these impacts, I 

suggest you pay particular attention to the reports of individuals 

and communities that have been affected. 

Second question. Has the wood products industry been an unstable source of employment and income for communities? Contrary to 

public opinion, employment in logging and sawmilling from 1964 to 

1991, the period preceding the current instability, the employment 

has been more stable, not less stable, than all manufacturing industries, including wood products, combined. Moreover, annual variation in the number of wood products establishments is over twice 

as stable as all manufacturing combined. These results show that 

logging and sawmilling have been reliable sources of employment 

and income when compared to alternative manufacturing industries. 

Also contrary to popular opinion, employment in small logging 

and sawmilling establishments is more stable than employment in 

large establishments. Employment in small establishments is over 

four times as stable as establishments with 500 employees or more. 

Withdrawal of Federal wood supplies has disproportionately impacted small businesses and the relatively stable small establishments they support, resulting in the growing concentration of wood 

production in fewer, larger and less stable establishments. 

Third question. There has been a reduction of Federal woodwhere has the reduction of Federal wood harvest created the most 

need for economic revitalization? I am just completing a study of 

72 counties in the spotted owl region. Counties were classified by 

population density and the importance of wood products to the 

county economies. Thirty of 72 counties were classified as woodproducing in 1993 while 19 counties were densely populated. Twenty-three counties had low population densities and were not heavily 

reliant on wood production. A subset of the wood-producing counties was created to identify 15 federally-dependent wood-producing 

counties. 
17 

Counties were then rated as to the degree to which decline in 

wood products economy from 1988 to 1992 had created a significant 

challenge of economic revitalization. Fifteen counties were classified as challenged to some extent by the decline in the wood products economy. See figure two here. Nine of the 15 counties were 

also Federal wood-producing counties, showing the strong causal 

connection between withdrawal of Federal wood supplies and the 

decline of local economies that had been reliant on wood from national forests and ELM-administered lands. 

The major weakness of my study is its inability to identify scores 

of local communities facing severe challenges of economic revitalization located in counties identified as facing a low level of challenge or no challenge. Notable examples are Hayfork in Trinity 

County, California; Forks in Clallam County, Washington; small 

communities throughout Chelan County, as well as places like Aberdeen and Hoquium in Grays Harbor County, Washington. 

The fourth and final question. Does the development of recreation, tourism and value-added manufacturing have the potential 

for revitalizing these local economies? Recreation, tourism and 

value-added-that is, secondary wood products manufacturing do 

not appear to work very well. Figure three shows the distribution 

of hotels and lodging places and showing that these places are in 

decline in those heavily wood-dependent places that rely on Federal 

timber. 

The data also show that in figure four, the location of the valueadded or secondary manufacturing establishments is in urban 

areas, concentrated in urban areas, close to places that have access 

to markets and proximity to nodes of transportation networks and 

are not generally located where there is the most need for economic 

revitalization. 

In conclusion, we have learned that the challenges of economic 

revitalization fall most heavily on those counties that have been 

most reliant on Federal wood supplies. We have also learned that 

recreation, tourism and value-added manufacturing do not have the 

potential for replacing logging and sawmilling as sources of jobs, 

income and benefits. Forest management and primary wood products manufacturing remain by far the most promising sources of 

jobs, income and tax base in most of the rural counties affected by 

the withdrawal of wood supplies. Finally, we have learned that the 

wood-producing establishments are far more stable than most other 

forms of manufacturing and that smaller wood products establishments are more stable than large establishments. These conclusions contradict much of the conventional wisdom that has been 

used to justify sudden withdrawal of Federal wood supplies and 

suggest that wood production may, after all, be one of the most desirable sectors in the economic base for rural communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

Thank you very much for your attention. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lee can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Dr. Oliver, you may proceed. 
18 

STATEMENT OF CHADWICK D. OLIVER, UNIVERSITY OF 

WASHINGTON 

Dr. OLIVER. Thank you very much. My name is Chad Oliver. I 

am a professor at the University of Washington College of Forest 

Resources. 

The present polarization between those wanting to preserve species and those wanting commodities and private property rights is 

unnecessary and counter-productive. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can actually have more of both if we get away from this 

polarization and there will be a role for everyone working toward 

a common solution. My statements apply specifically to forests but 

in principle could be used elsewhere. 

I have studied ecology and silviculture at Yale University and 

taught ecology and silviculture at Harvard University and the University of Washington. 

From a scientific perspective, I will comment on two things-preserving large areas and saving species. Setting aside large forest 

preserves may have merits, but not as part of endangered species 

protection. It may be appropriate to set aside individual stands of 

unique structures such as old growth; however, trying to preserve 

a large area often means endangering, extirpating and eliminating 

species. Scientists now know forests do not and never did remain 

in a steady state of continuous old growth. Where we have tried to 

preserve forests, we first depleted species needing openings as far 

as regroup. We kept old growth species endangered because the forest does not rapidly grow to old growth, and not infrequently the 

forest was destroyed by a natural disturbance. 

Preserving large areas also means human populations will be 

moved out of some areas and into other areas. So we will selectively save some areas by destroying others. We will obtain our resources from other places and either harvest more overseas forest 

with fewer environmental safeguards or use more steel, concrete 

and brick which consume much more fossil fuel than wood, and so 

increase atmospheric C02. All of these negative effects are going 

on right now because of preservation of northwest forests through 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Scientists generally opt for the preservation approach when put 

in decisionmaking positions which is not their appropriate role. 

They are specialists trained to analyze specific things, not to make 

decisions. Faced with incomplete information, scientists will generally opt to delay, which de facto becomes a preservation approach. The decision to preserve areas is a political one and for certain areas we have decided the tradeoffs are worth it-in national 

parks. If we want to preserve more, that is a political decision; 

however, do not use the pretense of protecting endangered species 

to set up reserves. On the other hand, if you want to save endangered species there are efficient ways to do it. The first requirement is that the majority of the local people 

must be enfranchised and committed to saving the species. 

Enfranchising and trusting people is not just a principle of U.S. democracy, it is also the principle of most modern management 

science. 

The second requirement is to maintain conditions for all species 

before chasing individual species after they become endangered. 
19 

Since different species need mutually exclusive conditions, for example, open versus old growth forest, extremes to save one species 

can jeopardize others. Consequently through proactive management try to maintain conditions for all species across a landscape. 

Where there is an insufficient amount of a much-needed condition, 

proactive management can create the condition much more certainly and much more rapidly than preservation would. Continuing 

a condition should not be a permanent lockup of the land since the 

conditions change with growth. The key to protecting all species is 

to enfranchise the local people to maintain all conditions across the 

landscape. This could be done on public and private lands. National 

and other public lands that are not parks and wildernesses could 

be actively managed to create and maintain a balance of conditions, 

in the process removing timber as byproducts of this management. 

On private lands, since we are asking private landowners to provide the public values of protecting species, the public should compensate these landowners. This can be done cost-effectively as incentives through competitive bids for contracts to provide the various conditions. These competitive bids could be voluntary. The taxpayer costs of these incentives will be very low because they are 

competitive. The increased tax base and reduced unemployment 

will offset the public costs. In fact, a carbon sequestration tax could 

pay for these incentives. In the process of promoting these conditions, we can be protecting all species. We can be creating more 

employment, harvesting more and better quality wood which would 

allow us not to import timber cut from places without environmental safeguards. It will allow us to reduce the use of more C02 

polluting steel, concrete, et cetera and it will allow us to reduce the 

use of fossil fuels. Then we will have truly put all groups working 

together to achieve a more environmentally and economically 

wealthy society. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Oliver can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

I would like to remind the members of the Task Force that we 

are also under the five-minute rule and to abide by the lights. 

Dr. Oliver, in your testimony, both oral and written, you say that 

there may be a better way, or you lay out what may be a better 

way of protecting endangered species, but also, you lay out what 

may be a better way of protecting our environment as a whole. 

Would you-in the written statement, you talk about instead of 

just saying we are going to lock down from this line to this line because of an endangered species or because of a different environmental problem that may exist, that there may be a better way of 

managing that by laying out different-what you call structural 

stands in the forest. Would you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Dr. OLIVER. Yes, I would be glad to. The change in scientific understanding of our forests has been quite dramatic. The ecological 

community now recognizes that forests do not exist in a static, stable old growth condition which is conducive to all species. The forest naturally was dynamic; there were disturbances which created 

openings; then the forest grew to young dense forest and then later 

to older forest and then through partial disturbances to old growth 
20 

conditions. Now, we also recognize that certain species need each 

of these structures. Now nature kept these different structures over 

a very broad and large fluctuation across a very large landscape. 

We could maintain all of those structures through proactive management where we would be protecting the structures that are in 

short supply, proactively creating as much of the structure as possible so that we maintain all the different habitats, all the different 

conditions that the different species need. In the process, we would 

be producing employment. We would be also harvesting timber off 

these, now that timber is an environmentally-sound substitute for 

steel, aluminum, brick, concrete and these other products where 

they are made out of fossil fuels. So consequently, we would be 

achieving biodiversity, employment and a better global environment. We would also not be forcing people to harvest timber in 

other regions of the world and import it to the United States. 

Mr. POMBO. Using this example that you have laid out, I can visualize how it would affect different endangered species other than 

just what we have here in the Pacific Northwest in the old growth 

forest and the problem that is associated with that. Do you feel 

that if we had more of a management plan, recovery plan that was 

in existence that it would remove the perverse incentives that exist 

under the implementation of the Act today where people manage 

their forests so that they are not habitat? 

Dr. OLIVER. I certainly feel it would. If we could encourage these 

people to create as much of this habitat as needed or as possible, 

then it would remove the perverse incentives. 

Mr. POMBO. And you feel that from your experience this is a scientifically sound opinion that you are putting forth? 

Dr. OLIVER. Yes, I certainly do. In fact, we have seen both marbled murrelets and spotted owls live in previously managed forests, 

so we know it can be done, if by accident. If we are in short supplies of habitat for these species, if we did it on purpose, I am sure 

we could create it even a lot more effectively. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Ms. Starke, in your statement, you say that you want the ESA 

to be strengthened. 

Ms. STARKE. Correct. Mr. POMBO. I take it--and please correct me if I am wrong. I 

take it that what you mean by strengthening it is for us to actually 

do a better job of saving endangered species than what we are 

doing right now. 

Ms. STARKE. The bottom line is to save endangered species. If 

species could be recognized as being endangered and listed before 

we got to the crisis stage, it would save everybody a lot of grief. 

There is a tremendous backlog right now of candidate species who 

are species that are probably in a great deal of trouble, but are not 

listed because the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fishery Service simply do not have the budget or the staff to 

do it. 

Mr. POMBO. Do you think that an overall system as Dr. Oliver 

has laid out where we do a much better job of managing-or in this 

area of managing our forests and a much better job of recognizing 

the differences in stands and the environmental need to have that 
21 

variety, would also benefit the species that we have had on the decline? 

Ms. STARKE. If this had been done 10 or 20 years ago, perhaps. 

Right now, the forests have been hammered so hard, it is like a patient that needs to be healed in the hospital before anything more 

can be done. There just is not that much old growth left to work 

with and we will have to wait awhile until the secondary-the mature timber becomes more able to work with. We have just really 

hit these forests awfully hard and that is what has been the problem. 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. Unfortunately my time has expired. 

Unfortunately, we did not do this 20 years ago; we did not do it 

30 years ago. And I think that we all can admit that mistakes were 

made and mistakes were made in the past in many areas in protecting our natural resources and managing them in a sustainable 

way. I think that the effort that we are trying to make today is to 

recognize those mistakes in the past and try to correct that so that 

we do not do that again, and at the same time recognizing that 

human beings are part of the environment and we have to consider 

the impact on all parts of the environment, including the human 

element of it. I think that is kind of the direction we are going and 

I think it-from some of the testimony that we have heard so far 

today, I am very encouraged that maybe we can reach a consensus 

on that. Thank you. 

I would like at this time to recognize Congressman Cooley for his 

questions. 

Mr. COOLEY. Ms. Starke, I want to recognize the tremendous influence that your association has politically. I would like to know, 

what position do you hold with the Audubon Society? 

Ms. STARKE. I am a volunteer, strictly a volunteer, Conservation 

Chair of our local chapter. I am on the board of directors of the 

local chapter. We are volunteers. We meet in each others homes. 

Sometimes I get reimbursed for mileage and sometimes I do not. 

Mr. COOLEY. That is OK. I was just wondering what lour position was. Your society-since you are a representative o the Society, do you believe in private property rights as a society? 

Ms. STARKE. Private property rights. We agree with the Fifth 

Amendment, and basically what the courts have held is that as 

long as there is any reasonable use-reasonable economic use-of 

a person's land there is no taking. We certainly would not want to 

see an amendment doing away with the Fifth Amendment of the 

Constitution. But we do believe that private people have a respon- sibility to the public as a whole, absolutely, we all do. Mr. COOLEY. As your society looks at the Endangered Species Act 

and your recommendation, do you have any recommendations for 

the people that live in the northwest and have derived their economic income-the communities that have survived economically 

and with your philosophy now do not have the opportunity to utilize that resource? What do you recommend for these people to do 

in these communities? 

Ms. STARKE. Well, it is really tough. For one thing, it should be 

recognized that spotted owl or no spotted owl, they would still be 

in the same boat in a few years anyway because they are running 

out of trees. 
22 

I certainly think that Congress should pass legislation to help 

these people. Each individual has to make his own way as the gentleman on my right has attempted to do and still does not have his 

spirit broken. But retraining, other industries, something to help. 

Other industries have also gone through this. Remember, they 

called it the rust belt in the midwest and people were moving all 

over the country. That was terrible. I think the Federal Government could do a lot more in regards of helping unemployed people 

than they do. 

Mr. COOLEY. Basically, philosophically, we can say that even 

though this is a natural renewable resource-the wood industry 

anyway and some of the other industries that are being affected by 

the Endangered Species Act-that we probably should continue the 

lockup that we have and not any management whatsoever of this 

particular resource? 

Ms. STARKE. The forest needs to be healed. That is the thing. 

There are tree stands coming in and eventually logging can commence again. I do not oppose logging per se, but I oppose timber 

mining, which is what has happened. The logging that went on in 

the 1970's and 1980's was absolutely incredible and Congress kept 

pushing and pushing and pushing. Let me give you an example. 

The Mt. Hood National Forest at the time was making one of its 

plans and produced a broad range of alternatives as they are supposed to do. There was a high timber alternative. It was sort of 

timber overallus. At the same time, Les Cohen, a moderate Democrat, a liberal even, introduced in Congress a bill that mandated 

the Forest Service increase its cut to a certain level and the Mt. 

Hood share would have been higher than the high timber cut. That 

is why we are here now and that is why we are in such a dreadful 

mess. I feel sorry for the people who have lost their jobs and do 

not understand what happened. That is a terrible thing. But it is 

not the owl's fault and it is not the environmentalists' fault. If 

there is anything left at all, it is because of the environmentalists 

and the owl. 

Mr. COOLEY. You are taking up my time and I will have to ask 

for some more if you do not stop that. 

Let me ask you something. 

Ms. STARKE. All right. Mr. CooLEY. What would you say-we are looking at the northwest and we have been in contact with the Chairman of the U.S. 

Forest Service, Jack Ward Thomas, discussing the dead and dying. 

Right now, we have-according to the U.S. Forest Service, not anybody else, we have 21 billion board-feet of dead and dying timber 

in the northwest. What would your society say to going in and harvesting some of that dead and dying under the law and then replanting that dead and dying so that we can have future forest 

growth in the future instead of letting it-right now, dead and 

dying, no replanting, no doing anything; what is your philosophy 

as a society? 

Ms. STARKE. If done carefully on a case-by-case basis, obeying all 

environmental laws, maybe even using horse logging in some cases, 

carefully-being careful of the soil and-1 said we do not oppose 

logging, but we oppose the reckless kind of logging that has occurred in the past, and tried to get these east side forests back. But 
23 

the bill that was introduced by my Senator is totally beyond the 

beyonds, just go in and have them mow everything down. No, we 

oppose that. But carefully, very, very carefully doing it-the lands 

that have been hit by the fires have been traumatized already. You 

do not need a bunch of big Cats running all over the darned place. 

Mr. COOLEY. My time is up. Thank you very much. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask Dr. Oliver-I heard Ms. Starke say that if the 

owl issue had not have come up that jobs would be lost anyway because there would not be any trees. So what I would like is your 

assessment of the status of the forest. I mean, how many trees are 

out there? Do you agree with that statement? 

Dr. OLIVER. No, I do not agree with it. What was happening is 

we were cutting many of the very large trees, old growth forest, 

and they were being regenerated. That is a law on the private and 

State lands in Washington and Oregon and it is a policy on Federal 

lands, to replant them. We were growing forests very quickly. What 

we were doing at that time and not realizing it was, we were not 

considering the unique conditions of the old growth structure. So 

we were removing a lot of the old forest but it was growing back. 

The mills would have to change their condition. We now appreciate 

that some of these older forests do have unique conditions, these 

old growth structures. We also recognize that they have some very 

valuable wood products of their own. But it would not have been 

a case where we would have ended up with another Sahara Desert. 

These forests grow back very, very dramatically. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Now this is something that I honestly-! want to know the real 

answer because I have heard conflicting testimony. I believe it was 

Ms. Campbell who said that they observed numerous spotted owls 

in areas that are not old growth and then I have heard people say 

that the spotted owl can only live where it is old growth. Is there 

anyone on this panel who can tell me-yes, Dr. Oliver. 

Dr. OLIVER. I can tell you that we have seen spotted owls living 

and nesting and producing young in stands that had been previously entered and cut in. Now that from a scientific point of view 

means that they can live in forest that has had previous activities 

in them. Now that does not mean that anything goes. It takes certain activities. Those were created by accident. But we could mimic 

those to expand the amount of structure and therefore the amount 

of conditions that spotted owls could live in through the act of management. That shows us that. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Starke, I would like to ask you then; when we consider 

whether or not a species has been recovered-for example, in my 

State of Wyoming, the grizzly bear was put on the endangered species list many, many years ago and the grizzly bear has recovered 

to the point that it seriously poses a threat t~r-my whole State is 

rural. There are only 460,000 people in it. So when I say rural, I 

am talking about, you know, where 10 or 12 people live. But anyway, where people are seriously threatened by the large population 

of grizzly bears, and yet the grizzly bear has not been delisted. 

Now, what is your position? My question is, we are talking about 
24 

preserving the old forest growth to save habitat for the spotted owl. 

Does it have to be the old forest growth to suit the environmentalist community or is it just the numbers of the spotted owls that live 

in the area? What is your position? 

Ms. STARKE. OK-you know, I once lived in Wyoming. Both my 

sons--

Mrs. CUBIN. Where did you live? 

Ms. STARKE. Ten Sleep and Sheridan. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Oh, it is a beautiful area. 

Ms. STARKE. Right. On the grizzly bears, it is my understanding 

that they are mostly found in the Yellowstone National Park area. 

I know there were no grizzly bears in the Bighorn National Forest. Mrs. CUBIN. Ma'am, actually they are all over northern Wyoming 

now. 

Ms. STARKE. Really. 

Mrs. CUBIN. It is mostly adjoining the park area. But no one argues-the number has been increased time after time after time. 

Ms. STARKE. Well, the important thing is that the population 

reach a point to where it is what biologists call viable. That is, it 

can sustain itself without going into a decline. As far as when the 

spotted owl might be delisted, that is a biological decision, not an 

environmentalist decision, not a timber company decision. It ought 

not be a congressional decision, it ought to be a biological decision. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I agree with that. So you are in favor of sound 

science then determining when a species is recovered and how a 

species should be listed? 

Ms. STARKE. Absolutely. My degree is in zoology. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Smith. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to take the pressure off that end and go to this end 

a little bit. Mr. Shaufler, did I say your name right? 

Mr. SHAUFLER. Yes, you did. 

Mrs. SMITH. Good. It was real interesting. I think you are from 

Norm Dicks' district, right? 

Mr. SHAUFLER. That is correct. Mrs. SMITH. OK. And I think it is real interesting-you touched 

on some things that led me to believe that maybe you have talked 

to Norm Dicks a little bit. We have been talking about-now Norm 

Dicks is a member from the upper Puget Sound area. We have 

been talking amongst us about ecosystem management and taking 

a look at managing a larger area. Getting the counties, the State, 

sometimes multiple States together, and going in for multi-species, 

because right now-we were talking about the number of lawsuits 

and we seem to be managing for one, on this lawsuit, that lawsuit. 

Nobody is standing back and taking a look. Somewhat under the 

model of some of the large landowners. They are going into complete systems for all of the species. They have to get them OKed. 

They are monitored by the locals. And it looks to me like the way 

that-we should go for the whole. Have you talked to Norm about 

that and have you got an idea? That would take an amendment because it would allow for some options that are not there. What do 

you feel about that idea? 

Mr. SHAUFLER. On that point, I would be willing to a large extent 

to defer to Dr. Oliver's research. I am quite familiar with his re-
25 

search. We have served on panels together in the past. As I said 

in my testimony, I am an advocate of growing forests for the materials that they yield in favor of virtually all other materials that 

we have available for our use. A system-wide approach to environmental management is, from my understanding, a highly desirable 

approach and we are looking at a system-wide approach, including 

entire ecosystems, entire watersheds and looking at much larger 

areas than specific pieces of property as owned by individuals or 

park services or something. Mrs. SMITH. Well, I wanted to ask you that because it is a level 

that-1 mean, there is polarized-do not cut another tree, and if 

you do, it is bad. And then there is the other side that was happening years ago that was not responsible. Somewhere in between 

there has to be better management and suing for one stand of trees 

is not wise when it scares the folks around it and they cut early 

on the private so they are not sued. 

Mr. SHAUFLER. That has been the case in many instances. We 

have seen the hastening of the cut on private lands out of fear and 

that, of course, is unfortunate as well. 

Mrs. SMITH. So, in a way-and I am not going to ask you to dot 

the I on this because I do not know either. And we are having 

these discussions for fear of even talking about them because the 

far sides get all upset and. want to stay where they are. But you 

feel comfortable about that larger. Now that would bring it closer 

to home. That would mean it would be more of this kind of thing. 

You would have more people from the State, the local, making this 

decision and then presenting a plan to be OKed. Do you think we 

are capable of that? 

Mr. SHAUFLER. I am very much an advocate of smaller big government. 

Mrs. SMITH. Smaller big government. OK, thank you. 

The other thing-! would like to move-1 will tell everybody Leslie and I went to school together and I have not seen her in over 

20-maybe 27 years. So when she sat here, it was kind of a delight 

to see her. We actually grew up in a little timber town up the 

Gorge. And for you that want a little bit of spice on the side, we 

were cheerleaders together in junior high. 

And yet, at the time we grew up and were rabid-! think some 

of us were the beginning of the recycling movement before it was 

popular. So you take a look at that and you look at us today, I do 

not think most people have changed and I do not think Leslie has 

either. But you sat there as one of those people that I used to fight 

and that was timber owners and growers. I want you to expand on 

the effect on the private and what you feel-you said it is stopping 

you from managing for more habitat. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. From using good forest practices on our private 

land. 

Mrs. SMITH. What would you do if you were not having to react 

and try to respond? What could you do different? What have you 

changed since the listing-in your management? Can you think of 

things that stand out, or is that-maybe I am--

Ms. CAMPBELL. Well, many of the forest practices have changed 

since the Endangered Species Act. Gosh, I would defer to a forester 

to list them accurately. But one of our strong concerns is that good 
26 

forest practices encourage us, as I said, to manage and thin, create 

owl habitat, create forest understories that we believe are part of 

the answer to this whole question. Unfortunately, the governmental scientists at this time argue that the harvest within 1.8 

miles of a nest site in the Washington Cascades is a civil and 

criminal take of a spotted owl even if a nest site is two ridge tops 

from the acres being harvested and the harvest occurs during the 

non-nesting season when the owls are not present. 

Mrs. SMITH. So you just cannot manage the overall because of 

the reaction, is what you are saying? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Well, there appears to be no logic in the biology, 

and so we would encourage stronger restrictions and listings. The 

logic behind the 1.8-mile owl circle is evidence that the governmental scientists do not really comprehend what is necessary to 

grow the species. 

Mrs. SMITH. So initial good science-and you would agree with 

Mrs. StarkeMs. CAMPBELL. Absolutely. 

Mrs. SMITH [continuing]. that initial good science is what we 

need. If we can figure out what we agree on that is. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. As Mrs. Cubin said, we have sent a man to the 

moon. We can do it. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chris Morris, I was really taken with your testimony because 

what you pointed out so eloquently is that most of the support financially for this entire nation comes from our working men and 

women. You indicated that there were severe job losses in this 

area. Can you give me an estimate of the number of job losses? Not 

just directly in the timber industry but ancillary job losses. 

Ms. MORRIS. Well, in my town, which is Randle, we had at one 

time five gas stations and we are down to just two now. We have 

had two grocery stores and we are down to one. Well, actually, we 

are down even one more. The feed store went out of business. A 

lot of other people in these small timber communities are dependent upon these mills. And if the mills are not running, and are not 

going, then it is just not possible for us to stay there and people 

cannot have a business. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Chris. 

Stan, I was very interested in your biography. You are a consulting professor of occupational psychology at Washington State Penitentiary in McNeil Island. And you also offered us very interesting 

and intelligent testimony. The thing that struck me about your testimony was you seemed in many ways to mirror the pioneering 

spirit that we all hold and that is why we choose to live in this 

area. But I am interested in knowing what did you find with regard to the impact of people having to change their occupations severely? What happened? What happens to individuals when suddenly they lose their job and have to change occupations? 

Mr. SHAUFLER. That is a loaded question. What happens to individuals when change is forced uf.on them is highly dependent upon 

the character of the individua. I rely heavily upon the strong 
27 

moral fabric and ethic that was instilled in me by my parents and 

have always believed in-to use an old cliche-"pull myself up by 

my own bootstraps." I know that there are many individuals, and 

indeed I have worked with many individuals who chose to take a 

different viewpoint and blame their shortcomings or blame their 

plight on others. In most cases, this results in a deferred or total 

abandonment of any sense of responsibility for one's own actions. 

And of course, you are doomed when that happens. 

The men that I worked with, for the most part, wanted to have 

the opportunity to have meaningful employment. Many, of course, 

were denied this because of the conditions that they grew up in in 

inner cities. However, there were some men that I worked with 

who were basically there because they had chosen a wro11g path 

that seemed to be somewhat precipitated by events in the timber 

communities-there were some men from the timber communities 

that I worked with. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Stan. 

Dr. Lee, I would like to pose that same question to you. What 

happens when change is forced on people who have chosen an occupation, that is what they are trained in, that is what they like to 

do-what happens when suddenly that is interrupted in their life? 

Dr. LEE. We have spent a lot of time studying the logging community and the sawmilling community. Particularly in the logging 

community, the thing we found was that people form an identity, 

if you will, with the occupation. We call that an occupational identity. And to break loose from that is very difficult. It is very similar 

to people who work in nursing, police work and others, because 

they socialize together, their family networks are often in rural 

areas, they depend on one another. And when they begin to fracture-they lose their job and they begin to fracture family relationships and community relationships and dislodge people from the 

kind of social security network, which is not official, not governmental, but gives them their whole meaning in life-the shock is 

enormous. Social workers who I have consulted with on this describe this as very similar to the kind of experiences that Vietnam 

vets went through when they were rejected by their country. The 

experience that was described by the social workers who were designing intervention programs out of Harbor View Hospital in Seattle, when they began to see what was happening in the rural 

communities, they contracted with the State to put the package together, and the assessment was very similar to what happened 

with Vietnam vets, where people had a very strong identity, a very 

close connection to one another and the land in this case, and felt 

shocked and rejected. And the kind of stress that that puts individuals under is very, very different than just losing a job. Losing a 

job by itself is a life-threatening experience, but in addition, to go 

through that kind of social rejection, moral exclusion as we have 

described it, is an additional load that results in high levels of depression, substance abuse and even suicide. And that has been reported anecdotally throughout communities in the northwest. 

What is the crime is that no government agency, State or Federal, has had the will, the political will to do any kind of successful 

monitoring which would measure these impacts so we would know 

in fact what is the result of this kind of dislocation. 

91-344 - 95 - 2 
28 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to repeat for the audience that 

what Dr. Lee said to us, and you may not have heard back there, 

that unfortunately no State or Federal Governmental organization 

had demonstrated the will to deal with these problems. And I think 

they are real and I thank you for addressing them, Dr. Lee. 

Dr. Oliver, in your written testimony, one of the suggestions that 

you made for solutions to the problems that we are dealing with 

now was to avoid the term "ecosystem" in the legislated language, 

change the mandate to "maintaining minimum areas of finite number of conditions that can be readily defined." Do you think we can 

ever work with the term "ecosystem", and what does it mean? 

Dr. OLIVER. Well, ecosystem is a term that has been around the 

ecological community since the 1930's, and it is a useful scientific 

term, because each scientist would define his own system that the 

scientist was studying and working from there, which means that 

what you have is not a single ecosystem or one that all scientists 

would agree on. It would be specific to each study. When you move 

that into legislative language and try to legislate ecosystems, you 

have the experts, the scientists, each describing a different ecosystem, and you will have as many interpretations of what it 

means. Therefore, it is a useful scientific term, but if you are looking for something that will be unambiguous from a management 

measurement, basically a legal point of view, I would use a term 

that is much more finite and tangible than that. I suggested these 

conditions,jerhaps structures or something like that could be used, 

but I woul avoid that term just because of the way scientists use 

it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is very helpful, and even though I still 

have a green light, I would yield the rest of my time to the Chairman because I think he thinks I do not. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Metcalf. 

Mr. METCALF. My question is to Ms. Christine Morris and the 

question is, in your written testimony you discuss a female logger 

who was retrained in the fire safety field. Generally, do you have 

any comment on government retraining particularly? 

Ms. MORRIS. My knowledge on that is kind of limited. In my 

area, not very many have gone through this. This is actually someone who has come into this area--l would make a recommendation to talk with some other people that have dealt with it one-onone. What she is doing is she is coming around from house-to-house 

setting up--

Mrs. SMITH. Mr. Chair, would you allow these folks to leave if 

they are wanting to, and then we can hear Chris please? 

Mr. Chair, we knew this was going to happen and it was 

planned. Let us let them leave so she can finish without the noise. 

Mr. POMBO. Those who wish to leave may do so if they will do 

so quietly. 

Mr. Metcalf, it is your time, you may proceed. 

Mr. METCALF. All right. Were you finished, Chris, or did you 

want to finish the statement. 

Ms. MORRIS. Well, like I say, what little bit that I have been involved with it is where you have got like restoring-they are going 

back in and taking these, retraining people to go in and put the 
29 

forest streams back to their natural conditions. This is a short-term 

training, I mean a year or two and the project is gone. It is like 

putting a bandaid on a dam and saying OK, this will fix it. 

But it is not. These people need long-term jobs for futures, not 

just "OK, we will give you a job for two years, goodbye." And that 

is with Linda, what they have done with her. She is going around 

for the local fire districts, because our local fire district is all volunteer, our medicaid services are all volunteer, but all the funds for 

the equipment comes from the county and from the State and from 

the taxpayers in the local area. 

Mr. METCALF. OK, thank you. 

I have a question then for Dr. Oliver-Dr. Oliver, I should say. 

In your written statement, you have "The concept of preserving forests to protect species is based on an outdated steady state ecological theory when it was expected that forests undisturbed by humans would revert to an old growth or ancient forest condition." I 

would like to have you comment a little bit more on that, if you 

will. 

Dr. OLIVER. Yes. Beginning in the late 1800's and going up 

through the 1960's, 1970's and into the early 1980's, people had the 

concept that forests left to themselves basically grew to a condition 

of stability where you had what was called the climax forest, sometimes considered analogous to the old growth or the steady state 

of the ancient forest. Since this was so-called or presumed the natural forest before Europeans came to this continent and disturbed 

it, it was assumed that this condition would be the natural condition and therefore all species could survive if we just kept forests 

in this condition. 

Now what has happened is that the scientific evidence is changing. We realize that natural disturbances occur, sometimes quite 

large disturbances. And the natural condition of the forest was a 

very much changing condition, not only with disturbances but with 

species migrating and with climates changing. So we realized that 

the forest was not in this natural stable condition, it was in a mosaic or variety of conditions that was constantly changing across 

the landscape, and that also certain species required each of these 

different conditions. And these conditions fluctuated, so the species 

fluctuated with it. 

It is a much more dynamic acceptance of what the forests did. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Marcellus, you stressed in your testimony the need for good 

science. That seems to be a common thread when we talk about the 

Endangered Species Act. But you certainly imply in your testimony 

that good science has been lacking in the past. Could you elaborate 

on that? 

Mr. MARCELLUS. Yes. I would like to answer that question with 

a comment and conclude with a challenge. Ms. Starke, representing 

the views of the environmental community, feels that our forests 

have been hammered and they need to be left alone to heal on their 

own. I would challenge-this is not the challenge-! would encour-
30 

age you folks to come to my county, Chelan County, and take a 

flight over the 200,000 acres that were consumed last year. They 

had been left alone for the past five years. Approximately 82 percent of the land base in Chelan County is controlled by the Federal 

Government. Those lightning fires started on Federal lands. They 

had been left alone to heal for the last five years. I would encourage you to come and see how nature takes care of healing the land. 

We not only are facing now without adequate salvage, additional 

fuel loading for future conflagrations in our county, we are going 

to suffer severe insect infestation and disease, and we need to get 

on with not leaving the land alone, but managing it properly. 

My challenge would be to the Resources Committee to call for a 

congressional inquiry or whatever vehicle is appropriate to look 

into the science and the procedure that was used in getting the 

spotted owl listed. A thorough study will reveal in fact minimal 

science was used, and a great deal of computer modeling and the 

personal bias of those who did the modeling, went into getting that 

spotted owl listed. 

If that was not the case, why then did they do for three to four 

years after the listing, the hooting to find out how many owls we 

had? They had no idea how many owls we have, but they projected 

and their projections were less than half of what they have actually 

found. And they projected that it was old growth-dependent and 

they have found them in second and third growth stands. They say 

the old growth is nearly all gone, but yet eight to nine million acres 

outside of existing wildernesses and parks have been set aside for 

spotted owl habitat. How can you have both? How can the old 

growth be almost gone and then set aside eight to nine million 

acres? Good science, folks-! challenge that congressional inquiry. One point that I want to make also in light of that, because of 

the Endangered Species Act, as you know, BPA is at risk. I just 

remind people that 90 percent of our power comes from falling 

water, principally over dams. We will get into that in the next session, but I did introduce a bill on the restructuring of EPA's debt 

that also called for a study of ESA and the impact it has had. That 

could very easily include the scientific basis. 

I would like to ask a question of all the panelists-Dr. Oliver 

here has come forth, at least at first blush as some sort of a reasonable compromise, or at least a basis by which compromise could 

come about. I would like to ask each of the panelists, with what 

you have heard today, does that sound like a starting point by 

which we could come together? And I would like to start, if I could, 

with Ms. Morris. 

Ms. MORRIS. Yes, I would go with that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. Ms. Campbell. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Yes. We are in favor of good scientific management that encourages people to cooperate. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Shaufler. 

Mr. SHAUFLER. Yes, with the single reservation that we do not 

know enough yet to manage these systems perhaps quite as well 

as Dr. Oliver might be suggesting. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Ms. Starke. 

Ms. STARKE. I pretty much agree with Mr. Shaufler, we do not 

know enough. I was married to a forester for over 30 years and 
31 

they were pretty certain that they knew exactly how to do it and 

it turned out they did not. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Mr. Marcellus. 

Mr. MARCELLUS. Well, of course, I very much agree in the utilization of good science. When you good folks get done oringing common sense and good science in amending the Endangered Species 

Act, I would encourage you to look into properly structuring the 

National Forest Management Act and the National Land Policy 

and Management Act as well. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Dr. Lee, I am not going to ask you because you 

took yourself out of the loop on that. However, if you want to respond, you certainly are welcome to. 

Dr. LEE. I would simply reinforce the idea that what we need is 

a relook at the way in which science gets practiced. And that to me 

is the highest priority, so that we can do research, evaluation and 

monitoring and know that it meets scientific standards, rather 

than have it so highly politicized. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. One last question before I go. Dr. Lee, in your testimony you drew the inference pretty much-I do not want to put 

words in your mouth-but that the timber industry, at least the 

processing part of it, is fairly stable. Yet we heard testimony from 

two individuals, one representing workers and one a wood products 

owner-there seems to be a difference of opinion, and I would like, 

if I could, to have you respond to what Dr. Lee said in his testimony. If you recall, he said that it is pretty stable. Now of course, 

your study was from 1964 to 1991, so it misses a bit of time there. 

But could you respond to that, what you heard Dr. Lee say? 

Ms. MORRIS. Without a guarantee or at least a supply, you cannot have stability. I mean in my area, the company I work for, we 

have gone down to a four-day work week, eight hours a day, because without it, we cannot. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Real quickly. I know my time is out but I do want 

Ms. Campbell to respond too. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. As I stated, we used to employ 475 people, now 

we employ 350. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to 

ask one more question? 

Mr. POMBO. Without objection. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Dr. Lee, you mentioned small concerns and then 

you had large concerns of 500 people or more. Ms. Campbell said 

that her company is the largest in Columbia Gorge and it is not 

at 500 people. And so I just wonder-500 people is a pretty bigsized company. How many are there, were there during this study 

that are still left, or how many when you started and so forth? 

Dr. LEE. Well, the key thing I did was not look at the county 

level or the community level. This is looking at the State level. And 

what these data say is that individual mills or logging operations 

may come or go, but in the aggregate, as an industry, it is far more 

stable than any other industries. And the employment in the small 

establishments is more stable than in the large establishments. 

And we have not been able to look at particular companies because 

the data do not permit that. The number of establishments in the 

large-size class has not decreased that much. In fact, if you start 

looking at the last few years, there has been a shrinkage in some 
32 

of the smaller ones as a result of the fact that they are historically 

more dependent on the Federal wood supplies. But we do not have 

enough data to make any generalizations on the shakeout because 

the latest records are for 1992 and do not carry us into 1995. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Thank you. The key word there was the Federal 

timber supply. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to thank this panel for your testimony 

and for answering all our questions. We are not taking a break at 

this point. I will excuse this panel and call up the second panel to 

testify. So thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would like to call up the second panel to testify. Mr. Glen 

Spain, Ms. Liz Hamilton, Gaylan Prescott, Barbara Tilly, Larry 

Wasserman, Dr. John Palmisano, Bud Mercer, Olivia James and 

Mack Birkmaier. 

Thank you very much. The second panel is assembled at the witness table. Mr. Spain, you may begin your testimony, from the Pa- cific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. 

STATEMENT OF GLEN SPAIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC 

COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS 

Mr. SPAIN. Good morning-it is still morning-Mr. Chairman 

and members of the panel. 

My name is Glen Spain, I am the Northwest Regional Director 

for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, or 

PCFFA. We are the largest organization of commercial fishermen 

on the west coast. Our industry accounts for more than 100,000 

jobs throughout the region and Alaska, and we contribute food to 

America's tables, jobs in America's communities and money to support the services in those communities. 

I am, as it turns out, the only representative of the commercial 

fishing to appear at any of these hearings on the west coast. That 

is a great lack. If you want to find out about the ESA, you should 

ask everyone that is affected in every affected industry. There is 

no industry more regulated under the ESA than the commercial 

fishing industry. We have been facing ESA restrictions since the 

beginning of the ESA on every coast, in every sea, in every portion 

of our industry. We have learned to adapt, we have come through 

our share of denial, our share of blame, and we are a vital, important industry to this nation. 

Altogether, collectively, the commercial fishing industry accounts 

for $50 billion of this nation's economy in every coastal community. 

In addition, another $15 billion is accounted for by the marine recreational fishery, in which many of our members also participate. You need to talk to our people. You need to talk to the fishermen 

that are out of work because of lack of protection. For every timber 

worker out of work-and we certainly sympathize with their plight 

because we are there too--but for every timber worker out of work, 

there is a fisherman out of work too. For every community in deep 

depression, there is a fishing community in deep depression too. 

For every horror story that you hear from communities facing 

change, there are fishing communities facing those same changes 

too, many of them are in your districts. 
33 

There are also other people who should be here and should be 

heard from, the tribes in particular, whose very lives and culture 

depends on, among other things, salmon, which are now facing 

threatened and endangered species listings throughout the region 

in every species. 

The problem is not the ESA, the problem is the decline. The ESA 

is the messenger. We should not shoot the messenger, we should 

respond to the message, which is the decline of whole ecosystems 

and the unraveling of our human food chain. The ESA fundamentally protects our industry and that accounts for at least 50,000 

jobs that can be restored to this region, in both the sport and commercial fishery, by appropriate, judicious, timely application of ESA 

protections. 

If you want to help the timber industry, and we certainly have 

many of our own people in that industry who are affected as well, 

we should look not to blaming environmental laws, we should look 

to restructuring of the industry itself that has laid more jobs off because of automation and because of exports than any other factor. 

The only way to restore salmon in this region, given that all 

other efforts have failed, is through the Endangered Species Act. 

What I am here to tell you is that the Act can create, and does create, as many jobs as are lost, because the Act itself is not about 

owls, it is about the future, it is about not sacrificing the long-term 

biological basis for our economy. The fundamental basis of all 

wealth in this society is our natural resources. That is the only pla~e it can come from; fundamentally, that is where it must all 

begin. To lose the pieces of that economy, to lose the economic options 

that keep industries like ours alive and are the basis of future in- dustries and the growth in many of those industries is an economic 

form of suicide. We cannot afford economically to lose the pieces of 

our ecosystem. 

Nationwide, our industry faces habitat loss as the primary driving factor in all national fishery declines. We have lost, in terms 

of productive capacity alone, an additional $27 billion because of 

habitat problems. Seventy five percent of the entire industry is 

based on species that depend on near-shore or estuary habitats. Salmon of course is a prime example of that, but there are many 

other species as well. 

The ESA is fundamentally what protects our industry, our jobs, 

our communities, our families and our way of life. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Spain. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spain can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Ms. Hamilton. 

STATEMENT OF LIZ HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION 

Ms. HAMILTON. Good morning, Chairman Pombo--or I guess I 

will get to be the first one to say good afternoon to the Task Force. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is both 

a privilege and an honor to be here and speak before all of you. 
34 

My name is Liz Hamilton and I have the good fortune to serve 

as the Executive Director for the Northwest Sportfishing Industry 

Association. We represent hundreds of businesses and thousands of 

jobs in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. From worms to 

downriggers and from major retailers to the rna and pa's on the 

corner, the men, the women and the businesses that work with 

NSIA are dependent on and dedicated to healthy salmon resources. 

In addition, we serve as an umbrella organization for several 

sportfishing clubs and other trade associations. 

The sportfishing industry generates nearly $3 billion to the overall health of the Oregon and Washington economies. 

Our businesses have a vital interest in recovery and restoration 

of Pacific northwest salmon runs. For us, salmon mean businessour businesses. Therefore, NSIA supports an Endangered Species 

Act which protects and conserves this critical regional resource. To 

produce the salmon recovery that our businesses need and that the 

public so strongly supports, all the players must be at the table to 

make a contribution. The ESA mandates this and the salmon will 

not recover without it. 

As recently as 1991, the recreational salmon and steelhead fisheries provided the northwest region with the following very measurable benefits: 

We had over 43,000 jobs throughout the region. $1.2 billion in total economic output. 

$16,100,000 in State and local taxes. 

Over $16 million in State sales taxes. 

And $76 million to the Federal treasury. 

Our families, our businesses and our jobs are as diverse and as 

geographically dispersed as the salmon populations we rely upon. These jobs are distributed in communities throughout the northwest and in every single congressional district. The Columbia watershed once harbored the largest salmon runs 

in the entire world. What we in the sportfishing industry feel you 

must understand is this--the upper Columbia chinook populations 

are on the same downward trend as the Snake River fish, following 

slowly but surely behind the endangered fish. In order to comprehend the magnitude of these reductions, consider this-in the 

mid- to late-1980's, we had 2.5 million returning adults to the system. We now have one million. How many could run a business 

with a 60-percent reduced opportunity or a 60-percent reduced supply? 

As you can see from these charts, in the last 10 years, this region 

has lost nearly 50,000 jobs in the recreational salmon and 

steelhead fishing industry and a billion dollars in personal income. 

These figures represent a great deal more than dollars to individual businessmen. They represent employees laid off, they represent 

dollars not paid in taxes, not spent in communities, not on infrastructure, not on schools. They represent pain to human beings 

also. 

We in the sportfishing industry have been heavily regulated by 

the Endangered Species Act, as Glen referred to. We accept these 

restrictions when they are part of a meaningful recovery effort 

where each of the industries who have had a hand in the salmon's 

demise also have a role in recovery. 
35 

Some have suggested that the only takings that they could consider in an endangered species hearing would be fishing-related 

mortalities. NSIA wishes that recovery were just that simple. Recognize this-fishing accounts for much less than five percent of the 

killing of the Snake River salmon. An end to harvest would only 

delay their extinction while making the victims pay restitution for 

the crime. 

What the bald eagle is to the nation, the salmon is to the Pacific 

northwest. When the bald eagle became endangered, we as a nation did not decide we do not need to save the bald eagle in the 

lower 48, there are plenty of them in Alaska. Nonetheless, certain 

members of Congress have stated this position to the salmon in our 

region, and we think this is unthinkable. 

Salmon swim at the very heart of our region's culture, our environment and yes, our economy as well. 

As I prepared to speak before you today, I found myself constantly thinking about the salmon as our symbol and all the recent 

public opinion polls showing strong support for saving our salmon, 

even if it meant increased taxes, even if it meant increased power 

rates and even if it meant increased personal sacrifices to share the 

investment needed for recovery. 

When you look at the incredible amount of determination, guts, 

dedication and spirit that our earliest settlers to this region displayed, it is easy to see why we have chosen the salmon to be the 

symbol of the great American spirit. We are enterprising, we are 

hard-working and we accomplish goals in the face of insurmountable odds. How like the Snake River chinook we are, which travels 

over 900 miles from the ocean back to our home. 

You are the leaders in this greatest of all nations. Other notable 

leaders passed the Endangered Species Act in order to maintain 

the balance between man's need for progress and all creatures', including man's, need for a healthy environment and a balance between a sustainable future and short-term profits. 

But when we look at that balance, remember from the Old Testament, when the torrential rains came and the animals came two 

by two to Noah's Ark, Noah did not use an economic scale to measure their value. The animals were all received and recognized as 

truly being part of that balance. 

The citizens of the northwest once again are at a crossroads and 

once again, they have chosen to go against the odds and against 

the naysayers. The people of the west will not listen to those who 

would turn us aside from our determined goal by saying it costs too 

much, there is not enough science, or we just have to let the salmon go. The ancestors of our pioneers do not accept these falsehoods 

and they have spoken. If we can put a man on the moon, we can 

save our wild salmon. 

Thank you for the opportunity today and I welcome any questions that you may have today or in the future. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Prescott. 
36 

STATEMENT OF GAYLAN PRESCOTr, REYNOLDS METAL 

COMPANY,KELSO,WASHrnNGTON 

Mr. PRESCOTT. Hi, there, I am Gaylan Prescott, I am the President of the union that represents nine different unions, it is a 

council, represents nine unions at the Longview Reduction Plant in 

Longview, Washington. It is a Reynolds Metals plant. I am not a 

Reynolds Metals Company representative, I am really a union representative representing the 650 people that work there now. 

The plant that we work at is a 204,000 metric ton per year aluminum production facility that is currently operating at 75 percent 

of capacity. At full capacity, our plant employs over 900 people and 

the industry as a whole employs roughly 10,000 people in the 

northwest and accounts for more than 43 percent of the nation's 

aluminum production. These are good paying family wage jobs and 

the State of Washington gives an employment factor rating of 3.08. 

That equates to over 30,000 northwest jobs. These jobs are dependent on the Bonneville Power Administration's ability to become a 

competitive supplier of energy to the northwest's aluminum industry. 

As a result of the ESA and its interpretation by the courts, the 

BPA has experienced a dramatic change in their hydropower operations. These operational changes are a direct result of listing regionally specific subspecies of salmon under ESA. BPA's costs associated with salmon recovery will reach an estimated $500 million 

this year. The northwest electric ratepayers are funding approximately 90 percent of these salmon recovery costs through power 

rates. Salmon recovery costs forced on the hydro system could potentially escalate to over $1 billion annually. Keeping in mind the 

northwest aluminum industry is currently providing BPA with 30 

percent of their total revenue, it is easy to understand that our exposure to these costs is a matter of life or death for the industry. The northwest electric ratepayers have funded the most expensive and ambitious recovery effort ever undertaken for a listed species. 

The world aluminum industry is paying an average of 18 mills 

per kilowatt hour for power. The northwest aluminum industry is 

paying 26 mills. This gap is an extremely significant gap, as power 

costs account for approximately one-third of the total production 

costs of producing aluminum. Every union in every aluminum 

plant in the northwest has worked to make their locations more 

productive and efficient. The northwest aluminum plants can now 

boast that they have one of the most productive aluminum producing work forces in the world. However, despite our efforts to remain competitive in the world market, our industry is threatened 

with the escalation of power costs. As you can see by the numbers, 

we need congressional intervention in the crazy process of ESA interpretation and regionally specific subspecies recovery planning, 

in order to stay in the global economic battle. 

I would like to give you my perspective as an aluminum worker. 

In my view, the environmental community has little coneern for 

saving depleted salmon runs. In fact, their not so hidden agenda 

is to return the Columbia and Snake Rivers to their natural freeflowing state. Key environmental leaders like Andy Kerr have expressed open hostility and animosity to the northwest aluminum 
37 

producers. It is well understood by my friends in the wood products 

industry that the spotted owl debate was not really about saving 

owls. The issue was merely a vehicle powered by the ESA to close 

down logging in northwest forests. Environmental advocates have 

pushed for salmon recovery plans that have little or no scientific 

foundation in order to further this hidden agenda. NMFS, the 

Northwest Power Planning Council and the Clinton Administration 

have failed to advocate reasonable and scientifically sound solutions, and in fact have given significant weight to the scientifically 

unproved theories of the environmental community. Environmental 

groups have effectively emotionalized what little debate there has 

been on salmon recovery, thereby making reasonable discussion all 

but impossible. 

Little discussion has taken place with regard to the fact that 

salmon populations continued to thrive for years after the last dam 

was built on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Nor has there been 

enough discussion on the dwindling salmon populations in rivers 

not impacted by dams. In fact, NMFS has admitted in ongoing litigation that the government cannot differentiate between mortality 

caused by dams, other human-induced mortality, or natural mortality of the juveniles migrating through the Columbia River. 

To my knowledge, salmon are the only endangered species that 

are systematically and indiscriminately harvested for human consumption. They are the only species whose genetic diversity is 

threatened by a genetically inferior species bred and released at 

substantial ratepayer expense for the sole purpose of enhancing indiscriminate harvests. As residents of the northwest, we are interested in saving the salmon. Salmon are a part of the northwest 

heritage. But we cannot stand by quietly while the policymakers 

cave in to radical environmental groups, all the while ignoring the 

real problem of salmon recovery. 

Without ESA reform, the environmental community will continue 

to use ESA to further their own agenda, without regard for economic impact, social impact, cultural impact or the viable recovery 

of the listed species. 

It is a popularly held misconception that the northwest aluminum industry is made up of old, inefficient, outdated plants 

whose ability to compete in the global market is handicapped further by high wages. In fact, the northwest aluminum industry is 

made up of modernized, efficient facilities with extremely competitive labor costs. The industry's only current significant handicap is 

the runaway cost of power resulting from ESA-mandated and scientifically unjustified salmon recovery efforts. The northwest aluminum industry will continue to be a viable business in the region 

for decades to come if we can assure these facilities a reliable 

power supply at competitive rates for the future. The northwest 

aluminum industry's future depends on rational solutions to salmon recovery. If the Federal Government continues to ignore the importance of common sense in salmon recovery, 43 percent of the nation's aluminum production capacity will likely disappear, only to 

resurface in another country, and the salmon may disappear with 

it. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. 
38 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I have got to tell you, I did not think 

you would get through that in five minutes. I do not know if you 

took a breath or not. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prescott can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Ms. Tilly, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA TILLY, CHAIRMAN, CHELAN COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

Ms. TILLY. Thank you, Chainnan Pombo and thank you, Committee members for this opportunity. I am Barbara Tilly, and I am the 

current chainnan of Chelan County Public Utility District Board of 

Commissioners. I am here today representing Chelan County PUD, 

which is headquartered in Wenatchee, Washington, and Douglas 

County PUD, which is headquartered in East Wenatchee, Washington. 

To put you on our mental map, we have three non-Federal 

projects; the hydro projects are Wells Dam, owned by Douglas 

County PUD, Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams owned by Chelan County PUD, and we are the second, third and fourth projects 

downstream from Grand Coulee Dam. We have a combined generating capacity of 2840 megawatts and we supply power throughout 

the region. 

Our involvement with fish started long before the effects of the 

ESA and our commitment to fish will go very far out into the future. We are acknowledging our responsibilities by constructing 

fishways for adult salmon going upstream, bypass systems for guiding the young ones out to sea, and supplemental fish hatcheries 

which are supplementing wild salmon stocks. We have initiated 

predator control programs and we are developing habitat conservation plans. All of this spending of money we feel is getting us actual benefits, not just spending money on feel-good programs. 

We wish we could say the same thing about spending this money 

in regards to our experience with the Federal Government following the listing of salmon in the Snake River. We do have high regard for many people at National Marine Fisheries Service and we 

know that the existing ESA law has forced them out of their traditional role as a resource agency. We are spending huge amounts of 

dollars with very little result. We are having spill orders without 

significant regard for super nitrogen saturation and its detrimental 

effects on fish. We are having increasing flow augmentations at a 

time when even NMFS' scientists are saying, through their stateof-the-art survival studies, that they see no survival gains. We are 

burning our winter wood supply in the summer. 

By our best calculations, all of these continuing projects through 

the Federal Government are costing a devaluation of money from 

our projects by $30 million to $40 million annually. My constituents are angry, they are frustrated knowing that the last three rate 

increases over three years are mainly caused by these senseless 

flow augmentations. 

This weekend I was at Safeway and the produce man ran over 

to me and said, "Ms. Tilly, I hear that you are going to be talking 

on Monday and I want to say to you, you give it to them, you tell 

them that my produce is going up because of the unnecessary 
39 

water regulations that we are having." So I am here today speaking not only for my local customers, but for the economy in our 

local area, the region and nationally, saying we have got to tum 

this thing around. 

Here are some suggestions, five of them, that I would like to lay 

out: 

First of all, the ESA should not have supremacy over other Federal law, obligations and programs. 

Second, the ESA should encourage the development of habitat 

conservation plans for prelisted or listed species. These plans 

should be founded on common sense and represent a binding commitment on the part of the government that affected parties will 

not be revisited with double or triple jeopardy. We are working 

closely with NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service and are optimistic that we can agree on a mutually beneficial habitat conservation 

plan. However, we do not want to commit dollars to these plans 

until we have regulatory certainty. 

Number three, the NMFS regional office arguably has more influence on the northwest economy than the governors of these four 

States. Decisions of this importance which imfact thousands of 

people and many other Federal, State and loca laws, need to be 

made much closer to the ballot box. They also need to be referred 

to an expert panel of scientists, economists and planners, to ensure 

more of a balanced societal view. This means balanced decisions 

that may occasionally conclude that society cannot prevent or afford to prevent the extinction of each and every form of life. 

Number four, eliminate or scale back the interim protection requirements such as augmented flows for listed species until a 

panel-reviewed, common sense recovery plan is completed. This 

will provide a strong incentive for early completion of these plans. 

And number five, the ESA should apply differential treatment for 

population segments of species. The sub-species or sub-sub-species 

of kangaroo rat should not receive the same treatment as the California condor. 

Thank you for listening to my points very much. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tilly can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. Wasserman. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY WASSERMAN, SKAGIT SYSTEM 

COOPERATIVE, LACONNER, WASHINGTON 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

My name is Larry Wasserman. I am here on behalf of the Skagit 

System Cooperative. This is a fisheries organization that represents the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Upper Skagit 

Indian Tribe, and the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. With me today 

in the back is assistant to the director of the Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission, in that you may have questions associated 

with Columbia River issues that I may not be able to respond to. 

There are three major issues that I would like you to consider 

in your deliberations: 
40 

First, is why the Endangered Species Act is a critical piece of legislation that must be preserved. 

Second, some shortcomings in the implementation of the Act. 

And finally, some notes about how it affects natural resource-dependent communities. 

The first point about why the Act is a critical piece of legislation-we found that the Act has provided incentives for species protection at the local level. The Act, as it is currently written, provides State and local governments as well as Federal agencies to 

begin to address issues under their control, particularly related to 

land use issues. The effects of the Act, even before listing, can be 

seen in the development of a wild salmon policy in the State of 

Washington and the development of habitat conservation plans 

that incorporate salmon even when the salmon have not been yet 

listed. So the Act, therefore, is able to override local politics and 

development pressures that often relegate protection of natural resources to a very low priority. 

The second point with regard to why the Act as it is written is 

critical is that it provides a regulatory safety net. When fishing 

communities, the religious and cultural bases for tribal communities and salmon, the essence of the northwest, are put at risk by 

specific land use actions, nothing less than clear, unequivocal Federal intervention is necessary. The Endangered Species Act, in addition to providing incentive for preemptive protective actions provides a regulatory safety net that cannot be sustained at the local 

level and which ensures the continued protection of species. The 

Act, therefore, provides the last remaining legislative safeguard 

against the complete loss of the species. 

And third in this point is that the Act, as currently written, although not implemented, provides for an unbiased approach for recovery plans. The Act as written should provide for determining 

the cause for the decline and then apportioning recovery plans commensurate with their cause of decline. So the Act, in that capacity, 

is non-judgmental in that it does not require the decision to favor 

one community over the other. Rather, it requires the causes of the 

decline to be dealt with. 

With regard to the issue of shortcomings of the implementation, 

its main shortcoming is that it has not been evenly applied. The 

salmon experience in the Columbia Basin is testimony to this fact. 

Mr. Chairman, when I was asked to testify, I stated that the Committee might be interested in the experience of the Columbia River 

tribes with regard to the listing of the Snake River chinook and 

sockeye under ESA. And I would urge you to hear what they have 

to say. These tribes are currently without even enough spring chinook to meet ceremonial needs, and they are currently considering 

multi-billion dollar claims against the United States for the loss of 

their property right with regard to salmon. Since they were not 

asked to testify, I consulted with the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

which offered for the record a Law Review article by Dan Rohlf of 

Lewis and Clark Law School with regard to ESUs, and we can talk 

about that later if you have an interest. 

In speaking with the Commission staff, I can state that the Columbia River treaty tribes are extremely dissatisfied with National 

Marine Fisheries Service' implementation of ESA for Snake River 
41 

salmon populations, because it is highly discriminatory and because it fails to utilize key elements of the ESA, notably propagation and transplantation. 

Last year, the tribal fall fishery on the Columbia was the only 

activity that did not receive a timely no-jeopardy opinion by National Marine Fisheries Service. This fishery took place only after 

an order was issued by the Federal court. The same discrimination 

can be seen in the implementation of protective measures for marbled murrelets on the part of the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Puget Sound. Despite the fact that the decline of murrelets is clearly tied to loss of habitat, one of the first actions the Fish and Wildlife Service made was to attempt to reduce net fisheries based on 

the unsubstantiated concern that the birds would be caught during 

salmon fisheries. Studies have shown that it is extremely rare for 

this to occur. Clearly, the Act has not been evenly applied and has 

not focused its protective efforts squarely on the causes of population declines. The recovery burden must be commensurate with 

the magnitude of the impact, whether it is in the Columbia River 

or in Puget Sound, and whether it is with regard to salmon or marbled murrelets. 

A final note in this regard is that for salmon species to be protected, it is critical that activities on non-Federal lands as well as 

Federal lands be controlled. In a report that we have provided to 

you, it is clear that in the Skagit Basin, at least, one of the largest 

impacts to coho salmon occurs on non-Federal lands. Unless activities on these lands are addressed, we will continue to see the decline of stocks and treaty and non-treaty fisheries will see additional restrictions in order to support these land uses. Salmon 

stocks cannot be supported on Federal lands alone. Finally, we have heard a bit about community stability and the 

impacts on communities. I guess I would just say that the tribal 

communities have been affected more than any other single community with regard to restrictions imposed on fishing activity from 

the Endangered Species Act, and that while we have been able to 

manage fisheries since time immemorial, it appears that tribal 

fisheries are the first communities targeted and have borne disproportionate impacts as a result of the Act. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Dr. Palmisano, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PALMISANO, BEAVERTON, OREGON 

Dr. PALMISANO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 

you and the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony 

today. My name is John Palmisano. I am an independent fisheries 

scientist from Beaverton, Oregon. I have over 20 years of professional fisheries experience in the northwest as a teacher, researcher and consultant. Today, I am representing the Northwest 

Forest Resource Council of Portland, Oregon. 

Over the last three and one half years, I have studied the factors 

that have adversely affected northwest salmon and trout. I have co-
42 

authored two scientific studies, one on the fisheries of Oregon, the 

other on the fisheries of Washington. During this time, I was a volunteer member of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Pacific 

Salmon Biological Technical Committee and reviewed the status of 

salmon and trout in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. I 

have prepared biological comments for several species proposed for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act, including Oregon's Illinois River winter steelhead trout and coastal coho salmon. In addition, I have prepared comments on critical habitat designation for 

listed species such as Snake River salmon and a seabird, the marbled murrelet. 

As a scientist, I believe it is important to aspire to protect species 

truly threatened with extinction. However, extinction is a natural 

process, and an estimated 95 percent of all species that have ever 

existed on earth have become extinct. Thus, our zeal to protect species must be tempered with scientific fact. Although appealing, it 

would be wasteful to attempt to save species that are naturally declining. Since its adoption, the ESA has been legitimately used to 

protect threatened species and misused for ulterior motives. In addition, Federal resource agencies have been rushed to judgment by 

court-determined schedules and the threat of litigation, rather than 

having time to sufficiently review available and imminent scientific 

data. 

I have five suggestions that might improve the Endangered Species Act: 

1. Use of the scientific method. A revised ESA wouid be based sol~ly on the scientific method, where an hypothesis is proposed, 

tested objectively by considering supporting and opposing credible 

scientific evidence, then ultimately accepted or rejected solely on 

the weight of scientific evidence. 

2. Peer review. ESA status would be peer reviewed by a group 

of independent and credible scientists who fairly represent the majority consenting and opposing views of an issue and which excludes government personnel involved in ESA listing process. 

3. Scientific determination. A scientific approach would be used 

to answer four questions: Is the organism of concern truly a species? Does the population in question comprise the major entity of 

the species, or is it a small and un-unique segment? Are its numbers declining enough to canse extinction? And finally, is its decline 

a result of natural or human-influenced factors? 

4. Adequate time for scientific deliberation. Although civil laws 

are important and must be followed, the time period for listing a 

species under ESA would be determined more by scientific considerations than by legal constraints. This does not mean that years 

have to pass while new research is conducted and analyzed. Instead, if a few additional weeks or months would allow a thorough 

review of existing or imminent data, then benefits of such a delay 

that would result in an accurate decision would be weighed against 

meeting a shorter, legally determined deadline which could result 

in an inaccurate or unnecessary listing. 

5. Expedient de-listing. The ESA would allow expedient de-listing 

of a species if credible scientific evidence were presented to show 

that it was mistakenly listed and when the listed species' abun-
43 

dance had increased and the species was no longer in danger of extinction. 

Whether the revised ESA also should consider the needs of people is beyond my expertise as a scientist. As a private citizen, however, I understand why it would be reasonable for the ESA to 

weigh adverse effects to humans against adverse effects to the species. Accordingly, it would be critical to directly determine the 

cause of decline so people would not be adversely affected by listed 

species whose decline was natural. 

And, finally, I would like to say if we lose a resource, we normally can find an alternative. If we misuse science and the trust 

of people, there are no alternatives. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Palmisano can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Mercer, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BUD MERCER, CHAIRMAN, COLUMBWSNAKE 

RIVER ffiRIGATORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MERCER. ri'hank you, Chairman Pombo, Congressmen and 

Congresswomen of the Committee, for the opportunity. 

My name is Bud Mercer, I am the Chairman of the Columbia/ 

Snake River Irrigators Association. 

The members of our association and I are irrigation farmers. We 

utilize water behind the dams on either the Lower Snake or the 

Columbia River. 

In material prepared by the Endangered Species Coalition, a proESA group, I recently noticed the following message, and Ms. 

Starke emphasized this point on the previous panel, ''No one has 

the right to exploit his or her land to such an extent that public 

health or the quality of life of the community are threatened." Now 

we all agree with that statement, but do we hold our Endangered 

Species Act recovery measures to that standard? We certainly do 

not in western Washington or Oregon. 

If the ESA-mandated National Marine Fisheries Service recovery 

plan is implemented as it is proposed, the health and quality of 

community life in the northwest will have been set back several 

decades. The Columbia and Snake River hydropower, navigation, recreation and irrigation system is simply the finest in the world. No 

more significant engine of social and economic progress exists anywhere. It is the envy of the world. Five years ago, it would have 

been inconceivable to me that government agencies and special interest groups from outside of our region would advocate crippling 

or killing this giant. But now they are, and they are based on biased science selected from studies that have been conducted over 

the last several years. This crisis is entirely made possible by the 

Endangered Species Act. 

The plight of the endangered and threatened Idaho salmon is deplorable, and every reasonable and effective action to recover those 

salmon should be taken. And we, the residents of the region, would 

take every reasonable and effective action without hesitation. But 

the ESA does not mandate reasonable or effective action-the ESA 
44 

mandates action. And my message is this-the four most costly and 

damaging actions under the current NMFS proposal are flawed 

technically and will not result in increased listed salmon survival. 

They are: 

1. Reservoir depletion, massive flow augmentation; 

2. Spills, spilling water over the dams; 

3. John Day drawdown to minimum operating pool; 

4. Snake River drawdowns. 

These ESA-driven recovery measures violate all the standards 

held by endangered species advocates for management of private 

lands. Why then is the region asked to implement these programs? 

Because the ESA has no mandate for cost-effectiveness, only political acceptance. Because the ESA is not responsive to rural residents, or regional residents, but is driven by removed interests. Because the ESA mandates action and that action ends up being dictated by Federal judges. 

The combined cost of these ESA-mandated actions in the current 

NMFS plan equals about $600 million annually. Folks, that is oneeighth of the total agricultural output of Washington State, and it 

does not recover more fish. That is your ESA at work. 

Now, there are better options. For example, "Recover 1" developed by regional interests. That option, using the application of 

cost-effectiveness planning, would simply apply cost-effectiveness 

ranking to various proposals, choosing only those that actually 

produce survival increases. That option supports all reasonable and 

effective action. It produces as good or better survival for one-quarter the cost and leaves the basic producing capacity of the river 

system in place. Now why is that not considered? Because it does not dramatically alter the operations of the river, it would not meet the requirements under the ESA, according to Federal judges or those 

who fear them. 

If allowed to prevail, the NMFS plan will produce maximum social and economic stress and minimum salmon recovery. That is 

your ESA-driven planning. 

The Endangered Species Act is fatally flawed. We must amend 

this Act to mandate cost-effectiveness (least cost planning), to mandate consideration for local human needs and to eliminate resource 

management by Federal judges carrying out a social agenda. 

We at Columbia/Snake River Irrigators support modification of 

this Act. We very much appreciate this opportunity to share our 

views with you. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mercer can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Ms. James, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA F. JAMES, PRESIDENT, THE RIVER 

COMPANY 

Ms. JAMES. Mr. Chainnan and members of the Task Force, thank 

you for the opportunity to comment on the Endangered Species Act. I represent The River Company, one of the largest floatboat outfitters in the State of Idaho. We operate under special use pennits 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Sawtooth National 
45 

Recreation Area. Floatboating is a major tourist attraction in 

Idaho, and the city of Stanley, our headquarters, depends on tourism for about 75 percent of its income. 

Our floatboat trips pass through approximately a 100-yard section that is a spawning ground for endangered chinook salmon. 

During chinook spawning season, from sometime in August until 

the end of September, the Endangered Species Act has caused the 

Forest Service to impose severe restrictions. This has had a withering effect, both on outfitting businesses like ours and on the economy of our area, and has discouraged the general public from enjoying a stretch of river that was set aside for their use by Congress in 1972 when the recreation area was established. 

The regulations might be tolerable if they actually benefited the 

salmon. But last summer, not a single chinook salmon spawned in 

that section of the river. Businesses in our area all reported losses 

of income resulting from the regulations, and for what purpose? 

Not one chinook salmon benefited from our community's sacrifices. 

Floatboating does not pose a threat to chinook salmon. It is well 

known that salmon are becoming extinct in the Pacific Northwest 

because of hydro-electric power dams on the Snake and Columbia 

Rivers. 

Those dams impede juvenile salmon in their normal migration to 

the Pacific Ocean. The young salmon, which historically were 

washed to the ocean in a matter of days by spring floods, now get 

trapped in the slack water reservoirs behind the dams. They 

change into salt water fish before they reach the sea and 80 to 95 

percent of them die. 

Compared with the massive mortality caused by the dams, 

floatboats cause a few flickers of surprise for adult salmon. Our 

floatboats quietly drift past them while our guests marvel at their 

size and miraculous history. Those salmon have journeyed from 

central Idaho, more than 900 miles downriver to the Pacific Ocean, 

and past a grim gauntlet of eight hydro-electric power dams. Three 

years later, they have fought their way back upriver through those 

same dams to spawn where they themselves were spawned. The 

few fish that survive that ordeal have withstood incredible natural 

and man-made obstacles. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has stated as recently as August 19, 1994, that, and I quote, "Floatboating activities on the Upper Main Salmon River are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of endangered and threatened Snake River 

salmon species." Yet, paradoxically, this statement accompanied 

the most oppressive restrictions that NMFS had ever imposed on 

floatboating activities. NMFS ruled last year that if more than 

three chinook salmon were temporarily displaced from their nests, 

the river would be closed to all floatboating within four hours. 

According to NMFS, displacement of a salmon meant, and I 

quote again, "that as a result of floatboating, an adult salmon 

moves more than 10 feet from its position over its nest." Do you 

agree with NMFS that three fish moving temporarily 10 feet from 

their nests represents a catastrophe for chinook salmon? This is an 

example of the desperate regulations that result from current interpretations of the Endangered Species Act. The Act requires Federal 
46 

employees, under penalty of $50,000 personal fines, to employ extreme measures to protect listed species. 

Federal managers are required under the Act to disregard the 

economic effects of their regulations on local economies or on businesses that will be affected by those regulations. In our case, Forest Service personnel believe themselves personally liable under 

the Act for the protection of chinook salmon from all potential 

threats, even when no salmon are present. They are protecting 

phantom fish, fish that are not there, from phantom threats, 

threats that do not exist. 

The Endangered Species Act fills me with fear. I fear that as a 

result of the hysteria it raises among Federal land managers, the 

company I represent and the economy of my community will be 

sacrificed, not to achieve any meaningful relief for chinook salmon 

but solely to satisfy the bureaucratic requirements of a relentless 

act of Congress that has become a source of environmental terrorism throughout the Pacific Northwest. The dams are killing up to 

95 percent of young chinook salmon. Unless the dams are altered, 

the Salmon River chinook will soon be extinct. Floatboats have 

caused no part of this problem. 

What is the use of imposing restrictions on activities that are irrelevant to the survival of the species? 

This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be pleased to answer questions about what I think can be done, or to describe mitigation measures that outfitters have had in place since 1992. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. James can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Birkmaier. 

STATEMENT OF MACK BIRKMAIER, PRESIDENT, OREGON 

CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BIRKMAIER. Yes, my name is Mack Birkmaier, and I am a 

cowboy and I want to give you a warm welcome from the cattle industry of the west, and thank you for being here. I am the President of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. 

I want to address the salmon mainly and I have a lot of prepared 

testimony that I gave you and I am just going to give you kind of 

a-I want to eyeball-to-eyeball you here and give you a little jawbone, but it is backed up with that testimony. 

I do not think, you know, that this is a grazing issue or a timber 

issue or a water issue or owls or what-not. I think it is a community issue. In Wallowa County, Oregon, where I live, we have been 

under the boot of the Endangered Species Act through the salmon. 

And I want to just tell you close up and personal what has been 

going on up there this last summer. 

We got 7,000 population up there and we had three sawmills. 

Two of those mills went down last summer and the third one is 

selling their log decks now and we do not know quite what that is 

going to mean, but it does not look good. A wood pellet mill also 

went down. We lost 120 of our high-paying jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate, 15 percent, in the State of Oregon. 
47 

Sale yards went down for the livestock industry. The value of our 

ranches are going down because we are being threatened with the 

Endangered Species Act. Our ranches have lost their value. It is 

tough to go to a banker nowadays with a public land ranch, particularly with rangeland reform going on, and come up with-your 

equity is gone. This has taken it away from us. Generations of 

work and now our equity is gone on these ranches. 

What is happening, the preservationists are tying up all the timber sales. We talked a lot of talk here this morning about our forests-well, our forest is so stagnant and so overcrowded with trees 

that it cannot grow and it is dying and burning. That is a fact. Not only that, but you cannot stop the fires. All 

those dead trees, they just burn with catastrophic effect. And they 

are doing more harm to the salmon when it burns than if you were 

managing that forest correctly. You cook those fish in the brook the 

way it is now. When you have a catastrophic fire, you cook them. 

We have spent over $37 million just in our county fighting fires 

last year and that does not cover the resource loss, all the thousands of acres of valuable timber that is going up. 

And then the ESA is used as a tool to impede the salvage of 

those trees. They are standing there dead, thousands of acres of 

them. And they talk about woody debris in the streams. How much 

woody debris does it take? It is solid snags. We think that the ESA 

is being used as a tool for some other means, it is to stop resource 

production. 

The resources they say they are protecting, they are actually destroying. I have given you one scenario about the fires. The other 

is that last summer, the preservationist groups tried to get all the 

cattle ofT the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. There are about 

10,000 mother cows up there and in the middle of August, the 

groups come along with court actions of suits and injunctions, 

emergency mandates, you name it-stuff that we do not understand as cowboys, and we had to hire us a bunch of Portland attorneys and spend a lot of money to keep the cattle out there. Now 

what was going to happen if they had succeeded, we would have 

had to remove our cattle ofT the high forest ranges and bring them 

down to the deeded land where the salmon were spawning. They 

did not give a hoot about what happened to the salmon, they were 

trying to remove us from that forest. I think that is a-I do not 

know, the shroud was removed from their goodwill as far as I was 

concerned when that happened. 

They did not care either that we had letters from the Northwest 

Power Planning Council and the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife stating to these preservationist groups that what they 

were doing was counter-productive to the salmon--did not matter. They pursued on. 

The economics up in our country, of course, we are dependent on 

forest receipts, we are dependent on the timber and grazing. In 

1991, we had $2.3 million of forest receipts coming to our county. 

In 1994 and 1995, today we have got $339,000 coming. So what you 

have got is this community destruction act in full force. And I am 

showing you what it is doing. 

How can we, in these small communities, keep our hospitals and 

our nursing homes and our schools and what-not, without the har-
48 

vest of these national forest lands? It is over 60 percent forest land 

up there, we do not have much left. And that is restricted in a lot 

of other ways-wild and scenic rivers and now the NMFS consultation recovery plans and PACFISH. But the point is, we cannot 

maintain our community structure, and so this thing is killing us. 

Mr. POMBO. I have to ask you to wrap it up. Mr. BIRKMAIER. Oh, I am sorry, gee whiz--

Mr. POMBO. The red light--

Mr. BIRKMAIER. -I just got started. 

Yes, I did not get much done, did I? 

Can I say something about being positive? I would like to say 

something positive. 

I have worked on the Upper Ground Round Model Watershed, 

the Ground Round Model Watershed, the Wallowa County Salmon 

and Nez Perce Tribe Recovery, and all these things have given me 

quite a lot of background in consensus planning and working, and 

you have to bring these things down to a local level to get something done. 

I hauled this all the way from Enterprise and I wanted to just 

show you what one-this is PACFISH, I did not even get to mention pack fish. This is PACFISH. Now that is just one regulation 

that we are faced with, as a permittee out there. 

I guess I could go on all day. I appreciate your patience. Thank 

you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for all 

of your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Birkmaier can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Spain, I do not envy your job for a number of 

reasons, one of which is that I understand that fishermen are a lot 

like cattlemen, they are extremely independent and if you get a 

couple of them in the room, they will not agree on anything. I know 

that it is extremely difficult trying to reach a consensus in your industry as well as in any industry to fmd solutions. 

When we heard testimony in San Antonio and Louisiana and 

North Carolina from the different fishermen in those specific areas, 

they brought up a number of the points and concerns and overall 

feeling about the Endangered Species Act and protection of the 

fisheries, and in a couple of our wetlands hearings that we have 

had-in fact, the one down in Roseville-they were very interested 

in how we come about protecting the spawning areas, protecting 

the wetlands as they are an integrated part of the overall fisheries. 

But they all had, I guess, suggestions of changes that had to be 

made. You know, I know that one of the things that has come out 

on this panel-! was just adding this up in my head, I think that 

the overall cost to this area because of the salmon is in the neighborhood of a billion dollars, give or take. If we were to manage that 

better than what we are doing right now, do you think we could 

do a better job of protecting the salmon than what we are doing 

now? 

Mr. SPAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is about four questions, so I will try to answer them all in detail. 

Mr. POMBO. I have only got five minutes. 

Mr. SPAIN. For the record, I do not envy your jobs either. 
49 

I am familiar with what took place in the Louisiana hearings. 

You had some shrimp fishermen out there. And there is a tendency-anybody who is regulated-to bitch and moan about what 

they see in front of them. The TED issue, turtle exclusion device 

issue, has been a hot button for a lot of those folks. What you did 

not hear really and what should have been said and said louder, 

is that there are far more losses in that industry because of habitat 

and wetlands losses in that whole bayou area--

Mr. PoMBo. Yes, they did-that was brought up. In fact, they 

took us out and showed us the wetlands, it was amazing. 

Mr. SPAIN. Good. Let us look at the TED issue as an example of 

what not to do. That was a bureaucratic process and, as you know, 

we have some suggestions in our testimony as to how the whole 

ESA process can be improved. There is no doubt that it can be improved. And as a regulated industry, we want it to work. We are 

willing to give and give, if it works. But it darned well better work. 

So one of the problems there is this was imposed from Washington bureaucrats. They should have been out there talking to the 

fishermen who could have designed equipment far better than was 

ultimately imposed. We have a number of designs, we have had 

whole conferences on that issue bringing fishermen and scientists 

together to talk about that. So if it had been a more open process 

with public hearings, they would have gotten a hell of a lot of good 

ideas that were never part of the process. 

Mr. PoMBO. So you would agree that a much more open process 

and bringing in the affected people in that process, when it comes 

to the recovery plan-I think we all agree that we want to remove 

the politics from science as much as we possibly can. But when it 

comes to how do you go about recovering tho;.;e species, you believe 

that that process needs to be opened up more than what we have 

done so far. 

Mr. SPAIN. Absolutely. You would get a lot of good ideas from the 

people that are out there day by day. Nobody knows fish better 

than fishermen and nobody knows how to protect fish better than 

fishermen. 

The other problem with the ESA is the funding issue. I have two 

quarters. This is my annual contribution, as my share as a U.S. citizen of ESA recovery efforts. The total cost of recovery efforts, if 

you calculate it out, factored over the total number of people in the 

population is 50 cents per year. That is ridiculous. That is the total 

of our investment in the future, and that is one issue that has to 

be addressed. 

Mr. POMBO. What you are talking about, I am assuming, is the 

Federal expenditure. 

Mr. SPAIN. That is absolutely true. And some of those moneys, 

by the way, come to local communities to help offset and mitigate 

and--

Mr. POMBO. But some of the costs that have been brought out by 

other members of the panel are also paid for by the public. It is 

just not through the same route. 

Mr. SPAIN. The economic cost is paid for by a lot of people, including us. We are downstream, we pay a very high price for nonprotection. 

Mr. POMBO. Yes, I am sure your industry--
50 

Mr. SPAIN. But the Federal contribution-by the way, I will contribute this to my $40,000 portion of the Federal debt. I think that 

puts it in perspective in terms of the amount that we are investing 

in the recovery of these species. That is a big problem too. 

Mr. POMBO. My time has almost expired and I wanted to ask Mr. 

Wasserman a question before it was gone. 

Mr. Wasserman, not too long ago, I was given a copy of an agreement which was reached in Arizona between Fish and Wildlife and 

an Indian tribe there in terms of management of their lands and 

what was the Mexican spotted owl and a couple of other endangered species that had that habitat. Are you familiar with that 

agreement? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. No, I am not. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, it is unfortunate, because there is a lot of stuff 

in there that is really interesting. I think that if we took that 

agreement and applied that to more parts of the country in terms 

of management, because it really does lend itself a lot to local control and bringing in the local people a lot more than what we are 

currently doing. And I am sure that I can provide a copy of that 

to you and get it to you. It is interesting, it was real good reading. Unfortunately my time has expired, but in the future, I would 

like the opportunity to discuss with you a little bit more after you 

have had a chance to look at that. 

Mr. Cooley. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will go to Ms. Hamilton on this one. Liz, you know, you made 

a statement in your written testimony about the cause of the decline of the salmon was caused by the Federal agencies to act 

promptly in implementing the Act, and you talked about the crime. 

You know, I was a State senator prior to being elected to the House 

of Representatives of Congress and I spent two years on the Columbia Gorge Task Force, so I am very familiar with the problems 

on the Columbia Task Force, probably more so than some of my 

peer group up here. We were spending $350 million of your money 

trying to mitigate the salmon. We are proposing now to spend a little over half a billion dollars to mitigate the salmon. We have spent $2 billion mitigating the salmon in the Columbia River and we 

have been unsuccessful. We do not know what we are doing and 

we are willing now to start admitting that. When I say we, I am 

talking about the agencies and everybody else. 

We are driving up the price of power. We all in this room in the 

northwest are paying this strictly. The price is not being borne by 

the rest of the country, we are paying for it. Bonneville does not 

have any deep pockets left anymore, and so now the cost is going 

to be spread out to everybody. The estimates are that we are going 

to look at power increases anywhere from 6 percent on the low side 

to 10 percent on the high side. So the idea that we in the northwest here are not trying and have not tried or have not spent our 

money in trying to mitigate this species is not really true. The 

problem is, I think we have done a lot of things politically, sort of 

a knee jerk science, and not really looking at how to mitigate this 

problem. And I think the Act contributed to this problem by not including fishermen, who may or may not be able to help us, and we 

have never really considered. 
51 

So, I think that when we look at the Act, even though you claim 

that this Act must be more strongly enforced, I think when we talk 

about reforming the Act, we should have support f1om your people 

in trying to reform this Act and put back in good science to bring 

back this species. But do it in a way that we can be successful. We 

have had no success and we have been working at it now diligently 

for the last seven years. So what I say to you is that instead of saying to us, don't change the Act, get stricter. I think you should be 

coming forth and saying we realize that the Act needs to be reformed. We need to have all of your thousands of members and 

your support helping us reform this Act to better everybody, including yourselves. 

Ms. James, I want to ask you something because I do not know 

about this and you are going to educate me. You talked about the 

dams are the problems and what is created by the dams. The dams 

were created to help the civilization. We need power in order to 

create civilization and industry. 

I am not trying to tell you that the dams have not created some 

problems for this species. And I do not think anybody wants to tell 

you that. I mean, we realize that. But the thing is that, really, no 

one knows. I mean, seriously, after spending years and years at 

this problem, nobody knows why our salmon are depleting on the 

Columbia. I mean, you sit in the meetings all the time, and we 

hear biologists come in and tell us it is the El Nino. We hear other 

people say it is the cattle people. We have other people telling us 

it is the industry on the river. We have everybody telling us everything, and yet, I do not think we have come to the conclusion of 

what really is the problem. And I think we need to address that. 

Ms. JAMES. Well, whatever the problem is, I know that it is not 

floatboats. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK, it is not the floatboats, all right. I will not 

argue that point. 

In my closing thing, Mack, I want to thank you for coming. I 

think you brought this down to a real basic feeling in telling it exactly how it is and I do appreciate your testimony. I am also, as 

you know, in the cattle business and I go through your same frustration, as I know the other people here do. And we need to have 

some real down-to-earth problems to try to help us correct this situation. I think we all agree that we need to contribute something 

into it. What we are really looking at in these hearings is listening 

to you and trying to determine what we can all do to make this 

Act better, make it more people-friendly, and also species-friendly. Truly, I do appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. BIRKMAIER. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an observation. I wish that the solution to this problem 

were as simple as Mr. Spain's 50 cents. The fact is, if that was the 

solution, everybody would be willing to put in their 50 cents, but 

when we are talking about people whose private property rights 

are being taken away from them because of this Act, they are giv- ing a lot more than 50 cents. 

I have a question, Mr. Wasserman. From your written testimony, 

it says, "It is critical that activities on non-Federal, as well as Fed-
52 

eral lands be controlled. In a report that we have provided, it is 

clear that the largest impacts to coho salmon stocks have occurred 

on non-Federal lands." I am talking about takings here. I am talking about private property rights. Do you say then that people 

ought to be compensated for the restriction of the use of their 

lands? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I guess I would respond the same way as the 

woman on the previous panel. The courts have determined or will 

determine what takings constitute. The question now apparently is 

in front of the Supreme Court about what constitutes a taking 

under the Endangered Species Act. But we do know that the actions that have occurred on non--Federal lands have reduced the 

available fish su0llY for the tribal members in Puget Sound, and 

as the Columbia River tribes have demonstrated, for the Columbia 

River tribes. So whether that is a taking of a property right, I 

guess it depends on which side of the fence you are looking at. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I think it does. And let me quote from part of your 

testimony further. "That the tribes are considering multi-billion 

dollar claims against the United States for loss of their personal 

property rights". 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Did you want me to respond to that? 

Mrs. CUBIN. No. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Smith. 

Mrs. SMITH. I would ask to give 20 seconds of my time to Mr. 

Wasserman so he can finish his statement. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Thank you. 

It was just a response to say that as I have asked the Committee, you really need to speak to the Columbia River tribes on an 

inter-governmental basis about their views about salmon management and they can answer more specifically. 

Mrs. SMITH. And with that, I would like to start with Mr. 

Wasserman. I want to know, have the tribes taken a position on 

the Marine Mammal Act and also on the Columbia River netting 

of non-Indian commercial? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Again, I hate to keep passing the buck here, 

but on the Columbia River tribes and their position, you need to 

speak to them. 

Mrs. SMITH. What about the tribes you are representing today? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. The tribes do not have a view on what is happening on the Columbia River. 

Mrs. SMITH. Do they have a position on the Marine Mammal Act 

and the consumption of salmon and what it is doing to the species? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I do not know the answer to that. 

Mrs. SMITH. OK. So the issue of the degradation of the species 

from the Marine Mammal Act, they have not taken a determination on. Would you please get that for me, because it is a very high 

mitigating factor. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I can provide that. 

Mrs. SMITH. And on the netting, your tribes have not taken a position because it is on the Columbia, is that right? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. The tribes have not taken a position on Columbia River fisheries. 

Mrs. SMITH. All right, that is fine. Thank you. 
53 

Moving to Mr. Spain. Mr. Spain, something came to mind because of someone yelling something out, which I have been trying 

to ignore, but this time I did not. He mentioned netting on the Columbia River. I know that you are sitting by a representative of the 

sportsfishing association and there was another person yelling 

down here, and you guys eat your young when it comes to whether 

or not you should net on the Columbia River and whether or not 

that is adding to endangering the different species. Where is your 

group on netting on the Columbia River and the incidental take, 

or do you acknowledge any responsibility for the damage to those 

runs? 

Mr. SPAIN. Let me respond to that. 

Mrs. SMITH. And I have another question for somebody else, too, 

so quickly. 

Mr. SPAIN. Sure. Briefly, there has been no directed fishery on 

say spring-run chinooks since 1970. 

Mrs. SMITH. No, no, incidental catch. 

Mr. SPAIN. Incidental catch, that is the most studied, most analyzed, most scientifically justified harvest on the West Coast. 

Mrs. SMITH. And where is your group? Do you support the netting on the Columbia or are you opposed to it? 

Mr. SPAIN. We do everything we can to avoid incidental take. Mrs. SMITH. But you do support netting on the Columbia? 

Mr. SPAIN. I think those people, like everybody who works for a 

living, has a right to exist. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that because it 

shows the problems we have here. You have people from the same 

industry, the sportsfishing and the commercial, that work together 

on habitat and are very close and we fight together and then we 

fight each other when it comes to whether or not we should be netting the Columbia. It shows the complexity. 

Mr. SPAIN. I will supply your office with some statistics in terms 

of the actual catch. They are in the handfuls of fish as opposed to 

dam mortalities which are much larger. 

Mrs. SMITH. Yes. Mr. Spain, I have been getting the studies until 

they fill a room, but it is very difficult. There is an argument, and 

it comes to the point that everybody has to share in mitigating the 

damage. And it appears that some groups do not believe they are 

damaging and that is a legitimate position, Mr. Spain, if that is the 

position you take. 

Mr. SPAIN. With all due respect, that is our position too, everyone 

must share in the recovery, and the ESA is the only thing frankly 

that creates that sharing as a mandate under law. 

Mrs. SMITH. So you support netting on the Columbia and you do 

not believe it damages the runs the way you are doing it, I think 

is what you said. 

Mr. SPAIN. What I am saying is, we have taken a 90 and 90-plus 

percent hit--

Mrs. SMITH. No, I want a straight answer, Mr. Spain. Mr. SPAIN. The straight answer is that we do not feel that we 

have the obligation to be the only people who contribute toward recovery. 

Mrs. SMITH. But you would share taking the nets off if we 

found--
54 

Mr. SPAIN. Yes. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. That is what we needed to hear. 

Dr. Palmisano, you are a fishery scientist and I am finding there 

are a lot of scientific opinions. But what are your views on Mr. 

Birkmaier's testimony that wildfires are impacting fish stock as 

they obviously do affect the streams that run into the major--

Dr. PALMISANO. Yes, the effect of wild fire is very real, and as 

someone said, it will cook fish. The damage that will happen to a 

stream from a wildfire is much more severe than any damage that 

would happen under managed forest practice acts today that really 

regulate the riparian forest practices in the Pacific Northwest. 

Mrs. SMITH. Have you done a damage assessment yet in the Yakima--or excuse me, the Wenatchee burn area? Has anybody taken 

a look at that? 

Dr. PALMISANO. I have not personally. I know there have been 

studies done looking at this all over the West because of the terrible fires we had last year. 

Mrs. SMITH. I would appreciate anything you might have in writing later as you get into that. 

Dr. PALMISANO. Yes, I do have information that I could send to 

you. 

Mrs. SMITH. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. PALMISANO. Could I make one statement about the east side 

forests of Oregon and Washington? 

Mrs. SMITH. Yes, please. 

Dr. PALMISANO. Before Europeans came here the average density 

of trees in the eastern forests was about 28 per acre. Now there 

are over 530 trees per acre. It shows what happens when we do not 

manage our forests. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to direct my first question to Liz Hamilton. In the 

Northwest Sportfishing Association, do the members of your association fish for salmon'! 

Ms. HAMILTON. Oh, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are the salmon given an exemption in the Endangered Species Act or in any of the rules promulgated? 

Ms. HAMILTON. I am not sure what your question is. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, the salmon is an endangered species, is 

it not? 

Ms. HAMILTON. Oh, yes. Let us get some facts on the table about 

the harvesting of endangered species in the Columbia Basin. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is what I am trying to do. 

Ms. HAMILTON. We need to go to the harvest managers to get 

those figures, which I did recently. The one that--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want you to answer my question. 

Ms. HAMILTON. The one that comes to mind--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wait, Ms. Hamilton--

Ms. HAMILTON. I am answering--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. -I am asking the questions here. 

Ms. HAMILTON. I thought I was answering. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So we have concluded that the salmon is listed on the Endangered Species Act, right? 
Ms. HAMILTON. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK 

Ms. HAMILTON. Yes. 

55 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well does not the Act say that one may not 

harm, harass, injure, kill or sell for commercial purposes any species that is listed? 

Ms. HAMILTON. You probably do not have the information that 

back this year the members of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry 

Association; members of the Commercial Columbia Gillnet Association; members of the Oregon Guides and Packers and Tillamook 

Guides Association, Northwest Steelheaders and Trout, Unlimited 

stood in front of the commission and asked for a complete closure 

on the Columbia River. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is not an answer to the question I asked. Ms. HAMILTON. Well in order to protect endangered salmon species, we asked for that protection. We asked for the closure. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So right now--

Ms. HAMILTON. And I stood up with gentlemen who were foregoing $12,000 in income for that fishery and said please close it 

down. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. My simple question is-and maybe you did 

not understand it or maybe you have not read the law. But does 

the law say that you may not harm, harass, injure or kill an endangered species, nor may you sell it for commercial purposes, yes 

or no? 

Ms. HAMILTON. We are not out fishing for endangered species. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think you have answered my question. 

Ms. HAMILTON. Did I have a chance to? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Wasserman, are you an attorney? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. No, I am not. I am a fisheries biologist. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are not an attorney? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I am a fisheries biologist. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK, thank you. 

I wanted to ask Olivia-I really appreciated your testimony. I do 

not totally agree with you on everything but it was really good tes- timony and I thank you for coming over here from Idaho. What are 

the mitigation measures that have been in place since 1992 that 

have impacted your industry? 

Ms. JAMES. The main mitigation measure has been that we have 

cut back on the number of guests we take down the river, from 120 

per permit, per day, to 30 once the salmon come back to spawn. 

That is a huge cutback in our business, and we outfitters-there 

are four of us on the upper main Salmon River-volunteered to do 

this in an effort to preserve the species. We have also buoyed channels through the deep water of the spawning beds so that we can 

avoid the redds, the spawning nests, by 25 feet. And we have done 

that for three seasons now and we are about to do it for this season. We have instructed our guides to wear polarized lenses so that 

they can see the redds and avoid them, and so they can identify 

the fish and point them out to our guests. There are a lot of other 

things, too. But the main thing that I want to emphasize today is 

that we are being lumped in the same category as the dams and 

we do not "take" fish. We do not harm them; we do not harass 

them; we do not kill them; we never have, and no one thinks we 
56 

do either. And yet, we are still subject to the same regulations as 

the dams. We are consulting with NMFS on whether we are a jeopardy to these fish or not. 

I am sorry if I am going beyond my time. But I have discovered 

only recently that I think the Forest Service made a mistake. In 

1992 when these fish were originally listed, they concluded after a 

biological assessment, that we "may affect" the species, rather than 

we have "no effect". And since our effect is minimal, we are "no effect". We should never have gone into formal consultation with 

NMFS. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Olivia. 

Mr. Mercer, you indicated a study that you did not very long ago 

with regards to the Columbia-or that the Corps of Engineers conducted a systems configuration study, you called it. And out of the 

people that were addressed, 14 people wanted drawdowns and 2992 

people opposed the drawdowns. I would be very interested in seeing 

that entire study. 

Mr. MERCER. Well, I can make sure you get a copy of that study. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And can you also give me generally the economic impact in foreign market trade with regards to what the 

studies and what the experiments and drawdowns have done in all 

of our abilities to ship and be competitive in a foreign market? 

Mr. MERCER. Are you asking me for transportation information 

as well asMrs. CHENOWETH. And economic, yes. And if you could get that 

information to me, I certainly would appreciate it. 

I see that my time is up. 

Mr. MERCER. I will do what I can. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. MERCER. Some of that information-the primary impacts 

from recovery measures have been identified. The secondary and 

tertiary have not been. In some cases, they are probably almost impossible to identify, particularly relative to the community impacts 

in the lower Snake River; dry land wheat farmers with river transportation problems and all of the port problems at Lewiston that 

stretch way into Montana. But I will get you some information on 

that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mercer. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Metcalf. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to begin by commending Barbara Tilly and the 

mid-Columbia PUDs for the cutting-edge work they have done in 

the collection of smelts, fish-friendly turbine design and 

supplementation hatchery work. I just want to commend you. 

I also want to say, Mr. Birkmaier, I think you are right on. We 

have got to remove the attorneys and judges from their central role 

in the enforcement of this Act. We need to base on solid scientific 

evidence and research. We have a plan, a model called the Columbia River Salmon Passage Model, called CRSP, and it is developed 

by the University of Washington and other institutions. Their basic 

point is that oceanic changes from El Nino have as much or more 

impact on salmon than inland habitat changes. 
57 

I would like to ask Liz and Mr. Wasserman and Dr. Palmisano 

and Mr. Mercer real briefly, positive or negative, what do you think 

of the CRSP plan? 

Ms. HAMILTON. Well, in terms of the El Nino impacts on the 

salmon species studies, I think we have to look at similar species 

that do not have to navigate the hydro-system. In the Willamette 

River, we are currently experiencing returns of about 50,000 fish. 

We average somewhere around 75,000 or 80,000 fish. So are those 

species impacted by El Nino? You bet they are. 

Mr. METCALF. OK. 

Ms. HAMILTON. Are they extinct? No. They have not had the buffers removed from their ability to survive. 

Mr. METCALF. OK, so you are not all that enthusiastic about 

CRSP. Ms. HAMILTON. No, I support the models that are supported by 

the State agencies and tribes. 

Mr. METCALF. OK, Mr. Wasserman. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. AJ3 it is a Columbia River plan, I would ask you 

to speak to the Columbia River tribes about their opinion on that. 

Mr. METCALF. OK. 

Dr. PALMISANO. I could tell you that it is, as you would expect, 

a very complex situation. Some of our salmon travel north to Alaska, some travel south. There is evidence right now that conditions 

in Alaska are very good. Last year, 241 million fish were harvested. 

Current conditions off California, Oregon and Washington are not 

so good. That is one reason. Second, a study recently released from 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography has proven that the abundance 

of zooplankton in the California current has decreased by 70 percent in the last several decades. This is important food for the fish 

that have come from Oregon, Washington and northern California. 

Mr. METCALF. OK. Mr. Mercer, real quick. 

Mr. MERCER. My understanding real briefly is you could debate 

CRSP versus FLUSH for two weeks, but I will see if I can get it 

in one sentence. 

CRSP incorporates, in my understanding, the most current data 

developed by NMFS and UW and incorporates latent mortality in 

the-below Bonneville estuary, and some oceanic impacts in the 

total life cycle modeling. 

Mr. METCALF. OK. 

Mr. MERCER. The other models that are being used, such as 

FLUSH or PAM, do not incorporate the current data and essentially do not incorporate the latest and best science. Mr. METCALF. Thank you. 

I would like to have the same ones comment then on the FLUSH 

model. Quickly, how do you relate to that? Basically do you support 

it? 

Ms. HAMILTON. We support safe transportation in the river for 

the baby salmon, yes. And we are not convinced that transporting 

them on freeways to the ocean has brought about any means of recovery. If it was, I would be fishing today. None of us would be 

here. Mr. METCALF. Yes. Mr. WASSERMAN. And I have to provide the same answer as before, I am not familiar with the model. 
58 

Mr. METCALF. You are not familiar with the FLUSH model? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I cannot comment scientifically on it in that it 

does not apply in Puget Sound and I have been spending my efforts 

there. 

Mr. METCALF. Oh, OK. 

Dr. PALMISANO. It is difficult to prepare an experiment that 

would test only whether or not you flush more water down the Columbia-Snake River System. These salmon go to the ocean for two 

or three years. Conditions under one set of tests could be completely different than another set of tests. Only a small number of 

fish return anyway. A return of two or three percent of the salmon 

that go to sea is considered normal. Therefore, because of the natural variations that occur year-to-year, it is hard to tell if the loss 

of fish was due to ocean conditions, fishing conditions or to whether 

or not there was adequate water flushed through the system. 

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Mercer. Mr. MERCER. I guess my comment on FLUSH, it does not incorporate as many assumptions, so it is flawed in that respect. Second, the data that it uses primarily for in-river survival has been 

superseded in the last three or four years by more current University of Washington/NMFS studies. Mr. METCALF. OK. Last question. Have any of you four had access to the FLUSH model in any depth? Is it available? Could we 

see a copy or could we get the data and see-anybody know? 

Ms. HAMILTON. I will make a try for you, I will write it down. 

Mr. METCALF. It is my understanding that they will not release 

this model and will not let other people look at it, other scientists 

look at it. That is my understanding. If that is not true, then we 

will certainly get a copy or get access to it. If it is true that they 

will not release it, then I think this Committee should subpoena it, 

very frankly. I think if major decisions are being made based on 

the FLUSH model, we want access to it and have other scientists 

look at it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate always 

taking up the rear here. 

Mr. Spain, in your testimony and in answers to inquiries by 

members of the Committee, you stated that you feel that the dams 

are the culprit for all of this. Are you in favor of removing all the 

dams on the Columbia and Snake River systems? 

Mr. SPAIN. Bluntly, no, of course not, that is ridiculous. However, 

we have to recognize that most of those dams were not built with 

downstream migration. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I wanted that question because there were some 

advocates, and I was not putting you in that position, I just simply 

wanted to ask you that question. 

Now I want to ask, if I can, Ms. Tilly, because she comes from 

an area, by your testimony, obviously Barbara, from the Douglas 

and Chelan County areas, if you couple Grant County PUD in 

there, you have probably the foremost hydro-authority and scientific evidence, I guess brain power, in that part of the Columbia 

River and probably indeed in the world, because you are all PUDs, 
59 

you are local. You, as a result of that, interact with people that are 

subjected to this and probably do not run computer models. My question to you, in regard to what Mr. Spain said, he is not 

in favor of tearing down the dams, you stated a bit in your testimony about why you are doing on the fish bypass. Could you elabo- rate just a bit, because I want to ask you some more questions? 

Could you elaborate a bit because you mentioned that Wells Dam, 

the Douglas County dam. I was not aware that you were doing it, 

but I know Grant County is doing it. I think you are all doing the 

same model, if I am correct. Could you elaborate on that? 

Ms. TILLY. Certainly. We have been doing years of experimenting, trying to figure out the best way for getting those new little 

smelts downstream. Douglas County PUD has come up with a very 

successful surface collector bypass system. We have all tried 

screens in the past, sometimes they work, but they have not 

worked the way we wanted them to. The rest of us now are trying 

to work the process that Douglas County PUD has found so suc- cessful at Wells. At Chelan County PUD, we have a prototype surface collector in process right now. These little fish are starting to 

comedown--

Mr. HAsTINGS. Which dam is that? 

Ms. TILLY. At Rocky Reach. I was out and looked at it last week. 

The early results we are seeing, we are delighted, we are thrilled 

because we think we are finally coming up with the thing that gets 

those fish successfully around that dam and increase the survival. And that is what our goal is, to have healthy and harvestable fish. Mr. HAsTINGS. Thank you. 

Now I want to ask you too, you listed five suggestions that the 

Chelan and Douglas County PUDs-that we could put into this. 

Which are most important-give us most important and why. Ms. TILLY. Sure. All five of them are important. I think it is 

number three that-when I ask that we try to make this decisionmaking go to a different place than it is now. You know, we have 

been very, very frustrated, we feel helpless because we do not have 

a listing in our project boundary and yet I have mentioned to you 

all the impact that we have. And we are not consulted. We people 

who are non-Federal hydroa are left out of the decisionmaking 

process. I would like to see that process away from National Marine Fisheries Service into a different decisionmaker, I mentioned 

closer to the ballot box. 

I also want to have an expert panel that gives advice to whoever 

the decisionmaker will be, a panel of scientists, economists, planners. Several other people have mentioned more input, you mentioned more input from fishermen because you say they know. You 

mentioned more input from the tribes. I am also pointing out the 

frustration of not having input into that process from the non-Fed- eral hydros. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. We have heard comments about good science from 

everybody. That is a thread throughout everything, and yet here 

we are, we have a situation where we have probably the brain 

power of hydro-power in that short area where I have talked about, 

it is not being utilized, apparently. Mr. Spain, in his testimony, 

talked about the turbines grinding up fish, which of course is not 

true. Those turbines only turn as fast as the water coming through 

91-344 - 95 - 3 
60 

them, for example. that is a misrepresentation that people are not 

aware of. 

The point I am making is this, and what I think is important, 

is that we are here for a variety of reasons. We have got to find 

solutions. Obviously Mr. Spain, from his standpoint, does not want 

to tear down the dams. Here we have some brain power on downs 

that are local, that was brought up in testimony of the previous 

panel and in this panel, if you bring the decisions closer to local, 

you will probably get solutions. 

It seems to me we have some common ground if we all talk to 

each other. But if we start pointing fingers and start using examples that are not based on scientific evidence, we are going to lose 

the chance that we have right here. 

So thank you, Barbara, for that input. It is being missed. Everybody is pointing fingers at the dams, but they are not realizing that 

the dams are working very hard to try to create solutions to this. 

So thank you very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. Do you want more time? 

Mr. HAsTINGS. No, that is fine, Mr. Chairman, I took more time 

before-well, if you will allow me unanimous consent for just a little bit more. 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. It seemed to me, looking at this testimony, trying 

to find some common ground, if I may say from a layman's standpoint, Dr. Palmisano has something that is again, a model to work 

with, like Dr. Oliver had before. Now maybe you have not seen his 

testimony, I glanced through it. 

I would like to go again, like I did at the last panel, go down and 

see if perhaps Dr. Palmisano's testimony is an example that we 

could start from. And Mr. Spain, I would ask you if what you heard 

Dr. Palmisano say, is that a starting point by which we could come 

to a solution on all this? 

Mr. SPAIN. Well, obviously I think there are some very good, important issues that he raised. In terms of improvements to the 

process, there is no question it can be improved. It needs to be 

more open--

Mr. HAsTINGS. OK, but I am asking-maybe you have not had 

the--

Mr. SPAIN. I have not read his testimony. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. OK, just from what you heard though-! know it 

is a stretch to ask you to say something definitively, but could 

you--

Mr. SPAIN. If he will supply me with a copy of his testimony, I 

will get back to you. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. In that case, would you mind doing that, and we 

will do that, and we would appreciate having your input. 

Mr. SPAIN. Sure. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Ms. Hamilton. 

Ms. HAMILTON. We also would be interested in reading the testimony and giving you an answer on whether the model was something we could work within. Thank you. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Mr. Prescott. 

Mr. PRESCOTT. Yes, we would. 
61 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Barbara. 

Ms. TILLY. Certainly, we will take a look at it. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. OK. Mr. Wassennan. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. We would certainly need to see it as well. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. Mr. Mercer. 

Mr. MERCER. I think so. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. OK. Ms. James. 

Ms. JAMEs. I would have to read it too, I do not remember hearing anything that sounded like a model. 

Mr. HAsTINGS. OK, and Mr. Birkmaier. 

Mr. BIRKMAIER. I guess I am pretty trusting. I would work with 

about anybody if they just do not sue me all the time. · Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chainnan, I want to make an observation 

here. I have asked this panel and I asked the other panel and I 

think by testimony one could at least loosely classify people on one 

side or the other. And what comes loud and clear to me anyway 

is that those that think the Endangered Species Act needs some 

modification are more than willing at least to go part way to try 

to find a solution. And if I may say, those on the other side have 

hedged their bets much more than what those that are trying to 

change it. And I just make that observation, Mr. Chainnan, and I 

will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I would like to thank the panel very much for their testimony. 

I know that as we try to work through a number of these problems, that we will be able to come back to many of the suggestions that 

we have heard in your testimony, in our effort to find solutions. 

I thank you very much for being here, for accepting the invitation to testify. It was very valuable to us and is appreciated a great 

deal. 

I would also like to say that we are again not taking a break. I would like to call up the third panel to testify, and this panel is 

excused. 

Panel number three consists of Mr. Drue Pearc~I am sorry, 

Senator Drue Pearce, Lois Van Hoover, David Zepponi, Mitch 

Friedman, Michael McGlenn and Sherry Colyer. Mr. POMBO. I would like to ask you to please take your seats. 

The fire marshal has asked that we keep the aisles clear, so if you 

will please take your seats so that we can proceed. 

Ms. Pearce, you are recognized and you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA 

STATE SENATE 

Senator PEARCE. Mr. Chainnan, members of the Task Force, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Drue Pearce, 

I am President of the Alaska State Senate. I will be presenting 

today joint testimony on behalf of both the Alaska State and Senate and also for House Speaker Gail Phillips in the Alaska State 

House of Representatives. 

Since my time is limited, I ask that our entire testimony and the 

appendices be submitted for the record and for the use of the Task 

Force. 

Mr. POMBO. Without objection. 
62 

Senator PEARCE. First, Mr. Chainnan, I want to make it clear to 

you that Alaskans do not advocate the dismantling of the Endangered Species Act. The Act, however, has been effectively used by 

the Federal agencies and extreme environmental organizations as 

a weapon and not a tool of conservation. Rigid and revisionary interpretations of the law by the Federal courts have effectively tied 

the hands of Federal and State agencies. I offer a summary of some specific experiences we have had with 

the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in Alaska, for 

salmon, wolves, goshawks and sea lions. I will take salmon first. 

In Alaska, there are no stocks of salmon listed as threatened or 

endangered. Alaska's salmon stocks have increased since statehood. 

We now have record levels of production. Alaskans have, however, 

become political victims under the Endangered Species Act as it is 

being misapplied to Snake River fall chinook. Officials of the National Marine Fisheries Service indicate that major southeast Alaska sport and commercial chinook quota reductions that took place 

in 1993 and again in 1994 are expected to be further reduced by 

another 50 percent in 1995. Interestingly, no public hearings have 

been held on this issue in Alaska. 

We claim that the Federal Government has failed to focus recovery efforts on factors causing the decline of these fish. Ninety-five 

percent of the human-induced mortality is associated with the 

dams on the Columbia and the Snake Rivers. Only about one-quarter of one percent of the mortality is estimated to be associated 

with Alaska fisheries targeting healthy runs of salmon. But our 

fishennen are being asked to take another 50 percent reduction in 

their fishing. 

Our fishennen are quite willing to carry their share of the spe- cies recovery; however, Alaska is clearly being required to disproportionately reduce its harvest of healthy salmon runs, to place 

insignificant numbers of fish back on the Snake River spawning 

grounds. The Act is being used punitively. The Federal Government is obviously using the Endangered Species Act to force Alaska 

concessions in the Pacific Salmon Commission. Ironically, the same 

individuals arguing for Alaska concessions within the Salmon Commission are also involved in granting Alaska an Endangered Species Act Section 7 pennit necessary to incidentally take Snake 

River chinook in our fisheries. 

The Act also calls for development of cooperative agreements 

with States. Alaska sent a signed agreement which was received by 

NMFS on February 14, 1994. The 120-day agreement ratification 

required by that Act has long since elapsed and we have seen nothing of a signature. 

Let me go now to other animals. The Alexander Archipelago wolf 

and the Vancouver Island goshawk occupy many areas in southeast 

Alaska. Both species were petitioned for listing under this Act, the 

justification being concern over present logging practices on the viability of the species. All data indicate that the wolf populations in 

this region are healthy and expanding. The goshawks in the region 

occupy the very fringe of their range where densities are always 

low. Unfortunately, the petition was accepted and while the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service was conducting the year-long review, considerable pressure was placed upon the U.S. Forest Service to sig-
63 

nificantly alter its logging plans in the region to avoid the two species being listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

As a result of the pressure, the Forest Service withdrew over 

300,000 acres from its logging plans. Ultimately, the reviews concluded the wolf does not qualify for listing. Our latest indications 

are that the Service will also decide the goshawk does not qualify 

for listing either. 

It is not appropriate, Mr. Chairman, for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to use the petition process as a form of environmental 

blackmail. We contend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was 

perfectly aware that these two species did not qualify for listing, 

but used the threat of listing as leverage against the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Last, the Steller sea lion. The Steller sea lion populations in the 

central and western Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea have been declining for the last 20 years. At the same time, Steller sea lion populations in the eastern Gulf of Alaska have remained relatively stable. What is causing the declines? No one knows the answer to 

these question~specially NMFS. They are the agency responsible 

for not only the species involved, but the bulk of the commercial 

fishing industry likely to be impacted if drastic experimental measures are taken to reverse the trend. The economic impacts on my 

State could well be significant. 

Our point in using the sea lion as an example here is to illustrate 

the broad problem being experienced by States in dealing with expanding Federal control and preemption. From our perspective in 

Alaska, the species, the Steller sea lions, would have been better 

off today had they remained under State management. At least 

there would have been some direct incentive for the State to initiate research work necessary to correct or explain the cause for the 

decline. This case also serves to illustrate what is, in our opinion, 

a growing fiscal policy within the Federal agencies responsible for 

administering the sea. The perception is, agencies purposely ignore 

some species because they cannot get adequate funding from Congress until they have actually listed the species under the Endangered Species Act. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on December 21, 1994, Governor 

Fife Symington of Arizona called for repeal of the Endangered Species Act. The Governor said, "It has been a failed and costly experiment." 

Unless some of the major revisions being suggested are incorporated in the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act to 

make it more workable, Alaska would also advocate letting the 

ESA sunset. However, as I stated at the beginning of my testimony, that is not our purpose for being here. 

In the written testimony we have turned in and also the attached 

issue paper, we have made a number of what we believe are constructive suggestions for ways to address the above problems and 

to improve the Endangered Species Act. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and your colleagues, for providing me 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State. We wish you and 

the Task Force well in the important job before you, and I agree, 

it is not easy. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 
64 

[The prepared statement of Senator Pearce can be found at the 

end of the hearing.) 

Mr. POMBO. Ms. Van Hoover, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LOIS VAN HOOVER, BOISE, IDAHO 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Task Force, it is indeed an 

honor to speak before you today. My name is Lois Van Hoover. I 

am a miner and a director of an association of independent miners. Let me begin by explaining that just being able to travel to Vancouver from my home in the Idaho mountains would have been 

very difficult a few years ago. You see, Mr. Chairman, my hometown of Yellow Pine was locked up with steel gates by the Forest 

Service. 

Why did the Forest Service feel compelled to arrogantly lock up 

the town of Yellow Pine and unlawfully trample on the Constitution? Yellow Pine was locked up five days a week under the guise 

of a jeopardy biological opinion designed to protect the grey wolf, 

even though no critical habitat existed in the area. Plus, according 

to sworn testimony by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Federal 

court, there had never even been a sighting of a wolf in the area. 

What they really wanted was to curtail hunting and recreational 

use. 

When I asked the forest supervisor why he was closing the road 

when he knew it was morally and legally wrong, he arrogantly responded, "If someone sues me, I would rather have the suit come 

from the people of Yellow Pine because they cannot afford a good 

attorney." 

We contacted Mountain States Legal Foundation, went to court 

and won. Congress then appropriated $8.5 million to solve the 

problem. It is still not resolved. We have been treated by our government as trespassers on our own property. 

The existing Act is beyond repair, and I would like to offer a few 

quick examples. Under 86 CFR, Subpart 228, the Forest Service 

must process a miner's proposed plan of operation within a reasonable timeframe. However, delay and inaction is the rule. They hope 

the applicant will get discouraged, go broke or just simply die waiting. The only alternative is to sue for damages. Unfortunately, we 

do not have multi-million dollar pocketbooks like the environmental lobby. Once again, the ESA is in the dominant position over 

the statutory right to mine-and wrongly so. 

During World War II, 80 percent of the tungsten and antimony 

metals came from my area in Idaho. The United States defeated 

the Nazis in four and a half years. Today, a simple exploration 

plan has been waiting with no action for over three years. My partner and I have a claim site managed as critical habitat 

for the endangered salmon. This designation has no scientific basis. 

The salmon would have to leave the mainstream, climb 5,000 feet, 

jump a 14-foot fall and swim in very shallow water that houses fish 

three to five inches long just to reach our claim. There has never 

been a record of a salmon in these waters. But we are impacted, 

delayed and frustrated because if any portion of the stream is habitat, the entire stream and its tributaries are managed under critical habitat. 
65 

A placer claim is normally 600 feet wide by 1500 feet along a 

stream, the stream meandering down the center. Under the ESA 

inspired PACFISH a 300-foot buffer zone on either side of the 

stream is required. As a consequence, our mining claims have just 

been eliminated. It is clear the ESA is being used to eliminate mineral production in our nation, not to protect the environment. It is 

wrong, and it does not stop there. 

From the beginning, there was not any room for humans in the 

ESA. By simply reading the findings, purpose and policies of the 

Act, it will be evident to reasonable people that the very premise 

of the ESA is fatally flawed. Therefore, I believe the existing Act 

should be repealed and a new one written. 

I submit for the record the following proposed findings and policies, and I believe these should be incorporated into a new Act: 

Congress should recognize the ESA has had adverse social and 

economic impacts. Property rights should be reaffirmed. Jobs and 

families must be protected. The cost of protecting species should be 

borne by society as a whole, not individuals. 

Verifiable information sufficient to reach scientific conclusions 

should be the basis of decisions. The States should have the primary responsibility for endangered species protection. 

One very important change is a provision that a zero job loss tolerance be implemented. This provision is similar to the Delaney 

Clause presently used in food regulation. No program to conserve 

species will be successful if the people most likely to impact them 

are punished merely for being there. Mr. Chairman, it is time to scrap the ESA and start anew. We 

must include humans in the environmental equation. We must use 

conclusive science in our decision process. It is clear from my experience that the ESA has done more harm than good. It is time to 

take a new look at how we will address endangered species. Thank you for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Van Hoover can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Zepponi. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ZEPPONI, EXECUTIVE DffiECTOR, 

KLAMATH BASIN WATER USERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ZEPPONI. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

in front of this distinguished panel. 

In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the shortnose 

sucker and the Lost River sucker as endangered species in the 

Klamath Basin. With the listing, the flexibility of resource managers in the Klamath Basin was shattered and polarization of interests ensued. Extreme environmentalists pursued legal recourse 

and sued the Bureau of Reclamation to stop deliveries of water to 

the Klamath Project irrigators. The water users were forced to intervene in this action at a tremendous cost. The complaint has 

been amended no less than four times and subsequently rejected in 

Federal court on all assertions. 
66 

The Klamath Project was authorized in 1902 by an Act of Congress, more than 80 years ago and 71 years prior to the enactment 

of the Endangered Species Act. Nevertheless, Federal agencies 

have interpreted the regulations and conditions under the much 

younger ESA as superior to State water law and the rights and tenets of the decades-old Klamath Project. The ESA's conditions for 

reasonable and prudent alternatives has so dramatically altered 

the irrigators and the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to effectively 

run the irrigation system as to render it inefficient. 

The Federal Government has ruled, although we believe unreasonably, that the Klamath Project is a major Federal action, subject to the ESA, even though the project has been in operation for 

nearly a century. As a result, the operation of the Klamath Project 

has been inextricably intertwined with numerous biological and interim biological opinions, forcing the operation of the billion-plus 

dollar project to be managed for the needs of the suckers, not for 

maximum efficiency of the water delivery and agricultural production as required by the enabling Reclamation Act. 

Since 1921, the Klamath Project was operated under a long-term 

biological opinion which specifies minimum lake surface elevations. 

Recently the Klamath Tribe insisted, under the threat of litigation, 

that the Bureau of Reclamation reinitiate consultation for a new biological opinion on the operation of the project. The Tribe's proposed August lake elevation for the endangered suckers would not 

meet adequate project water needs 55 percent of the time. 

The requirement of making policy on the best available scientific 

data is a major flaw in the ESA. Quite literally, there were no 

sucker experts a decade ago. Therefore, science for the listing decision was not rigorously challenged. Recent surveys have found 

many millions of young suckers in the Klamath Basin, unsurveyed 

prior to the sucker listing decision. Sub-species population censuses, even critical habitat for the two suckers are not well understood, and the single entity with the most scientific data on the 

suckers, the Klamath Tribe, will not release their basic data or the 

methods of collecting and analyzing the data to the public or as far 

as we know, Federal agencies. The Act should not use the best 

available scientific data, but should establish reasonable scientific 

standards, including open disclosure of data and methods and peer 

review well before any decision under the ESA, including listing, 

are made. 

In two drought years, 1992 and 1994, the Bureau of Reclamation 

managed the project primarily for fishery needs. Thousands of 

acres of agricultural land went without full delivery of water. Some 

farmers were denied water before their plantings, while others 

nearly finished the season only to have the water stopped just before the completion of the water year. The impact to the region was 

reduced cuttings of hay, less row crop production, reduction and removal of livestock from the project, uncertainty over future water 

deliveries, concern by the banking community regarding the repayment of operating loans, the diminished deliveries to two national 

wildlife refuges, the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath wildlife refuges. People and the ecosystem suffered for the benefit of single 

species. 
67 

In the Klamath Basin, we have seen property values drop and 

parcels of land have been deemed unsellable due to the uncertainty 

over water supply. We have seen increased difficulty in receiving 

operating loans due to the competition for water between endangered species, tribal trust, wildlife refuges and irrigators. 

The Klamath County Realtors Association estimates that determination of proposed critical habitat for the suckers, if made final, 

would result in $188 million loss in property values. In our desert 

climate, agricultural land cannot generate ranching or farming 

profits without water. The ESA must more fairly balance the economic impacts for all determinations and decisions, and fairly compensate landowners and businesses affected by the decision. 

Finally, the Nation has encouraged food production in the Klamath Basin. We should protect our nation's commitment to American 

agriculture and provide balance in the Endangered Species Act. 

Without balance, the Klamath Basin will suffer, the ecosystem will 

suffer and the Nation will lose a vital, renewable and strategic resource. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zepponi can be found at the end 

of the hearing.) 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Friedman. 

STATEMENT OF MITCH FRIEDMAN, BELLINGHAM, 

WASIUNGTON 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Task Force, I feel 

very privileged to have this opportunity to present why I believe 

the Endangered Species Act is so important, and how it can do a 

better job of protecting our natural heritage and ultimately us. I 

am a biologist. I am the Executive Director of the Greater Eco- system Alliance in Bellingham, Washington. 

I want to congratulate you for choosing this fine facility, Ms. Smith, I think it is a great place for a hearing. We are all comfortable; it is a conducive atmosphere. I wonder of the change that 

would happen if the smoke alarm went off. There would be quite 

a disruption and we would have two options. We could pound on 

the smoke alarm until it stopped or we could go fight the fire. I 

contend that the Endangered Species Act is a smoke alarm; habitat 

destruction is the fire. Many species are vitally useful and modern medicine would be 

helpless without them. The endangered Houston toad, for instance, 

produces alkaloids which researchers have found to be useful in 

preventing heart attacks. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of the world's diseases are treated with 

plant-based medicines, and we have barely begun to systematically 

test the resources that are out there in the natural world. We are 

not talking about voodoo, this is a science that underpins our modern world. 

The northwest great salmon runs are another excellent example 

of how natural resources are part of our lives and our economy and 

how the Endangered Species Act is needed to maintain not just 

other species but our own heritage and economic interests. 

My point is that our lives and economies benefit by other species. 

One might argue that some species are more important than others 
68 

or more significant. But who is to judge, and on what basis? In 

1973, the House of Representatives compared genes and species to 

books in a library. Many species are books that science and humanity have never read. We have no idea what is or is not significant, 

or which species may hold the secret to curing Alzheimer's disease. 

Granted, species have always and will always go extinct, but the 

average species survives for four million years, and the normal extinction rate is only about four species per year. The world's best 

scientists, such as Peter Raven and Edward 0. Wilson, estimate 

that as many as 50,000 species per year are going extinct today 

due to human activities. These species could be vital links in our 

very own food chain and since we are all connected by things like 

food chains in a great web of life, at some point we go too. The Endangered Species Act is a messenger. It is the smoke 

alarm, warning us of a raging fire that demands attention. Can the 

ESA alone stop the massive hemorrhage of the planet's life blood? 

No, I do not think so. The Act is an emergency room. Most species 

bypass it on the way to oblivion. 

A conservative approach to maintaining our living safety net 

would include programs to keep species out of the emergency room. 

Most species loss is caused by habitat damage. We have to address 

habitat decline. This means that provisions for habitat must be 

strengthened in the Act. Congress should also consider ways, such 

as conservation agreements for candidate species, which protect 

habitats and ecosystems to reduce the need to ever list species. An 

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Multi-species and 

ecosystem recovery plans also make good biological and administrative sense. 

The cost of species protection seems very high when isolated, but 

we spend more on a mile of interstate highway construction than 

we spend in implementing the Act in a year. We also spend, some 

estimate, billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies for enterprises that destroy habitat and endanger species. This means 

that there are ways we can save both dollars and species. For instance, ending the Forest Service practice of selling timber sales 

below cost, as Congressman Metcalf has proposed would be the 

best first step toward bringing bull trout and lynx back from the 

brink. Programs to protect habitat on private property are, of 

course, more complex and must include education and incentives 

and other non-regulatory means. But painful as it is, there is no 

single substitute for regulation. The nation needs clear and strong 

laws like the ESA. It is a motivator for good corporate citizenship. 

When people treat the land well, species do not reach the point of 

requiring listing under this powerful law. 

For instance, Weyerhauser and Plum Creek are participating in 

habitat conservation plans. They are developing these to help with 

owl recovery. Other people seem committed only to confusing the 

issue with dueling anecdotes about what the Act did or did not do 

to whom. Many of these anecdotes and so-called horror stories turn 

out to be wrong. 

There is the case of a man in California, Mr. Ming Lin, who was 

arrested for destroying critical habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox 

and two other species. He complains that he is a victim, that he 

was an unknowing victim of over-regulation. But I have in front of 
69 

me a letter he received from the California Department of Fish and 

Game in 1992, before he ever entered that habitat. He had options 

available to him, but he thumbed his nose at the nation's law and 

heritage, and now claims to be a victim. 

Similarly, a major confrontation recently occurred in Idaho when 

Federal and local officials backed up Mr. Eugene Hussey, who shot 

a protected wolf, who he claimed had killed a calf on his land. I 

have also with me, and have for the record, the veterinary reports 

that showed that the calf had died due to birth complications before the wolf ever came onto it. 

People who approach endangered species issues with sincerity 

generally find the Act to be flexible. Numbers have been quoted 

earlier, but the most significant one I have heard, from Secretary 

of Interior Babbitt, is that in the entire history of the Act not a single landowner has ever even filed a legal case to seek compensation 

for a property taking. 

With all the sound and fury in public and the media over these 

issues, one must ask, are people attacking the smoke alarm or the 

fire. When we cut through the nonsense, we conclude that the Endangered Species Act does a good and essential job of protecting us. 

No law is without cost and conflict. No law can solve a problem 

without pain. That is what change is about. But sometimes change 

seems necessary. 

The Endangered Species Act comes far cheaper than many national programs and we cannot do without it. 

Thanks again for this opportunity. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. McGlenn, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MCGLENN, PRESIDENT, BACK 

COUNTRY HORSEMEN 

Mr. McGLENN. Chairman Pombo and Committee, I thank you 

very much for the opportunity to be here, to travel down from Bellingham to speak to you. 

It is, I guess, an advantage in some cases to go toward the end, 

you kind of know what went on before you, but there has not been 

much said about another business in this State, and that is recreation. I have made a living in recreation all my life and now do a 

certain amount of it for pleasure. As a representative of the 

Backcountry Horsemen of Washington, which is a group that is 

part of the Backcountry Horsemen of America, in which we have 

something like 11,000 members, I would like to speak to you just 

momentarily. 

The Endangered Species Act was drafted with the best of intentions to preserve and bring back many animals that it was felt 

were being impacted by man. The Backcountry Horsemen of Washington and the Backcountry Horsemen of America certainly do not 

debate that such a law was necessary. We are not anti-grizzly bear, 

not anti-wolf and not anti any other animal. We, both at a State 

level and a national level, have adopted the following position: 

The Backcountry Horsemen of Washington supports new legislation and other governmental actions that will bring much greater 
70 

consideration for people into the Endangered Species Act, especially considerations of recreation opportunities and economic wellbeing. 

We are not opposed to the bears, the wolves or the animals as 

I have stated. We are strongly opposed to the apparent exclusion 

of the rights of the people by the administrators of the ESA. There 

are too many zealots with private agendas exerting an excess 

amount of influence on how this Act is administered. The common 

every day working taxpayer must be considered. 

Some areas of additional concern are as follows: 

1. The North Cascade's grizzly bear recovery area has been approved. The North Cascade area, tied in with the already existing 

Selkirk area in northeast Washington, will place in excess of 

11,000 square miles of Washington into bear recovery area status. 

This is over 60 percent of the public recreation land in the State 

and some people want more. Washington has 5,255,000 people, 

based on the 1993 census, and with 68,192 square miles in the 

State, that means there are over 77 people per square mile in this 

State. Montana, as an example on the other hand, has 11,545 

square miles of bear area, which is less than about 18 percent of 

their public recreation land. Montana has 839,000 people on 

147,138 square miles, for 5.7 people per square mile. We have got 

a lot of people in this State, and they want to take 60 percent of 

our public lands and make it a grizzly bear recovery area. We do 

not feel that is quite right. 

2. There is no discussion anywhere in the various plans on what 

this recovery project will cost the taxpayers in loss of property 

rights, loss of income, loss of recreational opportunities, loss of 

manpower and funding from other programs. We believe this needs 

to be addressed first, not last. 

3. The public meetings that were held on what we feel was a 

rather critical question were, in my view, a joke. In northwest 

Washington, there was one meeting from 4:00p.m. to 7:00p.m. on 

one week day. This meeting was poorly advertised, the government 

people attending were not there to discuss anything, they were just 

there basically, they said, to listen. The distinct impression was 

that this was a done deal and anything you say will not change it 

anyway. We do not feel that is quite right either. 

The public meetings need to be properly advertised in quarterpage or larger newspaper ads throughout the region; not a one-inch 

column in an obscure corner of the newspaper. You talk about 

wanting to get people to the meetings, you have to let them know 

there is a meeting; make the meetings easier to get to. 

And timed for the working people. I live in Bellingham, the largest town north of Everett, had to drive down 25 miles to Mt. Vernon to go to a meeting. Mt. Vernon does not represent nearly the 

amount of people on the Mt. Baker Forest that Bellingham does. 

There were four one-day (four-hour) meetings throughout the State 

on something this important to all of us. 

4. There are some 13,000 grizzly bears living just north of us in 

British Columbia. There is no fence between here and there. I have 

ridden up there, I have seen it, I have been there, there is not one. 

However, these bears choose to stay north of the border. Common 

sense would say that perhaps the North Cascades really is not a 
71 

viable bear area. If it was, they would be here. In the five years 

that the government studied the area, not one grizzly bear was 

sighted or photographed by that study team. 

5. The ecosystem evaluation that was distributed was all done in 

hectares, meters, kilometers and used the Latin names for the animals and remains that they found. This type of report makes it 

very difficult for the average citizen to understand. Most of us are 

geared to acres, miles, feet and inches. We would request that you 

make this information readable and accessible to the general public. 

One final line in the evaluation says that the Cascades trail system-this is mentioned on page four in the report-Cascades trail 

system is listed as a minor system. If this is a minor system, I sure 

would like to know what in the world a major one is because there 

are trails into every nook and cranny and valley in the North Cascades mountains, but still this so-called evaluation calls it a minor 

system. 

6. The rules for public access into any recovery zone need to be 

worked out by both the administration and the pubic. We do not 

need some more desk-dictated rules that do not work in the 

backcountry. Diverse public input from the people using the 

backcountry is essential. 

Our goal is multi-use trails and access for all recreationalists, 

hikers, horse riders, packers, and a solid economic base for our 

State. We are willing to help with that planning. We want to be 

involved. 

Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. McGlenn can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Ms. Colyer. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRY COLYER, BRUNEAU VALLEY 

COALITION 

Ms. COLYER. Mr. Chainnan and members of the Task Force on 

Endangered Species, thank you for allowing me to address your 

Committee as you examine the impact of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

I come to you today on behalf of the Bruneau Valley Coalition. 

This Coalition represents the following five groups: The Idaho Cattle Association, Owyhee County Cattle Association, Idaho Farm Bureau, Owyhee County Farm Bureau and the Owyhee County Commissioners. This Coalition was formed to defend the communities 

of Bruneau and Grand View in southwestern Idaho against the listing of the 615th species on the endangered species list, the 

Bruneau Hot Springsnail. 

Allow me to tell you the story of the Bruneau Hot Springsnail. 

This listing has threatened the livelihood of approximately 60 family farms and ranches, many of which have been in the same family 

for over 100 years. Bruneau is a small town by any standards. Agriculture is the sole economic base to support our school district. 

Part of my responsibility as a school board member includes budgeting. Without this stable economic base, our school district would 

cease to exist. A century of productive, hard-working, tax-paying 

citizens would also perish. 
72 

The Bruneau Hot Springsnail, as you can see by the picture provided to you, is the size of a poppy seed. It can be found in concentrations of a few to more than 20,000 per square meter. These 

snails mature and reproduce quickly and in large numbers. 

In January of 1993, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, over the objections 

of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, listed the snail as endangered. This came after two conservation groups filed suit 

against U.S. Fish and Wildlife to force the listing. 

Because Bruneau is a high desert area, irrigation water is a necessary commodity to the family farms and ranches. Annual rainfall 

is only 7.9 inches. Without this irrigation water, farms and ranches 

have no value. The only option the people had to protect their irrigation water was to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife--in essence, our own government. 

In May of 1993, the Coalition filed that lawsuit on the grounds 

of numerous procedural errors under the Endangered Species Act 

and the Administrative Procedures Act. A lack of sufficient scientific evidence to justify the listing also existed. Tremendous disagreement among qualified hydrologists as to the inter-relationship 

between agricultural pumping and spring flows exist. Yet, they will 

bet our livelihood that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. 

No hydrologist can predict with any certainty that stopping the irrigation will increase the snail habitat. 

In December of 1993, U.S. District Judge Harold Ryan ruled the 

listing was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law." This was the first listing that 

was set aside through court action. However, the decision was appealed by the two conservation groups. The government chose not 

to appeal the decision, who had become intervenors. We went to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That trial was held in October 

of 1994 in Seattle, Washington, and seven months later, we are 

still waiting for a decision. 

We have spent $163,000 in legal fees and research through the 

time the appeal was filed and another $50,000 since the appeal. 

The people of these small communities had to raise the money necessary to support the legal expenses and research. There were no 

large corporations or sugar daddies bankrolling this effort. The 

money was raised through individuals assessing themselves and 

grassroots efforts. The Bruneau Valley Coalition recommend to the Task Force, incorporate a system for a balance of power. State and local govern- ments need to be a part of the process in determining critical habi- tat listings and recovery plans. Adequate science with independent 

peer review in consultation with elected officials is essential with 

any listing. Property owners need to be compensated if their busi·· 

ness is affected by ESA. Currently, a tremendous imbalance of 

power exists. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs adult super·· vision and to be brought under control. 

In the children's book, "The Little Engine that Could," the little 

train keeps going up the hill saying "I think I can, I think I can." 

That is what these small communities have been saying for the 

past 11 years. Now we a:re asking for your help in rewriting the 

Endangered Species Act to provide greater protection to land-· 

owners. Thus far, we have stood our ground against the govern ·· 
73 

ment in taking away a precious way of life. Not only is this our 

way of life, but it is also our homes. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Colyer can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I thank all of the panel for their testimony. 

Senator Pearce, one of the things that we have heard many times 

throughout not only this hearing but other hearings that we have 

had in the past, has been that there needs to be greater local control over decisions that are made in terms of recovery plans and 

how we go about recovering these species. But everybody seems to 

agree that the science side needs to be as accurate as we possibly 

can make it with all of the technology that we have and everything 

that is at our disposal. 

If the State of Alaska played a greater role in determining recovery plans, determining how you would go about protecting and increasing numbers on endangered species up there, how would that 

change what is currently happening? 

Senator PEARCE. I think you would have better science on more 

discrete populations. And you have to understand that speaking for 

Alaska, of course, we are not contiguous and so what happens with 

the Endangered Species Act is you talk about a whole species. And 

when you begin to do that for Alaska, some of our distinct populations, for example, in the southwest part of the State, are very 

different from the populations on the southeast part of the State. 

At the local level or the State level, you get more discrete science 

and I believe that were the research that we do by our State research agencies utilized more often by the Fish and Wildlife Service, that we would end up with better decisionmaking at that level. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Friedman, in your testimony, you bring out a lot of, I think, 

legitimate facts and legitimate goals that we all share. And I think 

also some legitimate concerns that we share. And protecting what 

is out there in terms of species is, I think, the reason that the Act 

was passed to begin with. And I do not think that you would find 

a lot of disagreement in this country or in this room if people went 

back and read the original testimony that was given in the House, 

and read the original Endangered Species Act and what the goals 

were that were laid out and why they did it. I do not think there 

is a lot of disagreement on that. 

I think where disagreement comes in is when you follow along 

this 20-year path we have been on, a lot of people feel that the bureaucracy, the regulators, have gotten out of control and have 

overstepped what the original goal was. 

I think that one of the cases you bring up has to do with the gentleman that ran over what they think is a kangaroo rat with his 

tractor. And I have read all of the documents that have come out 

since then what Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, told him prior 

to that action taking place. And I do not think-well, I know what 

concerned the people in the San Joaquin Valley in California about 

what happened was not the protection of the species. What concerned them was the way that Fish and Wildlife responded, the 

way that Fish and Wildlife went onto his property. And, you know, 
74 

this is a vast area of agriculture. You go for miles and miles and 

all you see is agriculture, that is all that is there. And you went 

out into the middle of that and stopped somebody from disking 

their field. And what happened was everybody who is around there, 

all of his neighbors, everybody who is dependent upon agriculture, 

all of a sudden said what do you mean, that Fish and Wildlife can 

go in and stop someone from disking their field. And I think that 

somehow we have to find a way to protect species without creating 

that kind of a regulatory overkill on what is happening to such a 

vast area, where agriculture is the only job and where it is so important. 

I think that is what we need to find. I would welcome you and 

your organization to submit any ideas for change in the Act that 

you have, any ways that-and you state in your written testimony 

that the effects on private property owners concern you and your 

organization-and I think that we have to find a way to protect 

species, protect private property owners, because we all know that 

whatever we come up with in terms of a reformed Endangered Species Act is not going to work unless the people support it. We all 

know that. So we need to have your support, we need to have the 

support of the people in this room in what we do, so that we protect species and we protect jobs and private property and everything that goes along with that. So I would welcome any possible 

changes, any solutions that you or your organization comes up 

with, to be presented in an outline for or a more involved form. If 

you would do that for us, I would be more than happy to have that. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I appreciate that. And I would only like to say 

that I think we find that same sort of problem with many of the 

nation's laws and programs. It is very difficult to take a problem 

and hand it over to a bureaucracy. And I do not know that anybody 

has ever or will ever solve that problem. But that does not mean 

that we do not still need to deal with the problems on the ground. 

That is the balance. 

Mr. POMBO. We are t aking one at a time here, I wish that by 

some magic wand in the first 100 days we could have cured all of 

the problems, but we could not. It was just a limited thing. And 

now we are trying to go along and find those solutions. So I welcome your input, I thank you for being here to testify. 

Mr. Cooley. 

Mr. COOLEY. First, ESA is not going to go away, it is not going 

to sunset no matter how much we might wish that. 

Senator Pearce, you mentioned something about the salmon runs 

and the problems created with the Columbia River, et cetera. 

Would you explain to me why you have had the best salmon runs 

you have had in years this last season? It is such a phenomenon, 

everybody is very happy about it, but do you know why you had 

so much and everybody else had so little? I mean what happened 

there? 

Senator PEARCE. We are no better at asking salmon why they do 

what they do than anyone else. However, we do have a couple of 

things in the State of Alaska that have created an ongoing fishery 

that we are very proud of. One of those things is our hatchery program, and the hatchery program has helped to keep both our 
75 

southeast salmon runs strong, but also our salmon runs throughout 

the State. Mr. CooLEY. Are you marking your hatchery fish so you can tell 

if that is what you are recovering? 

Senator PEARCE. Yes, we do. There is a huge data base on salmon. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much. Ms. Van Hoover, would you tell me something, you talked about 

a lockup of Yellow Pine. What does that mean, a lockup? I mean, 

actually the Fish and Wildlife came and locked up a public road so 

you could not go in and out, no egress or ingress? 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. That is correct. There is a 75-mile road that 

runs from Cascade, Idaho to my hometown. They took a 32-mile 

section out of the middle of it and put up steel gates. I happened 

to be in Boise at the time; my father was dying. I went home only 

to find that my husband and son were locked in and I was locked 

out. 

Mr. COOLEY. You should have had Mrs. Chenoweth there then, 

because I assure you, she would have opened that road. 

I mean, I just find it so hard to believe that, but I guess it is 

really true. 

David, you know, I have often been involved with the Klamath 

problem down there. You know, number one, the Klamath Tribe 

was not a tribe until about 12 years ago, when they became a tribe, 

or were officially recognized as a tribe. You know, when I was 

younger and looked at the sucker fish in the Klamath Lake, that 

was a mudfish, nobody ate it-does anybody eat that fish today, or 

is that just part of the ecosystem they want to preserve? 

Mr. ZEPPONI. It certainly is part of the ecosystem and it is certainly worthy of preserving. No one, to my knowledge, eats the 

sucker today. I am certain that there are folks that would like to 

eat the sucker, but quite frankly, it is an endangered species at 

this point. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. Mr. Friedman, are you an attorney? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I am not an attorney. 

Mr. CooLEY. I was just curious. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I am a biologist, which some consider as bad. Mr. CooLEY. I want to correct a statement you made that is absolutely false. Number one is the salvage timber sale program that 

is now going through the U.S. Senate was marked up by the General Accounting Office and it would show a plus to the U.S. Treasury, a minimum of $36 million. It is not a negative sale. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The Congressional Research Service estimated 

$300 million in lost revenue. 

Mr. CooLEY. No, it is part of the record in Congress, and it is 

not a negative sale. I just wanted to remind you of that. Let me 

say one other thing too about your discussion. I spent 27 years in 

the pharmaceutical industry and we use plants to find formulation 

for human products, but I guarantee you that very few plants 

today are used to produce medicine. It is all done synthetically 

through the petrochemical industry. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think you are right. Mr. CooLEY. Tell your audience you think I am what? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think you are right--
76 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, I am. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. -but the basic research to find those compounds 

is done on organisms. 

Mr. COOLEY. That is correct. I want to close by saying one thing. 

You know, man created law to create harmony. I do not think the 

Endangered Species Act has created harmony amongst the people 

of this land. I think we need to reform that and change that law 

around so we can create harmony and not the separation and the 

confrontation that we are having with this particular law. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you for 

being here today, especially the panel members. 

I think we do need a strong Endangered Species Act, but I think 

the Act has to take into consideration that human beings have a 

right to be here too. I think of the words ''You are a child of the 

universe, no less than the birds and the trees, you have a right to 

be here." That does not give us a right to destroy the habitat of 

other living things, but we have to reach some kind of a balance. 

I agree completely with our Chairman that if we do not get both 

sides to buy into whatever we can come up with, then it simply will 

not work. And so my plea to you all is to let us try to find common 

ground. It seems that there is common ground in the idea that we 

need sound science to base these decisions on. I wish there was 

more common ground in the respect for private property rights 

than I have sensed being here today. We need accurate information, and just as Mr. Friedman said, 

we need to be careful of anecdotes that we hear on both sides of 

this issue. You can drum up horror stories on either side of this 

issue. I think people of good will, in order to save our country, in 

order to save our environment, need to work together in an air of 

cooperation. And let us try to seek that balance. We will go forward 

and I encourage your continued participation but maybe you ought 

to try to listen to one another and try to find some common ground. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Smith. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. I think you find this panel probably differs also from each other. Just listening to my colleagues, sometimes we are not quite in the same place, but what I am trying to 

figure out right now is, is there some other management system 

that would manage for all the species. I know right now we have 

lawsuits managing and it is not really real good. You know, we 

have part of our State shut down for this lawsuit and part for this. 

I was intrigued by Mitch's statement that he supported the Plum 

Creek plan because I have been looking at some of those and boy, 

it seems like the way to go. The large ecosystem management systems that are OKed and then they manage for all the species in 

it, and they plan for this and it keeps the lawsuits out of it. 

I have been-! mentioned it earlier-working with some other 

legislators about an option for States or more than one State or 

parts of a State that could come up with an ecosystem plan, kind 

of like we are requiring of some of the timber growers or property 

owners, and this could be State lands, Federal lands, as well as we 

have county lands in this area, locally managed county lands. And 

they would come together with a plan for all the species, somewhat 
77 

like we are having some of the big timber companies handle and 

then they would get it OKed, and then that would pull the locals 

in at every level, to be a part of the management along this plan, 

which would pull the fishermen in and pull a variety of interests. 

I have heard today, even the ones that say they are against it or 

for it, we want to be a part one way or the other. 

I guess I am going to ask each member to address looking at 

adding something to the ESA that would allow this local management ecosystem plan, kind of like the Plum Creek. It is pre-designed, pre-OKed and then that allows more flexibility, which 

seems to be some of the problem. 

Senator Pearce, I do not know what your background is, and if 

that is more than you want to address or not, from a State perspective. 

Senator PEARCE. My degree is also in biology. 

Mrs. SMITH. Oh, good. 

Senator PEARCE. But from the StJJ.te level, the State of Alaska 

has a regional system where our Department of Natural Resources 

puts together regional management plans and they work very 

much like you are describing. I think the pitfall lies in the fact that 

the underlying statute has to be very strong. It has to give all of 

the people that you mentioned, everybody you are trying to bring 

to the table, the opportunity to be heard and also the opportunity 

to feel that they have been made a part of the process. But at some 

point in time, once a decision is made, you have to move forward 

with it rather than have the courts out there as a final resting 

place for many of these management decisions. Until you can bring 

the management back to the State or local level and not have continued Federal court oversight, I do not think you ever get to that 

point, because whomever is not happy with the plan, will just continue going to court. 

Mrs. SMITH. So you would support an overall Federal ESA, but 

there is a point where you would stop all lawsuits or you would 

bring them to a local level? Or is that too much to address? 

Senator PEARCE. I have yet to see a law that you could stop lawsuits with. 

Mrs. SMITH. Unfortunately. 

Senator PEARCE. At any level-local, State or Federal. However, 

we do have a process and we have in our statutes a process by 

which the local governments can make their statements on whether it is a leasing regime that the State wants to put into effect or 

whatever it hJJ.ppens to be. And as we go through that process, we 

have strengthened in the law the early participation of all the parties and the opportunity for those parties to make appeals. And 

then we have also strengthened in the law the fact that once a decision is made, if it went through the proper process, then that is 

the decision. And we have told our courts that that is the way that 

they are to manage the law because--

Mrs. SMITH. There is significant involvement at those other levels, not just coming and testifying and then being ignored. 

Senator PEARCE. Oh, no. 

Mrs. SMITH. OK, so the structure has to have enough original involvement of the plans, is that what you are saying? 
78 

Senator PEARCE. That is correct. And that is one of the reasons 

I mentioned the fact that there have been no hearings in Alaska 

on the Snake River salmon and yet our fishermen have seen their 

ability to fish brought down by a Pacific Salmon Commission three 

years in a row and now they are looking at another 50 percent reduction, which might get one, maybe two, salmon back to that 

river. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. 

Just go right along, and if you feel like you can comment on that, 

please do. And if you feel like---

Mr. POMBO. I ask unanimous consent that the woman be given 

an additional two minutes. 

Mrs. SMITH. Excuse me. We are down to two minutes. Do you 

think an ecosystem plan, that you could be a part of that and that 

that would work better? 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. I think the best plan would be to have State 

management. The State truly understands the economic and social 

base of its State, it understands what the school system needs, 

what the road system needs and I believe it should be at the State 

level. 

Mrs. SMITH. You would go to the State. I would like to go to Mr. 

Friedman then, how do you feel-1 even like your name, Ecosystem 

Management Group or whatever. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I of course endorse ecosystem or landscape scale 

planning. Some species need small areas, some need large areas 

and when you look at the landscape, you often get more options. 

But the National Forest Management Act, for instance, provided 

that kind of mechanism and still we ran into the court problems 

with the spotted owl, which was a National Forest Management Act issue. At some point, you have got to bite the bullet. It is not 

planning that is difficult, it is often stopping the activity that is 

causing damage that is difficult. 

Mrs. SMITH. OK, so the courts are kind of the problem. If you 

could figure out a planning mechanism, maybe it is the issue of 

planning, like she said. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. You need a big stick. 

Mrs. SMITH. And getting the courts out of it. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Without a big stick, you will not have the change 

that is needed no matter how good your plan is. 

Mrs. SMITH. All right, anyone else like to comment on that? It 

is still green, but not for long. 

Ms. CoLYER. I would like to add that I think the attitude of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife has to change drastically before cooperation can 

be had. We have repeatedly tried to go in and coordinate with them 

and cooperate with them to develop a conservation plan in our 

area, and we have been told that we can go down easy or we can 

go down hard. They repeatedly tell that to us, and after awhile it 

is very difficult to try and coordinate with the people when they 

know they have the power. 

Mrs. SMITH. OK. 

Mr. ZEPPONI. In the Klamath Basin, the water users actually 

paid $150,000-plus to develop the first ecosystem restoration plan 

in the basin with an emphasis on the sucker. We released our plan 

prior to the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan. We have also imple-
79 

mented a number of scientific studies and a number of on-theground activities to get things done. It is important when you consider ecosystem planning that you empower the stakeholders proportionate to the effects on the land. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. I will relinquish my extended time. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Sherry Colyer, you just reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service told you, in your effort to try to cooperate with them that you 

could either go down easy or go down hard? 

Ms. COLYER. That is correct. We-the Coalition had developed a 

conservation plan to help solve the problem with the snail that 

they had perceived. And through meetings that they would miss, 

they set up the meetings, they would not show up at the meetings. At the last meeting that we had, as recently as March, we were 

told at that meeting we could go down easy or we could go down 

hard. They appear to want to cooperate; however, the person that 

we were left to be in charge with and deal with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service was actually an Idaho Conservation League member that was one of the intervenors on the court case. And she is 

now an employee with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and that 

is who we were left to try and coordinate the effort with. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that is who said you can go down easy 

or go down hard? 

Ms. COLYER. No, that was another employee. So the whole office 

is not very receptive. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Your report is unconscionable, the situation is 

unconscionable and your effort to try to work with people and work 

out a solution, I think, is amazing. 

I see this wanted poster that is attached to your testimony. It 

looks to me like the snail beside a pencil lead is about the size of 

this pencil lead. Is that correct? 

Ms. COLYER. That is correct. We use the correlation that it is the 

size of a poppy seed or a flake of pepper, so it is extremely small. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You come from an area that has been historically worked by ranchers for how many generations? 

Ms. COLYER. There are some farms and ranches that have been 

there for over 100 years. This is the people's custom and culture 

to live on the land. The snail, we do not know how long it has been 

there, it was found in the 1950's. How it got there, nobody seems 

to know. There were some hot ponds and it was originally brought 

up that the snail was introduced through recreationalists that 

brought the snail up there. They also brought tropical fish, and because of the warm water, it changed the snail's physical appearance and now it is considered a sub-species. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is amazing. 

Mr. POMBO. Would you yield for just a minute? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. Does this species-yes, does the full species, does 

that exist in other places? 

Ms. COLYER. It has not been found anywhere else outside of the 

Bruneau River drainage. Although I would like to add, it has never 
80 

really been looked for anywhere outside the Bruneau River drainage. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How in the world do they find something the 

size of a poppy seed? How do we know that it does not exist someplace else? 

Ms. COLYER. It would take trained malocologists to be able to 

find this species in other locations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife have 

sent out BLM employees to look for the snail. However, if you are 

looking for something the size of a poppy seed in streams, it is very 

difficult to find. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much for coming so far to give 

us this testimony. 

Ms. COLYER. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Lois Van Hoover, why did Congress spend 

$8.5 million on the Yellow Pine road? I do not know that, can you 

tell me? My word! 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Chenoweth, when it did 

not work to close off the road because of the wolf, when they could 

not find one and the judge said that they had been arbitrary and 

capricious in writing a jeopardy opinion, the very next year they 

wrote a decision order to close the road because they said the winter maintenance of the road created one-tenth of one percent of all 

the annual sediment that went into the river. So they chose to lock 

up the road one more time and we went back to court. We won one 

more time in court. The environmental community then sued saying that the one-tenth of one percent was over any average that 

could be acceptable. Nobody worried about the other 99.9 percent. 

Senator Jim McClure had the money appropriated to pave the 

road. The road paving was just completed last year. Now there is 

a new decision document that came under the ESA to amend the 

forest management plans called PACFISH. It is highly unlikely 

that we will be able to plow snow off this road next year because 

of the hill slopes. We will put too much snow on the slopes. So we 

will go back to court for the seventh time. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So the winter management that you mentioned was snow plowing? 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. Snow plowing, that is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So if you plow snow, that hurts the salmon in 

the stream beside where you are plowing snow? 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. According to National Marine Fisheries, it 

does. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You mentioned in your testimony both the 

grey wolf and the salmon. Is there a conflict in the management 

of those two species or what have you been having to deal with 

there? 

Ms. VAN HoOVER. In Idaho, every bit of our State is managed for 

critical habitat for one species or another. Wolves, which they just 

planted in our State which the State was not very eager to have 

happen, eat salmon. A year or so ago, we had one salmon come up 

the river. They decided that 15 wolves vying for a poached salmon 

was not likely to affect. Down in the Henry's Lake area, we have 

whooping cranes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service flies the eggs 

of the whooping cranes from Canada down and puts them under 
81 

the sandhill cranes. We do that because in Canada, 92 percent of 

all the hatchlings are eaten by the number one predator, which is 

the grey wolf. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tells me that the male grey 

wolf will travel about 600 miles. Henry's Lake is approximately 100 

miles from Yellowstone Park. I do not think it was the intent of 

the Act to provide the wolf with a gourmet lunch. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do grizzly bears eat salmon? 

Ms. VAN HOOVER. Grizzly bears eat salmon and grizzly bears 

also eat our endangered caribou. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Zepponi, I would like to ask you-and I 

do see my red light is on, but I would like to ask one more question 

and make one closing statement. 

Mr. Zepponi, did the Klamath Tribe have water rights in the reservoirs that had to be drawn down? 

Mr. ZEPPONI. No, the water rights are storage rights for the 

irrigators through the Reclamation Act. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So the Bureau has the storage rights, the 

irrigators have the water rights and the tribes had neither, right? 

Mr. ZEPPONI. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, I want to thank Linda Smith and 

all of the people who have come so far, but in closing I want to get 

something very clear on the record. I come from Idaho, I worked 

on the issue with regard to the rancher in Lemhi County, Mr. 

Friedman. And I just want to let you know that most of your facts 

about that were incorrect. 

Number one, the rancher never did confess to killing the wolf, no 

one has confessed. Number two, there was an autopsy done prior 

to the Fish and Wildlife's autopsy that showec. that-well the physical evidence on the ground showed that the wolf had picked up 

and carried that calf for 200 feet. Number three, it showed that the 

wolf came in and attacked the calf on three legs, as it was standing. That is typical of a wolf attack, they come in and they break 

the legs of the little species. And that happened in this case. And 

number four, colostrum was found in the stomach of the newborn 

calf and manure was found between its hooves. It is pretty hard 

for a stillborn calf to have those findings on them. And also, with 

all due respect, I think it was pointed out that Mr. Lin's case involved not a kit fox but a kangaroo rat. 

We are so interested in working together, but I think it is so incumbent and so important that when you come before a congressional committee, we need to be able to rely on your facts. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond momentarily. 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The documents in my hand from the Department 

of Fish and Game in California refer not only to the San Joaquin 

kit fox but also to a lizard species and to a kangaroo rat species. 

And the Fish and Wildlife Service documents that I have in my 

hand which describe their beliefs-their conclusions related to the 

Lemhi County incident. These are what I am reading. So I believe 

I do have facts in my hand. If there are other facts out there, then 

maybe we need a judge. 

Mr. POMBO. Without objection, your statements will be included 

in the record that you cite from. 
Mr. FRIEDMAN. I thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. Metcalf. 

82 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

My question will be for Mr. Michael McGlenn. As a member of 

Backcountry Horsemen for quite a few years who likes to ride in 

the hills there with my grandchildren, I am sort of concerned about 

the grizzly bear. As you know, horses do not react well to grizzly 

bears. What is the impact and practicality of using bear-proof gear 

in backcountry and what challenges do you face in that area? 

Mr. McGLENN. The challenges come in several areas. We as 

backcountry horsemen strive to lessen our impact on the land. It 

is no doubt that 1200 pounds of horse is a big animal. Some of us 

use them because we can no longer hike up and down the hills with 

80 pounds on our back and still like to be in the woods. 

But we have worked very hard to educate horsemen and to lessen that impact. That goes to going to lighter tents, lighter food, 

lighter everything else. The bear-proof boxes are 10 to 12 pounds 

heavier per box and you put two of them on a horse. The next thing 

that happens is you get into the wilderness and the little pamphlet 

that I just got from the Forest Service says you have got to hang 

your food and your gear and your game 10 foot high and four feet 

out from a tree. Many of the places we go do not have trees for one 

thing. The ones that do have trees are not nicely arranged 10 feet 

apart so you can hang something in them. They have got branches, 

they have got other kinds of problems and they will not support 50 

or 60 pounds of food and gear, plus the additional gear that you 

have to carry to go with it. 

So what you are working with is instead of having one pack 

horse for two people for maybe a week, you have another pack 

horse, another set of boxes, more impact, a bigger trailer, bigger 

truck, more gas-it just goes down hill from there. And we would 

like to avoid that when we do not see a need for it in the first 

place. 

Mr. METCALF. I know they want to keep horses out of some of 

these places, and horses do do a certain amount of damage, but 

they want to let in grizzly bears and they dig for vannints and so 

forth, and talk about damage to the area, I guess I am sort of concerned. 

In any event, in any meetings you have attended, have you ever 

heard about the cost to the taxpayer relative to the bears coming 

in? 

Mr. McGLENN. Absolutely not. The question has been asked very 

specifically of the people at the meetings. They have zero for an answer. They do not have an answer as to what the whole cost is 

going to be or even a part of it. 

Mr. METCALF. We are working on trying to get that and I think 

we will. 

You have not mentioned road closures. I have been told by the 

Forest Service that a majority of closures are due to a lack of funds 

to maintain the roads. How do you react or what would be your 

comment about why we can spend money for bears but do not have 

money for the roads? 
83 

Mr. McGLENN. Well, we are strictly a volunteer organization and 

we work to help Forest Service and government agencies to maintain roads and trails-primarily trails. Last year, our club in 

Washington contributed over $500,000 worth of help to trails. The 

Forest Service tells us they cannot maintain a trail, so they have 

dropped its status from a decent trail that you can walk on safely 

or ride a horse on safely to what they call a most difficult trail. We 

view that as just a real good excuse not to maintain the trail in 

the first place. So they say we have not got the money to maintain 

the trail, we do not have the money to maintain the trailheads, we 

do not have the money to maintain the roads, but then they turn 

around and they are going to do studies, they are going to fly bears 

in here, they are going to do all these things. Where does this 

money come from? They do not have the money to do the job they 

already have to do, but now they are going to put on a new job and 

bring some more money in? That does not add up to me. 

Mr. METCALF. Thank you very much. 

To Senator Pearce, just a quick question. How would you react 

to an effort to turn over management of all non-threatened, nonendangered marine mammals, turn over the operation to the 

States? 

Senator PEARCE. We would very much appreciate it. 

Mr. METCALF. I am thinking of a bill to do just that. 

I realize that in order to be effective, because marine mammals 

move a great deal, Federal control of whales and so forth is legitimate for endangered species, but certainly silly for non-endangered 

species, which they do not have any management at all. I think it 

is ridiculous, I agree with you. 

I worked in Alaska-! have one more quick comment or question-! worked in Alaska before statehood. Randy Tate, who is our 

youngest member, and he is always nagging me about being old, 

said that I had worked there before Alaska was discovered, and 

that is not true at all-it was before statehood. 

But I saw at that time under Federal rules and regs, the fishery 

was declining. And if you have any further comment about since 

statehood, Alaska has come back. Any particular comment in addition to the question you were asked previously? 

Senator PEARCE. The State, through a constitutional amendment, 

has a limited entries act that allows the Commission to set the 

number of permits for each fishery. We have different gear restrictions, we have size restrictions on the boats, we have a number of 

restrictions that have helped bring our fishery back. We have also 

attempted to bring more of our fisheries on shore in Alaska. But 

it has taken all of those things together to bring the fisheries back. 

And we too have good years and bad years, but for the most part, 

the trend has been excellent. 

Mr. METCALF. OK. I visited personally, because I am very much 

interested in the enhancement area-l visited the largest salmon 

hatchery at that time in the whole world, which was at Ester Island. 

Senator PEARCE. Right. 

Mr. METCALF. And I am very, very envious of Alaska's program 

in that regard. And I just would wind up my comments with a comment relative to the fact that one of the reasons for the disaster 
84 

in Washington State is that we have people in the Fisheries Department who are unwilling to use our technology. They say it 

might be dangerous to the wildfish-they are unwilling to use it. 

And we are smart enough to do all these things that we do, these 

miracles of technology and everything else, we certainly could do 

it. And I think that alone is enough to just take major housecleaning at the Fishery Department of Washington State there, absolutely. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

I would like to thank the panel for all of their testimony, for your 

answers to the questions. I appreciate that you answered them as 

fully as you possibly could with the knowledge that you had. I appreciate your testimony that you presented to us here today. Hopefully, as we go through this process, we can reach back on what 

you have brought us here today and fix some of the problems that 

exist with the Act and its implementation and hopefully we can develop an Endangered Species Act which will be effective in saving 

endangered species. 

Thank you very much for that. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you very much. You are welcome to give it 

to the security right there and they will bring it right up to me. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to 

have the Senator from the State of.--

Mr. POMBO. Just a minute. Ask unanimous consent to put that 

in. 

Mrs. SMITH. I would ask unanimous consent to add that to the 

testimony of this Congressional Committee, if there is no opposition. 

Mr. POMBO. Seeing no objection, the petition is accepted and will 

be included in the official record. 

"The undersigned citizens ofWashington support the Federal Endangered Species Act as written." 

[The material referred to had not been submitted at press time.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Is Senator Rod Johnson still here? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Oregon State Senator Rod Johnson still in the audience? 

[No response.] 

Mr. CooLEY. OK. I ask for unanimous consent to submit his testimony from the Oregon State Legislature. 

Mr. POMBO. Without objection the House Joint Memorial Number 

3 from the Oregon State Legislative Assembly will also be included 

into the record. 

[The material referred to can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. I would like to take this opportunity to point out 

that the official record of this hearing will remain open for ten 

days. The Task Force will continue to receive all written testimony; 

it will be included in the official record just as the testimony of the 

people who have had the opportunity to give oral testimony. That 

will remain open to this hearing for ten days. The overall record 

of the Task Force will continue to remain open until this task force 
85 

is disbanded. So anyone who wishes to present further testimony, 

further ideas, solutions that we can draw from in the coming 

months, your testimony is welcome and encouraged. There is a box, 

I believe, in the back of the room still that is accepting testimony. 

So please feel free to do so. 

The address again is 1320 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 20515. That is the address back in DC of the 

Committee, so if you want to mail anything back there, if you do 

not have it prepared yet today, if you want to mail it back there, 

it is more than anticipated, it is requested that you do so. 

I would like to close by thanking Congresswoman Smith for 

hosting us in this hearing today, for inviting us in. I can tell you 

that there were five members sitting up here who were more than 

a little bit disappointed that we did not hold the hearing in their 

areas. Mrs. Smith was very convincing and very persistent in her 

insistence that we hold the hearing in this part of Washington and 

this part of the Pacific Northwest. I thank her. I believe that she 

was correct in her assumptions that this was an important place 

for us to go, because there was such a diversity of opinion and diversity of ideas. And I believe that it is important that we were 

here to collect as much testimony as we poesibly could in a short 

period of time. 

I would also like to thank the other members of the Task Force 

for taking time away from their families and their districts to come 

up here and spend time in this important issue. 

I would like to finally thank all of you for being here, for the way 

in which you conducted yourselves during this hearing. It was exemplary, I appreciate it a great deal. I think that this is just the 

beginning of a long and arduous process in trying to solve some of 

the problems that we have in working together. I believe by your 

actions here today, you have instilled in me a certain amount of 

knowledge and gratitude that we are going to be able to do this because of the way in which you conducted yourselves, we can work 

together, there are problems that we need to find solutions to. I appreciate that, I appreciate all of the help that we got from your 

local city in helping to put this together. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one last thing. I would like 

to submit this as a matter of record from the people of Oregon, two 

comments on reform of the Endangered Species Act to go to the official records. 

Mr. POMBO. I will read it tonight. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:00p.m., the Task Force was adjourned, and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
86 

STATEMENT BY CHRISTINE MORRIS 

SAFETY PROGRAM COORDINATOR, 

WESTERN COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LOCAL #2767 

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 

RANDLE, WASHINGTON 

BEFORE FIELD HEARING OF 

THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE -

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT TASK FORCE 

Vancouver, Washington 

April 24, 1995 

On behalf of the 30,000 timber workers represented by the Western Council of Industrial 

Workers, I would like to thank the members of the ESA Task Force for convening this 

hearing on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I also want to recognize 

Congresswoman Linda Smith who represents my home state. 

My union strongly supports the goals of the ESA. But we are extremely concerned about 

job losses and economic impacts resulting from the Act. In our view, the Act has failed 

to consider these issues adequately. Adjustments are now required. 

I am a third generation millworker. I currently work as a safety program coordinator at 

Cowlitz Stud Company in Randle, Washington. Like me, many of our union's members 

have spent their lives working in and around federal forests. Our livelihoods depend on a 

sound strategy for preserving the environment. My union brothers and sisters and I have 

fought long and hard to find balanced solutions to protect our environment, to preserve 

job opportunities for American workers and to protect the economic stability of timberdependent communities. 

We do not believe these goals are in conflict. But we also know there is a stark difference 

between sound environmental protection and a rigid environmental policy that ignores 

economic realities. 

Timber, pulp and paper workers in the Northwest have felt the heavy blow of an 

unbalanced Endangered Species Act. Our communities are reeling from the impact of 

efforts to protect the Northern Spotted Owl. Option Nine virtually prohibits timber 

harvesting on 88 percent of federal lands in the spotted owl habitat regions of Oregon, 

Washington and Northern California. The ESA has further restricted harvesting activities 

on state and private lands. Th<: result has been mill closures and job lay-offs. Over 200 

timber mills have closed m Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana since 

1990. Almost 18,000 men and women working in those mills have lost their jobs. Our 

timber-dependent communities have seen their tax bases erode as unemployment rises 

and social services are overburdened. 
87 

Let me tell you about my hometown of Randle. My mill used to get more than 50% of 

our timber supply from federal lands. Now we get most of our supply from private lands. 

But who knows how long we can last? With the ESA, the private supply may soon be 

choked-off. 

At the local2x4 mill, we've seen hundreds of workers laid-offbecause of a lack of timber 

supply. The mill will probably close soon. We've already seen reduced shits. Last year, 

the mill laid-off workers for five weeks. People can't afford to be out of work that long. 

You can't pay your bills. And you can't feel comfortable not knowing if the mill is 

gonna close next week. 

The ESA doesn'tjust affect timber workers. We're a small town. There aren't a lot of 

jobs outside the mills. And everything is dependent on the mills. If the mills go, the 

town goes. 

Already, the situation is killing our town. The timber receipts that help fund the city are 

down. As a result, we're concerned that our emergency medical-services and our fire 

department may be in serious trouble. One school needs a new heating system that we 

can 't afford. Teachers are doubling-up, teaching more than one class and working as 

coaches on the side. Businesses are closing shop. We've gone from four gas stations to 

two in the past couple of years-- that's a few more people who've lost their jobs. 

Coleman Brothers trucking is about to close-- that's more jobs that'll be lost. We've 

seen the number of people who come into the food bank double in the past year or so. 

We've seen depression, alcoholism, even suicide. 

People our forced to leave our town. In some families, the father leaves to find a job 

elsewhere, leaving behind his wife and kids. That's a terrible thing to have to deal with. 

Kids have had to drop out of college ' cause their parents can't pay. They have no future, 

no training. 

I hear people say timber workers can be retrained. But it's not that easy. It's hard to get 

funds and the programs rarely work. I know one woman who lost her job as a logger. 

She received a grant to evaluate homes for fire safety. The government calls her 

retrained. But what are her long-term prospects? What skills is she developing? Other 

people are being retrained for jobs in the woods. Some of these programs are a step in 

the right direction, but others provide only seasonal jobs at below family-level wages. 

Mr. Chairman, too often we've seen the livelihoods of working men and women run 

headlong into inflexible legislation or unbalanced national policy. We need to make 

changes in the ESA that avoids these mistakes and takes the human element into 

consideration. That's why my union supported the Endangered Species Reform Act last 

year, introduced by Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. This bill struck the critical 

balance between protecting people, wildlife and the environment. 

2 
88 

Efforts to protect endangered species must continue. But the search for environmental 

protection must include a close look at who pays the costs. For too long, working people 

have been paying the cost-- with our jobs. It's time to close the tab. Failure to do so 

risks adding one more species to the ranks of the endangered-- the American worker. 

Thank you. 
89 

Testimony of 

LESLIE STEVENSON CAMPBELL 

SDS LUMBER COMPANY 

Before the Task Force on Endangered Species 

of the 

House Committee on Resources 

April 24, 1995 
90 

I. INTRODU<.JION. 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Task Force, I am Leslie Stevenson 

Campbell, one of the owners of SDS Lumber Company, a family-owned wood products 

company from Bingen, Washington. The Endangered Species Act, the President's Forest 

Plan, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area Act make it 

Increasingly difficult to manage our privately owned forest land and successfully operate 

our mills. I appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about the Endangered 

Species Act. 

SDS Lumber Company is the largest private employer in the Columbia River 

Gorge. Many of our employees are life-long members of the community. The Stevenson 

family has owned and operated the company since 1946. In the late 1970's, we 

employed approximately 475 people in our sawmill, plywood plant, and chipping facility. 

We harvested 20 million board feet per year from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

which had a timber safe program of about 330 million board feet per year. The Gifford 

Pinchot timber sale program has evaporated and the volume of Forest Service timber sales 

SDS has under contract has declined from between 40 and 80 million board feet to only 

eight million board feet. The only sale we were able to purchase this year from the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest was prepared under President Clinton's forest plan and is 

less than one million board feet. We cannot harvest the sale because award of the 

contract is delayed by environmentalist's threats of appeal. We are now searching for 

wood from Alaska to Montana to supply our mills. 

SWH\ swhr5 l l2 
91 

The ESA and the President's plan have all but eliminated federal timber sales 

and today, we have fewer than 350 employees. Private lands are more important than 

ever to our survival. However, the ESA is now being used to disrupt management of 

private lands. Since the 1970's we have invested over $25 million in renovating our 

facilities including the addition of capacity to process small logs. Despite our state·of·theart milling facilities, our future is clouded and our incentive for further investments is 

limited because of the Endangered Species Act. 

I want to focus on the Endangered Species Act and its effect on our 

company's lands. I also want to provide recommendations for the Committee's 

consideration as you contemplate changes to the ESA. 

A. The ESA and SDS. 

Over the last five years, we have become intimately familiar with the ESA 

because of the northern spotted owl. The spotted owl was listed as a threatened species 

because supposedly little of its habitat remained which was assumed to be old growth, 

large diameter forests. Our company owns approximately 53,000 acres of forestland 

north of the Columbia River and along the eastern slopes of the Cascades. Most of our 

forestland is 40.60 year old young forests that are intensively managed and thinned. 

According to the "best science" on which the listing of the spotted owl was based, there 

should be no spotted owls associated with SDS property. In fact, the owls are thriving In 

our area with many owl territories, and parts of 28 territories fall on SDS lands restricting 

our management. It Is not surprising that to get the owl listed, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service created an artificial scarcity of habitat by defining It narrowly. Now that the owl 

2 SNH\•whrSlll 

91-344 - 95 - 4 
92 

is listed, the agency deflnes virtually all forest stands greater than 12 inches as some type 

of owl habitat. 

One of our company foresters was with biologists from the Washington 

Department of Wildlife and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service last week. The group was 

driving through our property near Underwood Mountain and the biologists were 

impressed with the abundance of owl habitat they saw. However, it is no surprise to SDS 

that our intensive forest management of young second-growth forest has created spotted 

owl habitat. The abundance of owls in our managed forests, has lead federal and state 

wildlife agencies to expansively apply the ESA to assert jurisdiction over our lands. We 

believe these agencies wish to dictate our management decisions as if they were co· 

owners. We resent the quest for control and believe that the agencies are blind to the 

negative effects that the expansive application of the ESA will have on the spotted owl 

and the small communities in rural Washington. 

B. Recommendations. 

I . Encourage private landowners to maintain habitat but not penalize an 

owner for doing so. 

As our company intensively manages its young sunds, we are increasing the 

growth on the remaining trees and in many cases promoting the growth of an understory 

forest which enhances the conditions for spotted owls and actually produces spotted owl 

habitat. In contrast, a clearcut of these same acres does not produce spotted owl habitat. 

If the ESA will be applied to severely constrain management of a threatened species 

habitat through civil and criminal penalties, then the Act is actually creating disincentives 

3 SWH\swhr511 2 
93 

for owners to grow new and better owl habitat. Our company Is proud of the way its 

lands are managed, and wants to continue good forestry practices on Its lands. 

2. Lawful land management acdvltfes should not be classified as a take 

of a threatened or endangered soecles. 

Regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the Sweet Home case, the 

ESA should not be used as a club to preclude lawful land use activities. Agency biologists 

have strenuously argued that any harvest within 1.8 miles of a nest site in the Washington 

Cascades is a civil and criminal take of a spotted owl, even If a nest site Is two ridgetops 

from the acres being harvested and the harvest occurs during the non-nesting season when 

the owls are not present. SDS has no objection to ESA prohibitions against actually killing 

or directly injuring the individuals of a listed species, but we strongly oppose extending the 

take definition to preclude harvest of "habitat" 1.8 miles from an owl site. In the case of 

the spotted owl, the amount of forest now considered habitat is vastly greater than the 

amount of habitat assumed when the owl was listed. There are now many types of habitat 

which including nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat. The result in our area is 

that more forestland Is now considered as one form of spotted owl habitat or another, 

than there is forestland that is considered nonhabitat. 

3. Do not require orivate lands to conttibute to recoverv of a 

threatened soeciesA private landowner should not be forced to take action to provide for 

recovery of the species. This is especially true In Washington and Oregon which have a 

large proportion of federal lands. 

4 SWH\ swhrSll2 
94 

4. Better define what qualifies as the •best• science and how that 

science Is used In the listing process. 

Requiring that a listing of a species as threatened or endangered must be 

based on the "best science" is too vague to be of any help. The spotted owl was listed 

based on theoretical "scientific" models and "scientific" population projections which have 

turned out to be wrong. Unfortunately, the economic damage has been done. The 

university elite and the environmental groups have no incentive to conduct applied 

scientific field studies if they can concoct a theoretical model and use their Pentium 

computers to show that a species is headed toward the brink of extinction in twenty years. 

Conversely, if private landowners conduct real world scientific studies, the results are 

viewed with skepticism because of alleged industry bias. 

Since listing of the spotted owl, the National Council for Air and Stream 

improvement led by Dr. Larry Irwin has studied spotted owls in the eastern Washington 

Cascades and over several years found that owls inhabit areas not assumed in the 

theoretical models -- the owls are thriving In multi-aged forests. The Forest Service has 

recently withdrawn Its funding for this study. The portion of this study in our area is 

funded by 505, Champion International, Longview Fiber and other landowners and shows 

the same results of the rest of the eastern Cascades study. Owls appear to be thriving in 

stands thought to be too young to support spotted owls. Not only is there a vastly more 

habitat than when the owl was listed, there are multitudes of more owls than assumed to 

exist at the time of listing. 

We strongly recommend that extensive field science be required to justify a 

listing decision. The field science used to justify the listing of the spotted owl was studies 

5 SWH\swhr5 l l 2 
95 

of exclusively old growth forests, with a few radio collars placed on a handful of birds by 

Eric Forsman. Such a reliance on a narrow band of habitat with a small sample of owls as 

the "best" science to list a species affecting over millions of acres should not be permitted 

under the ESA. Improving the Integrity of the science used In the ESA listing an 

enforcement of the take provisions is desperately needed. Anonymous reviews of the 

Information relied on by the agencies for listing, third· party monitoring of the data 

collection, and use of quality checking by non-wildlife disciplines such as statisticians 

should seriously be considered by the Committee. 

5. Develop an alternative to habitat conservation plans where it Is 

imoractial or too expensive for a landowner. 

There has been a tremendous push by the Fish & Wildlife Service for private 

landowners to prepare habitat conservation plans. However, this process Is lengthy and 

extremely expensive. More importantly, for many private owners, an HCP does not make 

sense because of the scattered ownership pattern or mix of land uses. SDS lands are 

widely dispersed in various size parcels, often mixed with grazing and agricultural land, and 

are not concentrated in one large block. Therefore, planning for owl management of SDS 

lands that are surrounded by a variety of other owners and uses makes no biological sense. 

With the emphasis on ecosystem management, a habitat conservation plan prepared for 

one private landowner becomes a futile exercise because the plan cannot be implemented 

to benefit the species. An alternative to the lengthy, expensive, and In our case, 

Ineffective habitat conservation planning process must be developed. 

6 SNH\awhr5112 
96 

6. The agency or a private citizen must have the burden of proof to 

challenges private landowner activity. 

Because the private landowner's resources are generally limited, they are in 

a difficult position to collect the resource data, conduct the biological studies, perform the 

habitat inventories, and complete the scientific research necessary to prove that their 

activities will not harm a threatened or endangered species. In the case of any criminal 

action, an agency has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a landowner's activity 

resulted in the death or injury of a threatened species. Likewise, a private citizen or 

agency should have the burden in a civil action to prove that a landowner has violated the 

ESA particularly when the landowner was engaged in otherwise lawful land use activities. 

7. Compensate private landowners for ESA restrictions of their land. 

SDS currently has a case pending in the Washington state court for taking 

SDS's forestland without just compensation. We had prepared a state forest practice 

permit using the State Environmental Policy Act checklist and received approval to 

harvest. A day before harvest began, the Washington Department of Wildlife pronounced 

that they were relocating a spotted owl activity center to cover the majority of a timber 

harvest permit area and we were issued a stop work order and told not to harvest any 

trees. In effect, the State has created a wildlife refuge on our property without 

condemning the land. We obtained the land several years ago in a trade with the 

Department of Natural Resources and the only use of the land is for timber production. 

When the application of the ESA denies the private landowner the use of property, the 

government should compensate the landowner by land trades or fee purchase. 

7 SWH\swhr5112 
97 

8. Involve ortvate owners In consultation Involving their contracts. 

Federal agencies often conduct consultation over a timber sale contract 

behind closed doors without the involvement of the affected contractor. The contractor 

is not provided a copy of the biological opinion nor involved in development of 

reasonable and prudent alternatives for the project. For example, the Forest Service 

initiated consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service for one of SDS's last federal timber 

sales following a survey that indicated an owl was in the vicinity of the sale area. The 

Forest Service initiated the consultation and worked with the Fish & Wildlife Service to 

develop the draft biological opinion and never informed SDS of the consultation. The 

first we learned of the consultation which occurred this winter, was when we recently 

received a letter from the Forest Service announcing a decision to seasonally restrict 

operations on half of the sale area. SDS included the volume in its summer harvest plans 

and making It unavailable has severely disrupted our log supply. Even though the ESA 

currently requires the federal agencies to involve a contractor as a "applicant" in the 

consultation process, too often the contractor is excluded and the agencies engage in 

stealth consultation. 

8 SWH\awhr5ll2 
98 

Biograpghy of Stan S. Shaufler 

Formerly: President and owner of Owl Lumber and Manufacturing. 

Located near Brem«3rton, Washington, Owl Lumber produced 

high quality cuttings from Northwest timber for markets 

worldwide. In particular, we specialized in long length clear 

cuttings used in tho construction and repair of wooden ships 

and boats. This included supplying many of the trade schools 

located here in the Northwest and around the country. 

1992 Consulting Professor of Occupational Psychology at 

Washington State Penitentiary, Mcneil Island. 

1990 Consultant and project manager for the development and 

construction of a new tourist submarine for the island of 

St. Martin in the Carribean. 

1989 Principal Consultant and project engineer for the 

construction of the "Atlantis Reef" located in Waikiki, 

Hawaii. The worlds largest manmade underwater reef park. 

1988-89 Construction Manager, Atlantis Submarines. Manager of 

the project to construct the first 50 passenger tourist 

submarines for Kana, and Honolulu, Hawaii. 

1979-1987 Vocational Education instructor, Highline Community 

College, Marine Technology and other related fields. 

Bachelor of Science degree in Vocational Education and 

Curriculum Development. 
99 

Written Testimony for the Endangered Species Act Field Hearings to 

be held on April 24, 95 in Vancouver, Washington. 

This testimony is respectfully submitted by: 

Stan S. Shauf/er 

POBOX606 

Lakebay, Washington 98349 

( 5 pages total testimony ) 

Today as I sit and watch the news of the aftermath of the 

explosion in Oak/ahoma City. I cannot help but notice the sense of 

compassion shared by the s·urvivors and rescue workers on the scene. 

A mutual effort at restoring a sense of order amidst overwhelming 

chaos. Perhaps when the chips are down, really down. We as a 

people can rise up to any challenge laid before us. 

In light of the fact that there are truly bad people in the world. 

We can take solace in the fact that adversaries like those who are 

attending these hearings on the Endangered Species Act can share 

their differences without the least hint of violence or misanthropy. 

With extensive career experience in both educational and 

industrial settings. I have had many opportunities to gain a thorough 

perspective regarding diverse view points on human activities and 

the need for a balanced outlook toward the natural environment from 

which we all sustain ourselves. 

As a small saw mill owner in the Pacific Northwest. I to 

longed for the opportunity to be both closely dependent upon yet 

respectful of the natural forces that influence all life on earth. To 

own my own business and take pride in my work and ethic. The old 

growth Jogs I milled represented centuries of growth. There 

renewability seemed more and more doubtful in the light of vast 

clearcuts. Just as the wooden ships that plied these once rich 

waters in abundance. It seemed another era was fast coming to a 

close. In deed it has. The hundreds of small saw mills that once 

dotted the Northwest have all but virtually disappeared. Change was 

in the wind. But it was a change we welcomed as an alternative to 

the full scale liquidation of the Old Growth forests in our backyard. 

It seemend logical to many of us in the local communities that the 

collusion between big private timber land owners and environmental 

actions were devised to put the independents out of business and 

drive up the cost of privately held timber. Many of us never doubted 

for one minute the likely linkage thus between big timber and 

environment. We knew that in the 90's jargon of political spin ·and 

public malaise we were doomed. 
100 

Page2 

Testimony- Endangered Species Act 

Stan S. Shaufler 

We still believe the practice of growing and cutting trees 

should be given the utmost priority as we seek to search for the 

materials with which to continue our existence. Surely anyone can 

see the preference to the continued existence of forests albeit 

commercial over the open pit mine or the shaft. However, the 

logging of the National Forests was a disgrace at the rates 

instituted and maintained by our expert forest managers. 

Sustainability of Old Growth was not in the plan. The fact that the 

wooden boat schools of the Northwest must now use South American 

Wood instead of drawing from their own once bountiful backyard is a 

disgrace. 

As a sawmill owner I personally can attest to the fear and 

frustration of having one agency after another march into my office 

with another list of demands upon my time, resources and money. 

Water Quality, Air Quality and a host of other authorities seemed to 

be singling me out for a closer look at what I believed to be totally 

benign activities. I longed for the cooperative business environment 

I had heard existed in places like Japan. Where the government 

agencies actually helped a business succeed. But like any strong 

ship, we weathered the Btorm. Time and again they came. The local 

beaurocrats, greedily usurping their powers to dictate and mandate 

-more hoop jumping. 

I eventually sold my business in part because I had become 

tired and financially weak at the prospect of the never ending chains 

of beaurocracy being placed around my feet. Ye t, poor 

implementation aside. We all felt change was needed. 

As an unemployed head of household with 4 children. I too know 

the fear of losing ones livelihood in middle age. The story has been 

repeated thousands of times here in the Northwest. I know too that 

these changes are occuring all over our country as we chose to buy 

more imports and continue to export less from our factories and 

more from our forests. Whether or not we realize, we all vote every 

day on the issues which affect the national debt and unemployment 

rates by how we spend our money. 
101 

Page 3 

Testimony- Endangered Species Act 

Stan S. Shaufler 

As I travel the great woods of the Northwest looking for a new 

epiphany, I can still marvel at what is left. Just two days ago I 

watched with my children as a magnificent heard of elk grazed 

nearby. This spring I watched countless salmon leap and lunge to 

their deaths in the shallow waters of Mill Creek. The life forces 

that have existed here for thousands of years are still here. 

Yet, there is a profound change occuring upon the land. I do not 

believe the steady progression of development and encroachment of 

our daily activities upon these life forms we call wild can continue. 

I believe few people do. The day after I watched that heard of elk, 

Larina, my wife, and I were in awe as we saw them darted and 

airlifted to a new location because they were creating a nuisance to 

some homeowners in Sequim. How many seasons and how many 

generations had come and gone to come to this ignoble end? 

We even wonder if the growth management acts of today will 

dictate the same treatment of those of us who stray tomorrow? I 

think we will continue to face some tough choices as we continue to 

learn about what we should and should not do. But the fact that we 

recognize the need for these decisions at all is encouraging. 

As a young boy in Detroit, Michigan. I remember when they 

declared Lake Erie dead. I remember the outdoor movie theaters at 

dusk when the spray trucks would coat automobiles, children and 

popcorn with the awful sticky insecticide to • keep the Mosquitos 

down." I remember PBB contaminated feed, and horribly maimed 

calves and farm children. 

In response to these hearings on the value of the Endangered 

Species Act. I must reflect loudly and I must reflect strongly on the 

side of those things wild. To never again see the day when we 

poison our lakes and rivers to the point where we can only look at 

them with disgust and loathing. To think that we can invent, or even 

want to sustain ourselves in anything but the beautiful nature that 

surrounds us is ultimate fiction. 
102 

Page 4 

Testimony- Endangered Species Act 

Stan S. Shaufler 

As a designer and builder of the worlds first tourist 

submarines I gained a deep appreciation for just how fragile life is. 

For when you try to design a system to support and sustain human 

life in the underwater world you realize just how delicate the 

balance of gasses we breathe. I also learned how easy it is to 

dismiss something once out of sight as I explored the worlds 

underwater reefs and plains. I came to realize that even in this 

alien world there were places full of life and those that were empty. 

For even here, there were gardens and there were wastelands. If we 

do not protect the gardens, we will have nothing but wastelands. 

The opportunities to observe the transformation are all to frequent. 

Finally, as a teacher at a state prison. I saw many examples of 

men who had lost there will to dig at their inner strengths and 

survive like the wild things. Instead, they were resigned to their 

loss of control over there destiny. And although many were willing 

to fight at the drop of a hat, it was for all of the wrong reasons. We 

do not have to relinquish our control over our destiny like the 

inmate. We are not in a prison. We are in paradise. Instead of the 

see-sawing of environmental regulation the American People want a 

steady and true course toward environmental protection. This 

mandate is clear. I think there is no one who has seen the extent of 

the •cut• from Umbrella Creek or the fouled watercourse or dump 

site that can say nothing needed to be done. We have taken a bold 

stride on our own behalf. Our elected officials will do no one a 

service in the long run by now retreating from choices we must 

make. The coward will always give up ground gained by the heroic 

efforts of others. Let us continue to temper our viewpoints with 

knowledge and perseverance. And under no circumstance should we 

give up what we have sought to gain. 

I am an optimist. Like my forefathers - I have to be. I believe 

that my children will have a chance to enjoy the wild things. And In 

them, to see themselves and there place on earth. 
103 

Page 5 

Testimony - Endangered Species Act 

Stan S. Shaufler 

We must preserve the wilds at all costs. There just is not 

enough of it left anymore. I hope we can become smart, very smart 

at improving our lives and lessening our impact. At learning what is 

really important in life and how simple it is. As he sat in his 9'x13' 

hut buried in the snows of an Antarctic Winter. Richard E. Byrd, Rear 

Admiral, USN (ret.), Had this to say. • Yet, wasn't this really enough? 

It occured to me then that half the confusion in the world comes 

from not knowing how little we need." Sixty years later, Surely we 

do not have to relearn this basic observation. 

Please do not preempt any laws or sanctions which allow for 

the destruction of any more of that which is wild in favor of that 

which is for sale. The Endangred Species Act marked a major 

awakening in this country and around the world to the fact that we 

have the power to hasten our demise. Lets not rebel against it at the 

very time when we are all captivated by the thought of learning to 

live with it. 
104 

~ 

V~NCOVV£R~VDVBONSOCI£~~ ATTN: Elizabeth Megginson 

House Resources Committee 

Endangered Species Task Force 

1324 Longworth 

washington, D.C. 20515 

TESTIMONY ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL ENDANGERED SPECIES TASK FORCE 

APRIL 24, 1995 

by 

GRETCHEN STARKE 

CHAIR, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 

VANCOUVER AUDUBON SOCIETY 

My name is Gretchen Starke and I am speaking on behalf of the 

Audubon Society and for a strengthened Enda ngered Species Act 

(ESA). I wish to thank the Task Force for the opportunity to 

speak here today. 

After President George Bush appointed William Reilly to head the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Reilly wanted to know which 

environmental problems e ntailed the greatest risk, and how these 

problems differed from the public's perception. He appointed two 

committees, one to study risks to human health and the other to 

study the risks to the e nvironment. 

I will mention only the risks to the environment in this 

testimony, as that is most pertinent. The committee on risks to 

the environment was headed by William Cooper of Michigan State 

University. The committee found the four greatest ecological 

risks to be: 

- global climate change 

- stratospheric ozone depletion 

- habitat alteration 

- species extinct ion and biodiversity loss. 
105 

This committee based their findings on the following two factors: 

the extent of the area affected and the length of time needed for 

recovery once the environmental insult was removed (Roberts. 

1990. Science, Vol 249, p. 616-618). 

Virtually all biologists agree that biodiversity is important, 

even essential to the well-being of humans. As we are losing 

habitats and species, we are losing irreplaceable resources. We 

are trading short-term economic gains for long term poverty. 

One of the habitats being lost in the Pacific Northwest is the 

old growth forest, home of the much-maligned northern spotted 

owl. And of the marbled murrelet, pileated woodpecker, pine 

marten, Larch Mountain salamander, flying squirrels, and numerous 

songbirds. 

We humans also depend on the old growth ecosystem. We need it, 

not only for the obvious benefit of providing wood products and 

jobs for workers, but also for clean water, for holding soil in 

place, for moderating the climate, and for the beauty that calms 

and inspires the spirit of human beings. 

But our old growth forests are fast disappearing. The problem is 

that the old growth forests have been mined -- not harvested. 

Harvest implies an activity that occurs after planting. In the 

case of old growth logging, the trees were put there by nature. 

Logging might not have been so bad -- would have been totally 

acceptable, in fact -- if it had not been so excessive. Logging 

skyrocketed, starting in the sixties. The volume of timber cut 

on the Mt. Hood National Forest was below 50 million board feet a 

year. It increased to above 300 million board feet a year in the 

seventies and eighties, the exceptions being during the recession 

of the early eighties. Common sense should tell one that this 

excessive cutting could not continue without severe damage to the 

forest ecosystem. And indeed, this is the case. In the early 

seventies, the national forests west of the Cascades could be 

described as islands of clear cuts in a sea of old growth. Now 

it is the opposite. The infamous satellite photograph taken of 

the Mt. Hood in June of 1992 showed a landscape that resembled a 

torn lace curtain. The same thing can be seen in the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest, the forest closest to Vancouver. Anyone 

who has hiked that forest, as I have, and who have stood on 

overlooks at high elevations, can see the extent of the clear 

cuts. I invite members of the committee to go for a hike on the 

ground to see for themselves, or to take a plane ride over either 

forest. Clearly, any animal or plant that depends on the old 

growth habitat is in trouble. 

The northern spotted owl has been blamed for the human misery 

caused by the destruction of our forests. This bird is such a 

convenient scapegoat, that if it did not exist, the timber 

companies would have had to invent it. Other industries who are 

downsizing should have such a good target. For the fact is, 

loggers and mill workers have lost most of their jobs, not 

2 
106 

because of the spotted owl and other listed species, but because 

of factors inherent in the timber industry itself. These factors 

include: the cyclical nature of growth and recession in the home 

building industry (many jobs were lost in the early eighties 

recession), plant modernization, log exports, and the cut-andget-out mentality of the timber companies. 

Between 1979 and 1988, ~he timber industry eliminated more than 

25,000 jobs in Oregon and Washington a~~ shut 

down 195 mills. Remember, this was before 1990, the year that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the northern 

spotted owl be listed as endangered. These jobs were lost 

because of corporate management techniques to increase efficiency 

and productivity. Increasing efficiency and productivity nearly 

always involves lost jobs, and businesses, especially large 

businesses, don't often think of their employees or the 

communities in which they work when making their decisions. In 

addition, during the eighties, there was funny stuff going on 

with corporate takeovers and the like. In order to pay for the 

acquisition of a company, a corporation would sell off the 

company's assets, resulting in some lost jobs. Crown-Zellerbach 

was taken over by James River, and the timber lands then sold. 

Long before the spotted owl was a blip on the corporate radar 

screen, the major timber companies knew they would be leaving 

the Pacific Northwest. There was much talk in the Journal of 

American Forests about t he wonderful opportunities in the South, 

where the plantations of long-leaf and loblolly pine grew. The 

South would be where it was at. As an example, Georgia-Pacific 

finally moved its corporate headquarters from Portland to t he 

Southeast in the late eighties. 

Those timber companies that retained their own lands had hit them 

h~rd. They had taken all their own old growth, and converted the 

land to single-species plantations (plantations bearing as much 

resemblance to a forest as a corn field does to a prairie), due 

to be harvested in as little as fifty years. Because they had 

over-cut their own lands, they were hoping the Federal lands 

would fill in for them until their plantations were ready. They 

saw no reason that Federal lands shouldn't be converted to tree 

fa~s, too, and were pressuring the agencies and Congress to 

ensure that would happen. 

In the mid-eighties the Mt. Hood was developing one version of 

its forest plan. As required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the forest present e d a wide range of alternatives, 

including a high timber ma nagement alternative. About this time, 

Les AuCoin, then member of Congress from Oregon, introduced 

legislation that would have mandated an extremely high cut for . 

the Forest Service. The Mt. Hood's share would have exceeded the 

high timber alternative in the forest plan. In four separate 

yea rs, during the mid and late eighties, Congress mandated that 

the Forest Service cut two billion board feet more than the 

highest cut the agency had recommended. In other words, the 
107 

elected officials pressured the Forest Service to produce timber 

cuts that trashed all the other resources the national forests 

should provide. No wonder we have no more trees to cut!! we cut 

today's trees yesterday. No wonder we have a problem with 

endangered species. 

Enter environmentalist litigation. No, the law that was used was 

not the ESA. We didn't fully understand the dire plight of the 

owl and other old growth-dependant species at the time. The 

effort to turn national forests into national tree farms violated 

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Federal judges agreed 

that the law was being violated. That is what shut down the 

logging, not the owl. 

The NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage the forests so 

that a balance of goods and services be provided, including 

recreation, clean water, beauty , and wildlife. Huntable wildlife 

and watchable wildlife. Wildlife that must live in old growth 

and wildlife that prefers young stands of trees. Under the NFMA, 

the Forest Service is required to manage its land so that all the 

diverse species found naturally in our national forests continue 

to have viable populations. Tree farms do not provide a variety 

of wildlife populations, anymore than they provide clean water or 

beauty. 

Because it was not practical for the Forest Service to inventory 

each forest for populations of all species of wildlife, the 

agency developed the concept of indicator species. An indicator 

species is sort of a stand in for all species dependant on a 

given habitat. If the populations of the indicator species 

declines, it is an indication that the habitat may also be 

declining, putting at risk all species dependant on the habitat. 

For the old growth habitat, many forests chose the pine marten (a 

member of the weasel family), the pileated woodpecker, and ---

the northern spotted owl. 

The northern spotted owl needs old growth, or stands with old 

growtn characteristics, to successfully rear its young. It needs 

broken-topped trees, where it lays its eggs directly in the 

hollow created by the broken top. The branch that takes over as 

leader shades the young owlets. It needs a habitat with unevenaged stands of trees, multi-storied, and with snags and downed 

logs. Such habitat is also the home of the owl's favorite prey, 

the flying squirrel, voles, and other small rodents. Without 

groceries, how would you feed your family? The same need exists 

for wild animals as well. The old growth forest also protects 

the owl from its main predator, the great horned owl , and from 

the elements of rain and cold . How well do the homeless on our 

streets fare? Wild animals face the same problems without 

shelter. To illustrate the dependance of owls on their habitat, 

I will tell a story, told to us at an Audubon meeting s everal 

years ago by a researcher (I can find out his name if that is 

needed) of what happened to one pair of owls living in a forest 

that was being cut. This was on a privately owned forest near 
108 

Willapa Bay, Washington. Over the years, the forest had been 

clear cut, in patches. The forest became increasingly 

fragmented. One night, a great-horned owl killed the male. The 

female continued to fly around her territory, calling in vain for 

her mate. 

Some have claimed that the northern spotted owl does not need old 

growth and that owls have been seen in other types of stands. 

The explanations for such sightings and beliefs (other than 

wishful thinking) are as follows. The spotted owl needs to live 

and, especially, reproduce in forests with old growth 

characteristics, such as I described above. Some mature stands, 

younger than that considered old growth, may have these same characteristics. Search of the literature on spotted owl 

research indicates that owls in the more northern part of their 

range need larger territories than do owls in the more southern 

part of their range. While owls in the southern part of the 

range may get by with living in forest other than old growth, it 

certainly isn't ideal habitat. Owls in Washington need old 

growth. Finally, the most frequent kind of sighting of a spotted 

owl in other than old growth is most certainly that of juveniles 

dispersing. You know how kids are. They are naive, a little 

dumb in the ways of their world, and they are traveling, trying 

to find a home for themselves. Some of them wind up in the most 

unlikely places, including apple orchards. If they are unable to 

find suitable habitat, however, most will probably die. 

As the pressure to get out the cut was colliding with realities on the ground, it became increasingly clear that the populations 

of spotted owls were declining. Let me say a word about the 

Federal agencies involved in this issue. The field biologists 

knew the owl was in trouble. They did their work well. Their 

bosses (especially the appointed bosses) in Washington, D.C., 

chose not to learn this fact. It took Federal judges to force 

the agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to obey 

the law and pay attention to the science. Hence, the eventual 

listing of the northern spotted owl and the need of the agencies 

to come up with a plan for survival for the owl. 

The northern spotted owl, in its own difficulty, fulfilled its 

mission as an indicator species. The old growth ecosystem is in 

trouble, serious trouble, along with other creatures that depend on it. After the owl, the bird that next hit the news was the 

marbled murrelet. This is a most interesting bird, a sea bird 

that lays its eggs and rears its young in the forest. Its 

behavior could have evolved only in the Pacific Northwest, where 

the forest meets the sea. The marbled murrelet needs old growth 

because it lays its single egg on the moss-covered branch of an ancient tree. We have -- or, at least, used to have -- trees 

that big. 

Even more scary problems have come to light recently. The 

populations of garden variety songbirds have been declining. 

These are what ornithologist call the nee-tropical migrants --
109 

birds that winter in Central and South America and Mexico and 

summer here in the u.s. These birds include tanagers and many 

warblers, birds who like to nest deep in the forest. Researchers 

have found that these neo-tropical migrants face problems at both 

ends of their migration. The destruction of the tropical forests 

has been well publicized. But the birds also have problems on 

their breeding grounds, problems that are related to forest 

destruction across the country. It seems that this destruction 

has been favorable to at least one species, the brown-headed 

cowbird. Cowbirds are nest parasites, that is, the females lay 

their eggs in the nests of other species, leaving their young to 

be reared by foster parents. The chicks of the foster parents 

are kicked out of the nest by the interloper chick, and left to 

die on the ground. Species most often parasitized by cowbirds 

are warblers and tanagers. Now, cowbirds love open areas and 

hate heavily wooded areas. So warblers that nest in the middle 

of the deep woods keep their chicks safe from cowbirds. But 

there are fewer and fewer deep woods large enough. Any opening 

can be sufficient for a cowbird to gain access to a warbler nest. 

To cowbirds and warblers, putting a road through the middle of a 

1,000 acre forest changes the forest to two 500 acre forests. 

(See the attached article by John Terborgh from Scientific 

American, May, 1992.) Not all warbler species are listed under 

the ESA, but if the declines in their populations continue, they 

may nearly all be eligible. 

The decline in these songbirds is also affecting the Pacific 

Northwest. An article that appeared in the April 20, 1995, issue 

of The Oregonian quoted a Forest Service biologist (see attached 

article) as saying that the populations of some species of 

songbirds are declining up to 70 rcent. Species mentioned 

included flycatchers, warblers, thrushes, and the golden-crowned 

kinglet. 

So this is the problem. Over-cutting on the national forests has 

liquidated trees that could have provided people with jobs for a 

long time. It has also destroyed an important habitat for a 

variety of birds and other creatures, and, yes, plants, too. It 

has destroyed the habitat to the extent that some of these 

animals -- the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, possibly 

certain songbirds-- may go extinct. That means gone, forever, 

from our planet. Thos e genes will not occur again -- ever. 

What does Congress propose to do about it? Some propose to kill 

the messenger.-- that is, the ESA. Some say that it isn't worth 

while to try to save all species. Some say people are worth more 

than a bird. People who say these things are not thinking. 

Lets take the last of those statements first. Of course, when it comes to an individual human life compared to an individual 

animal's life, there is no question which is more important. If 

I had the choice of saving a child's life or a bird's life, I 

would not hesitate to save the child's life. But-- and this is 

a big but -- the question being asked in the context of the 

' 
110 

ESA is the wrong question. The question is, are human desires, 

whims, and greeds more important than the existence of an entire 

species (not individual animal). If we are a moral people, the answer ought to be no. 

As for the idea that not all species are important, let me say 

that no one in this room -- or on this planet -- has the 

knowledge, foresight, and intelligence to make that decision. 

For any ecosystem to function, it needs the total sum of its 

parts -- plants, animals, microorganisms. All species have 

importance. Too often the importance of a species is found out 

after it is gone. 

I have heard people say that a fungus is unimportant, or a moth, or a little snail. Anybody who claims that without data to back 

up the statement is ignorant. Sometimes the smallest, least 

glamorous, most obscure species may be among the most important 

for an ecosystem. For example, lowly funguses may be among the 

most important group of species in an old growth forest. It 

turns out that the Douglas fir depends on an association with a fungus for optimum growth. It also turns out that small rodents are very important in spreading the fungus spores around, 

promoting the growth of more forests. The predators of the 

rodents also have their place in the fabric of the forest 

ecosystem. Perhaps, one role of the marbled murrelet is to bring 

nutrients from the sea to the forest. We cannot pick and choose 

which plant or animal to save, which are too inconvenient to 

save, which will cost some industry too much money. Therefore, 

the best advice for everyone, including elected officials, is 

that given by Aldo Leopold: intelligent tinkering requires saving 

all the pieces. 

Tinkering with the ESA will make the threats to biodiversity 

worse, not better. The ESA does not need to be "fixed," because 

it is not broken. It is working well. Its enemies have 

distorted the way it works. 

The criteria for listing is scientific, only. This is the way it 

should be. The only errors in listing have been errors of 

omission, rather than errors of commission. These errors were caused by political pressure, not science. The delay in listing 

the owl is an example. Should Congress make any criteria, other 

than scientific, for listing, than Congress will be asking the 

Federal agencies to do a totally dishonest thing. The list of 

endangered species will no longer be a list of those that are likely to become extinct, and the list of threatened species no longer those that are likely to become endangered. The list will 

become a list of plants and animals that we might try to save if 

it isn't too inconvenient to do so. 

Once a species is listed, however, and a recovery plan is being 

prepared, there is plenty of opportunity to consider economic and 

sociological factors. This, too, is the way it should be. The 

ESA is flexible, it does take jobs into account, it does provide 

7 
111 

for consultation, it even provides for incidental (accidental or 

unintended) take. It may surprise you to know that between 1979 

and 1991 fewer than l% of over 120,000 projects that required a 

permit under the ESA were found to jeopardize a listed species, 

and only 34 were cancelled. 

I would like to caution you against taking anecdotal evidence 

seriously. To write laws based on anecdotal evidence is to write 

bad laws. Anecdotes are unusual-- that's what makes them 

anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data -- they do not give a true 

pictute of a situation. Anecdotes may be distorted or incomplete 

-- such as the kangaroo rat story. Anecdotes may be completely 

false. 

I will close by asking the moral question. Whatever one's 

religious beliefs, surely destruction of our earth cannot be 

sanctioned. Do we, as a single species, have the moral right to 

wipe all those forms of life that do not serve our immediate 

economic gain? Is the creator really pleased to see us 

destroying his creation? 

It is absolutely essential that the best tool we Americans have 

to try to prevent this disastrous loss of biodiversity, the ESA, 

be strengthened, not weakened. 

There are three books, available in any public library and easily 

read by the lay person, that I would like to incorporate into 

this testimony by reference. These books explain the problem of 

biodiversity loss and why it is a grave problem that must be 

addressed. These are: 

WARD, PETER. 1994. The end of evolution: on mass 

extinctions and the preservation of biodiversity. Bantam Books. 

KAUFMAN, LES and Kenneth Mallory, editors. 1886. The last 

extinction. The MIT Press. 

WILSON, EDWARD 0. 1992. The diversity of life. W. W. 

Norton and company. 

Thank you very much. 

Gretchen Starke 

308 NE 124th Ave. 

Vancouver, WA 98684 

(360) 892-8617 (H) 

(503) 374-8801 (W) 

8 
112 

Why American 

Songbirds Are Vanishing 

-;\n al'ian chorus still he1 dds the beg·inning of' spring 

·in ,\'vrth , \merica, but the number of singers has declined 

sharp~1 · of' bte. The trend will be di/fkult to re1 ·erse 

I n 18 I 3 the reno,, ned naturalist 

John James Audubon was a\\e· 

struck by a migratory flight of passenger pigeons. ,,·hu.:h blankNed the 

sky wilh btrds for three days in succession. "The air," he later recounted ... ,,a~ 

literally filled "ith pigeons. The light of 

th€. noonday "'·as obscured as by an 

eclipse." 

Based on such descriptions. o rnithologists ha\·e estimated that passenger 

pigeons in precolonial America numbered two to three billion. making them 

perhaps the most abundant bird species 

on the earth at the time. Now. of course. 

they are only a memory, "viclim of the 

laissez-faire atlitude toward the use of 

natural resources that pre\'ailed during 

much of U.S. tustory. 

Recent legislation, notably the Endangered Species Act, has betn designed ro 

pre\·ent further needless extinctions of 

U.S. flora and fauna. flespitc such maJOr 

efforts to reconcile human needs 'w\ith 

nature, it has recently been discovered 

that many migratory bird species arc in 

steep decline. Increasingly. research is 

indicating that human acti\ities have 

directly and indirect!)· altered the em ironment in ways that are detrimtntal 

to birds. 

Birds first came to the forefront as mdlcators of emironmental health during 

the 1960s. when 1he focus of concern 

JOHN TERBORGH i$ James 8. Duke 

Professor of Emirorunemal Science and 

director of the Cenrer for Tropical Consen·ation at Duke Unh·ersiry. He holds a 

1963 Ph.D. from Harva:;d Uni\·ersil)" and 

was professor of biology ar Princeton 

University before mo\ing ro Duke. I.Jke 

many of the animals he studies, 'rerborgh migrates to the tropics at least 

on~ a rea r-to complete field srudies 

of both birds and pl3.nts. 

98 SCII:!'mrtC AMERICAS May /992 

by John Terborgh 

was the pesticide DDT. :\I that lime. 

onlr a small number of species seemed 

lo be in trouble, among them se\·eral 

captors. such as the peregrine falcon 

and bald eagle, and a number of water 

birds. including the brO\\TI pelican. ln 

those years. there \\·as little to suggest 

that songbirds might be in Jeopardy. But 

eJrlr warning signals of a much broader 

phenomenon affectmg perhaps scores 

of speci~s began to be detected in the 

1970s. 

Ornithologists and amateur btrd· 

\\atchers noticed that a number of 

songbirds had suddenly become scarce 

in haunts that had pre\iously harbored 

abundant populations. The declines 

were most dramatic and perYasive in 

urban and suburban woodlots, but the 

causes were entirely mysterious. Especially affected were species that breed 

in northern latitudes but migrate to 

wtme r homes in lhe tropics-so-called 

long-distance. or Neoo-opicaJ, migrants. 

Among these are some of our favorite 

songbirds, namely, thrushes, warblers, 

tanagers and orioles. 

One IJf the sites that drew attention to 

the problem was Rock Creek Park m the 

District of Columbia. The park has been 

embedded ln an wban environment for 

more than 100 rears. Despite this fact. 

the first bird censuses to be conducted 

there in the 19~0s documented a profu· 

sion of forest-d"·elling long-distance mi· 

grants, including the eight most abundant species. Yel b\' the 1970s the total 

number of breeding birds had dropped 

to about a tturd of the 1940s level; longdistance migrants had plummeted almost 90 percent and se\"eral once common species had become locally extinct. 

Forest-dwelling migrator\' songbirds 

are not the only North American birds 

to ha,·e suffered recent declines. Ducks 

and other waterfowl have been dras· 

tically reduced by draining of the prairie wetlands in \.,·hich they breed. Shore· 

birds. such as curleh·s. godhits and 

sandpipers, ha\t> d\-\ind.led bc<:ause thetr 

breeding or \\intering habitats have be-en 

appropriated ror hwnan use and becaust• water qualiry has deteriorated 

along their migratory routes and on the 

\-\intering grounds. Finally, grassland 

birds have succumbed w the plm-.ing 

of the prairies and, more recently, to 

the intensification o f agriculture that is 

pemutted by the appUcation of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. 

Through the liberal application of these 

agents, farmers can sow crops on the 

same land for manr years in succession, a practice that deprives meadowlarks, bobolinks, grasshopper sparrows 

and others of their ilk of the fallow 

fields in wtuch they formerly thrived. 

B ut what is amiss in the forests, 

where birds were vanishing for 

no ob\-ious reason? By the mid· 

! 970s declines in rhe bird populations 

of woodlors had become so dramatic 

that they could not be attributed to normal fluctuations in nwnber or to ob· 

server error. At about the same tune 

as the problem in Rock Creek Park 

emerged. dm .. nward trends were also 

reported in New jersey, Maryland and 

Wisconsin. Soon afterv.-"ill'd, bird-watchers in Connecticut, West Virginia and 

Illinois detected similar patterns. More 

recently, drops have been detected farther afield. in such places as Ontario, 

Missouri and California. To date, the 

most marked losses have been documented east of the Mississippi. 

As reports of these decreases accu· 

mulated. it was \-\idely noted that the 

llAST BElL'S VIREO, wblcb breeds in 

southern California, is one of many mi· 

gratory songbirds whos.e populations 

have dwindled iD this ceonu-y. The 

species is now close to extinction. 
m1 ssmg -; pcoes could still be l'ound m 

lo1rge continuous 1racts of forest. The 

phenomenon of declining population 

seemed to be restricted to isolated 

tracts. and the smaller the tract, the 

more c.\lrcme the impO\·erishmenr of 

the bird community. In rccognilion of 

these obscn at . the d\,indlmg numbers quickly became known as the for-

('St fragmentation d lect. 

Ho,,·en •r logical. this designation \\·as 

an unfortunate choice of terms, because 

it implied that fragmentation of habitat 

was somehow a root cause of the disappearances. f\l ost investigators implicitly assumed the fragmentation effect 

was a response to the size of forest 

plots. Yet when researchers set about 

documenting the presence or absence 

of species in forest fragments of different size. ther obtained mixed and sometimes contradictory results. For example, a species that regularly built nests 

and reproduced in to-hectare (24.7-acre) 

woodlots in one state might require 

I 00-hectare tracts for nesting in anmher state. The inconsistency of the findings suggested factors other than insufficient area must be in\·olved. 

The role of edges \\o'as among those 

considered. The environment of isolated \voodlots differs from that of continuous forest in the proxi.mity of all 

113 

parts of the habitat to edges. Forest margins are brighter, warmer. drier and 

\'indier than the interior and support 

more shrubs, \ines and 'A·eeds. Perhaps 

certain birds were a\·erse to edges and 

rejected smaU tracts because none of 

the habilat was sufficiently far from 

edges. 

T • . ..-o studies quickly dispelled this 

idea as well. In 1984 Roger l. 

Kroodsma of the Oak Ridge Na· 

tiona! Laboratory reported on the distribution of nesting territories in Tennessee forests in which swaths had 

been cui to accommodate power-tine 

rights-of-way. Species that normaUy 

resided in the forest interior used the 

habitat rtght up to the cuts. In a similar 

study in Maryland, David S. Wilcove, 

h"hile a graduate student at Princeton 

University, examined the distribution 

of the same birds in a large forest surrounding a reservoir. Breeding territories occupied the wooded habitat all 

the war to the water's edge. Birds of 

the forest interior thus did not seem to 

have an intrinsic aversion to edges. 

Some researchers wondered whether 

migrating birds were simply failing to 

discover forest fragments. After a population disappeared for whatever reason. 

other indi\iduals might not reestablish 

the species's presence. One rationale focused on r oung males seeking territories for the first time. It \\·as argued 

that the presence of expertenced adults 

might be the best indicator of suitable 

habital and that no, ice breeders might 

be loathe to seltle t,·here the).' could nor 

hear males of their O\\TI species. 

It was difficult, however, to reconcile 

this possibility \\ith the fact that each 

sprtng and autumn migrating birds pass 

by the thousands through habitat islands such as Rock Creek Park. In the 

spring, males often stop and sing vigorously in these spots, as if claiming territories, but a few days later move on. 

One could not conclude that the empty 

forest fragments were being overlooked; 

for reasons best known to the birds, 

the fragments were apparently being 

rejected as Wlsuitable breeding sites. 

Impressed by the consistency With 

which the missing species were longdistance migrants, other investigators 

eagerly jumped to the conclusion that 

tropical deforestal:ion rather than frag· 

mentation of the breeding habitat was 

to blame for the declines. But the facts 

simply did not jibe. Some species that 

winter in regions undergoing rapid deforestation appeared to be holding their 

own. Yet others that winter in relatively unscathed parts of the tropics had 

SCIENTlFIC AMERJCAN May 1992 99 
dwmd.Jed to lov .. : numbers in forest 

fragments cr had ,·arushed from some 

tracts altogether. Tropical deforestanon 

might ha\·e been affecting some spec1es, but it could not account for all the observations of diminishing populations in 

fragments. 

Another argument seemed to prO\ ide 

a better explanation of the pattern. Of 

all the birds breeding in eastern forests. 

long-distance tropical migrants appear 

114 

to be the most \ulnerable to disruptions 

of their breeding efforts. Compared \\ith 

local residents and short-distance rni· 

grants (those Y.intenng in the southern 

states!, the long-distance migrants tend 

to arrive on the breeding ground later 

and to depart earlier. Their breeding 

seasons are consequently more restricted. so they are able to make fewer nesti11g attempts in a rear. t'-loreover, many 

' mg-distance migrants have smaUer 

CADIZ TOWNSHIP, in Wisconsin, was mostly forest (green) in 1831. 8y 1950 oalyisolated patches of woodlaDd remaiDed. The excessive fragmentation of forests, which 

has occurred throughout much of the U.S., increases the exposure of bird nests to 

parasites, which lay eggs in other birds' nests, and to predators, which feed on 

eggs and nestlings. The maps were compiled by botanist John T. Curtis in 1956. 

Declining Species in Rock Creek Park 

SPECIES MEAN NUMBER OF PAIRS CHANGE 

IN 1940s IN 19805 ACTUAL PERCENT 

RED-EYED VIREO 41.5 5.8 -35.7 -86.0 

OVENBIRD 38.8 3.3 -35.5 -91.5 

ACADIAN FlYCATCHER 21.5 0.1 -21.4 -99.5 

WOOD THRUSH 16.3 3.9 -12.4 - 76.1 

YELLOW-THROATED VIREO 6.0 0.0 -8.0 -100.0 

HOODED WARBLER 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -100.0 

SCARLET TANAGER 7.3 3.5 -3.8 -52.1 

BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER 3.0 0.0 -3.0 -100.0 

EASTERN WOOD PEEWEE 5.5 2.8 -2.7 -49.1 

AMERICAN CROW 2.0 0.6 - 1.4 -70.0 

KENTUCKY WARBLER 1.0 0.0 -1 .0 -100.0 

YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO 0.8 0.0 -o.8 -100.0 

CAROLINA CHICKADEE 5.0 4.3 ..0.7 -14.0 

TUFTED TITMOUSE 5.0 4.5 -o.5 -10.0 

DOWNY WOODPECKER 3.5 3.0 -o.5 -14.3 

WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH 3.5 3.1 ..0.4 -1 1.4 

NORTHERN PARULA WARBLER 0.3 0.0 -o.3 -100.0 

TOTAL SPECIES IN CENSUSED AREA 28.5 24.5 -2.0 -7.5 

DENSITY (PAIRS PEA 100 HECTARES) 10.1 34.9 -55.2 -41.3 

SEVENlEIN SONGBIRD SPECIES in a censused pan of Rod< Creek Park in Waslliqton, D.C., declined In mean number of breeding pairs between the 1940s and 

1980s, according to data published by the National Audubon Society. Most of the 

affected species wete long-<listance migrants (SMded aroas), which winter in the 

tropics; six of them disappeared entirely (red type). 

I 00 SciENTIFIC AMERICAN May 1992 

clutch sizes: three or four eggs \·ersus 

the five or six of other species. There-. 

fore, anr emironmental changes that 

were tO reduce nesting success indiscriminately across all species would hit 

Neorropical migrants first and hardest. 

B y the early 1980s the most ob,;. 

ous possible factors-the small 

size of forest fragments, rhe 

proximity of edges and the destruction 

of tropical wintering grounds-had all 

been tested and found •.•.;anting, at least 

as general explanalions. The decline of 

songbirds in stable sites such as Rock 

Creek Park suggested that the enVironment in fragments had become hostile 

to migratory birds over the past few 

decades; that although the tracts were 

superficially unchanged, they had acquired some mysterious pathology. 

WUcove was among the first to try 

some detective work. He realized, as do 

many homeowners, that the suburbs are 

a haven for certain avian nest predators, 

such as blue jays, raccoons and opossums. Raccoons and opossums, for instance, are inveterate raiders of garbage 

cans. As a consequence, they abound in 

settled areas, where they occupy smaller ranges, grow faster and attain larger body size than they do in rural areas. 

Wilcove therefore wondered whether 

predators could be putting increased 

pressure on birds in suburban forests. 

To test this notion, he stocked artifi· 

cia! nests with quail eggs and set them 

out in small, medium and large forests 

situated in both rural and suburban 

senings. Half the nests were placed 

on the ground and half at eye level in 

shrubs or trees. For an undisturbed 

control site, he chose the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, which boasts 

200,000 hectares of mature forest. 

The results were startling. In the 

Smoldes only one nest in 50 was discovered and raided. In the suburban and ru· ral woodlots, the predation rates were 

much higher. In some of the smaller 

tracts, nearly 100 percent of the nests 

were raided. Here indeed was a kind of 

pathology, and it seemed to be perva· 

sive except in the largest remaining expanses of forest. 

At about the same rime, Margaret C. 

Brittingham and Stanley A. Temple of 

the University of Wisconsin found evi· 

dence of yet another type of ecological 

pathology affecting forest fragments: 

an abWtdance of nest parasites. Para· 

sitic birds lay tbe!r eggs in the nests of 

other species, who often raise the re· 

suiting offspring as tbe!r own. A para· 

site's eggs typically hatch sooner than 

the eggs of its host, giving the hatch· 

ling parasite a head start over its nest 

mates. By the time the host's eggs hatch. 
the parasite has grown to a size that 

allows it to obtain much of the food 

brought by the parents. so the host's 

O\\n offspring often staJVe. 

The nahan's leading nest parasite is 

the brown·headed cowbird. The name 

derives from its habit of follO\\oi.ng bi· 

son and, later, cattle to scavenge seeds 

from heaps of dung. Two hundred years 

ago the cowbird was relatively uncom· 

man. Its rise to pest status was promot· 

ed by the creation of open agricultural 

habitats in formerly forested sections of 

the country and by the availability of 

bountiful "'inter food supplies. In cold 

weather the species can find seeds at 

bird feeders and in fields where me· 

chanica! harvesters spill grain. Brttting· 

ham and Temple discovered that cow· 

birds parasitized 65 percent of nests 

located near forest edges in southern 

\Visconsin. Parasitism was recorded even 

at interior locations more than 300 me· 

ters from the nearest edge, although at 

lower rates. 

FoUow·up sn1dies in severaJ states 

have confirmed that unnatural num· 

hers of nest predators and parasites 

are impairing the reproductive success 

of many forest-dwelling bird species. 

The most comprehensive results come 

from an effort led by Scott K. Robin· 

son of the Illinois Natural History Sur· 

vey. His team first investigated one of 

the largest contiguous areas of forested 

habitat in the central part of Illinois. an 

irregular strip of mature forest and sec· 

ond growth surrounding a reservoir 

near Shelb~e. 

During the five-year period from 

1985 t9 1989. seven out of 13 

Neotropical trugrant species in 

the study area decreased by more than 

50 percent. The birds at Shelbyville were 

having great diffirulty nesting success· 

fully. Of all clutches laid, 80 percent 

were lost to predation before any young 

fledged. Of the nests that survived pre· 

dation, 76 percent were parasitized by 

cowbirds. Two thirds of the broods that 

fledged included cowbirds. 

To assess the impact of such num· 

bers on the songbird population, we can 

begin by noring that typically about 60 

percent of adult birds of the kinds stuci· 

ied by Robinson s1JI'V1ve every year. A 

pair of adults must thus produce at 

least 0.8 surviving young to replace the 

adults lost to the breeding population 

of the following year. But survivorship 

of hatchlings born in a given breed· 

ing season is orily half that of adults. 

so each breeding pair must double the 

minimum number w guarantee main· 

tenance of the breeding population. In 

other words, at the end of a breeding 

season, the ratio of hatching-year birds 

115 

100r • z 0 I 0 AURAL FRAGMENTS 

E ~ • • SUBURBAN FRAGMENTS 

~ " 75 • • LARGE FORESTS 

g:~ 

ow 

~~50 VJW 0 • g~ ; 

~ 2+ 

0 • 0 GREAT SMOKY • MOUNTAINS \ 

I 

I 

00 10 100 1.000 10.000 100.000 • FOREST SIZE (HECTARES) 

FRACTION OF ARTmClAL NESTS raided by raccoons and other animals that thrive near human civilization was measured by David S. Wilcove of Princeton University 

in 1985. His findings indicate that nest predation has become a serious problem 

for bird species in all but the largest U.S. woods. 

YEllOW WARBLER is v.-a.tchi.ng over a newborn brown-headed cowbird along with 

two smaller warbler babies. Many modem songbirds are victimized by cowbird 

parasitism, which is detrimental to tbe affected species because young cowbirds 

aggressively outcompete the hatchlings of the host. 

to adults should be 1.6 young for every 

mating pair, or 0.8 young for every mature adult. It can be assumed. then. that 

a group produdng fewer than 0.8 young 

per adult is not maintairung Hself. 

Because hatching·year birds are easily 

disTinguished from adults by plumage 

differences, the reproductive success of 

a breeding community can be estimated 

by trapping birds in fine, mist nests at 

the conclusion of the breeding season 

and determining the ratio of yoW\g 

birds to adults. At Shelb!"ille. Robinson 

and his co-workers found the number of 

young to be 0.1 per adult. The reproduc· 

tive output of the breeding bird commu· 

nity therefore feU far short of the level 

required to sustain rhe population. 

Banding studies, in which birds are 

marked by numbered bands. have shown 

that adults rerurning from \\'inter ter· 

ritories often nest again in plots where 

they bred successfully before. For ex· 

ample, as many as 70 percent of adult 

" 'OOd thrushes generally follow that 

pattern. At Shelbyville. however. 16 per· 

cent of the thrushes returned. 

Two conclusions can be dra\o'on from 

such a finding. First. after failing to pro· 

duce young at Shelb ~ville. many adults 

may try another location the next year. 

Second, because a number of poorly reproducing species continue to be pres· 

ent at Shelbyville, birds from some· 

where else must be replenishing the 

aduh populations. But from where? 

5CtrNTIFtC AMERICAN May 1992 101 
BlACK-cAPPED VIREO, like !he least 

Bell's vireo and the Kirtland's warbler, Is on !he verge of extinction. In aU three 

cases. nest parasitism by cowbirds is the probable cause. 

This question prompted Robinson to 

move his efforts to the Shawnee Nation· 

al Forest in the extreme south of llll· 

nols. At I 00,000 hectares. the Shawnee 

is by far the largest forest in the state. 

Some blocks are of substantial size. en· 

compassing more than 2.000 hectares. 

Here Robinson expected to discover a 

healthy breeding population that might 

be producing surplus young to replen· 

ish the dl'.indling songbird numbers 

elsewhere in Illinois. 

This hopeful expectation has now been dashed. In 1989 and 1990 Robin· 

son and 18 co-workers located a.~d 

monitored more than 1,000 songbird 

nests in the Shal'.nee forest. They found 

cowbirds to abound even in the center 

of the largest section of forest. Several 

long-dJstance migrants, such as hood· 

ed warblers, wood thrushes and red· 

eyed vireos, suffered parasltism rates 

between 80 and I 00 percent. For these 

and other species, hatching-year bird 

to adult ratios at the end of the breed· 

ing season feU weU below any reason· 

able replacement level. These results 

suggest that there may be no place in 

tile state of llllnois where such species 

can nest successfully. From where, then, are the birds com· 

lng to subsidize a deficit breeding 

effort? At this point, the answer Is not 

kno"n. but a good guess is the .Xten· 

sive forests of the Ozarks and Ap· 

palachians. When Wilcove was in the 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 

he did not detect a single cowbird. 

I 02 SCll:NTlFlC AMERICAN May 1992 

116 

The size a forest "auld have to 

be to support a source population of 

migratory songbirds is still a matter 

of conjecrure. Cowbirds reqUire open 

counrry for feeding, but females freely 

enter forests to search for host nests. 

Indeed, studies of radio· tagged females 

conducted by Stephen I. Rothstein and 

his associates at the University of Cali· 

fornia at Santa Barbara have shown 

that the birds will commute up to sev· 

en kilometeis from feedln.g areas to 

search for nests to parasitize. A sevenkilometer radius describes a circle of 

150 square kilometers. equal to 15,000 

hectares. It is disrurblng to think a for· 

est that might offer at its center a ha· 

ven from cowbird parasirism would 

have to be at least that size. 

Robinson's results reveal that the 

ecological pathology afflicting migratory songbirds in the eastern U.S. is by no 

means confined to the small suburban 

woodlots where lt was first discovered. 

It is a sickness that reaches across half 

a continent and affects a major fraction 

of the potential breeding habitat of 

more than a score of migratory song· 

bird species. Already the Kirtland's 

warbler in Michigan, the black-capped 

vireo in Texas and Oklahoma and the 

least Bell's vireo In southern Califor· 

nia have been driven to the brink of ex· 

tinction by cowbird parasitism. Other 

species are sure to follow. 

D espite the severity of stresses 

imposed by predators and cow· 

birds, the gravest long·tertn 

threat to forest songbirds is still over 

the horizon: deforestation of the tropics. More than 250 species that breed 

in North America can be found south of the U.S. border in the Winter. Every 

country from Mexico to Argentina provides habitat for at least some species, 

although the greatest concentrations 

are in the "near" tropics- Mexico, Central America and the AntiUes. 

Although until recently there was lit· 

tle convindng evidence that destruction 

of wintering habitat was haVIng a mea· 

surable impact, newer data are more 

impressive. The first red warning flag 

came in results of what is known as the 

Breeding Bird Survey. OrganiZed in 1965 

by Chandler S. Robbins of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the BBS engages hun· 

dreds of volunteer bird-watchers to 

count birds along 25·mile routes. The 

observers stop every half mile and 

record aU birds seen or heard in a threeminute period. Every year volunteers 

conduct more than 1,500 such surveys, 

covering most of the U.S. and Canada. 

In 1986 Robbins and rwo colleagues 

published a report on the first I 5 years 

of results. spanning 1965 through 1979. 

The analyses ga\·e no indication that 

birds "'intertng in tropical forests were 

in trouble. In 1989, howe\'Or, Robbins 

and his associates published a second 

report covering 1978 through 1987. 

This time the trend was entirely differ· 

ent. Even though forest CO\'er in the 

eastern U.S. had not decreased signifi· 

cant!)' during the interval. the popula· 

tions of 75 percent of the species of 

forest-dwelling long-distance migrants 

had declined. Resident species and 

short-distance migrants, in conttast. 

seemed to be holding their 01m. 

The trends detected In the BBS data 

may offer merely a taste of what is 

to come. In 1989 a symposium on the 

conservation of migratory birds was 

held at Woods Hole, Mass. The parnct· 

pants wer~ already jaded by rwo days 

of bad news but were nonetheless left 

openmouthed on the third day by the 

report of Sidney A. Gauthreaux, Jr., of 

Clemson University. 

Gauthreaux has pioneered the use of 

radar to detect migratory flights of 

smaU birds. With the collaboration of 

the U.S. Meteorological Service, he has 

access to radar records from a series of 

stations scattered along the Gulf coast. 

The area is particularly strategic for this 

kind of observation because many birds 

rerurning in the spring from South and 

Central America and the Antilles fly 

across the Gulf. wge numbers of nortb· 

bound birds accumulate on the Yucatan 

Peninsula, awaiting propitious weather. 

When the right conditions arrive, birds 

of many species take off just after sundown, and a few hours later clouds of 

them appear high over the U.S. shore. 

In his doctoral research, Gauthreaux 

had used radar to detect migratory 

flights over Louisiana durtng three sue· 

cessive springs in the mid·l960s. Twen· ty years later. appreciative of 1he impending threat of tropical deforestation, 

he decided to repeat the measurements 

for the springs of I 987 through 1989. 

To the astonistunent of everyone at lhe 

symposium, he reported that only half 

as many migratory waves passed over 

the louisiana coast In the late 1980s as 

in the 1960s. It seems hard to believe 

that migratory birds have declined so 

rapidly, but thus far there is no altema· 

tive explanation for the radar results. 

We can now count two red flags. 

N ow a third flag has been raised 

with the publication of rwo 

reports issued independently 

but nearly simultaneously In 1990 by 

Friends of the Earth and the World ReSOW'<es lnstirute. Both reports are based 

on interpretation of satellite imagery, 

but the details differ somewhat because of application of slightly differ· 
ent criteria-such as whe(her to \iew 

land carl)ing partiallr degraded forest 

or second growth as deforested. 

Friends of the Earth estimated the 

annual loss of tropical forest globally 

at 142,000 square kilometers, an area 

the size of Florida or Wisconsin. The 

World Resources Institute puts the annual loss at 160.000 to 200.000 square 

kilometers, roughly equi\·alent to the 

state of Washington. If one takes the 

lower estimate and simply extrapolates, 

the last hectare of tropical forest ,;ouJd 

be predicted to fall in the rear 2045. 

This projection is likely to prove conservati\"e, however, because both re117 

ports indicate that the rate of deforestation is not constant bur accelerat· ing. lf the rate of Joss continues to in· 

crease as it did between 1980 and 1990. 

the world's remaining tropical forests 

"ill be depleted by the year 2030. 

These disturbing trends can only 

bode ill for migratory songbirds and 

for much of the world's biological diversity. As waves of deforestation pass 

over the Wintertng grounds of migrato· 

I)' birds, reducing the area of suitable 

habitat, the populations of many species 

will contract. Not all species will be 

equally affected. Those that require rna· 

ture forest will be hardest hit, but oth· 

ers can suni\·e in man-made habitats, 

such as gardens, coffee plantations and 

second growth. Nevertheless, the total 

area of usable habitat "ill be greatly reduced. and we can expect lO see populations contract in proportion. Many 

migratory species that are now com· man \-\-ill become rare, although few are 

likely to disappear entirely, at least in 

the short run. I suspect we shall lose 

several species to cowbirds before we 

lose any more to tropical deforestation. 

I say any more because the Bachman's 

warbler has already succumbed to the 

loss of its wintering habitat Data on 

this alwa1-s elusive bird are scanty, but it 

Radar Reveals Decline in Northward Migration 

I n spring, many long -distance migrants follow routes 

(such as those indicated by arrows on the map) that 

pass over the Gulf coast of the U.S. There, radar sta· 

tions capable of detecting small birds record flights. Each 

tiny dot on a radar plot (photograph) represents about 20 

birds; the large w hite mass reflects scattering of signals 

by structures on land. When Sidney A. Gauthreaux, Jr., of 

Clemson University examined records from lake Charles, 

La., he found that the number of flights fell by about half 

between the 1960s and 1980s, which implies that the 

number of all birds returning from the American tropics 

also fell by half. The likely cause. razing of tropical forests 

(graph), promises to become an increasing stress. A pro· 

jection based on a conservative estimate of forest loss in 

1990 shows that if the rate of deforestation is constant, 

the world's tropical forests wi ll vanish by 2045. If the rate 

accelerates , as it did between 1980 and 1990. the winter 

homes of many birds will vanish even sooner . 

..,l..alr&,. .... ·~, ...... ....,~- ,:<,~V j( 

( --. 

--Renge Covered 

Fraction of days appropriate for migra· 

tion on which flights were detected by 

the lake Charles radar station: 

1960s- 95 percent 

1980s- 44 percent 

Tropic of C8noor 

YEAR 

SCIENTiflC AMERICAN May 1992 103 
\'as kno"n to occupy an expansive 

breeding range in the southeastern U.S., 

from Virginia to Missouri and thence to 

the Gulf coast. Its only known ''imering ground \,·as in Cuba, ,,·hich lost 9~ 

percent of its forests to the burgeoning 

sugar industry in the first half of the 

20th century. t\'e,·er a common bird. the 

Bachman's \\'arbler quietly \'anished. 

The last sightings were in the 1960s. 

My bes.t guess as to why the Ba ch· 

man's " ·arbler disappeared begins \\ith 

the assumption that severe contraction 

of its \\intering habitat forced a drastic 

118 

nario from repeating itself again and wetlands. It would be useful to prohibit'::=.-

again? Some of the threats to bird life the subsidized clear-cutting of our nahere in North America seem more tional forests and to curtail the systemintractable than others. Probably little atic O\'ergrazing of federal lands in the 

can be done to reduce the hordes of West. And reducing pollution in lakes 

blue jays, raccoons, opossums and cow- and streams would help restore habitat 

birds that have degraded the habitat of for ducks and other waterfowl. 

rural and suburban areas. It thus seems But e\'en if all these goals were 

ine\itable that long-distance migrants achieved in the U.S., more than 2 50 

are going to continue to decline in species that migrate south of our barneighborhood parks and woodlots. Con-~. ders would face jeopardy in their \\>in· 

servation eiforls should therefore be di~ · 1er homes. Stanching the tide of tropirected toward consolidating and ex· cal deforestation hardly seems possible 

panding the largest tracts of forest, such as long as 90 million people are being 

added to the world's population every 

year, nearly all of them in the tropics. 

Millions of new families needing a place 

to settle create an insatiable demand 

for land. Poor nations burdened by 

debt have only their natural resources 

to sell for foreign exchange. Consequently, the economies of many of our 

southern neighbors are being developed with the same laissez-faire attitude toward natural resources as we 

held in our own past 

It is hard to imagine how these pressures can be relieved in lime to save the( 

tropical forest. Nevertheless, it would be 

valuable if the U.S. were to demonstrate 

some leadership in the prudent management of narural resources. We could 

begin by calling a moratorium on clearlt'-

cutting of the last expansive \irgin forests of the Northwest. 

If we fail in enacting lhe needed refonns, Americans will be well on the 

way to living out a scene envisioned 30 

years ago by Rachel Carson in her book 

Silent Spring. Carson was concerned 

about the poisoning of the enwonment 

with pesticides, but her message stands 

as a general warning against disregard 

of the environment. 

BACHMAN'S W ARBUR in a Oowertua Frankllnl<l (ooce called Gordonla pubescellS) 

was painted by John James Audubon in the 1800s. Both the tree illld the bird are now gone from the wild, the warbler being perbaps the first casualty of tropl· 

cal deforestation. It vanished after Cuba, the btrd's only w\nter home, convened 

most of its forests to fields of sugarcane. 

"It was," she wrote, "a spring without 

voices. On the mornings that had once 

throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins, catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and 

scores of other bird voices there was 

now no sound; only silence lay over the 

fields and woods and marsh. • 

FURTilER READING 

reduction in its numbers. Once a critical threshold was passed, birds returning in the spring probably fanned out 

over the immensity of the Southeast 

and became so diluted that males and 

females simply failed to locate one another. This interpretation is supported 

by the fact that the last few Bachman's 

warblers ever seen were adult males 

that sang for weeks on end in apparently futile efforts to attract females. 

Wbat can be done to prevent this seeI 04 SCIENTlFIC AMERICAN May 1992 

as the Smokies, Adirondacks and the 

Nonh Woods of Minnesota and Maine, 

to maximize the habitat In which birds 

can nest successfully. 

Fanners would help by returning to 

the practice of fallowing their fields every two or three years, but it seems un·, realistic to think they might. The Bushyadministration's policy or "no net loss 

or wetlands" is certainly a good one, 

but it should be implemented in good 

faith, "1thout altering the definition of 

NEST PRIDA nON IN FOREST TRACTS AND 

THE DECl.IIIo'E Of MIGII.ATOII.Y SONGBOIDS. 

David S. WUcove in Ecology, Vol. 66, No. 

4, pages 1211-1214; August 198;. 

WHERE HA V[ All TilE BIRDS Gom:?: EsSAYS ON ntt BIOLOGY AND (ONSERVA· 

TION OF BIJU>S THAT ·MICRA n TO THE 

AMDUCAN TkOPICS. john Terborgh. 

Princeton University Press, 1989. 

ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF NE<>-

TROP1CAL MIGRANT L\...'lD BIRDS: PRoCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSnJM. Edited by 

John Hagan. Smithsonian Institution 

Press (in press). 
APR:IL 

By KA TV MULDOON 

ot The Oregon1an staff 

Songbirds: Singing a 

sorrowful tune 

~ 

i 

S tep into your back yard these spring 

mormngs and they are out there: the 

Pavarottis. Sinatras - even the Willie 

Nelsons- of the bird world. But like the great 

human warblers of our generations. songbirds 

are fading like jukebox tunes at closing time. 

Pacdic Slope flycatchers, Golden-crowned 

kinglets. warblers, thrushes: You still can see and 

hear them and other neotropical migratory 

birds through spring and early summer west of 

the Cascades. But their numbers are declining 

- some species by up to 70 percent, says 

Jennder Whitford, wild Ide biologist w~h Mount 

Hood National 

Forest

coordinating . She is -~ ~ ' 

the Songbird .,.. • ~· 

Celebrat1onon · . ·"· '#' 

the mountain ···-y;· ..;,.c:illll _ · May 13. . ,..,_·: '.4 

The biggest .. ' .. 

reason: 

habitat.loss in Goldeii-Crownetl kinglet Nor1h America, 

where they 

breed. nest and have their young in the spring 

and summer months, and in Central and South 

America, where they live from fall through 

spring. In Oregon, as forests come down and 

subdivisions go up, songbirds have fewer 

nesting options and their food supply shrinks. 

Logging creates an "edge effect" -at the edges 

of clear-cuts. predators such as raccoons. 

ravens. even domestic cats, have easier access 

to nests and ground·feeding birds. Cattle 

grazing, too, damages riparian areas tllat 

migratory birds need to survive. 

In Central and South America. the issues are 

similar. Logging has wiped out critical habitat. 

Even coffee production is affecting the 

populations: Coffee traditionally was grown 

under the shade of forest canopies, but many 

growers have found they can boost production 

by eliminating the forests and growing their 

coffee in the sun. 

119 

OTHER FACTORS II POPULATIOI OECUIE: 

• Pesticide~: They can kill birds. Whitford 

suggests living as natural a lifestyle as possible 

- buy organic foods and use a~ernat ives to 

pesticides in your garden. For a brochure on 

the topic, call Metro, 234·3000. 

w Cowbirds: They lay eggs in songbirds' 

nests. The songbird tries to feed its young and 

those of the cowbird, too. The cowbirds hatch 

earlier, grow faster. then crowd out the young 

songbirds. Usually the songbird young die. 

• Domesllc cats: Bellino them isn't enough. 

Keep them inside, especially during spring and 

summer when songbirds are present. 

Should you feed birds In your Yllrd? It's a 

controversial issue among ornithologists, but 

the Portland Audubon Society is in favor of . 

But Bob Sallinger of the Audubon's Wildlife 

Care Center says you should learn what they 

eat first. Do not teed them bread, it's bad for 

them. And keep feeders clean. Washino them 

every week or so w~h a mild solution of bleach 

and water can reduce the chance of disease 

spreadino among bird populations. 

What should you do If you find an injured 

bird or one that has fallen from Its nett? 

Sallinger says d it's feathered and hopping 

around. it's best to leave it alone. If the bird 

appears to be a chick that has fallen from the 

nest, try to return it to the nest. If you can't. put 

it in a small plastic container or a strawberry 

carton and put ~ near the nest. When in doubt. 

call the Wildlife Care Center. 292·0304. 
120 

Threads of destruction 

It's not just wild 

creatures who 

are endangered; 

it is us as well By GRETCHEN STARKE 

The wind comes out of the Columbia Ri,·er 

Gorge across the lawns. A ialhng tree branch. 

startles a Oork of starlings. A few wmtenn!l 

robins and res1dent house sparrows are the 

only other birds. The wind whips 3round Van· 

couver Lake and lhe !O"M'lands. Though late 

February. the only birds to be seen are a few 

Great Basin Ca nada geese. Where are the many spe-cies of duclu:. so abundant not long 

ago~ Where are those silver ghosts with the 

haunting calls, the sandhill cranes~ Where are 

the bald eag.les? 

In a downtown cafe. two old men. once avid 

fishennen, remmisce about past fishing seasons. ~ow, of course. there •s no p01nt to 1t. 

Nothmg to catch these days, except ca rp and a 

few disease-ridden. mongrel hatchery salmon. 

At a meeting of agricultural scientists in the 

Portland Convention Center. :.a biologist 

explains to a reponer that continuing crop f<ul -

ures are due to the increasing vigor of the pest 

species and the decreasine viability of crnp 

species. In the past it had been possible to 

turn to the wild re latives of crop species to 

obtain geneti c: material for cross-breeding. 

Such cross-breeding pro\'ides genes for resistance to pests and disease, J~enes that have 

beoen bred out of domesticated plants through 

generations of inbreeding_ :-low the wild plants 

areextincl 

Th e weather forecaster is predicting a 

stonn from the Pacific later in the week. He 

warns or potential noods. 1be rain 1s expected 

to pour onto the now barren slopes of the Cascade Mountains, sending torre nts of water 

down the creeks - creeks that are small trickles in the summer - into valleys below_ The 

Nonhwest is experieming Ooods stmilar to 

those in California. The forests that once held 

the land in place and evened the now of water 

are now gone. They were logged for lumber 

and cleared for subdivisions. The once 

despised spotted owl had. in a ~·ay. protected 

the forest t'rom total <M!r-exploitation back in 

the late 20th centun·. But the Endangered 

Species Act was changed, permitting the 

destruction of the owl's forest habitat Now. 

there are neither owls nor forests nor the JObs 

that depended on the forests. 

• • • What a dteaf1'. dangerous world there will 

be if the only li\·i ng things besides human 

beings are a few domestic and economically 

valuable species. Those hardy s~1es lhat can 

withstand environmt'nlal degradation - lhe 

pest species- will still be with us. 

Virtually all biologists agree that biodiversity is important. e\'CD essential. to the w£'11 -

being of huma ns. We are trading short-term 

economic gains for long-term poverty. A committee set up by William Reilly, George Busb'1 

head of the Environmental Protection AaeDCY. found that two of the greatest environmental 

mks are habitat alteration and biodiversity 

Joss_ This com.mtttee based 1t1 nndinp on tbe 

elttent of the area effected and the length of 

time needed for recovery once the environmental insult was removed. 

The practical argument for biodivenity is JUStified by products thal c:an be provided by 

Wild animals and plants. In the Pacirlc Northwest. we ha~ the example of taxol, produced 

from the yew tree and a promi.sing drug for the 

treatment of cancers that amict women. 

Even more important is the role that biodiversity plays in holding ecosystems toeelher. 

To fully understand this. one needJ to mow about keystone species. Removing a keystone 

species from us ecosystem results in the col· 

lapse of that ecosystem. Edward 0. Wilson 

\!.Tote in his 1992 book "1be Diversity of U.fe" 

about the near extmction of tbe tea otter. The 

demise of the sea oner resulted in a sea Ul'('hin 

population explosion. The urchins overgrazed 

the kelp beds. leaving urchin barrens that 

were empty of sea life. The recovery of tea 

otter populations allowed the restoration of 

Ole kelp forest and the sea life it hart>ors. 

Often we do not know what a keystone 

spec1es may be for a given ecosystem until too 

late. Sometimes the smallest, least glamorous. 

most obscure species may be among the most 

Important for an ecos)-stem. Ecology is a complex and relati\:ely new Kiente. So much is yet 

Colu~"<lold"' 

VaV\couve.e.' wA 

Aprd 181 /<t'jS" 

unknown. 

We need to hold ecosystems togethN 

because we depend on them for our v.-ell 

bein&. We depend on old-growth forests for 

wood products and clean water. We deptmd on 

marine and fresh-water ecosystems lor tbe 

food and oxygen produced by algae in the 

ocean. 

If these ecosystems unravel. we may be in 

trouble. Look at California. with its cycle of 

wildfire. flood and landslides. Those are man- made. not natural. disasters caused b)o' lhe 

destruction of the native scrub habitat found 

m the California coastal hills. It is like a dress 

with se\-·eral loose threads. Is it really wise to 

keep yanking on those threads? Suddenly the 

whole dress may unravel. totally ruining the 

prmenl 

We are pulling on the threads, with resultant man-<:ause mass extinction. Is this what 

we really want? No arbler or tanagers, no 

sandhill cranes. no wild salmon? Do we really 

want to risk losing the ecosystems that are so 

typical of tbe Pacinc Nonhwest'! 1s the shol1-

tenn economic benefit for a few rea lly worth 

losing so much? 

The last argument for biodiversity can be 

put as a question. Do we. as a single species, 

have the moral right to vtipe out all fonns of 

life that do not serve our immediate economtc 

gain? l5 the creator pleased to see us destroying his creation? 

It is ab~lutely essential that we Americans 

keep and strengthen the Endangered Species 

Act, tM best tool we ha\'e to try to prevent \his 

disastrous loss olbiodiversit)·. 
121 

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1993 

Jim Pissot 

Timber Troubles 

The spotted owl is not the cause of the Northwest forest crisis. OLYMPIA, Wash.-lt's been said in this 

part of the country that if the spotted owl 

didn't exist, the timber industrj would have 

had to invent it. 

The solution to the Northwest forest crisis 

proposed by the timber industry and some 

elected officials-relaxing environmental laws 

to pennit increased logging of national forest 

timber-<an never work because it ignores the 

real cau~ of change in Northwest timber 

communities. 

In spit~ of th~ hollow rhetoric of "owls n. jobs: serious observers realize that our timber 

industry is undergoing very fundamental 

chang~s. And almost every change means fewer jobs and lower wages. Log exports, modem technology, overcutting for short-term profit, 

the dis.appearance of abundant old growth, the 

shift of industry investment to the Southeast 

and oveNels, and yes, increased environmen· 

tal protection, spell big changes for families 

and communities in the Northwest. 

At a Weyerhaeuser timber company presentation in Longview, Wash., in 1986, company 

president George Weyerhaeuser put it this way: 

.. We are weathering a revolutionary restructuring that ~ shaking the forest products 

industry in the Pacific Northwest. ... Produc· 

tion per man/hour has increased significantly. 

... Fore!t products companies both big and 

small mu:.t learn to play by a new set of rules if 

they are to survive, •.• Ex~ss capacity has 

continued to depress prices .... Markets of 

the Pacific Rim hold great promise ..• , More 

than 100 mills have closed since 1980 .... We 

have closed 10 unprofitable enterprises ... . 

Depressed price! and stiff competition leave 

the comp<my with no alternative but to seek a 

substantial reduction in labor costs ••.• So, we 

will be seeking wage and benefit reductions." 

In discussing these changes and noting the mill 

closures between 1980 and 1986, Mr. Weyerhi~r did not once mention the spotted owl. 

BetWffil.1979 and 1988, the timber industry in 

Washington and Oregon eliminated more than 

25,000 jobs. As George Weyerhaeuser observed, 195 sawmills and plywood mills shut down during 

roughly that same period. While these jobs were 

bl!ing eliminated, lumber and plywood production 

actually ina=ed by 12 percent, and th< timbe>- cut was increased by nearly 7 percent All this, of 

course, before any significant logging prohibition 

on behalf of the spotted owl 

On a recent company-sponsored tour of their 

new Green Mountain sawmill, I asked the 

Weyerhaeuser foreman how many workers this 

mill employed compared with the generation of 

mi!ls it replaced. He looked around at the computer monitors, laser-guided saws and the 

handful of workers and replied/About half.~ 

This is exactly what George Weyerhaeuser 

meant when he said, "production per man/hour 

has increased significantly."' 

In 1979 Douglas fir standard and better 2x4 

lumber sold for $260 per 1.000 board feet at 

the mill. In 1988 those same 2x4s sold for just 

$232. Excess capacity dropped Northwest lumber prices. In response, many timber giants are 

abandoning the Northwest for the South. Be- tween 1978 and 1989, seven major timber 

producers reduced their Northwest production 

capacity by half and increased their capacity in 

the South by 155 percent 

Nor is this movement limited to the southern 

United States. Weyerhaeuser now owns as 

much mill capacity in Canada as it does in 

Washington state. In March 1992 the company 

dosed its pulp mill in Everett, Wa~h., laying off 

285 workers. But six months later it announced plans to spend $600 million to acquire additional sawmills, pulp mills and timberland 

in Alberta, Canada, and Georgia. 

Between 1981 and 1988, West Coast log exports doubled. In 1989 .Washington alone 

exported 2.73 billion board feet of unrmlled 

logs. (For comp3rison, the highest annual For· 

est Service cut for Washr~gton and Oregon 

combined was just over 5 billion board feet m 

1988;) And we exported 15,000 jobs along 

with them. 

This is the fulfilled "'promise" from Mr 

Weyerhaeuser's Pacific Rim markets. The ugli- est aspect of this crisis is the parade of fullv 

loaded log trucks past rusted and shut-down 

mills toward bustling export docks. 

The spotted owl is not to blame. The timber 

industry is declining in Washington'seconorny 

But it is still the lifeblood of many rural town;, 

and timber will be an important part of the1r 

economic future. In a hemisphenc timber econ 

omy dominated by pulp and chips and .scrawny. 

twisted tre~s. we could speciAlize here 1n 

strAight-grain, knot·free, towering timbers. We 

could squeeze ~very JOb out of every Jug we 

grow and export value-added wood products 

not raw materials. And we could teach the 

world 'responsible forestry-protec.ting our 

soils. salmon, wetlands and forest wildlife 

Wr: could promote diverse econumies, With 

good sal.uies, to build a sustainable future for 

our children's families. We could invest in cur 

rural communities and ensure that the benefits 

of their resource~ and labor now to them first 

The wr1ltr is director of tht National 

Audubon Socitty's WashinKlon State Office 
122 

MASSACHUSETIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 

Project oa Ea.viroamc.atal Politics &. Policy 

Sl<pbcn M. Meyer, Director 

30 March 1995 

ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTINGS AND STATE ECONOMIC PERFOR¥ANCE 

Our most recent working paper, Endangered Spacies LisUngs and State 

Economic PerfrJrmancs, examines the allegation that the Endangered Species Ad has 

"trashed" the economy. Analyzing the periods 1975-1980, 1980-1985, and 1985-1990 

the paper compares state growth rates in gross state produd and construdion 

employment against their corresponding number of federally listed species. The data 

clearly show that the Endangered Species Ad. has had no measurable economic 

impact on state economic performance. 

Controlling for differences in state area, economic size, and extradive industry 

dependence the study finds that states with the highest numbers of listed species also 

enjoyed the highest economic growth rates and the largest increases in ecor.omic 

growth rates between the three periods. A closer look at the data suggests that 

population growth is the common link: states with booming economies attracted larger 

numbers of new residents, which in tum put inaeasing pressures on habitats. From a 

conservation biology perspedive this implies a larger likelihood of human-wildlife 

collisions that result in a new listing. From a political perspedive it implies more 

opportunities for environmental activist intervention and NIMBYism to halt habitat 

destroying projects, again producing larger numbers of new listings .. 

MAnJN'O ADDRW: MIT, Dl-621. Canlbridp. WA 02139 TEl.DHONE.: (611)2-'l-8071 FACSIMIIL (617) :Ul-9330 

DIAJl..: __,a@rn· ... 
c: 

.2 

~ Q) 

1l 

..... 

123 

lr-----=T=h:--e-=E~n-d-=-a-n_g_e r_e_d~S:-p-e-c-=-ie--s---=A:-c-t-: ---..~ 

Myth vs. Reality ~ r--------------------=--------------------~------------------~a Myth: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a failure because only a handful of species have 

recovered enough to be removed from the lisl 

Reality: The ESA has been remo..l<ably successful. Uke an emergency room. the ESA only 

handles case whic:h are by definition, in grave danger. The success of an emergency room Is 

measured by whether the palienrs condition is stabilized or improved so that. with further cant. 

recovery is possible. Using this measure, the ESA has been quite an effecllve safety net under 

its protection. 238 threatened and endangered species....:. 4'1'Yo of al species listed In the United 

Stales- are in stabilizing or improving condition. Moreover, without the ESA. many species such 

as the red wolf, black-tooted ~erre t. and the yalifomia condor might no longer be here. 

Myth: The ESA does not consider SOCioeconomic impacts. etevaling the protection of plants and 

animals above human needs. 

Reality: Far from ignoring SOCioeconomic concerns. the ESA explicilly requhts the balancing of 

species protection with economic development Only In the decision of whether 10 1st a species 

does the ESA limit consideration to biolOgical factors. Once a species Is llstad. however, the ESA 

provides tor the consideralion of SOCioeconomic factors through the deslgnallori of altlcaJ habitat. 

the development of special regulations for threatened species and expaimental populations, the 

issuance of incidental take permits. the development of reasonable and pnldent altemallves dumg 

federal agency oonsuttations. and the existence and operation of the Endangered Spades Committee. Further. by proteCting a species that may contain a cure for cancer or provide a stable food 

supply for a burgeoning w011d population. the ESA protects the long-term interests of humanity. ' 

Myth: The ESA is bringing development across the country to a grinding hall. 

Reality: Predictions of economic disaster resulting from endangered species conservation do not 

reflect reality. Property implemented and enfOrced, the ESA can successfutly balance economic 

needs with conservation needs - as evidenced by the ESA's Section 7 consu11at1on I1IQOI'd. 

Contrary to claims by ESA opponents. the ESA has seldom resulted In the btoc:king of a project. 

Of the more than 120.000 federal actions reviewed under the ESAbelween 1979 and 1991, 1ess 

lhan 1% were found to jeopardize a listed species, and only 34 were cancelled due to species 

conflicts. 

Myth: The ESA is taking private property wilhout just compensation. in violation of the Fifth 

Amendment to lhe Uniject Stales Constitution. 

Reality: This claim.is wholly unsupported by lhe facts. Thus far. no fede131 court has ever found 

that the ESA has resulted in an unconslilutional taking of private property. Moreover. the availability of various permits and procedures to resolve conflicts between use of property and species 

conservation minimizes the likelihood of such takings. 

~ n 

;:;· 

.., 

~ 

~ iil 

3 

~ 

'i5 

"= more... ~ 

~"'~ ~ • NM WildU~f"''"'""''""'Sh<""""S-N Washington, O.C. 20036-2266 W., • ~-=·-· ......-- -~-·· · z~---------------------------------------------J 

91-344 - 95 - 5 
124 

Myth: The process of listing spades under the ESA is based on faulty and incomplete science. 

resulting in the listing of many spades which do not need protection. 

Reality: Contrary to the daim that many spades on the endangered list do not belong there. a 

recent study revealed that most species are not listed until their numbers are extremely low. Over 

the pi!st six years, the median number of surviving individuals when an animal species was listed 

was approximately 1,075 for vertebrates and 999 for invertebrates, and a mere 120 individuals for 

plant spades. Proteding spades before their numbers become so low would actually make 

recovering the species easier. less expensive, more fikely to be successful. and would require less 

restrictive protection measures. 

Myth: The ESA.is applied too extravagantty. often focusing on protecting subspecies and popula· 

tions rather than full spades. 

Reality: In the vast majority of cases, protedion under the ESA Is applied only to full species. 

Approximately 80% of the listings under the ESA during the past six years involved full-fledged 

species- only 18% invollled subspecies and 2% regional populations. However. protection of 

subspecies and regional populations can be important for many reasons: 1) ~o.bspecies and populations oftsn play essential ecological roles in their eoosysterns; 2) eyplutiona.y--

subspecies are unique storehouses of genetic diversity that allow spades to adapt and evolve; 

3) ~lbspecies and populations are often of great local esthetic and recreational value; 

and 4) ~e abilty to list Individual populations allows for a flexible management system in 

whid'l declining populations that need protection are listed. while healthy populations of the same 

species in other regions need not be regulated. 

Myth: Protection of endangered species is an expensive luxury we cannot afford. 

RealitY: .Exlins:lign of species is something we cannot alto rd. Species provide a wide variety of 

benefits of inestimable value to us-from supplying life-saving drugs to maintaining natur-dl 

ecosystems and recreational benefits. Furthermore. during the 20 year history of the ESA. we 

have invested relatively li!Ue money in the protection of our endangered biological heritage. For 

example, the money appropriated to !he FWS to protect and recover endangered species through· 

out the United States in 1991 was: • less than Congress appropriated to fix the Woodr<:JN Wilson broge; 

• less than It costs to build one mile of urban highway; 

• less !han It cost to make !he movie •JFK"; and · 

• less than Washington, D.C. area residents spent on Domino's !=izza !hat year. 

When you look behind the myths, the factS speak clearly: the ESA Is a successful, 

balanced, crtUcally tmponant lawl 

For more Information: 

Robert Irvin, Counsel, Fisheries and Wildlife Division: (202)797-6879 I 

Suzanne Jones, Legislative Representative: (202)79Hi666 

~L-----------------------------------------~--·-· 3193 __ j 
125 

Sustaining Life on the Earth 

Hope {or an environmentally sustainable 

future lies in evolving institutions, 

technology and global concern 

by Robert W. Kates 

C an life be sustained on the earth? gence and reemergence of continents, 

lf life is simply organic matter ca- and collisions with asteroids. Life "'ill 

pable of reproducing itself, then almost surely go on at least untO the fit he answer is almost assuredly "yes." nal "dimming of the light'' of a cooling 

Through the ages, life on the earth has sun. But if life on the earth is life as we 

suf\ivcd repeated catastrophes, includ- know It, the mix of living things that fill 

ing atmospheric change, the submer- the places we are familiar with. then the 

ROBERT W. KATES is a geographer and independe nt scholar who liv~s Ill Tremon, Me. 

He IS l lnh;erSil)" Professor (Emeritus) at Brrnm l!niversiry. Between 1986and 1992 he dir~t ted Uw Alan Shawn Fein.stem World Hunger Program at Brown. Cunently he is an ex-

~::cutive editor or Environment maMa:line, pa!iit president or the Association or American 

Geographers and co-chairman of the project (h·erconung Hunger in lhe 1990s . . -\ membf.•r or the Nalional Academ): of Sciences, Kates r«ein•d a 1991 National Medal of Scicnn· and a MacArthur Prize Fellowship I 1981 to 19851. H1s most recent works ioclude 

(."o-authurships of Population Growth and Agricultural Change in Africa and a new edition of Th1• Environment as Hazard. 

11-4 SCill'<'TifiC AMERICAN October 1994 

answer is almost assuredly "no." For human-induced moctifications to 1he environment. including to the global biogeochemical and hydrologic cycles. ri\'al 

nature's changes to the earth. Most of 

the transformations of 1he past 10,000 

years have occurred in our lifetimes. as 

humans continue to aJter their environment in increasingly di\·erse wa~ S. 

If b~' life we mean us. our species and 

1he life lhal supports us. then the answer is "perhaps." For humans. life has 

ne\'er really been simply a progression 

onward and upward from the cave. Our 

numbers have gro""ll by fits and starts. 

our civilizations have declined and fall· 

en, and even our physique has tluctuat· 

ed O\'er time. But since the middle of 

the last cer..tury our population has 
quadrupled, and projections from lhe 

United Nations and the World Bank suggest that it will at least double again by 

the middle of the next century. Economic activity amplified by technology 

has already transformed the earlh. 

What will be the rrnpact of such numbers of humans. their rapidly changing 

patterns of habitation and their growing production-and consumption, on 

the natural systems that support life? 

If we can manage the transition to a 

warmer, more crowded, more connected but more diverse world, there may 

be promise of an enVironmentally sustainable future. 

ecurring vision of the grm\·th of 

world population is the exponential curve, which Thomas Robert 

Malthus proposed would evenrually 

plunge when some maximum is reached. 

But this image, reminiscenl of an accelerating rocker climbing out of sight toward sudden disaster, is misleading. 

EdwardS. Deevey, Jr., offered a different 

\·iew 34 years ago I see 'The Human 

Populahon." SctENllFtc AMERICAN, Septembe r 1960). He estimated the size of 

human population back as far as the 

origin of our species, plotting it on a 

logarithmic scale. Deevey's sensitive, 

extended analysis revealed three surges in the number of people. 

Each surge coincided with a remark126 

POPUlATION MEETS NATIJRE in Alesund. Norway, an island dty in the SullllllUJfe 

district I hat serves as a center for trading and fishing. The inhabitants of A.lesund 

also work in engineering firms and on some small farms (see island in background 

at right). In this nonhero lemperate region, use of renewable resources and careful planning of manufacruring, business, agriculture and housing create a human 

conununiry susrainable within the environment 

able technological revolution: the emergence of toolmaking, the spread of agriculture and the rise of industl)·. Each 

transformed the meaning of resources 

and increased the cafl)ing capacity of 

the earth. Each made possible a period 

of exponential growth followed by a pertod of approximate stability. The toolmaking. or cultural revolution. which began around one million years ago, saw 

human numbers rise to five million. 

Over the next 8,000 years, as humans 

domesticated plants and animals and 

invenled agriculture and animal hus· 

bandry. the population grew 100-fold, 

to about 500 million. Now in this, the 

third population surge. we already number 5.6 billion-at best the midpoint on 

a projection that shows a doubling or 

even a tripling before growth levels off 

again-only 300 years after the scientific-industrial revolution began. 

Even the global trend masks the existence of a deeper level of complexity. 

From its probable start in Afnca. human life has steadily spread to every 

com e r of the globe, including Antarchca, where resea rch bases have aJtered 

the barren landscape. But although the 

potential for humans to sunrive and 

even flourish in the most inhospitable 

of places has been realized, the hlstory 

of life in certain ancient areas has been 

one of notable nuctuation 

My colleagues Thomas R. Gottschang 

of the College of the Holy Cross, Douglas L jolmson and Billie L Turner U of 

Clark University and Thomas M. Whitmore of the Universiry of North Carolina at Chapel Hili and I have studied the 

phenomenon. To do so, we tried toreconstruct long. conrinuous series of human habirarion for those places where 

we could correlate archaeological and 

historical accounts. Our original goal 

"vas to extend the record of habitation 

in order to relat e fluctuations in natural 

processes such as climatic variation or 

soil formation to more rapidly changing patterns of human activity. Combining our data, we were able to reconstruct a long·tenn population sequence 

for four ancient regions: tbe Nile Valley 

(6,000 years). the Tigris-Euphrates lowSCIENTifiC AMERICAN October /994 115 
127 

1Q 0r-----------------------------------------~--------------------------------

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY 

AGRICUL TUAE 

TOOLMAKING 

·~.7==-------~~~--------~~=---------~~~--------~=-----------~ , .000.000 100.000 10,000 1 ,000 100 10 

NUMBER OF YEARS AGO 

HUMAN POPUIA TION has grown dramatically over 1he past 

one million years. It bas done so in three stages, each fol· lowed by a plateau. The first major growth. from 150,000 to 

ftve million. coincided with the development of toolmaking. Tbe second surge, from five million to 500 million. was associated with the advent or agricuiNre. The third. from 300 million to 5.6 billion. is a consequence of the rise of industrial civilization. Each techno!ogical revolution-toolmaking, agriculture and manufactunng-has enabled humans to lessen their direct dependence on natural systems. 

lands of Iraq (6,000 years), I he basin of 

Mexico (3,000 years), and lhe central 

Maya lowlands of Mexico and Guate· 

mala (2,200 years). 

These reconstructed population se· 

ries aU show periodic fluctuations in 

gro\o</th and decline; in none does pop· 

ulatlon grow without intemJption. In 

all except 1he Maya case (the shortest 

record), there are 2.5 waves evident in 

which population at least doubled over 

the previous base and then fell by at 

least half ·"ith respect to that high 

point. The rates of growth and decline 

are modest in the early waves and more 

drastic in the later ones. The collapses 

of civilizatiorL though surely catastrOph· 

ic to the inhabitants. are not sudden. 

The second wave of declines, averaged 

for the four regions. lasts 500 years 

even though it includes one of the most 

precipitous extinctions in human history: the 16th-century epidemics among 

the native peoples of the New World. 

Fluctuations in the well-being of entire civilizations are mirrored in the 

well-being of indi\'iduals. Again, seeking the long view of hwnan life, my colleagues a t Brown UniYersity-Robert S. 

Chen, William C. Crossgrove, Jeanne X. 

KaspersorL Robley Matthews. Ellen Mes· 

ser, Sara R. Millman and Lucile F. New· 

man-and I considered human height. 

We assembled estimates. made by oth· 

ers, usually from the skeletons of adult 

males. We also considered studies of 1he 

measured heights of people from insti· 

tutionatized populations. It is "idely 

accepled that height, slandardized by 

age and averaged over a population. renects the state of nutrition and illness. 

In this way, times of hunger and ill 

health can be distinguished from those 

of plenty and wellness. Our analysis 

shows 1hat throughout history, height, 

and presumably well-being, has nuctu· 

ated. To rake one example, an adult 

male in Roman Britain was as tall as or 

taller than his counterparts in this century, but his Victorian descendants were 

shorter. Thus, improvement in diet. 

health and sustenance has traced a halt· 

ing, sometimes retrograde course. 

These long waves of growth and decline in certain areas (\\'hich \ve have 

called rnillermial-long ~,.,;aves) raise ques· 

tions about human life on the earth. Pre· 

\iously, the fates of partirular places apparently averaged out-some developed, 

and Olhers declined, with the o,·erall 

baJanct! one of puncruated grm"1h. Has 

the scientific-industrial revolution, Jnd 

the globaJ economy to which it gave 

rise (complete \\ith a global famine response system), exempted us from 

Malthusian-like collapses of the past? 

Or can particular regions. perhaps even 

regions that are world leaders. coUapse 

in modem times? 

M adem cl\ilization has pro· 

roundly altered the en\iron· 

ment. Concern about such effects has a history that extends back a1 

least a century and a half I see "Origins 

of Western Em1ronmentalism," by Rich· 

116 SCIENTIFtC AMERICAN Ocrober } 994 

ard Grove; SCJENllFIC AMtRIC.\:o-.:, Jul\' 

1992 1. As carl)· as 1864, George Perkin; 

~tarsh published a benchmark assc.;;sment, Man and Nature; or, Physical Gi· 

ography as Modified by Human Action. 

A subsequent account, entitled Man's 

Role in Changing the Face o( the Earth, 

appeared in 1956. The most recent 

study, The Earth as Trans{onned by Hu· 

man Action, was published in \990. 

An international collaborative effon. 

the Earth Transformed Project was se\·· 

en years in the planning and execution. 

It brought together leading scientists 

from 16 countries to document global 

and regional change o\·er the past 300 

years. We were able to reconstruct hu· 

man-induced change in 13 worldhidr 

dimensions of chemical flow, land co\· 

er and biotic diversity: terrestrial \'Cfte· 

brate diversity, deforested area. soil area 

loss, sulfur releases, lead releases, carbon teoachloride releases, marine mam· maJ populations. water \\ithdrawals. floral diversify, carbon releases, nilrogen 

releases, phosphorus releases and sed· 

iment nows. 

The in\·estigators took srock of the 

extent of human impact. emphasizing 

in particular 1he past JOO years. To place 

current changes in long-term perspec· 

ti\·e. we estimated human influence on the earth O\'er the past 10,000 rears. 

since the da"'n of agriculture. In tha! 

time, humans have def:>rested a nrl 

area the size of the continental U.S .. 

mostly usl.ng it for cropland. Water. m 

an amount greater than the contents uf 
Lake Huron, is di\·erted eH~I)· yea r from 

the hydrosphere for human use. Half 

the ecosysu ms of the ice-free tands of 

the earth ha\·e ~n difi~d. managed 

or ulilized by people. The flows of materia ls and energy that are remO\·ed 

from their natural settings or s~nthesized now rival the flm..,s of such matt!· 

nals \\ithin narure itself. 

~lost of this change has been extremely recent. considering that in seven of the 13 dimensions, half of all the 

change during the past I 0,000 yea rs 

happened \\ithin our Ufetimes. To these 

rapid global environmental changes, il 

has now become fas hionable to link 

threats emanating from political up· 

heaval. Wars, especially in developing 

countries, are frequently attributed :o 

famine, environmental disasters or scarcity of naturaJ resources. 

Here, where I live and \o\Tite, o n the 

coast of Maine, far from lhese disasters. 

I ask myself what might occur in the 

coming cenrury. I have very good reasons to do so: six grandchildren who \"ill 

be in their sixties and seventies by the 

year 2050. As I struggle to imagine their 

world, the ever present ocean suggests 

a metaphor of change that comes as 

currents, lides and surges. The currents 

are the long-term trends, the tides are 

the cyclicaJ sWings, and the surges, undertows and riptides are the surprises. 

In particular, I believe the world of the 

next century \\ill be warmer and more 

crowded, more connected but more di· 

verse. Envirorunental change, population growth and increasing connected· 

ness and diversity are powerful trends 

as deep-running as the ocean currents, 

seemingly set ln place v.ith little possi· 

bility of reversal, though clearl)' subject 

to slower or more ra pid movement. Unless there is some flaw in prescnr-day 

scientific understanding, we are already 

deeply committed to a warmer earth. 

Our world has been made more connected by a global economy and the 

Widespread availability of rapid com· 

munication and transponation rechnol· 

ogy. This increasing connectedness will 

not necessarily homogenize people be· 

ond their common affection for Ca<.:a· 

Cola, bm it may, paradoxically, increas~ 

the diversi ty of both individuals and 

things. Goods, information and people 

are generally dra\\on to places of wealth 

or opportunity, which can make such 

areas more diverse. And strong cotmter· 

currents that emphasize ethnic, nation· 

al and religious distinctiveness may ere· 

ate eddies and whirlpools \Vhere differing currents can mix and clash. 

At the opposite extreme from the 

currents of cenainty are the undertows, 

nptides and storm surges that batter 

our conventional expectations, lea\i.ng 

128 

us only \\ith the \\isdom to e:xpect surpnses. ~ational boundanes that had 

seemed immutable for decades ha\·c 

been swept a\\ay in a maucr of months. 

Reaction to spcd hc crises can decp~n 

into new nonns of human beha\ior and 

interaction. The spread of diseases such 

as AIDS can eat away at rhe foundations 

of society, increasing the potential for 

unforeseen d1saster. 

In contrast to the long-term trends 

and surpnses, there are the short-term 

cp:les or tides that are superimposed 

on the great undcrl>ing currems . .-\s illusrralions of the very short term, consider the oscUlations of the business 

cycle or the so-caUed El ~ifl.o phenomenon that affects the Pacific Ocean and 

em irons at irregular interYals of years. 

There are also decades-long fluctuations: 

in democracies, for instance, S\\ings to 

th" left or nght of the political spectrum 

rfi:ur. as do periods of economic expan· 

sion and contraction. 

mong these ~ides and storms, humans quesnon their chances for 

long-term Sllf\ival. Can our population continue to double and redouble ~1thin our children's and their children's lifetimes? Will there be food 

enough ro feed the many. material sufficient for their needs and desires, and 

energy available to mo,·e and transform materials? WiU the stde effects of 

creating and using energy and of making and shaping materials undermine 

human health and destroy the ecological systems on which our species ultimdtely depends? 

SUch queslions were powerfully posed 

200 years ago by Malthus in his Essay 

on rhe Principle of Popu/ar10n ( 1798). 

They may be older yet: Tertullian wondcred 1,800 years ago whethe r "pestilence, and famine, and \..,·ars. and earthquakes ha\·e to be egard~d as a remedy for nations, as a means for prun.ing 

the luxuriance of the human race." his 

not unl':xpcctcd that Malthus, \,·ho was 

born in 1766 and died in 1834, wOIT!ed 

about the adequacy of the resource base 

to e~d England, bccau st~ he lived m the 

midst of a population explosion. \\e 

no\,. know that in the decade of his 

birth, England and Wales grew by 7 

percent; in the decade of the first edition of his essay, b~ ll perce-nt By the 

time of the fifth edition, in 181 7, decadal grm,·th had peaked at 18 perc .. nt. 

Nor is it surprising that these concerns reemerge in the post-World War II 

world. The population explosion of the 

developing world was recognized in the 

late 1940s and the early 1950s.lndeed, 

the lides of scientific and public concern 

over population, food, materials, energy 

and pollution have surged, ebbed and 

surged again during the past 45 years, 

emerging most recently on the eve of 

the new millennium. 

Among the threats that are most hkely to occur, cause the most harm or affect the most people, I can identify three 

areas of concern. The ~..rs t is the introduction of pollutants: acid rain in the 

atmosphere, heavy metals in the soils 

and chemil:aJs in the groundwater. Hu· 

mans also face the global atmospheric 

dangers of nuclear fallout. stratospheric ozone depletion and climatic warming from greenhouse gases. Finally, a 

massive assault on the biota has resulted from deforestation in the tropical 

and mountain lands, desertification in 

rhe drylands. and species exlincrion, 

parlicularlr in the tropics. A surge in production and consurnp1.000 

-EGYPT ~~ - - TIGRIS-EUPHRATES 

-- CENTRAL MAYA LOWLANDS 

-- BASIN OF MEXICO ) I 

10.000 

100 -- -- >r !~t· 

101----- ~/ -,\ 

t ' ' / \; 6 .000 5,000 4.000 3.000 2 .000 1.000 

NUMBEFI OF YEARS AGO 

ADVANCE AND RETRFA Tor population density during historical times in four re· 

gions indicate that hwnan nwnbers can flucruate significantly. Civilizations in the 

Maya lowlands, the Tigris-Euphrates basin, the basin of Mexico and Egypt show periods of growth and decline. Is modem industrial society irrunune to this panem? 

SCIENTifiC AM[RJCAN Ocrober / 994 11 7 
tion of material goods accompanies the 

rise in our numbt:!rs. In 1989 the lntt:!r· 

national Institute of .-\pplied Systems 

Analysis examined "current trends" or 

"business as usual" projections for a 

doubling of population. lts analysis assumed lhat \'3.ried and nutritious diets, 

industrial products and regular jobs 

are to be ''ithin reach of most of the I 0 

bi!Uon people. Thus, a doublmg <>f the 

population \\ill probabl\ require a low· 

fold incr~ase in agricultural production, 

a sLxfold rise in energy use and an 

eightfold increase in the Yalue of the 

global economy. 

Manr experts find this 2-4-6-8 see· 

nario unbelievable and certainly unsustainable. Such increases, they think, 

could not be accommodated by present technology and practice in an envi· 

ronment that has already seen substan· 

tial transformation of its atmosphere, 

soils, groundwater and biota. Indeed, 

for many of today's jeremiahs-Lester 

R. Brown. Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich, 

DoneUa H. Meadows, Dennis L Mead· 

ows and jergen Randers-a world of 

more than five billlon people is already 

overpopulated because virtually every 

nation is depleting its resources or degrading its environment. Other econmnists and technologists disagree (see 

"Can the Growing Human Population 

Feed Itself?" by John Bongaarts; SCII.Nnnc AMERICAN, March). The)· believe 

the invisible hand of rising prices will 

curb consumption and encourage conservation and invention. They are con· 

fident that human creativity can overcome aU limits. 

But most of us, on reflection, recognize the unique situation that we face. 

In an extraordinarily short pertod -a 

matter of decades-society will need to 

feed, house, nurture, educate and employ at least as many more people as 

already live on the earth. If in such a 

warmer, more crowded \\'arid en\ironmental catastrophe is to be avoided, it 

can be done only by maintaining severe 

inequities in human welfare or by 

adopting very different trajectories for 

technoloiD' and deYelopment. 

How likely are we to have such 

different trajectories for tech· 

nology and development? I 

draw cautious encouragement from rv..·o 

sets of trends that I perceive but do not 

fully understand. The first set relates 

to changes already apparent in the currents carrying us Uno the future. The 

second set relates to human adaptabili· 

ty in the form of the emergence of new 

institutions, technologies and, probably most important, ideas. 

To illustrate some favorable changes 

in the rurrents, consider the IPAT equa129 

tion. Initially formulated by Paul Ehr· 

lich of Stanford Unin~rsity and John P. 

Holdren of the llni\·ersity of California 

at BE!rkeley, it is nmv ''idely used as a 

simplified statement of the dri\ ing 

forces of the human-induced detrimental impacts on the em ironment. The 

impacts term t /) is a function of popu· 

!arion (P), the Jc,·eJ of affluence (..-\) and 

the technology I Tl a\ailable. Thus, the 

formulation captures the \\idespread 

agreement tflat to the extent that the 

em i.rorunent is endangered, it is so not 

just because of the enormous growth 

of population (a common \'iew in in· 

dustrial countries) or jus I because of 

the rapacious and still grO\ ... ing use of 

energy and materials by affluent coun· 

tries (a common view in poor counnies ). 

Instead both are significant contribut· 

ing reasons. Estimates of the sources 

of greenhouse gases, for example, pre· 

sume that most of these compounds 

originate in rich countries, but developing nations ''ill contribute almost as 

much or more in 20 to 30 years if pres· 

ent trends persist. The technology term 

also captures the potential 

of science, technology and 

society to alter the impacts 

transition to low death rates is more 

d, anc~d. In den lopi.ng countries after 

\\ urld \\·ar U, the life expectancy at birth 

,,·as -!0 years. :\ow it has increased to · 

65 years, t\H> thirds of the way to a Uke1) an~ rage of 75 yea rs. if h·e use developed countrit.•s as a model. The s}oV~.ing 

of the rate of population grm\1h e\'erywhere, e,·en Yery modestly in .-\frica, is 

a source of encouragement for sustain· 

ing Ufe on the earth. 

The affluence term may also be self· 

limiting: "Richer is cleaner." The Earth 

Transformed Project notes that the rates 

of increase for five of the 13 transformations srudied have now turned down-

'"·ard: they are vertebrate and marine 

manunalian extinctions, as well as the 

release of lead, sulfur and carbon terrachloride. All these have been the object 

of strenuous regulalory attention from 

the wealthier countries. A 1992 World 

Bank report argues that envirorunental 

problems shift v.ith affluence. The poorest countries concentrate on primary 

needs for housing and sanitation, whereas in middle-income developing coun5FT101N of an}' given level of popu· 

lation and affluence. 

The growth of popula· 

tion and affluence and the 

spread of technologies are 

large-scale CWTents propel· 

ling us toward the warmer, 

more crowded, more con· 

ne(ted but more dh·erse 

world. Countercurrents are 

already at work for each of 

the /PAT variables. Growth 

is slov.ing, and limits are in 

sight. Consider population 

and return to Deevey's Vi· 

sion of populations in flux. 

We are now in the last 

phase of the third major 

population surge, the com· 

pletion of a demographic 

transition from a world 

\\ith high rates of births 

and deaths to one '"ith low 

rates. Jt took 150 years to 

complete this rransition in 

England, but the transition 

in de\'eloping nations is oc· 

cuning much more rapidly 

than expected. 

Height and 

Technological 

Change 

Average height. a stan· 

J-\. dard measure of 

general well-being, has 

nuctuated over time. 

Hunter-gatherers in the 

eastern Mediterranean, 

who benefited from a 

diet full of calories and 

protein. reached a height 

of five feet, I 0 inches. 

Early agriculturists from 

that area reached only 

five feet. three inches. 

They lived on a heavy 

cereal diet and suffered 

--&:1 

Birth rates have fallen 

considerably from their 

post-World War II peak of 

five births per woman. The 

shift to 2.1 births per worn· 

an. required for zero-popu· 

lation growth, is just O\'er 

halfway complete: the cur· 

rent birth rate is 3.2. The 

physical wear and tear 

from the difficult work 

of farming . Late agriculturists in Europe aver· 

aged five feet, nine inches. They presumably 

benefited from improve· 

ments in agricultural and 

other technolog•es. Stature fell again at the beginning of the European 

industrial period, when 

men reached five feet, 

seven inches on average. 

Modern U.S. men are 

slightly taller. 

A. !•!i, • ·-~~ \'1 ,·"' ' 

I 

l 

\ 

\ 

PREAGRICULTURAL 

EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN 

(30.000-9.000 years ago I 

118 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN October 1994 
trit•s, t lforls hmt.· tufl t. d 1o grapplmg 

h\th .11 r and water potlutLon. In the 

richt.•st of countrit.'s, lht· lot u~ has ... tuned from addressing localit.t•d problt>ms 

to dealing ,,·ith global endronmental 

pn>blcms. 

Et.:onomic and H>chnolngH.:al forces 

t• ncouragc rl•duc tions in the use of ma -

tcnals .:md cnt'qn in m<tnuLJcturing: 

'"Doing more \\ llh ll'ss." ~i ce the mid · 

I•J!h t.·enrurY thl' amount of t·arbonusl'd 

per unit · ot: production h;1s bt•en dl'· 

creasing ycarl) by I.J percent through 

a combination of ustng e~s r.:~rbon·rh h 

fu els (0.3 percent ) to produce cneq..,1)· 

and u~ ng less energy m·e rall p~r unit 

of production (I percent 1 . . \e' err he· 

less, these improvements in energy use 

have not been sufficient to offse t the 

annual growth of the economy n percent). This has led to a global rise in 

carbon dioxide emissions of l. 7 per· 

cent e\·ery year. 

A similar but more complicated trend 

toward dematerialization irwol,·es fewer 

materials per unit of production. We are 

using less stet!l and cement but more 

130 

.lluminum .111d chemicab 1although use 

-,r the last '''0 h<'l" Pl'Jkl..'d and is be-

-!i nning to decrease I. Despite the com· 

puter and tele\ iston fl'\·olutions, the 

use of paper remain" constant. 

\\ e should rccons1der impacts as \vell. 

) l"icntbts o rt en do not sufficiently un· 

dl'rstand tht· effec ts of human· induced 

dwnges on the natural systems that 

-> upport us 10 lnm' hO\\. much or 

\' hcthrr lht.T are thrt•a tened or what 

rl'plact·s tht•m \\"ht'n the} a re degraded. 

.-\n app;uent bia ~ in research encour· 

ages thc identifica tion of harmful ef· 

kcts ra ther than the determination of 

ncgath e feedback qdes that mod erate 

the damage. For example. ret·ent documentation shows that forest biomass 

in Europe is not only sUJ'\.i\ing but probably increasmg. despite enormous bur· 

dens of pollutants and acid rain. That 

such a rc,i talization can happen, possi· 

bly through fertili zation by the very 

same chcrrucal poUutants that are (ausing the damage. is a caulion. Na ture 

mar be more robust than popuJa r rhetoric is hlihng to concede. 

5 FT 3 IN 5 FT 91N 5 FT 7 IN 

. "-·- ' - . _/ . 

·( ,· ~ . L· ... ·, 

'">· 

EARLY AGRICULTURAL 

EASTE~N MEOITERAANEAN 

(5,000-3.000 years ago) 

LATE AGRICULTURAL 

EURO?EAN 

( 1.350- 1.150 years ago) 

EARLY INDUSTRIAL 

EUROPEAN 

{ 125 years ago) 

OptiiTl.ists ntc these counl l'fCUrrl'nts 

as good ne\\S. Thl')" JTJ.,.'\.le rh;n tht• 

trends, though msufficienl ro mcrcome 

rhe global gro,,1h in popula tion or ·:om· 

umy, are at ll'ast heelding in rhe righ t 

direclio n. Pessimists dthl'r Jgnore I he 

coume rcu rrents or st·c them ~1m h .:1::. 

too little and too late. It " ·ould help both 

sides to understand tht~ mam· fon l'S 

I ha t a re at \\·ork. im·isible or othl.'r,,-,sc. 

As yt!t, percept ton is quil c dtm. Constd· 

er the trend m population: \\ hat forces 

have lead to a decline in fcrt ilit\··! 

A large amount of research ha ~ sought 

to estimate the d}namics and relali\'t' 

conrributions o f economic a nd social 

development and organized family· 

planning programs to the decline in 

births. Several studies, co,·ering most 

developing countries, have fo und tha t 

increases in deve lopment are strongly 

associated with decline in birth rate. 

accounting for about two thirds of the 

drop. Additional research indicates that 

organized family-planning programs 

contribute another 13 to 20 pe rcent to 

fertility reduction. Although only a few 

5 FT 8 IN 

INDUSTRIAL 

u.s. (present) 

SCIENTIFIC AM£RICAN October /99-l 119 
reports included culture and ethnicity, 

these factors also appear to be impor· 

ranr. Socioeconomic de\·elopment and 

substantial family-planning programs 

seem to be most cffectiYe in East and 

Southeast Asia or among those of Chi· 

nese extraction. Such programs are also 

t'tfecti\·e when carried out on small, 

crowded islands or in citY-states. 

If, as the studies seem. to show, "de· 

velopment is the best contraceptive," it 

is not c~ar which aspects of den'iop· 

ment are most influential. Analysts ar· 

gue that as de,·elopment proceeds, it 

lessens the need 0r desire for more chil· 

dren because more children SW'\i,·e, de· 

creases the need for child labor and in· 

creases the need for educated children. 

Development also cuts the time avail· 

able for childbearing and rearing and 

creates more opportunity for women 

to gain an education and find salaried 

work. Finally, it improves access to birthcontrol technology. Advocates for a par· 

ticular policy usually single out one of 

these themes to justify their programs, 

131 

but it is clear that better child sW'\ival, 

changing needs for labor, improved op· 

portunities for \\·omen and access to 

birth control all occur together during 

the course of development. 

Our understanding of the decline in 

fertility, as \\"ell as of the d)namics of 

pollution control and decarbonization 

of fossil fuels, remains opaque. For all 

these issues, there is no shortage of fa· 

vored, oversimplified explanations to 

describe the countercurrents. And as 

\\ith the fertility decline, a tension exists between separating the effects of 

such catchalls as "development" and 

"affluence" from the organized efforts 

of science or society. 

The changes necessary to mitigate 

the extraordinary demands being 

placed on our life-support systems require a more fundamental understanding of our impacts on the earth. 

But the world does not and should not 

wait for such understanding. We know 

we must accelerate favorable trends and 

Environmental Concern Is Global 

r espite the differences in popu_lation growth rates, available technology . nd level of affluence, people m industrial and developing nations share 

concern about the impact of human activities on the earth. A 1993 Gallup 

poll asked respondents in 24 countries, "How concerned are you personally 

about environmental problems?" Answers indicating "great concern" or a 

"fair amount of concern~ generally dominated. 

INDUSTRIAL NATIONS 

PORTUGAL 46% 

CANADA 37 

u.s. 38 

GREAT BRITAIN 28 

NORWAY 18 

IRELAND 22 

NETHERLANDS 16 

JAPAN 23 

GERMANY 14 

FINLAND 16 

DENMARK 12 

SWITZERLAND 12 

DEVELOPING NATIONS 

PH!UPPINES 55% 

NIGERIA 71 

MEXICO 50 

URUGUAY 38 

BRAZIL 53 

SOUTH KOREA 22 

HUNGARY 32 

RUSSIA 41 

INDIA 34 

CHILE 30 

TURKEY 12 

POLAND • 25 

53 

42 

66 

63 

63 

77 

73 

71 

85 

81 

90% 

89 

~ GAEAT CONCERN 

• MODERATE CONCERN 

-"":'~f'r:~~-·······94% 

40 

_..,_,.:~ · ... : ..,... ... ~ .... ~ .. -~··.:. -87 

70 

83 

82 

80 

80 

79 

78 

77 

• GREAT CONCERN 

• MODERATE CONCERN 

SOURCE. Health ollhe Planet. Gt10rge H. Gallup. ln/ema/lona/ lnstitut.. 1993 

120 SCIENTIFIC AMERJCAN October 1994 

halt destructi\·e ones. A species capable 

of questioning its O\\TI sUI\i\"al can also 

struggle to adapt to the warmer, more 

crowded and more connected world. 

Ne\v institutions, new technologies and 

new ideas are already in place, defining 

a different trajectory of technology and 

development that a sustainable future 

might follow. 

In a more connected but more diverse 

world, three sets of important transnational institutions are emerging. The 

best kno\\ln are those created by gov· 

ernments, a set of international organizations, treaties and activities. Current· 

ly some 170 international treaties-inforce focus on the environment. New 

international institutions such as the 

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development will oversee the accords of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio 

de Janeiro. The Global Environmental 

Facility combines the talents and wealth 

of the World Bank and the U.N. Development (UNDP) and Environment (UNEP) 

Programs. Equally well known, but not 

usually for its environmental dimension, is the transnational corporation. 

Such corporations are responsible for 

many of the human-induced changes 

taking place around the globe; increasingly, however, they are also disseminators of common approaches, technical 

skills and standards for addressing environmental problems. Finally, least considered, but in many ways most important, is the veritable explosion of trans· 

national nongovernmental and private 

voluntary environment and development organizations and their local 

counterparts in developing countriesan estimated 200,000 groups, increasingly linked together in international 

nel'Norks. 

In a more crowded and more consuming world, one mode of coping is 

to use technology that requires modest 

amounts of such basic ingredients as 

energy, materials and information. As 

shown by long-term trends, there has 

already been a reduction of energy and 

materials required per unit of econom· 

ic output, and the potential exists to accelerate such trends. Simple interventions include the recent competition 

to build a low-energy-consuming, non· 

ozone-depleting refrigerator, which will 

soon be on the market in the U.S. Another, related effort is the one to move 

immediately to next-generation refrigeration in India. In some eastern European countries, telephone companies 

are moving directly to wireless commu· 

nications systems instead of rebuilding 

the fraying wire infrastructure . 

The emergent field of study and action known as industrial ecology seeks 

to use the mechanisms of market com· 
132 

GLOBAL WlAGE includes American Samoa, where inhabi· needs to make a transition to a more crowded, wanner, more 

tants watch television by the edge of tbe Pacific. Humankind connected world while avoiding widespread catastrophe. 

petition and efficiency to minimize the 

amount of energy, materials and waste. 

Further into the future lies the substan· 

tial opporn.utity to increase human sus· 

tenance Y..ithout increasing en .... tronmen· 

tal burdens. The goal may be achieved 

through the science and engineering of 

biological processes, the development 

of new energ)' sources and lTansmis· 

sian technologies. the creation of mate· 

rials and, ultimately, the substitution of 

lnlonnation for both energy and mate· 

rials. Biotechnology promises crops that 

require less fertilizer and fewer pesti· 

cides. Researchers in the miniature 

world of nanotechnology and micro· 

electronics hope to deve!~p machines 

and processes that will require less 

bulk and rhus less waste. 

P otentiaUy more significant than 

new institutions or technolog) 

are new tdeas combined with an 

ever increasing concern for the envi· 

ronment. Sustaining human life on the 

earth requires at least three cruciaJ sets 

of ideas: that cohabitation \\ith the nat· 

ural world is necessaJ)': that rhere are 

limHs to human actiVity; and that the 

benefits of human acti\-ity need to be 

more \\idely shared. 

These id~as are spreading: last ~in

ter I heard a concert of 500 schoolchildren's voices, my grandchildren's in· 

eluded. Most striking to me was the relati\'C' absence of the patriotic songs of 

my childhood and their replacement by 

emironmemal h)mns and anthems. I 

came a\vay marveling at how 25 years 

of Earth Days han changed the forma· 

tive ethos of young .A.mericam:. But this 

is Maine-what of the rest of the world? 

A l993 study undertaken by Riley E. 

Dunlap and the Gallup organization 

compared opinion on emironmentaJ is-

!;Ues ln 12 indusfria1 and I!. developlng 

nations (including eastern Europe) and 

found surprisingly Little difference in 

their attitudes. Even the attribution of 

the cause of the problems-"0\·erpopulation" and "consumption of the world's 

resources by industriaJ countries"-is 

seen as contributing equally by resints of both rich and poor COWl tries. 

Along with this \\idespread e\idence of 

em-ironmentaJ concern, more profound 

ideas are emerging. Witness the ongo· 

ing fundamental challenges to anthro · 

pocentiisrn and the more modest efforts to resolve the conflicting needs of 

ecosystems and economies or the conflicting claims of equity between 

species, places, peoples, livelihoods 

a.'ld generations. 

Fifreen years ago Uonel Tiger of Rutg-~ rs Universit)' suggested that there 

was a "biology of hope," an evolution· 

ary human tilt toward optimism that 

compensates in part for our ability to 

ask difficult questions such as "Can human life on the earth be sustamed?" 

Although unpersuaded b} his some-

!:!:? SC[[Nl'mC .1\.M[RJCAN October 1994 

what tenuous chains of argument, J 

share his inclination. Not becaust~ I 

have excessive confidence in the mvisible hand of the marketplace. or of technological change, or even of James E. 

Lovelock's Gaia principle, in which life 

itself seems to create the conclltions 

fo r its own survival. Nor is n just the 

~isdom and energy of m't" grandchildren and their enom1ous rohort of 

\\ise and energetic children around !he 

world. Rather it is bec:ausc hope is simply a necessity if we as a species, n::~.,., 

conscious of the improbable and :oxtraordinary journey takl•n by life m rhe 

universe, are to survive. 

FURTHER READING 

THT. EARrn AS TRANSFORJ.IEO !lY tH ~l-\S 

ACllON: GLOBAL AND REGIONAL Ol-\NG· 

ES IN n-n: 8IOSPH[R£ OVER n-11: P-\ST 

300 YEARS. Edited by B. L. l umer II. 

\VUiiam C. Clark, Robert W. Kates, john 

F. Richards .. jessica T. ~Ia thews and \\-il 

liam B. Meyer. Cambridge t:ru,·ersi!) 

Press, 1990. 

BEYOND ntE UMITS: CONfkON"n SG 

GLOBAl .. cou.APsE. Er-.'\"l SIOI"'l"SG -\ Sl' l 

TAINABU: f L'TIJR.E. 0. H. ~l ea o\\S. D. L. 

~leadows and J. Randers. Chelsea t.;reen.. 

1992. 

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJEC:TCJRIE~ A'>ID Til[ 

HUMAN ENVIRoNMENT. Edned b'r jesse 

H. Ausubel and H. Dale Langford. N-.1 

tional Academy Press. I 994. 
133 

BOARD OF CO MMISSI O NE RS 

CHELAN COUNTY S T A T E 0 F WASHING T ON 

GHELf, N COUNTY f.::OUHTHOUSE 

3 5 0 0 R 0 N D 0 A \f f: N U E 

WENA T CH E E WA 98801 

TE L EPHONE 509/G64 - 5:!1t.. S CA N i'48 · i) ?t:. 

rAX (5fJYI 664 b~:!<J 

Test'.mony Regarding Amendment of the Endangered Species Act 

By 

Earl L. Marcellus 

Chelan County Commissioner 

April 24. 1995 

Chairman Pombo and distinguished committee members: 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak about the need for amending the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The need is not only driven by significant economic factors but also by the grave importance to the health and 

general welfare of the people of Chelan County, whom I represent, as well as people throughout America. 

I will briefly address but a few of the numerous negative impacts caused by the listing of the Spotted Owl as 

threatened species. 

Resultant Socio-Economic losses: 

I. Timber generated funds from Federal public lands for schools and roads. 

2. Thousands of high paying, product producing logging and sawmill jobs 

In Chelan County alone there were 3 sawmills, now only I exists 

3. Many property owners have lost the right to harvest timber from their own lands. 

Specific example-- The Johnson family of Leavenworth, Washington 

A Was offered $350,000 for approximately 50% of their timber, that was to 

be removed through a selective harvesting operation. 

B. Was unable to secure a harvesting permit because of spotted owls on 

adjacent Federal lands --until-- their timber was consumed by the 1994 wildfires. 

C. Now they can harvest I 00% of their blackened timber but will receive less 

than one half of the original market value 

Resultant natural resource losses: 

I. Dead and dying timber (insects, disease and wind blown) has not been salvaged for the past 

five years on Federal lands (82% of Chelan County land base), resulting in 

A Loss of raw materials for a multitude of wood products. 

B. Buildup of fuel-- intensifYing wildfires 

THOMAS A. GA£EN 

COt.ll.IISSIOIIIER 1ST DISTRICT 

WEIIIATC!iEE 

EARL L. MARCEllUS 

COiolllo! ISS ~R CillO DISTRICT 

lEAVENWORTH 

JOHNS. WALl COI.IMISSIO,.ERJROOISlRICT 

CHEI..AN 
134 

Testimony of Commissioner EarlL. Mar•oellus Page 2 

C 200,000 acres in Chelan County alone burned in 1994 resulting in the destruction of 

I.) The wry wildlife habitat being "preserved" tor the spotted owl, plus many 

other !.pecics 

2.) Watershed- for the protection of our water quality and fish habitat 

3.) Recreational opponunities 

4.) Natural beauty of our once forested mountains 

5.) Timber base - jobs 

- products 

2. Privately owned timberlands, where harvesting permits are obtainable, are being liquidated 

or convened at an alarming rate Their forest management is based on fear (that a species 

will "get them") instead of sound, sustainable, multiple-use principles that were being 

applied prior to the abuse of the ESA and other onerous environmental regulations 

Specific suggestions for the amending of the ESA 

Continue to recognize the need for maintaining a healthy natural environment but make mandatory 

provisions for protecting the unique human environment including jobs and affordable 

housing, food and clothing. 

2. Better define what constitutes a species and a subspecies 

3. Make provisions whereby Administrative appeals of timber sales, grazing pennits, etc. would be 

considered only when based on sound, verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific data, rtot emotionalized 

rhetoric. 

4. Move the true decision making power back to the states so qualified local people can develop 

management plans to protect species. That would fulfill the intent of our founding fathers, as 

expressed by James Madison in Federalist paper #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed 

Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state 

governments are numerous and indefinite." 

I trust you will be successful in bringing common sense and truly good science into the efforts of protecting 

the environment while preserving our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thank 

you for your sincere concern and consideration. 

Yours very truly, 

Earl L. Marcellus 

Chelan County Commissioner 
135 

Monitoring the Effects of Federal Timber Harvest Reductions 

on Individuals, Families, and Communities in the Spotted Owl Region 

TESTIMONY 

Prepared for a Hearing of the 

Task Force on Endangered Species 

of the Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Vancouver, Washington 

April 24, 1995 

by 

Robert G. Lee, Ph.D. 

Professor of Forest Resources 

107B Anderson Hall 

University of Washington 

Seattle, Washington 98195 

(206) 685-0879 

My name is Robert G. Lee. I serve as Professor of Forest Resources in the College 

of Forest Resources at the University ofWashingtonin Seattle, Washington, where I 

specialize in the sociology of natural resources. I have srudied wood-producing 

communities in the Pacific Northwest for over 15 years, and have made comparative 

studies in Japan and British Columbia. During the last five years my srudies have 

concentrated on how the reduction in federal timber harvests have affected individuals, 

families, and communities and on the cultural conflicts that have made this issue so 

divisive. 

I am here to report the results of sociological research, and will not take a position 

on whether the Endangered Species Act should be reformed or how it should be reformed. 

I will concentrate on answering four questions: (1) What do we know about the effects of 

timber harvest reductions on individuals, families, and communities? (2) Has.the forest 

products industry been an unstable source of employment and income for communities? 

(3) Where has the reduction of federal timber harvests created the most need for economic 
136 

revitalization? (4) Does the development of recreation, tourism, and value-added 

manufacturing have the potential for revitalizing these local economies? 

1. What do we know about the effects of timber harvest reductions on individuals, 

families, and communities? In the five years since the listing of the northern spotted owl 

we have learned very little about the ways in which people have been affected by sudden 

reductions in timber harvesting. No federal or state srudies have systematically identified, 

monitored and evaluated the wage-earners or self-employed who were dislocated by 

withdrawal of almost all of the federal wood supply. Similarly, I know of no srudies that 

have systematically tracked the ways in which fiscal and psychological impacts on 

individuals rippJ.ed through families and local communities. Most surprisingly, there has 

been little systematic monitoring of results from use of federal and state funds for 

retraining and creating jobs in forest and watershed restoration. There have been a few 

selective samples of retrained workers and some case srudies of affected communities 

(many of which have conducted by myself and my associates). But none of these effortS 

are sufficiently systematic to permit anyone to make scientifically grounded generalizations 

about the three-state owl region as a whole. 

At the onset of the federal timber harvest reductions, I re..,-iewed the results from 

previous studies of economic dislocations in the farming, steel mills, coal mining, and 

other industries. Based on these other experiences, I suggested that policy-makers should 

anticipate substantial disruption in the lives of individuals, families, and comm1!nities, 

including the physical and mental effects exhibited by individuals suffering from high 

stress, family conflict and disintegration, and community disintegration. Although there 

have been no systematic comparative studies across the owl region, communities 

throughout the region have reported elevated levels of all the individual, family, and 

community dysfunctions normally associated with major economic disruptions. In the 

2 
137 

absence of sound scientific information about these impacts, I suggest you pay special 

attention to the reports of individuals and communities that have been affected. 

I am just completing two studies utilizing existing state and county-level data to 

answer questions about employment stability and the location and mitigation of 

employment impacts from reductions in federal timber harvesting. I will offer answers to 

the next three questions by reporting preliminary results. There are serious limitations to 

these studies, since they did not permit me to look at the effects of economic dislocation on 

individuals, families, or communities. By looking at the average conditions in states or 

counties, I was forced to ignore major impacts on particular communities and the 

individuals who live or work there. Again, I urge you to fill this gap in scientific 

understanding by listening to people from as many different communities as possible. 

2. Has the wood products industry been an unstable source of employment and 

income for communities? Contrary to popular opinion, employment in logging and 

sawmilling has been more stable, not less stable, than all manufacturing industries 

(including wood products) combined. Year to year variation in logging and sawmilling 

employment for Oregon and Washington was measured for establishments (places of 

work) by using records from County Business Patterns for the period spanning 1964 to 

1991. Moreover, annual variation in the number of wood-producing establishments is over 

twice as stable as all manufacturing combined. These results show, at least at the state level, 

that logging and sawmilling have been reliable sources of employment and income when 

compared to alternative manufacturing industries. These findings contradict the claim that 

logging and sawmilling are undesirable because they have been unstable industries. 

Also contrary to popular opinion, employment in small logging and sawmilling 

establishments is more stable than employment in large establishments. Establishment size 

was measured by grouping establishments into classes based on number of employees. 

Employment in small establishments is over four times as stable as establishments with 

3 
138 

500 employees or more. Similar to employment, annual variation in the number of small 

establishments is far less than variation in the number of large establishments. 

Small family-owed businesses are far more likely to have small establishments 

than are large corporations. Public policies that create conditions more favorable for large 

businesses may inadvertently contribute to greater future instability of employment. The 

historical balance of federal and private wood supplies appears to have created conditions 

favorable to both large and small businesses. Withdrawal of federal wood supply has 

disproportionately impacted small businesses and the relatively stable small establishments 

they support, resulting in the growing concentration of wood production in fewer, larger, 

and less stable establishments. 

3_ Where has the reduction of federal wood harvests created the most need for 

economic revitalization? Reduction in federal wood harvests have uneven effects on local 

economies. The economic base of some communities has been devastated, while others 

have suffered only minor adjustments. While reliable data are not available for local 

communities, records for counties also show significant variation. 

I am just completing a study of 72 counties in the sponed owl region. Counties 

were classified by population density and the importance of wood products to the county 

economy (See Figure !). Counties with seven percent or more of the employment base in 

logging or sawmilling were classified as wood producing, since 25 percent of all jobs in 

these counties would rely on a viable wood products economy (using an economic 

multiplier of 3.67). Thirty of the 72 counties in the three-state region were classified as 

wood-producing in 1993, while 19 counties were densely-populated (100 persons or 

more per square mile) and 23 had low-density populations and wood production was not 

a dominant sector of the local economy. A subset of these wood-producing counties was 

created to identity the 15 federal wood-producing counties where sawmills sourced 25 

percent or more of their logs from national forests or BLM administered lands in 1993. 

4 
139 

Wood production was not a dominant economic sector in any of the densely populated 

counties. 

Counties were then rated as to the degree to which decline in the wood products 

economy from 1988 to 1992 had created a significant challenge of economic revitalization 

(1992 is the latest year for which data are available). Counties faced high challenges when 

they lost 4 percent or more of total employment to decline in wood products, each job lost 

had not been replaced by two non-wood products jobs (reflecting the fact that replacement 

jobs, if available, generally pay substantially less and have no benefits or poorer benefits), 

and average earnings for all jobs in the county had declined. Counties were considered to 

face moderate challenges when these conditions were met and average earnings had not 

declined. Low challenges were defined as counties where wood products employment 

losses were between 2 and 3.9 percent of total county employment, each job lost had not 

been replaced by two non-wood products job, and average earnings for all jobs had 

declined. Counties were not challenged by wood products industry declines when none of 

these conditions were met. 

Fifteen counties were classified as challenged to some extent by decline in the wood 

products economy (See Figure 2). Nine of these 15 counties were also federal woodproducing counties, showing the strong causal connection between withdrawal of federal 

wood supplies and decline in local economies that had been reliant on wood from national 

forests and BLM administered lands. 

It should be noted that these estimates were based on a sawmill survey~f 

anticipated log consumption conducted in December 1992, and that decline in federal wood 

supplies may have resulted in a significant underestimate of what federal sources were 

prior to 1990. But the major weakness of this study is its inability to identify local 

communities facing severe challenges of economic revitalization in counties identified as 

facing a low level of challenge or no challenge. Notable examples are Hayfork in Trinity 

5 
140 

County, California; and Forks in Clallam County and Aberdeen/Hoquium in Grays Harbor 

County, Washington. 

4. Does the development of recreation, tourism, and value-added manufacturing have 

the potential for revitalizing these local economies? 

Recreation, tourism, and value-added (secondary) wood products manufacturing do not 

appear to be good substitutes for logging and sawmilling for counties seeking to revitalize 

their economies. I used estimates of employment in hotels and other lodging places as an 

index of tourism activity for the 72 owl-region counties from 1988 to 1992. Ten of the 15 

counties facing economic challenges exhibited a decline in use of hotels and other lodging 

places by 10 percent or more (See Figure 3). Hotels and other lodging growth of 10 

percent or more was found in only one of the challenged counties (Plumas County, 

California), and its addition of 66 jobs didn't begin to replace the 259 jobs lost in the wood 

products industries. 

County economies are not necessarily improved by growth in tourism industries. A 

study by the Southern Women's Employment Coalition (Behind the Glitter: The Impact of 

Tourism on Rural Women in the Southeast) has shown that work in tourism 

establishments is generally season, unstable, low-paying, lacking in benefits, low-skilled, 

and offers very few opportunities for career advancement. It is generally limited to 

secondary employment for spouses or primary employment for individuals (especially 

single women) living in poverty. As such, even when it exists, it is a very poor substitute 

for the family-wage industrial jobs lost with decline in the wood-producing industries. 

Value-added wood products manufacturing is more promising than tourism as a 

means for helping counties meet the challenge of economic revitalization. But its potential 

is not sufficient to replace jobs lost in logging and sawmilling. The relative amount of 

value-added manufacturing in a county was measured by using County Business Pattern 

data for 1991 to count establishments, and then to calculate the percentage of the total 

6 
141 

establishments located in each county. As expected, value-added manufacturing was 

concenttated around major urban areas in counties with high population densities, access to 

markets, and proximity to nodes of transportation networks (See Figure 4). Although 

there was a moderate amount valued-added manufacturing in a few of the heavily 

challenged southwest Oregon counties, increasing restrictions on wood supply are likely to 

make these establishments less competitive than those located at the juncture of 

transportation streams bringing wood from other locations. Increasing uncertainty in wood 

supply will most likely work against efforts to shift value-added manufacturing from urban 

counties to rural areas challenged by economic revitalization. Hence, there appears to be 

limited potential for value-added manufacturing employment to substitute for loss of 

logging and sawmilling jobs in counties facing the greatest economic challenges. 

In conclusion, we have learned that the challenges of economic revitalization fall 

' most heavily on those counties that have been most reliant on federal wood supplies. We 

have also learned that recreation, tourism, and value-added manufacturing do not have the 

potential for replacing logging and sawmilling as sources of jobs, income, and benefits. 

Forest management and primary wood products manufacturing remains by far the most 

promising sources of jobs, income and tax base in most of the rural counties affected by 

the withdrawal of federal wood supplies. Finally, we have learned that wood-producing 

establishments are more stable than most other forms of manufacturing and that smaller 

wood products establishments are more stable than larger establishments. These 

conclusions contradict much of the conventional wisdom that has been used to justify 

sudden withdrawal of federal wood supplies and suggest that wood production may, after 

all, be one of the most desirable sectors in the economic base for rural communities 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

7 
142 

STATEMENT OF 

CHADWICK D. OLIVER 

PROFESSOR OF FOREST RESOURCES 

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 

COLLEGE OF FOREST RESOURCES 

Before the 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES 

of the 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A field hearing on the Endangered Species Act held in Vancouver, Washington. 

April24, 1995 

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

This statement is divided into three parts: 

A. A perspective on ending the polarization between saving species and 

providing private landowner rights and economic productivity; 

B. Specific biological and social science problems with the present Endangered 

Species Act--and suggested solutions; 

C. An approach to protect endangered species while providing economic 

prosperity and private property rights. 

INTRODUCfiON AND PERSPECTIVE 

The present polarization between those wanting to save species and 

those wanting to produce wood and protect private property rights is simply 

not necessary. It is possible to protect species, maintain property rights, 

produce wood products, and have a strong economy-to the betterment of all of 

these. 

The Endangered Species Act, as presently written and enforced, is not 

effective because elements of the Act are inconsistent with natural and social 

science laws. Consequently, the Act is analogous to legislating that water will 

flow uphill. No matter how much money is spent on it or how strong the 

enforcing regulations are, the result will still be ineffective. 

Saving species is a value choice. As a scientist, I believe that losing one or 

a few species will not cause extinction of the human race (or we would already 

be extinct), although if we lost enough species eventually the human race could 

be in jeopardy. Scientifically, once a species is lost, it can not be re-created; and 

some species may be lost which are quite valuable and unique. As a personal 

value, I believe trying to save all species is worthwhile; and I'd be willing to 

1 
143 

spend considerable money or forego much to attain this objective. I wish my 

ancestors had saved the passenger pigeon and the ivory-billed woodpecker; and 

I'm glad they saved the yew--with its cancer-treating medicinal properties. I also 

hope we save the spotted owl and red cockaded woodpecker which live in old 

forests--and the butterflies, Canadian lynx, and bighorn sheep which can not 

tolerate old forests. 

If saving all species is a public desire, there are ways we can do it in 

concert with natural and social laws which will be much more effective than the 

present approach. 

I have been teaching and researching forest ecology and silviculture on 

the faculty of the University of Washington College of Forest Resources since 

1975. Before that, I received my Ph.D. from Yale University (School of Forestry 

and Environmental Studies) and taught ecology at Harvard University. I am 

from South Carolina and have done research in nearly all forest regions of the 

United States as well as in Canada, Mexico, South America, Asia, and Europe. 

have been a Fulbright Fellow and a member of various scientific teams studying 

economic, forest health, and biodiversity concerns--including being a member of 

the scientific panel at President Clinton's Forest Conference. I !l.ave authored 

over 80 scientific and technical publications, including a book entitled Forest 

Stand Dynamics (Dr. Bruce Larson, co-author). Recently, I have been examining 

the biological, technical, and managerial basis for managing forests across the 

landscape. 

Through a properly written Endangered Species Act, we can make the 

earth more suitable for both humans and other species. We need to recognize 

that there are strong, productive roles for many groups, including: 

--the government 

--private landowners 

--scientists 

--environmental groups 

This statement will describe specific problems which cause the 

Endangered Species Act, as now written and enforced, not to be effective. It will 

describe specific changes which could alleviate each problem. Then, it will 

suggest an overall approach which builds on these suggested changes. The 

overall approach is a rough outline, and many aspects would still need to be 

developed. This paper is specific to forests; however, discussions suggest that 

many of the elements may be effective in wetlands, rangelands, and elsewhere 

with certain modifications. I am grateful to insights gained from many people, 

including Dr. Alston Chase and Professors Bruce Lippke and Robert Lee. Dr. 

Chase is writing a book which discusses the Endangered Species Act (In a Dark 

Wood: the Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, to be published by 

Houghton Mifflin in August, 1995.) 

PROBLEMS WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND SUGGESTED 

SOLUTIONS 

2 
144 

Problem 1. Use of the term "ecosystem" in legislation and management. The 

delineation of an "ecosystem" is arbitrary and variable depending on specifically 

what the scientist wants to study. It can be as small as the fungi on a leaf to as 

large as the whole Earth. 

Using the term "ecosystem" in legal deliberations allows each scientist to 

use a different definition. Since no two scientists will define an ecosystem the 

same way and no two areas on the Earth are alike, there are an infinite number of 

unique ecosystems. The result is arguing over which ones are "unique" enough 

to be preserved. (Dr. Alston Chase 1995) 

Suggested solution to Problem 1. Avoid the term "ecosystem" in the legislated 

language. ("Habitat" also has different definitions and perhaps should be 

avoided, also.) Change the mandate to maintaining minimum areas of a finite 

number of conditions that can be readily defined (e.g., "stand structures") 

across each large landscape area over time. Similar wording can be used to 

mainta in a variety of conditions for non-forest areas over time. "Stand 

structures" are the classifications of different spatial distributions of living and 

dead vegetation in a stand (for example, see Figure 1.) Structures change 

predictably with time and each structure provides conditions which allow some 

species to survive and others not to survive. Stand structures can be defined in 

different ways, but can be measured and easily agreed upon by scientists. 

The exact number and types of structures would vary and need to be 

prescribed on a local basis or each geographic area. Relatively few structures 

should be defined. These structures form conditions (habitats) in which different 

animal and plant species can survive. Maintaining all structures provides a first 

pass at ensuring all species will survive (Hunter 1990.) 

Success in maintaining a structure could be judged by presence of one 

or more previously identified "keystone" species dependent on the structure 

for each geographic area. 

Problem 2. Assuming that humans can "maintain the stability of ecosystems." 

Much of the discussion leading to the Endangered Species Act concerned 

conserving the stability of ecosystems. The most accepted scientific knowledge 

in ecology recognizes that "ecosystems" change over time and so are inherently 

unstable (constantly changing; see Figure 1). The perception that we can 

somehow keep them from changing by excluding humans is why the 

Endangered Species Act is proving more unfeasible and costly with time. (See 

also Dr. Alston Chase 1995, Botkin 1990, Oliver and Larson 1990, Oliver 1992a&b, 

Sprugel1991.) 

It is also unclear if "sustaining an ecosystem" means that if it changes, 

such as by a destructive fire (e.g., Old Growth bums up), we should sustain the 

burned area or that we should find another ecosystem which was like the old one 

and preserve it. 

3 
145 

Suggested solution to Problem 2. Maintain the stand structures across the 

landscape throu~h active management, not just through "preservation." 

Consequently, an "old growth" stand structure could be maintained for several 

decades in one place, and then shifted to another area as other stands grew to the 

suitable structure. Since conditions change with time in nature, they can not be 

Figure la. Classification of forests into four structures. (Other classifications are 

also possible.) Forest structures change after natural and human disturbances, as 

shown here simplistically (after Oliver 1981). The "old growth" structure can 

also be achieved when disturbances create uneven-aged stands. 

Figure lb. Different plant and animal species are found in each structure, but all 

structures are necessary within a forest to maintain biodiversity (Vertical axis= 

number of mammal species, after Franklin eta!. 1986). 

A. CHANGES IN STAND STRUCTURES FOLLOWING DISTURBANCES 

STAND 

INITIATION 

STEM UNDERSTORY 

EXCLUSION REINITIATION 

B. MAMMAL SPECIES TmUZING EACH STRUCTURE 

OLD 

GROWn; 

maintained in a static state; and preservation of an area will not ensure it will 

maintain the structures desired. 

Historically, we have endangered many species by trying to preserve 

stand structures instead of managing actively to produce them. Preserving 

areas allows the areas to loose certain structures (and species) as the forest grows 

(e.g., lose the "stand initiation stage" and associated species, Figure 1). When 

4 
146 

catastrophic, natural disturbances occur, other structures and species are lost. 

For example, avoiding further management of a previously managed "stand 

initiation" stand structure (Figure 1) to save the lotus blue butterfly in California 

allowed the stand structure to grow to the "stem exclusion" structure and so 

cause the butterfly to become extinct (Fry and Money 1994). Attempting to 

preserve "old growth" spotted owl stand structures have allowed them to 

become so fire susceptible tha t very large areas and stand structures have been 

destroyed in catastrophic fires. 

We are finding that even old-growth species can live in humanmanipulated structures designed to resemble old growth; and research shows 

that managed structures can produce the functional features found on old 

growth that are believed to be most important to endangered species. 

Problem 3. Waiting until a species becomes endangered and then focusing 

extreme efforts on just this species (and stand structure) can endanger species 

which live in incompatible stand structures (See Figure 1). 

Suggested solution to Problem 3. Maintain minimal levels of all stand 

structures across the landscape to avoid having a species become endangered 

because of loss of favorable stand structures (Oliver 1992a&b). 

Problem 4. Landowners and other people living close to the species view it as 

an economic threat instead of an asset and so have little motivation to save it. 

The present confiscatory nature of stopping forest (and other) management to 

save species causes individuals to pay the cost of society's value (Lippke and 

Oliver 1993, Lee 1994). 

Behavior of landowners and others is very expected. 

--They do not actively participate in increasing an endangered species' needed 

stand structures and instead try to avoid creating these structures to avoid 

the cost and risk of regulations. (In spotted owl areas they harvest their 

forest when young and avoid thinning for fear it will provide the "old 

growth" stand structures used by the spotted owl because, if a spotted owl 

is found on their land, they are prohibited from harvesting their timber.) 

--They often do not report an endangered species even if they see it. 

Consequently, 

--it is difficult to find new endangered species; 

--it is difficult to determine accurately if a species is endangered since 

many people are afraid to report sighting of the species. 

--They become increasingly distrustful of the government because of the 

increasing "police" regulatory powers, combined with the economic 

hardship caused by enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. 

5 
147 

Suggested solution to Problem 4. Give local people and landowners 

incentives to provide all stand structures across the landscape and to protect 

endangered species (Lippke and Oliver 1993). Landowners could be given 

incentives to provide needed stand structures on a voluntary (competitive bid) 

basis; the stand structure would be provided for a limited time period, and then 

a new incentive could be offered for anyone to provide the stand structure for 

the next time period. (The person with the original incentive could bid on the 

incentive to continue providing the habitat if he /she so chose.) A private 

landowner may be given a tax deferral of estate taxes on stand while it is in a 

stand structure contract. 

The United States was founded on the basis that the people could be 

trusted if enfranchised, instead of being mistrusted and regulated. The result 

proved that this enfranchisement was well founded. The opposite--regulation 

and central planning because the people could not be trusted--proved unfeasible 

and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Asking private landowners and others to provide the public value of 

stand structures and protection for endangered species will be effective if 

providing the structures is voluntary and the public compensates these 

landowners for the public value. Where the local people are rewarded for 

providing the public values, they will use their creativity to protect and maintain 

all species, rather than using their creativity to avoid the regulations. 

Landowners may be required to pay for some values when they infringe on 

other owners' values. 

Problem 5. High costs of the Endangered Species Act, as now practiced, is 

making it increasingly unfeasible--both in direct costs and in reduction of 

economic productivity. 

Suggested solution to Problem 5. Providing incentives will not be costly if 

done creatively--and will be much less costly than the present regulatory 

approach for several reasons (See Lippke 1995, Lippke and Oliver 1993): 

--Costs would be kept low through the voluntary competitive bid basis, 

where landowners bid competitively to provide the various structures and 

other protection at the lowest possible cost. Thus, free market forces would 

allow the most cost-efficient solution. Where there are too few 

landowners for competitive contracts, experience from the bid values where 

there are enough bidders could be used to offer contracts in the noncompetitive areas. 

By allowing landowners to harvest the stands after the incentive 

contract is completed (and a new place is designated for the "old growth" 

or other desired structure), the cost of the incentives would not be high. 

Much work has been done on this subject already, with the possibility of 

trading "stand structure" rights among landowners (Lippke 1994). 

6 
148 

--Costs would be low since the government would not purchase the land or 

obtain permanent leases; instead, a stand would be leased (on the 

competitive bid) for a certain period of time, after which the landowner is 

allowed to harvest the timber (and the contract is offered for competitive 

bid again). 

--The pro-active management encouraged through incentives would increase 

commerce as opposed to the present regulatory approach which reduces 

such commerce. By allowing landowners to harvest the stands after the 

incentive contract is completed, very large volumes of high quality timber 

would be provided which would increase employment, timber flow, 

secondary manufacture, and high quality timber to substitute for more 

polluting steel, aluminum, brick, and concrete. 

Analysis of incentives for private landowners to provide "old 

growth" spotted owl stand structures in Washington state shows the costs 

to provide the stand structures on a competitive bid basis would be less 

than the increased return to governments in terms of reduced 

unemployment, higher tax base, and greater timber production (Lippke 

1995). 

--The U.S. Congress and Senate (the elected officials) would decide how 

much to spend on incentives; therefore, the costs would be controlled by 

the representative electorate. 

--Special taxes or creative other ways of raising funds could be found for 

providing these incentives. For example, a "carbon sequestration" tax on 

licensing power plants could be used to fund incentives for providing old 

growth stand structures, since the greater volumes and large trees allow 

greater carbon sequestration (where the wood substitutes for steel and 

concrete at time of harvest). 

--Scientists would be employed by landowners to use their research and 

development expertise and creativity to develop increasingly economically 

efficient ways of providing the stand structures and protecting the species. 

--Private conservation groups could provide further incentives 

independently of the government through soliciting of contributions. 

Precedence for this is through the Nature Conservancy and through Ducks 

Unlimited. 

--There will be impetus on all groups to find the most cost-effective solution to 

protecting endangered species: 

--private landowners will seek low-cost solutions so they can be 

rewarded with a contract if they provide the lowest-cost approach; 

--the government (people) will spend less money on incentives if the 

lowest cost solution is used in all cases 

--environmental groups will want to use low-cost solutions so the 

money allocated by the government will save as many species as 

possible 

7 
149 

--scientists will seek the lowest cost solution so they can remain 

employed by the landowners. 

Problem 6. Unelected scientists and judges are put in the decision-making role 

of determining how much money is spent (or public commerce to reduce) to 

protect endangered species, since the protection is presently mandated 

regardless of effective costs or tradeoffs. 

Scientists are not trained as decision-makers; rather, they are trained to 

analyze information and develop knowledge; faced with uncertainty, they are 

trained to defer decisions (to do nothing) until more information is gathered and 

analyzed. Where these people have decision-making roles, they tend to opt for 

the do-nothing (preservation) approach, which is often not the biologically or 

economically best solution. 

Suggested solution to Problem 6. Competitive bid incentives with active 

management changes the role of scientists to one of helping landowners 

develop creative, cost-effective solutions. The decision-making role is returned 

to publicly elected officials who decide how much funding to allocate toward 

incentives each year. 

Also, any private group can offer incentives independently, through the 

free market system. 

With competitive bid incentives, the scientist' role becomes one of 

working with landowner to develop the most creative, cost-effective solutions so 

that landowners will obtain the competitive bid for providing the stand structure 

or protecting the species. 

Problem 7. Conservation groups presently are put in the role of blocking 

government and private landowner activities through the courts. Their 

funding comes from gaining public support to resolve a perceived "crisis" 

through confrontation and from being reimbursed by the government for law 

suits for non compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Suggested solution to Problem 7. A strong role for conservation groups more 

in concert with the government and private landowner efforts would be to: 

--help identify endangered species; 

--lobby for government funding for incentives to create stand structures and 

protect endangered species; 

--fund research to find cost-effective ways for landowners to create stand 

structures and protect endangered species; 

--privately fund incentives themselves (e.g., the Nature Conservancy and 

Ducks Unlimited); 

--recognize that the goals of environmental groups are most effectively reached 

through improving the free market internalization of environmental values, 

rather than through government edicts. 

8 
150 

Problem 8. Because "species" and "specific populations" can be subdivided 

many ways, the U.S. government and public could spend an infinite amount of 

money trying to save all subpopulations. Or, scientists could spend an infinite 

amount of money arguing about what is a subpopulation in need of being saved. 

Species are constantly diversifying and changing; some are naturally 

going extinct while others are dividing into new species. Depending on which 

scientists and criteria are used,. many plant and animal populations could be 

authoritatively subdivided into almost infinite subpopulations. In addition, 

landowners could be liable for populations which may be becoming extinct in 

spite of all efforts. 

Suggested solution to Problem 8. By requiring the public as a whole (through 

the government or conservation group) to pay for the protection of species, 

there will be more incentive to prioritize spending of the limited money on the 

most important populations; and there will be less incentive to split species 

into subpopulations. 

If private individuals and groups (e.g., environmental groups) have 

different priorities for protecting subpopulations, they can raise and spend their 

own money on incentives. 

Problem 9. Some people feel areas need to be left "natural" as part of 

America's natural heritage and to protect species which may not be found 

elsewhere. 

This is primarily a value judgment; however, it is a scientific judgment to 

the extent that some species may be found in these natural areas which are not 

found elsewhere. Even these ''natural areas" are changing (as they always have) 

and it is impossible to assume species living in these areas will have a stable 

environment. 

On the other hand, the question of what is "natural" can be debated, since 

natural migrations and extinctions have always occurred--and are partly 

necessary for developing new species. Also, native Americans altered the 

environment quite dramatically and variably for thousands of years before 

European Americans came here. 

Suggested solution to Problem 9. The many National Parks serve much of the 

role of being maintained in a "natural" condition. If the public desired, even 

more could be created; however, even these, limited "natural" areas are 

presenting two concerns: 

--there are difficulties funding them; 

--it is uncertain how "natural" disturbances should be treated--allowed to run 

their course or prevented. 

Until these issues are resolved, it may not be appropriate to provide more such 

protected areas. 

9 
151 

There may be a special role for National Forests, where they can be 

managed to maintain all stand structures, but with different economic 

considerations than needed for non-federal lands. They can actually provide a 

stable, wide variety of species' stand structures, a large, continuous flow of high 

quality wood and other commodity products, much rural employment, 

aesthetics, recreation, and other non-commodity values using a landscape 

approach. This landscape approach does not imply "business as usual," 

however. I would be willing to elaborate on this approach if requested (Oliver 

1992a&b). 

Problem 10. "Preservation" of "ecosystems" under the Endangered Species 

Act reduces the production of commodities and exports environmental 

problems by requiring these commodities to be obtained from elsewhere in the 

world or from substitutes which are harder on the environment than timberbased commodities. 

"Preserving" large areas of forest in one area means more forests are 

harvested in other parts of world where harvesting is less efficient and there 

are generally fewer environmental safeguards; or, steel, aluminum, concrete, 

or brick are used as substitutes. Where these wood substitutes are used, there is 

a net increase in fossil fuel consumption, which both increases the import of 

fossil fuels and increases the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere (Koch 

1992, Kershaw et al. 1993). 

For example, if steel, aluminum, brick, and concrete were used to make up 

for the 4 billion board foot reduction in timber under President Clinton's forest 

plan to save the spotted owl, the net increase in carbon dioxide to the 

atmosphere would move the United States 7.6% AWAY from President Clinton's 

target reduction of carbon dioxide emissions (Clinton and Gore 1993). Part of the 

harvest reduction will probably be made up for by increased harvesting in other 

areas of the world with fewer environmental safeguards (Perez-Garcia 1993). 

The concept of "preserving" forests to protect species is a relict of the 

outdated "steady state" ecological theory, when it was expected that forests 

undisturbed by humans would revert to an "old growth", "ancient", or 

"climax" condition. This condition was assumed to be the only "natural" one, 

and to be the condition of all forests before European Americans altered this 

condition. It was assumed that all species could live in this forest and that all 

species could be protected if areas were set aside and allowed to remain in or 

regrow to this condition. As large natural disturbances destroyed these small 

"old growth" reserves (showing that the "steady state" concept was not valid), 

increasingly larger areas began being set aside. Presently, about eight million 

acres (plus another 6 million acres of National Parks) are set aside as "reserves" 

to remain in or grow to "old growth" forests to protect the spotted owl under 

President Clinton's Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993). 

As other such large reserves are set aside in the mistaken expectation that 

it will "protect" species, human populations will have to relocate to areas not in 

10 
152 

reserves. Since all areas can not be in such human-excluded reserves, politicians 

will have to make a choice of which areas and species to protect with reserves 

and which areas to concentrate human populations and allow other species to 

become extinct under this "preservation" approach. The net result will 

probably be a greater extinction of species than if a landscape approach was 

used, where humans were not excluded, but instead maintained a variety of 

structures across the landscape--but at a smaller, less destructive scale than 

natural disturbances. 

Suggested solution to Problem 10. Active management across the landscape to 

maintain all stand structures while also obtaining timber and other commodity 

products would allow the protection of species while also providing 

environmentally valuable wood products. 

Aligning the Uniied States laws on carbon sequestration, building 

codes, and research would promote use of high quality, environmentally sound 

wood products to be used in place of more polluting steel, aluminum, concrete, 

brick, etc.--or wood from other places with fewer environmental safeguards. For 

example, managing forests for longer rotations allows more carbon sequestration 

through production and use of more volume and higher quality wood, which is 

better able to be substituted for steel, concrete, etc. This management also 

provides more rural and urban employment and greater economic activity; 

however, it is presently not economically efficient for the landowner without 

incentives. By aligning policies, research and development, and other issues, it 

would become more economically desirable for landowners to grow forests of 

larger trees and longer rotations, which would reduce the costs of individual 

incentives for creating old growth stand structures. 

Increased use of timber as substitutes for more polluting products would 

also maintain the high demand for timber which allows thinnings and other 

activities and so causes a diversity of stand structures to be economically efficient 

and, therefore, cost-effective for the private landowner. 

A SUGGESTED APPROACH 

This section describes a rough outline of a landscape approach to 

protecting endangered species, based on the above-described problems and 

suggested solutions. 

STATED OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Endangered Species Act would be 

simply to maintain the existence of all species of animals and plants. Other 

objectives such as aesthetics or spiritual values are subjective and should not be 

dealt with in the same legislation; however, it is probable that the proposed 

landscape approach would provide many of these values. 

APPROACH: The approach would contain two "tiers": 

11 
153 

First Tier: Maintain minimum amounts of all stand structures across each 

broad landscape area through incentives to non-federal landowners. 

The incentives would be voluntary, on a competitive bid basis to ensure 

the most cost-effective solutions, and limited to providing a structure for a 

specific, limited time period, after which a new incentive could be cffered to 

provide the stand structure for the next time period. (The person with the 

original incentive could bid on the incentive to continue providing the habitat if 

he I she so chose.) 

Consequently, the decision of whether to create or preserve a structure 

would be partly a cost-based decision offered by the individual landowners. 

The decision of which stand structures and the minimum amounts needed 

would be made at the local level to represent all conditions which could exist 

across the landscape; however, a relatively few, robust number of target number 

of stand structures would be identified for each geographic area. 

"Keystone species" could be identified which are dependent on each 

structure; presence of the keystone species would indicate compliance with the 

contract (obtained by competitive bid) to provide the structure. 

The result will be that fewer species will become threatened or 

endangered; once endangered, private landowners are more likely to maintain 

needed stand structures, report sightings, and increase their population sizes. 

Second Tier: If a species does become threatened or endangered (in spite of 

Tier 1), two possible approaches could be used to promote its return: 

A. Private funding could be used to give individual landowners incentives to 

protect the particular species. This approach has been historically effective 

where a group has a specific interest in protecting a specific group of species. 

OR 

B. More federal funding beyond that required to maintain a minimum of all 

structures (first tier) could be used to protect these species; however, this 

funding would still use the competitively-bid incentives basis. 

REFERENCES: 

Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first century. 

Oxford University Press, New York. 241 pp. 

Chase, Alston. 1995. Personal discussions. Dr. Chase is presently authoring a 

book on this subject entitled: In a Dark Wood: the Fight over Forests and the Rising 

Tyranny of Ecology, to be published by Houghton Mifflin in August .... 

12 
154 

Clinton, W.J., and A.Gore, Jr. 1993. The climate change action plan. US 

Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.: 49 pp. 

FEMAT. 1993. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement on management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. Prepared by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 

Team (Volume and Appendix A) USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Franklin, J.F., T. Spies, D.Perry, M.Harmon, and A.McKee. 1986. Modifying 

Douglas-fir management regimes for non timber objectives. IN (C.D.Oliver, 

D.P.Hanley, and J.A.Johnson, editors) Douglas-fir: Stand Management for the 

Future. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No. 55, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA: 373-379. 

Fry, M.E., and N.R. Money. 1994. Biodiversity conservation in the management 

of utility rights-of-way. IN Proceedings of the 15th Annual Forest Vegetation 

Management Conference, January 25-27, 1994, Redding, California: 94-103. 

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildl(fe, forests, and forestry. Regents/ Prentice Hall, 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 370 pp. 

Kershaw, J . .A., Jr., C.D.Oliver, and T.M.Hinckley. 1993. Effect of harvest of old 

growth Douglas-fir stands and subsequent management on carbon dioxide levels 

in the atmosphere. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 1: 61-67. 

Koch, P. 1992. Wood versus nonwood materials in U.S. residential construction: 

some energy-related global implications. Forest Products Journal 42 (5): 31-42. 

Lee, R.G. 1994. Broken trust, broken land: freeing ourselves from the war over the 

environment. Book Partners, Wilsonville, Oregon: 210 pp. 

Lippke, B. 1995. Incentives for managing landscapes to meet non-timber goals: 

Lessons from the Washington Landscape Management Project. Paper presented 

at the Environmental Economics Conference held in Banff, Alberta, Canada. 

October 12-15, 1994. 

Lippke, B., and C.D.Oliver. 1993. Managing for multiple values. journal of 

Forestry 91: 14-18. 

Oliver, C. D. 1981. Forest development in North America following major 

disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management 3: 153-168. 

13 
155 

Oliver, C. D. 1992a. A landscape approach: achieving biodiversity and economic 

productivity. Journal of Forestry 90: 20-25. 

Oliver, C. D. 1992b. Statement before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family 

Farms, and Energy, Committee on Agriculture, United States House of 

Representatives: A hearing to review "High Quality Forestry" and extended 

timber harvest rotations. March 11, 1992. Washington, D.C. 26 pp. 

Oliver, C.D., and B.C.Larson. 1990. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New 

York. 467 pp. 

Perez-Garcia, J.M. 1993. Global forestry impacts of reducing softwood supplies 

from North America. CINTRAFOR Working Paper 43. University of Washington 

College of Forest Resources Center for International Trade in Forest Products: 35 

PP· 

Sprugel, D. G. 1991. Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability: 

What is "natural" vegetation in a changing environment? Biological Conservation 

58: 1-18. 

14 

91-344 - 95 - 6 
Pft>tro Parr(fl 't"'u 

l'•• •••.knl 

jnhn Grt!t!ttdUt! 

;,,_,.; ..... · 

Ph•asr r eply to: 

Offirt"rft hs:Pr~ 

: I I'U n"'" \1•t 

~.! , ·,r.unJ.o 1 ,\ •: u:ji-1 

I ,-I < t i ~I -~,. I, ,.,-

f .l\ I!~ I "1 l<~)- . \' 

156 

I 

~ 

! I' I J Hu- H~ 

\kflJo.: mo. C o\ '.l'i ~l'l( l 

I d • - , ,-) ') ~~- •1 '; 

~.I\ , -n-1 yy:·-26 11 

STATEMENT OF THE 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION 

OF 

FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS 

TO THE 

tfi.F. "z~•~R Grad~r.}r. 

t'_'I\'(:Uh•..: I lor•'< Cu r 

,Vatbattiel S. 8tttgbam 

HJhi[JI () or,.._ I< or 

Gin H. SpaiN 

'•>nl••••·'t Jk~c•m LI or ,:~,,r 

,.,ftciJ Farro 

.... .... ~ h 

:o.loqhwcst Bcg1pnal O flicc 

;10 I'O. Ik" 111·u 

h l).:l'n..:,c;J! •J-., ... , .. ~r·• 

1"..:1 : t "it) ~) 1~') ~IW~l 

I':! X: ; I )()jl 1'\"J -.!o;.~l 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SELECT TASK FORCE 

OF THE 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

Vancouver, W A 

April24, 1995 

My name is Glen Spain. I am the Northwest Regional Director for the Pacific Coast Federation 

of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). We are the largest organization of commercial fishermen on 

the west coast, with member organizations from San Diego to Alaska. We represent thousands of 

working men and women who are part of the Pacific fishing fleet and who are the economic mainstay 

of many coastal communities and cities. PCFF A represents several billion dollars annually in 

economic interests which generate tens of thousands of family wage jobs -- not only in coastal 

communities, but far inland as well. 

STEWARDS OF THE FISHERIES 
157 

The conunercial fishing industry as a whole is a major economic power throughout this country, 

accounting for well over $50 billion in economic impacts and more than 700,000 jobs. When 

combined with another $1 5 billion per year generated by the marine recreational fishery, the whole 

offshore fishing industry now accounts for about $65 billion per year to the V S. economy. 

Our industry is also a highly regulated industry. We are far more regulated by the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), for instance, than the Northwest timber industry. While the timber industry has 

recently suffered through curtailments caused by one or two ESA listings, the fishing industry has 

long been dealing with the impacts of listings for chinook salmon in both the Columbia and 

Sacramento Rivers, sockeye salmon in the Columbia, and various marine mammals protected under 

both the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). We are also facing the imminent 

prospect of coastwide listings for coho salmon, chinook salmon and every other anadromous 

salmonid on the west coast. The effects of these upcoming listings will potentially be far more 

restrictive than any past restrictions caused by spotted owls or murrelets. 

There is, in fact no industry more regulated under the ESA pn!Sently, nor more likely to be 

regulated in the future, than the commercial fishing industry. And yet (in spite of short-term 

dislocations) we view the protections offered by the ESA as vitally important in protecting and 

preserving our industry, our jobs and our way of life for the long turn. 

The ESA dispute is not really a clash between owls vs. jobs, nor between public values vs. private 

property rights -fundamentally, the ESA dispute is a clash between short-term profiteering vs. longterm and sustainable economic development. · The ESA merely establishes limits beyond which 

voracious human consumption should not go, and that limit is "biological sustainability." It is also, 

ultimately, the limit of economic sustainability as well. 

Make no mjstake •• the fundamental source of all economic wealth js our natural environment 

The biological wealth of this country is its "natural capital." Like any economic capital, we can 

invest it wisely or we can allow it to dissipate and waste. Pushing species to the brink of extinction --

and beyond -- not only wastes future economic opportunities but helps destroy those industries we 

already have, such as the Pacific salmon industry. The ESA is the law of final resort that prevents 

us as a s~iety from negligently wasting our irreplacable "natural capital" -- and the jobs that this 

"natural capital" represents, both now and for our economy's future. 

The plight of the Pacific Coast salmon is a good case in point. Salmon, once the mainstay of 

both the commercial and recreational fishing industry in this region, have been reduced by short2 
158 

sighted human actions to a mere shadow of their former glory, largely as a result of a multitude of 

on-shore causes The destruction of salmon spawning and rearing habitat has been ongoing and 

pervasive in this region for many decades. Fewer and fewer salmon survive the silting up of their 

spawning grounds by inappropriate logging, grazing and road building practices. Fewer still survive 

the nightmare ride through high speed turbines in the 8 federal Columbia River hydropower dams, 

each dam's turbines killing up to 20% of the outrnigrant fish making their long journey to the sea.' 

The relatively few which remain aliv1: are then subject to natural conditions which combined wjth all 

the upstream human-caused assaults can be the final blow on an already highly stressed salmon 

ecosystem. 

Salmon are the most sensitive to their environment in the egg stage and as juveniles when they are 

still in freshwater streams just after spawning. Some species (such as coho salmon) spend a fairly 

long time in freshwater streams since they must "overwinter" there before going out to sea. Even 

once they leave these freshwater streams, salmon must still spend additional time in coastal wetland 

estuaries and marshes in order to gradually adapt to life in salt water. They are "anadromous" fish, 

which means they are hatched in freshwater, then adapt to salt water, then return again to freshwater 

to spawn. In the ocean they are relatively large and relatively safe, but in inland streams they are 

subjected to every environmental problem created by mankind, in addition to natural predation and 

other natural impacts. Salmon evolved for drought, for El Ninos, to avoid predators -- but have not 

evolved to prevent themselves from being sucked into irrigation pumps, or from being destroyed by 

hydropower turbines or in unscreened irrigation ditches. They also have not evolved to survive water 

pollution, oil spills and the many other unfortunate environmental problems created by modem 

civilization. 

According to a 1991 comprehensive scientific study by the prestigous American Fisheries Society, 

at least I 06 rmijor populations of sa]mnn and stee(bead on the West Coast are already extinct Other 

studies place the number at over 200 separate stock extinctions in the Columbia River Basin alone 

The AFS report also identified 214 additional native naturally-spawning salmonid runs at risk of 

extinction in the Northwest and Northern California: 10 I at high risk of extinction, 58 at moderate 

1

Both the ~acts &om upper wM.enhed aaivt.lcs (logging. grn:ing. road buildin& etc.) and the ~acts &om the ~'OfXM'CI" twbinc:t ~ 

largel · \lany ofthCK prad.ices .ue obsolct¢ and unneceuary. md proftU W.lhc:sc indu5tries ""ill not greal.ly su.Jfer from cwUiling or 

mitipting these probi1."111S. The eXl.l!mahl.Cd damage caused by these pr~octioc:s is. in many~ mort of a hann lo socidyth111 any oonon\·able 

cfru from the practice itself .-\.san indu.Sty Olll'5dvc:s. hO"o'·.,·er. we uc Vel)" S~lJ1)alhdi o the cutT'l:nt pli@ttt of timber works (m&I\Y ofv•hom are 

also fishCITnal)- hO"' cr. il is dear that shorHif!lrted. louin& grazing and hydrop<Mo·erpn<.ticcs conducted wjtb0!4 •Y rgardto ;;tream protestjon 

has beG1 disastrous for ouc industry and many oouul comrnuni'tic:s. The fishing industry is ftda'ally regulated on the bl.$is of biological sustutablli\o· 

~UWlusoo Act). It is time that these ~cr industries .,~o.:re a.s wdl. The CUlTCirt dislocnioos in these mdwtries are fundamcrJUIIy caused~ past 

WU'cstrh.tcd ~r ~ ofth6r resource "'bich n0\4· hav~ to be balanced out. The timber industry. for instance. is net up a&&inst the spott«< owl- it is up 

against the Pacific Ocean 

3 
159 

risk of extinction, and another 54 of special concern, plus I run already ESA listed. 

2 GIS mapping 

of present versus historical habitat, based on the AFS data and updates, indicates the following 

distributions across the landscape: 

Species 

Coho 

SprinwSummer 

Chinook 

Fall Chinook 

Chum salmon 

Sockeye 

Pink salmon 

Sea-run 

Cutthroat 

Winter 

Steelhead 

Summer 

Steel head 

Status of Salmon Species in the Pacific Northwest & California 

Status Distribution as a Percentage of Historic Habitat 

Extinct Endangered Threatened Special Not Know to 

Concern be Declining 

55% 13% 20% 5% 7% 

63% 8% 16% 7% 6% 

19% 18% 7% 36% 20% 

37% 16% 14% II% 22% 

59% 7% 3% 16% 15% 

21% 5% <I% <I% 73% 

6% 4% 61% 29% Oo/o 

29% 22% 7% 18% 24% 

45% 5% 5% 27% 18% 

According to this extensive study, 9 out of 10 known species of Pacific Northwest salmon are 

extinct in 38% oftheir historic range, between 50-100% ofthe species are at risk or extinct in 

56% of their historic range, and less than 5()% of the salmon specia arc at risk or ntioct in 

oply 6°/e of their historic habitaL J 

' ~ ~dl.lsen. et. al.. 1991 . ~p3cifk Sabnon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California. Oregon. Idaho, andCalifomia." Fishenes 

16 2(4-21). 

3 From GIS survey maps pr~ared scicnti!ls on contrad to The Wilderness Society . .wad published m. The Wildemeu Soact:-•s rq>Ort 

The li,·ing Landscape:: Pacific Salmen and Fed«al L.tnds (\"olumc l ). Publillwd by the BolLe Cmlc.'f f01 Forelt Ews}"5tcm \ lanaganent ((}(tober 

1991). The tc!pO't and dlta were p«r nMcwecl. The only ex~on to !.his ast.a._g declfie aw-n to be pN. salmoo ofl~ di.s&ribulion onl~· i:n 

, the Pu&d- Sound area when babital declina have heal leu. 

4 
160 

For salmon fishermen these declines are an unmitigated economic disaster. What these 

extinctions and declines represent to salmon fishermen and coastal communities is lost income, lost 

jobs, less tax revenue to support vital community services in coastal areas, and massive long-term 

unemployment throughout a whole segment of the economy. Yet depleted as it already was by then, 

as late as 1988 (the last good fishing seasons) the Northwest salmon industry (including both 

commercial and recreational) supported an estimated 62,750 family wage jobs in the Northwest and 

generated $125 billion in economic personal income impacts. ' Had society taken better care of its 

"natural salmon capital" upstream, the economic potential to be realized would have been much 

greater. 

With one major exception off central California, and a few ~ minor mostly sportfishing 

exceptions in Washington and Oregon, the entire ocean going salmon fleet was closed down in 1994 

because of these declines, particularly of coho. We estimate that coastwide we have now lost 90-;. 

of our income from the commercial fishery from 1976-1993 averages -- which translates to loss 

of90% of the jobs created by the commercial salmon industry as a whole. The recreational salmon 

fishing industry has also suffered a similar decline of 70% in that same time period, with some areas 

(such as central Oregon) also suffering complete closures. While there is some mismatch of figures 

(due to different averaged years) these two figures combined will give us a pretty good estimate of 

total salmon industry job losses since 1988. Doing the calculation we get job losses as follows: 

15,250 x 90% = 13,725 jobs lost since 1988 in the commercial salmon fishery 

47,500 x 70% = 33,250 jobs lost since 1988 in the recreational salmon fishery 

46,975 jobs lost overall since 1988 

" Figures takm from The Economrc lm/)f!ranveofPrOiecnng Rtverrne Habuot"' the Pactfic Vorrh·tw(Rt:pOn 5. January 1992) 

published b;.· lho: P.1.~'i.lic R.i..-ers Coun ... "il. based on official federal statistics &om the Pacific Fishery \ lan.agemcnt Council. Tho: fishd'Y rdatOO job 

breakdQ"n bv state. ao:::ordinll to that rmort.. was as fo iiO"'·s· 

State Commercial Recreational Toul 

Oregoo 4.450 9.500 13.950 

Washington 6.800 14 2~0 21.050 

~.Cah i>m1a 4.000 !9.000 23.000 

ld.>ho egl igjble 4.750 4.750 

Pa'-.'it ~ ~orthwot l5.2l0 47.500 62.7l0 

T«al 

Commerctal fishery JObs are heanly conccntnted m coastal areas. Recreat1una\ fish~ jobs ..... -tul~ a larger number. u e more di verse .md arl! 

distributed more di.tfuscly throughout inland communities 

5 
161 

Since these figures are estimates and cannot be precise, it is safe to say that roughly 50,000 jobs have 

been lost in the salmon fishing industry (including both commercial and recreational) throughout the 

region as a result of the closures since 1988. Even the 1988 job figures were lower than in some 

previous years. There has also been a clear overall declining trend year after year as the number of 

juvenile salmon produced by the Northwest's streams and rivers has continued to decline. 

When seasons remained close, the enormous economic investment already put into the Pacific 

fishing fleet goes to waste. Just in the Columbia River gil/net fleet alone we have an estimated $110 

- S 129 mtllion dollars m capital assets (see attachment). This figure does not even include buyer 

and processor invesment Also, this figure is what remains after ~ of escalating closures due 

to unprecedented declines in the Columbia, which in turn are unmistakably linked to hydropower dam 

construction which never took downstream migration into account Some dams (such as Grand 

Coulee Dam) haye neyer had fish passa11e at all-- all salmon stocks above Grand Coulee are in fact 

extinct 

Again these are extinctions represent lost jobs, lost family income and lost local tax revenues 

suffered by fishing communities as a result of poor enyjronmeptalprotectjop of Northwest 

Wm!m. These losses are being suffered by real people, many of them third or fourth 

generation fishermen, who suddenly find they cannot feed their families, pay their mortgages 

or help maintain their communities. Better protection of salmon and their habitat (through 

the ESA and other strong environmental laws) will help restore these 50,000 jobs to the region. 

Hydropower and irrigation dams are probably the major leading factor in the collapse of the 

salmon fishery on this coast. In the Columbia River the 8 hydropower dams account for at least 90% 

of all human-induced salmon mortality, as opposed to only about 5% for all commercial, recreational 

and tribal fisheries combined. Official figures from the Northwest Power Planning Council indicate 

that the Columbia River dams kill the equivalent of between 5 million and II million adult salmon 

every year.' In the Columbia River alone, salmon declines now cost the economy as estimated $600 

million/annually, or the equivalent of between 20,000 to 30,000 family wage jobs6 

Another problem is wetland losses throughout the state. California has already lost 91% of its 

5 ~orthwest Pow~ Planning Council publication Strategy for Salmon. \'ol 2. page 17 

6 From a rq>ort titled The Costs o.fDomg .\'othmg: Externah=edCosts to the .\"orthwest Fishmg Economy of the C14rrenr Operattons of 

the Co/umbw R1ver Hydropower System Institute for Fisheries Resources (2, 10 9S) draft report (unpublished). 

6 
162 

original wetlands, Oregon has lost 38'1') and Washington has lost another 31%.

7 These wetlands are 

vital in protecting overwintering salmon, helping them survive droughts and (for "altwater wetlands) 

helping them adapt to ocean conditions. A main factor in the destruction of the coastal salmon stocks 

in the Nonhwest has been the rampant destruction of the areas ~etlands 

WHY FISHERMEN NEED THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Most fish species spend only pan of their lives in mid-ocean. During their juvenile stage, most 

live and thrive in the nearshore environment of streams, rivers and estuaries. Some, like salmon, 

reproduce and grow fur inland in fresh water streams hundreds of miles from the ocean. All around 

the country, our industry is utterly dependent on species which themselves require healthy watersheds 

and esruaries for the most critical pans of their life cycle Nearshore waters, including rivers, streams 

and coastal wetlands, are essential nursery areas for about 75% of the entire US commercial fish and 

shellfish landings. These sensitive ecosystems are valuable national assets which contribute about $46 

billion per year to the US economy as well as its healthiest food source. Salmon are only one pan 

of this whole economic picture, and only one of many commercially harvested species which need 

protection. 

All the nation's $65 billion commercial and span fisheries have been put at risk as a result of the 

continuing destruction of fish habitat in the nation's rivers, estuaries and coastal ecosystems. This 

destruction has led to billions of dollars in lost revenue to the nation, lost employment, lost food 

production, and lost recreational opportunities. The collapse of the salmon fishery is only a small pan 

of this overall habitat disaster. The Congress and the Administration need to make a serious 

commitment to the protection of those habitats and ecosystems that determine the future productivity 

of fish and shellfish resources in the U S. If this commitment is made, at least a doubling of 

anadromous fish and other near shore dependent marine fish and shellfish populations of the "lower 

48" states can be expected. This could produce an additional $27 billion in annual economic output 

(above and beyond the current level of $65 billion) and more than 450,000 new jobs. ' 

Environmental regulations exist because policy makers finally realized that a healthy environment 

1 Fa<.1S ,.,., w.;:tland ~ ~ state from a rq>Ort by !.he l 'S Dept. ollntaior 121tiHe:d ll".trlartd !.mH!J m the L"mted Stores f-,i(.•'s to !980 'J 

by ·rnomas O:lhl. C.1lifomuo has lust .1 higtlt"r p..-r o;."d"'t.a g~ of its w<.1l:mds than :an ~ olher st.at<'. u· only ..:oasul or ..-stuarlne " <1\.mds is indud.ai in th..-se 

ligwes . .:lch !otat,..'s \lt.:tlands lossc::s QU id~ much great-a. 

3

Figures !Tom ,\[unru! fishtt')· flabrtat Prortt:tlon - .-1 Reporr tO tht' lSConf[ri!!t '"'"'the St'creto.ry oj"( "ornmerce ( \ larch I . 1994) . 

.. :opubhshed b~ the lnstnuh~ ftX fishc:oo;5 Rcsoun .. -es. E.ut (.'.)3Sl sh~~ FoundatuJn and PCFF ..\... '>'ith <==XltnSI'-·e ~o:1tati . Cop~ .a v;u\.abk tr·om 

PCFF A upon rqu.:st. 

7 
163 

is the ultimate source of the nation's economic wealth, its food and the well-being of its citizens. The 

crown jewel of all environmental protection is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In spite of the 

problems the ESA has created for individual fishermen, it is also the last hope for the restoration of 

whole species (such as salmon) in many areas. Without a strong ESA, the only available remedy for 

species recovery is closing down the fishery, even though the real problems lie elsewhere. 

This is exactly what has happened to the salmon industry to date -- as onshore habitat declined, 

as fewer and fewer fish survived to even reach the ocean, it has been the fishermen who have been 

cut back over and over again, and who have almost singlehandedly paid the price of inland 

environmental destruction on a massive scale. This is because under the Magnuson Act fishery 

managers can only manage fishermen -- they have no legal jurisdiction whatsoever over actions 

onshore which destroy the biological foundations of the fishery itself 

Whole watmheds can be destroyed, salmon runs can be battered to extinction, rivers poUuted to 

the point of actually catching fire, and NMFS or USFWS can do nothing about it --lllllil their ESA 

authority has been triggered by a listing. The ESA -- flawed as it is -- is thus the key to watershed 

restoration and salmon protection throughout the region. It is also the principal tool for changing 

onshore practices which destroy fisheries and destroy fishermen's livelihoods. 

Without a strong ESA, there will never be salmon recovery in the Northwest, and the 

apppromoately 85,000 jobs which the salmon rrsource could potentialy generate in this region 

would be gone forever. Salmon mean business, and it pays to protect them. Without the ESA 

to drive recovery, however, you can kiss the entire Northwest salmon industry- and many 

other components of the nation's fishing industry as a whole -goodbye! 

The fishing industry represents a major economic force which is dependent upon a healthy 

environment The ESA is not the enemy, it is only the messenger. Listing a species is like dialing the 

911 number when you need an ambulance. It should be used rarely, but when it is needed it is real 

handy to have an emergency number to call. Often it is the difference between life and death. 

PUNCTURING SOME MYTHS ABOUT THE ESA 

There has been a great deal of myth and hysteria about the Endangered Species Act, very little of 

which is based on the facts. Some effort needs to be made to bring some rational light to the 

discussion, as I wiU attempt below:· 

8 
164 

Problems with speciH are caused by dttlinH, not listings 

Species only qualify for listing under the ESA because they are seriously declining. They get 

listed because they face extinction. This point seems to have been missed by many who are calling 

for the elimination or curtailment of ESA protections. The best way to prevent listings, then, is to 

prevent the species' decline in the first place. 

Sadly, only the ESA seems to have the legal teeth to do this. By the time a species has declined 

to the verge of extinction (thereby qualifying for listing), options are few and costs of emergency 

recovery plans are great. It should be no surprise that the job of species recovery at that late date is 

difficult and causes dislocations. 

The ESA is a warning beU that an ecosystem is unraveling. Shooting the messenger is not a 

productive strategy, nor is denial. We should pay attention to the message and respond to it. This 

means a more proactive rather than reactive approach is necessary. 

This is not an "environment vs. jobs" issue- tbe ESA does 

not cause substantial ttonomic disruption and can in fact belp protttt jobs 

There is absolutely no evidence that the ESA seriously impacts state or regional economies, and 

every reason to think that it does not. For instance, a recent study by the MIT Project on 

Environmental Politics and Policy, which looked at the statistical relationship between the number 

of species listed in each state as compared to that state's economic performance (over the period of 

1975-1990) concluded: 

"The data clearly shows that the Endangered Species Act has had no measureable economic 

impact on state economic performance. Controlling for differences in state area, and 

extractive industry dependence the study finds that states with the highest numbers of listed 

species also enjoyed the highest economic growth rates and the largest increases in economic 

growth rates... The one and a half decades of state data examined in this paper strongly 

contradict the assertion that the Endangered Species Act has had harmful effects on state 

economies. Protections offered to threatened animals and plants do not impose a measurable 

economic burden on development activity at the state level. In fact the evidence points to the 

converse .. . 

The author of that study also noted that actual ESA listings are themselves only affecting a very small 

number of development projects undertaken and that, in economic context, these impacts are very 

small indeed in comparison to other much more major factors: 

9 
165 

"In fact, for every tale about a project, business, or property owner allegedly harmed by the 

efforts to protect some plant or animal species there are over one thousand stories of virtual 

'non-interference.' In reviewing the record of 18,211 endangered species consultations by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries covering the period 1987-1991 the 

General Accounting Office found that only II% (2050) resulted in the issuance of formal 

biological opinions The other 89% were handled informally -- that is to say the projects 

proceeded on schedule and without interference. Of the 2050 formal opinions issued a mere 

181 - less than I 0% -- concluded that the proposed projects were likely to pose a threat to 

an endangered plant or animal. And most of these 181 projects were completed, albeit with 

some modification in design or construction. In short, more than 99% of the projects 

reviewed under the Endangered Species Act eventually proceeded unhindered or with 

marginal additional time and economic costs. Given the political and economic screening that 

occurs in listings cases it is not surprising that no measurable negative economic effects are 

detectable .. . 

Furthermore local economic effects must be considered in context. Hundreds of state and 

federal policies have far more injurious impacts on local economies than wildlife protection. 

For example, the recent series of military base closings have had economic effects hundreds 

of times greater than all the listings during the 20-year life of the Endangered Species Act. 

Even greater economic and social harm resulted from the ill-conceived deregulation of the 

savings and loan industry during the 1980's. The number of jobs lost to leveraged buy-outs 

in the 1980's exceeds by many times the wildest estimates of jobs lost to endangered species; 

and no soCial good was accomplished in any of these cases." 9 

In the case of the fishing industry, as well as many other environment-dependent industries, 

judicious application of the ESA to protect the biological resources we depend upon can add a 

substantial number of jobs to the regional economy. At least 50,000 additional salmon-generated 

family wage jobs can be restored to the Pacific Northwest by taking steps under the ESA to restore 

and recover the great salmon runs which once made this region the envy of the world. Without the 

ESA to drive recovery, however, this economic revitalization would never happen. 

PROBLEMS WITH THE ESA AND THEIR SOLUTIONS 

The Endangered Species Act is not a perfect law. It needs improvement in a number of ways, 

such as the following: 

9 Stepha~ ~1. ~toyer (\lan:h 199~). EfJdangered S~ctes Lunngs and Srclle Economtc Performance. \lassadtusdts Irutiluu of 

T«hnolog,v. Project on En\-ironms1UII Politics and l'ol.icy. Fads m a<1im• cited &-om l"S G.:neral .Accol.lntin& Office ( 1992) Endangered Spectes 

Act: Ty~Hs and .Vumbflr.s of /mplemennng A.ctJoru (Gr\0/RECD-91·13 1 BR). 

10 
166 

( l) The ESA should promote species recovery, not mere maintenance on indefinte life support 

-- The principal flaw of the ESA is that it establishes a goal far short of actual recovery of species. 

The stated goal of the ESA is to prevent extinction and to establish plans for the "conservation and 

survival" of listed species. This minimal level of conservation does not result, in many cases, in 

ultimate population recovery. More and more species are thus pushed toward, but just short of, the 

line of extinction. Each depleted species makes its ecosystem that much more fragile, leading to mon~ 

problems later. The goal should be to fully recover a species to the point where it can be permanently 

delisted illll1 sustain abundant and widely distributed populations. 

For instance, under current recovery plan goals the ESA does not promote a harvestable 

population, only potential "museum runs" which become an indefinite drain on resources. Since these 

runs are not harvestable they provide no offsetting economic benefits, yet become a limiting factor 

under "weak stock management" for other, perhaps abundant, fisheries. 

(2) There should be recovery plan deadlines -- Recovery plans do not exist for most listed 

species, even years later. Recovery plans should be mandatory and be required to be published within 

18 months. 

(3) Protectiot1 should be aimed at endangered ecosystems, not just indivitblal species, so that 

the need for future listings can be prevented- A species by species approach does not generally 

work. Whole ecosystems need to be identified and protected so that those species which are part of 

those ecosystems do not begin the slide taward extinction to begin with. The ESA needs to become 

an endangered ecosystem act as well. Protection should be wholesale, not retail, in order to be cost 

effective. 

(4) Funding for scientific surveys and recovery efforts should be greatly improved- The total 

funding for all ESA research and protection amounts to less than 50 cents per US citizen per year 

Given the level of problems the ESA needs to address, and given the potential economic return on 

this investment, the current levels of funding for species identification and recovery borders on the 

ridiculous. 50 cents per year is too little to invest in our biological future. 

(5) Land acquisition budgets should be substantially improved- There are instances in which 

protection measures needed will conflict with private property rights, although these instances are in 

fact far more rare than most believe. In instances in which there is such an irreconcilable conflict, 

funds need to be made available for purchase of conservation easements and fee title. 

tl 
167 

(6) Landotmer incentives slr011ld be increased- Landowners may be more than willing to help 

protect listed species on their lands if by doing so they can themselves benefit. Landowner incentives 

are not as well developed in current ESA programs as they need to be. 

(7) Tire whole process of listing, comment, recovery pl1111 development 1111d thlisting needs to 

be streamlined and made nwre ejJicient -- There is clearly room for improvement in all these areas, 

including a more open and less bureaucratic process for the development of recovery plans, peer 

reviewing of the science upon which decisions are made, etc. 

In general we support the changes proposed in the last session of Congress in the Studds-Dingell Bill 

(HR. 2043) and on the Senate side the Baucus-Chafee Bill (S 921). These bills were widely supponed 

by landowners, conservation groups, the fishing industry and many others, and should be the model 

for any reforms which come out of this Task Force. Thank you for your time. 

12 
168 

Economic profile 

Columbia River non-tribal commercial fisheries 

selected Information from Economi, Studies 

produced by Or. Hans Radtke 

1992 and 1994 

ASSET VALUE 

$110-$129 million Asset value of the fleet (fishing family vessels, gear, trailers, 

sheds. docks, etc.) t>Slimated 1994- does not Include buyers 

or processor investment 

$23 million 

1,150 jobs 

2,000 jobs 

7,668,000 lbs. 

$32 million 

9,987,000 lbs. 

1,600 jobs 

AYEKAGES FROM 1938-2~ 

Annual average personal income generated (1938-1993) in 

1993 dollars and prices 

Annual average FI'E jobs (based on $20,000/job) 

Estimated average number of people employed 

(This number not included in Radtke report, but 

gathered by Eaton from other reports and data) 

Annual average pounds landed (1938-93, all species) 

RECENT HIGHS 

Recent high in 1988 (in 1988 dollars, all species) 

Recent high in 1988 (all species) 

Recent high in 1988 based $20,000/FTE job 

sources: "Some Estimates of the Asset Value of the Columbia River Gillnet Fisher): 

Based on Present Value Calculations and Gillnetter's Perceptions",- Dr. Hans 

Radtke, August 1994 

"Economic Contributjons of the Commercial and Recreational Salmon 

Fishery on the Lower Colwnbia River (Oregon [urisdiction) A Short Review" - Dr. 

Hans Radtke, October 1992 

For more information contact Bob Eaton, (503) 325-3831 
169 

Salmon & Steetlleaa . "' 

· Mean 

Business! 
AGENCY SERVICES GROUP 

A LURE FLY CO 

. .DU-GAR CIA 

ACMI TACKLE 

ACTIVE MARKETING 

AL'S LANDING 

ALASKA F&G SPORT FISH DIV. 

170 

.VOHT//It1:S 1" SPORTF/S/1/.W; /SDL 'STRJ :tSSUC.:I.-IT/U.\' 

(Part tal hst!Jlg as of 1- 1-95 , 

GAMAKA TSU USA 

GAMBLER BOATS WEST 

GUN.UAMA WHOLESALE 

H & H OUTDOOR 

HANSEN'S FURSlTURE CO. 

HEIDI'S 1M 

HILDEBRANDT CORP 

Pt.: GET SOUND ANGLERS 

PSA.., WHIDBE\' ISL 

REEL f\.'l:WS, THE 

RICHLAND ROD & GUN 

RITCHIES C~STOM TACKLE 

RIVERS WEST GUIDE SERVJt.'E 

HO.'I'S CUSTOM J' ISHINC RODS 

ALASKA PREMIER BAJT HOLIDAY MARKET s & s GUIDES 

ALL-SPORTS SUPPLY, INC. · HOLTHE WALLS ASSOCIATES SAI.TCH!:CKER 9 iAIHQlS 

ANCHOR RITE HOOKER INVESTMENTS SAMS RV PA)IK/FALLS U \' 

ANDI MONOFJUMENT HUNGRY WHALE SCOTT """ wiiRJGGE.~/ / 

ANGLERS GUIDE SERVICE ILWACO CHARTER BOAT ASSN SE ORT CHARTERSASSN OF NW STEELHIADERS J & K OUTFITTERS VTEW CHEVROLET I AUBURN SPORTS & MARINE JERRY'S SURPLUS SECOMA TACKLEIROO&IjtEL 

B & E SALES COMPANY INC JOHN 8 . MERIFIELD, INC / SHADOW BAIT CO / 

BASS MENU JOHN'S SPORTING GOODS SHELDONS', INC. 

BAILEY, DUSKIN & DUFFLE JON 8. CASH LID / . SIBERIAN SALMON ~CG {.'0 

BATES & ASSOCIATES K T 1\~1:( SILVER HORDE FISHING SUPPLIES 

BETTY KAY CHARTERS KE~· Y' S OFFICE PRODUCJ'S SMOKER-CRA~ INC. 

Bl MART KIN FISHER E:NTERPRISES SNAPPER TAC~ CO. 

BROWN'S LANDING KL N HONDA SPECLALTY ADVENTURES 

BUFFALO BILL'S LH. Fli.E:NCH CO SPORTS StlWI(!§; INc 

CAMBO'S OUTDOORSMAN ~GLAS INC STORMMANUF ACTUR!l"G 

CASNE ENGINEERING INC LFfSlJRE SALES. INC. SU~ SHOPPING CENTER 

CATCHER CO L~WIS RIVER SPORTS ~SE GUIDE SERVICE 

CC ANDERSON GUIDE SERVIC E ~IJ<o Y A ASSOCIATES SWAIN' S GENERAL STORE, INC. 

' ENTRAL WA FISH ADVISORY COM~l LN ASSOCIATES ALL TAILS GUIDE SERVICE 

CHENEY SPORTS CKY ONE EO'S SPORT CENTER 

COAST TO COAST-LYNDE"' JENSEN A SONS EENY NYMPH CO. 

COGHLAN'S LTD MACK' S WRE MFG CO EN MILLION SALMON 

COMPLEAT ANGLER MASCIIMEDT&ASSOCIATES bu. TACKLE 

COVE PARK GROCERY &TACKLE yr MAX MORTON COMPANY '--------.__._TilE TOM POSEY CO. 

CRAN-MAR TROUT FARM NARROWS MARINA THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES 

CRA.NI: PRAlR.l..E RESORT NESTUCCA V SPTG GOODS TILLAMOOK GUIDES ASSOClATIO!'i 

CURRIER & ASSOCIATES __/ NEWPORT MARif<A STORE TIM BAILEY & ASSOCIATE.S 

0 & 0 OJSTRIBUT - ·· NEWPORT T"RA9EW1NDS TlMSEN CO II"C 

~ORlBWESTJ'ACKLE SUPPLY CO T.M.L 

I NlfR"T"JfW'rSTl:YE CLINlC UMPQUA RIVER G UIDE-T.JARMAIN 

NORTIIWEST OUTFITTERS SUPPLY VMC, INC. 

DIANA sMJ' O' LOUGHLIN TRADE SHOWS WASHINGTON tu·LAKERS 

DONALD P. HA y lNC I OLSON'S RESORT WESTPORT CHARTERS, INC. 

DORANS GUIDE S£ CE OUSt EY SPORT SHOP/SHAMROCK WESTERN SPORTS & LEISlJRI 

DlfFFLE BAG, TilE OUTDOOR FLYFISHING STORE WESTERN STATES ASSOClATES 

EMBARCADERO DOCK \. // OWE~ BROWN &ASSOCIATES WILDCAT STEEUIEAD CLUB 

ENGLUND MARINE SUPPLY, PAC[f"lC SALMON CHARTERS WILLIE BOATS, INC 

FARW!ST SPORTS ' PEAK SALES & MARKETING Wll.SON MARINE SERVICE 

FISHERMAN'S MARINE SUPPLYV PENN FISHING TACKLE MFG WINCHESTER BAY MARKET 

FISlllNG WITH STAN PERKINS VARIETY APPLES WRJGHT & MCGILL CO 

FLYING PENCIL PUBUC.\ TIONS PHll.'S SPORTING GOODS XTRACTOR ENTERPRISES 

FOLBR PRODUCTS PORT GARDNP.R SPORTS SERVICE YAKIMA BAIT CO. 

'RANK AMATO PUBLICATIONS POUlSBO SPORTING CENTER Y AMAGUCffi DISTRIBUTING 

FRED MEYER INC POU!SE~ CASCADE ZAK TACKLE MFG CO 

G I JOE'S INC PRICED LESS ZEBCO CORPORATION 

G. LOOMIS, IN(' PRO SPORT DISTRIBUTING lOG'S BAIT HOUSE 

NSIA has been awarded an En\uonmenta.l Qualtty Grant from Amencan Sportfishmg Association 
ORTHWEST 

PORT FISHING 

DUSTRY ASSOCIATION BOX 4, OR EGOS CITY, OR 9704.) 

CHAIRMAN 

Phil Jensen 

PRESIDENT 

John Martinis 

John's Sporting Goods 

VICE PRESIDENT To m Posey 

Tom Posey Co. 

TREASURER 

Mark Masterson 

Worden 's!Yakima Bait Co. 

DIRECTORS 

Wall Hummel 

Lewis River Sports 

Rich Kato 

Farwest!Sports Services 

Tom Harger 

John B. Merifield CO. 

Dan Grogan 

Fisherman 's Marine 

Buzz Ramsey 

Luhr Jensen & Sons 

B.G. Eilertson 

G. f. Joe's, Inc. 

EXEC. DIRECTOR Liz Hamilton 

ADVISORY BOARD BoiiOloughlon 

Bob Brodhun 

Bob Holzman 

Bob Maschmedt 

Bab McK•bbon 

Chns Russell 

Doane Sog el 

DICk Posey 

Doug Smoker 

Frank Amato 

Gary Shaw 

George Endress 

Geri'Y Bla;r 

Jell Morton 

J omOoehl 

J•m Teeny 

John Schnasa 

Jon Englund 

Kev1n Moms 

Kenlaro Hara 

Larry Oennos 

Layne McGowan 

Lo ~e Schmidt 

MadetynneD•nnessSneehan 

M•ke Chamberhn 

e french 

Mri!Gudgell 

PauiGoH 

Ray McPherson 

Allonda Hamstreet 

Robert Beatty 

Roy Whitney 

Ron Stirtz 

Stev&Oaniei&On 

Stuar1Maier 

Vernon McPherson 

171 

Statement 

of 

Liz Hamilton 

Executive Director 

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 

before the 

Endangered Species Act Task Force 

Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman 

Committee on Resources 

US House of Representatives 

at a regional hearing on 

Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act 

Vancouver, Washington 

April 24, 1995 

Good morning, Rep. Smith and members of the task force, and thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify before the Endangered 

Species Act Task Force today. For the record, my name is Liz 

Hamilton, and I serve as Executive Director for the Northwest 

Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA). With our headquarters in 

Oregon City, Oregon, NSIA represents several hundred businesses --

some large, and mainly small -- in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho that 

derive substantial or all their income from sportfishing in our region. In 

addition, we serve as an umbrella organization for several sportfishing 

and trade organizations. The Sportfishing Industry generates nearly 

$3 billion dollars to the overall health of the economies of the States of 

Oregon and Washington combined. 

NSIA businesses have a vital interest in the recovery and restoration of 

Pacific Northwest salmon runs that we are dependent upon and 

dedicated to. For us, SALMON MEAN BUSINESS -- ours. Therefore, 

the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association supports an 

Endangered Species Act which protects and conserves this precious 

regional resource. 

Salmon are vital for the Northwest 

What the bald eagle is to the nation, the salmon is to the Pacific 

Northwest. When the bald eagle became endangered, we as a nation, 

I For more information call (503) 631·8859 or FAX (503) 631-3887 I 
172 

did not decide: "We don't need to save the bald eagle in the lower 48 states, we have 

plenty of them in Alaska.' Nonetheless, certain members of Congress have stated this 

position on salmon in our region. This is unthinkable!! Such a position contradicts 

numerous public opinion polls. 

Salmon swim at the very heart of our region's culture, our environment, and our 

economy. A<;:cording to one study, even in its currently depressed situation, salmon 

fishing -- commercial, sport, and Tribal still pumps $1 billion into the Northwest 

economy annually, and maintains 60,000 jobs directly. 

As recently as 1991, recreational Salmon/Steelhead fisheries provided the Northwest 

Region with the following measurable benefits: 

• 43,342 Jobs throughout the region 

• $1 .2 billion in total economic output 

• $16,187,000 in State Sales Taxes 

• $16,223,000 in State and Local Sales Taxes 

• $76,118,000 to the Federal Treasury. 

Our families, businesses and jobs are as diverse and as geographically disbursed as 

the salmon populations we rely upon. These jobs are distributed in communities 

throughout the Northwest and are in every congressional district. 

Sadly these magnificent creatures are slipping dangerously toward extinction, 

particularly in the Columbia watershed which once harbored the largest salmon runs in 

the Pacific. When Lewis and Clark spent their bitter winter on the coast, perhaps as 

many as 40 million adult salmon and steelhead entered the Columbia annually on 

spawning runs. Before the erection of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake 

mainstems, some 16 million fish ran in these waters -- virtually all of them wild. 

This year the spawning run of Columbia/Snake salmon has dropped to 1 million adults, 

and of these, fewer than 200,000 are wild. Wild salmon and steelhead are absolutely 

essential because hatchery operators must infuse some wild eggs and sperm into each 

brood cycle in order to insure the genetic health and future of our hatchery programs. 

Without this infusion of wild genes, hatchery production can collapse, too. In other 

words, no wild fish, no salmon insurance policy. 

What we in the sportfishing industry feel you must understand is this: the upper 

Columbia chinook populations are on the same downward trend as the Snake River 

fish, following slowly, but surely behind the endangered fish. In order to comprehend 

the magnitude of these reductions, consider this: in the mid to late 1980's we had 2.5 

million returning adults to the system, now we have 1 million. How many of you could 

run your businesses on 60% reduced opportunity, or on 60% reduced supply? 

Federal agencies have not acted properly or promptly 

2 
173 

As you know, the National Marine Fisheries Service {NMFS) has listed all wild salmon 

stocks in the Snake River Basin for protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Petitions are pending and under status review for wild coho, steelhead, and some 

Chinook stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest. Clearly with the decline of salmon, 

the Northwest faces today the most dire threat yet to our economy, our Indian American 

cultures, and.our distinctive way of life. 

Some would tell this committee that the region's salmon crisis is just another example 

of why the Congress must dilute or outright repeal the Endangered Species Act. We 

respectfully urge you, Rep. Smith, to reject this false notion. The act is only the 

messenger, not the message, and the message is 911 !!! With salmon specifically and 

with declining species generally, the crisis comes not from the Endangered Species Act 

itself, but instead, from the failure of federal agencies to act properly and promptly to 

implement the Act. 

Instead of acting positively and promptly to save the salmon, The Bonneville Power 

Administration {BPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers which operate the Columbia 

River Basin hydroelectric dams have tinkered and delayed. 

For many years now, BPA and the Corps have been staring at the decline of salmon in 

the Columbia watershed. Back in 1979, NMFS gave active consideration to listing 

stocks under the Endangered Species Act. This led to the fish and wildlife provisions in 

the Northwest Power Planning Act of 1980. NMFS agreed not to list because the 

Northwest Power Planning Council set aggressive and positive goals of doubling the 

then 2.5 million salmon in the basin. Coho salmon in the Snake River went extinct by 

1985. Petitions to protect the Snake River runs were filed in 1990. This led to the 

regional Salmon Summit during the winter of 1990-91 . 

Despite these red warning flags, the federal agencies still did not act, and recovery 

promises were not kept. Thus, in March of this year, US District Judge Malcolm Marsh 

ruled that the federal agencies are, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, failing 

to take appropriate steps to save the salmon. In his ruling, Judge Marsh wrote: "NMFS 

has clearly made an effort to create a rational, reasoned process for determining how 

the action agencies [BPA, Corps, and Bureau of Reclamation] are doing in their efforts 

to save the listed salmon species. But the process is seriously, 'significantly,' flawed 

because it is too heavily geared towards a status quo that has allowed all forms of river 

activity to proceed in a deficit situation -- that is, relatively small steps, minor 

improvements and adjustments -- when the situation literally cries out for a major 

overhaul. Instead of looking for what can be done to protect the species from jeopardy, 

NMFS and the action agencies have narrowly focused their attention on what the 

establishment is capable of handling with minimal disruption." 

There are workable ways to save the salmon 

3 
174 

Fortunately, there are scientifically sound, pragmatic, cost-effective solutions for 

salmon recovery. We would point specifically to the Strategy for Salmon from the 

Northwest Power Planning Council, the Detailed Fishery Operating Plan for 

hydropower passage from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, the Wild 

Salmon Forever plan from the Save Our WILD Salmon coalition, and the forthcoming 

recovery plan from the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 

All of these blue-prints for salmon recovery emphasize fixing the hydropower system. 

Why? The US Army Corps of Engineers built its mainstem hydroelectric projects in the 

salmon migration corridor without any provision whatsoever for safe passage by 

migrating juvenile salmon through the dams and the reservoirs. This is an historical 

fact. While ladders allow the adults to reach spawning grounds, their progeny when 

migrating to the sea face a relentless and lethal gauntlet of turbines and slack water. 

We must move out of the denial stage, and into the recovery stage. We have spent 

millions and millions of dollars in the Columbia. We have built a science-based 

industry at the expense of the fishing industry, and we have the "best science money 

can buy". Until we address the fundamental problems of juvenile passage in the 

hydrosystem, we will continue to waste millions of dollars of the tax payers money, and 

continue to send our jobs into extinction along with the salmon. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service, the Northwest Power Planning Council, the 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, and even the Bonneville Power 

Administration itself estimate that the hydropower system inflicts at least 80 percent, 

and in some species, upwards to 95 percent of all the human-caused mortalities to 

these fish. To succeed, 80 percent of the recovery effort must go into fixing 80 percent 

of the problem. This is common sense. 

I want to underscore that the hydropower system is the chief, but by no means the 

exclusive, cause of the decline of salmon in the Columbia watershed. Clearly the 

recovery strategy must address all human-inflicted mortalities, including harvest. NSIA, 

sport anglers, and other harvesters have advanced numerous measures such as 

marking of all hatchery fish so that "catch-and-release" methods can result in the 

interceptions of fewer or no wild salmon. In addition, the angling community has 

embraced and even asked for any and all restrictions that would protect the beloved 

resource that our futures depend upon. 

The Sportfishing Industry is exceedingly frustrated that so little progress is visible on 

fixing the hydropower system. Biologists at the federal and state fisheries agencies 

and the Tribes have recommended a package of measures to relieve the blockage to 

juvenile salmon migration. For passage at the dam structures themselves, spill --

especially enhanced by upstream surface collection -- has proven to provide the safest 

ride certainly compared to going down through the turbines. State, Federal and Tribal 

managers report that spill would at least double the survival of instream migrants. 

4 
175 

To speed the young fish through the slackwater rese!Voirs, the biologists would 

combine flow augmentation with drawdowns of some rese!Voirs in the migration 

corridor. The drawdowns of downstream reseiVoirs are necessary to provide sufficient 

water velocities as well as to make the most efficient use of, and limit, the flow 

augmentation releases from upstream storage pools like Grand Coulee in Washington 

State or Dworshak in Idaho. 

All of these recovery measures for relieving the blockage to juvenile salmon migration 

by the hydropower system are also incorporated into the adaptive management 

approach of the Northwest Power Planning Council's Strategy for Salmon. None of 

these measures are currently in implementation. 

In fact, BPA and the Corps have fought these crucial recovery measures to a standstill, 

have substituted their own brand of biology for the professional judgment of the duly 

established fisheries agencies and the Tribes, and have pushed their own failed 

programs of yesteryear. The federal agencies claim that scientific "uncertainty" 

surrounds spill, flow augmentation, and drawdowns of downstream rese!Voirs; they 

demand more study before proceeding with these recovery measures. More delay will 

only bring about further declines in the salmon runs, higher recovery costs, more 

lawsuits, greater instability and uncertainty, larger economic impacts. With wild salmon 

runs now so depleted in the Columbia watershed, biologists can not design any "silverbullet," "once-and-all-time" test of spill, flows, or drawdowns. In addition, the law and 

common sense direct BPA and the Corps to take action based upon the best available 

scientific information. 

It insults the intelligence of the people I work for when federal agencies insist upon 

spending millions of dollars each and every year to "prove" what they are currently 

doing for the fish works just fine, when in reality it does not. For example, BPA 

continues to fund its multi-million dollar research project to develop and refine the 

CRiSP computer model of juvenile fish passage, which essentially says: "The more 

young fish that we feds truck and barge, the more adults come back." If the CRiSP 

computer model were correct and accurate, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would not be 

here today. I would be fishing, and you as policy-makers would have a lot less 

heartburn. 

As I stated earlier, the terrible toll taken by the dams is not a recent discovery. So back 

in 1975, the Corps began its misguided practice of juvenile fish transportation --

trapping young salmon and hauling them to the sea in trucks and barges. Barging and 

trucking young fish simply doesn't work, hasn't worked, and can not be made to work. 

According to one review of the program, Tribal and fish agency biologists fear that 

juvenile fish transportation may inflict more harm than does migration through the lethal 

corridor of mainstem dams. Independent scientific peer review of juvenile fish 

transportation recently concluded, "Juvenile salmon die at rates related to physical 

conditions in the river, including the hydroelectric system, despite the transportation 

effort. [T)ransportation alone, as presently conceived and implemented, is unlikely to 

5 
176 

halt or prevent the continued decline and extirpation of listed species of salmon in the 

Snake River Basin." 

Nonetheless, the Corps and BPA have methodically expanded their failed "Fed-'X'-ourfish" program, and have refused to improve the physical conditions in the river through 

spill, flows, and downstream drawdowns. Regrettably in its draft recovery plan for the 

endangered Snake River salmon released last month, NMFS largely adopts the line of 

these federal agencies, putting the burden of salmon recovery on the backs of anglers 

instead of fixing the root problem at the hydroelectric dams. This is like making the 

victim pay restitution for the crime. 

As a result, BPA and the Corps refuse to implement the Strategy for Salmon from the 

Northwest Power Planning Council. As a result, the states, Tribes, public-interest 

organizations, and -- yes - business associations like mine have been forced to go to 

the courts for redress. (Not a place or undertaking that any self respecting sport angler 

would choose over fishing on the river.) And the salmon continue to decline toward 

extinction. 

Costs of salmon recovery are modest and affordable 

Particularly those of us like NSIA businesses who are losing income and livelihoods 

with the decline of salmon runs are deeply disturbed by the assertion heard again 

today at this hearing that salmon recovery costs too much. This is simply false. 

These doomsday arguments center around the question of whether salmon recovery 

costs might become a fatal burden for BPA, which is required under the Northwest 

Power Planning Act -- not the ESA -- "to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and 

wildlife" damaged by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. 

Bonneville estimates that its fish and wildlife expenses now exceed $300 million 

annually. 

In point of fact, BPA by its own ledgers is actually writing checks for fish and wildlife 

expenses which total on the order of $80 million annually. Thus the majority of 

Bonneville's salmon costs are so-called "lost revenues" due to shifting hydroelectric 

generation from the winter to the spring in order to provide fish flows. This idea of "lost 

revenues to fish" rests upon the false assumption that every drop of water in the 

Columbia is allocated to power generation. 

Every competent economist and realtor will tell you that the value of anything, whether 

a home or a kilowatt-hour, is what a willing buyer will pay for it. By definition, SPA's 

lost revenues for fish flows have not undergone this simple test of the marketplace. So 

any dollar value attributed to fish flows is guesswork, which depends entirely on the 

assumptions going into the estimate. 

6 
177 

The Congress should maintain some healthy skepticism and request an explicit 

statement of the assumptions and justifications going into any and every estimate of 

salmon recovery costs. Here's why. 

In the Columbia River System Operation Review (SOR), BPA itself looked at three 

different estimates for power costs in order to implement the Strategy for Salmon from 

the Northwes.t Power Planning Council. These three different methods are: the CT 

Replacement in which Bonneville builds and maintains combustion turbines (CTs) to fill 

any energy deficits, the Power Purchase in which the agency buys replacement power 

on the open market, and the Power Market Decision Analysis Model (PMDAM) in which 

BPA purposefully works with British Columbia and the US Southwest to supply all 

power requirements with the lowest possible costs. 

In the SOR, BPA gave the following estimates of power system costs..__ in order to 

implement salmon recovery: 

Estimate Method 

CT Replacement 

Power Purchase 

PM DAM 

Total BPA Cost (1993 $million per year) 

160 

66-88 

21 

This extremely wide range of cost estimates illustrates how easily BPA and the 

Northwest can view salmon recovery as a competitive disadvantage or a business 

opportunity. 

In this regard, it is important to note that, if BPA followed the CT Replacement method 

in the real world, the agency would pursue the unthinkable business strategy of 

constructing combustion turbines which would operate just 2.5 months during the next 

50 years - an average of 36 hours in each year! Nonetheless, in the draft SOR, 

Bonneville uses cost estimates from the CT Replacement r.~ethod . 

It is also important to note that the PM DAM computer projection showed a net benefit of 

some $50 million annually across the entire West Coast grid. Clearly by Bonneville's 

own reckoning, the agency can -- with some creative and astute business strategies 

such as those identified in the PMDAM - make salmon recovery workable and 

affordable for the Pacific Northwest. 

Turning to overall costs, the Northwest Power Planning Council concludes that 

implementation of its Strategy for Salmon would cost BPA approximately $170 million 

annually, which translates to a price hike of about $2.50 per month for the average 

residential consumer of Bonneville electricity -- hardly a bank-breaking doomsday 

expense. 

7 
178 

Polls conducted over the last year clearly illustrate the public's willingness to pay this 

small price for salmon recovery. Case in point, the most recent poll commissioned by 

several public utility districts in Central Washington State demonstrate a majority willing 

to pay twice that amount, and make personal sacrifices in order to restore salmon. 

NSIA urges you to listen to the voices and hearts of your constituents. 

Meanwhile, BPA each and every year writes huge checks to pay off its debt on WPPSS 

nuclear power plants that have never generated and will never generate one kilowatthour. Fish and wildlife costs pale in comparison to this crushing debt load of $8 billion 

from WPPSS and other sources. It is patently unfair and outright dishonest to imply 

that fish costs are bankrupting Bonneville. 

Similarly, some BPA consumers, particularly the Direct Service Industries (DSis), 

receive below-cost rates -- an expense borne by other customers at great competitive 

disadvantage to Bonneville. The DSI subsidy runs to $180 million annually. 

For full fairness, those who would criticize the cost of fish flows must also acknowledge 

other lost revenues to BPA. According to one estimate, each acre-foot of water 

withdrawn in southern Idaho for irrigation deprives Bonneville of some 2000 kilowatthours of hydroelectric generation at a lost revenue in excess of $50. Running water 

through the navigation locks instead of the turbines at the four federal dams on the 

Lower Snake River waterway alone costs Bonneville some $25 million annually. I am 

not suggesting that BPA or the Congress shut down southern Idaho irrigation or the 

Columbia-Snake federal waterway -- or fish flows! -- in order to maximize hydroelectric 

production. 

It is unfair and unproductive to fixate exclusively on lost revenues for BPA to provide 

fish flows. Several Northwest industries -- not just fishing -- cause Bonneville to lose 

hydropower generation and revenues. At the minimum, those who live in glass houses 

should pay their fair freight before casting stones. 

The cost of salmon extinctions would run much, much higher 

Whatever the expense of salmon recovery, it pales in comparison to the staggering 

cost that the Pacific Northwest faces in the extinctions of salmon stocks. The debate in 

this hearing and before the public generally has focused on the costs of salmon 

recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Planning 

Act. 

Failure to implement a salmon recovery plan is producing staggering losses for the 

sportfishing industry. From 1985 to 1995, the recreational salmonlsteelhead industry in 

this region lost nearly 50,000 jobs and $1 billion in personal income from this region. 

8 
179 

As salmon disappear in Oregon. Idaho, and Washington, Northwest anglers have 

reluctantly journeyed north to Canada and Alaska. Salmon anglers do not switch to 

bowling; They take their millions and go where the fish are. In 1991, salmon anglers 

from Washington state alone spent $41 million up north in the pursuit of their sport. 

Additionally, the Magnuson Act keeps the oceans off of US shores open to all American 

fishing boats .. So the number of, and the competition among, commercial harvesters in 

Alaskan waters will only increase -- to the detriment of both the resource and the 

industry -- if Northwest salmon continue to decline. 

In 1985, the United States and Canada signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty for the good 

of both the fish and fishing in both nations. The treaty's premise is simple, fair, and 

effective: every time a US fisherman catches a Canadian salmon, a Canadian 

·fisherman will catch a US salmon, and vice versa. 

Consequently the treaty works if and only if both nations produce enough salmon. As a 

result, Canada and the US put mutual commitments into the Pacific Salmon Treaty to 

build up fish production. British Columbia, particularly on the Fraser River, has done 

so. But after signing· and ratifying the treaty, the US has allowed salmon numbers in 

Northwest watersheds, particularly in the critical Columbia/Snake Basin, to slide even 

further downward. The Canadians routinely point out that, while they left the Fraser 

River free-flowing for fish, the Americans had built 13 hydroelectric dams on the 

mainstems of the Columbia and Snake Rivers -- dams which are grinding salmon runs 

inevitably into extinction. 

As a direct result, bilateral talks to re-negotiate the Pacific Salmon Treaty broke down 

in 1994. Last summer Canada charged a $2000 fee on US fishing boats for round-trip 

passage passed through British Columbia waters bound for Alaska. The Canadians 

have threatened to raise the fee to $10,000 in 1995. 

No end to this international salmon fishing war is in sight. To reach a new Pacific 

Salmon Treaty with Canada, the US must offer either substantial cash compensation, 

or a credible plan to restore salmon runs in the Northwest. The latter would benefit 

both nations. 

Finally, in 1855, the wars with the sovereign American Indian Tribes ended in the 

Pacific Northwest with the signing of several treaties. So central were salmon in the 

Tribes' culture, religion, and way of life that the 1855 Treaties guaranteed to the Native 

Americans the right to salmon fishing at "accustomed sites" in perpetuity. The 1855 

Treaties legally obligate the United States to put actual salmon in the rivers for the 

Tribes to catch. In other words, salmon extinctions would abrogate the 1855 Treaties. 

These costs of salmon extinctions would be substantial, annual, and forever -- because 

extinctions are forever. · 

9 
180 

Complaining about the ESA shoots the messenger 

Extinctions -- not salmon recovery - would inflict the real damage to the Northwest 

economy. So contrary to the complaints of its detractors, the Endangered Species Act 

in the case of the salmon is one of the very few tools to bring all the players to the table 

for the recovery process. This is essential to protect the region and our economy 

against the worst possible nightmare. Complaints about the ESA amount to shooting 

the messenger. 

Indeed the Endangered Species Act did not create the crises over salmon or other 

looming extinctions; the failure of federal agencies to properly and promptly implement 

the Act did. Costs associated with salmon recovery are a direct reflection of the long 

delay in response to the salmon crisis. Debating whether and how the Congress should 

reauthorize the Endangered Species Act will do nothing to save the salmon and 

thereby protect the Northwest eccnomy. 

How much cheaper is to fill a cavity than to crown and bridge? How much cheaper still 

is brushing, flossing and other preventative measures? We need to implement 

corrective measures now, and then get on a health maintenance regime. The entire 

region WILL enjoy these "health benefits"! 

In our view, the Endangered Species Act is a law that merits reauthorization by the 

Congress. The main fault lies with the Act's poor implementation, not with the statute 

itself. For salmon, listings in the Pacific Northwest did not begin until December, 1991, 

and too many stocks are still under status review. More than three years later, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) still has not prepared a recovery plan for the 

endangered Snake River salmon. And in its draft recovery plan released last month, 

NMFS refuses to order the workable and affordable changes in the hydropower system 

necessary to save the salmon and reduce the terrible toll taken on the fish by the dams. 

Instead, NMFS proposes to blame the victims and put the burden of salmon recovery 

squarely on the backs of anglers and harvesters. In other words, implementation of the 

ESA comes too late, works too slowly, falls too heavily on the victims of salmon 

declines, and ignores too easily the predominant killer of the fish. 

In this light, proposals from members of Congress to dilute or repeal the ESA merely 

adds insult to injury. Leadership must bring our federal agencies into action and 

appropriate adequate funds for salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest -- a salmon 

recovery vitally needed by fishing business and ccmmunities. The unimaginable injury 

would be for our elected officials to use salmon at the point of their attack on the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) -- the one law that has taken the best shot so far at 

saving the fish and our businesses. 

10 
181 

Admittedly, the ESA is not perfect. Our society will gain by an improved ESA. NSIA 

respectfully urges you to consider these improvements: 

• The ESA goal should be the broadest possible recovery -- not merely "minimum 

viable populations." Management for healthy populations will ultimately prove more 

cost effective and less risky to the resource. Healthy populations will also yield a 

healthy return on recovery investment. 

• The ESA should mandate tighter deadlines for the recovery plan and their 

implementation. Congress should streamline the entire process for listing, comment 

period(s), recovery development and implementation, and delisting. 

• The scope of ESA management should expand to entire ecosystems so that 

endangered species come out of, and stay out of, "emergency room" care, surviving 

and thriving under much less costly "HMO-style" plans. 

• The ESA needs full funding, in order to encompass among other items: science, 

recovery efforts, resolutions to the rare conflict with property owners, and 

incentives for property owners. 

The Pacific Northwest can run the Columbia River for fish and electricity, for fish and 

irrigation, for fish and other uses. We can have salmon recovery AND the cheapest 

power rates in the nation. Therefore, the choice here is not between salmon and 

jobs; the choice is simply whether or not our region will S8.ve the fish and the fishing 

industry. 

Rep. Smith, you and so many of your colleagues have repeatedly said that you are the 

champions of small businesses. The vast majority of NSIA members and fishing 

industry businesses are small, family, "mom-and-pop" operations. I call on you and 

your colleagues today to make good on your pledge and to save these small 

businesses in the sportfishing industry. I call on you to support a strong recovery 

program for salmon in the Columbia River Basin and throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee today, and I eagerly 

welcome your questions. 

Attachments: 

NSIA member listing 

Excepts from study done by Tony Fedler, Ph.D. American Sportflshlng Assn., 1995 

Upper Columbia Chinook Runs 1938-94 (population trend line), ODF&W 

Salmon/Steelhead decline impacts: Jobs and Personal Income, American Sportfishing 

Association. 

Recreational Fishing Export, Northwest Marine Trade Association, 1994 

News reports on Mid Columbia PUD Poll, 1995 

Reprint of Elway Poll , 1994 

11 
E?f~ NORTHWEST 

SPORTFJSHING 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Plli!JX 4. e&mal art. (J! lllQI5 

CHAIRMAN 

Phil Jensen 

PRESIDENT 

John Martinis 

John's Spot1lng Goods 

VICE PRESIDENT 

Tom Posey 

The Tom Po$ey Co. 

TREASURER 

Marlc Masterson 

Worden's/Yaklma 811/t Co. 

DIRECTORS 

Walt Hummel 

Lewis River Sprtg. Goods 

Rich Kato 

Farwest/Sports Services 

Tom Harger 

John B. Merlfield Co. 

Dan Grogan 

Fisherman's Marine 

Buzz Ramsey 

Luhr Jensen & Sons 

B.G. Ellertson 

G. I. Joe's 

EXEC. DIRECTOR 

Liz Hamilton 

ADVISORY BOARD ................ 

----· ---lld<lbbln 

CMaRuuoll OlanoDoug-

--·--

_,..,_ 

--...... ---

_.,..,. 

.... r...., 

--.._ ----..... L.otlyDonnls 

~­

......... _ ~-- ..... __,., 

-·-

MNtCudgeD 

,.uiGoff 

I'IIY-

---~ ""'WIInoy 

---- y,__ 

--

182 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON AND 

STEELHEAD MEANS BIG BUSINESS! ! ! 

In 1991: 

• Northwest Anglers In Washington, Oregon, California 

and Idaho spent $603,981 ,000 for salmon and 

steel head fishing. 

• These same anglers generated $1.2 BILLION in total 

economic output. 

• Salmon/Steelhead angling provided $735.532,000 in 

personal income to Northwest Workers. 

• Personal income from salmon/steelhead angling 

supported over 43. 342 JOBS throughout the region! 

• Angler expenditures generated $16.223.000 in State 

Sales Taxes. 

The 43,342 employees contributed $16,187,000 in 

State and Local Income Taxes, AND $76.118,000 to 

the Federal Treasury. 

• Over 1.5 MILLION Anglers fished in the Northwest 

for salmon and steelhead . 

• Over 227.000 Tourist anglers fished for Northwest 

Salmon and Steelhead. 

Source: Tony Fedler, Ph.D., American Sportfishing Association, 1995 

I For,_.,_ ooli11U)I31.aa51 "',... 1503)131-3t17l 
I: 

(/) 

u: 

IL 

0 

(/) 

0 

~ :::> 

0 

i!: 

UPPER COLUMBIA CHINOOK 

POPULATION TREND 

1953 

V.C:Nary Dam 

Lower Mooumen

1969 Browriee Dam 

1958 

toe H~r%&~m 

1968 

John Day Dam 

1m· 1D4D- 1&4~f1 s:M4 .",.,.1M. uat.ti Hisi vli64 · 1Qs~f 11ii5a · u&f uis2-Hi5·4'1 ;ee 'u;ie~f 1g7c· 

YEAR 
~ 0 

""') 

Changes In Employment In Pac

Alternative Recovery 

3,500 --r--------------

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

r2 Jobs In Agriculture (Base = 166,

D Total Jobs (Base = 4,947,000) 

I Agricultural employment, I 

under all scenarios, 

decline less than 2 percent; 

total employment, less 

than 0. 1 percent. 

0 ,.,,..,.. I 

-500 

-1,000 +------.------.,--

Irrigation 

Water 

Reduction 

Reservoir 

Drawdown 
SALMON DECLINES: Impacts on the 

Personal Income from Recreation

1

600 

Millions ---

1400 

1200 

.. . . . .. . . ~ ... Pe,.so;;iJ/ 1, · · · · 

1QQO I · u ... u •uu u!1co1

800 --- ----- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ~ 

600 

400 • ------ --. -. -. ------. -----------. -

200 

OL_--------------~-

1985 1991 

!-Millions oiOouafS

Source: American Sportfishing Association 
SALMON DECLINES: Impacts on th

Jobs from Recreational Sa

Thousands 

80 ~-------------------------

60 ' .. --- -·. --. ·--------------- --· --- .- ..... ----.. --- .-- ..

40 ,_ -------------- -------------- ---- ------- ---------

20 ·--- --.------ -·-· .. --- - ----- ---- --- --... --. -- -----· ... ...

0 L_ ________________________

1985 1991 

EThousands of Job

Source: American Sportlishing Associalion 
187 

Studies have assumed sportfishing expenditures arc "in-state transfers·· of 

discretionary income. In other words. lack of fishing opportunity wiU cause 

Washington residents to transfer spending to another forr.• of in-state 

recreation. Statistics show this assumption is false. While coastal communities in Washington have suffered a continued decline in charter fishing and 

associated tourism inoome in recent years. similar towns in British Columbia 

and Alaska have become sportlishing meccas supponed by Washington 

residents and others who previously fished in Washington. Sportlishing 

industries have suffered as weU. As Washington residents leave the state to 

salmon fish elsewhere. the potential purchase of boats and fishing equipment 

go with them. A look at license and spending trends in British Columbia. 

Alaska, and Washington demonstrates this economic loss. 

• Washinglon residenls boughl19,000 lirenses lo fish in Alaska during 1991 

ond 24,000 in 1992." upendilures in Soulheosl Absko by non·resident 

ongl~ in 1988 overoged Sl7248 per angler cby, not inckl&ng 

tronsportotion rosts.

15 

• From 1987-1991, the number ofWoshingtonions licensed to fish in Brit~h 

(olumbio grew steodi~ from 29,000 in 1987, to 38,000 in 1989, 44,000 

in 1990, ond 48,000 in 1991.11 The overage onnual expenditure for non-

(anodion anglers visiting B.C. in 1991 was S676.08 per year, nol including 

lransportotionY 

• The 266,000 Washinglon resident salmon licenses sold in Washington 

during 1992 wos lhe lowest lolal since 1he stole began keeping such statistics 

in 1978.

11 

In 1991, Washington residents spent over $40 million in British Columbia 

and Alaska on sportsfishing. When transportation costs to B.C. for 48,000 

and to Alaska for 24,000 Washingtonians are factored in, and the loss of 

boat. motor, and trailer purchases is considered, the loss to Washington 

sportfishing businesses from the "export" of recreational fishing doUars 

becomes enormous. 

Sources 

1 Soulhwick and AuoQII.CS, Thr Ec011omics of Hwt.rUtg , Fi.thi"l· 11nd N011 -Co1Uumpli1Jr RtcrtaliCH'I in W41hingt011 /99/,0et.ober 1992.. 1 Southwick and Associates, Tht Ec011cmics of Hwating, FiJIUng. ond NOII·COIUwnptiw RtcrUJtiofl ;, 

W4Shi"glon 1991. October 1992. 

J Washinston Departmmt of Fi1heriu Technlcal Rcpon No. 73, October 1982. 

• Southwick Associatcs.lcne.r 10 Not~hweu Marine Trade AstcKiation, July I I, 1993. 

' National Marine Manu(aetu~n Association, 1991 S11/u St11tisfics. 

• Southwick Associates, letter to Norahwect Marine Tr.de. Association, July II, 1993. 

' Southwick Auociates,le.ncr lO Northwest Marine Tr.dc Assoc:iaaion, July II, 1993. 

' U.S. Fish and WDdlife. Se.rviee, NarioMI Surwy of Fi.Jiti"t· /luJi"t· on.d Wildlif~ lusociottd Rter~t~riors, 

1991 . 

' DCD Study, March 8, 1988, Tables 13/14 Appendices 14·15. 1

' Southwick and AnociatcsfWashina,ton Dcp.anmc:nt of WildWc, Tilt Economi.u of HwtlirJg, Sport Fisltint. 11ttd fo/OI'I·COIUwrtpli~ RtereoliofJ ;,. Wa.sJI!irstiOII, 1991. 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NotioMI Surwy of Fishi"l· HMNi"t aNI Wildlift 1\ssocitlftd Rtc ~t~riorJ, 

1991. 

u Southwick &rid Auociatcsf'W11hinJton Depanmcnt of Wildlife, Tilt EcCHtomic 1'"/N'CU ofllwuil'lt. Sport Fishi11g , 11Ni Not'I-COIUW"I'fi"t IVildlift·AssociDitd RtutDiion i" Wa.tllirstttM , /991 , October i 9S-2. 

u Sron Fishing Institute, Tilt Tidol Sporu Fi.tlwry, A. Sltortd Vitio". 1993 . 

•• Su te or Alaska Depanment of Fish and Game, License lnronnaOon on Washington State residents, 

September 2. 1993. pace 1. 

IJ Jones & Stokes/Alaska Department or Fish &rid Game , Dcctmber 1991 . 

n Canadian Dcparunent of Oceans and Fisheries, License Slltistic:s Au cull 31 , 1993. 1

' Depanment of Oceans and Fisheries • P(JCific Rttioll, 19PO NtuiOtllll S11rwy of Sporrsfuhil'lg. 

"Washi ngton Depanment or Fisherics,lict:nJin& Sutisties 1917·1992. 

91-344 - 95 - 7 

RECREATIONAL FISHING 

"EXPORT" 
188 

CTHE ELWAY POlL ( Repri nt e d Wi t h Permi s sion ) Mrzy IPP.f 

Price Not Too High To 

Restore Wild Salmon Runs 

Compared to two yean &fO, fewer votera in thia 

month's poU thought the economic coati of restoring wild 

aalmon rune would outweirh the benefitl. Thia appear• to be one reason why public opinion il moving in the direction 

of aalmon run reatora~ion . 

Putting money where their mouths were , 73., of tbeae 

reeponde nta oo.id they would be wUling to pay at leut $1 

pe r mont.h more in 

electric billa •if you 

thought it would ELECTRIC BIU. INCREASE TO 

help reotore oalmon RESTORE SALMON runs. • And by a 4:3 

margin , 

re apondente aaid t hey would vote to 

raise taxea to restore aalmon 

rune . By nearly 2 : 1, theae re apondenu 

disagreed that 

either tho iodiYiduol 

coatat or the cost to 

$5 MONTH!.V 

39'!(, 

the region's VOTE TO RAISE TAXES TO RESTORE e conomy would be SALMON too hirh to reatore 

wild aalmon ruD.I. 

Both of' theoe 

reeulta are ouh.otantlally 

stronger thaD re aponae to the 

· aame queationa 

uked io the May 1992 BlUioy Poll. 

FOR 

48'11. 

By the oame 2: 1· · marJi.n, reapondentl 1aid·, in the Jon a run,. re1torinr the 

1almon would contribute more to the economy than it 

would eo1t. · Re1ul'tl Were do1er when Toter• were a1ked. whether reatorinr the I'Ulll wu "'more important than the economic 

problema It may eauoe .. " - - · _ ETa.luation. or the eolt .or reltofation ...... related to 

per ceived re&IODI for the lalmOD dec.l.lne: in eacb or tbe 

four que•tiona; people who 1aid over·filhiDI wa1 the •mo•t 

harmful !actor" Were le11 likely to agree that co1t1 of 

reotoration were worth It thaD people who blained habitat 

deotruetion or hycfro-<tleetde dams. · · Income wu a preaictor Cor oDJ.y one of the•e argument•: the one 1tatlDr re.toration waa more importuat than the reoultant ioeonomle problome. A majority of thoie with annual ineomoo over $-&0,000 ll.itanW. while a H -31 plurallti of thooe with iocomeo under $20,000 &n.UJI. Frequent •oten tended to ciTe the economic co1t1 more -

Voters See Salmon 

As Economically 

Important To Region 

The followi.ng are .tatemenu about 

restoring wild aalmon.in the Northwest. In 

this poll, and ill May 92 toters were asked if they •Agree: •Agree Strongly.• 

"Disagree," or •oil&grM • Stronsly" with 

tach atatemeot. · 

o-•=-=-· ml!l• coet to North-sf reeldents 

will be too high to reotore wild 

ealmon runo. 

55% 

Tao much of Waehlngton'e 

economy would have to be 

eacrlllced to reetore wild aalmon 

rYna. 

In the long run, reelorlng the 

ealmon runt would contribute more to ltte North-at economy than It wlll coet. ·· 

21% 

--·_-' 

lellforlng ltte wild aalmon runs 11 more Important lttan ftle 

economic problem• It may cauee. 

51% 

oC degTee," howeTer, not. direction: moat .. perfect voten"" - ··' · weirht than did infrequent Toten. The difference ••• one · 

. were on the eame 1ide or these que1tiona •• lea a· frequent ~ 41 ·_ ;". ~: ; .. -=:. ; 39% 

voters. B · 
189 

A16 scallle P~t-lntelligencer, Thursday:~~~~~. 1995·-----------

A will to save salm.on 

I f the poll had been paid for by 

salmon advocates, it might come 

as no surprise that most respondents were willing to help bear the 

cost of saving the fish in the 

Columbia River. 

But the statewide poll by the 

Boston-based firm Martilla and Kiley was commissioned by some of 

the very hydroelectric utilities 

whose dams are killing the fish. 

Yet the resullc; showed that 68 

percent or the 800 respondents were willing to pay $5 a month 

more in their electrical bills to 

save the fish, and three-quarters indicated some degree ofwillingness to reduce electrical or water 

use by 10 percent to help the 

salmon survive. 

The poll demonstrated that 

Washington residents take the 

salmon crisis seriously and are 

perfectly capable of differentiating between an owl and a fish. 

While 60 percent of the respon- dents said they think the northern 

spotted owl would survive even if 

no special steps were taken to 

proter.t it.c; old-growth timber habitat, only 13 percent believe the 

wild salmon can survive without 

intervention - and that includes 

people who say they think the 

government has gone too far in 

protecting the owl 

"What it tells us ns hydroelec- tric utilities is that for us to 

continue to generate electricity, we 

must protect the salmon," conceded Don Godard, manager of the 

Grant County Public Utility District. 

The message that Godard reads 

in the poiJ seems lost on Washing- ton's Republican Sen. Slade Gorton 

and Rep. Linda Smith, R-Vancouver. 

Gorton,. who is pushing for a sixmonth moratorium on Endangered Species listings, has said some wild 

salmon runs may be too expensive 

to save. 

Smith has reached for ·overheated rhetoric to warn that the cost of 

protecting salmon could "leave 

people unable to pay their heating 

bills." 

What this region needs is can-do 

lawmakers who focus their energies on making salmon recovery 

work rather than making it fall. 

Restoring wild salmon runs will 

be expensive, difficult and slow; 

indeed, some runs may well be lost 

If the effort succeeds, the saga- cious legislators who lay the enabling groundwork are JikeJy to be 

long gone from office, unable to 

benefit at the polls. And the shortsighted obstructionists are unlikely 

to be around to take their electoral 

punishment 

But either way, they and their 

contributions will be remembered 

when the fate of the wild salmon 

finally is recorded in the history books. 
.. 

0 

0 

" 

100 

10 

P11e~~-.. or smo~~~•ensportec~ 

% lrens

- - ·-- . -- -- ~ 

~ 

z 

"' 

,._ 

. 

• .. 

~ 

.. 

. .. 

0 

.. 

~ 

0 

.. 

= 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

40 

20 

0 

11184 1167 1170 1873 1176 1979 

Veer of seaward migretion 

Figure Vlll-3. Percentage of chinook salmon smelts arriv

were coRected and transported downstream to Bonneville 

smolts at upper Snake River dam to adults retuming to Ic

(1985), Raymond (1988), and calculations by Team for m

Vlll-14 
191 

TESTIMONY OF GA YLAN PRESCOTT 

PRESIDENT OF 

THE LONGVIEW FEDERATED ALUMINUM COUNCIL 

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

House Resource Committee: 

My name is Gaylan Prescott. I am the president of the Longview Federated Aluminum Council 

(LFAC). The LFAC is the sole bargaining agent for the nine international unions who have 

members employed at the Reynolds Metals Longview Reduction Plant. The LFAC has 

approximately 650 members currently employed at Reynolds Longview, WA facility. The plant 

that we work at is a 204,000 ton per year aluminum production facility that is currently 

operating at 75% of capacity. At full capacity our plant employs over 900 people and the 

industry as a whole employs roughly 10,000 people in the NW, and accounts for more than 

43% of the nation's aluminum production. These are good paying, family-wage jobs that the 

State of Washington gives an employment factor rating of 3.08; that equates to over 30,000 NW 

jobs. These jobs are dependent on the Bonneville Power Administration's ability to become a 

competitive supplier of energy to the NW's aluminum industry. The Longview smelter is only 

one of ten aluminum smelters in the NW that rely on BPA as their direct supplier of power. 

Because we buy power directly from BPA, the NW's aluminum plants are often referred to as 

the Direct Service Industries or DSI's. 

As a result of the Endangered Species Act, and its interpretation by the federal district court 

(Judge Marsh) in Portland, OR, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the 

Bonneville Power Administration has experienced a dramatic change in their hydro-power 
192 

operations. These hydro-power operational changes ere a direct result of listing regionally 

specific sub-species of salmon under the ESA. SPA's costs associated with salmon recovery will 

reach an estimated 500 million dollars this year. The NW electric rate payers are funding 

approximately ninety percent (90%) of these salmon recovery costs through increased power 

rates, with the balance of ten percent (10%) being funded through ESA section 4 (h) of 10 (c). 

Salmon recovery costs forced on the hydro system could potentially escalate to over one billion 

dollars annually. Keeping in mind the NW aluminum industry currently provides BPA with 

30% of their total revenue, it's easy to understand that our exposure to these costs is a matter 

of life or death for the NW aluminum industry. 

The NW's electric rate payers have funded the most expensive and ambitious recovery effort 

ever undertaken for an ESA listed spec:ies. More money has been spent on salmon recovery than 

all other ESA mandated recovery plans combined; all but a fraction of it at rate payer expense. 

The world aluminum industry is paying an average of 18 mills ($0.018) per Kwh for power. 

The NW aluminum industry is currently paying 26 mills per Kwh. This gap is eX1remely 

significant as power costs account for approximately 1/3 of the total production cost of 

producing aluminum. Every union in every aluminum plant in the NW has worked to make their 

locations more productive and efficient. The NW aluminum plants can now boast that they have 

one of the most productive aluminum producing work forces in the world. However, despite our 

significant efforts to remain competitive in the world market. our industry is threatened with 

the escalation of production (I.E.: power) costs beyond our control. As a Labor representative I 

can say honestly, we have and are continuing to do everything within our power to keep the NW 

aluminum industry viable. Yet, as you can see by the numbers, we need Congressional 

intervention in this crazy process of ESA interpretation, and regionally specific sub-species 

recovery-planning, in order to stay in the global economic battle. 
193 

I would like to give you my perspective, as an aluminum worker, of the ESA-driven salmon 

recovery debate, and of the actions taken to date by the various Government agencies involved. 

In my view, the environmental community has little concern for saving depleted salmon runs. 

In fact, their not-so-hidden-agenda is to return the Columbia and Snake rivers to their natural 

free-flowing state. Key environmental leaders such as Andy Kerr have expressed open hostility 

and animosity to the NW aluminum producers. It is well understood by my friends in the wood 

products industry that the spotted owl debate was not really about saving owls. The owl issue 

was merely a vehicle empowered by the ESA, to close down logging in the NW forests. The 

environmentalists just didn't want any more trees cut. Similarly, environmental advocates 

have pushed for salmon recovery plans that have little or no scientific foundation in order to 

further their hidden agenda. NMFS, the Northwest Power Planning Council, and the Clinton 

administration have failed to advocate reasonable and scientifically sound solutions, and in fact 

have given significant weight to the scientifically unproved theories of the environmental 

community. Environmental groups have effectively emotionalized what little debate there has 

been on salmon recovery, thereby making reasonable discussion all but impossible. 

Little discussion has taken place with regard to the fact that salmon populations continued to 

thrive for years after the last dam was built on the Columbia and Snake rivers. Nor has their 

been enough discussion on the dwindling salmon populations in rivers not impacted by dams. In 

fact, NMFS has admitted in on-going litigation that the government cannot differentiate between 

mortality caused by dams, other human induced mortality, or natural mortality of juveniles 

migrating through the Columbia river. The old saying "Let's do something even if it's wrong" 

should not apply to recovering an endangered species, especially when "doing something" has 

such a huge regional economic risk. 
194 

To my knowledge, salmon are the only endangered species that are systematically and 

indiscriminately harvested for human consumption. They are also the only species whose 

genetic diversity is threatened by a genetically inferior species bred and released at substantial 

rate payer and taxpayer expense, for the sole purpose of enhancing indiscriminate harvests. As 

residents of the northwest, we are very interested in salmon recovery. Salmon are a part of the 

northwest's heritage. But we cannot stand by quietly while the policy makers cave in to radical 

environmental groups all the while ignoring the real problem of salmon recovery. 

With the l'ffl electric rate payers funding salmon recovery efforts, the ESA has resulted in 

nothing more than an unfunded mandate from the federal government imposed on residents of the 

northwest, with no scientifically measurable results. The environmentalists' utilization of the 

courts in their manipulation of the ESA has placed a huge burden on NW aluminum companies, 

other industries and their employees. Without ESA reform, the environmental community will 

continue to use the ESA to further their own agenda without regard for economic impact, social 

impact, cultural impact, or the viable recovery of the listed species. 

It is a popularly held misconception that the NW aluminum industry is made up of old inefficient 

outdated plants whose ability to compete in a global market is handicapped further by high 

wages. In fact, the NW aluminum industry is made up of modernized, efficient facilities with 

extremely competitive labor costs. The industries' only current significant handicap is the 

runaway cost of power resulting from ESA mandated and scientifically unjustified, salmon 

recovery efforts. The NW aluminum industry will continue to be a viable business within the 

region for decades to come if we can assure these facilities a reliable power supply at 

competitive rates lor the future. The NW aluminum industry's future depends on rational 

solutions to salmon recovery. If the federal government continues to ignore the importance of 

common sense in salmon recovery, 43% of the nation's aluminum production capacity will 
195 

likely disappear, only to resurface in another country. And the Salmon may disappear with it. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testily before this committee. We would greatly 

appreciate any action you can take to allow us to help develop a balanced solution. 

Sincerely, 

Gaylan Z. Prescott 
196 

The Testimony of 

Commissioner Barbara Tilly 

President of the Board of Commissioners of 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington 

on behalf of Chelan PUD and 

Public Utility District No.1 of Douglas County 

Before the 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Vancouver, Washington 

April24, 1995 

1 
197 

TESTIMONY BEFORE 

THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE'S 

ESA REFORM TASK FORCE 

Good morning! Thank you for the opportunity to speak about ESA 

refonn. I am Barbara Tilly, the current president of Chelan County 

Public Utility District, which is baaed in Wenatchee, Washington. I am 

speaking this morning on behillf of Chelan PUD as well as Douglas PUD, 

whose headquarters are in East Wenatchee. 

Chelan PUD has 2,000 MW of generating capacity, most of which comes 

from 2 hydro projects on the mainstem of the Columbia River. Douglas 

PUD owns and operates the 840 MW Wells Hydroelectric Project, which 

Is also on the mainstem Columbia River. To help you put us on a map in 

your mind's eye, Douglas' Wells, and our Rocky Reach and Rock Island 

Projects are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th projects downstream of Grand Coulee 

Dam. Ours are major non-federa} hydro projects on the Columbia River 

system, which supply power throughout the region. 

Our involvement with fish began long before we felt the first effects of the 

ESA and our involvement is expected to continue regardless of the 

outcome of currently proposed ESA listings. We have long acknowledged 

our responsibilities to fish: 

• Our projects were constructed with state of the art fishways 

that allow adult salmon to swim upstream without delay. 

• We have been working for many years to develop systems that 

safely bypass young salmon past our dams as they journey to 

the sea. In fact, Douglas was the first to study and install a 

surface flow attraction bypass system, which has proven to be 

2 
198 

highly effective in bypassing young salmon. The surface flow 

attractor or collector concept takes advantage of what these fish 

naturally want to do. Previous Columbia and Snake River 

screen systems tried to stop fish from doing what they naturally 

wanted to do. Chelan's prototype surface collector has been up 

and running for only a week, but already shows great promise. 

• We have tested and implemented predator control and 

harassment programs for squawfish and seagulls. 

• Both of us have developed salmon supplementation hatcheries, 

which are specifically designed to supplement wild salmon 

stocks. These two hatcheries are the first of their kind and have 

become the standard by which all other salmon hatcheries are 

now measured. 

• We are in the process of preparing habitat conservation plans 

that move away from traditional regulatory practices such as 

mitigation in-kind and in-place and focus on the real objective: 

more young salmon migrating out to sea. 

In other words, we spend money where it achieves real benefits for fish 

and avoid spending money on speculative, "feel-good" programs. 

We wish we could say the same U\ing about the federal experience since 

the listing of Snake River sockeye and chinook salmon. We have great 

respect for many people at NMFS, but the existing ESA forces them out 

of their traditional role as a resource agency. We have witnessed the 

expenditure of vast sums of money with little evidence of results. We 

have witnessed spfll orders without sufficient regard for nitrogen 

supersaturation and how that dissolved gas could result in significant 

fish kills. We have witnessed ever increasing now augmentation to 

•nush" fish downstream even though the NMFS's own scientists are 

conducting state-of-the-art survival studies that show no survival gains 

3 
199 

with flows or this magnitude. These fish flows take water out of Orand 

Coulee and other storage reservoirs in the spring and summer when 

electric demands are low. In the winter, when demand is high because 

people are heating their homes, the use of stored water for generation 

has been restricted. It is a little like burning your winter wood supply in 

the summer. 

By our best estimates, the federal government's continuing experiments 

with augmented flows have reduced the value of power at our projects by 

as much as $30 or $40 million per year! We have all heard estimates 

that BPA will lose about $250 million per year in power benefits. The key 

is that this power is no longer available when it is needed-- forcing the 

use of more costly fonns of generation. To date, these flows have 

produced no demonstrated benefits. The irony of this situation is: 

• We have no listed soecies within our project areas... these 

augmented flows are intended for Snake River fish . 

• Despite the ESA's requirement for recovery plans to be 

completed within one year, several Snake River plans have been 

in the works for many years and we still don't have an approved 

and implemented, peer-reviewed plan today. We have different 

biological opinions and a draft recovery plan, but still no final 

plan that the region can support. 

• Absent a recovery plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

annually negotiates the latest price tag for a •no jeopardy" 

biological opinion... the price tag has always ratcheted up--

the measures getting more and more extreme with insufficient 

regard for the region's ability to pay. 

• Non-federal parties are~ part of the discussions during the 

so-called Section 7 consultations, even though we are hugely 

affected by the resulting decisions. 

4 
200 

The cost of these efforts has pushed BPA power costs upward and made 

their rates nearly noncompetitive. Northwest rates in general may still be 

low by other regions' standards, but these relatively low power costs have 

kept our aluminum, aircraft, appliance and metal fabricating industries 

viable--- keeping these jobs in the U.S. and reducing our national trade 

deficit. When the Northwest or any other region's economy is robust, 

everyone in this countcy benefits; we're dealing with a global economy 

where we need to make every effort to keep our industry --the source of 

our high standard of living .. healthy and internationaJlv competitive. 

People living in a robust economy are in a better position to meet their 

social and environmental goals. 

So, we are here today on behalf of our own local customers and the local, 

regional and national economies to urge reform of the Act. The price tag 

for the Snake River salmon effort quickly became the most costly of all of 

the endangered species programs in the country. We are here to 

encourage reasonable change. We are for salmon and will do what we 

can to live up to our responsibilities, but the present ESA mal<es some 

significant mistakes that mav ultjmatelv worsen our salmon problem. I 

am an elected commissioner whose constituents are very unhappy with 

three rate increases over the past three years. These rate increases were 

needed in large part because of the flow augmentation intended to help 

Snake River fish, but excuses-- even good explanations such as fish flows 

that are totally outside of our control-- don't blunt the anger being felt by 

my constituents. We must turn this around. 

We urge the following changes: 

1. The ESA should not have supremacy over other federal laws, 

obligations and programs. 

5 
201 

2. The ESA should encourage the development of habitat 

conservation plans for pre-listed or listed species. These plans 

should be founded on common sense and represent a binding 

commitment on the part of the government that affected parties 

won't be revisited with double or triple jeopardy. We are 

working closely with NMFS and the Fish & Wildlife Service and 

are optimistic that we can agree on a mutually beneficial HCP; 

however, before we commit dollars to implement such a plan, 

we should expect regulatory certainty. 

3. Tho NMFS regional office arguably has more influence on the 

Northwest economy than the governors of these 4 states. 

Decisions of this importance, which impact thousands of people 

and many other federal, state and local laws, need to be made 

much closer to a ballot box. They also need to be referred to an 

expert panel of scientists, economists and planners to insure 

more of a balanced societal view. That means balanced 

decisions that may occasionally conclude that society cannot 

prevent or afford to prevent the extinction of each and every 

form of life. 

4. Eliminate or scale back the interim protection requirements 

such as augmented flows for listed species until a panelreviewed, common sense recovery plan is completed. This will 

provide a strong incentive for early completion of these plans. 

5. The ESA should apply differential treatment for population 

segments of species. A sub-sub-species of kangaroo rat should 

not receive the same efforts that might be expended on the 

california condor. 

With these revisions. we feel that the ESA can benefit plants and animals 

as well as mankind. If balancing mechanisms can be included in the 

6 
202 

ESA, the excesses that have been so harshly experienced here in the 

Northwest can hopefully be avoided. 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer our opinions on this very 

important issue. 

7 
203 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

LARRY WASSERMAN 

SKAGIT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE 

TO 

HOUSE COMrvfiTIEE ON RESOURCES 

TASK FORCE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES 

APRIL 24,1995 
204 

Dear Chainnan Pombo and members of the Committee: 

My name is Larry Wasserman, and I am here on behalf of the Skagit System Cooperative, a 

fisheries organization representing the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Upper Skagit 

Indian Tribe, and the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

testimony to you today.My presentation today will focus on three major issues that I hope you 

will consider in your deliberations regarding the Endangaal Species Act. The first is why the 

Endangered Species Act is a critical pica: of legislation that must be preserved. Second, 

shortcomings in the implementation of the Act, and finally, the issue of how implementation of 

the Act affects Natural Resource depc:ndt:nt communities. 

WHY THE ACT IS A CRITICAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION 

(I )TilE ACT PROVIDES INCEN11VES FOR SPECIES PROTECTION 

The Skagit River Indian Tribes believe the Endangered Species Act is a pivotal element of 

legislation that provides a safety net to insure that fisheries resources, so important to the people 

of the Northwest, and to Indian Tribes in particular, will continue to exist. Without this net, 

unabated growth and development will surely result in the loss of this valuable resources. 

Therefore, the fill)t point I would like to make in this regard is that the existence of the ESA, as 

it is curn:ntly written, provides an incentive to Stale and local govenunents, as well as Federal 

agencies, to begin to address issues under their control, particularly related to land use issues. The 

effects of the Act can be seen in the development of a Wild Sahnon policy in the State of 

Washington, Habitat Conservation Plans on the part of private and State landowners, and 

implementation of local ordinances by local govcmrncnts. None of these actions would have 

taken place without the threat of a species listing. This Federal legislation is particularly 

important in this regard in that local politics and development pressures often relegate protection 

of natural resources to a very low priority. Protection of natural resources, and particularly 

Federally reserved natural resources, are a function of the Fcdaal government, and often are the 

only measure available to wuntl:r local interests. We have Ji>und this to be true in the Skagit 

Valley. Our studies, published in the North American Journal of Fisheries !llfanagement, shows 

that the largest loss of coho habitat has resulted from diking and dredging, and blockage of 

upstream access, most often on non-Federal lands. The potential listing of Puget Sound coho 

salmon has provided a very real incentive for State and local e,..-penditurc of funds to restore lost 

habitar, and has initiated discussions and actions regarding both regulatory and voluntary 

measures for resource protection. These actions were not occurring prior to the threat of listing, 

even though low numbers of Ska(,rit River coho were limiting fisheries from Oregon to the: 

Canadian border on an almost annual basis. 

(2)IT PROVIDES A REGULATORY SAFElY NET 

Where personal or corporate responsibility has not met the challenge of adequately protecting 

stocks of fish, the Act,as currently "'ritten, rc:quires appropriate actions only when the fisheries 

have been degraded lo such a level that their very existence is imperiled. When fishing 

2 
205 

communities,the religious and cultural basis for Tribal communities, and salmon, the very 

essence of the Northwest, are put at risk by specific land use actions, nothing less then clear, 

unequivocal Federal intervention is necessary. Relegating this issue merely to cost/benefit 

analysis will cerurinly result in a reduction in the abundance and diversity of salmon stocks that 

the people of the Northwest depend upon for a multitude of purposes. The point here is that the 

Endangered Species Act, in addition to providing incentives for preemptive protective actions, 

provides a regulatory safety net , that cannot be sustained at the local leveL which ensures the 

continued protection of species. 'The Act provides the last remaining legislative safeguard against 

the complete loss of a species. 

(3)AS CURRENIL Y WRITTEN, IT PROVIDES FOR AN UNBIASED APPROACH FOR 

RECOVERY PLANS 

The third point I would like to make in this regard is that the Act, if implemented as written, 

should isolate the causes for decline based on solm.d technical principals, rather than based on 

political expediency, and should relegate recovery efforts commensurate with the magnitude of 

the impact. This is particularly important from a Tribal viewpoint, in that the Tribes have been 

fishing these stocks with sound conservation principals since time immemorial, and have been 

able to sustain healthy stocks during that time. By requiring that the burden of the solution be 

based on the degree of impact, ralher than on the economic consequences that might result from 

the required implementation, not only addresses the issue of fairness, but provides a greater level 

of certainty that the solutions will have the intended result. The Act is non-judgmental in that it 

does not require that a decision be made that favors one community over another. Rather, it 

requires that the causes of the decline be dealt with. Changes to the Act that move away from 

addressing the needs of species threatened with extinction towards evaluations of social and 

economic consequences of protection will no doubt result in the loss of salmon stocks. This is 

particularly true since the very fact that a stock is being considered for listing indicates its 

economic value. which might once have been considerable, will be overshadowed when measured 

against current economies that may be sustained only because they have been allowed to prosper 

at the expense of the stocks under consideration. The time for these economic and social 

considerations should be before the stocks are endangered, when options exist to sustain a variety 

of economies and resources. The time for these considerations should not be when species are 

at death's door. This is particularly important to those communities dependant on robust salmon 

stocks to sustain their economies. If we manage our stocks only to avoid listings, these fish will 

not be available to a variety of fisheries, rather they mil be no more than museum pieces to be 

observed from a distance. 

SHORTCOMINGS OF IMPLEMENTATION 

The second issue I would like to address is what implementation elements of the Act need to lx: 

improved. Its main shortcoming is that it has not bec:n evenly applied. 'The salmon e:qx:rience 

in the Columbia Basin is testimony to this fact. Mr. Chairman. when I was asked to testifY. I 

stated that the Committee should be interested in the experience of the Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes with the listing of the Snake River chinook and sockeye under ESA. These Tribes are 

3 
206 

cum:ntly without even enough spring chinook to ~ ceremonial needs, and they are considering 

multi-billion dollar clairm against the United States for the loss of their JrOPCI1Y right with regard 

to salmon. Since they m:re not asked to testify, I consulted with the Intertribal Fish Commission 

(CRilFC) which offered , for the record, a law review article on ESU policy written by Dan 

Rohlf of Lewis and Clark Law School in collaboration with CRI1FC staff, and views previously 

submitted to Senator Marl< Hatfield on salmon recovery. 

In speaking with commission staff, 1 can state that the Columbia River treaty fishing tribes are 

extremely dissatisfied with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implementation of 

ESA for Snake River salmon populations both because it is highly discriminatory, and because 

it fails to utilize key elements of the ESA, i.e. propagation and transplantation. 

Last year, the tribal fall chinook fishery was the only activity in the Columbia Basin that did not 

receive a timely no-jeopardy opinion by NMFS. The fishery took place only after an order was 

issued by the Federal Court. This same discrimination can be: seen in the implementation of 

protective measures tor marbled murtelets by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Despite the fact that 

the decline of murrelcts is clearly tied to loss of habitat, one of the first actions of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service was to attempt to reduce net fisheries based on the unsubstantiated concern that 

these birds would be caught during salmon fisheries. In fact, studies have shown that it is 

extremely rare for any murrelcts to be caught in these fisheries. Clearly, the Act has not been 

applied evenly, and has not focused its protective efforts squarely on the causes for population 

declines. The recovery burden must be commensurate with the magnirude of the impact whether 

it is in the Columbia River or Puget Sound, and whether it is with regard to salmon or marbled 

murrelcts 

A final note in this regard is that for salmon species to be protected, it is critical that activities 

on non-Federal as well as Federal lands be controlled. In a report that we have provided, it is 

clear that in the Skagit Basin at least, the largest impacts to Ulho salmon stocks have occurred 

on non-Federal lands. Unless activities on these lands are addn:ssed, we will continue to see the 

decline of stocks, and Treaty and non-Treaty fisheries will see additional restrictions in order to 

support these inappropriate land use practices. Salmon stocks cannot be supported on Federal 

lands alone. 

The Columbia River Tribes are also critical of the NMFS "ESlJ' policy which furnishes the 

basis for listing. The ESU policy, as described in Professor Rohlfs article, is a genetics based 

policy that fails to take into account the fundamental behavior of the salmon. Further, according 

to Commission biologists, it is more a recipe for extinction than recovery. The NMFS policy 

maintains salmon populations in a fragmented and isolated status rather than increasing 

population size and vigor through sound propagation practices that are commonly used for other 

species, as well as for salmon in other parts of their range. The Commission believes that 

application of the NMFS ESU policy will continue to severely hinder recovery, thereby requiring 

use of more radical measures. 

4 
207 

COMMUNITY IMPACI'S 

The final issue I would like to address is the issue of the impact of the Endangered Species Act 

on communities. It is clear there has been a concerted effort to shape this debate around how the 

Act lJa.i adversely affected certain conununities. We have heard limited Congressional advocacy 

on behalf of fishing conununities, both Tribal and non-Tribal, that have been devastated by the 

lack of fishing opportunities, and 'MUch will be further devestated if the protective measures 

provided for in the Act are reduced.. The debate has been shaped to force a decision about 

vmether to provide support for ronununities and individuals that may themselves be responsible 

for destroying the resources of a different conununity. By using the Endangered Species as a 

backdrop, the very conununities complaining the loudest are those conununities that have 

virtually eliminated fisheries on the Colwnbia River and have severely restricted both Treaty and 

non-Treaty fisheries in Puget Sound It is only vmen the stocks have reached the JX>int of 

e>.1inction that this Act comes into play. Until that point other land use activities have been able 

to continue with few restrictions. We do not believe this benefits the species in question, nor is 

it fair, and only acts to pit one group against another. If the purpose of this debate is how to 

implement the Act such that species are protected vmile preserving conununity stability, the 

answa docs not lie in making a choice of one conununity over the other. In this Congress, 

vmerc so much has been said about taking personal responsibility for one's actions, the Skagit 

River Tribes have demonstrated since time inunemorial that they responsibly manage fisheries 

resources to insure that these resources will be available for generations yet unbom We hope that 

final implt:mentation of this act will insure that the personal responsibility of others will result 

in the continued existence of this most precious resource. 

5 
208 

Testimony Presented To The 

U.S. House Of Representatives 

Committee On Resources 

Task Force On Endangered Species 

The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman 

Prepared For The 

Northwest Forest Resource Council 

Portland, Oregon 

Submitted By 

John F. Palmisano, Ph.D. 

Fisheries Scientist 

Beaverton, Oregon 

On 

24 April 1995 

Red Lion Inn At The Quay 

Vancouver, Washington 
209 

RECE:-o'T NORTHWEST SALMONID FISHERIES EXPERIENCE 

John F. Palmisano. Ph. D. 

Fisheries Scientist (JPBC) 

EDUCATION 

Ph.D., Fisheries-Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

M.S., Fisheries Biology, Utah State University, Logan. 

B.S., Biology, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

B.S., Conservation; University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

EMPLOYMENT 

1990 NW !56th Ave. Beaverton, OR 97006 

Voice: 5031645-5676; FAX: 5031629-8150 

Dr. Palmisano has over 20 years of professional fisheries experience as consultant, researcher, and teacher: 

o JPBC (John Palmisano Biological Consultants), Beaverton, Oregon, 1988 to present, Owner. 

o CH2M HILL, Bellevue, Washington, 1978 to 1988, Fisheries Scientist. 

o National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska, 1975 to 1977, Marine Biologist. 

o University of Washington, College of Fisheries, Seattle, Washington, 1977, Acting Professor. 

o Western Washington State University, Department of Biology, Bellingham, Spring: 1975 and 1977, Instructor. 

SELECTED SALMONID AND RELATED EXPERIENCE 

o Prepared ESA comments for listed species and critical habitat designation for several Northwest species. 

o Presented testimony to Oregon Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on Northwest salmon. 

o Presented testimony to two National Research Council Committees on Pacific Northwest salmon issues. 

o Prepared comments on salmonid-forestry issues for Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMA1) 

o Reviewed salmonid fisheries issues and visited stream sites in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon. 

o Senior author of technical report on impacts to salmonids in Washington. 

o Coauthored technical report on decline of salmonids in Oregon. 

o Presented testimony to U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Pacific Northwest salmon issues 

o Presented testimony to Washington State Senate and House committees on Washington salmon issues. 

o Reviewed Lower Columbia River environmental factors and affects on salmonid populations for Public Utilities. 

o Led forebay trap study of downstream migrant salmon and steelhead trout smolts at Rocky Reach Dam. 

o Conducted salmonid fingerling bypass study at Rock Island Dam. 

o Prepared fisheries section for Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

o In charge of fish husbandry and rearing technology for the Tulalip Tribes' salmon hatchery in Washington. 

o Managed testing program for bioassays with juvenile salmon for ARCO's Ferndale, Washington, Plant. 

o Wrote operational manual for the McCall, Idaho, summer chinook salmon l.atchery for Idaho Fish and Game. 

o Reviewed fishery resources of the Snake River and evaluated effects of proposed increased flows for salmon. 

o Designed and conducted salmonid population survey of over 30 streams in lhe Flathead Indian Reservation, Mont. 

o Senior reviewer of technical reports on the impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on Prince William Sound salmon. 

o Biological liaison for design of Ketchikan, Alaska, salmon hatchery. 

PUBLICATIONS 

Dr. Palmisano has prepared over 125 project reports and has published several technical and popular papers about 

salmonids and marine mammals in scientific journals such as Science, Ecology, and BioScience. 

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION 

Fisheries Scientist- No. 1,798, by the American Fisheries Society. 

Senior Ecologist, by the Ecological Society of America. 

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

American Fisheries Society 

American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologist, Director OR & SW W A District 

Ecological Society of America 

Pacific Estuarine Society 
Congressman Richard Pombo 

U.S. House of Representati·:es 

Committee on Resources 

210 

Chairman, Task Force on Endangered Species 

Dear Chairman Pombo: 

20 April 1995 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum and to present testimony before the 

Task Force on Endangered Species. My name is John F. Palmisano. I am an independent 

fisheries scientist from Beaverton, Oregon, and I represent the Northwest Forest Resource 

Council of Portland, Oregon. I have over 20 years of professional fisheries experience in the 

Pacific Northwest as a teacher, researcher, and consultant. I have a Ph.D. in Fisheries Ecology 

form the University of Washington, a Master's Degree in Fisheries Biology from Utah State 

University, and Bachelor Degrees in Biology and Conservation from the University of 

Wisconsin. I am certified as a Fisheries Scientist by the American Fisheries Society, and as a 

Senior Ecologist by the Ecological Society of America. (Please see attached list of experience.) 

Over the last three and one-half years I have studied the factors that have adversely affected 

Pacific Northwest stocks of wild anadromous (migratory) salmon and trout (salmonids). I have 

coauthored two scientific studies, one reviewed the fisheries of Oregon (Kaczynski and 

Palmisano 1992, revised in 1993), the other the fisheries of Washington (Palmisano et al. 1993). 

During much of this time I have been a volunteer member of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service's Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committee (PSBTC), and have reviewed the status 

of anadromous stocks of salmon and trout in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. I have 

prepared technical biological comments for several species of salmon and trout that have been 

proposed for listing under the present Endangered Specie Act, such as Oregon's Illinois River 

winter steelhead trout, Umpqua River cutthroat trout, and coastal coho salmon. In addition, I 

have prepared comments on Critical Habitat Designation for listed species, such as Snake River 

sockeye salmon and spring/summer and fall chinook salmon, Lost River and shortnose suckers, 

and a sea bird - the marbled murrelet. 

During this time I have noticed the effect of the Endangered Species Act on the scientific 

community and citizens of the Northwest. The Act has been used legitimately to protect 

threatened and endangered species, but unfortunately, it also has been misused for ulterior 

motives, such as stopping legitimate timber harvests. Federal resource agencies have been rushed 

to judgement by court-determined schedules and the threat of litigation, rather then having time 

to adequately review available and imminent scientific data. (Please see examples on next page.) 

As a scientist, I believe it is important to aspire to protect species that truly are threatened with 

extinction. However, we must realize that extinction is a natural process. An estimated 95 

percent of all species that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct. Thus, our zeal to 

protect species must be tempered with scientific fact. As appealing as it may be, it would be 

unwise - and unfair to ourselves - to attempt to save species whose environment has changed 

naturally and no longer is capable of sustaining viable populations of the declining species. 
211 

Examples Of Likely Misuses Of Endangered Specie Act 

A. The Endangered Species Act likely has been misused: 

o To protect species whose abundance may have experienced only a short-term decline 

caused by natural or human-influenced factors (southern Oregon steelhead trout), or by 

long-term declines caused by natural factors beyond human control (bull trout decline 

influenced by global warming; several stocks of Pacific salmon whose recovery has 

been prevented by reduced levels of ocean productivity). 

o To prepare recovery plans and designate critical habitat to stop land-use activities that 

had little or no effect on the decline of the listed species (southern Oregon Lost River 

and shortnose suckers, and marble murrelet; both to stop timber harvests). 

o By those who had little, if any sincere concern about the well being of the species 

proposed for listing, but instead, who were using the Act as a surrogate to achieve a not 

so hidden agenda (Lost River and short nose suckers to stop the Salt Caves Project in 

southern Oregon; listing the marbled murrelet to stop timber harvests). 

B. Federal resource agencies have refused to: 

o Consider or designate critical habitat in areas where it was needed for listed species 

(the marine environment for Snake River salmon and the marbled murrelet). 

o Consider important scientific evidence that may have prevented the listing of a species 

because of a schedule determined by a court, or because of the threat of litigation 

(marbled murrelet). 

o Postpone a proposed listing for a few months, until a much needed research project 

could release its findings, because of the fear of threatened litigation (Oregon's Umpqua 

River cutthroat trout). 

o Acknowledge that management factors, such as eradication programs and the 

introduction of exotic species that hybridized , outcompeted, and preyed on the species 

proposed for listing were equally important factors of decline, or likely more important 

factors of decline, than land-use activities (bull trout). 

I have five suggestions that might improve the Act, and that could be used to formulate or 

support future legislation, such as that proposed by Senator Slade Gorton of Washington State. 

I) Scientific Method. Paramount above all other considerations, a revised Act should be solidly 

based on scientific principles, methods, and procedures. Its execution should be based on the 

Scientific Method: An hypothesis is (a) proposed, (b) tested by unbiasedly considering scientific 

information which includes a representative sample of the credible data that support and that 

refute the hypotheses, and (c) ultimately accepted or rejected solely on the weight of the 

scientific evidence. This would eliminate the unethical practices of those who seek only the 

scientific works - or backing of individuals - that would support a predetermined belief and 

ignore all credible information that would promote an opposite conclusion. 

2 
212 

2) Peer Review. A peer review process should be used to propose, test, and judge scientific 

hypotheses. Peer-reviewers should include a group of recognized experts in the scientific 

community who are independent, credible, and fairly represent the major consenting and 

opposing views of an issue. Preferably, this would exclude natural resource agency personnel 

involved in the listing process under ESA, unless they were recognized, unbiased experts. 

3) Scientific Determination. This scientific approach would be used to answer four questions: 

(a) Is the organism of concern truly a species? (b) Does the population in question comprise the 

major entity of the species or is it just a small and un-unique subpopulation? (c) Are its numbers 

declining enough to cause extinction? and (d) Is its decline a result of natural or humaninfluenced factors; and if it is a mixture of both factors, is one more responsible than the other? 

4) Adequate Time For Scientific Deliberation. Although civil laws are important, and should 

be followed, the time period allowed for considering the listing of a species under ESA should 

be determined more by scientific considerations than by legal constraints. This does not mean 

that years have to pass while new research is conducted and analyzed. Instead, if a few weeks 

or months would allow the thorough review of existing or imminent data, then the benefits of 

such a short delay that could result in an accurate decision should be weighed against meeting 

a shorter legally determined deadline that could result in an accurate or unnecessary listing. 

5) Expedient De-Listing. The Act should allow expedient de-listing of a species if credible 

scientific information is presented to show that it was mistakenly listed. Similarly, an expedient 

de-listing should occur when credible information is presented to show that the abundance of the 

listed species has increased and that the population is no longer in danger of extinction. 

Other Considerations. Whether the revised Act should consider the needs of people and their 

means of livelihood, as well as the species needs, is beyond my expertise as a scientist. As a 

private citizen, however, I understand why it would be reasonable for the Act to weigh the 

adverse effects to humans against those to the species. Accordingly, it would be critical to 

correctly determine the causes of decline to ensure that people would not be unjustly and 

adversely affected by listing a species whose decline was the result of natural causes. This would 

be especially true in the Northwest where timber communities are often blamed for species 

declines, whether or not declines are caused by timber practices. The following two sections 

demonstrate that many of the perceived adverse effects of timber harvests are based on logging 

practices that have not been routinely used since the 1960s, and that logging operations have 

neutral effects and beneficial effects, as well as adverse effects on the environment. 

Outmoded Evaluation of Logging Effects. Effects of forest practices on water resources in the 

Pacific Northwest have long been of interest to both resource managers and the public. Although 

not widely known to the public, a significant understanding of the effects of forest practices and 

forest roads on water resources has evolved from over 30 years of research in Pacific Northwest 

forests. Included in this research are some of the first comprehensive, large-scale studies (i.e., 

entire watersheds were treated and evaluated) conducted in the United States on the effects of 

logging and road construction on water resources. 

3 
213 

Adams and Ringer ( 1994) observed that much of the research on forestry and water resources 

occurred years ago, and these results should be considered in light of current management 

standards and available technologies. Froehlich (1993) has observed (see Section below), that 

even past harvest methods were not always detrimental to water resources and fish habitats. 

Adams and Ringer's (1994) review of this research clearly shows that timber harvesting and 

forest roads can affect water quality and quantity. Popular perceptions commonly are that 

forestry effects are invariably negative and relatively permanent. However, research has shown 

insignificant, positive, and combined effects that were greatly influenced by the specific location, 

treatments, and duration of the study, and that the adverse effects are healed with the passage 

of time. We contend that natural resource agencies generally ignore logging's positive impacts 

and stress negative findings on water and fish resources. 

Logging and Water Quantity. Actual or potential changes in streamflow often are attributed to 

nearby timber harvesting. Interestingly, it is not unusual to hear claims of both increases and 

decreases in flow attributed to logging. Although research shows that such a wide range of 

effects are possible, usually no obvious flow change is expected because only a small portion 

of a watershed is harvested during individual Jogging operations. 

When a large area of a watershed is logged (more than 15 or 20 percent), streamflow typically 

increases. Water losses through uptake and evaporation by forest cover generally is greater than 

with any other type of plant cover or land use, so when logging removes trees, more water is 

available to add to streamflow. Documented examples of decreased stream flows after logging 

are relatively rare. Decreases in streamflow have been shown only after Jogging forests where 

"fog drip" (i.e., interception of fog or cloud moisture by the forest canopy, which then drips to 

the ground) was notably heavy. Finally, research has shown no clear evidence of logging effects 

on peak streamflows. Large floods normally occur simply when an extended period of very 

heavy rains adds too much water to soils and streams to absorb, regardless of land use. 

Forest Roads and Water Quantity. Few studies have evaluated the effects of forest roads on 

streamflow separately from logging effects. Studies in larger watersheds showed little or no 

effect while those in small, upland watersheds found that road construction increased peak flows. 

Logging and Water Quality. Increased water temperatures have been observed in a number of 

locations where logging removed vegetation that previously shaded a stream, generally under 

standards of practices used in the 1960s. Such findings helped stimulate Forest Practices Rules 

to maintain most shade along major forest streams. Recovery from temperature increases occurs 

after streamside vegetation has grown back to again provide shade. 

Increased sediment in streams after logging has been seen in several studies, although many 

studies have not clearly distinguished logging effects from those of related treatments, such as 

road construction and slash burning. Again, these effects were caused by the use of standards 

and equipment of the 1960s. In addition, the widespread practice of stream clean-up (removing 

woody debris to enhance fish passage) during this period may have contributed to sedimentation. 

4 
214 

Forest Roads and Water Quality. Research conducted in steep terrain has shown a number of 

clear examples of increased erosion and steam sedimentation form forest roads. Greatest effects 

typically have occurred during major storms shortly after road construction, with sedimentation 

generally declining with revegetation of roadsides and other natural stabilization. Again, most 

research was on roads constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Where improved location and design 

have been used, less erosion has been observed. 

Biased Evaluation of Logging Effects. As stated above, Agencies generally ignore logging's 

positive impacts on water and fish resources and stress the negative findings. A conclusion of 

natural resource agencies, that timber harvesting and related activities in the Northwest are the 

cause of the decline of salmonid populations, is strongly contradicted by the results of several 

scientifically conducted forestry field studies, as summarized by Froehlich (1993). 

The long-term study in Carnation Creek, B.C. (Holtby 1988), evaluated the clearcut logging 

activities that harvested over 40 percent of the watershed between 1976 and 1981. August air 

and water temperatures increased after logging, and smolt production increased from 2,355 fish 

in the pre-logging to 3,695 fish in the post-logging period. Smolt weight increased markedly and 

the size of the subsequent adult female population increased by almost 9 percent. 

In a report of the effects of logging on 25 streams distributed over 8,000 square miles in 

southwestern Washington, Bisson and Sedell (1984) reported an average doubling of salmonid 

biomass in clearcut areas compared to control old-growth forested watersheds. The I .5- to twofold magnitude of change approximated the increase observed in streams in logged areas of 

northern California and Oregon by Bums (1972), Aho (1976), and Murphy and Hall (1981). 

In his studies of the structure of trout communities in nine streams in the Oregon Cascades, 

Murphy (1988) observed that trout biomass averaged almost 70 percent higher in clearcut 

streams than in forested reaches. 

Sullivan et a/. ( 1987) evaluated the effects of timber harvests in the Deschutes basin of Western 

Washington that had been extensively logged and roaded since 1950. Although over 50 percent 

of the watershed had been cut, observations between 1975 and 1985 showed that there had been 

no clear trend in the abundance of adult salmon during that decade. Annual run sizes varied 

greatly and were strongly influenced by ocean survival and fishing pressures. Experimental 

studies conducted in Deschutes tributary streams showed that growth and production of cutthroat 

trout and experimentally stocked coho salmon were consistently greater in open than in forested 

channels. Although the abundance of high quality pools was reduced by agency-mandated stream 

cleaning in the open channel, fish populations were apparently benefitted by greater food 

availability , increased frequency of water temperatures above sub-optimal growth levels, and 

emigration patterns. The authors concluded that these results suggest that removal of riparian 

canopy may actually boost salmonid productivity during the period prior to regeneration of the 

vegetative canopy, i.e., up to 20 years following timber harvest. 

In similar studies conducted in an Oregon Cascade stream between 1973 and 1976, Hallet al. 

( 1978) observed that trout abundance ranged from I 00 to 672 individuals and averaged 400 fish 

5 
215 

in the clearcut reach, and ranged from 55 to 415 fish and averaged 233 trout in the forested 

channel. Fish biomass in the clearcut reach was slightly more than double that of the forested 

reach. Samuelson (!982) concluded in a study on fisheries habitats in five small watersheds on 

the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, that logging, which is properly conducted and supervised 

within the constraints of present (1982) environmental guidelines, is compatible with fisheries. 

Osborn (!980) concluded from a study designed to determine the effects of clearcut logging on 

resident and anadromous cutthroat trout in Jefferson County Washington, that populations in the 

logged resident streams maintained their abundance and age distribution over the course of the 

study, in spite of logging operations in and across the stream channel. The post-logging biomass 

of trout was almost 30 percent higher in the clearcut (no buffer) than in the old-growth forest. 

Research reports cited above, and numerous others, support the contention that previous harvest 

methods were not as detrimental as assumed by the opponents of logging . Under the more 

restrictive rules of today, there is little likelihood that carefully planned and executed logging 

operations would have negative long-term effects on riparian ecosystems (Froehlich 1993). 

Habitat Not The Major Issue. Recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin, streams "underseeded" 

with salmon, and poor ocean conditions provide the best scientific evidence that freshwater 

habitat and related salmonid production are not the major causes of the decline and lack of 

recovery of Northwest salmonid stocks. Historically, annual juvenile numbers in the Columbia 

were estimated at 265 million fish (NPPC 1986) with a 3 percent annual return of 7.5 million 

adults (Chapman 1986). Recent annual juvenile production in the basin has been augmented to 

350 million fish. However, only 0.3 percent, or 1.2 million adults, returned in 1992 (see Table). 

Era Wild Hatchery Total Adult %Adult 

Smolts Smolts Smolts Run Size Return 

Histc.i"ical 265 -- 265 7.5 2.8 

1992 145 203 348 1.2 0.3 

"Note: Numbers in millions (Palmisano eta/. 1993, Kaczynski and Palmisano 1993). 

Obviously, factors other than juvenile abundance determines the subsequent abundance of adult 

fish . Thus, policies to increase the number of adult spawners may be more needed than those 

designed to enhance freshwater habitat. Recent reports by Cederholm (1993), Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council (PFMC 1992), and Cederholm and Reid (1987) confirm that it is the 

absence of mature adult salmonids from our streams (underseeding), not the quality of stream 

habitats, that is preventing the recovery of our salmonid stocks. Finally, recent studies have 

documented that the abundance of ocean prey organisms, which are eaten directly by salmonids 

or support salmonid food webs, have decreased by 70 percent since the 1970s (Roemmich and 

McGowan 1995), and ocean currents that once favored salmonid production from Washington 

to California have shifted and now favor salmonid production in Alaska (Pearcy 1994). 

6 
216 

References 

Adams, P.W., and J.O. Ringer. 1994. The effects of timber harvesting & forest roads on water 

quantity & quality in the Pacific Northwest: Summary & Annotated Bibliography. 

Prepared for The Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Supplement No. 5 to Cooperative 

Agreement. Forest Engineering Dept. Oregon Statue University. Corvallis. 

Aho, R.S. 1976. A population study of the cutthroat trout in an unshaded and shaded section of 

stream. Master's thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Bisson, P.A., and J.R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut vs. old-growth 

forests of western Washington. In: Meehan, W.R., et a/. (ed.). Proceedings of a 

Symposium: Fish and Wildlife Relationships in Old-growth Forests. 

Burns, J. W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road construction on northern 

California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101:1-17. 

Cederholm, C.J. 1993. Personal Communication. Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia. 

Cederholm, C.J., and L.M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, WA: a project summary. 

Pages 373-398 in: Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions (E.O. Salo 

and T.W. Cundy, eds.). U. of WA, Inst. of Forest Res. Contrib. 57, Seattle, WA. 

Chapman, D.C. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the nineteenth 

century. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 115:662-670. 

Froehlich, H. A. 1993. Reviews of FEMAT Report Chapter V - Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management, Chapter VIII- Implementation and Adaptive Management, A Brief Review 

in Stream Ecology Research. In: Comments on the draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Owl-Growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Northwest Forest 

Resource Council et a/. October 1993. Portland, Oregon. 

Hall, J.D. eta/. 1978. An improved design for assessing impacts of watershed practices on 

small streams. Verh. Int. Ver. Lim no. 20:1359-1365. 

Holtby, L.B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperature in Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia, and associated impacts on coho salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:502-515. 

Kaczynski, V.W., and J.F. Palmisano. 1992. A Review of Management and Environmental 

Factors Responsible for the Decline and Lack of Recovery of Oregon's Wild 

Anadromous Salmonids. Oregon Forest Industry Council, Salem, Oregon. 

7 
217 

Kaczynski, V.W., and J.F. Palmisano. 1993. Oregon's Wild Salmon and Steelhead Trout: A 

Review of the Impact of Management and Environmental Factors. Oregon Forest 

Industry Council, Salem, Oregon . 

King, S. 1992. Personal communications. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Gresham. 

Murphy, M.L. 1988. The structure of predator communities in some Oregon Cascade streams. 

M.S . Thesis, Oregon State university. Corvallis. 

Murphy, M.L., and J.D. Hall. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their 

habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:137-145. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1986. Numerical estimates of hydropower-related 

losses. Appendix E of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland. 

Osborne, J.G. 1980. Effects of logging on resident and scarun populations of cutthroat trout in 

small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington, 1978-1979. 

Palmisano, J.F., Ellis, R.h. and V.W. Kaczynski. 1993 The Impact of Environmental and 

Management Factors on Washington's Wild Anadromous Salmon and Trout. Washington 

Forest Protection Association & Washington Department of Natural Resources. 

Pearcy, W. G. 1994. Ocean productivity. In press. College of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Sciences. Oregon State University. Corvallis. 

PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 1992. Oregon coastal natural coho Review 

Team Report. An assessment of the status of the Oregon coastal coho natural stock as 

required under the definition of overfishing . Portland, Oregon. October. 

Roemmich, D., and J. McGowan. 1995. Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in 

the California Current. Science 267: 1324-1326. 

Samuelson, C. E. 1982. Logging and fish-habitat-preliminary review of the results of a long-term 

study of five streams in the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. In : Meehan, W.R. eta/. 

(eds.). Fish and Wildlife Relationships in Old Growth Forests, Proc . Am. lnst. Fish. 

Bioi. Symposium, Juneau, Alaska. 

Sullivan, K. eta/. 1987. The Deschutes Basin Study: Effects of management on sediment, 

discharge, temperature, and fish habitat - an example of the benefits on environmental 

research. 

8 
218 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACf HEARING 

Bud Mercer 

Columbia/Snake River Irrigators 

4000 W Clearwater Ave 

Kennewick Wa 99336 

In material prepared by the Endangered Species Coalition I notice the following : 

Message: "No one has the right to exploit his/her land to such an extent that public health or 

the quality of life of the community are threatened •. We all agree with that statement! Let's 

hold our Eadaogercd Species Act (ESA) exploitations to the same standard? 

My experience: If the ESA mandated National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recovery 

plan is implemented as proposed, the health and the community quality of life in the Northwest 

will have been set back several decades. 

To witness the "community quality of life" generated by ESA mandates, visit any rural Western 

Washington or Oregon community and sec bow they fared under ESA driven recovery plans. 

The Columbia/Snake River Hydro-power-Navigation-Recreation-Irrigation system is the 

best in the world. No more significant engine of economic and social progress exists. It 

is an unbelievable jewel of prosperity to all who come and witness the systems made possible 

from this development. It is simply, the envy of the world. 

Five years ago it would have been inconceivable to me that government agencies and special 

interest organizations from outside our region would advocate crippling or killing this giant 

based on questionable science selected from the studies that have been conducted over the last 

several years. 

This situation is made possible by the Endangered Species Act. 

The plight of the Endangered/Threatened Idaho Salmon is deplorable, and every reasonable and 

effective action we can take to recover those runs must be taken. 

We, the residents of the region, given a choice, would take every reasonable and effective 

action toward recovering these salmon without hesitation. 

But, The ESA doesn't mandate reasonable or effective actions. 

My message is this: 

At least four major and costly actions called for under NMFS plan are technically flawed. They 

will not increase survival of listed salmon!! They are 1) Reservoir Depletion (massive flow 

augmentation); 2) Spills, (spilling water over the dams); 3) John Day drawdown to 

Minimum Operating Pool (MOP); 4) Lower Snake River drawdowns. 

lESAtest 
219 

When faced with technical evidence that these actions will not result in fish recovery, the 

justification - "Federal judges will not accept a plan that does not dramatically alter the 

operations of the river system •. This is interpretation of the law, ESA driven recovery. 

There are other options to recover Salmon, supported by the region. A plan has been developed 

using cost-effectiveness planning that produces equal or better results for 1/4 the cost. 

When asked why planning like this is not acceptable, the answer is always the same. Federal 

judges, interpreting federal law, will not accept it. This is ESA driven planning. 

The NMFS ESA driven plan calls for depleting the storage reservoirs on the Columbia/Snake 

mainstems in staggering amounts, 13-16 Million Acre Feet (MAF). Up to 90% of the total 

storage capacity for flow augmentation at an annual cost of $200-$300 million. We would opt 

to sacrifice some storage water historically used for winter hydro-generation flows, and pay a 

little more for power, if that action produced increased survival. Flows above about 5 MAF 

do not increase survival! 

The best and most current science developed by University of Washington (UW)/NMFS 

indicates that in-river survival is better than previously supposed, in the 90% survival 

range. That information, when included in current modeling, such as UW's CRiSP, 

indicates that reservoir depletion beyond some 5 MAF will not increase survival. Is this 

a reasonable or effective action? 

The NMFS ESA driven plan calls for spill at all projects at average flow levels. Annual cost, 

$10-25 Million. We would opt to spill some water over the dams, foregoing that generating 

capacity, and paying a little more for power, if it would increase survival. Spills kill fish! 

The best and most current science indicates that nitrogen super-saturation over some II 0-

115% will inflict gas bubble disease on both migrating and resident fish, probably 

resulting in significant fish kills. In addition, if those advocating this action bothered to 

actually come talk to residents of the region, they would learn immediately of the 

thousands of sea-gulls that feed below the dams on spill days. EVEN THE DAMN 

BIRDS KNOW WHAT KILLS FISH! Is this reasonable or effective? 

If the ESA process involved listening to the regions residents, and considering their experience 

and their needs, planning would be different. Below are the results from the public comment 

process conducted by the Corp of Engineers during the System Configuration study. 

Support Drawdown: 14 

Support test drawdown: 30 

Support other methods of recovery: 1500 

Oppose Drawdown type action: 2992 

Opposed other measures: few 

Opposed transportation 13 

2 ESA test 

91-344 - 95 - 8 
220 

Does the public comment process mean anything? Is the ESA responsive to impacts on people? 

It's hard to believe that based on the recommendation for drawdowns and super high flO"IS called 

for in NMFS plan. Does this explain the 1994 election results? 

The NMFS ESA driven plan calls for drawdown to Minimum Operating Pool (MOP) of John 

Day Reservoir in 1996. We would no doubt even consider supporting a John Day Drawdown to 

MOP, sacrificing some quality of life in our region, sacrificing resident wildlife habitat, 

sacrificing many recreation areas used by our residents, absorb the annualized $25 million cost 

by paying a little more for power, if it would substantially increase survival. It does not! 

The best and most current science fails to find a case for increased survival by lowering 

John Day Pool to MOP. Harza Engineering, for the Northwest Power Planning Council 

(NPPC), Corp of Engineers, and the Snake River Recovery Team, all concluded that the 

5 or 6 foot drawdown of John Day Pool to MOP would not produce measurable increases 

in salmon survival. In a letter to Angus Duncan (NPPC) dated Oct 11, 1994, Dr. 

Don Bevan (Snake River Salmon Recovery Team leader) summarized the 

exhaustive research done by the Team on John Day "In the teams judgement, it 

would be imprudent to implement a drawdown of John Day Reservoir. The 

biological benefits would be too small to be measurable, and it could potentially 

cause problems for both adult and juvenile passage at the dam". Is this action 

reasonable or effective? 

The NMFS ESA driven plan calls for a decision on Snake River Drawdowns by 1998. Annual 

cost, $150-500 million. We, the residents of the region, would not seriously consider a Snake 

River drawdown, thereby losing 1/8 of our hydro-power system, losing the inland port of 

Lewiston/Clarkston, losing the numerous grain loading terminal along the lower Snake, losing 

more resident fish and wildlife habitat than the benefit to Idaho Salmon would equal. And, 

Snake River drawdowns result in reduced fish survival!! 

The best and most current science finds Snake River drawdowns would decrease survival 

under almost all model conditions, largely because the transportation programs from 

Lower Granite and Littlt! Goose would have to be abandoned. A Decision to implement 

radical drawdowns on the lower Snake would never be reasonable or effective, compared 

to the regional impacts. 

3 ESA test 
221 

This is the ESA at work. All the above actions fly in the face of the best science the region 

can supply. Then, why is the region about to implement these programs? 

Because the ESA has no mandate for cost-effectiveness. 

Even biological effectiveness does not have to be demonstrated. Only political 

acceptance. 

Because the ESA is not responsive to rural residents, but is driven by removed interests. 

Economic/social hardship cannot be measured by pain borne by residents, but by pain 

inflicted on a national level. Explain that in western W A rural communities. 

Because the ESA mandates action, that action is dictated by federal judges. 

In private conversations about action options, decision makers have indicated "just 

between us· the reason we are calling for this action is because Judge [Marsh/Tang/etc] 

won't accept a plan that doesn't dramatically alter the operations of the river. 

The combined cost of these [ESA mandated] actions equal $600 Million. That is 1/8 of the 

total agricultural output of Washington State. It does not recover fish! 

This is ESA at work. 

There are better options, (for example Recover 1) proposed by regional interests! 

That option, developed by application of Cost-Effectiveness planning would simply apply costeffectiveness ranking to various proposals, then chooses only those that actually produce 

increased survival. It applies all reasonable and effective actions. 

It produces as good or better survival increases for 114 the cost, and leaving the basic producing 

capacity of the river-system in place. 

Why aren't these options considered? Why aren't they mandated under ESA? 

Because, they don't dramatically alter the operations of the river! They wouldn't meet the 

requirements of the ESA according to Federal judges (or those who fear them)!! 

If allowed to prevail, the NMFS plan will produce maximum social and economic stress to 

the region, and minimum salmon recovery!! This is ESA driven planning! 

The Endangered Species Act is fatally flawed. Recovery under ESA mandate will not 

occur!! 

We must amend this act to mandate cost-effectiveness (least cost) planning, to mandate 

consideration for local human needs, to eliminate resource management by federal judges 

carrying out the social agenda of the (then current) administration. 

We at CS!UA support modification of this act. We very much appreciate this opportunity 

to share our views with you. 

4 ESA test 
222 

STATEMENT OF 

OLIVIA FALCONER JAMES, OWNER 

THE RIVER COMPANY 

Before the Task Force on Endangered Species 

of the Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning the Effect of the Endangered Species Act 

on Outfitting Businesses on the Upoer Main Salmon River, 

and on the Economy of Stanley, Idaho 

April 24, 1995 

TO THE CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Endangered Species Act. 

I represent The River Company, one of the largest floatboat outfitters in the 

State of Idaho. We operate under Special Use Permits administered by the U.S. 

Forest Service, in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Floatboating is a major 

tourist attraction in Idaho, and the city of Stanley, our headquarters, depends on 

tourism for about 75% of its income. 

Last August, at the (>eak of our summer season, all floatboating on the Upper 

Main Salmon River was nearly shut down by the Endangered Species Act. 

Outfitters and Forest Service managers had been working for three years to avoid 

such a river closure, but our worst case scenario finally happened, and it was worse 

than we thought it would be. 

BACKGROUND 

The Upper Main Salmon River is in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, 

in Idaho. This area is mannged by the Forest Service, with an emphasis on 

providing quality outdoor recreational opportunities to the public. 

The day-trip whitewater section of the Salmon River is about ten to twelve 

miles long, depending on water level. It is a moderate section of water, mostly Class 

I and Class II-- on a scale of I to VI-- with two sections of Class III rapids. The 

first two miles have two Class IV rapids, able to be rafted only during early season 

high water. 
223 

There are four day-trip outfitters permitted on this stretch of river. There is 

also substantial use by private floatboaters. Total use is about 11,000 floatboaters 

per summer. Our company handles about 40% of this volume. 

The most popular stretch of river for floatboating passes through an area 

that is also a prime spawning ground for adult chinook salmon. These spawning 

grounds, called "Indian Riffles," are only about 100 yards long, but historically 

hundreds of salmon spawned there from mid-August until late September each year. 

The life cycle of these salmon is four or five years. After hatching they 

continue to live for about nine months in the river near where they were spawned. 

Then during the next Spring runoff they migrate downriver 900 miles to the Pacific 

Ocean where they live as saltwater fish for two or three years. When they have 

reached sexual maturity they fight their way back upriver 900 miles again to the 

very same gravel beds in which they were spawned. There they lay their eggs, and 

then die. 

In 1992, chinook salmon on our section of river were listed as a "threatened" 

species under the Endangered Species Act; in 1994 they were listed as 

"endangered". The reasons for this listing are complex, but the main reason is that 

there are eight major hydroelectric power dams downriver from us that directly and 

indirectly kill up to 95% of all the young salmon attempting to migrate to the Pacific 

Ocean. The young s::lmon, which historically were washed backward to the ocean 

in a matter of days by spring floods, now get trapped in the slack water reservoirs 

behind the dams. They become disoriented, lose their way, change into salt-water 

fish before reaching the sea, and eighty to ninety-five percent of them die. 

Of course, there are s!ill millions of other salmon in Canada and Alaska. But 

the numbers of chinook salmon that historically returned to our particular section of 

river have been declining ever since those eight dams were built. Now the fish are 

nearly extinct in our area, and that is why they were listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

But before the salmon were even listed, local outfitters began developing 

emergency procedures to protect the few remaining fish, while still allowing 

floatboating to continue on the river. Before the start of the 1991 season, these are 

the measures we developed, and a year later incorporated in our operating plans: 

-We prohibited all unnecessary activity in the spawning beds, including 

swimming, wading, water fights, excessive paddling, or any harassing of salmon. 

-We proposed a system of buoys to mark a channel through the deepest water, 

where the salmon are least likely to spawn. 

2 Statement of Olivia Falconer James. Owner- THE RIVER COMPANY 
224 

-We suggested the language of new signs to be placed along the river warning 

private floatboaters to avoid the endangered salmon. 

-We required our guides to educate guests about the problems the salmon were 

facing, and to help educate private boaters as well. 

-We required our guides to wear polarized sunglasses, which enable the wearer 

to see into the ·water more easily and avoid spawning salmon. 

-And we agreed that when spawning season began we would reduce the numbers 

of our guests to very low limits, in order to further protect the fish. 

The first and biggest problem we ran into after the listing, was that 

jurisdiction for our local salmon had been abruptly transferred from local Forest 

Service managers, with whom we had spent years developing good working 

relationships, to a new set of managers in an unfamiliar agency, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. This happened when the biological assessment of the 

Forest Service service concluded that outfitted floatboating "might affect" the 

threatened or endangered salmon, instead of rendering a "no effect" decision during 

the informal consultation process in 1992. Subsequently formal consultation under 

the Endangered Species Act began. 

The Endangered Species Act specifies that all fish that live primarily in 

saltwater, such as chinook salmon, will be managed by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service if they become threatened or endangered. So, suddenly all of our 

local outfitter proposals, and all of the local Forest Service management strategies 

for the entire ecosystem that might affect salmon had to be reviewed and accepted 

by another Federal Agency that was located about 700 miles away, staffed by people 

we had never met, who I believe had not had much if any previous experience in 

administering the Endangered Species Act on inland waterways. Further, in a 

Biological Evaluation of February, 1992, conducted at the request of NMFS, p. 2 we 

read: "It is not known whether the Salmon River and its tributaries are considered 

'critical habitat' for Sockeye and Chinook." Beyond that it was certainly not known 

whether rafts have any detrimental effect on spawning fish. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service was also required to oversee operation 

of the hydroelectric dams downriver that were causing the decline of the salmon. 

And it appeared that the Fisheries Service was under tremendous political pressure 

to avoid recommending any changes to those dams because that would cost billions 

of dollars. Ultimately they ruled that the operation of those huge power installations 

was an acceptable risk to the salmon; at the same time they decided that 

floatboating through the spawning grounds at Indian Riffies was likely to adversely 

affect the survival of the species. 

3 Statement ofQJi,·"' Fal coner Jomcs. 0 11 ncr- THE RIVER COMPANY 
225 

Because of the uncertain status of the salmon, in 1992, 1993 and 1994 

outfitters were only issued temporary permits to continue their floatboating 

operations on the Upper Main Salmon River. In those years we successfully 

implemented the emergency measures, outlined above, that we had developed to 

protect the salmon. In addition, put on times were restricted for all floatboating, 

both outfitted and private, to the hours between 9 AM and 3 PM. "This limited 

time frame allows early morning, late afternoon, and nocturnal Chinook Salmon 

spawning activity to remain unaffected by floatboat activity." (Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion from NMFS, 10/22/92, p. 4) 

Over Labor Day weekend, 1993 a study by the Forest Service fisheries 

biologist on our stretch of river showed that our plan was working fairly well. It 

demonstrated that salmon were momentarily disturbed from their spawning 

activities only about 11% of the time by passing float boats. 89% of the time the 

salmon had not been disturbed at all by the passage of floatboats. Of the salmon 

that had been disturbed, most would resume their activities within a minute or so. 

There was no evidence that these minor disturbances had resulted in any loss of 

spawning capability. 

While discussing the results of this study, outfitters and Forest Service 

managers considered the possibility of lowering the disturbance rate even further. 

Outfitters offered to try in 1994 to achieve a rate of disturbance somewhere between 

5% and 8%. The most significant factor seemed to be keeping floatboats at least 25 

feet away from spawning salmon. This was based on the Biological Evaluation of 

Feb. '92, p. 3 which stated: "Observations which were made over a four year period 

from 1972- 1976 at Indian Rimes, indicate that adult salmon did not appear to be 

significantly disturbed on the redds if boats passed at a distance greater than 25 

feet". (W. W. James, "The Float boat Management Plan, 1976, p. 4, USDA Forest 

Service.) Thus, improved techniques were suggested for deploying buoys to mark a 

deep-water channel that would avoid the fish. Outfitters also suggested 

implementing a system of self-issuing permits for private float boaters, in order to 

further educate them about the need to avoid and protect spawning salmon. The 

threat to the fish by private boaters is significant, yet uncontrolled. "Unlike the 

licensed guides, who control their clients' potential to deliberately or inadvertently 

harass spring/summer chinook salmon and drag boats and walk on gravel in 

spawning areas, non commercial floatboaters are more likely to cause stress to 

spawning chinook salmon and mortality to eggs in redds. Thus non commercial 

floatboater traffic could have a cumulative effect that results in negative impacts to 

spawning spring/summer chinook salmon and their eggs." (ESA Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion from NMFS, 10/22/92, p 4.) 

4 Statement of Olivia Falconer James. Owner- THE RIVER COMPANY 
226 

The results of the study had raised hopes that a way could be found for 

floatboats and salmon to co-exist on the river. Agency managers and outfitters both 

hoped to create a successful model of coping with the Endangered Species Act, a 

model that other outfitters and agency managers would be able to follow. But 

events were soon to dash all our hopes. 

The winter of 1994 brought extremely low levels of snowfall to our area. By 

the following June the Forest Service was anticipating river levels of only 28% of 

normal. 

In addition, because of drought conditions that had existed three and four 

years earlier, the number of returning adult chinook salmon had suddenly fallen to 

record lows. The National Marine Fisheries Service was predicting that in 1994 only 

eight to twelve chinook salmon would return to the Indian Riffies spawning beds, 

where there had been between 60 and 100 fish the year before. 

5 Statement ofOii\'ia Falconer James. Owner· THE RIVER COMPANY 
227 

These two factors -- extremely low water levels and very few returning fish --

caused a sudden crisis of panic on the Upper Main Salmon River. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service moved to incrt"ase the listing of the chinook salmon from 

"threatened" to "endangered." The local Forest Service fisheries biologist became 

convinced that with such low water levels the salmon would be forced to spawn in 

the same channel used by the floatboaters, thus making it impossible to avoid the 

fish by 25 feet. The biologist was also convinced that with so few fish returning, 

every salmon and every single salmon egg must be protected from every conceivable 

harm, and that there could no longer be any justification for allowing even 

momentary disturbance of fish. Other Forest Service biologists were brought in to 

support this opinion. They said that, in their view, the Endangered Species Act held 

them personally liable for the safety of each endangered salmon, and that if they or 

anyone in the Forest Service failed to protect them the responsible parties faced 

possible fines of as high as $50,000. They stated that the Endangered Species Act 

required them, "to err on the side of the fish," and to discount any effect that their 

activities might have on the businesses or the public that also used the river. 

Meanwhile, even with low water, outfitters were having one of the best 

rafting seasons ever. As we had noticed many times before, day trip guests often 

prefer lower water levels, because they feel safer. When they feel safer they relax 

and enjoy themselves more. Day trip guests take our trips for many reasons. But 

most of the time, high water is not their first concern. What they really want is to 

feel safe. They want to know that their children are not going to be thrown out of 

the boat. They want to stay as dry and warm as possible. They want to have a 

knowledgable, entertaining, well-trained guide who is an expert boat handler, who 

knows the area and can interpret the surroundings. They want to eat a great meal. 

They want a well-planned adventure that starts on time, runs smoothly, fits their 

budget and fits their vacation plans. They don't care how high the water is, unless 

it's too high. They just want to have fun, relax, try something new, and take home 

some great memories and some exciting photos. 

But behind the happy scenes on the river, the crisis that had been gathering 

for several years was about to hit us. Three emergency meetings were held, at which 

Forest Service managers almost pleaded with outfitters to come up with new 

strategies that would save the situation. They themselves had run out of 

management ideas. Rumors began to fly that the river was going to be shut down 

soon. 

At the final emergency meeting, on August first, Forest Service managers 

said they could see no alternative than to prohibit all noatboating on the river. 

Outfitters protested that no salmon had even been sighted in the river yet, and 

pointed out that in previous years no restrictions on floatboating had been put into 

effect until it was clear that salmon had begun their spawning activities. The Forest 

6 Statement ofOiiYia Falconer James. Owner- THE RIVER COMPANY 
228 

Service biologists replied that the situation was so critical this year that they had to 

protect the potential for salmon spawning. This meant that they had to discontinue 

all floatboating before the salmon arrived. 

At this meeting outfitters proposed additional measures to further safeguard 

the salmon, and allow floatboating to continue: 

-We suggested that all floatboaters be required to pass through the Indian Rilles 

spawning beds between the hours of II a.m. and 3 p.m. daily. This would leave 

thl' salmon undisturbed for 83% of the 24-hour day, while allowing floatboating 

during 17% of the day. 

-We suggested that, if any salmon spawning areas could not be avoided by at 

least 25 feet, then all floatboaters should be required to portage around those 

areas. 

-We suggested that, if salmon spawning activities occured near the established 

floatboat take-out ramp at the lower end of the river section, as had often 

happened in previous years, all floatboaters should be required to exit the river 

about a mile upstream. 

None of these outfitter proposals was accepted. Instead we were informed 

that beginning about August 8th all floatboating activities would be banned from 

the Upper Main Salmon River. For us, this was the catastrophe we had feared. 

THE CATASTROPHE 

The rest of the summer was a nightmare. 

Outfitters immediately protested to Idaho's Governor and Congressional 

delegation. Through their intervention negotiations were reopened between the 

local Forest Service, outfitters, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. This 

resulted in an agreement acceptable to all three parties. 

But no sooner had the agreement been reached than the Regional Forester's 

office in Ogden, Utah intervened to take the decision out of the hands of the local 

Forest Service office and threaten to shut the river down again. Outfitters appealed 

for help from their national lobbyist at America Outdoors, Skootch Pankonin, and 

President Doug Tims. We spent over $2,000 on legal fees; $500 for biological 

assessments; many hundreds of dollars on faxes and urgent telephone calls. We 

neglected our businesses for days at a time. Eventually the skirmish reached all the 

way to the office of the Chief of the Forest Service in Washington, DC, who basically 

sent it back to the Regional oflice again. 

7 Statement of0\1\ia F"lconcr J"mcs. 0\\ncr ·THE RIVER COMPANY 
229 

In the meantime, local Forest Service officers had announced to the 

newspapers at least twice that the river would be closed. Television and radio 

stations repeated the same thing. Our business almost disappeared. Even though 

the river actually remained open for noatboats the remainder of the summer, many 

people mistakenly thought that all noatboating had been banned from the river. 

Some motel owners and restaurant operators began advising their guests to forget 

about river rafting this year. Bus tour companies which had contracted weekly 

river trips through the end of September began calling frantically to make sure we 

were still in business. Our home town of Stanley, Idaho, which depends on the 

summer tourist season for 75% of its yearly income, suffered severe economic 

damage. 

Our company did 20% less business than usual, and we suffered a huge drop 

in profits which are normally gained in the last eight weeks of our season. After last 

summer, we didn't have enough reserve cash to get through the following winter. 

Our partnership between outfitters and Forest Service managers has been 

bent way out of shape. We don't know whether we can count on their decisions to 

be upheld by the Regional office any more. We don't know whether they will be 

over-ruled by people farther up in the Forest Service hierarchy, people that we have 

never met. 

Ultimately, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a ruling that said 

the river could remain open to noatboating only so long as no more than three 

salmon were momentarily disturbed from their spawning activities. If there were 

three disturbances, everybody would be kicked off the river. It didn't matter who 

created the disturbances. If some private boater got drunk and plowed a raft down 

through the spawning beds, disturbing three fish, our company alone stood to lose 

up to $120,000 in lost revenues, and there was nothing we could do about it. Our 

unblemished record of commitment and cooperation would mean nothing. We 

would simply be out of business, with no further appeal. 

Fortunately, we managed to keep going until our season ended on September 

28. But we operated way below capacity. Nobody who had already booked a trip 

ca nceled, but very few people called for the first time. Our guides, many of whom 

had been with us for four o•· five seasons, were not getting enough work, and they 

began drifting away. 

Law enforcement officers from the National Marine Fisheries Service were 

observing every boat that passed through the spawning beds at Indian Riffies. It 

was like we were under continual surveilance for a crime that we might commit. 

The officers were so eager to protect potential salmon spawning activities that they 

even set a line of buoys around a suspicious-looking light-colored area in the river 

bottom. They claimed it was a salmon nest; but we knew that it was simply a patch 

8 Statement of Olivia F:1lconer James. Owner- THE RIVER COMPANY 
230 

of light gravel that has been there for years. It took them two weeks to admit their 

mistake and quietly remove the buoys which had unnecessarily blocked half the 

river. 

We suffered some economic losses even after we had managed to book guests 

and put them on the river. One afternoon a few guests showed up late for their trip; 

this delayed everyone else; the trip got started late on the river, and suddenly our 

guides realized that they were not going to be able to make it through the spawning 

beds by the 3 p.m. deadline. They did the right thing; they pulled the trip off the 

river and brought everyone back to our headquarters. But we had to refund all the 

money and apologize for our guests' inconvenience. We also felt obligated to pay 

our guides wages for the trip, even though we had earned nothing. 

Now, all of these would have been more acceptable losses if we had felt that 

we were actually helping the salmon in some way. But at the end of the season we 

learned that all of the eight weeks of turmoil, all of the expensive legal opinions, all 

of the furious political fighting, all of the precious lost income had been wasted on a 

meaningless gesture. 

While it had been predicted that between eight and twelve salmon might 

spawn at Indian Riffles last summer, in fact, not a single chinook salmon arrived to 

spawn there. This was confirmed by both the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the Forest Service. 

If on August first, the Forest Service biologists had prevailed in their opinion, 

if all float boats had indeed been forced off the river on August 8th, outfitters would 

have suffered losses from which they might never have recovered. And what end 

would that have served? Not a single salmon would have benefitted from our 

sacrifice. 

9 Statement ofOiiYia Falconer James. Owner- THE RIVER COMPANY 
231 

CONCLUSIONS 

For us outfitters, this train wreck is still happening. Our nightmare isn't 

over yet. None of our temporary operating permits have been renewed yet for the 

1995 season. Even if we are allowed to begin our season, we can't be sure that we 

will be allowed to finish it. We don't know whether we will be operating under the 

"three disturbances and you're off the river" rule, or some even harsher regulation. 

We don't know whether some fanatic conservationist group might sue the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to force us off the river for good. 

We had hoped to create a model that other outfitters and other agency 

managers would be able to follow if they ran into a similar problem. Instead, we 

have discovered that our best efforts were not good enough. We did everything as 

well as we could, yet we still failed to satisfy the Endangered Species Act. 

We were proactive. We did not avoid the environmental problem that 

threatened us. We educated ourselves about it, and then began working creatively 

to make it part of our businesses. We altered those businesses. We adapted to the 

endangered species that was in trouble in our river. We developed cooperative 

working relations with our agency managers. We helped to identify critical 

problems and develop innovative solutions to those problems. We helped educate 

the private floatboaters who are less experienced than we are. We committed our 

time, energy, money and materials to the effort to save an endangered species. We 

made alliances with conservationist groups, who supported us wholeheartedly. We 

educated our public officials. We reduced our potential impact on the endangered 

species to the minimum. But none of this was enough. The model has failed. 

Meanwhile, the hydroelectric power dams that kill 95% of the salmon that 

we are trying to preserve continue to operate without any meaningful restrictions 

whatsoever. 

The Endangered Species Act needs to be reworked. Humans and small 

businesses should be part of the equation. 

At present, if you have a small outfitting business, the only way to comply 

fully with the Endangered Species Act is to get out of its way. And the train is still 

coming. It's going to mow down a whole lot more outfitters and agency managers 

before it gets stopped, unless somebody can create a successful model for dealing 

with it and surviving. 

It is really an emotional issue to think of no more salmon in the Salmon 

River. In truth, we should write off these salmon. The public has chosen the dams 

over the Salmon River salmon. Outfitters are not even part of that picture. 

10 Statement of Olivia Falconer James. 01\ncr- THE RIVER COMPANY 
232 

How the Endangered Species Act should be changed: 

A All regulations imposed under the Act should be relevant to the survival of 

a species. 

* Activities that pose negligible threat to a species should warrant only 

minimal regulation under the Act. 

A Federal agencies should be required to enforce the Act only if Congress 

specifically provides funds for that purpose. 

A In cases where a species has been driven to the brink of extinction by 

official Federal policy--such as the construction of massive dams on a 

river system--there should be no enforcement of the Act against 

minor threats to the species. In such cases the Federal policy should 

either be amended to fully protect the species, or Congress should 

declare that maintaining the Federal policy is more important to 

society than the survival of the species. 

* Congress should establish clear rules under the Act for determining when 

the cost of saving a species is no longer reasonable. 

THIS CONCLUDES MY PREPARED TESTIMONY. I WILL BE PLEASED TO 

ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

THAT MAY BE REQUESTED. 

Olivia Falconer James, President 

Olivia Expeditions, Inc. dba The River Company 

P 0 Box 2329 

Sun Valley, Idaho 83353 

II Statement !i :~ Falconer James. Owner- T HE RI VER COMPANY 
233 

Before the 

TaskForce on Endangered Species 

The Honorable Richard Pombo. Chairman 

Submitted by The Oregon Cattlemen's Association 

.-\pnl 2-+. 1995 

Vancouver. Washington 
234 

Mr. Chamnan, Members of the task force: 

The purpose ofttus testtmony to the LS. House of Representatives Committee on Resources heanng ts to relate 

the tmpact of the Endangered Spectes Act on both our resources and our people We thank Congressman 

Richard Pombo and the Comnunee for thetr mterest tn our vtews regardtng the effect of the Act on people m our 

area and their Intent to address our concerns m future legislation For the first time since the passage of the Act 

we feel there ts a real opportunity to get the awful burden of tts rules off the backs of the people who ltve and 

work and husband the publtc and pnvate natural resources of thts great country 

Because we have worked Within the confines. or. as we vtew it. under the oppression of. ESA for many years 

now we have had several occasiOns to come to the concluston that we are Nar gomg to be able to feastblv 

contmue to produce livestock unless the Act ts changed 

It ts now ob"ous that many of our Congressmen \\ho voted on the ong~nal btll to adopt the ESA dtd not have a 

clear understandtng of tts potential for budget bustmg, for takmg of pnvate property outnght or through 

regulatton. and for actual spectes and habitat loss because the law provides the means to gndlock any kmd of 

management at all They now publtcly state they would not have voted for It had they knov.m It would bring us to 

this trag~c pomt 

\Ve have read that Section 7. the consultation reqUirement m the act that has caused our industry people so much 

grief was "drafted by a legislative aide. an avtd em1ronmentahst in a form to avoid it betng recognized as a 

substantive road-block statute" that v.e now know It to be. That 11!.L!~_be changed 

We know that you know that the costs of th' ESA are tn mult1-btlltons of dollars and are acceleratmg, that the 

program costs are totally out of control and that no rational dectsions about allocation of available resources for 

endangered spectes can be made under the law as It IS now wnnen. The very substantial costs Imposed on the 

pnvate sector. or losses to communities. are never mcluded in the figures used for listtng spectes and recovery 

plans_ The total cost of recovery v.11J never be knm\n because m the 20 plus years since the mception of the Act 

"not a smgje endangered spectes has legttlmately been recovered and delisted as a result of the ESA" accordtng to 

the NauonaJ Wilderness Institute tn a study entitled ( iomg Brokl! published m 1994_ NWI publications are 

available to vou and we believe are an excellent source offactuallflformation on whtch to base a dectsion to 

change the ESA 

You have the infom1at1on about spectfic changes needed m the ESA from the Coordinating Council of\\'luch 

NatiOnal Cattlemen's .d.ssoCJatlon IS a member and whtch we strong,ly support and thus wlil not repeat them 

here_ Our Intent IS to relate how the Act has become unposs1ble to deal with for our industr:.· people tn North 

Eastern Oregon and how our economy \\1111 be m g_nd-lock. our ranches and famtltes and commumties at nsk. 

and the threatened and endangered salmon forewr lost unless some balance. reason. and ventiable sctence 1s 

InJected mto the process 

In Nonhe"'stern Oregon we see up close and personal a very tmportant strategy of the preserYattonist groups 

wh1ch IS. of course. enabled by the ESA_ They are .:memptmg to dictate land management through the courts. 

nit-picking, fine poults m the law m order to nnmoblltze land use or management Some groups buy land and act 

as a conduit. at udy profits. to get the purchased land uno federal 0\\nership. Some have lists of pnvate land 

they \\ant the government to buy or regulate m order to "protect" It for future generations. Usually the same 

groups are the harshest cntics of go\emmer.t land management Even so. the message they send is that 

government mvnerslup IS good and protects land resources and pnvate ovmersh1p is bad and destroys resources 

Thcv promote the perception to theJT public that the mere act of listing a species somehow protects It and If Its 

not listed it 1s doomed 

About the tllne the Snake Rl\·er and Columbia salmon were hsted the Oregon Cattlemen's Assoctatlon. \\-lth 

partial funding from the Water Resources Depanmem 111 Oregon. began our Ecosystem Workshop Program 
235 

spectfically for our ranchers on sub-watersheds whereby we hold workshops aimed at total landscape 

management of our own ranches and stimulating awareness of how they fit into the whole. It gives a new 

perspecnve to people m management posntons m a non threaterung atmosphere because it is put on wtth the help 

of ex pens 10 the land management business (ranchers), and University people. selected for their academic 

integ.rny. The program has been extremely successful because after the mitial meeting the ranchers continue to 

meet and have speakers and work on plans and gather history of their own combined sub watershed. One reason 

it is so successful. we believe. is because it does not attempt to tell anyone what should be done. or must be done 

but rather shares ideas from other areas that have been benefictal, and the scientific princtples thrown in are 

probably the most helpful and the most trusted because they essentially validate what we have always known or 

sensed to be true. \Ve can actually see some very positive changes in attitudes and practices concerning 

ecosystem management. One of the most tmportant being that some agencies in Oregon are learmng that the 

management of private land may be best left to the private land owner. Some have learned that we are very aware 

of our responsibility to our land. our water. our families. of how they fit into to a more global picture and that our 

care and nurturing of them v..1ll assure they are sustained into future generations just as they have from past 

generations. 

We strongly beheve that the OCA Ecosystem Workshop Program. put on with so little money. will. in the end do 

more to save endangered species. and endangered resource jobs and endangered communities and fanultes. than 

all our money spent by the Federal Government and all the laws and rules and coun cases. all the governments 

written plans and environmentalists appeaJs of plans. combined We have a track record of success. the ESA has 

not 

Still preservation groups continue to vomn out lies. attempting to scare the public into donating money to !_heir 

orgaruzauons as the last hope for savtng the planet from the exploiters of the public lands and resources. the 

greedy land barons who ar~ interested only tn despoiling the land and water \vhile taking mass1ve profits. Who 

wdl tell our story. that most of the wildlife spend most of the1r lives on private land and have increased hundreds 

of percent because of us not in spue of us. that the average mcome of the canle rancher is about S23.000. that \ve 

feed I 0 people besides ourselves on a sustamed basiS and that we invariably leave our land to the next 

generauon m better condition than \\.'e rece1ved 11'~ The Amencan people can be glad that those Involved in 

agrtculture sull are m touch with the responstbtluv that freedom brmgs That IS why the ESA seems such 

nonsense to us. \Ve protect all Gods creations. appreciate them for what they are. care for them. nurture them~ 

we do not worship th('m \Ve seem to do \\-'hat v.~ do not to amass fonunes but rather. like c-ur forefathers. to 

fulfill our faith . 

Plato argued that g,ood people do not need 1"''~ to tell them to act responsibly. whtle bad people wtll ftnd a wav 

around the law. This panicular law was passed and rules made at the behest of the elite. they pretend a 

procedure for protecting threatened and endangered spec1es but It has succeeded only in humiliating and 

mumidaung honest people while proVIding cover and protection for theJT OVwll t'\\isted agenda 

\low 1S ~our opportumty to evaluate the Jccompl1shments oft he act. Over the past 20 years we have seen created 

a symboliC alter \vhere-upon we've placed listed spec1es and before ·which we've built the sacnfictal fire upon 

which we heaped tons and tons of money; countless workmg. hours and volumes of paper plans. tens. perhaps 

hundreds of thousands of productive Jobs: businesses. communities. fam1lies and indivldu.7~ls_ It is 11me to deny 

the elmsts the laws that extend the reach oft he ~m·ernment. and thus the mcrease ofthetr 0\\.11 powers. to 

abridge our freedom 

The preservatiomst groups have a vested monetary interest in threatened and endangered species. and make no 

m1stake they do have a vested interest bec.Juse they have spent a Jot of money to raise mane!-' so their leadership 

can prosper. They put out tons of bob,'US repons extrapolated from bogus models designed by pseudo sc1emists m 

order to scare the average citizen: but the ~l\'erag,e ntizen 1s beginning to catch on causing desperation m the 

ranks of the preservationist groups who are ha'v1ng to compete for the same dollars. This desperation is causmg 

more radlcaJ beha\lior. witnessed by the mcreased acti\-1ty oft he Eanh First~ eco terrorists who are supponed by 

many other main strean1 preservatiomst groups_ Tile1r members are suspected of ktlling cattle. bumtng, 

ranchers property. ruining v.-ater systems. bombmg forest Set"\1ce offices. spikmg, trees. because they ha\·e 
236 

advised in writing how to do these things and Justification for doing them. They are no less an abomination than 

the people who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City! 

Now that "habitat conservation plans" rHCP) have been a failure, having caused more problems than they have 

solved the newest term is "ecosystem management" on a grand and non-voluntary basis (unlike OCA's program). 

This prospect leads to more centralized natural resource planning and exposes landowners to even more 

restrictions and less predictability and control of their own property. It is a bad, bad idea! 

Probably the most expensive and far reaching listing of an endangered species is that of the salmon in the Pacific 

Nonhwest. It will probably be the most visible species whose extinction will be expedited by political and 

Judicial process. Our fear is for the other casualties who will accompany the salmon. At risk is the entire 

economy of the state of Oregon: fishing, ranching, agriCulture. mining, timber and their supponing businesses. 

Agricultural busmess alone, including tts processing, and other suppon services totals about $10 billion a year. 

Farmers and ranchers employ about I 00.000 people. more than all our high tech industry combined. Of the over 

200 commerctal productS raised by Oregon agr;cultunsts. 50 of which gross over a million dollars, cattle and 

calves is the highest grossing commodity wnh sales of $389 mtllion, some $40 million higher than the second 

place commodity. 

Remembenng that about 60% of Oregon is in public domain, on which the cattle industry relies for grazing, add 

to that the stockmen's vast holdings of privaie land and tt is no stretch to say the cattle industry has as much 

interest in the who. how, and what effons are made to save the salmon. These pastures and rangelands are some 

of the least disturbed most natural lands in the country and provtdes habitat for many species both listed and 

abundant and yet the current laws provtde nothing but disincentives to us who have the greatest opponunity to 

protect the species. It does not recogruze our contribution nor that property rights and protection of the 

environment are complementary goals 

We strongly believe that verifiable sctence is the salmon's onlv hope. Instead we see opinions by decision makers 

being changed as a result of phantom research and no new data. The decision to do spills at the Columbia and 

Snake R.Jver dams may be the tragJc example. Sat10nal Manne Fisheries Service reversed its long standing 

policv on gas supersaturation mthout benefit of change m the data base. now saying that allowing an increase of 

supersaturation from II 0% of barometnc pressure to 130% ts acceptable, even though in 1971 NMFS own 

scientists s:lid. along with state fishenes spectalists. that gas supersaturation wol'ld vinually elimmate salmon 

from the Columbia R.Jver within a few years unless sometlung was done quickly. An appointed task force 

proposed a limit of I I 0% and by 1976. 5 years afier adopting the limit the problem was over. Last year the 

NMFS Sctentlfic Review Panel m the1r repon S31d "Effects above II 0 percen' are uncenain but in the direction 

of damage_ More recent reviews suggest thai more stringent levels of TOG are advisable for full protection." 

Never the less N?\.1FS now call for spills and \'\ill place this years salmon runs at risk. Worst of all no estimation 

of m-nver smolt monality from Gas Bubble DISease was made in the 1994 ex pen mental sptll and probably won't 

be done. The deaths. in that case. \\111 go unnouced. 

The sptlls of an additional 30 feet "'II cost between SS and S 12 null ion in lost hydropower generation. according 

to a Cleanvater Power Company spokesman. The fisheries service says this increase \Viii improve threatened 

Snake Rtver fall Chinook survival by 40% wruch if true mil mean that each additional salmon saved the cost wtll 

be $ 1 nullion. 

Livestock permnees have been put on nonce m some forests that their ten year pennits exptre an the end of 1995 

They are "arned that en\1ronmental assessm<nts must be completed before permits can be reissued. ":\ pan of 

the process mvolves detemtimng the potential tmpacts on spectes that are proposed or listed as threatened. 

endangered or sensttive: such as bull trout and salmon " Then. of course. the product must be made available to 

pubhc re\1ew and appeals and administrattv< re\ie"~- etc. and the inevttable gridlock that ensues. Unless the law 

is changed our future becomes dimmer and dimmer. 

Margaret Thatche(s words would apply when she""' discussing the responSibility that goes with freedom and 

socteUes \\ithout moral foundations: "They \\Quid do well to look at what has happened in societies \\ithout 
237 

moral foundations. Accepting no laws but the laws of force. these societies have been ruled by totalitarian 

ideologies like Nazism, fascism. and communism. which do not spring from the general populace, but are 

imposed on it by intellectual elites." It is no leap logically to add environmentalism to that list. 

In the spirit of eternal vigilance as a price of freedom we ask that you change this awful law and others like it. 

or repeal it. in order to restore the blessings and responsibilities of freedom to us all. 

To summarize the minimum reforms needed should you decide tore authorize and reform the act rather than 

repeal it, in our opinion, would be: 

I. Base listing decisions. including delineation of critical habitat. solely on verifiable science and including 

fulfilling sufficient data requirements and an economic analysis prior to listing a species. 

Protect private property by incorporating appropriate legislation 1 Like the Pombo bill) into the act. 

3. Rewnte Section 7 so that "take". including "harm". or "alteration of habitat". etc. must be verifiable 

scientificallv and that the burden of proof is on the appropriate agency. Incorporate language that allows 

legitimate ongoing activities to continue until harm can be verified. Delete it as a road-block statute. 

4. List only true biological species. Delete "sul>-species and distinct populations" from the language and delis! 

those already listed. Allow for the scienufic deciston to not list a species determined to be irretrievably lost 

Include economic analysis in the decision so that costs of heroic effons are knO\ .... n before the decision is made 

5. Insure that legitimate ongoing activities continue until the lisung is complt!ted 1nduding the delineation of 

critical habitat and the recovery plan. 

6. Include the public in plan preparation and provide that the agencies may not place more stringent 

conditions on landowners than they do themselves 

7. Delineate all critical habitat when lisung species. In ,he salmon listing the ocean was omitted even though 

rnosi: of their lives are spent there Many scientists believe that's where the major difficulty lies barring their 

recovery:. 

Numbers 3 and 5 should eliminate the need for the failed "habitat conservation plans" 

Again. thank you. most sincerely. 

The Orc~on Canlt!men's AssocJatJon 

Mack Birkmaicr. President 

Sharon Beck. Endangered Species Comnunee 

Enc . . -\n "Envi ronmentalists Anon)'"Tnous" le-ner to the editor that 1s a familiar maJady predominantly afflicting 

urbanites. The good news is more and more are seeking cures .. 
238 

Environmentalists no1 "' »idc .J rtr1er seeing alleged 

t Anonytnous: The apoca ~ p~es debunked one after another, 

Making Of A Peoplist :r~~n:~d ram lo Alar IO d•o•in. f perceived 

The mort rtuo.rch I re,-W .. ·ed, the mort The more re!.earch I re' iewed. the more 

• uo.ti:.td lhaJ t nl'ironmtniiJI concuns had I calized that environmental concerns had 

bun blott·n way out of proportion - the be-en b!o..., n way out of proponion - the 

mort I rtafi:~d that my ott·n smus orr a more I realized that my own senses are a 

Founder's Forum 

The Need For 

Predator Control mort rtli.ablt source of information than :n:~re reli able sourt"c of ir.formation than By R. A. ··Dick'' Modtr. Founder. 

the ~~~r ;~t :.~~~:~~:c;~rists. rh! Th:d~jl r t~~cb:~~~ef!r ~c;;~~~re 001 50 Abundant Wildlife Sof.·

1uy of Nonh Amuica 

Hello. \ 1y name is John Doe. I am a ~bt ~ that v.e can exp:ricnce them only J have been a rancher my ~nlire life. 

reformed en vironmentalist. My S.C'Ijoum on vicanousJ,.· throu h the pa c:s of a book. or The only time I've not Ji...-ed on a r.in..:h 

the other side v.a.s. not emirely my fault. I ma!!azme. or t at we ne some en..,iron· was when I served in World War Il. 

grev.· up in a hou sehold whe re J was al- mental "expen' telhnl! us .,..·hat 10 think. Now I've studied many thing s but ne\·er 

lo'-l.·ed to be rou:i nelv abused. 1e re.:J: pro ems are 1 ere to be ieen bY a I medicine. If 1 .,...as to go to writing and 

.\fy parc:nt5 lo~c:d contemporary lit- who ha\ e eves. telling doctors that they simply didn 't kno"· 

erature to be br :..~ t into our home , such as Thev ~ in the inner cities. where the ""hat they were doing or talking aMut, 

Silent Spring. It re;:>oned. as if it was a fact. dismal results of the schools and a host of most would say I'm balmy o r my ele' at or 

that DDT was the scourge of the earth. govemmenl-subsJdJz..ed palhologJes have: doesn't go to the top and rightly so ~ 

Trne . 1 had never seen a bird sick from atCd a 2enc:rahbh Of f!1£rv. tTUstr.ued people. President 0'ol.·ight Eisenhower once said 

DDT. I had never even seen a crumbling They are ln tfle a:a:iTiaged human dignHy that it v.·as easy to be a farm upen \lo ·hen 

egg shell. u. hether it had been c.lusc:d by of ~woods Appalachia. you 're one thousand miles from the farm, 

DDT or somethin e: else. But I was under They take the form of 'oung ~reots hcve ne\'er lived on a farm . .md your only 

the contro l of Jdu lis. likc: my schooi teach- who. a..:rou the emirs C!'' IO!Q" HnJgil' tool is a pen or pencil! 

e~ . v.:ho told me that this was so. So, I agamst the S\ stem iLSelf It' r..me thetr kids to The recent Campbell County co~ ote 

bel ie\c:d. be solid Clllzens who wtll in their tum, hunt brought these things to mind as the 

They negl ected to tell me that birds in co:1tnbte to societv. propaganda press quoted Jeners from people 

laboratory em·iron;nents had to be fed huge At last 1 eJ!izell thJt I am not so much wh o ha\e ne ver lived on the fann! 

~~~ l\s~i~ u\~~~~~ ~ei~~e~e~~~s . ~~~ l' ;~:~~~~~i~~ ~h e ~o:~ ~~~ Am~~~;~u:~;!,~ ~~ ~a~i~ e;~~~ ~~ much si gn1!i ca n::e to the fa ct that obi. by /l.J.) to Co v.it h meeting the rr. ac~ r. .i[ socta . source s. Some of the !T!OSI interest in ~ 2re 

"'"~ ntrollin_g the :-c-;::>iJi ation of mosquitoe s. and !-pm::.:at needs of pe:opk. hom college students C;nd profes.;ors.-One 

.d saH·C rr.tlliC'r.s of live s by :;. ~ar in g Thank .:~ d fo r the v. is.dom of our college girl wrote, '"1'\e studied oyo e~ in 

peorlc: aro:.mC ;he \\·orld from ma!aria. S'ztion'c. f~""~ ders v.ho re('oenized that a W'"omi:12 2.nd I know ha~ the'" rr.ainlv 

Soo:1. e~ \:!id :he- o~qui oes mtght b~- po hu..:a )\;;em which m~\ mJZes hbenv foiJow fe0ce TO\I. S and ea: tc ~" ow thi-s 

cor.1: accl!m:m:: :o DDT. !s the $~~: 1.1 :-est ~un ed ~ addre<.(ine"O our is so rne:hi:u~: . .,.,e who ha\ e lived witl; co,·-

y foU. ~ .:1 :~ .:- :: u5ed me tw 5u ~~ rib- ~01: JJI .:...,3 :-:-." jtJjJ! " t lf;v e With cent u· ote an !'r edatorsall r] ,e! ne,e ~n::~ ~ 

inf tv :'\e\;.~v. ee ~ \\hKh 1dd rr.e !h.l~ L.:: ke nes of r- C" :: !os. mtll n~ h.:i' e t>enefi1ed We \\e r! 1o ld of J Ia : } r rofcssor ',1, !lo 

~ie v. ~ ollu:i•n dead fN !h: (0~.i :1g ;md .:~:;· ·H!e !>$ :r JI Iio ~ mere Jr(" eager to de~ ~reech on cC'~otes. 10 a group. H::r 

ce r.:ur\'. j0m Jr.. spe ~c h Cl)ntained this. ·Tnere i5 not one 

r n,;e. I hJd ;"Jt:\er been 10 ~l...e Erie. And 1~.:::1 ;; ~ou fo~ re;"ni:;jinf l!~ of the oc !:':l~d case \\here C(I\ 0 \C:S e \ er JtAn,j linlr- Cid ! ;~:.:!ize thJI. '-Nile hov.. :!Heat t~.::J.t .-:, ir.:mml!ntal;~ m po!>eS 10 O:Jt t;,;: ked li\ estod . .''lsn"t :!lis. 'am::...z in!!? 

~v.~wed. hJC ~--:gm ~en to tell the li ~h in ltb:.-n~ an!! '' l~ . As ~o u ilO\ed. ih rOuf:h¥ lnte!emng eno ugh. l' \" e pers"On Jily 

L.:.:...e Ent-. · ... hich ~P:-~tmu d ,.., reprX:.~~·c. .-.ur b; ~':;.. ·~~:::nn\ f.:ou r.d -' C'> " "-hen jt co :.~ nt ed lamb s lo.. Jile:! \ CO\ C'It es 1:1 o!le 

row.and p~;-;; .~:eth :..~ :'\~ \t nht'l !-s. l .:o.Jld :~je!: !1e itsdi lS ··,i r.u~;,. " Tod3y ~h! ~3d: in the 1930's- " ·h;n e\c:~ ne 

b! iu:·\ed . c·pp re s~to r. .··.,hich i~ e ro mt'~lling of kn·~" y0c hJd 10 conirol predators. · 

So. b;;.s.ed c•n >he inf('rmauon I hJ.d. l •) ~c k"' c:- ... i_thout. t- :h ~o:!Jll)' 3~ d l WC'nder how ml n\" tur~e v hunters 

v.a s .J.n eJn .:-nm~n: i~t cc-ncemt d th:.~: :ho: ·1 te~ 1;;. ;\ • ·, ~em,.. red"" I I !'led a~ the " Y!T kn ow th3tturke\· huntint.ir. nonh"east \\\ oerl\ lrC'nment '":'!;mue 10 !J ~' " re~' k tu;. ~I c~' ~· :- ~me~: li .:-~r:~e:-Y~ !IO . - ming is all but .3 th n~ o'"i· the pJsL' Ye5. ·:he 

But then I h.;d :t lifc-:h:m£in c C:\P :"rt· \, e !1 1:..:~: ;;-,e:.tl the Ce: ertiC'n .lnd let tur\..e, .th.lnk!'toeJt c\N .lll s. 

en . I b~:.:!mt> t" ~ro s:ble iOr al~ n:-~ ~ t'\~r~~':'!t'kr.~···' hJ:~N;'! I:~r.1.mu.:h re are ::.il but finished .ofi. E\pect our scrry_ 

the tt'suh!- pf e"'\• nm~mal R & D. E\ef"\ :h;m e :-' l:~"'n:Tic nl :.tl:!>-m. ~~ 'inl:::o us. incompetent, bu re:t\lcrauc \\"Y Fish &:. 

pl;,;.·e l turr.eJ. J SJ\\ 1ha1 mam of ~ jEJ ,; --:••: en.' H (l\1 .'.' Jc.l:f: .~ . Game tc- announce !'o:ne!ime tn t~ e ne.xt 

.: 1a an ~ lt'r~ :.m31\Zinl! d::.tJ rr.:om J. .'Oh i;~l"(' ••::Jd,· fiJr .1 ." c"(lt!iH ro,J.'/ ve~rth~!th havewmterkillcd /Ed l: orl': 

l

""" ne<_H ,&~_- :10

ou

0

•

1 -'·. :' H',', ,'.:J'0

e

0

.

1

_ 9:...- e hq3

u

1 e

1

,q Jn -:n. 'f~S ,!!.

1

'!!" !"!! .. !!£!!!!.\!!'\!"I!!R!0!.\!.\1!£!.\!T!!!B !£!TR!.<!l!' ~~ TJ:r H "ynn11·;l_!1' Gomr ad fi s( 1Ja1

·r a!- t ._. ,.. -w _ 3 .: 1 • CG.! f' ~ .! rradr rtic:Jud onf nr •• J r t fr au J:a:i n!l' 

tU re lf5 1hg IC' ;d ~·.1 . t-w r;uhcr '" fh.'" wrk(\·.f a•1d wJ:itct:Jd Jur l•·uua i.::.'ic;.;" in 

c:..n :1 r- .::~~r . .-e:' cj nNjpn of epyj gp--:en- 1 am a Drmucrar. 1 will spend 1J:r \i >,, ;i .r Blod H :lls arf ,j./ 

~: ~Pr~~~'s'uC~~::='~2/~~ct~:~~ ~h~;:/ ~~~~; allrlu money I can. Repre~ent j· :~ l. ~~~~ ;~e ~~~~~~~~ v~:!;:e ~;~:"1~~. ~ . 6::- Ju~illlt"C ~ ti\' e Jean \\'Jgcni us spea~in£ to "i nter C':· 19S9-90. Th iS ~e3r we had 3 ~- .-\ 

I 

De~p11e the r:a~ in the: .::.:'lmmunitv of the\l innes0tJHouse Em· ironmen- few ye~rs ago.ltook.:;. r1cture C'f : h:::;s 

an a:y~ " J..-,j !-..: : .. ·:- :!~ ~- h,.,\l l"\er. tru th Oi!c:1 tal and ~atur:li Re ~o urce s Com- th.Jt c::me in with over :5 you ng. Ir. 19'J:. 

~~~~~ ~~,~~ :~~~ 7/~'~~::,~;;:.~~~! minee. ~~~~-~ ~U~~~~i ~~~e;~ t::e in. In ~9 3. ~ 5. ;,1,,·. Thr \\".111"1"/i R,,;-o;'"WI . .: J.; !J.J . "~ !! el :i ~idt' ~EJ. :101e - l-out I he ~p \1 ere See Forum, pa;e 4 

A~u"l::;a ~ \W:i: :,:. 
239 

TESTIMONY 

ALASKA STATE PRESIDENT DRUE PEARCE 

AND 

ALASKA STATE HOUSE SPEAKER GAIL PHILLIPS 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT TASK FORCE 

REGARDING 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

APRIL 24, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Endangered Species Act task force, I want to thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on one of this countries most powerful conservation 

laws - the Endangered Species Act. For the record, my names is Drue Pearce, 

President of the Alaska State Senate. I will be presenting joint testimony on behalf of 

the Alaska State Senate and for House Speaker Gail Phillips and the Alaska State 

House. 

I fully understand that it is unusual for the leadership of two state legislative bodies to 

appear before US Senate or House committees to present joint testimony on pending 

federal issues. The fact that we are here illustrates the importance that we place on 

the task before you which is the reauthorization and, hopefully, the fine tuning of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Since my time is limited, I would ask that our entire testimony and the attached Issue 

Paper be submitted for the record and use of the task force. We have s::>ent 

considerable time preparing our comments and offer our assistance in any way 

possible to support you in this endeavor. 

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that my reason for being here is not to 

advocate the dismantling of the ESA. Our reasons for testifying are that we believe the 

Act is broken, it is not meeting the original intent of Congress and the agencies given 
240 

the responsibility for implementing the Act have abused their authorities and have used 

the Act to further unrelated agency objectives. 

Congress, as well as state legislatures, frequently avoid trying to legislate minute 

details into complicated laws because of the difficulties in anticipating all possible 

legitimate exceptions which should be considered, the complexities of the issues or the 

politics associated with those minute decisions. In good faith, we extend authority to 

the agencies to develop regulations which provide the detail necessary to implement 

the laws while adhering to the basic intent of the original legislation. The ESA has, 

quite frankly, suffered from this lack of consideration for detail in the law. 

It is unfathomable that Congress intended for the ESA to be used as the legal comer 

stone of all biodiversity and environmental planning within the federal government. It is 

also hard to believe that Congress intended for the law to be used as a legal bludgeon 

or blockade against all legitimate resource development in our country. 

From Alaska's perspective, we can point to some definite successes associated with 

the federal ESA and the state's own Endangered Species Ad. Alaska's bald eagles 

have been used to successfully reestablish populations of our national bird into areas 

where they have virtually disappeared due primarily to the indiscriminate uses of DDT. 

Similarly, peregrine falcon populations, both in Alaska and in the contiguous United 

States have recovered dramatically due to good conservation programs, cooperation 

between the states and the federal government and the contributions of many private 

sources throughout the country. The Aleutian canada goose, a ground nesting goose 

in the Aleutian islands, are on the road to recovery following the removal of very 

effective predator foxes and the reintroduction of the species back to its former range. 

Here again, good cooperation between the citizens of our state, the state agencies and 

the federal agencies made it all possible. In virtually all of the successes you have 

seen one key ingredient - cooperation and old fashioned partnerships. 

Unfortunately, for every success of the ESA, your task force will find numerous 

examples of governmental abuse of authorities. 

Over the last several years, we have witnessed a significant change for the worse in 

federal/state cooperation and the creation of true partnerships. The ESA has been 

effectively used by the federal agencies as a weapon and not a tool of conservation. It 

is also important to add that the federal courts are equally responsible for the hostility 

towards the ESA. Rigid interpretations of the law by the federal courts have tied both 

the hands of the federal and state agencies in trying to craft reasonable solutions to 

very complex problema. The combination of agency and court interpretations of the law 

have served to create a conservation program that is phenomenally expensive and 

practically ineffective. If you want to measure the success of this program, ask how 

many species have been delisted. 

I would like to offer a summary of some specific experiences we have hed with the 

implementation of the ESA and use these to illustrate why we are convinced that the 

Act needs improving. 

2 
241 

Salmon 

In 1991, the American Fisheries Society, a professional society of fisheries scientists, 

published a report that identified 106 Pacific Northwest salmon stocks that were extinct. 

The report went on to document 214 stocks in the Pacific Northwest that were at risk of 

extinction or of special concern. That same year, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service listed Snake River sockeye salmon as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. In 1992, they listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon and 

Snake River fall chinook salmon as threatened. Due to a continuous inflow of petitions 

since that time to list other salmon stocks under the Endangered Species Act, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service undertook a comprehensive evaluation of all five 

species of salmon and steelhead between the Canadian border and Mexico. Many 

other stocks of salmon will undoubtedly be listed by the time this evaluation is 

complete. · 

One might assume on the basis of this information that Pacific salmon species are in 

serious trouble and may be at threat of extinction. But, let us step back for .a moment 

and look at the big picture. Currently, the North American production of Pacific Salmon 

is in excess of 200 million fish. Typically, the harvest in Alaska represents about eighty 

percent of the total, with harvests from Canada representing about fifteen percent and 

harvests from the Pacific Northwest states representing about five percent. 

In Alaska there are no stocks of salmon listed as threatened or endangered. During 

this same period, Alaska salmon stocks have increased to record levels of production, 

with an all time record commercial harvest of 194 million salmon in 1994. Spawning 

escapement levels are healthy as well. Additionally, hundreds of millions of Pacific 

salmon are caught on the Asian side of the Pacific. World production of Pacific salmon 

is at an all time high. 

So, you may be wondering why are Alaskans concemeo over the application of the 

Endangered Species Act to salmon? One of the rPasons is that Alaskans have 

suffered greatly under the Act as it is being applied, or more appropriately misapplied, 

to Snake River fall chinook salmon with no measureable benefit to these fish. We also 

foresee application of this act under current law as needlessly devastating the lives of 

Alaskans throughout the entire state. 

The Snake River is located in Idaho, thousands of miles from Alaska. Never-the-less, 

provisions within the Act itself coupled with wholly inappropriate discretionary decisions 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service have needlessly impacted thousands of 

Alaskan sport and commercial fishermen as well as associated businesses. Following 

are specific examples of problems Alaskans have with the act as it is being applied to 

Snake River fall chinook: 

• The act has been misapplied to a "stock" of salmon. The fundamental concept 

behind the Endangered Species Act was to protect a "species• from extinction. 

3 
242 

Inappropriately, however, federal law now defines "species· to include "distinct 

population segments• of species. 

What is a distinct population segment of a species? In the case of salmon, which 

return with great fidelity to their river of origin, the fish in each river or tributary 

stream can represent a distinct population segment of a species. In Alaska, we 

have over 20 thousand salmon streams, each of which is inhabited by one to five 

species of salmon. 

Application of the Ad. to distinct population segments is simply contrary to common 

sense. At the periphery of a species range, population segments are constantly in a 

threatened and endangered state. If this were not the case, every species would be 

found every place on earth. No amount of good intentions, manpower, or money is 

sufficient to protect every distinct population segment of a species from naturally 

expanding or contracting. Trying to do so is an attempt to defy the laws of nature. 

• The burden of recovery of Snake River fall chinook has been allocated 

arbitrarily and capriciously rather than on a scientific, economic, or practical 

basis. Sport and commercial fishermen in Southeast Alaska are victims of the act 

and federal interpretations that have failed to focus recovery efforts on those factors 

causing the decline of Snake River fall chinook. 

Construction of 4 dams on the Columbia River below the Snake River and 12 dams 

on the mainstem Snake River substantially reduced Snake River salmon distribution 

and abundance. Ninety"five percent of the human induced mortality is associated 

with these dams. 

Five percent of the mortality is associated with fisheries conducted in the US and 

Canada. Only abOut one-quarter of one percent of the mortality is inferred to be 

associated with fisheries conducted in Alaska that are targeting healthy runs of 

Alaskan salmon. On average, there is about one Snake River fall chinook mixed in 

with every 5 thousand other chinook, and millions of coho, chum, pink, and sockeye 

salmon. 

Furthermore, of every four Snake River fall chinook salmon that may be incidentally 

caught in Alaska, only about one would ever survive to lay eggs due to intervening 

fisheries in Canada, Washington, and Oregon or the dams on the Columbia and 

Snake Rivers. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has not taken these factors into account in 

apportioning the recovery burden. Their efforts to recover this stock are clearly not 

efficient and will not be effective. In terms of effectively recovering a stock, it would 

be appropriate for the federal government to begin by apportioning the recovery 

burden for a listed species proportionally to the cause for the listing. For instance, if 

dams on the Columbia River and Snake River are responsible for ninety-five 

4 
243 

percent of the mortality, they should be responsible for a similar portion of the 

recovery burden. 

• State/Federal cooperation, while clearty called for within the act, is being 

ignored In application of the Endangered Species Act for Snake River chinook 

salmon in Alaska. Alaska commercial troll fishermen were forced to reduce their 

fishing season in 1993 to comply with the Endangered Species Act and thereby lost 

access to many healthy stocks of all five species of salmon. In 1994, the sport and 

commercial troll chinook salmon quota was reduced by 23 thousand fish. For 1995, 

officials of the National Marine Fisheries Service have indicated likely reductions of 

fifty percent for the Southeast Alaska sport and commercial chinook quota. Yet, 

there has not been one public hearing on this issue held in Alaska in 1993 or 1994. 

According to the Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon, issued by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service in March, 1995, eight hearings are scheduled for 

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington States this spring. According to the plan, no 

hearings were scheduled for Alaska. We have heard, informally, that as an 

afterthought, two hearings may take place in Alaska after the eight other hearings 

are held. 

The act also calls for development of cooperative agreements with states. In fact, 

the act specifies requirements, that if met, will result in acceptance of the agreement 

within 120 days of its receipt. Alaska sent a signed agreement which was received 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service on February 14, 1994. Fourteen months 

have elapsed and we are still waiting. 

Alaskans are bewildered and angry. Alaskans are left with no explanation for 

irrational restrictions placed on their fisheries. We are irritated with the failure to 

conduct any public hearings in Alaska in 1993, 1994, and according to the proposed 

recovery plan, in 1995. These facts, coupled with illegal delays in responding to 

attempts to develop a cooperative agreement, lead us to the inescapable 

conclusion that the federal government is quite willing to needlessly impose 

debilitating measures on our state but very unwilling to accept local input or allow 

cooperative efforts or partnerships. 

This situation is very problematical for Alaskans and reminds us of the federal 

attitude during the time that Alaska was a territory. Prior to statehood, the federal 

government was responsible for salmon management in Alaska. They failed to 

provide sound management practices needed to sustain Alaskan salmon fisheries. 

Over-fishing was a major factor in a serious decline of the Alaska salmon fishery 

that occurred between 1940 and statehood, 1959. 

Further, the federal government failed to provide the financial resources needed to 

manage and research salmon stocks and fisheries such that depressed stocks 

could be rehabilitated. Salmon stocks and the fishing industry were in such bad 

shape that President Eisenhour declared Alaska a federal disaster area in 1953. 

5 
244 

At the time of statehood, in 1959, statewide harvests totaled only about 25 million 

salmon, the lowest annual harvest since 1900-a level equivalent to less than twenty 

percent of current sustainable production. It took almost twenty years of salmon 

management by the State of Alaska under sound management principles with 

improved funding for research and management to rebuild salmon runs from the 

dismal remnants inherited at statehood to the healthy levels experienced today. 

The Endangered Species Act should be amended to require mandatory consultation 

with affected parties in all phases of the implementation process. 

• Citizen suits to remedy misapplication of the act by the federal government 

are often effectively precluded. The Endangered Species Act requires a sixty day 

notice period before a citizen suit can be brought to enjoin an action. In 1994, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service did not present Alaska with the incidental take 

permit required to conduct our fishery until June 30. The fishery begins July 1, with 

the primary availability of fish and the vast majority of the harvest being taken during 

the month of July. The requirement to file a sixty day notice of intent to sue over 

provisions of the incidental take permit placed Alaskans at a point beyond the 

season where any litigation would be essentially moot. On any action required 

annually, such as issuance of an incidental take permit, there is no effective relief 

under the current law. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolves & Vancouver Island Goshawks 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf occupies many of the islands in southeast Alaska and 

the adjacent mainland. There are six major drainages connecting the interior of British 

Columbia and coastal southeast Alaska. There is little doubt that scientifically this 

population is not reproductively or genetically isolated. 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf was petitioned for listing under the ESA because the 

petitioners were concerned about degradation of habitat for Sitka blacktail deer, about 

excessive hunting mortality due to increased access by logging roads and about 

inbreeding. The purpose of this petition was clearly an attempt to stop logging 

activities on those islands within the range of this species. 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the agency directly responsible for the 

management of this big game animal, opposed the petition and the listing of this 

species under the ESA The Alaska Department of Fish and Game data indicates that 

this species has probably survived on these islands since the last ice age. The present 

population is not threatened and in some cases is expanding. There is no data to 

indicate that this population of wolves are threatened or even a species of particular 

concern to the scientific world. Harvest records have consistently shown that the wolf 

population is healthy and well managed. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not reject the petition, however. Instead, the 

Service continued with the mandatory one year reviaw despite the fact that the 

6 
245 

petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their petition. The Service 

eventually concluded that the species did not warrant listing under the ESA. 

The Vancouver Island goshawk also occupies the islands of southeast Alaska. In the 

case of the goshawk, however, it is on the very fringe of its range with extremely low 

densities compared to other populations of this continent wide raptor. 

This species was petitioned for listing under the ESA The justification was primarily 

linked to the effects of logging on this species primary habitat-old growth forest. There 

was no evidence to indicate that the species was declining in numbers or that the 

species was threatened with extinction throughout any portion of its range. The 

assumption was that logging was going to decrease their numbers. 

Again the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the agency actively conducting 

research on the species, opposed the petition and questioned whether this population 

of goshawks even qualified under the Act. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service chose to accept the petition on the goshawk and 

conducted another year long review of the status of this species. Recently, the 

regional director for the Service announced that the agency would probably conclude 

that the Vancouver Island goshawk did not warrant listing under the Act either. Their 

final decision is due in the next month or so. 

The question is why do we make an issue of this process. Let me explain. While the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was conducting the year long review, considerable 

pressure was placed on the U.S. Forest Service to significantly alter its logging plans in 

the region to avoid the two species being listed under the ESA As a result of this 

pressure and for fear of the effects on Forest Service management prerogatives if the 

species were listed, the Forest Service withdrew over 300,000 acres from its logging 

plans. The impact of these timber withdrawals on the economies of southeast Alaska 

have been significant. 

The point wa are making here is critical. The Forest Service is required to provide for 

species diversity in its planning process. The Forest Service has Congressional 

mandated requirements related to forest resource management. The Forest Service 

also has a complex forest planning process which bends over backwards to include all 

relevant data submitted by individuals, state agencies or sister federal agencies. It is 

through this process that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should submit its 

information concerning species status or concerns for incorporation into the final 

planning documents. It is also appropriate and desirable for the agencies to develop 

cooperative planning and research efforts to maximize the use of limited federal funds. 

It is not appropriate, however, for the Fish and Wildlife Service to use the petition 

process as a form of environmental blackmail to force a sister agency to adopt specific 

modifications in their land management plans. It is our position that a species either 

qualifies for listing or it does not. If it truly qualifies for listing as a threatened species, 

whether we like it or not, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is given certain authorities 

7 
246 

by Congress which includes considerable direct input on other federal agency land 

management options. We contend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was 

perfectly aware thet these two species in these two areas did not qualify for listing but 

successfully used the threat of listing as leverage against the U.S. Forest Service. We 

truly believe this was never the intent of Congress. 

As you can see in our attached Issue Paper on the Reauthorization of the Endangered 

Species Ad, we propose several changes wnich will correct this type of problem. We 

propose that the Ad be changed primarily to direct its emphasis to "species•. We are 

opposed to the federal agencies being given the latitude to list "distinct populations· 

depending on their own political agendas. 

We propose that quantifiable criteria for listing be established scientifically for either 

listing as threatened or endangered. 

We recommend that Congress reemphasize the intent to provide a clearer distinction 

between the listing as threatened and endangered. The agencies should be utilizing 

the threatened listing as a category which identifies a species in a precipitous and 

unnatural decline but which can allow for management flexibility during the recovery 

stages. The agencies have for all practical purposes combined the two listing because 

it makes their lives simpler and it fits an anti-use agenda being adopted by many of the 

federal conservation agencies. 

We also propose that the Federal Advisory Committee Ad be amended to exclude 

state agencies. We contend that Congress never intended for governmental 

organizations with statutory or regulatory authority to be included under the Ad. The 

Act is presently being interpreted by the agencies and the courts to treat state agencies 

exactly the same as any private citizen. It is our belief that the agency involved in the 

research and management of the two species mentioned above should have been 

directly involved in the listing decisions. They were excluded, however, except for the 

opportunity to submit data for review by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We are also proposing that Congress establish a mandatory peer review within the 

listing process. Had that been in place during the petitioning and review of the above 

species, it is our belief that the petition would never have been accepted. 

Steller Sea Lions 

The Steller sea lion populations in portions of their range in the Gulf of Alaska and 

Bering Sea have been declining for the last twenty years. Those declines have been 

well documented and are most notable from Prince William SCKM'Id westward and 

including populations along the Aleutian Chain. Some of the declines have been 

precipitous in the last decade. AJ. the same time, portions of the Steller sea lion 

populations have remained relatively stable, especially those in the eastem Gulf of 

Alaska. 

8 
247 

As a result of these declines, the National Marine Fisheries Service has listed the 

Steller sea lion as threatened, developed a recovery plan and has proposed that the 

species be listed as endangered. What is causing the declines? Are these normal 

population fluctuations? Why are some segments of this species remaining stable and 

others have decreased dramatically? No one knows the answers to these questions it 

appears and especially the National Marine Fisheries Service - the agency 

responsible for not only the species involved but the bulk of the commercial fishing 

industry likely to be impacted if drastic experimental measures are taken to reverse this 

trend. The economic impacts on our state could be catastrophic. 

Our point in using the sea lion as an example here is to illustrate the broad problem 

being experienced by the states in dealing with federal control and preemption. The 

Marine Mammal Protection Act passed in 1972 and, as a result, one of the worlds most 

progressive marine mammals research and management programs initiated by the 

State of Alaska in 1959 was for all practical purposes eliminated. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service was given the responsibility for the protection and management of 

Steller sea lions and other species. 

Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Ad., the federal govemment has 

spent literally milliona of dollars producing nothing to help the sea lion. The only 

reliable data available to document and quantify the decline of this species wu 

produced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game by a patched together but high 

quality research program dedicated to producing critical information needed to protect 

the interests of Alaskan citizens. One has to question the process of prioritization 

within this large federal agency. 

From our perspective, there is some argument to be made that this species would have 

been better off today had it remained under state management. At least, there would 

have been some direct incentive for the state to initiate the research work necessary to 

correct or explain the cause for this species' decline. 

This case also serves to illustrate what is in our opinion a growing fiscal policy within 

the federal agencies responsible for administering the ESA. Listing of species are not 

avoided because the actual listing process guarantees increased funding by Congress. 

Whether it is true or not, the perception is that the agencies purposely ignore some 

species because they cannot get adequate funding from Congress until they have 

actual listed the species under the ESA. If this is true, it is not good testimony to the 

conservation ethics of our federal agencies. 

Conclusion 

On December 21, 1994,. Govemor Fife Symington or Arizona called for repeal of the 

Endangered Species Ad.. Govemor Symington said, "It has been a failed and costly 

experiment. • Governor Symington also stated: 

9 
248 

"It is clear, however, that the Endangered Species Act has become a fierce and 

cruel weapon being used by environmental extremists with no regard for the 

adverse impacts this causes to individuals and whole communities or eve to the 

species they purport to protect. It has been perverted by the cumulative impact 

of judicial interpretations. It has become a vehicle for attack on private property 

rights. And it ignores the rightful role of state land and wildlife agencies to 

address wildlife and habitat problems in a reasonable and systematic way." 

"In the meantime, it has become abundantly clear that the ESA in its present 

form will continue to be used frivolously and maliciously by extremists to pursue 

their objectives regardless of the economic and environmental chaos this 

creates for others and for our resources." 

Governor Symington has reached almost the identical conclusion that we have 

reached. Unless some of the major revisions being suggested are incorporated in the 

reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act to make it more worluible, we would 

have to also advocate letting the ESA sunset. 

As stated at the beginning of this testimony, however, that is not our purpose for being 

here. In our written testimony and attached Issue Paper, we have made constructive 

suggestions for ways to improve the ESA. Our suggestions will make the Act more 

effective by encouraging greater participation by the states and the public, providing for 

recovery and delisting, and discouraging political listings at the expense of biologically 

justified listings. 

Maintaining biological diversity must be a goal for us all not just a selective political 

mission for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. 

We wish to express our sincere interests in assisting this task force and Congress in 

any way we can as you proceed through this reauthorization process. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for providing us the opportunity to testify. We wish you and 

the task force well in the important job before you. 

10 
249 

ALASKA STATE SENATE AND HOUSE 

ISSUE PAPER 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

1995 

Updated: 4119195 

Ma!or Points of Contention 

1. Definition of Species 

According to the Endangered Species Ad. (ESA), the term species means "any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate 

fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." 

The present definition at "species" encourages court challenges for listing every semiisolated population or stock. While the species or subspecies may be, in fact, healthy, the 

present definition presses for the listing at every existing population segment 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has adopted a formal policy establishing its 

definition or interpretation at the ESA relating to "distinct populations". This policy is 

presented in a supporting paper authored by Robin S. Waples which states: 

A population will be considered "distinct" (and hence a "species") for 

purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) 

of the biological species. A population must satisfy two aiteria to be 

considered an ESU: 

1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other 

conspec:ific population units, and 

2) It must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy at the 

species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has not adopted a clarifiCation policy for 

implementation at the ESA. Because of the growing tendency at the FWS to list population 

segments and its inability to enunciate a standardized interpretive policy, there has been 

some support for modifying the ESA to formalize the "distinct population" interpretation 

adopted by NMFS. 
250 

One of the primary purposes of the ESA was to "minimize the losses of genetic variations" 

where "potential ana for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may lie locked up in 

the structures of plants whictl may yet be undiscovered, much less analyzed." Another 

motive involved halting the "irreplaceable loss to aesthetics, science, ecology, and the 

national heritage should more species disappear." It is not clear that it is necessary to 

preserve every distinct population segment to accomplish these goals. 

Failure to limit ESA protection to genetically distinct and biologically significant units will 

result in increasing pressure and litigation to strain the application c:A the ESA as a land use 

act to preserve old growth forests, prevent grazing and other development. Limiting ESA 

protection to genetic heritage addressed by Congress will permit land use conflicts to be 

addressed on their own merits including an ecosystem/biodiversity analysis. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

We reconvnend that Congress drop the term ' distinct population segment" from the 

definition. 

We recommend that Congress provide a precise definition of the term 'species' to be 

utilized in implementing the ArJ.. 

Alaska recommends that the FWS and NMFS cooperate in developing and applying a 

consistent interpretation of the "species" definition. We reconvnend that the existing policy 

adopted by NMFS be used as a starting point. 

2. Uatlng Proc:eu 

During the last convei"'ln c:A CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species c:A Wild Flora and FIUl&), a major international effort was made to begin the 

process c:A establishing quantitative aiteria for listing c:A species on the appendices. The 

same scientific effort needs to be implemented for the ESA. It was agreed at CITES that 

one aiteria will not fit all species of plants and animals but it can be stnJc:tured to fit over 

90% of the species with strict aiteria for exceptions being included. 

Recent agency abuses in the acx:eptance of petitions for listing points out the need for 

quantitative aiteria for listing. AI. least, some standards other than 'substantial evidence' 

needs to be iiiCOIJ)OI'8ted in the ArJ.. The petitioner should be required to demonstrate that 

the species being petitioned for listing meets some mininun aiteria. 

Because c:A continued political manipulation c:A the listing process, it has become necessary 

to establish a peer review process for listing. A peer review process should be required 

which reviews the standards for listing, including aiteria, priority and qualifications. 

2 ll 
251 

Alaslul Legislative Position 

Alaska should support a provision in the Ad. establishing a time-frame for the development 

c:A quantitative criteria for listing c:A species. 

The "substantial evidence" requirement for petitioners must be more specifiC. We 

rec:omrn811d that the evidence must shaN that the species has met some minimum 

requirementa for listing. 

A peer review process for listing should be incorporated into the Ad.. 

3. Clearer Distinction Between Endangered and Threatened Ustlng 

M endaclgered species is defined as "any species -Mlich is in danger c:A extinction 

ltYoughout all or a significa1t portion c:A its range." 

A threatened species is defined as "any species which is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future ttvoughout all or a significant portion c:A its range." 

Although the act provides management flexibility to clearty distinguish endangered from 

threatened species, the agencies have generally treated them identically. It is our 

contention that this inflexibility destroys a major PliJIOS8 c:A the Ad. which is to identify 

species prior to listing as endangered and institute lesa stringent programs designed to 

promote recovery rather than listing as endangered. Logic would argue in favor of 

maximum cooperation in developing reccvery programs for threatened species before the 

species reaches a more restrictive listing under the Ad.. 

Because the agencies have not more clearly separated endangered and threatened 

listings, the general tendency from the private sector and many resource agencies is to 

fight any listing until the species' status is fat below the threshold which should require 

special research and management attention. 

Alaslul Legislative Position 

Cla1fication and mont flexible interpretation c:A the taking provisions would more specifically 

delineate between 811da11g8111d and threatened species. 

It is clear that bolh agencies have considerable flexibility in distinguishing between the two 

listings. l.ac::Mlg mont distinct policies separating recovery and management programs for 

endangered and threatened species, the ESA should be amended to more clearty separate 

the ~ and restrictions associated with each listing. 

Of map ccncem ia the need to continue to alla.v regulllt8d "taking" c:A thralltened species 

which ia corwistent with recovery plans and acceptable conservation practices. 

3 · II 

91-344 - 95 - 9 
252 

.4. Role of States 

The ESA indicates that encxuaging the states to "develop and maintain c:cnservation 

programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the nation's 

international cxmnitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit cl all citizens, the 

nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants." 

To-date, states have been active participants in the implementation cl the ESA but, 

generally, not partners. Many states have their own ESA that are, in some cases, more 

effective in listing, recovering, and delisting species. If the states are to be elfadive, 

however, the Federal agenc:iea must place more emphasis on developing cooperative 

rea:Nery plana that ITI8lCimiza the flexibility cl the Ad to accommodate State interests. 

Public acceptability and support is the key to the ultimate success cl the endangered 

species program. Ear1y identification cl species in potential trouble, use cl experimental 

pop~ dationa to gain public support, utilization cl State public relations programs to reduce 

incidental take cl listed species, use of State-corporate ftn1 raising programs to target 

species recovery and the development cl innovative tec:tvliques designed to raduce 

mortalities or harmful harassment are all mechanisms which can be used to make the 

combined Federal-State effort more effective. 

Alakll Legislative Position 

The ESA will continue to be exclusively a confrontational conseiVation law l.llless the 

emphasis c1 the administering agencies shifts from one cl Federal contrcl to one cl 

Federai/Statafprivate cooperation. Better cooperative agreements with the states and the 

private sector plus more flexible management options, especially in dealing with threatened 

species, would make the ESA more effective. 

At present, most cl this can be accomplished under the existing statute with minor 

amendments to clarify taking. Unless there is a philosophical shift in direction within the 

Federal agencies, these types c1 positive actions are not likely and will rvquire specific 

amendments to force implementation. 

If the ESA is amended in this area it would be advantageous to require mandatory 

consultation rather than "as appropriate" in all phases of the implementation process. 

5. Adequate Funding 

The states have oonsistently claimed that inadequate section 6 monies are appropriated 

amually to meet the mininun goals of the ESA. Recoveries are consistently delayed due 

to inadequate ftn1s to implement recovery plans. 

A major complaint is that ftn1s that are available are being conveniently diverted to 

politically hig, profile species rather than species most biologically in need of attention. 

4 () 
253 

Anolher major scuce d irritation is that lhe lack d an el'lic:ient deliating process forces 

agencies to spend critically needed fu'lda on species that have tec:Mically met rea:Nery 

thresholds. 

The 1988 GAO report severely aiticized lhe Federal agencies for not adhering to !heir 

prioritization process for identifying funding targets. 

Alaska Leglslalive Poaltlon 

The program fl.nding prioritization process d each agency should be adhered to with 

adequate public input Leas emphasis should be placed on politically popular apec:iea and 

more on species needing priority attention. This c:culd be ac:compliahed through effective 

policy c:anatruction and implementation or an amendment to ESA requiring prioritized 

expenditures unless olherwiae specified in lhe annual appropriations. 

Specific ama ldments to lhe ESA are not required, however, to provide a prioritization 

process. Funding for Section 6 at lhe ESA will require reauthorization and adequate 

appropriation, however. 

Alaska supports additional funds being appropriated to Section 6 projects for oooperative 

wor1t with lhe states. 

I. Dellstlng and Reclassification Processes 

Section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii) requires that each recovery plan include "objective measurable aiteria 

which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordanca with lhe provisions of this 

section, that lhe spedea be removed from lhe list." Unfortl.nately, lhe agencies have a 

tendency to ignore the population objectives adopted in the rea:Nery plans. 

CLIITWll practices within FWS are to frequently delay delisling despite the fact that 

population objective~ have been mel This circumvents the prioritization process and 

diSCOI.IliQ8S participation in the recovery procass. 

~ present the listing procass is supposed to be based on the biological status of the 

species involved. Although the rea:Nery plans include population objectives, they most 

frequently do not include automatic delisting thresholds. 

Reclassification critaria are not presenly required in the ESA I"8CCMII'y plans. 

Consideration may be given to requiring inclusion of reclassificatio aitaria along with 

rne&SU'8ble aitaria for delisting in the ESA. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

The Federal agencies have continually demonstrated a political reluctance to delist 

species. Since population objectives are built into the rea:Nery plans, specific thresholds 

5 [) 
254 

for delisting should be required. Conceptually, the tlveshold would automatically trigger the 

delisting precess. 

Alaska is in favor d the delisting process being a biological decision rather than a political 

one. 

It should be required that specific reclassification criteria be included in the recovery plans. 

7. Take Provisions 

Under the ESA, the term take means ''to harass, harm, pursue, tult, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 

One d the most controversial aspects of the ESA relates to the taking d threatened or 

endangered species. There are signifiCSilt differences between FWS and NMFS as to the 

intetpretation of the ESA and their policies for implementation. While bolh agencies 

generally prohibit the taking of endangered species, FWS has prohibited the taking of 

tlveatened species, while NMFS has been more lenient in allowing taking of threatened 

species, especially under incidental take provisions. 

Court intetpretations d authorized taking of tlveatened species has complicated recovery 

programs and discolnged cooperation from affected states. Most recently, courts have 

intetpreted the "extraordinary case" limitation of the ESA to apply to threatened as well as 

endangered species. 

We are concerned lhet the present definition of take is being intetpreted to include many 

nonlethal acts lhet simply represent encounters with listed species, such as visual 

EII1CCU'Iters of most marine mammals from vessels. The p.xpose of the ESA is to 

"conserve" listed species and their ecosystems. Mere encounters do not contravene these 

objectives. Thou{tl we ClOnCU' that encounters that incite life tlveatening responses should 

be prohibited, casual or non-lite-ltYeatening encounters may in tact be beneficial to the 

species by promoting better 161derstanding and acceptance d the program by the public. 

In some cases, nonlethal harassment may be beneficial to the listed species, such as use 

of undelwater sounds to keep marine mammals BWaY from potentially life-threatening areas 

or areas with conflicts with other listed species. Certainly, significant public support can be 

solicited and maintained if some disaetion is used in allowing the use of nonlethal 

harassrnerW tec:hniques. It miglt be advantageous to describe lethal taking and non-lethal 

encounters sepwately in the law. 

Alakll Legislative Position 

The definition of "take" should be modified to eliminate "harass" from the definition. 

Limitations on harassment should be treated separately to allow for controlled harassment 

which does not pose any permanent physical danger to the animal or population. 

6 !I 
255 

The ESA should allow for managed taking of some species. The "axlraordinary case" 

limitation should apply only to endangered species. The a.wrent judicially based definition 

of "extraordinary case" should not be applied to threatened species when populations are 

expanding or the species is expanding into arees where they have been absent but are 

roN creating unmanageable social and ecological pressuliS. 

Not alla.ving the taking of threatened species has made the process so rigid that the states 

have lost all flexibility to use taking as an aspect cl their recovery management program. 

The ESA should be amended to clarify this aspect of the overall program. 

8. Incidental Take Provisions 

Under section 7 cl the ESA, incidental take permits may be granted for Federal activities 

that are ''not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" cl sny listed species. Under 

section 10, incidental take pannits may be issued for non-Federal activities when "lhe 

taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood cl the uvival and recovery cl the species 

in the wild. • However, there appears to be no reason for State governments to be classified 

with private and other nongovernmental applicants instead c1 with cu cxxnerpart Federal 

agencies in this permitting process. 

For example, it has been noted that, though ptyased differently in each section, the 

exemption standards are effective equivalents. Indeed, State agencies are, in nearly all 

cases, the only responsible management agency for the listed species and wauld thereby 

be best able to evaluate and provide information on whether a limited taking resulting from 

a State activity would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence cl the listed species. 

Finally, unlike private applicants, states are, along with the Federal government, 

accountable to their citizen constituents. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

We are conc:emed that the flexibility and the mandate is clearly present in Sections 7 and 

1 0 for the seaetary to allow ''reasonable and timely'' incidental take cl listed species. It 

seems most appropriate that the procedure for the State to receive incidental take permits 

be allowed U1der Section 7. Section 7(A)(1) needs to be amended to apply to not only 

Federal agencies but to State agencies as well. 

Alaska must examine whether or not it is desirable to have incidental take provisions 

centralized U1der one statute. Of partia.Jiar concem are the implementation problems 

developed as a result c1 incidental take regulations U1der the Marine Mammal Protection 

Ad and the Endangered Speci.es Ad. 

One possible amendment option would be: 

No incidental take permit is needed for threatened species as long as take is '"In 

accordance with provisions of other consarvation leNs n not likely to cause the 

7 [] 
256 

species to become endangered within the foreseeable futl.l'8 ~ all or a 

significant portion m its range." 

9. Use of Experimental Population 

Under the ESA. the Seaetaty may allow for the release m an endangered species as a 

wholly separated population for experimental puposes. The experimental population is to 

be treated for administrative puposes as a ttveatened species and aitical habitat shall not 

be designated. 

Some states have argued that a more lenient use m the experimental population option m 

the Ad would encourage states to expand efforts to reestablish some extirpated 

populations if the rigid standards d an endangered species were not applied. More public 

support could be solicited if provisions could be adopted -Mlic:tl allow for removal m problem 

animals and if nat\nl eJCP&nSion d experimental populations didn't jeopardize other 

established uses and practic:ea. 

To make this effective, however, FWS policy m not allowing taking d threatened species 

would have to be modified. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

The ESA does not have to be amended to provide for broader interpretations m 

experimental population applications. However, FWS has alntinued to take a very 

restrictive approach to the positive uses m experimental populations. Specific amendments 

to the Ad allowing greater use m experimental populations should be considered. 

10. Critical Habitat Designation Objective, Purpose and Need for Clarffk:atlon 

There is IJ1C8rtainty as to the effect of the aitical habitat designation, especially on private 

and State lands. For instance, from the standpoint d the State of Alaska, the designation 

of entire ranges ci some salmon as aitical habitat could have serious and unnecessary 

impacts. Overlaying and preemptive plaming, zoning and pennitting authorities could have 

major economic impacts. This is especially true if all portions ci a species habitat are 

treated identically regardless d the relative value or importance ci each area. 

The ESA reads, except in those circumstances determined by the Seaetary, critical 

habitat shall not include the entire geographical area -M1ic:tl can be occupied by the 

threatened or endangered species." 

The Ad. presently requires the designation m aitical habitat when recovery plans are 

adopted. The agencies have consistently ignored this requirement 

8 [] 
257 

Alaska Legislative Position 

Congresa needs to provide a more succinct and consolidated interpretation d the "aitical 

habitat'' proviaionl d the ESA. 

We recxmT1811d that the law be amended to identify precise ciramstances or criteria ooder 

which the Seaetary can expand critical habitat designation to the entire range previously 

occupied by the species. Aa it is now, this decision is left to the whim d the respective 

Seaetary. 

By amendment, we would like to see critical habitat d anadromous fish limited to spawning 

areas or other designated habitats where all or a substantial portion of the species is 

subject to significant mortalities. 

11. Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Some aitics d the ESA suggest that economic impacts should be more seriously 

considered in the initial process of listing as either threatened or endangered. N. present, 

the decision to list or not list a species or population as threatened or endangered is 

supposed to be based exclusively on its biological status. Economic consideretion can only 

be ccnsidered in the development of a recovery plan or in the designation d critical habitat. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

It is doubtful that any coalition will be able to muster the strength to substantially alter the 

strict biological basis for listing and delisting species. However, economic considerations 

could be injec:led into the process of detennining whether a species is listed as threatened 

versus endangered. 

Consideration should be given to simplifying the mechanisms nec::essary for "God Squad" 

intervention. 

Greater weigtt should be sought toward evaluating the economic impacts of decisions 

during the ret:XNer'J plan development and implementation phases. 

12. Citizen SUHs 

The ESA requir8a a 60 day notice period before a citizen suit can be brought to enjoin an 

action threatening a listed species. 

This requirement can place the citizen or state in a "catch 22' where the 60 day notice 

requirement allows for a proposed agency action to be accomplished before the action can 

be legally challenged in ca.rt.. This specifically oc:aned in Alaska where a 60 day notice of 

intent to sue over a NMFS biological opinion concerning incidental taking d chinook du"ing 

the sunvner season essentially placed us at a point beyond the season where any litigation 

9 [) 
258 

would be essentially moot On any action required amually like a biological opinion fo( 

incidental taking, there is no effective relief under the current law. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

States and citizens should be allowed to sue with less than a 60 day notice period if the 

notice requirement places either the citizen or the state in a position where it is impossible 

to attain relief lhrougt the courts due to the amual time requirements. 

13. Private Property Rights 

A recent court decision on taking of private property rights by Federal or State agency 

actions may lead to attempts to clarify the intent of the ESA. It is unclear what impact the 

ESA has at present on private property rights. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

Some form of private property rights will probably be considered. Some private property 

rights amendment will be supported by the Legislature. 

14. Creation of Prellating Category 

There are some distinct advantages to establishing some method of identifying species 

before they reach the biological status requiring listing as either threatened or endangered. 

The major concern is that this proposal is being utilized to expand the ESA to include an 

even lower threshold for protective listing under the !vi 

Alaska Legislative Position 

Alaska opposes the establishment of a prelisting category, at this time, as it would only 

extend the ESA even further than it does naN. Use of the threatened listing should first be 

made to WOf1( properly. 

15. Recovery Burel.,.. 

The listing and recovety plan development process for Columbia River chinook has raised 

several practical issues involved with the implementation of the ESA. It may be beneficial 

to modify the ESA to require special emphasis in recovery plans which place the major 

burden of recovery on those interests which have contributed most heavily to the decline of 

the listed species. 

10 [] 
259 

Alaska Legislative Position 

Alaska supports an amendment requiring the burden of recovery baing placed 

proportionally on those activities responsible for the decline of the species. 

18. Deviations from Adopted Recovery Plana 

The pradical implementation of offiCially adopted recovery plans is apparently subject to 

considerable administrative disaetion. It may be desirable to require that recovery plans 

be adhered to by the agency and/or any modifications or agency deviations from the plan 

be subject to the same publication and public notification requirements as the original plan. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

Deviations from adopted recovery plans should be discouraged but not prohibited. Alaska 

is proposing that more flexibility be inserted into the process. Prohibiting some agency 

disaetion in modification of recovery plans may not be desirable. 

17. Integration of ESA with International Agreements & Treaties 

At present, the integration of ESA requirements with International Agreements such as the 

Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 

(CITES) or the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) are often inconsistent. 

At present, implementation procedures for the ESA do not require the integration of ESA 

objectives with those associated with equally important International Treaties. It may be 

beneficial to require that the development of recovery plans be coordinated with 

international agreement structures so that recovery objectives are closely meshed with 

those of the international agreements. This type of requirement should not detract from 

long term recovery efforts but essure that reasonable lime frames and intra-govemmentl 

allocations and other decisions are consistent and reasonably applied. Without some basic 

integration requiremanta, ESA mandates may unnecessarily disadvantage international 

negotiation~ by the United States. 

Alaab Legislative Poaltlon 

The ESA lhoulcl require the integration of species recovery plans with intemational 

agreements that have over-lapping goals and objectives. 

18. Raauthortzatlon Time-frame 

The question will be whether or not to reauthorize the act for three or five years. 

11 [) 
260 

Alaska Legislative Position 

If the ESA is property amended, we would agree to a five yMr reauthorization. With the 

!Xlnlroversies now revolving 'WLfld the Pacific salmon issues, it is probably not 

advantageous to the State to have a long-term reauthorization period tnasa cu ooncems 

are addressed by formal policy changea or amendments to the ESA. 

11. Exempt Fechnl Advisory Committee Act 

Strict interpretations d the Federal Mvisory Committee Ad (FACA) by the Federal 

agencies have SVlificantly recluoed the effective role of the State~ in 1NW1Y importa1t 

federal prcvams, including the Elldallg«8d Species Ad. It is impenltiYe that the states be 

~from the Federal Mvisory Committee Ad in the~ d the ESA if the 

ptrpOSe is to foster cooperative programs to effect ret»1efY of listed species or species at 

risk. 

Under present interpretations of the FACA by most federal agencies, states are treated as 

another member of the public rather than as cooperating sovereign goverrmenta1 agencies. 

This frequently precludes the type of continuous interchange and consultation wt1ich is 

needed to elfectively addreu the growing problems auodated with ecosystem 

management, biodiversity, endangered species, etc. Aa a reeult, states are not effective 

partners. 

Alaska Legislative Position 

The state supports either an amendment to the Federal Advisory Committee Ad exempting 

states from the provisions of the Ad or, in this case, exempting the ESA from the provisions 

oftheFACA 

12 () 
261 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

LOIS VAN HOOVER 

RESIDENT OF YELLOW PINE, IDAHO 

MANAGER OF WESTERN PARTNERS 

BEFORE 

802 W. Bannock, Suite 602 

Boise, Idaho 83 702 

Phone (208) .143-3099 

Fax (208) 343-.1085 

1-800-836-.1099 

THE HOUSE ENDANGERED SPECIES TASK FORCE 

MONDAY, APRIL 24,1995 

REGARDING 

THE REPEAL OF THE CURRENT ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

AND 

CORRELATING REGULATIONS 
262 

s H02 W. Bannock, Suite 602 

Boise, Idaho A]702 

Phone (208) .14 .1(~19 

Fax (208) .14.1-.1085 

1-800-836-.\0'19 

Mr. Chairman and membe rs of the Task Force, it i s indeed a 

honor to speak before you today. My name is Lois Van 

Hoover. I am a miner and director of a sma ll mining 

association. 

Let me begin by explaining that just being able to travel to 

Vancouver from my home in the Idaho mountains would have 

been very difficult a few years ago. You see Mr. Chairman, 

my hometown of Ye llow Pine, Idaho was locked up with steel 

gates by the United States Forest Service. 

It's the sad truth Mr. Chairman. And, with your permission, 

I will submi t the appropriate documentat ion into the record 

along with my complete statement. 

Why did the Forest: Serv ice feel compelled to arrogant ly loc k 

up the town of Yell ow Pine and unlawfully trample on the 

Consti tution? Yell ow Pine was locked up five days a week 

under the guise of· a jeopardy biological opinion de s igned to 

protect the grey wolf, even though no offi c ial c ritical 

habitat f or the gr·ey wolf ex i sted in the area. Plus, 

according to sworn te stimony by U.S.F.& W. officials given 

in Federal Court t.here had never been a sighting o f a grey 

wolf in the area, and what the U.S.F.S. and U.S.F.& W. 

really wanted was to curtail hunting and recreational use 1 0 

the area. When I asked Mr. Veto J . Lasalle, the Paye tte 

National Forest Supervisor , why he was closing the road 

when he knew it was morally and legally wrong , he 

arrogantly responded, "If someone sues me, I would rather 

the suit come from the people of Yellow Pine because they 

cannot afford a good attorney . " 

We contacted the Mountain States Legal Foundation a nd went 

to court. On February 25,1988, Judge Ha ro ld Ryan, in U.S. 

Federal Court, Boise, Idaho heard the case. He rightfully 

ruled that the residents of Yellow Pine have the right of 

ingress and egress. 

This is a c lear example of a t own being imprisoned because 

of an overzealous interpretation of regulation and policy, 

simply to meet a pri vate agenda. 

I could g o on and tell you about Congress appropriating $8. 

million to pave the road to Yellow Pine and how substantial 

a mounts of the money was used for "wolf educa tion". Now it 

appears snow plowing the road will not meet the standards 
263 

and guidelines of PACFISH. If so, Yellow Pine will again, 

for the seventh time, go back to court. 

We have been treated by our government as trespassers on our 

own property. I submit to this committee, that the 

Endangered Species Act and the accompanying regulations are 

completely out of control. Further, the current Act and all 

its complex trappings are beyond the point of repair. 

Rather, I would urge you to develop a new Act that reflects 

sound principles, and most of all, includes humans in the 

environmental equation. 

The existing Act is beyond repair, and I'd like to offer a 

few quick examples: 

Today, unless you are a very large mining operation with 

substantial funding, and can hire enough specialists you are 

not going to mine anywhere there is an endangered specie. 

Even the large companies have to capitulate to "Agency 

Blackmail" by agreeing to massive and expensive "off-site" 

mitigation in order to satisfy the oppressive demands of the 

ESA. The small miner no longer has a prayer. 

This problem is compounded by federal land managers who try 

to balance conflicting requirements of resource law, who are 

being personally threatened with fines up to $25,000 and 

imprisonment by other federal agencies, especially the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Amazing! The ESA has federal 

agencies suing federal employees. And do you know who gets 

lost in the shuffle? 

Under the 36 C.F.R. subpart 228 (the all controlling 

U.S.F.S. mining regulation), the USFS must process a miners 

proposed plan of operations within a reasonable time frame. 

However, delay and inaction is the rule. They hope the 

applicant will get discouraged, go broke or just simply die 

waiting. This is not good government. The only alternative 

is to sue for damages. Unfortunately, most of us don't have 

the luxury of multi-million dollar pocketbooks like the 

environmental lobby has. Once again, the ESA is in the 

dominate position over the statutory right to mine. 

During World War II, 80% of the tungsten and antimony metals 

used by the allied forces came from my area of Idaho. The 

United States geared-up and fought WWII, defeating the Nazis 

in 4 l/2 years. Yet today, we have a simple exploration 

plan on a nearby property that has been sitting with no 

action for over three years. 

My partner and I have a claimsite in a "special management 

area" for "critical" salmon habitat. This designation has 

no scientific basis. The salmon would have to leave the 

main stream, climb 5000 feet, jump a 14 foot fall and swim 
264 

in very shallow water that houses fish three to five inches 

long, just to reach our claim. The stream, called Crooked 

Creek, located in the Nez Perce National Forest, is 

considered headwaters by the Army Corps of Engineers. Nor, 

has there ever been a record of it having any salmon in it. 

But we are impacted, delayed and frustrated. 

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that amending the ESA is not 

the answer. We need a fresh approach. 

The USFS and the BLM have recently implemented PACFISH which 

is a direct result of the ESA and the listed salmon. The 

guidelines instruct field personnel to overlook the mining 

law and the 36 CFR 228 regulations and function under 

PACFISH. Under this "management strategy", actions that do 

not require plans under the 36 CFR 228 regulations now must 

have a plan of operations, a reclamation plan, a bond, and 

cannot operate within the buffer zones created. In effect, 

they have created new law without involving Congress. 

A placer claim is normally 600' wide by 1500' along a 

stream, the stream meandering down the center. But under 

PACFISH a 300' buffer zone on either side of the stream is 

required. As a consequence, our mining claims have just 

been eliminated . It is clear, the ESA is being used to 

eliminate mineral production in our nation, not to protect 

the environment . It is wrong . But it doesn't stop there. 

The Inland Native Fish Strategy is even more restrictive 

that PACFISH. This new "strategy" tries to run ahead of the 

ESA causing more adverse effects than the listing of the 

species. Unfortunately, both PACFISH and the Inland native 

Fish Strategy fail to recognize private property rights, 

social and economic impacts or coordination with local 

government authority. 

From the beginning, there wasn't any room for humans in the 

ESA. By simply reading the findings, purpose, and policies 

of the Act it will be evident to reasonable people that the 

very premise for the E.S.A. is fatally flawed. Therefore, I 

believe the existing Act should be repealed and a new act 

written. 

I submit for the record the following proposed findings and 

policies, I believe these should be incorporated into a new 

Act. 

* Congress should recognize that extinction of some species 

is a normal, natural process, even if man, in some cases, 

has played a part. 

* Congress should realize the ESA, as amended, has had 

adverse social and economic impacts on the people of the 

United States. Property rights should be reaffirmed in a 
265 

new Act. Jobs and families must be protected. The cost of 

protecting species should be borne by the society as a 

whole, not individuals. 

* Accurate and independently verifiable information 

sufficient to reach a scientific conclusion should be the 

basis of federal decisions regarding conservation of 

endangered species. 

* Congress should look to the free markets, including 

private and voluntary propagation and conservation as the 

best means of conserving valuable species. 

* The States should have the primary responsibility for 

endangered species protection. 

** And one very important change is a provision that a zero 

job loss tolerance be implemented. This provision is 

similar to the Delaney clause presently used in food 

regulation. No program to conserve species will be 

successful if the People most likely to impact them is 

punished, merely for being there. 

Mr. Chairman, it is time to scrap the Endangered Species Act 

and start anew. We must include humans in the environmental 

equation. We must use conclusive science in our decision 

process. It is clear from my experience that the ESA has 

done more harm than good. It is time to take a new look at 

how we will address endangered species. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer 

any questions 
EXHIBIT A 

Al 

A2 

EXHIBIT B 

EXHIBIT C 

Cl 

EXHIBIT D 

EXHIBIT E 

266 

EXHIBITS 

EXCERPTS FROM THE COURT TRANSCRIPT 

YELLOW PINE ROAD CASE. ANSWERS ARE FROM 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 

EXCERPTS FROM THE JEOPARDY BIOLOGICAL 

OPINION. 

CORHESPONDENCE BETWEEN U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE REGARDING THE BIOLOGICAL 

OPINION AND YELLOW PINE RESIDENTS. 

INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY. 

EXCERPTS FROM THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

REGARDING LONG RANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

SHOW THE BACKGROUND OF AGENCIES TO ONLY 

MANAGE TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE 

E.S.A .. 
267 

following up on our consult a tion, one of th e 

2 alternatives th~t the ~crest S ervice provid e d wJ 

for opening th e road with restricted seasonal 

access. And w e felt that t h at had merit be c a us e 

5 there could be s ome control on th~ activity in 

6 th e back country. All our reasonable and pruden 

alternative wa s to call for a two-day a we e k 

midweek openin J because we wanted to stay a way 

9 from the recreational use. We wanted to serve 

10 the people or Yellow Pine. We recognize the nee c 

11 for them to get in and out of their area and s o 

12 w.e ~orked with them to develop an opening. But w• 

13 did not want to encouraee a lot of use from the 

14 outside people. 

15 We did not want to encourage hunting 

1 6 activity in the South Fork a nd we also recognize e 

17 the need that there may be some emergency use or 

18 needs of the Yellow Pine people, and so there was 

19 a condition in our biological opinion to allow 

20 use of the road any time during the week provide d 

21 it was in conjunction with an emergency use plan. 

22 THE COURT: Counsel, may I interrupt 

2 3 a moment. Mr. Gore, have read your report and 

24 what your reco rnmendation w as . Did you con s ider 

2S a recommendation of only the in-holders use o f 

-53-
268 

fJ,h,( 

_, A . 1 

THE .IITNESS: If the Forest Servic e 

2 wanted to ad v an c e that as a proposal, we would 

5 

10 

11 

certainly consider it in a biological opinion and 

research it and render an opinion. 

THE COURT: What is your opinion? 

THE WITNESS: Without seeing the 

proposal fully and looking into it, I --

THE COURT: I am giving you a 

proposal rig h t now. 

lHE WITNES S : Okay. Say it again. 

1HE COURT: Out of what we have ju s t 

12 discussed, of limiting this to the Yellow Pine 

1 3 people, the in-holders which understand ts 

14 maybe 35 people in there? 

15 

1 6 

1 7 

1 d 

19 and forth. 

20 

21 

TH E WITNE SS: 

THE COURT: 

THE WITNESS: 

THE COURT: 

T H E IIITNE S S: 

THE COURT: 

Right. 

At the outside? 

If 

Some of which come back 

S ure. 

And on the one year that 

22 they took a v e hicle count with cameras as I 

23 understand it, it averaged less than six v e hi c l es 

2 q on an av er aee for 

25 HR. STRINGER: Your Honor, if I may, 

..._ ____ ____ -_s_a _-_____________ ! 
269 

Dea dwood Su~mit, which is the h ea d end of 

th e J o hnson Creek drainage that goes into the 

Middle Fori<. 

0 Is t ha t basically on the ridge of 

mountains before you drop into the v a lley ? 

A Yes, it would b e ri ght here, the 

7 drain age this direction goes in the Deadwood 

Res ervoir, the draina ge t his direction goes down 

the Johnson Cree k drainage which goes into the 

10 Eas t fork of the So uth Fork, whi c h comes into the 

11 So uth f ork. 

1 2 0 S o y ou hav e -- well, go ahead. 

1 3 I guess th a t ! s it. 

1 4 Q But no on e has ever seen a fem a le 

1 5 wo lf in the ac tu a l South Fork drain age? 

1 6 A can't r ec all that a nybody ha ~ 

1 7 actually ·seen a wolf in the South Fork drainage. 

l d Thinkin g b ack, there wa s a person down around 

19 some campground h e re in th e central part near 

20 Bucl<hor n Cre e k, believe, that thought that th e y 

2 1 h a d seen a c ouple of pups, youn & animal s. Thi s 

22 was li ke in October, not Oc tober b u t A\1g ust an d 

23 h e thou g ht t fi~ t they coyo t e s . Th n • ..;h0n 

2 4 ~e thought b ac k, he felt that th ey we re wo lve s 

25 and th e y -- tho se might h a v e b een y oune wolf 

·-- ----- ---- ---- ____ ______ .. __ - 6------

6 -

-- -- ---- ---- -- ---

J 
270 

,._;:~~ :_;:.;_~\'-,'.. United States Fish and Wildlife Service '-- - - - D f h I 0 l.lovd sao Buildln'" Suite 1692 -1 ~~ -)~: epartment 0 t e nterlOf soo S.E- Muhnomob s,...,, 

~i ------:,-:-,--;-, -:-: , ,--;-;--:--;-II ji;;, l Pon~nc!, Orc:on 97::3:. 

f x ~ 1 b ,r \\!

1

\f_i ;_, if..!..\...:....:'--'vj\~ · .~. ': •\-:-r~~~-;-;~:}:~;-~-;-;~t:'·::·;~ \ " ~I· J S Tixier -~ : . ; . 1 1 t=.-'1. 1.~ \ 

\ l3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ r ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ·~_!.~-'\-'_:.\ _:.i -'-'--:--;::':-:---;-:-, 

324 25~h St"eet \j 'i;; i \ \ 0 g ci e ~ , Utah 8 4 4 0 1 I!..! / .:~:.:_~_~.!..--~~-'--~,-_-'-;_--~-...:7-_-'.:_~-:_--'~--f_-,:.:-_-;_~ 

Scbjec~: fcr~al Hndan~e~ed S?ecies Consulta:ion--South ForM Road 

Manag~yet~e J\2tional fares:. , Valley Couo:.y, 

Idaho~=-7 

Dear M:-. Tixier: 

Th s is the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Biological Opinion in 

rcs?onse to you~ Ma~ch 11, 19E5 request for for~al consultatioc 

or. th~ Sou:.~ fork Read Macage~ent Environ~ental Assessment (FWSl-4-ES-F-22; for the Payette Nation3l forest an~ the subsequent 

im acts o~ the eDdan~e~ed bald ea:!e (B~li~~~!Y~ l~~£Q£~2h~!~~ ) 

and gray ~o!f (Canis lunus) . Becacse of a se ries of events in 

ou~ office and--th~ ~~;?lexity of the issue , a two week time 

e x tension ~as es~ab ished by you~ le~ter of June 13, 1985. We 

have rev eh~d the prop o sal in ac:c~dance ~ith the Section 7 

in~e~a en y Cooper3t i on ~egulations (50 CFR 402, 43 IE 870) and 

th ~ EnciaJJge~ed Species Act of 1573, as a:e~ded (ESA). 

On June 17, 

N3nagement 

with you~ 

obtzined by 

1385 1 we COI:I;Jleted ou:- revie~· of the South Fork Road 

E:vironmentzl Assess~ec:, the mate~iels you provided 

co~sultation reques~. and additional information 

us or already available i~ ou~ files . 

In the course of this rev~ew , the following people were contacted 

al1d contributed additiooa ! infor=ation used in the opinion: 

Jiw GZ!cey, ~~yett~ Jhttio':lal Forest Larry Do~oh~, Bo1se Natlonal forest 

Timm Kaminski, Univ. of Montan~ 

Dr. Les Harcum, Univ. of Montana 

Dick Thiel, Wisconsin Departmer.t of Natural Resources 

Dale Har:os , FWS, Helena 

Mike Schlegel, Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Don Anderson, Idaho [1epartment of fish anti Cace 

Jerry Lockh~rt, Idaho Depart~ent of Fish and Game 

Duane Peterson , Vall~y Count y High\iay Depart~ent 

A list of documents used in this consultation is included as 

Append i x 1 . 

7 ~EIVED 

JUL 2 51985 

BO:S( fiElD OffiCE 

u.s. f w s 
271 

The fish end Wildlife Se~ vice ~elieve s t~~t opening the Sou: ~ 

Forh of the Salmon Rive~ (S~SR ) road (Altern ative s A, S, ~~ is 

not likely to jeopa~dize th e p r esent u se of the d~a~nage b y bald 

eagles or jeoparcii= e their cont~nued e x 1stence. There is no 

of:ic~ally desi,nat e d b3ld e agle c~iti cal habitat in this area. 

However, it is also our bi ological opi~io ~ th a~ ma1nt enanc e of ao 

O?e~ ro ad and the l o ng te~~ effects o: uncont~olled ve~i ulaT 

access on the SFSR during winte~ pe~iod s (Alternative A end E) 

2.re likel y to jeooa-di ... e the cont'nued exjsten.ce:~_f.__t_h.e..__g...::..a y 

v! f. This opinioc is based U? OD the po tent ia l for humac-c a used 

~oif mortalit y th a t h~ ea ens th ~ su~v ival and recove~y o f t~e 

gra~ wolf in the United States. No o!ficia l l y designate d g~2y 

wolf crit ic al habitat i s found in the project area. 

Th~ Fare s: s~~vice p~O?OSes t o authorize lo cz! gove~nment to 

ca i~t 3in ~e Soutb fork Salmon River (SFSR) road, a Forest 

Se~vice road o~ P3 ye tte National Forest. The Environme~tal 

Assessmen: {EA} for t~e So~th Fork of tl1e Salmon River (SFsg) 

Road Mana~~~eot documen t evaluetes five elternatives (plus t he no 

ac tion c!te~n~tive } that address 2 cain a cti ons. These are ( 1 ) 

keep~ng tbe SFSH ~d open throu:hout the yea~ and ( 2) 

est ricti~g vehicular access Cu~i~g the winter period. The 

necessity for the EA arose bec a use of ~e following e vents: 

I~ !983 1 t~e Idaho Depa~t~ec: of Fish ~d Game (IDFG) requ est ed 

t hat Valle ~ Cou~ty plo ~ Bi g Cre~~ S~~=~ t i~ order to gain spri:g 

access to t~~ SFSR t o rel ~ase an3d o~ s f ish s~olts. In past 

i~ te~s. t~~ su~mit ~as al lo~ ~d to sn ow sh ut. The IDFG reques~ 

co ntained oe=essar y funding for the sprin1 opening . The ·county 

believed ~ would be more econc=ical to keep the road oPen 

throughout ~~e " i nter than to oo en it i~ the sprin~. In 1983 , 

V~lley Coun~y kept Big Creek Su~mit open the entire year . . Tbe 

p!owi n g of Bi~ Creek Sum~it, ~hi ch is alan ' tl1e Cascade/Warm Lake 

Highway, allcwed winter-long vehicula~ a ccess to the SFSR road. 

Shortly aft~r Big Cre~k Su~~it was plow ~d. sOme of the peopl~ of 

Yellowpine, Idaho requested that the SFSR road be plo~~d 

continuously in order to gain year-round access into 

Yellowpine . In pa st win~ers, eccess into Yellowpine (located on 

t he East Fork of the SFSR) h as b~en b y sn owmo bil e via either the 

S?SR or Johnsoo Cree k. 

Valley County officials orig in al!)· agr eed witll I DFG to all o\1 the 

sunmit to close between Januat-y 3 B11d March 15 (Valley Cou nty 

Boa r d of County Commisi o ne rs , letter, 9/17/84) . ld3h o Fi s h and 

Ga~e supported this closure to reduce seC im ent flow into the SfSR 

f ro ro vehicl ~ traffic o n this ro a d, and to lezsen dverse imp3cts 

on winterinc ungula tes alonz th e road. Howe ve~ , on 21 J a nuary 
I 

272 

fore st 

Service 

Payette 

National 

Forest 

P.O. Box 1026 

McCall, ID 83638 United States 

oepart~nt or Ar:;;riculture 

Caring Cor the Land and Serytng the People 

John P. 1/olflin 

U. s. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Boise Field Office 

4696 Overland Road, Roo" 576 

Boise, ID 83705 

Dear John : 

Reply To: 2670 

Date: December 7, 1987 

I received a rec;uest frot.l Yellow Pine residents that the South Fork 

Salmon River Road be open to traffic on Tuesdays and Thursdays instead 

of on~ continuous ll8-hour period. In considering thi:s request, I need 

your comments on how it uould effect BioloKical Opinion No. 1--4-85-f .. 29 

on manauement of this road. 

It is our intention that enforceDI.ent of the closure would be controlled 

with a gating system. The Forest would provide a person to open the 

gate at 8 A.H. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and close the gate at 8 A.H. 

on Wednesday~ and Friday~. The Forest would not provide personnel to 

rewain on site duri113 ~lednesday closures other than periodic cheeks for 

colilpliance. 

A det~nnination of which days the road will be open is to be made in 

the near future . I would appreciate a quick response regarding this 

request. 

Sincerely, • 0 q /1 () 

r~~(p_~ VETO J. LaSALLE 

Forest SUpervi~or 
273 

United States Department of the Interior 

flSH A"D \HLDLIFE S[R\'ICE 

SO ! SE FIELD OfFICE 46 3 6 Ov~ rland Road, Roo m 5 7 0 

Bo1se , Idaho 83705 

;<tr . Veto J . LaSal l~ 

Pay~t~e ~ational forest 

?.0. 8oK 1026 

~C Cd ll, !daho 836 38 

O~a ~ ~r. LaSall e: 

December ~~ 1 1987 

We have r~view ed your l etter o f De ce ~O er i , ~xplain in g a 

modification to bi ological opinion numbP.r 1-4-85-F-29 concerning 

wi~ter ma nagement ~f the So u th Fork of the Sal mon River road. We 

ha •i agr eed in the earlier opinion that a t~o day, non-weekend 

o~ ~i~g of the road to serve the needs of the Yellowp ine 

reJid~r.ts would not likely jeopard1ze the co n ti nu ed ~xis tence of 

t~•! enda n ge red gray wolf. We unde rsta nd that r oarl use is 

bet ter co ntroll e d with the use of locked ga tes r at h er than w1th 

th·! previous meth od of v o lunteer compliance. 

~nde~ you r proposal f or ope rat ion for January to the end of 

1acc~. 1983, we understand tha t the Forest would provide a person 

t o o p en the g3te · at 8 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursri3y s and clos~ 

t~P. gate at 8 a.m. on Wednesdays and fridays. Per iodic checks 

fo ~ compliance would be marie on Wednesd3ys, and ot h er days, to 

3Zsure that the g~te had not been tamperetl wi t h anJ the road useJ 

on of fi cia lly closed days. We fur t her un de~sta d th at th i s road 

m~n~gemen t is an inter:~ plan unt i l the ?ayett e ~ational Forest 

Pla:l is approved. 

Wit h the above understanding, we continue to b e ]ieve that the two 

da y, mid -wee k opening of the South Fork road ~r us e by Yellowpine residents wil l not jeopa rdize the continued existence of t he 

gray wolf. 

Th a nk you for yo u r continued conservati on efforts for the wolf. 

cc : AFWE -S E, Portl and 

OES 

Sin ely yours , 

(!,:1~~ field Sup~rvis~r 
274 
275 
276 

United Stales Forest Idaho Panhandle 

Oepartmem of Service N.tlonal forests 

Agriculture 

Reply 10: 1920/1620 

Subject: Inland Native Fish Strategy 

T a: Forest Supervisors 

3815 Schreiber Way 

Coeur d'Alene, 10 83814 

Oate: March 15, 1995 

On February 23, 1995, Regianal Foresters from 111e Nollhem, Intermountain and Pacific Northwest 

Regions met with the Regional Direc:lor ollhe U.S. Fosh and Wilcllle seMca (from Ponland, Oregon), 

to discuss tiHI Drat! Interagency Bul Trout Agreement. The meeting was held in Boise. Idaho. The 

objeCINe of the rmeting was to come to a common undemanding of the dralt agraernam, discuss 

practicaflly of the agraement, and how the agrMmlll'll would be implemented •on the ground. • During 

the meeling, the Regional FOtiiSIIn end Fish and Woldlile SeiYice Director identlfoed the need to develop 

an inland natMI fosh hablta! managernant sucegy to pra~ea native fish habkals, including those of 

bull II'OUI that are 1101 covered wltl'in the geographic scope of the President's Forast Plan (FEMA'T) or PACFISH .. 

An interagency team is being formed under the leadership of David Wngllt, Forest Supervisor of the 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The team will be localed in Coeur If Alene, Idaho, at the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests' Supervisor's otrace. The charter Of this proJect is to gattler information in 

order to prepare an ErMronrnen!al Assassment (EA) tor a proposal to protect hab~at and populations 

of inland native fish within the Columbia River Basin. 

The Forest Service is proposing to amend Regional Guides and Forest Plans to include interim direction 

in the form of riparian management objectives, standards and guideines, and monitoring requirements. 

The interim direction will apply to the geographic araa oovered by the Eastside Ecosystem Management 

Strategy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS. 

The purpose and need lor the proposed action is to preserve management options lor inland aquatic 

resources by reducing the risk of loss of populations and reducing potential negallve impacts to aquatic 

habllal of residsm fishes until the signing al Records of Decision lor bcJih EIS's, As a companion to 

the praractjon prcMded far anadromous fish by PACASH, this Envirorvnental Assessment is intended 

to provide the basis for establishing appropriate interim direction to protect habitat and populations of 

residenr native fishes ouaoide of anadramous fish habital, inciUCW>g bull trout, which has recently been 

determined to be warranted by the U.S. Fllh end Woldlife SaYioe (Federal Register VOl Sll, No. 111, 

June 10, 1894, pp. 30254-3CI2SS). Speclllcaly, this EA wtladclnta Nalionai'F"""" System lands on 

the Bllteno«. Boise, Cal1bou, Challis, Clearwater, COMito, Deerlodge. Deschutes, F1ath8ed, Fremont, 

Helena, Humboldt, ldttho Panhandle, Kootenai, l.olo, Malhsur, Ochoco, Payette, saJmon, Sawtooth, 

WaJiowa.Whitman, and W.,.,.. Nlllional For.,... iro lhe Nollhem, lntarmoun<aln, and Pacific Nort~Mest 

Regions.· 

I ask that aacll of you please distribute this irdonn8lion to yaw Ranger Districts and make h available 

to all employ-. Employoo understanding end J>'ll'icipalion ""' critical to the success of this project. 1 

have enclosed a CCf1'l of the br-.g packet far the Inland Native Fish Slndegy. ft you have questions, 

I can be raacl1ed by telephone at (208) 7&>72Z3, or by DG at D.WRIGHT:R01F04A 

~£w? Team Leader 

Inland Native Fish Strategy 

~ Enclosure 
277 

March 15, 1995 

INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY 

e INTRODUCTION 

Bull trout are members of the char family, and have recently been recognized as a 

separate species from Dolly Varden. They are a native char, originating in the northwestern United States. 

Bull trout originated in the Columbia River Basin. The known range extended from 

Northern California to the headwaters of the Yukon River in southern Alaska. and 

included primanly the states of Oregon, Washington. Idaho and Montana. Nevada 

has one population near the northern border of the state. 

Today, the consensus among fisheries managers and biologists is that many bull 

trout populations have been lost and many others are declining, primarily due to 

natural climatic warming, loss of cold water habitat as a result of land management 

practices. fishing, and interaction with exotic fishes. 

Bull trout are considered a "Species of Special Concern" by the American Rsheries 

Society, and as a "Sensitive Species" by the USDA Forest Service. 

In June, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified the status of the bull trout 

as 'Warranted but Precluded' from listing as threatened or endangered in its entire 

range. 

The Regional Foresters from the Northam, Intermountain and Pacific Northwest Regions mat with the Regional Director, U.S. FISh and Wildlife Service from Portland. 

Oregon. The meeting was held on February 23, 1995. in Boise, Idaho. The objective 

of the meeting was to discuss the Draft Interagency Bull Trout Agreement. (Refer to 

the attached agreements and actions.) 

On February 24, 1995, the Decision Notice was signed by the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management for the Anadromous Fish Habitat and watershed Conservation Strategy known as PACFISH. This is an interim strategy to conserve Pacific 

salmon. steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout throughout their range in Oregon. 

Washington. Idaho, and portions of California. 
278 

fxh,b,r 

\'t;;'' 

o»i. 

e AGREEMENTS 

1. Areas addressed within the geographic scope of the President's Forest Plan 

provides adequate protection for bull trout habitat. 

2. The geographic scope of PACFISH requires slight modification for full protection of bull trout habitat. 

3. Geographic areas outside PACFISH and the President's Forest Plan have need 

for· development of a fish habitat management strategy. 

4. The fish habitat management strategy will be consistent with the intent of the 

Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (94-SMU-058). 

e ACTIONS 

1. Identify and map core watersheds and other significant habitats. 

2. Develop screening process for projects in bull trout habitat. 

3. Apply screens to all on-going actions in bull trout core watersheds. 

4. Design monitoring strategy. 

5. Complete Environmental Assessment on Interim Fish Habitat Management 

Strategy. 
6<h·&·1 

" [)" 

Co..J f: 

279 

e MARCH 1 KICK-OFF MEETING 

On March 1, this effort was kicked off with a meeting in Coeur d'Alene Idaho, and was 

attended by representatives from the Forest Service Regions 1, 4, and 6, and Bureau 

of Land Management from Boise, Idaho. 

One point I would like to emphasize is that during our discussions on March 1, rt 

became apparent that there would be major advantages to including the entire inland 

native fish in the strategy, rather than just bull trout. This would allow us to apply 

improved scientific knowledge to all of the streams in the geographic area covered 

by the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS sHorts. 

e GOAL 

Provide interim direction for National Forest System Lands within the geographic area 

of the Eastside EIS and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS. 

Direction is designed to reduce the risk to aquatic habrtats of resident fish until 

decisions are made on the two EIS's. 

The team is now being assembled. Team leader is Dave Wright, Forest Supervisor, 

Idaho Panhandle NFs. 
tl [? I/ 

c..o.v T 

280 

TIM ELINE 

March 3 Meeting notes (FS/FWS) initial strategy for review. 

March 1 0 Proposed strategy agreement. 

Week of March 1 3 National level briefings. 

March 1 7 Federal Register notice published. 

March 17 lnformalion neads assessment (first cut). 

March 27 Proposed Action and Alternatives drafted for review. 

April 3 Proposed Action and Altemalives Agreement. 

April 1 5 Altematives analyzed. 

April 24 Environmental consequences, altemative recommended tor 

review. 

May 1 

May24 

May 31 

May 31 

Allemative Agreement. 

Draft decision. 

Complete and indexed Administrative Record. 

Decision Issued. 
281 

tx'h,bl~ 

'' p 'I INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY 

(.p.Vf, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN & RELEASE STRATEGY 

March 1, 1995 

~ Accomplishment 

March 7 Mail federal register notice {will be published March 17, 1995). Identity as cooperative 

effort between Forest Service and BLM.. Describe Proposed Action. Purpose and 

Need, NEPA process (i.e. Forest Plan amendment). ldarrtffy use of issues identified 

through other projeas (UCRB. ICRB) when requesting comments. Identify comments 

due Apri117, 1995 (30-<lay commem period). 

Week of March 13 Briefing In Washington, DC, lor FS, BLM. and Justice Dept. (1 Team) 

Week of March 13 Briefing lor Congressionals (briefing package) 

Week of March 13 Briefing tor Govemon; af Monrana, ldat>o, Nevada, Washington, Oregon. COpy or 

briefing package to State Fish and Game direaors, and Association af Counties. 

Week of March 13 Briefing for tribal govammems. Send 1 page summary wtth letter of invitation for 

briefing. Follow...,pwith phone caQ, ctrerto brief. (LRobinson will get names, addresses, 

phone numbers from Ralph Perkins). 

Wee~ of March 13 Internal employees: OG/hard copy summary to all. 10-minute video starring project 

leader with cover loner to Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, BLM Stare directors, 

and State FISh and Game director5, to share with employees. 

March 15 Mail seeping document, utilizing mailing fists from PACASH, UCRB project, and 

ICRB project, with additional incfMduals and organizations as needed. 

April21 Complete content analysis of all comments received (commenrs duo Aplil 17, 1995). 

April 28 Send comam analysis report to aU who corrvnem.ed. 

Week of May 22 Brisling in Washington, DC, 1or FS, BL.M, and Justice Dept. (1 Team) on release or 

decision document 

Week of May 22 Briefing lor Congrassionals on release of decision documern. 

Week of May 22 Briefing for Govemors of Montana, Idaho, Nevada, washington, Omgon on release 

of decision documerzt Copy of briefing to State Frsh and Game directcxs, and 

Association of Counties. 

Week of May 22 Briefing for tribal govemmants: on ralease c1 decision document. 

May 31 Internal employees: DG/hard copy (FAX) notice to Regional Foresrers, Forest 

Supervisors on release a1 deciSion document. 

May 31 Mail notice of availability to federal register (wQI be published on June 9, 1995). 
282 

;-A.b.-r 

··p ·· 5 . (. • .,.; -r: ~ {a!~~~===-· 

-· 

AFFECTED NATIONAL FORESTS 

in the Northern Intermountain and 

Pacific Northwest Regions 

BITTERROOT HUMBOLDT 

BOISE IDAHO PANHANDLE 

CARIBOU KOOTENAI 

CHALLIS LOLO 

CLEARWATER MALHEUR 

COLVILLE OCHOCO 

DEER LODGE PAYETTE 

DESCHUTES SALMON 

FLATHEAD SAWTOOTH 

FREMONT WALLOWA • WHITMAN 

HELENA WINEMA 
283 

~~>( J, ,J.;,I F~dera.l R~er t Vo l. 60. No . <t9 I Tuesday . Marcil H . 19 ~ I Not•ceo s 1J697 

======~~~~~====~==~~======~==~~ D 5 &nr..uto,...., ~b.GnT~r:nl.J 

Tho:o ~r:neul aDd occp~r.a l 

drtt...u-mt~n! a oct tuspea•••Hl Prt:lfC'UIJ'..,.. tw.-d 10 ~lauon and lor es«:uuve rd~ . 

Thfl"' ~-aiao ftiUIV JUII'\.IIoriiy·C..toed 

6eDot:TUeat «:.hcmlft, tart>a of whic:h a] .a 

Wval'n: pnlCI.Iremell\ &nd nonpror:UI"'I'I!Ierlt 

prograzu. l.tll'tiiiDY of th.,.... tt..n.uory 

prograall. CaZl&f"t b.u ~ctriaad qtoac:iet' 

di~C"'OItioll whether to debll!'. or to detflm:I/Cfl 

tbe leogtb of., dsbumect." Coaeno~ b.u 

u;r,C"O..,il:l.gly opted to "'qu.i,. •ror::,• to 

deb.t 01' •wpotnd. ill p.n..ieular c1U.IItiol:le. 

O.b1U'TDao1 IIDd •t.upeosioo ...., cot Lruaoded 

tn b. puntt.i .... ram.dl•. bu1 "!.b .. .,.. 

,,_,...., oo tha a-d to prot-a r.ba i.at•S"'Y 

or IOYft'IUOODI Prucr-ma- Th• Conf•~~ 

bool~·- Wt ea..-• •b~ d otd1oarily 

llllow '81'oci" to naln Lll• diacnlioo to 

detamuae IIJ wbec.ber dab.11111aa~a.~ or 

•UJJ*UiOOII .re •pprttpriata il:l iD.dl'-'ldu.t 

01•1. &Dd (2) Uaa 1ppruprU11 laaft}l cftudl 

debanan,&&. MUNGYeT. C.0Q3P'K:I ahou.ld 

::d:~~:~:~:z~.=::u~'tanat of dabum..at; aad det..-miae whet.ll• tb_,. 

cbould ~continued. The primuy buu for 

rwcon:tmcndl.Dz t.h~ qency di.cntioa 1101 be 

li.rniled with rnpect 10 IZIOII deb&n:DeDIIUid IU.IpeDiiOD detei'UiiDoltiOhl i.J s,be D ... d 10 

nuln Dexibillry to m"t tht! JJeech of~ 

gQV~fiOt aDd lh& public. The CDaleruc. 

beli&vvl that ag.mcy official• zea.,.Uy would 

~ 1D a bEmlll' potrition tht.J:ro CDnpw .... to 

dntHrmiofl appruprlate re.tr:uuiial MDctil)fU iD. 

individual 0011..., thet flfii"YW hotb Ul proted: the 

IUe 11nd =-t prog:ua n-cb.. •• The ~,-;ineoOI of the 7'8gUl&tory 

c=ee~~:&•~=t~c:-;o~ lhis 

~=~o~;~~:~r:r.:n~ :=t., • intetftctioas betw.en durm. The Cotl!an!:aee 

znay iD lJH furuft; liNd)' the ... \IS\UN . ..,b,ieh 

aadude t»oOIJ:U U.11t erin fftlm iAcon.i.uoror 

proa:dwal ~u ,...tua UHI qu-tiou ebout 

whet!~u .JisuNtety programs ~ int«Qdctd 

10 beve SO~t·wide d!&CL 

Rllcotu.mc-ndatioo 

A~~~:: ==,F~t:::7h'. CommoD Rule for DOl:'IJ'I'UI:UnlmiiDI 

dc!:iarmerll, and iodividuW IISC!ICie• in t.h•i.t 

pi'CII:W'8llleQ.t .at~d nocpmeuremc.at d•bumcat un:l su1pensiw reguleUoos . .-houlcl pt'lltnpt!y 

;:~.~~th~:;:~!:!!•:t:!':ts hm 

clthCT !cdel'tl-l pnx:urameat ec:tivitles or 

f•dcral aoap~~t.QI •a.lviliet .b.aw the 

elJtct o/ S'U.IP,l!II:UiOD Qf d11b&nzie1:1t ~ both, 

orubjKI: to weivm--ad naption pro::ec:huM." 

11. UtiLi"s CDOrd.inatiag Lha FAR Md l.ba 

Common Rule. and individua.J egeDci" ib tbei:r TOJKUiltJODs, "'b<I'Uld .,g,~ lbBt: 

f"D'I'~i.,llJi}(St..-..quu.cilo~lld­

~ p.n;dpet._ U. lbo ,..., .. i_.... uod M...:i e~~ d 

~tarS ,...-.-y Q .. J~caft! pl'l)¥idH who Ill ....... ~ ole c:nm. ,.J.et-4 oo lbe p,_o.~~oro or 

~c.-:'!;::!:';(~orofpel.l~P;Q elo.-. 

,..Tllb~OCJ•hmllda<Mhe...,.d o 

bc:o~ c.-..r- h= ,.. .. idin& aviOe.lm. lot 

•r-d•oo~iD~co.b•lldhc-tt.oaa. 

"WIIIi .. •aod a..,..O.. ..,_.:lwor:o.,. cun-e.,~,. 

tc><1 rod ID lb. FAJlor ~ Oll9.406--lCcJ. 9.41! ; - t(dJ. 

-.d ID \bo U>mlDou It" I" el ~1~-

91-344 - 95 - 10 

II . C..t..._ UI"OIVU'I~ clilputed ~~o~u .... of SUa.!III&IU' ; Tbe notlC~ ~ b-e."'by J:lVtHl 

a:wllerlOII..a ~ &/"l" ~h:~<lto IW1l•"-16lni!IVt U)e,l the f UO':SI ~~10: In CO V~111\IO C 

I•• 1wdp. ... mii•I U'\' "~"- ar1m.u•i•cno 11 "~ W1!.Z. the Bu..reau of L.A.nd Mue.st": m•~nt 

iuda..-, of~ oi tt~nuwct 1PP""1'· or olher &.nd U.S. Fis b and Wildlife Ser.11c:u. ,~ 

~.:0: ',~r"~~:;::c::-.. ~:::::g':d ~r gaLbftrint; informallon in order to 

ph!'pcant1an o! ll) f1ndings of laac::2nlf•t~<l lo pr--epere tUl E.nv1ronrn ent.a! Aslot':lssmcol 

UJ11 ctcb&m.DK offir::111i: (Z) • l"'ee:lmmiiD<Ied (E.AJ for I prop ouJ to protect habitat 

d•c..i,loO tD the dnbaniog offici.I: Dl' Pl AD and populaoon.; of n•tive i.nliU'Id [i~ 

1Aitiel deci1ion . JUbtfiC'\ to e.ay appn:lpri•te The forTJI Service is proposmg to 

1ppeel wlLb..i..a tile •s•ncy ameud R.egtonal Guides and Forest 

8. d eb&n-iq: officl•b ia ••c..b. qeocy Pl&Ol to i.e elude illturim dirwctioo iii the 

tb~~~: ..,ajor egeDC)' otfleiek form of ripllrian 12\ILDI ement objectivfiS. 

: . S. lfUalUI..,d au.!LciiiiU iDd•peDdeuao Uand.Arch a.Dd Su.ide!Jzaas. and 

10 piO>'i.i. d. ue proan: u.d moa.itori..D.g requ.U-ez:neDU.. Tbe izuerim 

l . LD caan wb•n. tM •1-e..mcy aaloc Ia dil'1!c:tioa lo¥i.ll apply to tb• grrosraph.ic 

di.lput..:l. ni'IUW that ADY inlormauoo QQ. ant• eover.d by the Uruide Ec:o:system 

wblcb • deo;;t.,oD to d•ber or •~pead i1 MAnageme.:at Strategy EnvlrownenW 

b...d epp.us i11 Ute~ ol the d..:ia1o1:1. lmpect Stltem.eat f£JS) &nd Uppe-r 

W. Eouues cxooniU.atiDglhe FAR Llld tbe Columbia R.i\lef BasiD EIS, ucept for 

~':'""~~~~!~u~~v~:;;a:_7;.~ ..nadromow fh:b tubiLit {wbich is now rqula\o"1 de~ lar •wpendoca ud beins mu.•s•d UAder the i.aterim 

d•bum•nn i•c:h.aOu PACflSH Jtntt-gy. appn~ved February 

A./\ IW!t gfmi.ltletioz aocl ag:re..,.tiDI 2i, 1995). 

fec:UI'n llaet e.a •a•ncy s.bould concidllt Lll The purpose &.lld need for the 

=~·~:b:~.~ 7!•:;r ~==ft~ •uspead pmpo!led aaiaa is toJo~Hr:o B. A pl'"03U for d•urn:ainias a ai1:1.1l• ~gerpe.Qt optioD.i nu d~tq~.!'-W:. 

lh.-

IJencyteecteslheleadasancyoabcba.Jro( 

ovefDIII~D! J.zr. pW"J\\..i.DJ Md b.andllDs • ~ P~E,~~~.!ed ~;tdu.Q.ng .2.~eQ..t1~ -

=•=l~~~:;:;pl!~et~~~~u :!~~:~ ~:~~~~~L~ of C. (Wi~ respe-ct. 1o proc:urameat debanne1:1.1 Rln::ttrdn:lf-~1rfOfbDtl:i tlS1. & a 

o~:~ly) a mi.nimum ..,ideati&!'l" ~hold or •1 companion to lbe protection provided leell "ed~u.alc avid.,oca of • CIIUM lo debar" for anachnrcous 1isb by PACflSH. this 

to isswc • oc;~tice of prapo•ed cieba.m:i•Dt; E.bviroameDt.al Asse.ssmenl U inteDdfld 

gi !:~~!::=J::~~~~~~=~~~~ to prov i~e ~~ b~i5 f~r ll ~bb!lb.ing 

:i~. ~~ .. o!;p~~~~:t:n~c=:::;oD h~~~~~:~ ;:;,;ti=~::.:~:;totect 

~o~~eDt azad DOD~ment ~~~:cl~~;~~U tr-::~~:h:b [. £a~\lhlamea1 lot~ uM or "' ahqw NC'ftltJy beea d•termiD;a to be 

e.-.·· lenarela •P~~t~• caeL wuranted by tb~ U.S. fish a..ad Wildhio 

~All~dJ;' ;!"'~e:dU:o~~~d""' ~ervice (fedft"a.l R.qifter Vol. 59. No 

~=~~·~r.-~~d);!;"~~emeot ~~~c:~~:~~~p!i~~~~:!SS). 'UipEtu iou aDd d.be.rmecL National forut Syst~ l&Dds on the 

v. CQoru sbo~ or4izavily rctn;i.ll. b-ona Bift<I!'Toot. Boisl!. c..ri'bou, Cbalb,, 

limitiDs.es•aci-disc'.ntioD b''IDUid.atiDS Clurwat~r . Colville. O..rlodge, 5U1pe111'10D.I. debarm-Jib.. or fllll'ld penod• or Deschutes, Flatheod, fTI!!DJo.D.t, Helena. 

~sicra or de_bumcDL CoD~a abould Humboldt, Koote.nU. Lola , Ma.lheur, 

:::::;~:.~:U~::~.':=~ ~;::~:riod.l. Ocboco. PWaW aD.cilll , P.a~.ne. Sal.mo.D, 10 OC"Ianuine whether 10 amend th• S&wtooth, ~lowe. Ylhitma.n., a.ad. 

provi.lon• 10 pennlt '8'11Dcy d.ha..t.ioa 1o Wi.nem• N•tiona.l Fo"'sts ia the 

make Neb d•tumiAAtiozu Non.hem. lntermou.z:t.taill, &nd P&clfic 

IP"R Doc. 9>-618.3 Filed l-13--'JS; a:45~&~nl Northwest Reg1oas. 

81\.UifO coe11 .. ,_,_,. Tbc forest SeMcr also serve5 notice 

DEPARTMENT OF ACRICULnJRE 

Forest Servh:~e ~ 

Inland HatJve Ffsh Str.!rtegy . -'1'- ACTJON: Propo5ailo Prepare- lDtuim 

Dltection !or Natf'V1! ln.laDd Fish Habitat 

l-iaoas•ment. 

that the agancy ts seekizlg in!ormatioc 11.0d com.moc.Qt.s froo::t F e doc.-..1. Stl!lte. ~tnd 

loca..l "8eDcies .u&d other ibdividu.ah or 

o~aniu.tio.ns .,.·bo may br intueS'Led. i.D 

or a!Iected by tbe proposed action. Thi!: 

i..nput will be ~.t.nd in prvplll'i.na: the 

EavoiroDme.o.t.al A S'lMISSDl!Ult. 

Wrtuea cotom ou: should be sent to I lhe agency within 30 dey' ~m ~e dati' 

of pu b l.ic.atiOA 1.D. the feder.all.q;LS1er. 

.acoA£SSES: Send wriUI!!D. coD.ll!lenuto 

USDA fon=st Serv'ic:e. ldab"" P~W'ldJ,. 
'284 

\ ,, i) ~;n;~~:~:~d!!~~ c:::~~r \Yoy . ~~~~~:~~:~~~~~t~o~ou~ ~-r: fQA I\IRTHEA IHJ"OAM.AnON eow'TACT: long·tetm d.i~ctioo IS be1.11g de-veloped 

Qut~,l.JOQ:f. •bout tb~ proposed acuoo throu~ the Colw:nbia River B•siJl EtS 

aDd eovlronmwu.la.ueument ;..bauld proc~ Tbi.:; inte"l'l"' pr~;ned..ioa iJ. beth£ 

be di.rer:ted 10 Oevtd Wngbt. Team proposed to proset'Ve optic~ lor long· 

Leaciu, Idaho Panhandle N•tional term manogemeol !.hal nUsb t be odopt&d 

Forests, 3815 Sc.hz,:iber W1y, CoeW' as a J"'HUlt of those pr~~'· 

d'Ale.r:ze , Idaho, 6JIJ14. Phone: {2081 A r~e ofaheTD&ti'II'Bf will 'b. 

765-7307 . consider.d. One of U:leu will be the 

SUF'P1....£NENTAI'I't' IHFCAMAnOte: Tbe forest ··no-ectioa" altel1l.4tive. in wb.icla 

Sarvta, W occord&Dot with 16 usc ~ct ma.o...cement of tlJe·v.e wo~o~ld 

1604 ed 36 O'R 219 41t nq. dtrVelops cootinue -ithaut i.llterim directioD 

led Uld rrsouza, managemem plans to protectioa. Otbft ahorDoatives wiU 

pnwidt! tor multiple w. &Ad susu..ined eumi.D• lh~ a!hcu of varyiDc 

y:i~rld of prod.ucu and kr'\liOIIti in.cludi.ng epproac.b..c tg interim protec:tiOQ. 

autdoor twCJ'11atioQ, l'UICt. UDet. Dwinl the acopi.ZIC fJ"'OOS.SS. tbe Fon:st 

:~~=:! wildlife Md ibb. ud ~~rn~~·;:,~~.~=~~~~=. :~ loc.~l PACFtSH is tb• hnadronxnu Fish ag.n.cies and other individuals or 

Habtttt and Watersb~d CoruervalioD. orauUuuoa• wbo may be Un~"sted i..D. 

Strategy ~tog implezru.:oted by the or aUected by~ proposed ectlon. 

Foret Service and Su.re11u ofLa.nd l\dd.i.tion&J. iaformeuoo ....ui bt \ltiliud Management. This is U1 intuim stntel:)' from the scoping ac:tivities tbet oo:uned 

to conserve PaciJic S&.lnlon, steelhead ior the PAatsH. t.lppar Columbia Jtiver 

ud su·run cutthroat trout Woughout Basin tiS &Dd Wt&ida .Eco5flolm:l 

t.b.eJZ range m On!goa., Wa.chingtc=. Man~reme~t s~tea EJS. ~~ 

Idaho c.nd portions ofC.Ufonz.iL The scoprng actiV'Itietl for Lhe7e pro_rectl:, 

PACFISH decision natia was signed by issues e .d concenu. ~~ idcU5od that 

Forest Service and Bw .. u of Land \ ~late to~~~~ and m1y have 

Management OJ1 February 24. 1995. beuio.1 on lliis eavironm~tal &A&lysis. 

Then: an two a::osy1 tem-baftd Tla l'esporWble ot5«:i&ls !ar Nac.i~a.aJ 

mvt.ronmentallmpaa ltlte:aC!W be~g F(l~ Syst~ la.AcU W\U be the" Rt:g~oo.a..l 

prep&rftd for Natioaa1 Fore" Systemltld fon:scen: for th•: 

BLM·•dminictered Jud lAthe lateri.or -lDtarmounta.in R.egioa. F~d.:ral 

-.otumbL4 River RasiA Tbe Eutside BWldi.Dg. 32i Z:Sth SlrHt. Orde:o. 

...CO~Yftem Man.pment Strategy FlS . U~ah 84401; 

appli~to th• &JWA a!Wuhitleton and -Northern Re-gion. P.O. Box 7669. 

~on ... .._ of the aut oftbe Cucad.e Missoula. Moa.tc.n• 59807: a=d 

~::~:;J;~&~;~Cf=b~4 --~=~~~~e~!s~0: i~~· Boll 

~o:=._o~e~o7:!~:ruda.and d~o~~~o:e-;!=se:~:Jo~ ~e con !.~.in loag·teaa strctcgi~S des.iS!Ied to I:)Qcil.ion Notica. The bvironmet)t.U 

ft'place tbe in~tim prot.ctiaD. a.D'orded Asses.smenl and O.cu:um NoUa 11'1'; 

by PAalSH I.D.d this IDleD d. Native Fish expected to be a\l'a.ilable iD. }llDe. 1995. Srnnegy. 

CoDCUI'NUtly. the Forest Servia: in tbe P•c.Uic North-eS1 is oompl•ti.Ds &J:l 

U that propos. to &ma:t.d the Werim 

fol'1!d Plan Oinlction is.sutd oa. M•r 20. 1 Q~4 by JlecioW FON'Star )oho lowe. 

Th.ls EA proposes adtu-tmf!D.U lD the 

Historic Rani• of VartabWty l.l!l.d 

pott.io1u o( the wildlife saeeD. Any 

Oatad: Much 1. 1115. 

Da¥iolJ. Wria)t.t. 

Inland Jtlafi~ Fi:th Teotm Wadrr. Jdollo 

'anha11tl/e /"'afigft4l F~u. 

!FR. Oac;.. •s....6zs5 Yil.d l-tl-V): 8:45 an~ I 

chuce' to t.Ae ripviu:r. .aHA portion ot DEPARTMENT OF CO~NIIf:RCE 

c.he cu.J"nnt dintcUon will be considenK! 

in t.be lnlud Nauve Fisb Stn:tegy. 

m~1 !:~ro::~p?:::::d s:n~c: rttsults o( monitoriDg aDd evalUAtioD (36 

CFR. 219.l O(fl, 219.12(k}J. Revtew a£ 

ruul1:b n~pon&: and. pubLish~d 

profession&l papt~r. I Rieman -.od 

Mclntyn: 19513; SedeU et al. 1990; 

lntemaUonal TrBde Administration 

Certain Sofrwwaod Lumber from 

C:~nada : OeUU'Tnination to T~rrminat.: 

and Not To lniU~t• Counte-r-walling Duty 

Adminl~tlve Rewiews 

Grumbine 198D; Williams ud Neves AGENCY: lmport ~dmi.D.irtratioo . 

1992: Omgon Troul 1994) i.Ddicuss tlu.t International Tnde ~d.min.i cU"ldoo . 

1iticna1 Jgag-l.«<nZZ. prog.a.n:u:natic 

ACT1DH: Nouce of d c tcl'1l:'U.DalloD to 

termmote lllld DQI to incl.iate 

coWltcrva1ltnt; dut y ed.m.i.:::u st.rative 

-'-------------- SU ioiN&Rf: The l>cparta\oot of CommerDJ 

{tbe Department/ hu dedded 10 

term.mate the flnt ad.mi.n.U:uat.ive rwvi(lw 

of tb• countrrvailint; duty order on 

cert.a.J..Za sohwood lumber from Ca.rlada 

Initialed OQ A\&£UII Z~ . 1993, &nd Do\ 1o 

initiate lhe ~~econd eduunist.ntJvo 

Eff'fCTlV£ DATE: M&l'Cb H . 15195. 

fDA fURTHa. 1Jillt:OAW.&l10N COH'TACT! 

Mattina n.dlec or Kelly P4!'kbill. 

Office oCCou.oterva.ilLa.a CompU&nce. 

lmpor\ Ad.mini•c.n.tio:D.. l.alemation&l 

Tnd• Admizlis'ttation, U.S. Oepan.m•nt 

o!Comrnen:~e . 14th Stnteta.nd Constitution Avenue. NW .• Wullington. 

OC 20230; ttlepbone: (2021 482.-2786. 

QIPPl.£)1(EJtTAAT ltff0AMAT10N: 0D. July 

3D, 1993. the Coalition lor fatr Lumber 

lmporu (the Co&litionl. the Govem.m~nt 

of Canada., &nd th~ Goverument of 

Quebec: ~quected Q ecUnit:Ustrativa 

n:view of tha cowuerva.i.Una duty orde: 

oa cert&in. softwood lumber from 

Canada for t.h~ period M.uc:b. 12, ug2 

through. Much 31, lVgJ. l.Q. add.itio~ 

one hu.ndzwd and Dmety compWes 

fllquested. i.Dd1v1d\J.Al comranr n::vieWI.. 

OD. Augt..~st 24, l!ilVJ. the Deputmeot 

pubi.Ubed a notice l.n,jUati.Dg tbe 

administrative n-vie.,...£ for lhat period 

(58 fR 44653) . . 

OD. July za . 1994. the Coalitioo 

r~~qu•£t.c1 an admi.Aistntive RV'Iew of 

the countervailing duty ordar on 

softwood lumber from Cm.&da for the 

prriod Aprill.l993 thro,gh Much 16. 

19!14... On Auii'\Ut 1. 1994. th• 

Covern:nent of c..n..da r.q e~ad an 

adm.illistn.tiw review far the um• 

periocllll. add.it.io.D, one bWJ.dred a.nd 

five eottapan.Jes request~ in.dividu.al. 

compuy ftvi~s . 

Oa. August 16. 1894, the Department 

revoked the countervailing dury orde.r oo 10ftwood lumber from C....U.da 

pun:ua.at lO e decilion o( the 8i.b.at1on.al 

Puel convenl!'d UDdv the UD.ited. 

Slue~da Fne Trad~ ASfftmeaf (S~ 

FR 420!9)_ and i.J1S'tn..u;.11td the U.S. 

Custoau SU'Vice to (1) stop O)Uecti.DK 

cub deposits on imports or softwood 

lumber from Canada, c.nd (2) nrfund. 

;~~l~':;~ ~17 bs:.•s::ge~~~: on dat• of t.b.e BinaDona.l Panel"s dedDon. 

On O.Cember 15. 1994, the Uaited 

State' And Ca.nada •g.r.•d to entar in1o 

coasu .. lt.atioa..s to try to ~solve the: t.nrde 

dispute regarding soft'wood.lwn.bttr from 

CaD• de. The ~plll'ttoeot also dttddad . 

under the .authortry o( the TariU Act of 

HlJO. u amende d . to com prom~~ iu 
l " 'f. 

285 

I . Bl\CKGROOND 

J n July 7, 1.994 , the U S . Court of Appeals Ear the Ninth Cir ~ 

de termined in ~Rivers Council v. Tho mas 30 F. 3d 1.050 19~~ 

Cir. :994) that Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPsl, 

ddopced by the U.S . Forest Serv1ce CUSFSl before a species is 

listed for Endangered Spec1es Act (ESAl purposes, hereafter 

"existing LRMPs", represent. concinuing agency "acc1ons" within 

the me ani n g oE ESA. section 7(a){2). Fu rthermore , the court 

determined that existing Land and Resource Management Plans 

(LRMPsl "may affect" lisc.ed species and therefore che USFS muse 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFSl on 

LRMPs themselves pursuanc to section 7 o f the ESA in addition to 

any c o nsultations the USFS may request concerning site-specific , 

ground disturbing forest activities. 

Also, in february, 1995, the Un ited States petitioned the U.S. 

Su preme Court to grant certiorari and review the Ninth Circuit's 

decision in~ Rivers Council v . Thomas, supra. 

On August J. 1994. in response to the decision by t he Court of 

.A.ppeals, the USFS sent to NMFS two biological assessments (Bas } 

'"'it.h cover le tters reque sting formal consultation o n LRMPs f o r 

:he Umati l la and Wallowa-Whitman NFs. Both BAs concluded t h at 

the LRMPs "may a ffec t" ESA listed sa l mon and their designated 

r~ tic al habitat. 

Also 1n re spons e to the decision by the Court of Appeals, on 

September 12, 1994, the USfS sent to NMfS BAs and accompanying 

c over letters requesting formal c onsultation on the LRMPs· for the 

Boise . Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, and Sawtooth NFs . 

The Boise, Nez Perce, Payette, and Sawtooth NFs concluded that 

implementation of their L.RMPs "may af feet" Snake River 

spring/summer chinook salmon, Snake River fall chinook salmon, 

and Snake River sockeye salmon. 

Prior to tL1ese consultation requests and the Court of Appeals 1 decision, on March 6, 1992 , the USFS Northern, Intermountain, and 

Pac i fic Northwest Regions signed an Interagency Agreement with 

the NMFS. Th~ goals of this agreement were to (ll further the 

p~oses of the ESA by manag~habitat for the conservation of 

enda~ted ana threatened anadromous fish species listed pursuant 

to section 4 of the ESA; (2) contribute to the conservation of wild and naturally reproducing stocks of endemic salmonid fishes 

in the Snake River Basin by removing threats of further habitat 

d e g radation and by providing habitat suitable for perpetuation of 

these species on National Forest lands); (3) promote recognition 

of the s ignificance of these salmon stocks; (4l effectively 

impl ement LRMPs in a manner consistent .with the ESA and the OSFS 

Co lumbi a River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Policy and Impl ementation Gu idelines; and (51 facilitate implementation 

o f conservation strat egies that would reduc e the time needed to 
286 

KLAMATH 

WATER USERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Testimony on tile 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

For 

The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman 

The Task Force on Endangered Species 

of the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Submitted By 

David Zepponi 

April 24, 1995 

Vancouver, Washington 
287 

Klamath Water Users Association 

Testimony on the 

Endangered Species Act 

In 1988 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the shortnose sucker and Lost 

River sucker as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. With the listing, the flexibility 

of resource managers in the Klamath Basin was shattered and polarization of interests ensued. 

Extreme environmentalists pursued legal recourse and sued the Bureau of Reclamation, under the 

ESA, to stop deliveries of water to the vast majority of irrigators in the federal Klamath Project. The 

Water Users were forced to intervene in this action-- at a tremendous cost. The complaint has been 

amended no less than four times. and subsequently rejected in federal court, on all assertions. 

The Klamath Project was authorized in 1902 by an act of Congress, more than eighty years 

ago and at least seventy years prior the enactment of the Endangered Species Act. Nevertheless, 

federal agencies have interpreted the regulations and conditions under the much younger ESA as 

superior to the rights and tenets of the decades old Klamath Project. The ESA's conditions for 

"reasonable and prudent alternatives" has so dramatically altered the irrigators and Bureau of 

Reclamation's ability to effectively run the irrigation system as to render it inefficient. 

Under the requirements of the ESA, consultation must take place between the various 

government entities and a biological opinion must accompany any major federal action by agencies. 

The operation of the Klamath Project was inextricably intertwined with numerous biological and 

interim biological opinions forcing the operation of the billion+ dollar Project to be operated by the 

needs of the suckers, not for maximum efficiency of water delivery and agricultural production. 

La'ldowners potentially effected by the decisions made in formal consultations should have the right 

to participate individually or collectively as an applicants in the process. 

Since July 22, 1992, the Klamath Project has operated under a long-term biological opinion 

which specifies minimum lake surface elevations. Recently, the Klamath Tribe insisted, under the 

threat of litigation, that the Bureau of Reclamation reinitiate consultation for a new biological 

opinion on the operation of the Klamath Project. The Tribe's proposed August lake elevation for the 

endangered suckers would not meet adequate Project water needs 55% of the time. 

In two drought years, I 992 and I 994, the Bureau of Reclamation managed the project 

primarily for fisheries needs. Thousands of acres of agricultural land went without a full delivery 

of water. Some farmers were cut off prior to deliveries, while others nearly finished the season only 

to have water stopped just before completion of an agreed upon water season. The impact to the 

region was reduced cuttings of hay, less row crop production, reduction and removal of livestock 

from the Project, uncertainty over future water deliveries, concern by the banking community 

regarding the repayment of operating loan, diminished water deliveries to the Tule Lake and Lower 

Klamath Refuges. People and the ecosystem suffered for the benefit of the suckers. 

ESA Tc:stimony. Page I 
288 

The Klamath Water Users Association, in January 1993, published the Initial Ecosystem 

Restoration Plan. This document, the first recovery plan for the species, concentrated on scientific 

parameters and, importantly, prescriptive, on-the-ground, solutions to the sucker recovery. This 

project alone cost the Water Users in excess of $150,000; a tax which would prove minimal as ESA 

mandates progressed. Over the past four years, Klamath area farmers have spent more than $2 

million on scienc.e, iegal defense and administrative activities. 

The ESA gives extremist a means to promote their cause no matter how unreasonable. In 

the Klamath Basin a single group is responsible for the curtailment of many private land restoration 

projects. The environmental organization insisted that the Service follow the law and determine 

critical habitat for the suckers. In the Klamath Basin, this action has hurt the species rather than 

conserved it. The ESA provides no protection for the private participants using federal funds in 

restoration projects from subsequent legal assaults under the Act Restoration participation should 

not be discouraged . At this point many projects have been halted and recovery efforts for the 

species on private lands have suffered. 

It is far too easy for extremists to bring action and receive compensation and, the 

accompanying notoriety, under the ESA The ESA should be modified to allow prevailing 

defendants to collect from plaintiff:; Further, the fear of legal action by agencies has resulted in 

"settlements" outside of the court by those with little, if anything, to lose; with compensation and 

publicity to gain. The resulting system forces resource agencies to kowtow to extremists. To allow 

the threat oflitigation to drive the ESA process, including recovery activities, makes for short-term 

and, potentially, catastrophic natural resource decisions. 

The requirement of making policy on the "best available commercial and scientific data" is 

a major flaw in the ESA. Quite literally, there were no sucker "experts" a decade ago. Therefore, 

science for the listing decision was not rigorously challenged . "Sub-species," population censuses, 

even critical habitat for the two suckers are not well understood . And, the single entity with the 

most scientific data on the suckers, the Klamath Tribe, will not release their basic data or the 

methods of collecting and analyzing the data to the public or, as far as we know, federal agencies. 

Recent surveys have found many millions of young suckers in the Klamath Basin, 

unsurveyed prior to the sucker listing decision . One can only wonder if the species would have been 

listed as endangered if this information were known then rather than now. 

Further, nine square meters of spawning habitat for a so-called "sub-population" of suckers 

in the 370 millio n square meter Upper Klamath Lake has been used to determine lake levels in the 

Klamath Project operations biological opinion . It is unreasonable to hold at bay 40% of the basin's 

economic base due to a few square meters of readily available habitat, to protect a purported subpopulation of sucker. The ESA mu>t be amended to better define and deal more fairly wilh "subpopulations." 

The Act should not use the "best available commercial and scientific data" but should 

ESA Te;timony. Page 2 
289 

establish reasonable scientific standards including open disclosure of data and methods, and peer 

review, well before any decisions under the ESA, including listing, are made. Furthermore, federal, 

state and local laws and rights existing prior to the ESA and socio-economic information should be 

weighed in the decision process. It is inappropriate and immoral simply to "err on the side of the 

species." Human life and ecosystem health are in the balance. 

The ESA also has been used in the Klamath region to override the authority of state water 

law The Bureau of Reclamation has held endangered species water needs above those of state water 

right holders. The ESA should respect state water right authority and it should be held less 

authoritative than existing laws. 

The communities most directly effected by the listing should have the opportunity to 

forestall the listing. Many public employees and private citizens in the Klamath Basin are working 

to conserve the Klamath Bull Trout. The listing of the Bull Trout would only hamper restoration 

progress by replacing our cooperative work with a legally driven mandate. Our community and any 

community potentially effected by a listing, should have the opportunity to correct the situation prior 

to being forced into action. 

Once a species is listed, the ESA provides little or no incentive for the agencies to ddist a 

species. In most cases, the listing personnel are dependent upon the continued "endangered" status 

of the species for their employment and funding priorities. Therefore, specific and realistic recovery 

targets, with dates and financial parameters (such as cost/benefit), should be included in the ESA 

In the Klamath Basin, we have seen property values drop and parcels of land have been 

deemed "unsalable" due to the uncertainty over water supply. We have seen increased difficulty in 

receiving operating loans due to the competition for water between endangered species, tribal trust, 

wildlife refuges and irrigators. The Klamath County Realtors Association estimates that the 

determination of the prcposed critical habitat for the suckers, if made final, would result in $188 

million loss in property 'ialues. In our desert ciimate, agricultural land cannot generate ranching or 

farming profits without water. The ESA must more fairly balance the economic impacts fer all 

determinations and decisions, and fairly compensate landowners and businesses affected by the 

decisions. 

In 1905 and through both World War I and World War II, veterans and immigrants were 

encouraged to settle the West. Many families have generations of roots in the Klamath basin after 

receiving parcels of land from our government to homestead the basin. The ESA should not take 

away these American rights. 

The recovery of endangered species is a national priority, which should provide the funding 

for species recovery. The Klamath Project, Water Users and private organizations in the basin 

contribute way more than their fair share toward restoration activity. Not only have v;e funded 

research and planning, we have been forced to concede profits and have had our equity in our farms 

and ranches taken ostensibly for the conservation of the species. It is time for those inflicting the 

pain on the rural West, to provide significant financial support for their concept of ecosystem health. 

ESA Teslimony, Page 3 
290 

We must protect the heart of America by providing balance in the Endangered Species Act. 

Without balance, the Klamath Basin will suffer, the ecosystem will suffer, and the nation will lose 

a vital resource. 

ESA Testimony, Page 4 
291 

TESTIMONY OF MITCH FRIEDMAN 

BEFORE TIIE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT TASK FORCE 

24 APRIL 1995, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Task Force, I very much appreciate this opportunity to present why the 

Endangered Species Act is so important, and how it can do a better job of protecting our natural heritage, 

and ultimately us. My name is Mitch Friedman. I am a biologist and the executive director of the Greater 

Ecosystem Alliance, in Bellingham, Washington. 

Many species are vitally useful, and modem medicine would be helpless without them. The 

endangered Houston toad produces alkaloids which researchers found prevent heart attacks. The rosy 

periwinkle, a plant which may now be extinct, provided the compound vinblastine, which has saved 

children's lives from leukemia and Hodgkin's disease. In fact, The World Health Organization believes 

thal80 percent of the world's health problems are treated by plant-based medicines, and we hav~ barely 

sc1111Ched the surface in systematically researching what is out there. This is not voodoo, but the science 

thalllllderpins our modem world. 

Other species play vital roles in their ecosystems, which in rum benefit us. A century ago, 

trappers virtually eliminated sea otters from the Pacific coast. With otters gone, nothing preyed on sea 

urdlins, which then ex:ploded in numbers. Armies of urchins grazed away the kelp habitat vital to 

abalone. Through the extermination of otters, the lucrative abalone industry was crippled, jobs were lost. 

Similarly, the Northwest's great salmon runs, the foundation of a two billion dollar a year 

indastry employing 60,000 people, are disappearing one by one. Each run is distinct, and many are 

im:placeable due to unique adaptations to each individual river or stream. To date, no law or policy has 

suco:eded in protecting the salmon. The Endangered Species Act is the only one left to try. Without this 

stroag Act, many salmon stocks will go down the river forever, as \viii the dollars and heritage they mean. 

My point is that our lives and economies benefit by other species. 

One might argue that some species are more important or significant than others. But who is to 

judF? On what information wonld that decision be based? In 1973, the House of Representatives 

CQ~~PaTed genes and species to books in a library. Many species are books that science and humanity have 

newr read. We have no idea what is or is not "significant," or which species may hold the secret to 

culiag Alzheimer's disease. 

Granted species have always, and will always go extinct. But the average species survives for 

f01r million years, and the normal extinction rate is only four per year. Today, scientists estimate that 

pc*lps 50,000 species are lost east year. These species could be links in our very own food chain. and 

sinD: we are all connected by things like food chains in a great web of life, at some point we go too. 

This monumental problem gravely concerns not only scientists, but the public. Polls show that 

pelllle think more must be done to protect species. The Endangered Species Act is a messenger. It is a 

sllllk alarm, warning us of a raging fire that demands attention. 

Laws can work. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act have vastly improved many people's 

livcsover the last 20 years. The Endangered Species Act has helped save the bald eagle, gray whale, an4 

whaaping crane. These are significant accomplishments considering the obstacles and short time penocl: 

Does this mean that an Endangered Species Act can stop the massive hemorrhage of the p~'s 

life Wood? Not alone, no. The Act is an emergency room, which most species bypass on their way to · · oblirion. A conservative approach to maintaining our natural heritage and living safety net, and 

respmsibly passing it on to future generations, would certainly include programs to keep species~'!(~ 

emagency room. · · 

Most species loss is caused by habitat damage. Therefore one cannot address species clc!;U!J!i · · , ~addressing habitat decline. This rneans_that habitat protection provisions must be kepi ill~~ 

ant~ fact strengthened. Congress should constder ways, such as conservation agreemenlil'c!J ., 

spciiCS. to protect habitats and ecosystems so as to prevent the need to ever list species as ell4an~ Q( · 

thnatened. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Multi species and ecosystem ~ii~ 

caJialso make good biological and administrative sense. ·'' ' · '.. ' .·'·'' 

The costs of species protection seem high when isolated, but we spend lea• eacll ~ oa · 

iqiernenting the Act then we do on one mile of interstate highway construction. We also spend perhaps 
292 

billions of dollais in dim:t and indiRa subsidies for logging roads, cheap mine patents, livestock grazing, 

and other enterprises that destroy habitat and endangered species. This means that there are ways we can 

save both dollais and species. 

For instance, the famOIIS snail darter case involved a federal dam that actually cost far more to 

build than its benefits would ever justify. Cecil Andrus said at the time, "Frankly, I hate to see the snail 

darter get the credit for delaying a project that was so ill-conceived and uneconomical in the first place. n 

Similarly, ending money-losing Forest Service timber sales, as Congressman Metcalf has proposed, would 

be the best first step toward bringing bull trout and lynx back from the brink. 

Programs top~ habitat on private property are of coune more complex. These must include 

education, incentives, and other nonregulatory means. But painful as it is, no single substitute for 

regulation is evident In our society, we occasionally need clear and strong laws to guide people. The 

Endangered Species Act is a motivator for good corporate citizenship, because it provides an incentive for 

good stewardship. When people treat the land well, species do not reach the point of requiring listing 

under this powerful Jaw. 

This brings me to a contentious but necessary point. The public dialogue over the Endangered 

Species Act has been polluted by exaggerations and blatant falsehoods. While many people and 

corporations are putting forth the effort to make the Act work - for instance companies like Weyerhaeuser 

and Plum Creek are developing Habitat Conservation Plans to help with spotted owl recovery - others 

seem committed only to confusing the issue with dueling anecdotes about what the Act did to whom. 

Most of these anecdotes and so-called horror stories tum out to be plain wrong. 

There is a well-known case about a California man, Mr. Tuang Ming-Lin, who was arrested for 

destroying critical habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox and two other species. The media have echoed this 

man's claim that he was an innocent and unknowing victim of over-regulation. Yet in my hand is the 

letter he received from the California Department of Fish and Game in November, 1992, advising him 

before the incident of his simple lawful alternatives. He chose to thumb his nose at the nation's Jaw and 

heritage, and now is crying victim. 

Similarly, a major confrontation recently occurred between federal and local officials and the 

public in Lemhi County Idaho when a man, Mr. Eugene Hussey, shot a wolf that was not only protected 

by Jaw, but had been transported into the area at public expense. The man claimed the wolf had eaten a 

calf, and his community rallied to his defense against the Endangered Species Act. But the veterinary 

investigations, which I have here, proved that the calf died of complications related to its birth before the 

wolf ever arrivi:d. 

People who approach endangered species issues with sincerity generally find the Act to be 

flexible enough. Regarding federal projects in the Northwest, of more than 16,000 recent projects (1987-

92) which have required endangered species consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 81 had 

to be modified. Nationwide, only 18 projects were blocked (according to World Wildlife Fund). Those 

who seek a permit for an "incidental take" of a species generally receive it. More significantly, in the 

entire history of the Act, not a single landowner has ever even filed a legal case to seek compensation for a 

property taking (speech by Bruce Babbitt, 1993). 

With all the sound and fury in public and the media over these issues, one must ask: Are peoplo 

attacking the smoke alarm or the fire? 

When we cut through the nonsense, again we conclude that the Endangered Species Act doe$11 

good and essential job of protecting us. No law is without cost and conflict, but the overwhelming be~IS 

of endangered species protection come far cheaper than most national programs. We cannot do will\Qqt II, 

Thank you again for this opportuuity. · •·• '· ·· · 
293 

BACKCOUNTRY HORSEMEN OF WASHINGTON 

TO: Task Force on Endangered Species Committee on Resources 

Vancouver, Washington - 24 Apr 95 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was drafted with the best 

of intentions to preserve and bring back many animals that 

it was felt were being impacted by man. The Backcountry 

Horsemen of Washington and the Backcountry Horsemen of 

America certainly don't debate that such a law was 

necessary. We are not anti-grizzly bear, anti-wolf or anti 

any other animal. We, both at State level and National 

level, have adopted the following position: 

"Backcountry Horsemen of Washington supports new 

legislation and other governmental actions that will 

bring much greater consideration for people into the 

Endangered Species Act, especially considerations of 

recreation opportunities and economic well-being." 

We are not opposed to the bear, the wolves or any other 

animal. We are strongly opposed to the apparent exclusion 

of the rights of the people by the administrators of the 

ESA. There are too many zealots with private agendas 

exerting an excess amount of influence on how the Act is 

administered. The common everyday working taxpayer must be 

considered. 

Some areas of additional concern are as follows: 

1. The North Cascade's Grizzly Bear Recover area: 

The North Cascade area, tied in with the already 

existing Selkirk area in Northeast Washington, will 

place in excess of 11,000 square miles of Washington 

into Bear Recovery area status. This is over 60% of 

the public recreation land in the State, and some 

people want more. Washington has 5,255,000 people 

(1993 census), and with 68,192 square miles in the 

State, that means over 77 people per square mile. 

Montana, on the other hand, has 11,545 square miles of 

bear area, which is about 18% of their public 

recreation land. Montana has 839,000 (1993 census) 

people on 147,138 square miles, for about 5.7 people 

per square mile. 

2. There is no discussion anywhere in the various plans on 

what this recovery project will cost the taxpayers in 

loss of property rights, loss of income, loss of 

recreational opportunities, loss of manpower and 

funding from other programs. We believe this needs to 

be addressed first - not last. 

3. The public meetings that were held are a joke. In 

Northwest Washington there was one meeting from 4-7 

p.m. on a week day. This meeting was poorly 

advertised, the government people attending were not 
294 

Task Force Endangered Species Committee 

Page 2 

there to discuss but only to listen. The distinct 

impression was that this was a DONE DEAL and anything 

you say won't change anything. 

The public meetings need to be properly advertised in 

1/4 page or larger newspaper ads throughout the region, 

not 1 column inch in an obscure corner of the paper. 

Make the meetings easier to get to and timed for the 

working people. I live in Bellingham, the largest town 

north of Everett. We had to drive 25 miles south to 

Mt . Vernon to get to this meeting. There were four 

1-day, 4-hour meetings throughout the State on 

something this important to all of us. 

4. There are some 13,000 bears living just north of us in 

British Columbia. There is no fence between here and 

there. However, these bears choose to stay north of 

the border. Common sense would say that perhaps the 

North Cascades really is not a viable bear area. If it 

was, they would be her~ -yn the 5 years that the 

Government studied the area, not one grizzly was 

sighted or photographed by the study team. 

5. The Ecosystem Evaluation that was distributed was all 

done in Hectares, meters, kilometers, and used the 

Latin names for the animals and remains found. This 

type of report makes it very difficult to understand, 

especially for people not accustomed to metrics. Make 

the information readable and accessible to the general 

public. 

6. The rules for public access into a recovery zone need 

to be worked out by both the administration and the 

public. We do not need some more desk-dictated rules 

that don't work in the backcountry. Diverse public 

input from the people using the backcountry is 

essential. 

Our goal is multi-use trails and access for all 

recreationalists, hikers, horse riders, packers, and a solid 

economic base for our state. We are willing to help with 

that planning. We want to be involved. 

Mike McGlenn, President 

Backcountry Horsemen of Whatcom County 

1992 Harmony Road 

Bellingham, WA 98226 
295 

WANTED! 

ALIVE 

Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis 

Alias 

BRUNEAU HOT SPRINGSNAIL 

FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE VERIFICATION OF LIVING ANIMALS IN AN 

AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BRUNEAU RIVER DRAINAGE, OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO. 

HEIGHT: LESS THAN 1/8 INCH OR 3MM (SIZE OF A BB SHOT) 

WEIGHT: 0.05 GRAMS (VERY SMALL) 

COLOR:CLEAR SHELL BUT APPEARS BLACK BECAUSE OF FLESH PIGMENTATION 

DESCRIPTION: Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis (Gastropod: Hydrobiidae); globose-low 

conic shell, 3.75 to 4.25 whoris; amber, thin, narrowly-ovate operculum. 

KNOWN LOCATION: Warm springs (ie., 60 to 96 F') draining into the Bruneau River, 

Owyhee County, southwest Idaho. 

-WARNINGTHIS IS A FEDERALLY-USTED ENDANGERED SPECIES 

ALL LEGAL PROTECTIONS APPLY!!! 

1st confirmed colony from each additional river drainage will qualify for reward. 

For more information or to report possible sightings call: 1-800-88-SNAIL or Rayola 

Jacobsen, Idaho Farm Bureau. Boise, Idaho (208) 342-2688. 
TO: U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

296 

Task Force on Endangered Species 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Task Force on Endangered Species thank 

you for allowing me to address your committee as you examine the impact of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

I come to you today on behalf of the Bruneau Valley Coalition. This Coalition 

represents the following five groups: Idaho Cattle Association, Owyhee County 

Cattlemen's Association, Idaho Farm Bureau, Owyhee County Farm Bureau, and 

the Owyhee County Commissioners. This Coalition was formed to defend the 

communities of Bruneau and Grand View, Idaho from the listing of the 615th 

species that would be protected under the Endangered Species Act: The 

Bruneau Hot Springsnail. 

Allow me to tell you the story of the Bruneau Hot Springsnail. This listing has 

threatened the livelihood of approximately 60 family farms and ranches, many of 

which have been in the same family for over 100 years. Bruneau is a small town 

by any standards. Agriculture is the sole economic base to support our school 

district. Part of my responsibility as a school board member includes budgeting. 

Without this stable economic: base our school district would cease to exist. A 

century of productive, hard working, tax paying citizens would also parish. 

The Bruneau Hot Springsnail is equivalent to the size of a poppy seed. II can be 

found in concentrations of a few to more than 20,000 snails per square meter. 

These snails mature and reproduce quickly in large numbers. 

In January 1993, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS), over the objections 

of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, listed the snail as endangered. 

This came after two conservation groups filed suit against USF&WS to force the 

listing. 

Because Bruneau is a high desert area, irrigation water is a necessary 

commodity to farm or ranch. ,1\nnual rainfall is only 7.9". Without irrigation water 

the farms and ranches have no value. The current Endangered Species Act 

gives the USF&WS the authority, under consultation provisions, to control the 

activity of any federal agency that might impact an endangered species. This 

includes but is not limited to the Farmers Home Administration, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. They are 

able to take the back door approach to eat away at operators a little at a time 

until there is nothing left. The ONLY option the people had was to file a law suit 

against the USF&WS. In essence our own government. 
297 

In May 1993, the coalition filed suit against the USF&WS on grounds of 

numerous procedural errors under the Administrative Procedures Act and the 

Endangered Species Act. A lack of sufficient scientific evidence to justify the 

listing also existed. Tremendous disagreement among qualified hydrologists as 

to the inter-relationship between agricultural-pumping and spring flows exist. Yet 

they will bet our livelihood they are correct and everyone else is wrong. NO 

hydrologist can predict with any certainty that stopping irrigation will increase 

snail habitat. 

In December 1993, U.S. District Judge Harold Ryan ruled the listing was 

"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance 

with the law." This was the first listing that was set aside through court action. 

However, the decision was appealed by the two conservation groups, who had 

become intervenors, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That trial was held in 

October 1994, in Seattle, Washington and seven months later we are still 

waiting for a decision. 

We have spent $163,000 in legal fees and research through the time the appeal 

was filed and another $50,000 since the appeal. The people of these small 

communities had to raise the money necessary to support the legal expenses 

and research. There were no large corporations or "Sugar Daddy's" bankrolling 

this effort. The money was raised through individuals assessing themselves and 

grass roots efforts. 

Through the Idaho Water Research Institute, we continue to seek a deeper 

understanding of the aquifer. This is not going to be an inexpensive undertaking 

and we may not be able to raise the necessary funds. There certainly doesn't 

appear to be any interest on the part of USF&WS in helping fund this research. 

As recently as March 2, in a meeting with the USFC.WS in Boise about this 

proposal, we were reminded once again that we could go easy or hard. In 

reality, the Boise office staff person that we were told to work with is a former 

member and paid staffer of one of the conservation groups that was an 

intervenor in our case. Why does the burden of proof lie on the property owners 

and not the petitioners? 

The Bruneau Valley Coalition recommends the Task Force incorporate a system 

for a balance of power. State and local governments need to be part of the 

process in determining listings, critical habitat and recovery plans. Adequate 

science with independent peer review in consultation with local elected officials 

is essential with any action. Agencies should be required to use more than th e 

"best commercial or scientific information available". Methods of perpetuating a 

species in other than the critical habitat area must be allowed and encouraged. 

(If we can bring wolves from Canada to Idaho, why isn't it acceptable to 

translocate Bruneau Hot Springsnails. Property owners need to be 

compensated if their business is effected by the ESA. Currently a tremendous 
298 

imbalance of power exists. The USF&WS needs ADULT SUPERVISION and 

brought under control. 

In the children's book "The Little Engine That Could," the little train keeps going 

up the hill saying "I think I can, I think I can." That is what these small 

communities have been saying for the past 11 years. Now we ask for your help 

in re-writing the Endangered Species Act to provide greater protection to 

landowners. Thus far we have stood our ground against the government in 

taking away a precious way of life. Not only is this our way of life but it is also 

our homes. 

Again thank you for your time and consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Sherry 

Jk~d~ L. Colyer 

Bruneau Valley Coalition 

P.O. Box 234 

Bruneau, 10 83604 

208/845-2313 
299 

Testimony of Senator Rod Johnson before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife 

THuRsDAY, JUNE 1, 1995 

ROSEBURG, OREGON 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Committee, on behalf of the 

good people of this wonderful area who I represent in the Oregon 

Senate, and as a fifth-generation Oregonian who was born and 

raised in Douglas County, welcome to Roseburg. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Simply having this hearing is a sign that you 

are serious about changing the Endangered Species Act and are 

willing to listen to those on the ground. It means a lot to us. 

First, let me say that the other legislators who represent Douglas 

County, Senator Bob Kintigh and Representatives Bill Markham, 

Bill Fisher, and Jim Welsh, have specifically authorized me to 

speak for them here today. I have submitted Representative 

Markham's written testimony as well. They all wish they could be 

here, but we're in the closing days of our 1995 season. 

One of my friends in the Oregon Senate is fond of saying that 

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Congress had 

good intentions in 1973 ... we've had Hell in 1993. One of our most 

important qualities as human beings is the ability to learn from 

our mistakes. We know now much about the Endangered Species 

Act that Congress did not know, or have reason to expect, in 1973. 

The purpose of this hearing is that it is time to use this knowledge, 

which we've paid so dearly to acquire, and fix our mistakes. Fixing our mistakes in the Endangered Species Act does not necessarily mean that we need to repeal it entirely. It's important that 

we have a mechanism to force us to make protection decisions 

whenever a species is becoming endangered. The question is how. Since I'm representing the Oregon Legislature before you here 

today, I'm going to report on several Resolutions to Congress we've 

passed this year relating to the endangered species problem. For example, to try to make sure that we only list species which 

are truly in trouble, the Oregon Legislature passed a resolution 

this year, HJM-2, to you in Congress asking you to substitute the 

phrase "sound verifiable science" in all environmental legislation. This standard would get away from the anecdotal evidence and 

other unsound scientific theories and hunches that in the past have 

been used to list species as endangered. For example, the spotted 

owl has been studied extensively in the last five years, and some 

of the hunches and assumptions on which the spotted owl was listed have been proven to be grossly false. The most famous of these 

is the theory that there are only a few hundred spotted owls in existence, and that they could only nest in pure growth forests. Sane, 

(1) 

91-344 - 95 - 11 
300 

2 

sound verifiable science should also be used in deciding how to recover a species if it is determined to be endangered. 

Another resolution passed to you by the Oregon Legislature this 

year indicates our belief, as elected representatives of the people of 

the State of Oregon, that the science involving the spotted owl indicates that it is not endangered. HCR-4 urges you to delist the spotted owl. It passed 20 to 10 in the Senate and 44 to 13 in the House. 

I assure you that we would have not passed this resolution if we 

believed, after living with the truth about the spotted owl, that it 

was truly in danger of extinction. 

It should go without saying that the true facts are not the ones 

that you likely read about in the papers back east, but I'm saying 

it anyway because it helps to point out one of the flaws in the Endangered Species Act. That flaw is that hysterical public opinion 

can drive decisions to be made that are not based on reality, especially when those decisions are made by people far removed from 

the area affected. 

As other evidence of the desperate need for Oregon to get out of 

the clutches of the Federal Endangered Species Act, here are some 

other resolutions we passed to you this year: (1) SCR-1, regarding 

transfer of control of Federal forest and grazing lands to State government; (2) HJM-4, regarding amendment of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to allow us to control the population of sea lions and 

seals to protect our salmon runs; (3) HCR-14, requesting that title 

of Oregon 0 & C lands be transferred to the State of Oregon; and 

(4) SCR-2, requesting Congress to take action to immediately ensure timber communities survival. I have attached copies of all 

these resolutions to my written testimony. 

The last legislative resolution I want to mention is the one that 

goes to the heart of the reason we are here. HJM-3 requests that 

you amend the Federal Endangered Species Act to give equal consideration to the human and economic impacts of a listing so that 

those considerations can be balanced against the need for the listing. This resolution passed 50 to 10 in the House and 22 to 8 in 

the Senate. 

The primary problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it 

contains no common sense, has no room for reason, and is applied 

almost blindly as to the impacts of the human species. The intent 

of the Endangered Species Act was to make sure that we don't 

blindly protect the human species at the unnecessary expense of 

other species, and it's time we remember that that same logic 

works in reverse as well. · If instead of allowing the Endangered Species Act and other related Federal laws to completely shut down the Federal forest timber sales in Douglas County, we had used a common-sense approach, we would have applied more sound verifiable study in the 

first place to truly determine whether the spotted owl was endangered. This might have taken some time, but it's time that we recognize that species don't become threatened overnight, nor do they 

go extinct overnight. We have time to make good decisions. Then, 

if we determined it needed protection, the timber harvesting practices could have been studied to determine how logging and spotted 

owl protection can be compatible. We've learned a lot about managing the front for the characteristics that spotted owls need. 
301 

3 

We also would have listened to and made allowances for the 

human need in the area. This brings me to my two final points. 

First, the very lack of a mandatory consideration of the human impacts before a species is listed results literally and inevitably in an 

unbalanced picture being presented to the average American regarding the listing decision. This is a significant advantage to those 

people who would favor ignoring the human impacts, and enables 

them to fan the average American's environmental passions in 

total ignorance of the human cost. If the government press releases 

are one-sided, usually the press stories will be one-sided also. 

Partly as a result of this official sanctioning of this one-sided information, the loggers and woodworkers of Oregon have been subjected to most unjust vilification in our times. People who are willing to get up at 3:00 in the morning, ride in an old crummy truck 

for two hours, and work their tails and risk their lives all day in 

the woods are not bad people. They're doing an honest day's work 

to feed their families and provide Americans with wood products, 

from two-by-fours to toilet paper. The same goes for the men and 

women who work in the sawmills, the plywood plants, the sales offices, and the log and lumber trucks. 

But they've all been made out to be forest rapers and baby tree 

killers, because it's easier for the extreme environmentalists to justify hurting us if they can first convince America that we're bad, 

and therefore not worth protecting. Plain and simple, this vilification would not have been possible if the official government action 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act had not been so unbalanced and so totally lacking in concern for the human consequences. 

I've always been dismayed at the total lack of appreciation for 

the culture of timber communities. Think how different this whole 

spotted owl thing might have played out if people whose culture 

was based on logging timber had been Eskimos, Aborigines, or 

Bushmen. The same liberals who in the 1990's love to hate Oregon's loggers would have found a way to protect the spotted owl 

and protect the people's culture and way of life. They'd have found 

a balance. This is the kind of balance that needs to be a requirement in the Endangered Species Act. 

The final point I want to make is that it is absurd for the Federal Government to assume that the people of Oregon do not care 

about their environment. The total lack of input from the State or 

local governments into the Federal Endangered Species Act decision is a crime. We are a State who invented the bottle bill, cleaned 

up the Willamette River, protected our coastline, and enacted by 

far the strongest Forest Practices Act in America. Just this spring, 

the people of the Portland area voted by nearly a two-to-one margin to raise $136 million in bonds to purchase some greenways. Right here in Douglas County, we have the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative. It represents an excellent example of 

a local, public-private partnership approach to addressing resource 

issues. We in Oregon are protecting our streams, our forests, and 

our beaches, and I guarantee you we can protect the spotted owl 

and the marble murrelet as well. 

If you do nothing else to the Endangered Species Act, amend it 

to require that the local people are made a major partner in the 
302 

4 

process. Let them ''vote" through their elected officials. Share the 

power and the responsibility. The people of Oregon are creative and 

strong, and can achieve solutions that don't fit the blind cookie cut· 

ter approach from Washington, DC. Let us get involved. 

I thank you again for being here, for it is wonderful evidencE 

that the new Congress is indeed interested in how the people ol 

Roseburg, Douglas County, and Oregon feel about the Endangerec 

Species Act. I assure you that your presence here means a grea1 

deal to us, and we trust that you will make the decisions that neec 

to be made. 

Thank you. 
303 

To: House Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington D,C,20515 

Dear Sirs: 

Eugene, OR 9740 

Apri 7 20, 1995 

I wish the following comments to be made part of the record 

of the Endangered Species Taskforce meeting in Vancouver April 24. 

Extinction is forever. Hundreds of species and subspecies 

become extinct every year by acts of humans, and the rate of 

extinctions is increasing dramatically. How can we be so 

uncaring and arrogant as to abandon what few safeguards and 

protections we have? 

The current assault on environmental Jaws and regulations in 

in the U.S. Congress has the potential to greatly augment and 

worsen the most significant tragedy of our time--the worldwide 

destruction of habitats, rapid extinction of species, and 

impoverishment of most of humanity. 

A world with reduced diversity in its faunas and floras, 

crowded with poverty stricken people, will be a far less 

interesting and Jess viable world. Moreover, there is much to be 

learned including discovery of products of potential vital 

importance to humans from species which are now threatened. 

Environmental Jaws such as the Endangered Species Act need to 

be strengthened, not gutted. Since habitat destruction is the 

major cause of extinctions, its emphasis should be on protecting 

ecosystems not just individual species of whose plight we happen 

to be aware. 

Sincerely, 

Q€A_?lo_ ~l LN"'~ 

r:L£/f~~ 

3o?£~ Fox ~CC~ 

Cv--~ J o~. 9 i hjo')' 
304 

To : House Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington D,C,20515 

Dear Sirs : 

1653 Fairmount Blvd. 

Eugene, OR 97403 

Apri 1 20, 1995 

I wish the following comments to be made part of the record 

of the Endangered Species Taskforce meeting in Vancouver April 24. 

Extinction is forever. Hundreds of species and subspecies 

become extinct every year by acts of humans, and the rate of 

extinctions is increasing dramatically. How can we be so 

uncaring and arrogant as to abandon what few safeguards and 

protections we have? 

The current assault on environmental laws and regulations in 

in the U.S. Congress has· the potential to greatly augment and 

worsen the most significant tragedy of our time--the worldwide 

des true t ion of habitats, rapid extinct ion of speci es, and 

impoverishment of most of humanity. 

A world with reduced diversity in its faunas and floras , 

crowded with poverty stri cken people, will be a far less 

interesting and less viable world . Moreover , there is much to be 

learned including discovery of products of potential vital 

importance to humans from species which are now threatened. 

En vi ronmen ta I laws such as the Endangered Species Act need to 

be strengthened, not gutted . Since habitat destruction is the 

major cause of extinctions, its emphasis should be on protecting 

ecosystems not just individual species of whose plight we happen 

to be aware. 
305 

To : House Resources Comm i ttee 

1653 Fairmount Blvd . 

Eugene , OR 97403 

April 20 , 1995 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington D,C,20515 

The current assauh on environmental laws and regulations in 

i n the u.s . Congress has the potential to greatly augment and 

worsen the most significant tragedy of our time --the worldwi de 

de s truction of habitats , rapid extinction of species , and 

impoverishment of most of humanity . 

A world with reduced diversity in its faunas and floras , 

crowded with poverty stricken people , will be a far less 

interesting and less viable world . Unless we overcome our 

pathological fear of each other , disarm , correct present gross 

social and economi c inequeties , and find acceptable ways to bring 

our population into equilibrium with the ecosystem at a far lower 

level than the present world population, we are condemned to 

inhabit a social and biological slum for a brief miserable time 

until we too sink to final extinction . 

Environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act need to 

be strengthened, not gutted. Since habitat destruction is the 

major cause of extinctions , its emphasis should be on protecting 

ecosystems not just individual species of whose plight we happen 

to be aware . The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act , 

introduced into the House , is a rare example of careful forward 

thinking along these lines. As a rare and endangered species 

itself, it needs the support of all of us and protection from 

environmental hazards such as weakening amendments and 

exceptions. 

I wish these comments to be made part of the record of the 

Endangered Species Taskforce meeting in Vancouver . April 24 . 

Sincerely, 

Bayard 

/3~-J~ 

H. 

I( 

McConnaughey 

Me C'.~'>< .r~ 

17 · Professor (emeritus) of Biology 

University of Oregon, Eugene, Or. 
Elizabeth Megginson, Counsel 

US House Committee on Resources 

1324 Longworth Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Ms. Megginson, 

306 

20 April, 1995 

Ricnard Blaha 

Valerie Graber 

3738 SE Yamhill 

Portland, OR 97214 

We are writing this letter to be considered as testimony for the field hearing on 

the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act in Vancouver, Washington, on April 

24, 1995. Due to the expected size of the gathering and the frankly biased nature of 

the invitation process, we feel tllat it is necessary to be voices of reason in a debate 

that is certain to be run by the monied special interests. 

As a biologist (RB) and an anthropologist (VG), we are particularly aware of the 

link between a healthy natural resource base and a healthy and vibrant human 

community . There are some in this debate that would portray this as a Jobs vs. 

Environment issue; however, these are the interests that are out to make a quick profit 

now at the expense of our children and grandchildren. If our nation's resources are 

managed intelligently with more than an eye on this quarter's bottom line, there will be 

plentiful timber as well as wild salmon and spotted owls for our children to enjoy. 

Science has continually shown us that an intact ecosystem is more productive, 

stable, and resilient than one that has some of its component species missing. An 

old growth Oregon forest without Spotted Owls or a river without salmon runs may 

appear on the surface to be functioning well, but inevitably we find that the system is 

unbalanced. Kill a top predator (spotted owl) and its prey breed out of control 

(seedling-eating mice). Kill off the prey base (salmon) and the predators die out 

(bears, osprey, bald eagles). 

Some parties would have the committee believe that the ESA is too strong and 

inflexible, without the ability to adapt to local needs. They may be partly right, as 

bureacracies inevitably become rigid over time. However, there is no other way to 
307 

assure that our children will see wild salmon returning to their native river to spawn or 

spotted owls hooting in thick woods. Big Business has no incentive to save anything 

for our children; government regulation is currently the only way that these resources 

can be held for the future. We would rather have our old, half-blind, three-legged dog 

guarding the henhouse than the fox. 

In closing, we would again urge you to avoid falling into the jobs vs. the 

environment fallacy . Without a healthy environment, a healthy, stable economy is 

impossible. In the words of the forester Aldo Leopold, "The first rule of intelligent 

tinkering is to save all of the parts." Please support intelligent tinkering with our 

country's resources by not allowing the Endangered Species Act to be weakened for 

the sake of a few jobs for a few years. Your children will thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Blaha 

/ 

Valerie Graber 
Patricia Hutton 

3810 SE Taggart St. 

Portland, OR 97202 

Ap ril 18, 1995 

ESA Ta s k Fo rce Hearings 

House Resources Committee 

U.S. Hou se of Rep resent ati ve~ 

308 

1 321-.. Longworth Hou se Office E.uilding 

Washington DC 205 1 5 

Pleas e inc lude this as wri tten testimony regarding t he Endanger ed Species Act. 

The ESA should NOT be amended. I strongly support the Act a nd t he protection 

i t affords for species and ecosystems that are threa tened by development, 

logging, graz ing , mining, wa t er and air poUution, and now private property 

advocates 

The ESA has p r oven time and again tha t it is a workab le law . Huge amounts of 

money h ave been spent to t ell lies ab out t he effects of this law. Wh en in 

fact, as a singl e example, the predicte d woes of the timber industry have 

proven to be minima l , as evidenced by the subs tantial profi ts earned SINCE t h e 

list ing of the northern spotte d owl . 

The r ecent e lection and the so-called contract on (I mean " for ") Amer ica is 

not a ma ndate to gut our environmental l aws! Count me among t h e hundreds of 

thousands of supp orte rs of the ESA! 

Thank you fo r your consideration, 

Patricia Hutton 
April 20, 1994 

Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

309 

Subject: Hearing Record for the Endangered Species Act 

Dear Sirs, 

I would like to ·voice and record my position on the upcoming discussions on the 

elimination of the Endangered Species Act. 

Simply, I believe this country has spent too much time & effort to establish the ESA 

just to have it thrown away by the current congressional majority. 

The ESA is necessary legislation to protect the environment against the greed of big 

and small corporations in this country which have no regard for the environment. It is 

because of this type of legislation and 2.Dllt. because of this type of legislation that 

these corporations do anything at all to protect the environment. If it were not for the 

ESA and similar legislation, I doubt we would see any of the misleading advertising by 

big business (i.e., timber co., chemical co., etc.) on how they do their part to "protect the 

environment". 

I feel the ESA is a necessary piece of legislation and as a voter and 

citizen of this country I demand that it remain intact. 

Sincerely, 

tJt4/1~ Ct ~.---- Geoffrey G. Carson 

25640 SE 149th St. 

Issaquah, WA 98027 
310 

. • ·~ ' . • . : ' r 

19 April1995 

Testimony for The Endangered Species Act Hearing 

Medite Corporation, fonnerly known as Medford Corporation, began operations as a public company 

in 1932. Our Company is the largest private land owner in Jackson County, Oregon and has operated 

forest products manufacturing plants in the southern Oregon area continuously since the early 1900's. 

The current implementation of the ESA has resulted in the permanent closure of three of our 

manufacturing facilities. Those closures occurred in 1988, 1989 and 1992 and resulted in a loss of 

I 016 manufucturing and salaried support jobs. Those facilities have been demolished never to provide 

family wage jobs again 

Many of those whom I tenninated were personal friends of twenty years or more. One, I had grown 

up with since the third grade when my tiunily moved to Oregon from a farm in Arkansas. Terminating 

the employment of a friend of35 years, who had been an employee of the company for 25 years, for 

no "good" reason was extremely difficult. 

Two of our remaining five manufacturing facilities are operating with smaller workforces and fewer 

hours because of the availability and price of raw material (logs). Each day I wonder if my remaining 

700 employees will also fall prey to a good idea gone wild. We ask for balance and a chance to 

continue providing work for our employees. 

Sincerely, 

c~Ja<-J_~ 

Hank Snow, Vice President 
311 

Adventure Blankets + Fanny Pods 

4/19/95 

Comments To Be Included In The ESA Task Force Record 

I am a businessman in Oregon and and own a 68 acre timber preserve in the Klamath 

National Forest. The spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and other endangered species 

affect the management of this land and in general the manner in the way people in this 

region live their lives. Past timber receipts were a large part of school budgets for my 

children. Yet I am proud to think we are citizens of a country progressive enough to 

put the health and integrity of our planet before monetary profit and industrial 

initiatives. This is a positive and essential example to set for underdeveloped 

countries that have yet to destroy their environments. 

Any takings bills introduced into the House of Representatives is a travesty as far as I 

am concerned. I want future generations to have the option to experience and know 

that we did all we could do to keep the planet as biologically diverse as we could. I 

think it is essential that we strengthen the ESA and make it invulnerable from any 

attacks by a biased and money hungry government . The Contract On America is 

poised to destroy our natural resources as we now have. Money will come and go but 

once a species is gone, that is forever. 

My wife, my children, and I are emphatic in support of the Endangered Species Act 

and believe it should not be touched by any Republican mandates to weaken it. 

Sincerely, 

Robbin Lacy 

Sunday Afternoons + P.O. Box 1077 • Ashland, Oregon 97520 + (503} 535-5810 
312 

ESA Task Force Hearings 

House Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20515 

To whom it may concern: 

James Johannes 

5011 Brooklyn Ave NE #2 

Seattle, WA 98105 

April 11, 1995 

I wish the followi ng comments to be added to the record for the 

April 24, 1995 Vancouver, WA ESA Field Hearing. 

If the geologic past has shown us anything it is that extinctions 

are rare . Species arise and run their course for millions of years . 

Geologist have noted that massive extinctions have occurred in 

brief periods of time, but overall they are rare and not the norm. 

Presently, the rate of e'xtinction is increasing and accelerating 

above the normal rate. The main cause is ourselves . The ESA 

provides us a means to prevent extinctions. 

The ESA is not just to protect species, it also protects us. A 

species diverse habitat is much more healthy than a homoge ni zed and 

less diverse habitat. I1: is better able to protect itself from 

disease and disaster and provides a richer supply of resources for 

medicines , food, and tourism. We depend on other species for our 

living more than they depend on us. If we continue taking species, 

then soon there wi ll be no support structure to k e ep u s alive and 

our economy thriving. The ESA is already balanced in favor of 

protecting us through pro tection of species. 

We must strengthen the ESA. As written now it provides for species 

protection. \ve must prot·ect not only the species but the habitat 

they live in . If the h abitat is not prot.eroted, then how can the 

species be protected from extinction? By protecting habitat instead 

of species by species protection we reduce the need to invoke the 

ESA, decrease the cost of recovery and protect more species. 

Habitat protection must be added to the current ESA. 

Some would like to add cost/benefit analysis to the ESA. They 

emphasize the costs (especially to property owners) rather than the 

benefits. If cost/benefit analysis is going to be added then the 

following s hould be part of the analysis. The first question we 

should ask is not the cost of saving a species b ut the cost of 

letting it go extinct. We have no way of resurrecting a species 

once it has gone ext inct. Trying to determine a species worth is 

difficult at best. Therefore, it is better to be o n the far side of 

caution before allowing an extinction. Secondly, many other species 

may b e dependent or partially dependent on the species in question . 
313 

We should not pretend we have begun to understand the connections 

between species and the effect of removing one from the ecosystem 

would have on other species as well as ourselves down the road. It 

may costs us more in the end to save other species who were dependent on the species we removed because we thought it cost to 

much to save it. 

If we continue on the course some have charted, then the human 

species will be added to the long list of species that have gone 

extinct from our own hand. 

Sincerely, 

James E. Johannes 
April 13 . 1995 

}:, u se Resources Committee 

:J . S . House of Representa-oi ve s 

Washington D.C. 20510 

314 

Re: Endangered Specie s Act hearing in Vancouver Washington , April 

24 , 1995. 

I am gotng to be unab le to appear at this hearing, but I am 

Sllhmi tt 1 r1g my thoughts f•Jr ":h e record. 

; bel ieve that t h e Endangered Species Act should be 

str eng~hened, n ot made weake r . Protect t c n of endangered spe c tes is 

an impo rtant part of the quali t y of life in the Northwest , I ltve 

in Washington State b ecau se of th is quality o f l ife. There t s an 

important practical va luo~ in protecting bi olog i c al di v ersity, a n d 

suc h protec t ion has great ec o n omi c ~e nefits as wel l . 

This state has a str o ng t our 1sm industry wh i ch will s u f f er if 

~ rto not maintain a balance in this area. Washington ci t izens, in 

p el ! after pel!, have stated c learly that they want str o nger. not 

weaker , protection of salmon runs and are willi ng to pay for such 

p rot ection in the form of hi gher electric rates if necessary. 

I totally disagr ee with the idea that species that need old 

growth forest to survive should be sacrificed so that loggers can 

co ntin11e wasteful l oggi nsr pr a c tices t8 the point o f destroying the 

last few stands of o ld growth on federal lands in the Northwest. 

Wh en the mature f ore st is gone, the jobe will be lo st anywa y. It 

is f a r more i n our i nte rest t o f u nd jobs programs for pe opl e n ow 

(We will have to do it er , an yway ) wh1le we sti ll have some o ld 

growth to attract tou ists , natura l1sts , and to provide a 

bi ologi c ally diverse basis f o r sc ientific researc h. The search for 

n ew med t c ally va luable compounds s ucb as taxa! in o ld growth 

iorests is onl y possib le whi le we have the f o re s ts to work 1n. 

Th e on ly problem with the law as it is new written is that it 

d o es not provide fo r an e cos ystem wide approach. That should be 

your f o cus. If, insteaoi. y ou change the law in some mie.guided 

s earch ror " economi c balance ' you will mere ly create a fertlle new 

qround for attorneys, eco nomists, and experts to a r gue over and to 

cause everi greater delay s tha n we see today. 

Thank you for your time. 

Si ncerely 

, /,i ..-;_.~_; /-;_.,...,. ~/,_-: _..;LC.r _

77 

/ 

J err y Br oadus 

90 1-16th St. S. W. 

i•uy al l up . Wa. 9837 1 
315 

April 1 2, 1 9 9 5 

House Resources committee 

1324 ~ongworth House Office Building washington, D.C. 20515 

The Endangered Species Act is one of the most important pieces of 

legislation our country has ever inacted. It is a clear statement 

that we have realized our responsibility for our treatment of our planet and all the life forms on it. clearly scientific research 

has shown that we must continue our efforts toward a substainable 

future. Again and Again the American people have shown their 

desire of and need for the preservation of species other than our own. I urge you to do everything to protect the Endangred Species 

Act so that in the future our grandchildren will look back upon 

this time as a time in which wisdom won out over greed. 

I ask that my comments be included in the ESA Task Force record 

sincerely, 

Michael ~. McKinney 

13138 s New Era Rd. 

oregon city, or 97045 

cc: senator Bob Packwood 

senator Mark Hatfield 

Representative Elizabeth Furse 
316 

April 12, 1995 · 

House Resources committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building washington, o.c. 20515 

The Endangered species Act is one of the most important pieces of 

legislation our country has ever inacted. It is a clear statement 

that we have realized our ·responsibility for our treatment of our planet and all the life forms on it. Clearly Scientific research 

has shown that we must continue our efforts toward a substainable 

future. Again and Again the American people have shown their 

desire of and need for the preservation of species other than our own. I urge you to do everything to protect the Endangred Species 

Act so that in the future our grandchildren will look back upon this time as a time in which wisdom won out over greed . 

I ask that my comments be included in the ESA Task Force record 

Sincerely, 

~<n-;~ 

Ann McKinney 13138 s New Era Rd. 

oregon City, or 97045 

cc: senator Bob Packwood 

senator Mark Hatfield 

Representative Elizabeth Furse 
317 

LANE COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY AN OREGON CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 

P.O. BOX 5086 • EUGENE, OREGON 97405 

,/w./... 

':Jz 

House Resources Committee 

1324 Longworth House Office Buuilding 

washington D.C. 20515 

April 17, 1995 

We are writing in regard to the Endangered Species 

Congressional Field Hearing to be held on April 24, 1995 in 

Vancouver, Washington. We would like our statement included in the Endangered Species Task Force record. 

We strongly support the reauthorization of the Endangered 

Species Act. The rate of species loss has accelerated 

dramatically in recent decades and seems greater today than 

in any other time in history. At least 500 species and 

subspecies have become extinct since the 1500's. Natural causes have only brought about the extinction of one 

species. The acts of man have caused the others. Humans 

live upon the same earth. If wild creatures cannot survive, 

are we not also at risk? 

Avoiding loss of species serves human interest in other 

ways. Crop production, medicines, industrial chemicals and 

energy sources can be found in many species of wild plants 

and animals. There is also the aesthetic and recreational 

value of observing wild creatures and visiting wild areas. 

We urge you to continue to support the preservation of all 

plants and animals. Thank you for this opportunity to 

comment. 

c.c. Senator Mark Hatfield 

Senator Bob Packwood 

Representative Peter DeFazio 

Sincerely, 

Conservation 

~d!B!:::o Chair 
Resources Committee 

U S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Committee Members: 

318 

3519 E. Spruce St. 

Seattle, WA 98122 

April 20, 1995 

I would like this letter included as part of the official hearing record. I requested the 

opportunity to speak at the Committee hearings in Vancouver, Washington on Mon., April24, 

1995, but was not successful in getting on the agenda. Before I state my reasons for renewal 

of the Endangered Species Act, I would like to comment on the procedure for this hearing. I 

knew that a hearing was scheduled in Vancouver, but only at a late date (near the end of 

March) was I able to ream the specific date because either it had not been set or that it was not 

well-publicized. Secondly, I phoned Ms. Liz Magnuson of the Resources Committe to secure a 

place as a speaker, and was told that speakers had already been selected. This was within a 

week of finding out the date of the hearing. This gives the impression that there is selective 

and limited accessibility to the speaking agenda. I will be attending the hearing in Vancouver 

and will be interested in seeing which individuals and groups managed to get on the agenda 

and how these slots on the agenda were obtained. I have been a Registered Nurse for almost 

twenty years, but recently returned to school and graduated with a degree in Environmental 

Science. Therefore I feel I am well-qualified to present my views on the Endangered Species 

Act. 

The Endangered Species Act, one of the most important cornerstones of protection for the 

natural resources of this great nation, is itself 'endangered'. I am extremely upset to hear about 

efforts to dismantle or fail to reauthorize this legislation - legislation which has provided 

protections for our biological heritage. 

You may not think we NEED the Endangered Species Act. However, I beg to disagree. For 

one thing, the debate about a particular endangered species is not just about that particular 

group of organisms. It is a measure of the health of the environment in which this organism is 

found. We cannot disregard the health of the surroundings in which we live. We live in 

carefully balanced biological communities with many intricately related parts. It is a drastic 

mistake to think that we can disregard the health of these communities or of the component 

species. A second reason for protecting our biological heritage is economic. It is incredibly 

expensive to try to fix environmental problems. Eventually, we will not be able to insulate 

ourselves from the effects of environmental degradation. Endangered species are a 

bellweather- a 'canary in the mine', if you will- Jetting us know when our environment is 

becoming hazardous. If we allow degradation of our resources, we will find it difficult and 

expensive to correct problems. A third reason has to do with other species as potential sources 

of study and use by humans. We have discovered many valuable pharmaceuticals and 

industrial products based on chemicals synthesized by other species. Peter Raven, eminent 

botanist and Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, in reference to the accelerating rate of 

extinctions of species, writes, ''The biodiversity that we are losing is the source of virtually all 

sustainable productivity: our food, our medicines .... , fiber, building materials, biomass for solar 

energy and doubtless a host of unsuspected new products that we haven't yet begun to 

understand." (Nature Conservancy, Jan/ Feb. 1994) 

What can I say to underscore the importance of supporting the Endangered Species Act? 

(coni) 
319 

Perhaps an analogy is appropriate here. If we live in a community and someone down the 

street cannot continue to survive, we might shrug our shoulders and say, 'It's not ME, so I don't 

need to be concerned." And then a family a few blocks away doesn't make the grade, and then 

another and then another. Wouldn't the prudent person be very alarmed and concerned for 

his or her own well-being? 

The Endangered Species Act recognizes the critical nature of monitoring and protecting our 

biological resources. We must exercise careful stewardship of our biological heritage, and we 

have to do it together as a nation. Otherwise we are all at risk. A recent poll shows that the 

majority of the American people favor environmental protection (Hart Research Assoc.) I hope 

you will support reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. 

Thank you for your consideration . I hope you will reauthorize this important legislation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

B Y..:.' '-'-''.t." Jt·r.t f3 t ·'<-<.1-

srenda Senturia 
320 

RON WYOE N . (('.i_t • • '•' lllll<)o<.GW01'11 H fl0ti.OO .. G 

W"SH••U:lTON.0C2051!>--l70J 

12021225-,811 

S(l(l NE Muo. T>fO .. AH. Su T~ 205 

POfiiLANo. OFI91232 

1!1031231--2300 

ctrongrrl)l) of tbr ittnitdl .i>tatrl) 

AJou!lr of ll.tprt!lrntatibt!l 

May 23, 1995 

The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman 

Task Force on Endangered Species 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Pombo: 

IU,.......C M....,..IlYMU-11. 

0Vl:J!$1G"'...,.O'HII'I$TOGa.TIOr.s 

......... lf(At_THAH(I t"' (tNIII()Htolf.I\IT 

SMALL BUSINESS COMMinEE 

ME1o1 8EII GOVi:~ .. MnHMOc.fi ... I,IS 

CO·CHAIFIMAN, 

OLDER ... MEFIICANS CAUCUS 

CO-CHAIRMAN. 

fOAESlAY 2000 TASK FORCE 

On May 4, 1995, I asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODF&W) for an independent scientific review of testimony given to your 

Committee by Dr. John Palmisano. 

Enclosed is the response which I received from ODFW. I ask that this 

response be included in the public record of testimony submitted to the 

Endangered Species Task Force. Since the enclosed response refers to Dr. 

Palmisano's testimony from the Vancouver hearing, please enter it into the 

April 24 hearing record. 

Thank you very much for including this information into the record. 

cc: Rudolph Rosen 

Director, ODF&W 

l(:_' 

RONWYDt.;o 

Member of Congress 

THIS SlATIO NEAY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE Of RECYCLED FIBERS 
May 18, 1995 

Representative Ron Wyden 

u .s. House of Representatives 1111 Longworth Building 

Washington, DC 20515-3703 

Dear Representative Wyden: 

321 

/ 

This letter is written in direct response ·to your request 

for information concerning the relationship between forest management and wild salmonid production (letter 

dated May 4, 1995). I understand testimony you received 

at the ESA Task Force hearing on April 24th is at issue 

in your request. My comments address the testimony in a 

general sense only. More critical to the hearing are constructive comments on amending the Endangered Species 

Act. I am in the process of working with the Governor's 

office and other Oregon state agencies to draft a set of 

comments on the Act that we hope will be of use as you 

consider changes. 

Your lette r also reque sted "an independent 

scientific summary of the impacts of past and present 

forest practices on salmonid production." This subject 

has been studied e xtensively over the past 30 years. A 

quick evaluation is really not possible, because this 

sort of an assignment is far too complex for quick 

evaluation and short summaries, but we can supply a 

number of references that will provide ample examples of 

such evaluations done by others. You will immediately see that these studies were neither quickly done nor simple 

to ~onduct . Attached are copies of reports and chapters 

from books that provide evaluations related to this 

topic. These documents are largely summariet> of peerreviewed research findings by agency, ar.ademic and 

private scientists. As such, these articl s represent 

current knowledge through their publishing dates. 

our comments on the testimony you provided focus on 

fisheries-forestry interactions (pages 3-6). In summary, 

the testimony points out that (1) "· .. perceived adverse effects of timber management are based on logging 

practices . . . not ... routinely used since the 19 6 0' s ", and 

IJE I'A I<TMI'N T OF 

fiSH A:\ U 

WI LUI.! FE 

rr<. l-.<.J ~ litE 

I)IHH .. T<m 

2'tll SW Fir:-1 i\wnue 

PO UP\ ;l<.J 

l'nrtl,m d , () ~ 97207 

(~11 ) :?:!Y-5-100 

FAX (:;111) 22'1-hi.:U 
322 

(2) " ... logging operations have neutral ... and beneficial effects, as well as adverse effects ... ". The testimony also implies that 

habitat issues are not a major concern for salmonid recovery 

efforts. 

The testimony attempts to condense a great deal of 

scientific study into a very brief summary (approximately 3-1/2 

pages). Consequently, there are many important findings not 

included. To accurately assess the interactions between past and 

present forest practices and fish populations requires 

considerably more detailed discussion. These interactions are complex, can vary according to the geomorphic and biotic 

conditions of the site, and can differ depending upon whether you 

view the effects over short (1-5 years) or long (>25 year) time 

periods. 

Some of the past research on the effects of logging may not 

always be directly applicable to management practices utilized 

today. Current forest practice regulations often provide improved resource protection over the regulations evaluated in past 

scientific studies. As a result, any review of the current 

effects of forest management activities on salmonid habitats must 

consider the current practices being employed. Research will 

continue to be necessary for assessing the interactions between 

forestry and fisheries, and improving our management practices 

for forestry. 

While it is correct that logging operations may be neutral, 

beneficial or adverse, the extent of effect depends upon the 

practices being employed and the conditions of the site or watershed involved. Considering the short-term effects of forest 

management on water quality and fish populations, at the 

exclusion of long-term effects, underplays the importance of 

studies on long-term stream habitat conditions and salmonid 

productivity. In some situations, timber harvest activities may 

create immediate benefits to fish production due to increases in 

primary production in a stream. This occurs when an activity 

allows some increased solar radiation to reach streams where the 

pre-treatment conditions were predominantly a closed overstory 

canopy. These benefits are generally considered positive over the 

long-term only if stream temperature increases are controlled, 

and the physical stream habitat structure is maintained (see 

Botkin et al. 1995, pp. 73-74, for a similar discussion). Such 

productivity increases are often followed by an extended period 

of decreased productivity (See Botkin et al. 1995, Figure 9, page 

38). The overall benefits of the increased primary production to 

salmonid populations will not be realized if other habitat 

parameters are limiting fish survival during other life history 

stages. For example, increased growth of juvenile fish may not 

result in increased smolt numbers if winter habitat is limited; 

and if winter survival to the smolt stage remains limited, 

increases in returning adults will not be achieved. 
323 

Instream large woody debris (LWD) is a critical component of 

freshwater salmonid habitat. The effect of past timber management 

activities on the abundance and characteristics of instream LWD 

is now known to be a critical factor controlling salmon 

production. Currently, many Pacific Northwest streams are deficient in large woody debris due to past logging activity as well as past stream management practices. Inventories of existing 

instream LWD in Oregon, conducted by the forest products industry 

and ODFW, indicate that LWD abundance is below levels observed in 

mature or unmanaged forest stream reaches (ODFW, unpublished 

data). Research also documents that changes in the 

characteristics of instream large woody debris can be associated 

with timber harvest. The number of large woody debris pieces in 

harvested areas has been found to be similar or less than in 

unmanaged (old growth) areas, and, more importantly, the volume 

(size) and functions of the material is reduced in harvested 

areas (Ralph et al. 1994, Bilby and Ward 1991, Bisson et al. 

1987, etc.). These changes in the composition of large woody 

debris can have a direct effect on the amount and types of pool 

habitat formed, and thus the productivity of the streams for fish 

habitat. 

Recent research indicates that the presence of complex 

pools, often associated with large woody debris, is critical to 

the overwinter survival and subsequent smelt production of 

anadromous salmonid species (Nickelson et al. 1992, McMahon and 

Hartman 1989, Johnson et al. 1986, Heifetz et al. 1986, etc.). 

Past timber harvest activities including the harvest of conifers 

from riparian zones (future recruitment material) and the removal 

of logs from stream channels as a commercial product or for log 

transport (splash damming) have contributed to the current LWD 

deficiencies. Large woody debris removal from stream channels for 

flood control and fish passage are also a factor limiting LWD 

abundance. Since the recruitment of large conifers to streams is 

a long-term process (80-100 years or greater), we will continue 

to experience the effects of these past practices for decades to 

come even though today's management practices are improved. 

In recognition of the importance of large woody debris to 

fish productivity, Oregon recently revised its forest practices 

regulations to increase the number and size of conifers retained 

in riparian zones following timber harvest, and included 

incentives for landowners to place trees and logs to improve 

stream habitat. The incentives for stream improvement were included due to the recognition that even the improved harvest 

practices of today can not grow 50-100 year old streamside 

conifers overnight, making deposition of large woody debris a function of long-term forest management practices. Active 

placement of LWD in streams during timber harvests is desirable 

to provide for short-term fish habitat needs until natural 

processes can occur. The oregon forest products industry has been 

very cooperative on these voluntary stream improvement practices 

in recent years. 
324 

Efforts to recover depressed salmon stocks must consider all 

factors that could potentially be limiting salmonid production. 

Efforts to control fish harvest, protect genetic viability of 

wild populations through careful management of hatchery programs, 

maintain or improve freshwater habitat, provide adequate fish 

passage, and maintain water quality must occur in concert. As 

part of this overall strategy, the Department is working closely 

with the oregon forest products industry in cooperative efforts 

to protect and enhance salmonid habitat in forested streams. 

Through these ventures we hope to restore important fisheries 

resources for Oregon's future generations. 

I hope that this response meets your needs, and I appreciate 

your willingness to contact the Department for an objective 

analysis of these important issues. 

~ncerely, 

--p::_)~.,._.'-0..-a.....,.__ 

RUDOLPH A. ROSEN if<'r) Director / 

Enclosures: 

Botkin et al. 1995 

Chamberlin et al. 1991 

Bisson et al. 1992 

cc: Governor Kitzhaber 
325 

Chapter 6 

Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, 

and Watershed Processes 

T. W. Chamberlin, R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest 

Waters in forested lands of western North America are major producers of 

anadromous salmon and trout. The size of the fishery resource is large, but it is 

diminishing as a result of human activities and currently is only a fraction of its 

original size. Western forested watersheds also produce an array of other natural 

resources, including a variety of wood products. Areas that produce both timber 

and salmonids coincide over much of western North America (Figure 6.1). and the 

increasing public demand for both of these resources creates frequent manage· 

ment confticts. Under most circumstances, both timber and fish can be successfully managed in the same watershed if measures to protect water quality and fish 

habitat are carefully coordinated with timber management operations. 

This chapter is confined to the effects of timber management activities on 

stream ecosystems. particularly streams with anadromous salmonids. Lakes and 

estuaries are also vital to the life cycle of many anadromous salmonids. but 

consideration of those realms is left to other authors (e.g., Tschaplinski 1988). 

Timber management activities discussed in this chapter include felling and 

yarding of trees, site preparation by burning or scarification. fire hazard reduction . 

forest regeneration by planting or seeding, reduction of competition by brush 

removal and tree thinning before commercial harvest. and some effects of road 

building on the hydrologic and sediment systems discussed in the chapter. Other 

chapters of this book treat road building (Furniss et al. 1991) and forest chemicals 

(Norris et al. 1991) in detail. 

Numerous models allow the standing crop of fish to be estimated from habitat 

variables. Fausch et al. (1988) reviewed 99 models of various types, and Hicks et 

al. (1991, this volume) summarize the response of salmonids to changes in habitat. 

The diverse habitat requirements of many salmonids are discussed in this volume 

by Bjornn and Reiser (1991). We will concentrate, therefore. on how timber 

management inftuences hydrologic and sediment transport processes and thereby 

affects the amount and quality offtowing water, gravel substrates, cover, and food 

supplies required by all salmonid species. 

Relations between Timber Management and Saimonid Habitat 

Because the several species and life phases of salmonids have diverse habitat 

requirements, streams that support them productively must sustain a varied 

complex of hydraulic and geomorphic conditions (Sullivan 1986) that are distrib181 

lnftutn.a:r of Fortst and RanRtltmd Ma""il''"'"' on Sctlmonid Fislus tmd Thrir Habitats 

American Fishcncs Society Special Publication 19:181-20.5. 1991 
326 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Due to the high cost of print" terlal lowing was placed in the h . mg, mard til submitted from the foleanng reoo ' es of the committee· 

Christi Abraham . Susan Abraham Bob Crawford 

Douglass Alexander AIUl Cross 

Alme Allen Laurie Cross 

Steve Allison LoiUly Culkins 

Clark Anderson Diane Daggett 

Andy Anderson M. Danwoods 

Steve Appel Becha Dechard 

Roger Arnold Linda Delano 

Ronald Arsens Sally DeLeuw 

Lori Balemif Scott DePriest 

Pat Barneusan John Dhelam 

Trudy Bartosek John DiGregoria 

Blake Basham Angie Dixon 

Thomas Bass Bob Doppelt 

Fred Behrn Maria Drake 

Gladys Belden Irwin Duebon 

Todd Beuhler Cathy Duncan 

Roger Bicle Curtis Duncan 

Richard Bloom Ron Dunckley 

Mary Boice David Dunneback 

Starry Bomberg Thomas Dwyer 

Nancy Bonscher Alicia Dyer 

Casandra Botts Patrick Edualson 

Wade Boyd Gail Eiken 

Misty Braswell Laura Emerson 

Jamie Brown Donald Estes 

Mark Brown Logan Evans 

Teresa Brown Mirfka Evans 

Aimee Buckmaster Shari Exo 

Robert Bull Harland Failman 

Barbara Bullock Karen F ant 

Patricia Burnet Leroy Fedinson 

Yinnita Caff Ted Ferrioli 

James Caols Larry Flanagen 

Dan Chin Eathan Flessas 

Dana Christinsen Lawrence Fox 

Susan Clynch Claire Frank 

Bill Coffman Mark Freeland 

Paul Cogburn Walter Freeman 

Lauri Collins Ronald Freumau 

Colom Contrail Pamela Fugua 

Doug Copper 

Kannell Copper 

Ralph Cornelius 

George Corssow 

Ann ruller 

Marie Ganer 

Jacqueline Genn 

Wayne Giesy 

Robert Gilchrest 

Rod Girrand 

Diane Gorden 

Jason Gorham 

Mike Gould 

Tim Gould 

Carol Grace 

Diane Grant 

·Robert Grant 

Tom Grant 

Ellen Gray 

Jerome Grippes 

Simone Grissett 

Peter Gross 

Wayne Gunderson 

George Hagedorn 

Fred Hall 

Mary Hall 

Shawn Hall 

Mike Hammot 

Dan Harbon 

Edwin Hardt 

Sherry Haxby 

Ronald Hedden 

Sarah Hehnbreht 

Kasthleen Henderson 

Ron Hengy 

Peter Henry 

Leena Heschiz 

Ivan Hibbert 

Hogie Hickman 

Kathy Higins 

Molly Hobbard 

Katherine Hoffman 

Janet HohrnaiUl 

Cid Hudson 

Doug Hudson 

Robert Hughes 

Perube Hull 

Steve Hull 

Brian Huntoon 

J. Hutchinson 
327 

Brendan Impson Amahia Mallea Gregpry Powell 

Robin Ingram Jim Mans

on Jimmy Powell 

Christine Isaacson Chris Mare Kenneth Powell 

Richard Isaacson Time Marshall Nichole Powell 

Martha Jackson Robert McAfae Yvette Powell 

Rod Johnson Mike McGienn Bob Powne 

Ruth Jones Roberet McKincay Valdean Prat

er Jory Kahn Russ McKinley John Pullins 

A. Kalbus Barry McLaffrey Beverly Rafferty 

Jennifer Keller Russell McPhetridge Donald 

Rafferty 

Paul Ketchum Paul Medinz Sean Raomusson Maurine Kiri Michael Meredith Lyle Reed 

Andrew Kirst Robert Messinger May Reed 

Evelyn Klinckmann Bruno 

Meyer Verne Reisch 

.Mark Knapp Dolby Mickie Everette Rh

olan Clovis Knight Angie Milligan Boy Riff 

Oppel Kommer M. Misejs William Riley 

Dennis Konshak Howard Mock Susan Robbinson Lewis Kraus Dan Moffit Ivan Roberts 

Winnie Krippen Jim Montgomery Ann Robison 

Linda Kuch

ler Dennis Morchason LLoyd Rogers 

Robert Kuchler Paul Morehead David Rose 

Robert Kummer AI Morris Gorden Ross 

Kenneth Kummings Terri 

Morse Barbara Rounsevelle 

Merle Laci Susan Nathen Dick Rudisile 

Henry Lagergren Terry Neustel Michael Rueden 

Elden Landin J. Newton Riht Rull 

Neil Landreth George N orbech Ken Scarlett 

Bob Lane Wayne Norquis 

Jean Schadler 

Jack Larson Trent O'Neil Betty Schilling 

Mary Larson Lynn Olsen Dean Schillings Ralph Larson Russell Olsen Stacy Schillings Jack Lassley Carol Orr Kristi Schocker 

Steven Leider R. Orum Rosanna Selier 

Sally Lider Christi Parks Jane Simmons Howard Lindgren Alan Parson Mark Simmons 

Susan Lindgren Melody Payne Shyles Simmons 

Jeremy Loelle Mike Pelly Eric Skeahan 

Earl Lohrey Marlin Perni Ken Skillings 

James Longwill AI Peterson Mildred Smith 

Ben Lonn Les Peters

on Robin Smith 

Bill Lovan Vernon Peterson Timothy Smith 

Eric Locas William Peterson Jake Smith 

Gino Lucchetti Saunye Phillip Larry Sneook 

Peter Lucchetti Randy Plundey Sally Soest 

Theodore Mahr Lance Porta Jeff Stephens 
91-344 - 95 (336) 

328 

Torands Stibult 

Kirk Sturm 

Paul Swedeen 

William Taylor 

Richard Thed 

David Thrisot 

Jon Titus 

Nancy Tracy 

Josua Tran 

Joseph Traxel 

James Turner 

Brian Vincent 

Ed Wallace 

Cecilia Ward 

Tami Watkins 

Jennie Weakley 

Cindy Welle 

Dennis Welle 

Gary Westerland 

David Whitaker 

Bonnie White 

Ray White 

James Whiunan 

George Wilhere 

Gary Wilson 

R. Winston 

Eric Wittenbech 

George Wlaberg 

Rori Woola 

Judy Worunan 

Duane Yonder 

Carl Ysen 

Adam Zrelinsk 

ISBN 0-16-047433-7 

90000 

9 7801