[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-87
NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
AND RELATED AGENCIES
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-921 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-058772-7
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
SLADE GORTON, Washington, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Anne McInerney
Leif Fonnesbeck
Kurt Dodd (Minority)
Administrative Support
Joseph Norrell
Carole Geagley (Minority)
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C.W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CHET EDWARDS, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Alabama
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
Washington MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
California SAM FARR, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
R. Scott Lilly, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Interior
RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman
JIM KOLBE, Arizona NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Deborah Weatherly
Del Davis (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statement of Hon. Gary Locke, Governor, State of Washington...... 1
Opening remarks of Senator Slade Gorton.......................... 1
Opening remarks of Representative Norm Dicks..................... 3
Opening remarks of Senator Patty Murray.......................... 5
Opening remarks of Senator Ted Stevens........................... 6
Opening remarks of Representative Jim McDermott.................. 7
Opening remarks of Representative Adam Smith..................... 8
Summary statement of Hon. Gary Locke............................. 9
Statement of Robert Anderson, president, Mid-Sound Fisheries
Enhancement Group.............................................. 14
Statement of Al Adams, president, Hood Canal Fisheries
Enhancement Group.............................................. 14
Statement of Roger Braden, Chelan Public Utility District........ 14
Statement of Hank Sitko, executive director, Northwest Marine
Trade Association.............................................. 14
Statement of William Ruckelshaus, Madrona Investment Group....... 14
Statement of Ed Owens, Coastal Fisheries Coalition............... 14
Summary statement of Robert Anderson............................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Summary statement of William Ruckelshaus......................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Salmon conservation in the Pacific Northwest: The need for more
effective coordination in the development of recovery plans.... 21
Ensuring science-based action.................................... 22
Designing an effective recovery strategy......................... 23
A new institutional arrangement for salmon recovery.............. 24
Summary statement of Al Adams.................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Summary statement of Roger Braden................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Summary statement of Hank Sitko.................................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Harvest.......................................................... 33
Hatcheries....................................................... 33
Habitat.......................................................... 34
Summary statement of Ed Owens.................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Endangered Species Act........................................... 38
Statement of Bill Wilkerson, Washington Forest Protection........ 45
Statement of Linda Johnson, Washington State Farm Bureau,
Washington Cattlemen's Association............................. 45
Statement of Mike Miller, president, Pacific Properties.......... 45
Statement of Robert Kelly, Nooksack Tribe........................ 45
Statement of Tim Stearns, Save our Wild Salmon................... 45
Statement of Conrad Mahnken, National Marine Fisheries Service... 45
Summary statement of Bill Wilkerson.............................. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Key points of the agreement...................................... 47
Pesticide application............................................ 48
Wetland protection............................................... 48
Watershed analysis............................................... 48
Alternative plans................................................ 48
Small landowners................................................. 48
Revisions to the permit process.................................. 49
Enforcement...................................................... 49
Adaptive management.............................................. 49
Assurances....................................................... 49
Funding.......................................................... 49
Summary statement of Linda Johnson............................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Federal funding to the State for haitat restoration.............. 52
Federal funding to in-State Federal agencies for predation....... 52
Federal funding for buy-back of commercial and tribal licenses... 53
Key points of the forests & fish agreement....................... 53
Riparian protection.............................................. 53
Westside riparian strategies..................................... 53
Eastside riparian strategies..................................... 54
Unstable slopes.................................................. 54
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission............................ 54
Tribes encouraged by forestry pact discussions................... 54
Questions and answers on forests and fish........................ 55
Summary statement of Mike Miller................................. 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Summary statement of Robert Kelly................................ 61
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Summary statement of Tim Stearns................................. 63
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Summary statement of Conrad Mahnken.............................. 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
The present hatchery system...................................... 69
Hatchery and wild fish interactions.............................. 69
The changing role of hatcheries.................................. 69
Hatchery reform.................................................. 70
Statement of Bob Drewell, Snohomish County executive............. 73
Statement of Ed Hansen, mayor of Everett......................... 73
Statement of Jim Buck, Washington State representative........... 73
Statement of Debbie Regala, Washington State representative...... 73
Statement of Ed Thiele, Okanogan County commissioner............. 73
Statement of Louise Miller, King County council.................. 73
Summary statement of Bob Drewell................................. 73
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Summary statement of Ed Hansen................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Habitat.......................................................... 80
Unfunded mandate.................................................
``Harvest'' recommendation....................................... 81
Coordinating effort.............................................. 84
Summary statement of Representative Jim Buck..................... 84
Summary statement of Representative Debbie Regala................ 86
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Summary statement of Ed Thiele................................... 89
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Needs of eastern Washington...................................... 92
Summary statement of Louise Miller............................... 93
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Watershed level resource protection King County Waterways 2000... 95
How money should be spent........................................ 97
Statement of Will Stelle, National Marine Fisheries Service...... 105
Statement of Curt Smitch, special assistant to Governor Gary
Locke on natural resources..................................... 105
Statement of Billy Frank, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.. 105
Statement of Bob Lohn, Bonneville Power Administration........... 105
Statement of Tom Dwyer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service........... 105
Summary statement of Will Stelle................................. 105
Prepared statement........................................... 108
The coastal salmon initiative.................................... 108
The science initiative........................................... 109
Prepared statement of Hon. David Anderson, P.C., M.P., Canadian
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans............................... 109
Summary statement of Curt Smitch................................. 112
Summary statement of Billy Frank................................. 114
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Summary statement of Bob Lohn.................................... 118
Summary statement of Tom Dwyer................................... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 123
How the fiscal year 1999 salmon money was spent.................. 123
How all the federal agencies are coordinating with regard to the
impacts of salmon and bull trout listings...................... 124
What the Pacific Northwest will face in the coming year as a
result of the listings......................................... 124
How the agencies will make ESA compliance easier................. 125
What Federal and local needs are to be met to conform to the
demands of the listings........................................ 126
How bull trout and salmon habitat needs do or don't overlap...... 127
How HCPs will address the needs of bull trout and salmon......... 128
New State employees.............................................. 129
NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1999
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
and House of Representatives, Subcommittee
on Interior, Committee on Appropriations,
Seattle, WA.
The subcommittees met at 10:30 a.m., in the auditorium,
Seattle-Tacoma Airport, Seattle, WA, Hon. Slade Gorton
(chairman), Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Hon. Norm Dicks
(chairman), House of Representatives Subcommittee on the
Interior, presiding.
Present: Senators Gorton, Stevens, and Congressman Dicks.
Also present: Senator Murray, Congressmen Adam Smith and
McDermott.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY LOCKE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
WASHINGTON
opening remarks of senator slade gorton
Senator Gorton. Can we get everyone to take a seat, please,
so that we can start on time? We have a lot of people to hear
from today.
Thank you all very much for your attention and for your
attendance. And I want to welcome all of my colleagues, the
number of which indicates the importance of this hearing, not
just to the community, but to members of Congress as well.
Welcome, also, to all of the people who are going to testify
before us here today on salmon recovery in the Northwest.
This is a joint hearing of the House and Senate Interior
Appropriations Subcommittees. I am chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee; Congressman Dicks is the ranking Democratic
member of the House Subcommittee. Of course, Senator Stevens is
the chairman of the entire Appropriations Committee in the
Senate, and is of particular importance to us and has a great
interest in the subject.
Northwest salmon populations have declined dramatically
from historical levels. Even since 1990, a number of fish runs
have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. With the
recent addition of nine more runs to this list just last month,
virtually every section of the State of Washington is now
affected by this process, including the heavily populated Puget
Sound region. In fact, the recent listing of Puget Sound
chinook marks the first time that a major urban area has been
directly impacted by the Endangered Species Act.
The reasons for the decline in salmon are complex, but and
vary from watershed to watershed. What has impressed me most in
my travels across the State, however, is the recognition by
Washingtonians of the importance of restoring salmon runs.
Rather than focusing on past differences, farmers,
conservationists, homebuilders, small businessmen and women,
and locally elected officials are working together to reverse
the declining trend of these magnificent fish. It's appropriate
to commend everyone here today who has contributed to this
effort already.
People in Washington State are coming together in
unprecedented ways. For example, the Avista Corporation in
Spokane provides an example of the importance of collaboration
among all affected interests in recovering salmon populations.
Avista has worked closely with agencies, tribes, and
conservation organizations to relicense its hydroelectric
projects on the Clark Fork River. This spirit of cooperation
has led to a landmark recovery plan for the recently-listed
bull trout populations. The agreement allows Avista to continue
operating its hydro projects while it supports habitat and
fishery restoration. This approach may not exactly fit the
situation in Puget Sound, but it is a clear example of what can
be achieved when all interested parties work together at the
local level rather than leaving exclusive control in the hands
of federal agencies 2,500 miles away.
I am also encouraged by a growing sentiment in our region
that we need to focus on clear, measurable performance
standards in terms for salmon recovery. What I hear is an
emerging body of opinion that I believe is on the right track.
Let me give you some ideas that I believe should guide us as we
continue to work toward broader consensus.
First, we must define success. We need clear, measurable
goals defined as a percentage of juvenile passage and a
percentage of adult returns to spawning grounds.
Second, after we establish clear measurable success
standards, someone, preferably at the State or local level,
must be empowered to establish a specific plan to achieve those
defined goals. This reform will then encourage the least-cost
measures first rather than the most expensive.
Third, we must protect State water rights, and at a
minimum, we must ensure that private property is only
transferred on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, and that
the value of private property not acquired is not destroyed.
And fourth, restoring our rivers and streams in the
Northwest will not be enough to save our salmon. Salmon spend
less than one-third of their lives in the river and the rest in
salt water. The federal government must reform harvest
practices and predator control or we will not succeed in
restoring weak salmon runs.
The purpose of this hearing, however, is to hear from you,
and to get on record the great work being done in our State to
restore salmon habitat. Holding a public forum like this will
enable all of us sitting here to make an even stronger and more
compelling case to our colleagues in the House and the Senate
on the merits of your efforts. Some of the questions I intend
to ask our witnesses today include:
How will different localities and States within our region
coordinate efforts to ensure the most effective regionwide
recovery possible?
Who will determine which projects receive federal funds and
which ones don't?
What's the role of federal agencies and Congress? Does
Congress need to pass legislation to help implement some of the
broadly supported goals we've outlined above?
What can be done to expedite approval and on-the-ground
implementation of recovery projects?
As Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, I've worked hard with Congressman Dicks and the
rest of our Congressional delegation to secure initial funding
for this effort last year. We continue to work for a
substantially greater amount of funding for the coming year. In
order to be successful in securing the necessary funds,
however, we must build a solid record of success in on-the-
ground salmon recovery efforts. This can only be accomplished
through your continued efforts and through a process that
enables you enough flexibility to get the job done in ways that
work best in each of our communities.
With that, I look forward to a thought-provoking and
informative hearing. We must continue to work and talk with all
of those who share our goal of preserving both our salmon
resource and our way of life in the Northwest. I've learned a
great deal from many of you in this room, and want to continue
to hear from you so that I can make the best case for salmon
recovery in the Northwest.
And with that, I recognize as the co-chairman of this
hearing my friend and colleague, Congressman Dicks.
opening remarks of representative norm dicks
Mr. Dicks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I would like to start by giving my thanks to Senator Gorton for
proposing this hearing and for asking me to participate with
him. As the new ranking minority member on the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee I'm looking forward to the role
Senator Gorton and I will be able to play in helping the region
respond to the salmon listing.
I am particularly pleased that Chairman Stevens could be
here today. He has been a real friend of the Pacific Northwest.
We will need his help and leadership both on funding and on the
crucial need for a United States/Canada agreement under the
Pacific Salmon Treaty. We are both very pleased that so many of
our colleagues are able to join us here today.
I also would like to welcome Governor Locke, who has shown
strong leadership in addressing the salmon decline. And as we
extend our appreciation for the individuals and groups who will
be providing testimony for us today, we thank you for your
commitment of time and effort, and your plan to restore these
vital salmon runs.
I'm pleased that we are here today to listen to the region
first-hand. I think it is imperative that Congress fully
understand the significance of these particular listings under
the federal Endangered Species Act. People in the region have
probably heard this before, but this point is extremely
important: there has never been an ESA listing impacting such a
large urban area, and the species itself is one of the most
complex ever listed. We will need to pool our efforts and our
expertise if we are to be successful in the recovery of these
fish, but we will need help.
As many of you are aware, Senator Murray and I, with the
support of all of our colleagues, asked President Clinton and
Vice-President Gore to include funding for the Pacific Coast
Salmon Recovery Initiative in the Administration's budget for
the fiscal year 2000. These funds, $100 million, if
appropriated--that's where we need Senator Stevens' help--will
provide critical support to our local governments and tribes as
we implement restoration activities in the Puget Sound area.
Last year Senator Gorton was able to include $20 million in
the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, which I was able to
keep on the House side. This initial funding will provide the
State the ability to act quickly in response to the listing,
but we know that ultimately recovery will be a multi-year
effort. It is my hope that we can look at our experiences with
the Northwest Forest Plan, both its successes and failures, and
structure the salmon recovery money in a similar fashion with a
strong federal commitment.
But any federal commitment must be a partnership with the
region. The proposed salmon money requires a State match. You
have our assurance that we in the Congress will do whatever we
can to get the money appropriated, but if the State match is
not made, Washington and other States will not be eligible for
these funds.
The salmon recovery fund is crucial, and I believe it is
crucial that we reach agreement with Canada in the Canada/
United States Pacific Salmon Treaty. Fisheries managers tell me
that nothing will get fish into our rivers faster than a solid
ten-year management agreement with the Canadians. We have been
making good progress so far this year, and the Canadian
government should be complimented on its prior implementation
of stringent harvest reductions. The agreement last year
between Canada and Governor Locke helped to bring back more
salmon to Puget Sound rivers. A new agreement with Canada is
essential. The Clinton administration, at our urging, has made
this a top priority.
We must also recognize our commitment and legal obligation
to the Pacific Northwest tribes. I am please that my good
friend Chairman Billy Frank of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission will join us today, and look forward to his
testimony. As co-managers of our State's fisheries, we must act
in tandem with the tribes on any and all recovery strategies.
To that end, I want to compliment the Tri-County effort and the
participating tribes for their cooperative and highly
successful leadership. I hope your effort can serve as a model
as we expand our efforts.
I also want to briefly mention a creative program which I
think can help us tremendously in the protection of habitat and
restoration of salmon runs. The Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program will help private landowners receive
compensation for the habitat they set aside, and can also apply
for matching monies to provide enhancements such as shading,
vegetation, erosion control measures, and larger buffers around
fish-bearing streams. I think it is imperative that we look at
all areas of concern to salmon and believe that an excellent
example of creative problem-solving can be achieved through the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
Finally, I applaud the timber, fish, and wildlife approach,
the so-called Forest Module, as an example of working together.
Finally, to Al Adams and the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement
Group, and frankly, to all of the salmon enhancement groups in
our State, I think you are doing a tremendous job, and the
funds that we're trying to get are there to help you at the
local level as you make the efforts to restore these runs.
It is my hope that this hearing will help us clarify and
focus our efforts on the massive task of recovering these fish.
I look forward to hearing the witness testimony, as well as any
additional testimony for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be with you here today.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Senator Murray.
opening remarks of senator patty murray
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let
me thank you and Congressman Dicks for putting together this
hearing in our region on a very critical topic that all of us
are working very hard on. And I particularly want to thank
Senator Stevens for being here with us today to hear the input
from the State of Washington and this region on an issue that
has really brought a lot of people together. And I want to
thank all of our congressional delegation as well, who have
joined us today.
And I of course want to applaud this tremendous audience
for coming today. I think it shows all of us how important it
is to many people in the State of Washington, and we appreciate
all of you coming today to be here to be part of this.
I really want to applaud our region's overall reaction to
the ESA listing of salmon. We have been faced with a tremendous
challenge in our State, in our counties, our cities, our
tribes, and local interest groups who have all come together to
face the challenge of salmon recovery. We have known for over a
year that these listing are going to be coming, and for a year,
many people in our State have been working together in
collaboration to develop the best plans possible to recover the
salmon.
It isn't surprising that in the face of such a challenge,
that we've had some disagreements, and that some may be
concerned about the pace of planning and recovery activities.
I, for one, share the concern of many that the State
legislature has not yet appropriated the money necessary so
they can get the matching dollars that we hope to obtain, and I
would encourage them to move forward quickly on that.
But I think we all have to remind ourselves that the best
opportunity to protect our economy and our quality of life in
the Pacific Northwest is to work together, and that's why I am
really pleased to see all of you here, and the excellent panels
that have been put forward that we'll be hearing from today.
The hardest work lies ahead of us, and there is a lot we
must do. I am committed to working with Senator Gorton,
Congressman Dicks, Senator Stevens and others from this region
to put in place and meet the President's budget initiative of
$100 million for salmon recovery. But I think we also have to
remember, as Congressman Dicks pointed out, that we need to get
our United States-Canada treaty signed, and I'm hopeful that we
can set aside our differences and move forward on that quickly.
And I of course have to mention designating Hanford Reach
as a wild and scenic river. Preserving the last 51 mile stretch
of the river for salmon spawning would be a very important step
forward, and I hope that as a delegation and as a region we can
move forward on that in this session of Congress.
It's clear that the ESA listing of salmon can potentially
affect every aspect of everyone's life here, and we're all
going to have to revisit how we conduct our business, the way
we grow as a population, the way we play and recreate, and
examine the detrimental effects that those activities may have
on salmon recovery and the long-term protection of other
species. But I believe that, in the end, what is best for the
salmon will likely be best for us and for our children's
future. If we continue to make progress as we have over the
past year, I believe that our listed salmon can recover, and
that our overall State interests will be protected.
Mr. Chairman, I will have to leave early because of
previous engagements, but I really appreciate your bringing
this hearing together, along with Congressman Dicks and others,
and look forward to reading all of the testimony at the end of
the day. So thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Senator Stevens.
opening remarks of senator ted stevens
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
delighted to be here not only as a representative of Alaska,
but as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
I believe that Alaskans, and I hope that everyone in the
region agrees that we consider the fishery resources,
particularly our salmon of the North Pacific and the Pacific,
to be a national treasure, and that those of who live in the
area are really stewards of that treasure. And I'm here to
pledge to you my support, and I believe Alaska's support, in
your efforts to help restore the salmon runs here in your part
of the area.
There is no question with what both of you, or I think all
of you, have said, that it's necessary for us to make sure this
is an international and totally regional approach to restoring
the salmon runs. I do believe that Congress will be very
receptive of the request for the money for this purpose, and I
hope we can add some money to assure that we can really bring
the Canadian groups, not only the sports fishing and commercial
fishermen, but all of the participants in the Canadian area to
the table, along with our Indian and Native friends, and try to
make this a total regional protection concept and restoration
concept for our salmon resources.
But I congratulate you, too, Slade. I think it's a very
timely thing to do, and I'm certain that the testimony we're
going to hear today will help us all obtain the funds that will
be necessary to proceed. Thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Congressman McDermott.
opening remarks of representative jim mc dermott
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to thank Senator Stevens. It's an exemplary
position for somebody to come from another State, and sit and
listen to our problems, and we're very grateful to you for
taking the time to do that. I think both Senator Gorton and
Congressman Dicks are to be commended for putting this hearing
together.
The need to save an endangered species and an endangered
ecosystem is not a new phenomenon for any of us here in the
Northwest. The tradeoff between protecting our forests and the
forestry resource industry has occupied Washington and Oregon
and its politicians and policymakers for a long time.
This listing doesn't come as a surprise. For years we have
seen the populations of salmon decline. Someone who's been
around Lake Washington, as I have, for thirty years, has seen
what has happened in that area alone. And we've known for
months that federal protection would be afforded the salmon
species in Puget Sound.
Local officials, tribal governments and others have been
working hard on solutions to the listing of the nine species of
salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act, which is
really the first listing under the ESA in an urban area. And I
want to commend the local officials who have taken on this
complicated challenge of all the overlapping jurisdictions, and
all who have risen to this challenge.
In the federal government, I believe it's our duty to make
sure you have the resources to put your plans into action and
to ensure that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Fish and Wildlife Service have the budgets to carry out their
work.
This is true also of State officials. I called Sid Snyder
yesterday trying to get the number that was in the Senate
budget, and there is no Senate budget yet, so there's still
time to work on the State legislature about getting their money
in. It's time the State government really stepped up to its
role as a co-manager of the fishery and provided the needed
funds to manage the other programs.
Now, you just have to look at all the factors causing this
danger to the salmon supply to see how difficult a situation we
face. The National Marine Fisheries Service cited deteriorating
watershed and stream conditions, habitat degeneration, dam
construction and operation, harmful hatchery practices, and
overharvesting all as contributing toward the plight of fish in
this area. This didn't happen overnight. This is not something
that started two weeks ago or a month ago. It is a reflection
of decades of inadequate stewardship, and a situation in which
various government agencies and governments responsible for the
fishery have lacked either the necessary tools or the
coordination to work together.
This has occurred, in part, because so many of us have an
interest in fish. We can't have it all. We can't have a full
harvest, unlimited use of hydroelectric power, development,
forestry, sport fishing, and irrigation, and still preserve the
fishery. For us to reach a solution, all of those interests are
going to have to give a little, and we'll have to put together
a combination of components, education, financial incentives,
restoration, and new rules and regulations in our final
outcome.
Now, some of you might say that it's easy for a congressman
who represents the City of Seattle to talk about this, that the
sacrifices that we make in an urban area may not be as
difficult as they will be for salmon recovery plans in other
parts of the State. I don't agree with that. We could face
higher energy costs, restrictions on water use, and limits on
development and real impacts in the urban area. And this is the
first time that a State, and a major metropolitan area, have
had to face that. I think it's very important for people to
understand that. We are all in this together, and that's why
I'm pleased to have these five panels here today representing
State and federal officials, the tribes, the environmentalists,
and all the industries that are involved, and I look forward to
hearing from the panels as we set about this next stage of the
work.
And again, I want to thank Senator Gorton and Congressman
Dicks for having this hearing.
Senator Gorton. Congressman Smith.
opening remarks of representative adam smith
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Senator Gorton. And I want to thank
Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks for bringing this hearing
together, and also for their leadership on this very important
issue; and also thank Senator Stevens for coming down to this
hearing as well. Since he's going to have a major impact on
this issue for all of us, I appreciate his interest and
involvement.
Obviously this is an issue of dramatic importance for the
entire region. I'm not going to just, you know, say everything
that has already been said, because I think the people who have
gone before me have outlined the issue very, very well, and
I'll associate myself with those remarks. I think it's a pretty
good summary of the issue.
What's most important, as I see it, is broad cooperation
throughout the region, State, local, and federal, and all
interested parties. I do think that the efforts of the Tri-
County area to do that set a pretty good model for the rest of
the region trying to follow in their footsteps and bring that
same level of cooperation to this problem, which will be
critical. And obviously, as well, adequate funds are important
at both the State and Federal level, just as a starting point.
I think those are the most important issues. It is a very
significant challenge we face to try to save the salmon, but
it's one that I think we can meet. The leadership that we've
received, not just from the panelists here but from all those
of you in the room over the last couple of years, actually, as
we've built up and approached this issue, has been outstanding.
We're just going to need a lot more of it, and obviously it's
going to be a very significant challenge that we must step up
to.
And with that, I'm anxious to hear the testimony. Thank
you, Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
summary statement of hon. gary locke
We are now going to begin the hearing and hear from
Governor Locke.
I will say, while the governor is approaching, because of
the length of this hearing and the number of witnesses and the
fact that we have written statements from almost all of them,
we're going to ask witnesses to limit their comments here
orally to five minutes each so that we'll have plenty of time
to ask questions.
That limitation, however, does not apply to you, governor.
We will hear from you, because of your vitally important role
in this, for whatever time you wish to speak to us.
Governor Locke. Well, thank you very much Senator Gorton
and Congressman Dicks for convening this summit. And it's a
pleasure to see Senator Patty Murray and Senator Stevens from
Alaska, and to have on the dais and also participating,
Congressman McDermott and Congressman Adam Smith. I will assure
you that my comments will be shorter than five minutes, and
seeing the red and green lights reminds me of the time when I
was in courts, the court of appeals and supreme court, arguing
appellate cases, and I know very much what those lights mean.
I'm very, very grateful for the bipartisan recognition that
wild salmon are an irreplaceable treasure of the Pacific
Northwest and for our Nation as a whole. The salmon, wild
salmon, are in fact part of our--a very important part of our
economy, as well as icons of the quality of life that we so
much cherish here in the Pacific Northwest, and we want you to
know that we are working hard to achieve bipartisan solutions
in the recovery of wild salmon in our State capital in Olympia.
Our administration is committed to restoring Washington's
wild salmon to healthy, abundant, harvestable levels, both
commercially and for recreation. And to do this, we've been
working with the tribes, stakeholders in every corner of our
State to develop a long-term strategy. And we're refining it
now, and based on what the legislature does to our proposal, we
anticipate sending it to the National Marine Fisheries Service
this coming summer.
But I have to tell you that we've also passed legislation
in 1998 that has already established a State-wide watershed
planning process. It's already provided grants to local groups
who are restoring habitat. We've created a multi-agency Salmon
Recovery Team that reports directly to me, and we've also
created a Joint Cabinet on Natural Resources and a Government
Council on Natural Resources that brings together people from
local governments, State agencies, and the tribes.
The 1998 legislation was a good start on watershed planning
and voluntary actions, but we know that won't be enough. NMFS
has made it very clear that they will require us to do much
more, and to provide a much higher level of both substance and
certainty. And that's why we're working with the State
legislature this year to win passage of legislation to deal
with other land and water management issues as well as
enforcement of our existing laws, laws already on the books.
One bill will assure more salmon-friendly timber harvesting
practices, and I'm very optimistic that that will get through
the legislature and be approved by our State Forest Practices
Board.
A second piece of legislation will ensure that we get more
water in the streams when and where fish need it, while at the
same time ensuring that communities and people have the water
they need to grow. We are also working with the legislature to
pass a salmon recovery budget. This is essential to
implementing our State strategy, but also to meeting the
federal matching requirement.
And we're doing all this because for us, extinction of wild
salmon is not an option. We're committed to the recovery of
wild salmon, but we cannot do this alone. We need the federal
help--or, we need federal help in two ways.
First, we need federal funding, and we have devoted
significant State and local resources to this effort, and we
will continue to do so. And our budget proposal calls for $100
million in State funds over the next two years, both new money,
operational money, as well as money for projects on the ground.
But we cannot succeed without federal help. We appreciate
the President's initial commitment to this effort, but frankly,
we need more, and so we very much applaud the advocacy of even
more dollars by members of the Northwest delegation, Senator
Gorton and Congressman Dicks.
Second, we need a long-term United States-Canada agreement
that will protect our most vulnerable wild salmon runs from
harvest. Canadian Minister Anderson and I came to short-term
agreements that have proven the benefits of conservation and
putting fish first. Our agreements have resulted in many more
wild salmon returning to rivers both in Canada and the State of
Washington, and now we need help from you and the White House
to ensure that a long-term treaty will make this the norm,
rather than the exception.
We respect and support the Endangered Species Act. At the
same time, we want to control our own destiny, and frankly, we
believe that we here in the State of Washington and in the
States, all the States of the Pacific Northwest, can do a
better job of salmon recovery than a federal judge or the
federal agencies. We hope that you'll agree, and we very much
thank you for your help in trying to help us succeed. Thank you
every much.
Senator Gorton. Governor Locke, if I can ask the first
question. Though I think it is implied in all of the statements
so far, including your own, what do you see this, say, four-way
relationship being? What kind of division of responsibilities
among the federal government, your office and your appointees
at the State level, all of the local government efforts, and
the participation of citizen volunteer groups? How much of the
money, for example, that we appropriate and that you match will
get down to local governments and to these citizen volunteer
organizations? Would you sort of describe what you see the
responsibilities of each of these levels being?
Governor Locke. We have proposed roughly $100 million.
Fifty of that is operational money.
Senator Gorton. What do you mean by operational money?
Governor Locke. Well, that'll be enforcement, that'll be
studies and grants to local governments. We're not proposing to
use $50 million in State dollars to create a huge bureaucracy
or to have a lot of employees. And the $50 million that we
propose in terms of construction, both the transportation
dollars and dollars, are all projects on the ground. But we
know that local governments and some communities that are much
smaller and don't have their own staffs are going to need
scientific support. They're going to need help in conducting
studies and evaluating the projects. We also know that the
members of Congress are going to want to know that their
dollars are going into projects as well.
Whatever we do has to demonstrate to the public and to the
member of Congress and people all across the country that this
money is not wasted, that the money is actually going to go
into projects that have demonstrable measurable improvement for
habitat and the recovery of salmon. That must be our ultimate
measure. And we know that in Olympia we don't have all the
expertise, nor are we trying to decide salmon recovery efforts
out of Olympia. So for instance, when you all in the Congress
were able to obtain some $20 million just last year, most of
that money went out to the various regions of the State, and we
depended on the local governments to identify which projects
would be most successful and have the most impact in restoring
salmon runs. That's basically what we're envisioning with the
combination of State and federal dollars.
No. 1, it all must be scientifically credible.
No. 2, we need to determine the priorities all across the
State, and as various salmon advocates, Republicans and
Democrats, have indicated in the past, we ought to really focus
on those areas that are already abundant salmon-bearing rivers
and streams and make sure that we protect those. Before we go
after those streams that perhaps have not seen salmon in fifty
or a hundred, let's--you know, let's put our dollars where we
have the biggest bang and get the most return and have the
highest probability of success.
So we're going to need local communities and the scientists
at the federal and State level, involving tribes and others, to
identify those areas that have the most promise. And so this is
very much a collaborative effort.
Senator Gorton. Is this a west-side problem only, or is the
money that we appropriate and that you appropriate going to
have some focus on the east side of the State as well?
Governor Locke. Well, very much so, it'll have to be State-
wide, because we have very critical stocks in eastern
Washington as well. And we've already some great examples of
communities coming together, for instance, in Icicle Creek near
the Wenatchee area, in which people have come together in
voluntary efforts. And they could use some assistance, whether
technical assistance, or dollars for actual projects and
putting things on the ground, in which they've seen some return
of salmon. And the list goes on and on and on. That's why we
need to somehow promote community involvement, recognize that
Olympia or the federal government doesn't have a one-size-fits-
all solution or the magic answers.
And we've got to really focus on a State-wide recovery
effort, and that's why we have already signaled to members of
the legislature that if we have to go more slowly in some of
the agricultural areas, so be it; but where there are
communities that are raring to go, that have the political
will, then let's move forward and help them and give them the
tools that they need to put together salmon recovery efforts.
Senator Gorton. Congressman Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Well Governor, I want to first of all thank you
for your statement and applaud your effort last year,
particularly the side agreement that was reached between
Washington State and Canada. To me, that showed the importance
of a United States-Canada agreement. We saw this year, in some
of our key rivers, that we had more Chinook wild salmon return
because of that.
I also want to compliment you on your quick response to
setting up a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in the
State of Washington. I think over the next fifteen years that
can be a significant tool in the salmon recovery effort.
And you mentioned United States-Canada. I would like to get
your perspective. How do you feel things are going this year?
We're trying to support you and the governors in these
negotiations. Do you think there is a chance to get an
agreement with Canada?
Governor Locke. My feedback so far has been that things are
much more positive than they've ever been before; that the
stakeholders are discussing issues in a very frank and candid
way, much better than ever before; and that the governors are
fully engaged in this. We've already had some meetings just
among ourselves, governors of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. I
just met with Fisheries Minister Anderson last week, and he's
very optimistic. He really believes that the atmosphere in the
discussions that he's had with the various States is very, very
positive. We have some meetings actually set up for later this
month, so we're moving forward, and we're just going to keep
going. We're just going to keep going. I mean, I can't predict
whether or not we'll ultimately be successful, but I really
believe there's a stronger political will among both Canadians
and the stakeholders on the United States side than ever
before.
Mr. Dicks. Well, I compliment you for your involvement, and
I think the United States-Canada agreement is the most
important thing we can do in the short term.
Senator Gorton. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Locke, thank you very much for your statement and
for your leadership in our State on this really important
issue. I know you've been working very hard to get a
legislative agenda through on this.
[Auditorium lights flickered.]
Senator Murray. See, that's what's going to happen if we
don't save the salmon. [Laughter.]
Governor, you----
Governor Locke. It really does affect all of us, doesn't
it? Whether we fish or not.
Senator Murray. That's right. Governor, your office
released a report called Extinction Is Not An Option earlier
this year, and I was curious whether you had submitted any part
of that as legislation this year, and if you had, what chance
we would see of some of that coming out.
Governor Locke. Actually, we have used that as the basis
for the legislation that we have introduced to the House and
Senate in our State. It deals with water--that, of course, is
very, very contentious--and it also deals with funding for
projects at the local level. And I think that there's good
progress, bipartisan support for that. We're trying to work out
the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in
the House on that. They've come up with different versions.
Both versions differ from our proposals, and we need to work
that out. I'm optimistic we'll reach a good agreement,
bipartisan agreement, on that.
Then there's the changes in terms of harvesting of timber,
and there was a multiyear effort involved there with many
tribes, environmentalists, timber companies, federal and State
agencies. While there was some disagreement near the end and
some participants did not stay involved in the negotiations,
nonetheless we did put out a proposal that initially was
criticized by members of legislature as perhaps being too
complex, too late. But nonetheless it's been simplified, and
various State regulatory boards have now adopted or indicated
that that agreement is the preferred alternative in terms of
forest practices. And some of the due process issues that
others have raised about the agreement have been addressed so
that there can be some minor changes, substantive changes, to
the proposal if necessary over time.
So I think we're moving forward on that, but I have to tell
you, the toughest issue before the legislature right now is the
issue of water. And those of you who are lawyers know just how
tough water policy is, not just in the State of Washington, but
all along the West Coast. And we may have to phase that in. And
some communities are ready to make some changes or take
advantage of the tools that we're proposing to give them;
others are not quite ready.
So you know, our whole approach is giving local
communities--State agencies, but primarily local agencies,
cities, and counties--more tools that they can use in putting
together a salmon recovery plan. And we're counting on local
governments putting together plans, because each watershed,
each community, differs from one part of the State to another.
And so we need to give them more tools, and then it's up to
them to decide which tools best fit their circumstances.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, just a quick followup.
Do you think the legislature will put the fund in the
budget for the State matching funds?
Governor Locke. So far we proposed $100 million in both--
over the next two years, in capital and operating dollars. And
the capital dollars and transportation dollars are pretty much
at our level that we proposed. In the operating budget we
proposed $50 million of new money. The legislature so far, in
the House, Democrats and Republicans have focussed on around
$36 million over two years. And so we're optimistic that it'll
be close to the original requested level of $50 million on the
operating side. And there's, I believe, over $50 million on
both the transportation and construction dollars to remove the
culverts in roads, and to put money on the ground for locals
for restoration projects and so forth.
Senator Gorton. Senator Stevens has passed, so Congressman
McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murray asked my question, really, which was, how is
the State legislature doing? I know you're down in the last few
days, and if there are names that we need to know, give us the
names to call. [Laughter.]
Senator Murray is much more polite than I am. Having been a
Ways and Means chairman, like you, I know what happens at the
end of a session. So if there's some help you need, please let
us know.
Governor Locke. Thank you very much.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Congressman Smith.
Mr. Smith. Actually I had the same question, and would
simply make the same offer. If we can help in any way, please
let us know.
Governor Locke. We'll be more than happy to give you all
the names of people who have been really working hard on this
issue, if you could compliment them on their diligent efforts.
Senator Gorton. Governor, we appreciate your appearance
here. And your speaking first was, at best, a symbol of your
leadership in this regard. We wish you every success, because
your success is our success.
Governor Locke. Well, I really want to again thank you,
Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, and others, for your
counsel and advice that you've given me over the last couple of
years in responding to this impending listing. When I first ran
for office for governor, I never thought that salmon would be
one of the top issues facing us. And it's come, and we've had
to deal with it. We've been preparing for it for the last year
and a half, and I really appreciate the counsel that all of you
have given us, and me personally, in terms of how to approach
this issue. And we very much support what you're doing back in
D.C. on our behalf. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks. Just one final comment. I want you to also know
we appreciate very much the work that Curt Smitch is doing. He
worked for the delegation very effectively, and we're in almost
daily contact with him on the details of your effort.
Governor Locke. Great. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF:
ROBERT ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, MID-SOUND FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT
GROUP
AL ADAMS, PRESIDENT, HOOD CANAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUP
ROGER BRADEN, CHELAN PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
HANK SITKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST MARINE TRADE
ASSOCIATION
WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS, MADRONA INVESTMENT GROUP
ED OWENS, COASTAL FISHERIES COALITION
summary statement of robert anderson
Senator Gorton. OK, the next full panel: Robert Anderson,
Al Adams, Roger Braden, Hank Sitko, Bill Ruckelshaus, and Ed
Owens. If they will come forward, please?
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, as I look at the clock, and
look at these gentlemen and the time they're going to use, I'm
sad to say I'll have to leave about a quarter of 12:00 to make
my plane to Juneau. But I do appreciate the opportunity to be
with you.
Senator Gorton. OK. Thank you.
And we will start with Robert Anderson, president of Mid-
Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group.
Mr. Anderson. Senators Gorton, Murray, and Stevens, and
Congressmen Dicks, McDermott, and Smith, good morning. It's an
honor to provide testimony to you today on behalf of the
community-based partners who are working diligently to restore
salmon in Puget Sound and all of Washington State. My name is
Robert Anderson. I am chair of the Regional Fisheries Citizens
Advisory Board and also president of the Mid-Puget Sound
Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group and vice-chair of People
for Salmon Volunteer Initiative. I'm here this morning for
three reasons:
To update you on the activities and accomplishments of the
community-based salmon restoration groups in Washington State;
To describe the important role of the People for Salmon
Volunteer Initiative in this effort;
And to request your support for the federal and State
resources that are needed to optimize this program.
I want to start my testimony by personally thanking
Congressman Dicks and Senator Gorton, who have provided
outstanding support and funding for regional fisheries
enhancement groups, as well as other community-based partners
like conservation districts. Your ongoing support for community
salmon restoration is deeply appreciated by all of us. Thank
you.
Today I want to emphasize three key points.
Community-based organizations like regional fisheries
enhancement groups and conservation districts are the most
cost-effective salmon restoration project implementers in the
State.
Community-based salmon restoration groups are the key to
accessing private landowners to implement cooperative,
incentive-based salmon recovery programs.
Broad support from local communities will be essential to
successfully restoring our once-abundant salmon and steelhead
runs.
Over the last 10 years community organizations like
regional fisheries enhancement groups, conservation districts,
YMCAs, tribes, commercial and recreational fishers, timber,
agricultural, and business interests have worked with limited
resources at the local level to implement cooperative salmon
restoration projects on private land. During 1997 the Regional
Fisheries Enhancement Group program provided over 37,000 hours
of volunteer service and $3.2 million to implement 160
community-based salmon enhancement and restoration projects.
This is the first key point I want to make to you today.
Community-based salmon restoration programs are exceptionally
cost-effective. Administrative overhead costs for the RFEG's
during 1997 was $200,000 over the $3.2 million in projects, or
about 6.5 percent. For every dollar that the State has
dedicated to the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group Program,
we raise six additional dollars from other State and federal
sources, private donations, and donated labor and materials.
All of our local partners are similarly cost-effective and
efficient.
Typically, fully-loaded staff costs for community based,
private non-profit organizations are 50 to 60 percent of the
costs for full-time State or local governments. This means that
providing support for project identification, design,
permitting, and management costs less, so more money can go to
salmon restoration.
A second key point I want to emphasize in this regard is
that private non-profit groups are the key to working with
private landowners to restore and enhance salmon habitat in a
non-regulatory, voluntary manner. In many cases, private
landowners are reluctant to work with government agencies that
also enforce land use and other regulations. Community-based
organizations work cooperatively with landowners to identify
projects, secure matching funds, and implement and maintain the
projects. The support of landowners for salmon recovery is
critical to the eventual success of our efforts. As Senator
Gorton was able to see firsthand on Monday, the outstanding
landowners like Dale and Al Reiner on the Skykomish River, who
not only help implement projects on their land, but then help
their neighbors to take advantage of restoration opportunities.
We call this process the ``thousand cups of coffee'' since
community-based groups have the local connections, trust, and
the incentive-based approach that provides the toolbox to
implement projects cooperatively with local landowners.
In 1998, the regional fisheries enhancement groups were
successful in leading a cooperative effort that secured $1
million for a volunteer initiative from the State Conservation
Commission. This leads to the creation of People for Salmon, a
broad partnership dedicated to enhancing and expanding
community-based salmon restoration State-wide. People for
Salmon is the big tent for all of the communities who support
salmon restoration. Many of our partners are here today, and
I'd like to recognize them and ask them to please quickly
stand, and--especially for their role and passion for People
for Salmon.
From the Associated General Contractors, AGC's ESA Task
Force Chair Steve Davis and Gary Jones. AGC members in Pierce
and Kitsap counties contributed over $15,000 in time and
materials to salmon restoration projects in Roy and the Key
Peninsula last year. In addition, the AGC Education Foundation
provides on-the-ground training and technical services on
project management, critical path management, job-site safety,
and other pertinent topics. And besides that, they have heavy
machinery. Nice touch.
From the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Billy
Frank, Jim Anderson, and Steve Robinson, co-managers of the
resource, have been involved in the program from day one. The
Commission provides full-time liaison between tribes and local
salmon enhancement groups. This helps ensure that local tribes'
resources are actively involved with project ID, design, and
implementation. They are also responsible for organizing
Seattle Salmon Homecoming as well as other cultural events that
build local support for salmon restoration.
From the regional fisheries enhancement groups,
representatives from Nooksack, Skagit, Stilli-Snohomish,
Pacific Coast, Mid-Sound, South Sound, and Chehalis enhancement
groups, and my friend Al Adams from the Hood Canal group who
will be chatting with you in a moment about their excellent
programs. All of these groups, as well as seven other non-
profit organizations receive funding for full-time volunteer
coordinators from People for Salmon. These local coordinators
are the backbone of our program.
From the Pierce County Conservation District, Ted Bottiger
and Brian Abbott who have been leaders in promoting
agricultural community involvement in salmon recovery. Three of
our local volunteer coordinators are funded through
conservation districts or resource conservation and development
councils.
The YMCA. Katy Kennedy is here from Snohomish County YMCA
Teen Services. She provides mini-grants to local schools to pay
for substitute teachers and transportation so students can
participate in these programs in the field.
Other People for Salmon partners include Northwest Chinook
Recovery, technical assistance and training services; Tri-State
Steelheaders, who have hired a full-time volunteer coordinator
to assist salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Walla
Walla area; U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, who
provide essential technical assistance and other services for
salmon habitat protection and restoration; and a World
Institute for a Sustainable Humanity, who manages our grant and
fiduciary responsibilities.
As you can see, we have a very big tent, which leads to my
final point. This is the essence of community-based salmon
restoration, all of us working together to restore salmon in a
cooperative manner.
In order to continue and expand this outstanding program to
it's full potential, we need assistance. For the 1999-2001
biennium we have asked that the State provide $5 million in
capital funds to match $5 million in federal funds for projects
currently proposed by regional fisheries enhancement groups and
our community-based partners. If you only consider Hood Canal,
Mid-Sound, Nooksack, and South Sound regional groups, you
already have over $10 million in projects ready to go. In
addition, we have requested $4.5 million for the next biennium
to continue and expand the People for Salmon Volunteer
Initiative. And finally, we have proposed $5.2 million in base
funding for regional fisheries groups, tribes, conservation
districts, and other community organizations to provide the
local resources for project ID, design, permitting, and
implementation. Any assistance you can provide us with securing
this request would be deeply appreciated.
I want to re-emphasize these three points. They're really
critical.
Community-based organizations are efficient. They're the
best project implementers and the best bang for the buck in the
State.
Community-based salmon restoration groups are the key to
working with private landowners.
Broad support from local communities will be essential to
restoring our salmon and steelhead.
prepared statement
We are the right tool at the right time at the right
location, a stiletto in a world of blunt instruments. Finely-
honed and purposeful, we are the essence of the community and
the sharp expression of the passion for salmon recovery in
Washington State. We deeply appreciate your support and stand
ready to work tirelessly with you to bring back salmon runs.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Anderson
Senators Gorton, Murray and Stevens; and Congressmen Dicks,
McDermott, and Smith. Good morning! It is an honor to provide testimony
to you today on behalf of the community based partners who are working
diligently to restore salmon in Puget Sound and all of Washington
State. My name is Robert Anderson. I am the Chair of the Regional
Fisheries Enhancement Citizens Advisory Board. I am also the President
of the Mid-Puget Sound Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group and Vice
Chair of the People for Salmon Volunteer Initiative. I am here this
morning for three reasons:
1. To update you on the activities and accomplishments of the
community based salmon restoration groups in Washington State.
2. To describe the important role of the People for Salmon
Volunteer Initiative in this effort.
3. To request your support for the federal and state resources that
are needed to optimize this program.
I want to start my testimony by personally thanking Congressman
Dicks and Senator Gorton who have provided outstanding support and
funding for Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups, as well as other
community based partners like Conservation Districts. Your ongoing
support for community salmon restoration is deeply appreciated by all
of us.
Today I want to emphasize three key points:
1. Community based organizations like Regional Fisheries
Enhancement Groups and Conservation Districts are the most cost-
effective salmon restoration project implementers in the state.
2. Community-based salmon restoration groups are the key to
accessing private landowners to implement cooperative, incentive based
salmon recovery programs.
3. Broad support from local communities will be essential to
successfully restoring our once abundant salmon and steelhead runs.
Over the last 10 years community organizations like Regional
Fisheries Enhancement Groups; Conservation Districts; YMCA's; tribes;
commercial and recreational fishers; and timber, agricultural, and
business interests have worked with limited resources at the local
level to implement cooperative salmon restoration projects on private
land. During 1997 the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group program
provided over 37,000 hours of volunteer service and over $3.2 million
dollars to implement 160 community based salmon enhancement and
restoration projects. This is the first key point I want to make to you
today. Community based salmon restoration programs are exceptionally
cost-effective. Administrative overhead costs for the RFEG's during
1997 was $209,000 for the over $3.2 million in projects, or less than
6.5 percent. For every dollar that the state has dedicated to the RFEG
program--we raise six additional dollars from other state and federal
sources, private donations, and donated labor and materials. All of our
local partners are similarly cost-effective and efficient.
Typically, fully loaded staff costs for community based, private
non-profit organizations are 50-60 percent of the costs for full-time
state or local government staff. This means that providing support for
project identification, design, permitting, and management costs less,
so more money goes directly to on-the-ground activities.
A second key point I want to emphasize in this regard, is that
private non-profit groups are the key to working with private
landowners to restore and enhance salmon habitat in a non-regulatory,
voluntary manner. In many cases, private landowners are reluctant to
work with government agencies which also enforce land use and other
regulations. Community based organizations work cooperatively with
landowners to identify projects, secure matching funds, and implement
and maintain the projects. The support of landowners for salmon
recovery is critical to the eventual success of our efforts. As Senator
Gorton was able to see first hand on Monday, there are outstanding
landowners like Dale and Al Reiner on the Skykomish River who not only
help implement projects on their land, but then help their neighbors to
take advantage of restoration opportunities. We call this process the
``thousand cups of coffee'' since community based groups have the local
connections, trust, and the incentive based approach that provides the
toolbox to implement projects cooperatively with local landowners.
In 1998, the Regional Fisheries Groups were successful in leading a
cooperative effort that secured $1 million for the Volunteer Initiative
from the State Conservation Commission. This lead to the creation of
People for Salmon--a broad partnership dedicated to enhancing and
expanding community based salmon restoration state-wide. People for
Salmon is the big tent for all of the communities who support salmon
restoration. Many of our partners are here today--and I would like to
recognize them and their role with People for Salmon.
From the Associated General Contractors--AGC's ESA Task Force Chair
Steve Davis is here today who, with other AGO members in Pierce and
Kitsap counties contributed over $15,000 in time and materials to
salmon restoration projects in Roy and the Key Peninsula last year. In
addition, the AGO Education Foundation provides on-the-ground training
and technical services on project management, critical path management,
job-site safety, and other pertinent topics to local volunteer groups
through People for Salmon.
From the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission--Billy Frank, Jim
Anderson, and Steve Robinson as co-managers of the resource have been
involved in the program from day one. The Commission provides full-time
liaison between tribes and local salmon enhancement groups. This helps
ensure that local tribal resources are actively involved with project
identification, design, and implementation. They are also responsible
for organizing the Seattle Salmon Homecoming as well as other cultural
events that build local support for salmon restoration.
From the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups--representatives
from Nooksack, Skagit, Stilli-Snohomish, Pacific Coast, Mid-Sound, and
South Sound Enhancement Groups and my friend Al Adams from the Hood
Canal Group who will be chatting with you in a moment about their
excellent program. All of these groups, as well as 7 other private non-
profit organizations receive funding for full-time local volunteer
coordinators from People for Salmon. These local coordinators are the
backbone of our program to build local capacity and support for salmon
restoration.
From the Pierce County Conservation District--Ted Bottiger and
Brian Abbott who have been leaders in promoting agricultural community
involvement in salmon recovery. Three of our local volunteer
coordinators are funded through Conservation Districts or Resource
Conservation and Development Councils (RC&D's) YMCA's--Lucia Ramirez is
here from Snohomish County YMCA Teen Services. The YMCA Earth Service
Corps program provides mini-grants to local schools to pay for
substitute teachers and transportation so students can participate in
projects and train high school students as volunteer coordinators for
middle and grade schools students.
Other People for Salmon partners include Northwest Chinook
Recovery, who provides technical assistance and training services;
River CPR, which is developing training modules for use in local
communities, the Tri-State Steelheaders, who have hired a full time
volunteer coordinator to assist salmon and steelhead recovery efforts
in the Walla Walla area; the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, who provide essential technical assistance and other services
related to salmon habitat protection and restoration for the
agricultural community, and A World Institute for a Sustainable
Humanity (A.W.I.S.H.), who provides all of the administrative support
services for the Volunteer Initiative grant.
As you can see we have a very big tent, which leads to my final
point. The only way we will recover salmon is if for every stream,
creek, river, wetland, oxbow or estuary we find a willing landowner,
citizen, family, neighborhood, tribe, or community that will dedicate
the time and energy to make sure that salmon can live and thrive there.
This is the essence of community-based salmon restoration, all of us
working together to restore salmon in a cooperative manner.
In order to continue and expand this outstanding program to it's
full potential, we need assistance from both the federal and state
level. To that end, I want to discuss our request now being considered
by the State Legislature as part of the 1999-2001 budget. I should note
that this request anticipates some federal match for state funds
dedicated to community-based projects and People for Salmon.
For the 1999-2001 biennium we have asked that the State provide $5
million in capital funds to match $5 million in federal funds for
projects currently being proposed by Regional Fisheries Enhancement
Groups and our community based partners. If you just consider the Hood
Canal, Mid-Sound, Nooksack, and South Sound Regional Groups--you
already have over $10 million in projects ready to go! In addition, we
have requested $4.5 million for the next biennium to continue and
expand the People for Salmon Volunteer Initiative. And finally we have
proposed $5.2 million in base funding for Regional Fisheries Groups,
Tribes, Conservation Districts and other community organizations to
provide the local resources for project identification, design,
permitting, and implementation. Any assistance you can provide us with
securing this request would be deeply appreciated.
I want to re-emphasize the three key points:
1. Community based organizations like Regional Fisheries
Enhancement Groups and Conservation Districts are the most cost-
effective salmon restoration project implementers in the state.
2. Community-based salmon restoration groups are the key to working
with private landowners.
3. Broad support from local communities will be essential to
restoring our salmon and steelhead runs.
We are the right tool at the right time at the right location--a
stiletto in a world of blunt instruments. Finely honed and purposeful,
we are the essence of the community and the sharp expression of the
passion for salmon recovery in Washington State. We deeply appreciate
your support and stand ready to work tirelessly with you to bring back
our once abundant salmon runs.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS
Senator Gorton. We're going to go a little out of order.
Bill Ruckelshaus, I want Senator Stevens to hear you before he
has to leave, because you have had such a role in this and the
work on the treaty. So we'll take you out of order and hear
from you now.
Mr. Ruckelshaus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I better re-
insert my words of praise for Senator Stevens in my statement,
since he's going to be here.
Senator Stevens obviously is crucial to the element of
success here, as many of the members of the panel have
mentioned. Achieving success in the treaty negotiations with
Canada is essential, and the cooperation between Alaska and the
States here, and as well as the tribes, is necessary if that's
going to happen.
I want to tell you about something we're doing here in
Puget Sound for just a minute or two. We have provided a
statement that is a result of a collaborative group that we've
established here made up of environmental leaders and business
leaders, jointly sponsored by the Bullitt Foundation and the
Business Roundtable, to make joint recommendations to the
governor and all of the various planning entities that are
addressing the issue of salmon recovery. Puget Sound is our
focus, and obviously the Chinook, being an ESU that encompasses
all of Puget Sound, that is getting a great deal of our
attention.
Why have we come together? Well, we believe that the
Chinook, and maybe other salmon in Puget Sound, are threatened,
and that it is in our economic interest as well as the interest
of--the obvious interest of the fish, that we cause these fish
to recover. We believe that we know what to do to help the
salmon recover, and that we need to work on all aspects of the
salmon's life cycle, from habitat to harvest, obviously
including the appropriate use of hatcheries, and address, too,
the problems of hydropower. We also believe, if this is going
to work, if our help is going to work, the region needs to stay
in control of its own destiny.
And last, recovery will only happen if there is a strong
recovery plan prepared by, endorsed by, and implemented by all
levels of government as if there were no barriers between
government. And I would include, obviously, the tribes in that
equation, as well as citizen groups that need to participate in
the development of these plans.
Now, this is something that our group has already
recommended. We have submitted a set of recommendations for the
record to this committee. We have also submitted--two of us;
the coordinator of our group, Dr. Walter Reid, and myself--
something that goes a little beyond what the group has
currently recommended in terms of coordination. We believe that
our paper spells out why we think coordination is so essential
between all levels of government if we're to really effect
recovery of the salmon in Puget Sound, or for that matter, in
the rest of the region where those fish are either endangered
or threatened.
We strongly believe that the governor and the president
need to designate someone to play a coordinating function so
that all the levels of government can direct their efforts at
the end goal that we all endorse. We don't need a czar, we need
a coordinator. He or she should also have the role of seeing
that there is one table, and that everyone is at it, so that
the plan is understood and implemented by all. I am personally
of the belief that if this doesn't happen, this whole process
will end up in court, with years of delay and great expenditure
of money, while the salmon just fade away.
prepared statement
We have submitted for the record, again, Mr. Chairman,
reasons why we think this coordination is necessary. In my role
as an envoy from the president to look at processes that could
improve the negotiation between us and Canada, and in my
current role as chairman of this collaboration, I have talked
to virtually everyone involved in this process, and I'm
convinced that a lot of people are doing an awful lot of very
good things, but it is essential that they be better
coordinated in what they're doing so that we can direct
whatever resources we have at the recovery of these fish; and
that if we don't have this coordinating mechanism, the risk of
this whole process falling apart is just unacceptably high.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter Reid \1\ and William Ruckelshaus \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coordinator, Washington Salmon Collaboration. 731 N 79th St.,
Seattle, WA 98103; tel: 206-782-7963; fax: 206-782-5682; e-mail
[email protected].
\2\ Chair, Washington Salmon Collaboration. 1000 2nd Ave., Suite
3700, Seattle, WA 98104 tel:206-674-3009; fax: 206-674-3013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
salmon conservation in the pacific northwest: the need for more
effective coordination in the development of recovery plans
In its consensus statement of March 15, 1999,\3\ the Washington
Salmon Collaboration identified the need to ``expand and intensify . .
. efforts to ensure effective coordination and collaboration within and
among all levels of government'' as one of its overarching
recommendations for actions needed to recover the threatened Puget
Sound Chinook salmon. In this paper we expand upon the rationale for
greater coordination, provide specific examples where it would be
helpful, and suggest one mechanism for achieving this goal. This paper
represents the views of the authors only, and is not a consensus
document of the collaboration. We plan to discuss these issues at
upcoming meetings and may develop consensus recommendations at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Copies available from Walter Reid ([email protected])
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The citizens of the Pacific Northwest face an unparalleled
challenge in their efforts to design an effective strategy to restore
the health of salmon populations throughout the region. Within
Washington state alone, 16 species of salmon are listed as threatened
or endangered, and the bulk of the state, including the heavily
populated Puget Sound region, is now affected by listed species. A
number of additional populations are listed as threatened and
endangered in Oregon and California with still more proposed for
listing in all three states.
The number, scope, and nature of these endangered species listings
have created a situation never before experienced in the implementation
of the Endangered Species Act. Other endangered species such as the
grizzly bear or the bald eagle have spanned large geographic ranges and
still others, like the California gnatcatcher, have been listed near
heavily urbanized centers. But no other listing or series of listings
share the set of attributes of the threatened and endangered salmon.
Some of the features of the salmon listings that have direct
implications for the design of recovery efforts are the following:
Regional scale.--The set of salmon listings will significantly
affect four states (California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho) and will
have some effect on Alaska and Canada. Federal, state, local, and
tribal governments and agencies, as well as relationships with Canada,
must be effectively integrated across this region.
Multiple listings.--Because multiple species and Evolutionary
Significant Units (ESUs) are being listed, the application of science
to the design of recovery strategies and the nature of recovery
activities themselves must be different for salmon than has been the
case with other wide-ranging species. Since the ecology and demography
of each salmon ESU is distinct, extensive data and analysis is needed
to develop recovery strategies for each ESU and recovery actions must
be taken across all ESUs. Setting aside a few large protected areas can
sometimes be pivotal in maintaining populations of wide-ranging
species. That strategy cannot work in the case of the multiple ESUs of
salmon.
Freshwater life stages.--Freshwater ecosystems are the ultimate
``integrator'' of land use practices. Changes in land or water use or
release of pollutants anywhere within a watershed can, and often does,
affect the downstream freshwater ecosystem. Consequently, in principle
human actions anywhere across the landscape could potentially harm
salmon habitat and be considered a ``take,'' which makes it difficult
to establish practical but scientifically based take prohibitions.
Conversely, recovery strategies need to take into account the entire
set of human actions within a region in order to protect and restore
salmon habitat.
Multiple driving forces.--Salmon have declined as a result of
habitat loss and degradation, water pollution, overharvesting, and
negative impacts of hatchery programs. Effective recovery efforts
require actions that address all of these driving forces, yet each has
its own institutional and political dynamics and its own stakeholders.
Whereas the spotted owl listing required that a solution was acceptable
to one important industry (forest products) and its stakeholders
(including forest dependent communities), the salmon listing multiplies
this challenge many-fold.
Low ``Signal to Noise'' ratio.--Salmon populations are notoriously
variable. Year to year stochastic variations in recruitment and
survival, compounded by decadal variation in such variables as ocean
productivity, make the detection of population trends and the analysis
of the effectiveness of management interventions extremely difficult.
Long-term studies are typically needed to isolate the ``signal'' from
the environmental noise in any demographic study of salmon.
These attributes of the salmon listing pose obstacles to the design
of effective recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest and it is
unlikely that experiences with previous endangered species listings can
provide suitable models for this situation. Successful recovery efforts
will require a level of coordination ``horizontally'' across states
(and nations), and ``vertically'' from local governments to federal
agencies, unprecedented in the history of resource management in the
western United States. For this reason, the Washington Salmon
Collaboration has identified the need for more effective coordination
among and within all levels of government as one of the primary
overarching needs for scientifically based, cost efficient, and
effective recovery strategies. In particular, we believe that there is
an opportunity within the Puget Sound region to attempt a ``pilot''
effort at this type of coordination, with a focus on the recovery of
the Puget Sound Chinook and other listed species within this ESU.
The current efforts to establish the scientific basis for recovery
strategies and the processes underway to develop recovery plans
themselves illustrate both the need for more effective coordination and
the costs associated with the lack of that coordination, and we discuss
these two situations below.
ensuring science-based action
Numerous initiatives are now being launched across the Northwest to
help provide the scientific basis for salmon recovery planning. In the
case of Puget Sound, the various science bodies that exist or are being
proposed that would have input into the design of a recovery strategy
include:
--The Independent Science Panel established by State legislation
(HB2496) to provide peer review of recovery efforts;
--The Interagency Review Team established by State legislation to
ensure (among other tasks) that project funding is based on the
best science;
--Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) established for each Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) to identify limiting factors for
salmon in each watershed;
--A proposal by the Northwest Chapter of the Society for Ecological
Restoration to establish an independent science panel for the
Puget Sound Chinook ESU;
--A study being launched by the Trust for Public Lands to undertake a
GIS-based assessment of highest priority habitats for salmon
recovery in the Puget Sound region;
--A study funded by various local companies (Port Blakely Tree Farms,
Simpson Timber, and others) of limiting factors for salmon in
the Puget Sound ESU; and
--The NMFS recovery planning effort.
This proliferation of assessment activities reflects the importance
of ``getting the science right'' but also presents significant costs
and risks. Multiple scientific assessments will result in duplication
of effort. Moreover, rather than resolving areas of scientific
uncertainty, the many different initiatives will inevitably reach
somewhat different conclusions and identify somewhat different
priorities, posing the risk that recovery efforts will be slowed while
the reasons for differences are explored, debated, and resolved.
There would be significant cost and efficiency benefits to be
gained by a coordinated effort to: (a) identify limiting factors within
each ESU, and (b) prioritize potential recovery actions in terms of
their biological effectiveness in recovery, and (c) ultimately
determine the population size and characteristics necessary for de-
listing and the recovery actions that will be required to achieve those
goals. Either NMFS or the State could take the lead in coordinating
such ESU-focused assessments, building on the WRIA activities underway
and the other scientific efforts listed above.
designing an effective recovery strategy
Both the State and many local governments in the Northwest are
developing salmon recovery plans in anticipation of, or response to,
the Endangered Species Act listings. Within Washington state,
legislation passed in 1998 established a Salmon Recovery Office and
launched a series of watershed-based recovery planning activities. In
January 1999, the Governor released a draft recovery strategy
``Extinction is not an Option'' laying out a series of actions to be
taken to ensure salmon recovery. The three most urbanized counties,
King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties have coordinated their activities
through the ``Tri-County Process'' and have submitted a recovery
strategy to the National Marine Fisheries Service. And individual
cities, such as Bellevue and the City of Seattle are also developing
and negotiating recovery plans and HCPs with the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Here too, the lack of effective coordination of these planning
activities poses significant risks for the design of effective recovery
efforts. Neither NMFS nor the Fish and Wildlife Service, the two
federal agencies responsible for determining whether the recovery plans
meet the requirements of the ESA, are centrally engaged in the planning
effort. Instead, influenced by their regulatory role and their
interpretation of their legal obligations, the federal agencies have
provided advice in the development of plans but, with the exception of
a process to negotiate new forest regulations, have not directly shared
responsibility for the development of those plans. A more effective
approach would be for all levels of government to ``sit at the same
table'' and jointly craft a recovery plan meeting the legal
requirements of the ESA. (In many cases, such plans may well exceed the
legal requirements due to the general public and political support for
salmon recovery in the Northwest.)
Two examples from the Pacific Northwest of this type of
coordination and engagement of various government agencies with shared
responsibility for the resource are the Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW)
agreement in Washington state and the Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team (FEMAT) established in response to the listing of the
Spotted Owl.
In the case of the TFW, federal agencies are one of six
``stakeholders'' in the negotiating process for setting timber
management regulations in Washington State. Other stakeholders include
the tribes, local governments, state agencies, private business, and
environmental organizations. Although the most recent TFW negotiations
failed in August 1998, when environmental groups decided not to
continue with the negotiations, aspects of this model provide a much
more promising arrangement for ensuring that all levels of government
successfully develop a ``joint'' plan.
FEMAT is another institutional arrangement established to meet the
unique needs of responding to the listing of an endangered species that
crossed multiple institutional boundaries. Following President
Clinton's April 2, 1993 Forest Conference, the President established
the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team to develop options for
the management of Federal forest ecosystems. Each option was to provide
habitat that would support stable populations of species associated
with late-successional forests, including the northern spotted owl. On
July 1, 1993, the President identified the FEMAT report's Option 9 as
the preferred alternative for amending the Federal agencies' land
management plans with respect to late-successional and old-growth
forest habitat. This option was ultimately challenged in court but on
December 21, 1994, Federal District Court Judge William L. Dwyer
rejected a number of plaintiffs' challenges and issued an order to
uphold the Forest Plan. According to Judge Dwyer, the Forest Plan ``. .
. marked the first time in several years that the owl-habitat forests
will be managed by the responsible agencies under a plan found lawful
by the courts. It will also mark the first time that the Forest Service
and BLM have worked together to preserve ecosystems common to their
jurisdictions.''
The salmon listings differ somewhat from both the TFW and FEMAT
experiences. Unlike FEMAT, the need for coordination in the case of the
salmon listings extends well beyond federal lands and must involve
states, tribes, local governments, and private landowners. Unlike TFW,
the salmon issues extend to non-forest ecosystems. But what these
models share, and what can likely be applied to the salmon recovery
challenge, is the need to empower one collaborative body with the
requirement of crafting a joint solution. This does not yet exist in
the case of salmon recovery efforts. Instead, the coordination that
does exist tends to be restricted largely to information exchange. For
example, the Tri-County Executive Committee developed a set of early
action proposals in the hopes that they would be considered sufficient
by NMFS, but not in direct collaboration with NMFS. Similarly, NMFS,
state legislators, and local government officials participate in a
coordinating council chaired by the Governor's Special Advisor for
Natural Resources. However, in neither of these venues are the various
parties collectively responsible for crafting solutions.
As the Tri-County process has moved forward, by some accounts the
interaction with NMFS has increasingly become one of joint negotiation
and collaborative planning. However, even if the various levels of
government become better coordinated in the case of these three
counties, the problem still remains that the process of ``rolling up''
the various recovery proposals and actions in other counties around
Puget Sound into an overall strategy for the recovery of the Puget
Sound Chinook ESU is not one of partnership among all levels of
government.
The costs of proceeding without a more effective means of
coordinating the development of a response strategy are likely to be
high. Without a collectively ``owned'' plan, the likelihood for legal
challenges is heightened, and the likelihood of success of such
challenges is also increased since different institutions will take
different positions on recovery needs. A proliferation of separate
planning activities and separate negotiations with NMFS will diminish
the ability to use science as the basis for recovery planning, since
individual negotiations will be driven by the unique political aspects
of each local or regional government. Multiple planning activities will
tend to overwhelm the already stretched federal agencies charged with
implementation of the ESA and may overtax the limited number of
scientists who have expertise on these systems. And, there is a
significant risk that a more fragmented approach to developing recovery
plans will become bogged down in inter-institutional rivalries and
proceed at a glacial pace. Such delay in the development of an
effective plan will inevitably increase the ultimate cost of recovery
and the likelihood of judicial intervention and decrease the potential
for successful recovery.
a new institutional arrangement for salmon recovery
In light of the unique features of the listing of salmon in the
Northwest and the challenges that it currently poses for the
institutions responsible for recovery, more effective means of
coordination within and among the responsible governments seem
essential. We believe that this situation may demand a novel
institutional arrangement.
A priority should be the establishment of a single negotiating
process that involves state, tribal, local, and federal agencies in the
joint development of both statewide and ESU-specific recovery plans.
More specifically, we believe that as a pilot activity, a new mechanism
for coordination among all levels of government should be established
for the development and implementation of recovery planning efforts
within the Puget Sound ESU. Such a process could be created by the
joint appointment by Governor Locke and President Clinton of a special
representative with authority to oversee the coordination of the
scientific assessments of: (a) limiting factors, (b) recovery
priorities, and (c) recovery targets and with the authority and
responsibility for overseeing the negotiation of the ESU-specific
recovery plans for the Puget Sound basin. Following the example of
other state/federal collaborative models, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta
program and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program, the
coordination would also likely involve the establishment of a
Memorandum of Understanding among the various agencies. The special
representative or ``coordinating council'' of agencies would not take
on project responsibilities and would not undertake their own
assessments or planning activities but would instead ensure that the
activities being undertaken by the member agencies are effectively and
strategically coordinated. And, this council would provide the venue
for negotiation of recovery plans or the development of alternative
plans for the final review and approval by policy-makers.
A number of alternative arrangements could be considered with
various strengths and weaknesses. For example, the special
representative could be appointed by the President and the Governors of
Oregon, Washington, and California (and possibly a Tribal
representative) to ensure effective coordination at a regional level
(e.g., Pacific Northwest) or for the State of Washington rather than
just the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. Whatever mechanism is established, a
key to its success is likely to be the presence of a clear mandate from
the State and Federal level so that the individual and institution are
seen to be acting under the direct authority of the governor and
President.
conclusions
The challenge of recovering endangered salmonids in the Puget Sound
Region is significant, but the willingness of individuals and
institutions to take on this challenge is perhaps unique in the history
of the application of the ESA. Given the number of different agencies
and levels of government that must be involved in successful recovery
of the fish, however, there is a very high likelihood that recovery
efforts could be slowed dramatically without the creation of an
effective means of coordination across all levels of government.
Already, we see a risk that the lack of effective coordination is
leading to inefficiencies and redundancies. We suggest that a pilot
effort be undertaken to appoint a special representative for the Puget
Sound region and formalize an agreement among the relevant governments,
agencies, and tribes to ensure that the responsible institutions
develop and implement a single cohesive recovery plan.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF AL ADAMS
Senator Gorton. Now Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks,
for inviting us and allowing us to share about Hood Canal.
Twenty-two days ago the ESA landed. Now everyone is aware
that our Hood Canal wild Chinook and summer chum are in peril.
From the beginning of Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
in 1990, we were aware of the alarming decline of wild salmon
in Hood Canal. In 1992 in partnership with Long Live The Kings,
we initiated our first wild summer chum recovery effort in
Lilliwaup Creek. At the same time, we also started spawning
wild Chinook in Big Beef Creek, incubating, rearing and
releasing smolts into Hood Canal. These efforts were conducted
by volunteers on a very limited budget.
Fortunately in 1994, Congressman Dicks directed federal
funds to help restore wild salmon in Hood Canal. Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group and Long Live The Kings created the
Wild Salmon Conservancy. The concept is to incubate and rear
Chinook salmon in natural conditions in six rivers in Hood
Canal and volitional release as smolts into the streams. In the
past two years, we have added wild steelhead and wild summer
chum to the conservancy concept on the Hama Hama River. This
year was the fourth year of Chinook conservancy efforts on
three rivers.
Ten times the average number of Chinook returned to spawn
in those three rivers as compared to the last eight years. All
projects and goals of the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
are guided by the salmon managers and helpers of Salmon
Resource including Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Long Live
The Kings, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, DNR,
Hood Canal tribes, counties, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and National Marine Fisheries.
In 1996, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group expanded their
activity to include restoration of habitat. Senator Gorton
secured funding for the regional fisheries enhancement groups
in 1997 and we took advantage of it to do culvert engineer
design. Recognizing the blocked access on many of the superb
spawning streams, we began a methodical process to identify and
properly design culverts to eliminate barriers. We are leading
the removal of all the man-made obstacles with federal, State,
county, and private funding. Most of the blockages on the
Dewatto River were eliminated last summer and wild salmon
traversed through the new spawning areas last fall. This year
we plan to remove fourteen barriers in the Tahuya River and our
goal is to remove all blockages on all Hood Canal rivers and
streams by the year 2003.
In addition, we are making a detailed scientific habitat
survey and gridding of each river. This is done by our six high
school and college scholarship winners who also work as summer
interns under the direction of DNR scientists. All of this data
becomes a part of our Global Information System, the GIS, which
we have started with the help of Naval Undersea Warfare Center
and DNR. In four years--I repeat; in four years--we will be
able to demonstrate visually the trip that a pair of wild
salmon take returning to spawn up any Hood Canal river,
including all the physical features like ripples, large woody
debris, fish passage, salmon gravel, and much more.
We are twenty-two days and counting.
From our viewpoint there are five essential elements to
restoring wild Chinook, summer chum, and all other salmon to
our Hood Canal rivers and streams:
One is sufficient escapement;
Two is supplementation and/or restarting the extinct runs
through wild salmon conservancies;
Three is restoration and protection of habitat;
Four, community-based watershed stewardship;
And number five, a comprehensive plan for all species of
wild salmon in Hood Canal.
prepared statement
We are confident that wild salmon will be restored in some
manner when the impacts of the four H's are equally considered,
but we are less certain of the lasting effect once the ESA
pressure is reduced. The wisdom of the 535 Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group members tells us the only chance of permanent
success is through community-based watershed stewardship. There
is not enough money or personnel for the government to ever
completely restore and continuously regulate the wild salmon in
all the rivers and streams. Only through watershed stewardship
by the local small and large landowners, government agencies,
and tribal governments will long term, self-sustaining wild
salmon recovery be achieved. And all--I repeat; all--must have
an equal voice at the table in making lasting decisions about
our wild salmon.
Twenty-two days and counting. The Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group has been counting for nine years.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. We greatly
appreciate that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement Al Adams
Thank you Congressman Dicks and Senator Gorton for the opportunity
for HCSEG to be here and to make this presentation to the Salmon
Recovery Hearing.
22 Days ago the ESA landed. Now everyone is aware that our Hood
Canal Wild Chinook and Summer Chum are in peril.
From the beginning of HCSEG in 1990, we were aware of the alarming
decline of Wild Salmon in Hood Canal. In 1992 in partnership with LLTK,
we initiated our first Wild Summer Chum recovery effort in Lilliwaup
Creek. At the same time, we also started spawning Wild Chinook in Big
Beef Creek, incubating, rearing and releasing smolts into Hood Canal.
These efforts were conducted by volunteers on a very limited budget.
Fortunately in 1994, Congressman Dicks directed federal funds to
help restore Wild Salmon in Hood Canal. HCSEG and LLTK created the Wild
Salmon Conservancy concept: incubate and rear Chinook Salmon in natural
conditions in 6 rivers in Hood Canal and volitional release as smolts
into the streams. In the past two years, we have added Wild Steelhead
and Wild Summer Chum to the Conservancy concept on the Hama Hama River.
This year was the 4th year of Chinook Conservancy efforts on three
rivers. Ten times the average number of Chinook returned to spawn in
those three rivers as compared to the last 8 years. All projects and
goals of the HCSEG are guided by the managers and helpers of the Salmon
Resource including HCCC, LLTK, WDFW, DNR, Hood Canal Tribes, Counties,
USFWS and NMFS.
In 1996, the HCSEG expanded their activity to include restoration
of the habitat. Senator Gorton secured funding for the RFEG's in 1997
and we took advantage of it to do culvert engineering design.
Recognizing the blocked access on many of the superb spawning streams,
we began a methodical process to identify and properly design culverts
to eliminate barriers. We are leading the removal of all the man-made
obstacles with federal, state, county, and private funding. Most of the
blockages on the Dewatto River were eliminated last summer and Wild
Salmon traversed through to new spawning areas last fall This year we
plan to remove the barriers on the Tahuya River and our goal is to
remove blockages on all Hood Canal rivers and streams by 2003.
In addition, we are making a detailed scientific survey and
gridding of each river. This is being done by our 6 high school and
college scholarship winners who also work as summer interns under the
direction of DNR scientists. All of this data becomes a part of the new
Global Information System (GIS) which we have started with the help of
the Navy Undersea Warfare Center and DNR. In 4 years, we will be able
to demonstrate visually the trip that a pair of Wild Salmon take
returning to spawn up any Hood Canal river including all the physical
features; ripples, large woody debris, fish passageways and spawning
gravel.
We are 22 days and counting. From our viewpoint there are four
essential elements to restoring Wild Chinook and Summer Chum Salmon to
our Hood Canal rivers and streams: (1) Sufficient escapement of
spawning Salmon to sustain the run, (2) Supplementation and/or
restarting the extinct runs through Wild Salmon Conservancies, (3)
Restoration and protection of habitats, and (4) Community Based
Watershed Stewardship.
We are confident that Wild Salmon will be restored in some manner
when the impacts of the 4 ``H's''--Hatchery, Harvest, Habitat and Hydro
are equally considered. But we are less certain of the lasting effect
once the ESA pressure is reduced. The wisdom of the 535 HCSEG members
tells us the only chance of permanent success is through Community
Based Watershed Stewardship. There is not enough money or personnel for
the government to ever completely restore and continuously regulate the
Wild Salmon in all the rivers and streams. Only through Watershed
Stewardship by the local small and large landowners, government
agencies and tribal governments will long term, self-sustaining Wild
Salmon recovery be achieved. And all, I repeat ALL, must have an equal
voice at the table in making lasting decisions about the 4 ``H's''.
22 days and counting!
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROGER BRADEN
Senator Gorton. Mr. Braden, Chelan Public Utility District.
Mr. Braden. Yes, thank you, and good morning. Roger Braden.
I'm the general manager of Chelan County Public Utility
District. We are the owners and operators of two hydroelectric
projects on the main stem of the Columbia River, Rock Island
and Rocky Reach. As a result, we've actually been involved in
the salmon debate and the salmon protection issues for over
twenty years. We were initially brought into the debate under
the terms of the Federal Power Act, and now also have the
issues related to the Endangered Species Act to deal with.
I'm here not to talk what's going on over there
particularly--I know this is focusing primarily on the Puget
Sound area--but there are some things that we have managed to
achieve over there that I think could be of interest and
potentially of value to Puget Sound. What we have done is, we
have had a treaty established in the fish wars in the Mid-
Columbia region by the negotiation of a habitat conservation
plan that covers five stocks of anadromous fish, salmon and
steelhead, in our section of the river system. This is the
first of its kind anywhere in the United States.
What we were able to achieve there I think was based on
three key principles that it took us twenty years to learn. I
don't think the people in the Puget Sound area have twenty
years to spare, so let me share them with you, and hopefully
they can be of value.
Principle No. 1, the fish have to recover. No matter who
you are, what your activities are, or how they affect the
habitat and condition of the fishery, the fish have to recover
before you, or any of your neighbors, or your businesses, or
our community are going to be able to go back to the lifestyle
that we all seek here in the Pacific Northwest. There's simply
no way to fight it in the courts. There's no way to hide from
it. Until the fish are healthy, the Northwest will not be
healthy. You have to start with and understand that basic
assumption and premise, because denial will not get you there.
No. 2, you've got to work together. There's no single
agency, no particular interest group, no government entity
that's going to have all of the answers. Those of us in the
Mid-Columbia who operate hydroelectric projects have a certain
pool of knowledge. The fishery agencies, federal and State,
bring in their experience and knowledge. The tribal groups, the
environmental groups, all of whom were involved in our process,
bring in an increment of knowledge that is necessary because,
as was stated earlier, this is an extremely complex situation.
The salmon life cycle is one of the most common forms--or, most
complex forms of life on this planet. You cannot look at one
aspect of their life cycle, look at one measure or activity,
and expect to find a solution. You have to work together. If
you have old animosities, if you have biases, put them aside,
get an open mind, and come to the table.
The third step is that you've got to base your agreements
and your actions on results. They've got to be performance
measures, survival standards, that you're targeting.
In the past--now I'll go back for a moment to our
experience under the Federal Power Act. We had many situations
where regulatory agencies would prescribe a particular measure.
A good example might be spilling water through our spillways at
one of our projects, 20 percent of the river flow, for example,
through the month of July. Well, we could certainly meet that
obligation quite easily and quite definitively, but there was
no measure of whether that did a darn bit of good for the fish.
What we found is it's necessary, instead, to say, ``What
are you going to do that will help the fish in terms of their
survival level?'' For example, turn that around and say, ``For
the month of July, you're required to pass safely 95 percent of
the out-migrating smolts.'' Then we, as operators of the
project, can decide, does spill over the spillway do that? Does
improved turbine efficiencies, do other operational changes get
us to the 95 percent? Do we do more predator control? Is it a
little bit of all of these things? Whatever it takes, as long
as we've got a target that we know results in a benefit to the
species, then we can act effectively and responsibly, and--
going back to my first key part--we know that the fish benefit,
and therefore we, all of us in the region, will benefit.
These three components I think are going to be essential to
dealing with the problems that we have and the problems that
are in the Puget Sound.
prepared statement
Now, globally throughout the Puget Sound it's going to be a
very, very difficult task to deal with this, but taking a sub-
basin by sub-basin approach, or a local area approach such as
we've heard from already, many of the good measures that are
being undertaken, I think we can locally apply good science and
commonsense measures that relate directly to how well the fish
do, and come up with actions that are going to lead us to the
recovery of the fish and therefore to the lifestyle that we all
seek in the Northwest. Thank you very much.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much, Mr. Braden.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Braden
Good Morning. I would first like to thank Senator Gorton and
Congressman Dicks for their tireless attention to an issue of great
importance to our state. The issue is, of course, the protection of our
region's salmon resources.
Although the Columbia River salmon and other fish resources are not
the focus of today's hearing, to a certain extent, they should be. We
all can learn from the history of Columbia River salmon policy. To be
certain, there are a multitude of challenges facing the Columbia River
salmon protection efforts. Despite a significant dedication of effort
and the expenditure of significant levels of funds to protect our
salmon resources, we all have expected better results. Our chances for
better results in the future depend upon how well we have learned from
our past experiences and apply those lessons to new solutions. We hold
to the view that we can do better and do so without a win for fish
resulting in a loss for the NW economy and vice versa.
Today, I want to talk with you about the innovative approach to
salmon protection that Chelan and Douglas PUDs have developed with the
federal and state agencies, tribes and other interested parties.
Although this approach was designed to address our responsibilities to
Columbia River salmon, we suspect it has the potential for much broader
application. Chelan PUD is nothing more than an interested bystander
with respect to Puget Sound salmon issues; however, the Chelan/Douglas
model could perhaps have some useful applications as the western side
of our state struggles with its own salmon listings.
For years, the federal and state governments followed the
traditional regulatory model, telling hydroelectric project owners and
operators along the mainstem of the Columbia precisely what measures
had to be implemented. We were told to spill so much water, build so
many fish screens, and the like. In the management training classes
many of us attend, this approach is called ``command and control'' and
is universally criticized as the least effective technique for
achieving organizational objectives. Of course, all the parties
involved in the traditional regulatory model continually argued whether
a particular measure was cost effective or even whether the measure was
actually effective in protecting or enhancing salmon populations. We
remained in a constant state of frustration. If Chelan objected to cost
or questioned whether a measure would really work, we were viewed as
lacking commitment to fish. If the agencies and tribes insisted we
implement a controversial measure, we viewed them as oblivious to cost.
We believed there was a better way to get the job done and getting
the job done meant wins for both sides of the issue. Although we didn't
realize it at the time, subconscious messages from management training
classes must have led us to a concept that was participative in nature
with clearly defined and measurable objectives.
With this in mind, Chelan PUD began to work with the federal and
state agencies, the tribes and other interested parties to develop a
habitat conservation plan that embodies the principles of
participation, collaboration and measurable objectives. Briefly, the
collaborative approach between the parties sets a standard for the
survival of salmon as they move through our hydroelectric projects. The
measurable standard is a minimum percentage for fish survival--when the
day is done, this is the number of fish which must survive passage
through our projects. Taking into account natural non-hydro mortality,
the remaining unavoidable hydro-related mortality is addressed through
off-sight mitigation to total a no-net-impact standard. We signed a
legally binding contract in the form of a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), recognized as part of an Incidental Take Permit to be issued
under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, in which we agreed to
meet this standard for fish survival. In exchange for agreeing to
accept this precise survival standard, Chelan is given considerable
freedom within a collaborative structure to be creative and innovative
in the development of the means to achieve the standard. Finally, the
methods for measurement of our results are specified in the agreement
to avoid later arguments over the results and whether or not we have
met our responsibilities.
Although we don't know enough about the Puget Sound issues to be
specific, Chelan PUD believes that the principles that underlie our HCP
can be used and useful to Puget Sound salmon recovery efforts. Even
General George Patton, who I would have viewed as a symbol of command
and control management, said: ``Never tell people how to do things.
Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.''
Just as in management training classes where we are taught that
defining expectations makes the front end more difficult but the
results far better, take the time to set a clear and identifiable
standard for the public to meet and they will surprise you with their
ingenuity. Use a command and control approach and salmon recovery
remains the government's problem and yours alone. You will have to come
up with all of the answers. Offer a participative alternative, telling
the public what needs to be done and they will share the problem and
astonish you with the creative and innovative solutions that result.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HANK SITKO
Senator Gorton. Mr. Sitko.
Mr. Sitko. Thank you, sir. Our association represents the
recreational boating industry and has over 900 members. We
produce the third largest boat show in the United States, the
Seattle International Boat Show, and a smaller show called the
Shilshole Boats Afloat Show.
Currently, we have close working relationships with
federal, state, and county legislative bodies and departments
that make policy decisions concerning the salmon. We also have
a close working relationship with the commercial fishing
industry, tribes and sport fishing groups. We are a $2 billion
industry employing 16,000 individuals, and 8 out of 10 boats
sold in our state are, in one way or another, used for fishing.
Today I would like to talk to you about our involvement in
harvest and hatchery issues.
Harvest levels for chinook and coho have plummeted
dramatically in the last 25 years. The number of coho caught in
Washington ocean fisheries has dropped 98 percent in 25 years
for treaty, non-treaty, sport and troll fisheries. That drop is
a drop from 2.3 million coho caught when runs were healthy, to
31,000 coho caught last year.
In the same 25-year period, Chinook catch in the Puget
Sound for marine sport fisheries dropped 70 percent with a high
of 334,000 to the current average level of 58,000.
With reduction in the catch came curtailments in fishing
opportunities in the form of much shorter fishing seasons.
Westport Washington, once referred to as the salmon capital
of the world, had 200 days of salmon sport fishing in 1974. In
1998 it had only 11.
In 1974, Sekiu had 245 days of marine sport fishing. Now it
only has 37.
With the reduction in catch and shortening of the seasons,
the sport fishing infrastructure began to collapse. Once home
to a major charter fleet, Washington state has only a handful
of that fleet left to provide that service.
The majority of Mom and Pop tackle shops have closed and
the remaining few that are remaining are hanging on by a
thread.
As I mentioned to you earlier, the economic impacts on the
sport fishing industry as well as the boating industry have
been devastating. The Northwest Marine Trade Association is
doing our fair share to help turn this situation around.
We and the tribes share a common goal that harvest
decisions must be made on a biological and scientific basis. If
there is any question of adequate escapement of wild Chinook,
then fisheries must be curtailed. However, if in some terminal
areas, such as Elliott Bay, the returning salmon are well above
escapement goals, then limited harvest should be allowed for
both tribal and nontribal fishers, as long as the fisheries
permit escapement goals are met.
As far as hatcheries, in the past, salmon hatcheries were
mainly used to compensate for the loss of natural production
due to overfishing and destruction of habitat critical to the
reproduction and survival of wild salmon. Today the emphasis on
hatcheries is to support the wild salmon recovery effort. Some
hatcheries are used to rear wild fish from depressed
populations in an environment that increases their survival.
Currently, more than a third of the salmon hatcheries are being
used in this way to restore wild salmon runs, including the re-
seeding of water sheds where runs no longer exist.
We are seeing success in some of these projects. The White
River wild spring Chinook is an example of a rebuilding and
reseeding program that was relieved, in part, on hatchery
supplementation. These fish were saved from extinction.
NMTA believes that the need for hatchery reform is being
recognized, but more needs to be done. The scientific community
is still debating the specifics. However, agreement still have
to be reached concerning the need to conserve the genetic
integrity of the remaining wild stocks and to assist in the
recovery of naturally spawning fish.
We also believe, and most reasonable observers would also
agree, that hatcheries will be needed for the foreseeable
future to produce salmon that can be harvested by tribal and
nontribal fishers. Currently, nearly 70 percent of all
harvested coho and Chinook originated in hatcheries.
Discussion of hatcheries and harvest issues would not be
complete without a mention of mass marking and selective
fishing.
In 1995, our organization, along with other sport fishing
groups, initiated and succeeded in the passage of a bill that
would require the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife to clip the adipose fins of all coho produced in state
hatcheries. A similar bill was passed in 1998 for Chinook. The
purpose of this clipping is to help differentiate between a
hatchery fish and a wild stock fish. Therefore, if an angler
catches a fish with a clipped adipose fin, he or she would keep
it, realizing that it is a hatchery-produced product. However,
if the fish caught has an adipose fin intact, he or she would
realize that it is a wild stock fish and release it
accordingly. In essence, mass marking of our state's Chinook
and coho is a win-win for both sport fishers and the
conservationists.
Perhaps the best argument for marking of all hatchery
Chinook in an ESA-listed area is the need to address the issue
of wild versus hatchery fish interaction on the spawning
gravels. We need to know, accurately, what the true population
of wild Chinook is for a given river system as a part baseline
of information so that we can measure progress toward recovery
and hopefully, eventually, delisting of Chinook. When marked
coho returned to Willapa Bay last year biologists were very
surprised to find out that the population of wild coho,
unmarked coho, was greater than estimated for some systems.
Hatchery operations need to be improved and made compatible
with recovering wild Chinook. However, throwing away the baby
with the bath water, as some anti-hatchery groups seem to
advocate, will neither save our wild salmon nor retain any
meaningful fishing opportunities. The Boldt decision presumed
that we would continue to produce salmon for the tribal and
non-tribal fishers. We believe that the federal government
should assist in hatchery reform, and in financing of hatchery
programs and other aspects of wild stock management associated
with ESA and tribal treaty rights.
Salmon are part of our history, culture and heritage. They
are a symbol of the Pacific Northwest. They are a symbol that
connects us to our environment.
Our organization has been involved in the salmon issue for
over 7 years now. Like many of you here, we have put in
countless hours and attended thousands of meetings to help
define the problems and seek solutions. Many of us here have
done this without pay and in a volunteer spirit because of our
commitment to the salmon issue. We salute these people.
This issue is complex and crosses cultural, economic,
social and political creeks, but together we have come far
upstream, and still have a way to go.
NMTA is committed to this issue for the long haul, and has
enjoyed working with many of you here and being part of the
process. We look forward to working with you in the future and
helping to preserve one of the most precious resources, the
salmon. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hank Sitko
My name is Hank Sitko and I am the Executive Director of the
Northwest Marine Trade Association. Our Association represents the
recreational boating industry and has over 900 members. We produce the
third largest boat show in the United States, the Seattle International
Boat Show, and a small in the water boat show called the Seattle Boats
Afloat Show.
Our interest and commitment to the salmon can be demonstrated by
our involvement in the entire spectrum of the salmon management
process. Currently, we have close working relationships with the
federal, state and county legislative bodies and departments that make
policy decisions concerning the salmon. We also have a close working
relationship with the commercial fishing industry, tribes and sport
fishing groups.
We are a two billion dollar industry employing 16,000 individuals,
and 8 out of 10 boats sold in our state are, in one way or another,
used for fishing.
Today I would like to talk to you about our involvement in harvest,
hatchery and habitat issues concerning salmon.
harvest
Harvest levels for Chinook and Coho have plummeted dramatically in
the last 25 years.
--The number of Coho caught in Washington ocean fisheries has dropped
98 percent in 25 years for treaty, non-treaty, sport and troll
fisheries. That is a drop from 2.3 million coho caught when
runs were healthy to 31,000 coho caught last year.
--Chinook caught in Washington ocean fisheries dropped 96 percent for
treaty, non-treaty, sport and troll fisheries from a high of
560,000 to a low of 23,000.
--In the same 25 year period the Chinook catch in the Puget Sound for
marine sport fisheries dropped 70 percent with a high of
334,000 to the current average level of 58,000.
With the reduction in catch came curtailments in fishing
opportunity in the form of much shorter fishing seasons.
--Westport Washington, once referred to as the salmon capital of the
world, had over 200 days of sport salmon fishing in 1974. In
1998 it had only 11 days.
--In 1974, Sekiu had 245 days of marine sport fishing. It now has
only 37 days.
With the reduction in catch and shortening of the seasons, the
sport fishing infrastructure began to collapse.
--Once home to a major charter boat fleet, Washington state has only
a handful of that fleet left to provide that service.
--Boat houses that were used to rent skiffs are virtually non-
existent.
--The majority of Mom and Pop tackle shops have closed and the
remaining few are hanging on by a thread in order to survive.
The Northwest Marine Trade Association has two very knowledgeable
persons engaged in the ongoing salmon season setting North of Falcon
process, along with other recreational fishing representatives. This
process is very complex and arduous and includes commercial fishers,
the tribes and state and federal agencies.
As I mentioned earlier, the economic impacts on the sport fishing
industry as well as the boating industry have been devastating. The
Northwest Marine Trade Association is doing our fair share to help turn
this situation around.
We and the tribes are in agreement that harvest decisions must be
made on a biological and scientific basis. If there is any question of
adequate escapement of wild Chinook, then fisheries must be curtailed.
However, if in some terminal areas, such as Elliott Bay, the returning
salmon are well above escapement goals, then limited harvest should be
allowed for both tribal and non-tribal fishers, as long as the
fisheries permit escapement goals to be met.
hatcheries
The first hatchery in Washington State, Fallert Creek, was built on
the Kalama River in 1895 for $5,000. Currently, the state of Washington
operates the largest network of hatcheries in the world, producing
salmon, steelhead, trout and warm water fish.
In the past, salmon hatcheries were mainly used to compensate for
the loss of natural production due to over fishing and destruction of
habitat critical to the reproduction and survival of wild salmon. Today
the emphasis on hatcheries is to support the wild salmon recovery
effort. Some hatcheries are even used to rear ``wild'' fish from
depressed populations in an environment that increases their survival.
Currently, more than a third of the salmon hatcheries are being
used in this way to restore wild salmon runs, including the re-seeding
of water sheds where runs no longer exist. We are seeing success with
some of these projects. The White River wild spring chinook is an
example of a rebuilding and reseeding program that relied in part on
hatchery supplementation. These fish were saved from extinction.
NMTA believes that the need for hatchery reform is being
recognized, but more needs to be done. The scientific community is
still debating the specifics. However, agreement seems to have been
reached concerning the need to conserve the genetic integrity of the
remaining wild stocks and to assist in the recovery of naturally
spawning fish. We also believe most reasonable observers would agree
that hatcheries will be needed for the foreseeable future to produce
salmon that can be harvested by tribal and non-tribal fishers.
Currently, nearly 70 percent of all harvested coho and chinook
originated in hatcheries.
Discussion of Harvest and Hatchery Issues would not be complete
without a mention of mass marking and selective fisheries.
In 1995 the Northwest Marine Trade Association along with other
sport fishing groups initiated and succeeded in the passage of a bill
that would require the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
to clip the adipose fin of all coho produced in state hatcheries. The
purpose of this clipping is to help differentiate between a hatchery
fish and a wild stock fish. Therefore, if an angler catches a fish with
a clipped adipose fin he or she would keep it, realizing that it is a
hatchery-produced product. However, if the fish caught has an adipose
fin intact, he or she would realize that it is a wild stock fish and
release it accordingly. In essence, mass marking of our state's chinook
and coho is a win-win for both sport fisherman and the
conservationists.
In 1998 the Northwest Marine Trade Association along with other
sport fishing groups helped pass a bill to mass mark (clip the adipose
fin) of all hatchery produced chinook in the state for the same
reasons.
Perhaps the best argument for marking all hatchery chinook in an
ESA-listed area is the need to address the issue of wild versus
hatchery fish interaction on the spawning gravels. We need to know,
accurately, what the true population of wild chinook is for a given
river system as part base-line of information so that we can measure
progress toward recovery and hopefully, eventually, de-listing of
chinook. When marked coho returned to the Willapa Bay last year
biologists were surprised to find that the population of wild coho
(unmarked coho) was greater than estimated for some systems.
Hatchery operations need to be improved and made compatible with
recovering wild chinook. However ``throwing the baby out with the bath
water,'' as some anti- hatchery groups seem to advocate will neither
save our wild salmon nor retain any meaningful fishing opportunities.
The Boldt decision presumed that we would continue to produce salmon
for the tribal and non-tribal fishers. We believe the federal
government should assist in hatchery reform and in the financing of
hatchery programs and other aspects of wild stock management associated
with ESA and tribal treaty rights.
habitat
NMTA is engaged in habitat restoration through our support for non-
profit organizations such as Northwest Chinook Recovery and Trout
Unlimited. The Haskell Slough project in the Skykomish River Basin was
constructed last year under the leadership of these two organizations
with three and a half miles of side channel habitat reclaimed for
natural salmon spawning.
Our sport fishing advisor serves on the Lake Washington Watershed
Executive Steering Committee, which is focused on habitat preservation/
restoration as part of the tri-county salmon recovery efforts being
done in response to the ESA listing of chinook. He also serves on the
Cedar River Council where habitat is a major focus as part of a King
County basin plan.
conclusion
Salmon are part of our history, culture and heritage. They are a
symbol of the Pacific Northwest. They are a symbol that connects us to
our environment.
Our organization has been involved in the salmon issue for over 7
years now. Like many of you here, we have put in countless hours and
attended thousands of meetings to help define the problems and seek
solutions. Many of us here have done this without pay and in a
volunteer spirit because of our commitment to the salmon issue. We
salute these people.
This issue is complex and crosses cultural, economic, social and
political creeks, but together we have come far up stream and still
have a ways to go.
NMTA is committed to this issue for the long haul and has enjoyed
working with many of you here and being part of the process. We look
forward to working with you in the future and helping to preserve one
of our most precious resources--the salmon.
Thank you.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ED OWENS
Senator Gorton. And Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Senator, Congressman Dicks, members
of the Committee. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the
commercial fishing industry of the State of Washington. The
Coastal Coalition represents----
Senator Gorton. Ed, why don't you pull that mike a little
bit closer. I don't think you're----
Mr. Owens. Is this a little better?
Senator Gorton. Yeah.
Mr. Owens. How about that?
Senator Gorton. All right. Perfect.
Mr. Owens. Ordinarily I don't have a problem. My voice has
a tendency to be a bit penetrating, but maybe we can fix that.
The Coastal Coalition represents approximately 2,000
vessels, 40 percent of which fish historically for salmon, and
475 associated businesses attached to the Coalition. I'm also
speaking today on behalf of the Puget Sound gill net and purse
seine vessel fleets.
The implications of the recent salmonid listings in
Washington State are dramatic, and I think we all know that.
I've been involved in this particular issue since 1974, with
the Charter Boat Association on the coast, who are one of the
members of our coalition. There were 450 vessels in that
charter boat fleet in 1974. Today there are twenty-four. That's
a sign of what is going on.
In the commercial side of the equation, we had over 10,000
licenses active in the State of Washington 25 years ago. Today
there are less than 1,700 commercial salmon licenses.
Most of the jobs associated with my industry are rural
jobs. They're not in downtown Seattle. They're in places like
Ilwaco, and Pacific County, and Westport, and Aberdeen and
elsewhere, and we don't see that impact. It's a very human and
very personal impact, however, and one that we must deal with
and recognize as we move forward on this issue.
The issues also include habitat, water and property rights,
Canadian and Alaskan harvest of endangered species, high seas
harvest by foreign flag vessels--I'm very pleased, Senator, to
see that you made that mention in your prefatory remarks--land
management, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, agricultural practices,
the breaching of dams issue on the Snake and Columbia Rivers
and elsewhere, fish farming, marine predation, El Nino, La
Nina, road and building construction, barriers to fish passage.
In other words, the list is endless, the list is universal.
Each of these issues are important to salmonid recovery in
one form or another and do deserve the attention of Congress.
My purpose, however, is to focus in a somewhat narrower manner
on the two components of the mix most directly affecting my
industry, and that happens to be fleet reduction and harvest
practices in the State of Washington.
The rural-dependent areas have already been adversely
impacted through a number of ESA-related issues, most notably
the spotted owl issue, the timber harvest practices, and those
issues. The unemployment rate, while the economy in the State
of Washington is very good overall, in some of these rural
communities is very bad. We have businesses failing or barely
managing to survive, and we hope that Congress keeps that
thought in mind as we move forward on this issue.
What has commercial fishing done to contribute to the
solution of the problem thus far? Well, for the last decade
we've been under very strict limited entry management regimes.
The commercial harvest seasons that typically ran four to six
months in the 1970s are now measured in weeks, days, or in some
cases, hours. Our non-tribal Chinook troll fishery, as
mentioned by Mr. Sitko, has seen a 98 percent reduction since
1974. And I do concur, by the way, that the sports folks have
shared in that reduction.
The bottom line of raising that issue is to point out that
despite such serious reductions, there are some that would have
you believe, as members of Congress, that harvest is the
problem. We see that rhetoric repeated quite frequently
throughout the media. In other words, the claim is, if we just
stop sport and commercial fishing, the fish will return. The
record proves these claims to be false, inaccurate, and
misleading.
We need to have sport and commercial fishermen sitting at
the table together. They're the strongest advocates for the
resource. In my case, I have over 400 of my 1,700 commercial
fishers who are active volunteers in programs, some of which
you've already heard about, the Hood Canal, and others across
the state. That's not to say that further reductions in harvest
capability are not required, however. They are--and that's on
both sport and commercial sides of the equation--if we are to
succeed in meaningful salmonid recovery in the State of
Washington.
For nearly 5 years now, the Canadian and United States
commercial fishers, through vehicles such as the Southern Panel
Stakeholders Agreement, have called upon their respective
federal governments to finance significant reductions in
harvest capability. They've also called for proper salmonid
research funding to determine what the optimum harvest levels
and strategies truly are.
Last year our industry, along with the sport fishing
industry, supported House Bill 2496, a measured approach to try
to reach some of these conclusions. And we would strongly
encourage, Senator, and Congressman Dicks, and members of the
Committee, that that process be continued.
We see the fleet reduction component, and agreed with our
Canadian counterparts that we had to do something about it.
Canada has stepped forward and put $100 million in their fleet
reduction program. We've had to fight tooth and nail to get 1.2
million last year out of the state, and barely three and a half
million out of the federal government. Well, so far in the
state budget there's an $8 million line item. That $8 million
line item requires some federal match if we're going to
continue to pursue meaningful fleet reduction in the State of
Washington.
We'd also like to call for Congress to take a good hard
look at funding the research necessary to make some reasonable-
man determinations about what meaningful harvest management has
to be if we're going to succeed.
prepared statement
And then finally, we'd like to point out that the Columbia
River Mitchell Act hatcheries are mitigation hatcheries for the
dams, and we need to deal with that issue as well. And I stand
available to answer any questions the Committee might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Owens
Senator Gorton, Congressman Dicks, members of the committee: Thank
you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of commercial salmon
harvesters as we enter a new era of ESA management of salmonids in
Washington State.
For the record, I am Ed Owens, Executive Director of the Coalition
of Coastal Fisheries. Our member seafood harvest industry trade groups
and associations represent approximately 2,000 commercial and charter
boat vessels, 52 oyster plants and charter boat offices and 423 other
businesses who are associate members. Our member vessels, plants and
offices have over $349 million invested in the economic future of
coastal communities and as recently as 1995 provided about 5,500
family-wage jobs in Washington State.
A significant portion of the capital and jobs represented by the
Coalition are headquartered in, or operate from, rural Washington State
ports from the San Juan Islands to the Columbia River. Our fleets and
shore-based facilities are active throughout the western Pacific in the
harvest and processing of pink shrimp, albacore tuna, salmon,
groundfish and oysters. About 40 percent of the Coalition member
vessels have historically been active in salmon harvest. I am also
speaking today on behalf of the Gillnet and Purse Seine fleets that
operate in Puget Sound.
The implications of the recent salmonid listings in Washington
State are dramatic. The issues are many including: habitat, water and
property rights, Canadian and Alaskan harvest of endangered species,
high seas harvest by foreign flag vessels, land management, the Pacific
Salmon Treaty, agricultural practices, the breaching of dams, fish
farming, marine predation, El Nino and La Nina impacts, road and
building construction, barriers to fish passage, hatchery reform,
Tribal treaty rights, domestic harvest, and forest practices.
Each of these issues, and others, are important to salmonid
recovery in one form or another and deserve the attention of Congress.
My purpose, however, is to focus on a small portion of the larger
picture and to address only a few narrow elements of the overall
discussion. Specifically, I wish to focus attention on commercial
salmon seafood harvesters and on the role of hatcheries in maintaining
viable sport and commercial fisheries in Washington State.
In the 1970's there were over 10,000 active commercial salmon
licenses in Washington State. Today, there are about 1,700 active non-
tribal troll, gillnet and purse seine licenses. Most of these
commercial fishers reside in rural, resource-dependent coastal
communities already devastated by significant reductions in timber
harvest restrictions related to the Spotted Owl and similar ESA-related
actions.
Commercial salmon harvesters in our state have been under strict
limited entry management regimes for at least the last decade.
Commercial harvest seasons that typically ran for four to six months in
the 1970's are now measured in weeks, days or, in some cases, hours.
Our non-tribal ocean chinook troll fishery, for example, has
experienced a 96 percent reduction since 1974. Other elements of the
industry have experienced comparable harvest reductions over the last
ten to fifteen years, and we are not alone. Sport fishers have
experienced similar reductions in harvest, as well, as they have seen
their chinook seasons reduced to about 70 percent of what they were in
1975.
Despite such serious reductions, there are some that would have you
believe that harvest is the problem, and that if we would just stop
sport and commercial fishing the fish will return. The record proves
such claims to be false, inaccurate and misleading. That's not to say
that further reductions in harvest capability are not required.
Additional reductions in commercial, and sport, harvest capability are
required if meaningful salmonid recovery is to occur.
For nearly five years now Canadian and United States commercial
fishers, through vehicles such as the Southem Panel Stakeholders
Agreement, have called upon their respective federal governments to
finance significant reductions in harvest capability. They have also
called for proper salmonid research funding to determine optimum
harvest levels and strategies and to provide meaningful funding for the
Columbia River Mitchell Act hatcheries and for hatchery management
reform generally.
The Canadian government has spent well in excess of $100 million
just in fleet reduction alone in the spirit of the Southern Panel
Stakeholders Agreement. Fleet reduction was seen five years ago as a
critical path component for resolving a portion of the salmonid
harvest-related problem and continues to be a major, even if
misunderstood, issue today.
If for no other reason than good faith, the United States needs to
accelerate its fleet reduction efforts. Towards that objective, the
industry has worked with the state legislature and managed to secure an
$8 million line item in our current budget. However, this line item
calls for federal support that is currently not in the federal budget.
The industry estimate, to reach the level of reduction called for in
the Southem Panel Stakeholder Agreement, would require comparable
funding for a period of between four and five years. The industry
agreed to pursue this objective and continues to honor the agreement we
made with our Canadian counterparts.
In addition, the research needed to determine future optimum
harvest levels remains largely unfunded, and funding for modernization
of the state hatchery system and Columbia River Mitchell Mitigation Act
hatcheries is required if we are to maintain viable sport and
commercial fisheries for the state in the future.
In closing, I would ask that Congress address the hatchery- and
harvest-related issues of fleet reduction and hatchery management based
on balanced, sound and reasoned research with an eye to the future and
a return of viable commercial and sport fisheries in the State of
Washington.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Senator Gorton. I thank you all for very constructive
testimony. I think I'd like to start by asking every member of
the panel except for Mr. Ruckelshaus to comment on Mr.
Ruckelshaus' paper and recommendation about the way in which we
coordinate or put together the solution to the problems with
which we're faced. We'll just start, and move across the table.
Mr. Adams. I would love to. It's one of the thing that--the
perception often is that we are left out until it's all done,
then we're handed something, and say, ``How do you like it,''
without any input. Getting everybody at the table to cooperate,
including the people out in the grassroots area, I think is
critical. Without them, you lose a very, very big participant
that can help a lot.
Mr. Braden. I believe the idea of a coordinator is an
excellent idea, but there is a big problem with it in the sense
that until the Endangered Species Act is changed, NMFS will
always have the trump card. So whatever is done locally,
whatever is done by way of coordination, will always be subject
to that final review and discretion of NMFS. And if we're going
to really consolidate the efforts locally and really have a
group that'll be able to make changes and stick with the
proposals and protections that may come out of those changes,
we're going to have to have some modification in that authority
structure federally.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Senator Gorton, I haven't read that paper
yet. And the idea of a single coordinator probably makes some
pretty good sense. There's a huge issue about inclusiveness and
trust that is pervasive within the fish wars. There's a old
adage that basically the people in the salmon business will eat
their own young. And that's a pretty standard kind of problem
that has to be addressed.
One of the issues for volunteers is that we're volunteers,
and when the meetings are held during the weekday, most of us
have day jobs, and so even being able to attend the plethora of
meetings and the thousands of hours invested in this is very
difficult for us.
Also, funding within the state and federal budgets are
necessary for us to be able to have the infrastructure to be
able to attend those. And so if we really want to use the
volunteers and the community, there has to be a level of
support and a realization that as volunteers, we have to have
some consideration to be able to attend and contribute.
Senator Gorton. If you have--I wish you'd take the chance
to read Mr. Ruckelshaus' paper----
Mr. Anderson. I will. Certainly.
Senator Gorton [continuing]. And maybe follow up with a
letter to us----
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Senator Gorton [continuing]. On your more precise
reactions.
Mr. Sitko.
Mr. Sitko. Yes. I think, if I look at it, the solution has
to come from the bottom up. It can't come from the top down.
And if we are going to have a consolidated coordinated effort,
I think we have to build into that methods of communication
dissemination so that we're all praying from the same hymnal,
and we're all coordinated in our effort. And then built into
that is your suggestion of, how do you measure success? And
built into that, overlayed on top of that, is accountability
into the system. So I think there are some of the ingredients
that we have to look at.
And then the other thing is, how do we keep volunteer
burnout from occurring? Because like the gentleman just says,
it's--a lot of hours and a lot of time is put into this, plus,
the other folks have day jobs.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. The--our industry is a
strong proponent of the local-up participation. We have a lot
of independent folks in the State of Washington. If we don't
have local participation and local involvement, we're not going
to have a solution. And we believe that coordination should be
very much a centralized function, and balanced by some kind of
reasonable scientific process.
Now, there are two pieces of legislation currently in the
legislature, one sponsored by Senator Jacobs and one by
Representative Jim Buck, that are dealing with trying to
wrestle with this issue as we speak. There are so many players
involved. If we don't get everybody on the same page, we're
going to have a long-term problem, and I believe Mr.
Ruckelshaus' focus is very accurate in that regard.
Senator Gorton. Bill, would you react to Roger Braden's
statement that it doesn't matter, 'cause someone can overrule
the coordinator?
Mr. Ruckelshaus. Well, I will. I'd also like to react to
the bottoms-up recommendation.
Senator Gorton. Fine.
Mr. Ruckelshaus. Because I personally believe that bottoms-
up is the only way that you're ultimately going to get success.
If you get the people who are most dramatically affected by the
recovery efforts up and down these river basins to endorse
the--number one, what is the need in that particular river
basin, and endorse the process for resolving that need, you've
got a much better chance of success than you do if you try to
set up some kind of centralized enforcement process to force
people to do things. It just doesn't work in this area.
We've been wrestling with non-point-source pollution in
water for thirty years. I was at EPA when the current Clean
Water Act first passed. We haven't figured out how to deal with
non-point-source pollution without getting the right kind of
incentives and support of farmers, and others who are affected
by runoff, to get behind whatever solution there is.
And I think it's necessary, in the case of the current
Endangered Species Act that I don't think is going to be
changed--maybe in our lifetime it will, but certainly not in
the next couple of years--to think outside the box. There's
nothing in that Endangered Species Act that says the President
and the governor could not designate somebody as a coordinator
and say, ``I want all of you, all the agencies under my
responsibility''--and the governor says the same thing, the
same with the local governments--``to work with this person to
develop plans, implement plans, endorse plans that are all of
our plans.'' For the federal government to sit at the same
table and say, ``You tell us what you want to do, and we'll
tell you whether you can do it'' is a prescription for
disaster. But for them to sit at the table and say, ``We've got
a problem here in this region. What do we need to do to solve
it? What is our role, the federal role? What is the state role?
What's the local role? What is the role of all these citizen
groups that are working so hard to try to restore salmon,'' and
then get on with resolving, or with implementing whatever plans
have been developed.
I think if we do that, and if both the governor and the
President say, ``This is the person I want to help coordinate
that, and I want all of you to cooperate with them in doing
it,'' in the first place, I can't think of any judge in this
land who would overrule a group of agencies at every level of
government that said: ``This is the way we're going about
trying to solve this problem, and we think it's got--it's the
right solution here. We've involved all of the people.'' Where
is the room for the judge to come in and say, ``Here's the
solution''? Not that a judge is going to act unreasonably, but
simply because I think that's the way our legal system will
work, and if we're not careful, we'll get a thousand different
solutions by judges that will simply stall the whole thing.
Senator Gorton. Go ahead.
Mr. Dicks. I think this idea has merit. And we've
witnessed, for example, the timber, fish, and wildlife group
that met over a significant number of years. It included the
tribes, had all the federal, state agencies involved, and they
stayed together. What if we took your idea and, let's say, we
put Mr. Stelle and Mr. Smitch as the cochairs of this group,
one representing the governor, one representing the federal
agencies--and NMFS ultimately is going to make a lot of these
decisions, or give a lot of direction or help--and work on a
recovery strategy and include all the parties?
And in fact, the governor has a group called the Governor's
Council on Natural Resources, which I understand includes the
cities, counties, tribes, federal agencies, the legislature,
ports, maybe PUDs, environmental groups. It seems to me, I
think we might need to do this. I was skeptical at first, but
the more I think about this, some kind of coordination--but I
don't think you have to bring a new outside player. Why
couldn't you take the two key people, the governor's assistant
and Mr. Stelle, have them co-chair this and work like we did
under timber, fish and wildlife with everybody participating?
Could that work as a model?
Mr. Ruckelshaus. Yes, it's both--I have great respect for
both Mr. Smitch and Mr. Stelle. They are working very hard at
their current jobs, and I think doing a very good job at it.
And it could work. The most important element is not--it is
important who the person or persons that could be co-chairmen
are. The most important thing in my view is that the governor
and the President say, ``We want this to be a coordinated
effort.'' We don't want this to be one level of government
second-guessing what another level of government is doing and
then we all get in a big fight and end up in court. If that's
the way it proceeds, that's where I think were in trouble. And
if both the president and the governor said, ``We don't want
that to happen. We want this to be a coordinated effort, and
these two people are the ones that we're charging with the
responsibility of bringing everybody to the table,'' it could
work. I'm only suggesting someone else just because it further
dramatizes----
Mr. Dicks When we get to somebody else, then does that
person become the so-called czar?
Mr. Ruckelshaus. No. Certainly not.
Mr. Dicks. That's the concern that I've heard. I think this
is a very constructive idea, and your leadership is very
important in this, and we want to try to work with you. But I
do believe that something modeled on the timber, fish and
wildlife process might be a useful example. It's worked in this
state. These people were all involved. And I would like to
continue to have some dialog with you about this----
Mr. Ruckelshaus. All right.
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. And try to see if we can't work out
something that's acceptable to the people in this room.
And let me make just one final comment. To Mr. Adams and to
Mr. Anderson, people who've worked on the local salmon
enhancement groups, I applaud what you've done. Al, I read your
recent letter on all the work that's been done in the Hood
Canal area. I think it's incredible. I think the habitat that's
been restored, the local involvement, the incubators--you've
taken me out there and shown me what you're doing. The Senator
and I both have helped fund funding not only for your effort,
but for the enhancement groups in general, and we think this is
essential in keeping the local involvement. And you're right;
over the long term, you've got to have this grassroots effort
in order to get this done.
I also believe, of course, that essential to your success
is a United States-Canada agreement that will put more fish
back in those rivers fast to help us. And if we can blend those
two things together, I think it makes a real success story.
And Ed, you know, I used to go down to Westport with Glenn
Jarstad from Bremerton, and the fleet has diminished rather
significantly. And we want to see this resource recover so that
some day again we can have, maybe, Westport as the salmon
capital of the world, but it's going to take a while, and
effort.
I want to thank all the members of the panel for their
testimony.
Senator Gorton. Jim.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I listened to you, and I understand the importance of
coordination and that whole aspect of this problem. What I'd
like to ask the members of the panel--each of you come from
somewhat different positions in this whole operation. I'd like
to hear what you think is the toughest issue that we're going
to have to face in solving this. What, of all the things that
are out there, when we get this table and get everybody sitting
around the table, what is the issue that you think will be the
toughest issue to solve?
Mr. Adams. Long-term?
Mr. McDermott. Yup.
Mr. Adams. Long-term. Well, it's been repeated many times,
but it doesn't get acted on. It is still a long ways away from
having me or somebody else of the ground people at these
tables. Never have we been invited by Bill Ruckelshaus or
others to come to a table like this. It must--if you're going
to have long-term success, the only way it's going to happen is
in the watershed, by the watershed people. You can get all the
money you want, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on
wild salmon recovery, but you just wait for five, or ten, or
fifteen years when people are sick and tired of hearing about
it, and things will slowly go back to where they were unless
you have a strong watershed group of people who are saying ``No
more. We will enforce things. We won't allow it to happen.''
Until that happens. But we can't be left out of it in the
discussions, and we have been left out.
Mr. McDermott. So it's the issue of enforcement within the
watersheds? You think that's the toughest thing to keep in
place?
Mr. Adams. Well, it's part of a big picture. Enforcement is
a big thing. In Hood Canal we see a lot of things go on in the
watershed that are very unhealthy.
Mr. McDermott. On the non-point-source issue?
Mr. Adams. Well, all of habitat as well as harvest. So--but
if you get--we intend to spend the next five years of Hood
Canal Salmon Enhancement Group energy on developing watershed
stewardship throughout Hood Canal, hopefully in almost every
watershed area. And we truly believe it. And all the wisdom
that we can come up with, all the things that we've read and
listened to, that's the only way that you're going to get
success in thirty years from now, twenty-five years, or fifty
years from now. It's got to be that way. But in order for it to
happen, you have to recognize it at that top and bring people
in from the ground. Somebody has to represent these groups, and
nobody has been offered that, to represent them.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Braden.
Mr. Braden. In a nutshell, I think the salmon crisis is due
to civilization, the fact that we have many, many people living
in the Northwest, and they have many, many diverse impacts on
the salmon life cycle. I think that what we've got to do is get
away from the idea that you can pinpoint a source or a problem.
The non-point-source of pollution was a good example because
it's very diverse. We need to get people prepared to talk and
to compromise, not to point the finger, not to have the
harvesters point to the hydro, or the hydro to the harvesters,
or someone else to hatcheries. It's a problem that we all share
in, and until we all are prepared to make movement and change
some of the adverse impacts of Northwest development and
civilization, I think we won't get there.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Speaking for the volunteer community, we're
players. We're extraordinarily passionate and excited about the
opportunity to make a difference. We would like to be involved,
and at present we are begging, pleading, beseaching you for
some--or, to be able to live up to what our beliefs are and
what are passions allow us to accomplish within the community.
Short-term, issues of turf will get in the way. No kidding. And
maybe they'll go away, but trust is earned.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Ruckelshaus.
Mr. Ruckelshaus. It's a--listening to what these gentlemen
on both my right and left have been saying, it's indicative of
what people throughout this region feel about the fish. They
feel very strongly about it. I think there's a tremendous
amount of momentum right now that's been generated in the
Northwest to try to save these fish. That's why I think it's so
important to coordinate it. I think ultimately we're going to
come to the decision we've got to coordinate the science, we've
got to coordinate the governmental address to this. Now is the
time to take advantage of all of this enthusiasm and momentum
that's been created, instead of waiting until it's so obvious
to everybody that we need to coordinate it, that we have to do
it. So that's why I think it's important to do it now.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Sitko.
Mr. Sitko. Sure. I think for too long we've been defining
and redefining the problem. We knew what the issues were for a
long time, if you go back and look at this issue. The critical
problem that I see with it is that the constituents involved in
the players, the developers, the agricultural community, the
commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, there's no consensus of
agreement on how to solve the problem, and no one willing to
make the sacrifice for it. And then overlayed on top of that
is, there is the issue of who's in charge, who could really
call the shot to make us all come together, with the
leadership. And I think that lack of political will is also a
problem.
Mr. McDermott. Ed.
Mr. Owens. Congressman, I don't believe there's any one
single magic bullet out there. I'd also like to note for the
record, Puget Sound is not the center of the known universe. We
have a state-wide problem here, and we need to balance those
kinds of competing interests. I think the toughest problem is
the water issue, the dams, the water-in-the-streams issue for
the fish. I don't believe we've been creative enough in trying
to find some solutions for that, and I think we need to put
some energy into it.
And I'd also like to note that the competing interests
issue--I'd like to reinforce what Mr. Sitko has said. We need
to have some forceful leadership, and I'm not sure it should be
governmental agencies. One of the problems that I've seen is,
is that when you go to these meetings, the people dominating it
are all government, and they're all competing to keep their
people in employment. Seldom do we see citizens, the
volunteers, my 400 people, his thousand, whoever we've got
going here, adequately represented so that voice is at the
table. I'd like to see an emphasis in that direction.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Bill, for maybe a couple minutes, would you
put on a different hat and speak to what Norm Dicks was talking
about? Tell us how important you think United States-Canada is
in this, and how close we may be to a constructive solution.
Mr. Ruckelshaus. I think it's essential to solving the
problem, and I think we've come a long way. As the governor
mentioned in his remarks, we apparently are--as best I can
gather from the people currently involved in the negotiations,
we are getting close to a Chinook agreement, particularly in
the south, but maybe up and down the coast. The coho agreement
that was entered into last year is--again, a similar agreement
is on the table, and that is also possible, so that the
allocation part of the equation looks like it is progressing
pretty well. We're not home free yet, but it looks like we may
be able to get a multi-year allocation agreement under the
current negotiating process.
What I think we risk is not thinking broadly enough about
this, and making sure we fix the whole thing and not just the
allocation process. And by ``the whole thing,'' I mean we need,
up and down the Northwest coast of North America, a scientific
process which is coordinated with the policy-making process
that sets the allowable catch as to how many fish should be
caught each year based on escapements that are actually
observed during the year, and then we enforce against those
escapements; that there is a fish management process up and
down the coast that ensures that those--that TAC, or total
allowable catch, is met each year, and that TAC is set on the
basis of continually expanding the pie, the size of the pie
itself.
And then the allocation process, how you allocate that, is
inherently a political--small ``p'' political process. You're
not going to avoid the problems associated with it, but that's
what we're spending all the time on. And we risk missing
ensuring that the Pacific Salmon Commission works--right now
it's dysfunctional--and that we've got the science properly
plugged into the policy-making process, and that the science
really doesn't recognize any international boundaries. If we do
that, we can fix it.
The only risk I think we have right now is, we don't think
big enough about solving the problem up and down the coast, and
we just focus our attention on the allocation part of it.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. And I want to thank all of the
members of the panel for their most constructive suggestions.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McDermott. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gorton. Yes.
Mr. McDermott. May I say I want to thank you again publicly
for allowing us to participate in this. I've got to go and try
and explain to some high school students about Kosovo, and I
don't know which is tougher, this or Kosovo, but I appreciate
you calling this hearing. I have to leave, but I look forward
to being able to read the testimony from the rest of the
hearing.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
STATEMENTS OF:
BILL WILKERSON, WASHINGTON FOREST PROTECTION
LINDA JOHNSON, WASHINGTON STATE FARM BUREAU, WASHINGTON
CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
MIKE MILLER, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC PROPERTIES
ROBERT KELLY, NOOKSACK TRIBE
TIM STEARNS, SAVE OUR WILD SALMON
CONRAD MAHNKEN, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
summary statement of bill wilkerson
Senator Gorton. OK. Bill, Mr. Wilkerson, we will start with
you.
Mr. Wilkerson. Thank you very much, Mr.--co-chairs. First
of all I want to thank you for creating this opportunity.
Obviously the interest is substantial, and I think you're
hearing why.
I'm Bill Wilkerson. I'm the executive director of the
Washington Forest Protection Association. And I think we
bring----
Senator Gorton. Can we reduce the noise level in the rest
of the room so that we can hear the witness? OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Wilkerson. Thank you, Senator. I think we bring to you
some very good news today. As Governor Locke suggested, over
the last 18 months, and as both of you well know, the timber
industry has been working with all federal, state, counties,
tribes, originally the environmental groups, and ourselves to
try to be on the proactive side of this issue long before the
listings did occur.
In fact, I recall about 18 months ago Senator Gorton,
Congressman Dicks, and Governor Locke met with us and
encouraged our industry to get on the proactive side to try to
avoid another train wreck that had occurred with respect to our
respective experiences on the spotted owl, and to try to
develop a state-based plan that would meet the needs of the
fish on the one hand, and try to keep an economically viable
industry together.
Over those eighteen months we've had the opportunity to
work with federal and state agencies, tribes--counties and the
tribes, and we have come to what I would call a historic
agreement. We have basically developed for the 8 million acres
of private timberlands in our state the equivalent of an HCP
for all of those lands. And let me put that in perspective.
Eight million acres is more than 20 percent of the land in the
state. Coupled with the federal lands that are covered by the
Clinton plan, wilderness acreage, and with lands covered by the
Department of Natural Resources HCP, what we are bringing to
the table is the last increment of means--what will mean 20
million acres of our state are covered by some form of a
conservation plan. And I think that that is, if you think about
that, that's more than half the land of the state.
So are we off to a good start in terms of being proactive,
``we'' being the entire state? I think Governor Locke and you
all are to be congratulated for creating an atmosphere where
already half the state is determined to be ESA-compliant. And I
think in our case, one of the most significant things is, we
have been told by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Ecology that we are--we also have a plan that
we're moving forward that is Clean Water Act compliant, which
was a goal of ours when we started about eighteen months ago.
This is the first time in the United States where the
federal agencies, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
NMFS--the first time that we're aware of--where they have
gotten their acts together and put together a Clean Water Act
strategy and an ESA strategy at the same time. So to say the
least, I think that there's a lot on the table to be proud of.
Congressman McDermott asked the question whether the state
legislature is being supportive, and I can tell you right now
that we could not ask more from our state legislature in terms
of the Forest and Fish report. In the House, Representative
Regala and Representative Jim Buck have taken extraordinary
leadership and put together a much-improved bill from the one
that we gave them, which had been developed at the tail end of
exhaustive negotiation, and I think we will see movement on
that bill in the House here very soon.
On the Senate side, Senator Ken Jacobsen and Senator Sid
Snyder and other Senate leaders have made sure that we put
together a bill that will be responsive to the needs of the
fish and to the needs of supporting the Forest and Fish plan.
A couple of things that have been discovered by our
legislature that are important in our plan, that I think are
important to you as well. One is--one of the most important
elements is, is that we are dealing with the economic impact
differential between large and small landowners. DNR has done a
study that says if our regulatory base were to be adopted, that
the impact on smaller landowners, because they have more water
and less acreage, would be almost double that of large
landowners. And we've established a compensation plan which
will require, I believe, state and federal funding, to help
compensate through a conservation easement program for the
leaving of these trees on the ground for buffers and for
landslide-prone areas, and so forth, that are all in the plan.
And I think that's a huge package. It looks a little bit like
the CREP Program which you are aware of, and I do think that's
very important.
Finally, I would just say that we've worked with the Tri-
County executives. I think they're to be congratulated. I think
that some of the coordination that Bill Ruckelshaus has called
for is starting to occur, and I do think that we cannot be
successful in rebuilding fish runs if we don't do our part, and
frankly, if they don't do their part. And I also think that we
have to look at this issue on a total watershed basis.
prepared statement
What's your role? I think your role is to keep encouraging
us, as you have, to work on these issues and solve them; and
secondly, to help us with funding, because these programs that
we are bringing you do cost money to fully implement.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and we look
forward to your questions.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Wilkerson
My name is Bill Wilkerson and I am Executive Director of the
Washington Forest Protection Association in Olympia, Washington. Our
board is composed of large and small forest landowners who own or
represent about 8 million acres of private forestland in Washington
State.
I appreciate the opportunity to report to you today about a
positive solution that has been developed to meet salmon recovery needs
on private forestlands in our state. After nearly two years of work,
five diverse groups with a stake in salmon recovery successfully
negotiated a science-based agreement that will protect fish habitat and
water quality on more than 60,000 miles of streams on private land. Now
called the Forests and Fish plan, the agreement is part of Governor
Gary Locke's statewide salmon recovery strategy. Legislation to
implement the plan now is being considered by the Washington State
Legislature, and the state Forest Practices Board has made the Forests
and Fish plan its preferred alternative as it develops new permanent
rules for fish and water protection. The plan is endorsed by state and
federal regulatory agencies, a number of Native American tribes, county
government, and the private forest landowners.
Though there are other fish and water proposals for private forest
land, the Forests & Fish plan has the best chance for success in actual
practice because there is commitment to it from the five key
stakeholder groups. The agreement was worked out in 15 months of tough
negotiations among the parties. The environmental community was part of
the discussions for the first 10 months. Their participation helped
shape the final agreement, though they voluntarily left the table
before the plan was completed.
As importantly, the scientists from the three federal agencies
involved--National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and Environmental Protection Agency--and the scientists from
the Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Fish & Wildlife,
and Department of Natural Resources, and many tribal scientists, all
have been involved every step of the way. They say this plan will work.
The Forests and Fish plan meets the requirements of both the
federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, an historic first.
The scientists from the six agencies and the tribes agreed that the
Forests and Fish plan is a biologically sound way to protect fish and
water on 8 million acres of private forests. The plan will greatly
expand forested buffer zones along streams to provide shade, including
almost 40,000 miles of non-fish-bearing streams. There are stronger
standards for road construction and maintenance, and new protections
for steep and potentially unstable slope areas. The agreement also has
a rigorous adaptive management section, which will use science to judge
future fish and water needs. These and other protections will ensure
that forest streams continue to flow with the cool, clear water that
fish need.
Because the agreement would cost landowners more than $2 billion in
land and timber value in western Washington alone, the Forests and Fish
agreement includes an economic incentive package, including a reduction
in the state timber tax rate by one percentage point. There also is a
compensation plan for small landowners similar to the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program. With the incentives, the Forests and Fish
plan is the only fish protection proposal that allows forestry to
continue as a viable part of our state's economy. If private forest
land can no longer be managed for economic success, then it will be
converted to other uses, and the state would lose valuable open space
in addition to habitat for fish and wildlife.
key points of the agreement
The most far-reaching changes in the Forests and Fish agreement
will take place in riparian zones--the streambank areas right next to
water--where new forest buffers will provide shade and contribute large
wood pieces into streams. A complex set of standards prohibits forest
management activity near streams and limits activity in areas up to 200
feet on each side of a stream. All fish, resident and anadromous, game
fish and non-game fish will receive protection. Current rules limit
protection to game fish or salmon. All steams that provide fish habitat
will receive the same protection as streams where fish are currently
present.
West of the Cascade crest, fish habitat streams will be protected
with three-zone buffers, based on the potential height of a tree on a
specific site. The core zone, next to the stream, is a 50 foot-wide
``no-touch'' area, where no harvest activity will take place. Next, an
inner zone, from 80 up to 150 feet wide, will have restricted
management. Beyond that will be an outer zone, managed to leave up to
20 trees per acre for the protection of special features. Again, almost
40,000 miles of non-fish habitat streams or streams that are not
expected to be occupied by fish will be protected, as well.
The agreement also protects streams east of the Cascade crest with
three-zone buffers, again based on tree height, while recognizing the
Eastside's different climatic and forest health conditions. There is a
no-touch core zone of 30 feet, which is equivalent to the Westside
buffers when the Eastside's smaller tree size is taken into account.
Next is an inner zone with restricted management, either 45 feet or 70
feet wide, depending on stream size and location. An outer zone,
determined by potential tree heights, will be managed to leave between
10 and 20 trees per acre depending on forest habitat types. Non-fish
habitat stream protection is equal to the western Washington strategy.
I can't emphasize enough the importance of this regional approach.
All parties rejected a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. This is
important as you look to other sectors for ESA and CWA strategies.
The Forests and Fish agreement also has significant changes in the
forest practices permit process to prevent landslides. Improved
topographic and geologic mapping will provide landowners and the state
Department of Natural Resources with more accurate prediction of where
slides may occur. Detailed standards will be established to field
identify the most hazardous areas and operation on these areas will be
severely restricted.
Another area of major change affects forest roads. All existing
forest roads must be improved and maintained to a higher standard for
fish passage, preventing landslides, limiting delivery of sediment and
surface runoff water to streams and avoiding capture or redirection of
surface or ground water. To accomplish this, landowners will be
required to bring all of their forest roads into an approved
maintenance plan within five years and complete improvements within
fifteen years. Standards, priorities and implementations guidelines are
established. This will involve a private landowner investment of at
least $250 million.
In addition, there are these other provisions in the Forests and
Fish agreement:
pesticide application
Recommended changes in buffering rules and best management
practices for the application of forest pesticides to prevent
significant entry of pesticides into water. There are also
recommendations which will prevent damage to riparian vegetation by
limiting entry of pesticides into riparian management zones.
wetland protection
Improved mapping of wetlands and clarification of existing rules
will provide additional wetland protection.
watershed analysis
The watershed analysis process will be modified to recognize rule
changes in riparian protection, road construction and maintenance, and
restrictions on unstable slopes. Assessment modules for monitoring,
restoration opportunities and cultural resources would be added for new
analyses. The water quality, hydrology and fish habitat modules be
upgraded to reflect current knowledge. Watershed analysis would remain
voluntary with these recommendations.
alternative plans
A process would be created for landowner initiated alternatives to
standard forest practices rules, where a different solution would
provide protection equal to standard rules. The recommended process
includes guidance for submitting alternative plans, standards for state
resource agency and tribal review and an approval process for DNR.
small landowners
Small landowners will meet the same habitat protection standards
and rules as large landowners. However, because small landowners are
disproportionately impacted by wider buffer and more complex rules,
half of the value of trees left for riparian protection would be
returned to the landowner through purchased conservation easements.
This program is absolutely critical to keeping small landowners from
converting their lands for other uses less friendly to fish, and will
require a long-term investment by both federal and state governments.
revisions to the permit process
The agreement proposes longer-term forest practices and hydraulics
permits, and progress toward eliminating the dual authority over forest
practices in the administration of the Hydraulics Code and the Forest
Practices Act. This also puts the state Department of Fish and Wildlife
on the Forest Practices Board, ending an almost 25-year-old battle as
to whether this was appropriate.
enforcement
The state Department of Natural Resources would gain greater
authority to identify and punish repeat forest practices violators
through requirements for financial assurances and denial of forest
practice permits.
adaptive management
To ensure that science continues to guide forest management,
specific technical research will be conducted to test the cause-and-
effect relationship of management changes. New changes will be directed
by research results. The adaptive management process includes planning,
budgeting and project management along with technical and policy
review, and dispute resolution. The recommendations place final
authority in the hands of the Forest Practices Board, with federal
agency oversight to determine whether the Board is responding to new
scientific findings. The commitment to go where cooperative science
leads us is a cornerstone of the agreement.
assurances
All regulatory bodies anticipate that the agreement will meet the
requirements of applicable laws.
funding
Funding for the provisions of the agreement is contained in the
Governor's proposed biennial budget and in proposal currently before
Congress.
Private forest landowners voluntarily joined the other stakeholder
groups in the negotiations that led to the successful Forests and Fish
agreement. We are willing to do our fair share for salmon recovery, and
we applaud the efforts now underway among other groups and governments
to develop lasting solutions for their impact on the salmon cycle. We
are a strong supporter of the Tri-County effort, and the three county
executives and the Washington Association of Counties unanimously
support the five caucus plan. The five parties to the Forests and Fish
agreement believe that our process can be a model of government and
private sector cooperation to produce a workable solution. Thank you
for inviting me to this field hearing today to report how the Forests
and Fish agreement will protect fish habitat and water quality on
private forests in Washington. I am submitting for the record these
comments and some additional materials describing the Forests and Fish
strategy for our state.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LINDA JOHNSON
Senator Gorton. Linda Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Senator Gorton, Congressman Dicks,
for----
Senator Gorton. A little closer.
Ms. Johnson. A little closer--for allowing us to come. We
were asked by staff to provide the private landowners' view on
how the federal dollars that would be coming into the state
could be spent on salmon recovery, so that's what I'm going to
focus our comments on.
We believe that Congress needs to allocate federal dollars
in several areas: directly to the state for funding on-the-
ground projects for habitat restoration; we believe funding
needs to go to federal in-state agencies for addressing the
predation problems; and we'd also like to see money coming in
for license buy-back for both commercial and tribal fishing. We
believe that without a comprehensive funding approach for all
three of these areas, that our state will be setting itself up
for failure.
We believe it is critical that Congress appropriate funding
directly to one source, as you've heard mentioned this morning,
and that would be to the state legislature, not to a government
agency or to individual organizations. We want to ensure
accountability to the public for the taxpayer dollars which
will be spent.
At the state legislature there is a strong concern on both
sides of the aisle that without all funding going through one
source, we will find ourselves, six years down the road, with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent and nothing to be shown
for it. The legislature is seriously looking at setting up a
board that would be appointed by the governor, but would have
legislative oversight. We support an approach of this kind
because it ensures that dollars are being spent on the big
picture approach.
Now I want to address funding for restoration. We believe
Congress should specify that federal funding must be used only
for on-the-ground projects. This funding should not be
allocated for administration. We believe paying for employees
within agencies or private organizations should be the
responsibility of the state's taxpayers, not the federal
taxpayers.
Last year Governor Locke signed into law two bills that we
believe provide solid groundwork for salmon recovery efforts in
our state. HB 2496 is the critical pathway piece which places
funding on the ground for stream projects such as removal of
fish passage barriers and creating resting pools. HB 2514
authorized watershed planning which takes place at the local
watershed area. You will hear more about these, I'm sure, from
Representatives Buck and Regala, who have been very active in
this process. Farm Bureau and Cattlemen both supported these
bills because we take a strong local approach to salmon
recovery. We ask that federal dollars be provided for these
locally-driven programs.
We believe that federal and state funding should be made
available for off-stream storage projects, because it's an
excellent way to mitigate in-stream flow. We believe we don't
have a water shortage problem in this state, we have a water
management problem. Every winter we receive an abundance of
rain, especially here on the west side. We think it makes more
sense to capture those flood waters before they destroy
property, salmon habitat, and nests of salmon eggs every
winter. Every year, and this year was no exception, Governor
Locke has to declare a state of emergency and provide disaster
assistance to the counties. If we captured water in off-stream
storage, it would be available later in the year when fish,
cities, and agriculture all are competing for water. This
approach would be a win-win for fish and for people.
However, if we do not address predation and only focus on
habitat, we will not succeed in restoring salmon to our rivers
and streams. Farmers are prepared and are doing things on the
ground to ensure good habitat, but if salmon can't get past the
predators, that habitat will go unused, and the money will have
been spent in vain. Therefore we'd like the federal government
to address the predation issue because our state isn't
authorized to do so. We would like Congress to authorize
funding to the Washington State branch of the Wildlife Service
under USDA so they can take care of the terns at Rice Island at
the mouth of the Columbia River, and we'd also like to make
sure there's funding provided to whichever federal agency can
address the sea lion problem.
If we address habitat and eliminate the natural predators,
we would still not be successful if we chose not to address the
harvest issue. It is critical that we stop all fishing of
salmon by-catch for a period of at least fifteen years in order
to allow the maximum number of salmon to reach their ultimate
destination, the habitat our farmers are going to make sure is
there.
Commercial fishermen are facing the same dilemma our
loggers faced during the spotted owl debacle, and both of you
know what we went through on that. And our farmers and ranchers
are very sympathetic to them. We firmly believe that the
government should not eliminate the livelihoods of fishermen,
as was done to the loggers. We believe it would be a wise use
of taxpayer dollars to buy back the commercial fishing
licenses.
If you address commercial, you must also address tribal
fishing, and we ask the federal government to negotiate with
the tribes and appropriate funding and help to pay back for
their tribal fishing rights over the next fifteen years as
well. We're all going to have to be in this together.
Farmers and ranchers are facing tough economic times at the
same time that they're being asked to pay for improving salmon
habitat. If we are going to preserve salmon habitat, we need to
focus on keeping out landowners in business. Farmers are
seriously looking at getting out of business because of
burdensome regulations and bad markets, and even our government
agencies agree that productive farmland provides better habitat
for salmon than subdivisions.
prepared statement
Congressman Dicks, you mentioned the CREP program. We think
that's an excellent program, but we want to make sure that not
all the funding would go to that, because it does not meet the
needs of all of our farmers out there. So we want to make sure
that there is--'cause it does not--it does not fit all the
commodity groups.
We were pleased that you asked for ways to empower private
and volunteer efforts, and we urge you to seriously consider
it, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda Johnson
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the private landowners
view on how federal dollars should be spent for functionally important
salmon recovery projects. We believe that Congress needs to allocate
federal dollars in several areas: directly to the State for funding on-
the-ground projects for habitat restoration. To Federal In-State
Agencies for addressing predation problems, which can not be addressed
by the State. And for license buy-back for both commercial & tribal
fishing. Without a comprehensive approach to all three of these areas,
we believe our state will be setting itself up for failure. I will
address each of these areas briefly.
We firmly believe that any federal funds made available must not
infringe on the autonomy of individual states, nor hamper the states,
local governments, private landowners and concerned individuals from
developing creative and flexible solutions.
Both Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's Association believe it is
critical that Congress allocates federal funding to the State
Legislature, not a government agency or individual organizations. The
Legislature, as well as agriculture and the business community want to
ensure accountability to the public for the taxpayer dollars which will
be spent. As a result, there is currently legislation moving which has
strong bi-partisan support in both the Senate & House that will require
that all salmon recovery funding, state and federal, go to one central
group. All private landowners, volunteer organizations and agencies
will have to apply to this central group for project funding. Those
receiving funding must report back to the Legislature the next year
with results. The Legislature believes those who receive funding need
to show their projects were successfully completed before applying for
additional project funding.
federal funding to the state for habitat restoration
We believe Congress should specify that federal funding must be
used only for on-the-ground projects. This funding should not be
allocated for studies, or full-time employees within agencies or
organizations, as we firmly believe these should be the responsibility
of state, not federal, taxpayers. Last year the Governor signed into
law two pieces of legislation which we believe provide the groundwork
for salmon recovery efforts in our state. HB 2496 is the critical
pathway piece, which places the funding on the ground for stream
projects, such as, removal of fish passage-barriers, and creating
resting pools. HB 2514 authorized watershed planning, which takes place
at the local Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). Both of these take a
strong local level approach to salmon recovery and FB and Cattlemen
supported these bills for that reason. The state legislature has
indicated strongly that it plans to continue in this direction and will
ensure that federal funding is directed through these locally driven
programs.
Currently our State Legislature is considering providing funding
for the U.W. School of Fisheries, Columbia Basin Research office for
the purpose of a Geographical Information Survey or other appropriate
scientific reconnaissance survey of Washington State for potential off
stream water storage projects. The purpose and focus of the study is to
identify those basins which would benefit from stream flow
augmentation, temperature and other limiting factors for salmon/
steelhead restoration. The result of such study shall be reported to
the legislature by the end of this year and then be provided to all
watershed planning groups authorized under HB 2514. Watershed planning
groups would use the results of this study for critical pathway
projects authorized under HB 2496.
Federal and state funding should be made available for off-stream
storage projects, which is an excellent way to mitigate instream flow.
This approach ensures instream flow when it's needed by capturing
floodwaters that destroy property, salmon habitat and reads, the nests
containing salmon eggs, every winter. In December of 1998, Governor
Locke had to declare a state of emergency and provide disaster
assistance to 11 counties. Off stream storage would then be available
later in the year when fish, cities and agriculture are competing for
water, which helps the economy and the fish.
We believe that federal funding could also be directed (via the
central state program) to the Conservation Districts, which already
work closely with private landowners. The Conservation Districts are
currently very focused on farm plans and implementation of the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. However, since not all
commodity groups are eligible for CREP we would ask that Congress not
place all their funding into this specific program. We would instead
ask that additional funding be directed towards farmers and ranchers
that have specific projects that if implemented on their private
property would be beneficial for salmon recovery. This would
accommodate the much needed innovation farmers are so good at.
federal funding to in-state federal agencies for predation
We firmly believe that if we do not address predation and only
focus on habitat that we will not be successful in restoring salmon to
our rivers and streams. Agriculture is prepared to do what needs to be
done on the ground to ensure good spawning habitat, but if salmon can't
get past the predators at the mouth of the rivers we will have spent
money in vain. Therefore it is critical that the Federal Government
address the predation problems that our State is not authorized to
handle. We would like to see Congress authorize funding to the
Washington State branch of the Wildlife Service under USDA. Provide
them the resources to take care of the terns at Rice Island at the
mouth of the Columbia River. Perhaps it is as simple as Senator Marilyn
Rassmussen suggested. We place pigs on the island to root out and eat
the eggs. Terns won't stay where they can't nest and that eliminates
them feeding the young smelts to their young. We also want to ensure
that Congress provides funding to the federal agency that can address
the sea lion predation.
federal funding for buy-back of commercial and tribal licenses
Federal management has led commercial fishermen to the same dilemma
our farmers' face and we are very sympathetic to them. However, we
believe that if we are to provide good habitat, and eliminate the
natural predators we would be remiss in not addressing the harvest
issue. It is critical that we stop all fishing of salmon by-catch for a
period of 15 years in order to take the pressure off and ensure that
the largest number of salmon reach their ultimate destination and are
able to lay eggs and fertilize the next generation. We also firmly
believe that the government should not be eliminating the livelihoods
of fishermen, as was done to the loggers during the spotted owl
debacle. Therefore, we believe it is a prudent use of taxpayer dollars
to buy-back both commercial fishing licenses and tribal fishing rights.
Farmers and ranchers are facing very tough economic times at the
same time that they are being asked to pay for improving salmon
habitat. If we are going to restore and preserve salmon habitat we need
to focus on keeping landowners in business. Farmers are seriously
looking at getting out of business because of over burdensome
regulations and bad markets. Even government agencies agree that
productive farmland provides better habitat for salmon than subdividing
farms into five-acre home-sites. We firmly believe the government
should be looking at tax incentives for those individuals who want to
stay in agricultural production, perhaps things like the open space tax
breaks, which we believe has helped to keep land in open space.
We are pleased that you are asking for ways to empower private and
volunteer efforts and urge you to seriously consider the suggestions we
have provided.
______
Key Points of the Forests & Fish Agreement
After two years of preparation and negotiations, five stakeholder
groups produced a science-based protection plan for water quality and
fish habitat covering 8 million acres of private forest land in
Washington. This Forests & Fish agreement will make significant changes
in forest management practices and ensure that forest streams continue
to flow with the clear, cool water that fish need.
The Forests & Fish agreement is part of Governor Gary Locke's state
Salmon Recovery Strategy, and the legislation to implement the
agreement is being considered by the Washington State Legislature. In
addition to the governor's office, the parties to the agreement include
federal and state agencies, a number of the treaty tribes, county
government and private forest landowners. The agreement is historic in
that it is anticipated to meet the requirements of both the federal
Endangered Species Act and federal Clean Water Act. Here are key points
of the agreement:
riparian protection
The most far-reaching changes are in riparian (streamside) zones,
where new buffer zones will provide shade and contribute large wood
pieces into streams. A complex set of standards prohibits forest
management activity near streams and limits activity in areas up to 200
feet on each side of a stream. The agreement covers 60,000 miles of
streams.
--All fish, resident and anadromous, game fish and non-game fish will
receive protection. Current rules limit protection to game fish
or salmon.
--All steams that provide fish habitat will receive the same
protection as streams where fish are currently present.
westside riparian strategies
West of the Cascade crest, fish habitat streams will be protected
with three-zone buffers, based on the potential height of a tree on a
specific site.
--The core zone, next to the stream, is a 50 foot-wide ``no-touch''
area.
--Next, an inner zone, from 80 up to 150 feet wide, will have
restricted management.
--Beyond that will be an outer zone, managed to leave up to 20 trees
per acre for the protection of special features.
Non-fish habitat streams or streams that are not expected to be
occupied by fish will also be protected.
eastside riparian strategies
The agreement also protects Eastside streams with three-zone
buffers, again based on tree height while recognizing different
climatic and forest health conditions east of the Cascade crest.
--A no-touch core zone of 30 feet, equivalent to the west based on
Eastside's smaller tree size.
--Fixed inner zones with restricted management of either 45 feet or
70 feet, depending on stream size.
--An outer zone, determined by potential tree heights, managed to
leave between 10 and 20 trees per acre depending on forest
habitat types.
Non-fish habitat stream protection is equal to the western
Washington strategy.
unstable slopes
Significant improvements in the forest practices permit process to
prevent landslides. The most hazardous areas will be identified and
operations there severely restricted.
______
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
tribes encouraged by forestry pact discussions
Olympia (3/12/99).--Treaty Indian tribes in Washington are
encouraged by results of recent discussions regarding implementation of
a new statewide forestry compact that responds to the demands of the
Endangered Species Act by protecting salmon and their habitat while
still allowing timber harvests on private lands.
The compact, called the Forestry Module, was negotiated in a
collaborative process over the past year. In addition to the tribes,
participants included the timber industry and state and federal
agencies. Legislation to enact the proposal is now before the State
Legislature. Tribal, industry and federal participants met earlier this
week in Portland to fine-tune the proposal. The pact will be refined
over the next two years, when it is expected that the agreement will be
given federal approval.
``We were encouraged by efforts to address tribal concerns,'' said
Pearl Capoeman-Baller, chairwoman of the Quinault Indian Nation. ``We
have developed draft language for the agreement that generally
addresses tribal concerns,'' she said. Those concerns included:
--A need for stated resource objectives to provide standards against
which protection measures can be measured. The participants
expect to complete the objectives within the next few months.
--A need for further refinement of targets for ``desired future
conditions'' along streams. This is a requirement that an
adequate volume and number of trees per acre be left along
streams after timber harvesting has occurred to ensure
appropriate habitat conditions for fish.
--Development of so-called ``off-ramp'' options must be developed to
address what happens to the pact if part or all of the
agreement's requirements are not met.
--Development of a dispute resolution process must be developed if
the parties are unable to meet the stated objectives.
``Each tribal government will eventually have to decide whether
this package is acceptable,'' said Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. ``Some tribes have concerns
about riparian zone widths, the complexity of the agreement, and
assurances that it will be implemented. The tribes have suffered
disproportionately from non-Indian land-use practices, particularly
timber harvests. This is not an easy decision for the tribes.''
``While not perfect, this agreement should provide meaningful
protection to salmon and their habitat,'' said Lorraine Loomis,
Swinomish tribal fisheries manager. ``Oversight by other participants
in the process, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, will
help ensure that protection is meaningful,'' she said. The NMFS is
responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act.
``Cooperation has been the key in developing this agreement and
cooperation will be the key to its implementation. We can only get to
where we need to be if we work together. We must manage our natural
resources as a whole in a way that addresses their needs,'' she said.
``The adaptive management provisions are solid and will close the
loop to scientific uncertainty and risk,'' said Bob Kelly, Nooksack
tribal natural resources director. ``When new information comes
available through the prescribed process, we are assured that it will
be fully evaluated and appropriately acted upon,'' he said.
``This is just the first plank in of a statewide salmon recovery
effort,'' said Dave Sones, Makah tribal natural resources director.
``We must now turn our sights upon poor agricultural practices,
excessive water withdrawals and excessive, growth-induced urban and
suburban sprawl.''
For more information contact: Jim Anderson, Executive Director,
NWIFC, (360) 438-1180; Tony Meyer, NWIFC, (360) 438-1181 ext. 325.
______
Questions and Answers on Forests and Fish
What is the Forests and Fish agreement?
It's an agreement developed over 18 months by scientists, resource
management specialists and leaders in federal and state agencies,
counties, large and small forest landowners and Native American Tribes.
It creates rigorous new forest practice requirements designed to meet
the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. It's a critical
component of an overall plan this state must develop to respond to the
listing of salmon and other fish species under the Endangered Species
Act.
How is it different than the legislation in Olympia?
The legislation, introduced as House Bill 2091 and Senate Bill
5896, provides the mechanisms to implement the agreement.
What are the major provisions of the legislation?
It directs the Forest Practices Board to adopt the Forests and Fish
agreement, which makes major changes in state regulations affecting
more than 60,000 miles of streams on 8 million acres of private
forestland. To meet Clean Water Act goals, the regulations are based on
thorough scientific review and debate and are designed to provide cool,
clear, clean water in streams on private lands. To meet Endangered
Species Act goals of protecting fish and their habitat, the bill
establishes wider areas of no-cut buffers to be left along streams,
restrictions on logging on steep slopes, and calls for new, strict
standards for road construction to reduce sediment. It also ensures
that if these goals aren't met, changes to the regulations will be
based on science.
What will the legislation do?
It more than triples the amount of private land that must be set
aside to protect fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing streams. It will
improve roadbuilding and other forest practices. The state of
Washington has already negotiated a Habitat Conservation Plan for 70
years on 1.6 million acres of land. Together with the Habitat
Conservation Plans already in place in this state for federal and state
forestlands, this legislation will provide the State of Washington with
the greatest level of protection for forests and streams of any state
in the country. The legislation protects salmon, protects water, grows
old growth streamside habitat, and preserves a viable forest products
industry.
Critics characterize the legislation as a windfall for the timber
industry. Is it?
The bill will restrict activities on private forestland that has an
estimated current value of $2 billion in western Washington alone. In
other words, private landowners in western Washington would forego an
estimated $2 billion inland and timber value. The bill provides some
compensation, in the form of a cut in taxes that private landowners pay
on timber that is harvested. It also provides compensation to small
woodlot owners as an incentive to keep lands as forests, rather than to
turn them into more profitable development. That compensation would be
50 percent of the value of the timber they couldn't harvest. For large
landowners it will be less than 10 percent of the value of the timber
dedicated to the fish.
What impact will this legislation have on the timber industry?
To comply with the legislation, many companies would have to reduce
their harvest levels over time. Keep in mind that many harvest plans
already reflect stream set-asides that go beyond the current rules.
Despite reductions in harvest, the result of the legislation will help
the industry viable and allow landowners to stay in the business of
growing forests on private lands.
Is this an industry agreement?
No. This is an agreement negotiated among five key groups with a
stake in fish and water protection. The industry gave up a great deal
and in exchange will be able to remain a viable industry into the next
century. State, federal and tribal scientists and responsible leaders
drove this agreement and dictated its terms.
Who is supporting the agreement?
The signatories to the agreement include the National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which are
responsible for the Endangered Species Act as relates to fish species,
and the Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for the
Clean Water Act. Others include the state departments of Ecology and
Fish & Wildlife, the governor's office, Treaty Tribes, the timber
industry, both small and large woodland owners, and the counties.
Is this just an attempt by industry to avoid a federal endangered
species listing?
There is no avoiding a listing--we've known it was coming for some
time. But the federal government allows a landowner to continue
operations if they negotiate a Habitat Conservation Plan. This HCP-like
agreement does more than spell out protections for the fish; it also
meets the standard set by the Clean Water Act. The negotiations leading
to this agreement were entered into by state and federal agencies, the
tribes, environmental groups, the timber industry, small landowners and
the counties to fashion a solution that meets the requirements of both
the federal Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act on
nonfederal forestland. That's what's been done, and that's why the
federal agencies responsible for the Endangered Species Act and the
Clean Water Act are supporters of this agreement. As far as we know,
it's the first time that a state-based plan has been proposed to meet
both of these federal laws, an historic and important national
precedent.
Why are forest landowners part of this process? What do they want?
Forest landowners, both large and small, want a balance between
habitat and business needs. Since 1987, the forest products industry
has worked collaboratively through the Timber, Fish & Wildlife process
to resolve concerns over forest practices. The belief is that
collaboratively developed, scientifically based solutions are the most
lasting and minimize the risk of litigation and controversy. Landowners
must be successful as a business, and if people want them to keep
growing trees, the only way to seek a balance is to be part of
developing a solution.
Weren't environmentalists part of this process? What do they think?
The Forests & Fish legislation is based on a package negotiated
among large and small landowners, tribes, state and federal agencies,
and county governments. It began as part of Timber-Fish-Wildlife, a
unique forum created in 1987 in Washington as a way to resolve forestry
issues without court or regulatory battles. Negotiation on this
agreement began in November 1997. Members of the environmental caucus
withdrew from the discussions at a meeting in September 1998 saying
they had run out of time and resources. They since have come up with
their own salmon protection package, but it would exact a much higher
toll--so high that few private landowners could afford to operate and
would have to consider converting their land to other uses. The hope is
that the environmental groups will be part of the process again,
joining in implementation, monitoring and adaptive management
processes.
Why are forest landowners asking for compensation?
Implementing these rules will result in management restrictions on
more than 15 percent of private forestlands in Washington, resulting in
a loss of value estimated at more than $2 billion in western Washington
alone. These are public resources being protected. It's imperative that
the public share in these enormous costs so that forestlands can
continue to be managed as forests into the future. Absent compensation,
some landowners would choose to convert these lands from forests to
housing, parking and other uses. How will the salmon survive such
choices?
What about risk? Isn't there too much risk to salmon and other fish
in this bill?
Scientists from all sectors believe the Forests & Fish legislation
will lead to significant improvement along 60,000 miles of stream
habitat. Scientists from state and federal regulatory agencies have
been part of the process since the beginning. The plan is dynamic--with
built-in systems for adaptation and change to protect precious public
resources. On the other hand, there will be tremendous risk if action
is not taken. In the time it takes to have this issue resolved in a
federal courtroom, significant amounts of land could be converted to
other uses and depressed fish stocks could dwindle even further. The
salmon can't wait.
What is ``adaptive management''?
It is management that adapts to new information or changing
conditions. The agreement is the most flexible of any plan agencies
have negotiated under ESA in that it includes strong adaptive
management measures, ensuring that if monitoring or research data
demonstrates problems, changes will be made. Most important, these
changes will be based on science, not politics.
Wasn't this agreement worked out in a vacuum without public
participation?
The Forests & Fish agreement was developed by public agencies and
private landowners working through tough issues together over more than
15 months. The public and the Forest Practices Board were updated
almost monthly during that time. Now that it's been crafted, it is the
subject of very public debate in the Legislature. There have been and
will be numerous public hearings and additional opportunities for
public input. Every citizen in the state will have representatives and
senators voting on this issue. Finally, both NEPA and SEPA processes
will be fully invoked during the next two years, assuring further
public involvement before final approval.
Why is a negotiated agreement going to the Legislature? Why doesn't
the agreement go to the state Forest Practices Board?
The Forests & Fish plan will go to both bodies. The federal
agencies that negotiated this agreement want ``certainty of
implementation.'' They didn't spend 15 months developing an agreement
just to have it overturned or debated another 15 months or more. It is
uncertain whether the Forest Practices Board would approve the
negotiated agreement, change it entirely, or just keep debating it.
Given that uncertainty, the only alternative was to turn to the state's
elected body, give the agreement a fair hearing and ask legislators to
ratify an agreement that has the blessing of the governor, government
scientists, landowners and tribes. By passing this legislation, the
Legislature can speed up what would be an otherwise time-consuming
rules-adoption process that might otherwise take two to three years, to
the benefit of fish, who can't wait. It would allow the state Forest
Practices Board to adopt the negotiated package as interim rules exempt
from the time-consuming administrative procedures process. The Forest
Practices Board would then follow a normal rule-making process to adopt
the permanent rules. Adoption would also allow federal agencies to get
a jump start on their approval process, which can take 18 to 24 months.
And, federal agencies require the certainty of funding, which must come
from the Legislature.
Why does the legislation require a two-thirds majority vote of the
Forest Practices Board to change the negotiated agreement?
The legislation provides a mechanism for the board to change the
agreement, provided that such changes are necessary after environmental
and economic review. Given the broad support for this agreement, it is
reasonable for our elected representatives to provide guidance to the
Forest Practices Board. In addition, when the state and federal
agencies, tribes, landowners and others have negotiated such an
important agreement, it should be hard to change. The supermajority
voting requirement applies only to initial adoption of the rule
package, not to adaptive management. The board returns to its normal
processes when amending the plan based on adaptive management. Partners
to the agreement have discussed alternative approaches to the
supermajority with a number of key legislators.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MIKE MILLER
Senator Gorton. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Good afternoon.
I'm President of Pacific Properties, one of the Murray
Franklyn family of companies. We are one of the largest home
builders in the Northwest, so the listing of the salmon
obviously has a direct impact on----
Senator Gorton. Would you get the microphone a little bit
closer?
Mr. Miller. Oh, I'm sorry.
Senator Gorton. And lift it up a little.
Mr. Miller. Lift it up?
Senator Gorton. Yeah. Tilt it upwards. Yeah.
Mr. Miller. I am here on behalf of the Master Builders, the
2350 members of the--company members of the Master Builders
Association of King and Snohomish Counties and their more than
50,000 employees in the Puget Sound region home building
industry, and I am pleased to comment on the recent listing of
the Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act.
I want to thank both of you for inviting us to participate
in this meeting today, and without your commitment and hard
work on our behalf, complying with the ESA requirements
regarding Chinook habitat protection would be prohibitively
expensive and difficult for this region to accomplish. Also,
the Master Builders Association thanks each of you for taking
time from your very busy schedules to be here and to listen to
us all.
The Master Builders have been active participants in the
Tri-County salmon process for the past year. Our Executive
Officer, Sam Anderson, is an appointee to the thirty-four-
person Tri-County Executive Committee and association members
participate in or monitor meetings of various Tri-County
subcommittees and watershed planning groups. Also, we are part
of the Tri-County 4(d) rule negotiation process with the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Association embraces the Tri-County process because
builders felt it was important that the economic and
environmental destiny of this region must be determined
locally, not by a federal agency. Originally, the Tri-County
effort was to emulate the Oregon coastal coho threatened
listing model by attempting to avert listing of the Chinook
through creating preservation and restoration plans which NMFS
could endorse as not requiring listing of the species. That
goal was abandoned after the court struck down the Oregon plan.
However, the philosophy of the original goal should not be
lost.
Like most businesses in this region, home builders are
committed to preserving and restoring the Chinook salmon, while
continuing to build the homes demanded by our booming economy.
We are willing to do our fair share to preserve and protect
salmon habitat through environmentally responsible development
regulations, environmentally sensitive building practices and
growth management strategies.
King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties already have many of
the toughest storm water drainage requirements, critical area
protection ordinances, shoreline development restrictions, and
mandatory environmental analysis of any local government in
America. For years, Tri-County builders have protected salmon
and their habitat by complying with the existing development
regulations. To the credit of the regional governments, it
doesn't take the listing of Chinook to establish protection for
the species; it is already here in the current regulatory
scheme. What is needed is better enforcement of the current
processes and requirements.
It is important to note that the listing of the Chinook
does not occur in a vacuum. In 1990, Washington adopted the
Growth Management Act, which required comprehensive land
planning aimed at protecting rural lands, preventing sprawl,
conserving environmentally sensitive areas, and maximizing
infrastructure cost/benefit and other objectives. In the Puget
Sound region, comprehensive plans were approved, after public
debate, and Urban Growth Areas were established. Within the
Urban Growth Areas is where the density of housing development
is to be concentrated. It is in this context of maximizing
land-carrying capacity within designated growth areas that
salmon habitat preservation and restoration must be addressed.
I am here today to urge two points. First, the three Puget
Sound counties have each submitted an early action plan to NMFS
asking that the Service create a flexible 4(d) rule concerning
land use activities. We believe that NMFS must write a rule
that adopts the current counties' development regulations and
commitments made in the early action plans. Without such a
flexible rule, local development permitting authorities may be
afraid to issue the various permits needed for lot development
and home building because to do so could be defined as a
``take'' under the ESA. Moreover, failure of NMFS to write a
flexible rule acknowledging that land development or home
building activities are not prohibited actions, will assuredly
unleash numerous third-party lawsuits against both public and
private land-impacting projects by individuals who desire only
to stop growth, and not protect fish.
All through the Tri-County process, NMFS representatives
have maintained that the solution to saving the Chinook should
be locally based. Now is the time for them to adhere to their
rhetoric. Comprehensive long-term watershed plans are being
written which will protect and restore salmon habitat forever.
NMFS must be reasonable and allow those planning efforts to
unfold without imposing a 4(d) rule that causes short-term
hardship on the region's citizens and businesses. All Puget
Sound residents and businesses are being told we must spend
billions of dollars and modify our personal and business
behavior to protect and restore salmon. NMFS needs to write a
4(d) rule that facilitates such actions, not create fear, chaos
and unnecessary expense.
My second point is that local governments, regional
businesses, and citizens can do nothing to protect salmon from
harvest practices. This region is being asked to invest
billions of dollars, much of it federal funds, in protecting
salmon habitat, while the species is still being harvested. The
federal government must address the harvest issue and address
the salmon treaty with Canada. That is not something the local
region can do.
Builders in the Puget Sound region will accept
responsibility to protect salmon habitat and supply the housing
this region will need for decades to come. We have already
demonstrated our commitment through participation in the Tri-
County process and support of enhanced enforcement of current
development regulations, but we cannot do it without
consideration from NMFS in drafting the 4(d) rule and some
change in policy regarding habitat--salmon harvest practices.
prepared statement
As newspaper story after story has indicated, the citizens
of this region want to recover the salmon. However, the
importance of that is tied to the economy, and without a strong
economy, or if the economy starts to falter because of this, I
think you're going to start seeing people falling off. So it
has to be done in the context with maintaining a strong,
vibrant economy in this region. To prevent that type of
situation from happening, we need to have NMFS writing
responsible 4(d) rules that allow us to maintain that strong,
vibrant economy.
I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. And
thank you again for holding this field hearing.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Miller
Good afternoon, I am Mike Miller, President of Pacific Properties,
one of the Murray Franklyn family of companies. Murray Franklyn is one
of the largest homebuilders in the Puget Sound region, constructing
both single family and multifamily projects. On behalf of the 2,350
member companies of the Master Builders Assn. of King and Snohomish
Counties (MBA) and their more than 50,000 employees in the Puget Sound
region homebuilding industry, I am pleased to comment on the recent
listing of the Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
Initially, I want to thank you Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks
for your efforts in securing federal funding to address the regional
financial burden that listing of the Chinook will impose on local
governments, businesses and citizens. Without your commitment and hard
work on all our behalf, complying with the ESA requirements regarding
Chinook habitat protection would be prohibitively expensive and
difficult. Also, Master Builders Assn. thanks each of you for taking
time from your very busy schedules to hold this field hearing and
listen to the various groups and citizens on this important issue.
The Master Builders has been an active participant in the Tri-
County salmon process for the past year. Our Executive Officer, Sam
Anderson, is an appointee to the 34 person Tri-County Executive
Committee and association members participate in or monitor meetings of
various Tri-County subcommittees and watershed planning groups. Also,
we are part of the Tri-County 4(d) rule negotiation process with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS.)
The Association embraced the Tri-County process because builders
felt it was important that the economic and environmental destiny of
this region must be determined locally, not by a federal agency.
Originally, the Tri-County effort was to emulate the Oregon coastal
Coho threatened listing model, by attempting to avert listing of the
Chinook through creating preservation and restoration plans, which NMFS
could endorse as not requiring listing of the species. That goal was
abandoned after the Court struck down the Oregon plan. However, the
philosophy of the original goal should not be lost.
In our opinion, there is little that comes from listing the Chinook
that could not be accomplished under the threat of listing. Listing
only adds section 7 consultation requirements for federal agencies,
puts public and private landowners and users at risk for ``take'' and
opens the door for indiscriminate third party lawsuits. Planning and
committing to restore the Chinook can be accomplished without listing
it as threatened. But, it is listed and we will work to make sure that
a long-term plan for its recovery is adopted.
Like most businesses in this region, homebuilders are committed to
preserving and restoring Chinook salmon, while continuing to build the
homes demanded by our booming economy. We are willing to do our fair
share to preserve and protect salmon habitat through environmentally
responsible development regulations, environmentally sensitive building
practices and growth management strategies. In fact, homebuilders in
the Tri-County region already build some of the most ``salmon
friendly'' and environmentally compatible homes in the country.
King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties already have many of the
toughest storm water drainage requirements, critical area protection
ordinances, shoreline development restrictions and mandatory
environmental analysis of any local governments in America. For years,
Tri-County builders have protected salmon and their habitat by
complying with existing development regulations. To the credit of the
regional governments, it doesn't take the listing of the Chinook to
establish protection for the species; it is already here in the current
regulatory scheme. What is needed is better enforcement of the current
processes and requirements.
It is important to note that listing of the Chinook does not occur
in a vacuum. In 1990, Washington adopted the Growth Management Act,
which required comprehensive land planning aimed at protecting rural
lands, preventing sprawl, conserving environmentally sensitive areas,
maximizing infrastructure cost/benefit and other objectives. In the
Puget Sound, comprehensive plans were approved, after public debate,
and Urban Growth Areas (UGA) were established. Within the UGAs is where
the density of housing development is to be concentrated. It is in this
context of maximizing land carrying capacity within designated growth
areas that salmon habitat preservation and restoration must be
addressed.
I am here today to urge two points. First, the three Puget Sound
Counties have each submitted an Early Action Plan to the NMFS, asking
that the Service create a ``flexible'' 4(d) rule concerning land use
activities. We believe that NMFS must write a rule that adopts the
current Counties' development regulations and commitments made in the
Early Action Plans. Without such a ``flexible'' rule, local development
permitting authorities may be afraid to issue the various permits
needed for lot development and homebuilding because to do so could be
defined as ``take'' under the ESA. Moreover, failure of NMFS to write a
``flexible'' rule, acknowledging that land development or homebuilding
activities are not prohibited actions, will assuredly unleash numerous
third party lawsuits against both public and private land impacting
projects by individuals who desire only to stop growth, and not protect
fish.
All through the Tri-County process, NMFS representatives have
maintained that the solution to saving the Chinook should be locally
based. Now is the time for them to adhere to their rhetoric.
Comprehensive long-term watershed plans are being written which will
protect and restore salmon habitat forever. NMFS must be reasonable and
allow those planning efforts to unfold without imposing a 4(d) rule
that causes short-term hardship on the region's citizens and
businesses. All Puget Sound residents and businesses are being told we
must spend billions of dollars and modify our personal and business
behavior to protect and restore salmon. NMFS needs to write a 4(d) rule
that facilitates such actions, not creates fear, chaos and unnecessary
expense.
My second point is that local governments, regional businesses and
citizens can do nothing to protect salmon from harvest practices. This
region is being asked to invest billions of dollars, much of it federal
funds, in protecting salmon habitat, while the species is still being
harvested. Just recently, a Canadian government report by natural
resources economist, Marvin Shaffer, reported that over $1 billion will
be spent on in-river salmon recovery programs to improve salmon
habitat. Shaffer's report concluded that reduced ocean fishing was
critical to the success of salmon recovery efforts.
Even Trout Unlimited President, Charles Gauvin, argued in a New
York Times letter that the benefits of the sacrifices the Puget Sound
region is being asked to make is for naught, unless over-harvesting of
salmon on the high seas is addressed. He points out the obstacle to
better harvest management is the deadlocked negotiations over the
United States and Canada salmon treaty.
Builders in the Puget Sound will accept responsibility to protect
salmon habitat and supply the housing this region will need for decades
to come. We have already demonstrated our commitment through
participation in the Tri-County process and support of enhanced
enforcement of current development regulations. But, we cannot and will
not do it without consideration from NMFS in drafting the 4(d) rule and
some change in policy regarding salmon harvest practices. As newspaper
story after story has indicated, the citizens of this region want to
recover the salmon. That level of enthusiasm and support will remain as
long as the economy is growing, unemployment is low and people have a
place to live. We wonder if the public's zeal for salmon recovery would
be the same, if there were no jobs, recession and unaffordable housing.
We submit it would not. To prevent that situation, we need NMFS writing
a responsible and ``flexible'' 4(d) rule, tougher harvest management
and continued federal financial resources.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. And thank you again for
holding this field hearing.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT KELLY
Senator Gorton. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Senator. First of all, I'd like to
thank both yourself and Congressman Dicks for your leadership
in the past few months as far as funding is concerned----
Mr. McDermott. Pull it a little closer.
Senator Gorton. Yeah. A little closer. Yeah.
Mr. McDermott. Speak into it.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. As far as funding is concerned for
the region. I'm assuming that you have a copy of my written
testimony, so----
Senator Gorton. We do, and it's in the record.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. I am going to limit my comments to
just a few bullets.
First of all I'd like to say that the tribes are committed
to doing their part to recover salmon in the State of
Washington. We always have been committed to recovering salmon
and sustaining harvestable numbers of fish.
In regards to United States-Canada, tribes are at the
table. We have a tribal representative in Ron Allen from the
Jamestown S'Klallam tribe that's a very active participant on
the tribes' behalf. We feel that the discussions are going
well, and that within the next--hopefully within the next
coming months, due to some concessions on large part by the
tribes and others in the fishing community, that we can get an
agreement that we will be able to----
Senator Gorton. Keep yourself close to that microphone. I
don't think people in the back are hearing you.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. That we will be able to integrate
into some watershed planning efforts that are currently under
way.
Tribes--we basically have a tribe in every river basin at
least on the west side, if not the whole State of Washington.
And those folks--and we feel that that expertise will be an
integral part of recovery efforts, and are willing to lend that
expertise as needed. Many of the tribes have already formed
partnerships with local governments in an effort to form
recovery plans that are based on science. We do not want to see
money spent on projects that are not tied to solid
implementation plans because of what we have heard from NMFS.
Our goal is obviously harvestable number of fish, not only
for ourselves, but for all the citizens of the state. Having
said that, we do not feel that we need to apologize for the
harvest. Conservation has always been a cornerstone of tribal
fisheries management, and will continue to be so in the future.
prepared statement
Tribes, many years ago, seeing that Chinook were declining,
in some cases have not conducted fisheries for over twenty
years on those wild stocks. Those--some tribal Chinook
fisheries should not be confused with fisheries that are
targeted towards hatcheries. It's for this reason that we, the
tribes, feel the federal government has a trust responsibility
to protect treaty fishing rights as a property right of tribes,
and that there is a need for some sort of mitigating the loss
of this property until the resource is recovered to harvestable
numbers.
With that, I'll end my testimony.
Senator Gorton. Fine. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Kelly
Honorable members of the committee, I am Robert Kelly, Natural
Resource Manager for the Nooksack Indian Tribe and Commissioner to the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. I am pleased to testify before
you today on behalf of the Treaty Indian Tribes of western Washington
as well as my own tribe.
As Chairman Billy Frank has told you, the Treaty Indian Tribes are
the co-managers of the fisheries resource in this state. I am pleased
to inform you that we have always taken our role as fisheries managers
very seriously. We live on the rivers. We are connected with them 24
hours a day, and we know what they need to be happy. We know what it
will take to restore the salmon resource, and we are actively engaged
in the effort to do so. Salmon restoration is not a matter of even more
cutbacks in fishing as much as it is a matter of restoring the habitat
needed to sustain fish. Fishing should be a desirable objective for us
all. It is particularly significant to the tribes. It has been our
legacy for thousands of years. Our objective is to increase, not
decrease, our ability to harvest--with nets, in rivers. As good
managers, we have always developed fisheries plans designed to conserve
the resource, and we will continue to do so. Although it is popular
among some people to think this form of fishing is the cause of salmon
decline, the fact is that it is not. The fact is that salmon have
continued to decline despite major cutbacks in our fisheries, and even
in areas where there has been no fishing at all. Habitat restoration
and protection are the keys to salmon recovery. That is the fact.
The tribes do not apologize for fishing. To us, that would be like
apologizing for breathing. We will fish whenever there are sustainable
harvestable numbers of fish available. It is our treaty-protected
right. It is who we are, and you, and anyone who understands and cares
about the resource should be supportive of this position.
To help preserve this lifestyle, we have always been involved in
salmon management, and we will continue to do so. As the co-managers of
the fisheries resource, we seek every opportunity to work with the
state of Washington, as well as the federal government, in cooperative
fisheries management. As inhabitants of our watersheds, we seek every
opportunity to work with local governments, as well as other people,
businesses and organizations that also call our watersheds their home.
It is critical for this cooperation to take place, if the salmon
resource is to be restored. The time for confrontation and polarization
is long gone. If there is to be a salmon resource to sustain our
children and our children's children we must be a team, and we must
work together to protect our watershed home and the quality of life we
enjoy.
So, whether or not you view it as a legal mandate, the tribes must
be integrally involved in salmon management at all levels, from
resource assessment to land and water use planning, and from recovery
efforts to monitoring. The tribes must be included with the state and
federal government as co-managers of the resource, and in every aspect
of local watershed planning.
It is critical for you to join in assuring that government at all
levels, as well as industry and the people at large understand these
facts so that we all have the greatest possible opportunity to base
salmon restoration on a solid foundation of comprehension and team
effort. Such understanding is integral to meaningful progress. We are
the fishing people. We are actively working on every watershed, and we
need your support to continue doing so. We know what restoration looks
like. It means ample, clean water in the rivers, free passage for
adequate escapements to healthy spawning grounds. It means good
riparian habitat, from the headwaters to the mouths of the rivers. It
means ample natural feed in the form of insects, etc. It means healthy
estuaries, meandering rivers and large organic debris. Habitat
restoration projects must be designed with entire watersheds in mind,
rather than just ``feel good'' or public relations opportunities. They
must be planned with entire river systems in mind, and be based on good
science, which the tribes help define. Healthy habitat must come hand-
in-hand with proper enhancement to provide broodstock for naturally
spawning fish, as well as vital fisheries.
Fisheries are, indeed, a vital component to the restoration and
protection of the fish resource, and the objective of salmon recovery
must be to achieve ``harvest-levels'' in our fish runs. The opportunity
to fish is an opportunity to be in-tune with nature. To the tribes, it
is essential to the fulfillment of our legacy. It is who we are. It is
also fundamental to the fulfillment of treaty-protected rights and the
federal trust responsibility.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TIM STEARNS
Senator Gorton. Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning.
Senator Gorton. Get that microphone close.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Hello. My name is Tim Stearns, and I'm one
of the tri-chairs of Campaign for the Northwest, and the policy
director for Save Our Wild Salmon. And I hope I'm up to the
daunting task of trying to represent all of the conservation
community today that works on forest planning, growth
management, toxics issues, water quality, and water quantity,
Puget Sound issues, dam issues, local, state, and regional
groups.
Campaign for the Northwest was put together because I think
the environmental and conservation and fishing community found
that our previous approaches were obsolete and needed to
change. And we've worked to focus on the needs of the health of
the salmon, and try to develop a coordinated campaign that is
working around the needs of salmon.
I went to a hearing yesterday in Hood River, Oregon where,
frankly, the senators there dwelled on what we can't do and
what we shouldn't do, and really we couldn't talk about what we
should do. And this has been a nice departure, that we actually
are talking about how we can work together and how we can move
forward. We have a challenge ahead, and it was particularly
valuable to have Senator Stevens here, whose cooperation and
impatience we're going to rely on. Our failure to deal with our
problems is affecting his fishery, and is affecting the United
States-Canada agreement, and he's going to be crucial to
developing that agreement.
I look at this challenge as one of, we're trying to develop
a new ethic; and that is, trying to redefine civilization so
that it works with biologic health, so that the two things work
together.
It's clear that we have both urban and rural support to
move through this challenge, but it is going to be a challenge.
It's also clear that people have come to realize that what is
good for salmon is also good for people, that protecting clean
water and our high quality of life and restoring ailing
watersheds is going to be good for all of us. Now, there's a
lot of folks out there who just--all they can see when we talk
about salmon and the Endangered Species Act are cost, cost,
cost, and they ignore the benefits of the quality of life in
this gorgeous area that we live in.
This is a discussion of choices and decisions, of science
and economics, but really it's a fundamental discussion about
transition. Are we going to change by embracing it, or are we
going to fight it? Now, my father is eighty-six, and he has an
old philosophy I'd like to remind people of. In his eighty-six
years he tells me that he's seen a lot of changes, and he's
been against every single one of them. [Laughter.]
And I would suggest that most of us come reluctantly to
change, and big changes are harder.
We've also had an interesting discussion of this issue in
that the Snake and Columbia side of the state looks very tough.
Puget Sound has clearly a booming economy that people are
reluctant to jeopardize, so they're trying to take steps
forward and embrace recovery. We need to take that whole ethic
state-wide and embrace this issue.
Salmon recovery is not rocket science. There is a famous
science paper that suggests that rocket science has it easy--
rocket scientists have it easy. We know what salmon need. It's
just the challenge is, how do we control our own activities and
rely on our friends and neighbors to control their activities
as well?
What we need from you, and what we need now, is political
leadership at every stage of government. I've been part of the
Ruckelshaus process where we call for better coordination, and
I don't think we have a magic bullet of how to coordinate. It's
just, local watershed groups need to feel like they're part of
it. They need to feel like the state and federal government are
hearing them and including them.
But there is going to be three basics to moving forward on
this issue.
One is, we need to follow the science. And the science is
going to take us down some painful paths, but it's going to
define what tracks we must react under. We cannot use science
as a weapon for delay, or a weapon to divide. We need to use
science to pull us together.
The second major thing is, while restoration is vitally
important, we cannot lose the good habitat and good stocks that
we have now. We first must need to focus on protection. We also
need to stop the harm that we continue to do. And we're doing
that gradually, but we need to step that up. And we also can't
roll the dice and take chances. For instance, we still don't
have tugboats bringing oil tankers into Puget Sound. You know,
we have the temporary program; we need a long-term program,
because cleaning up all of Puget Sound after that kind of a
disaster would be a disaster for all of us.
Third major element: We need to enforce the law. We have
lots of good laws on the books, but it's been difficult for us
to do them.
I just want to offer a few things that you two can help us
deliver in the next year, and that are vitally needed. One is,
it's time that we finally move forward on the Elwah dams. It's
time that we finally protected Hanford Reach once and for all.
It's also time that we expanded the CREP program so that it
includes all crops, so that all of our agricultural folks can
be included and take advantage of it.
Follow the law, follow the science, stop the harm. Let us
not go down the painful path we gone down on the Columbia,
where we have been incapable of putting together one plan. Just
saying no to dam removal is not a plan. We cannot suffer, in
this basin and the rest of the state, from the inability to
make decisions. We simply cannot throw $100 million a year at
projects and hope they're going to work. We have to be much
more disciplined. And we cannot depend on techno-fixes. We need
healthy rivers.
prepared statement
In closing, this is about relationships across geographies,
across economies, across priorities. And frankly, we're all
playing catch-up. We don't know how to coordinate across all
these bodies. The feds haven't really given us a framework that
can tell us what they want to need, but what--we need to leave
this hearing today newly committed toward moving through these
tough issues together. We're going to need to educate
ourselves, advocate to each other, cooperate, negotiate, and
probably even litigate. But the test that we all need to apply
is, are we protecting and restoring salmon?
Let's follow the science, stop the harm, enforce the law.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Stearns
Hello, I am glad to have been selected as the lone conservationist
today, and the only one to represent the anglers of the state, and the
non-tribal commercial fishing representative.
I am here representing many thousands of residents and businesses,
both in Washington State and across the Pacific Northwest who view the
most recent set of ESA listings as an opportunity for the region. We
recognize wild salmon and steelhead as the canary in our coalmine or
more accurately a keystone species. If salmon are allowed to decline
towards extinction, it is because we are not doing our job well enough.
In order to move into the 21st century as a healthy region where our
grandkids will want to live and work, we need to use salmon recovery as
the measure of that health.
In response to the salmon declines, many members of the state's
conservation community have come together as Campaign for the NW, 11
organizations working together in an unprecedented fashion. We want to
see the state, federal, and local governments, the business community,
NW tribes, and all the salmon advocates work together to recover our
Puget Sound and our Columbia and Snake River runs to sustainable,
fishable levels.
What is good for salmon is good for people. We are convinced that
by doing what it takes to save salmon, we will also be doing right for
people too: protecting clean water and our high quality of life,
restoring ailing watersheds and rivers, and restoring jobs and
businesses in tackle shops, on fishing boats, and in tourism and
recreation-based economies.
A lot of people have been focusing on the costs of recovery, and
are ignoring the benefits. In addition to a healthy environment and
salmon, recovery means a revitalized fishing industry in the Northwest.
For example, the 8-year old listings on the Columbia and Snake Rivers
and the subsequent listings that have piled up across the Pacific Coast
are constraining fisheries from California to Alaska. Until we see runs
increase, that will worsen, and fishing businesses will continue to
decline.
We are encouraged to see an increasing interest on the part of
members of the NW delegation to accomplish statewide salmon recovery.
We want to make sure that the recovery efforts are coordinated, aren't
just a westside story and include the Columbia and Snake River runs,
that money is spent wisely, and that it is effective.
How can we work together to ensure that recovery is effective?
Salmon recovery is not rocket science. We know what salmon need.
Wild salmon need clear, cold water in free-flowing rivers, passage to
and from the sea and adequate escapement. What we need now is the
political leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels, to make
the decisions that will lead us to recovery.
1. Follow the Science Today: We need healthy rivers and healthy
watersheds. The science tells us what to do. We need to make sure, for
example, that our forests support salmon. Salmon need new forest rules
in Washington State that provide them with high degree of certainty. We
need to ensure that whatever new forestry rules emerge in Washington
State, that they have a solid foundation that has been peer-reviewed,
provide a high likelihood of success, and emerge after an open public
process.
2. Stop the Harm Now: Restoration is an important tool of recovery,
but it alone will not take us there. We have got to protect and prevent
first, and restore and recover second. We need, for example, tugs on
the Strait of Juan de Fuca to safely bring oil tankers to port. We
can't afford, in dollars or salmon, a Puget Sound-wide restoration
project after a catastrophic oil spill occurs.
3. Enforce the Law Now: We have federal and state laws, already on
the books, that are gathering dust, and that need to be enforced and
implemented to protect our salmon stocks. Among the many prompt actions
the federal government can take to restore Puget Sound salmon runs, one
issue clearly rises to the top of the list: Implement the 1992 law
authorizing removal of the two antiquated Elwha River dams. Elwha River
chinook are part of the group of Puget Sound salmon recently listed
under the Endangered Species Act. A 1996 scientific report, Status of
Pacific Salmon and Their Habitats on the Olympic Peninsula states
``Removal of the dams on the Elwha River remains the best and most cost
effective opportunity for salmon restoration on the Olympic Peninsula,
and possibly the western United States.'' The report predicts that
habitat to support nearly 400,000 fish is locked up behind those two
dams.
Follow the Science. Stop the Harm. Enforce the Law.
Our experience on the Columbia and Snake Rivers is a case study in
what won't work:
Let's not continue the mistakes on the Columbia and Snake. And
let's not repeat them on the westside.
--We cannot move ahead without a plan. Just saying no to dam removal
does not constitute a plan.
--We cannot suffer from an inability to make decisions.
--We cannot simply throw money at the projects and expect to see more
fish.
--We cannot depend on technofixes like hatcheries and barges and
expect to see more fish. Fish need healthy rivers and
functioning watersheds.
Follow the Science. Stop the Harm. Enforce the Law.
Let's all work to reach recovery together.
Thank you.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONRAD MAHNKEN
Senator Gorton. Mr. Mahnken.
Mr. Mahnken. Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, my name
is Conrad Mahnken, and it's a pleasure for me to be here today.
I'm a research scientist with the National Marine Fisheries
Service. I'm director of one of Will Stelle's laboratories
located in Kitsap County. The research in my laboratory is
aimed at salmon recovery and hatchery reform. I've been asked
to address certain issues related to the appropriate science-
based role that regional laboratories might play in the
recovery of our salmon resources.
Hatcheries have served the purpose for which they were
originally intended, and that is, mitigation for lost habitat
and fishery augmentation. The goal of these production
hatcheries has been to maintain commercial and recreational
harvests, and more recently to provide tribal harvests.
Hatcheries have had considerable success at producing
harvestable fish, and in most instances, hatchery stocks
provide the larger proportions of catches in sport, commercial,
and tribal fisheries.
Some of the facts about hatcheries are as follows:
Hatchery facilities in Puget Sound and Coastal Washington
produce more than 100 million juvenile salmon and steelhead
annually. On the Columbia River alone, nearly 100 hatcheries
produce about 200 million fish which provide up to 80 percent
of the resource in several key fisheries. Over 5 billion
hatchery-reared juveniles are released annually into the
Pacific Ocean from North American and Asian hatcheries.
However, in recent years, the industrialization of Pacific
Northwest hatcheries has been identified as one the causes for
decline of wild stocks, and current hatchery practices may be
contributing to their demise. This criticism is based on the
knowledge that the artificial rearing environments of
hatcheries can yield fish that differ biologically from their
wild counterparts. Certain life history traits are lost in
hatchery fish through years of culture in unnatural hatchery
environments, which may affect survival if they were to be used
in recovery of wild stocks. Within a hatchery population this
may be desirable, but in the long term it is detrimental if
fish are expected to rear and spawn in the wild.
Concerns within the scientific community focus on the
interaction of wild and hatchery fish once fish are released to
the environment. Negative ecological interactions are known to
occur. For example, social interactions between hatchery and
wild fish can occur in the ecosystem and can be detrimental to
wild fish. For example, if large numbers of hatchery fish are
released into small populations of wild fish, larger hatchery
fish prey on smaller wild fish, and dominate competition for
food and territory.
In the area of genetic interactions, domesticated genetic
properties of hatchery fish can be transferred through
interbreeding with wild fish. Interbreeding of hatchery with
wild stocks is believed to result in loss of local
adaptability, best described as a loss of fitness to survive
challenges of living under natural environmental conditions.
With the emphasis on wild fish required under ESA, there is
an opportunity to transfer the role of certain hatcheries from
mitigation to wild stock enhancement. You have heard some
discussion of that today, where some of these hatcheries are in
fact already being transferred over to that need.
The wide natural variability in development and timing
characteristic of wild fish may be an inherent factor which
enables them to adapt to changing freshwater and marine
conditions. Therefore, the protocols which emerge for the
effective operation of hatcheries dedicated to recovery of wild
fish populations will be directed towards the production of
smolts with similar behavior, that exhibit similar physiology
and genetic diversity as their wild counterparts. These
conservation hatcheries will operate on the concept that high-
quality fish, behaviorally and physiologically similar to their
wild counterparts, can be produced in conditions which simulate
the natural life histories of each particular species under
culture.
Scientific information now available makes it feasible and
practical for hatcheries to propagate juveniles similar in
growth, development, and behavior to their wild cohorts. For
example, animal behaviorists have shown that behavioral
repertoires can often be recovered, even after many
generations, simply by providing appropriate environmental
stimuli during rearing. To do this, hatcheries would adopt
rearing practices that might include the following:
Prohibit nonindigenous fish stock transfers;
Use more complex rearing environments that more closely
simulate natural habitat;
Reduce selection for domestication by introducing more
natural rearing protocols;
Condition hatchery fish to behave more like their wild
counterparts;
Introduce hatchery techniques which reduce harmful post-
release interactions between wild and hatchery fish;
And impose, if necessary, production caps to match release
numbers with the finite carrying capacity of both fresh and
saltwater habitats.
Most of these strategies are based on a combination of
modern conservation principles and basic salmonid biology. Some
are backed by scientific research; others are currently being
researched. To incorporate such changes will require adoption
of more flexible policies to integrate public and private
hatcheries into comprehensive restoration plans, both
practically and economically.
As a scientist, I must say that I believe that hatcheries,
if they assume a reformed role of producing fish with more
natural life history traits, can play an important role in the
recovery of wild fish. In the Snake River Basin, hatcheries are
already being employed to save the last remaining gene pools of
listed sockeye and Chinook from extinction through the use of
captive breeding.
prepared statement
I also believe that we can, during recovery of Chinook and
summer chum salmon in the Puget Sound Basin, maintain some
semblance of a fishery sustained primarily by hatchery fish.
However, it will require that we do business differently than
in the past, and that these hatcheries function in ways which
reflect the latest scientific information and conservation
practices.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Conrad Mahnken
the present hatchery system
Hatcheries have served the purpose for which they were originally
intended; mitigation for lost habitat and fishery augmentation. The
goal of these production hatcheries has been to maintain (or increase)
commercial and recreational harvests, and more recently to provide
tribal harvests. Hatcheries have had considerable success at producing
harvestable fish, and in most instances, hatchery stocks provide the
larger proportions of catches in sport, commercial, and tribal
fisheries (at times producing more than 90 percent of the fish
available for harvest).
Facts
--Hatchery facilities in Puget Sound and Coastal Washington produce
more than one hundred million juvenile salmon and steelhead
annually.
--On the Columbia River alone, nearly 100 hatcheries produce about
200 million fish which provide up to 80 percent of the resource
in several key fisheries.
--Over 5 billion hatchery-reared juveniles are released annually into
the Pacific Ocean from North American and Asian hatcheries.
hatchery and wild fish interactions
However, in recent years, the industrialization of Pacific
Northwest hatcheries has been implicated as one the causes for decline
of wild stocks and current hatchery practices may be contributing to
their demise (Schmitten et al., 1995, NRC 1996).
This criticism is based on the knowledge that the artificial
rearing environments of hatcheries can yield fish that differ
biologically from their wild counterparts. Certain life history traits
are lost in hatchery fish through years of culture in unnatural
hatchery environments, which may affect survival if they were to be
used in recovery of wild stocks. Within a hatchery population this may
be desirable but in the long term it is detrimental if fish are
expected to rear and spawn in the wild. Concerns within the scientific
community focus on the interaction of wild and hatchery fish once fish
are released to the environment:
(I) Ecological interactions. Social interactions between hatchery
and wild fish can occur in the ecosystem and can be detrimental to wild
fish. For example; if large numbers of hatchery fish are released into
small populations of wild fish, larger hatchery fish prey on smaller
wild fish, and dominate competition for food and territory.
(II) Genetic interactions. Domesticated genetic properties of
hatchery fish can be transferred through interbreeding with wild fish.
Interbreeding of hatchery with wild stocks is believed to result in
loss of local adaptability, best described as a loss in fitness to
survive challenges of living under natural environmental conditions.
the changing role of hatcheries
With the emphasis on wild fish required under ESA, there is
opportunity to transfer the role of certain hatcheries from mitigation
to wild stock enhancement. The wide natural variability in development
and timing, characteristic of wild fish, may be an inherent factor
which enables them to adapt to changing freshwater and marine
conditions. Therefore, the protocols which emerge for the effective
operation of conservation hatcheries (hatcheries dedicated to recovery
of wild fish populations) will be directed towards the production of
smotts with similar behavior, physiology, and genetic diversity as
their wild counterparts. These conservation hatcheries will operate on
the concept that high quality fish, behaviorally and physiologically
similar to their wild counterparts, can be produced in conditions which
simulate the natural life histories of each particular species under
culture. Scientific information now available (and growing daily) makes
it feasible and practical for hatcheries to propagate juveniles similar
in growth, development, and behavior to their wild cohorts. For
example; animal behaviorists have shown that behavioral repertoires can
often be recovered even after many generations simply by providing
appropriate environmental stimuli. To do this, hatcheries would adopt
rearing practices that might include the following:
--Prohibit non-indigenous fish stock transfers (intentional
transplantation);
--Use more complex rearing environments that more closely simulate
natural habitat;
--Reduce selection for domestication by introducing more natural
rearing protocols;
--Condition hatchery fish to behave more like their wild
counterparts;
--Introduce hatchery techniques which reduce harmful post-release
interactions between wild and hatchery fish; and
--Impose, if necessary, production caps to match release numbers with
the finite carrying capacity of fresh and saltwater habitats.
Most of these strategies are based on a combination of modern
conservation principles and basic salmonid biology. Some are backed by
scientific research; others are currently being researched. To
incorporate such changes will require adoption of more flexible
policies to integrate public and private hatcheries into comprehensive
restoration plans, both practically and economically.
As a scientist, I must say that I believe that hatcheries, if they
assume a reformed role of producing fish with more natural life history
traits (characteristics), can play an important role in the recovery of
wild fish. In the Snake River Basin, hatcheries are already being
employed to save the last remaining gene pools of listed sockeye and
chinook from extinction through the use of captive breeding. I also
believe that we can, during recovery of chinook and summer chum salmon
in the Puget Sound Basin, maintain some semblance of a fishery
sustained primarily by hatchery fish. However, it will require that we
do business differently than in the past and that these hatcheries
function in ways which reflect the latest scientific information and
conservation practices.
HATCHERY REFORM
Senator Gorton. Doctor, are these prescriptions for
hatchery reform that you've described here widely accepted
among fisheries scientists at the present time? Are they still
experimental? Are there disputes over them?
Mr. Mahnken. Well, there's always dispute over new ideas
and new techniques, especially when it comes to hatcheries, but
I think in general the hatchery community and the scientists
within the hatchery community agree that certain reform
principals need to take place, and that they're based on solid
science.
Senator Gorton. Now, in the very last comment you made, is
it your view that all hatcheries should be reformed in this
manner, or was your comment with respect to harvest, to keep a
certain degree of harvest, there should be some hatcheries that
operated simply for production, for relatively large production
for harvest purposes?
Mr. Mahnken. Yes, I think that eventually we will see just
exactly that. Especially, some of the tidewater hatcheries that
exist in Puget Sound that have particularly high survivals and
high contributions to fisheries will remain in that role,
providing we can separate both adults and juveniles in their
habitat from the wild fish. I think that you will also see
hatcheries that are at the other end of the spectrum, that
serve primarily a conservation role in rebuilding wild
populations, and I think you'll see mixes in between of all
possible combinations.
Senator Gorton. In Puget Sound has the decline in runs
equally affected both wild and hatchery stocks?
Mr. Mahnken. Yes. I think that's been shown. In the mid--up
to the mid-1970s you could have survivals in Puget Sound stocks
of, say, coho, that exceeded 20 percent. Starting about 1976
there was a major oceanic regime shift that caused the survival
of hatchery fish and wild fish, pretty much coastwide, to
decline.
Senator Gorton. What was that regime shift?
Mr. Mahnken. Well, that regime shift is still under debate,
but in general, it was a warming trend in the coastal currents
that affect primarily Coastal Washington, Oregon, and Southern
British Columbia, Northern California. At the time that the
survival on stocks in those areas began to decline, it began to
rise in the North Pacific, in Alaska, Russia, and Northern
Japan, and they enjoyed some of the best survivals and best
runs during the period of time when we are suffering in the
southern areas. So this is believed to be a general climatic
shift. Many scientists believe it's cyclic; some believe it may
be associated with a general global warming trend. In any
event, we are now experiencing much lower survivals in both our
hatchery and wild fish.
Senator Gorton. Given at least relatively limited amounts
of money in Puget Sound--indeed, the combination of federal and
State appropriations at one level are generous; at another
level are rather modest--how do we set priorities on the use of
that money?
Mr. Mahnken. You mean with regards to hatcheries, or with
regards to the whole mix of four H's?
Senator Gorton. The whole mix.
Mr. Mahnken. Boy, Senator, you're asking me a question that
really ought to asked by Will--or, answered by Will Stelle.
Senator Gorton. Well, he'll get it, too. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stearns. It's just a policy issue.
Mr. Mahnken. Yeah. It's just a policy issue, sir.
Senator Gorton. OK. We'll let you waive that one.
Go ahead.
Mr. Dicks. One of the other ideas about coordination was
coordination on the science in terms of the recovery effort
here in the State. Do you think there needs to be some kind of
a scientific panel put together that advises policy makers on
the science of this whole matter beyond just the people at NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mr. Mahnken. Yes, I think with regards to hatcheries in the
Puget Sound Basin it might be considered that you develop a
kind of an independent--a group of independent scientists
that--especially if there was increased funding, federal
funding, for example, into the Puget Sound Basin for these
hatcheries--a group of independent scientists, much the way the
panel has been established in the Columbia Basin, that would
perhaps be a mix of scientists respected in the field not
necessarily involved with hatcheries, as well as a group of
agency scientists involved with hatcheries that would continue
to see that the system was operated in the best scientific
manner.
Mr. Dicks. Are the Mitchell Act hatcheries being reformed
as you suggested here in terms of trying to produce fish that
replicate wild fish?
Mr. Mahnken. I think there's a lot of discussion. There's
not much activity yet in the Mitchell Act hatcheries. And
again, I would refer that question to my boss, Will Stelle.
Mr. Dicks. All right. But you think something needs to be
done there, as a scientist?
Mr. Mahnken. Yes. Yes, I--as a scientist, I think something
needs to be done there.
Mr. Dicks. And if, Mr. Stearns, you want to comment, or any
of the other members of the panel want to comment on this,
please do so.
You mentioned science in terms of the evaluation, which I
strongly agree with. I think we need to have good scientific
input into the projects that are funded, that we have a
credible scientific basis for the funding decisions that are
made.
Mr. Stearns. Congressman Dicks, I think you're absolutely
right. On the specific question of the Mitchell Act hatcheries,
I think you need to think of analogy of, you're driving down
the highway at 100 miles and hour, and you're trying to change
drivers and rebuild the engine at the same time, that we have
expectations and needs for these facilities to continue
producing. Plus, we have substantial inequities in that
hatchery production. You know, we've made commitments to shift
production to the upper part of the basin, so you've got a
whole transition.
I serve on the artificial production review of the
Northwest Power Planning Council, which Senator Gorton asked us
to do, and I think we're working through those issues. The
challenge is connecting the people who actually operate
hatcheries with the bureaucrats who deal with the management of
the hatcheries, dealing with the research biologists who focus
on literature and testing, and trying to bring those various
communities together and then develop substantial transition in
what are very large facilities that have tight budgets.
And just as a criticism of Congress--since we've got a
couple Congress people here, I might as well criticize--our
budget process is--it's overly-explicit, line item by line
item. You don't really give the managers flexibility to move
money from one program to another, so implementing these kind
of changes is somewhat challenging. I'm not saying you should
give them a blank check, because we don't want to give any
bureaucrats blank checks. It's just the transition process is
fairly challenging.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Wilkerson. Yeah, just a quick comment on that, and kind
of the management issue that Bill Ruckelshaus raised on the
last panel. I don't think we can repeat the Columbia River
situation. And we have twenty-five to fifty years of history
there, and I've worked there, and you've all been down there,
and there was no leadership for years. And the easiest game in
town is to point to the other person. So I think the idea of
having someone that's in charge both on the policy side and the
science side that has real leadership responsibility is going
to be required here in Puget Sound. I mean, just look at the
room behind us. There are myriad interests, all with different
opinions about what works and what doesn't work. And the fact
of the matter is, is that without leadership we will all
continue to disagree forever, and I don't think that'll work,
to rebuild the salmon. So if we don't get in there early with
real defined, clear leadership and responsibility for making
something work better here in the Puget Sound region or out on
the coast, I just don't see how we won't repeat the mistakes of
the past.
Mr. Dicks. You think it has to be somebody other than Mr.
Stelle and Mr. Smitch? I mean, could they co-chair this?
Mr. Wilkerson. No, I----
Mr. Dicks. Or do you have to bring in another person?
Mr. Wilkerson. Well, you raised the TFW experience.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Mr. Wilkerson. And Will, and Bob Turner from NMFS, and
Chuck Clark from EPA, and Curt Smitch from the governor's
office were the leaders of those negotiations, and they were
there every step of the way. And I don't think we would have
gotten where we had gotten if they hadn't been there every step
of the way. Now, if that was on just one segment of our
economy, and whether we can spread those people out so far as
to deal with all the other issues here that are just
represented on this panel, I don't know. But if somebody isn't
empowered to form the team that's in charge, which is what you
did on the timber module--you empowered us, basically, and I
think if you do that with respect to some of these other issues
on the table, then people can solve the problems.
Mr. Dicks. But do you think this would have to be done on a
State-by-State basis? In other words--is this going to be
regional?
Mr. Wilkerson. Well, I can't speak to the Columbia River
example, again, because that's multi-state. But to the extent
that most of these watersheds that people are worrying about in
Washington are Washington-oriented, I think there ought to be a
Washington strategy to deal with them. And I think that's what
Governor Locke is trying to take on. NMFS has coordinating
responsibility in terms of the Columbia River stocks, the Snake
River stocks, that obviously require multi-state strategies.
But in terms of the many watersheds in our State that are
Washington-oriented, I don't know why we'd complicate it with
regional strategies.
Mr. Dicks. I wanted to say to Linda Johnson that I too have
been concerned about the terns. And I feel that there can be a
successful way of putting new habitat on that island that will
make it less hospitable to the terns. The idea that we would
let 8 to 25 million smolts be taken each year by those birds,
while we're spending $3 billion on the Columbia/Snake River
thing is very hard for me to understand, so I'm very
sympathetic to your comments.
And Connie, I just want you to know that we're still
working on lingcod as well, and we know of your abiding
interest in that, and the viewpoint of the tribes as well.
I don't have any further questions.
Senator Gorton. Fine. Thank you. This has been a very
constructive and enlightening panel, and we appreciate the
contribution that each of you has made.
STATEMENTS OF:
BOB DREWELL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ED HANSEN, MAYOR OF EVERETT
JIM BUCK, WASHINGTON STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DEBBIE REGALA, WASHINGTON STATE REPRESENTATIVE
ED THIELE, OKANOGAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER
LOUISE MILLER, KING COUNTY COUNCIL
summary statement of bob drewell
Senator Gorton. The next panel: Bob Drewell, Ed Hansen, Jim
Buck, Debbie Regala, Ed Thiele, and Louise Miller.
We don't seem to have Louise Miller here at this point, but
I think perhaps we'll start and hope that she comes in.
Bob Drewell, you were first on our list, and we'll hear
from you first.
Mr. Drewell. Good afternoon, Senator. Thank you very much
for the opportunity----
Senator Gorton. And you also need to get that microphone a
little closer in.
Mr. Drewell. Okay. All right.
Senator Gorton. That's advice to all of you.
Mr. Drewell. Thank you again, Senator. And thank you very
much for the opportunity to testify before you today. And on
behalf of the entire Tri-County salmon group, I want to thank
you for all of your efforts in securing federal funding for our
Tri-County plans to date. Yourself, Senator Gorton, and
Congressman Dicks, have been very instrumental in our successes
to this point.
And in particular, I understand that Senator Stevens has
left, but we certainly want to acknowledge his presence here
earlier today, and the help that he has given.
It's my pleasure to speak with you about the approach and
efforts under way within the three counties of King, Pierce,
and Snohomish. We voluntarily came together over a year ago. We
asked our cities, the tribes, the business community, the
environmental community, frankly anyone that wanted to come to
the table, to help recover salmon in the beautiful Puget Sound
area.
We made a conscious decision to spend our time, energy, and
resources on salmon recovery rather than trying to fight the
proposed listing. It was the right decision. We are focussed,
we are committed, and we are already making progress. We are
pleased to report that our efforts to partner with National
Marine Fisheries Service are progressing.
The three counties, and many of our cities, prepared a
series of proposed early actions to be taken during 1999 and
the year 2000 that provide substantive, science-based
strategies to make incremental process to stop the rate of
decline of salmon while at the same time working in our
watersheds to develop long-term salmon recovery plans. It's a
phased approach that we believe in the long--that we believe is
in the long-term interest of the species and of all the
jurisdictions involved in this challenging effort.
The Tri-County group is to develop an agreement with NMFS
on a complex 4(d) rule which covers the day-to-day activities
and responsibilities that local governments have in serving our
citizens while we work together for a long-term recovery
strategy. We are currently negotiating with NMFS, and have
included the tribes, the State of Washington, representatives
of the business coalition and the environmental coalition in
our negotiations. We cannot underscore enough the need for
creativity and flexibility in developing the initial 4(d) rule.
The long-range strategy is founded on science-based plans
for the conservation and restoration of habitat systems in the
six Water Resource Inventory Areas, the WRIAs, that are located
within the three counties. The WRIA-based planning efforts will
assist in the preparation of regulations, best management
practices, capital improvement programs, and monitoring
programs that will ensure the implementation and adaptive
management necessary to sustain salmon recovery. The last
speaker on our panel today, Councilwoman Louise Miller from
King County, will talk more specifically about the WRIA
efforts. And I know you've expressed an interest on that on a
number of occasions.
In addition, I've brought with me twenty-five copies of the
Tri-County Executive Summary that outlines our work plan and
strategy to recover the Puget Sound Chinook. I would invite you
and your staff to review the document because it will certainly
give you a better understanding of the complexities of this
recovery effort.
I want to take a few moments to discuss the Tri-County
perspective on federal funding, and our thoughts on how the
dollars would be allocated. We have five basic recommendations
that we would hope that you would consider.
First, we support a cooperative State-wide approach to
salmon funding. While we recognize the Tri-County effort is
unique, we also recognize all areas of the State are impacted
by the salmon listings, and therefore must be eligible for
available federal funding.
We would suggest that you explore the possibility of having
Eastern Washington efforts funded through earmarked Bonneville
Power Administration funds. BPA is an existing source of
revenue to Eastern Washington tribes and other entities. Making
some of those existing funds available to Eastern Washington
counties and cities to meet their important needs would be very
beneficial to all concerned.
Western Washington needs could be met through the coastal
salmon initiative currently being discussed by the Washington
delegation and the Clinton Administration. No one knows what
the total cost of salmon recovery will ultimately be, but we do
know it will be millions of dollars. Our Tri-County members are
only asking for a fair share of that allocation.
Second, we believe that available federal funds should only
go--only go--to activities that have gone through an ESA
approval process or are consistent with an approved 4(d) rule,
which will likely be operational at the time these funds are
expended. It is our intent to have our scientific experts
involved in reviewing these projects for their value to fish.
Third, federal funds should only go to entities that are
prepared to match the funds.
Fourth, we, like yourselves, want a process developed that
makes thoughtful and timely decisions on funding. It is in no
one's interest to fritter away valuable funding on activities
that simply do not make a difference to fish. There is a Tri-
County subcommittee specifically working on the processes and
criteria for allocation. We are working closely with the
governor's office and other appropriate State agencies.
Fifth, the National Marine Fisheries Service needs staff.
It will not help this region if NMFS does not have adequate
staff to do the necessary biological assessments and section 7
consultations.
Therefore, we believe a system which represents local
control, emphasizes sound science and biology, and encourages
on-the-ground benefits, and is approved by NMFS makes the most
sense.
prepared statement
In closing, the Tri-County Executive Committee is very
focussed on working collaboratively among the stakeholders,
which includes all of you. Let us know what we can do to help
you. And again, I want to thank you for your time today, and
for your leadership on behalf of the citizens in our State in
meeting this challenge.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Drewell
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you
today. On behalf of the entire Tri-County salmon group, I want to thank
you for all of your efforts in securing federal funding for our Tri-
County plans to date. Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, you have
both been instrumental to our success thus far. In particular, we want
to recognize and welcome a good friend to this region on salmon and
economic issues--the Honorable Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. We
appreciate the leadership all of you are providing on this critical
issue.
It is my pleasure to speak with you about the approach and efforts
under way within the three counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish. We
voluntarily came together over a year ago, asked our cities, the
Tribes, the business community, the environmental community, frankly,
anyone that wanted to come to the table, to help recover salmon in the
beautiful Puget Sound.
We made a conscious decision to spend our time, energy, and
resources on salmon recovery rather than trying to fight the proposed
listing. It was the right decision. We are focused, we are committed,
and we are already making progress. We are pleased to report that our
efforts to partner with National Marine Fisheries Service are
progressing.
The three counties, and many of our cities, prepared a series of
proposed early actions during 1999 and 2000, that provide substantive,
science-based strategies to make incremental progress to stop the rate
of decline of salmon, while at the same time, working in our watersheds
to develop long-term salmon recovery plans. It is a phased-approach
that we believe is in the long term interests of the species and of all
of the jurisdictions involved in this challenging effort.
The Tri-County goal is to develop an agreement with NMFS on a
complex 4(d) rule, which covers the day-to-day activities and
responsibilities local governments have in serving our citizens, while
we work on our long-term recovery strategy. We are currently
negotiating with NMFS and have included the Tribes, the state of
Washington, and representatives of the business coalition and the
environmental coalition in our negotiations. We cannot underscore
enough the need for creativity and flexibility in developing the
initial 4(d) rule.
The long-range strategy is founded on science-based plans for the
conservation and restoration of habitat systems in the six Water
Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) within the three counties. The WRIA-
based planning efforts will assist in the preparation of regulations,
best management practices, capital improvement programs, and monitoring
programs that will assure the implementation and adaptive management
necessary to sustain salmon recovery. Our last speaker on the panel
today, King County Councilwoman Louise Miller, will talk more about our
WRIA efforts.
In addition, I have brought 25 copies of the Tri-County Executive
Summary that outlines our work plan and strategy to recover the Puget
Sound Chinook. I would invite you and your staff to review the document
because it will certainly give you an understanding of the complexities
of this recovery effort.
I want to take a few moments to discuss the Tri-County perspective
on federal funding and our thoughts on how the dollars would be
allocated. We have five basic recommendations for you to consider.
First, we support a cooperative statewide approach to salmon
funding. While we recognize the Tri-County effort is unique, we also
recognize all areas of the state are impacted by the salmon listings
and, therefore, must be eligible for available federal funding.
We would suggest you explore the possibility of having eastern
Washington efforts funded through earmarked Bonneville Power
Administration funds. BPA is an existing source of revenue to eastern
Washington tribes and other entities. Making some of those existing
funds available to eastern Washington counties and cities to meet their
important needs would be beneficial to all concerned.
Western Washington needs could be met through the coastal salmon
initiative currently being discussed by the Washington delegation and
the Clinton Administration. No one knows what the total cost of salmon
recovery will ultimately be, but we do know it will be millions of
dollars. Our Tri-County members are only asking for a fair share of the
allocation.
Second, we believe the available federal funds should only go to
activities that have gone through an ESA approval process or are
consistent with an approved 4(d) rule, which will likely be operational
at the time these funds are expended. It is our intent to have our
scientific experts involved in reviewing these projects for their value
to fish.
Third, federal funds should only go to entities that are prepared
to match the funds.
Fourth, we like yourselves, want a process developed that makes
thoughtful and timely decisions on funding. It is in no one's interest
to fritter away valuable funding on activities that simply do not make
a difference for fish. There is a Tri-County subcommittee specifically
working on the process and criteria for allocation. We are working
closely with the Governor's office and appropriate state agencies.
Fifth, NMFS needs staff. It will not help this region if NMFS does
not have adequate staff to do the necessary biological assessments,
section 7 consultations and other activities with us in a timely
manner.
Therefore, we believe a system which respects local control,
emphasizes sound science and biology, encourages on-the-ground
benefits, and is approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service
makes the most sense. We at Tri-County need NMFS approval for our
funding efforts so that we in turn can receive credit for those
activities as part of our long-term salmon recovery plans.
In closing, the Tri-County Executive Committee is very focused on
working collaboratively among the stakeholders, which includes all of
you. Let us know what we can do to help you, and again, I want to thank
you for your time today, and for your leadership on behalf of the
citizens in our state in meeting this challenge.
[Clerk's note.--Due to its volume, the above mentioned
material is being retained in subcommittee files.]
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ED HANSEN
Senator Gorton. Mayor Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator Gorton and Congressman
Dicks, in particular for hosting this hearing and also
providing this opportunity for me to provide a perspective as
one city elected official on the effort to increase the numbers
of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound.
I'd like to make three points today.
First, the City of Everett has been actively engaged for at
least the past 25 years in protecting and restoring habitat in
environmentally sensitive areas of our city. We will continue
this important work both at the local level and through our
participation in the region's unprecedented efforts to increase
the number of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. And that includes
the efforts that Executive Drewell just described.
Second, as Mayor of the City of Everett and President of
the Association of Washington Cities, I must bring to your
attention my concern that the Endangered Species Act listings
by the National Marine Fisheries Service will have significant
financial impacts on local governments. Washington's cities
have limited financial resources and increasing demands from
our citizens for public safety, parks, libraries,
transportation improvements, and a wide array of other services
and facilities. More specifically, I fear this will be the
largest unfunded mandate I have faced in my 5-plus years as a
mayor.
Third, as we at the local level are asked to address
habitat issues, we must be assured there will be adequate
numbers of Chinook salmon returning to the rivers and streams
of Puget Sound. Specifically, there must be significant
progress in addressing harvest issues at the State and Federal
levels. In this testimony I suggest several federal legislative
and regulatory changes. In making these comments under the
third section of my testimony, I am not speaking for the
Association of Washington Cities, so I want to make that clear.
And I wish, in the very limited time I have available, that
I could spend more time discussing the first point, the active
work that we are doing and we intend to continue to do, but I
feel that in my duties, again, as a mayor and a spokesman for
the Association of Washington Cities, I must emphasize the
financial concerns during the limited time I have available.
And as a local elected official, we are all governed by a
State law that requires each of our local government
jurisdictions to have balanced budgets each year. And I had a
very painful experience my first year as Mayor of Everett. I
inherited a budget that was balanced by selling a million
dollars' worth of real estate. In my first week in office, I
had the very painful experience of eliminating sixty-five
positions from the budget. And those were people who were
providing valuable services in our community and doing a good
job. We just did not have the resources to continue to employ
those people. During the first three months of my term I spent
a lot of additional time in finding other ways to cut costs to
live within our budget and the resources available.
I've also learned during the 5 years that we do have
economic uncertainties and cycles. We're looking at another
downturn, at least in Everett, and perhaps in Snohomish County,
as a large manufacturer is facing production reductions and
employment reductions which we think will have some impacts
both on our city revenues and also on our economy. We've also
seen some restrictions on city revenues through State
limitations on property taxes, and some exemptions from the
sales tax.
You're also aware of another issue of concern at the
federal level that also substantially could affect our tax
base, and that's the Internet taxation moratorium that could
reduce our sales tax revenue.
So in summary, local governments are facing some revenue
challenges, and I have a council member who continually reminds
me, there's only so many beans in the jar. And that's one of
the issues that I need to convey from the perspective of
cities, that we want to help, we're prepared to roll up our
sleeves and do as much as we can, but we do have limited
resources.
As part of my testimony I have a list of exhibits. I've
included a copy of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
and that was certainly legislation that was very much welcomed
by local government. I have quoted several provisions from that
legislation in my testimony. I've also attached to my testimony
Exhibit 2, which is a list of unfunded mandates, both State and
Federal, just to give you an idea of what we're talking about
at the local level. And then also attached as an exhibit is a
matrix that shows a number of costs and mandates that we're
anticipating at the local level from the ESA listing.
So I guess the bottom line is to express the concern of the
financial implications of what we are asked to do. I know some
earlier spokespersons mentioned comments about financial
accountability and spending our limited dollars as wisely as we
can. And I think that needs to be one of the issues to explore,
is how we can best spend the limited taxpayer dollars we have
available, both dollars from the federal level--and we
appreciate very much your efforts, Senator Gorton and
Congressman Dicks, in trying to get some federal funding to
help, but it's very likely, candidly, that whatever federal
dollars you do provide are not going to come very close to
covering the costs we're going to see at the State and local
level.
I noticed in Governor Locke's testimony, we still don't
know what kind of State dollars are going to be provided
through this legislative session, but again, it's very unlikely
there'll be very much additional money available to local
governments. So this is one of the real challenges that I think
we all face and need to keep in mind.
I see the red light's on. I've run out of time. There's a
number of other comments that I would like to make, perhaps
just a couple of quick suggestions from the third part of my
comments.
One issue that I haven't seen much discussion of, and
that's the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Sustainable Fisheries
Act. At least in our staff's preliminary analysis, there appear
to be some potential conflicts between the Endangered Species
Act. And I do understand the Magnuson-Stevens Act is up for
reconsideration later this year, and I would hope that you
would take this opportunity to review it in the context of the
listings and what changes might be made, including some changes
that might give NMFS some additional authority that may well be
needed to help us in our salmon recovery efforts.
prepared statement
But the third point that I really wish to emphasize is
that, as we do all the work in the region on restoring and
enhancing habitat, it's going to be extremely important that at
both the State and Federal level all efforts are made to assure
that there are adequate levels of Chinook salmon returning to
the habitat that we intend to preserve and enhance.
And I could get into a lot more detail, but thanks again
for the opportunity to make these limited comments.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Hansen
Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, thank you for co-hosting this
hearing and providing me with an opportunity to provide a perspective
from one city official on the effort to increase the numbers of Chinook
salmon in the Puget Sound.
I would like to make three points today.
First: The City of Everett has been actively engaged for at least
the past 25 years in protecting and restoring habitat and
environmentally sensitive areas of the city. We will continue this
important work, both at the local level and through our participation
in the region's unprecedented efforts to increase the number of Chinook
salmon in Puget Sound.
Second: As Mayor of the City of Everett and President of the
Association of Washington Cities (AWC), I must bring to your attention
my concern that the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') listings by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') will have significant
financial impacts on local governments. Washington's cities have
limited financial resources and increasing demands from our citizens
for public safety, parks, libraries, transportation improvements, and a
wide array of other services and facilities. More specifically, I fear
this will be the largest unfunded mandate I have faced in my five-plus
years as a Mayor.
Third: As we at the local level are asked to address habitat
issues, we must be assured there will be Chinook salmon returning to
the rivers and streams of Puget Sound. Specifically, there must be
significant progress in addressing ``harvest'' issues at the State and
Federal levels. In this testimony I suggest several federal legislative
and regulatory changes. In making these comments under this third
section, I am not speaking as president of the Association of
Washington Cities.
habitat
We agree that increasing Chinook salmon populations is important.
This goal is achievable if we use common sense and there is a
coordinated federal and State effort to assure that salmon make it to
the mouths of Puget Sound rivers to utilize the enhanced habitat we at
the local level will be providing.
I am proud to say that in the City of Everett, we have taken
seriously our responsibility for environmental stewardship. We have
worked hard to provide habitat friendly to salmon. We have been in the
forefront of repairing and protecting habitat and we will continue our
efforts:
Our City utilities department has joined with the Snohomish Public
Utility District and spent millions of dollars on successful fisheries
and wildlife enhancement efforts in the Sultan River Basin;
Everett has an effective water conservation program, and a water
filtration system that is state-of-the-art;
Our City Council has adopted Environmentally Sensitive Areas
ordinances under the Growth Management Act and the City uses these
ordinances to conserve and protect natural resources;
Our planning department, with the assistance of a broad-based
citizens advisory committee, is currently developing recommended
amendments to the City's Shoreline Master Plan;
Our City led an effort, in concert with federal, state, and local
officials, to develop a plan to identify and protect critical habitat
within the Snohomish River estuary. As the result of the ESA listing,
we will be updating that plan to respond to specific species such as
Chinook salmon. We intend to use this estuary plan to update our
regulatory process and will be encouraging other nearby jurisdictions
to do the same.
Everett has a surface water management, or ``stormwater'' program,
which has been called a model by state agency officials;
Our city has spent significant dollars to treat wastewater and meet
standards under the Clean Water Act--with plans underway to do even
more.
In summary, we have worked hard to protect and enhance our natural
environment, and we will continue our efforts subject to our available
resources.
For all of the actions we have taken to date and intend to take in
the future, there is little in the way of credit, or comfort, or
recognition, by NMFS. Instead, we are told by NMFS representatives
there must be ``properly functioning conditions, everywhere, all the
time.'' Never before have local governments been burdened with doing so
much, in such an urbanized area, to sustain a species over which they
have such limited control. Which brings me to my second point--the
application of the federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to the
listings. (See Exhibit 1)
unfunded mandate
I along with many of my colleagues at the local government level
were very pleased with Congress' passage of the Unfunded Mandates Act,
which recognized and addressed the often-unintentional consequences of
federal legislation and regulations on local, tribal, and state
governments. To illustrate the range of unfunded mandates, a
comprehensive ``Unfunded Mandates List'' is attached as Exhibit 2.
We believe the following sections of the unfunded mandates
legislation apply:
1501 Purpose (2): ``to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on state, local, and
tribal governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that
may displace other essential State, local, and tribal government
priorities;''
1513 Findings (a)(1)(2) and (3): ``The Senate finds that (1) the
Congress should be concerned about shifting costs from Federal to State
and local authorities and should be equally concerned about the growing
tendency of States to shift costs to local governments; (2) cost
shifting from States to local governments has, in many instances,
forced local governments to raise property taxes or curtail sometimes
essential services; and (3) increases in local property taxes and cuts
in essential services threaten the ability of many citizens to attain
and maintain the American dream of owning a home in a safe, secure
community.''
1532 Statements (a)(2)(A) and (B) and (3)(A) and (B): ``The agency
shall prepare a written statement containing . . . (2)(a) an analysis
of the extent to which such costs to State, local, and tribal
governments may be paid with Federal financial assistance (or otherwise
paid for by the Federal Government); and (B) the extent to which there
are available Federal resources to carry out the intergovernmental
mandate; (3) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the
agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, of--
(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; and (B) any
disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal mandate upon any
particular regions of the nation or particular State, local, or tribal
governments, urban or rural or other types of communities, or
particular segments of the private sector;''
1535 Least Burdensome Option (a): ``Except as provided in
subsection (b), before promulgating any rule for which a written
statement is required under section 202 (2 USC Sec. 1532), the agency
shall identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and from those alternatives select the least costly, most
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule . . .'' (Emphasis added)
One of the potentially most expensive provisions of the ESA
authorizes ``citizen'' suits to enforce the ESA. This is a particularly
significant concern for local governments which may be sued under ESA
in challenge to city actions and city permitting or approval of
projects. Also attached as Exhibit 3 to this testimony is a copy of an
article which appeared in the Environmental Newsletter of the
Washington State Bar Association. Adding further insult to injury, the
ESA also exposes local governments to paying the opposing parties'
attorneys fees, costs and expert witness fees.
Local governments' decision making may be paralyzed by the threat
of citizen lawsuits. On the other hand, local governments who deny
project approvals or permits may be sued by property owners claiming an
``unconstitutional taking'' of their property resulting from the denial
of their application. We will be damned if we do and damned if we
don't.
We appreciate your effort to provide some federal funding for
salmon recovery. We understand the proposed funding is intended to pay
primarily for salmon recovery projects. But, how much of the federal
project dollars will be available for local government projects remains
to be seen. And, unfortunately, little funding is proposed to cover
local governments' non-project costs including process, enforcement,
staffing or litigation.
Ironically, our local dollars may be required to fund litigation,
staffing, and other actions which provide little or no benefit in our
effort to improve salmon runs. Can't we bring some common sense to the
table and develop a cost-effective salmon recovery plan that puts our
limited taxpayer dollars to work saving salmon?
Let's be clear that the financial impacts on local government under
the ESA could be unprecedented. Dollars spent by cities for salmon
restoration and other actions resulting from the ESA listings will not
be available for other critical municipal functions. This will be
particularly true if we are faced with a series of new requirements and
insufficient funding to carry them out. Compounding these ESA-related
financial obligations is the reality that the City of Everett, due to
production and employment declines being experienced by the Boeing Co.,
will be facing several years of flat or declining revenues.
In any case, whether the regulator is NMFS, another federal agency,
a court, or a state agency, local government is on the receiving end of
the ``mandate'' line. Examples of mandates include: updating shoreline
regulations; updating critical areas ordinances; meeting new
conservation requirements; adding enforcement staff; changing
wastewater practices; changing the way streets are cleaned, maintained,
and constructed; implementing millions of dollars in new stormwater
detention and retention. And on and on. To illustrate the point, I have
included a matrix, which I have shown as Exhibit 4, showing the range
of requirements placed upon local government under ESA.
``harvest'' recommendation
As I stated initially, salmon recovery requires a comprehensive and
well-coordinated effort at all levels of government--local, state,
federal and tribal. From my perspective, it appears that most of the
habitat restoration efforts are required of local government. There
does not appear to be a coordinated federal plan to assure there are
adequate levels of Chinook salmon returning to our Puget Sound rivers
and streams.
If our local efforts are to have any meaningful effects on salmon
recovery, there must be significant state and federal actions to
address what some call ``harvest'' issues. I question federal policies
that allow harvest or killing of any species that has been determined
to be ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' under ESA.
Similarly, as elected officials, we must be mindful of the limited
taxpayer dollars available to us at all levels of government, be it
local, state or federal. We can't just throw unlimited taxpayer dollars
at the problem without a thoughtful, comprehensive, coordinated and
cost-effective plan. How can such a plan be developed? Where are our
limited dollars best spent?
Consider the $3 billion or more that has been spent in the Columbia
River. Do the results achieved appear to be in proportion to the
expenditures? Are we destined to spend additional billions before we
address adequately the obvious problem of excessive mortality caused by
fishing and the reductions in fish stock caused by lack of adequate
escapement?
High levels of salmon mortality caused by fishing have
significantly reduced spawning to dangerous levels. We must see that
salmon are allowed to return to the rivers. We cannot succeed through
habitat improvements alone.
Salmon mortality from fishing is between 68 to 83 percent,
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Status Review
of Chinook Salmon, the report upon which NMFS has based its proposed
listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
I also want to call your attention to a December 31, 1998 study
entitled, ``Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Efforts and the Pacific
Salmon Treaty.'' \1\ While I am not a fish biologist and cannot pass
scientific judgment on the study, its conclusions are quite dramatic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This study can be accessed at www.deo-mpo.gc.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this study sponsored by the Canadian Government, a comparison
was made between:
1. habitat and freshwater survival rate improvement; and
2. changes in the levels of fishing mortality.
The study's purpose was to gauge the effectiveness of each in
affecting the probability of extinction. Or, said another way, what is
their relative importance in restoring salmon stocks?
The study concluded that, ``sustained reductions in ocean harvest
of endangered Pacific salmon stocks are proportionately as important,
in some cases more important, for salmon recovery than costly in-river
programs to improve habitat, productivity and survival.''
The study also concludes that, ``salmon recovery efforts to date
have concentrated almost exclusively on in-river programs. . . . A
clear implication of this study is that harvesting control, which is
orders of magnitude less costly, is as important and potentially
effective for salmon recovery.'' (emphasis added)
The study further points out that Pacific Northwest salmon are
vulnerable to fishing carried on in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries. The
study notes that fish exploitation in Canadian and Alaskan fisheries
generally exceeds the fishing along the U.S. coast from Washington to
California and concludes:
``Measures to control, on a sustained long-term basis, interception
of endangered Pacific Northwest salmon in [Canadian and Alaskan
fisheries] are critically important to the success of recovery
efforts.''
I have included as Exhibit 5 several charts from the Canadian
study. These charts suggest that a reduction of as little as 10 percent
in harvest mortality in Canadian, Alaskan and U. S. West Coast
fisheries will provide significant increases in the survival rate of
Columbia River salmon.\2\ This may well explain the failure of the
massive habitat efforts in the Columbia. The same reduction in harvest
will have even more dramatic results in the Puget Sound fisheries,
providing significantly higher survival rates than a corresponding 10
percent in habitat productivity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pacific Northwest Salmon Recovery Efforts and the Pacific
Salmon Treaty, Department of Fisheries & Oceans & Foreign Affairs
December 31, 1998.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian study--as well as the dramatic result that occurred
this year from the ad hoc agreement between the State of Washington and
the Canadian government to reduce fishing--clearly shows that the
federal government must reach agreement with Canada under the terms of
the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We have gone five years without an
agreement, which is simply not acceptable.
Other fisheries experts have reached a conclusion similar to the
aforementioned Canadian study. In August of 1998, fisheries biologists
Peter Bergman and Frank Haw in a report to President Clinton estimated
that reaching a settlement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty would only
cost the United States about $10 million annually. Reducing fishing
mortality appears to be a very cost-effective way of increasing salmon
populations. By paying for increased escapement, we could help prevent
undue burdens on fishermen. By purchasing some or all harvest rights
from fishermen, we could help to ensure adequate levels of escapement.
Closer to home, we were successful in meeting and exceeding
escapement goals in 1998 for Snohomish River Chinook, thanks largely to
the ad hoc accord between the State and the Canadian government. See
article attached as Exhibit 6. However, in the nine years prior to
1998, inadequate fisheries management resulted in the failure to meet
established escapement standards for Snohomish River Chinook. The
failure to meet escapement goals over time has had a very serious
negative impact on the size of the Chinook population in the Snohomish
River system. See chart attached as Exhibit 7.
Canada's Fisheries Minister Dave Anderson recently stated:
``Regardless of how much you spend on in-river work, it all will be
of little value unless the fish can get to the mouth of the river.''
The compelling evidence we now have of impacts caused by fisheries
from Alaska to California suggests the salmon decline must be addressed
by fundamental changes in fisheries management. These can be achieved
at a relatively low cost.
Suggestions for timely amendments to federal statutes to bolster
salmon recovery:
In Puget Sound, we have a large, extensively developed urban area.
We also have the inherent conflict that goes with ``listing'' a species
on the one hand and simultaneously ``harvesting'' it on the other.
These two factors pose significant problems for local governments. To
address this, I propose that Congress amend the Magnuson-Stevens and
Sustainable Fisheries Acts to achieve the following goals:
1. Improve Harvest Control. There is a conflict between the goals
of ESA, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Act. In
order to adequately address the conflict, NMFS must be empowered to act
quickly and directly on harvest issues. It should be freed of
cumbersome procedures imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
Sustainable Fisheries Act. It should be granted authority to establish
and raise escapement goals, limit commercial and recreational harvests,
require fishing in terminal areas only (when appropriate, only after
escapement), and even to halt all fishing until escapement and
population goals can be met. There must be adequate provisions in
federal law to give NMFS the authority to act quickly and decisively
when a species that is being harvested is also listed.
2. Prioritize Habitat Expenditures. One of our goals is to maximize
Puget Sound Chinook habitat. The NMFS approach of evenly layering
limited monetary resources throughout the Puget Sound will not achieve
the goal. An attempt to get properly functioning conditions for salmon
at all times in all places, as NMFS proposes, as a practical matter is
not likely to maximize habitat. We need to amend current law so that
fiscal resources from all levels of government can be prioritized.
Prioritize preservation of pristine habitat, then restore habitat
easily restorable, and third, restore degraded habitat in order of
importance. Reexamine requirements which cost money but have little or
no benefit in terms of restoring habitat or otherwise improving Chinook
salmon levels.
3. Phasing. Allow local governments time to phase in changes in
regulations, acquisition of habitat, restoration of habitat, and other
protective and restorative changes before they are subject to the
``take'' prohibition of ESA. Presently NMFS is being requested by local
governments to provide interim ``take'' exemptions under section 4(d)
of ESA. The need for such requests can be eliminated by a few well-
crafted amendments. This change would liberate NMFS personnel from
reviewing these requests and allow them time for other important salmon
protection and restoration activities.
4. Reexamine ESA ``Citizen'' Suit Provisions. Rescue local
governments from the threat and expense of ``citizen'' lawsuits. The
``citizen'' suit provision should be recrafted to ensure that local
governments can spend their resources on protection and restoration,
not on litigation. Exposing local governments to these litigation
expenses diverts limited local revenues from salmon recovery, or other
public purposes.
In conclusion, recognize the importance of fair and equitable
treatment of all parties impacted by the listing of Chinook salmon.
Local taxpayers' willingness to allow their precious tax dollars to be
spent on habitat protection, rather than police protection for example,
may well depend upon whether they perceive that others are paying their
fair shares of the costs, and otherwise sharing equitably the burdens
of an ESA listing.
[Clerk's note.--Due to its volume, the above mentioned
material and exhibits are being retained in subcommittee
files.]
COORDINATING EFFORT
Senator Gorton. I'm going to take the prerogative of the
chairman before we go on to our next witnesses to ask the two
of you, who are sitting together and who work very closely
together, how well the efforts of the City of Everett and
Snohomish County have been coordinated in the beginning
elements of this effort.
Mr. Drewell. Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Hansen. Yeah. I think we would both agree that
Snohomish County and the City of Everett have worked extremely
closely together on a number of issues, and I think we intend
to continue to work closely together. We also hope to work
closely with a number of others in our region, and again, at
the State and Federal levels.
Mr. Drewell. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator. It's--
as the mayor said, we work closely on all issues where we have
to share our resources, both fiscal and human. But I think
there's has been an exemplary display between Everett and
Snohomish County, and other cities in Snohomish County on this
particular effort, because we all understand the magnitude, and
the size, and the scope, and the responsibilities that we're
faced with.
But if I might take advantage of your inquiry for just a
moment, the remarkable thing that's evidenced in the Tri-County
area is that that ethic is throughout the three-county area,
and it's been a--I think a marvelous process to watch come
together with the environmental community, the business
community, and all folks that will be impacted by this. So
it's--I think we're doing some--plowing some new ground here,
if you will, in coming together in a partnership that will make
a significant difference.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Representative Buck.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM BUCK
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Senator, Congressman Dicks. Thank you
for the opportunity to meet here with you today in our home,
the other Washington. For the record, I'm State Representative
Jim Buck from the 24th Legislative District on the Olympic
Peninsula.
The people of my district know the Endangered Species Act
well as a result of the spotted owl. Indeed the district is
still dealing with the turmoil caused by the loss of the timber
industry, and I carry that experience with me every day as I
try to help my constituents deal with rural economic
development, worker retraining, and erosion of the tax base.
It became apparent 2 years ago that Washington State was
about to face its second Endangered Species Act experience.
This time, however, it would not affect just timber
communities. Listing salmon, we knew, would affect everyone in
the State.
Discussions with other legislators led to the formation of
a joint committee in 1997. The committee structure provided an
opportunity for many members of the House and Senate to learn
about the issue. The committee traveled around the State, held
hearings and took public testimony. We visited hatcheries,
dams, and restoration projects, and we began to get a first-
hand preview of what a salmon listing would mean.
What we found was that we had a choice to make. It was
obvious the Endangered Species Act was not going to be changed,
so we could either deny we had a problem, as happened during
the spotted owl listing, and let a federal judge determine the
recovery plan, or we could develop our own plan to restore our
salmon runs, hopefully with as little federal intervention as
possible, and continue to be the masters of our own destiny. We
chose the latter.
Only one issue counts for the State, and that's local
control. We must persuade federal authorities that we can
handle this problem ourselves. The federal government wants
certainty, a clear commitment to salmon restoration, something
more than promises. It's not good enough to say that we are--we
have agreement with all parties that salmon restoration is
important. We recognize the need for action, and this year
we're proposing a plan of smart recovery to address the major
areas of concern. Last year we passed the Salmon Recovery Act
of 1998 which established a framework for recovery efforts
based on the principal of putting our resources where they will
do the most good, and we're building on those efforts this
year.
Our proposal emphasizes science and restoration projects.
We don't want to create a fish bureaucracy. Fish aren't dying
due to a shortage of State employees. How much we spend matters
less than how well we spend, and our budget reflects this
priority. Out of roughly 200 million in projected funding, we
expect to dedicate almost 145 million to projects in the water
and on the ground such as stream restoration, acquisition of
riparian easements from timber companies and small timber
landowners, and improved fish passageways.
We've created a dedicated fund called the Salmon Recovery
Account to receive State and Federal funds. We've also created
a Salmon Funding Board which will review all projects to ensure
they are sound before we appropriate the money. Although the
federal dollars from last year did not go through the
scientific screening process, we believe future dollars should.
This gives us a central clearing house with a single checkbook
to ensure that the projects are based on science, built
properly, and that the money spent is accounted for properly.
Rolling out the welcome mat for salmon is a good idea, and
we've already started twenty-two projects in sixteen counties
this year. We've opened up 180 miles of stream habitat that was
inaccessible to salmon before this, and there is more to come.
We're going to need Congress' help to address other factors
that contribute to salmon decline. Salmon spend most of their
lives in the sea, and our authority ends at the three-mile
limit. Given the economic impact the listing will have on our
economy, our communities expect the federal government to show
greater interest and urgency in resolving the problems with the
Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. and Canada.
We also need Congress' help to continue studying the
impacts of marine mammals on the salmon runs. Does it sound
kooky to say seals and sea lions are eating too many fish?
Don't dismiss this factor. Just last month National Marine
Fisheries Service released the results of a federally-funded
study on the issue and concluded that seals and sea lions,
quote, ``Can harm salmon stocks and other fish that are at low
levels, including those listed or proposed to be listed under
the federal Endangered Species Act.''
We've got to address as many factors as we can, and we have
to curb our desire to lay blame. In this debate it's all too
easy to find scapegoats. Scapegoats feed our desire for easy
answers, so blame dams, and we blame commercial fishermen, or
Native Americans, or timber companies, or big cities. That's a
mistake. The fact is, no single factor is responsible for the
decline of our wild salmon. We're all responsible, and we're
all going to have to share the burden of the recovery. That's
why our legislative efforts in the last two years have made
sure that we dealt with the fish from the time they emerged
from the gravel, to the farthest reaches of the Pacific, until
they come back to spawn again. And that's why it's important
that we have a comprehensive plan, which we're working on in
the legislature, that deals with the four H's and is based on
science, and goes ahead and includes as many citizens as we can
get our hands on in this State, because they want salmon
recovery.
Thank you for an opportunity to testify today.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Representative Regala.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE REGALA
Ms. Regala. Thank you very much. I also want to thank you,
Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, for the opportunity to
testify before you today. I am Representative Debbie Regala
from the 27th District. That's the Tacoma area. And with
Representative Buck, I am co-chair of the Natural Resources
Committee in the House.
Recovery of Washington State salmonid stocks is indeed a
challenge, but a challenge that I believe the State and our
citizens are committed to undertaking. Healthy salmon runs are
a significant part of our State's heritage. I recognize that
our challenge is about much more than simply saving fish; it's
about maintaining the very important link between past
generations and generations to come. It's about living out the
stewardship ethic that my grandparents gave to me, and that I
am passing on to my granddaughter and to her children.
As I know you are very well aware, the challenge for
Washington State is multi-dimensional. We have listings in
almost every part of our State, and the geography of our State
varies greatly from forested slopes, to agricultural prairies,
to rural communities and thriving urban areas. The listed
species vary from the Chinook to the sockeye, chum, coho, to
steelhead and bull trout, so our challenge is great.
Our challenge is to develop the recovery plan for each of
those species, while at the same time ensuring the viability of
our economy, which includes timber and agriculture, and
preserving the rural, suburban, and urban diversity that we
have in our State. It's a sizable task, but like any task, it
is easier with assistance. As a State, we're committed to
submitting a credible recovery plan to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, which recognizes what the responsibilities
are that we have that we must address in the areas where we
have control.
We also believe that our success is dependent on
collaboration, cooperation, and partnerships, and so we are
asking Congress and the federal government to work with us as
partners to address some of those issues that others have
mentioned where you have control: international fishing
treaties, high-seas fishing, issues surrounding predator
control, funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries, which were
mitigation for the Columbia River dams. We need your help also
with clarity from federal agencies to ensure that we're not
receiving conflicting directions as we work with the National
Marine Fisheries on salmon recovery, with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife on recovery for bull trout, and with the Environmental
Protection Agency on Clean Water Act compliance. We need your
assistance with funding. We truly appreciate the $20 million
that was provided last year, and we anticipate at least 50
million to match dollars that we will be providing in our
budgets this year.
We recognize a credible recovery plan must contain three
important elements. First, we must demonstrate that we
understand the problem and that we have substantive strategies
for corrective action. We know we must provide funding and
personnel to implement those strategies. And third, we must
continue to monitor for results to make sure that we have made
effective adjustments where needed.
We began development of our strategies last year, as you
heard from Representative Buck, recognizing again that each of
those listed species and the areas of our State are very
different, we chose to develop recovery strategies unique to
the Evolutionary Significant Units in our State, rather than a
one-size-fits-all-type plan.
We know that our recovery effort must be based on sound
science, and so one facet of the legislation that we passed
jointly together was to develop the establishment of an
independent science panel. And as you heard, last year's
legislation began the process of reaching out to local
communities, because as legislators we know we won't be
successful without broad-based involvement and commitment by
all of our citizens.
We've been fortunate that tribal members have, for many
years, been working with many groups, and their collaboration
on the efforts to recover our salmon in our State has been
absolutely invaluable. The process that we have started to
restore degraded habitat, to preserve the best habitat, and to
provide access to quality habitat has included tribal groups,
cities, counties, environmental groups, salmon fishermen, and
citizens of all ages. This year our capital budget contains
over $33 million in State funds for grants to local entities
which will continue those efforts, and our operating budget
includes 38 million in State funds for salmon recovery, 50
percent of which is focussed on those local recovery efforts.
Our citizens and legislators have been grappling with some
very hard choices in these last few years. For the past ten
years, our State has been at a stalemate with regards to
revisions to the water code. Last year, for the first time, we
took a significant step forward with watershed planning
programs. Water and its use is still a very contentious issue,
but progress is being made. Numerous pieces of legislation
dealing with sufficient clean water for fish and people are
under consideration. The House Democratic budget proposal
includes funding for water conservation and re-use measures.
There's also funding for stream gauges and metering, as well as
pollution reduction through the Total Maximum Daily Load
Allocation Program. Of course, our budgets are still under
negotiation, and we will be working to make sure that all of
these things are funded in the end. The capital budget does
contain 8 million to purchase water rights to augment in-stream
flows, so we are trying to make progress on that all-important
component of salmon recovery that is known as water.
Our budget also contains funding for implementation of some
new forest practice rules and to increase compliance with any
existing statutes that deal with water or fisheries that will
aid in salmon recovery. We've included funding to implement
selective harvest strategies and revise hatchery practices so
our hatchery production is not in conflict with wild stock
recovery goals. Additionally, we've provided funds to buy out
commercial fishing licenses that will be matched by federal
funds that we appreciate from you. Monitoring our efforts to
determine our level of progress is a key strategy, and we have
also begun funding that process.
prepared statement
We know we still have much to do. We've come a long way in
one year. Throughout Washington, State agencies, tribal
governments, counties, cities, and citizen groups are working
together in partnership to meet the challenge before us. We
know it's a long-term effort.
We again thank you for your past support, and we request
that you also commit yourselves to being our long-term
partners. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Debbie Regala
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on this
very important issue.
Recovery of Washington State's salmonid stocks is indeed a
challenge, but a challenge we are committed to undertaking. Healthy
salmon runs are a significant part of our State's heritage.
I recognize our challenge is about much more than saving a fish, it
is about maintaining an important link between past generations and
generations to come. It's about living out the stewardship ethic my
grandparents gave to me and passing that heritage on to my
granddaughter and her children.
As I am sure you are aware, the challenge for Washington State is
multi-dimensional. We have listings in almost every part of our state.
The geography of Washington varies from forested slopes to wide
agricultural prairies, from rural communities to crowded urban cities.
The listed species vary also from chinook to sockeye, chum and coho; to
steelhead; and to bull trout.
Our challenge is to develop a recovery plan for each of these
species while at the same time ensuring the viability of our economy
including timber and agriculture and preserving our rural, suburban,
and urban diversity.
This is a sizable task but like any task, it is easier with
assistance. As a state, we are committed to submitting a credible
recovery plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service which recognizes
our responsibility to address the areas where we have control. We also
believe our success is dependent on collaboration, cooperation and
partnerships. So we ask Congress and the Federal government to work
with us as partners to address issues like international fishing
treaties and high-seas fishing, issues surrounding predator control,
funding for the Mitchell Act hatcheries which were mitigation for the
Columbia river dams. We need your help with clarity from Federal
agencies to ensure we are not receiving conflicting directions as we
work with NMFS on salmon recovery, US Fish and Wildlife on recovery for
bull trout, and EPA on Clean Water Act compliance.
We need your assistance with funding. We truly appreciate the $20
million in funding that was provided last year and we anticipate at
least $50 million to match the dollars we will be providing in our
budgets.
We recognize that a credible recovery plan must contain three
important elements. First, we must demonstrate that we understand the
problem and have substantive strategies for corrective action. Second,
we know we must provide funding and personnel to implement those
strategies and third we must continue to monitor for results and make
effective adjustments where needed.
We began development of our strategies last year. Recognizing again
that each listed species and area of our state are different, we chose
to develop recovery strategies unique to the seven Evolutionary
Significant Units rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy.
We know that our recovery plan must be based on sound science and
so one facet of the legislation that I helped to develop included
establishment of an Independent Science Panel. Last year's legislation
also began the process of reaching out to local communities. We know we
won't be successful without broad based involvement and commitment by
all of our citizens. The process for restoring degraded habitat,
preserving and providing access to quality habitat has included Tribal
governments, cities, counties, environmental groups, salmon fisherman,
and citizens of all ages. This year's Capital budget contains over $33
million in state funds for grants to local entities to continue these
efforts. Our proposal for the Operating budget includes $38 million in
state funds for salmon recovery, 50 percent of which is focused on
local recovery efforts.
Our citizens and legislators have begun grappling with some very
hard choices. For the past ten years our state has been at a stalemate
with regards to revisions to our water codes. Last year we took a
significant step forward with a Watershed Planning program. Water and
its use is still a contentious issue but progress is being made;
numerous pieces of legislation dealing with sufficient clean water for
fish and people are under consideration. The House Democratic budget
proposal includes funding for water conservation and re-use measures.
There is also funding for stream gauges and metering, as well as
pollution reduction through a Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation
program. The Capital budget contains $8 million for the purchase of
water rights to augment in-stream flows.
Our budget also contains funding for implementation of new forest
practice rules and to increase compliance with existing statutes on
water and fisheries that will aid in salmon recovery. We have included
funding to implement selective harvest strategies and to revise our
hatchery practices so hatchery production is not in conflict with wild
stock recovery goals. Additionally, we have provided funds to buy out
commercial fishing licenses that will be matched by federal funds.
Monitoring our efforts to determine our level of progress is a key
strategy and funding is provided to begin that process.
We still have much to do but we have come a long way in one year.
Throughout Washington, state agencies, Tribal governments, counties,
cities, and citizen groups are working together in partnership to meet
the challenge before us. We know this is a long-term effort. We again
thank you for your past support and we request that you also commit
yourselves to being our long-term partners.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ED THIELE
Senator Gorton. Commissioner Thiele.
Mr. Thiele. Senator Gorton and Congressman Dicks, I thank
you very much for allowing me to be here today. I feel quite
humble, being just a little county commissioner over here,
talking with all these very astute people, but I will tell it
to you as I see it as a plain old sheepherder from Okanogan
County.
Eastern Washington and the Upper Columbia River have two
endangered species, the steelhead and the spring Chinook. The
bull trout is scheduled to be relisted threatened in June. The
Upper Columbia ESU has more sensitive habitat than any other
ESU in the State. The counties in Eastern Washington have
protected our streams either through the GMA, or voluntarily by
enacting shorelines legislation, set-backs, developmental
control of sensitive areas, wildlife movement areas, and
establishing strict comprehensive plans. We've done this
through cooperation with tribes, the State, whenever we can
with federal agencies, and I think we've done a good job.
That habitat is now awaiting the return of the endangered
species to spawn. We don't know how many fish we can adequately
handle, but we are working at every level that we possibly can
to get this done. The local governments do know that we can
make many, many improvements to various habitats to allow for
more protection and higher smolt return to the ocean, but this
is going to cost money. And it's been said here today that we
should receive our money from the BPA, which I will give a
readout, and later on in my presentation, as to how that money
is split up.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, which Congress has
put in charge of the salmon recovery, has not provided any
plans or policies as to how the recovery should be
accomplished. In order for me as a county commissioner, we
should know how our small portion of the Recovery Act should
fit into the larger picture. They are afraid of third-party
lawsuits which challenge their plans as being inadequate, so
they have chosen not to pursue a plan as larger umbrella, but
to put that responsibility on other agencies.
Mr. Ruckelshaus brought it up real strongly that somewhere
we have to have somebody, or a plan, or--what do you call it--a
czar, or a dictator, or whoever, that will work progressively
with the people who are out there trying to do this recovery,
that we're not taking a shotgun approach, that we can, as you
would with a large rifle, bring it into the target and work
very explicitly on the problems in our areas. We can handle
those, but we've got to know how it's going to fit into the big
picture, and how that problem also is going to be funded.
Of the federal funds projected for the year 2000 available
in 1999, the governor's salmon recovery team has told Eastern
Washington ESUs that all of the $25 million that you are
providing are scheduled for Western Washington. As per this
agreement with the administration, they tell us to seek funds
from the BPA for our needs, and enclosed is a breakdown of how
the monies of the BPA are funded. There's $461 million of total
funds. 112 million of this goes for work on the mainstream dam
projects, and $180,000 [sic] they pay themselves back for water
spilled in order to cover the fish. $42 million of this is to
cover encumbered agreements which they've already made. That
leaves 127 million for direct costs for fish and wildlife.
Of this direct cost for fish and wildlife, $8 million--goes
to the administration only of the fish and wildlife, $6 million
goes to the Northwest Power Planning Council to oversee them,
$1 million goes to your amendment, Senator Gorton, which is the
IR--or ISRP, which is a good idea; you've got people of science
overlooking these projects, and I applaud you for it. There's
$25 million dedicated to ESA. That leaves $87 million. That's
divided up, 70 percent to anadromous, 15 percent to
residential, and 15 percent to wildlife.
Last year there was $13 million dedicated in the State of
Washington: $9 million of that was pre-designated for the
Yakima Basin and the Southwest ESU, leaving $4 million for the
remainder of the State of Washington. Of these funds, the Upper
Columbia reaches received $200,000 for work on the Salmon Creek
by the Colville Confederated Tribes, a very good project that
will open up 26 miles of excellent habitat. The tribe and
several other entities have made application for funds, and the
science panel has strongly approved them, only to be turned
down by the political panel later.
The needs of eastern Washington are:
A dedicated funding source of adequate dollars to do the
protection and restoration projects needed to restore the runs;
this should be in the neighborhood of $4 to $5 million;
Request that NMFS or somebody publish a plan of goals,
needs, priorities, actions, and areas of concern for other
governors to follow; the government has spent $3 billion on the
Columbia now to fix the problem, with no appreciable gain;
Extend the federal NEXUS on Forest Service and BLM lands to
allow the irrigation ditches to operate this year. Fourteen
irrigation districts in the Methow Valley may not be able to
get water this year because of biological assessments not being
done. The Forest Service has not been told by the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the need until January 1999. I have
provided a letter in my packet to you for that.
prepared statement
It's taken 100 years to get in this mess; another year will
not affect anything. We need to address the other three Hs of
harvest, hydro, and hatcheries, not just the spawning areas of
habitat.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Thiele
Fact
1. Eastern Washington and the Upper Columbia River have two
endangered species, the Steelhead and Spring Chinook. The Bull Trout
are scheduled to be relisted from threatened to endangered in June
1999.
2. The Upper Columbia ESU ``Evolutionarily Sensitive Unit'' has
more sensitive habitat than any other ESU in the state.
3. The Counties in Eastern Washington have protected our streams
either through GMA ``Growth Management Amendment'', or voluntarily by
enacting shorelines legislation, set backs, development control of
sensitive areas, wildlife movement areas, and establishing strict
comprehensive plans.
4. The habitat in Eastern Washington is anxiously awaiting the
return of the endangered species to spawn. We don't know how many fish
we can adequately handle. The local governments do know that we can
make many improvements to various habitats to allow for more protection
and higher smolt to return to the ocean, but this will cost money.
5. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which congress has
put in charge of salmonid recovery, has not provided any plans or
policies as to how the recovery should be accomplished. All they talk
about is ``you come up with a plan and if it looks good we will approve
it''. They are afraid of third party lawsuits that would challenge
their plans as being inadequate so they have chosen not to pursue a
plan, but to put that responsibility on other agencies. All NMFS is
working on now is enforcement strategies.
6. Of the federal funds projected for the year 2000 available in
1999, the Governor's Salmon Recovery Team has told the Eastern
Washington ESU's that all 25 million dollars of these funds are
scheduled for Western Washington. As per the agreement with the
administration, they tell us to seek funds from the BPA for our needs,
enclosed is the breakdown of BRA funding for 1999.
needs of eastern washington
1. A dedicated funding source of adequate dollars to do the
protection and restoration project needed to restore the runs. (4 to 5
million dollars annually).
2. Require NMFS to publish a plan with goals, needs, priorities,
actions, and areas of concern for other governments to follow. The
Government has spent 3 billion dollars to fix the problem with no
appreciable gain so far.
3. Extend the Federal NEXUS on Forest Service and BLM lands to
allow the many small irrigation ditches to operate this year. 14
ditches in the Methow Valley may not be able to get water this year
because of Biological Assessments not being completed by the Forest
Service. The Forest Service had not been told by NMFS of this need
until January 1999. It has taken 100 years to get into this mess
another year will not affect it in any way.
4. We need to address the other 3 H's, of harvest, hydra, and
hatcheries, not just the spawning areas of habitat.
Thank you.
BPA Budget
Total Funds............................................. $461,000,000
For work on the Main Stem Dam Projects.................. -112,000,000
To pay themselves back for water spilled................ -180,000,000
To cover encumbered agreements.......................... -42,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
For direct costs, Fish and Wildlife..................... 127,000,000
Direct Fish and Wildlife Budget $127,000,000
$127,000,000
To Fish and Wildlife Administration..................... -8,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
119,000,000
Northwest Power Planning Council Administration......... -6,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
113,000,000
Sen. Gorton Amendment ISRP.............................. -1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
112,000,000
Dedicated to ESA........................................ -25,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
To be divided up as follows:............................ 87,000,000
70 percent to anadromous fish
15 percent to residential fish
15 percent wildlife
Of these percentages the State of Washington last year
received a total of................................. $13,000,000
Pre-designated for the Yakima Basin and SW ESU.......... -9,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Remains for the rest of Washington State................ 4,000,000
Of these funds the Upper Columbia received $200,000 for
work on Salmon Creek by the Colville Confederated Tribes, a
very good project that will put fish back up 26 miles of
excellent habitat.
The Tribe and several other entities have made application
for funding that the science panel has strongly approved, only
for the political panel to turn it down.
Preliminary estimate of salmon recovery costs for the Methow River
basin--
November 1998
Instream flow measurement devices....................... $100,000
Off-channel wetland restoration/enhancement for rearing/
food chain.......................................... 2,000,000
Conversion of irrigation canals to wells................ 3,000,000
Easements, shoreline protection......................... 6,000,000
Culverts, other blockages............................... 1,200,000
Road improvement, sediment control...................... 1,400,000
Instream storage........................................ 4,000,000
Fluvial Geomorphological studies........................ 100,000
Groundwater/surface water interaction studies........... 100,000
Stream channel modifications to enhance fish passage/
migration........................................... 800,000
Trust water right program designed to put water back
instream for minimum flows.......................... 500,000
Technical assistance from consultants, universities..... 800,000
Funding of Okanogan County staff for coordination,
project implementation per year..................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 20,250,000
Preliminary estimate of salmon recovery costs for the Okanogan River
basin--November 1998
Instream flow measurement devices....................... $100,000
Off-channel wetland restoration/enhancement for rearing/
food chain.......................................... 2,000,000
Conversion of irrigation canals to wells................ 1,000,000
Easements, shoreline protection......................... 3,000,000
Culverts, other blockages............................... 1,200,000
Road improvement, sediment control...................... 1,400,000
Okanogan instream flow studies.......................... 300,000
Fluvial Geomorphological studies........................ 100,000
Groundwater/surface water interaction studies........... 100,000
Stream channel modifications to enhance fish passage/
migration........................................... 800,000
Trust water right program designed to put water back
instream for minimum flows.......................... 500,000
Technical assistance from consultants, universities..... 800,000
Funding of Okanogan County staff for coordination,
project implementation per year..................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 11,550,000
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LOUISE MILLER
Senator Gorton. Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Thank you. First I want to compliment both
Senator Slade Gorton and Congressman Norm Dicks on the
leadership they've already provided.
And as spoken before, the $20 million is going to come to
on-the-ground projects.
To save the salmon, we really need three things: good
science, involved citizens, and committed leaders. One piece of
that leadership is the partnership between federal, State,
tribal, and local officials. The importance of federal dollars
dedicated to projects on the ground that save salmon cannot be
overemphasized.
I want to briefly explain the two maps that we've provided
for you. The first--the term WRIA on the first map refers to
the six water resource inventory areas in the Puget Sound Tri-
County region.
Each WRIA has its own steering committee and a science/
technical group. Membership on the steering committees includes
tribes, citizens, environmental and business representatives,
as well as local elected officials. These WRIA committees
developed the early action plan for fish recovery, and will
spend the next twelve to eighteen months on long-range
conservation plans that we hope NMFS definitely will consider
as a big step toward addressing this issue.
As you've noticed from the map, we are addressing these
issues from the viewpoint of nature and the fish, not by using
rigid political boundaries.
The second map, and we have a large version of that map,
will help illustrate the approach that King County has been
using. I believe it demonstrates a model for how to keep an
urban waterway healthy for fish.
You will notice that there is a boundary all around this
map, and that is basically what we call the Bear Creek Basin.
Then we also show on this map where the urban/rural lines are,
which indicates cities and urban areas under the States' Growth
Management Act. And then you will begin to see greens and
yellows and blues and all of those colors that begin to fill in
what I call the corridors of the important waterways in Bear
Creek.
Over five years ago, the King County Council established a
pilot program that we called Waterways 2000. The map is of the
Bear Creek Basin, one of the stream systems in the Cedar/
Sammamish WRIA number 8. You'll notice that's a multi-
jurisdictional WRIA, and it includes both Snohomish and King
Counties. It's located in the heart of my council district,
District 3.
Bear Creek is considered to be the most productive stream
for its size in the lower forty-eight. It still has wild
populations of six salmon species, including Chinook, and also
has fresh-water mussels, which are an indicator of a stream's
health.
Waterways 2000 set aside $15 million. It then--first
established a science panel that evaluated all seventy stream
reaches in King County. They identified seventeen as top
priorities. A citizens panel then picked seven of the highest
priorities for salmon habitat, still properly functioning but
most at risk. We have now spent $21 million in those seven
stream reaches.
Bear Creek was a model for using scientists, citizens, and
targeted dollars, along with volunteer stewardship such as
water-tenders, adopt-a-park, and revegetation citizen work
groups. The Bear Creek system has thirty-one miles of streams,
with one quarter of it in urban areas. We eventually spent $4.3
million for targeted investments on Bear Creek, but added
another $7 to each $1 invested through incentive programs,
stewardship, and support from the people in our community.
We purchased 400 acres of streamside buffers, 80 acres of
conservation easements, and used tax incentive programs such as
Forest and Agriculture Current Use Taxation and the Public
Benefit Rating System to preserve another 865 acres in this
Bear Creek Basin alone.
prepared statement
The people of King County are committed to saving fish. In
the past thirty years, by voting for both Forward Thrust,
farmland and open space bond issues, the people of King County
have invested $274 million in watersheds, acquiring over 29,000
of open space--that's 29,000 acres of open space and farmlands,
and have conserved and restored miles of stream reaches. We
know what works: good science, courageous leadership, and
committed citizens who provide their own resources, whether it
be money or long-term stewardship. The fish need properly
functioning systems with enough clean, cool water. With the
help from Congress of additional resources, I know we can
continue to experience the return of the salmon to their birth
streams.
Senator Gorton. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louise Miller
To save the salmon, we need three things--good science, involved
citizens and committed leaders. One piece of that leadership is the
partnership between federal, state, tribal and local officials. The
importance of federal dollars dedicated to projects on the ground that
save salmon can't be over-emphasized.
I want to briefly explain the two maps provided. The term WRIA on
the first map refers to the 6 Water Resource Inventory Areas in the
Central Puget Sound Tri-County Region.
Each WRIA has its own steering committee and science/technical
group. Membership on the steering committees includes tribes, citizens,
environmental and business representatives, as well as local elected
officials. These WRIA committees developed the early action plan for
fish recovery and will spend the next 12 to 18 months on the long-range
conservation plans. As you notice from the map, we are addressing these
issues from the viewpoint of nature and the fish--not by using rigid
political boundaries.
The second map will help illustrate the approach King County has
been using--I believe it demonstrates a model for how you keep an urban
waterway healthy for fish.
Over 5 years ago, the King County council established a pilot
program we called WaterWays 2000. The map is of the Bear Creek Basin,
on of the stream systems in the Cedar-Sammamish WRIA No. 8 which is
located in the heart of my council district, district 3. Bear Creek is
considered to be the most productive stream for its size in the lower
48. It still has wild populations of 6 salmon species, including
Chinook, and also has fresh water mussels, which are an indicator of
stream health.
WaterWays 2000 set aside $15 million, established a science panel
that evaluated all 70 stream reaches in King County, and identified 17
as top priorities. A citizen's panel then picked 7 as the highest
priority for salmon habitat still properly functioning, but most at
risk. We've now spent $21 million in those 7.
Bear Creek was a model for using scientists, citizens and targeted
dollars along with volunteer stewardship, such as Water Tenders, adopt
a park and revegetation citizens work groups. The Bear Creek system has
31 miles of streams with one-fourth in urban area. We eventually spent
$4.3 million for targeted investments, but added another $7 to each $1
invested through incentive programs, stewardship and support from the
people in our community.
We purchased 400 acres of streamside buffers, 80 acres of
conservation easements and used tax incentive programs, such as, Forest
and Agriculture Current Use Taxation and the Public Benefit Rate System
to preserve another 865 acres.
The people of King County are committed to saving fish--in the last
30 years by voting for Forward Thrust, farmland and open space bond
issues the people have invested $274 million in watersheds, acquired
over 29,000 acres of open space and farmlands and have conserved and
restored miles of stream reaches.
We know what works--good science, courageous leadership and
committed citizens who provide their own resources, whether it be money
or long term stewardship. The fish need ``properly functioning
systems'' with enough clean, cool water. With the help from Congress of
additional resources, I know we can continue to experience the return
of the salmon to their birth streams.
watershed level resource protection king county waterways 2000
Outcome
On the ground resource protection that works because of: (1) A
rigorous scientific process; (2) Interjurisdictional cooperation; (3)
Citizens invested in their role as stewards of a valuable salmon
resource; (4) Effective and flexible funding options through public/
private partnerships.
1. Rigorous scientific process: Scientists identify high-quality
habitat for salmon; and scientists identify opportunities for
interpretive sites and passive recreation which are compatible with
resource protection.
2. Partnerships between cities and the county.
3. Community partnerships:
--Educate the community about resources and resource protection.
--Work with individual property owners along waterways on resource
stewardship.
--Employ basin stewards to provide basin-wide community outreach.
--Support community stewardship groups: Adopt a Park; and Water
Tenders.
--Create broad-based citizen-involvement opportunities such as stream
corridor clean-ups and native plant revegetation.
--Schools groups and scout troops; and
--Volunteer programs.
4. Resource protection through public/private partnerships.
--Identify critical habitat for protection and restoration.
--Structure Public/Private Partnerships to leverage public dollars.
--Conservation Easements.
--Tax incentive programs (PBRS and Forest Use Taxation).
--Open space acquisition.
NATURAL LANDS ACQUISITION IN KING COUNTY SINCE 1970
[March 1, 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Programs -------------------------------------
Acres acquired Funds expended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countywide:
Riparian...................... 9,414 $123,002,445
Watershed..................... 19,849 150,996,657
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 29,263 273,999,102
=====================================
King County:
Riparian...................... 7,660 71,665,774
Watershed..................... 18,882 91,104,002
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 26,452 162,769,776
=====================================
Cities:
Riparian...................... 1,753 51,336,671
Watershed..................... 967 59,892,655
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,271 111,229,326
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACQUISITIONS IN KING COUNTY BY WATERSHED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Watershed -------------------------------
Acres acquired Funds expended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar/Lk Washington:
Riparian............................ 4,548 $60,849,016
Watershed........................... 2,618 77,259,587
-------------------------------
Total............................. 7,166 138,108,603
===============================
Green River:
Riparian............................ 2,117 20,768,136
Watershed........................... 5,506 33,388,601
-------------------------------
Total............................. 7,623 54,156,737
===============================
Puget Sound:
Riparian............................ 913 27,055,848
Watershed........................... 880 10,647,990
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,793 37,703,838
===============================
Snoqualmie:
Riparian............................ 1,836 14,329,445
Watershed........................... 8,943 22,468,450
-------------------------------
Total............................. 10,779 36,797,895
===============================
White:
Riparian............................ .............. ..............
Watershed........................... 1,902 7,232,029
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,902 7,232,029
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Return of the Kings Executive Summary, submitted to National
Marine Fisheries Service by the King County Endangered Species Act
Policy Office, March 16, 1999.
HOW MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT
Senator Gorton. I think I'll work down the line from Ed
Hansen. If we, Congressman Dicks and I and our colleagues,
could come up with $20 million or $200 million for salmon, for
salmon recovery, how should the determination be made on where
and how that money is spent? Should we say that a certain
portion of it should go past the State to local communities,
and perhaps local communities to the private organizations that
have testified here previously? Or should we leave that
determination to the State legislature and whatever
coordinating body it has set up for these programs? Or
alternatively, should we earmark anything for particular kinds
of programs, whatever unit of government or people are in
charge of them, or should we leave that entirely to decision
that are made here, either at the State or the local level?
Would each of you comment on your recommendations on that, if
you'd like?
Mr. Hansen. Your question, I think, raises several issues.
And I might also comment a bit on a couple of the points made
earlier this morning.
For example, Mr. Ruckelshaus mentioned the need for
coordination and also a table. It seems to me before we start
spending money, limited--what I think is limited money, even
though $20 million sounds like a lot of money, we really need
to come up with a plan. And I didn't get a chance to discuss
that in my oral testimony, but in my written testimony I did
mention in a couple of different times the need for better
coordination and also the need to come up with a plan. It seems
to me that until we come up with a plan, we may not be
spending, again what I think are limited dollars, most wisely.
So not to discourage Congress from providing additional
funding, but it seems like concurrently we ought to really be
coming up with a plan to decide where are the best places to
spend this money. And how we get there, I'm not sure. Maybe
it's through the type of process that Mr. Ruckelshaus
suggested, where we do, in fact, you know, get a very large
table. And whether we go into Congressman Dicks' comments,
whether it's two people or who exactly are coordinating and
convening this, but if we had--have a large enough table and
folks can talk through what are the kinds of projects and where
are the best ways to spend the money, I think we'll make better
decisions. I guess I've rambled a bit.
I'm not sure your question is easy to answer with a Yes or
No answer. But it just seems to me, as a local elected
official, I'd first like to have a plan: how am I going to
spend the money? If I'm asking the taxpayers to spend their
precious taxpayer dollars, I'd better have a plan in mind. I'd
better be able to tell them ``Here's how we're going to spend
the money; here are the good things we're going to do with that
money.'' And so it seems like part of this process, we almost
need to say, ``Time out.''
Mr. Dicks. Aren't you developing in your tri-county effort
just that plan with NMFS?
Mr. Hansen. But that plan only deals with one piece of the
things which need to be done. And I don't know what all needs
to be done at the federal level. There's been some discussion.
I think we need to be looking at a comprehensive plan.
Certainly at the local level there are many projects in each
jurisdiction that will--I think you'll quickly find that $20
million for local projects will not begin to cover the very, I
think, commendable and worthwhile local project that are going
to be presented.
We also need to figure out a way to prioritize which of
these various projects may provide the most bang for the buck.
We need to look at----
Senator Gorton. It seems to me that's what we--it seems to
me that's what Louise Miller was just talking about.
Mr. Hansen. Yeah. So we need--there's a number of different
things here, and I think we need to be talking about
prioritization as well, and what's the best way to prioritize,
where are the best ways to spend whatever limited Federal,
State, and local dollars.
Mr. Drewell. Senator, thank you. Thank you for that
inquiry.
And congressman, there might be a tad bit of confusion as
to how we best can respond to this. For the $20 million that
we've chatted about earlier, and I'm sure has been spent a
number of times already today----
Senator Gorton. You got that right.
Mr. Drewell. Yeah. The tri-county effort, and you should
have in the packet that I shared with you--we have established
a committee from representation across the tri-county area that
has a matrix, has a decision matrix and a criteria matrix for
projects that will be funded. And in fact, we are in the
process of doing that right now.
As to future dollars, I would agree totally with Mayor
Hansen and others that there probably has to be a coming
together at the table to see how those allocations will be
made.
The caution, though, that I would provide is that any
encounter that I have had with citizens groups is that there is
a very strong expectation that we move and we move
expeditiously--not foolishly, but that we take these funds and
get them into the ground while they can still make a
difference. I'm sure that Louise Miller will want to comment
about--we're getting close to the season now when we can get in
the streams, but shortly thereafter we're not going to be able
to. So I think we need to be responsive with this first
allocation of resources. We do have a decision matrix; those
priorities are being established.
As to who ought to make those decisions, I guess I would
again say that this a ground-up or water-up effort. The work
that is being done in the WRIAs where everyone comes together
to make those types of decisions--this is a problem that is
close to the people, and those folks who are closest to those
geographical areas, I believe, are the most prepared to respond
to it.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, senator. I'd prefer that--and I think
that at least my colleagues on the Republican side of the House
would prefer that we have the appropriation as a lump sum to
the State or as a block grant to the State.
The law that we passed last year specifically requires that
each WRIA in the State that has a salmon listing prepare a
prioritized list. It's a--requires that a grassroots
organization be created. The prioritized list is a result of a
scientific survey of the limiting factors within each of--
within that particular WRIA. The citizens group then gets
together and prioritizes how they think those particular
projects should happen. And they're required to place them into
a scheduling--construction scheduling technique called
critical-path scheduling.
We are also in the process right now of making sure that we
have the accountability that I think you and Congressman Dicks
have asked for, by having the single checkbook approach that I
spoke of earlier. The projects from each WRIA are forwarded to
what's called an interagency review team or a board. At
present, Representative Regala and I have sponsored a bill, or
she sponsored the bill, and we came to an agreement that that
board consist of six agencies that goes ahead and takes a look
at what the priorities are across the entire State, so that we
can have a Statewide response.
This is a Statewide issue, and we're concerned that if we
end up fragmenting the funding or fragmenting the effort, we
not only lose the ability to keep the information on a
schedule--and once that happens we begin to lose the ability to
relate the projects so they logically fit together for
accomplishing the goal for the entire streamshed or watershed,
as we saw with what Louise was talking about.
Mr. Dicks. Jim, is this where the scientific input is
supposed to occur?
Mr. Buck. No; the scientific input occurs at the WRIA level
as the technical assistance group goes out and does the
limiting factors analysis. They then sit in as the projects are
put together. And of course, you can't do a project without
going through the conservation commissioner or the Department
of Fish and Wildlife. And you have to have a hydraulics permit,
so the science is fairly built into that. Now, if we're going
to influence different science, then we're going to have to
influence those two agencies. And technically, what we'd like
to see is--from my engineering background, is a standard
specification, similar to what we have for highways, that would
tell these outfits, you know, given the particular stream
condition or whatever you have, this is what we think ought to
be done. And of course, then it's reviewed by the people from
the Conservation Commission or the Department of Fish and
Wildlife. And if Ecology or one of the other agencies needs to
get involved, they do, too.
Now, Representative Regala last year wisely placed a
scientific review panel, independent science review panel that
looks over the science from basically the ESU level. We wanted
to create this as a stream-by-stream input that went to each
WRIA. After you got the WRIA plan together, then you could
combine the different WRIAs that were in an evolutionarily
significant unit, into a recovery plan for the whole unit. And
I'm really concerned that if we begin to fragment this out, you
will not have a credible recovery plan that will be capable of
being rolled up to a unit.
Ms. Regala. Let me address your question. I do believe that
it would be beneficial for us to have more in the line of a
block grant. It's our responsibility to coordinate our efforts.
I think we have to go back to what I was talking about
earlier, that each species in each area is very, very
different. And so if we base this on--ensuring recovery means
we have to look at what the limiting factors are in each area.
Then in each area of the State exactly how we start or what the
priorities are may be a little different.
In some areas, for example in Representative Buck's area--
Buck's area, we probably have a number of streams who have
good-quality habitat; one of the problems is, they need to be
able to access that, that habitat. In other areas of our State
the issue is water and how much water is there in a stream, or
do we have flooding conditions at one point of the year and
too-dry a stream at the other point part of the year. Then I
believe that what we need to do is focus on solving those
problems with regards to the hydrograph of our streams. That's
where we need to start, rather than restore--repairing an area,
restoration. And in other areas, certainly, preservation of
good-quality habitat is another thing.
So it's going to be our responsibility to look at those
limiting factors, make determinations as to what's the first
priority in each ESU, and then fund those efforts. And if you
send us money with lots of strings tied to it, it makes it much
more difficult to do that.
On the other hand, your dollars that you send down to help
us buy out fishing licenses, that's fine. And I heard an
earlier panel talking about the Mitchell Act hatcheries. I do
believe they need to be funded, but we also want to make sure
that they are funded in a way that makes them usable under ESA,
so that we're not impacting wild stock. So that's another area
where there could be some dedicated kind of funding.
Mr. Thiele. Thank you. I feel that any funds that come down
should go to the State, and continue some sort of an equitable,
honest appraisal of those funds by the ESUs--not to say that
each one of those ESUs should have equal funding, but there
should be a small amount of money for each ESU to continue work
in their area. As the plan that we have here, we have gone
through tech committees and everything else. We, the three
counties in the Upper Columbia ESU, sat down and prioritized
our funds. We tried to keep it in a third/third basis, but one
of the counties does not have as many fish projects as the
others have. So we worked within our own region to disburse
these funds. Everybody's happy there with it. But we feel that
there should be some equitable distribution of those funds to
all the ESUs.
Ms. Miller. I believe that we have a little bit of a
disconnect in terms of the bureaucratic ability to actually get
the money on the ground in a timely manner. We have the money
at the State now for this year's projects. The problem is, if
you're--if you're somebody that's going to work in the streams
to do those projects that were identified in the Federal
Register, you have to be getting your permits and starting your
work now. Your window is maybe four months, maximum.
Nobody's seen the dollars yet, so everybody is out
investing their own dollars, hoping that when the Office of
Financial Management figures out how to actually get their
checklist in place, that the money will backfill. And of
course, as you probably understand, it's some of the areas that
have more resources within their budgets that are able to front
for the projects that are happening. So that's one problem.
It's not necessarily a problem of getting to the State, it's
how do we expeditiously get it out there on the ground to do
the projects.
I definitely agree with a Statewide science panel, which is
what I think the two legislators were talking about. But it's
not there yet. We've been talking about this for months and
suggesting that it shouldn't just be State scientists, but we
should have academic people, tribal--and we have some excellent
local biologists and scientists that have been working in their
watersheds for years and years.
Mr. Dicks. Who appoints this science panel?
Ms. Miller. You'll have to ask the legislature whether they
have a process for doing that. We've been recommending it to
the Governor's Salmon Team. I've been recommending it for seven
months now, that I feel we do need to have a Statewide
screening that takes a look at everybody's--each WRIA or each
ESU, if they want to put it together, all their projects, and
makes that scientific judgment first.
Then I believe you need to have interaction with some sort
of a larger group. And I think the government council that's
been appointed that includes cities, counties, tribes, State
legislators, and both federal and State governmental people, is
the second place it could go to. That way you'll get input from
all the interested stakeholders. They could be the final
deciders, sort of prioritize the funds that are available, and
then it could be distributed.
I think that in some areas we already have done the early
action plan. We're negotiating it with NMFS right now; in tri-
counties that is true. I think each one of the counties and
many of the cities within the tri-counties have their own
individual plans as sort of a fallback, if they have to, to
negotiate individually. But what we heard from NMFS was ``We
don't want to look at all these plans individually; we need to
get to larger units that we can look at--and by the way, would
you loan us some people to help us?'' So we are loaning them
people. We are now being asked to loan them two biological
experts to do section 7 consultations, and we are going to do
that.
So I think that what we're talking about and what
Representative Buck is talking about with the WRIAs is, some of
us have already done the early action work, and now the next
job is what I said: the twelve to eighteen months that it takes
those WRIAs from the ground up to develop the long-range plans.
Then that's what can feed into the Statewide science panel, and
that can feed into a broadbased stakeholders group, maybe
appointed by the governor--the one we have now is appointed by
the governor--and then the distribution that happens after
that.
Senator Gorton. Go ahead.
Mr. Dicks. I want to compliment this panel particularly,
because I know everybody has been deeply committed to this
issue, and Representative Buck and Representative Regala in the
legislature, and all of you at the local level have done a
tremendous job. And I think the tri-county effort has provided
real leadership and momentum in recognizing the difficulty of
this problem.
There's been some concern however. I've noted in the press,
about whether the State legislature will come up with the
funding that's necessary to match the federal funds, assuming
we can get them appropriated. We have some of the same problems
you have. We have budgetary caps and you've got 601--neither
make our lives easy in terms of actually fulfilling our
commitments. But what do you think about the State funds? I
know you two have been leaders; you've done a great job. How
does it look down there?
Ms. Regala. Well, Congressman Dicks, you touched on one of
the challenges, the other challenges that we have this year
with our budgeting process, and that is 601. You know, we have,
besides salmon recovery to deal with, we have teachers who feel
they need an adequate salary. We have counties that would like
us to help them with a number of the mandates they feel we've
given them. We have education to deal with. There are many,
many issues.
Salmon is very high on the list with regard to the things
that we are continually talking to our colleagues about that
need--needs adequate funding. We are still in the budget
negotiating process. You know, we have this very unique
situation going on in the House this year.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Ms. Miller. And we have two House budgets at the moment,
and so we are working on that and trying to come to some
agreement. And then that means that we also have to work with
the Senate. We're continuing to push forward in emphasizing how
important it is that there is funding in our budget to do the
kinds of things that we need to do as a first step, and
especially in order to show our partnership with you as you
continue to send funding to us.
Mr. Buck. I have to agree with Representative Regala, and I
have to compliment her today because we have complemented each
other's testimony very well, as far as giving you, you know, an
overall view of what things have been going on in Olympia.
But I do think that we need to keep your question in
context, congressman. If this is the last legislative session--
or this is not the last legislative session that will ever be,
and if it is, it won't matter. [Laughter.]
But you know--you know, I think that when you realize the
immense job that we have ahead of us, the little bit of dollars
that we're talking about, whether we're going to get or not get
this year, will never be noticed in what's going on; it's
basically budget dust.
I think that if you take a look at the animal that we're
dealing with right now, if we do--if we go out to Bear Creek
with Louise and we do every single thing that we can do right
this summer, that Bear Creek needs, we won't know if we've been
successful for four years. And the way that--until the fish
come back.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Mr. Buck. The way that our laws are written right now, for
us to have a run that's out of trouble as far as salmon and
steelhead trout inventory is concerned, we have to have three
consecutive improving returns. So that means we're looking at a
minimum of seven years here. My guess is that the overall work
that we're going to have to do is in the twelve-to forty-year
range, just because of the nature of the animal we're dealing
with.
So when we're talking about this, it becomes an issue of
cash flow, and an issue of how good we do with opening the
habitat that has to be opened right away, that will give
breeding stock a good place to go, or preserving the places
that--you know, that are still good. So I think that we can
assure you that, yeah, we're going to do a good job down there
in the legislature, and the money will be there for a match.
But I think I'd be really remiss if I didn't remind everybody
in the room that this is a long-term commitment, and it won't
be the last time we'll be asking you for money on this.
Mr. Dicks. Well, we recognize that this is going to be a
multi-year effort. We clearly understand that at our level, and
we know you do too. And there's always concern, ``Can we
deliver?'' We recognize the difficulties you're operating
under, we have the same problems in Washington.
Mr. Drewell. I don't disagree at all with what the two
representatives have said, for the most part. But dust settles,
and----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. How about smoke, too?
Mr. Drewell. But at the local government level--and NMFS
has every--I think has every legitimate reason to ask us to
display some degree of certainty as we go forward in these 4(d)
negotiations, for us to be able to go forward with a sense of
confidence and predictability. As we partnered up locally,
we're still waiting for a managing partner, and that's the
State. We need you folks to move those dollars along. And I'm
not saying anything you haven't said yourself. But for us to be
as forthright as possible and to be as responsive, we need to
have those dollars brought forward in a predictable fashion.
Senator Gorton. None of you even commented on one element
of my question, and that is where these private non-profit
volunteer groups fit into the structure of what you're talking
about.
All right, Louise; you put your arm up first.
Ms. Miller. I did, because it's been a very important part
of how you got to the Waterways 2000 program and how you got to
some acres along Bear Creek that are already preserved, that
are keeping it healthy for the fish that come back. Two years
ago, maybe it's two and a half years ago now, when the sockeye
came back, we had 65,000 sockeye come back in the stream
system.
Senator Gorton. Fantastic.
Ms. Miller. I mean, this is unbelievable. I've got pictures
this year of the biggest, hugest Chinook pairs I've ever seen,
who came up Bear Creek and then made a huge left-hand turn at
Cottage Creek, which is a creek so small in the system that
even me, with my short legs, can jump over it. And they spawned
in that creek. Why did they spawn in that creek? Because the
water was cooler in that creek. It was clean, it was healthy--
there were mussels there. But the water was cooler. It was a
hot fall and a hot summer.
I think that if we didn't have all of those citizens out
there that got all involved in looking at what was going on on
their land, having education programs, going out and pulling
out nasty stuff and putting in good stuff, actually working to
restore stream banks, that you don't have your long-term
stewardship. And if you don't have that long-term stewardship
with somebody looking right at their piece of land and saying,
``I'm willing to go into a conservation easement here to keep
the stream corridor healthy,'' then you don't have somebody
that sees ``Oh, we need to spend some money on this, and I'm
willing to invest in a Waterways 2000.'' I think the State is
saying the same thing. That's why Jim Buck and Debbie, they
developed this WRIA process, because that's where you start
from the bottom up and you bring the citizens in. And believe
me, they can tell you a lot more about that stream than your
own biologists would know till they go out there. So if you
don't have those groups working every day, going out and
measuring the water, taking the--I mean, you know, people are
doing this every day as volunteers. And that's where you get
that multiplication factor of the real investment in the
present health and the future health of the system, and really
getting back harvestable levels.
Mr. Dicks. Senator Gorton and I have helped fund at the
federal level--$750,000 for salmon enhancement groups. That
doesn't sound like a lot of money, but it really makes a
difference. Hood Canal had serious problems, and because of
where they're located and----
[Laughter.]
Well, we had to have a demonstration project, and they did
not let us down. We don't have all the money like King County
does, either. You are very fortunate. All those great
taxpayers.
Ms. Regala. They are.
Mr. Dicks. And they really are committed.
Ms. Regala. They are committed, and they've demonstrated it
by agreeing to tax themselves and agreeing to--by the way, some
of the people that have given conservation easements and got in
the public benefit rating, you need to know it's really not a
big gain for them, because if they don't write off the taxes,
then, you know, their income level, what do you have? They
don't really benefit from it. But they're committed. And
furthermore, they're watching that stream every day. That's
what's really critical. And they're teaching their children,
and the children are teaching their teachers. And that's how
you multiply it. I mean, you really--I said $7 to $1 is what we
really got out of it. Lord knows, we could probably multiply it
greater than that, by all of the volunteer hours and volunteer
groups that have gone out there and really made this happen.
And it's happened, as far as I can tell, all over this State.
Mr. Dicks. Well, I know, for example, the Hood Canal group
got money from the State, from the legislation enacted last
year. They repositioned culverts to restore and open up all the
habitat that's been closed. So, it is certainly a partnership,
and we appreciate your efforts. And we're not going to forget
eastern Washington either.
Mr. Thiele. Oh, I apologize, but her working over there in
King County has been a tremendous asset to Okanogan County.
Because those people come over there with a mindset that
they're going to protect the waters over there, and with their
mindset and their ability to pony up these bucks, that's what
we've been able to do. We haven't had the dollars. When you got
$2.5 million is all your ad valorem tax base for a whole damn
county is, you don't have much money to spend on salmon. So
when these people have come over here, they've given us their
conservancy easements, and that's what we have done to protect
the WRIA 48 or the Methow Valley for years to come. And that's
why our fish are coming back. It's the people that she's taught
over there that's come over the hill, bought places over there
and said, ``OK, county commissioners, we want our area over
here to have three times the amount of regulation on it as you
have in the rest of the county. You go ahead and be the cowboys
and the sheepherders over there, but we're over here with our
summer homes and whatnot; let's protect the fish here.'' And
those people are the ones that have ponied up the time, the
conservancy easements for our trails and paths over there, and
have helped us immeasurably through their different
organizations that have come over and put bucks into Okanogan
County to protect the salmon.
Mr. Dicks. The senator has provided real leadership on the
Bonneville issue, on the oversight and the scientific panel.
Mr. Thiele. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. I think that was long, long overdue.
Mr. Thiele. I think we're going to need a little more
oversight to make sure that some of that--what was it, $460
million--gets back to these people who are trying to do these
projects in the eastern part of the State, too. I think that
definitely has to be something we work on together.
Senator Gorton. Thank you all very much. This has been a
most enlightening panel. We appreciate your efforts.
STATEMENTS OF:
WILL STELLE, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
CURT SMITCH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO GOVERNOR GARY LOCKE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
BILLY FRANK, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
BOB LOHN, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
TOM DWYER, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF WILL STELLE
Senator Gorton. OK, the panel V, the next panel: Will
Stelle, Curt Smitch, Billy Frank, Bob Lohn, and Tom Dwyer.
Thank you. This group has waited a long time and with great
patience. And I consider a great deal of the expectations now
are being laid on all of you, and we appreciate your work as
well. Will, we'll start with you.
Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Dicks.
I've got a written statement which I'd like to submit for the
record.
Senator Gorton. It's in the record.
Mr. Stelle. And let me move through this quickly.
First of all, this has been a wonderful day and this is a
wonderful hearing, and I want to thank you, Congressman Dicks,
and your staff, for putting together just a hell of a set of
sessions.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Stelle. It's an extraordinary degree of unanimity that
all the panelists here had voiced today on what the nature of
the problem is and how to approach it. I'm impressed; I'm
mightily impressed.
Mr. Chairman, my name is William Stelle, and I'm the
regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service
for the Northwest Region. I'd like to make several basic points
in my testimony to you today.
First and foremost, the federal government, like all of you
and us, is committed to saving the salmon. It is a matter of
law and good sense.
Second, we are committed to good science. Science should
guide decisions. Science and knowledge is a vital resource, and
we must make that knowledge available to all people, to enable
them to choose the right course. This is a crucial point to
which I will return.
Third, we are committed to forge new partnerships with
States, counties, the tribes, and the economic sector here in
the Pacific Northwest, promoting regional efforts to develop
home-grown solutions. We are enormously pleased with the
leadership and sense of responsibility that many people in
government and the private sector have exhibited on the salmon
issue here in the Puget Sound region and elsewhere across the
State. We are greatly encouraged by the response of the States,
county, and tribal leadership to the prospects of these
listings, to step up and take responsibility. How to shape the
Endangered Species Act to work with local initiatives is the
best challenge we could imagine. We are committed to success.
Fourth, we are committed to inventiveness and creativity as
we tackle these tough issues. In many respects, we must be
prepared to open ourselves up to new solutions. I am confident
that they are there. We should invite and encourage creativity
and inventiveness in forging solutions.
Fifth, we are committed to fulfilling federal treaty
responsibilities to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. This
is a matter of federal law and obligation, and we must
recognize it and adhere to it. For the tribes, salmon is
culture, history, and tradition, not just a question of fish or
cow or chicken for dinner. This is a central point, not a side
point.
Further, we are committed to protecting the environment and
the growing economy of the Pacific Northwest. The economy of
this region is booming, and we are convinced that salmon
recovery and economic growth are not only compatible, but
mutually reinforcing. Protecting salmon means protecting our
stream systems, the bloodstream of our landscape. Twenty years
from now, people here will treasure healthy landscapes and
vibrant salmon populations, and it will be value added to our
region.
Finally, we are renewing our commitment to successful
resolution of the Pacific salmon treaty issues with the
Canadians. I'd like also to touch on that further.
Mr. Chairman, first on the funding initiative, let me skip
my written testimony and simply observe, in answer to your
question, the federal proposal of this administration was--had
two components to it: first, a fund for State/tribal/local
initiatives to help defray the costs of these salmon responses.
Our view is that, as a general matter, the decisions on how
that money should be disbursed should be left to State, local,
and tribal authorities. And we will seek only minimal
restrictions on it.
Second, we do believe that transparency is very, very
important. We should defer to the State and local and tribal
authorities on how best to spend the money, what we should
collectively insist on knowing, how it was spent and whether it
was well spent.
Third, there is an issue of funding for NMFS capacity. We
have a very serious capacity problem here in the Northwest, and
we expect our workload to triple, at least, with these new
listings. We need to be able to be prepared to meet that new
workload. And it's simply a matter of fact: we've got to build
capacity to make sure that the permit processes don't stall
out, they move through promptly.
Now a note on science. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me just
summarize by observing, one, that the federal agencies have
invested enormous time and effort over the last fifteen years
in developing hugely valuable expertise, scientific expertise
on how aquatic systems work and how salmon populations thrive.
We should pool that expertise, one, and two, make it available
to empower State agencies, local county agencies, tribal
capacity, watershed groups, give them the knowledge that we
have invested and generated in what works and what doesn't
work, and how to set the right kind of priorities. The National
Science Council has issued a directive to the federal
departments to do that work. Making that happen is enormously
important to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of this
effort. And I ask both of your helps in helping us make this
happen. It's enormously important.
How can we ask individual county governments to know
everything that they want to know on what works? We, the
federal science agencies, have an enormous reservoir of
information. We do a mediocre job, at best, of making that
information available. We should be forced to do better.
prepared statement
Finally, to the issue of the Canadian--negotiations with
the Canadians. You've heard a lot about that today; you are
very educated in it. We are making good progress. At the end of
the day, though, Mr. Chairman, whether or not we are able to
bring that agreement home will rest largely with you and your
colleagues in Congress, including the Alaskan delegation, and
with the governors and the tribes. And we ask for your support
and commitment to bring it home; it is vitally important for
the larger effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I admire
your endurance. And I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Stelle, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
William Stelle, Jr., and I am the Regional Administrator of the
Northwest region of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Thank you for inviting me to this hearing, and thank you as
well for taking the time to focus on the important topic of
today's hearing, the restoration of salmon runs in the Pacific
Northwest.
I would like to make several basic points in my testimony
this morning. First and foremost, the Federal Government, like
all of us, is committed to saving the salmon. It is a matter of
law and of good sense. As Mayor Schell of Seattle aptly phrases
it, in saving salmon we may well be saving ourselves.
Second, we are committed to good science. Science should
guide decisions. Science and knowledge is a vital resource, and
we must make that knowledge available to all to enable people
to choose the right course. This is a crucial point to which I
will return.
Third, we are committed to forge new partnerships with
states, counties and the private sector here in the Pacific
Northwest, promoting regional efforts to develop homegrown
solutions. We are enormously pleased with the leadership and
sense of responsibility that many people in government and the
private sector exhibited on the salmon issue here in the Puget
Sound region. We are greatly encouraged by the response of the
states, counties and tribes to the prospects of listings to
step up and take responsibility. How to shape the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) to work with local initiatives is the best
challenge we could imagine. We are committed to success.
Fourth, we are committed to inventiveness and creativity as
we tackle the tough issues. In many respects, we must be
prepared to open ourselves to new solutions. I am confident
that they are there. We should invite and encourage creativity
and inventiveness in forging solutions.
Fifth, we are committed to fulfilling treaty
responsibilities to the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. This
is a matter of Federal law and obligation, and we must
recognize it and adhere to it. For the tribes, salmon is
culture, history and tradition, not just a question of fish or
cow or chicken for dinner. This is a central point, not a side
point.
Further, we are committed to protecting the environment and
the growing economy of the Pacific Northwest. The economy of
the northwest is booming, and we are convinced that salmon
recovery and economic growth are compatible and mutually
reinforcing. Protecting salmon means protecting our stream
systems, the bloodstream of our landscape. Twenty years from
now, people will treasure healthy landscapes and vibrant salmon
populations, and it will be value added to the region.
Finally, we are renewing our commitment to successful
resolution of Pacific salmon treaty issues. I would also like
to touch on this further into my testimony.
the coastal salmon initiative
The President has proposed a major initiative to bolster
and deploy existing and new Federal capabilities to assist in
the conservation of at-risk Pacific salmon runs in California,
Oregon, Washington and Alaska. This Presidential initiative is
intended to respond to the listings of these runs under the ESA
by forming lasting partnerships with state, local and tribal
efforts for saving Pacific salmon and their important habitats.
It will promote the development of Federal-state-tribal-local
coordinating capabilities to ensure close partnerships in
recovery efforts and to promote efficiencies and effectiveness
in the recovery effort through enhanced sharing and pooling of
capabilities and information.
We are working with the four states, local officials and
the tribes to detail the specifics of the proposal, and are
making excellent progress in those efforts. Leaders in
Washington State at every level are hard at work on this
effort, and we believe Congressional approval for the new
initiative is vital. We need your help in making this proposal
a reality.
The President has also proposed a substantial increase in
funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service of $25
million to build the capacity to handle the workload associated
with these new listings and our science work. That workload is
growing exponentially as Federal agencies, developers and state
and local authorities seek ESA approvals for their activities.
NMFS has an enormously talented professional staff, and they
are working overtime to respond, but we need additional
capacity. It is crucial. We strongly recommend to you the
recommendation of the Administration to increase that capacity,
and we believe that a broad cross-sector of the community also
understands the need and supports the increases.
the science initiative
Saving salmon and doing so efficiently will require the
best science possible. While the salmon effort will require
work at all levels of government and the private sector, the
Federal sector has unique assets and capabilities in the
science arena that it can, and should, deploy. These
capabilities extend from basic research programs into the
causes and effects of the decline of salmon populations and the
ecology upon which they depend to data gathering and management
capabilities to mapping salmon populations and their habitats
at multiple scales to effectiveness monitoring and evaluation.
All targeted to answer the basic question on many minds: What
should we do to help? What works? Where should we spend our
efforts best?
Mustering the existing science capabilities in the Federal
sector and making those capabilities and the learning that they
generate available to the many communities involved with salmon
restoration will be a vital part of the empowerment of those
communities to meet the salmon challenge with inventiveness and
confidence. Federal investments in aquatic sciences relating to
the ecology of the west coast are substantial, stemming from
the Northwest Forest Plan, the Bay-Delta effort in California
and the east side land management science assessments. These
investments have produced enormous improvements in the science
of healthy stream systems, which are what salmon need. We
should muster that knowledge and analytical capacities and make
them available to our state, local and tribal partners and the
economic sector. To do so will increase the ability to do the
right things and in the right priority.
The Federal agencies are now inventorying their science
capabilities and the ability to make those science assets
available to our partners. While science issues tend to be
relegated to second ticket, we believe this effort is
enormously important for the long term effort, and we ask your
active support for it.
Finally, I would like to address the salmon negotiations
with the Canadians. We are currently engaged in constructive
and promising discussions with the Canadians to put into place
long term science based regimes for managing fisheries along
our coasts. We need an agreement that establishes a scientific
foundation for establishing what the fish need first and
foremost, and which then makes the allocation decisions on a
fair basis. This subject has significance for coastal stocks in
Alaska, Washington and Oregon and in the Columbia Basin. We are
optimistic of the discussions thus far, but their fate may well
rest in your hands. We need the strong bipartisan support of
the Northwest and Alaskan delegation in this effort to make
this possibility a reality.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you once
again for taking the time to conduct this hearing. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ANDERSON, P.C., M.P., CANADIAN
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Senator Gorton. This is an appropriate point at which to
say we have a submission from the Canadian Government to this
hearing, that will be made a part of the record, and I think
will help us reach a solution.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Anderson, P.C., M.P., Canadian
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
I would like to say how I am pleased to be here in Seattle with the
World Affairs Council. Let me also say what an honor it is to share the
stage with Governor Gary Locke, a man whose leadership on salmon issues
will be valued for many years to come.
Ladies and gentlemen, you don't need a minister of fisheries to
tell you that fish swim. And you don't need a Canadian to tell you that
your American fish sometimes swim in our waters. But the fact that they
do, and the fact that our salmon swim through your waters too, gives us
a lot to talk about.
We have always taken great pride that the Canada-U.S. boundary is
the longest undefended border in the world. But beneath the surface of
the Pacific, where the wondrous salmon swim, the border is merely a
figment of the human imagination. It's irrelevant to the survival of
the salmon.
What is relevant is that Pacific salmon stocks have been dwindling
all up and down the West Coast of North America--from California to
Alaska. Some of the causes are beyond human control, but others are
not.
When our two nations signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985, we
wanted a framework for fair and responsible management of the resource.
But through most of this decade, the Treaty has been a forum for
confrontation, finger pointing and deadlock.
But those days are coming to an end because the fish are running
out of time. Our children will not forgive us if we let our
international boundary, our short-term economic interests or our
domestic politics imperil this species for a moment longer.
Ladies and gentlemen, my message today is about an opportunity that
must be seized. We have the opportunity to step back from the brink of
extinction for Pacific salmon. By putting conservation first, we can
move beyond entrenched interests and mutually destructive positions.
Conservation means more fish for everyone in the future.
This means breaking away from conventional thinking and adopting a
new approach. That's what we're working hard to do in Canada. Last year
Canadians took unprecedented conservation actions. Our measures,
together with steps taken in U.S. fisheries, led to a very simple and
obvious conclusion--more fish returned to Canadian and American rivers.
This year, we can do more. This year, we can advance this powerful
formula and pursue the same conservation-based approach to Pacific
Salmon Treaty negotiations. This year can be a turning point for our
salmon. I'd like to take a few moments now to discuss, from Canada's
point of view, how we got to this crossroads.
In the spring of 1998, I was presented with evidence from Canadian
scientists that some of our coho stocks were at risk of extinction even
with no fishing whatsoever and that urgent action was required if
stocks were to be protected. Of greatest concern were coho from the
Skeena River in the north and coho from the upper Thompson River in the
south.
While a near-total shutdown of fishing was a real option, our
biologists and managers were able to design a better approach. In
Canada, we are reducing the size of our fleet and we are placing a new
emphasis on selective fishing (the targeting of abundant stocks while
avoiding weaker ones). Starting last year, Canadians only harvest
stocks that can sustain a harvest, and we spare those stocks that
cannot.
In Canada, we are taking to heart a principle so simply described
by writer Michael Wigan in his book ``The Last of the Hunter
Gatherers--Fisheries Crisis at Sea:'' ``The merits of a fisherman can
no longer be measured solely by how much he catches, but also on what
he does not.''
This permanent shift to a more sustainable way of fishing has not
been without pain. Those earning their living from the salmon resource
in British Columbia are facing up to fundamental change and that is
never easy. I pay tribute to their resilience. The Government of Canada
has invested $400 million to rebuild the resource, change the way we
fish and assist individuals and communities adjust to these changes.
Canada's domestic conservation measures allowed us, in effect, to
say to our U.S. counterparts: ``Now that we in Canada are getting our
own house in order, let's get on with the job of cooperating to
conserve Pacific Northwest salmon stocks.''
Last year, we achieved a breakthrough because Americans south of
our border were willing to meet us half way. In our discussions,
Governor Locke and I agreed that conservation is a crucial matter for
both domestic policy and international cooperation. The outcome last
year was two interim agreements covering southern fisheries.
In the first agreement, reached in June 1998, Washington State
agreed to reduce by 22 percent its catch of fragile coho stocks bound
for the upper Thompson River. In fact, my scientists advised me last
month that the reduction achieved was actually 75 percent lower than
the previous year.
In July, a second agreement was struck that protected coho and the
sensitive Early Stuart run of Fraser River sockeye by restricting when
the Washington fleet could fish. Still, the agreement allowed
Washington to catch 23.3 percent of the total allowable catch on prized
Fraser River sockeye, a figure squarely in the middle of the range seen
in recent years.
Canada also put in place size restrictions in late February for
chinook salmon to mirror actions in the U.S., resulting in a 25 percent
reduction in harvest of the threatened Nooksack chinook.
These international agreements, combined with our own domestic
measures, resulted in an exploitation rate of less than two percent on
our Thompson River coho, and approximately three percent on our upper
Skeena coho. By putting more than 97 percent of the stocks on the
spawning beds, we have begun the long road of re-building.
Yet in Canada, when these agreements were first announced--long
before the results were known--they were subject to fierce criticism
from stakeholders. People believed we had given all our cards away.
They said we let too many fish pass through our waters, without getting
enough back.
This criticism summarizes the thinking of the past--thinking that
said: ``we don't win unless you lose;'' and ``fish are simply
commodities to be killed.'' This thinking adds up to a zero-sum game--
it's a recipe for extinction and has been discredited.
Last year, I said this game is over. Standing at the crossroads of
our bilateral relationship over salmon, I think we can say that the
clearest lesson we have learned is that confrontation has made everyone
poorer, but putting the fish first can turn everyone into winners in
the long run.
Our constituents--both Canadians and Americans--are tired of
arguments over who gets to catch the last fish. Average citizens all
along our coast care deeply about the salmon. They want their
grandchildren to experience them. They want responsible management,
respect for science and they want us to work together.
As I have outlined, the new dynamic, based on conservation and
cooperation, is working. Conservation measures, both domestic and
bilateral, mean more fish in rivers all over the coast and on both
sides of the border.
Yes, fishing has its place, but if we don't put the fish first
there will be nothing to catch. People understand this. They understand
that quality of life is not a concept applicable to human beings in
isolation. That's why they support bold measures to protect Pacific
salmon.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, the Endangered Species Act
contributes to intensifying the legitimate and profound public concern
for salmon. It also adds incentive and urgency to the extensive efforts
your citizens are making to protect and restore salmon habitat.
These efforts cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I
want to acknowledge the political and financial commitment of U.S.
municipal, state and federal governments as well as private interests
in taking responsibility for saving salmon.
But I also have to say this: spending dollars to improve freshwater
habitat is only part of the equation. No matter how much you spend on
the land, you will not get full value for the money unless a
sustainable harvest is part of the equation. These two are the yin and
the yang of salmon recovery.
Money can put more smolts into the ocean, protect habitat and
improve water quality, but only human ingenuity and sacrifice will
ensure that the salmon actually get back to their spawning beds.
And this brings me right to the point: We need to reach a long-term
coast wide arrangement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty--now more than
ever before.
Canada and the US share strong ties economically, politically and
culturally. American residents made 15 million trips to Canada last
year. The United States and Canada engage in more than $1 billion in
trade every day.
So, what kind of message does it send the world when two prosperous
nations, with the biggest trading relationship on earth, cannot solve a
shared conservation problem? What chance do we stand globally if we
can't get it right, right here?
Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced we can get it right. We have
the opportunity. We have the best convergence of events in many years.
I can tell you that there have been very constructive discussions
between scientists and fish managers from Canada, Washington State,
Oregon, Alaska, the US federal government and the tribes for the last
several months.
What we need now and over the next two months is the political will
to close the deal. Last year Canada and the United States took some
important first steps, but we did not get an agreement with Alaska
because we had differences over science and we did not have a common
framework for resolving these differences. We cannot allow another year
to pass without fixing this problem.
And I understand that all jurisdictions have political realities.
The special interests of the commercial fishery, particularly in
Alaska, have always exerted great influence on Treaty discussions and
have prevented any changes to their fisheries.
This is an important factor. But here's another: neither the
patience of Canadians nor the health of the resource will support the
status quo.
The next step is for us to move now to government to government
negotiations for long-term, coast-wide arrangements that will rebuild
the Pacific salmon resource. And while we concentrate on growing the
size of the available resource, it is necessary for both parties to
share the burden of conservation.
The solution lies in both Canada and the US being very realistic in
their positions and, as Dr. David Strangway and Mr. William Ruckelshaus
recommended last year, more fish must move to Canada.
This year, we have the opportunity to take a broader view. I
believe we can seize the opportunity. I believe we must.
Ladies and gentlemen, Canadians and Americans have each made
mistakes separately in our own waters. And we have made mistakes
together. Now we must make solutions together.
The opportunity is ours. As stewards of our environment, we don't
have the right to pass up this opportunity. Let us reach across that
border that is irrelevant to the fish, and secure a better future for
ourselves and for the magnificent Pacific salmon.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CURT SMITCH
Senator Gorton. Mr. Smitch.
Mr. Smitch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Dicks. On
behalf of the State of Washington, I want to express our
appreciation, as the governor did, for your holding this
hearing here on an issue that's so important to this region.
I think you both are aware that this is a historic debate
that's occurring in the region. Between how we're going to
continue to accommodate, basically, in the State of Washington,
an addition of 100,000 people a year, and maintain our natural
resources, amenities like those of us who grew up here are
familiar with, and maintain our economic vitality. This has
never been done on a scale that we're trying to do this. And we
don't have a cookbook. We don't have a--really, a map of how to
do this. And so we're all struggling, and your appearance here
is very comforting to all of us that we're going to have the
delegation working with us on a very difficult problem.
Let me also say it's obvious that the status quo is not
working for salmon. And that's one of the premises that we're
operating on in the State as we attempt to come up with
Statewide salmon recovery strategy, is that we all have to
change some of the things we're doing, and what we're doing
simply is not working. That is an issue that is before all of
us.
We have divided those issues into the four Hs; you've heard
a lot about that today, so I won't mention that.
But I'd like to describe for you, after us spending, the
State, the last 2 years looking at this full-time, the key
issues that I think are before us and that I would like to
offer for your consideration. They key issues are, and I will
revisit these: governance, you've heard a lot about that today;
budget, both federal and State; water and forests; and the
United States-Canada treaty. Those are really the sideboards of
the discussion that's going on out here. Let me return to each
of those.
On governance, we're struggling with, on the federal side
in particular, how do we allocate the funds. This has raised
questions about who's involved, who's going to be accountable
for those funds, and who finally makes the decisions on the
allocation of those funds. Who sets the priorities? This is an
issue where we have struggled with--we did set up a process,
Senator Gorton and Norm, based on the $20 million you gave us.
We have learned an awful lot about how to actually get a block
grant from the federal government onto the ground. And we have
used the government council structure that Louise talked about
to do that on this first pass.
We also, though, in governance have an issue of who's
accountable for development and implementation of the salmon
strategy. While they're related, they're a little bit
different, and we are, I think, not as clear on that. Who is
going to be held accountable by the National Marine Fisheries
Service for meeting ESA requirements at local, State level, and
making sure we can do this from the WRIA to the State level.
This is a very difficult issue. What it has raised for us is
the tension between having a ground-up local-driven process,
and at the same time having some performance measures across
the board that actually recover salmon. And this tension
between how much top-down and how much bottoms-up do you have,
is at the heart of this governance issue that we're struggling
with. And we're working with the legislature on that. And
frankly, right now I'd say they have a lot of bills that have--
there's a lot of ideas, but we have not reached resolution
between the executive branch and the legislature at this point
in time on governance, and we're working that.
On budget, again, we do need some guidance, senator, and
I've talked a little bit with Congressman Dicks about this.
From the Congress, the next time around--we've learned some
things, and we've learned in contracting. In the contracting
process, which Louise sort of hinted at, and she was very
generous, we got the money in December, and we're trying to get
it out the door. And we're finding the contractual requirements
on the State, from the federal process, legitimate as they are,
are some things that we are hearing from our attorney general's
office that, if we had some additional guidance from you, it
would speed this up.
Senator Gorton. OK.
Mr. Smitch. OK. We will bring those up to you.
Senator Gorton. Tell us specifically what you need.
Mr. Smitch. Yeah, and that will help a lot.
On the State side, again we are dealing with the
accountability issue on whether this continues to go through
the State agency process or we have a single place where all
State and Federal money go through. While that sounds
attractive, we're finding out it's very complex, and we haven't
resolved that.
And I would say, Congressman Dicks, on the question of
where we are with the legislature on the budget, we're close,
but there are some significant differences on how we're
actually spending the money between our various budgets. The
amount is between $50 and $38 million. That's a distance we can
close. You both are professionals at closing things like that.
But we also have some differences on how we allocated the money
within our respective budgets, but we do have a process set up
to narrow that, and I'm hopeful that the two----
Mr. Dicks. I'd like 50 better than 38.
Mr. Smitch. Thank you, congressman. It's one of the reasons
I've always admired you. [Laughter.]
I agree with you.
Finally, I'll close briefly, Mr. Chairman. Water is really
the most difficult issue before the State. Our legislature is
struggling mightily with this. The legislature has been unable
for the last 20 years to deal with these issues because they're
so very difficult. But the National Marine Fisheries Service
has made it very clear to us that without dealing with water,
you truly cannot deal with salmon. So we're still working to
close the distance there on some of these water issues.
In the forest piece, I want to just mention that, frankly,
is moving through the legislature. I am confident we will get
something out of the process that will support the agreement
that was negotiated. But if not, I want to say to you, Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Dicks, the message we're going to send
to everybody in the State is ``Here is a group that came
forward on their own initiative and negotiated in good faith
for two years, and we ducked them and we did not follow through
in supporting that agreement in the legislature.'' If we do
that, I don't think we'll see another sector come to the table.
So for us, this is a huge building block in the governor's
salmon recovery strategy, and we encourage your continued
support of that effort.
Finally, United States-Canada, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Dicks, you have heard we cannot recover Puget Sound Chinook
without a United States-Canada salmon agreement. We cannot get
people to do the kinds of things we're going to need to do on
the habitat side without having that agreement. So for us, it's
crucial. The governor is personally involved, as you know,
Senator Gorton; you've met with him on this issue. Norm, you've
met with him on this, along with Governor Kitzhaber and
Governor Knowles. So we are going to need your help, as Will
said, and assistance of the White House. The climate is very
good this year. You had a very important gentleman sitting
beside you here today, frankly probably holds the key to this.
But the parts are all on the table now, and I think with your
support and with the White House support, we can close this.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Good.
Mr. Frank.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Senator and Congressman.
And this is a great day, as you heard all of your
testimony, and it's a great day for me to sit here and see
Senator Gorton and Congressman Norm Dicks and our senator from
the north, Ted Stevens.
I particularly--maybe I better introduce myself for the
record, but I'm Billy Frank, chairman of the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, and--but I'm not going to talk from this
testimony; you already have it, and I never do anyhow, and----
[Laughter.]
But you know, to me, the stars are lining up, and I've
talked to our Congressmen about these. And the stars, when they
line up--the Magnuson Act and reauthorization was a star for us
in the Northwest and along the Pacific coast, and the
reauthorization of that act--and you two were very important to
that, and our Senator from the north.
But today is another one. The initiative that the President
came out with, that was a big star for the Pacific salmon, and
getting the attention to that in this hearing today. And our
Senator came out with another number; I like that number. And
you came out with $200 million today; I like that number and--
but I like 10 percent of that going to the tribes, as far as
the funding is concerned. And, but as you heard in here,
everything that was happening on our watersheds--and we're
involved in them--you heard that testimony today.
That's why I like to sit in Louise's chair right here. I
told her she's talking for all of us when she talks about
putting these watersheds together and talking about the little
things like temperature of the water, where the Chinook salmon
will go to, and how we'll have to measure that in the future.
But the tribes are there. Tribes are there, not only every
day, but 24 hours a day. They're there because you two, Senator
and Congressman, in the appropriations have put us there, have
appropriated that money from Congress and allowed us to
participate on them watersheds in a very positive, proactive
way. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're doing that at
every level with the Federal Government as our partner and the
State as our partner, and moving forward and moving the issues
forward and kicking them down the road. The Tri-County is very
important to what they're doing that relates to the other side
of the mountain, of taking--we have to include all of the State
of Washington, the Pacific coast, every one of our counties.
They all have to participate. We have to go clean down the
coast, take our story down there, our positive stories, our
models that we're working on here. These are very important to
everything that we're doing.
Coordination, that the senator had mentioned, is very
important to coordinate everything that we're doing here. And
we look to the State of Washington to line up that coordination
and make it work. We want to take part in all of that. We want
to be proud of everything that we do here, and we're proud of
what we're doing here now. We're proud of our Whatcom County
people that are coming forward, and our Skagit County people
that are coming forward, and working on down in our Thurston
County area and our tri-counties. We're proud of all of these
things that are working on the watersheds.
We know that the salmon only stay in the watersheds a short
distance of time, but we're out there working on them bays,
too. We're out there working with the ports, we're out working
with the cities, we're out working on the private beaches,
we're out working with the neighbors. You know, these are very
important things that we're doing in the Northwest.
And they came from the Congress. When we first went back
there to talk about the eagles that were declining in the
Northwest back in the 1970's, and how we brought them back by
working together, all of us. And these are very important
things that we're talking about.
The funding, yeah, we need funding. And we need to go back
and tell our story to the Appropriations Committee back there
and to both sides of the aisle. I think it's very important
that we--we can tell our story the best right here. You've had
them all here today; they've told you exactly what is happening
on the watershed, what's happening in your own back yards, and
they've had you out there to some of them projects. And they're
very important, very important to all of us.
The science committee that has been talked about on this
table, you know--don't forget the tribes when you talk about
the science committee. The mayor of Gig Harbor the other day
said, ``You better have the tribes at the--when it comes to
science, to have them in the committee.'' Now, this is the
mayor of Gig Harbor; she should have been here today.
Mr. Dicks. Very enlightened. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. Right; very enlightening. I mean, I love them
people over there; they're a fishing community, you know. But
we have to be there; the tribes have to be there. When you come
to science, we have science, we have the people, we have
information. We need to share all of this with each other, and
we got to make it happen. And it only takes us to make it
happen, all of us together, everybody that's in the room. Our
United States Congress, our delegation that's been here, that
great senator from Alaska--you guys can work that and make that
money kind of build. The cap's going to be pulled off. Cap's
got to be pulled off in the State. Who in the hell is working
on that? What the hell are we going----
Mr. Dicks. We have a secret plan.
Mr. Frank. Oh, we got a secret plan; yeah. [Laughter.]
You know, they're all talking back and tell me ``Oh, we
don't have any money.'' You know, Jesus--you know, we're
working on a little bit now, but you know somebody's got to be
thinking these and strategizing and taking us out into the next
fifty years.
prepared statement
And I appreciate Senator Gorton, I appreciate Congressman
Norm Dicks, and all of our other legislative and senators.
Today is a good day for all of us to enjoy and laugh a little
bit, and keep working and moving forward.
Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy Frank, Jr.
Honorable members of the Committee, I am Billy Frank, Jr., chairman
of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and member of the
Nisqually Indian Tribe. I have lived on the Nisqually River my entire
life, as have all of my ancestors for thousands of generations. My
tribe, and the other tribes of the Pacific Northwest are known as the
fishing tribes by people all across this continent because we have
always depended on salmon, as well as other species of fish, from time
immemorial. Our culture, our economy, our entire existence is now and
has always been connected with the salmon. When non-Indians first came
to this land, they marvelled over the salmon resource. The giant fish
filled the rivers and the marine waters, where they found ample, cool,
clean water, and all other components of life-sustaining habitat. We
have always respected the salmon. The resource has always been sacred
to us. It is what we eat, and thus it has always been part of us and we
have always tried to protect it.
That is why the tribes felt compelled to reserve their fishing
opportunities when they entered into treaties with the United States
government. It is why we work so hard to protect and preserve these
rights today. But the fact is that we have not truly had an opportunity
to manage the resource since that right was reaffirmed by federal court
in the 1970's. By then, the writing was already on the wall. Millions
of people had already moved here. The rivers had been dammed. The
forests had been cut. The habitat was on a downward spiral. In this
past two decades, the population of human inhabitants has skyrocketed,
along with development, pollution and the demand for indiscriminate
uses of water.
Tribal and non-tribal fisheries managers have realized that the
increasing problems facing wild salmon require a focused cooperative
approach in efforts to protect, restore and manage the resource.
Several cooperative planning efforts have been used to address the
problems confronting wild salmon populations. Although there has been a
general failure on the part of the new Administration in Washington
State to adequately collaborate with the tribes in its salmon recovery
efforts, we have worked hard to cooperate in fisheries planning,
enhancement, disease control, and habitat restoration projects whenever
we could over the past 20 years. Tribal fisheries managers have
implemented historic cutbacks in fisheries, for example. The tribes are
excellent resource managers and have always structured their fisheries
based on a weak-stock management approach. They work to develop fishery
regimes that will have the least impact on the weakest stocks while
maximizing harvest opportunity on stronger wild and hatchery stocks.
But it has become abundantly clear that depleted stocks cannot be
rebuilt by fisheries restrictions alone. The habitat on which the fish
depend must be restored and protected if there is to be any meaningful
recovery of the salmon resource.
The Endangered Species Act is a powerful tool to prevent species
extinction. The ESA gives federal entities the ability to regulate and
even halt activities detrimental to the continued survival or recovery
of a weak stock, giving that species an opportunity to rebuild. The
recent listing of nine species of salmon in the Northwest marks one of
the first times the ESA has been implemented in a large metropolitan
area.
From the tribal perspective, we must all do more than what the ESA
requires--merely prevent extinction of fish, wildlife and plants by
preserving remnant populations that are essentially little more than
museum specimens. Instead, we must restore these populations to healthy
levels that will again support harvest. The tribes have seen many
streams lose their salmon runs, and have refused to wait for federal
government intervention before taking action. Steps have already been
taken to strengthen and restore salmon populations in western
Washington. Restoring fish and fish habitat has been a major tribal
goal for many years. In the early 1990's, for example, tribal fisheries
managers joined with state fisheries managers to develop the Wild Stock
Restoration Initiative in response to the poor condition of some salmon
stocks in western Washington. The co-managers first developed a
statewide inventory of all salmonid stocks and their health. The Salmon
and Steelhead Stock Inventory and Analysis (SASSI) began in the spring
of 1992. It took about one year to complete the inventory and 18 months
to complete the detailed appendices which provide the data and
information used in the evaluation of stock status. SASSI grouped 435
salmon and steelhead stocks into five status categories. Of the total,
187 stocks were categorized as healthy; 122 depressed; 12 critical; 113
unknown; and one extinct. SASSI must be periodically updated and
revised to reflect changes in stock status gathered through monitoring
and evaluation. This systematic, scientific approach to the issue of
declining fish runs has given the co-managers a wealth of information
on the condition of the health of nearly every salmon and steelhead
stock in the state, and clearly identifies those fish stocks that need
immediate help. While compiling the SASSI document, it became apparent
to the co-managers that it would be impossible to adequately assess
salmon and steelhead habitat within the scope of the stock inventory.
Because freshwater habitat is a basic limiting factor for the
production of some salmon species, it was clear that an inventory of
salmon and steelhead habitat must also be compiled. Work on this second
step in the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative the Salmon and Steelhead
Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP) began in 1995. SSHIAP
will ultimately result in a blueprint for joint tribal/state
cooperative action to document current habitat conditions, assess the
role of habitat degradation and loss on the condition of salmon and
steelhead stocks, develop stock- or watershed-specific strategies for
habitat protection and restoration, define a cooperative process to
implement habitat restoration and protection strategies and develop and
implement a long-term monitoring system that will assist in adaptive
management. Through the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, the tribes
are now defining management goals and objectives for fisheries and
developing both regional and watershed specific plans.
The state and tribes have committed to further responding to wild
salmon stock declines through improved planning processes like
Comprehensive Coho and Comprehensive Puget Sound Chinook. The goal of
Comprehensive Coho and Comprehensive Puget Sound Chinook management
plans are to restore the productivity, production and diversity of
salmon stocks originating in the streams tributary to Puget Sound and
the Washington coast to levels that can sustain ceremonial,
subsistence, and other fisheries. This can be accomplished through the
protection, restoration and enhancement of salmon habitat; responsible
management of fisheries to ensure that adequate spawning adults escape
to use the available habitat; and hatchery programs that provide
fishery benefits and enhance the productivity of natural stocks.
The processes are designed to modify the way salmon are managed by
moving away from using a fixed number as a harvest target and toward a
percentage of the overall run size, known as an exploitation rate, in
concert with freshwater habitat improvements and firm hatchery
guidelines. This approach has been used for coho management for several
Puget Sound stocks during the past three years and fisheries co-
managers are working on applying the process throughout western
Washington. A new Comprehensive Coho fisheries ``model,'' designed to
give fisheries managers an accurate reflection of how their management
issues are affecting coho stocks, is expected to be completed soon.
Comprehensive Coho has been in development since 1993, but new efforts
to develop a Comprehensive Puget Sound Chinook Management Plan are now
on the fast track due to the NMFS listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon
as ``threatened'' under ESA.
The recognition by Comprehensive Coho and Comprehensive Puget Sound
Chinook management plans that harvest, habitat and hatcheries cannot be
addressed in isolation is a critical step toward ensuring the health,
maintenance and restoration of the productivity, diversity and capacity
of all stocks and providing for the optimal utilization of coho and
chinook salmon resources. For example, when long-term problems are
rooted primarily in habitat degradation, rather than overfishing,
fishing restrictions alone cannot restore depressed stocks to their
full productive potential. The key to healthy stocks and sustainable
fisheries, therefore, lies in a comprehensive approach that also
includes protecting productive habitat and restoring degraded habitat.
Despite efforts by the tribes to engage the State of Washington in
a joint plan to address salmon recovery needs, the tribes have been
excluded from the state's salmon recovery planning process.
Consequently, the tribes have been working on their own plan. The plan,
expected to be unveiled in 1999, will be used by tribes in their
watersheds and will provide a framework for incorporating other
regional plans. The tribal plan focuses on the management of habitat,
harvest and hatcheries, and will serve as a tool for NMFS to create a
high standard for habitat protection under ESA. It is hoped other
agencies and organizations will endorse, integrate and/or adopt the
plan for implementation. Regional or watershed initiatives are at the
heart of the plan. Specific recovery plans will be developed for each
watershed and will guide how fisheries, habitat and hatcheries will be
managed.
The tribes believe the ESA can be administered in a manner that
prevents species important to tribal communities from becoming extinct,
and can be administered in a manner that reaffirms federal trust
responsibilities, treaty-reserved rights, and tribal sovereignty.
Tribes believe that fish and wildlife resources and the ecosystems on
which they depend must be managed in a holistic manner that recognizes
that all things are connected.
Results of the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative and tribal salmon
recovery plan and the many ongoing efforts of the tribes and state to
address the decline of wild salmon stocks should figure prominently in
the ESA decision-making process. So, too, should the federal trust
responsibility to the tribes and the terms of the treaties.
Clearly, there is need for funding, directed to the tribes, to
support our ongoing efforts. Specific funding needs of the NWIFC member
tribes will be provided in testimony to the Appropriations Committee at
a later date.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BOB LOHN
Senator Gorton. Mr. Lohn.
Mr. Lohn. Senator Gorton, Congressman Dicks, for the
record, my name is Bob Lohn. I'm fish and wildlife director for
the Bonneville Power Administration. On behalf of our
administrator, Judi Johansen, I appreciate Bonneville's--I want
to express Bonneville's appreciation for your holding this
hearing.
And personally, having worked so long in the contentious
wars of the Columbia Basin salmon, it is good to be part of an
attitude that sees help and sees the strength of cooperation.
So for me personally, it's been an enlightening day.
And one other passing comment: Congressman Dicks, I
particularly appreciate your interest in Caspian terns. I was
down working on that project in both islands about a week ago,
and if time permits later in the hearing, I'd be happy to give
you an update. Because in that too, there's a nice small story
of local cooperation and how something good is coming out of
the circumstances.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
Mr. Lohn. Commissioner Thiele testified as to the size and
scale of our funding. Actually, I was pleased and appreciative
that out of the confusion of this accounting, he'd been able to
make considerable sense, and by and large, the picture is
roughly right. I'd like to focus in a little bit so we're clear
about which categories we're talking about, and then simply
open it to you for further questions, as you would please,
about how that money is being allocated or how it might
otherwise be allocated.
Bonneville's cash payments are in three categories. The
first is what we call capital repayment. It's essentially our
mortgage payment on the work done by the Corps of Engineers and
other borrowing we've done for--on behalf of the region.
Currently that mortgage payment is in the zone of--oh, roughly
$80 million per year. It's rising rapidly. As you would know,
the mortgage payment doesn't go up when the appropriations are
made, they go up when the plant-in-service date is declared--
that is, when the work is completed. We're due shortly to see a
substantial rise there.
Second category--and by the way, that's a reimbursement to
the federal treasury. The rule of thumb, incidentally, is, when
an appropriation goes to the Corps of Engineers for work on the
Columbia River for fish and wildlife, roughly 75 percent will
be repaid by the region--that is, funded through Bonneville.
Second category, what we call reimbursables: these
initially were reimbursing the federal treasury for annual
appropriations; now in some instances we repay the agencies
involved directly. Much of this money goes for fish hatcheries
in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, including the Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan hatcheries. Some of this money also
goes to pay for the annual operation and maintenance costs of
the Corps of Engineers for the fish structures at the various
dams. And finally, we pay as a fish cost about half of the
annual budget of the Northwest Power Planning Council, so in
other words, about $3 million a year in this category. Total in
this category, roughly $40 million a year.
Finally, there's the direct program. Technically speaking,
that's $100 million worth of expense and $27 million of
capital, but practically speaking, it's $127 million available
each year for spending on fish and wildlife projects.
Pursuant to the Northwest----
Mr. Dicks. Can the counties that we heard from, like
Okanogan, apply for money under that fund?
Mr. Lohn. Yes, sir, they can. However, there is a--there is
a fairly detailed prioritization process. First of all, we meet
the immediate needs of ESA. Secondly, we respond to the program
developed by the Power Planning Council, and there is a lengthy
process there. The process begins each fall with a
recommendation--with a call for proposals. This year, for
example, we received somewhat over 450, I believe. Currently,
we have ongoing about 350 projects. In fact, this year there
was some very discouraging language saying we didn't think
there would be much room for new projects while accommodating
existing ones. Even so, there were over a hundred new proposals
coming in.
Senator Gorton has helped enormously with that process by
creating an independent science review panel. That group, the
ISRP, reviews each of the proposals. The agencies and tribes
also do that. This wealth of recommendation comes together in
the Northwest Power Planning Council, and they issue their
recommendations to us. Generally speaking, we follow them to
the letter.
Funds, incidentally, that are not actually paid out--I
mention this because it's unusual in federal programs. Funds
that are not actually paid out are carried over, with interest,
from year to year. So this is not a circumstance where money is
lost if it's not spent. And the region actually has paid some
attention to facing decisions as to whether projects are ready
to go or not.
So with that as what's available in the prioritization
process, I guess a couple of numbers relative to Washington,
and then one closing comment about how the money is spent.
In the State of Washington last year, just to give you an
example, the four--five principal contractors--that is, the
four tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife--received under the direct program about $21 million;
another $2 million or more came under the Lower Snake Comp
Program. So we're looking at about $23 million just to those
five contractors.
I don't have a breakout by each of the watersheds, but if I
look at it in another way, how much of--how many of the billing
addresses we paid out money to were in the State of Washington,
recipients in Washington got about $52 million of the last
year's $127 million. Now, not all of those were Washington
projects, but that'll give you the general feel.
Thank you.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM DWYER
Senator Gorton. Mr. Dwyer.
Mr. Dwyer. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. We welcome you here as the last witness;
you've waited patiently for a long time.
Mr. Dwyer. Yeah. I meant to say also that Will Stelle
doesn't ordinarily let me go last, you know.
Mr. Chairman and Congressman Dicks, my name is Thomas
Dwyer. I'm the deputy regional director for the Pacific Region
of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Accompanying me here today is Gerry Jackson, who's sitting
in the second row back there. He's our new supervisor of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's office in Lacey, Washington.
I want to thank you very much----
Senator Gorton. You need to be a little closer to that
microphone, too.
Mr. Dwyer. I want to thank you very much today for inviting
the Fish and Wildlife Service to this hearing.
As you know, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service jointly share responsibility for
administration of the Endangered Species Act, and both agencies
are actively involved in the effort to recover listed fish,
including bull trout and various runs of salmon. And I want to
let you know that the Fish and Wildlife Service is very
committed to this problem and to solving this problem.
Today I want to very quickly focus on three issues: one,
some information about what the Northwest is really facing
today because of some of the actions the Fish and Wildlife
Service has taken in listing bull trout; I want to talk a
little bit about how we can make compliance with the Endangered
Species Act easier for everyone; and finally, I want to talk a
little bit about the $20 million that were provided in the Fish
and Wildlife Service's budget this year to the State of
Washington.
First, what really does the Northwest face because we've
listed bull trout this year? The Klamath and Columbia River
Basin distinct population segments of the bull trout were
listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service last June, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service will determine by this June whether to
list other population segments, including the coastal Puget
Sound population. And that's the population that I think would
be of most interest to this group here today.
When we do a listing of our species under the Endangered
Species Act, we normally accompany it with a special 4(d) rule,
that in this case allows for fishing to continue for bull
trout. We would hope to do that also if we end up listing the
coastal Puget Sound population in June.
We also try to deal with, in our--in our listing actions
and in our proposed rules, information on what really would
constitute problems with the Endangered Species Act when we do
these listings. And I'll go into that in a little bit later
here.
If we think of federal lands, Federal and State lands as
being affected both by listings under the ESA, of course,
everyone knows logging, mining, grazing, other activities on
federal lands then become susceptible to requirements under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and we end up having
to do consultations with the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service. And we've been lucky enough to be able to work
through a streamlined process with both of these agencies, and
this agreement on streamlining has been in place for a couple
of years, and the National Marine Fisheries Service works with
us also on this process.
When it gets to private land, it gets a little more
difficult. As I said, when a listing occurs, we try to put in
our rules what really would constitute a violation of the
Endangered Species Act, and this normally would involve what
would affect directly harming fish, and perhaps also what would
affect harming fish habitat. What we're trying to do, then, to
make things easier for people in the Northwest, is get the word
out that incidental take permits through our section 10 of the
Act, which really involves habitat conservation plans, are
really the way to go to protect people and to help everyone
work together to recover--recover these species.
Going to how our agencies can make the ESA compliance
easier, again if I go to private lands, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and NMFS have collectively developed new tools, using
the flexibility of the Endangered Species Act to create
incentives for private landowners to voluntarily conserve
listed and unlisted species, by providing these landowners with
regulatory certainty.
One of these new tools, which we hope to have in final form
by this summer, is called the Safe Harbor Policy. It applies to
listed species, and it involves a formal agreement that
establishes a baseline for the enrolled property, and a
determination by the services that a net conservation benefit
would be provided for the covered species. Then under this
agreement, the Service will authorize incidental take of these
covered species up to the agreed-upon baseline on the enrolled
property, without any additional requirements by the landowner.
We've also, the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS,
introduced streamlining procedures and other improvements in
our Joint Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. These
measures include combining HCPs and National Environmental
Policy Act documents, establishing a low-effect HCP category
with expedited permit-approval procedures for low-impact
projects, establishing specific time periods for processing
incidental take statements under HCPs, allowing for unlisted
species to be named on these incidental take permits if they
are adequately addressed, so there's no need to amend a permit
later if a species gets listed.
Finally, the Fish and Wildlife Service has done quite a bit
of work developing some interim guidance on bull trout
conservation. We've done this because we haven't yet been able
to complete recovery planning for bull trout. This guidance was
developed as a tool to be used really by everyone, biologists,
administrators, you know, county and city governments, who want
to participate in bull trout conservation and recovery efforts
and who want to also know how their effect--how their
activities may affect bull trout. It provides valuable
information to all entities on bull trout needs, impacts of
these activities, and broad-scale landscape recommendations for
the conservation and recovery of bull trout. Again, as I said,
we hope to have a complete bull trout recovery plan done
sometime in the next 18 months.
Finally, let me close with a little bit--with a few
comments on how the 19--fiscal year 1999 salmon money, you
know, is being allocated and spent in the State of Washington.
As you know, the $20 million was appropriated to the State
of Washington through the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget
for salmon recovery efforts. And it's supposed to be involved,
you know, with on-the-ground projects to restore salmon in
strategic planning efforts, including watershed assessments.
The Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Office--and Curt,
sitting next to me here, is the man responsible for this--
really has the responsibility for administration, project
allocation, and accountability of these funds. The Fish and
Wildlife Service is providing technical assistance to the
Governor's Salmon Office in an advisory capacity to facilitate
project selection and implementation. I'm the project officer
for the Fish and Wildlife Service for these funds.
State salmon recovery efforts will include both habitat
protection and restoration. Habitat protection addresses the
potential loss, of course, of the high-quality habitat, and
would encompass diverse efforts necessary to restore these
habitats.
prepared statement
We've provided technical review on over 150 project
proposals so far, working in cooperation with the Governor's
Salmon Office, and where appropriate, we've made
recommendations on ways to improve or enhance these projects.
From the very beginning, we've tried to be a value added to
this whole process. There was a very short timeframe involved
here from the time funding was appropriated until work can
actually get done on the ground, as we've heard several panel
members say today. We very quickly developed a grant agreement
with Curt Smitch's office and made the funds available
electronically, and now we're working with the State of
Washington on really contract requirements to get the work done
on the ground.
I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Dwyer
Mr. Chairman, Senators, Representatives and distinguished members
of the panel, my name is Thomas Dwyer, Deputy Regional Director for
Region 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accompanying me today
on behalf of the Service is Gerry Jackson, the new Supervisor of our
State Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. Gerry has just
taken this position and formerly was the Service's Assistant Director
for Ecological Services in Washington, D.C.
As you know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for the administration of
the Endangered Species Act. Both agencies are actively involved in the
effort to bring back the listed fish, including bull trout and various
runs of salmon. We appreciate the many efforts you have made to rebuild
these fish stocks and intend to continue working closely with all of
you in this historic and monumental undertaking.
Today, we appear before you to answer questions which your staffs
have transmitted to us and which bear directly on the subject of saving
fish species in the Puget Sound listed under the Endangered Species
Act. Those questions and answers are as follows:
how the fiscal year 1999 salmon money was spent
The $20 million appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and conveyed to the State of Washington for salmon recovery efforts is
funding both on-the-ground projects to restore salmon and strategic
planning efforts, including watershed assessments. The Washington
Governor's Salmon Recovery Office is responsible for the
administration, project allocation, and accountability of the funds.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is providing technical assistance to the
Governor's Salmon Recovery Office in an advisory capacity to facilitate
project selection and implementation.
State salmon recovery efforts include both habitat protection and
restoration. Habitat protection addresses the potential loss of high
quality habitat and encompasses diverse efforts, from the acquisition
of property and/or development rights to changes in zoning laws to
provide adequate riparian buffers. Approximately $5 million is being
spent on habitat acquisition. Habitat restoration efforts focus on
returning degraded habitat to functioning salmon habitat. It includes a
variety of activities, such as the following: restoring riparian areas,
wetlands and estuaries critical to the salmon life-cycle; providing
adequate instream flows; removing and replacing of poorly designed
culverts blocking fish migration; and, introducing no-till agricultural
methods in areas of highly erodible soils.
Strategic planning efforts are occurring on several scales. At the
watershed level, planning efforts are funded to assess watersheds and
identify the most effective restoration options. Regional planning
efforts are focused on developing coordinated regional recovery
activities which involve the full suite of stakeholders (e.g., private
landowners, tribes, County, State, industry, environmentalists, etc.),
addressing needed changes to State and County regulations to accomplish
recovery, and developing baseline information and recovery strategies
on salmon and bull trout to facilitate Endangered Species Act
coordination with the Federal agencies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is providing technical reviews on the
over 150 project proposals submitted to the Governor's Salmon Recovery
Office. A limited number of site visits are conducted in reviewing the
proposed projects. Where appropriate, recommendations on ways to
improve or enhance specific project designs and improve their
effectiveness are provided to the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office.
Following approval and funding of the projects, we will assist private
landowners and the State in project implementation and monitoring. As
of March 30, the Fish and Wildlife Service had completed reviews on all
of the 123 proposals provided to us.
how all the federal agencies are coordinating with regard to the
impacts of salmon and bull trout listings
With regard to Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation
for the threatened bull trout, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
worked with the Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to develop an approach that incorporates a ``matrix'' to assist
in assessing impacts of actions on Federal lands to bull trout. This
approach also provides for watershed-scale consultations, which more
efficiently assess the cumulative impacts of actions on bull trout.
The matrix was modeled after a similar matrix developed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the same purpose relative
to listed salmon and steelhead. In compiling and assessing information
upon which the matrix is based, field units were encouraged to use
watershed boundaries already agreed to under consultation for listed
salmon and steelhead, wherever possible. In many cases, staff from the
FWS, NMFS, FS and BLM meet jointly to evaluate impacts of proposed
actions to salmon and bull trout, to streamline the consultation
process.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service are jointly conducting programmatic consultations with the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highways Administration and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. By conducting these consultations on a
programmatic level, the workload should be reduced. The Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are also
conducting training for Federal agencies and local jurisdictions that
often serve as agencies and participate in consultation.
With regard to operation of Columbia and Snake River dams, the FWS,
NMFS, Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of
Reclamation met in the summer of 1998 to discuss approaches for
efficiently and effectively completing ESA consultation on the
operation of Federal facilities, and their effects to salmon, bull
trout and other listed aquatic species such as the Kootenai River
sturgeon and Snake River snails. In addition, a Federal caucus is
working on a ``green paper'' to evaluate potential impacts of harvest,
hatcheries, habitat and the hydro system on Columbia River salmon and
steelhead.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service have coordinated in the development of Habitat Conservation
Plans, in the negotiation of a Forestry Module for Washington State
Forest Practices Rules, and in the development of a riparian standard
for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Federal agencies also
coordinate with other government agencies through participation on the
Washington Government Council on Natural Resources.
In addition, FWS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NMFS
regional executives have been meeting on a regular basis to integrate
Clean Water Act and ESA programs. ESA section 7 consultation between
the FWS, NMFS and EPA has been taking place in Oregon and Idaho on
proposed changes to water quality standards which may affect bull
trout, salmon, steelhead and other listed aquatic species.
what the pacific northwest will face in the coming year as a result of
the listings
The Klamath and Columbia River distinct population segments of the
bull trout were listed as threatened in June 1998. The Fish and
Wildlife Service will determine whether to list the other distinct
population segments of this species in the Pacific Northwest in June
1999. The proposed rule for these other populations included a special
4(d) rule allowing sport fishing to continue in accordance with State,
Tribal, and National Park fish and wildlife conservation laws and
regulations. This should permit continuation of most recreational
fisheries within the range of the bull trout. The Fish and Wildlife
Service and the States will develop and distribute informational
materials in areas affected by this listing to inform anglers and other
interested parties about the biology and identification of bull trout
and pertinent fishing regulations.
The joint NMFS/FWS proposal to list the southwestern Washington/
Columbia River ESU of coastal cutthroat trout, and to delist the Umpqua
River cutthroat trout was published in the Federal Register on Monday,
April 5.
Logging, mining, grazing, and other activities on Federal land will
be subject to the requirements of section 7 of the ESA. Consultations
with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have been
streamlined through an inter-agency agreement between those agencies
and the Services. This agreement has been in place for several years
and is successfully enhancing interagency coordination to adequately
address the conservation of listed species under section 7. As a
result, time lines for completing the process have been reduced.
Incidental take permits and accompanying Habitat Conservation Plans
will be required for non-federal landowners to take federally listed
wildlife or fish if such taking occurs incidentally during otherwise
legal activities.
how the agencies will make esa compliance easier
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), FWS, NMFS, EPA
and the State of Washington entered a Memorandum of Agreement in March
1998 that will contribute to salmon habitat recovery and benefit other
species on non-Federal lands through a cooperative, watershed-based
approach. While the NRCS has no regulatory function under ESA, their
unique agricultural assistance programs and ties to private non-Federal
land owners provide an opportunity to assist those land owners in
complying with ESA regulatory requirements while providing benefits for
wildlife. A similar agreement was signed by the same Federal parties
and the State of Oregon in May 1998, and a third such agreement
involving the State of California is currently in the signature
process.
In the signed memoranda of agreements (MOAs), the Federal agencies
listed above and the respective States will (1) implement a process to
provide landowners with incentives that encourage the use of
appropriate management practices; (2) facilitate better cooperation
among the participating agencies; (3) encourage local watershed
planning efforts; and (4) provide private landowners certainty that
agricultural programs implemented under NRCS technical guidance will be
in compliance with ESA regulatory requirements.
The FWS and NMFS (collectively, the Services) have developed new
tools using the flexibility of the ESA to create incentives for private
landowners to voluntarily conserve listed and unlisted species by
providing landowners with regulatory certainty. These new tools are the
Safe Harbor and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
Policies (to be finalized soon).
The Safe Harbor policy applies only to listed species and involves
a formal agreement that establishes a ``baseline'' for the enrolled
property, and a determination by the Service(s) that a ``net
conservation benefit'' will be provided for the covered species. Under
this agreement, the Services will authorize future incidental take of
covered species above the agreed-upon baseline conditions on the
enrolled property without any additional requirements.
The Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Policy also
involves establishing a formal agreement with a landowner that will
provide for removing threats to non-listed species with the ultimate
goal of not having to list it under the ESA. However, if in the future
the species is listed, the landowner will have regulatory assurances.
Addressing the needs of species before they become listed, usually
allows for greater management flexibility.
The Services have introduced streamlining measures and other
improvements in the joint Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Handbook.
These measures include: (1) combining HCPs and National Environmental
Policy Act documents; (2) establishing a ``low effect'' HCP category
with expedited permit approval procedures for low-impact projects; (3)
establishing specific time periods for processing incidental take
permit applications; (4) allowing for unlisted species to be named on
the incidental take permit if they are adequately addressed in the HCP
(eliminating the need to amend the permit if that species is
subsequently listed); and (5) allowing for mitigation and monitoring
activities resulting in take to be authorized under the section
10(a)(1)(B) permit rather than a separate 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service will encourage programmatic consultations where there is a
Federal nexus and large scale HCPs to accommodate as many landowners as
practicable. For example, we are working together with the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife on an HCP that will cover activities
permitted through the Department of Fish and Wildlife's hydraulics
permits.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has developed Bull Trout Interim
Guidance. This guidance was developed as a tool to be used by Fish and
Wildlife Service biologists in participating in bull trout conservation
and recovery efforts. The focus of the guidance is on the effects of
land management on bull trout and their habitat. It provides valuable
information to all entities on bull trout needs, impacts of activities,
and broad landscape-scale recommendations for the conservation and
recovery of bull trout and will assist in developing projects that
ensure that the needs of the bull trout can be met.
what federal and local needs are to be met to conform to the demands of
the listings
Federal agencies primarily affected by the bull trout listing are
the FS and the BLM. Federal land management in the western half of
Washington State is primarily governed by the Northwest Forest Plan, a
Federal landscape plan specifying coordinated management direction. ESA
section 7 bull trout and salmon consultations are conducted in a
streamlined fashion in accordance with the NW Forest Plan. Although the
bull trout and salmonid listings will increase the workload of the FS,
BLM, FWS, and NMFS, the listings are not likely to affect the overall
implementation of, or land management direction provided by, the NW
Forest Plan. In the Eastern half of the State, the affected Federal
agencies will also conduct ESA section 7 consultations, but without the
overarching guidance provided by a landscape-level planning process
until the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan is adopted
and implemented.
Due to the unprecedented nature and scope of recent ESA listing
decisions, and to meet the needs of the affected public, it is
anticipated that the workload will be significantly increased for the
affected Federal agencies. The FWS will strive to make these workload
demands a priority in the President's budget process.
The fiscal year 2000 President's Budget includes a $3.1 million
increase in Consultation funding for Region 1 (Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, California, Nevada and the Pacific Islands). The FWS will
effectively use those portions of the $3.1 million that can be applied
to the bull trout workload to make consultations with Federal land
managers, in particular, a priority. The FWS will work with the FS, BLM
and other Federal agencies to establish partnerships and develop
strategies for streamlining procedures in an attempt to avoid delays
directly associated with section 7 consultation processes.
Another important component of ESA efforts for bull trout is the
development of a recovery plan for the species. A recovery plan will
establish guidelines for actions necessary to recover the species, thus
facilitating land use planning at the land unit level (e.g., a national
forest) and providing a basis for coordination across land ownership
boundaries. We urge your support for the fiscal year 2000 President's
Budget increase request for Recovery which will help insure rapid
completion of a bull trout recovery plan.
The FWS has been working with the FS and BLM since fall 1998 on the
ESA section 7 approach for bull trout. We have been largely successful
in implementing a consistent, streamlined approach for meeting section
7 requirements for this species. Similar efforts will be pursued with
other Federal agencies to reduce the potential for project delays
related to required consultations.
At the time of listing the bull trout in July 1998, the FS and BLM
identified 7,000 on-going actions in the Columbia River Basin which
would require section 7 consultation. Those two agencies have been
working with the FWS to complete those consultations, and to address
any new, proposed actions for 1999. The three agencies met in the
summer and fall of 1998 and screened all those actions to sort them
into categories for further section 7 consultation. Since then, the
focus has been on compiling the necessary documentation by the FS and
BLM (biological assessments), and in developing concurrence letters
(informal section 7 consultation) and biological opinions (formal
section 7 consultation) by the FWS. Schedules for completing the
section 7 consultations have been discussed and agreed to by the three
agencies at the local level (each National Forest and BLM District).
All three agencies are committed to completing consultations in a
timely manner.
Non-Federal land owners will need to either avoid ``taking'' the
listed bull trout and salmon or pursue incidental take authorization by
developing a HCP and obtaining an ESA section 10 incidental take
permit. The Services are also considering the development of special
rules, pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, to further define the take
prohibitions for some of the threatened species and exempt some forms
of take from these prohibitions. In any case, we believe that local
governments must be involved at a watershed planning level to reflect
and integrate local needs and issues. Likewise, the Fish and Wildlife
Service can bring valuable fish and wildlife expertise to watershed
planning efforts. We have been asked to participate in several efforts;
however, lack of staffing has prevented us from meeting the demand.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in the review of the
State of Washington's Salmon Recovery Plan: Extinction is Not an
Option. Through our review of the constituent elements of the plan, we
will make recommendations to conserve and recover bull trout. We will
also identify opportunities to participate in regional planning efforts
and the development of state, county or local rules and regulations
that can become components of special 4(d) rules and HCPs. One such
effort has been started by a Tri-County group consisting of
jurisdictions from King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. We intend to
participate fully in this effort.
The FWS and NMFS share the goal of restoring heathy fish
populations. There are a number of tools available to local governments
for complying with the ESA and continuing economic development. The
most promising tools for aquatic systems are HCPs and the MOA with
NRCS. However, many of these tools require additional, knowledgeable
staff at all levels from the Federal government to local communities.
Regardless of staffing levels, agencies will have to prioritize
activities and focus on efforts that result in the most conservation
and recovery of salmon and bull trout. Funding should be focused on
these priorities. We look to the state of Washington to take the lead
in prioritization of actions based on the best available science.
how bull trout and salmon habitat needs do or don't overlap
All salmonids require aquatic habitats that are cold, clean,
complex, and connected; however, bull trout tend to have more
restrictive biological requirements. In other words they need habitat
that is colder, cleaner, more complex and more connected. Therefore,
greater protection of these important habitat components is needed.
Most bull trout spend their entire lives in freshwater environments
and are therefore more vulnerable to land management activities
affecting streams, rivers and lakes. The salmon ocean cycle reduces the
salmon's dependence on the freshwater habitat for fulfilling all life-
history stages, although the freshwater environment is critical to the
functions of spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing.
Bull trout are either resident or migratory. Migratory fish may be
adfluvial (lake-dwelling), fluvial (river dwelling), or anadromous
(ocean dwelling). Historically, migratory life-history forms of bull
trout were more prevalent. Open migratory corridors, both within and
among tributary streams, large rivers, and lake systems are critical
for maintaining bull trout populations. This allowed access to a larger
prey base for both sub-adults and post-spawners. Habitat degradation
and dams have now isolated many resident and migratory bull trout
subpopulations that historically were inter-connected as complex
metapopulations. This loss of connectivity has caused decreased genetic
fitness between and within nearby subpopulations as well as
extirpations of bull trout stocks.
The salmon life cycle has a saltwater or ocean component with a
very large prey base available for sub-adult and adult fish. At all
life history stages bull trout need access to an adequate prey base,
which for adults necessitates habitats accessible through migratory
corridors with suitable temperature, habitat complexity, and passage.
Apex predators, such as bull trout, are more extinction prone than
species lower in the food chain. In stable ecosystems, top level
predators have small population sizes, thus environmental disturbances
tend to affect species more at the top of the food web than at lower
levels.
Bull trout are among the most cold water adapted fish and require
very cold water for incubation, juvenile rearing and spawning. These
temperatures may in some cases be so cold as to exclude other native
salmonids from utilizing the same spawning and rearing habitat as bull
trout. Cold water temperatures may reduce the likelihood of invasion by
brook trout and other non-native fish into bull trout watersheds.
Since bull trout eggs reside in such cool water, they require a
long period of time (220+days) from egg deposition until emergence,
making them especially vulnerable to effects of temperature, sediment
deposition, and bedload movement during this period. After emerging
from spawning gravels, juveniles are found in areas with overhead cover
and low substrate embeddedness. Juveniles are largely nocturnal and
very cryptic, since they utilize the interstitial spaces between
substrates for refugia. This makes bull trout especially vulnerable to
effects of sediment deposition, bedload movement, and changes in
channel structure.
Spawning, incubation and juvenile rearing are the bull trout life
history stages that require coldest water temperatures and lowest fine
sediment levels. Juvenile rearing and spawning typically occur in the
smaller tributaries and headwater streams that may be upstream of
anadromous salmonids, and therefore they are more directly influenced
by conditions in non-fish bearing streams. Greatest riparian protection
should be provided around bull trout spawning and rearing streams
(often headwater streams and often the smaller fish-bearing streams),
and the non-fish bearing streams above them that provide high quality
water to downstream areas used by the fish.
how hcps will address the needs of bull trout and salmon
Congress intended that the HCP process would be used to reduce
conflicts between listed species and economic development activities,
and would be used to develop ``creative partnerships'' between the
public and private sector in the interests of endangered and threatened
species conservation. The Services have been successful in balancing
biology with economics by developing these creative partnerships. One
of the great strengths of the HCP process is its flexibility in being
adaptive to a wide range of biological, geographical, and developmental
scenarios. The ESA and its implementing regulations establish basic
biological standards for HCPs, but otherwise allow HCP participants to
be creative. As a result, the HCP program has produced some remarkably
innovative land-use and conservation plans.
In order for the Services to approve an HCP, it must satisfy the
section 10 issuance criteria. Specifically, section 10(a)(2)(A) of the
ESA requires an applicant for an incidental take permit to submit an
HCP that specifies, among other things, the impacts that are likely to
result from the taking and the measures the permit applicant will
undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts. Issuance of a section
10 permit must not ``appreciably reduce'' the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
It is envisioned that HCPs for bull trout and salmon will be
structured so as to meet the needs of the applicants, as well as
provide for the long-term conservation of the bull trout and salmon.
Examples of Aquatic HCPs:
1. Mid-Columbia Public Utility District (PUD) HCP
--Proposed HCP has been developed over the past 3+years.
--NMFS is lead agency, as only steelhead and salmon are included as
covered species.
--PUD's (Chelan and Douglas counties) proposal is an attempt to
provide 100 percent no net impact to covered species, 95
percent survival of juveniles at the projects (dams) and 91
percent juvenile survival overall (including through the
downstream reservoir) for covered species in exchange for
incidental take authorization under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
ESA.
--The balance between 91 percent survival through the reservoir, 95
percent survival at the project, and the 100 percent no net
impact standards is to be made up through the PUDs funding of
additional hatchery operations and habitat improvement projects
in the region.
--Three projects addressed: Wells and Rocky Reach Dams, Douglas
County, Washington; Rock Island Dam, Chelan County, Washington.
--This is the first HCP developed for hydroelectric projects.
--Although FWS does not have regulatory authority over covered
species, the PUDs consider FWS involvement crucial, as FWS will
be a key party in the upcoming Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) re-licensing process for both PUDs in the
near future (3-10 years). The PUD's goal is to have all key
parties, including the affected Yakama, Colville, and Umatilla
tribes, participate in the negotiations and agree to the final
conservation plan so that operations authorized under the plan
will not be challenged during the FERC relicensing process.
--Permit issuance pending.
2. Cedar River Watershed HCP (City of Seattle)
--Objectives are to provide reliable high quality drinking water for
city customers, manage the watershed's resources, and generate
hydroelectric power while complying with the ESA.
--Entities involved and which have signed an Agreement in Principal
in 1997 include the Seattle City Council, Seattle Public
Utilities, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Ecology, FWS and NMFS.
--Size of the watershed is 90,546 acres.
--Covered activities include: forest management such as regeneration
cutting, commercial and precommercial thinning, and salvage
logging; road maintenance and construction; activities
associated with operation of the municipal water and
hydroelectric supply including operation, maintenance and
improvement of facilities at Landsburg, Cedar Falls and Masonry
Dam; maintenance of trails and rights-of-way; and, new
watershed educational center.
--The HCP is one facet of a larger program. The city is also
negotiating an Instream Flow Agreement to protect, restore and
improve fish habitat in the Cedar River to establish binding
minimum instream flow requirements to replace the currently
non-binding ones, and also the Landsburg Mitigation Agreement
for fish passage and proposed fish hatchery.
--The City wants ESA coverage for approximately 90 listed and
unlisted aquatic and terrestrial species.
--The City intends to apply for certification under the Smartwood
program founded by the Rainforest Alliance in 1989. The program
promotes an ecosystem-based approach to forest management. The
applicant's watershed forest management plans and activities
are reviewed by an independent, multi-disciplinary team of
scientists that evaluate environmental, economic, and social
impacts of the plans. A potential advantage of certification
could be premium prices attached to green forest products
produced from the watershed.
3. Tacoma Public Utilities HCP
--The City of Tacoma wants an HCP that will cover forest management
activities in the Green River watershed, and activities related
to two other planned projects. One project involves
construction of a 33.5-mile long pipeline from the diversion
dam to the City. The other is to increase the size of the dam
and reservoir. Some of the activities include: water withdrawal
at the dam; fish bypass during construction of the pipeline and
dam and reservoir; realignment, enlargement, and addition of
upgraded fish screens and bypass facilities; installation,
monitoring and maintenance of instream structures; operation
and maintenance of a wetland restoration project; restoration
of anadromous fish by trapping and hauling adults returning to
the area; and, possible planting of hatchery juveniles.
--The applicant is seeking coverage for about 25 listed and unlisted
aquatic and terrestrial species.
--The plan area includes the Tacoma owned and operated water
diversion dam and facilities (Headworks) on the Green River,
and about 13,600 acres of land upstream from the dam. The Green
River is a principal source of municipal and industrial water
for the City and portions of King and Pierce counties.
--Entities involved include the City of Tacoma, Tacoma Public
Utilities, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe, FWS, and NMFS.
In closing, I would like to reiterate on behalf of the Service our
great appreciation for your support for the health of fish and wildlife
in the Pacific Northwest.
This concludes my statement. Gerry Jackson and I are pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
NEW STATE EMPLOYEES
Senator Gorton. Mr. Smitch, I think in one of the earlier
panels, I don't remember the witness so I won't name the
witness, someone took a shot at you, or at least at the State
budget, to the effect that a considerable portion of the money
in the capital budget is going, not to the ground, not to these
volunteer agencies, but to new people working as State
employees. Do you want to comment on that? And do you want to
comment on what you feel the role of these volunteer citizen
groups to be?
Mr. Smitch. Yes, Senator, I'd be happy to. If they're
commenting on the State's capital budget process, in the
governor's budget the overwhelming majority of that is passed
through to local government. There has been in the House
version right now--and we have, as was said, a Senate
Republican and a Democratic version. Some of that money has
been allocated for some other activities, and that's one of the
issues we're trying to reconcile. So we, as the governor said,
are very mindful that we cannot be using federal money in
particular, but even the State money, to be building a staff of
FTEs. So we're scrubbing that very carefully. I think you will
hear from all the agencies and all the governments involved
some level of infrastructure is going to be necessary for doing
the accountability, doing the data, doing the assessment, doing
the monitoring. But we're trying to minimize that at the State
level for us.
We think, Senator, that volunteer groups, as was said here,
are crucial. As Louise said, this has to be a grounds--a
ground-up approach. We've committed to that approach. How you
fund volunteers, senator, is a very difficult issue, because
there isn't accountability measures over volunteers, by almost
definition. Representative--Representatives Regala and Buck in
2496 tried to set up a process, that at least what comes out of
that process goes to the State for some overall scientific
screening. And I think, as Louise pointed out, she supports
that. We support a Statewide screen in there. So we're trying
to figure out how do we take taxpayer money, put it out to
volunteer groups, and assure them that they're getting the best
bang for their buck. So it's a hard issue, because at one
level, by the nature of it, they need to not have a lot of
restrictions and requirements, because they're providing the
energy and the enthusiasm and the on-site information to get
this done. At the same time, at the end of the day, we know the
federal government is going to say, ``Did or did not those
efforts make a difference for both salmon recovery and meet ESA
requirements?'' That's what we're struggling with, is how to
marry those two in some way--very different expectations.
Senator Gorton. One more question for me, and I'll just go
across the group here. I'd also like your reaction to Bill
Ruckelshaus' suggestion, but I'm going to make it a little
harder for you full-time people here. You can answer it both
with Congressman Dicks' suggestion.
But first, is it a good idea to have some coordinator like
that? And second, would it be a better idea to do it in the way
that Congressman Dicks suggested, say you two as partners, or
would it be better to have a coordinator, someone to try to
coordinate all these things, perhaps from outside of the
professional government at all--without him in the room, say
Bill Ruckelshaus himself, or some citizen with the kind of
reputation that he has, but nonetheless appointed jointly by
the governor and by the president? Could all of you comment on
at least your initial thoughts about that idea?
Mr. Lohn. Thank you, senator. As the Independent Science
Advisory Board, which is also basically the ISRP, has
frequently pointed out, the region has good projects, but no
framework, no common plan. Having ultimately some individual,
some entity that brings it together and says, ``All right,
there's some judgment calls, but here's what we're going to
do,'' would be very valuable. As to who should do it, I think
that's a political question that I would leave to your
judgment, as long as it's a person with sufficient authority,
political, legal, or persuasive, to bring others into following
a common vision. Thank you.
Mr. Stelle. Good question, senator. First of all, to the
issue of ``Is coordination among these activities useful and
desirable?'' the answer, I think the obvious answer, is yes.
The tough issue is how. To the question of how, first, we
at the federal level have fairly intentionally taken a more
low-profile role as these initiatives take root, under the
premise that they will better take root if left to themselves
for a while. And what we see now sprouting up across the
landscape are these very exciting initiatives with the tribes,
with the counties, in the private sector, and with the State
agencies. So at this stage we have--we have very intently stood
back, not tried to provide any kind of rigorous guidance on it,
in favor of that more local home-grown flavor. As things grow
in complexity, then maybe the approach warrants some
adjustment.
To the question of ``Do we need some significant pooh-bah
designated to come in and orchestrate everything?'' I'm fairly
cautious about that. People tend to say, ``Yes, that's a good
idea,'' until the pooh-bah tells them what to do, and then
suddenly it's not such a good idea, like ``Who the heck are
you?'' So my instinct on this one is first of all to advise
caution, and maybe, in fact, to ask the key entities for their
collective advice to you on answering the question on how, at
this stage in time. I would posit the question to myself and to
the federal entities, to the State and to the tribes and to
county authorities, ``Can you give us your recommendation on
how to set up a better, more reliable, but not overly
cumbersome coordinating mechanism?'' And I think that asking
that question and assigning to us collectively the
responsibility to give you a good answer is, again, more in
keeping with a little bit more local flavor than simply saying,
``President Clinton and Governor Locke, go find some pooh-bah
to get our house in order.'' That--I think I have a little
pause on that as the right remedy at this time.
To the question of coordination, absolutely. Tell us here
who are working on the ground to give you a collective answer
on that. And I think that we can.
Senator Gorton. Thank you. Thank you. Very good.
Mr. Smitch. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, probably one of
our biggest challenges is the governance issue, the issue that
Bill Ruckelshaus put on the table and others have spoken to
here. I share many of Will's concerns. We have been working on
this since you provided us with the $20 million, you and
Congressman Dicks. A year ago we knew that the challenge before
us of allocating this funding on the ground, that met local
needs, but at the same time it was screened scientifically and
was--identified some list of priorities, was going to be a
challenge. And it has turned out to be that.
And I would say, by the way, that--to Tom's credit, the
first set of projects did go out this week, some in the Puget
Sound, the majority of them, interestingly enough, in eastern
Washington.
Here's the problems that we see, that we find, and we still
are wrestling with. Who's going to be at the table? If you're
really going to make decisions there, then everybody wants to
be there. If--and they have a very hard time saying a different
person can represent their interests. So that's one question.
And frankly, this is what the legislature is struggling with.
They're trying to set up an independent board: it started at
three, the last version was seventeen, and they have yet begun
to go through the second iteration, because now that people
think all of the State and federal money is going to go through
that board, that board is going to make the decisions, now they
want to revisit who's on there. OK, so this--we will not
resolve that this session; that's my guess. So who's on there?
Then who's accountable? You have to tell us who want to be
accountable for the expenditure of federal money. My sense,
senator, as you said to me one time earlier in this process,
``I don't want to be chasing thirty-nine counties and 279
cities around the table, trying to figure out how the money's
being spent; I want somebody that I can go to and say, `You're
on the hook.''' Right now you've said you want the State on the
hook. So who's accountable?
And then who's going to make, as Louise said, the actual
priority decision, becomes very, very important. And I would
submit one of the problems on the Columbia River is, in the
final analysis on these ESA-related decisions, they're the NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service's call, regardless of what
forum we set up. So we want a forum where they're at the table,
because ultimately, that's who we're going to get ESA
assurances from, and know whether or not we're providing salmon
recovery. They make the call.
We have the government council, senator, right now, that
has at least worked on the first $20 million, where we at least
have the governments there. Now, do we need to improve that or
modify that to have nongovernmental players at the table? We
have the ports, the quasi-governments; we're looking at the
utilities. Do we need to expand that? That is a very fair
question, one we're looking at. And that seems to be a place
where we can work and make these kinds of very hard allocation
decisions and move forward.
What is emerging is a sense that we need some statewide
screen, science-based, that allocates the money between the
regions. There are seven regions. Once you're within those
regions, that structure--we're finding out we've pulled
everybody together in local government. We have a number of
variations, and they all work for their own local area, so it's
hard to say we have to have one model. Southwest Washington,
the legislature passed a bill, created a council. Five counties
participate in that, they set the priorities, and it's working
and we're funneling money through that. Tri-County has a
voluntary effort that works. Upper Columbia is probably going
to move to that. Southeast Washington used the 2496 House bill
that Regala and Buck spoke to you about, and they're allocating
their money through that. So we're finding, once you get to the
regional level, some of them have very competent science
screens. They probably don't need a lot of duplication at the
State level. Some of them have almost nothing, and are going to
need backup at the State level. So I think the coordination is
not as bad as some would portray it. It is a problem, because
we're doing both vertical within, from a WRIA to the top of the
region, and then we're doing it across regions. I think, at
least at the cross-regions, senator, we're going to have to
have a statewide--some kind of statewide forum. I'm not so sure
that forum should be messing around too much clear down at the
WRIA level. So I'm with Will: I think we can give you several
options to look at, and then you tell us how you want to build
the accountability in, who you want to hold accountability,
accountable for the implementation of the funds and meeting ESA
requirements. And that will probably help force that
discussion.
Mr. Dicks. Let me just ask about this point, as I
understand Mr. Ruckelshaus' testimony, he says there needs to
be coordination because there are a number of scientific
reviews under way. Maybe this is an effort with a number of
subcommittees, one of which would be the allocation of funds,
another would be helping to develop a recovery strategy, and
the third might be marshaling of all the various science. We
might have subcommittees under your governor's governance, with
maybe a Federal/State lead. That was what I was thinking about,
so that you could address these separate subjects. And now the
question then becomes, do you need to have some new person come
in to coordinate all these things, or do you have, like we had
in timber, fish, and wildlife? You know, you both were
representatives there, one Federal, one State, the private
sector was there, and you worked on this one particular part of
the problem. That might be a model, as well. But I like the
idea of your coming back to us, with some ideas about how we
can work on coordination. I think that's a pretty good idea,
senator, and maybe we should ask them to do that.
Senator Gorton. Let's let the last two speak, and then
we'll----
Mr. Dwyer. I think I agree a lot with what Will and Curt
have said. Is better coordination necessary? Well, absolutely.
Are there some other facts that we all really understand? And
that is, there are some federal agencies, say Fish and Wildlife
Service or NMFS, that are responsible for implementing the
Endangered Species Act. Everyone wants to know who's going to
make the final decisions.
You know, my last thought would be, when you go to
discussing this overall coordination role, you really have to
involve Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS and the State and
the tribes, and then it goes down to the counties and the
cities also, so--and what's the best process to do that? I'm
not sure I've got a great answer for you right now. There are
variations of that going on, as Curt described, already. And
maybe some of the problem with people who think there's not
enough coordination is maybe because they don't really
understand some of the stuff that's going on now, and aren't
now players at the table, and maybe that's because of funding
or other reasons. But I think there are some models out there
that have been tried. Some haven't worked. There are some other
partial models that are now working. And I think the idea of us
giving you some further ideas would be useful.
Senator Gorton. Billy?
Mr. Frank. My friend Bill Ruckelshaus, who I have a lot of
respect for, was going to Montana, and he and Jill were going
to fish over there, and then he took that envoy to Canada, and
he hasn't been there ever since. And he went--you know, they
just didn't agree on whatever he was doing, you know. But not
unless this czar is going to be an Indian, you know, we----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. You're against the czar unless it's you. Right?
[Laughter.]
That'd be a different matter, Billy?
Mr. Frank. And we look to the State of Washington and the
federal government and our partners, and as well as our
counties and cities and local governments, to do what they do.
But it's important that somebody's in charge here. I mean, we
can't come back to you next year and report to you if this is
still going like it is. There's a whole lot of things here
today come out, and they're floating in the air. Positive
things. But somebody has to put it together and measure this
along the way.
And you know, the accountability to this funding, boy,
that's important. And we've got to account for every dime we
spend, and where is it going to, and what is it doing? You
know, we got to come back to you and report to that, you know.
And coordination is--somebody's got to coordinate this, and
it's so important that it gets done.
But you know, you've heard the feds and the State talking
about thinking a little bit about how this all comes up, and we
couldn't answer to a lot of questions a year ago, or even six
months ago, because a lot of things have been happening. Out of
this process you are going to get different leaders, younger
leaders coming up, thinkers, creative people thinking about how
we can put this together. And hopefully--and that's happening
right today. And that's a real positive step forward of how we
can get from A to B to C at the end of this whole process that
we're going to be doing.
Senator Gorton. Well, personally Will, I think your
response was thoughtful and appropriate, and to the best of my
ability, we're going to inquire of all of you as to how this
goes on. Ruckelshaus' idea was an intriguing one, but we need
that decision to come up from the bottom rather than down from
the top.
I have one more narrow Columbia River-related question for
you, but I'll submit it to you in writing and you can get back
to me.
But you had your hand up, so----
Mr. Stelle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may, just two
additional quick points on this coordination issue, to speak to
questions you raised earlier.
First is science. Again, I think that in the area of
science, information, mapping capabilities, analytical
capabilities, modeling capabilities, data management, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, things that are largely value-
neutral and things that are devoid of policy--the coordination
issue can be handled a little bit differently on that type of
work. And on that type of work I think that the federal
agencies, the State agencies, particularly where--and the
tribal capacity in science--we need to force a much better
integration of our science knowledge and delivery services to
those who want to know. So I think there's a little bit of a
separate answer when it comes to the mustering and making
available of relevant information.
Mr. Dicks. Are you talking about, like, a database?
Mr. Stelle. Absolutely. And frankly----
Mr. Dicks. Which everyone use?
Mr. Stelle [continuing]. What I'd like--my view is that
pulling all of the databases and modeling capacity, loading up
that system, developing the software to make that system
available and accessible to local people, that's a big job. And
my own view is that if you ask the feds to do it, it may take
us five years. And we----
Mr. Dicks. Ask Microsoft, then.
Mr. Stelle [continuing]. We've got capacity here in the
Northwest region, people that--with 5 or 10 people, they can
put together a SWAT team, move in, spend 6 months, build the
hardware system, build the software system, load it, and make
it deliverable, and you would find it just sprouting across the
landscape because suddenly people would have access to
information that they cry out for on what works; what should I
do, where to set my priorities? So on the science issue and the
delivery mechanisms, there's some unique opportunities here.
Senator, to your question of what are the goals, we have
statutory obligations under the Endangered Species Act to
develop recovery plans. And the way we have been thinking about
approaching those obligations is in a two-tiered method, the
first one of which is largely a technical exercise of
establishing measurable goals for what delisting, for what
recovery looks like. What kind of populations, in what
abundance, over what time, distributed across the region, what
does that look like, and how can we develop some measuring
capabilities to assess that over time? And we believe that that
is a role and a responsibility that we have, and we're prepared
to engage in that.
The second thing is how to get there from here. And in
answering the question of ``how,'' the design of a recovery
strategy and the implementation of a recovery strategy, that's
where we believe there is--there may well be a special primacy
role for State, tribal, and local authorities in helping us
shape the how.
On the ``what is the goal,'' it's largely--it's very much a
technical issue. I think we have a special responsibility to
provide that to the region. On the ``how,'' that's very
intensely collaborative.
Mr. Dicks. I just want to ask a couple of questions. What
are the things that are being discussed between the Tri-County
group and the National Marine Fisheries Service in terms of
recovery strategy?
Mr. Stelle. Again, as Louise pointed out earlier, the tri--
and Bob did--the Tri-County initiative is really focussed on
how can they shape the exercise of their authorities and
responsibilities in order to begin to restore--protect and
restore the productivity of the habitats within their
jurisdiction. What kind of things do county governments do that
affect the protection and restoration of that habitat, and how
can they make adjustments, either through their ownership
authorities or through their regulatory land use authorities?
That is part and parcel of a larger recovery strategy, because
there are many things affecting the salmonid life cycle that go
well beyond county authorities.
What we are working on with the counties is, first of all,
reviewing their early action initiatives, which is a first cut
by them, a very good first cut, at what kind of early actions
can we implement on the ground to get this ball rolling while
we fine-tune a larger habitat restoration strategy. And we are
working with them on those early action initiatives and trying
to answer the question that they have asked of us, ``Of this
set of activities and commitments we're prepared to make, or
have made, what kind of ESA safe harbors can you provide to us
for these types of activities?'' And that gets into some of the
regulatory stuff about certainty, and reliability, and
predictability, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So this is first, the stage one is a set of early action
initiatives to get the ball rolling in protecting and
restoring, while the larger assessment and strategic planning
for watershed restoration overall occurs.
Mr. Dicks. Now, the Tri-County group obviously is well-
financed, and they have professional staff and a lot of
ability.
Mr. Stelle. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. I represent some counties that don't have those
kinds of resources: Kitsap County, Jefferson, Clallam, Mason,
Grays Harbor.
Mr. Stelle. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. Are they going to work through the state, or are
they going to have their own independent piece of this? How is
it going to work?
Mr. Smitch. Congressman, we've been working with Will on
exactly this issue. We had built in the budget the ability to
develop the technical capacity, either at the state or at the
local level, in those county areas that don't have that
capacity at this point in time. And we were also--some of the
federal money that comes through is for planning and
assessment. Right now that's running at about 19 percent, I
think, of what was provided. And somebody here earlier said
that across the ESUs we probably need some base level of
funding, congressman, so that people can, in fact, develop
their plans and get some of that capacity.
But we assume in those areas where they simply don't have
it, the State's going to have to step in and provide that
technical support to the extent we can. And that's one of the
areas we have some disagreement right now on the budget, is how
to build that technical capacity at the local level in these
counties that simply don't have it. So we're working on that,
and we've identified it as an issue.
Mr. Dicks. For example, I talked to our county
commissioners in Kitsap County who said they just hired their
first biologist. We've done a lot of good work on Hood Canal,
but there are other parts of the county where a lot of work
hasn't yet been done. Will, under the Endangered Species Act,
if these counties are a little behind, are they going to have
time to catch up? What's the time frame?
Mr. Stelle. A couple of things on that, congressman. First
of all, as a practical matter there is no way that we would
ever contemplate bringing and enforcement action under the
federal Endangered Species Act against a county authority that
was working hard to try to develop a restoration strategy for
their watersheds. Won't happen. Shouldn't happen. Dumb idea.
We've got a lot bigger problems to deal with on major
activities with major impacts.
That doesn't deal with the issue of potential third-party
lawsuits, and we recognize that. And that's a little bit of a
random factor here that, frankly, it's difficult to control one
way or the other. But as to whether or not we will be providing
the kind of encouragement that we can under the law to let
these local initiatives grow, absolutely.
I have to say, though, again, back to this science issue,
it may well be in some closet somewhere--in fact, it's a
guarantee--that probably the Forest Service research station
has extensive GIS mapping and habitat analyses for all of the
rivers in those three counties, and time set data. Now, what
you need is the ability for that single county biologist to tap
into that knowledge so that he or she doesn't have to go
reinvent the wheel. It's there somewhere, guaranteed. We have
to make it available. That's the science initiative. It's
absolutely essential. There's no way you can expect individual
county authorities on limited budgets to replicate the enormous
monitoring and research that we've done on the ground across
the landscape.
Senator Gorton. And shouldn't be done, if it could.
Mr. Stelle. No.
Senator Gorton. No.
Mr. Dicks. Well, Billy, I'm glad to see you here today in
good health, and you get the final word.
Mr. Frank. Could I--you know, I told you, both of you, that
the salmon is lining up, the stars are lining up, you know. And
you heard it all today, and very positive. Attitudes are really
good. But there's one thing that's not lining up, and that's
the water. And the salmon need the water. And the people that
are dealing with water are still dealing--you heard today,
everybody's talking about the salmon, ``What's good for the
salmon?'' Well, in water, they're saying, ``What's good for
me?'' It isn't ``What's good for salmon,'' it's ``What's good
for me?'' So the special interests are still talking about
``What's good for me?'' And they're not going to get--they're
down to one page, or one line in the legislature now. You know,
they haven't included people, and they're fighting with each
other.
So we've got to get beyond that, you know. And so that
attitude's got to change within that forum, that water forum.
So thank you. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. Well, with that, I want to thank you. And a
couple of observations. In many respects this has been a
different kind of Congressional hearing than most of the
hearings that Norm Dicks and I attend, where you have at least
two highly-contrasting points of view engaged in a debate with
the voting members ultimately being the judges, or having to
reach a compromise.
Here, we have had everyone, probably representing the vast
majority of the people of the State, sharing at least the same
general goal. Many of the differences as to how to reach those
goals have been rather subtle, and can easily pass over each
one of us. But we do have an opportunity, because of the broad
consensus on an overall goal, to try to see to it that we make
it in a very constructive fashion, that we do a better job than
we did with forests, and do a better job in Puget Sound than
we've done with the Columbia River.
I really appreciate all you've said, Mr. Stelle, about your
role and the relationship between your statutory
responsibilities and your own feeling of how these policies
should be implemented. And the same to you, Mr. Smitch. I hope
that we may have helped the whole process of bringing together
people across the spectrum.
And for us, our primary goal is to try to see to it that we
get as many dollars as we possibly can, out of a very
restricted federal budget, for this problem, and to give you
the maximum amount of ability to see to it that those dollars
are used effectively to meet the problem.
Mr. Dicks. And I would just add one thing. I think, again,
we heard today from almost everyone that the United States-
Canada agreement, along with the federal resources, are the
twin pillars of what we have to do. The funding will be more
long-term for habitat. But we can get salmon in the gravel this
fall if we can get a United States-Canada agreement.
Senator Gorton. In the next few months. That's correct.
Now, just one procedural matter before we adjourn. I want
to thank Henry Yates of the Port of Seattle----
Mr. Dicks. Hear, hear.
Senator Gorton [continuing]. Who helped get this room for
us, and Judy Matthews of Host Marriott Services in helping with
all of these arrangements.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
And finally, the formal record of this committee will be
open for two weeks. Anyone, whether they were witnesses here or
not, can submit written comments for the record. They will be a
part of the record. You can send them either to Congressman
Dicks' office or my office, but it will be a joint record.
With that, we thank all of the participants and all of the
spectators. It's been a most educational day.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Wednesday, April 7, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittees were recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
-