[Senate Hearing 106-453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-453
SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN:
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND DRINKING WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE PROPOSED DECISION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
RECOVER ENDANGERED SALMONID STOCKS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, AND
SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ``4-H'' DOCUMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
CAUCUS
__________
JUNE 23, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming REID, HARRY, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri LAUTENBERG, FRANK R., New Jersey
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia WYDEN, RON, Oregon
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah GRAHAM, BOB, Florida
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 23, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Crapo, Hon. Michael, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho........ 1
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 53
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington....... 14
WITNESSES
Ausman, Lynn, grower, Waitsburg, WA, on behalf of the Washington
Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington Barley
Commission..................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.......... 13
Dunn, Mark, director of government affairs, J.R. Simplot Company,
Boise, ID...................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Faber, Scott, director, Floodplains Program, American Rivers..... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus........ 70
Frampton, George, Acting Chair, Council on Environmental Quality. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 59
Senator Crapo............................................ 56
Senator Reid............................................. 58
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Governor, State of Idaho.................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement, Northwest Power Planning Council.................. 8
Lothrop, Robert C., manager for policy development and litigation
support, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland,
OR............................................................. 33
Prepared statement of Donald Sampson......................... 59
Report, executive summary of ``Wa-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit'',
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission................ 61
Squires, Owen, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, Lewiston,
ID............................................................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Stearns, Tim, policy director, Save Our Wild Salmon, Seattle, WA. 41
Prepared statement........................................... 73
(iii)
SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RECOVERY
PLAN
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in
room SD-406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo and Wyden.
Also present: Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. The hearing will come to order.
This is the hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Drinking Water of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. Today we will review the 1999 Columbia River
Basin salmon recovery decision, and the 4-H Paper.
We would like to welcome Idaho's Governor Kempthorne, the
former chairman of this committee, to testify today.
Before we proceed to the testimony, I would like to make a
brief opening statement. Today, the Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Drinking Water Subcommittee will take up the issue of the
Columbia River Basin recovery efforts, the 1999 decision, and
the 4-H Paper.
In November 1991, the first Snake River species, the
sockeye salmon, was listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. It is disheartening that nearly 8 years later 12
stocks of Columbia Basin salmonids are listed and we still have
no plan in place for recovering this Pacific Northwest icon. I
can say that we have done a good job of creating working groups
and methods for analyzing data and engaging in process. In
fact, I see an interesting chart here that I think the Governor
might talk about relating to that process. But it seems that
the process has become the product. One of those processes, the
4-H Paper of the Federal Caucus is the focus of today's
hearing.
After I first learned of the 4-H Paper and the efforts of
the Federal Caucus, I raised concerns about it at an Energy
Committee hearing in Hood River, Oregon. It was astonishing
that although we were only months away from the 1999 decision
date, a new process had been undertaken, as the National Marine
Fisheries Service Regional Director Will Stelle put it, to
ensure that the Federal agencies did their homework in
preparing for the decision.
It has been 4 years since the National Marine Fisheries
Service issued its Biological Opinion in March 1995 and set out
to develop a long-term recovery plan by December 1999. But it
isn't the eleventh-hour establishment of this working group
that causes me the greatest degree of concern. I have
encountered stakeholders from both sides of this debate--tribal
officials, State, other Government officials--who have shared
their apprehensions about the way in which the Federal Caucus
has conducted meetings regarding the 4-H Paper. I understand
that these meetings have been in private, that they have
declined to share substantive information regarding the
development of the approach that is being taken, and,
furthermore, that the Federal Caucus has precluded the public
from participating in or providing input into the process, and,
finally, that there are no plans for independent peer review of
this Caucus' activities and its work product.
With so many ongoing processes related to salmon recovery,
one might wonder why this particular process would raise so
much concern. It has become clear from conversations with
Federal Caucus staff that the 4-H Paper is synonymous with the
terms of ``conceptual recovery plan'' and the ``Federal
consensus.'' It isn't surprising that these terms like a
``conceptual recovery plan'' or developing a ``Federal
consensus'' on salmon recovery would create angst among the
States, the tribes, and the interest groups, and other people
of the Pacific Northwest when they believe they are being
excluded from a process that will lay the groundwork for the
1999 decision. This decision will have profound impacts on the
entire Pacific Northwest. It is no wonder that the people, the
interest groups, and the Governments are so vigilant about
their collective future.
That is why today I am submitting a Freedom of Information
Act request to all of the Federal agencies involved in the so-
called Federal Caucus. There is no doubt that any product
resulting from salmon recovery deliberations is going to be
contentious, but the Federal Government is setting itself up
for failure if the process is not carried out in an open and
transparent manner. This is not intended to be a punitive
action or a tactic to slow the process. In fact, the purpose of
these FOIA requests is quite the contrary. I am confident that
by opening up the process now and letting in the light of day
on these very important efforts, further delays are going to be
averted as we move closer to a decision.
Our citizenry is politically astute and active. The people
of the Pacific Northwest want to save the salmon but they will
not tolerate being brushed aside as issues of this magnitude
are decided. Any salmon recovery plan is only going to be as
successful as the amount of public understanding and support
that it enjoys. I look forward to hearing how the agencies plan
to inform the citizenry of their activities and how they plan
to explore the alternatives with the public. I am also
interested in hearing from the stakeholders in the region and
their suggestions about how to best proceed.
With that, we will now proceed with our first witness. As I
indicated, our first witness is Governor Dirk Kempthorne. Dirk,
I already called you Senator earlier today when I was referring
to you because I have become so accustomed to that. We
certainly welcome you back here to the Senate and back here to
this committee. We would like to ask you to keep your testimony
as close as you can to 5 minutes. We welcome you here Governor
Dirk Kempthorne and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE,
GOVERNOR, STATE OF IDAHO
Governor Kempthorne. Chairman Crapo, thank you very much,
and thank you for the invitation to speak before this
committee. As you noted, I at one time had the honor of being
the chairman of this subcommittee. I have great memories of the
friendships I had with those members that served on the
subcommittee as well as the staff that support this
subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say with all sincerity how proud I
am that you are the Chairman. You are doing a tremendous job.
You serve not only Idaho well, but the entire Nation in this
current leadership capacity. I commend you for that.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Governor Kempthorne. I can affirm that this subcommittee
confronts some of the toughest issues in the Senate, and the
matters before you greatly impact my home State of Idaho and
the other States that make up the Pacific Northwest region of
our country.
By definition, all of those States are an integral partner
in resolving many of the tough fish recovery issues presently
being grappled with by the Federal agencies, as you have noted,
Mr. Chairman. The States have their role to play in this
process, and as I have visited with the other Governors in the
Northwest, we are all in agreement that we must work together
on salmon recovery.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act consultation
process has been ongoing, and soon the work of the Federal
resource agencies will be compiled into what is being referred
to as the 1999 Decision--the document which will set forth
proposed alternatives in dealing with the fish issues in the
Columbia River Basin System.
As could be expected, the States have long been preparing
for this process.
The Multi-Species Framework, funded by the Bonneville Power
Administration, has been working diligently to develop and
analyze alternatives from both a biological and human effects
perspective. That process is expected to be completed by this
fall.
Recently, under the able leadership of Governor Kitzhaber
in Oregon, the Columbia River Basin Forum was formed to provide
an appropriate setting for the States, the affected Indian
tribes, and the Federal agencies to fully discuss the key
issues facing them under the Endangered Species Act. I am
pleased that Idaho is participating in the Forum, and I look
forward to dedicating the necessary resources to help this
process succeed.
Notwithstanding the many dollars, the human resources, the
effort dedicated to these existing processes, it has come to my
attention that the Federal agencies playing a key role in the
1999 Decision have formed what has become known as the Federal
Caucus, an interagency working group with a most ambitious
agenda.
Headed up by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Caucus is staffed with senior officials from such agencies as
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency,
as well as other key Federal agencies. To its credit, the
Caucus has amassed the right people at the right time to begin
working on the 1999 Decision.
I am not concerned that the Federal Caucus is moving ahead
and getting its work done on the 1999 Decision. Instead, what
troubles me about the Federal Caucus is that its work is being
done behind closed doors.
In a recent letter I wrote to Secretary of Interior Bruce
Babbitt and Commerce Secretary William Daley, I made it clear
that the States impacted by the 1999 Decision have assumed from
the start that they would be treated as partners by the Federal
Government as it attempts to forge a solution to the problem of
sustainable salmon and steelhead recovery in the Northwest.
Additionally, I am uncertain that the agencies making up
the Federal Caucus are using the most recent research data to
make their scientific assumptions. There have been no requests
to the State of Idaho by the agencies of the Federal Caucus to
submit any of our data or analysis on these issues.
I am not asking that the States intrude upon the
deliberations and otherwise impede the progress of the work
being performed by the Federal agencies responsible for the
1999 Decision. What I am asking is for the States to be given a
seat at the table and the opportunity to be fully involved in
the process sooner rather than later.
Let me reference a diagram of all the different agencies
that are working on various aspects of salmon recovery. Mr.
Chairman, that indicates all of the different agencies. Now
there is a new player, and it is called the Federal Caucus.
[The referenced chart follows:]
I hear Federal officials say that the States hold the key
to the ultimate solution. Well, curiously, Mr. Chairman, their
new approach totally leaves the States out of the picture.
So the question is, when do the States get their legitimate
role acknowledged, and when do we become an integral part of
this process?
If it is not until after a decision is reached by the
Federal agencies, then what role does that leave for the
States?
We have assumed that the States, the tribes, the Federal
Government were all working together on a Multi-Species
Framework process which will help the region come to a common
resolution on salmon recovery, only to discover in a February
1999 memo that the Federal Caucus intends to develop its own 4-
H process without any input by the States or the tribes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the entire text of my
opening statement be made part of the record. I would also ask
that comments that I made to the Northwest Power Planning
Council April 7, 1999, be made part of this record as well.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by simply saying, and
reiterating, time and time again, I have had high ranking
Federal officials make it very clear that the States hold the
key and that it must be a regional approach. The Governors are
ready to work in a regional approach, in a bipartisan approach.
Yet this latest effort by the Federal Caucus does not include
the States. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it will
lead to the solution that we're after.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, there is the challenge. I applaud
your efforts, as evidenced by this hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kempthorne and
accompanying material follow:]
Statement of Governor Dirk Kempthorne, State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be
back with you today. I have many fond memories of the friendships we
established and the work that we accomplished together.
This is the subcommittee I once chaired. I can tell you in all
sincerity that this subcommittee is in good hands. I'm proud of my good
friend, Mike Crapo. I'm proud to call you Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
and all the members of this subcommittee for the work you do.
I can affirm that this subcommittee confronts some of the toughest
issues in the Senate, and the matters before you greatly impact my home
State and the other States that make up the Pacific Northwest region of
our country.
By definition, all of those States are an integral partner in
resolving many of the tough fish recovery issues presently being
grappled with by the Federal agencies. The States have their role to
play in this process, and as I've visited with the other Governors in
the Northwest, we are all in agreement that we must all work together
on salmon recovery.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act consultation process has
been ongoing, and soon, the work of the Federal resource agencies will
be compiled into what is being referred to as the `` 1999 Decision''--
the document which will set forth proposed alternatives in dealing with
the fish issues in the Columbia River Basin System.
As could be expected, the States have long been preparing for this
process.
The Multi-Species Framework, funded by the Bonneville Power
Administration, has been working diligently to develop and analyze
alternatives from both a biological and human effects perspective. That
process is expected to be completed by this fall.
Recently, under the able leadership of Governor Kitzhaber in
Oregon, the Columbia River Basin Forum was formed to provide an
appropriate setting for the States, the affected Indian tribes and the
Federal agencies to fully discuss the key issues facing them under the
Federal Endangered Species Act. I am pleased that Idaho is
participating in the Forum and I look forward to dedicating the
necessary resources to help this process succeed.
Notwithstanding the many dollars, human resources and effort
dedicated to these existing processes, it has come to my attention that
the Federal agencies playing a key role in the 1999 Decision have
formed what has become known as the ``Federal Caucus,'' an inter-agency
working group with a most ambitious agenda.
Headed up by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Caucus is
staffed with senior officials from such agencies as the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other
key Federal agencies. To its credit, the Caucus has amassed the right
people at the right time to begin working on the 1999 Decision.
I am not concerned that the Federal Caucus is moving ahead and
getting its work done on the 1999 Decision. Instead, what troubles me
about the Federal Caucus is that its work is being done behind closed
doors.
In a recent letter I wrote to Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt
and Commerce Secretary William Daley, I made it clear that the States
impacted by the 1999 Decision have assumed from the start that they
would be treated as partners by the Federal Government as it attempts
to forge a solution to the problem of sustainable salmon and steelhead
recovery in the Northwest.
Additionally, I am uncertain that the agencies making up the
Federal Caucus are using the most recent research data to make their
scientific assumptions. There have been no requests to the State of
Idaho by the agencies of the Federal Caucus to submit any of our data
or analysis on these issues.
I am not asking that the States intrude upon the deliberations and
otherwise impede the progress of the work being performed by the
Federal agencies responsible for the 1999 Decision.
What I am asking for is the States to be given a seat at the table
and the opportunity to be fully involved in the process sooner rather
than later.
Let me reference a diagram of all the different agencies that are
working on various aspects of salmon recovery. Now, there's a new
player, and it's called the Federal Caucus.
I repeatedly hear Federal officials say that the States hold the
key to the ultimate solution. Curiously, their new approach totally
leaves the States out of it.
So, the question is, when do the States get their legitimate role
acknowledged, and when do we become an integral part of this process?
If it is not until after a decision is reached by the Federal
agencies, then what role does that leave for the States?
We have assumed that the States, the tribes and the Federal
Government were all working together on a Multi-Species Framework
process which will help the region come to a common resolution on
salmon recovery, only to discover in a February, 1999 memo that the
Federal Caucus intends to develop its own ``4-H'' process without any
input by the States or the tribes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the States and tribes
have already invested a great deal of time and money into this process.
The Bonneville Power Administration funds the regional fish recovery
program, including the Multi-Species Framework, to the tune of $215
million per year, paid for by the ratepayers and the taxpayers.
Despite that significant investment, we have no assurance that the
Federal Caucus intends to utilize the resources of the Multi-Species
Framework as it conducts its work on the 1999 decision.
In fact, we may not know what the intention is of the Federal
Caucus until after their work product is completed.
In addition to finding out about the progress of the work of the
Caucus, we are interested in knowing about the fundamental assumptions
for the decisions being made. The following example illustrates my
point.
In Idaho, fish hatcheries are playing an important role in the
current recovery effort. Will the Caucus develop alternatives based
upon recoverable wild fish, or will they take into consideration the
many hatchery stocks?
Such an assumption is critical because the continued viability of
Idaho's fish hatcheries will be at stake. This will be an important
component of the 1999 Decision, and we should have input on the
direction being considered by the Federal Caucus.
Mr. Chairman and members, my concern is not that the Federal
agencies are working hard on the 1999 Decision.
Rather, I am fearful that given the ambitious goals and objectives
of the Caucus, the time and opportunity for meaningful State
participation in the process is rapidly waning.
When I left the U.S. Senate to become Governor of Idaho, I wanted
to continue to be an active participant in forging regional consensus
solutions for fish recovery.
I strongly believe that active State participation is critical to
ensuring the success of the 1999 Decision.
Instead, the response from the Federal Government has been just the
opposite. I reiterate that I have no desire to invade or impede the
progress being made by this interagency working group as they ``get
their house in order.''
But the work of the Federal Government, especially on a decision
that will have broad environmental and economic impact on the Pacific
Northwest, must be conducted in the spirit of partnership and
cooperation. To date, this has not occurred, but I look forward to
joining in this process to ensure its ultimate success.
Let me give you a specific example. While this new Federal
bureaucracy builds, so does the Caspian tern population on Rice
Island--a federally, man-made island in the estuary of the Columbia
River that serves as a temporary home for these birds while they feast
on millions of endangered salmon smelt.
After meeting with a number of Federal agencies last year, they
agreed to move forward on an environmental assessment. Then, almost as
soon as the EA was completed, we saw the Federal agencies accusing each
other of inaction or impeding another agency's ability to get work
completed.
The States are just a pawn in this ``hide the ball'' scheme which
results in no solutions and continual surprises for the Federal
agencies and the States.
There is, however, no easy solution to the issue of salmon
recovery. If it were easy, it would have been done already. I believe
we will only be successful in our efforts to recover fish when we work
together to address the causes of mortality.
Mr. Chairman, when the Northwest Power Planning Council recently
met in Boise, I discussed a number of broader recovery issues,
including predation, harvest, and the elements of river governance. I
would ask that my statement to the Council be included as part of the
record.
With that, I thank you for the invitation to be with you again and
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
______
Comments of Governor Dirk Kempthorne to the Northwest Power Planning
Council, Boise, Idaho, April 7, 1999
To all members of the Northwest Power Planning Council, welcome to
Idaho. This is the first opportunity that I've had to meet with you
since assuming this new role.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, we're very proud to have you as
the chairman, and with your colleague, Mike Field, again, Idaho is
well-served.
I look forward to working with this Council and I applaud you for
many of the things you have done. I believe this Council is going to
continue to be extremely important to the well-being of the region.
I'd like to acknowledge a few of the items that the Council has
certainly been working on recently.
The Council's work in the Lemhi and Clearwater Basins of Idaho, as
well as other watersheds in the region, is another example of
cooperative regional efforts.
The irrigation consolidations, fish screening, and habitat
improvement are very important recovery actions that the Council has
contributed to over the years.
The Artificial Production Review process has raised concerns for
some, but it is another good example of a regional effort to use our
resources wisely and efficiently.
It is important that the region decide how to best use artificial
production in the Columbia River Basin for sustainable populations of
fish that supports harvest and other resources.
Having served as a United States Senator, I can tell you that
solutions to many of the issues you deal with as a Council will not be
solved by the U.S. Congress.
States united will provide solutions for education, welfare,
corrections, and many natural resource issues including endangered and
threatened species.
Let me briefly give you my perspective on ESA. We had the ball on
the one-yard line as time ran out on the clock. We were very close to
getting real reforms to the ESA that would have helped States and
regions deal with this critical issue.
I doubt we will see reforms anytime soon because of the
Presidential election and the time needed to reassemble the supportive
coalitions.
So, we will need to press ahead as States and regions helping the
Federal agencies implement recovery efforts and finding solutions for
our threatened and endangered species.
One of the solutions holding promise for dealing with threatened
and endangered species is the Multi-species Framework.
The Framework project is an obvious outgrowth of the Northwest
Power Act's mandate to enhance, protect, and mitigate fish and wildlife
species in the Basin. Council members and Council staff are integrally
involved in the Framework, and are helping make it a success.
The Northwest received national attention last month when the
Federal Government listed several more species of salmon and steelhead
as threatened or endangered. As a result, practically every major
watershed in the region is now affected.
We have listings on top of listings, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service is on the verge of becoming a one-stop shopping
center for all the region's regulatory needs.
Two weeks ago, NMFS and other Federal agencies announced that it
wouldn't be wise to deal with each listed species on an individual
basis, so they announced their intention to adopt a multi-species
approach.
They realized that with so many listed species in the Basin, they
would not have the luxury of focusing on each individual species
without regard to impacts on other species. Whether they got the idea
from the regions Framework process or developed it on their own, I am
glad they finally decided to embrace the multi-species recovery
approach.
We must work with the Federal Government, but we can't wait for
them to come up with solutions. I think the region has to lead to
recovery.
You have heard this time and time again, but I want to say it again
with more emphasis, this is a critical time for the region to work
together and speak with one voice.
We have to decide as a region what our recovery strategy will be.
If we don't have the strength and leadership to do it as a region,
Congress will do it for us.
I am committed to working cooperatively with the other Northwest
Governors Governor Racicot, Governor Kitzhaber, and Governor Locke--to
chart that strategy.
The region has been well-served by these three gentlemen along with
my predecessor Governor Batt.
I look forward to continuing this spirit of cooperation and
teamwork.
It is important that we put more emphasis on recovery actions that
will give some immediate relief to the listed fish stocks.
One example of that is mitigating the impacts of the terns.
The Caspian tern colony on man-made Rice Island are responsible for
harvesting upwards of 25 percent of the 100 million smolts that
migrated past Rice Island in 1998.
I have been to Rice Island. I went last Fall and saw where crews
had combed the sandy beaches of that island in search of pit tags from
the smolt we send down to the estuary.
I met with the Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS to address the
impacts the terns were having on Idaho's migrating smolt.
They committed to work on a research project that would discourage
the terns from nesting on Rice Island by encouraging them to use East
Sand Island which lies 15 river miles downstream in an area with a more
diverse prey base.
There is no sense in spending 200 million dollars in producing
smolts that have survived to the estuary and then allowing terns
exclusive feeding rights.
It is my understanding the Corps and cooperating agencies will
finish work for the first year's test on the islands this weekend.
I commend the Council for participating in this effort.
But it just continues to amaze me that we make the effort to
provide better passage for the smolt only to have up to 25 percent of
them consumed as they prepare to enter the ocean.
We must be more aggressive in fixing this problem. We don't need
more tests. We don't need more data. We need to get these fish to the
ocean, and stop worrying about the social engineering of a non-
threatened bird that is consuming our endangered fish.
How serious are we about saving fish when we are reluctant to move
a non-threatened bird that are setting up shop on a government-made
island and eating our smolt?
Let me remind you, nothing being suggested here would endanger the
terns. All we are doing is relocating the birds.
Continuing research on ocean conditions is as important as any of
the current programs being funded in the region. There are many
unknowns, however, without research we may learn we're spending
billions to restore fish in the region only to find they are
disappearing in the ocean.
When you ask NMFS what is happening in the ocean, they acknowledge
quite candidly that no on knows. It's is a ``black box.''
At some point, we must have some serious discussions about some of
the harvest issues--in the Columbia River Basin and with Canada and
Alaska.
Once these magnificent fish have survived 2 to 3 years in the
ocean, they face another predator.
Without getting into all the specifics, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act has been highly successful. Just this decade, we have
seen a sixfold increase in the number of West Coast Sea Lions.
When the Marine Mammal Protection Act was put in place, there were
an estimated 7,000 sea lions. Today, there are close to 170,000.
Is that having an effect on our adult salmon attempting to return
to Idaho to spawn? Absolutely.
One out of every four adult salmon observed at Lower Granite Dam
shows signs of interaction with marine mammals.
This is yet another clear example of a single species management
plan that doesn't take into account the fact that the mammals are
preying on an endangered species.
Isn't it time that we address the problems created by an increase
in the mammals through a multi-species approach?
How serious are we about saving these endangered fish when we allow
non-threatened birds and non-threatened mammals to consume endangered
fish at both ends of the process?
One solution that came from this region was the concept of advanced
hydro turbines.
As we look at some of the longer-term actions and research, it is
critical we use our resources wisely and efficiently. One of those
actions I am particularly interested in is the minimum gap runner
technology.
As you know, when the blades of a traditional Kaplan turbine are
slanted at certain angles, gaps are formed that can kill or injure
fish.
The minimum gap runner is a runner designed to eliminate the gaps
in the turbine blades that fish enter when the turbine is operating.
With existing turbine conditions, estimates of fish survival
through the turbines vary from 89 to 94 percent.
With the installation of minimum gap runners, engineers are
predicting up to a 4 percent improvement. Even a 4 percent improvement
increases the survival range up to 93 to 98 percent. Any improvement
multiplied by the number of turbines in the Columbia-Snake dams would
be significant.
As we rehabilitate these turbines, it makes good sense that we
replace the old runners with minimum gap runners that improve fish
passage and in some instances also increase power generation.
As a United States Senator, I was successful in getting Congress to
put funds into this promising research for each of the last 4 years,
and last year, the Clinton Administration stepped up to the plate and
included those in its budget request to Congress.
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
recommended in their November 1997 report to accelerate R&D to develop
advanced hydro turbines and low-head run-of-river turbines. They
recommend $4M in fiscal year 1999, $8M in fiscal year 2000, $11M in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $12M in fiscal year 2003.
I would be pleased to join the other Governors of this region and
send a joint letter to our congressional delegations stating our
endorsement and any enhancement of this recommendation.
At a Senate hearing I conducted on this technology, the Corps of
Engineers affirmed to me they will install minimum gap runners in two
of the units at Bonneville Dam this year.
After the migration season this year in late summer or early fall
one of the units will be tested for effects on fish. Hatchery fish will
be used in the test.
We await the results, but we may have the opportunity to improve
fish passage and increase generation capacity at the same time.
From your meeting with Dick Fisher of Voith Hydro you heard the
same information that I did. The numbers are there. More fish will
survive, and we need to be aggressive as a region in replacing these
antiquated turbines.
I applaud the Council's effort to help move this program forward.
Now, having said all this, I, like Governor Locke of Washington,
don't see a scenario anytime soon where the breaching of dams will
occur.
I know you are aware of Karl Dreher's presentation from the Idaho
Department of Water Resources that says flow augmentation is not
feasible.
Until the region stops focusing on breaching and flow augmentation
as the keys to salmon recovery, I don't see serious efforts being made
to help the fish right now.
The region must set the standard for helping the fish right now
looking at harvest, predation and a multi-species management approach.
There is no easy solution to the issue of salmon recovery. If it
were easy, it would have been done already. I believe there are areas
where we can make improvements that will have immediate benefits for
the fish.
We will only be successful in our efforts to recover fish when we
work TOGETHER to address the causes of mortality in all four phases of
their life cycle.
Again, welcome to Idaho. I want you to know that I intend to be an
advocate for the Northwest Power Planning Council and with the other
Governors of the Northwest, we will use the Council to further the
region's efforts.
I look forward to working with you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Governor Kempthorne.
We expect that Senator Wyden from Oregon and Senator Reid
from Nevada will be here. We also may see some of the other
Senators from the Pacific Northwest show up. Senator Craig is
at a very important caucus right now and will try to break away
to come here. But until they get here, I get to ask questions
first, and maybe I will take up their time too.
Governor, the Federal Government in its various forms, the
various agencies that we've dealt with in the Pacific Northwest
have frequently stated in forums like this that they have to
move forward, they cannot change the way they are going about
business due to the statutory impositions that they face and
the deadlines that they face under statute.
I see Senator Craig has just entered the room. Senator,
please feel free to join us. In fact, if you would like, you
can make a brief opening statement. We're just barely getting
into this.
Senator Craig. I don't have any statement at this time.
Senator Crapo. Governor, as I indicated, the Federal
agencies have frequently stated in forums such as this that
they can't change the way they're going about business due to
statutory deadlines and parameters that they've got to live
within. How would you suggest that the Federal Caucus best
include the States at the roundtable while maintaining their
momentum and moving toward the 1999 Decision?
Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, the vehicle is there.
Again, I think we are all dedicated to the recovery of the
salmon. There is nothing--nothing--in statute that would
preclude a Federal agency from sitting down and having a good,
meaningful discussion with the States. In fact, in all of the
things that this subcommittee is going to be dealing with, Mr.
Chairman, I believe that when we saw progress it is when we
undertook a collaborative process; when you had the
Administration working with Congress, when it was bipartisan,
and when all of the affected and impacted parties had a place
at the table. That is what I'm asking for. Again, that is what
I think is a formula that leads us to results and to stop the
rhetoric.
Senator Crapo. Later in the hearing today, we expect to
hear from several other interest groups. We have already heard
from various tribes and other interest groups, people
representing many different aspects of the issues that we face
in the Pacific Northwest who also seek a seat at the table, so
to speak.
In terms of designing what I call a collaborative process
to build a consensus that we can move forward on in the
Northwest, when you look at that process, I have no
disagreement with you the States should be at the table and in
a very big way. What about these other interest groups, the
tribes and the other interest groups, some of which are not
governmental entities, do you have an opinion or a position on
how we should approach their participation in the process?
Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, I think you see probably
listed up there most of the groups that are impacted. Again, if
you're impacted, you probably have part of the solution. Again,
I think there are certainly ways. We have demonstrated there
are models that can be utilized. However, when I hear that a
chairman of a subcommittee is filing a Freedom of Information
Act request to find out what a Federal Caucus is doing, Federal
agencies, about one of the most critical issues of the
Northwest--salmon recovery--it suggests to me that we don't
have the correct process in place. Here you have a group of
Governors--now, today, I can only represent myself--but I do
know the other Governors, in a collaborative effort would love
to work with the respective Federal agencies, with other
impacted parties. As we reference Multi-Species Framework, the
Columbia River Basin Forum, we are together at a variety of
times. So let's just have the Federal Government, especially
the Federal Caucus, open the doors. I am representing the State
of Idaho. We have the resources. We are going to be impacted by
this. We want to see the recovery of the salmon. So, again, I
am saying to those in the Federal Government that say that we
play a critical role and that we are going to be a partner,
this partner is ready.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I will just ask one more question
at this time, and then I am going to turn it over to Senator
Craig for any statement that he would like to make as well as
questions.
You have indicated that you don't really object to the
Federal agencies communicating with each other and seeking to
fulfill their statutory obligations as they are obligated to
move forward, and as we hope that they will properly move
forward, under the statutory requirements that we live with. I
don't have that concern either.
The concern that I see is that when we hear and understand
that what is happening in the Caucus is the development of a
conceptual framework for a recovery plan or that type of
activity, it raises a significant level of concern. It seems to
be putting the cart before the horse in the sense that if a
conceptual recovery plan is identified or created and then the
States are brought to the table, it seems to me that the
opportunity of the States, or the tribes, or other interest
groups is focused only into what has already been predetermined
and limits the outcome. To me, that is the concern I am
addressing.
I wanted to just get your approach to that. I know you
indicated that you were not suggesting that we eliminate the
ability of the agencies to communicate. What is it that you see
as the problem and what is it that you see as the solution. I
know I'm asking for a little bit of repetition there.
Governor Kempthorne. Sure. Chairman Crapo, a slogan that I
like is ``The best surprise is no surprise.'' So, with all of
the good faith effort by the States of this region that want to
bring about the recovery of salmon, if they are not allowed to
be part of what ultimately is a recommendation and we are
simply to see the final product when it is finally completed
without any input, I think we have little recourse but to be
surprised by that. Then what posture are we to take? That as
sovereign States, well, that's fine, we would have liked to
have seen it done otherwise.
But now that the Federal Government has come up with this
process of their own without input by the States that are
comprising the United States of America, I think it does not
bode well and it does not spell out a formula for partnership
and for results. We are after results.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, offer a quick example. You
referenced the point about Federal agencies communicating
together. For the past few years I have been working on the
Caspian tern issue. Here we have Rice Island which has been
created by the Corps of Engineers by dredging the Columbia so
that it is navigable. We have seen created, therefore, a man-
made island, 230 acres. Caspian tern is now located there. It
has been established that upwards of 25 million smolt are being
consumed by the Caspian tern before these smolt can get to the
ocean.
Sitting in your chair, Mr. Chairman, I had received
assurances from the Federal agencies that they would
communicate, they would collaborate, they would work to get the
solutions, and that for this season they would get a Caspian
tern population down to 500 to 1,000 nesting pair. Well, the
working group now affirms that there is anywhere from 6,500 to
9,000 nesting pair on Rice Island.
Again, I have sat down with these different agencies and
they have told me, well, it is not our agency that objects to
relocating the birds, it is another agency. Then that agency
says, no, we really can't do it without the agreement and sign-
off by this other Federal agency, and it goes on and on.
So the fact of the matter is, on a federally-made island
you now have a non-threatened, a non-endangered bird consuming
an endangered species, a smolt. It just stands to reason, if
you can get 25 million smolt to the ocean, you probably have a
little bit better chance of getting them back. It is an
absolute failure thus far on this Caspian tern. So, how serious
is the Federal Government? That's the question I would pose.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Craig, please make any statement and ask any
questions you may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you
for holding this hearing. Let me especially thank you for your
bold stroke in using FOIA to get at what is a problem for us in
the Pacific Northwest delegations. I won't speak for Senator
Wyden since he is here, but I can I think speak for those
Senators, Democrat and Republican, in the Pacific Northwest and
the affected States who have stood with relative unity on this
issue. We must be kept aware at all times of the information
and the activity concerning this matter.
As you know, Senator Crapo, when Senator Smith hosted our
hearing at Hood River, this became an issue. I was frankly
frustrated by the cavalier attitude on the part of the Will
Stelle: ``Gee, we're not keeping any secrets, we're just
meeting in private.'' Well, they don't have that right, bluntly
put. That doesn't mean that individual A doesn't have a right
to communicate with individual B. When they sit down and
discuss frameworks, however, we want to be aware of how that
process works. I am not now suggesting, as I was so abrupt as
to suggest at that time, that I wanted to intervene, but I
certainly want to know.
So now we will know, thanks to your stroke. If it doesn't
work, well, I see George Frampton sitting behind the Governor.
George, we will call upon you to do what is responsible for you
to do at the Council of Environmental Quality. I see Donna Darm
and Donna has been before our committee. We have had these
rounds before. I hope it has now registered on you that this is
one of the most important issues that the Pacific Northwest
States and delegations involved will face in many years.
Decisions and plans that will be made could well affect
thousands and thousands of people along with the species in
question. We simply must know.
It is always a pleasure to have Governor Kempthorne back
and to work with him in the role that he has taken on this very
important issue. The Governor works very closely with the Idaho
congressional delegation so that we all are together on it.
I have no questions, but I wanted to stop by and applaud
you for what you are doing. I just came from Interior
Appropriations markup and I visited with Senator Gorton about
this. If this isn't straightforward in coming, we will just tag
it on to your money. Get the message. We will be kept informed.
We will be a part of the loop. We will not expect surprises.
That's the way the public process works. I hope that message is
made clear today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Wyden, Governor Kempthorne has just finished his
testimony and we're at questions. Please make any opening
statement and then feel free to ask questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that. We have an Energy and Natural Resources
hearing in a little bit on a Douglas County matter for Oregon,
so, like many of our colleagues, I'm trying to be in two
places.
I just want to begin by welcoming our good friend Governor
Kempthorne. I still wish that we could have gone forward with
all of your exceptionally important efforts on the Endangered
Species Act in the last Congress. As you know, it tracks very
well with the Oregon coastal salmon plan and really takes us
where I think we ought to be for the 21st century with respect
to endangered species; and that is, encouraging these home-
grown, locally-driven kinds of approaches. So, we miss you,
Dirk, and know that it will always be good to have your
counsel.
Governor Kempthorne. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Incidentally, I was in Boise recently with
Senator Crapo and we are working hard to try to bring back
Amtrak coverage from Portland to Boise. We're encouraged and so
we're going to try to rope you into that exercise before long
as well.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment with respect
to the principal topic we are delving into today, and that is
the question of dams and salmon restoration. I see Mr. Frampton
is here. Please accept my apologies as well for not being able
to stay.
One of the principal concerns I have this afternoon, based
on discussions that I have had with folks in the Pacific
Northwest, is the concern that decisionmaking authority is
going to be able to stay in the region. I think there is great
concern in the Northwest now with all of the various Federal
agencies trying to look at ways to evaluate the science and
take steps, which are completely appropriate, that this in some
way is going to lead to the region losing the authority that is
so important to actually make decision that best address the
needs of the Pacific Northwest.
As a corollary of that, I want to impress upon Mr. Frampton
the need to have all the stakeholders at the table. I know that
there are a number of groups that have contacted us, wheat
growers and others, that are very concerned that they won't
have an opportunity for input. Exports, of course, are an
enormous part of the Northwest economy; they create jobs all
the way through the Pacific Northwest. I may possibly be able
to get back before the end of Mr. Frampton's testimony, but
know that those are two concerns raised in the last few weeks
that have been important in the region. To ensure that as what
has become known as the Federal Caucus, the various agencies
that are having discussions about salmon and dams, goes
forward, we do want to keep the authority within the region and
we do want to make sure that principal stakeholders like wheat
growers are not left behind.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Possibly I may get
back. To Governor Kempthorne, I look forward to working with
him. My apologies to Mr. Frampton for having to take off so
quickly. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Did you have any questions for
the Governor?
Senator Wyden. No questions.
Senator Crapo. Governor Kempthorne, before we release you,
I actually had two other questions but one of them was on the
Caspian terns and you answered that as a part of the last
question. So, really, the last question that I have relates to
the Multi-Species Framework. I don't know if we signalled to
you that we were going to ask this question, so you may not be
prepared to respond, but if you can, I would appreciate your
doing so.
The question I have is whether you are satisfied with the
work product of the Multi-Species Framework that is underway
right now, and whether you believe Idaho's issues are being
adequately addressed in that whole part of the process.
Governor Kempthorne. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to
respond to that. I want to add how much I appreciated Senator
Craig's and Senator Wyden's comments. As a member of this
subcommittee and the full committee, Senator Wyden was someone
that we were able to find good partnership with. So as we look
at Federal-State relationships, again, you have a good group of
colleagues who can forge some results.
With regard to the Multi-Species Framework, it is multi-
faceted. I think you have very talented individuals working on
it. The idea is for them to identify the science, the
alternatives, the options, and to just lay it before
decisionmakers. I have met with leadership of the Multi-Species
process and they have said that their intent is to come up with
the data so that decisionmakers can then pick and choose what
they think makes the most sense for the region in an approach
to recover the salmon in balance with the economy of the
region. They are moving ahead. I am anxious to see the array of
options and information that they provide. But it is in place.
I am supportive of that particular aspect, but it is not
comprised of the decisionmakers. It is to lay before those who
can make decisions what they think should be the ultimate
solution. To me, it provides a great deal of information that
in that collaborative process I've referenced we would have
information that would be of benefit. So, I'm supportive of it
at this point.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Governor Kempthorne, we also are
supportive of your efforts in making sure that the voice of not
only the State of Idaho, but the other States in the region be
heard in this issue as well as others. Your advocacy for
States' rights is one which earned you the support of the
people of Idaho as Governor and which will serve them well.
I should tell you before we conclude that there are a
number of issues where we would like to see States have a
louder voice in managing issues. I note that you have been
working very hard in the Superfund arena to try to get Idaho's
voice better heard as we face some significant questions in the
Silver Valley. Hopefully, possibly we will be able to get this
committee or some part of the Environmental and Public Works
Committee to come to Idaho and hold some hearings or take at
least some action out there to assist you in those efforts as
well.
So, unless you have anything further to say, we will
conclude your part of the testimony. Thank you once again very
much for coming.
Governor Kempthorne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again,
thank you for your leadership. We would welcome any committee
activity in the State of Idaho and we would be honored to have
you there. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo. Our second panel today will be--actually,
I'm looking at my agenda here, we didn't even count you as a
panel, Governor Kempthorne, we counted you as a special
witness. So our first panel is the Honorable George Frampton,
the Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, who
will be accompanied by Ms. Donna Darm, with the National Marine
Fisheries Services; Mr. Witt Anderson, of the Army Corps of
Engineers; and Mr. Stephen Wright, of the Bonneville Power
Administration. We welcome all of you.
Mr. Frampton, please feel free to begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE FRAMPTON, ACTING CHAIR, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Frampton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
appear before you today to testify about the Federal role in
salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin. Since the
role of CEQ in this effort is largely a strategic one, it is
one of making sure that Federal agencies have the resources
they need, are working together, the process is working right.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent this panel of
regional agencies who are part of the operational effort. Donna
Darm is the Assistant Regional Administrator for NMFS in the
Northwest, Witt Anderson, is a Fisheries Biologist with the
Corps of Engineers in Portland, and Steve Wright is the Vice
President, Corporate for Bonneville Power Administration.
We all know that a lot of salmon runs in the Northwest are
in deep trouble. Some are near extinction. I think we're all
beginning to realize that this is also a bigger issue than just
salmon. Salmon are a keystone species, they serve as indicators
of the health of watersheds and clean water. So, although the
Endangered Species Act may have pointed the way here in a
sense, this is not just an Endangered Species Act issue, and it
is not even a salmon issue. It is really, in part, about the
vision that people in the region have about their future.
We are committed to salmon restoration and convinced that
the restoration of salmon runs, the continued promotion of a
vibrant economy in the region, and a fine quality of life are
three things that go together; indeed, they probably have to go
together. You're not going to have one of those without the
other two.
What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is just make a few
points that I hope will be responsive to the concerns that you
have expressed, and Governor Kempthorne expressed, Senator
Craig expressed this morning about the process and the Federal
Caucus. I hope to clear up those concerns because I think to
some extent they are based on a misconception of what it is
that the Federal agencies are doing.
There are four points I guess I want to make in my oral
testimony, Mr. Chairman.
First, if you recall, going back to 1993 when the Clinton
Administration came in, we were faced with a very highly
balkanized debate in the Pacific Northwest over forest
management. That was in some part because the Federal agencies
were really working at cross-purposes. They were self-defeating
and there was no discipline for the Federal family to work
together. So making sure that the Federal agencies work
together has really been a hallmark of this Administration. It
was through interagency partnership that we were able to forge
a Northwest forest plan that protected forests and provided for
a sustainable timber economy.
It is our commitment to try to make sure that that
interagency partnership is there on salmon recovery efforts.
That is the reason why the Federal Caucus exists. The Federal
Caucus really represents our commitment to making sure that the
Federal family works together. It's very simple.
Second, the so-called 1999 Decision, which is a decision
about the future configuration, operations of the Columbia
River Power System and its impact on endangered salmon runs, is
necessarily focused on hydropower operations to a large extent.
Those good decisions can't be made unless they are seen in the
context of all of the four H's--hydropower impacts, habitat
protection, hatchery policy and operations, and harvest
regimes.
So the 4-H Paper is not so much a piece of paper, as a
process or a place where the Federal agencies can talk to each
other about this larger context in which the 1999 Decision is
going to have to be made. It is a place where strategies and
ideas can be shared among the Federal agencies. It is not a
decisionmaking process. I see that Governor Kempthorne took his
chart down. I'm sorry he did because I thought it was Frampton
Exhibit No. 1.
Senator Crapo. We will have it put back up for you.
Mr. Frampton. Thank you very much. When you look at that,
if there isn't one place there where the Federal agencies can
talk to each other, we're in trouble. That's really what the 4-
H Paper is about.
Third, even though Federal agencies ultimately have
statutory responsibilities and operational responsibilities and
have to make decisions, I think this Administration has made
the point that we believe the best solution--the best strategy
for salmon restoration and a healthy economy--has got to be
developed in the region. This is not a platitude, it is not a
cover for the Feds to go behind doors and make the decisions.
Nor is it an abdication of responsibilities which the Federal
agencies ultimately have to make decisions that fit into a
strategy. It is a recognition that contributions to salmon
recovery, if we're to have a successful strategy, have to come
from States and local governments and from private interests.
Habitat protection on private lands, for example, is going to
be a terribly important element of any successful regional
program.
So we need the active engagement and the leadership of
State governments and local governments and private sector at
all levels. Without strong regional public support for such a
strategy to create that kind of engagement, we're not going to
be able to meet this challenge. So this is a real commitment.
Finally, in order to forge a successful regional strategy,
it is clear that we need a robust, open, public debate in the
region about the real choices here--the real costs, the real
alternatives, the real benefits, the risks of various
alternatives. We need a debate without presuppositions, nothing
off the table, an honest evaluation of what the science can
tell us and what it can't tell us, an honest evaluation of the
costs and who are going to bear the costs of various
alternatives, and how we cushion those costs or develop
transition programs where they are required. The Administration
is committed and I am committed to such a debate.
So the Federal Caucus process and the 4-H Paper process is
not the Federal agencies going behind closed doors with their
cards held close to their chests and making up their minds. It
is a place where the Federal agencies together can develop some
ideas and then take those ideas and put them into various
public processes. For example, the 4-H Paper process is now in
the course of being married with the Multi-Species Framework,
the Power Planning Council's Multi-Species Framework. They
share common subcommittees.
The point of the 4-H Paper process is to get ideas into the
Multi-Species Framework context and into the Columbia River
Basin Forum process so that all stakeholders can start
considering those ideas, developing strategies, and ultimately,
in a broader way, getting those proposed strategies and
alternatives out for public debate. After all, part of what the
Federal agencies have to do, and they are on a very tight time
schedule, is to develop these draft documents like the Snake
River Feasibility Study, EIS, and scientific assessments and
put them out there for public review and for public debate.
That is what we're about.
I am very happy to have heard Governor Kempthorne say good
things about the Multi-Species Framework process. I think that
is a process in which all of the stakeholders are at the table.
That is the process in which initially, as I think he pointed
out, Mr. Chairman, the alternatives are going to be developed,
but the decisions are not even going to be made then. The
decisions are going to be made only after a full public debate.
What we have to do is make sure that that debate is made with
the best information, and that it is an honest debate that
looks at what the information can help tell us and what it
can't.
That's my closing thought I guess is that ultimately there
aren't going to be any silver bullets here. There aren't going
to be any easy choices. Some very difficult choices are going
to have to be made. No easy decisions. I don't think that
science is going to dictate one decision or another, and I
doubt that the economics is going to dictate one decision or
another.
Ultimately, we are going to be making some policy choices
about the future of the region and those decisions ideally need
to be made in the region with strong public support from the
region, based on a full understanding of what the real choices
are and what our vision is of the future. We're committed to
that process.
As I listened to you and the Governor, I understood
perfectly well your nervousness about the Feds getting together
at the last minute in a closed room someplace and making up the
playbook. Well, we may be drawing up some ideas about the
playbook, but the game is going to be out on the field.
Everybody is going to be involved, and we're committed to that
kind of a process.
Thank you very much for having us here today and giving us
an opportunity to respond to these concerns. I hope that what
you will hear from me and others today will make a lot of
people easier about what is going on, the process. The Federal
Government and the Administration commit to an open process, to
State involvement, and to a very robust public debate before
any decisions are made. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate also your appearance here and
those who have come with you. I am sure we will have an
opportunity to hear from them as questions may elicit responses
in which they can assist in providing information.
As a prelude to my questions, let me just elaborate a
little further on some of the concerns. I have heard it said,
and I've heard this attributed to a number of different people,
so I don't know who really said it, but I've heard it said that
some prominent political figure has stated ``If you give me
control of the process, I can control the outcome.'' I believe
that. That is one of the reasons we have such a big concern.
I want you to give us more detail about what actually is
going on inside the Federal Caucus and what is happening in the
meetings. As you talked about it today, you shared the fact
that alternatives were being developed, that it was a location
where strategies and ideas are being shared. You did indicate
that it is not a decisionmaking process, but, frankly, I find
it very hard to understand because just controlling the process
can help generate the result. You talked about developing
alternatives or sharing strategies and that they will be the
framework. Developing the framework for recovery is a term that
has been used, not by you today but by others. When those kinds
of terms are used, they evoke a question as to whether a
framework going to be established. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Frampton. Mr. Chairman, my sense is that the real
definition of the range of alternatives is going to occur in
the Northwest Power Planning Council's Multi-Species Framework.
That's the forum in which we are trying to develop the
alternatives that will be the basis of public debate. I think
the Federal Caucus right now is really involved in feeding
ideas into the Multi-Species Framework.
I think I would like to ask Donna Darm to talk a little bit
more in detail about what is happening in the 4-H Paper process
and the relationship between that process and the Multi-Species
Framework.
Senator Crapo. Please.
Ms. Darm. Thank you. I think that Mr. Frampton actually
captured it perfectly in saying that the Framework is the place
where alternatives are being developed. Keep in mind, when we
first started the Federal Caucus in February, it wasn't
entirely clear where the Framework would end up. The schedule
that they were on had them developing alternatives at the
beginning of the summer, which would have then fed well into a
draft 4-H Paper and Biological Assessments for Section 7
consultations in the fall.
As it has turned out, our two processes have merged and, in
effect, as Mr. Frampton said, the workgroups are one and the
same essentially for investigation of all of the different H's
in the development of the alternatives. Frankly, the way things
have turned out, it is primarily Council staff and Federal
agency staff who are staffing those workgroups and doing most
of the work.
So there is heavy participation and interaction between the
Council and the Federal agencies on the development of those
alternatives.
Senator Crapo. Well, what is it exactly that is happening
in the Federal Caucus meetings that is not happening in the
other meetings which have more public involvement?
Ms. Darm. You will have a chance to see some of that when
you get the documents, which, by the way, we would be happy to
provide without a FOIA request.
Senator Crapo. Good.
Ms. Darm. And you will be bored. There's a lot of
discussion about things like what we do after the consultation,
do we need to have NEPA documentation, do we need to have
records of decision, that sort of thing. There is a lot of
discussion about the Clean Water Act and the role of the Clean
Water Act in the decision. There is quite a bit of discussion
about the alternatives as they are being developed.
The other big area that we have focused on and that I think
we all should be focused on, Mr. Frampton alluded to this, is
the development of the science. The National Marine Fisheries
Service, in particular, views it as one of our jobs to provide
for the public debate the best scientific information available
on the status of salmon stocks and on the likely impacts of any
of the management alternatives on those stocks. So we spent a
lot of time in the Caucus workgroup focusing on what sort of
analyses are available, how we can get all of the data together
necessary, how we can collaborate with the Framework analytical
process.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, if I could make an observation about
some of the practicalities of this.
Senator Crapo. Yes. Go ahead.
Mr. Frampton. A little bit perhaps before I came to CEQ, my
sense is that the formation of the Federal Caucus and the 4-H
Paper helped to accelerate the Multi-Species Framework process
and get it moving forward. Now we are finding these things are
coming together.
But if you go back 5 or 6 months, if you were a Federal
official with responsibility for participating in decisions a
year down the road or 15 months down the road and you were
totally dependent for the development of alternatives outside
of a Federal process doesn't go forward or gets delayed. Then
you come to a position in late 1999 as a Federal official in
which you are faced with a statutory deadline or a court-
ordered deadline and you have not met your statutory
responsibilities to prepare for that decision.
That would be a terrible situation for the Federal agencies
to be in. They need to start a process, if only as a backup,
that guarantees that they are at least diligently moving
forward to exercise responsibilities that are going to be
triggered a year from now. I think that originally may have
played some part in the formation of the Federal Caucus.
Now the more open, more inclusive, more public process is
working and the two are dovetailing.
Mr. Wright. Mr. Chairman, could I add to Mr. Frampton's
answer?
Senator Crapo. Yes, please.
Mr. Wright. One other piece. I think it has been our
perspective for some time now that it is not important just to
develop a plan, but to develop a plan that will be implemented.
The only way you are going to get to implementation is if you
have some form of regional consensus. For that reason, the
States have had difficulty providing adequate funding for the
Multi-Species Framework process and have come to us and asked
us for funding support. In fact, Bonneville has I believe
provided the majority of the funding for the Multi-Species
Framework process, excuse me, Bonneville and the Corps.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. We'll give the Corps its credit.
Mr. Wright. For just that reason, our belief is the only
way this can work is if we bring the region along with us as we
go along here.
Senator Crapo. There are a number of questions I want to
ask. Let me clear up one little issue first. Donna, you
indicated that you would provide the documentation we're asking
for without the FOIA request. I appreciate that. But it was my
understanding that the Federal agencies had been very closed-
mouthed and unresponsive to requests from people or groups in
the region as to what was going on or documentation of the
meetings. Is that not the case? Have you always been willing to
provide this information?
Ms. Darm. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any requests we
have received for documents that we have produced. We have,
however, been participating with the Framework over the last
several months, going out to the public and explaining to
people what the Federal Caucus is and what its role is in the
development of alternatives and so forth. So we have been quite
open about what the Caucus is doing.
Senator Crapo. Well, there seems to be a pretty strong
feeling in the region that nobody knows what is going on in
these meetings and nobody can really ascertain what it is. But
maybe this hearing will help clear up a lot of that.
Let me go back to another line of questioning to try to
further plumb the issue of why the concern, and whether the
concern is something that we should be worried about or it is
just a misunderstanding.
Mr. Frampton, would you agree that it is the Federal
agencies under Federal law that will ultimately make the
decision?
Mr. Frampton. Well, the Federal agencies have operational
and statutory responsibilities that together will result in a
decision or series of decisions, that's correct.
Senator Crapo. That's my understanding. That is the answer
I've received to that question when I've asked it at various
hearings, although different agencies think that it is other
agencies who have more power than they do. We are all,
including the Federal agency officials, trying to figure out
who really is going to make the decision. Maybe it will be
Congress that ultimately makes the decision. I don't know. But
the point is that a Federal decisionmaking forum or a Federal
agency, either alone or in collaboration in conjunction with
other Federal agencies, will make the decision, as the statutes
require.
With that understanding in place, there is a big concern
about what we are achieving when we seek and ask for public
input. Let me explain what I'm getting at here. In one context,
one of the concerns that I have about our Federal environmental
decisionmaking process which is required by Federal law today
is that the public input or the public participation is by
statute and by regulation far too often designed to create
conflict or to create battlegrounds on which conflict can take
place, rather than to build consensus and further
collaboration. What I am saying is, far too often Federal
agencies, as they operate under their statutory mandates, go
through a process of decisionmaking; they make a decision. Then
they put out a document in which public comment is invited.
They get comments from many people and the various interest
groups, and then if a public hearing is held, it becomes a
place where competing interest groups, in my opinion, stage
their arguments for the hearing officer to try to make sure
their arguments are in the record, and often do so hoping that
the television cameras and radio stations and newspapers are
there to report the eloquence of their arguments to the public.
But it doesn't really amount to sitting around a table with the
various interest groups and building a collaborative process
that should yield some type of effort to find common ground and
build consensus.
Whether you agree with me or not on that, that is a
perspective that I think is very widely shared in the Pacific
Northwest, if not across the country, about the process that we
go through. It generates, frankly, quite a bit of cynicism;
cynicism because the perception is there that the decision has
already been made, cynicism that the public opportunity for
input is more of a show than a reality, or that it does not
have an impact on the ultimate outcome, and cynicism because of
the complicated process and the time delays that occur.
With that kind of perspective, to then find out that the
Federal agencies that are making the decision are meeting
because they have an impending statutory deadline coming and
they've got to get ready for it and they've got to be prepared
to make decisions, and they are putting together--Donna, did
you say the best way to describe it is that they were
developing the framework? What was your wording of what the
best description of the Federal Caucus was?
Ms. Darm. Actually, I think it was Mr. Frampton who
mentioned it.
Mr. Frampton. I think it was feeding ideas into the Multi-
Species Framework process, is the way I think I characterized
it.
Senator Crapo. Is that how you would characterize it?
Ms. Darm. I think that's a good characterization. I
generally think of it as the context for the hydropower
decision.
Senator Crapo. Okay. The agencies are putting together the
ideas or putting together the framework. A lot of words that
have been used here today. In that context, if that is all set
up and then the public is invited in to participate, then
hasn't a significant part of the decision in fact been made?
Mr. Frampton. Well, Senator, if that's the way this were
going to go, we would lose probably the key opportunity for
building public support for a workable strategy in the region.
Senator Crapo. I agree.
Mr. Frampton. Which is why we don't want to go that way. I
think you made a very accurate, very general observation about
the way most of our Federal environmental laws were structured
from the early 1970's, because they are principally designed
around Federal decisionmaking.
What we have found in the last few years is that on these
big, very difficult regional ecosystem issues, the traditional
Federal decisionmaking process, irrespective of public input
and NEPA process, is not sufficient to build a regional
consensus and develop a successful regional strategy. I've
worked on a number of these projects, from the Everglades,
which is a State-Federal-local-landowner project, to California
water issues.
Each of these requires really an architect-designed,
collaborative process. Federal statute didn't create the Multi-
Species Framework process. We had to develop it to fit the need
for State-private-Federal-tribal collaboration. But we need
that process and we need to use that process if we're going to
develop a successful strategy.
Because we want to have a successful strategy, we are going
to be committed to the process in which the decisions are
really shaped is inclusive and beyond that, a public process.
Senator Crapo. Let me try an analogy. That's always
dangerous because I'm not sure I can create an analogy that
will work here exactly, so please cut me a little slack on
this. To make the point that I'm making, let's analogize it
with sports. If there is a group that gets together and decides
the rules of the game that will be played. They get to decide,
for example, that one of the alternatives will be that the ball
is shaped a certain way. If they say that the field will be 100
yards long, it will have to be played outdoors as opposed to
indoors on hardwood floors, with goal posts instead of hoops.
No one will be surprised that the game will be football rather
than a basketball. You change the game by the rules that you
decide to apply.
When they invite the participants to play, they can't
choose between basketball or football. That has been decided.
They might decide what plays to run on the football field, but
they won't decide what plays to run on the basketball court.
Maybe basketball would have been the better game.
The point I am making is that the ability to control the
development of alternatives, the ability to control the rules
of the game can dramatically change the direction of the
decisionmaking and the participation of those who are
ultimately invited to participate. In that context, it seems to
me that there is a very real concern.
I am saying that you haven't calmed my concern that there
is a real problem here in the decisionmaking. I believe is
going on among the Federal agencies without the participation
of the States and the tribes and the people in the region. What
I am also saying is I don't think we are really yet getting to
that collaborative process. Maybe we are moving to one at the
tail-end. Like I say, we can collaborate about what plays to
run, but it is going to be in a football game, not in a
basketball game. That is the concern I have.
Do you not feel that the decisionmaking that the Federal
Caucus is engaged in is going to have a dramatic impact on the
alternatives and the outcomes that are possible or achievable
in the process?
Ms. Darm. Can I jump in on that?
Senator Crapo. Certainly. Go ahead.
Ms. Darm. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The alternatives are being
developed in the framework and they are being developed in
collaboration with everyone who participates. Not all parties
participate particularly at the technical level very fully. But
it is open to everyone to participate. The alternatives are
being vetted throughout the region right now. It is not like
there is a huge range of alternatives that are possible. Our
decision space isn't that large.
I think maybe what you were driving at earlier, Mr.
Chairman, is once these alternatives are all on the table and
we know what they are, and the analyses are all on the table
and we know which of the alternatives might have a chance of
getting you where you want to go, what happens then. When we
get to that point, will the Federal agencies have already come
to some conclusion about which is the preferred alternative
among those alternatives?
To be quite frank about it, we have been grappling with
that decision ourselves. In fact, earlier this week a couple of
representatives from the Federal agencies met with
representatives from the Power Planning Council to talk about
whether it would be possible to have a joint public process
once everything is on the table. Once all the alternatives are
on the table, the analyses are on the table, is there some way
for the Power Planning Council, the Forum, the Federal
agencies, all of the governmental parties in the region to get
together on a joint process so we aren't all off going in some
different direction, asking the public to participate in some
different process, and essentially competing with one another.
Senator Crapo. Let me ask you, once the alternatives are on
the table and the science has been done and we're at the point
of making the decision, what reason is there at that point for
a Federal Caucus to operate unless it is to make decisions? If
so, how can they involve the community in the making of that
decision?
Ms. Darm. The idea at that point would not be for the
Federal Caucus to be the governmental entity that interfaces
with the public. It still will be necessary for the Federal
agencies to do their homework, to have a place where they can
communicate with one another. Whether it is called the Caucus,
or a regular meeting of the Federal agencies, or something
else, we will still need to talk with one another. But in terms
of the public process, in terms of getting input on the
alternatives that have been developed, in terms of getting
review of the analyses, the scientific, economic, social
analyses that have been done, in terms of testing those
analyses, that sort of thing, that needs to be a public
process.
Senator Crapo. Are you telling me then, I can have your
assurance that the Federal Caucus is not developing
alternatives?
Ms. Darm. The Federal Caucus is working--may I elaborate a
little bit?
Senator Crapo. Sure.
Ms. Darm. The way that the Framework process started was a
little bit different from the direction we might have gone.
They started by soliciting from the region visions of the
river--what do you want the river to look like in 20 years.
They talked about river as ecosystem, river as machine, those
kinds of things. From that process they have distilled seven
alternatives essentially.
Senator Crapo. Who distilled those alternatives, the
Caucus?
Ms. Darm. The Framework. No, no, this is all the Framework
process.
Senator Crapo. All right.
Ms. Darm. The Federal agencies have a narrower mandate.
We're looking at listed species. The Framework is looking at
the entire ecosystem and all species. The Caucus is looking at
listed aquatic species. So we have come at it from a little bit
different angle, which is people talk about the four-H's--
habitat, harvest, hatcheries, hydropower. For each of the four
H's there is a limited number of alternatives that you can
pursue. You can mix and match those alternatives in different
ways. For example, if you don't want to take out dams, is there
something you can do in harvest or in habitat to get an
increase in survival to make up for the fact that you haven't
taken out dams, just to pick an example. You can mix and match
those scenarios for each of the H's in different ways than the
Framework has developed them.
So our approach, at least through the analytical part of
what we're doing, is to try and test the sensitivity of the
listed species to various mixes and matches of scenarios. We
are doing that through a scientific process. The Framework
scientific group is involved in that. We're trading
information, we're using the same databases.
Senator Crapo. If I understand you right, it is a much
broader analysis because you're not looking at only listed
species. You're looking at an ecosystem approach.
Ms. Darm. The Framework is looking at the entire ecosystem.
Senator Crapo. So then back to my question. I would
interpret your answer to mean that in the context of the
question of whether the Caucus is developing alternatives,
maybe alternatives isn't the right word because that's in the
context of species recovery, but you are developing I'll use
the word approaches to ecosystem management. Is that a fair
statement?
Ms. Darm. That isn't quite how I would put it. I would say
we are working with the Framework to develop the range of
possible actions for each H.
Senator Crapo. For each agency?
Ms. Darm. Each H--I'm sorry, it's regional jargon--
hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and habitat. The Framework has
already decided how it will mix and match those H's in its
alternatives. Other combinations are possible and we would like
to at least analytically explore the other combinations.
Senator Crapo. So you're looking at the alternatives that
the Framework has generated with the various mixes and matches
of the H's.
Ms. Darm. Exactly.
Senator Crapo. But you are also looking at other mixes and
matches of the H's?
Ms. Darm. Yes. Right. Same choices, different mixes and
matches.
Senator Crapo. Now that tells me that you are looking at
other alternatives.
Ms. Darm. We're looking at different mixes of the same
alternatives.
Senator Crapo. All right.
Ms. Darm. Alternative scenarios. It gets confusing what you
call them. I am not trying to dodge.
Senator Crapo. I understand. I don't think you're trying to
play word games with me.
Ms. Darm. No. I'm trying to be clear.
Senator Crapo. But you are looking at different mixes of
the alternatives than the Framework is?
Ms. Darm. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Different mixes of the H's than the
alternatives that the Framework is using?
Ms. Darm. That's the idea.
Senator Crapo. Let's assume that one of those different
mixes looks pretty good but it is not something that the
Framework generated. At that point, nobody in the Pacific
Northwest but the Caucus knows that or has been working on that
or has had input on that. That, to me, would seem to be a
procedural problem, because maybe there is a real serious
defect that the Governor of the State of Idaho could have
pointed out had he been able to be there to participate in the
evaluation of this different mix of the H's.
Ms. Darm. I had mentioned this was an analytical exercise.
For the purpose of analysis, we are mixing and matching these
H's in different ways. In mid-August we will have completed at
least the preliminary exercise of doing that and we will be
hosting a regional workshop to display and discuss those mixes
and matches of alternative scenarios. In addition, all of the
technical staff from the Federal agencies, as I mentioned
before, are participating heavily in the Framework workgroups.
So there is plenty of opportunity. If we learn something
surprising that comes out of this mixing and matching
analytical exercise, there is plenty of opportunity to share it
and discuss it regionally.
Senator Crapo. Let me take this a step further. Analysis is
being undertaken of different mixes and matches which can go
beyond the mixes and matches that have already been done by the
Framework. I would assume that the analysis is going to
generate among the Federal Caucus members some mixes and
matches that they think aren't very workable, some that they
think are workable but have problems, and some that they think
are more workable than others. Which begins to be the
development of a preference. Will the Federal Caucus determine
a preferred mix and match or a preferred alternative?
Ms. Darm. This was a discussion that we had in our
conversation with the Power Planning Council earlier this week
because the Power Planning Council, in their rulemaking
process, will take some subset of the alternatives being looked
at in the Framework and proceed to their rulemaking. So we were
talking to the Council about what mechanism would make the most
sense to narrow the range of alternatives that we should look
at.
From our perspective, because we're implementing the
Endangered Species Act, we will be most interested in those
alternatives that meet the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act. The Council has somewhat broader mandates and so
we will be looking at other factors as well.
Senator Crapo. When you say ``we,'' it is the Federal
Caucus that you're talking about.
Ms. Darm. I can't remember how I used it in that sentence.
It was either the Federal Caucus or the Federal Caucus and the
Power Planning Council.
Senator Crapo. But in any event, it is not the Framework.
Ms. Darm. The Framework was set up to generate
alternatives. It is not a decisionmaking exercise.
Senator Crapo. Okay. But, see, what I'm hearing you say is
that the alternatives have now been generated by the Framework
and the Caucus is taking it to the next step, which is to
analyze the alternatives as well as to mix and match beyond
those alternatives with the various options, and then to
determine which of those best satisfy the needs of the
Endangered Species Act, which, as I understand you, the next
step would be those then would be the preferred approaches--
maybe that's not the legal terminology--but those will be the
approaches that gain the support of the participants in the
Federal Caucus as the decision is being made. Have I
incorrectly stated the process that you're following?
Ms. Darm. No.
Senator Crapo. You don't see a problem there? Because, as I
see it, that's a problem. The problem is that the Federal
Caucus is now evaluating the various four H's, including, but
not limited to, the mixes that have been put together by the
Framework, going beyond that and looking at other mixes and
matches, concluding which of those have the most merit, and
then proceeding toward a decision on those. Certainly, at some
point I assume you're going to open it up for public comment
and public participation. But I'm getting more and more
concerned rather than less and less concerned about the process
you're describing.
Mr. Frampton. Senator, it seems to me, and I'm listening to
some of this detail as a little bit of an outsider as well, but
my understanding is that the purpose of this sharpening process
is to make sure that the alternatives that go out to the public
for broad public debate through the Framework process are the
best possible set of alternatives. The proof of the pudding
here is whether ideas, better ideas, the best ideas, set of
ideas, a broad set of ideas, alternatives, well-documented in
the sense of some understanding of the costs and risks of the
various alternatives that go out through the Multi-Species
process to the public for public debate, if that is a good set
of alternatives, that is a broad set of alternatives. That will
be the test of this. That is not the endpoint; that is the
beginning of public debate.
Senator Crapo. Oh, I don't think it's the beginning. I
think it is pretty well down the road toward the end. That's
maybe where we are having our difference of opinion. Let me put
it this way. As you determine the best options to put forward
for the public participation, options will be rejected and
options will be accepted, and the preferred options will be
those put forward to the public. But the public has not had the
opportunity, the Governor of Idaho, the Governors of the
States, the tribes, the other people, have not had an
opportunity to participate in a collaborative process to help
generate the selection of those options to then put forward.
Mr. Frampton. That is what the Multi-Species Framework
accomplishes. To the extent that that is the lead process, that
is the process that is going to put forth the alternatives, and
that process increasingly becomes completely married to what
the Federal Caucus is doing, then you have a completely
transparent alternatives process.
Senator Crapo. I have two comments on that though. First,
if the Caucus takes the work product of the Multi-Species
Forum----
Ms. Darm. Framework.
Senator Crapo. Framework. I'll remember that. The Multi-
Species Framework and then makes its own independent judgment
on which of those alternatives are best, then for some reason
you don't have the collaborative process deciding which of the
alternatives are best any more, you have got a filter now--the
Federal Caucus filtering which ones will go forward. That's my
first concern.
The second concern is that, if I understand the testimony
correctly here today, the Federal Caucus will go further than
that and they will actually evaluate other alternatives, other
mixes that were not put forward by the Framework process and
either reject or accept some of those and put those forward.
The question I come down to again is, why does it take a
closed process in which Federal agencies meet to do that
filtering? Why can't we have an open, collaborative process to
identify the alternatives? If we need more analysis and more
mixes and matches, why can't we have a collaborative, open
process? Because I'm very concerned, notwithstanding all of the
expertise and wisdom that may reside in the agencies, there is
not going to be agreement at the public level, at the level of
the States, the tribes, and the community if they believe that
the options they are allowed to have public input on at some
point have been generated by a closed process.
Ms. Darm. I understand your point. I see what you are
saying and it makes sense. I am trying to think how to
accommodate those concerns in the timeframe that is available
and given some of the constraints we have. I mentioned before
that the Federal agencies have, as you said, statutory
obligations. Options that lead to extinction of species, it is
going to be hard for us to put those forward as real options.
What I am concerned about is the Federal agencies, or any
process if it is a joint process, which I think would be the
ideal, putting out options that ultimately don't have a chance
of passing the final test.
Senator Crapo. I'm not so concerned as to which options
come out. I would assume that the collaborative process that I
am advocating would also reject options that do not protect the
species because I truly believe that there are very few, if
any, groups that would support the elimination of a species if
there are options for protection of the species that will work.
What I am talking about more so is the process by which
those options are created, evaluated, and then filtered and
then put forward to the public. It gets back to my stated
concern earlier. If the process that we are involved in
ultimately is one in which a Federal agency, or in this case
Caucus, makes a decision, or maybe several possible decisions,
but filters the decision and then puts forward a selected set
of alternatives, then the public is invited to give comment or
to participate in evaluating those alternatives, then the very
purpose of the collaboration, the very option of collaboration
has been severely limited. Therefore, the opportunity for
developing public support for whatever decision is ultimately
put forward is significantly limited. That is the concern I
have.
Mr. Frampton. That concern is based on an assumption that
the Federal Caucus controls the Multi-Species Framework.
Senator Crapo. Well, it is based on the assumption that
the----
Mr. Frampton. If the Multi-Species Framework process only
takes what it gets from the Federal Caucus as opposed to--if
the Federal Caucus comes up with a slightly revised version or
better idea, feeds it into the Multi-Species Framework process,
which then takes it, for whatever it's worth, in the larger,
more open and public context--if the Multi-Species Framework of
the Power Planning Council stakeholder, public-driven process
were circumscribed by what the Federal agencies give it, then
it wouldn't be a very useful process even if the Federal Caucus
didn't exist if it only could take what the Federal agencies
told it to take and consider.
Senator Crapo. Let me ask a quick question here. Do the
Federal agencies have any statutory obligation to follow the
recommendations of the Multi-Species Framework?
Mr. Wright. To the extent that the Framework process
results in something that would be adopted by the Northwest
Power Planning Council, Bonneville at least is required to act
consistent with the actions that would come up from the
Council.
Could I add to that?
Senator Crapo. Sure.
Mr. Wright. I would like to add to some of the responses,
if I could, Mr. Chairman. A couple of thoughts. First of all,
this is an evolving process. As Ms. Darm described, we are
having discussions even this week about how to better involve
the region and the Framework process and others in this. I
think you're expressing a concern about how this process will
evolve, and I think those concerns can be taken into
consideration as we develop this process. Of course, we want to
because, in the end here, we need a plan that is not thrown out
and is rejected by the region out of hand. That doesn't serve
our interest, the region's interest, anyone's interest. So we
certainly want to accommodate the concerns of those in the
region.
But I do want to say that I've sat in hearings before and
talked with many folks in the region and the fundamental
criticism of the Federal agencies probably a year ago was that
you don't speak with one voice; that you come to us and we talk
to NMFS and they say one thing, we talk to Bonneville and they
say another thing. So in order to address that concern----
Senator Crapo. I share that concern, by the way.
Mr. Wright. Well, in order to address that concern, we do
have meetings where we get together and we seek to resolve our
disagreements so that we're not telling people different
things. In any process that evolves here, we would continue to
have discussions amongst the Federal agencies where we seek to
resolve our differences so that we're not sending different
signals.
Senator Crapo. I don't think anybody is saying that the
agencies shouldn't communicate, because, believe me, we don't
like those kind of charts any better than you don't like those
charts. Did I interrupt you? Did you want to say anything more?
Mr. Wright. Just to finish on that. So, we would continue
to have those kind of discussions. Our thinking at least has
been that we can have those kinds of discussions where we can
resolve our disagreements and at the same time work with the
Multi-Species Framework process, and that those come together
because we will be using the information that we get out of the
Multi-Species Framework process in terms of educating our own
discussions amongst ourselves about where we want to go.
So we've seen these as processes that to some extent are
parallel but also are integrated. You need to have, in fact,
both of those going at the same time.
Senator Crapo. I know that I've been kind of beating this
maybe to the point of futility, so I won't belabor this too
much longer. But I want to try to maybe just put it in a
different perspective. If there was an entity that you were
dealing with that was making an important decision about your
life, it was a group of different entities or people who were
involved who were making that decision, and they agreed that
they would allow for public comment and public input on the
decision they were going to make, but before they did so they
got together in a closed room and kind of decided what
approaches to the decision they thought were the workable ones
and what ones they didn't think were the workable ones and then
they came out and let the public give input on the ones that
they had chosen as the options they thought were the preferred
approaches, wouldn't you feel a little concerned? Wouldn't you
feel like maybe they left one in the room that they didn't
bring out on the table that would have been better for you?
Mr. Wright. Since you're looking at me, I'll be happy to
take that one.
Senator Crapo. Go ahead.
Mr. Wright. Certainly. Absolutely, no question about it.
That would be a concern. That's the problem that we've got.
When we seek to have discussions where we resolve disagreements
among ourselves so that we speak with one voice, the concern
is, so what's really going on inside that room?
Senator Crapo. Right.
Mr. Wright. Unfortunately, I think in order to address the
criticism of we need to speak together with one voice, there
will always be that concern about, so what did you really talk
about that you haven't told us about?
Senator Crapo. Exactly.
Mr. Wright. But the goal here is, again, we see the end
game, and the end game is we have to come up with a product
that the region finds acceptable. The only way you can do that
is by having an awful lot of discussion with folks. In our
discussions amongst ourselves, we're talking about what works
here for the region. I think the commitment that we can make to
you is that that is our goal. We want something that works for
the region.
Senator Crapo. I am just going to make a statement after
which I'll be glad to give you, Mr. Frampton, the last word to
respond. I believe that you've got to be very attuned to the
fact that when the people of the Pacific Northwest say they
want input, they're not saying that they want to have the
ability to comment on a selected set of alternatives. They are
saying they want to be a part of the decision. They want to
have their thoughts, their feelings, their economics, their
concern for the species and the ecosystem, and their approach
to solutions considered and they want to be a part of the
discussion. They don't just want to be able to submit comments
for a hearing record, whether it be a formal hearing or
submitting written testimony or written comments. They want to
be a part of the decision.
The reason for that is because there is a very healthy
distrust of the Federal agencies. I think there would be the
same distrust of the State agencies if they were making the
decision, or Congress, or whoever it is. There is a healthy
distrust of the decisionmakers, which is I think healthy. It is
important that there be a concern by the public in that regard.
I'll go back to something that you indicated at the beginning
of your testimony, Mr. Frampton, to kind of illustrate my point
here.
You indicated in your first point that we have a need for
the agencies to coordinate so we can get good public policy.
One of the examples that you used was achieving a sustainable
timber economy in terms of a timber plan. I'll tell you right
now, there is a very big disagreement in the Pacific Northwest
as to whether the Federal Government achieved anything close to
an acceptable Federal plan with regard to developing a
sustainable timber economy. Yet the Federal process that
yielded the current situation we have in the timber economy in
the Pacific Northwest probably dotted all the i's and crossed
all the t's and satisfied the requirement for public input. I
believe that there are probably those who participated in the
process who believe that they've found the right balance in
terms of protecting the forest ecosystems and creating a
sustainable timber harvest. But I don't think they did and I
think I'm in the vast majority in terms of the way the public
feels in the Pacific Northwest.
That's just one example of how there may be different
points of view as to whether the right result got achieved as a
result of the process that we followed. It is that that leads
to the healthy suspicion of whether a Federal process or any
process that does not involve a very open, collaborative system
is going to yield a decision that can be accepted. So that's
the concern that I raise.
If you would like to add anything further, Mr. Frampton,
please feel free to.
Mr. Frampton. Only, Senator, to agree with your stated goal
and to say that I think that is the Federal agencies'
aspiration also, to have meaningful regional participation in
the decisionmaking itself, not something that is mere window-
dressing. That is because, as a number of my colleagues have
said, to develop a successful regional plan to restore salmon,
we are going to have to have strong public support, and
participation is probably the best way to get that support.
In my reference to the Northwest forest plan, I was
referring really to Oregon and Washington, the west side plan.
I think there is very strong public support there for that
plan. I realize that east of the mountains we're still
struggling.
Senator Crapo. It's a different picture.
Mr. Frampton. If I could, I'm reminded that I forgot to ask
for the record that my written statement be included.
Senator Crapo. Oh, definitely. It will be.
Mr. Frampton. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. I forgot I have another question, so I am
going to go back and ask one more. One of the issues that has
been raised to me is whether the outcome of the Federal Caucus'
deliberations is going to be subject to scientific peer review.
From your discussion today, I assume that what you're
contemplating is that will happen but that it will happen in
some subsequent context. Could you, either Mr. Frampton or
Donna, could you respond to that?
Ms. Darm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would think that it is
fair to say we haven't entirely thought through this. The
scientific analysis that we'll be using to evaluate the
alternatives will be subjected to peer review. The final
decision in terms of what is in the Biological Opinion will be
subjected to scientific review as well. The timing of that most
likely will be once at least a preliminary decision has been
made. But I have to say we really haven't thought through all
of the steps that need to take place.
Senator Crapo. All right. Let me just say, as we conclude
with this panel, there are three or four things that I would
like to very heavily emphasize. First, you've already answered,
at least for NMFS you have, the FOIA request, and we'll get
that out today. I would ask that all of the agencies very
promptly and thoroughly respond. If there is any problem with
that, I would ask that the agencies get to me right away so we
can figure out what any problem may be.
Second, I strongly ask that the Federal Caucus stop
meetings that are held in private that do not involve the
States, the tribes, and the other participants so that we can
move toward a collaborative process. I think that's kind of
twofold. I'm not saying that the Federal agencies should not
have the opportunity to meet and discuss among each other and
try to get past some of the complications that are present in
the statutory systems within which we operate. But I am saying
that the evaluation of alternatives and the development of the
mixes and matches and so forth should happen in wide open
public view with full participation. I don't see any need for a
Federal Caucus there.
I think that part of that encouragement is that the Federal
agencies aggressively push for a meaningful collaborative
decisionmaking process as we try to achieve exactly what you've
described here. I have no problem with what you have described.
I just think it needs to be a collaborative process at a much
earlier stage; namely, from the outset.
Then, finally, with regard to independent scientific
review. I think that any outcomes of this process must be
independently reviewed in terms of an independent scientific
review.
Again, I appreciate your testimony here today. If you would
like to respond to any of those, I will give you the last word
right now before we finish.
Mr. Frampton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you all very much. This panel will be
excused.
Senator Crapo. We now go to Panel II. Mr. Robert C.
Lothrop, manager of policy development and litigation support
of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, from
Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Lothrop, we welcome you today. I am sorry we went on so
long but I wanted to get through some questions there with the
previous panel. Please proceed with your testimony. Again, I
ask you to try to watch the lights and we'll hope to keep the
hearing under a time control. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. LOTHROP, MANAGER, POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND
LITIGATION SUPPORT, COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH
COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Lothrop. Mr. Chairman, the Commission is honored by the
invitation to testify here today. Mr. Sampson sends his
apologies. He had a death in the family this week and so he was
unable to make the hearing today. So I am here in his place.
Senator Crapo. Please give him our condolences.
Mr. Lothrop. I will.
As you know, the Commission has four member tribes--Nez
Perce, Warm Springs, Yakama, and Umatilla tribes. They are all
located in the central Columbia River Basin, in the heart of
the salmon territory of the Columbia River Basin, and have
fished for thousands of years on the salmon returning to the
streams and their homelands.
As I sat and listened to the preceding panel, I heard a lot
that struck a chord with the Commission's policies and some new
information, and I'm still puzzling through some of that new
information. Our testimony to a certain extent addresses the
Federal Government's 4-H Paper. We now know that it is a 4-H
process. But it is difficult to comment on the substance of
that because we haven't seen it. It has been something that has
evolved behind closed doors to date. It appears that the doors
are opening, but it seems unsettled as to how they are opening.
As Ms. Darm said, it is at least our impression that the
information that is being prepared as part of this 4-H process
will, in their words, ``help answer whether sufficient survival
improvements can be achieved in the hydropower system to
contribute to the recovery of listed stocks, or whether large
survival improvements must be achieved in other sectors''--or
by the other H's.
The Commission and its member tribes have for a long time
recognized that one cannot assess or manage the various
mortality sectors, the four H's in isolation. In fact, the
Commission has firmly taken a position that all mortality
sectors must be addressed, and we have called this ``gravel-to-
gravel management.'' I learned that when I came to the
Commission in 1981.
In order to control the various sources of salmon mortality
and manage them to achieve rebuilding, it is necessary to
develop goals and objectives for the affected salmon stocks
that are consistent with law and based on sound biology. When
assembled into a comprehensive package, the measures adopted to
achieve these goals and objectives must add up to rebuilt
salmon runs.
Over 4 years ago, the Commission and its member tribes
published ``Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit'' (The Spirit of the
Salmon) plan. The plan encompasses the 4-H and includes
quantitative goals and objectives. It uses the best available
science and provides for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive
management. I believe it is still the only plan for Columbia
River Basin salmon restoration that quantitatively assesses the
measures recommended against the adopted goals and objectives
and addresses all four H's in a manner consistent with
applicable laws.
For decades, the primary approach to conserving Columbia
River Basin salmon has been to constrain harvest. The tribes
have not had a commercial fishery on spring chinook since 1977,
or summer chinook since 1964, or sockeye since 1988. Despite
such restrictions, the runs have continued to decline to where
they are now listed as either ``threatened'' or ``endangered.''
To prevent the extinction of Snake River spring/summer
chinook, it is essential to develop a plan that addresses all
four H's. Yet, given the Federal Government's current
restrictive policies, particularly with regard to artificial
propagation, rebuilding of summer and spring chinook will have
to be implemented solely by making significant changes in the
hydro system and habitat management policies.
A reasonable 4-H analysis must be firmly grounded in the
best available science. The policy of deference to agency
expertise does not always foster the use of best available
science. We call for independent scientific review. Any 4-H
analysis developed by the Federal Government should be subject
to thorough independent science review with the input of the
scientific views of the tribes and the States.
In closing, we believe that in order to meet its
obligations to protect and rebuild salmon, the Federal
Government must conduct an analysis of what must be done in
each of the four H's in order to meet reasonable goals and
objectives. These goals and objectives must be based on the
biological needs of salmon and the Federal Government's legal
obligations. These legal obligations include not only the ESA
and treaties with Indian tribes, but a variety of other Federal
laws. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Lothrop. First of all, I
would like to ask if you would be kind enough to send me a copy
of your ``Spirit of the Salmon'' document.
Mr. Lothrop. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I would like to go first into the
question of independent scientific review. You were here I
assume during the testimony of the Federal officials.
Mr. Lothrop. Yes.
Senator Crapo. From what you heard, do you believe that it
is necessary that whatever the Federal Caucus process generates
needs to be submitted to a rigorous independent scientific
review?
Mr. Lothrop. Yes. Absolutely. Governor Kempthorne's remarks
struck a chord with me, too. I think in the course of that
scientific review, the States should be able, as well as the
tribes and others, to offer their science to that independent
review so that all the data is on the table, all the cards are
on the table available for scrutiny by independent scientific
review.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. You also I'm sure were here when
we had the testimony from them with regard to the process they
are following and heard the colloquy that we had. Do you have a
concern about whether the tribes' and your interests are going
to have the opportunity to participate in the process fully
enough, given the understanding that you achieved from what you
heard today?
Mr. Lothrop. Yes. I think Steve Wright said that the
process is evolving. I think it is probably highly evolutionary
right at this point. That leaves us playing catch-up, quite
frankly. It appears that the National Marine Fisheries Service
staff and Northwest Power Planning Council staff are moving
forward with scientific analyses and have been working on the
alternatives. But as this picture comes into focus, for us, I'm
concerned that we get to the game on time, so to speak. There's
lots of talk about the playing field. The Federal Government
has a much bigger team than the tribes do and our ability to
interact timely with them is critical.
Senator Crapo. So, if I understand you right, you are
concerned that they are evaluating options that go beyond the
Multi-Species Framework process?
Mr. Lothrop. The tribes have some concerns with the
alternatives as they have been currently developed in the
Framework process. We are making our concerns known to the
Framework process. But, ultimately, I believe the tribes will
test the output of the Framework against ``Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-
Kish-Wit'' and whether it can achieve the goals and objectives
that are in the tribal plan.
I sensed a little maybe dichotomy between Governor
Kempthorne's perception of the Framework, which I think is
generally shared by the tribes. It is something to put the
information on the table. It is not the decisionmaking process.
The Federal Government was focusing more attention on the
Framework not as a decisionmaking process, but an input process
for decisionmaking. That is still a little bit unclear to me,
and I am concerned about that.
Senator Crapo. Did you have any concern about the testimony
that the Federal Caucus is putting together various mixes and
matches of the four H's and the science that we see on those
that go beyond what has been generated by the Framework?
Mr. Lothrop. The tribes are greatly concerned by finding
the appropriate mix of the four H's. Having the Federal
Government do that in isolation from the tribes is troubling.
Governor Kempthorne said he knows of no law, and I know of no
law, that prevents the Federal Government from sitting down
with the tribes and having an honest conversation about the
four H's and what is needed to recover salmon.
Senator Crapo. So what I hear you saying is that in this
extended analysis of the four H's and what mixes and matches
will work, you feel the tribes have something to add and you
would like to be at the table in a position to add it.
Mr. Lothrop. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you. I have no further
questions. We appreciate your testimony here with us today.
Mr. Lothrop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. We will now go to Panel III. Mr. Scott
Faber, the Director of Floodplains Programs, American Rivers,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mark Dunn, the Director of Government
Affairs of the J.R. Simplot Company, from Boise, Idaho; Mr.
Owen Squires, the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council, from
Lewiston, Idaho; Mr. Tim Stearns, the Policy Director of Save
Our Wild Salmon, from Seattle; and Mr. Lynn Ausman, a grower
from Waitsburg, Washington, on behalf of the Washington
Association of Wheat Growers, and Washington Barley Commission.
Gentlemen, we would like to ask you to proceed in that
order. This is the last panel. We are running a little later
here. I apologize I spent so much time on the other panel. But
I do want to hear your testimony. I would like to ask you to
try your best to keep your oral testimony to the 5 minutes, as
indicated by the lights, and then we will have a chance to have
some colloquy afterwards.
Mr. Faber?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, DIRECTOR, FLOODPLAINS PROGRAM,
AMERICAN RIVERS
Mr. Faber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Faber and I am
Director of Floodplain Programs for American Rivers. With me
today is Justin Hayes, Associate Director for Public Policy for
American Rivers.
Let me just start by saying that I am not an expert on
Snake River salmon but I may be of more value to this
particular hearing because I've spent the last 6 years working
with the Corps of Engineers to reform the management of the
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. I believe that many of the
lessons that we've learned on those rivers could be applied to
the Columbia and Snake.
Like you, 6 years ago we were very frustrated by the Corps'
decisionmaking process. Rather than working with stakeholder
groups and States to develop consensus, the Corps conducted
studies and developed management alternatives in isolation, all
of which probably sounds familiar to you now, and, after
spending years and millions of dollars, mechanically sought our
input through public hearings which provided wonderful theater
but really very little more.
But in the Midwest, we have pursued a different course that
you might consider in the Pacific Northwest. We persuaded the
Corps and other Federal agencies to develop a wide range of
science-based management alternatives and then simply ask the
public to decide the fate of our rivers. On the Upper
Mississippi River, for example, which stretches from St. Paul
to St. Louis, the Corps worked with American Rivers and Mark
2000, which represents waterway users and farmers, to create
the Upper Mississippi River Summit, which is an annual forum of
farmers, conservation groups, and waterway users, and asked
them to set management goals for the river together. Rather
than having States or the Corps run that process, I run that
process with my colleague who represents the navigation
industry.
On the Missouri River, the Corps' held public workshops on
a wide range of management alternatives that were selected in
part by the public, and then asked river stakeholders to seek
consensus on how the river's dams should be managed. In both
cases, the Corps provided sound science-based information and
then got out of the way and asked the public to make the tough
calls.
It has not been easy and it has not been perfect, but it
has dramatically changed river management on the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers for the better and, for the first time,
brought the rivers' economic and environmental interests
together.
This model could be applied to the Columbia and Snake. But
I believe there is one problem, which is that the Corps has not
developed all of the information that people need in order to
make a real choice, as Mr. Frampton said earlier. In
particular, the Corps has failed to really anticipate the
social and economic impacts of dam removal and propose measures
that could offset those impacts. Obviously as an outsider, it
is clear to me that the decision to remove Snake River dams is
a difficult decision and one that will not be made lightly. But
the Corps I think is not allowing you to make a real choice
because they have not developed plans and put those plans
before you that would mitigate the impacts of dam removal on
waterway users. There is, obviously, no question that removing
dams and doing nothing more would increase transportation
costs.
But I think we can do more. We will not be able to really
make that choice, that real choice until the Corps works with
stakeholder groups to develop a transportation mitigation
alternative or a series of potential alternatives. It is clear
to us that wheat farmers and other waterway users cannot
shoulder the burden, and should not shoulder the burden, of
salmon recovery alone.
That's why American Rivers recently hired Dr. Edward
Dickey, the former Assistant Secretary to the Army for Civil
Works under the Bush Administration and an expert on the
transport of commodities, like wheat, to develop a
transportation mitigation plan for the Snake. Although Dr.
Dickey's proposal is not yet complete, options might include
enhanced rail and road infrastructure, additional rail cars,
additional facilities to store or transfer grain, and other
investments designed to reduce transportation costs. Obviously,
there will be other beneficiaries, not just waterway users,
from these sorts of investments.
I am sure you know that building consensus about any river,
and particularly the Snake River, is not an easy task. Right
now, river interests are polarized, unwilling to consider
management alternatives that both save salmon and meet the
needs of waterway users. But I think this committee can help
partly by holding field hearings to encourage discussion about
transportation mitigation alternatives, by directing the Corps
to develop those mitigation alternatives as part of their DEIS,
and by directing the Corps to hold workshops designed to build
consensus between groups like American Rivers and the American
Farm Bureau Federation and others.
Of course, it is absolutely critical that the Corps use the
best science and economic information available. I think right
now there is some reason to be concerned that they are not
doing that. Let me just give you one quick example before I
finish up.
Recently, the Corps has conducted surveys in California to
gauge likely interest in Snake River fishing and recreation if
dams were removed. But the Corps ultimately refused to include
the potential benefits of recreation from those people
originating in California when they ultimately calculated the
economic benefits of dam removal. They also ignored the
relatively greater economic value of tourists who come from out
of State and assumed that local communities like Lewiston
wouldn't try to capture that new recreation by building boat
ramps and trails and other things designed to attract tourists
and other kinds of visitors.
Let me just finish by saying that 6 years ago no one
believed that Mississippi River stakeholders could put aside
our differences and develop a vision for the river. But we did
that and we're now working together, farmers and
environmentalists, to implement our vision. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Faber.
Mr. Dunn?
STATEMENT OF MARK DUNN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, J.R.
SIMPLOT COMPANY, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairman Crapo. My name is Mark Dunn.
I am Director of Governmental Affairs for the J.R. Simplot
Company. I am here primarily today, however, in my capacity as
Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee of the Northwest
Food Processors Association, which is a regional trade
association representing the $6 billion fruit and vegetable
processing industry in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic
that is of critical concern to our industry and, in fact, the
entire Pacific Northwest. Protecting and recovering endangered
salmon and maintaining the economic viability of the Northwest
are not mutually exclusive, in our opinion. In fact, the
recovery of salmon is dependent on industries such as food
processing.
Food processing is the largest manufacturing employer in
the State of Idaho and the second largest in the States of
Oregon and Washington. Our companies provide the tax revenues
and economic stability the region requires to focus on such an
enormous task. However, to be successful, the region must have
a common vision, a vision that is shared by all parties,
including the Federal agencies.
The Federal Caucus does not currently seem to be a part of
that shared vision for the Northwest. They continue to send
conflicting messages and have failed to coordinate with
critical regional initiatives. This uncertainty leads to
increased conflict in the region and to decreased effectiveness
of the regional process. As you can imagine, it is hard to
motivate business leaders to participate in a process that, in
the end, means nothing because NMFS or one of the other
agencies decides to go a different direction.
In my written testimony, I provided a couple of examples.
The first one was the 4-H Paper that I think you've discussed,
so I am going to skip over that, and just mention the second
example, which shows our concern for what appears to be
extremely serious coordination issues among the Federal
agencies.
The Bonneville Power Administration is currently in the
middle of a controversial rate case that will have long-term
impacts on the Pacific Northwest. In September 1998, after
nearly a year long public process, Vice President Gore
announced a set of ``Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles''
which would be incorporated into the new BPA rate case. These
principles were formally incorporated into BPA's Record of
Decision for the Power Subscription Strategy issued in December
1998.
Last month, we learned that three Federal bureaucrats from
NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and EPA, each of whom are members
of the Federal Caucus, had drafted a 17-page memo titled
``Preliminary Cost Estimates for Two Fish and Wildlife
Alternatives.'' This memo, which was circulated to key
Administration officials, attempts to make a case for further
rate increases for BPA from 10 to 22 percent in the 2002 to
2006 period. This is on top of the excessive reserves BPA
already plans to accumulate using its adopted ``Fish Funding
Principles.''
While the contents of this memo are of critical concern to
the region's industry, possibly the most shocking part of this
incident is that the memo was never shown to the officials at
the Bonneville Power Administration prior to being circulated
among top Administration officials.
If the Caucus cannot or will not coordinate such an
important initiative, how can we as economic stakeholders hope
to work with them? How can we trust their statements, and, even
more concerning, what is coming next?
The future of the Northwest will be shaped by the decisions
that are made within the next few years. With so much on the
line, we cannot afford to have Federal bureaucrats pursing
their personal agendas outside of the accountability of the
formal regional process.
Regional elected officials, leaders, and stakeholders are
forging a vision for the future of the Northwest. This
leadership I believe was clearly articulated by Governor
Kempthorne today. It is a vision that includes protecting and
restoring salmon runs while continuing to support the economic
engine that makes it all possible. It is a vision that will
focus on a balanced, cost effective, and scientifically sound
recovery measures.
The Federal agencies, obviously, will play a major role in
implementing and influencing these measures. However, it is not
appropriate for them to attempt to circumvent the will of the
region. I urge you, on behalf of all Northwest economic
interests, to continue to press the Federal agencies to
cooperate with the region and make sure they are supporting the
implementation of regionally-based solutions.
In closing, I would like to personally thank you, Senator
Crapo. This hearing is typical of your desire to reach out and
bring people together to solve problems. We want you to know
that we appreciate your leadership on this critical issue.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Squires?
STATEMENT OF OWEN SQUIRES, PULP AND PAPERWORKERS RESOURCE
COUNCIL, LEWISTON, IDAHO
Mr. Squires. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, my name is Owen Squires. I am the
Rocky Mountain Regional Director of the PPRC, the Pulp and
Paperworkers Resource Council. We are an organization of
300,000 members across the United States deeply committed to
the conservation of our natural resources. I will be glad to be
able to go home today and tell my fellow Union members and
brothers and sisters that an analytical mix and match of the
four H's by the Federal Government, and I can also tell the
1,200 shut down mills and 40,000 out of work timber workers,
that Mr. Frampton says it is all under control. It scares us to
death to tell you the truth.
As an example of the Federal family left alone to their own
devices, an example of that is what they have done with the
PATH process. They are using 20-year old data--it isn't current
data, it isn't new data, it isn't pit-tag data--to make a case
for dam breaching. In their ``spread the risk'' policy, the
National Marine Fisheries Service told the Corps of Engineers
to drive super saturation levels out of Lower Granite Dam to
the maximum, 130 percent. That kills fish. We know it kills
fish, they know it kills fish, the Corps of Engineers knows it
kills fish.
On June 9, the Army Corps of Engineers agreed with the
request of KBTV, a national NBC affiliate out of Boise, to have
Mr. John McKern interviewed to talk about dams, fish, and fish
survival. The day before they showed up, Mr. McKern wasn't
available. John McKern is probably one of the most honest
people I know and we couldn't get a reason out of him why he
wasn't available to be there.
I represent labor--working people of this country. We are
scared that they will do to us in this issue what they did to
us in the timber issue. Our State has been devastated. We are
torn apart. If the Government does not work in the open
democratic process, we have no chance. We need to be there,
labor, all of us.
Out where I come from in Idaho we say that 35 years ago the
``suits'' showed up and they built the dams. We protested it.
We talked about it. We talked about the very issues that we are
talking about here today--anadromous fish. We were told by the
Government they had the solution. Now the suits are back,
different faces, different haircuts, but they are back again
and this time they have the solution again, with no input from
us.
We are the people that pay the bills. We are labor. We will
ultimately pay the sacrifice and bear the burden. We must have
a place there. We must be there, the tribes must be there,
scientists must be there, all of us there to seek a balanced
solution to this problem. Because it is not just the economy of
the Northwest, it is anadromous fish. We work with local area
high schools and we planted over 100,000 to teach children the
wonders of God's magnificent creatures.
We have to find a solution. But we can't find that solution
if the Government conducts their hearings behind closed doors.
We must be there. They must be in the open or this thing will
not work. I thank you, Senator, for your time.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Squires.
Mr. Stearns?
STATEMENT OF TIM STEARNS, POLICY DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR WILD
SALMON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. Stearns. Senator Crapo, thank you again for holding
this hearing. In the last few years, you have done the region a
great service by continuing to pull us all together into a mid-
course correction on process. I think today you've obviously
talked about how we define the field, and that's what I am
particularly interested in here.
My name is Tim Stearns and I am the Policy Director of Save
Our Wild Salmon. For the last 8 years I've sought to help the
region the region adapt to salmon recovery and to force the
decisions to do that. I could go on at length about my
frustrations with State, Federal agencies, but I won't. I don't
really believe that there is a conspiracy theory here. What I
think is really a problem is that there hasn't been a clear
goal and a clear set of political guts to go towards that goal.
We have spent a long time dealing with this issue.
Declining salmon are not new. Dams in this region cut off
thousands of miles of habitat once and for all. It is clear the
dams have problems--passage, flow, cumulative effects problems.
We tried one fix in 1980 with the Northwest Power Act. It
didn't work. The ESA has kicked in in 1991. The Northwest Power
Planning Council and the region tried a regional fix in 1994.
We didn't implement it. We've lost control of it. It has gone
to the Feds.
Unfortunately, the Feds have had to step in. I certainly
wouldn't agree that they've done a particularly good job. They
don't implement their Biological Opinions, they don't
necessarily enforce them, they haven't met their flow targets,
they haven't modified projects they pledged to. They have had a
difficult time with competing priorities. Unfortunately, the
previous Administration and this Administration both under-
estimated the challenge. They didn't really establish a
framework to make decisions. They didn't really put together
the analytical capabilities they needed to work through these
issues. They have never given us clear time lines. There has
been ambiguity from the beginning.
We had a process called the PATH process which was
inclusive. It included absolutely every interest, from the
States, the Feds, and the tribes. Yet, NMFS put out a Fish
Appendix that they rewrote. There is a problem.
I think a bigger problem though is that our Biological
Opinions have been inconsistent, they haven't been coordinated,
they haven't been enforced. During this whole process the
science has changed. The scientific paradigm that we're working
on is different than it was in 1980, different even than it was
in 1991. Fish need rivers, they need watershed processes. We
need to use technology to work with those issues.
The court reluctantly approved the Federal plan in 1995
because the Clinton Administration committed to making long-
term decisions in 1999. We want to hold them to that set of
decisions. Now, one of the key elements of that process was a
Corps EIS. It is about 6 months behind. It is clearly too
limited to one H, the hydro system. It doesn't look at the full
Columbia. It hasn't consulted with all the interested parties
from Alaska to California and throughout the region. They have
had a difficult time on when and how to release information. So
the Corps clearly has a series of analytical problems.
We also have put a lot of faith and hope in this ill-
defined Framework process. We are full participants in the
Framework but I caution anyone from putting too many eggs in
that basket. I would also suggest that this process is not
funded by Bonneville. It is funded by ratepayers, which is all
of us. It is not funded by the Corps. It is funded by
ratepayers who pay those bills. So let's not over dramatize
that Federal agencies are the ones carrying this ball. It is
everybody in the region who has an interest here.
The Federal 4-H Paper, I think there are three reasons for
it, and they are pretty good reasons. It is clear the Corps EIS
is way too limited and too narrow.
The second reason is the Biological Opinions we are
operating under are incomparable, inconsistent, they are not
coordinated. Let me just give you an example. Under the 94-98
Hydro Biological Opinion, we allow the hydro system to kill 99
percent of migrating smolts and over 60 percent of migrating
adults. Under the Harvest Biological Opinion, we allow only the
harvest of 24 percent--60 percent versus 24 percent. I think
the tribes have a pretty strong case to say it is not
equitable, it does not meet the Federal test. We don't even
define the habitat and hatchery problem in those Biological
Opinions. Until we get them all on the same page, we have got a
problem.
The third main reason, the Feds do not speak with one
voice. It would be great if we could get George Frampton to be
the sole representative of the Federal Government. The
practical effect is he is not going to be there. We're going to
need all the Federal agencies. The Federal agencies need to
talk. I normally am an absolute critic of openness and want
openness. But, frankly, if we open this process up so that we
have to go and monitor each and every Federal meeting when they
talk to each other anywhere and everywhere, you can look at
your own diagram, we're exhausted with the excess of process.
So it is not really a big win for the region if you go and say
let's open up every single meeting.
What the Feds really need to do is to finally put their
options on the table. They need to take comment, they need to
respond, they need to hold hearings around the region. Each and
every option that is viable needs to go through the same
scientific and economic filter. What we can no longer have is
anecdotal recovery plans--it's the ocean, it's the turns, it's
the Alaska fishermen, it's the dams. What we have to do is have
a rigorous disciplined process to go through.
At the same time, we have been asked to approve a credible
financing plan, a financing plan for the future of salmon
recovery. Right now, it is going to pit salmon recovery versus
treasury repayment. I have a 7-year-old. Today I save for his
college. I am not sure he's going to go to college, I'm not
sure what college he's going to go to, but I want to be ready
for each and every option. We know that in the next 10 years
salmon recovery is going to cost money and, at least for this
transition period, it is going to cost a substantial amount of
money. The sooner we save for that inevitable rainy day, the
better off we're going to be.
Let me close with what I think are five things that this
committee can continue to do for us. We need one set of
hearings. We need them before Thanksgiving or after the first
of the year; we don't need them in the holiday season and ruin
the holiday for us. This process ruins the holiday for us
already. But it has got to talk about the Corps EIS, it has got
to talk about the draft Biological Opinions, it has got to talk
about the 4-H Paper, it has got to put the Framework on the
table. But one set of hearings that go from Alaska to
California and throughout the region.
We need to lay out all of our alternatives and take them to
PATH, take them to the ISAB, take them to the IEAB, take them
to the Framework. We ought to peer review this thing to death.
The second major thing is we have got to make decisions
prior to the migration. We fear nothing more than this will
become an election football again and we will put off
decisions. Not making decisions makes this a disaster for
everybody in the region.
Third, the Feds should make no binding decisions before
they fully consult, meet their obligations to consult with the
States and tribes. But they also have to do that within two
very narrow parameters. It has got to follow the law, it has
got to meet the scientific tests.
Fourthly, we need to keep our options open. Dam removal is
an uncomfortable thing to advocate. But the science says it
makes some sense. What we can't do is take any option off the
table right now. We have to send them through the same
scientific and economic filter.
Finally, whatever we do, in the words of my 86 year-old
father, he's seen a lot of changes in his life and he's been
against every single one of them, change is going to hurt. We
have to deal with the people who have to change and build real
transition plans. I guess I would just close by saying change
is overdue in this system. Change is inevitable. It is better
for us to embrace change and move on together.
I would like to thank you again for at least getting the
Federal agencies here at the beginning of the hearing. It is
always a frustration when we're here to listen to them and then
they go away.
Senator Crapo. I notice a couple of them stayed in the
audience. I hope that they will have a transcript of this.
We'll make sure they do have one.
Mr. Stearns. Just a final remark. Ted Strong, who used to
run the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, suggested
that we've had a lot of thunder and a lot of rain dances, but
we haven't had much rain. It is time that we make this system
rain. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Ausman?
STATEMENT OF LYNN AUSMAN, GROWER, WAITSBURG, WASHINGTON, ON
BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, AND THE
WASHINGTON BARLEY COMMISSION
Mr. Ausman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
Washington Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington
Barley Commission, it gives me great pleasure to talk to you
this afternoon on these important issues.
I am a barley grower and wheat grower in Asotin County in
the State of Washington. Asotin County is bordered on the north
by the Snake River and Lower Granite dam is the first of four
dams that we've heard much about. There are four grain
receiving stations in Lewis Clark Valley.
As the Governor put it, ``The salmon fisheries of this
State have, in the past, been wonderfully productive. Of late,
however, evidence of a decrease in the run is apparent, and all
are agreed that something ought to be done to prevent the final
extinction of a great industry.'' This Governor was John R.
Rogers, not our present Governor Gary Locke, and he said it in
1899, not 1999.
Our Association thinks this puts salmon restoration
problems in the proper perspective as we deal with it today. In
our area there is strong support to increase the salmon runs in
our river system. There is also almost total agreement that
breaching the lower Snake River dams will not be the answer to
the problem.
The members of our association are growing increasingly
frustrated as we have watched the ongoing analysis of salmon
restoration in the Snake River system focus almost solely on
dam breaching. We were told from the beginning that there would
be four H's to be considered--habitat, hydropower, harvest, and
hatchery management. However, it has become increasingly clear
that the Federal agencies are not focusing on these other H's.
In the past few year of watching the process of salmon
recovery efforts, it has become apparent to us that this
problem is one of more complex issues of scores of years. It
starts with the very definition of salmon species to continue
on to include the variance of ocean temperatures. A marine
biologist expressed the belief that there weren't ten reasons
for fish run declines or even a hundred, but he thought a
thousand reasons would be more in the ballpark. I would submit
to you that the problems we have with fish population is not
what we think we know but the many things we need to learn.
A computer model called PATH, which stands for Plan for
Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, is held up as a reason for
dam removal. It is important to note that there is no empirical
data to prove that destroying the four dams would lead to
recovery of the salmon. It is simply a computer model. This
model makes some assumptions that do not follow known facts.
For example, according to the recent salmon tag studies, over
50 percent of the smolts moving in the Snake River reach salt
water. However, one PATH model predicts only 20 percent, and
other PATH model predicts only 30 percent. Therefore, I would
hate to base a decision as monumental as dam removal on such
hypotheses. There are questions.
The environmental effects of breaching are another matter.
The Corps of Engineers estimates that there are 100 to 150
million cubic yards of sediment behind the four dams. This
would create 30,000 acres of mud flats. With dam removal, this
material would move down stream for several years and this
would cause much harm to the existing habitats as they are
today. The use of this river system is also environmental
choice because of emissions. Navigating the river system will
use 40 percent less fuel per ton mile than rail, assuming there
would be cars and power units available, which we highly
question. Compared to trucks, the Snake River system will use
110 percent less fuel per ton mile. According to the Washington
Wheat Commission, if grain barge traffic was halted, the
industry would have to locate 120,000 additional grain cars,
and 700,000 semi-trucks. This is an enormous cost of building
of the roads and rail necessary for infrastructure. All this
will affect our grain industry by raising costs to the industry
that is already suffering economic depression.
So, what should we do to increase the fish runs in our
Snake River system?
Continue to improve the transportation of smolt. Address
and solve the predator harvest problems. Modify hatcheries to
improve their contribution to an overall solution. Look into
commercial fishing harvest to better understand their impact on
the fish. Modify turbine gaps, turbine blades, blade coatings,
and hydraulic conditions into and out of the turbines. Add
surface collectors to move smolt around the dams. Continue to
pursue technological alternatives that are scientifically
sound.
If we can get by the unfortunate notion that breaching of
the lower Snake River dams is a possible solution to the
problem at hand, we can then work together to solve the
problem. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Ausman.
I have a couple of specific questions to members of the
panel, and then I would like to toss out some questions in
general and just ask all the members of the panel if they would
like to respond to them.
First, Mr. Faber. I realize that your experience in the
collaborative process is not in the Pacific Northwest but I
think it is illustrative of what can be done. As you heard the
discussion and the testimony that took place today with the
Federal officials, did it raise concerns to you? I guess I
would just like you to comment on what you heard in terms of us
seeking to achieve what you've done in the area where you work.
Mr. Faber. I would be happy to share some thoughts. In
fact, I found myself sharing your frustrations quite a bit. Six
years ago, when we first began working on the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers, we faced the same sort of problem: agency
officials deciding what alternatives should be considered,
putting them before the public and asking for perfunctory
comments. They were surprised to find out that nobody liked the
alternatives they were coming up with. In fact, they themselves
became so frustrated that they said, ``Okay, why don't you
American Rivers, and you the navigation industry, and you the
corn growers association tell us what alternatives you think we
should be looking at.'' It strikes me that this is a process
that has been led too much by the agencies and not enough by
the public.
We certainly don't agree on everything on the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers, but what we have been able to do is find
areas of commonality. That in turn has given agencies like the
Corps a sense of where consensus lies and how to change their
river management decisions to reflect that consensus.
Senator Crapo. We face very serious timeline pressures
here. There is strong concern about, first of all, there are
statutory requirements that we make prompt decisions, and then,
second, there are strong concerns that if we don't make prompt
decisions and if they're not the right ones, that it could have
very severe consequences for the saving of the species.
First of all, was that present in your circumstance?
Second, given that dynamic, do we have time for a collaborative
process?
Mr. Faber. We certainly have the same certain time issues
on the Missouri, where we have federally listed endangered
species and a court waiting to intervene if necessary. I think
the way to look at it is you can go down two paths right now,
and I'm not referring to the acronym. One is the Corps and NMFS
and the other agencies continue to put together alternatives
that none of us, whether it is Mr. Ausman or Mr. Faber,
particularly like and the whole thing ends up before Judge
Marsh and maybe in 5 years we have a decision from the court,
of all places. That's not an alternative I think any of us
particularly want.
Another alternative is to try and quickly create a
collaborative process perhaps led by a conservation group and a
farm group, or a navigation industry group, to really begin to
seek consensus. The role I think the agencies play is by
providing information, information that is requested by the
public. For example, I know Mr. Ausman was talking about some
of the information he feels the Corps hasn't developed
sufficiently. We certainly feel that they haven't developed
realistic transportation mitigation alternatives. Just as an
example, what we found on the Missouri River was that when the
Corps, at the urging of Senator Kerrey, developed more
information about a split navigation season which would have
suspended navigation in the summertime, it turned out that the
industry was actually not as opposed to that as we would have
thought.
So when you let the public lead these processes, sometimes
you wind up with a better outcome.
Senator Crapo. Now it seems to me that you have been able
in the Mississippi arena to achieve a circumstance in which the
actual decision is made by the collaborators. Who is it led by?
Mr. Faber. In Mississippi, it is led by American Rivers and
Mark 2000, which represents the navigation industry and farm
groups, everyone from----
Senator Crapo. So constituency or interest groups in the
region are leading the collaborative effort.
Mr. Faber. Exactly.
Senator Crapo. Are the decisions of the collaborative group
binding?
Mr. Faber. They are not binding because that would be
creating a sort of a Basin Commission. Yet, we have found that
when we have reached consensus on dam operations on the
Mississippi River, for example, the Corps of Engineers jumps
for joy. They finally could implement a hydrologic regime and
change their dam operations to meet the needs of nature and
navigation and could stop shooting in the dark, trying to guess
what consensus looks like.
Senator Crapo. One last quick question to you in this
context. If it were possible for us to modify the Federal law
to allow statutorily for the creation of this type of entity
and give it binding decisionmaking authority, would you think
that's a positive move?
Mr. Faber. I think that's a terrific step in the right
direction, but it also has to be accompanied by the Corps'
willingness to develop the right information.
Senator Crapo. At that point, the agencies, instead of
becoming the decisionmakers as they are now, supply the
expertise and become the support group, if you will, for the
collaborators.
Mr. Faber. That's right. We have found it's not a perfect
process but what it has done is allowed us to identify common
ground and then allow the agencies in turn to implement those
recommendations on the Mississippi. I would be happy to share
this with your staff.
Senator Crapo. The agencies provide the support and
implementation in the model we're talking about here. They are
not the decisionmakers.
Mr. Faber. That's right. Ultimately, they are taking their
cue from the consensus that is developed through the Upper
Mississippi River Summit. Agencies have varied in terms of
their compliance. Frankly, the Corps has been the most
responsive of all the agencies. The Department of Interior has
been somewhat less responsive. In general, agencies have been
happy that the stakeholders, who oftentimes show up at public
hearings to entertain one another with their rhetoric, have
finally sat down and really gotten down to brass tacks.
Senator Crapo. One last question. I realize that we're
talking about something we would like to see created in Federal
law. What you have been able to create de facto in your region.
But do you think we would have a shot at that in the Pacific
Northwest?
Mr. Faber. There's no reason you can't. I'm an outsider and
I have to say there is probably a little bit more sensibility
to folks in the Midwest than maybe anywhere else in the
country. But it seems to me that the Corps now has the
authority to go ahead and invite private groups to lead that
process. They don't need you to act through WRDA or some other
mechanism. But what they could probably use is some direction,
whether that's in a letter or in some other means, that says
here's a process that has worked on the upper Mississippi
River, why don't you give this a try on the Snake and see where
it goes.
I will add one thing. I don't want to lecture the law to
someone who has probably practiced law longer than I have been
alive.
Senator Crapo. I welcome it.
Mr. Faber. But one problem with the process is the way the
Corps has interpreted NEPA. They often do a scope of work and
do all of their alternatives and run those alternatives before
the public is even invited to provide comment. If NEPA were
changed, or the Corps interpreted NEPA to require them to bring
the public in early in the scoping process, then a lot of the
problems that we're seeing here today wouldn't be happening I
think.
Senator Crapo. That's exactly the point that I was trying
to make with the Federal officials here today. Do you agree
from what you heard today that that's the dynamic we're seeing
develop?
Mr. Faber. Absolutely. I think it is a matter of bad law
and bad habit. Some agencies--and I think it is changing in
different parts of the country--do not see the public as a
collaborator but merely as the end of the process. I'll just
end with this anecdote. My father was in the Corps of Engineers
in the 1950's, and he said that in the 1950's we didn't care
what the public thought, we just did what we wanted and what
Congress wanted. When we started 6 years ago the Corps said,
well, if everybody is unhappy, we must be doing something
right. Now I think, at least in our part of the country, the
Corps is saying keeping everyone unhappy is not a good way of
doing business and we've got to figure out how to bring the
public into this decisionmaking process here.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
I am going to give each of you an opportunity to discuss
this concept. But before I do, I had a couple of specific
questions for Mr. Stearns.
You had indicated that you're not as concerned with the
Federal Caucus developments that we've had discussed here for
several reasons. I understand your point. In fact, one of your
points was that we don't want to have that chart magnified by
having to open every single meeting that the Federal agencies
have to public participation, and I certainly don't want to see
that happen either.
In one of your five recommendations at the end, No. 3 it
was, you wanted to see no binding decisions made before there
is consultation with the public and the public is involved. The
question I have is, don't you have a concern that if the
decisionmaking, and officials in this case, the Federal
officials, even if they haven't made a binding decision, if
they have been in a closed room making tentative decisions or
evaluating the options and starting to reach conclusions, not
making it binding, but then come out for public input, don't
you believe that is a little bit late in the game for the
public input?
Mr. Stearns. Recognize that all of us have access to all of
the Federal agencies all the time. What they don't do is if
they don't get together and come up with their own vision of
where they are headed as an administration, they basically
aren't responsive on anything. Frankly, they give us multiple
stories. It is much better, and it is long overdue, for them to
speak with one voice on this issue. I look at the Federal
problem on this river is that they have not formally and
informally got together and come up with a common vision.
All I am suggesting is that I just don't think that it is a
reasonable standard to suggest that the Federal agencies can't
meet together and figure out their administration program and
put it out on the table. I think all of us at this table are
fully capable of shooting down every stupid idea they come up
with. We do it over and over and over again.
Let me just describe one frustration. This Framework
process, we had a big regional confab in November, there were
28 different alternatives put into it; we put in one, the State
of Oregon put in three, the State of Idaho didn't put in one,
the Federal Government didn't put in one. It was an absolute
frustration that the Federal Government would say everybody
else come to the party and put your ideas on the table but
we're not even going to bring what we think. My goal here is to
smoke them out. Get them thinking. Get them to put their ideas
on the table and have it go through a process.
Senator Crapo. I certainly agree with the objective, and I
think most people would, that the Federal Government should
speak more with one voice, not with this kind of process and
non-voice, and also that we don't want to slow the process down
by creating a multiplication of difficult processes and
creating even more difficult problems for the Federal agencies
who do have the requirement under the statutes to act. So I
understand your point.
Let me just go to the whole panel now and ask, in the
context of what you have heard today in the testimony from the
Federal officials who testified, and from what you now
understand about their explanation for what the Federal Caucus
is and what it is doing, what your reaction to that is? Have
your concerns been satisfied, or have they been increased, or
do you have a comment on it?
I guess, Mr. Faber, we have really already gone through
that with you. I am going to pass you this time, and we'll go
right to you Mr. Dunn for any comments you might have.
Mr. Dunn. Just briefly, to say, unfortunately, our concerns
were not alleviated by their comments today. We would encourage
you and other members of this committee to continue to pursue
them being open in their Federal Caucus process.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Squires?
Mr. Squires. Senator, before I came to this hearing I had
some concerns. Now I'm scared. This is probably, when I
listened to them here today talk, it was probably the most
frustrating thing I've done since we tried to talk to them
about the chicken complex fire which raged in Idaho. I do not
believe that this agency has a clue. Our biggest fear is that
the anadromous fish problem in the Pacific Northwest will be
politically driven, not fish driven. I think that they proved
that here today. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Stearns. Well, I won't say that I don't share concerns.
I think I would agree with Mr. Squires that I'm still scared.
What I think is more important though is that Mr. Frampton
suggested that the administration recognizes that they have a
strategic role to play here, that there is both an economic set
of decisions and a scientific set of decisions, and that they
feel that the Federal Government needs to speak with one voice.
I would have to admit that I am somewhat reassured by that.
I am not overly sanctimonious about any Federal agencies. I
have dealt with them my entire career and they have Congress
pushing them, they have their constituencies pushing them, they
have the press pushing them; they respond to pressures. But I
guess what I would say more than anything is we were relieved
when they said they were getting together because we thought
they were 2 or 3 years behind. Now that they've said that they
are doing something, we certainly ought to mistrust what
they're doing and make them put it on the table. But whether I
am more alarmed after this, I don't know.
Senator Crapo. All right. Mr. Ausman?
Mr. Ausman. I am very concerned with the closed door
concept. But I think in listening to you I feel better about
it. I feel with people like you here that helps. But I am
concerned with the closed door concept.
Senator Crapo. All right. Let me just conclude with another
question which I would like everyone on the panel to talk
about. Again, Mr. Faber, if you want to pitch in, feel welcome
to do so, but I really want to get the feeling of the panel
with regard to the idea that I've already explored with you.
The question is on the broader question of moving to a system
of environmental decisionmaking in which we have a
collaborative process in which the collaborators actually make
decisions and are empowered to do so, preferably by law, in my
opinion, but whether it is by law or by de facto arrangement.
I would like to know what the panel thinks about that
arrangement in terms of both salmon recovery in the Pacific
Northwest and in terms of environmental policy in general in
this country. Anybody want to go first?
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. Dunn. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is something
that we could certainly support in the Pacific Northwest. I
think that process would guarantee that regional interests
would be included. I think it has been a frustration that, for
example, Northwest Power Planning Council has been charged with
some oversight yet has been given no authority to really do
much in terms of river operation or other environmental policy.
So I think that is an avenue fruit processors would definitely
support.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Squires?
Mr. Squires. I think it is something that is long overdue,
if it can be achieved. PPRC in our model, as you know, we're
seeking balance. We have got to get both sides to the table
here and get something that will work and find a balanced
solution for these problems. I think that would be the answer
ultimately. I would like to see the Federal Government take
that role, as Mr. Faber said, somebody that would give
information, somebody that would be a clearinghouse, but
without an agenda, to help bind this thing together and find a
solution for the fish and for the region. I think that is
something that could be done.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Stearns. Senator Crapo, with all due respect, I think
one of the wisest things a legislator can do is not legislate.
This is one of those situations where I don't think we
necessarily need it in Federal law. We certainly could use your
push and your help. It is not to say for an instant that we
don't need these kinds of collaborations.
I want to tell you that I have participated in a number of
them, some successful, some frustrations. We have successfully
relicensed the projects in the Skagit with Seattle City Light.
We are going to successfully relicense projects owned by two of
the three mid-Columbia utilities, Chelan County PUD and Douglas
County PUD. No gun to anybody's head. We all showed up, agreed
we wanted a solution. We felt that they had something to
protect and worth valuing. They said we'll put a checkbook on
the table but we're not signing it until we have a deal. I just
don't want us to go and try to put guns to anybody's head.
What I would suggest though is that there are three things
that make a collaboration work. One is that you agree that
you're going to comply within the law and within treaties.
Second, that you're going to work only on solutions that are
within the boundaries of science. Third, that you go and commit
a finite time period to come to a deal. The ones that fail are
the ones that string out on and on and on. So, clearly, we are
open.
Frankly, I think dam removal is something that has to be on
the table. Is it the only recovery package that is going to
work here? No. I think if we're willing to make some other
really significant situations, we could do that. But I think
people also have to come to the table with an open mind of what
the possibilities are and work through them.
Let me close with one thing. Bill Ruckleshaus is working on
a process that is based primarily in the Puget Sound area, but
he went and described that the Federal agencies and the States
weren't talking particularly well and we needed a new Federal
official. Very quickly the press and some politicians jumped on
it and said ``Bill Ruckleshaus calls for a salmon czar.'' The
last thing we need is a salmon czar. What we need is a salmon
shuttle diplomat; somebody who goes around and doesn't try to
impose solutions but listens to everybody, gets them to listen
to everybody, and work for commonalities.
I want workers that have living wage jobs, I want food on
my table, and a healthy rural eastern economy. I think these
guys want salmon. I think there are solutions here. But,
clearly, we all have our blinders. I just think that if we live
within the law, we live within the science, we agree to
disagree and do it in a timely fashion, we can get somewhere.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Ausman?
Mr. Ausman. Being a farmer, back to the grassroots. The
farming community in eastern Washington is working with the
salmon recovery. We have a couple of different model
watersheds. We feel that we're not getting recognized for what
we are contributing to the situation right now is one of our
problems, our frustrations.
Senator Crapo. Good. Did you want to say something, Mr.
Faber?
Mr. Faber. Just to add that I think Mr. Stearns has made an
important point, especially in your context, which is the
timing. In this case, what you might think about, and then I'll
go back to the Midwest where I can do more harm probably, is to
say let's have a process that is led by stakeholders like the
ones right in front of you, give it X amount of time to work,
in this case we're talking about months, obviously, not years.
If that doesn't work and these folks can't find consensus, at
least we can say we've tried. Ultimately, I think all of us
would prefer to be making that decision, the public would
prefer to make that decision rather than to allow the
Government or, God forbid, a judge make that decision for us.
That creates a lot of pressure.
Senator Crapo. Those are good comments.
I really appreciate the effort that all of you have gone
through to come here and testify. I know you've sat through the
whole hearing, so you get the special ``at-a-boys'' for
perseverance today. I appreciate your insight. Obviously, this
is a difficult issue and there are a lot of very valid points
of view that need to be brought together.
My objective in this hearing was to focus on what I think
is a very serious process error that is underway right now.
Frankly, before the hearing, I thought that there may be a
chance that we could get it resolved, that maybe our concerns
would be alleviated. But I don't think that that has happened.
I think that the concerns I had before the hearing are still
concerns, and I know that a lot of you share those concerns as
well. I know the Federal agency officials are sincerely trying
to work this out from their perspective. We're going to
continue from our perspective to try to push this in the right
direction, both on the specifics of salmon and steelhead
recovery, and on the general issue of how we approach
environmental decisionmaking.
I agree with you, by the way, Mr. Stearns, that there
certainly is a question as to whether Congress can improve or
screw things up worse in terms of trying to take a good idea
and make it work. But there is also the question of whether the
Federal laws are already fouled up and we may need to improve
them somewhat or at least correct them in ways that have been
suggested.
So on both a specific level and on a general level, I think
there are some ideas that have been generated by this hearing.
I hope that the Federal agencies who were invited to be here
and who will receive the FOIA requests will take off their
blinders to the extent possible and try to find a way forward.
I hope for a way forward that is very consistent with what Mr.
Faber has identified as a way that we can without statutory
changes at this point, because we don't have the time, maybe de
facto, find a way forward in terms of a collaborative model
that will work.
Once again, I thank all of you for your time and effort and
your ideas and your comments.
Mr. Stearns, did you want to say something?
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, just a final point. I hope
nobody holds it against you that you agreed with me on
something. But more importantly, the Framework is a process
that I think right now is once again one that is being agency
and bureaucrat-driven and there is a possibility of getting
more stakeholders, make it more stakeholder-driven. I would
suggest that immense pressure from a highly influential Senator
would be a good step.
Finally, in the last hearing on this issue Congressman
Weldon suggested that if you wanted the people in the plane
crash at the end, then you better get them on at the take-off.
I thought it was an interesting malapropism in how we should go
forward. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. That's a good analogy. But we will make this
plane land safely if we can do it.
Thank you all very much for coming.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important
hearing on one of the most complicated and controversial wildlife
issues in the Northwest, if not in the entire country.
It is due to the very complexity of the issues involved that I
think this hearing is so important. Rather than focusing on the issues
themselves (there will be plenty of time for that later), we are going
to take a look at the processes being employed by the federal
government, in particular, in setting out a plan for recovering the
many species of salmon in the Northwest.
In reading through the testimony for today's hearing, it seems that
most of the stakeholders in the Northwest agree on two things (and
maybe not a lot else) when it comes to the salmon.
First, everyone agrees that what we are doing now to protect and
recover the salmon is not working. That cannot continue. By examining
all of the possibilities and leaving no stone unturned, it is our
obligation to future generations to make sure that salmon not only
survive, but thrive in the Northwest.
Secondly, everyone seems concerned that the federal caucus of nine
agencies and departments is going off to work out a federal solution
behind closed doors.
I read all of the testimony last night from what I believe to be a
relatively well-balanced panel and was surprised at the level of
consistency I found across interested parties.
From the Tribal witness: ``Since the federal government is
developing its 4-H paper behind closed doors, it is somewhat difficult
for us to comment on the substance of it.''
From the agri-business witness: ``[The Corps] send[s] conflicting
messages and has failed to coordinate with regional initiatives.''
American Rivers: (speaking about similar efforts on the Missouri
and Mississippi): ``. . .Corp conducted studies and developed
management alternatives in isolation and, after spending years and tens
of millions of dollars, mechanically sought our input through public
hearings which provide wonderful theater but little more.''
While I do not endorse some of the more overblown rhetoric that is
sprinkled throughout some of the testimony, I am concerned that the
nine federal agencies that are participating in this process as members
of the ``Federal Caucus'' are making a key blunder if they are not
planning to take advantage of every opportunity to involve the public
in both the process and substance of this undertaking.
I encourage each of the agencies individually and as a group to
make their findings available for substantive public comment and peer
review, and to make their final decisions in the open.
Whatever findings result from this process, and I am in no way
prejudging any options or series of options, will be controversial.
__________
Statement of George T. Frampton, Jr., Acting Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid and Members of the Subcommittee: I am
pleased to appear before you today to testify about the Federal role in
salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin, particularly long-
term decisions regarding the Federal Columbia River Power System. I
have invited senior representatives from the regional agencies which
are providing the lead role in this effort.
I am pleased to be accompanied today by senior agency
representatives from the region who are providing the lead role in this
effort: Donna Darm, Assistant Regional Administrator of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and Witt Anderson, Fisheries Biologist in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland of rice and by Steve Wright, Vice
President, Corporate of the Bonneville Power Administration. They are
key members of the Administration's northwest salmon recovery team and
here to respond to your questions.
Before delving into the specifics of the Columbia Basin, let me
first provide several points of context.
Many salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest and
California are in deep trouble. Several runs are, according to our
fishery scientists, at serious risk of extinction. From Puget Sound to
Central California, these runs need our help if we are to pass this
important legacy to our children and to future generations. Extinction
is not an option. This Administration, along with the people of the
Northwest, is firmly committed to doing what we must to restore our
precious salmon runs.
Salmon are a keystone species which serve as an important indicator
of the health of our streams and river systems overall. Healthy salmon
runs require clean, healthy river and stream systems, which define our
Northwest landscape.
Healthy, productive landscapes and a strong economy go hand in
hand. The Pacific Northwest, and the nation as a whole, is reaping the
benefits of a glowing and expanding economy that is unprecedented in
our time. Jobs, wages, and opportunity are bounding forward, hand in
hand with a growing commitment to protecting our environment. The
people insist upon both, and they are right. We reject the false choice
of protecting either the economy or the environment: we have proven
that we can do both.
The salmon challenge poses special opportunities upon which we
should act. While the Federal Endangered Species Act has served as a
call to arms in the salmon effort, the solutions lie greatly in the
realm of state and local commitments. Healthy streams and rivers are
the keys to salmon recovery, since it is in those streams and rivers
that the salmon are born and to which they return to continue their
cycle of life. State, tribal and local authorities are instrumental in
managing the many activities which affect clean water and healthy
streams. We are therefore committed to building partnerships with
state, tribal and local governments and the private sector to enlist
the full range of capabilities and experience in getting the job done.
Accordingly, that is why this Administration has entered into
precedent-setting efforts with California Oregon, Washington and local
governments to craft solutions to the salmon challenge. And that is why
this Administration has proposed a $100 million dollar Pacific Coastal
Salmon Fund to assist the states and tribes in recovery efforts outside
the Columbia and Snake Rivers for the coming fiscal year. We urge your
support for this important effort.
You have heard much discussion of the ``Four H's'' which have been
the principal human causes of the declines in salmon runs the last half
of this century. They are: habitat, hydropower, hatcheries and harvest.
Regarding the issue of harvest, I would urge you and your colleagues in
the strongest possible terms to embrace the historic agreement we
recently brokered with Canada under the auspices of the Pacific Salmon
Treaty and the leadership of the state and tribal governments. This
agreement, which is dependent upon your support and Federal dollars, is
essential to solving the harvest side of the problem, which in turn is
essential to salmon recovery along the coast. Please do not let this
opportunity slip by. Help us seize the moment.
Next, allow me to turn to the matter of the Federal Columbia River
Power System and its role in both the recovery of salmon stocks in the
Columbia and Snake system, and the Four H recovery strategy.
The genesis of the so-called ``99 Decision'' is the requirement
under the Endangered Species Act that Federal agencies avoid actions
that jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered
species. In 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
consulted with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation on the impacts
of the Federal Columbia River Power System on three runs of Snake River
salmon listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act. At that time, NMFS concluded it needed more information to be able
to give its scientific opinion on whether the Snake River salmon runs
could recover under various long-term operations and configurations of
the Power System. NMFS said it would revisit that question in 1999
after it had gathered more information and pursued, with the operating
agencies, an aggressive program to improve salmon survivals in the
interim and generate better information about longer-term remedies.
In 1999, the situation is different than it was in 1995. There are
now 12 runs of salmon and steelhead stocks as well as sturgeon, bull
trout, and snails in the Columbia River Basin that are listed under the
Act. The operation and configuration of the Federal power system
affects all of these runs--some significantly, others less so. Federal
agencies are now examining the impacts of the system not just on Snake
River salmon, but on all listed species. In short, it is no longer
simply a question of the Snake River stocks, it is a multispecies
recovery effort.
For a number of important reasons, the NMFS and the other Federal
agencies believe it is important to view the effects of the Federal
dams in the context of all human activities that affect the fish.
First, they will have to judge whether the fish are likely to survive
and recover with the impacts from the Federal dams together with all
other impacts. To make this judgment, they will need to estimate what
is likely to happen to the fish in the other areas of their life cycle;
in harvest, hatcheries and habitat. For the fish to survive and recover
there must be firm and reliable improvements in their survival across
their extraordinary lifecycle. Improvements in survival through the
Federal power system are essential. So too are improvements in the
productivity of the river and stream systems in which the young salmon
grow and to which the adults return. Substantial reforms in harvest
management and improvements in the hatchery practices throughout the
Basin are essential.
Second, creating this Four-H context helps remind people that there
is no silver bullet that will solve the salmon crisis. The action-by-
action consultation approach of the ESA promotes the tendency of people
to believe there is a single solution to a very complex problem. The
Federal hydropower system is a major source of mortality for salmon,
and the debate about dam operation and configuration creates an
understandable opportunity for controversy and polarization. By
creating a Four-H context, the Federal agencies aim to remind everyone
that it is the entire range of human activity that got the fish into
trouble, and it will take work in that entire range of human activity
to get them out of trouble.
Are we prepared to address the issue of harvest? I am heartened to
report that the answer is yes, if we implement the necessary agreements
under the Salmon Treaty now before you. Are we prepared to address the
issue of hatcheries? Again, my reply is yes. Are we developing a long-
term plan for reducing predation by Caspian terns in the estuary? Of
course. And what about the all-encompassing issue of healthy streams
and tributaries, the crucial link in the salmon lifecycle? Frankly, the
issue is open, and it depends in part on state, local and tribal
commitments to protect and restore that habitat.
We believe a home-grown regional solution is best if it is
scientifically sound. We have directed the federal agencies with
disparate missions to work together and with the region to develop a
solution to the salmon challenge. The Federal agencies have been
meeting for several months now to do their homework on these issues,
and have been working closely with the states and tribes through the
Multispecies Framework Project to develop alternative solutions to the
salmon challenge. These alternatives include a broad range of
strategies, from improving the hydropower system with all dams in
place, to removing one or more projects. We support a regional
strategy, and will continue to emphasize that it must be biologically
sound to stand the test of time.
We expect the results of regional analyses of the alternatives to
be available in the fall. It will be especially instructive to have
completed the biological analyses that gives us an indication of
whether threatened and endangered fish can be expected to recover under
different sets of alternatives. Both the Federal agencies and the
Multispecies Framework Project are coordinating on the scientific
analysis. Economic analysis is being conducted both through the Corps'
EIS on Snake River drawdown and through the Multispecies Framework
Project. We also hope to have information on opportunities to mitigate
economic impacts on local communities. Through this regional
coordination on the analytical tools, we can develop a common
understanding of the biological and economic impacts of the choices.
The Federal agencies have committed to share their analyses and
their ideas with the other governments of the Region through the
Columbia River Basin Forum, and we stand by that commitment. Once we
have the initial results of the biological and economic analyses this
fall, the region can decide what alternatives it would like to explore
further both in terms of biological effects and economic impacts. No
final Federal decisions relating to the future operation or
configuration of the Federal Power System will be made by Federal
agencies until after the issues are raised and discussed with the other
governments through the Forum and other mechanisms.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that all of us allow the
region to work through these issues. From an Administration
perspective, that is our approach and preference. This fall the
Framework will lay the options in front of the Region, and no doubt
lively debate will ensue. The Administration will pay close attention
to that debate, and will ensure that the Regional agencies are fully
engaged. But we will not prejudge the outcome, nor try to steer it in a
particular direction.
This Administration is proud of its record of protecting the
environment and promoting a strong economy in the Pacific Northwest. We
bring the same principles to this very complex issue and are committed
to finding outcomes that strengthen the fabric of this region.
In closing, let me reiterate my strong request for your support for
the Salmon Treaty agreement, for the Pacific Salmon Fund, and for
regional decision making. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss
these important matters with you today. My colleagues and I are happy
to answer any questions you might have.
______
Responses of George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Uncertainty with respect to future measures for salmon
recovery makes economic investment decisions in the region more
difficult. What period of time will the 4-H paper cover?
Response. The 4-H paper will cover hydropower system actions,
tributary habitat and hatchery approaches, and harvest programs for the
next 20-25 years.
Question 2. You didn't mention ocean conditions in your testimony.
Isn't it true that scientists are increasing focusing on the impact of
ocean conditions on the health and survival of salmon? As I understand,
NMFS' own scientists, as well as many others, recognize oceans as part
of the problem. Will oceans be analyzed or considered as part of the
``H for Habitat'' of the 4-H process?
Response. We will take into account the role of future ocean
conditions on the future biological performance of the fish,
considering a range from continuing poor conditions to a return to good
conditions. It is important to recognize the overall role of ocean
conditions in influencing salmon survival. While ocean conditions can
have a serious effect on salmon survival--good or bad--they are but one
of a multitude of variables which, taken as a whole, bear on salmon
recovery.
Question 3. Federal decisions of the magnitude being discussed for
the Lower Snake require a record to be developed and a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) strategy in order to withstand court
challenge. It appears that the COE' EIS is focused only on the
questions of the Lower Snake Dams. Is an EIS being prepared which
covers all 4-H's, and if not, will the Federal agencies only have a
limited array of choices (i.e., dam breaching or not) to choose from in
a manner which is sustainable in court?
Response. Yes, the COE EIS is limited to the Lower Snake projects.
The Interior Columbia Basis Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)
focuses only on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
administration Federal of land within the Basin. (The ICBEMP is a
comprehensive, land management strategy designed to not only address
anadromous fish, but also the forest and rangeland health and socio-
economic issues facing the interior basin.) The Administration expects
the NWPPC and the NMFS to recommend mitigation and recovery actions
that are beyond the scope of these documents. Many of those
recommendations will undoubtedly fall to Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) for funding. Actions that are not covered by the
COE or ICBEMP EIS's, or other existing EIS's, will need additional NEPA
review--i.e. a new EIS.
Given BPA's role in implementation, BPA is initiating a Regional
Fish and Wildlife Policy EIS. This EIS will cover a broad range of
alternatives that embrace the alternatives generated in the Framework
and the 4-H paper. The new Policy EIS will show decisionmakers the
relative merits of the options available for mitigating and recovering
fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.
Question 4. The focus of the Federal Caucus discussions has always
appeared to be on salmon and steelhead. Yet there are many resident
fish that are affected by upper basin reserves operations, including
the Kootenai sturgeon in north Idaho. Will the 4-H paper integrate the
impact on nonanadromous species? If so, where is the data being
gathered to provide the environmental evaluation and how will the
people in the affected areas be given a chance to provide their views?
Response. As you indicated in your question, upper basin reservoir
operations impact resident fish and other aquatic species such as the
Snake River listed snails. The 4-H paper will address the biological
requirements of resident fish and other aquatic species affected by the
hydrosystem by establishing goals, objectives, and strategies to ensure
their long-term persistence and by integrating actions into the
alternatives packages that specifically address the needs of resident
fish and other aquatic species. Members of the Federal Caucus have been
participating in meetings of the multi-species Framework Hydro Group to
ensure that alternatives are crafted that include hydro actions that
benefit resident fish and other aquatic species, as well as salmon and
steelhead.
Data on the needs of resident fish and other aquatic species for
the environmental evaluation are being gathered through the Framework
and the Federal Caucus. Under the Federal Caucus field biologists from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other Federal agencies
are collecting the data on resident fish and other aquatic species for
the environmental evaluation. In most cases this is information that
has been generated through studies conducted by state fish and wildlife
agencies and Indian Tribes. For example, USFWS is relying heavily on
flow studies by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to
define the needs of bull trout in the Kootenai River below Libby Dam.
The draft 4-H paper will be provided for public review in the fall of
1999, and we intend to hold meetings in Idaho and Montana to discuss
the contents and to provide opportunities for comment.
Question 5. The alternatives in the current COE' EIS would suggest
that the only choices are to breach the four Lower Snake dams, increase
transportation, or retain the status quo. If the Administration
proposes dam breaching, it seems clear that the obvious questions will
be what could be accomplished by changing practices in hydro, harvest,
hatcheries, but short of dam breaching. It would be unfortunate if the
response was that we do not have adequate information in the other 3-
H's to make this decision. We hope that as a result of this hearing, we
will not be confronted with this problem a year from now.
Response. The Federal agencies are examining the same range of
alternatives as the NWPPC Framework process. These include a total of
seven alternatives, including four nonbreaching alternatives. We have
recommended to the Framework that its range include an alternative that
has a very aggressive program in all H's, short of breaching. The
purpose of the 4-H paper is to consolidate known data in all four
``H's'' to produce life-cycle recovery options that constitute the most
complete picture we have been able to produce to date. Of course,
salmon science is incomplete across a range of factors. There is much
about salmon we simply do not know. That is why monitoring and
evaluation, and basic biological research, are such an important part
of our ongoing efforts. The more we study the species down to the sub-
basin level, the greater confidence we will have in developing
effective recovery measures.
Question 6. Will there be an independent science review of the
alternatives developed by the Federal Caucus?
Response. Yes, there will be independent scientific review of our
scientific analysis of alternatives, as well as of our final
recommendations, in accordance with standard National Academy of
Sciences guidelines.
Question 7. Are you developing a nonbreaching alternative? If so,
how far along is it?
Response. Yes. As mentioned above, the Federal agencies are
examining the same range of alternatives as the Framework. These
include nonbreaching alternatives. We have recommended to the Framework
that the range include an alternative that has a very aggressive
program in all H's, short of breaching. The Federal 4-H analysis, which
is designed to analyze recovery alternatives encompassing the entire
salmon life cycle, should be available in preliminary form by early
Fall 1999. We will provide this information to the Framework, the
NWPPC, and the Northwest Governors' Columbia River Basin Forum and the
public.
Question 8. The memo announcing the formation of the Federal Caucus
indicated work products would be completed by this time. Are these
products done, and if not, what is the current schedule?
Response. The draft Federal Caucus products planned for May and
June of this year will be available in the fall of 1999. After the memo
you reference was issued, the Federal Caucus initiated much closer
coordination with the Framework products and schedules. Since the draft
Framework analysis and alternatives were due in the fall, the Federal
Caucus revised its schedule so that the products from the Federal
Caucus would be able to consider and incorporate the Framework
alternatives.
Question 9. When will the COE' EIS and draft BA and draft 4-H Paper
be released for public review?
Response. The drafts of the COE' EIS, the BA, and the 4-H paper are
all scheduled for release in fall of 1999.
Question 10. What is the relationship of Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Plan to the 4-H Paper?
Response. ICBEMP is a long-term, comprehensive strategy for
managing Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service administered
lands in the Interior Columbia River Basin; addressing broad-scale
issues such as forest and rangeland health, socio-economics, and
anadromous fish. The public lands included in the Project area provide
critical habitat for salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and make up the federal habitat portion of the 4-
H's. The National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Environmental Protection Agency have been full partners in
the development of the ICBEMP strategy, and integral to the development
of the Project's aquatic health measures, especially as they relate to
ESA listed salmon and steelhead. The 4-H paper will incorporate the
aquatic results of ICBEMP which apply to salmon and steelhead habitat
on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service-administered lands.
Question 11. What is the relationship of the Pacific Salmon Treaty
and the U.S. v Oregon harvest management plans related to the 4-H
Paper?
Response. At a minimum, the 4-H paper will incorporate harvest
improvements derived from the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and any such
improvement negotiated within the U.S. v. Oregon structure. In
addition, both the Framework process and the 4-H paper may provide
opportunity to analyze impacts of different harvest and hatchery
strategies in combination with different habitat and hydro strategies,
which in turn may provide standards or goals for Treaty negotiators to
work toward.
Question 12. What processes will the Federal government use to
consider hatchery practices in the region?
Response. Each hatchery within the critical habitat of a listed
species will pass through the ESA consultation or permitting processes
under section 7 and section 10, respectively. Hatchery analyses and
strategies are being developed jointly and on a coordinated basis
within the NWPPC's Framework and Artificial Propagation Review
processes, the Federal 4-H Paper, and the U.S. v. Oregon process. On a
policy level, NMFS' goal is to ensure the debate in each of these
forums is coordinated, resulting in a set of hatchery reforms that can
pass through an ESA screen while addressing other legal mandates on a
consistent and complimentary basis.
Question 13. Can you guarantee that if the four Lower Snake dams
were breached that no water would be taken anywhere else in Idaho?
Response. No. Studies show that the primary benefits of breaching
four Lower Snake River dams would be improved spawning habitat and
decreased travel time from spawning areas to the estuaries. Regardless
of breaching, water temperatures, water quality, and quantity of flows
to facilitate travel time and keep spawning areas watered still pose
real issues for salmon recovery. Therefore, it is not reasonable at
this time to rule out the possibility that in some years flow
augmentation from Dworshak and the Upper Snake might continue to be
important.
______
Responses of George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. Federal Agencies and the Administration are working
hard to make long-term salmon decisions by early 2000. The Committee is
concerned that in your haste to assemble the scientific information you
need to make the decisions, you are neglecting to study the means of
minimizing the negative human impacts of these decisions. Will you
describe the work underway to address these concerns? And, will you
commit to crafting mitigation and transition proposals to minimize
these impacts in a timely manner so that they can be considered by the
region during the decisionmaking process? How do you propose to do
this?
Response. The Federal agencies and other regional entities involved
in salmon recovery efforts are very concerned with potential impacts of
their decisions on the people of the region. The Lower Snake River
Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study is examining three main
alternatives for configuration and operation of the four lower Snake
River dams for improved salmon passage. A Drawdown Regional Economic
Workgroup (DREW) of economists, social scientists and other
professionals have been tasked to analyze and describe social and
economic effects associated with alternative recovery measures. The
potential for negative human impacts is being evaluated in the study,
both on a national and on a local level. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) has done some broad analysis of possible compensation/
mitigation actions that could be taken in the event of dam breaching
for parties negatively affected by dam removal. If the preferred
alternative identified in the draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) includes dam breaching, a more defined plan for compensation
would be included in the final EIS.
In addition, the regional Multi-Species Framework Project
(Framework) is currently initiating a mitigation and transition study
to describe alternative paths and tools that lead to long-term economic
adjustment. It would focus on mitigation programs to facilitate
transition to economic and social recovery under the seven Framework
alternatives. This information will be available in the fall to help
the region understand the range of mitigation response tools that may
be available.
Question 2. Please describe the relationship between the Federal
Caucus and the Northwest Power Planning Council's (NWPPC) Multi-Species
Framework. Will the alternatives that the Framework is crafting be
officially incorporated into the range of alternatives that the
Administration (be that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or
COE) considers when choosing a preferred management alternative?
Response. The attached letter, dated June 22, 1999, from the
Federal Caucus and the Framework describes how the various processes
and products will be coordinated in the salmon decision. The Framework
is developing the fundamental options and outcomes that will be needed
to make informed management decisions. The Federal Caucus will work
with the Framework so that the alternatives that the Framework develops
and analyzes can be incorporated into the 4-H paper the Federal Caucus
is preparing. The Framework and Federal Caucus are working on the
development of alternative hydropower system actions and alternative
tributary habitat and hatchery approaches that both processes can use.
Question 3. The public has a need to be informed and involved in
salmon decision. Please assure the Committee that the COE and the other
Federal agencies will create a single public involvement process that
encompasses the various Federal forums.
Response. The Federal agencies initiated the Federal Caucus to
ensure coordination of issues and processes among the COE Snake River
EIS, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP),
and the 1999 decision for salmon recovery. We have successfully
negotiated with each other to have all of these draft products
available in October for public dialogue. We are actively exploring
coordination of public involvement meetings for the combination of
these issues, including meetings throughout the region, in the October
through January timeframe. We are also in discussion with the Forum and
Council to see if further coordination of public involvement is
possible.
______
Responses of George Frampton to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Please explain the role of the stakeholder groups in
the COE' DREW process. Is the COE currently utilizing the stakeholder
workgroups--especially the recreation workgroup--to review and comment
on the studies prior to the release of preliminary and draft documents?
Response. Early in the study process, DREW invited participation by
all interested parties. Representatives from industry associations,
irrigators, other water users, Columbia River tribes and representative
tribal associations, environmental groups, regional Federal and State
agencies and others responded and have participated in the study. The
participants helped develop the methodology and shape the analysis,
provide input and ``reality checks,'' and review and provide comment on
preliminary and draft reports. They have identified shortcomings in the
analysis and provided feedback on whether the results were reasonable.
The products prepared by DREW are being incorporated into the final
EIS.
Question 2. There is uncertainty about how the various Federal and
non-Federal salmon forums and processes merge together and contribute
to making decisions regarding the long-term recovery plan for salmon.
Will you please provide the committee with a ``roadmap''--with time
lines--that explains the expected ``output'' of each process, how these
processes relate to each other and how these products and processes
will be integrated to produce a single decision?
Response. The attached letter from the Framework and the Federal
Caucus, dated June 22, 1999, describes the various processes to develop
a long-term recovery plan for salmon, the products of these processes,
and how the processes relate to one another. Also attached is a draft
timeline that gives a roadmap for how they will be produced. Following
public comment on drafts of these products, they will be finalized in
the winter of 1999. The NMFS will use the analysis, findings, and
decisions reflected in these products to issue its final Biological
Opinion on hydropower in the spring of 2000.
__________
Statement of Donald Sampson, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the ``4-H''
paper being developed by the federal agencies with management authority
over Columbia River basin salmon listed pursuant to the federal
Endangered Species Act.
Since the federal government is developing its ``4-H'' paper behind
closed doors, it is somewhat difficult for us to comment on the
substance of it. However, it is our understanding that the ``4-H''
paper is intended to provide a ``context'' or ``backdrop'' for the
federal government's decision regarding the future of the Federal
Columbia River Power System.
It is well recognized that the hydrosystem causes significant
impacts on salmon. In fact, the incidental take permit that NMFS has
granted the hydrosystem operators allows the hydrosystem to take 24% to
86% of the juvenile Snake River spring/summer chinook and 21% of the
adult spring/summer chinook. Similarly, the hydrosystem is allowed to
take 62% to 100% of the juvenile Snake River fall chinook and 39% of
the adult fall chinook. The National Marine Fisheries Service's
biological opinion on the hydro-system states that the existing
operation of the hydrosystem does jeopardize the continued existence of
Snake River salmon. This ``state of jeopardy'' is allowed on a
temporary basis so that the federal government could gather the
information it needs to make an informed decision regarding the proper
configuration of the hydrosystem. Under the biological opinion, this
information gathering and analysis process will culminate in a final
decision in late 1999.
NMFS' biological opinion recognizes that it is important to
quantify the level of mortality imposed by the hydrosystem. This
information ``will help answer whether sufficient survival improvements
can be achieved in the hydropower system to contribute to the recovery
of the listed stocks, or whether large survival improvements must be
achieved in other sectors.''
The Commission and its member tribes have long recognized that one
cannot assess or manage the various mortality sectors, the ``4-H's,''
in isolation. Hence, the Commission's member tribes have long advocated
for ``gravel-to-gravel'' management. This requires addressing the
entire lifecycle of the salmon. To ensure that a species will rebuild
all sources of mortality must be addressed. In order to control the
various sources of salmon mortality and manage them to achieve
rebuilding, it is necessary to develop goals and objectives for the
affected salmon stocks that are consistent with law and based on sound
biology. When assembled into a comprehensive package, the measures
adopted to achieve these goals and objectives must add up to rebuilt
salmon runs.
Over four years ago, the Commission and its member tribes published
a salmon restoration plan entitled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The
Spirit of the Salmon). This plan encompasses the ``4-H's'' and includes
quantitative goals and objectives. It uses the best available science
and provides for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management. This
is still the only plan for Columbia River basin salmon recovery that
quantitatively assesses the measures recommended against the adopted
goals and objectives and addresses all 4 ``H's'' of salmon management
in a manner consistent with applicable laws.
The federal government is the biggest dam operator, land owner, and
hatchery manager in the Columbia River basin. It also has significant
harvest management authorities. The federal government can and must set
the tone for salmon rebuilding. The federal government cannot meet its
legal obligations simply by complying with the Endangered Species Act.
The ESA is only one of the laws that governs federal actions affecting
fish. Other critically important laws governing federal action include
the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Salmon
Treaty, and treaties with Indian tribes. Most of these laws contemplate
salmon population and harvest levels considerably higher than the
``survival'' and/or ``recovery'' levels that NMFS believes meet the
requirements of the ESA. The federal government is legally obligated to
use all of its authorities to ensure that Columbia basin salmon runs
are rebuilt to support salmon harvest both within the Columbia River
and in the ocean.
For decades, the primary approach to conserving Columbia basin
salmon has been to constrain harvest. This has not been effective. For
example, hardly any spring or summer chinook are harvested in fisheries
above Bonneville Dam. In fact, the tribes have not had a commercial
fishery on spring chinook since 1977 or on summer chinook since 1964.
Despite these severe restrictions, these runs have continued to decline
to the point where Snake River spring/summer chinook are now
endangered. Clearly, to prevent the extinction of Snake River spring/
summer chinook, it is essential to develop a plan that addresses all 4
``H's.'' Yet, given the federal government's current restrictive
policies on the use of artificial propagation, rebuilding of spring/
summer chinook will have to be implemented solely by making significant
changes in the hydrosystem and habitat management policies.
It has been frustrating for the tribes to watch the great salmon
debate proceed with no real links to legal obligations and sound
biological objectives. Instead, the focus is more on whether dam
breaching is on the table or off the table or whether the Bonneville
Power Administration will manage its finances so that salmon,
taxpayers, and ratepayers are all given a fair shake. While these are
important issues, one cannot reach a reasonable judgment about them
unless they are placed in the context of legal obligations and sound
biological objectives. Neither the tribes nor probably anyone else
would suggest breaching any dams unless it is necessary to meet legal
obligations and sound biological objectives. A reasonable ``4-H''
analysis should delineate all legal obligations and biological
objectives so that one can clearly see what actions are needed.
A reasonable ``4-H'' analysis must be firmly grounded in the best
available science. The policy of deference to agency expertise does not
always foster the use of the best available science nor does it foster
acceptance and support by affected interests. The federal government
and its scientists have been making the decisions about what salmon
protection measures are implemented in the hydrosystem, in hatcheries,
and on federal lands. While non-federal entities can provide comments
or make recommendations, the final decisions have continued to rest
with federal scientists and policy-makers. We see the fruits of their
``expertise'' in the empty waters and degraded streams in the basin.
Any ``4-H'' analysis developed by the federal government must be
subject to thorough review by independent scientists. For example, the
PATH process is a scientifically rigorous and independent process for
reaching scientific conclusions. In contrast, NMFS scientists at the
Coastal Zone and Estuarine Services in Seattle have too often rushed to
broadcast their results before undergoing any external peer review
process. We are very concerned that the federal government will develop
its ``4-H'' paper without reasonable and necessary scientific peer
review. We are not talking some sort of public comment process. The
federal government has ignored our comments, to the detriment of salmon
and the region, too many times. We suggest that, to the greatest extent
possible, the federal government employ existing, thorough-going peer
review processes such as the PATH or ISAB as a means of developing and
reviewing scientific judgments.
In closing, we believe that in order to meet its obligations to
protect and rebuild salmon, the federal government must conduct an
analysis of what must be done in each of the 4 ``H's'' in order to meet
reasonable goals and objectives. These goals and objectives must be
based on the biological needs of salmon and the federal government's
legal obligations. These legal obligations include not only the ESA,
but also the Clean Water Act and treaties with Indian tribes. In
evaluating the efficacy of various actions for each of the 4 ``H's,''
the federal government must be guided by the best available science. In
addition, the federal government must submit its scientific
determinations to rigorous independent review.
__________
WY-KAN-USH-MI WA-KISH-WIT
spirit of the salmon
______
The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce,
Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes
dedication
This work is dedicated to all life on this earth, before our time
and long after we are gone.
We did not inherit this earth or its natural resources from our
ancestors, we are only borrowing them from our children's children;
therefore, we are duty bound and obligated to protect them and use them
wisely until such time that they get here, and then they will have the
same obligations.
----Eugene Greene, Sr., Chairman Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission
preface
The salmon's spirit--Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit--is sacred life. The
salmon was provided a perfect world in which to enjoy its existence.
For thousands of years, the salmon unselfishly gave of itself for the
physical and spiritual sustenance of humans. The salmon's spirit has
not changed; the human spirit has.
Today the perfect world of the salmon is in total disarray. Even
its very existence and worth are being debated. Human arrogance has
brought the salmon to the brink of extinction.
Rather than a dignified cultural icon, the salmon is being
redefined as a problem, as something that makes unacceptable the human
laws designed to protect the environment. In spite of the state of
crisis, crude science and perilous politics have reduced the salmon and
its habitat to a struggling species living in a polluted and life-
threatening home.
The four Columbia River treaty tribes, who are keepers of ancient
truths and laws of nature, employ the depths of their hearts and the
expanse of their minds to save the salmon.
Respect and reverence for this perfect creation are the foundation
for this plan.
executive summary
The Indians of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
recognize that our fisheries are a basic and important natural resource
and of vital concern to the Indians of these states and that the
conservation of this resource is dependent upon effective arid
progressive management. And it is further recognized that Federal court
decisions have specifically established that the tribes have treaty
rights to an equitable share of the Columbia Basin fishery resource. We
further believe that by unity of action we can best accomplish these
things, not only for the benefit of our own people but for all the
people of the Pacific Northwest.
----Preamble to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
The Columbia River Watershed is world renowned for its salmon
populations. Historical estimates of average annual salmon runs
exceeded 5-11 million fish in the portion of the watershed now above
Bonneville Dam. When Lewis and Clark reached the Columbia River, they
were amazed by the abundance of the salmon. Yet today, fewer than
500,000 fish return above Bonneville and approximately 80 percent of
these are produced in hatcheries. Some stocks have already been lost,
three have been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act
by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the majority of the
remaining stocks are declining. These reduced runs of salmon are surely
cause enough for alarm, yet the issue comprises far more than salmon.
Tribal culture, the identity of all the people, and many of the species
that constitute the Pacific Northwest--essentially the integrity of the
entire Columbia River Watershed--are at stake.
If salmon are to survive in the Columbia River Watershed, we must
face the challenges before us with our goals clearly in mind, in heart,
and in spirit. We must now begin to respect, to reestablish, and to
restore the balances that once enabled this watershed to perform so
magnificently.
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit: The Columbia River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakarna
Tribes provides a framework to restore the Columbia River salmon,
simply stated: put the fish back into the rivers. Yet making this
happen has become increasingly difficult because of the decades of
poorly guided and deeply entrenched fish management policies. More than
science and its limits, the problems have almost always involved people
and their institutions-- whether government, business or otherwise.
Much of what is recommended to benefit salmon is what has been
needed and known for a long time. More than 50 years ago, Federal
biologists warned that the consequences of continued habitat
degradation and additional hydroelectric development would be
devastating to salmon populations. They were joined by tribal leaders
and through the years, by government commissions and citizen groups.
However, until the enactment of the Pacific Northwest Power
Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 and its fish and wildlife
program, there was no comprehensive salmon restoration program. for the
Columbia Basin. Had the Northwest Power Planning Council's salmon plan
been implemented, the people of the Northwest would not be today facing
a salmon crisis.
It was known that the passage conditions in the mainstem Columbia
River were inhospitable to salmon. Yet changes in river operation were
minute, especially given the prevailing drought conditions. It was also
known that many salmon runs and stocks had declined to such an extent
that their best hope was the application of artificial propagation
strategies. But hatcheries were eschewed without regard to the best
available science. Instead some of the stocks that might have been
helped by enactment of the fish program measures became listed under
the Endangered Species Act. And it was known that many environmental
laws have been ignored, exacerbating the crisis in the Columbia River
Watershed.
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit is the culmination of the leadership and
wisdom of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama fish and
wildlife committees and the technical work of reservation fisheries and
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission staffs. This tribal
salmon restoration plan outlines the cultural, biological, legal,
institutional and economic context within which the region's salmon
restoration efforts are taking place. This long-term plan addresses
virtually all causes of salmon decline and roadblocks to salmon
restoration for all anadromous fish stocks: chinook, coho, sockeye,
steelhead, chum, eels (Pacific lamprey) and sturgeon, above Bonneville
Dam. This area, encompassing about three quarters of the Columbia River
Basin, is where most of the tribes' treaty-reserved fishing places and
fish resources are located.
The Columbia River treaty tribes take a holistic ``gravel-to-
gravel'' approach to the management of the salmon, which differs from
approaches of many other groups in a variety of respects. This approach
focuses on the tributary, mainstem, estuary, and ocean ecosystems and
habitats where anadromous fish live. This focus on passage, habitat,
harvest and production requires substantial changes in current
practices and specific actions to recover from historical destructive
impacts.
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit integrates this gravel-to-gravel approach
into an adaptive management framework. The tribes agree with others who
advocate an adaptive approach that requires action even in the face of
uncertainty. According to adaptive management principles, that action
must be carefully monitored and evaluated so that natural resource
managers learn and change their actions on the basis of what they have
learned. Using an adaptive framework, this plan identifies the survival
changes in current water, land and fish management needed to produce
the necessary survival rates. The actions endorsed in this plan are
designed to measure whether or not survival levels are being achieved.
Should the recommended measures not attain sufficient rates of
survival, the plan calls for modifications and additional actions.
This plan goes far beyond those plans currently offered by other
sovereign governments--the Federal plan for endangered Snake River
salmon by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington fish and wildlife mitigation plan by the
Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). The plan not only makes
recommendations, but more importantly begins to provide a context for
decisionmaking: scientific and legal justifications, directions for
implementation, and analyses of expected outcomes are provided.
Unlike other plans, this plan establishes a foundation for He
United States and its citizens to honor their treaty and trust
obligations to the four tribes. If implemented, it would at least begin
to meet ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial needs of tribal members
and to return fish to many of the tribes' usual and accustomed fishing
places, as guaranteed in the 1855 treaties. If these obligations were
met, the non-Indian public would be a beneficiary, enjoying its legal
allotment of harvestable salmon and sharing a healthier, more natural
river system.
What often sets policy development apart from other decisionmaking
is the tribal conviction that not all societal decisions can be
properly weighed in terms of costs and economics. The costs of
restoration must be at least equated with the value of restoration.
That value includes the spirit of the salmon (Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi ?Wa-Kish-
Wit). Tribal peoples can feel the yearning of salmon to serve its life
purpose. There is no model that can factor in spirituality nor the
ultimate value of living creatures.
The tribes would hope that those who read, study and use this plan,
consider it a work-in-progress and invite readers to join in refining
it. The tribes believe that the plan's approach can help give direction
to a region whose salmon recovery is floundering without real political
vision and genuine scientific guidance.
If the reader can reconcile the truths of the past with the dreams
for tomorrow, then today's work can be found. This plan calls on the
collective human spirit to bring cultured and hereditary strengths to
bear upon the need for salmon restoration.
______
Goals and Objectives of Tribal Fish Restoration
put the fish back into the rivers!
goals
Restore anadromous fishes to the rivers and streams that support
the historical cultural and economic practices of the tribes. (These
are generally areas above Bonneville Dam.)
Emphasize strategies that rely on natural production and healthy
river systems to achieve this goal.
Protect tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.
Reclaim the anadromous fish resource and the environment on which
it depends for future generations.
objectives
Within 7 years, halt the declining trends in salmon, sturgeon, and
lamprey populations originating upstream of Bonneville Dam.
Within 25 years, increase the total adult salmon returns of stocks
originating above Bonneville Dam to 4 million annually and in a manner
that sustains natural production to support tribal commercial as well
as ceremonial and subsistence harvests.
Within 25 years, increase sturgeon and lamprey populations to
naturally sustainable levels that also support tribal harvest
opportunities.
Restore anadromous fishes to historical abundance in perpetuity.
Specific Contents of the Plan
If the actions outlined in the plan are taken, the four tribes
believe the salmon decline can be halted within 7 years and salmon
populations rebuilt to annual run sizes of four million above
Bonneville Dam within 25 years. Interim adult return goals for each
subbasin and species are listed in Table 1.1 and in Volume II of this
plan. Allowing for additional escapement needs and anticipated passage
losses, about two million salmon will be available for harvest in
mainstem fisheries. Longer-term goals will depend in part on the
success of the proposed actions. Habitat-based methods indicate the
possibility of achieving larger adult returns over the long term. Goals
in this plan will be reviewed periodically as part of the adaptive
management process.
To accomplish these objectives, the first volume of the plan sets
out 10 proposals for institutional change, along with 13 scientific
hypotheses and the recommended actions associated with each. The second
volume contains subbasin-by-subbasin return goals and the restoration
actions that must be undertaken to achieve them.
Tribal Culture and History
To understand the approach the four Columbia River tribes have
taken to anadromous fish restoration, key aspects of tribal culture and
history are described, including the importance of salmon, tribal
governmental structures and the traditional tribal management
philosophies that continue to guide the tribes as they have since
ancient times.
Biological Perspective
Outlined in this section are the survival requirements for salmon
and measures to improve survival of Pacific lamprey and white sturgeon.
While their requirements, such as cool, clean water and complex stream
systems, remain virtually the same as they have for hundreds of years,
the conditions under which these anadromous fish must now live have
been dramatically altered in a relatively short time. These changes and
their consequences are summarized here and are the bases for many of
the recommendations presented in this plan. The tribes have set
survival standards by life history stage required to meet restoration
goals for spring and fall chinook (Table 1.2).
Legal and Institutional Context
The tribes in the Northwest have a unique place in the legal and
regulatory scheme of natural resource management. To provide some
understanding of why this is so, tribal sovereignty, treaty-reserved
rights, trust responsibility and other legal matters pertaining to the
governmental status of the tribes are explained. This section also
describes the institutional structures already in place which recognize
the tribes as resource co-managers and that can serve as the framework
for accomplishing most restoration actions. An analysis of the
successes and failures of these institutions and of numerous
legislative initiatives is offered.
Table 1.1. Interim adult return goal to each subbasin within the
next 25 years. Most goals represent a combination of spawning needs
plus tributary harvest opportunities; exceptions are footnoted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinook Steelhead
Subbasin ------------------------------ Coho Sockeye -------------------- Total
Spring Summer Fall Summer Winter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..........
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM (Bonneville Dam -> McNary Dam)
Wind River\1\................. 5,000 ........ ........ 200 ........ 2,000 200 7,400
Little White River\1\......... 2,000 ........ 200 200 ........ ........ ........ 2,400
Big White River\1\............ 500 ........ 100 100 ........ 4,800 800 6,300
Klickitat River\2\............ 20,000 ........ 40,000 50,000 ........ 25,000 ........ 135,000
Hood River\2\................. 1,700 ........ ........ ........ ........ 8,000 5,000 14,700
Deschutes River\2\............ 10,250 ........ 11,000 ........ 5,000 19,000 ........ 45,250
Fifteen Mile Creek\3\......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 300 300
John Day River\2\............. 7,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 45,000 ........ 52,000
MID-COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM (McNary Dam -> Chief Joseph Dam)
Umatilla River\2\............. 11,000 ........ 21,000 6,000 ........ 9,670 ........ 47,670
Hanford Reach\3\.............. ........ ........ 40,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 40,000
Walla Walla River\2\.......... 5,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 11,000 ........ 16,000
Yakima River\2\............... 26,300 12,000 4,700 5,000 ........ 29,700 ........ 77,700
Wenatchee River\2\............ 21,000 10,000 ........ ........ 35,000 6,410 ........ 72,410
Entiat River\1\............... 750 ........ ........ ........ ........ 3,000 ........ 3,750
Methow River\1\............... 2,000 3,000 ........ ........ ........ 10,000 ........ 15,000
Okanogan River\1\............. 1,000 2,000 ........ ........ 15,000 10,000 ........ 28,000
LOWER-SNAKE RIVER MAINSTEM (Ice Harbor Dam -> Hells Canyon Dam)
Snake River\2\................ ........ ........ 18,300 ........ ........ ........ ........ 18,300
Tucannon River\2\............. 3,000 2,000 ........ ........ ........ 2,200 ........ 7,200
Clearwater River\2\ 60,000 50,000 50,000 14,000 ........ 93,100 ........ 267,100
Grande Ronde River\2\......... 16,000 ........ 10,000 3,500 2,500 27,500 ........ 59,500
Salmon River\2\............... 128,000 60,200 5,000 20,000 44,500 192,900 ........ 450,600
Imnaha River\1\............... 5,740 ........ 3,000 ........ ........ 4,315 ........ 13,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... 326,240 140,200 202,300 99,000 102,000 503,595 6,300 1,379,635
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Harvest goal only
\2\ Harvest and spawning goal
\3\ Spawning goal only
Table 1.2. Survival rates of Snake River spring and fall chinook
under NMFS and Tribal restoration plans. From Table 5C.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPRING CHINOOK FALL CHINOOK
-------------------------------------------------------
LIFE HISTORY STAGE OR MORTALITY SOURCE Tribal 25-yr Tribal 25-yr
NMFS 1995 Strategy NMFS 1995 Strategy
Plan Option 3 Plan Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egg -> Smolt............................................ .045 .10 .50 .50
Juvenile Passage........................................ .24 .71 .19 .36
Early Ocean............................................. .16 .16 .20 .20
Ocean Natural........................................... .50 .50 .50 .50
Ocean Harvest........................................... 1.00 1.00 .79 .85
In-river Harvest........................................ .90 .61 .85 .28
Adult Passage........................................... .70 .91 .55 .83
Pre-spawning............................................ .85 .85 1.00 1.00
Lifetime Total (x10-3).............................. .46 2.69 3.51 3.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spawner/Spawner Ratio........................... 1.16 6.74 6.04 6.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Recommendations
The tribal plan generally offers three types of actions within the
recommendations section: institutional, technical, and watershed- or
subbasin-specific. Recommendation descriptions and highlights follow.
Institutional
The tribal salmon restoration plan urges that existing
institutional frameworks be used to manage and achieve anadromous fish
restoration. The framework provided by the Columbia River Fish
Management Plan, Pacific Salmon Treaty, Northwest Power Planning Act,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides the structure for
the sovereign governments of the Northwest to plan, coordinate and
direct major restoration actions. The tribes contend that the failure
of these existing mechanisms is a failure to act by responsible
parties. The success of these existing institutional frameworks
requires true co-management by the tribes instead of unilateral
decisions by the state and Federal Governments.
The institutional recommendations propose, for the most part,
modest changes to the procedures adopted under the authority of U.?. v.
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act to improve harvest and production management and to
coordinate policies and resolve disputes, particularly for hydro
operations, public lands management and research. The recommendations
attempt to join accountability with responsibility for fish restoration
by shifting the funding prioritization process to the tribes and
agencies and transferring certain federally funded hatcheries to the
tribes. The recommendations seek to limit policy barriers to the use of
artificial propagation as a tool for restoration. The institutional
changes also address private land management by recommending support
for watershed initiatives and for enforcement of environmental laws.
Institutional Recommendations
1. Rather than create a new Federal bureaucracy, use the Columbia
River Fish Management Plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish
and Wildlife Program, and orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as a basis for management.
2. Plan and implement production called for in the Columbia River
Fish Management Plan.
3. For public lands and water project management, implement a
dispute resolution process similar to Columbia River Fish Management
Plan and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission processes.
4. Establish a new state and tribal fish and wildlife entity using
Bonneville Power Administration funding.
5. Support ongoing and implement new subbasin planning through a
Columbia Basin watershed trust program.
6. Base Endangered Species Act listing on the status of species
throughout a significant portion of its spawning and rearing range. In
the absence of scientific proof, the National Marine Fisheries Service
should withdraw its Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) interim
policy as a basis for Endangered Species Act listings.
7. Transfer federally funded hatcheries located on reservations and
at other upriver sites to tribal control.
8. State, tribal and Federal fish agencies coordinate and set
priorities for research, monitoring and evaluation programs.
9. Continue development of and make research and monitoring data
available through a coordinated information system.
10. Update provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia
River Fish Management Plan based on the latest survival rate and catch
level information.
11. Continue coordinated harvest law enforce 12 meet; develop
habitat protection law enforcement.
Technical Recommendations
1. Begin improving in-channel stream conditions for anadromous fish
by improving or eliminating land-use practices that de Technical grade
watershed quality.
2. Protect and increase instream flows by limiting additional
consumptive water withdrawals, using the most efficient irrigation
methods, preventing soil compaction and riparian vegetation removal and
wetland destruction; where necessary. restore soil, restore riparian
vegetation and re-create wetlands.
3. Actively restore watersheds where salmon populations are in
imminent danger of extirpation. Use ``Coarse Screening Process'' to
develop demonstration projects.
4. Use supplementation to help rebuild salmon populations at high
demographic risk of extirpation.
5. Use supplementation to reintroduce salmon to watersheds from
which they have been extirpated.
6. Use flow, spill, drawdowns \1\, peak efficiency turbine
operation, new turbine technology, and predator control projects to
improve inriver juvenile salmon survival; avoid fluctuations caused by
power peaking operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Short term: Draw down John Day to minimum operating pool and
Lower Granite to 705' mean sea level; Long term:
Option 1: John Day and Lower Granite to natural river level:
Option 2: John Day to spillway crest: Ice Harbor and Lower
Monumental to natural level:
Option 3: John Day and four lower Snake dams to natural river
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Protect and restore critical estuary habitat.
8. Establish Alaskan and Canadian ocean fisheries based on chinook
abundance.
9. Use stored cold water, additional ladders, ladder improvements
and ladder maintenance to enhance mainstem adult passage; incorporate
24-hour video fish counting.
10. Improve water quality by eliminating sources of toxic pollution
that accumulates in fish tissue and by reducing discharges of other
contaminants to meet water quality criteria for anadromous fish.
11. Closely monitor tributary production and escapement to improve
management.
12. Conduct research on Pacific lamprey and design artificial
propagation strategies to supplement natural production.
13. Develop artificial propagation and management strategies for
white sturgeon populations above Bonneville Dam.
Technical
The tribal technical recommendations are presented in sets of
hypothesis statements that summarize various restoration problems. The
hypotheses are organized by salmon life cycle stages. Individually,
they propose near- and long-term actions, identify expected results and
name the institutional and decisional processes required to carry out
the recommended actions.
Habitat Restoration
To protect and recover tributary habitat, the plan proposes that
land and water users and managers meet a series of habitat conditions
associated with survival rates, for example, 10 percent egg-to-smolt
survival for Snake River spring and summer chinook. The use of the
``Coarse Screening Process,'' where applicable, will determine the
allowable level of watershed impacts. This process requires Federal and
state land and water managers to maintain or improve fish habitat. If
they do not meet the habitat standards--for example, water temperatures
can be no higher than 60 F--land and water managers must take action
that will achieve compliance. Other important Coarse Screening
standards include limits on the amount of sediment in spawning habitat
and in streams generally, and the establishment of riparian reserves to
protect vegetation and soils. So that anadromous fish are able to again
thrive in their natural environment, other necessary measures are
recommended, including reconnecting habitat areas that support salmon.
Badly degraded habitat may be directly downstream or upstream of
salmon-supporting habitat. As migratory fish, salmon require decent
habitat throughout their life-cycle range.
Production
The tribal goal to put fish back in the rivers means literally
putting the fish back. To do that requires returning more of the
basin's fish production to the rivers and streams where they come from.
Young salmon, if released at the proper time and manner, will return as
adults to spawn in the same area they were released as juveniles.
Rather than continuing current hatchery rearing and release methods,
the plan outlines the development of new propagation strategies to
reestablish naturally spawning salmon runs. With so many Columbia basin
stocks at such low numbers, supplementation, which is what the tribes
call their propagation proposal, is now an indispensable part of any
restoration plan. While accounting for genetic concerns, the tribal
plan asserts that increasing likelihood of further extirpations is in
fact the far greater genetic risk.
Passage
In the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers where more than a dozen
massive dams dominate riparian habitat, the plan also calls for putting
the fish back in the river: Young migrating salmon are now being
transported in trucks and barges. Stop collecting them for transport,
the plan urges, and let them swim down the river to the ocean on their
own. To support anadromous fish, mainstem habitat must be returned to
natural conditions which are linked to a 71 percent downstream passage
survival rate, closer to those that existed prior to construction of
the dams. This can be done by providing additional spill and water
flows, among other measures. The plan recommends actions that can begin
restoration of mainstem habitat, including provisions to address toxic
pollution as well as provisions for additional spill and water flows.
The plan also addresses estuary and ocean problems.
Harvest
Plan recommendations include proposals for reducing chinook
mortalities in North Pacific fisheries and the adoption of abundance-
based salmon management in ocean fisheries. The plan addresses the
problem of incidental mortalities and other harvest issues.
Watershed Actions
In Volume II of this plan, the subbasin plans that were part of the
earlier Northwest Power Planning Council fish and wildlife program have
been updated and are included as a key part of this plan. Detailed
recommendations are provided for 23 major watersheds above Bonneville
Dam. The measures focus on habitat protection and rehabilitation and on
returning fish to these streams using supplementation techniques. It is
envisioned that these actions will be accomplished through a watershed
restoration trust fund, under the leadership of the Columbia River
treaty tribes.
Economic Context
In this section, the tribes' plan acknowledges the cost of salmon
restoration but provides a different look at valuation. The tribes
contend that the people of the Northwest can afford salmon restoration
and that calculating foregone hydro-electric cost is not the only
measure of the salmon's worth. The annual costs of salmon restoration
measures are estimated to be half a percent of the region's annual
personal income. The loss of salmon has also meant the loss of revenue
for tribal economies historically dependent on salmon with an estimated
loss for tribal economies of billions of dollars so far. The estimated
annual cost of the plan, $195-$325 million, is similar to the cost
range of the Northwest Power Planning Council's Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service's Snake
River Recovery Plan.
In conclusion, the tribes urge the region to adopt a single plan
for Columbia Basin anadromous fish--one that is mutually acceptable to
the four tribes, the United States and the states of Washington, Oregon
and Idaho. The tribes ask citizens and their government representatives
and officials to use this plan and its framework as the basis for
salmon restoration.
BPA energy-related subsidies. From Table 6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPA DISCOUNTS ANNUAL SUBSIDY (1994)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Reclamation irrigation $32. million
pumping.
Private irrigation pumping............. $13.5 million
Direct Service Industries (primarily $179. million
aluminum smelting).
Residential loads of Investor-Owned $210 million
Utilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Statement of Scott Faber, Director of Floodplains, American Rivers
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Scott Faber, and I am Director of Floodplain Programs
for American Rivers. For the past six years, I have worked daily with
my colleagues at the Corps of Engineers to reform our management of the
Missouri River, the nation's longest river, and the Mississippi River
from the Twin Cities to Saint Louis. Many of the lessons we have
learned could be applied to the Columbia and Snake.
The parallels to the Snake and Columbia Rivers are striking. The
Missouri, Mississippi, Columbia and Snake Rivers all support commercial
barge traffic, generate hydroelectric power, and serve as important
recreational resources. Changes made to support barge traffic on each
river have placed native species on state and federal watch lists. On
the Missouri, more than 100 species are in trouble; on the Mississippi,
more than 50 species are in trouble, and, of course, Snake River salmon
are on the verge of extinction.
Like my colleagues in the Northwest, we were frustrated by the
Corps' decision-making process. Rather than working with stakeholders
to develop consensus about the management of our natural resources, the
Corps conducted studies and developed management alternatives in
isolation and, after spending years and tens of millions of dollars,
mechanically sought our input through public hearings which provide
wonderful theater but little more.
It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of what the Corps
should do--and, indeed, the opposite of what Congress sought when you
passed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In the Midwest,
we persuaded the Corps that agencies must do more than simply consider
the impacts of proposed actions--they must ``use all practicable
means', to balance our human needs with the needs of our natural
resources.\1\ Instead, the Corps should develop science-based
management alternatives and ask the public to decide the fate of our
natural resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 433
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Upper Mississippi River, for example, the Corps worked with
American Rivers and MARC 2000, a navigation industry trade association,
to create the Upper Mississippi River Summit, which brings farmers,
conservation groups, waterway users together to set management goals
for the river. On the Missouri River, the Corps has held public
workshops that provided information on a wide range of management
alternatives for the Missouri's dams, and then asked the stakeholders,
led by basin states, to seek consensus.
In both cases, the Corps provided sound, science-based information
and asked river stakeholders to make the tough calls. It's not easy.
But, it has dramatically changed river management for the better, and
brought the river's economic and environmental interests together.
This model could be applied to the Columbia and Snake Rivers as
well. But, the Corps has not developed the right information, and has
not shown a willingness to let the public decide the fate of our public
resources. The Corps is rushing headlong into making a decision without
anticipating or preparing to mitigate the social and economic impacts
of this decision--the human impacts of dam removal. Rather than simply
measuring the likely effects of dam removal, the Corps should also
anticipate social and economic impacts and propose measures that could
offset these impacts.
This committee can fix this problem, I believe, by the doing the
following:
1) First, the Committee should direct the Corps to develop a wide
range of transportation mitigation alternatives.
Whether we should remove four dams from the Snake River will force
the nation to make a difficult choice. But, in reality, the Corps'
current decision-making process will not allow us to make a choice at
all--because they have not developed a plan to mitigate the impacts of
dam removal on waterway users. There is no question that removing dams
and doing nothing more--will increase transportation costs. If we are
going to be able to make a real choice, the Corps must help
stakeholders develop a transportation mitigation plan that would
accompany dam removal. Directing the Corps to develop transportation
mitigation alternatives is not the same as directing the Corps to
remove dams. Rather, directing the Corps to develop transportation
mitigation alternatives will help all river stakeholders make better
decisions. The committee should instruct the Corps to work with the
U.S. Department of Transportation and state and local of finials to
quickly develop a variety of transportation mitigation alternatives.
Wheat farmers and other waterway users must not shoulder the burden
of salmon recovery alone. That's why American Rivers recently hired Dr.
Edward Dickey, former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
under the Bush Administration and an expert on transport of commodities
like wheat, to develop a transportation mitigation plan for the Snake
River. Although Dr. Dickey's proposal is not yet complete, options
might include enhanced rail and road infrastructure, additional rail
cars, additional facilities to store or transfer grain, and other
investments designed to reduce transportation costs. In addition to
current waterway users, these investments will benefit other businesses
that rely upon transportation.
2) Second, the Committee should hold field hearings on
transportation mitigation alternatives.
Building consensus about the future of the Snake River will not be
easy. Right now, river interests are polarized, unwilling to consider
management alternatives that save salmon and meet the needs of current
waterway users. Following the development of transportation mitigation
alternatives, the Committee should hold field hearings to encourage
debate and discussion, and direct the Corps to hold workshops designed
to build consensus between groups like American Rivers and the American
Farm Bureau Federation.
3) Third, the Committee should direct the Corps to use sound
science and credible economic analyses.
It is absolutely critical that decisions be based on the best
available scientific and economic information. Currently, the Corps' is
relying upon documents that are incomplete, insufficient or
analytically flawed.
Let me give you two examples. Currently, the Corps' DEIS is
disproportionately based upon the life histories on two of the five
types of Snake River salmon listed as endangered species. Of course,
salmon have very different life histories, and management decisions
must reflect these differences. Or consider another example--after
creating economic workgroups to review economic studies, the Corps has
not allowed members of these workgroups to review and comment on
preliminary reports.
Perhaps the best example is the Corps' failure to properly measure
the potential value of recreation following dam removal. The Corps has
conducted surveys in California to gauge public interest in Snake River
fishing and recreation. However, the Corps does not want to include
information about the reported economic value of vacationing and
fishing Californians in its study. So the Corps released its own
report, without consulting the workgroups, which questioned the
validity of the California numbers and offers an analysis excluding
Californians. The Corps also ignored the relatively greater economic
value of tourists who originate from cities and counties that do not
border the Snake, and assumed that local communities would not build
new boat ramps and other facilities to capture the economic benefits of
increased tourism and recreation. This sort of unjustifiable, ad hoc
action calls the Corps' entire study into question.
4) Finally, the Committee should direct the Corps to craft a
citizen-led, consensus building process.
Holding field hearings on transportation mitigation alternatives
could jump-start a citizen-led process to build a consensus vision for
the Snake River. Six years ago, no one believed that Mississippi River
stakeholders could put aside long-held antagonisms and develop a vision
for the river that meets our economic and environmental needs. But, we
did, and now we are working together, farmers and environmentalists, to
implement our vision.
This sort of vision could also be developed for the Snake. But,
unless the Corps develops the information necessary to support this
process, I expect that the future of the Snake will be no less
polarized than it is today. The Committee should direct the Corps to
support this process by using sound science and economics to support a
range of management alternatives, including transportation mitigation
alternatives. The Corps should also clarify the roles of current
workgroups and forums, and work with their federal partners to make
certain that these workgroups and forums support informed decision-
making by the public.
Right now, few local residents understand how the myriad
workgroups, forums, studies and other processes fit together, or
whether they fit together at all. It would be too complicated to simply
collapse these existing processes, given the number of agencies
involved and their conflicting mandates. What is needed is better
coordination, including an interagency communication and public
involvement plan. We are anxious to work with the Committee to ensure
that the federal agencies provide a sensible and timely roadmap to
their decision-making processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Responses of Scott Faber to Additional Questions from Senator Baucus
Question 1: The Administration is preparing to make major salmon
recovery decisions by the end of this year. Do you think there is time
to study the mitigation and transition issues that you are proposing?
Response. I do not believe that the Administration and Congress can
actually make informed decisions without this information. Similarly,
if the Corps and the other Federal agencies move ahead and make their
decisions without providing the people of the region with credible
proposals to deal with the negative impacts, the decisions will be
virtually un-implementable. We need decisions that work for the fish
and that work for the people. The Corps is capable of providing the
needed information within the time constraints of the upcoming
decision. However, they need to begin this work with earnest.
The Corps needs to investigate the human impacts that might result
from both dam removal and the non-dam removal options. For instance, if
the dams stay, it is likely that more Idaho water will be called for in
an attempt to improve downstream river conditions--if another 1 million
acre feet of water is called for from Idaho irrigation reservoirs, this
will have a tremendous human impact. The Corps needs to look at this
and propose a means of mitigating or minimizing these impacts. The same
types of proposals must be made regarding possible impacts on sport and
commercial fishing, timber and mining if these activities are greatly
curtailed as part of a recovery plan. Conversely, if the dams are
removed, there will be an impact on those that currently use the
waterway to ship commodities. This impact needs to be investigated and
a proposal developed to minimize this impact. Proposals for minimizing
the negative, human impacts need to be developed for all options being
considered.
Additionally, the various Federal and state processes moving
forward in the region (Corps DEIS, NMFS Bi-Op, the 4-H paper and the
Framework) need to be coordinated and integrated so that information
provided in one study can be brought to bear on questions raised in
another. And finally, there needs to be a formal, robust public
participation process undertaken throughout the effected area to
provide the public with the information they need, and to solicit their
input and concerns. The people of the Northwest need to be
substantively involved in these decisions.
Question 2: In your testimony you expressed concerns about the
Corps' economic study on recreation. How can we address your concerns?
Response. I am concerned with the economic analyses being conducted
through the he Corps of Engineers' Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup
(DREW).
The DREW was established to ensure a balanced, thorough economic
analysis addressing all significant issues. It consists of Federal,
state, tribal, and interested party participants who have been jointly
working toward this end. Early on, DREW participants agreed to a
process for expert oversight by the Independent Economic Advisory Board
(IEAB) and refinement of each analysis by the individual workgroups
responsible for discrete issues, such as recreation or power supply.
Unfortunately, major sections of the appendix, including the commodity
transportation, recreation, regional, and social analyses, have not
been provided to non-Corps DREW participants or the IEAB for review and
critique.
This short-circuiting of the proper review process for the analysis
creates the very real possibility that key decisions on Snake River
salmon and steelhead recovery may be based on inaccurate and incomplete
economic information.
I urge your Committee to take the following steps to ensure that
the best economic information is presented in a timely fashion. First,
all unreviewed or incomplete draft reports should be reviewed
immediately by the designated DREW workgroups to identify necessary
revisions. Second, the preliminary draft economic appendix and any
subsequent drafts should be provided to all DREW participants and the
IEAB for review at the same time they are distributed to the Federal
agencies. This will ensure that a thorough review by all key players
takes place as early as possible, providing the Army Corps with the
information and time it will need to prepare a high-quality economic
appendix for inclusion in the DEIS.
__________
Statement of Mark Dunn, Director of Governmental Affairs, J.R. Simplot
Company
Chairman Crapo and distinguished members of the committee, my name
is Mark Dunn. I am Director of Governmental Affairs for the J.R.
Simplot Company in Boise, Idaho, a diversified agribusiness,
headquartered in the Northwest and operating in 23 states. I am here
today primarily in my capacity as Chairman of the Government Affairs
Committee of the Northwest Food Processors Association, a regional
trade association representing the $6 billion fruit and vegetable
processing industry in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on a topic that is
of critical interest to our industry and the entire Pacific Northwest.
I would like to focus my comments today on the role of the federal
Caucus in developing salmon recovery efforts in the Northwest.
Protecting and recovering endangered salmon and maintaining the
economic viability of the Northwest are not mutually exclusive. In
fact, the recovery of salmon is dependent on industries like food
processing.
Food processing is the largest manufacturing employer in the state
of Idaho and the second largest in the states of Oregon and Washington.
Our companies provide the tax revenues and economic stability the
region requires to focus on such an enormous task. However, to be
successful, the region must have a common vision. A vision that is
shared by all parties, including the federal agencies.
The federal caucus does not currently seem to be a part of that
shared vision for the Northwest. They continue to send conflicting
messages and have failed to coordinate with critical regional
initiatives. This uncertainty leads to increased conflict in the region
and to decreased effectiveness of the regional process. It is hard to
motivate business leaders to participate in a process that, in the end,
means nothing because NMFS or one of the other agencies decides to go
its own direction. I will give you a couple of examples.
At this time last year, the Northwest Food Processors Association,
as a part of a comprehensive coalition of Northwest economic interests,
agreed to support and participate in the Northwest Power Planning
Council's Framework process. As you know, the purpose of the Framework
is to assess a number of potential recovery alternatives for the
Columbia/Snake system. We agreed to participate because the Framework
was to include all of the affected parties; tribes, economic interests,
federal agencies and environmental groups, in a process that would be
open, fair and scientifically valid.
The federal caucus supported and encouraged the Framework process.
Danny Consenstein, Columbia Basin Coordinator for NMFS, serves as one
of the executive management team members for the Framework. However,
once the project was funded and well under way, the federal caucus
announced that they would be developing a separate vision for recovery,
commonly referred to as the 4-H paper. This process is happening behind
closed doors, with no outside involvement. The agencies are still
participating in the Framework, but how can the process have any chance
for success when the federal agencies that hold the regulatory hammer
are developing their own separate vision for the region?
A second example shows our concern for what appears to be extremely
serious coordination issues among the federal agencies.
The Bonneville Power Administration is currently in the middle of a
controversial rate case that will have long term impacts on the Pacific
Northwest. On September 21, 1998, after nearly a year long public
process, Vice President Gore announced a set of ``Fish and Wildlife
Funding Principles'' which would be incorporated into the BPA rate
case. These principles were formally incorporated into BPA's Record of
Decision for the Power Subscription Strategy issued in December of
1998.
Last month, we learned that three federal bureaucrats, from NMFS,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and EPA, each of whom are members of the federal
caucus, had drafted a seventeen page memo titled ``Preliminary Cost
Estimates for Two Fish and Wildlife Alternatives.'' This memo, which
was circulated to key Administration officials, attempts to make a case
for further rate increases for BPA from 10-22% in the 2002-2006 period.
This is on top of the excessive reserves BPA already plans to
accumulate using its adopted ``Fish Funding Principles.''
While the contents of the memo are of critical concern to the
region's industry, possibly the most shocking part of this incident is
that the memo was never shown to officials at the Bonneville Power
Administration prior to being circulated among top Clinton
administration officials.
If the caucus cannot or will not coordinate such an important
initiative, how can we as economic stakeholders hope to work with them?
Can we trust their statements and even more concerning, what is coming
next?
The future of the Northwest will be shaped by the decisions that
are made in the next few years. With so much on the line, we cannot
afford to have federal bureaucrats pursuing their personal agendas
outside the accountability of the formal regional process.
__________
Staement of Owen C. Squires, Rocky Mountain Region President, Pulp and
Paperworkers Resource Council, Representing Paper, Allied-Industrial,
Chemical, and Energy Workers International Union, Local 712
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, my
name is Owen Squires. I am before you today in my capacity as Regional
Director of the Rocky Mountain Region of the Pulp and Paperworkers
Resource Council or PPRC. Our over-300,000 members across the United
States are deeply committed to the conservation of America's natural
resources in ways that protect the wild community and benefit people.
I am here to appeal to you to restore credibility to the process of
deciding what to do to help our anadromous fish in the Pacific
Northwest. Federal officials have once again concluded that the
processes of democratic government are just too messy. Their response
has been to form a federal commission, a small body of top federal
executives who call themselves the Federal Caucus. Their purpose is to
blow through the really tough process of working out what to do with
our fish. In his letter dated February 16, 1999, Mr. Stelle says he
will make an attempt to work with the rest of us. But if that attempt
moves too slowly to meet his artificial timeline, he'll move ahead with
a decision anyway, right or wrong, good or bad [last sentence on page 3
of the Federal Caucus letter].
That's particularly interesting about this approach, Mr. Chairman,
is that these members of the Federal Caucus are the sardine people who
have made the rest of us wait forever, time and again, for reasons of
their own. What's the rush today?
It appears else answer is that the Federal Caucus has already made
up its mind and is moving through a speedy trial to a speedier hanging
and American Labor and all working people in the Northwest are the
defendants. We have a right to speak in our own defense. But this is
not a trial. This is the formulation of public policy, policy that does
not affect Mr. Stelle at all in the sense that he doesn't live here and
he will not have to live directly with the consequences of his
decision.
It's easy to make decisions in small groups behind closed doors.
It's not easy to implement those decisions, however The bright light of
day is not kind to smoke-filled rooms. How can Mr. Stelle hope to find
solutions if he isn't willing to involve the people?
Those who would be king have told the rest of us not to worry, they
have the answers, they'll take care of us. We don't believe it.
Mr. Chairman, we need a seat at the table if this is going to work.
The Federal Caucus needs to open the doors and let their light so shine
that the truth becomes plain to all of us. They must listen to the
expertise in the region and then ace on that expertise to help solve
our common problems. And they must make time. Answers to complex
questions do not come quickly or easily. It's not Federal.. they don't
happen overnight. And it's not Burger King.. we don't always get it OUt
way. We're credible people and it's OK to ask us to participate.
Over thirty five years ago, the United States government told us,
over our objections, that if we'd just go along with dam building our
lives would improve and our region would prosper. They were right. We
have prospered.
We cannot now undo the past without vast consequences for the
future.. our future. We are not interested in the settlements of
decision brokers and lawyers in the back alleys of government. We are
committed to working locally, thinking globally, and finding solutions
we can all live with.
Open the federal caucus and make it live for all of us in the
refight Columbia River basin.
Thank you. I stand for questions.
__________
Statement of Tim Stearns, Policy Director, Save Our Wild Salmon
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
My name is Tim Stearns. I am the Policy Director of Save Our Wild
Salmon. For the past eight years I have sought to help the Northwest
adapt to and make decisions about how best to stabilize and restore
populations of wild salmon and steelhead on the Snake and Columbia
Rivers, and the ecosystems on which they depend. Save Our Wild Salmon
is a coalition of sportsfishing, commercial fishing, traditional
environmental groups and salmon-based businesses. Prior to that I
worked on the implementation of the Northwest Power Act, since its
passage in 1980, where the Northwest sought to survive the failure to
build nuclear plants, implement cost-effective conservation programs
and build the power system of the future.
I wanted to offer our observations on problems in the
decisionmaking and analytical processes being used to make long term
decisions.
Declining salmon is not a new issue. It has existed since the
arrival of white settlers. Increasing competition for fish,
technological improvements, new people, development and resource use
have all contributed to the decline. The Northwest has tried repeated
technological interventions to stave off the declines. The single most
destructive set of activities on the Snake and Columbia River has been
the damming of rivers. In this testimony, I will not focus on the
causes, but how to work toward solutions.
Since the mid 1970's and the completion of the Lower Snake dams the
Northwest has wrestled with the Endangered Species Act. The Northwest
Power Act sought to fix two major problems--first the energy
situation--including inefficient energy use, increased demand, huge
cost increases from new thermal projects, poor forecasting and closed
planning processes. It also sought a fix to declining stocks of
anadromous fish, namely salmon and steelhead. The Northwest agreed to
protect, mitigate and enhance salmon and steelhead, provide flows of
sufficient quality and quantity, provide equitable treatment and defer
to agency and tribal experts. The Power Act delayed implementation of
the Endangered Species Act until 1991 when it was apparent our efforts
were insufficient and probably misguided.
The Northwest Power Planning Council made one last attempt to
retain regional control of the issue with its 1994 Fish and Wildlife
Program. The new Council, Bonneville Power Administration and Congress
treated that program like a cafeteria implementing some measures and
ignoring others, the Federal Government never embraced it and
implemented measures of their own.
The National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration
assured the region and nation it could handle this problem without
additional staff or appropriations. Unfortunately, this decision did
not allow the administration to develop a strategic approach or the
people power necessary to analyze, assess and implement measures. NMFS
has proved to be a bottleneck--I would suggest they have since somewhat
geared up to take on the challenge since then, but too little too late
resulting in bad feeling on the ground. NMFS has not consistently
enforced its Biological Opinions. In our view NMFS never developed the
independent scientific and economic tools necessary to work through
these issues. NMFS continues to be dependent on the Bonneville Power
Administration and Northwest Power Planning Council for hydrosystem
economic information. NMFS has involved scientists who designed and
study the passage measures at dams and the barging program instead of
developing a separate scientific group.
During this time period the science has significantly changed the
playing field and our outlook. Until the mid 1990's the region and
nation believed we could engineer our way through every salmon problem.
In fact we deluded ourselves into believing we could do things better
than mother nature. The state of the science was encapsulated in two
watershed reports--Upstream by the National Research Council and Return
to the River by the Independent Science Advisory Board concluded that
salmon convolved with their watersheds and thus, needed restored
watersheds processes. The scientists went to great lengths to suggest
that human development and technology could be compatible with
sustainable salmon runs; however, they did suggest that we need to be
increasingly cognizant of the needs of salmon, that technology should
be used to complement and recreate watershed processes and that
virtually everything we do should be treated, monitored and adapted
like an experiment.
After a series of litigation that found the interim recovery
measures adopted by NMFS inadequate, NMFS proclaimed to the Federal
Court they would make decisions by December of 1999. The Court
reluctantly deferred to the discretion of the federal government. NMFS
sketchily laid out its decisionmaking and research plan. In the 1995
Biological Opinion NMFS proposed interim flows, a spill program and
modification of the John Day dam. Unfortunately, the flow targets have
never been met during the summer months and the administration never
sought did the Congress approve the John Day modifications. The spill
program has improved after relentless prodding. NMFS launched its
limited research program and called upon the Corps of Engineers to
study the alternative measures for restoring Snake River salmon.
The Corps Lower Snake River Leasability study has been rife with
problems: it is over six months behind scheduled; it is limited to
three mainstem Snake River options; it does not encompass the broad
range of alternatives or impacts throughout the Columbia ecosystem--for
instance the future operation and configuration of John Day dam is
being addressed in a separate EIS; harvest, hatcheries and habitat are
being dealt with in many processes. It does not have a well defined
protocol for releasing information--thus officially releases some
information and allows other information to be embargoed resulting in
charges of leaks, spin control frustration by interested parties and
media. Recently participants in the economic analysis have supported
open dissemination of final reports creating a more open availability
of information and encouraging a more open debate. The Corps has
consulted with some parties and affected communities, while ignoring
others--the Corps appropriately did a series of meetings with
communities near the river that would be directly affected by changing.
Unfortunately the Corps did not hold similar meetings with coastal
communities or parties who would benefit from either improved fisheries
and recreation, or those who implement infrastructure improvements.
Finally, the Corps has not focused on how we would solve problem,
mitigate damages or implement thoughtful transitions for affected
parties.
The states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, the 13 tribes
adjoining the Snake and Columbia and the federal government have
launched an analytical process called the Framework and a discussion
forum called the Columbia Basin Regional forum. The Framework is still
somewhat undefined as to what its analysis will be and whether it will
be available on time. It has its problems and limitations. We are
participating and hoping it will provide useful information on which to
base decisions. It is certainly not clear whether Council is capable of
adopting a scientifically sound program.
The Federal government has launched a parallel process they call
the 4 H paper. Some are suspicious of this project. We share the
skepticism, but believe it is overdue and necessary. First the Corps
EIS is clearly too limited and probably won't comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act because of its limited scope and problems.
Second the NMFS biological opinions covering harvest, the operation of
the Columbia River power system, hatchery system and habitat are
incomparable, inconsistent and are not coordinated making them ripe for
challenge. For instance the 94-98 hydro biological opinion allows 99%
of smolts to die migrating through the hydrosystem, while it allows
over 60% of adults to die returning. The harvest bi-op limits harvest
on healthy fall chinook to 24% to protect endangered stocks. The
inequitability is clear. Thirdly, the federal government does not speak
with one voice on salmon recovery. It is long overdue for this
administration to develop one unified and coordinated policy.
The federal government needs to put its options out for state and
tribal consultation and public review. We have called for this openness
in this process. We reject the notion that the administration should
not meet privately to develop its positions. The administration has the
legal obligation to implement the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water
Act, tribal treaties, Forest Land Management Act and the U.S.-Canada
treaty.
I understand the suspicions of the federal government and share the
frustration and usually champion openness; however, it is vitally
important and long overdue that the administration get its act together
and puts its alternatives and proposals on the table and leads a public
discussion. We have urged and many members of Congress have urged that
proposals go through the same set of economic and scientific analytical
filters to ensure the region and nation can understand the tradeoffs,
consequences and transition opportunities.
The Bonneville Power Administration is about to enter into its rate
setting process to establish electric rates from 2001 to 2006. The
Administration adopted Fish Funding Principles to ensure that adequate
dollars would be available to implement recovery measures.
Unfortunately the rate proposal by BPA puts too much risk on fish
recovery and could require a substantial rate increase in 2007. This
could have easily been avoided. The Senate has adopted language to
prevent the establishment of a recovery fund to be used in a future
rate period. Bad water years, changes in market conditions and economic
downturn could create a crisis pitting salmon recovery against repaying
the Treasury. This will either invite out of region intervention or
delay salmon recovery. hope the Administration will revise the
proposal so it becomes solid. I am not sure whether my 7 year old son
will go to college or where nor how long my retirement will be, but I
have started saving so I can ensure that options exists. Salmon
recovery will cost money in the next 10 years to modify hatcheries, buy
habitat, change fishing practices or modify dams. The Northwest only
deserves the benefits of this unique power system if we meet treaty
obligations, comply with federal laws and implement public purposes.
With regard to public process, we have urged the administration to
hold one set of hearings throughout the region, on the coast and in
Washington, DC before Thanksgiving or after the New Year (if
information is delayed) on its draft Biological Opinions, 4 H paper,
the Lower Snake Feasibility study and other relevant documents. We want
to avoid the chaotic holiday season to ensure the discussion is as
fruitful and inclusive as possible. We want to ensure that the
Framework produce its information for inclusion in the same set of
hearings.
This committee can play a vital role to ensure the decisionmaking
is done thoughtfully, orderly and on time.
1) Demand that the alternatives being considered by the federal
government be submitted to the following entities for review and
comment: Process for Analyzing and Testing Hypothesis Independent
Science Advisory Board Independent Economic Advisory Board Framework
process.
We assume the Corps will discuss it with its Drawdown Regional
Economic Workgroup.
2) Urge the Clinton Administration to make its final decisions
prior to the 1999 salmon migration as it committed to in Federal Court.
Ensure those decisions comply with all applicable federal laws and
treaties.
3) Urge the Clinton Administration to fully consult with the
affected states and tribes and respond to substantive comments before
making decisions.
4) Urge all parties in the region to consider all options. It is
premature to rule out any option. Opposing dam removal is not a
recovery plan. Opposing increased flows is also not a recovery program.
5) Ensure that appropriate mitigation and transition plans are
developed so we can ensure that affected parties are dealt with fairly.
Clearly this issue is contentious. The longer we put it off the
more difficult and expensive recovery will be. The longer we continue
out of compliance of federal laws the more legal, political and
congressional pressure we should expect. The longer we wait the longer
the uncertainty prevents people from moving forward. The changes needed
will be difficult, but we must keep our eyes on the prize--a
sustainable economy that works for salmon, people and the future.
Together we can work through these changes.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Lynn Ausman, Representing the Washington Association of
Wheat Growers and the Washington Barley Commission
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. On behalf
of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers and the Washington
Barley Commission, it is a great pleasure to talk with you this
afternoon about these important issues.
I am a barley and wheat grower in Asotin county in the state of
Washington. Asotin county is bordered on the north by the Snake River
and Lower Granite dam is the first of the four Snake River dams we all
hear so much about. Four grain receiving elevator have barge loading
facilities on the Snake River.
As our governor put it; ``The salmon fisheries of this state have,
in the past, been wonderfully productive. Of late, however, evidence of
a decrease in the run is apparent, and all are agreed that something
ought to be done to prevent the final extinction of a great industry.''
This governor was John R. Rogers not our present governor Gary Locke
and he said it in 1899, not 1999. Our Association thinks this puts the
salmon restoration problem in the proper perspective, as we deal with
it today. In our area there is strong support to increase the fish runs
in our river system. There is also almost total agreement the breaching
of the four lower Snake River dams will not be the answer to this
problem.
The members of our association are growing increasingly frustrated
as we have watched the ongoing analysis of salmon restoration in the
Snake River System focus almost solely on dam breaching. We were told
from the beginning that there were four H's to be considered: habitat,
hydropower, harvest, and hatchery management. However, it has become
increasingly clear that the federal agencies are only focusing on one
of these H's, hydropower.
In the past few years of watching the process of salmon recovery
efforts it has become apparent to us that this problem is one of the
most complex issues of this score of years. It starts with the very
definition of salmon species to continues on to include the variance of
ocean temperature. A marine biologist expressed the belief that there
weren't ten reasons for fish run declines or even a hundred but he
thought a thousand reasons were more in the ballpark. I would submit to
you that the problems we have with fish populations is not what we
think we know but the many things we need to learn.
A computer model called PATH which stands for Plan for Analyzing
and Testing Hypotheses is held up as a reason for dam removable. It is
important to note that there is no empirical data to prove that
destroying the four dams would lead to recovery of the salmon. It is
simply a computer model. This model makes some assumptions that do not
follow known facts. For example, according to the recent salmon tag
studies, over 50% of the smolts moving in the river system reach salt
water. However, one PATH model predicts only 20% and another PATH model
predicts only 30%. Therefore, I would hate to base a decision as
monumental as dam removal on a set of hypotheses that are in question.
The environmental effects of breaching are another matter. The
Corps of Engineers estimates that there are 100-150 million cubic yards
of sediment behind the four dams. This would create 30,000 acres of mud
flats. With dam removal this material would move down stream for
several years and this would cause much harm to the existing habitats
as they are today. The use of this river system is also environmental
choice because of emissions. Navigating the river system will use 40%
less fuel per ton/mile than the rail system (assuming there would cars
and power units available, which we highly question). And compared to
trucks, the river system will use 110% less fuel per ton/mile.
According to the Washington Wheat Commission, if grain barge traffic
was halted, the industry would have to locate 120,000 additional grain
cars, and some 700,000 semi-trucks. There is also the enormous cost
(and environmental impact) of building the roads and rail necessary for
infrastructure. All this will affect our grain industry by raising
costs to an industry that is already suffering in an economic
depression.
So, what should we be doing to increase wild fish runs in our river
system?Continue to improve the transportation of smolt
Address and solve the predator harvest problemModify hatcheries to
improve there contribution to an overall solutionLook into the
commercial fishing harvest to better understand their impact on the
fisheryModify turbine gaps, turbine blades, blade coatings, and
hydraulic conditions into and out of the turbinesAdd surface collectors
to move smolt around the damsContinue to pursue other technological
alternatives that are scientifically sound
If we can get by the unfortunate notion that breaching of the four
lower Snake River Dams is a possible solution to the problem at hand,
we can then work together to solve the problem we all want to solve.
Thank you.
-