[Senate Hearing 106-962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-962
COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND THE DRAFT BASINWIDE
SALMON RECOVERY STRATEGY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13 AND 14, 2000
NOVEMBER 20, 2000--BOISE, ID
__________
ON
A REVIEW OF A DRAFT FEDERAL PROPOSAL TO RECOVER SALMON SPECIES ON THE
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-532 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
second session
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BOB GRAHAM, Florida
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 24
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 4
WITNESSES
Bloch, Eric J. Jr., chairman, Northwest Power Planning Council,
Portland, OR, on behalf of Governor Kitzhaber.................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Boyer, Lionel, chairman, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, ID.. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Cassidy, Frank L., Vancouver, WA, on behalf of Governor Locke.... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Cottingham, David, Special Assistant to the Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; accompanied by
Howard Shaller, Vancouver, WA Office, Fish and Wildlife Service 48
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Etchart, John, Helena, MT, on behalf of Governor Racicot......... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Johansen, Judith A., Administrator and Chief Executive Officer,
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy,
Portland, OR................................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Governor, State of Idaho.................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Mogren, Colonel Eric T., Northwestern Division, Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, OR; accompanied by Doug Arndt............. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Penney, Samuel, chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee,
Lapwai, ID, representing the Columbia River Intertribal Fish
Council........................................................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Stelle, William Jr., Northwest region regional administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 86
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
McDonald, J. William, regional director, Pacific Northwest Region
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, prepared
statement...................................................... 96
Recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington for the Protection and Restoration of Fish in the
Columbia River Basin........................................... 59
------
SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 99
WITNESSES
Batson, Derrek, Treasurer, Board of Directors, Idaho Salmon and
Steelhead Unlimited, Napa, ID.................................. 117
Prepared statement........................................... 175
Bosse, Scott, Idaho Rivers United, Boise, ID..................... 119
Prepared statement........................................... 176
Bouwes, Nick, Biometrician, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Portland, OR......................................... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 147
Bowles, Edward C., Anadromous Fish Manager, Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, Boise, ID....................................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 153
Kutchins, Keith, Anadromous Fish Biologist, Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes, Fisheries Department, Ft. Hall, ID..................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 168
Masonis, Robert J., Director, Northwest Regional Conservation
Programs, American Rivers, Seattle, WA......................... 121
Prepared statement........................................... 180
Patton, Sara, Coalition Director, Northwest Energy Coalition,
Seattle, WA.................................................... 132
Prepared statement........................................... 181
Semanko, Norman, M., Executive Director and General Counsel,
Idaho Water Users, Boise, ID................................... 135
Prepared statement........................................... 187
Spain, Glen, Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Association, Inc., Eugene, OR........ 137
Prepared statement........................................... 198
Weber, Earl, C. Fisheries Scientist, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission, Portland, OR.................................. 106
Prepared statement........................................... 171
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Comments by Idaho Water Users on the Draft Biological Opinion for
Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System Including
the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program and the Bureau of
Reclamation's 31 Projects, Including the Entire Columbus Basin
Project I60252.................................................
Federal Caucus, Comments by Idaho Water Users on Conservation of
Columbia Basin Fish Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy.. 195
Resumes:
Craig L. Sommers............................................. 249
David B. Shaw................................................ 248
James J. Anderson............................................ 245
Richard A. Hinrichsen........................................ 249
William J. McNeil............................................ 250
Statements:
Northwest Energy Coalition................................... 184
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations......... 201
------
NOVEMBER 20, 2000--BOISE, ID
OPENING STATEMENTS
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 253
WITNESSES
Anderson, James, Columbia Basin Research, Seattle, WA............ 277
Prepared statement........................................... 319
Arndt, Doug, Chief, Fish Management Division, Army Corps of
Engineers, Northwestern Division, North Pacific Region,
Portland, OR................................................... 260
Prepared statement........................................... 318
Barrie, Thayne, owner, Sunset Sports Center, Boise, ID........... 296
Prepared statement........................................... 341
Benson, Mark J., public affairs director, Idaho Potlatch
Corporation, Lewiston, ID...................................... 299
Prepared statement........................................... 346
Corwin, Scott, PNGC Power........................................ 301
Prepared statement........................................... 347
Dreher, Karl, director, Idaho Department of Water Resources,
Boise, ID...................................................... 280
Prepared statement........................................... 326
Report, Chinook Salmon Survival.............................. 332
James, Daniel, on behalf of Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association.................................................... 294
Prepared statement........................................... 338
Paulsen, Charles, president, Paulson Environment Research, Lake
Oswego, OR..................................................... 278
Prepared statement........................................... 321
Rigby, Richard, program manager, Water Rights in Acquisition,
Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation................ 263
Schaller, Howard, project leader, Columbia River Fisheries
Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, WA.............. 260
Prepared statement........................................... 318
Schiewe, Michael, director, Northwest Fisheries Science Center,
Fish Ecology Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, WA.................................................... 259
Prepared statement........................................... 317
Smith, Craig, Northwest Food Processors Association, Salem, OR... 297
Prepared statement........................................... 343
Thurow, Russell, Fisheries Research Scientist, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Boise, ID.................................... 283
Prepared statement........................................... 334
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Article, Science Shifting on Dam Removals I60339.................
Letter, NMFS Biological Opinion.................................. 334
Statements:
Eames, Matt, senior legislative affairs representative, Idaho
Power Company.............................................. 359
Save Our Wild Salmon, Seattle, WA............................ 353
Saving Salmon in the Pacific Northwest....................... 339
COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND THE DRAFT BASINWIDE
SALMON RECOVERY STRATEGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Boxer, and Baucus [ex officio].
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
This is the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
the hearing to examine the draft biological opinion on the
Federal Columbia River power system and the Federal Caucus
draft basinwide salmon recovery strategy.
I have an opening statement, but Senator Boxer has not only
an opening statement but some testimony to give in another
hearing very quickly, and so we are going to go first to
Senator Boxer and she will open this hearing today with her
opening statement first.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your
understanding. It is true that I'm on a panel at the Commerce
Committee now, so I will go as quickly as I can.
This is so important. It is wonderful to see the good
Governor here from Idaho, because I enjoyed so much when he was
here in the Senate. We were on a couple of committees together,
as I remember it, and he was always one of the nicest people
around here, so we welcome him.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you and your staff for
working so closely with me and my staff on the witness list so
that we have balanced views. That's always so important.
It would be easy to assume that the debate over the Snake
River salmon is of importance only to the people of the Pacific
Northwest. While people in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho will
undoubtedly be the ones directly impacted by the efforts to
save these fish, the salmon, the issue has larger implications
that transcend the region and put it on the national radar
screen.
At its essence, the debate over Snake River salmon raises
tough and fundamental questions about whether we, as a nation,
are serious about two of our most important laws, the
Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. For me, those
are basic, important pieces of legislation that I want to see
strengthened rather than weakened.
Now, nobody in this room would challenge the assertion that
we've dramatically altered the natural ecology of the once-
mighty, free-flowing Snake River. The human impacts on the
river system have left a river with water quality that is in
extreme violation of the Clean Water Act and a set of salmon
stocks that are just barely staving off extinction.
The salmon species in question are of religious and
spiritual importance to northwest tribes, they are cultural
icons for the region, and they were once an economic mainstay
because of the tremendously valuable commercial and sport
fisheries they sustained. In fact, the decline of these salmon
stocks has led to restrictions on salmon fishermen from central
California all the way up to Alaska.
While there are people who argue that we need not save
every species from extinction, even opponents of the Endangered
Species Act would have difficulty arguing that it is in the
region's interest or our Nation's interest to watch these
particular fishruns go extinct. In fact, it would be hard to
find a species more deserving of protection than these salmon.
If we are not serious about saving them or restoring the water
quality in the river, it is hard to know under what
circumstance we would ever be serious about saving a species.
Yet, for decades we have either avoided the issue or employed
expensive but unsuccessful recovery tools. The result has been
that we have had to watch as these fish continue their
precipitous decline toward extinction.
I take this issue particularly serious because I view our
commitment and success in saving the Snake River salmon as a
good indicator about how we plan to handle the many listed
salmon stocks in my State.
Interestingly, many of the major newspapers in my State
have made this connection and have editorialized in favor of
removing the four Lower Snake River dams to recover the salmon.
I know this is extremely contentious.
Similarly, I have been contacted by many California
fishermen, conservationists, and sportsmen, who support serious
efforts to save Snake River salmon because they view it as an
indicator of how the Federal Government will approach salmon
recovery in my State.
Unfortunately, I must say that I am concerned that the
draft biological opinion that has been produced will do little
to steer us toward more effective Snake River salmon recovery
efforts. The opinion appears to rely on recovery strategies
such as trucking and barging that have already cost millions of
dollars but have been basically ineffective.
The opinion avoids the issue of dam removal, which Federal
scientists have suggested is the clearest and most certain
route to salmon recovery.
To me, it would be all right if it went that way if there
were aggressive alternatives to compensate for not taking down
the dams. The plan lacks an adequate mechanism for triggering
emergency recovery actions should the proposed strategies fail.
I'd like to see a plan that has more specific performance
standards and timelines for meeting those standards.
Having said this, I'm not suggesting that this draft
opinion be jettisoned in lieu of some alternative planning
effort. The last few decades we have planned for and studied
these salmon stocks nearly to the point of extinction. It is
vital that this biological opinion be reworked to present a
more realistic recovery strategy for Snake River salmon. It is
also very vital that we keep this effort moving forward and
produce a good biological opinion in a timely way. The last
thing we need is to further delay the important decisions that
must be made.
We have an obligation to fulfill the mandates of our
Federal environmental laws, to meet our treaty commitments to
the Native American tribes, and to preserve these species for
future generations.
So, Mr. Chairman, again, it is most unfortunate for me that
I must leave, but I am leaving this hearing in your great hands
and will be briefed thoroughly and will try to get back here if
I can give my testimony quickly.
Again, welcome to you, Governor, and to all of our fine
witnesses today.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this oversight
hearing to address the important questions surrounding the recovery of
the listed Snake River salmon runs. The size of our witness list is a
good indication of just how complex and controversial this issue is. It
would be easy to assume that the debate over these Snake River salmon
is of importance only to the people of the Pacific Northwest. While
people in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho will undoubtedly be the ones
most directly impacted by efforts to save these fish, the issue has
larger implications that transcend the region and place it squarely on
the national radar screen. At its essence, the debate over Snake River
salmon raises tough and fundamental questions about whether we as a
nation are serious about two of our most important Federal
environmental laws--the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Nobody in this room would challenge the assertion that we have
dramatically altered the natural ecology of the once mighty, free-
flowing Snake River. The human impacts on the Snake river system have
left a river with water quality that is in extreme violation of the
Clean Water Act and a set of salmon stocks that are just barely staving
off extinction.
The salmon species in question are of religious and spiritual
importance to Northwest tribes; they are cultural icons for the region;
and they were once an economic mainstay because of the tremendously
valuable commercial and sport fisheries they sustained. In fact, the
decline of these salmon stocks have led to restrictions on salmon
fishermen operating from central California all the way up to Alaska.
While there are people who argue that we need not save every
species from extinction, even opponents of the Endangered Species Act
would have difficulty arguing that it is in the region's interest--or
our nation's interest--to watch these particular fish runs go extinct.
In fact, it would be hard to find a species more deserving of
protection than these salmon. If we are not serious about saving these
salmon or restoring the water quality in this river--it is hard to know
under what circumstance we would ever be serious about it.
Yet, for decades we have either avoided the issue or employed
expensive, but unsuccessful recovery tools. The result has been that we
have had to watch as these fish continued their precipitous decline
toward extinction.
I take this issue particularly serious because I view our
commitment and success in saving the Snake River salmon as a good
indicator of how we plan to handle the many listed salmon stocks in my
State. Interestingly, many of the major papers in my State have made
this connection and have editorialized in favor of removing the four
lower Snake River Dams to recover the salmon. Similarly, I have been
contacted by many California fishermen, conservationists, and sportsmen
who support serious efforts to save Snake River salmon because they
view it as an indicator of how the Federal agencies will approach
salmon recovery in my State.
Unfortunately, I must say that I am deeply concerned that the draft
biological opinion that has been produced will do little to steer us
toward more effective Snake River salmon recovery efforts. The
biological opinion appears to rely on recovery strategies, such as
trucking and barging, that have already cost millions of dollars, but
have proven relatively ineffective. The opinion avoids the issue of dam
removal--which Federal scientists have suggested is the clearest and
most certain route to salmon recovery--but offers few really aggressive
alternatives to compensate. The plan also lacks an adequate mechanism
for triggering emergency recovery actions should the proposed
strategies fail. I would like to see a plan that has much more specific
performance standards and timelines for meeting those standards.
Having said this, I am not suggesting that this draft biological
opinion be jettisoned in lieu of some alternative planning effort. For
the last few decades, we have planned for and studied these salmon
stocks nearly to the point of extinction. It is vital that this
biological opinion be reworked to present a more realistic recovery
strategy for Snake River salmon. It is also vital that we keep this
effort moving forward and produce a good biological opinion in a timely
way. The last thing we need is to further delay the important decisions
that must be made.
We have an obligation to fulfill the mandates of our Federal
environmental laws, to meet our treaty commitments to the Native
American tribes, and to preserve these species for future generations.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses how this biological
opinion might be improved to achieve those goals.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. We do appreciate our good working
relationship, and I'm sure that we will have plenty of
opportunities to discuss this issue.
The Pacific Northwest region of the United States is the
home to several sub-species of culturally, economically, and
biologically significant species of anadromous fish--fish that
spawn in fresh water, migrate to the Pacific Ocean, where they
reach maturity, and then return to their fresh water birthplace
to spawn and die, their carcasses enriching the ecosystem that
feeds the newly hatched young.
Twelve of these sub-species of salmon and steelhead are
currently listed for protection under the Endangered Species
Act. Note that there are also several ESA-listed fish and
wildlife species in the Pacific Northwest, including bull trout
and Kootenai River white sturgeon.
There are certainly many relationships between these
species and other aquatic and terrestrial species and their
potential risk for extinction; however, the primary focus of
this initial hearing must necessarily be on the ESA-listed
salmon and steelhead.
Several decades of work by Federal, State, and tribal
governments and many organizations and individuals have failed
to stop the steady decline of these fish. These efforts have
cost taxpayers and electricity ratepayers an estimated $3
billion, yet the fish have continued to decline to the point
where they may soon become extinct.
Extinction of these salmon and steelhead is culturally
abhorrent to the northwest and illegal under the Endangered
Species Act and would violate tribal treaties and Federal
commitments to the fisheries.
Extinction must be avoided and recovery must happen.
How to recover these fish is controversial and laden with
economic impacts, cultural and spiritual emotion, scientific
intrigue, and courtroom maneuvering as well as publicity
spinning.
Let me state very clearly at this point that I do not yet
see any justification for an aggressive flow augmentation
program. The evidence to me shows that a flow augmentation
approach will not save the salmon.
At the same time, I do not disagree with the draft
biological opinion's approach, which does not recommend
removing the dams on the Lower Snake. At this point I see no
political support for such action, and believe that such a
recommendation would put the region into economic and political
gridlock in such a way that would prohibit even further efforts
to make reasonable steps to save the salmon.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the rest of the Federal action agencies,
together known as the ``Federal Caucus,'' have produced a draft
biological opinion and a draft basin-wide salmon recovery
strategy. These draft documents will soon lead to the
biological opinion and then to the recovery plan that will
dictate activities in the Pacific Northwest that seek to
recover ESA-listed anadromous fish.
Yesterday, my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith of
Oregon, held a hearing at which many of the same Federal Caucus
witnesses that are with us today testified. My understanding is
that Senator Smith's hearing focused proper attention on
regional energy and economic issues. Senator Smith makes a very
good point that needs to be heard and understood throughout the
region, but most particularly heard by members of the Federal
Caucus. That message is that the Federal Government must get
this right and do the things that make sense and work now,
while we have this window of opportunity.
Senator Smith and his colleagues on the Water and Power
Subcommittee have made very positive contributions to steering
this process in the right direction, and I look forward to
considerable consultation between the two subcommittees as we
move forward.
Very significantly, for the first time in history the four
Governors in the Pacific Northwest States of Idaho, Montana,
Washington, and Oregon have jointly released a series of
recommendations that outline the process the Governors feel
must be followed to achieve anadromous fish recovery. Getting
the four Governors together to produce their recommendations,
given the widely varied constituencies they must each
represent, is remarkable and encouraging.
Let me note the openness, the transparency, and the real
collaboration that characterize the process used by the
Governors and their staff in preparing their recommendations.
The four Governors have done a good job in identifying both the
proper focus on where the real problems are and the real
balance among the various solutions that are available.
The Federal Caucus would have done well to have followed
the same type of process. Instead, I had to file a FOIA request
to find out what the Federal Caucus was doing, and even then
faced opposition in full disclosure. Many of the others in the
region still feel that they do not and have not had an
opportunity to have real collaborative input into the Federal
decisionmaking process.
The Northwest Power planning Council has commenced a series
of public hearings in the Pacific Northwest to discuss draft
amendments to its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program. The Northwest Power Planning Council is an interstate
compact of the four Pacific Northwest States, charged by the
Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980
to protect and enhance fish and wildlife, while assuring the
Pacific Northwest's electric power supply.
The Northwest Power Planning Council seeks to develop and
monitor the implementation of this fish and wildlife program by
the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
While the Northwest Power Planning Council program deals
with a wide range of species and habitats, the fact is that the
primary focus is on the ESA-listed anadromous fish and the
effects of the hydroelectric system on these fish.
There are an enormous number of interests throughout the
Pacific Northwest that must be heard and understood. These
interests' perspectives must be given a thorough review, and
their recommendations about how we can recover these wild fish
must be given equal consideration.
I trust that all interests want to recover wild salmon and
steelhead. The debate is about how to best get the job done.
We are particularly concerned that the cultural and
economic interests must be satisfactorily considered. Without
collaboration from the economic interests and without great
sensitivity to the cultural aspects of this issue, it is highly
unlikely that any recovery plan will have enough public support
to be implemented.
Given these facts, I want everyone in the region to
understand that this hearing is but the first, and we are now
scheduling subsequent hearings, including field hearings in the
Pacific Northwest. I want everyone to be heard by this
subcommittee.
The primary purpose of this subcommittee's hearing here is
to examine the science used to develop the draft BIOP opinion
and the draft recovery strategy. We will examine in detail the
processes and assumptions used to develop the science. We will
look at the implications of the scientific conclusions. The
proposal's recovery standards, the balance of effort among
various measures aimed at each of the H's--Habitat, Harvest,
Hatchery, and Hydrosystems--and the various aspects of the
computer models used to assemble the draft documents will all
be examined.
Let me describe the role of science, as I see it. Science,
economy, and culture will all be partners in recovering these
wild anadromous fish. Recovery must first be based in science,
and we must get the science right.
We must not fear good, accurate science. Some worry about
where good, accurate science may lead us, and as a result may
seek to manipulate scientific processes or mischaracterize
scientific hypotheses and conclusions.
Such activity, in my opinion, is a disservice and it can
only bring further gridlock and more severe penalties to the
Pacific Northwest. I urge people from all perspectives to
insist on good science and be willing to recognize it when we
find it.
The approach I prefer is to understand the good science and
then let the people and the policymakers use that science to
craft a recovery plan that gives the economic and cultural
partners the trust they need to be advocates and participants
in recovery.
The imposition of bad process or bad science will result in
distrust and retreat into self-interest. Such a tragic path
backward will have severe penalties for the Pacific Northwest
and ultimately result in the loss of these incredible fish.
There is too much at stake to allow our limited resources
to be applied to false schemes or solutions. We have got to get
the science right.
If I understand the direction that we appear to be taking
now as a result of the Federal Caucus' action, we now have a
window of time--6 to 8 or 10 years--to evaluate other options
and take other options and take steps toward solutions that
will seek to recover the fish before evaluation of dam
breaching is then brought back to the table for further
reconsideration. That means we have a short window of time in
which we must do things right. Otherwise, if we continue to
spin our wheels or make wrong decisions about how to approach
recovery, we will, in 5, 6, 8 years be once again facing the
difficult question of whether the region must breach the dams
to save the fish.
I believe that other solutions can work and other solutions
will work if we can find the right approaches and move ahead
now. That's one of the main purposes of this hearing is to make
sure that we take this opportunity that we have to find the
right path forward so that if and when the time comes that we
have had experience with proposals that we believe will work,
we can then give them the kind of evaluative resolution that
they need.
We have today a number of panels. I believe that all of the
witnesses have received instructions, but I want to remind all
of the witnesses, particularly because we have such a long list
of witnesses, that we encourage you to follow the lights.
Each witness has been given the opportunity to submit
written testimony. That written testimony is a part of the
record and will be accepted and reviewed carefully by the
Members and by the staff.
I have seen a couple but very few witnesses who have been
able to say in 5 minutes everything they wanted to say in their
testimony before this subcommittee, and I just encourage you to
recognize that we need time for give-and-take between the
Senators and the witnesses, and to limit your verbal remarks to
the 5-minute limit.
The green light will be on for 4 minutes. The yellow light
comes on when 1 minute remains. The red light means that you
should sum up very quickly your thought at this point and trust
that anything you didn't get said will either be brought out in
questions or reviewed in your written testimony. Witnesses will
also certainly have the opportunity to submit further
testimony, as we usually keep the record open for a period of
days to allow things to be supplemented and corrected.
If any witnesses go over, I don't want you to be offended,
but I will remind you that you are going a little long and
encourage you to wrap it up.
Our first panel today is the Hon. Governor Dirk Kempthorne.
Governor, we welcome you.
Governor Kempthorne is not only a good friend and colleague
of mine, but the former chairman of this subcommittee, and so
he has a lot of experience not only with the Senate but with
these issues, as well.
Governor Kempthorne, we welcome you here today. We
encourage you to share with us the insight that you have now as
Governor, having formerly been the Senator for the State of
Idaho.
You are free to begin your remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF IDAHO
Governor Kempthorne. Senator Crapo, thank you very much. I
am honored to serve in this capacity on behalf of the people of
Idaho, but to join you and to testify before your committee. It
is a pleasure to see you as well as the staff members that I
appreciated working with.
I would also like to acknowledge that Attorney General Al
Lance of the State of Idaho is with me today.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you and to give you Idaho's perspective on one of the most
complex issues of the day, salmon recovery in the Pacific
Northwest.
One week ago today I was at Redfish Lake, 900 river miles
inland from the Pacific Ocean near Stanley, ID, just over the
summit from Sun Valley. The lake's name originated from the
color of the beautiful salmon returning to spawn in their
birthing waters.
I was joined by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
legislators, and school children from Filer and Stanley to
observe and assist the 36 marvelous salmon finish their return
from the ocean. These wild and hatchery salmon had returned to
spawn and start the cycle anew.
It is Idaho's intent that those schoolchildren who were
with me last week and their children, as well, will grow up to
see the restoration of the sockeye, as well as all stocks of
Idaho's salmon. Our commitment to this goal is unquestionable.
The question before this panel is to what extent the Federal
agencies will help the States in this effort.
I have long believed that only through a regional
collaborative effort will there ever be a real chance for
recovery of anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest.
This past summer, Governor Racicot, Governor Kitzhaber,
Governor Locke, and I decided that it was time to sit down and
work together to cross State lines, partisan boundaries between
two republican Governors and two democrat Governors, and see if
it was possible for us to reach a consensus on salmon recovery.
In July I was proud to announce, with the other Governors in
the region, an unprecedented agreement on the essential
principles for recovery and recommendations to implement them.
The agreement recognizes that every State in the region and
all of the stakeholders impacted by this process must step
forward and contribute. No one State can recover salmon, alone,
just as no single State can afford to shoulder a
disproportionate burden of the process. Only through regional
cooperation--not dictates by the Federal Government--is there a
chance to achieve real success.
The four Governors' strategy involves several key elements
important to Idaho. First, the Federal agencies should document
the benefits of flow augmentation and the precise attributes of
flow that make it beneficial.
Second, harvest impacts must be reduced on listed wild fish
in the ocean and Columbia River. Idaho has been blessed with a
great return of salmon this year--in fact, the most in nearly a
quarter of a century. Most were hatchery fish and, therefore,
not counted toward Endangered Species Act listed salmon or for
salmon recovery.
Third, the region must implement actions now that can and
should be done without breaching the four Lower Snake River
dams.
Finally, predation of all kinds, including terns and marine
mammals, must be limited.
I want to publicly express my appreciation to Governor
Kitzhaber, Governor Racicot, and Governor Locke for their
diligence and cooperation in achieving this historic milestone.
The gentlemen here today to speak on their behalf also played
key roles.
This document is a framework for a comprehensive approach
in dealing with the four H's of salmon recovery--Habitat,
Harvest, Hydropower, and Hatcheries. Throughout each of these
areas, it reflects the importance of what I have heard referred
to as ``the fifth H''--Humans. We recognize that the Columbia
River Basin is not only an unparalleled natural resource, it is
also a dynamic economic engine. For both reasons, it is
critical to the well-being of the four States in the region.
This agreement is not a recovery plan. We cannot create one
unilaterally. The salmon are a federally-declared endangered
species, and, as such, all of Federal laws--the Endangered
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and dozens more--govern what
our States can and cannot do, and our States cannot and should
not shoulder the full financial costs of recovering these
endangered species.
But, while we cannot create a recovery plan, we can create
something that the Federal Government so far has found
difficult to do, and that is to create consensus in the Pacific
Northwest. If the salmon recovery plan is to be one that is
workable, then I believe it has to meet three tests. It has to
be supported biologically, it has to be supported economically,
and it has to be supported politically.
This agreement meets these three tests, but I remain firm
that the only way we will see results in the region is if State
law is respected and the local citizens are brought into the
process from the beginning. It must respect the principles of
private property rights, and any additional waters acquired
through a willing seller/willing buyer basis.
Idaho is willing to do its part, and so are the other
States. This document is a testament to our commitment.
The question now is to what extent the Federal Government
provides support on a policy level, as well as a financial
level, to help us achieve this goal. The fact that release of
the biological opinion on salmon recovery was delayed
repeatedly underscores the difficulty of the Federal agencies'
role in this debate to reach consensus.
As Governor Kitzhaber noted at our press conference in
July, the Federal Government is spending more than $400 million
a year on salmon recovery. It has not been well coordinated. It
has not been focused. It has not had strict accountability
measures to achieve the defined results.
So if I had to boil down our advice to the Federal
Government of the United States of America, I would do it in
four words: listen to the States. These are the States united
in the recovery of salmon. We share the same commitment to
recovering these remarkable species. We have taken the time and
made the hard choices to reach consensus in the region, and
we've created this comprehensive road map to recovery. We are
at the table.
Idaho is optimistic that the State and regional
stakeholders are joined together to empower themselves
throughout this process; however, Idaho remains concerned that
the All-H paper has failed to give deference to the objectives
outlines in the four Governors' recommendations.
At the end of the day, the best solutions are those that
are owned by the participants rather than those that are
imposed by Federal edict.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent that the recommendations
of the four Governors be made part of the public record, and I
would thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you and
would note also, Mr. Chairman, that I've made my extended
comments available for the record.
Senator Crapo. Without objection, these documents will be
available and made a part of the record.
Governor Kempthorne, first of all let me again thank you
for coming to testify today. I realize 5 minutes is a very
short period of time to cover a topic such as this. But let me
just go through a couple of the areas that you raised.
I note that at the front of your testimony you talked about
the need to justify flow augmentation, if it can be justified.
Does the State of Idaho have a position on the flow
augmentation as a source of remedy in recovery of the salmon?
Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, the State of Idaho will
be making, as part of its findings with regard to the BIOP, a
detailed analysis of flow augmentation. We do not believe that
flow augmentation provides the benefit that some in the Federal
Government suggest that it does.
We think that there is, in some quarters, the idea that
flow augmentation is being promoted so that it would divide
different parties; that if breaching is not possible, then
let's use flow augmentation. Flow augmentation, therefore, if
we can reach the point of a painful threshold, would then cause
some to say, ``We can't provide that much water, let's now turn
back to breaching,''
So no, I do not believe that flow augmentation is the key.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I find it astounding that, when we
look at all of these elements that are obstacles to the
recovery of salmon, if I specifically point out the Caspian
terns, where there was agreement by the Corps of Engineers, by
other Federal agencies, that they would relocate these Caspian
terns, because it is estimated that they are consuming up to 15
to 25 million smolt before they ever get to the ocean.
A plan was implemented, and then a lawsuit was filed. Part
of the lawsuit's justification was pointing to the Fish and
Wildlife Service that the consumption of these smolt was not
that significant of an impediment to the return of salmon.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a biologist, but if a smolt is
consumed it will never return as a salmon--15 to 25 million.
So, I believe that those are some of the objectives that we
ought to be looking at, as opposed to saying to the State of
Idaho, ``You provide additional water.''
Senator Crapo. You've identified a dichotomy there that I
think many of us have lived with in the State of Idaho, in
particular, but in the Pacific Northwest, in general, and that
is the conflict that has arisen between the two what I've
called ``sideboards'' of this issue; namely, flow augmentation,
or taking water to try to flush the fish past the dams, or dam
breaching to try to lower the water levels and return to a
normal river situation.
You are correct that in the past there has been this
competition between those two interests, although in the more
recent past I think there has been some kind of mending of
fences between those who are on the different sides of those
issues.
It seems to me that, as we address this issue, we have to
remember that there are not just the economic consequences of
dam breaching that we have to address, but also the economic
consequences of heavy flow augmentation, and in that context it
seems to me that, if the science were to show that flow
augmentation worked, we would have an even more difficult
dichotomy to deal with, but the science that I have seen seems
to indicate that the impact of flow augmentation on the speed
of helping the fish to get to the ocean or in other contexts is
not significant.
Is it my understanding that that is the position that the
State of Idaho is going to take?
Governor Kempthorne. I concur with you, Mr. Chairman. Our
Idaho Department of Water Resources will provide extensive
information about flow augmentation in response to the BIOP.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that, in this
four-
Governors agreement, we call for the Federal Government to
provide its scientific justification of flow augmentation, that
it not simply be assumed n automatic that flow augmentation is
the solution, because I do not believe that it is, and I
appreciate that the other Governors have also called for that
scientific justification.
When you mentioned the dichotomy, Mr. Chairman, of a number
of factors, again, I have to thank the other Governors of the
other three States because this was difficult to achieve
consensus and, as you indicated, with our different
constituencies, our different economies, so this is a
significant document and I hope that the Federal Government
will seriously look at this as a foundation.
Senator Crapo. I think it is a very significant document
and I have the same hope.
I believe also that one of the things the document does is
it seeks to achieve what I know that you and I and many others
have been talking about for some time, and that is to recognize
not only the science and where we think the science is best
guiding us, but also, as you indicated, the biology that would
be the science, I think, and then the economic and the
political realities that we face in the Pacific Northwest.
It is going to be very difficult to find a balance between
those three factors that you identified; however, it is not
avoidable. It is a necessity.
It seems to me that, between the remedies of dam breaching
and river flushing, there are many, many options that we can
take, and I view the Governors' document, the Governors'
proposal as an effort to find the most effective path forward
between those two parameters.
I was just wondering if you believe that I am--am I viewing
it in the correct posture there?
Governor Kempthorne. I believe so, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate your approach to this question.
When you talked about variety of opportunities and options
that we may pursue, in my extended comments, which have been
made part of the record, I have gone through in some detail, so
I won't be redundant because of the time requirements. I would
just affirm, Mr. Chairman, one of the points that you made, and
that is it has been suggested that it would be 8 to 10 years
before the issue of dam breaching would be back before
Congress.
I also will point out that the Corps of Engineers has
indicated that there's anywhere from 5 to 10 years of silt that
it has estimated have built up behind the dams.
If you take the amount of time politically that may be
necessary to reach the question of breach--and then, of course,
I think there would be court challenges by a variety of
groups--if you ever were to see the breach, and then another 5
to 10 years for the silt to be cleansed through the river
system, you are talking conservatively 20 years. It would be
absolutely wrong for elected officials to sit idly by, put all
of their faith in that solution, and say that for 20 years,
therefore, there's nothing we can do.
I don't buy it, and that's why the four Governors have
stepped forward with what I think is a doable plan. Our
attitude is to do the doable, do it now, and I think we'll see
the return of salmon.
I'm delighted also that this year was the best return of
the sockeye that we have seen in nearly a quarter of a century.
Senator Crapo. That's a very good point. If we do the
doable and what the region and the consensus that can be built
in the region finally comes to as an understanding of the best
part of the doable that we can do--in other words, if we find
the best path and do it--then, whatever the result of it is, we
will have the benefit of knowing what happened and why, and we
can then make very well-guided decisions at that point in time.
You talked a lot in your testimony about collaboration and
consensus-building. I happen to agree with you that no recovery
plan on salmon--in fact, I think no major issue that impacts a
region such as this does--will be resolved unless there can be
a consensus at the political and economic as well as the
scientific levels built to move forward, and so I very strongly
agree with you on that.
Those in the Federal Caucus already know that I have very
strong concerns about what I believe to be a lack of
collaboration on the part of the process that I have seen for
the last couple of years. We may have some disputes among each
other about how much collaboration is happening and what really
collaboration is and should be.
However, the question I have for you is: what has been your
experience in working with the Federal Caucus from the State of
Idaho's perspective?
Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, individually there are
some very dedicated individuals in the Federal Government that
are working on this issue. My concern and my frustration has
been the process, not the individuals.
The fact that we have asked for information, the fact that
we have asked to be at the table----
Senator Crapo. Do you believe that the State of Idaho is at
that table?
Governor Kempthorne. No. I do not.
Senator Crapo. Go ahead. I didn't mean to interrupt.
Governor Kempthorne. I believe that the State of Idaho is
at the table with the other three States, and the State of
Idaho has joined in a document that we have now submitted to
the Federal Government.
This is a collaborative process, and, again, I have sought
through different forums, meetings with different members of
agencies or different members of the Cabinet expressing my
views, my concerns, but I do not feel that we were invited to
the Federal table in a collaborative process as they developed
this BIOP.
Senator Crapo. Again, I know we are probably restating it,
but do you think that we can get to a plan that can be
regionally accepted and effectively implemented unless that
happens?
Governor Kempthorne. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
If this were easy, it would have been done years ago, and
the All-H paper that came out by the Federal Government made it
very clear there is not a silver bullet, there is not one
solution. It is a matrix of a variety of options, and it is a
combination that will be necessary.
Any time you have that many options with that many people
involved, you must seek cooperation and collaboration.
Again, I will point to the fact that I think that for it to
be successful the participants must feel that they have
ownership of this. That doesn't mean that it is everything that
every one of us would like. I fully realize that there will be
give and take. There will be things in there--the language of
this is not necessarily as I would have written it. I will tell
you, Mr. Chairman, that Idaho undertook writing its proposed
salmon recovery recommendations. I did not release them because
I knew that if we could achieve this document with the other
three States, the other three Governors, this carries real
power, and I think the other Governors felt the same thing.
They may have been working on their recovery suggestions.
This is now regional because we are talking about a species
that is native to this region.
Senator Crapo. I agree with you, Governor, that the process
seems to be the biggest part of the problem, as opposed to the
individuals that are trying to make the process work. I, too,
have had the same experience. There are a lot of very well-
meaning and good people working on this issue that try to be as
responsive as they can, given the parameters of their
responsibilities.
The concern that I have--one concern that I have, though,
is that when we talk about collaboration and building consensus
we may not all hear the same thing when we hear those words.
What I'm thinking is that often when I make the charge that
collaboration is not happening, the response that comes back
is, ``Well, we're keeping people informed.'' Sometimes I
disagree with whether they are being kept informed. But I
wanted to explore with you a little bit about what true
collaboration is.
As I see it, for people to get the ownership that you talk
about, they must be true participants in the decisionmaking and
not simply informed constituents told about what was being done
or what is going to be done or given regular updates along the
way.
Could you elaborate on your concept of just what it really
means? What kind of collaboration do you believe we need to
achieve with the Federal Government on this issue?
Governor Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, I would use perhaps as
an example the Safe Drinking Water Act, which, when I was chair
of this committee, we were successful in getting passed through
Congress and signed by the President. That was a tough issue.
It was by sitting down with local, State, Federal
officials, seeking their input so that they then would testify
on behalf of the ultimate document that I believe brought about
the success in that, but they felt that they had a piece of
that document, ownership, because they had been invited to the
table. They could point specifically to language that they knew
was a result of their participation, rather than just being
handed a document and told, ``This is now what you need to
support.''
That is what will work, and it is not political because
this document represents the work of two democrat and two
republican Governors. It represents the work of outstanding
staff by all of those individuals involved.
So I will add, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday I had a meeting
with Secretary of Commerce Mineta. Today, I will have a meeting
with Secretary of Interior Babbitt. So we had good discussions
about this issue and what we are seeking, and what we have
provided is, we hope, a foundation.
Again, the meeting that I had with Mr. Mineta and his staff
I felt very good about, but I have also sat with a number of
Federal officials from different agencies, when we have talked
about certain solutions, only to find that ultimately they
cannot agree and there can be finger pointing.
Senator Crapo. Just one other question. You did raise the
point in your testimony that you felt that where you see the
Federal plan headed--and we don't know exactly where it will
get, at this point, but where you see it headed is not
necessarily where the four Governors have recommended. Could
you elaborate on that just briefly?
Governor Kempthorne. Well, there are different elements
there, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to preclude that, through the
process of providing information in our input and perspective
to the Federal agencies, that that BIOP cannot be brought
around to being much more in line with this document. That was
part of my discussion yesterday with Secretary Mineta. It will
be my conversation with Secretary Babbitt. I'd like to see this
as the foundation, the four Governors' recommendations.
There are elements of the BIOP that are compatible. There
are also others that are not.
To give you a couple specifics, as you have asked, it is
very important for the irrigators in the State of Idaho that,
with regard to the Bureau of Reclamation projects, that those
do not take a secondary role to the Federal Columbia River
Basin system, so that in the name of the salmon that that water
then--we lose the rights of it.
Also, we need to affirm repeatedly, State water rights;
that if there is additional water that would be asked for, it
is based strictly upon State water law, which is based upon
willing seller/willing buyer.
Also, Mr. Chairman, that, if an agreement is reached, that
at some point later in the future the Federal Government
doesn't come and present in the name of the Endangered Species
Act a recommendation, if not a requirement, that now the other
language that has been agreed to is null and void because the
ESA takes precedent over that. There needs to be certainty in
an agreement.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Governor. We could go through a
lot more, but I know there are other witnesses that need to
come forward and our time is somewhat limited.
I, again, appreciate your coming forward. You have been one
of those who has really fought for reform in a number of areas
very successfully, and we appreciate your efforts on this
issue, as well.
Governor Kempthorne. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. This committee is in outstanding hands with your
chairmanship.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much.
Governor Kempthorne. Thank you.
Mr. Penney and Mr. Boyer, we appreciate your being here
with us today. I've already given all the instructions, so
let's begin. We'll start with you, Mr. Penney.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL PENNEY, CHAIRMAN, NEZ PERCE TRIBAL
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, LAPWAI, ID, REPRESENTING THE COLUMBIA
RIVER INTERTRIBAL FISH COUNCIL
Mr. Penney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Sam Penney. I am chairman of the Nez Perce
Tribal executive committee. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify here this morning.
I am pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of the Nez
Perce Tribe and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.
As you know, we received voluminous draft documents from the
Federal Government on July 27. We are still in the process of
reviewing these documents, particularly the technical aspects.
However, I would like to say at the outset that the tribe's
position supporting dam breaching the Snake River Dams, our
position supporting this is still the same, and we do support
an economic investment package to local communities affected by
breaching these dams remain unchanged.
We see no new science or information that would indicate
other actions will be sufficient to recover Snake River chinook
throughout the range of their current habitat.
I would like to offer the following observations:
The Federal proposal fails to rebuild salmon runs to honor
the tribes' treaty fishing rights. We have repeatedly requested
the Federal Government to honor its legal and moral obligations
under our treaties within a meaningful time period that will
protect our treaty-secured fishing rights.
We have set forth tribal proposals to this end in our
spirit of the salmon plan and in hundreds of pages of documents
to the Federal Government. Instead, the Federal plans are
singularly focused on museum piece management.
The Federal proposal fails to comply with the Clean Water
Act. The U.S. district court recently reaffirmed that the Corps
of Engineers must comply with federally-approved water quality
standards for temperature and dissolved gas in the National
Wildlife Federation v. Corps of Engineers litigation.
The Federal proposal does not contain actions that will be
implemented to achieve these standards.
The Federal proposal is a plan for extinction of the Snake
River salmon stocks.
The Federal proposal sanctions the extinction of spring
chinook index stocks in tributaries of the Salmon River where
salmon habitat is pristine.
The Federal proposal fails to recognize that, if the dams
are not breached, large amounts of additional water from the
Upper Snake River will be required for flow augmentation to
provide the survival benefits that juvenile salmon need.
The Federal proposal's reliance on yet-to-be developed
performance standards to delay breaching the four Lower Snake
River dams and to get the hydrosystem out of jeopardy ignores
the most significant performance standard--the status of the
fish.
The risk of extinction for Salmon River stocks has been
significantly reduced since they were listed under the
Endangered Species Act over 8 years ago, and the Federal
proposal does not ensure any improvement for Snake River
salmon.
Scientists predict in the course we are currently on that
spring chinook in the Snake River system will be extinct by the
year 2017.
The Federal proposal reliance on offsite mitigation
measures to delay breaching the four Lower Snake River dams
also fails to preserve and rebuild salmon runs.
Based on the Federal proposal, we expect to see continuing
losses of local salmon populations, particularly in basins of
the four or more hydro projects, even in the pristine habitat
that is located within Idaho wilderness areas. Even if offsite
mitigation measures were appropriate for certain stocks, there
is no budget or implementation plan for such measures in the
Federal proposal. Other than seeking to have tribal governments
further restrict our already voluntary restricted tribal
harvests, the All-H paper describes no role for tribal
governments as co-managers in this process.
By its silence, the Federal documents would appear to deny
the successes of the tribes in their salmon recovery efforts in
basins like the Clearwater, Umatilla, Hood, and Yakima systems.
This is especially frustrating since we held numerous
meetings with the Federal Government and our detailed tribal
proposals seemed to have made no impact at all.
We also oppose the new concept of full mitigation described
in the hydro BIOP. This is a concept based upon the desires of
Bonneville and not on either the ESA, the biological needs of
salmon, or treaty case law. Under this concept, Bonneville's
mitigation responsibilities are capped by estimating the number
of fish that would survive if they migrated through a mythical
Columbia River that is dam free.
Among other things, the proposal ignores the decades of dam
impacts that have eroded the salmon populations.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the
alarm on the extinction clock has already gone off long ago.
Neither the salmon nor the tribes nor the people of the
northwest have time to delay dam breaching of the Lower Snake
River dams and implementing the major overhaul the U.S.
operation of the hydrosystem needs.
I am deeply disappointed the United States has chosen to
ignore its treaty and trust obligations. We will not be
deterred from our solemn duties to act on behalf of the salmon
and our people.
I would like to end, Mr. Chairman. You know, during the
discussions and hearings that were held out in the field, many
people have been adding various H's to the All-H paper, and in
the hearing at Clarkson, WA, I decided that, on behalf of the
Nez Perce Tribe, that I would also add an H to this All-H
paper, and H stands for Honor. We expect the United States to
honor their treaty commitments to the Indian tribes of this
Nation.
What it reminded me of--and I shared this with you
previously--was something that Chief Joseph said in 1879. When
he was back here in Washington talking to many dignitaries, and
the President, as well, he stated at that time in 1879,
I have heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. Good words
do not last long until they amount to something. I'm tired of
talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I
remember all the good words and all the broken promises.
I would just like to conclude with that, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Penney. Your
testimony is always very well prepared and thoughtful, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Boyer, please proceed. We welcome you here to the
committee.
STATEMENT OF LIONEL BOYER, CHAIRMAN, SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES,
FORT HALL, ID
Mr. Boyer. Thank you, Chairman Crapo. We thank you for the
invitation to make a presentation. We submitted written
comments and will be submitting more as we go along as time
permits.
My name is Lionel Boyer, chairman of the Fort Hall Business
Tribal Council. In the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868, the bands
of Shoshone and Bannock people agreed to have peace with the
United States, and then our various bands were removed to the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southeastern Idaho. However,
our treaty preserved our right to hunt, graze, and gather on
unoccupied lands of the United States, and salmon are a
significant part of our way of life. The salmon is one of the
many important resources of our people, as well as the water,
the animals, the air, and our Mother Earth. We continue to
utilize these resources of the Columbia River Basin since the
treaty was signed.
Today the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are co-managers of these
resources within the Columbia River Basin, and we work toward
improving the habitat and the survival of the salmon.
The salmon need clean gravel and cool, clear running water
to spawn and prepare themselves for their journey to the ocean
through a corridor that will not impede their travel. The draft
documents fail to honor this natural biological law of the
creator for the salmon.
These natural laws of the creator to provide for the
continued existence of the natural resources on this Mother
Earth have been violated by means of pursuit of progress
through man's progress through their divine law of manifest
destiny.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is wrong to conclude
that the greatest opportunities for survival for the listed
Snake River salmon can be accomplished by the National Marine
Fisheries Service efforts in the Snake River tributary, because
they have already been preserved as natural wilderness areas.
Instead, the National Marine Fisheries Service must
concentrate its recovery efforts where man has changed the
natural environment the most. Scientific evidence concludes
that the migration corridor is the main problem ensuring the
extinction of the Snake River listed salmon. The National
Marine Fisheries Service cannot change its responsibilities
under the 1995 hydrosystem biological opinion that would have
identified recovery through a natural river corridor in their
1999 decision.
The conditions in the Pacific Ocean are of concern to all
of us. Man's alterations of the environment of this, our Mother
Earth, may be having profound effects on the ocean conditions.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes applaud the efforts of the
National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce harvest impacts
over the past 8 years, including harvest in the ocean; however,
the National Marine Fisheries Service should not allow any
mixed stock harvest of listed fish if those same fish cannot
support a harvest in the tributaries.
We can no longer manage for genes and need, instead, to
manage for fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service theories
on salmon genetics is causing genocide instead of recovery
because those theories prevent using abundant, available, and
appropriate donor stocks in areas that need fish.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes humbly request that the
subcommittee assist us in overcoming the National Marine
Fisheries Service barriers to the salmon supplementation
actions that we have been pursuing for over 10 years.
Of great concern to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is the
failure of the Federal Caucus to consult with the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes. Despite repeated discussion with Federal
Caucus, they failed to recognize our position as equal parties
through the Fort Bridger Treaty and United States v. Oregon.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe believes that the listed Snake
River salmon and steelhead cannot wait another 8 to 10 years
before necessary major improvements and actions are taken to
recover these fish.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that technological
fixes to the Lower Snake River dams will not allow the listed
Snake River salmon to survive.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been saying this longer
than any other entity, and thus are learning once again is that
we have waited too long to fix the river rather than trying in
vain to fix the dams, and we will continue to have to tell you,
``We told you so.''
What was once the world's largest run of salmon is now the
world's greatest and very expensive environmental recovery
effort, with no assurance of recovery.
I leave you with the words of an elder. ``Only when the
last tree has been cut down, only when the last river has been
poisoned, only when the last fish has been caught, only then
will you learn that money cannot be eaten.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee, for hosting
this hearing and providing us an opportunity to express
ourselves.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' technical staff will be
providing technical testimony tomorrow.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyer. We
appreciate your testimony, as well.
I think that the people of the region share the strong
feelings that you both have represented here about the salmon
and the steelhead. My interaction with you and understanding of
your positions is one of the reasons that I have added the
concept of the spiritual issues to this whole context of the
debate that we are having in the Pacific Northwest over how to
handle the salmon and the steelhead, and that fits right into
the economic and cultural and political issues that are such a
difficult but important part of the mix.
This is probably a good point for me to turn to Senator
Baucus and see if he wants to make a statement before I begin
questions.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Not at this time.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Senator Baucus. Not yet ready.
Senator Crapo. All right. Just tell me when you are and
we'll make a break for you to do so.
Senator Baucus. OK.
Senator Crapo. Then I will begin with a few questions.
I think the questions I have are really for both of you, so
I will ask the question and then see if I can get a response
from both of you.
The first is, Mr. Penney and Mr. Boyer, did the Federal
Caucus work with you and your fish biologists in preparing the
biological opinion or the proposed biological opinion that is
now before us?
Mr. Penney. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, as I
mentioned in my testimony, the tribe has submitted various
comments, almost similar to what Governor Kempthorne had
mentioned on the Governors' proposal, that the tribes have
submitted numerous documents, and we feel that they have not
been fully considered or implemented in this process.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Boyer.
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, we feel the same in reference to
that. We have submitted very many documents. We have spent much
time in travel in attending a lot of these caucus meetings,
with no response to our words that we have left with them. It
is not written in the opinion.
Senator Crapo. So does this go beyond--you may be saying
that you had collaboration but that your ideas and your beliefs
were not represented in the document, and I understand that
that is what has taken place, from your testimony. Are you also
saying, though, that you didn't really feel that you had the
opportunity for collaboration and give-and-take in terms of
understanding where it was going and being able to respond as
it progressed and developed?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, our collaboration, as I said, in
many, many cases our words were not listened to, were not put
into any documents that would recognize that we have been a
part of that collaboration.
I think that the efforts that the tribes--all the tribes,
it seems to be fruitless in reference to submitting a lot of
these documents, because we never see the end result written
into the drafts or the final documents.
Senator Crapo. Do you ever get an explanation for why it
isn't accepted or what the rationale is or what has happened in
terms of moving in other directions, or do you just submit
documents and then see the final outcome?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, the documents--the response that
we have from them is, ``We overlooked it,'' or, ``We haven't
gotten to that.'' You know, it is very, very concerning to us
that our words, our concerns are not considered within these.
If they are considered, it is written in a way that is not
recognized.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Penney, did you want to add anything?
Mr. Penney. Mr. Chairman, I think your opening comment and
I think the words of Governor Kempthorne, as far as the
coordination, cooperation, collaboration, and even
consultation--you know, the term ``consultation'' for tribes
over the years has been somewhat the hard feeling in tribes
across this Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, as well. I think
there is nothing worse to enter consultations or discussions
and seeing that your input may not be fully considered in any
final document.
As Mr. Boyer had pointed out, we spent a tremendous amount
of time and energy trying to provide our input, but many times
it is not seen in the final documents.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Both of you have testified that you believe the ultimate
solution must be the breach of the four dams. Am I correct on
that--the four dams on the Lower Snake?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, yes.
Senator Crapo. As you know, I have not accepted that
position at this point, and there is a lot of political
opposition, as well as economic and cultural opposition to that
action, which, as I've said earlier, I believe must be taken
into consideration by the policymakers.
The question I have is--and maybe I should just elaborate a
little further. Mr. Boyer, you stated in your testimony, and I
think Mr. Penney would probably agree with this, because his
testimony is consistent with it, that as we look at the various
areas from the ocean to the habitat and all of the different
H's, you indicated you thought the main problem was with the
main river channel and the issue of how we get the smolt to the
ocean safely and in large numbers.
Am I correct about that, that that's what you perceive to
be the main challenge here in terms of finding a solution?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, yes.
Senator Crapo. Would you agree, Mr. Penney?
Mr. Penney. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is basically
correct.
Senator Crapo. Then the question I have is, in recognizing
that your solution to that would be breaching dams, but also
recognizing that there is such political, cultural, economic,
and other opposition to breaching dams that it could result in
a gridlock that Governor Kempthorne and I discussed during his
testimony, do you believe there are steps that can be taken
short of breaching dams that will have significant and positive
impacts on saving the fish?
Mr. Penney. Mr. Chairman, on your last question, I would
just like to make one addition.
Senator Crapo. Sure.
Mr. Penney. You know, we're talking about some of the out-
migration of juveniles, but also I think the success of
recovery is also dependent on the amount of returning adults to
the tributaries, and I think that also needs to be taken into
consideration.
Senator Crapo. Would that also focus, though, on fixing the
main river channel?
Mr. Penney. Well, I think, as described, you know, there
are many concerns, and the Nez Perce Tribe certainly respects
everyone's opinions that they have.
Senator Crapo. Yes.
Mr. Penney. I think that, based on the All-H paper--I don't
know if we can call it an All-H paper any more. It seems to be
focusing just on certain areas and delaying the hydro for up to
10 years. But, you know, there are measures that the tribes
have proposed over the years, and some of them have to do
with--I think one of the barriers for recovery has been the--I
don't know if it is the policy or exactly what it is, a rule--I
don't believe it is a rule, but even the definition of an ESU--
evolutionary significant unit--under the Endangered Species Act
I think is part of the reason it is barring recovery. I think
that is one aspect that needs to be considered, as well.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Boyer, are there things short of breaching dams that
can be done to address the main river channel?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the concerns that
we have is that the four Lower Snake River dams are a--they are
river-run dams that provide for transportation, but the concern
that we have is that those reservoirs behind those dams create
a lot of havoc for the fish as they are going to the ocean,
primarily because of temperature changes and the flow of the
waters are not there to guide and direct those fish to go to
the ocean.
In the process, as the Governor has stated, a lot of those
fish disappear in the process, and I think the main concern
would be the lack of flow plus the change of temperature that
does eliminate a lot of those smolts that are going to the
ocean.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Penney, you made a statement that I want
to pursue a little bit in your last statement. You said that
you weren't sure that the All-H approaches all-H's any more,
and that the focus seems to have been moved away from the hydro
H to the other H's in the Federal plan that we see developing.
Could you elaborate a little bit on your thoughts there?
Mr. Penney. Well, as I understand the document--and I
haven't fully reviewed every aspect of it, but I understand
that there are check points, I believe 3, 5, and 8 years under
the plan, and at any one of those check points, if it appears
that under some of the processes that take place to that point,
that they are not succeeding, then it sounds like you go back
and start over again.
I think, as far as all the H's, that hydro is simply being
delayed up to 10 years, and, as I mentioned in my testimony, we
are on the brink of extinction at this point, and I think
delaying 5, 10 years is going to be very harmful to the fish of
the Northwest.
I would also like to make an additional statement just on
the other aspects of the Lower Snake River, itself, as far as
the Clean Water Act.
You know, we have heard a lot of people talk about the
other values of the system as far as recreation and those types
of things, and I truly believe, personally, that, under the
current path we are on now, that there probably is going to
come a point that the streams are going to be so polluted that
you are probably not going to be able to recreate in those
waters. I am just fearful that there will be some day that you
won't even be able to swim in those streams.
Senator Crapo. Well, you have opened an issue where,
although you and I may not agree entirely on it, I do think
that you have opened an issue that deserves further
investigation, and that is this: one of the concerns that I
see, from what I see with the Federal plans development at this
point, is that, as you have indicated, there are the four H's
that everyone is trying to evaluate in terms of how to address,
and we all recognize, I believe, that there is progress that
can be made in each of those areas--Harvest, Hatcheries, Hydro,
and Habitat. I do not think anybody's plan--the Federal plan or
the Governors' proposal or others--I don't think anybody's plan
ignores any of the H's entirely, but there are different levels
of focus on different parts of each of the H's, so to speak,
and one of the issues that I would like to delve into here a
little bit is whether the Federal plan is putting the right
level of focus on the various opportunities that we have in
each of those areas.
You have indicated that you believe that there isn't an
adequate focus on the hydro H, I assume because there is not a
proposal to breach the dams.
I have a concern that perhaps there isn't enough focus on
the hydro H, not because it does not recommend breaching dams,
but because of some of the other things that I think we could
do in that area that would be beneficial and would give us the
best chance to see if we could do something short of breaching
dams while we have this opportunity to do so.
In that context, I would ask for both of you to comment. Do
you believe that, given your belief that the dams should be
breached--and I understand that that is your major objection--
do you believe that, setting that aside for just a moment, that
there is still not an adequate focus on the hydro part or the
main stem part of the river in terms of the Federal plan, Mr.
Penney?
Mr. Penney. Mr. Chairman, I think one of my concerns--and I
am not certain if the position has changed or not, but I think
previously the Idaho Fish and Game Department had supported
natural river flow scheme, as well as numerous other scientific
people, and my concern is that, you know, we have heard mention
of scientific information, we hear a lot of discussion that we
need the best biological information, and then there comes a
question on whose information should we rely on, and I read an
article this morning that probably was in the Washington Post
that many people believe that, rather than being based on
scientific and biological information available, that it is
becoming more of a political question than anything else.
That deeply concerns me, but I can assure you that the Nez
Perce Tribe is committed to doing what is best on behalf of the
resource.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Boyer, do you have any thoughts?
Mr. Boyer. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. Penney has
stated. One of the things that I would like to say is that the
All-H paper, if there was some way that we could put the
spirituality of the tribes with the salmon and the natural
resources as an H, we may be able to understand what we are
talking about.
As it is, as you know, we, as Indian people, do have a very
spiritual connection to all of the resources of this Mother
Earth, and that has been, as I stated in my statement, has been
violated through man's progress and hasn't been considered,
even though the tribes, the first people of this country, have
made treaties with the United States.
I guess the spirituality, I guess, we could consider as one
of the H's, as Mr. Penney stated, honor. Honor those
agreements, those treaties. The spirituality connection that we
have with all of these resources, and specifically with the
salmon, is that that is important to us, and then we, as the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, we were removed from our natural
gathering places and put into an area where there was none. But
we continue practicing our spiritual connection with those
resources. That hasn't been considered. That's what I'm getting
to. That's why I'm saying the natural rivers should be there.
That's what the fish need. That's what the country needs.
That's what the economy needs. It has to be natural.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Boyer. I think both you and
Mr. Penney are very strong advocates for your positions, and
your emphasis on the spiritual aspect of this has certainly
registered with me, and I think that it is registering with the
people across the Pacific Northwest because, whether one
approaches it from your cultural background or from the
cultural background of others, I think there is very little
dispute about the fact that the salmon and the steelhead are a
part of our heritage. That goes to our very core and that is
important for us to make sure that these fish are not allowed
to go extinct.
So, although we do have differences, as there are many in
the region, I do want you to know that I share that core value
that you have just expressed, and hopefully we will be able to
find a path forward to solve the problem.
All right. We thank this panel for coming forward, and we
excuse you at this time.
Mr. Penney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Before I call the next panel forward, I
would like to turn to Senator Baucus.
Actually, Senator Baucus, I did not give you a chance for
questions.
Senator Baucus. That's fine.
Senator Crapo. If you have questions, you are welcome to
ask them.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing. It is
very important to ask questions to get to the heart of a lot of
the problems surrounding recovery of the salmon.
I would like to make a couple of points with respect to my
State of Montana, because often in the Pacific Northwest
environmental issues that Montana is not really, I think, fully
understood as it could and should be.
First of all, we don't--it is true we don't have a lot of
salmon in our State, but I remember not too many years ago I,
at the end of September, went up to just out west of Glacier
Park and watched the eagles come down to catch the salmon as
they were going upstream, and it is quite a sight. It was a
wonderful sight to behold. But the salmon aren't there any
more.
But we in Montana do have a lot of rivers, and, along with
rivers in Canada, form the headwaters of the Columbia River
Basin. We also have two reservoirs which are extremely import
to us, Kukanoosa and Hungry Horse, which are very integral to
any solutions that would help protect the salmon. These
reservoirs are important, first, because they provide a lot of
recreational opportunities, and then the draw-downs of the
reservoirs are significant and fluctuate a lot, it very
significantly adversely affects some recreation in our State.
The reservoirs also provide habitat for bull trout, another
endangered species or threatened, or at least a species which
is in some difficulty, and sometimes protecting the salmon is
in conflict with saving the bull trout, but we have to also
remember bull trout.
We are also part of the Bonneville system, at least western
Montana is part of the Bonneville system. That means anything
we do in the system has to take a hard look at the degree to
which it affects power rates, which are clearly important to
our electrical co-ops. Western Montana homeowners, small
business, and also large business--we have a very large
aluminum plant in Columbia Falls, western Montana, that is
directly affected by power rates. We rely heavily on timber
harvesting, agricultural, and a substantial part of our grain
is shipped out of Lewistown down the river.
So we have a lot of interests in this question, and we
still clearly want to protect the salmon, but we want to do it
in a way that is mindful of interests in our State.
Let me turn briefly to the draft biological opinion. I'm
studying it, like everybody else, and I know this hearing is
going to help provide more information.
First and foremost, I want to be sure that this issue is
kept in the hands of Federal and State officials--that is
elected and unelected Federal and State officials and the
executive and legislative side--rather than the courts. I don't
want these decisions made by the courts. I know that Judge
Marsh has overall jurisdiction in this issue and will be
looking at the draft biological opinion to see how it is
implemented, and it could well be that some group or another
might well file an action with Judge Marsh claiming that it is
inappropriate, that the draft biological opinion is arbitrary,
it's capricious, it there's not a reasonable likelihood that it
is going to protect salmon release--to not jeopardize salmon
habitat.
So let's make sure that this is bullet proof from the
judicial attack. That means all of us are going to have to go
the extra mile to make sure that it does withstand a judicial
challenge.
Beyond that, we need balance. Recovering the various salmon
species, we also need to recover, as I mentioned, bull trout,
and impacts on water levels and power rates and affected
industries.
I look forward to this hearing. I am particularly pleased
that John Etchart is here representing Montana and the
Northwest Power Planning Council. John has been around a long
time. The main point is John knows his stuff. He has been at it
for a good, long time and he is a good advocate. He's
thoughtful and he's an expert and he is a straight shooter.
I apologize that I was not here for Senator Kempthorne's
statement. Senator Kempthorne, as the chairman of the
subcommittee well knows, was a very, very strong member of this
committee. We worked long hours late into the night, sleeves
rolled up, putting together Endangered Species Act reform. I
mean, Senator Kempthorne was firmly dedicated, more than any
other Senator, to try to reform the Endangered Species Act.
Late nights with Secretary Babbitt in this room, all around
tables--we passed something an eyelash of getting passed in the
full Senate. For various reasons, it was held up on the floor.
Anyway, I know he is doing a great job in Idaho, a strong
advocate for Idaho and for what is right, generally, and I just
wish I had been here, Mr. Chairman, to hear his testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
If you have no questions, we will excuse this panel. We
thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming.
We now invite up our third panel: Mr. John Etchart from
Helena, MT, on behalf of Governor Racicot; Mr. Eric Bloch from
Portland on behalf of Governor Kitzhaber; and Mr. Frank Cassidy
from Vancouver on behalf of Governor Locke.
I will again welcome you here. I know that your Governors
wish they could have been here in person, and you probably do,
too, but we are glad that you are able to make it and share the
views of your States on this important issue.
We will start with you, Mr. Etchart.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ETCHART, HELENA, MT, ON BEHALF OF GOVERNOR
RACICOT
Mr. Etchart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Good
morning, Senator Baucus. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. As you know by now, my name is John Etchart. I am here
on behalf of Governor Racicot of the State of Montana. For the
past 7 years, a long time, I have represented the Governor on
the Northwest Power Planning Council.
I'd say two things parenthetically. First of all, I speak
in strong affirmation of Governor Kempthorne's remarks this
morning.
Second, Senator Baucus, thank you very much for your kind
remarks.
I want to start by extending Governor Racicot's regrets for
being unable to attend today's hearing. If he were here, he
would start by telling you of his great faith in the Power
Planning Council and commend Congress for having the foresight
to create it in the 1980 Northwest Power Act.
Governor Racicot has great confidence in the Council as the
institution that will lead the northwest to improved fish and
wildlife numbers, as well as a continued supply of adequate and
reliable power.
The Governor believes that the Council is an extraordinary
experiment in government, and in his view and mine, its
operations are an excellent example of States working together
to solve mutual problems and achieve common goals. The issues
we face are highly complex and success never comes easily.
However, there is a tremendous value in the Council as a
regional body where States are encouraged to develop larger
perspectives beyond their own borders and made to do their work
in public and based on science.
If the Council didn't exist today, considering the
magnitude of the problems that we have in the Pacific Northwest
in managing our resources, I would guess that somebody in this
building would be thinking about how to create it or something
like it.
If there is a common theme to my remarks today, it is that
there continues to be a need for increasing accountability in
both the policy and budgetary realms in the decisionmaking of
the Columbia Basin. Congress took a very important step in
improving accountability in the annual expenditure of
Bonneville Fish and Wildlife funds in 1996, when it passed an
amendment sponsored by Senator Gorton, an amendment to the
Northwest Power Act. This amendment requires that all fish and
wildlife projects proposed for funding by Bonneville would have
to be reviewed by an independent group of scientists nominated
by the National Research Council. This action by Congress has
resulted in a noticeable increase in confidence that the
public's money, about $130 million a year, is being spent much
more wisely.
It has brought a measure of discipline to the individual
project sponsors, many of whom are the State, tribal, and
Federal fish and wildlife agencies, to the Power Planning
Council, and to Bonneville.
Since the amendment was enacted, there is a much greater
appreciation that a continuing pattern of expenditures without
results can't be tolerated.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, in my time as a Council member, the
1996 amendment has done more to bring order to the fish and
wildlife recovery process in the Columbia Basin than any other
single thing.
There also needs to be a similar degree of accountability
in budgeting for ESA activities such as those described in the
draft biological opinion that are financed by Bonneville.
Unlike the Bonneville funds that pay for fish and wildlife
projects that implement the Council's fish and wildlife
program, which was subject to the rigorous scientific and
public reviews required under the Senate amendment, NMFS's ESA
activities funded by Bonneville are done so on a unilateral
basis; that is to say, they are not required to be reviewed by
anyone, not by Congress, not by our independent scientists, not
by the Council, the States, the tribes, or the public.
This shortcoming in the expenditure of Bonneville funds for
specific ESA activities can easily be addressed by requiring
NMFS to agree to submit its ratepayer-funded ESA proposals for
review under the provisions of the Senate amendment.
Additionally, considering the high level of interest in
implementation of endangered species activities, Governor
Racicot recommends that Congress consider requiring NMFS to
submit annually a specific ESA budget to Congress for its
review. The budget could include NMFS's proposed expenditures
using appropriated dollars, as well as its proposed Bonneville-
funded activities that would be submitted to the Council for
review under provisions of the 1996 amendment.
This would address the potential conflict of interest that
currently exists with a regulatory agency, NMFS, funding its
agenda with non-appropriated dollars provided by Bonneville,
the agency that it is regulating.
One last area of concern, Mr. Chairman, deals with the
Federal agencies' protocol for in-season decisions on the
operation of the hydrosystem. One can have serious questions as
to whether there is suitable accountability for these
operational decisions that can cost into the tens of millions
of dollars. For example, just last month these operational
decisions in just 1 week resulted in Bonneville having to
purchase power in the market at a cost of about $45 million.
While I won't and can't say that this is an inappropriate
expenditure, I will say that this decision was made by Federal
fish managers, ostensibly to improve in-river conditions for
what I understand was a relatively small number of fish.
The primary point I am trying to make here is that
decisions with such profound and costly implications should be
made on a cooperative basis, in a public forum that seeks the
views of all parties and interests, especially those of the
four States, and provides a serious balancing of the costs and
benefits of the proposed actions.
Last, Governor Racicot has felt for a long time that the
region, just as in your exchange with Governor Kempthorne, Mr.
Chairman, should be given greater authority to develop and
implement measures to recover fish and wildlife species in the
Columbia Basin.
Since the region's electricity ratepayers, not the
taxpayers, fund most of the recovery activities in the
Columbia, it is appropriate that the region be given a larger
role.
Underscoring this perspective is the fact that 20 years ago
right now Congress created the Northwest Power Planning Council
to ensure that the region did have a larger role in just these
issues.
A simple amendment to the Northwest Power Act requiring the
Federal agencies to act in a manner consistent with the
Council's fish and wildlife program would be a significant and
positive step toward this goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Etchart.
Mr. Bloch.
STATEMENT OF ERIC BLOCH, PORTLAND, OR, ON BEHALF OF GOVERNOR
KITZHABER
Mr. Bloch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus. My name
is Eric Bloch, and I am here today representing Oregon's
Governor John Kitzhaber. I also represent Oregon on the
Northwest Power Planning Council, and I currently serve as the
Council's vice chairman.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on fish and
wildlife recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest, and
specifically on the draft biological opinion issued recently by
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The general approach to recovery articulated in the draft
biological opinion is commendable. It reflects one of the
important lessons learned over the past decade--that
improvements in salmon survival must come through reducing
mortality caused by hydrosystem operations and habitat
degradation and harvesting and unscientific hatchery practices,
all of the so-called ``four Hs.''
This approach is also reflected in the recommendations for
protection of Columbia River Basin fish issued in July by the
Governors of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington.
The Governors' recommendations constitute a substantial
commitment toward the goal of ecosystem restoration, while
accounting for the importance of maintaining a strong economy
in the Pacific Northwest.
The recommendations, while not a scientific recovery plan,
embodies the judgment of the four Governors that dam bypass,
while a significant issue, was threatening to eclipse the
larger debate. What are we prepared to do now to more swiftly
and surely achieve a healthy Columbia Basin ecosystem with
healthy and harvestable levels of salmon and steelhead?
The Governors believed that the best way to move that
larger debate forward was to throw their support behind a suite
of actions they believed could and should be done immediately
to help fish.
Governor Kitzhaber expects that the Federal agencies will
review the Governors recommendations as part of the process of
finalizing the draft biological opinion.
As I indicated at the outset, Governor Kitzhaber believes
the overall four-H approach outlined in the draft biological
opinion is appropriate, but we believe meeting the legal
mandated under the Endangered Species Act to ensure both
survival and recovery of the listed salmon and steelhead means
the biological opinion, as it is finalized, must be
strengthened so as to reflect the true extinction risk and the
necessary level of survival improvements, both of which we
believe are under-estimated in the draft biological opinion.
Thus, Oregon offers the following specific proposals to
strengthen the draft biological opinion.
First, the opinion's recovery strategy in each of the four
H's must be made more robust by adding on-the-ground actions
not included in the Federal document and by increasing the
intensity of some of the actions that are included.
Regarding hydropower operations, Governor Kitzhaber
believes that the Federal plan appears to rely too heavily on
technological fixes and fish barging rather than on improving
in-river conditions for fish migration.
I would note that this approach differs from the four
Governors' recommendations, which assert stronger support for
hydrosystem configurations and operations that more closely
resemble natural river processes, recognize fish barging as an
interim strategy, and call for additional investments to
improve river conditions so that more fish can migrate in-
river.
In the area of harvest, we know that we must reduce the
level of impacts on threatened and endangered stocks, while
still affording reasonable ceremonial, commercial, and sport
fishing opportunities.
We can achieve this reduction by lowering the harvest
rates, particularly for the fall fisheries that impact Snake
River fall chinook, but we should also seek reductions through
license buy-backs and use of more selective gear types, and we
must create new terminal fishing opportunities off the main
stem like the successful terminal fishery at Oregon's Young's
Bay.
Regarding habitat, we support the Federal Government
channeling its support to the State, tribal, and regional
efforts currently underway that will result in improvements to
salmon-related habitat. We also support, in the area of
habitat, the provision in the biological opinion that calls for
creating a mechanism to purchase water and habitat rights on a
willing seller/willing buyer basis, as well as more and better
assistance to private parties for such things as riparian
protection and water conservation.
For hatcheries, the Federal Government must use the
biological opinion to marshall its resources and authorities to
promote the reforms described in the artificial production
review which the Northwest Power Planning Council produced at
this Congress' request.
Finally, as all four of the region's Governors clearly
stated in their consensus recommendations, the recovery effort
we face will be costly. To be credible, the recovery plan
outlined in the draft biological opinion must provide a
detailed budget and funding strategy. Such a budget and funding
strategy should include an increased level of appropriated
funds because, after all, recovering listed salmon, improving
water quality in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and honoring
treaty rights are national obligations.
We also urge the creation of a new authority for a
Columbia-Snake River regional salmon recovery plan, as was done
with the Everglades and the salmon recovery effort known as
Cal/Fed.
On these funding issues and all other issues, we look
forward to working closely with Congress and the Administration
to ensure that the opportunity to implement a recovery strategy
that does not require bypass of the four Lower Snake dams is
not jeopardized by a lack of resources.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Bloch.
Mr. Cassidy.
STATEMENT OF FRANK L. CASSIDY, VANCOUVER, WA, ON BEHALF OF
GOVERNOR LOCKE
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank L.
Cassidy, Jr., and I am chairman of the Northwest Power Planning
Council. Today I am also representing the Hon. Gary Locke,
Governor of the State of Washington, who also apologizes for
his inability to attend. He would have liked to have been here.
As you well know, the Power Planning Council is an agency
of the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and,
as you've heard earlier, under the Northwest Power Act of 1980,
the Council conducts long-range electrical energy planning and
analysis and also prepares a program to protect, mitigate, and
enhance fish and wildlife on the Columbia River Basin that have
been affected by the hydropower dams.
That program, the Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife
program, directs the annual expenditure of about $130 million
in electricity rate-payer funds for the benefit of all fish and
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.
Currently, as we speak, we are undertaking a major
amendment of that fish and wildlife program. In the future, it
will be implemented primarily through locally developed action
plans that are consistent with basin-wide goals and objectives
and an underlying foundation of scientific principles.
With the Snake River dam breaching off the table for at
least 5 years--and that's our view at the Council presently--
there will be a strong emphasis on improving spawning and
rearing habitat in our new plan. We will try to change hatchery
and harvest practices to support rebuilding naturally spawning
fish populations and work to improve both smolt and adult fish
passage survival throughout the basin, including at the dams.
These are the key elements of the Council's fish and
wildlife program now under amendment, and they are also
addressed in the fish recovery recommendations issued in July
by the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
I hope the Federal action agencies will carefully review
the Governors' recommendation finalizing the draft biological
opinions. As you can see, we support Governor Kempthorne's
comments about the Governors' document.
Mr. Chairman, you asked for the points that we would have
regarding the Federal buy-out. There are important similarities
between the Council's program and the Federal program proposed
in the draft 2000 biological opinion.
No. 1, both rely heavily on offsite habitat improvements,
those located away from the hydrosystem.
No. 2, both call for creating performance standards to
guide habitat restoration and for reforming fish production
facilities consistent with the recommendations in the Council's
1999 report to Congress on artificial production, the
``Hatchery Report.''
No. 3, the Federal program endorses selected fishing
techniques and terminal fishing opportunities to reduce impacts
on listed fish. The Council's program already supports such an
effort, and, as Eric alluded, we now, as we speak, are creating
salmon fishing opportunities in Young's Bay in Astoria and
elsewhere on the lower Columbia.
No. 4, both programs would be implemented, ours and the
Federal group, through sub-basin plans, and so there is an
opportunity for the Council and the Federal agencies to
collaborate in designing them.
Today, I would also like to briefly note four areas where
the Council believes that biological opinions need further
refinement and are in disagreement with our present fish and
wildlife draft plan.
First, the opinions are specific in types of actions that
are needed to avoid jeopardy, but they are general in
describing where these actions are needed and in defining
schedules for accomplishing them. We think the northwest
citizenry wants certainty and they want facts on how to get
that recovery problem achieved.
Second, the Federal documents call for improving stream
flows, actions regarding water quantity, water quality, and
fish passage, but again are very short on details.
Third, our staff determined the proposed dam operations in
the hydropower biological opinion would boost power generation
in November, but seriously reduce it in December and January.
These are 2 months when we believe the power system will be
stressed and most susceptible to reliability problems,
therefore we think that's an issue.
In a related matter, we believe protocol should be
established, if they are not already, for Bonneville to decide
when and under what conditions water spills required under the
biological opinions would be curtailed in order to boost
hydropower generation. Obviously, if you increase generation
and reduce spills, you can affect the outbound migration of
salmon.
Fourth, the biological opinions designate priority sub-
basins for actions to assist endangered and threatened species
but do not specify how these actions would be funded.
We believe it is important for the Administration to
prepare and submit for Congress' consideration a supplemental
appropriations request for the fiscal year 2001 for actions
that address the reasonable and prudent alternatives proposed
in the draft biological opinions.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to close
collaboration with the Federal agencies as we work to protect
and enhance the fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin.
This collaboration between the region and the Federal agencies
will improve public accountability and scientific credibility
for all of our efforts.
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak, and I'm
pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
I thank each of you and want to give credit to your
respective Governors for their role in the effort to bring
together this, I think, very significant step toward building
consensus in the region.
I'd like to start my questions by reading something from
the Governors' document. This doesn't have a page. It's on the
first page of the introduction, at the bottom paragraph. It
says, ``We are keenly aware of the extent to which breaching
the four Lower Snake dams has become a polarizing and a
divisive issue. Regardless of the ultimate fate of the dams,
the region must be prepared in the near term to recover salmon
and to meet its larger fish and wildlife restoration
obligations by acting now in areas of agreement without resort
to breaching the four dams of the Lower Snake.
``In order to succeed, the region must have the necessary
tools and a clear and comprehensive plan, adequate time, and
sufficient funding.'' Then it goes on to make recommendations
in that context.
The reason I read that is because I think that it very
clearly sets out the perspective that I think we can use as the
platform on which we can build consensus in the region.
The question I have is: given that basis of approaching the
issue--which, again, I believe is the correct basis--how does
the proposal by the Governors differ from the proposal that we
now see in the Federal BIOP that we see developing? I mean,
what are the--I know you address this a little bit in your
testimony, but give me the core difference. What is it that is
different that the Governors are recommending that you don't
see in the Federal plan?
Who wants to be first?
Mr. Cassidy.
Mr. Cassidy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think probably the big
difference is that the Governors' plan calls for a single
person to be put in charge by the Federal Government of the
overall management of the Federal Government's actions by what
they call the ``action agencies,'' and so all the local
agencies--either State, county, irrigation districts,
whatever--can go to one place to get the information they want.
That seems to be a pending problem we hear about as we go
around, at least in my State, about how they get one person
that they can be accountable to and one person they get
straight answers from, and I think that was a significant
change.
Senator Crapo. OK. Mr. Etchart.
Mr. Etchart. Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, there is an
awful lot of compatibility between the Governors'
recommendations and the draft BIOP. There are also some
important differences.
I think maybe the masthead difference that fits in the
conversation I've heard this morning is that the Governors want
these matters decided on a collaborative basis. They want the
stakeholders in the region, tribes, fish agencies, the States
to decide these matters on a partnership kind of basis.
The draft BIOP, by the nature of how the ESA works, is a
set of unilateral decisions, to use the absolute term, and I
think that is at odds with what I heard you and Governor
Kempthorne talking about.
There are also any number of other questions. I mean, what
is the budget for this BIOP? Who is going to pay for it? What's
the basis for the designation of these priority sub-basins?
Does the ESA really, as the BIOP holds, preempt Congress'
broader mandate to the region to protect all fish and wildlife?
There is the power of the purse question that I cited. There
are energy loss implications that the BIOP holds that you
wouldn't find in the Governors' recommendations. There is an
increase in flows contemplated by the BIOP that the Governors'
recommendations doesn't hold, and on and on.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bloch.
Mr. Bloch. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in my remarks,
I think a significant difference between the biological opinion
in its draft form and the Governors' recommendations relates to
the way it looks at the hydrosystem, itself.
The Governors are, in their document, expressing a view
that, even setting the issue of outright removal of some of
these dams aside, there are ways that we can make the
hydrosystem more amenable to salmon survival through removal of
blockages on the main stem--in other words, exploring
opportunities above some of the dams to move fish there. We're
moving some of the economically marginal dams on some of the
tributaries, which is occurring right now. In Oregon we have
Marmut Dam on the Sandy River, a couple of dams in Washington,
Condit Dam and potentially Wabatux Dam on the Natchez River are
being removed.
These are what you call win/win situations, because the
owners of the dam, the people who are involved in local
communities are in support of that, and so it is really a view
of the hydrosystem and trying to view the main stem not as just
a passage corridor that can easily be resolved through
perpetual reliance on fish barging, but really viewing it as a
habitat and needing to improve the quality of that habitat as a
means of improving salmon survival.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I appreciate all of those comments, and each one of them
kind of fits with some of the concerns that I have had, and
since you all answered the question, let me kind of answer it,
myself, and lead to a further discussion.
One of the concerns that I have seen is that, if you take
the basic position that we are trying to find a path that will
help the region avoid the difficult decision to breach dams,
and if we are now faced with what I think is an 8- to 10-year
period of time to achieve success in that arena, then how do we
most successfully do that?
We've got to focus where the problems are and we've got to
have meaningful and aggressive solutions in those problem
areas, and it just seems to me that one of the differences in
focuses that I'm concerned about, as several of you have
mentioned, is that there seems to be an increased focus on the
Federal plan on water in terms of quantity, which brings me
back to flow augmentation issues, and an increased focus--or a
decreased focus, if you will, as Mr. Bloch has more
specifically stated, on the main stem of the river and how we
are going to be as successful as we can, not in terms of
breaching, but short of breaching to get the fish successfully
out to the ocean.
It seems to me that if we were to spend the next 8 or 10
years doing things that don't work, then we are essentially
creating a path toward breaching the dam.
If we spend the next 8 to 10 years doing the things that
have the most effective chance of working, then we are creating
an opportunity to avoid that decision about breaching the dams,
and that's----
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you your intention.
Five bells are ringing.
Senator Crapo. That means we've got very little time,
doesn't it.
Senator Baucus. Yes. We've got to make some decisions here.
Senator Crapo. Would you like to go vote and then come
back?
Senator Baucus. I would like to ask a couple of questions
of Mr. Etchart, then go vote.
Senator Crapo. All right. I'll interrupt my statement and
you may go ahead.
Senator Baucus. John, just the Montana perspective, just
comment, please on the draft biological opinion.
Mr. Etchart. Well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus, there
are lots of similarities. I think the approach of the National
Marine Fisheries Service in many ways is compatible with the
right way that we think it ought to be done.
There are these exceptions. I mean, the particular
exception that you mentioned this morning, Montana has these
two huge reservoirs that contain important biology for the
State of Montana. The draft biological opinion contemplates
taking more water from those reservoirs. That implicates not
only our biology, the bull trout you mentioned; it also affects
recreation and, as important, it has implications for our
energy supply, something we haven't talked about here this
morning, but really deserves at least a passing mention. We've
had a summer where we've had power in very short supply, really
an emergency situation, both price emergencies and availability
emergencies. So it worries us that the draft biological opinion
is going to take more Montana water.
Senator Baucus. That's a very good point. I have been on
the phone just giving it to NMFS on the way they are drawing
down water from Kukanoosa and Hungry Horse. I just gave them
the dickens, frankly.
Senator Crapo. Add Idaho water into that.
Senator Baucus. Yes. It is a huge problem. I just hope that
the NMFS folks out here listening to this will take this very
seriously.
Senator Crapo. Certainly.
As you may have noticed, there have been some bells and
buzzers going off. We are going to have to call a short recess
here to go vote. I understand we only have one vote, so it
shouldn't be long.
I'm going to bring the hearing to a recess and ask your
forgiveness for us as we take a break here. We'll try to hurry
and vote and get back as quickly as we can.
[Break.]
Senator Crapo. As each of you answered my question, I, too,
have a concern, and that concern relates to whether what I see
in the Federal plan indicates a direction that is being taken
away from this focus or as strong a focus as we need on the
river system, and, in another context--and Senator Baucus'
questions were, I think, quite helpful in this regard--a move
toward more focus on the use of water in more of a flow
augmentation regime, or a regime that focuses on more land
management efforts.
Here's where my concern lies. As I was saying, if we don't
take this opportunity that we have now in the next 8 to 10
years to make a difference and to either solve the problem or
find out that all of the other solutions that we think work are
really not going to work--I mean, we're going to find out
something if we try all these things. If we don't do what is
best, then we'll be sitting here in 8 years debating about
whether we could have tried something more on the hydrosystem
or something more in these other contexts.
At the same time, if we spend the next 8 years
consolidating Federal regulatory control over water in the
West, and consolidating Federal regulatory control over land in
the West, then we will--and then we see that we haven't
breached the dams and a decision is then pushed to breach the
dams, what we will have is we will have the worst of all worlds
in terms of not actually doing what is needed to save the
salmon. We will have lost significant State sovereignty over
water. We will have a new water regime in the West that is not
in the best interest of the people in the West. We will have
significant impacts on land management decisions that will not
have solved the problem, and we will be faced with a question
of breaching the dams.
That is an outcome that I think would be intolerable.
Now, everybody acknowledges that we have to focus on all
four of the H's. I don't dispute that, either. But I do tend to
think that the most significant successes we will have will be
in the area of the river system, and what that means is, I
guess, for scientists and others to help us understand as we
then try to answer it from a policy perspective.
But I would like to ask each of you if you would be willing
to just comment on the perspective I have just put out. Am I
right? Am I wrong? Or are there things that I'm seeing that
should be clarified, or whatever? Anybody want to jump in
first?
Mr. Cassidy.
Mr. Cassidy. Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'd really address this issue more based on Washington
experience, because that is, of course, where I am from, but I
think it is, in my view, applicable to the whole region.
As you say, if breaching is off the table, where then do
you go to make the waters of the northwest salmon friendly,
because without question if we don't have water we don't have
fish. If you have agricultural needs, irrigation commitments--
in my State of Washington a majority of the rivers in the
Columbia Basin are legally over-appropriated. The legal water
rights exceed the flow of the river, should all those people
choose to use it. They don't today, and that's fortunate. Of
course, the value of the senior water right versus a junior
water right is tantamount to a property right in the view and
minds of the people in Washington State.
So if we take breaching off the table, which we, in our
plans for the next 5 years, are assuming is going to happen,
then where do you go for riparian protection, for zone
protection for the streams, for temperature control, for
filtration, and for water flow?
That, to me, is where the real significant challenge comes
throughout our whole region, as I said, particularly in our
State.
We tried to work on water markets in the State of
Washington, willing buyer/willing seller. We find that this
problem is enormous in size, but probably has to be solved inch
by inch because local landowners, particularly in the rural
areas of Washington State--as, again, I think is true
throughout the region--really don't have much confidence or
willingness to work with government, whether it is State or
Federal or any other level. They just sort of have a way of
life they have been used to, and now all of a sudden this issue
is important to them in terms of it is going to have some
impacts on how their operation operates.
Certainly the government, whether it is State or Federal,
has to be prepared to mitigate in the areas where we do have to
make changes, but minimizing those changes and getting those
people involved in what we call in Washington a ``bottoms-up''
basis instead of a top-down approach is what the real challenge
is.
That's where I'm worried that this whole system could break
down, because once you start getting a bottoms-up approach,
which is what we're trying to do in Washington--as you probably
know, we put a fish and forest agreement together with the
timber industry in Washington State, gave them a 50-year tax
break on State taxes in exchange for riparian setback zones and
other significant advantages for salmon. We have tried to take
that same policy over to the ag industry in eastern Washington,
and the dairy industry also in western Washington. We haven't
been as successful, simply because it is a different frame of
thinking.
We are close to some significant breakthroughs, but it
really has to be done an inch at a time. The local people have
to be involved and do a bottoms-up basis. That, to me, is the
most difficult challenge.
If we end up with the Federal Government superimposing this
issue--let's go back and use the spotted owl as an example--I'm
very concerned it will not work.
The 8 years you talk about will go by so fast it's not
funny. That's hardly two life cycles of the spring chinook.
But when talking about the main stem river, I also would
say I can remember in 1976 we were arguing about nitrogen
supersaturation in the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and it is
still there today at exceeding levels that damage the fish.
We also have, I think, ignored this ocean as sort of a
black hole for a long time, and finally that's starting to come
into focus. At least in my view as a member of the Council it's
starting to come into focus.
Salmon spend 75 to 80 percent of its life in the ocean, and
I'm not just talking about interception by Canada or Alaska,
but the whole feeding and available nutrients that allow salmon
to recover. I think a big part of why we're getting good salmon
runs back currently deals with the fact that the currents have
changed and the salmon have been able to survive better.
So this whole life cycle, whether it is at the time they
are born or when they go down when they go through the water
system in the Columbia or when they are in the ocean all has to
be put together, and then I think you have to have a little
luck.
But I do think that there are some significant challenges
that deal with getting the people aware of what is going on. As
you get more public awareness, as you've probably noticed, you
also get more biologists that tend to also think they know the
best way to run the resource. Trying to manage all that and get
it sensible has been very difficult.
But I think when you see the four Governors' document,
which represents an effort by, as Governor Kempthorne
mentioned, two democrats, two republicans, diverse political
views coming together, it is a significant sign that the
community in the northwest is ready to do something. They are
ready to step up and make this happen, and I think we can.
Senator Crapo. Good. Mr. Bloch.
Mr. Bloch. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am personally very heartened by your approach and belief
that what we are lacking here is a focused effort to look at
the main stem Columbia, Snake Rivers and do what we can to make
those areas more suitable habitats.
This is information that came to us as long ago as 1994 in
a report that I believe was commissioned at Congress' request
by a group that was then called the Independent Science Group
and is now the Independent Science Advisory Board.
They titled their report, ``Return to the River,'' and it
was, I assume, a very deliberate naming because what they
really called for is creating a more normative river or
allowing for a more normative river to evolve, and they
recognized that if we can do that, if we can focus our efforts
on returning to some of the characteristics of a natural river,
we are going to have more success in rebuilding these salmon
populations.
Now, my belief is that a lot of the focus on removing the
lower dams on the Snake River is born of the belief that if you
were to remove those dams you would, at least for a stretch of
the Snake River, recreate a more normative river there.
Now, if we are not going to remove dams, there may well be
other ways, other things that we can do that will, in whole and
part, move toward a more normative river system. I think that's
where we need to focus our efforts.
I would call out one for special attention, and that is
water quality issues. You discuss flow augmentation, and in my
mind that is mostly concerning itself with water quantity
issues, but water quality is obviously an important aspect of
fish health, as well, and there we find the linking up with the
Clean Water Act.
I think we need to do a better job of weaving the Clean
Water Act processes and the ESA processes together, and,
frankly, do a better job in addressing Clean Water Act issues
on the main stem.
Finally, I'd just like to say that we can do all this, but
I think the effort, if we do focus on main stem improvements
and improving the quality of the main stem as a habitat, I
think it is going to remind us of something that Governor
Kitzhabe said when he spoke to the American Fishery Society of
Oregon in Eugene last February. What he said was,
There is no doubt in my mind that we can move ahead with
salmon recovery without breaching dams. All I am saying to you
today is that we have to stop deluding ourselves into believing
that our choices will be easier or cheaper if we just leave the
dams alone.
I think what we're going to learn through the course of
these hearings--and I thank you for this--is that we can embark
on a course of salmon recovery and leave the dams in for now
and hopefully for the long term, but we need to recognize that
we need to commit the effort and the resources to do that, and
that effort and those resources are going to be substantial.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Etchart.
Mr. Etchart. I can be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with your concern that increasing Federal
consolidation over water and resources in the West is a specter
to be concerned about.
Moreover, in my view this is an approach that won't work
for salmon, can't work for salmon for the very reason I think
you cited in your initial testimony this morning, that any
approach that is going to work is going to have to have
political support as well as strong biologic and economic
underpinnings.
Let me just comment very briefly on what I heard my friend
and colleague Mr. Bloch say. We do want to make the river
better. I think the Governors made a point of saying as much.
But the basis for improving river conditions--for requiring
more spill, for requiring more flow--is a compelling biological
case that we're getting gains for those increases.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
In your collective answers to the question, a couple of
other questions have come to my mind, and the first one was
really raised by your comments, Mr. Cassidy, but I think it was
implicit in everybody else's response, as well.
Does the decision to take dam breaching off the table for
the next 8 to 10 years, or whatever the timeframe is,
automatically put us in a posture of having to look at more
water quantity issues, more flow augmentation issues?
Mr. Etchart. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Cassidy gathers his
remarks----
Senator Crapo. Go ahead.
Mr. Etchart [continuing]. I'll react to that quickly and
briefly.
In my mind, from the State of Montana's perspective, and I
think from the four Governors' recommendations, even though I'd
better be careful I don't say what I'm going to say too
strongly, because I might get quarreled with, but in answer to
your question I would say not necessarily.
The Governors say about flow augmentation really a couple
of things, and about spill, for that matter--that we want the
Federal Government, whose practice it has been to put these
measures in place, to tell us, to warrant for us what the
biological benefits are and what quality of flow is it that
provides these benefits.
I think, if a compelling case can be made for flow
augmentation--which at this point there are lots of arguments
on both sides, but I would argue there's no need to go
further--then we should go further. I don't see the need.
I think, Mr. Chairman, just parenthetically, the Council is
about to embark on adopting an amendment to our plan. I don't
know whether there's going to be increased flows in our program
or not, but I can tell you this: the emphasis is not going to
be on the hydrosystem, it is going to be on habitat and
hatchery reform and harvest restrictions and doing what we can
in the river to make it more passable for migrating salmon, but
the idea that it necessarily implies more flow I'd say is very
much an open question.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Cassidy.
Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Chairman, I would sort of throw a curve
ball back at you and say it depends on how you define flow
augmentation. I've listened to Carl Dryer's (phonetic)
presentation, which is very meaningful when he says he doesn't
believe there is credible evidence that flow augmentation, as
defined in Idaho's ``Sacrifice of Water,'' is a significant
contributor.
On the other hand, in my State we look at flow augmentation
as this inch-by-inch battle. As Eric mentioned, we're talking
about taking Wabatux Dam out and we pick up 750 CFS in the
Yakima system. That's critical.
We have an example in the Umatilla where, I think through
Federal funding, we have a recycling project where we pump
water out of the Columbia to feed the irrigators in the lower
Umatilla, and they gave up water so that we could get in-stream
flows in the Umatilla and we have fish back there, first time
in 77 years. Well, that's a flow augmentation contribution, but
it is sort of an inch-by-inch process.
In the John Day River, which may be the Northwest's best-
kept secret--no hatcheries, natural runs, and probably the
longest river in the State of Oregon, certainly--we have push-
up dams throughout the system and over-appropriation on some
extraction.
We're trying to work our way through either by acquiring
habitat, acquiring water. I call that a form of flow
augmentation, where we're starting to gain on the system, but
it is an inch-by-inch battle in those battles.
I think you are more referring to this huge block of water
that Idaho and Montana have to deal with, and there is one
bottom line you can't ignore: to get these fish back, we've got
to make the water salmon friendly, and that does take water.
How you get there is a myriad of different ways.
My sense is there is not political support presently for
any major sacrifice by Idaho or Montana. I think Montana makes
some adjustments for the system now with regard to the
integrated rule, curbing the flows that do occur, but it is a
real battle, at least in Washington State, just fighting it up
through inch by inch.
Senator Crapo. I think that's a helpful clarification.
Thank you.
Mr. Bloch.
Mr. Bloch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The issue of flow augmentation was addressed in the four
Governors' document, and the consensus that was reached among
the four Governors on that issue was essentially acquiescence
to the current flow augmentation program, which I don't think
any of the Governors felt was likely to go away, at least in
the short term, and a call to assure that, with the flow
augmentation--and really it is the same standard we ought to
apply to all that we do, particularly where it has major
impacts--let's make sure that it is grounded in good science
and that it is achieving the intended biological benefit.
With respect to flow augmentation, Governor Kitzhaber--in
the prepared remarks you'll see this--we do, at this point,
believe that there is sufficient scientific basis and benefit
to the flow augmentation program. We support flow augmentation
being increased in the Columbia through the purchase of some
Canadian storage, which the biological opinion looks to
Bonneville to move forward with those purchases. We support
that.
Frankly, the investigation of that Canadian storage was
referenced in the 1995 biological opinion, so if it is
available we would certainly support it being purchased.
There's also a possibility of getting some additional water
for flow augmentation in the Snake River out of the Wahee
Reservoir, where currently there is some dead storage there
owing to the vagaries of the pump system there. If we could
have some infrastructure changes--and estimates are it would
run around $50 million--there would be some additional water
that could come out of that reservoir that could be dedicated
to the flow augmentation program.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Another question that came to my mind as you were each
responding is: the objections to breaching the dams are many,
but several of the key economic impacts that would be caused by
breaching the dams are the destruction of the transportation
system on the river and the elimination of some of the
irrigation opportunities that are available in the current
situation.
It has always been my opinion that, when we talk about
whether to breach dams or not, that what we're really saying
is--those who oppose it, in particular, are really saying,
We do not want to do the damage to the Pacific Northwest
economically that would occur from eliminating the
transportation system on the river or eliminating the
irrigation and the irrigated agriculture that is made possible
by that.
Those are two of the key elements, it seems to me. Like I
say, I'm not trying to minimize the other concerns, but those
seem to be two of the most significant concerns.
In that regard, it would seem to me that, even though, with
the current BIOP direction that we see, saying that the
decision to breach dams is off the table for a period of time,
if we were to insist that the plan that is adopted, whatever it
be, focus on the main stem of the river, we are going to have
to continue to get reassurances about the transportation system
and agriculture.
So the question I have is: going beyond the issue of
breaching dams to the issue of impacting transportation on the
river and impacting agriculture on the river, are the kinds of
things that you've discussed that we can do also consistent
with maintaining a transportation system, as we now know it,
and with maintaining irrigated agriculture as we now know it in
the regions that would be impacted?
Mr. Cassidy. The irrigation issue--which, of course, as you
know, the Snake River and the four dams are in my State, so we
focus on this issue very heavily.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Mr. Cassidy. The irrigation could continue in a breached
fashion. It just would be expensive because you would have a
normative river instead of the reservoirs, and the present
irrigation extraction would have to be expanded down to lower
levels in the canyon as the river went back to normal flow.
Senator Crapo. What about in the non-breach actions that
the four Governors might recommend with regard to the main stem
of the river? Would they impact irrigation? Do you know?
Mr. Cassidy. In the Lower Snake I do not believe so, but
I'm not positive.
Mr. Bloch. It, frankly, depends upon what measure you're
talking about. Let me illustrate at least my thinking on this
by talking a little bit about draw-down.
The sort of dam removal--the concept of removing dams and
drawing down dams sort of becomes synonymous in some people's
minds, but at least in my mind it is a different animal.
One of the options for system reconfiguration that we might
explore is draw-down. I understand that it has been something
that has been on the table, been discussed, even been tried on
a test basis. But we continue to feel that it is something that
we ought to be examining because it may well prove up that
doing draw-down at some project to some level in combination
with other actions is going to get us on the path to recovery.
Your question is: if we did something like draw-down, for
example, would that be fully consistent with irrigation and
transportation? There's really no definitive answer. It might
be, it might not be, and that's something that we would have to
examine as part of the process of looking at the draw-down.
My understanding is that, for example, there are ways to
draw down John Day that would produce some substantial
biological benefits that might preclude use of the very deep
draft barges that are currently in operation but would not
preclude use of some of the shallow draft barges.
So, Mr. Chairman, if your question is, if we draw down John
Day, would we continue to do everything as we did today? Maybe
not. But would there still be a transportation system intact? I
think so. But then there's always the question of whether it is
economically cost effective to utilize it once you've done
that.
These are issues that warrant further analysis, both in
terms of the biological benefits and the economic costs.
I think Governor Kitzhaber's perspective is simply that
they ought to be kept on the table, we ought to be examining
it, we ought to be looking at our options, because if we do
leave the dams in place we think that the long-term recovery of
these stocks is going to come by piecing together many
different activities, and that's why we want to keep as much on
the table and under analysis as we can.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Etchart.
Mr. Etchart. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding what my friend,
Mr. Bloch, has said, which I think is true in every regard, I
think in Governor Racicot's contemplation the recommendations
we made for the next period wouldn't materially interfere with
irrigation or transportation.
Drawing down main stem reservoirs, John Day or whatever, is
almost as contentious and almost as unsettled from a scientific
basis as dam breaching. We don't have that in our contemplation
in the short term.
Another thing is that that--we haven't said the word
``power'' again in this----
Senator Crapo. I was going to go to that next. Go ahead.
Mr. Etchart. That measure would have power implications. In
the Lower Snakes, people trivialize the contribution the Lower
Snakes make. I think you've got people here that are much
more--Ms. Johansen is here from BPA. People are here that are
much more qualified than me to talk about it. But they make a
real contribution, and an even larger contribution to our
transmission system, reliability and so on. That's another
factor to be thought about here.
Senator Crapo. Well, I definitely--in fact, as soon as I
asked the question I realized I left out perhaps the biggie,
and that's power. But if you add power into transportation and
irrigation, then I think you've pretty well got the core
economic impacts that we maybe were talking about.
Mr. Bloch. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make clear, lest
I be misinterpreted, I was not in my comments advocating----
Senator Crapo. Certainly.
Mr. Bloch [continuing]. Moving forward with any of these
measures; simply that they ought to continue to be examined and
part of things we might look at in order to piece together our
future recovery efforts.
Senator Crapo. I assumed that all four of the Governors are
committed to a consensus-based approach, and so you'd have to
evaluate the likelihood of something that is as contentious as
dam breaching, developing that kind of support.
Well, as usual, I could go on forever, but I have another
panel that I need to get up here, so I would like to thank you
for your attendance and encourage you to continue providing
this kind of excellent input.
Thank you.
We'll call up our next panel now: Mr. William Stelle, the
northwest regional administrator, for a while, at least, of the
National Marine Fisheries Service; Colonel Eric Mogren, Army
Corps of Engineers from Portland; Ms. Judith Johansen,
administrator of the BPA; and Mr. David Cottingham, the special
assistant to the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We thank you all for your time here and your patience.
Without anything further, let me go in that order and have you
present your testimony, and then we'll get into a discussion.
Thank you. Mr. Stelle.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STELLE, NORTHWEST REGION REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, SEATTLE, WA
Mr. Stelle. Senator Crapo, thank you. It is a pleasure to
be before this subcommittee again, and I want to thank you and
it for its attention to this significant subject.
Mr. Chairman, the National Marine Fisheries Service is
engaged in two efforts at present to address salmon recovery
policy as it applies to the Federal Columbia River hydropower
system. One is a new draft biological opinion covering the
operations and configuration of that system under the
Endangered Species Act. The other is a basin-wide recovery
strategy which we intend as a conceptual recovery plan for all
of the listed salmon stocks in the Columbia and Snake Basin.
These two documents, the draft biological opinion and the
basin-wide recovery plan, are intended to provide an overall
framework for the rebuilding of all of the Snake and steelhead
stocks in the Columbia Basin.
First, a note on stock status, itself.
The prognosis for these stocks, as a whole, remains dire.
They are in bad shape. Some of them are in very bad shape. The
trends are not good.
The basic story, stocks throughout the Columbia Basin
remain in trouble, with the upper Columbia chinook, Snake River
chinook, and steelhead stocks throughout the basin most at
risk.
Yes, we have encouraging returns this year in the basin
that are very significant, and yes it looks like we've got some
good early jack counts for next year's returns, as well, so it
looks to us that significantly ocean conditions may have turned
around and may have turned around for the next period of time.
If so, that's great news and it is good for the stocks, but it
is not a reason to be complacent. One year and two years does
not a trend make.
What we are looking for, what we are endeavoring to build
is a long-term trend to recovery.
The scope of the new draft biological opinion addresses all
12 evolutionarily significant units, ESUs, within the Columbia
Basin. It is an important point because the 1995 biological
opinion was focused on the four salmon populations in the
Snake, alone.
It addresses operation of the security, including flow and
spill.
It addresses system configuration issues, including dam
draw-down, passage improvements at each project, and operation
of the transportation system through the entirety of the fish
migration season.
It proposes performance standards for the hydrosystem,
itself, based upon survivals and productivity improvements
needed by each of the salmon populations to avoid extinction
and achieve a recovery trajectory.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and the action
agencies and Fish and Wildlife and EPA have been working
together in an inter-agency group since the fall of 1999, and I
would say that the level of effort there, Mr. Chairman, has
been very significant. A heck of a lot of time and effort by
many, many people have been invested in this effort.
The group is composed of senior staff from each agency, and
on the beginning of this year, in January of this year, we sent
a letter to each of the Northwest States and the 13 Native
American tribes inviting them to participate in this process
with us. Since then, the work group has been meeting regularly,
both by itself and with the States and tribes to lay the
groundwork for and develop the key elements of this new draft
biological opinion.
Draft materials developed through the Federal work group
process have been shared with these States and tribes,
including hydrologic and biological analyses of the effects of
different flow and spill alternatives, an analysis of the
potential effects of those same operational alternatives on the
transmission system, and initial description of the information
being developed to assist in the evaluation and use of
performance standards.
The basin-wide recovery strategy is intended to both
capture the details of the hydropower system proposals and
envelop them in a broader, more comprehensive strategy
involving all the four H's, and it reflects our belief that, in
order to be successful, a strategy must be comprehensive and
cannot be limited to hydropower issues, alone.
The strategy, therefore, recommends a comprehensive basin-
wide program that places a premium on actions that can be
implemented quickly, that are likely to provide solid and
predictable results, and that will benefit the broadest range
of species.
These include conservation hatchery interventions for the
weakest stocks, production hatchery reforms across the board in
conjunction with the Power Planning Council, improvements on
Federal lands, in-stream flows for dewatered streams,
elimination of impediments to fish passage in the tributaries,
continued improvements to passage at the main stem dams, and
rebuilding productivity of the estuary.
The strategy is built on biological considerations, but
also recognizes that there is a limit to the resources
available for the job and to the authority, Federal agencies.
It emphasizes Federal support for actions that State and
local governments are planning or are already undertaking, such
as the Northwest Power Planning Council's sub-basin planning
proposal, which we strongly endorse and have worked closely
with the Council upon.
In the habitat area, where some actions can take decades to
show benefits, the program emphasizes those measures that can
be taken quickly, with longer-term actions to be taken later
based upon the sub-basin assessments through the Council
mentioned above.
It also seeks to establish very strong durable connections
between the new habitat features of the Council's program and
related State programs in the same subject area such as water
quality protections, in-stream flows, and riparian-related
activities.
Mr. Chairman, I will close my comments with offering a
couple of observations on the next steps.
First, the Federal agencies intend to complete this effort
by the end of the year, and we are organizing to do so. That
entails the completion and promulgation of a final biological
opinion and also continued revisions to the basin-wide strategy
as ideas continue to evolve.
Second, we do expect that--I would emphasize that the
basin-wide strategy and the draft BIOP are draft documents, and
we expect that they should be changed and they will be changed.
They are not perfect, as I'm sure comes as no surprise to you,
a veteran of this subject. But we do believe that they have
laid out the basic framework of the basic course, and we don't
expect serious fundamental changes in that course between now
and final.
Third--and this is very important, from our perspective--we
are open and anxious to continue discussions with the 13
Columbia River tribes and with the four States to flesh out the
details, to color in the blanks of the program as they now
stand. We believe that there are substantial opportunities to
do so, and that, in fact, the area of overlap between the
framework that we have laid out and that of the Governors is
significant.
The opportunity is there for the Northwest to come to terms
on an agreement, a program that we can put into place and
implement over the next 5 to 10 years. It is there for us if we
choose to take it, and I believe, in good faith, that Federal
agencies, States, and tribes, if we work very hard, we can
capture that agreement by the end of the year and get on with
the business of salmon recovery.
We expect it will require more money--more money at several
different levels. We will be at that time prepared to describe
what additional funding may be required and additional
authorities, Federal authorities, may be required; hence,
successful implementation of this program, Senator, will
absolutely require the support, active support, of this
Congress, as well.
Finally, let us choose to come together on this framework,
on this agreement. The alternative is divisiveness and
increased litigation next year, which I think is an absolutely
unacceptable outcome for the Pacific Northwest, as a whole.
We have the opportunity to do the right thing, and we
believe it is time to seize that opportunity.
I thank you and I look forward to your questions, sir.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Colonel Mogren.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ERIC MOGREN, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND, OR; ACCOMPANIED BY DOUG ARNDT
Colonel Mogren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Colonel Eric
Mogren, deputy division engineer of the Northwestern Division,
Army Corps of Engineers, and I thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the status of the National Marine Fisheries Service
and Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinions on operations
of the Federal Columbia River power system.
I'll keep my remarks short, with additional details
submitted in written remarks for the record.
As Will mentioned, the overall stocks are in trouble
throughout the basin. But he also noted that we are seeing
record returns of adult salmon in the Columbia this year. We
believe these results are at least partially due to prior
investments and the many improvements made in the hydropower
system to date, as well as the efforts throughout the basin by
tribes, States, and local communities. This represents a huge
investment at multiple levels, and I would suggest we need not
be shy about recognizing that we have seen some return on that
investment.
Many of these actions were called for in the biological
opinions under which we are currently operating.
In the remainder of my remarks I'd like to focus on four
key points.
First, is the relationship of the Snake River EIS to the
biological opinions.
Second, is the funding implications of the biological
opinions.
Third, the results of a recently released General
Accounting Office report on the Snake River EIS.
Fourth, a proposed flood control study that is called for
in the BIOP.
With regard to the relationship between the biological
opinions and the EIS, the NMFS draft biological opinion
reflects the administration intent to pursue aggressive actions
across all H's, with specified performance standards and
periodic check-ins.
If these efforts fail to show sufficient progress toward
restoration, then other measures, such as dam breaching, may be
considered. The question of whether to breach the four Lower
Snake dams has been a focus in regional discussions on salmon
recovery, even though such an action would have influence on
only 4 of the 12 listed salmon and steelhead stocks in the
basin.
The Corps' Lower Snake River study includes evaluation of
dam breach, as well as three other major alternatives for the
four Lower Snake dams. These are to maintain the existing
system, to maximize transportation of juvenile fish, and make
major system improvements such as surface bypass.
The obvious question is whether the measures of the
biological opinion predetermine the findings of the EIS. I want
to emphasize that both the biological opinion and the EIS
depend on the same underlying science. However, under NEPA, the
Corps is required to consider all relevant factors, including
comments received during the comment period, before selecting a
final recommendation.
We are now processing the nearly 200,000 comments that have
been received during the public comment period and analyzing
the substantive issues raised. We expect to have a final
environmental impact statement in March of next year.
On the issue of funding, full implementation of the
measures called for in the BIOPs will be an ambitious program
requiring substantial increases in appropriations. For example,
the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, as submitted to
Congress, calls for $91 million in the Corps fish mitigation
project. Additional money may be needed to implement the
measures in the draft BIOPs that were not foreseen when the
original budget was prepared.
With regard to the concerns raised in the General
Accounting Office review of the Lower Snake study, the Corps
believes that the GAO report substantially validated our EIS
process within the scope of the areas that were audited. We are
particularly satisfied with their support of the power
analysis, which is a substantial component of the overall
economic analysis.
GAO did, however, raise two areas of concern which we are
now addressing. The first is air quality, which also was raised
by EPA. We are working the air quality and water quality issues
with EPA to address these technical concerns.
The other is the transportation analysis. We are
contracting for further economic review and to respond to the
issues raised by the GAO through the Independent Economic
Analysis Board.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of the flood
control study called for in the draft BIOP. NMFS continues to
look for additional flow augmentation to provide flows to
assist juvenile salmon migration. The draft BIOP requests a
detailed, system-wide, multi-year flood control study to
determine if we can provide additional fish flows by reducing
the amount of flood control storage.
This would be a major undertaking. If included in the final
biological opinion, we would first seek appropriate
congressional approval. Further, we would caution that such a
study would include a flood damage risk analysis and may lead
to the need for increases in flood control protection, and
thereby reduce available flow augmentation for fish.
A few final thoughts.
The NMFS biological opinion also calls upon the Corps, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration
to address actions in harvest, hatchery, and habitat for fish
restoration as a means of supplementing hydropower operations.
For example, we are asked to step up efforts in habitat
restoration in tributaries, mainstem reaches, and in the
Columbia River estuary. The Corps supports this as part of the
All-H approach to fish recovery.
We look to the Congress for continued support of these
efforts. We will continue to work with you and keep the lines
of communication open.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy
to answer whatever questions you may have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Colonel.
Ms. Johansen.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH JOHANSEN, ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PORTLAND, OR
Ms. Johansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you and the
subcommittee today, and I applaud your interest and your
leadership on the recovery of the Columbia Basin salmon and
steelhead runs.
Mr. Chairman, we all want a comprehensive, integrated plan
for fish recovery. We have heard that in the region, we've
heard that today in your hearing. We need a comprehensive,
integrated plan that can be implemented, and I believe we are
getting closer to such a plan.
I, personally, am encouraged to see the recent
recommendations of the four Northwest Governors and to receive
the comments of the tribes during this process. I look forward
to the Power Planning Council's rulemaking, which is due out
this fall, and I see a lot of convergence in those areas. The
onus now obviously is on the Federal agencies and the region to
work together, as you have indicated, in a collaborative way.
I certainly concur with your remarks that we must have the
support of the people in the region in order to come up with an
implementable plan.
As we have said before and as Bonneville has indicated in
terms of its goals, the plan must be scientifically sound; it
must comply with our statutory treaty and trust obligations;
and it must have broad regional support. But, moreover, it
needs to address the many issues that we face in the Columbia
Basin. It needs to address all the listed stocks and all four
``H's'' that affect them. If we can do that, then I think we
will be able to achieve, as a region working together,
Bonneville's twin goals of recovering the fish and creating the
certainty necessary for our region to continue to have a strong
economy.
Let me just make three brief points about certain aspects
of this discussion that are important to Bonneville, and
perhaps of interest to you.
First of all, for the first time in the Endangered Species
Act debate we are finally seeing some performance standards.
While they may not be perfectly defined in the current
iteration of the draft biological opinion, I am quite heartened
that we, as a region, are moving toward specific performance
standards, and I think that's the very type of issue that we
collaboratively need to focus on in the next several months. So
the performance standards are a good approach, and I believe we
need to keep working on those.
Second, with regard to funding, there is no question that
Bonneville will be a significant contributor on behalf of
Northwest rate-payers to the funding of this plan. I want to
state clearly that Bonneville stands ready to finance its fair
share of this plan and the rate-payers' portion of that plan,
as we've set forth in our power rate case.
Finally, as has been reiterated throughout my comments, it
is obvious to me and to the other Federal agencies that we need
to step up the effort to collaborate with the region, including
working with the delegation, the States, and the tribes to make
sure that we address the issues of substance and science that
are key to the underpinnings of a regional plan that meets the
criteria that you and Governor Kempthorne and others have
talked about today a plan that is scientifically sound, meets
the legal requirements, and is, above all, implementable.
Thank you very much for inviting me today. I look forward
to your questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Cottingham.
STATEMENT OF DAVID COTTINGHAM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD SHALLER, VANCOUVER, WA OFFICE,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Cottingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today.
With me is Dr. Howard Shaller from the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Vancouver, WA office should we get into any detailed
questions that we might need him to approach. Thank you.
The Service has been working with the action agencies and
National Marine Fisheries Service on the consultations, and we
are looking primarily at the consultations as regard to
sturgeon, Kootenai River sturgeon, which is an endangered
species, and threatened bull trout, which are in the upper
reaches of the basin, as you know.
We have been focusing on ways to make sure that the salmon
plans and the biological opinions that National Marine
Fisheries Service is doing and the operations of the FCRPS
throughout the Columbia Basin are consistent, and that we
minimize the impacts on those species.
Our draft opinion requests adjustments to the operations
and ramping rates of Hungry Horse, Libby, and Albeni Falls, and
we are asking the Corps to continue looking at studies of pool
elevations at Albeni Falls for Kootenai sturgeon spawning.
The draft opinion calls for actions at Libby to allow
increased flows and achieve flow objectives, while meeting the
dissolved gas problems there.
I would be remiss, sir, given the dialog that you had with
the Governor this morning, if I did not mention caspian terns.
We recognize the problem. We are working with our colleagues in
the agencies to do something about it. We're doing a status
review of terns and preparing sea bird management plans. The
agencies have adopted a goal to eliminate tern nesting on Rice
Island in 2001, but we need to do that by establishing some
more appropriate nesting sites throughout the Columbia estuary.
I know that we have some report language in the
appropriations bill, and we will be getting some reports to you
and the rest of Congress in late March of this year.
With that, sir, I'll conclude my comments and thank you for
holding the hearing and allowing us to testify.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
As Mr. Cottingham indicated, we had asked each of you to
bring a technical staffer with you, just in case we needed to
have some questions answered, and I understand you have each
done so.
I will tell your staffers that they are welcome to pull a
chair up with you or be close at hand, just in case they need
to pitch in. Maybe we won't even get into any questions they
will be needed on.
Mr. Stelle, I think I will start out with you. Does that
surprise you? How many more days have you got?
Mr. Stelle. I don't know, but I may move up the schedule.
Senator Crapo. You've heard some of the concerns that I
have already raised in terms of comments and questions that I
have discussed with other panelists. One of the concerns that I
have--and I think what I'll do is just kind of lay out for you
my perspective on what I see has happened and then ask you to
comment on it. I've already indicated that I have perceived a
lack of collaboration with the States and the tribes and other
interested parties and groups in the region. You've testified
that, beginning in the fall of 1999, a very intensive effort
was undertaken to try to communicate and work with these
groups.
I'm not sure that what is being done is what I call
collaboration, but I want to go back even further, because it
seems to me that before that time, prior to 1998, the path
model seemed to be what was the model being utilized, or at
least the focus of a lot of the analysis, and sometime in
around 1998, as I see it--well, for lack of a better
description, I think the Federal Caucus basically just went
underground. I'm giving you my perspective on this. We didn't
know where things were headed. We couldn't get information.
When I say ``we,'' I'm talking about me, but I think that I'm
also reflecting input that I've gotten from the States and the
tribes and other fisheries managers who didn't know where
things were going, and the Federal Caucus basically said,
``We're going to go in our own council and come up with
something and we'll let you know when we do.''
I know that that isn't the exact words that were used, but
that's what I perceived happened.
Then, in about the fall of 1999, about a year-and-a-half
later, the Federal Caucus surfaced with its proposal, and at
that point the CRI model seemed to be the more-favored model,
or at least the direction proposed by CRI seemed to be the new
way, and a lot of different conclusions have been reached or
proposals made, and so forth, based on that apparent new
direction.
I'm not here to debate the two models or anything like
that. I'm just kind of giving you my perspective of what I've
seen happen.
It does seem to me, though, that the new direction taken by
the Federal Caucus has been basically one that significantly
turned its focus away from the main stem of the river, not that
it ignores it, because I realize you've got All H's in your
proposal, but the focus on the main stem seems to have been
significantly reduced and the focus on things like water
quantity or water augmentation, habitat, and hatcheries, and so
forth seems to have been increased.
Now, whether that's a result of the CRI model gaining more
dominance than the path model or not, I don't know, but that
seems to be the new direction taken.
The concern that I see from that--and now a supposed
collaborative effort is being undertaken, but, as you probably
know from my previous comments on this, I don't deem
collaboration to be telling everybody, ``This is where we're
headed. Now you can comment on it, and then we'll tell you what
we think of your comments.''
You know, I think collaboration is when you truly bring the
parties that are going to be involved in your collaboration to
the table and they have a meaningful part of the decisionmaking
that has to take place.
When you say you are going to try to finish this by the end
of this year, that tells me that you basically are going to
have to have some meetings and then make some decisions and get
things done in about 3 or 4 months, and I don't see how a
collaborative process can even work now in that timeframe.
That's one of the reasons I have been objecting so strongly for
the last couple of years--that I don't see this happening, and
until it happens I don't see success coming.
So my concern is with what I perceive as a lack of
collaboration to this point, and now an apparent diversion of
the focus of where we think the real benefits in recovery
efforts can be achieved.
I'm concerned that we may take this opportunity that we
have with the next period of time to try to do something short
of breaching and squander the opportunity because we haven't
built consensus, we've diverted into what I think are
potentially the wrong areas of focus, and we are now facing a
very critical timeframe of decisionmaking in which we've got to
start doing things that we believe will work and that people in
the region believe will work or we are going to be faced with
these kinds of dilemmas in just a few years down the road.
I'm sure that you don't entirely agree with my perspective
there, or my description of it, but I would just like you to
comment on or respond to that perspective.
Mr. Stelle. Thank you, Senator.
Those are thoughtful observations. Let me try to respond in
a helpful way.
I think that your basic point about the lack of adequate
collaborative effort has merit, and I don't think that neither
NMFS nor the other Federal agencies shy from that point.
I think we are open to try to explore better ways to work
with our partners in this salmon recovery effort, our essential
partners, because they are essential, and develop methods by
which we can do so successfully.
What I mean by--``successfully'' is a loaded term, or a big
term. We need to be able to make decisions. We need to be able
to make them based on credible scientific foundation. We need
to be able to defend those decisions, because we will be sued,
and we should be called upon to defend them. We need to be able
to implement them in a timely way. We need to be able to do
that in a way that maximizes the opportunity for agreement with
the essential parties here for salmon recovery in the Columbia
Basin.
I don't think we have any--and I defer in part to my
colleagues here. I don't think we have any magic machinery that
we can turn to that will be instant success. All you need to do
is just add water.
Senator Crapo. Bad example, but I understand your point.
Mr. Stelle. Add water and stir.
But I think what you see is not a reluctance to try. I
think we have a very genuine desire to try and to succeed, and
if you have thoughts on how to do it successfully, as the
Governors or the tribes, we would welcome that.
But, again, I do have to emphasize the practical end of it,
too, which is to say the imperative of being able to make
decisions and do things in a timely way because that is our
responsibility, as well.
On the change of focus which you have pressed upon, I think
you are correct that there is a change of focus. I would
describe it a little bit differently, though, Senator.
Senator Crapo. Please do.
Mr. Stelle. It is not turning away from the hydropower
corridor or the hydropower issue; it is building beyond them.
So, as I think of it and believe it, we continue to tackle the
hydropower issues, both Federal and non-Federal, head on, and
we continue to propose and explore in this new biological
opinion for the Federal hydropower system opportunities to
improve survivals and improve knowledge.
If we are missing something, we do not intend to miss
something, and therefore that is why we welcome the comments
from the States and the tribes to see if, in fact, there are
things we should be doing through the hydropower corridor that
we have not proposed and that we will, therefore, propose.
But yes, we seek to go beyond it, and our view is not a
hydrocentric view. That is grounded on the fact that the
salmonid life cycle is complex, as you well know; that the
risks to salmon recovery occur at each stage of that life
cycle; and to be successful in salmon recovery we must be
comprehensive.
It is also premised on the belief that, given the
hydropower system, Federal hydropower system as it is currently
constructed, that the opportunities for substantial,
significant survival improvements in the hydropower system,
itself, are growing more limited, and that, therefore, if we
are seeking very substantial improvements in survivals, we must
go elsewhere.
We believe that the opportunities--the most efficient
opportunities with the biggest bang for the buck steer us, one,
to the estuary, rebuilding the productivity of the estuary,
because all of the salmonid populations to varying degrees use
is--live there, grow there, beef up before they go to their
ocean journey--and in tributaries because the arithmetic of
survival opportunities in the tributaries is huge.
So, sir, we have very intentionally tried to broaden the
lens on our camera, to broaden the focus, and to develop a
recovery strategy that has firm commitments in the four H's so
that next spring, when we're standing before a Federal court,
we can say, ``Your Honor, this is what we were doing in the
hydropower corridor. This is the strategy that we're pursuing
elsewhere. Here is how it all adds up. Here's the big
picture.''
Senator Crapo. I understand what you're saying, but, as I
compare, for example, the Governors' paper with the proposed
BIOP and what we've seen so far, I see very distinct
differences in terms of the approach to the hydropower or the
main stem issues, and in that context it just seems to me that
NMFS is shifting the focus away from the hydrosystem as a major
source of mortality and is putting the focus more on these
other areas that you've just described--estuary and tributary
habitat.
But it is my understanding that survival from egg to smolt
has not declined appreciably since the Snake River salmon
populations were robust in the 1960's and survival from smolt
to adult has declined substantially over the same period of
time.
Given that fact, I don't think that we can effectively
conclude that, by shifting our focus into those areas where we
already have less of a problem is going to give us better
results, and that's the concern that I am raising.
Mr. Stelle. A couple of comments, if I may, Senator.
No. 1, I'm not sure why--we do not necessarily see the
significant different approach as do you and the Governors
strategy as it relates to the hydropower system. In fact, to
the contrary, to be honest. I think we perceive a very
significant overlap, and because of that overlap a huge
opportunity for us and the States to come together.
Senator Crapo. That is encouraging.
Mr. Stelle. As it relates to hydropower, itself, again, I
think we see substantial overlap to the strategies. If there
are things that the Governors believe we should be doing in the
hydropower corridor that we have not proposed to do, then we
are all ears.
Senator Crapo. Would anybody else on the panel like to jump
into this discussion, or are you going to use prudence?
[Laughter.]
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. OK. I gave you your chance.
Well, let me just pursue the question of collaboration a
little bit better. What is your contemplation of what needs to
take place between now and the end of the year with regard to
finalizing this biological opinion? What collaboration is going
to take place?
Mr. Stelle. Assuming that the other essential parties are
prepared to put their shoulders to the task, as are we--and I
do----
Senator Crapo. Yes. I agree that they will.
Mr. Stelle [continuing]. I believe that we need to engage
now, and I mean now, this fall, in a series of discussions with
the States, individually and collectively, and the treaty
tribes individually and collectively at both a policy and a
technical level, one, to ensure that we understand each other
at the technical level, and understand the technical and
scientific foundations for the views that may be espoused or
the recommendations that may be proffered, and then, at the
policy level, we have an opportunity thus educated to explore
the terms of agreements or explore the disagreements that may
be outstanding with the State governments and the tribes.
This will require a substantial effort, and I think that
the Federal Caucus is prepared to mount that effort. We see
there is no choice but to do so.
At the end of the day, we believe that there are Federal
laws that will require Federal agencies to make decisions, and
we are prepared to do so, but we absolutely want to ground
those decisions on agreements with the States and the tribes to
the maximum extent possible.
Senator Crapo. Does that involve--well, let me preface
this. It seems to me, notwithstanding what you've said today,
it seems to me from the input that I've received--and I have
been working on this, as you know, about constantly, but it
seems to me like the input that I received from tribal and
State fisheries managers is that there is a significant
disagreement between their approach to the science and what
they now see gaining dominance in the Federal Caucus' proposed
BIOP.
Now, perhaps that disagreement isn't as broad as I believe
it is, and I'm not going to try to resolve that issue here
today, but it seems to me that one way to make certain of that
is to bring together those fishery scientists and people,
especially in the short term that we have facing us on a rather
rapid basis, and get those people back together so that there
can be the kinds of interaction between the various
decisionmakers that needs to take place for collaboration to
truly work.
Are you prepared to commit to that?
Mr. Stelle. Yes, Senator, I am. May I offer a couple of
observations----
Senator Crapo. Yes.
Mr. Stelle [continuing]. That I hope are helpful to you?
Senator Crapo. Certainly.
Mr. Stelle. First of all, please understand that the
development of the quantitative modeling work by the National
Marine Fisheries Service, which is known in shorthand as CRI,
was not intended to and is not a tool that is exclusive to the
Columbia Basin, and I have pressed very hard over the last 4 to
5 years on our science center to develop those better
quantitative data base pools by which to project, be able to
project outcomes so that we could use that across the board in
the West in helping the agency make decisions about what works,
what may work, and what may not work.
So the CRI--developing that toolbox that would be commonly
called the CRI, is not simply a tool for the Columbia Basin at
all, it will be deployed in decisionmaking on Puget Sound, and
coast-wide, I hope.
Having said that, I think that your observation or
criticism about the CRI being perceived or the NMFS science
work being perceived by others in the region as isolated, not
collaborative, or done in relative isolation and not
sufficiently collaborative, I think there are elements of truth
in that observation, and the struggle for us--and it is a
struggle--is to develop the methods by which we undertake
analyses that we believe are absolutely credible from a science
perspective and that can stand the legitimate test of peer
review, because that, at the end of the day, is the touchstone
of our decisionmaking as a matter of law and as a matter of
common sense.
How do we maintain the integrity of that scientific process
and at the same time open the doors to it so that others have
the opportunity to critique it, to participate in it, and to
help us improve it?
It is not a consensus-based exercise. Something is not
right from a scientific perspective because everybody agrees.
Something is right, do it. Something is right from a scientific
perspective because it measures up through the scientific
process.
Senator Crapo. But in a lot of models----
Mr. Stelle. The challenge for us, Senator, is to pull those
two things together. Have we done that well enough? No. Are
there opportunities to continue to improve that? Yes.
I would also encourage your focus not only on this issue--
this issue is not only an issue between now and December.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Mr. Stelle. Now and whenever we complete this planning.
This is really an implementation measure as much if not more
than simply a planning measure because the program that we are
laying out here is a longer-term program, it places a very
heavy emphasis on escalating our efforts in monitoring and
research into those areas of the unknown that we need to know
more about. The implementation of that monitoring and the
research work is going to be crucial to the success of the
program.
How do we do that so that it builds the confidence of the
region that it is well-grounded? How do we do that so that we
avoid those scientific squabbles that we should be able to
avoid? It is an absolutely fair question.
Senator Crapo. It is a very tough one to answer, but it
seems to me that--and I agree you don't find good science by
consensus, you find good science by doing the scientific
process well and getting the answers objectively verified. But
it seems to me that as we, in this area as well as many others,
work with models, a lot of the outcome of the models depends on
the assumptions on which the models are operated, and I don't
believe we have consensus yet among scientists as to whether
these models operate--as to which models are the right ones or
which improvements need to be made in the models, whether it be
path or CRI or whatever it may be.
Again, I do not suppose that I have the ability to tell
whether one model is better or worse than the other, but what I
can tell is that, from the input I am getting from other
scientists outside the Federal Caucus, is that there is concern
about the direction that is perceived to be being taken by the
Federal Caucus.
So, with all respect to what you've said, it sounds to me
like the National Marine Fisheries Service is pretty much
committed to the CRI model at this point in time, and that any
collaboration that may take place will take place within what
that model says.
Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Stelle. Yes, but with an important caveat, and then I'd
like to turn to Dr. Schiewe----
Senator Crapo. Sure.
Mr. Stelle [continuing]. Because this really is in his
bailiwick.
We absolutely anticipate that this CRI--we believe the CRI
work as it now stands is incomplete. The modeling, itself, is
incomplete. That it absolutely will need to be changed and
improved, and our scientists are committed to that.
So it is not a static, done product. It is not a static
thing. It is not a completed product, so far as finished. It
will continue to evolve and improve as scientists inside and
outside have the opportunity to critique it, suggest ways to
improve it.
So, again, if the State of Idaho's scientific people have
observations or suggestions about where its flaws may be and
how to correct those flaws, I believe that the NMFS scientists
are open to it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the NMFS
scientists will agree, but absolutely there should be that
critical review and exchange of----
Senator Crapo. You are committed to reconvening the
scientists in the sense to be sure that they have the chance
now early to collaborate on these matters?
Mr. Stelle. Yes.
Let me turn to Dr. Schiewe on the workshops.
Senator Crapo. Doctor.
Mr. Schiewe. Thank you, Senator. My name is Michael
Schiewe. I am the head of the salmon science program at the
Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
Let me first comment on the sort of transition from path to
CRI. It is our impression that path accomplished a tremendous
amount of what it had set out to achieve, but got to a certain
point where the different assumptions used in the models were
not going to be resolved until we collected new information and
new data.
The CRI was an effort to move to a decision support mode
which relied more on the collection of those data and
hypothesis testing, rather than continuing modeling in the
absence of those data.
The CRI has made a very strong effort and commitment to be
as open to other scientists as we possibly could. Since July of
last year we have held six workshops, one of which was convened
with an environmental group, American Rivers, to look at the
various aspects of path and CRI, comparing and contrasting the
ways they use data, what kinds of data would be necessary, the
importance of future monitoring.
We are continuing that effort. There is a workshop
September 19 in Seattle inviting everyone from the region to
view the most recent results of the CRI and ask for and welcome
input. There is a workshop in November which will look more at
the relationships between habitat and productivity, and there
is a December workshop planned to look at the importance of
monitoring.
Because of the uncertainties associated with the various
actions being proposed, be they main stem, be they habitat,
hatchery, or harvest, we are committed to making sure that we
learn from these experiences and that monitoring will be a
critical part of that process.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
I'm going to shift gears for a minute and just kind of
clear up a couple of questions--and, again, still for you, Mr.
Stelle.
You indicated that at the appropriate time the agencies
would be making requests for Federal funding support for
whatever the recovery plan calls for. In that context, as you
know, in these kinds of situations rumors get started or
thoughts get promulgated that may or may not have validity, and
one of the questions that has been raised to my office is
whether the Federal agencies are contemplating requesting funds
for preliminary engineering and design work on breaching the
dam. Is that something that NMFS is considering?
Mr. Stelle. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Could you explain that, given the proposal
in the BIOP to try other options?
Mr. Stelle. Yes. The overall strategy, Senator, in the
biological opinion is to keep all options open for the long
term, and on the issue of Snake River dam draw-down, that
particular issue, to continue the homework of the technical,
scientific, and economic homework associated with evaluating
the pros and cons of implementing the draw-down.
We believe that homework will take a period of time to
complete, but the key component of it is the preliminary
engineering and design work associated with a draw-down.
Senator Crapo. When you say ``draw-down,'' are you
distinguishing that from breach?
Mr. Stelle. No.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Mr. Stelle. I meant breach.
Senator Crapo. Breach. OK.
Mr. Stelle. We believe that completing that homework is
warranted on its own merits and also for purposes of ensuring
that the overall program is as defensible as we can make it.
Senator Crapo. It has also been reported that the final
BIOP might include the possibility of breaching within 3 years,
or at the conclusion of 3 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Stelle. I can only really speak to the proposal as we
now have it and to assure the Senator that at this stage that
proposal is current.
Senator Crapo. Which is 8 to 10 years, and then re-looking
at the issue?
Mr. Stelle. The proposal is a 10-year program, Senator,
that has a series of--that places a very heavy emphasis on M&E
work, first of all, and I don't want to ignore that because it
is hugely important--escalated investments in monitoring and in
research, particularly in those areas that we are largely
ignorant, like hatchery risks, like tributary productivity, and
estuary.
It calls for a series of reviews. First, it calls for an
annual planning by the action agencies and the services to
develop an annual program that we share with the Power Planning
Council and review, and that has budgetary components to it
that describes what we collectively intend to do in the
hydropower arena and in the other arenas.
At year three it contemplates a retrospective of how we
have done over the prior preceding 3 years to ask the question:
Are we making reasonable progress in putting into place and
doing what we said we were going to do?
At year five it contemplates a more major program review
that looks at the biologic--the programmatic information,
meaning have we done what we said we were going to do, and the
biological information that is available to us at the time,
including stock status, to ask the question: do we believe that
this program, as we now have structured it, is on course with
the recovery trajectory for these stocks or not? It
contemplates a series of responses based on the stock status
and program reviews at that time, a similar major program
review at year 8, with a 10-year terminus.
Senator Crapo. So we have a review at year 3, 5, and 8?
Mr. Stelle. Yes, with the major reviews contemplated at
year 5 and 8. Why years 5 and 8? Because we believe that is the
reasonable period of time when we are likely to have learned
something new based on those measures that we intend to be
implementing now, and we believe it is also a reasonable period
of time by which to complete the work on Snake River dam
issues, including the engineering work and the biological work
on efficacy.
Senator Crapo. Well, you can see the question that that
raises, can't you? You're doing engineering work on breaching
dams, and then saying that in 5 years we're going to revisit
the issue of breaching dams.
Mr. Stelle. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Some might conclude that this is a plan to
breach dams in 5 to 10 years, you know, to begin the process at
that point in time, and that the other scientific activities
that are taking place, or the other recovery efforts that are
taking place, are efforts to prepare for dam breaching.
Mr. Stelle. Senator, if that is a question about is this
really a secret plan to breach Snake River dams, the answer is
no, sir. First of all, it is not secret. We've laid out exactly
what we want to do and why. We believe, again, a very high
imperative for us--and I hope for you--is that we promulgate a
plan that is biologically credible and legally defensible, and
that when we are sued next spring we will succeed in defending
it.
We believe if we were to ``take dams off the table,'' that
that would not be a defensible position, and that the strongest
and most-defensible position is to keep all options open, to
pursue the overall course that we have charted here, a part of
which is to continue, in a responsible and orderly way, doing
the additional work that has not yet been done on the issue of
Snake River dam removal, because clearly that would be the
point of litigation.
Senator Crapo. But you can assure me, then, that it is the
sincere attempt of the Federal Caucus to try to achieve
recovery without breaching dams?
Mr. Stelle. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. Well, let me shift over for a minute to you,
Judy. Obviously, since NMFS is the lead agency, they're going
to get the most focus on the questions, but----
Ms. Johansen. I appreciate that.
Senator Crapo. In fact, this little beeper may say fewer
questions than you thought, maybe.
The northwest appears to be in a position of needing more
available electricity right now to meet its future demand. Can
you tell me whether the Department of Energy has studied what
type of generation would be built to meet that demand and what
impact that new generation would have on the environment versus
the full operation of existing hydro facilities to try to meet
that demand?
Ms. Johansen. Well, the Department of Energy, per se,
hasn't done that study, but let me answer in a couple of ways,
if I could.
Senator Crapo. Sure.
Ms. Johansen. The most likely generation resource to fill
our current need will be natural gas fired combined cycle
combustion turbines. In fact, Bonneville operates the majority
of the transmission grid, and when turbine developers want to
build a project they come to us to ask for transmission
interconnection. We have seen about 7,000 megawatts of interest
in natural gas fired plants in our region.
Senator Crapo. Judy, let me also ask you if you would
comment on the question--you mentioned in your testimony you
appreciated the input that I have brought forward with regard
to the importance of collaboration. Do you see that it is
possible for us to achieve the kind of collaboration we need in
the next--well, how many months have we got, 3 or 4 months--to
be able to get that kind of consensus in the region to move
forward?
Ms. Johansen. It is possible if the most senior
decisionmakers in their respective entities--those being tribes
and the States and the Federal agencies--are willing to commit
the time and the level of activity necessary to draw that
consensus. I don't really see that we have a choice other than
to try, because the Council will be releasing its rule on the
Columbia Basin strategy, and the Federal agencies, as Mr.
Stelle has indicated, need to make decisions in this timeframe.
I don't think we have any choice but to try to set aside the
time to do it, but it is going to be an unprecedented effort.
I'm hopeful and I'm committing the resources of my agency--my
senior people and myself personally, to making that
collaboration work, and hopefully others will, as well.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
I am going to have to bring the hearing to a conclusion
right now because of other pressing matters, but I wanted to
first apologize to those who didn't get to say everything they
wanted to say. We will keep the record open if there are other
items of input that you want to provide.
I hope that we have at least opened some issues up here
today that will help us to proceed during the next 3 or 4
months to really focus our recovery efforts on things that we
believe are going to have the biggest impact, and I can assure
you that this is not the last hearing. There are a lot of
people who wanted to testify today and tomorrow who were not
even able to be included just because of the timeframe within
which we had to operate in this first hearing. In fact, we made
it a 2-day hearing to try to get even more witnesses in.
To those who were not able to testify, I want to again
reassure them that that's not because we are not listening to
their point of view. It's because we just have certain amounts
of time in which we have to get this process started, and we
will be holding further hearings.
For those who did testify, I want you to know that the door
here is open. This is an issue that the Senators and
Representatives from the Pacific Northwest, in particular, are
extremely interested in, as you might guess, and whatever
happens I'm sure that we're going to be involved in one way or
another, so it is going to be important that we understand
where you are headed and why.
I would simply say to the Federal Caucus that I appreciate
your answers today and I encourage you in every way possible to
engage in the most open collaboration that you can with the
States, tribes, and other interested parties to make certain
that when something is decided later this year it is something
that we can hopefully step forward and lock arms with and go
forward with as a region, rather than end up with more hearings
and more conflict, because that truly--I think every witness
here has agreed today that truly would be the most unfortunate
outcome.
With that, again, I thank everyone for their attendance,
and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene at 1 p.m. the following day, Thursday, September 14,
2000.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington for the Protection and Restoration of Fish in the Columbia
River Basin
Preface
Almost two decades after Congress passed the Northwest Power Act
and nearly a decade after the first Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listings of fish in the Columbia River Basin, State and Federal
agencies and Indian tribes have not agreed on a long-term,
comprehensive, effective and coordinated approach to protecting and
restoring fish of the Columbia River Basin, particularly salmon and
steelhead.
Individually and collectively, we Governors have the authority to
contribute to the efforts currently under way to develop an integrated,
regionwide approach to recovery of ESA-listed aquatic species. We
hereby set forth our recommendations for key elements of a regional
approach.
It is the Federal Government's role to administer the Endangered
Species Act and to uphold tribal trust responsibilities. But the States
also have an important role and responsibilities, as do other regional
entities. Agreement on a regional approach, consisting of specific
Federal, State and regional plans that protect both our salmon and our
communities, as well as implementing the other recommendations in the
attached document, will enable all of us to begin to fulfill our
respective roles and responsibilities and meet the challenge that lies
ahead.
We look forward to the needed collaboration and cooperation among
State and Federal Governments as we plan for the recovery of ESA-listed
aquatic species in the Columbia River Basin.
Sincerely,
Dirk Kempthorne,
Governor of Idaho.
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.,
Governor of Oregon.
Marc Racicot,
Governor of Montana.
Gary Locke,
Governor of Washington.
______
i. introduction
Almost two decades after Congress passed the Northwest Power Act
and nearly a decade after the first Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listings of fish in the Columbia River Basin, State and Federal
agencies and Indian tribes have not agreed on a long-term,
comprehensive, effective and coordinated approach to protecting and
restoring fish of the Columbia River Basin, particularly salmon and
steelhead. Individually and collectively, we Governors have the
authority to contribute to the efforts currently under way to develop
an integrated, regionwide approach to fish recovery.
We acknowledge a broad regional responsibility to protect fish and
wildlife species. Such an effort is underway through the Northwest
Power Planning Council's (Council) fish and wildlife program
amendments. As currently envisioned, the Council's program should be an
important preventive component because wise management will help the
region avoid future ESA listings.
Because of the work of the last 10 years, including research and
on-the-ground efforts, there is regional support for many key elements
of fish recovery. In this document, we express our support for these
elements as the nucleus of a regional approach to the recovery of ESA-
listed aquatic species, particularly salmon and steelhead.
We want to stress that while we intend the consensus
recommendations contained in this document to be useful advice and
guidance to decisionmaking entities such as the National Marine
Fisheries Service NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental
Protection Agency and the Northwest Power Planning Council, our
recommendations do not constitute a plan that can substitute for the
procedural and substantive planning requirements of the Endangered
Species Act, Clean Water Act, Northwest Power Act, or other relevant
State and Federal laws.
We are keenly aware of the extent to which breaching the four lower
Snake River dams has become a polarizing and divisive issue. Regardless
of the ultimate fate of the dams, the region must be prepared in the
near term to recover salmon and meet its larger fish and wildlife
restoration obligations by acting now in areas of agreement without
resort to breaching the four dams on the lower Snake River. In order to
succeed, the region must have the necessary tools including a clear and
comprehensive plan, adequate time, and sufficient funding. Our
recommendations address some of those necessary tools.
ii. key elements of a regional approach
A successful approach to recovery of salmonids and other aquatic
species must include a clear goal, objectives that describe and measure
the environmental and biological improvements needed to meet the goal,
and an aggressive series of explicit strategies and actions designed to
achieve the goal.
The approach must address the so called ``Four Hs'' of human
activities that influence fish and wildlife survival--habitat,
hydropower, harvest and hatcheries and also account for what we call
the ``Fifth H''--the impact of these actions on humans. Strategies and
actions must be biologically sound, economically sensitive, and
sufficiently flexible to accommodate alternative approaches depending
on what works best. Finally, the approach must be truly coordinated, in
the sense that it must account for and successfully integrate salmon
recovery efforts ongoing at the Federal, regional, State and local
levels.
With these features, this approach will have the public support
needed for effective implementation.
Recommendations
Goal
The regional approach must include a clear goal so that, in short,
the region can understand what constitutes success. Accordingly, the
goal we suggest is protection and restoration of salmonids and other
aquatic species to sustainable and harvestable levels meeting the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Northwest Power Act and tribal rights under treaties and executive
orders while taking into account the need to preserve a sound economy
in the Pacific Northwest.
Objectives
The approach must include objectives geared toward accomplishing
this goal. Objectives may be qualitative or quantitative. One
qualitative objective should be a healthy, functioning ecosystem. In
practical terms, this means that we prefer to benefit salmon through
strategies and actions that emphasize and build upon natural processes.
While we recognize this may not always be feasible, we think it is an
important policy decision that will, in turn, clarify the region's
choice of strategies and allow us to make most effective use of our
finite financial resources.
It is our understanding that, at least in the Federal biological
opinion and ``All-H Paper'' soon to be issued, quantitative objectives,
also known as performance standards, will play an important role. The
creation and use of performance standards will be critical--both in
terms of allowing the region to move forward with specific strategies
and actions and in measuring their success in achieving the desired
environmental and biological improvements. Three criteria can ensure
that performance standards are used appropriately:
Performance standards must be grounded in the best
available science. This means the standards must be technically valid
as a measure of the success of actions taken to achieve salmon
recovery. To that end, we recommend performance standards be subject to
scientific peer review.
Performance standards must be reasonably attainable. This
means the standards must be clearly described, measurable and
administered by a clearly designated entity with responsibility for
compliance. This also requires that the actions to achieve the
standards must be adequately funded in order to assure they can be
implemented in a timely fashion.
Performance standards must be implemented in a manner that
coordinates the short-, mid-and long-term actions that are necessary to
improve overall salmon recovery. Standards focused on near-term
measures should describe the immediate on-the-ground actions that
benefit fish. Mid-term standards should describe the success of the on-
the-ground actions, and long-term standards should describe the overall
success in achieving the desired biological response or improvement.
Additionally, long-term standards should be crafted, wherever possible,
in such a way that if improvement is not achieved, the performance
standard would be useful in identifying the problem.
iii. habitat reforms
In addition to the mainstem areas altered and blocked by dams, many
key tributaries of the Columbia have inadequate flows for fish,
impaired water quality, barriers to fish passage, unscreened water
diversions or degraded riparian habitat. With Snake River and other
dams in the Federal Columbia River Power System remaining in place,
systemwide habitat improvements that respect private property rights,
focused particularly in the tributaries and the estuary, become an even
more critical component of salmonid and aquatic species recovery.
Recommendations
Partnerships
Because much of the habitat is on non-Federal lands, State, tribal
and local governments, as well as private landowners, must be full
partners in the recovery effort. To date, the National Marine Fisheries
Service has not been clear with these entities about the specific
improvements needed for recovery and has not conducted regular
discussions about how to address issues of mutual concern. We are
disturbed by this lack of full partnership in what should be a
collaborative effort. As one step to achieve greater collaboration, we
recommend the President designate one official in the region to oversee
Federal agency fish recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin and
serve as the regular point of contact with the States, local and tribal
governments.
Water for Fish
Stream and river reaches throughout the Columbia River Basin have
flow and water quality problems that impede regional fish recovery
efforts. The States are setting water quality standards and preparing
implementation plans in accordance with previously established
schedules. The States are also reviewing instream flow levels to
address biological requirements for ESA-listed aquatic species. We are
concerned, however, that the timelines for these tasks be fully
consistent with the timeline required for salmon recovery. Therefore,
we recommend Federal assistance and support be made available to the
States to better coordinate these timelines and, where necessary, to
accelerate water quality improvements and to establish instream flows
that benefit listed aquatic species in the Columbia Basin.
We support voluntary exchanges to obtain needed water for fish and
support the development of water markets to effect exchanges among
willing buyers and sellers. We believe this strategy has potential to
contribute to fish recovery, and we are committed to support changes in
State law or policies to facilitate this approach. We also recognize
existing efforts to conserve water and support further assistance to
promote conservation.
Protecting and recovering salmonids and other aquatic species
requires protecting land on and around fish-bearing streams. Building
upon successes elsewhere, we endorse creation of salmon sanctuaries
that protect key aquatic habitats and related uplands through voluntary
conservation easements, leases, land purchases, and tax-incentive
donations. The region should attempt to obtain substantial additional
habitat protections in the locations that promise the greatest benefits
for fish.
Finally, given the major responsibilities that will fall upon
private landowners, voluntary habitat improvement programs need to be
fully encouraged through the use of a federally funded incentive
program. Increased riparian fencing is an obvious place to start.
Local Recovery Plans
We strongly endorse the concept of local planning for recovery of
salmonids and other aquatic species. This concept has the advantage of
bringing together local and tribal governments with local citizens to
develop and implement local recovery plans. A local focus also helps
avoid duplication of efforts and ``top-down'' planning. Recovery plans
developed at the local level, whether through State salmon plans,
Federal agency actions or through the Council's process, must be
complementary. The Federal Government has a fundamental obligation to
assist local efforts in developing fish recovery plans. A premium
should be placed on implementation of those plans that meet
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the
Northwest Power Act.
To assist the local planning effort, we recommend that State
authorities designate priority watersheds for salmon and steelhead and
that plans for these watersheds be developed by October 1, 2002. Plans
for all watersheds in the Columbia River Basin should be developed by
2005.
We request that by January 1, 2001, the Council provide a report to
the States detailing how the Council's amended fish and wildlife
program has addressed the necessary integration of Federal, State and
regional planning processes. Bonneville funding must be integrated with
other funding sources for State and Federal recovery initiatives, and
the Council should address this issue in its report as well.
Fish Passage
In the Columbia River Basin, over one-half of the original habitat
area for salmon and steelhead has been blocked by mainstem and
tributary dams. The largest losses occurred from the construction of
the dams within Hells Canyon and by Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams
on the upper Columbia
For the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, we must focus not only
on currently accessible habitat, but also look for opportunities to
increase the current level of habitat access with all dams remaining in
place. A recent study by the Battelle Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found a substantial
percentage of the historic mainstem riverine habitat for Snake River
fall chinook still remains unimpounded upstream of the Hells Canyon
complex. Although there is still riverine environment where fall
chinook historically spawned, it may not be capable of supporting fish
today because of degraded quality. It must be better understood whether
the present quality of the historic habitat is capable of supporting a
self-sustaining population of fall chinook above the Hells Canyon
complex. The feasibility of reproduction, including an evaluation of
the existing habitat, is being investigated as part of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process for the Hells
Canyon complex. While mindful of the challenges involved, options and
costs should continue to be assessed as part of the relicensing
process. A similar challenge confronts reintroduction of migrating
salmonids above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams, particularly above
Grand Coulee. Nevertheless, we encourage work currently under way to
assess the possibility.
Each State commits, by October 1 this year and annually thereafter,
to provide list of priority fish passage projects to the Council for
proposed funding. The list could include such things as screening
diversions and replacing culverts, as well as removal of, or passage
at, tributary dams, as is being done at Condit, Wapatox and Marmot
dams.
Estuary
The lower Columbia River estuary has come into focus as a vitally
important component of salmon recovery. The region is fortunate that a
water quality and fish and wildlife habitat plan has been developed by
the Lower Columbia River National Estuary Program (NEP). This plan has
identified actions to inventory those habitats critical for salmon
health, as well as measures to protect or acquire such habitats. We
believe that the Federal Government must immediately engage the States,
tribes and local governments in implementing the NEP plan for the lower
Columbia River estuary, including creation of the salmon sanctuaries
referenced above.
Predation
The legitimate, but disparate, focus of varying Federal laws,
including the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act present management challenges as we
seek to protect ESA-listed juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead
that, in turn, are prey for the birds and mammals also protected by
these laws. We support actions to improve the coordination among these
laws so that they are not working at cross purposes.
We recommend that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service develop a long-term management plan
to address predation by fish-eating birds and marine mammals. The
relocation of Caspian terns within the estuary was a good start but is
not sufficient by itself. The number of Caspian terns, as well as that
of double-crested cormorants, should be significantly reduced in the
Columbia River Estuary. The Caspian tern predation rate on juvenile
salmon and steelhead remains unacceptable, as is the inability of the
Federal agencies to agree upon a common approach and a lead agency
status for this effort. We recommend that such an approach be presented
to the region by the appropriate Federal agencies by the end of the
year.
As part of the long-term management strategy for seals and sea
lions, we recommend congressional approval of NMFS's proposal to
acquire additional authority to take seals and sea lions that
persistently impact listed salmonid species.
The Ocean
Recent studies and salmon returns suggest that ocean habitat is a
significant factor influencing salmon survival NMFS should work with
the region to conduct an intensive study to address the role of the
ocean in fish recovery, including the relative impact on fish mortality
due to ocean predation, lack of food sources, temperature problems and
harvest regimes. In addition, management of fish in freshwater should
reflect new information about the ocean as it is developed. For
example, it may be necessary to adjust hatchery production based on a
better understanding of changes in ocean carrying capacity.
Interior Columbia Basin
Fully 50-60 percent of the land area in the Columbia River Basin is
owned or managed by the Federal Government, including major headwater
areas so important for fish. We believe modifications to management
practices on these lands is essential to salmon recovery.
To assure these needed modifications occur, the interior Columbia
River Basin needs a balanced strategy that can provide for stable and
predictable multiple-use management on Federal lands for fish and
wildlife and other purposes while permitting needed flexibility,
particularly on private lands. The existence of such a strategy is long
overdue, and we urge Congress and the Administration to work with the
region to have the strategy in place by years end.
iv. hydroelectric system reforms
Dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide energy, flood
control, transportation, recreation and irrigation benefits to the
people and economy of the Pacific Northwest. At the same time,
construction and operation of the dams altered the ecosystem in which
the once-great fish runs of the Columbia River Basin evolved.
Recommendations
Capital Improvements at Dams
We acknowledge that the Columbia and Snake River hydropower system
has been improved for fish passage. Nonetheless, the dams continue to
adversely affect fish survival. Therefore, we support further
modifications to the configuration and operation of the hydrosystem
where appropriate and necessary to benefit fish and so long as the
modifications do not jeopardize the region's reliable electricity
supply.
To benefit salmon migrants, both upstream and downstream, expedited
schedules should be established to design and install passage
improvements.
Priority capital improvements must also include those necessary to
address water quality issues relating to both temperature and dissolved
gas. All capital improvements should benefit the fullest range of
salmonid species and should offer demonstrated biological gains.
Uncertainty regarding the long-term status of the four lower Snake
River dams should not preclude making passage improvements at those
four facilities.
Transportation of Juvenile Salmon and Steelhead
Consistent with our preference to emphasize and build upon natural
processes, we believe strategies and actions should be implemented that
provide the best possible survival for fish that migrate in the river
through the reservoirs and past the dams. We recognize that in the
short term there are survival benefits from continuing to use fish
transportation as a transitional strategy. However, we believe that
when ongoing research affirms that survival of listed salmon
populations would increase from migration in an improved river
environment, an increasing number of juvenile fish should then be
allowed to migrate inriver. An immediate evaluation is also necessary
of survival rates for fish transported by trucks compared to barges. If
survival is lower in trucks and barging is an available alternative,
then trucking should be discontinued.
Spill
We recognize the need to improve the riverine character of the
mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers as a means of further improving
successful salmon migration, spawning and rearing. Spill is important
in this regard.
Spill is recognized as a highly effective means of passing juvenile
salmon downstream, reducing the mortality associated with passage
through many turbine sets and in most bypass systems. The use of spill
should be improved--in duration, timing and quantity--at all the
Federal hydropower projects. Experiments testing spill benefits at
different levels and times of year should be expanded, and the impacts
on juvenile fish survival from these alternative spill operations,
including summer spill, should be carefully monitored and evaluated.
Flow
Flow management in the Columbia and Snake mainstems should continue
as part of the mainstem strategy. Flow augmentation pursuant to State
law, a key component of flow management, remains controversial. But
there are ways to reduce the controversy in the future. First, Federal
agencies must document the benefits of flow augmentation and the
precise attributes of flow that may make it beneficial. Second, where
the benefits of flow augmentation have been documented, migrating fish
should be left in the river to benefit from it. Third, the region
should review off-river storage for additional water if flow
augmentation is going to continue to be a key strategy. Fourth, flow
management should be designed to integrate all water-related statutory
mandates, including not only the Endangered Species Act but also the
Clean Water Act, and should consider impacts to non-anadromous listed
and unlisted species. Fifth, implementation of flow management should
fully account for actual water conditions so that, for example, if cool
water is provided for temperature benefits, the benefits are not
negated by simultaneous releases of warmer water from other sources.
Sixth, additional water may be available for flow augmentation if flood
control operations can be prudently altered. The Corps and NMFS should
work with the region on a study to determine whether flood control rule
curves can be reconfigured to allow shaping of flows to improve
survival of migrating salmon and steelhead. Finally, the region should
explore whether salmon benefits could be achieved through cooperative
agreements regarding power peaking operations, such as those currently
in place for the Hanford Reach stocks and listed chum salmon spawning
below Bonneville Dam.
v. harvest reforms
Salmon fishing has decreased to a level that represents a mere
fraction of what once occurred. We commit to support a recovery
approach designed not only to achieve ESA delisting levels but also to
rebuild the runs to levels that support treaty and non-treaty harvest.
But we believe rebuilding requires that all harvest may have to be
reduced in the short term, together with aggressive actions taken to
address mortality in the other life stages.
We respect the legal status and cultural importance of Indian
treaty fishing rights. Changes in harvest management suggested below
must be developed in partnership with the treaty tribes so they are
consistent with the ongoing harvest and production litigation under
U.S. v. Oregon, and also with Federal and State governments to comply
with the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Recommendations
Ocean Harvest
The United States and Canada have signed a 10-year Pacific Salmon
Treaty that, for the first time, implements an abundance-based ocean
harvest regime for chinook and coho salmon. The agreement places
special emphasis on further restrictions for fisheries that
incidentally harvest weak stocks, and on getting the required number of
fish onto the spawning grounds. We agree that this is a critical first
step in the overall management of Columbia River stocks, and we
recognize that the increased complexity of the management regimes to
carry out the intent of the Treaty will require additional funding.
Given that long-term, biologically-based management for the ocean
is now in place, other steps can be explored to reduce ocean impacts on
listed fish through use of more selective fishing techniques and a
license buyback program that can reduce the current excess fishing
capacity. Additional opportunities may exist to align viable fisheries
with the opportunities available through a license buyback program
given the excess fishing capacity that currently exists.
Finally, a random-observer program is needed to ensure the
collection of information necessary for managers and the industry to
reduce salmon bycatch mortality.
Columbia/Snake Mainstem Harvest
We support continuing current levels of tribal ceremonial and
subsistence harvest. For commercial and non-treaty sport fisheries, we
recommend that harvest rates, gear and timing in the mainstem fisheries
be consistent with ensuring survival of the species and providing for
their eventual recovery when combined with recovery actions in other
sectors.
This means that harvest rates must ensure sufficient escapement to
rebuild declining stocks. With inriver harvest rates ranging up to 31
percent for one of the listed stocks, we are not convinced that current
practices are compatible with rapid recovery.
To achieve these reductions, we support increasing the selectivity
of mainstem harvesting by exploring further gear, timing and location
restrictions. The region must initiate research to better understand
migration timing and movement of individual stocks to develop better
selective fishing techniques.
Financial incentives must be broadened beyond selective fisheries
to include economic incentives to reduce impacts to listed stocks,
financial assistance for developing ``value-added'' fishery-related
industries and mitigation of economic impacts to fishing-dependent
communities.
Finally, hatchery operations must be modified so that excess fish
are not being produced for fisheries where they cannot be harvested
because of the impacts on weak stocks. Harvest goals must be linked to
fish production goals. We expect State, Federal and tribal fish
agencies to produce a long-term production and harvest plan that
protects ESA-listed fish. To that end, we call for a new Columbia River
Fish Management Plan to be agreed upon in time for the spring 2001
salmon fishery.
Terminal Fisheries
As another important means of achieving the mainstem reductions
described above, as well as replacing lost mainstem fishing
opportunities, fisheries should be established in terminal areas below
Bonneville Dam and in Zone 6, similar to those currently taking place
in Oregon's Youngs Bay. Commercial harvest opportunities would target
the hatchery produced stocks returning to terminal areas. Reformed
hatchery programs, which we address elsewhere in this document, could
include establishing these terminal fisheries.
Law Enforcement
The region's fisheries law enforcement program should be
strengthened to ensure accountability and to reduce illegal catch.
Increased law enforcement should be concentrated and coordinated with
habitat strategies to aid specific watersheds. We recommend this be
accomplished through appropriate tribal, State and Federal law
enforcement programs.
Control Competitor Species
We recommend changing existing sport fishing restrictions to
concentrate on species that prey on, and compete with, salmon for food,
including northern pike minnow. Sport fishing regulation changes also
should strive to minimize effects of exotic species on native species.
The region could experience short-term benefits from increased fishing
opportunities for these competitor species.
vi. hatchery reforms
Since as long ago as the late 1800's, fish hatcheries have been
seen as a tool to use in rebuilding fish runs decimated by overfishing
or, in more recent times, as a means of producing large numbers of fish
to support commercial harvest to mitigate the impact of dams. Yet our
region's experience demonstrates that past hatchery practices have
contributed to the decline of naturally spawning fish populations, as
hatchery stocks increased while the naturally spawning component of the
runs continued to decline.
It is time to recognize that hatcheries are used for multiple
purposes, primarily producing fish for harvest but also for rebuilding
naturally spawning populations through the technique of supplementation
and for captive broodstock experiments. Careful thought must be given
to how these techniques could maximize the efficiency of fish
production to provide treaty, sport and commercial harvest
opportunities while also protecting and rebuilding unique fish
populations and complying with existing laws and legal processes, such
as the U.S. v. Oregon litigation.
Recommendations
Implement the Artificial Production Review
The outline for redirecting artificial production of fish in the
Columbia River Basin hatchery program is contained in the Council's
recommendations in its 1999 Artificial Production Review report to
Congress. We support these recommendations to significantly modify
hatchery management practices among all federal and State salmon and
steelhead hatcheries in the region.
To begin this process of reform, we recommend all hatcheries in the
Columbia River Basin be reviewed within 3 years to determine the
facilities' specific purposes and potential future uses in support of
fish recovery and harvest. The Council should identify priority
hatcheries that need expedited renew and complete the reviews within 8
months so that modification of hatchery operations can commence by
January 1, 2001. Funding for hatchery reforms must be a joint federal,
State and Bonneville responsibility. We recommend that, regardless of
the funding source, future hatchery funding decisions take into account
consistency with Artificial Production Review reforms.
Develop a Comprehensive Plan for Artificial Production
Consistent with the Artificial Production Review, the region's fish
managers and tribes should jointly develop a comprehensive
supplementation plan that includes aggressive monitoring and
evaluation. We commit State agencies to work with tribal fish managers
to develop such a plan. The plan should specify watersheds that can be
used for supplementation, and also recommend respective tribal, State
and Federal roles in implementation of the supplementation plan. We
support the concept that certain watersheds, with local cooperation,
should be maintained as wild fish refuges as a hedge against
uncertainty inherent in artificial propagation, as well as a
``control'' for evaluating conservation hatchery efforts.
We anticipate this plan would be part of the renegotiated Columbia
River Fish Management Plan.
Fish Marking
To facilitate a robust harvest program for hatchery fish in a way
that does not impact wild fish, we endorse a program that results in
the marking of hatchery fish that pose threats to ESA-listed fish, to
the fullest extent consistent with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We also
urge tribal, State and Federal fish managers to put such a program in
place promptly, as it will be difficult to implement many improved
harvest techniques until it is possible to identify hatchery-reared
fish
vii. funding and accountability
Since 1980, the use of ratepayer money to protect and recover fish
in the Columbia River Basin has been inconsistent. Sometimes there has
been strong oversight and scientific guidance, and at other times
little oversight or scientific guidance. While this situation has
improved in recent years, too often money has been used to fund
bureaucracies and process as opposed to on-the-ground projects.
We anticipate that as the region's State, Federal and tribal
agencies improve their collaboration and focus on meeting the
obligations of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Northwest
Power Act and tribal rights under treaties and executive orders, it is
likely that the cost of the effort will increase. As a result, we
expect decisionmakers to redouble their efforts to ensure that funding
decisions are informed by independent scientific review, all funding is
used in an efficient and accountable manner, and funding is prioritized
for actions that most directly advance the goal of protecting and
restoring salmonids and other aquatic species to sustainable and
harvestable levels.
Recommendations
Funding
Fish and wildlife programs should be streamlined, and rules should
be more flexible and goal-oriented We endorse BPA's stated commitment
to increase the amount of ratepayer dollars to support salmon recovery.
Congress should similarly increase the amount of Federal
appropriations, in recognition of the fact that fish and wildlife of
the Columbia River Basin are national resources and their protection
satisfies obligations in Federal law, including treaties with Indian
tribes and Canada, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and
the Northwest Power Act.
Federal financial assistance, both from Congress and/or BPA, should
be provided to help fund existing activities designed to improve
ecosystem health and fish and wildlife health and protection. These
include State and tribal on-reservation programs to develop total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs), enhance water quality monitoring, secure
water and land rights for fish and wildlife benefits, implement the
Lower Columbia River Estuary Program, undertake other watershed
restoration activities and, where necessary, establish instream flows.
Accountability
We believe the principles and activities in this document will
protect the Federal Columbia River Power System and also recover and
rebuild Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife. There will be a
significant cost, but we expect the power system to pay only its fair
share. Having said that, nothing jeopardizes the recovery effort, and
the benefits we receive from the Federal Columbia River Power System,
more than the perception and the reality of ratepayer funds being
misspent. The region needs a strong program to ensure a far better
accounting of the spending than we have received to date.
The Council should continue to work to ensure the accountability of
each project it recommends to Bonneville for funding--accountability in
terms of-meeting program goals and accountability for the expenditure
of ratepayer money.
Accountability for meeting goals.--All projects recommended by the
Council should have explicit quantitative goals, and the projects
should be rigorously evaluated for their ability to meet these goals.
Accountability for expenditures.--Expenditures by Bonneville, the
Council, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, State agencies
and project sponsors may make sense individually, but not when
considered in total. Planning and overhead expenses must be kept to a
minimum, and project expenditures should focus on activities that
benefit fish and wildlife.
Specifically, we recommend that the Council:
Prepare an Annual Accountability Report.--To better
understand Bonneville's expenditures in a basinwide context, and to
improve accountability to the ratepaying public, the Council should
prepare an annual report to clearly document progress toward meeting
fish and wildlife mitigation goals, and how ratepayer money is being
spent. A specific breakout should be provided on funding for ESA-listed
species.
The report could provide assurance that Bonneville's expenditures
are directed toward on-the-ground projects rather than redundant or
excessive planning processes and that funding for research is dearly
focused and prioritized. By addressing project failures as well as
successes, the report could show progress--or lack of it--toward goals
and demonstrate that projects are being effectively monitored and
evaluated.
Consider Shifting Contract Management.--The Council and
Bonneville should study the possibility of transferring project
contracting responsibility from Bonneville to a neutral entity.
In its unique regional role, the success of Bonneville depends on
maintaining good relations among a wide range of parties, including
many of the parties with which it contracts for fish and wildlife
project implementation. This need for good relationships creates a
potential conflict with the regional interest in accountable and
businesslike implementation of fish and wildlife projects, and the
enforcement of contractual terms. Simply put, there would be an
inherent efficiency in having a neutral entity responsible for project
contracting. Transferring contracting authority to a neutral entity
also would avoid complicated, time-consuming Federal contracting
procedures.
This proposal should not be seen as a criticism of Bonneville's
fish and wildlife staff but as a shift of responsibility that would
benefit both Bonneville and the fish and wildlife program by increasing
the efficiency of program management, reducing the potential for
conflicts of interest and improving public accountability for the
expenditure of ratepayer dollars. If the shift occurs, a more
independent oversight of contract management should be structured in a
way that allows Bonneville to ensure its contracts are properly and
efficiently carried out.
Establish a Coordinated Information System.--Also under an
improved accountability initiative, but singled out for special
attention, is the need to establish a coordinated information system.
Although the Pacific Northwest is data rich, it is information poor.
Data is stored in a random and haphazard fashion in some cases, in
highly organized and computerized fashions in other places, and in
combinations of these approaches in still other cases. The region needs
a standardized information system that is capable of providing answers
to basic questions regarding the documentation of progress toward
recovery of salmon and other aquatic species. This information needs to
be provided in a form accessible to everyone as part of the annual
accountability report. Creating such a system is a task for the
Council; we ask that it be done by October 1, 2001.
viii. the challenge ahead
The Columbia River Basin is a great natural resource and a dynamic
economic engine and, for both these reasons, is critical to the well-
being of the four States in the region. The Columbia River Basin's
hydropower system is part of our legacy in the Northwest, built through
the foresight of our leaders and the skill and determination of our
workers, on our waterways and across our landscapes.
But we also recognize the impact the hydropower system has had on
our fish and wildlife populations, particularity anadromous fish. We
have benefited in an economic sense but we have lost a healthy
ecosystem. We wish to restore that healthy ecosystem as pan of the
Northwest legacy we leave to our children and their children
This is a challenge of course, and one we accept. It is the Federal
Government's role to administer the Endangered Species Act and to
uphold tribal trust responsibilities. But the States also have an
important role and responsibilities, as do other regional entities.
Agreement on a regional approach, consisting of specific federal, State
and regional plans that protect both our salmon and our communities,
should be reached and accepted by Federal and State officials in
consultation with tribal leaders no later than January 1, 2001.
Reaching such agreement, as well as implementing the other
recommendations in this document, will enable all of us, together, to
begin to fulfill our respective roles and responsibilities and meet the
challenge that lies ahead.
__________
Statement of Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, Governor, State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and articulate my
perspective on one of the most complex issues of the day--salmon
recovery in the Pacific Northwest.
introduction
One week ago today, I was at Redfish Lake 900 river miles inland
from the Pacific Ocean near Stanley, ID, just over the summit from Sun
Valley. The name originated from the color of the beautiful salmon
returning to spawn in their birthing waters. I was joined by the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, legislators, and school children from
Filer and Stanley to observe and assist the 36 (26 natural 10 hatchery)
marvelous salmon finish their return from the ocean. These wild and
hatchery salmon had returned to spawn and start the cycle anew.
It is Idaho's intent and it is my intent and the intent of those
school children to perpetuate this stock and all stocks of Idaho's
fabulous salmon. Our commitment is unquestionable. The questionable
part is whether the Federal agencies are to help or to hinder our
efforts. Conflicting Federal laws and past haphazard coordination have
substantially contributed to the decline of our salmon.
i. idaho's perspective on the problem
Prior to the time I took office in January 1999, my administration
began preparing for the upcoming decisions that have now been released
for public review and comment by the Federal agencies. We have been
preparing for a very compelling reason: we stand to lose nothing short
of everything in the aftermath of the salmon recovery debate and,
perhaps, ironically, with no recovery of the salmon.
Let me give you Idaho's common perspective on this issue as perhaps
articulated by some of our stakeholders in this process.
The Federal agencies charged with recovering the anadromous fish
believe that they need Idaho water to help flush the fish out to the
ocean. Some groups argue that the four Snake River dams, which support
important transportation and agriculture components in Idaho, should be
destroyed.
Meanwhile, some of the fish that leave Idaho in the spring are
being eaten alive by birds in the estuary before they even have a
chance to migrate to sea. Once out in the ocean, they might be
harvested.
Several years later, if they are lucky, they will return and could
be eaten by predators at the mouth of the estuary or, further up the
river, subject to tribal harvest.
My point of all this is not to point the finger at any single
component of this problem, but instead describe how from Idaho's
perspective, sacrificing our State's water and voluntarily improving
our native habitat may seem like a futile exercise when it is such a
Herculean effort to get anadromous fish out and back to our State. Our
State is ground zero in the recovery of these important species.
ii. the four governor's agreement
I would like to briefly describe what we see as our role in
recovering the species and how we have contributed to this process.
I have long believed that only through a regional collaborative
effort will there ever be a real chance for recovery of anadromous fish
in the Pacific Northwest. In July of this year, I was pleased to join
the other Governors in the region in an unprecedented agreement on the
essential principles for recovery and recommendations to implement
these recommendations.
The agreement recognizes that every State in the region and all of
the stakeholders impacted by this process must step forward and
contribute. No one State can recover salmon alone, just as no single
State can afford to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the process.
Only through regional cooperation--not dictates by the Federal
Government--is there a chance to achieve real success.
The Four Governors strategy involves several key elements important
to Idaho.
First, the Federal agencies should document the benefits of flow
augmentation and the precise attributes of flow that may make it
beneficial.
Second, harvest impacts must be reduced on listed, wild fish in the
ocean and Columbia River. Idaho has been blessed with a great return of
salmon this year, in fact, the most in nearly a quarter century. Most
were hatchery fish and therefore not counted toward Endangered Species
Act listed salmon or for salmon recovery. We can get hatchery fish
through the gauntlet of downstream impacts but we don't get the same
with wild salmon. Why? Because our brood stock is limited in numbers
and we are breeding the smallest of the salmon because the fishery nets
only allow the smaller fish to escape upriver to spawn.
Third, the region must implement actions now that can and should be
done without breaching the four lower Snake River dams.
Finally, predation of all kinds, including terns, and marine
mammals, must be limited.
I want to publicly express my appreciation to Governor Kitzhaber,
Governor Racicot, and Governor Locke for their diligence and
cooperation in achieving this historical milestone. The gentlemen here
today to speak on their behalf, Eric Bloch, John Etchart and Larry
Cassidy, also played key roles along with Dr. Tom Karier and Bob
Nichols from the State of Washington. I also want to acknowledge the
work of Jim Yost and Michael Bogert of my staff.
I have enclosed a copy of the Four Governors Recommendation for the
subcommittee members.
iii. idaho's perspective and contribution to salmon recovery
What can be done now and in the near-term to help the fish?
I believe that any effective program to recover the species must be
supported by science, politically palatable, and economically feasible.
My perspective on this problem is slightly different from the
traditional ``All-H'' approach-Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries, and
Hydropower. I start by adding one more H-Humans.
A. Humans
From my vantage point, much of Idaho's culture and economy are at
stake in the Biological Opinion and the All-H documents to be discussed
before in this subcommittee today.
No singular component of the salmon recovery burden should be borne
on the backs of any single stakeholder to the process, including the
States. Let me give you the most recent example of this problem.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers recently estimated that
over 640,000 listed salmon and tens of millions of hatchery stock are
eaten alive at the mouth of the Columbia River estuary during the
spring migration season. The culprits: the world's largest colony of
voracious fish-eating Caspian terns who just happen to be nesting on
federally-created Rice Island at the time the young salmon and
steelhead are attempting to make their way to sea.
Idaho participated in a collaborative process involving the States
and Federal agencies, including the Corps and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service. This process resulted in a plan that involved
providing alternative nesting habitat for these birds, which happen to
be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The plan that was
developed included a component that included harassing these birds from
the most critical of areas where the endangered fish are slaughtered by
the birds.
Not surprisingly, a group of environmentalists brought a lawsuit
and claimed that the Corps had failed to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act and asked that the harassment strategy be
halted immediately.
Their key piece of evidence? Written comments by the Fish and
Wildlife Service that science had yet to prove that saving 15-25
million smolts, of which 640,000 are ESA listed smolts, had any proven
benefit to salmon recovery. A Federal judge bought the argument and
endangered fish are now being consumed by non-endangered birds with the
willing assistance of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
I submit that as a matter of fundamental science, a protected young
salmon that is eaten alive by a bird is not going to come back to Idaho
to spawn.
However, my prospective is a bit more focused. At the same time
that Fish and Wildlife is telling us that saving 640,000 listed fish
will do nothing to recover these endangered species, the Federal
Government is assessing how much Idaho water is needed to seemingly
make fish migration easier. The answer to this question goes to the
very life blood of Idaho's agricultural economy in the Upper Snake
River Basin.
How can the Federal Government tell Idaho and the world that
preventing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of endangered young
salmon in the Columbia River estuary will have no impact on the
problem, and then tell us that more water from our State is needed to
get the fish out to sea? Several weeks ago, I received a report that
during the height of both the summer migration and irrigation seasons
in the Lemhi Basin, there didn't seem to be enough water to go around.
I sent my staff over to talk to the irrigators and see what could be
done to accommodate both their rights to irrigation water and the needs
of the fish.
Their message? Governor, you tell us when the fish need the water
and we will make it available. They also told us that no one knows or
cares about these salmon more than those who have been living in that
basin all of their lives.
The aftermath of this has been a renewed spirit of cooperation
between the locals, the State, and the Federal Government. Our
discussions to resolve this problem represent a model of inter-
governmental relationships, and I am optimistic that we will achieve
success.
But I remain firm that the only way we will see results in the
region is if State law is respected and the locals are brought into the
process from the beginning.
I use this example to highlight the contributions from all of the
stakeholders that must occur in order for there to be any chance of
progress in salmon recovery. With this, I will quickly move on to our
perspective on the other H's.
B. Habitat
My perspective on habitat improvement is that the Endangered
Species Act, as currently implemented, provides no safe harbors if
private landowners voluntarily improve conditions for salmon. Through
Idaho's own initiative, Idaho stakeholders have joined together to
conserve important habitat. One example is Burgdorf Meadows, where over
51 percent of critical spawning for summer chinook has been preserved.
Burgdorf Meadows is a classic example of Idaho stakeholders working
together to achieve a common goal.
Stakeholders would voluntarily undertake habitat improvements if
there were some safeguards in place so that after those improvements
were implemented, the Federal agencies or private lawsuits would not
try to take a second bite of the apple or demand that they make
additional improvements. After assuming a voluntary load, this final
straw may break the back of even an economically viable camel.
But I also understand that we can make important additional habitat
improvement in Idaho. I am committed to identifying things we can do
immediately, such as diversion screening and water quality improvement,
in order to make things better for fish in Idaho.
On the other hand, as we move forward on these things, we expect
that the region will look seriously at predator control and improvement
in the estuary conditions.
Recent studies and salmon returns suggest that ocean habitat is a
significant factor influencing salmon survival. NMFS should work with
the region to conduct an intensive study to address the role of the
ocean in fish recovery, including the relative impact fish of mortality
due to ocean predation, lack of food sources, temperature problems and
harvest regimes.
C. Harvest
Idaho continues to be perplexed that wild fish, listed under the
Endangered Species Act, can be subjected to a regulated harvest at all.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if the government suddenly declared a
``harvest'' season on the grizzly bear?
I am sensitive to the industries in the Pacific Northwest that
depend on a yearly salmon harvest, and I am similarly mindful of the
harvest rights possessed by Native American tribes through treaties
with our Federal Government.
Idaho, as with other States in the region, is committed to the
process of discussing harvest allotment through the United States v.
Oregon litigation. This is one area where collaboration by all of the
region is ongoing and should continue.
D. Hatcheries
The hatchery arena has a symbiotic relationship with harvest
allocation, and Idaho generally supports scientifically-based hatchery
programs.
In the case of captive brood stock hatcheries, this remains a
program of vital importance to Idaho. This is the program at Redfish
Lake I referred to earlier.
As a means of supplementation, the hatcheries in Idaho provide our
sportsmen an opportunity for a fishing season, and are an excellent
management tool while we rebuild our wild stocks.
Hatchery operations must be improved to provide salmon for harvest
``conservation (mitigation) hatcheries'' as required in the Lower Snake
River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan established when the four
dams were constructed to mitigate for the losses caused by the dams.
This was done when the estimated mortality at the dams was about 47
percent. We have now reduced that mortality to about 25 percent, yet we
continue to maintain or increase the number of smolts for mitigation.
We also have supplementation hatcheries that provide additional
salmon stocks to those streams with wild or natural stocks so that the
numbers can be increased. The question is which of those wild stock
areas should be maintained as wild, native, or natural salmon refuges
without the interference of the supplementation stocks.
The mitigation stocks are of a high enough number that their
harvest is causing an impact on wild natural stocks (the listed
species). All these fish may return from the ocean to the Columbia
River at about the same time, and it is difficult to only harvest the
mitigation hatchery stocks and not harvest some of the wild stocks.
This incidental take of wild stock when we try to harvest mitigation
stocks is currently excessive.
Some ways it can be reduced is by using a different method of
harvest (from nets to lines or fish wheels) or selective fisheries,
which is fishing only when the mitigation hatchery fish are present or
to use terminal fisheries (fishing for the mitigation stocks after the
wild stocks have gone up a tributary to their spawning area). We have
successfully used larger scale nets that have allowed the smaller
stocks to continue to migrate while the larger fish are caught. The
impact to Idaho is that for years our brood stocks were the smaller
fish and not the biggest healthiest brood stocks.
E. Hydropower
From my perspective, the debate over dam breaching will continue as
long as reasonable scientists differ over the data. One fact that is
not disputed is that breaching the four lower Snake River dams would
have no benefit to the vast majority of our endangered salmon. Eight to
twelve listed species would not be affected by breaching, as they
reside downstream of these dams. Even if the science was clear today--
and it is not--it would take at least a decade of political debate
right here in Washington before they are removed.
The costs of dam removal could be as high as $1 billion, and, by
the Corps' own calculation, it could be several years before the silt
and debris left behind the dams becomes manageable enough to provide
any benefit to the fish. I am left with the unsettling impression that
with such political and scientific controversy ahead in the next 20-25
years, the game could be lost before it has even started.
Accordingly, until I have clear evidence that the salmon can expect
immediate improvement if the dams are removed, Idaho is opposed to
taking on the risks to our Port of Lewiston and Idaho agricultural
economy.
But this perspective does not end the ``to do'' list for the dams.
During my tenure as your colleague in the U.S. Senate, I was committed
to investing in dam improvements while the science continues to be
debated.
The best and brightest minds in the Federal Government and the
States should be dedicated to making fish passage at the dams better so
that the fish receive the benefits of the finest technology our nation
has to offer.
I support minimum gap runner turbine technology in order to improve
the reasonable accommodation that must be made for the regions'
hydropower needs and the salmon migration. This technology is being
installed at Bonneville Dam and the preliminary results have indicated
increased fish survivability.
Likewise, fish guidance curtain (screen), turbine intake screens,
fish collectors, adult fish ladders, juvenile fish bypass systems, and
spillway defectors have suffered from technological neglect and
installation while the controversy over the existence of the dams has
raged onward. This must end immediately, because the losers in the
failure to make capital improvements in these structures are the
salmon.
Finally, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I must put on the
record my position about augmented Snake River flows as a benefit to
out-migrating juvenile salmon. At my direction, the Idaho Department of
Water Resources has studied the issue extensively in cooperation with
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. They have determined that based
on the current flow-survival data developed by NMFS, there is no basis
for NMFS concluding that early or late summer flows from the Upper
Snake provide significant biological benefits for out-migrating
juvenile salmon.
There is not enough water in the Snake River Basin to meet the
Biological Opinion flow objectives. These flow objectives are
essentially arbitrary thresholds. The NMFS has for too long been
absorbed with securing a few extra acre feet from this or that
reservoir without apparently ever stopping to question whether the
unending struggle over flow augmentation is really delivering salmon
recovery.
For instance, when NMFS briefed the States last spring regarding
the ``Herculean'' measures contained in the new Biological Opinion, the
very first measure mentioned was additional flow from the Snake River
Basin. While the effort to secure this additional water may indeed be
Herculean, the resulting benefit to the fish is microscopic even under
the most optimistic assessment of the flow/survival relationship.
There is an understanding--often acknowledged in private but seldom
spoken in public--that the upper Snake River Flow augmentation measures
are really an effort to secure political balance rather than meaningful
benefits to the fish. The notion is that ``everyone must hurt'' in
order for a regional plan to be politically viable. Some of the more
aggressive, or perhaps cynical, participants in the salmon recovery
debate go further to suggest that draconian levels of flow augmentation
should be extracted as a kind of punishment for failure to adopt dam
breaching. Their thinking is that if the pain associated with
``aggressive'' non-breach measures can be ratcheted up high enough,
then perhaps the region will opt to take out the four dams on the lower
Snake River.
Regardless of whether NMFS subscribes to either of these views, we
have the distressing sense that NMFS' campaign for more upper Snake
River flow augmentation represents a grand political gesture rather
than a clear-eyed examination of the biological benefits, the economic
costs, and environmental impacts of what is being proposed.
Idaho's complaints about the lack of disciplined analysis of flow
augmentation have sometimes been met with the response that ``every
little bit helps.'' This aphorism is no substitute for the critical
thinking required for a true salmon recovery plan. The fact is that the
Federal Caucus is not doing ``every little bit'' it can--nor should it
if the resulting gains for the fish are meager and the impacts are
massive. The record is replete with instances in which the Federal
Government has chosen not to do more for the listed species based on
non-biological factors.
For instance, NMFS actually permitted the harvest rate on Snake
River spring chinook to increase this year relative to recent years
because of the large number of hatchery fish returning to the river.
This increase was justified on the basis that additional harvest
amounted only to a few percent of the overall run. But, this does not
square with the ``every little bit helps'' principle that underlies
upper Snake River flow augmentation efforts, which deliver even smaller
increments of survival. Moreover, NMFS' biological opinions allow
cumulative harvest rates on Snake River fall chinook in ocean and in-
river fisheries to remain at close to 50 percent. Tern population
numbers in the Columbia River estuary continue to climb--with
significant impact to the entire Columbia salmon and steelhead run.
Yet, NMFS still has not taken decisive action to move these predators
from the estuary.
Nonetheless, our State Legislature enacted and I signed a 1-year
authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation to access 427,000 acre-feet
of Idaho water for flow augmentation purposes. This good-faith gesture
should be recognized as my willingness to continue to participate in a
regional solution.
iv. conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to present my perspective on these
important issues today, and I look forward to the challenging work
ahead for all of us in the region.
Idaho is optimistic that the State and regional stakeholders will
join together and empower themselves throughout this process. However,
Idaho remains concerned that the All-H Paper has failed to give
deference to the objectives outlined in the Four Governor's
Recommendations. At the end of the day, the best solutions are those
that are owned by the participants rather than those that are imposed
by Federal edict.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Sam Penney, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am pleased to be here today to speak on
behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission. As you know, we received voluminous draft documents from
the Federal Government on July 27. We are still in the process of
reviewing these documents, particularly their technical aspects.
However, I would like to say at the outset, that the tribes' position
supporting breaching the Snake River dams and our position supporting
an economic investment package to local communities affected by
breaching these dams remain unchanged. We see no new science or
information that would indicate other actions will be sufficient to
recover Snake River chinook throughout the range of their current
habitat.
I would like to offer the following observations.
The Federal proposal fails to comply with the Clean Water
Act. The United States District Court recently reaffirmed that the
Corps of Engineers must comply with federally-approved water quality
standards for temperature and dissolved gas in the National Wildlife
Federation v. Corps of Engineers litigation, yet the Federal proposal
does not contain actions that will be implemented to achieve these
standards.
The Federal proposal is a plan for extinction of Snake
River salmon stocks. The Federal proposal sanctions the extinction of
spring chinook ``index stocks'' in tributaries of the Salmon River
where salmon habitat is pristine.
The Federal proposal fails to recognize that if the dams
are not breached, large amounts of additional water from the Upper
Snake River will be required for flow augmentation to provide the
survival benefits that juvenile salmon need.
The Federal proposal's reliance on yet-to-be-developed
``performance standards'' to delay breaching the four Lower Snake River
dams and to get the hydrosystem out of jeopardy ignores the most
significant performance standard--the status of the fish. The risk of
extinction for Snake River salmon has not been significantly reduced
since they were listed under the Endangered Species Act over 8 years
ago and the Federal proposal does not ensure any improvement for Snake
River salmon. Scientists predict Snake River spring chinook will be
extinct by 2017.
The Federal proposal's reliance on ``offsite mitigation
measures'' to delay breaching the four lower Snake River dams and to
get the hydrosystem out of jeopardy does not preserve and rebuild
salmon runs. Based on the Federal proposal, we expect to see continuing
losses of local salmon populations particularly in basins above four or
more hydro projects, even in areas of pristine habitat that is located
in Idaho wilderness areas. Even if offsite mitigation measures were
appropriate for certain stocks, there is no budget or implementation
plan for such measures in the Federal proposal.
Other than seeking to have tribal governments further
restrict our already voluntarily restricted tribal fisheries, the All-H
Paper describes no role for tribal governments as co-managers. By its
silence, the Federal documents would appear to deny the successes of
the tribes in their salmon recovery efforts in basins like the
Clearwater, Umatilla, Hood, and Yakima. This is especially frustrating
since we held numerous meetings with the Federal Government, and our
detailed tribal proposals seem to have made no impact at all.
We oppose the new concept of ``full mitigation'' as described in
the Hydro BiOp. This is a concept based upon the desires of Bonneville
and not on either the ESA, the biological needs of salmon, or treaty
case law. Under this concept, Bonneville's mitigation responsibilities
are ``capped'' by estimating the number of fish that would survive if
they migrated through a mythical Columbia River that is dam free. Among
other things, the proposal ignores the decades of dam impacts that have
eroded the salmon populations.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the alarm on the extinction
clock has gone off long ago. Neither the salmon, nor the Tribes, nor
the people of the Northwest have the time to delay breaching the four
lower Snake River dams and implementing the ``major overhaul'' the
United States' operation of the hydrosystem needs. I am deeply
disappointed the United States has chosen to ignore its treaty and
trust obligations. We will not be deterred from our solemn duties to
act on behalf of the salmon and our people.
__________
Statement of Lionel Q. Boyer, Chairman, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
My name is Lionel Q. Boyer, Chairman of the Fort Hall Business
Council, the governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. In 1868 the
Shoshone and Bannock Tribes agreed to a treaty to have peace with the
United States under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution (Fort Bridger
Treaty of 1868, 15 Stat. 673). Our various bands and families were
relocated to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Eastern Idaho during
the European settlement of the western United States.
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is a place where people and
animals migrated to spend winters. The annual migration of my people to
secure our subsistence was preserved in the Treaty because we reserved
the right to hunt, fish and gather on unoccupied lands of the United
States. Hunting the salmon is a significant part of our way of life.
The name for the salmon, Agai, has been used to define our people as
the Agaidika. No one can understate the importance of this resource to
the Shoshone and Bannock peoples. We have continued to exercise our
right to hunt salmon in the Columbia River Basin since the Treaty was
signed. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are today co-managers of the
anadromous fish resource in the Columbia River Basin and have continued
to work toward improving the habitat and supplementation efforts.
Salmon need four habitats in which to survive and prosper. (1) They
need a place to spawn (clean gravel and cold clear, running water), (2)
a place for their young to rear (woody debris and other nooks and
crannies, undercut banks, and shade from overhanging vegetation), (3) a
place rich in food for them to grow into large mature adults (the
ocean), and (4) a corridor in which they can travel to and from their
place of origin. The National Marine Fisheries Service has failed to
honor this simple science of the salmon.
Man has changed all of these habitats--but each to a different
degree. The Salmon River, where about half of the entire Columbia Basin
spring and summer chinook salmon historically came from, is largely in
good shape. Most of the Salmon River is protected by its rugged
inaccessibility and its wilderness area status. The National Marine
Fisheries Service is wrong to conclude that the greatest opportunities
for survival improvements of listed Snake River salmon may hinge on
efforts to restore health to the tributaries. Although some tributaries
in the Salmon River drainage are not as healthy as they should be for
salmon (for example, the de-waterings and excessive irrigation
diversions in the Lemhi River), the vast majority of the habitat is
very healthy for salmon spawning and rearing.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes look forward to working as resource co-
mangers with the Federal and State agencies to correct problems in the
Salmon River--primarily in tributaries to the Salmon River from the
Lemhi River upstream to the headwaters of the Salmon River. However, no
evidence exists that indicates these problems are the major cause of
the declines in wild fish. The wild fish populations in the Middle Fork
Salmon River--which is a Wild and Scenic River almost completely within
the Frank Church Wilderness Area and in almost pristine condition--
continue to decline at least at the same rate as the populations in the
upper Salmon River. This evidence suggests that the major problems--and
thus the major areas to concentrate recovery efforts--are outside of
the Salmon River system.
The conditions in the Pacific Ocean are a concern to all of us.
However, very little can be done by humans to protect the salmon during
their time in the ocean, other than reducing or eliminating harvest.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes applaud the efforts of the National Marine
Fisheries Service to reduce harvest impacts over the past 8 years.
However, the position of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is that there
should be no interception fisheries in the ocean and mainstem Columbia
River while the weak stocks of wild fish are mixed in with more
numerous runs. Fisheries should instead be conducted in the tributaries
that have runs which can support harvest.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is particularly unjust in its
allocation of the conservation burden when ocean and mainstem Columbia
River fisheries can harvest listed Snake River salmon and steelhead
while the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes cannot harvest those very same fish
once they return to the Salmon River.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is wrong to conclude that
there are only two roles for hatcheries. The two roles they state are:
(1) reform existing hatcheries to prevent negative effects from
hatchery-origin fish on wild fish; and (2) use hatcheries to conserve
wild fish. These are good roles for hatcheries. However, the most
important role for hatcheries is to use them to rebuild wild fish
populations. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes call this concrete-to-gravel-
to-gravel management. Scientists call it supplementation. There are
appropriate ways to use hatchery-origin fish and release them into wild
areas for those fish to return to rebuild the listed wild populations.
The NMFS is wrong to use genetics as the overriding factor in impeding
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes from pursuing the production actions that
the Tribes have successfully initiated. Many of the wild areas no
longer contain any fish, so even if the NMFS is correct with their
genetics theories, it would be a moot point. We can no longer manage
for genes, and need instead to manage for fish. The Recovery Strategy
needs to aggressively pursue supplementation of listed fish with
available hatchery-origin stocks.
The wealth of scientific evidence concludes that the migration
corridor is the primary problem facing the Snake River stocks of listed
salmon. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are very concerned that the
National Marine Fisheries Service concludes that there have been
significant improvements to the migration conditions through the
hydrosystem. The evidence does not support this conclusion. The runs of
listed salmon and steelhead to the Snake River continue to decline as
my technical staff will provide testimony on tomorrow. The changes to
the hydrosystem have failed to reverse the declines in listed salmon
and steelhead runs in the Snake River. The National Marine Fisheries
Service greatly underestimates the necessary survival improvements that
are needed to stop the declines and move toward recovery.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that the listed Snake River
salmon and steelhead cannot wait another 8 to 10 years before the
necessary major improvements and actions are taken to recover these
fish. We are now at a very critical stage of crossing the line to
extinction. We are extremely disappointed that the 1995 Biological
Opinion has not been adhered to. That Opinion was a product of the
National Marine Fisheries Service losing the Idaho v. NMFS lawsuit.
That Opinion allowed a decision to be made in 1999 to either breach the
lower Snake River dams or else continue with vain attempts to fix the
dams with screens, curtains, bypasses and barges. The evidence is very
clear that the technological attempts have not worked.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that technological fixes to the
lower Snake River dams will not allow the listed Snake River salmon to
survive. The 1999 decision should have been to pursue congressional
authorization to breach those dams. The Recovery Strategy and the new
Biological Opinion should call for the breaching of the four lower
Snake River dams now. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been saying this
longer than any other entity. Thus our warning, once again, is that we
have waited too long to fix the river rather than trying in vain to fix
the dams, and we will continue to have to tell you that ``we told you
so.'' However, these words will still not bring back the salmon.
Breaching the four Lower Snake River dams eliminates the need to
use middle and upper Snake River water for salmon flow augmentation. It
eliminates the need to draw down Dworshak and Brownlee reservoirs,
which greatly benefits those aquatic resources and the economies that
depend upon them. The four lower Snake River dams only produce 4.6
percent of the Pacific Northwest's electrical energy, which can be
replaced through alternative sources and conservation. The economies
created by recovered salmon and steelhead runs and alternative
commodities transportation will greatly exceed the costs to the region
and the Nation of keeping the dams in place. What was once the world's
largest run of salmon is now the world's largest environmental recovery
effort. This effort does not have to fail, nor does it have to result
in economic catastrophe.
Of great concern to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is the failure of
the Federal caucus to consult with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The
resources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation are compromised by the
actions of the Federal agencies, yet the Federal agencies have failed
to address these impacts with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Likewise,
the Federal agencies have not consulted with the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes regarding the impacts to the fish resources that the
Tribes rely upon off reservation. We remain hopeful that they will
incorporate our comments when we submit them for their final documents.
However, we are doubtful that they will because we have had many
discussions with them and yet their conclusions and the words they have
written in the drafts once again prove that they do not hear us.
Thank you subcommittee, and Chairman Crapo for hosting this hearing
and providing us an opportunity to express ourselves. The Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes technical staff, represented by Keith Kutchins, will
provide testimony tomorrow.
__________
Statement of John Etchart, Representing Hon. Marc Racicot, Governor,
State of Montana
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is John Etchart, and I am here
today on behalf of the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot. For the past
7 years I have been one of Governor Racicot's appointees to the
Northwest Power Planning Council.
As one of the four Pacific Northwest States, Montana has
participated in the Federal Government's and the region's efforts to
recover endangered salmon and resident fish in the Columbia River
Basin. Montana is unique among the four States, however, because it
does not now, and never did have, anadromous fish within its borders.
What Montana does have, Mr. Chairman, is water. Our two large
storage reservoirs, Hungry Horse and Libby, have provided large blocks
of water during critical times of the year to assist migrating salmon
and steelhead in the lower portions of the Columbia River. Over 40
percent of the domestic storage utilized by the Federal Columbia River
Power System is in Montana. So while we don't enjoy any of the
economic, cultural and aesthetic benefits attributable to the salmon,
we contribute in a very substantial way toward their recovery. I'll
also add that this beneficence has not had the uniform support of the
citizens of Montana.
Governor Racicot strongly believes that efforts to recover salmon
and steelhead are a priority for the Pacific Northwest, including
Montana, but also believes that the Governors of the four States, in
conjunction with the Northwest Power Planning Council, should have more
legal responsibility to develop and implement recovery plans for the
listed species.
The capability and the commitment of the Governors was most
recently illustrated by their recommendations for the protection and
restoration of fish in the Columbia River Basin released in July. That
document, which I would like to submit for the hearing record, is a
comprehensive, no-nonsense package of recommendations that covers all
the major areas of emphasis, including habitat reform, hatcheries,
harvest, the hydroelectric system and the recognition that the impact
on the region's people and our economic way of life comprises an
important fifth ``H.''
Mr. Chairman, if you haven't done so already, I urge you to look at
the Governors' recommendations when you have the opportunity. I think
you will agree that the Governors were not afraid to take some bold
stands on some of the thorniest issues we face. The National Marine
Fisheries Service's draft biological opinion and ``All-H'' paper were
not prepared with the benefit of the Governors' recommendations. This
is a serious limitation because the Federal agencies have not included
the region's input from our policy and political leaders. The
Governors' input needs to be factored into the Federal agency documents
before they are finalized. To that end, the Governors recently
forwarded their work directly to Secretary Mineta.
Among the many recommendations included in the Governors' package,
the following 10 common sense proposals are representative of the
entire document.
1. The President should designate one official in the region to
oversee the Federal recovery efforts, and who could serve as a single
point of contact. There has been a clear lack of effort on the Federal
agencies' part to collaborate with the States, tribes, local
governments and landowners in recovery activities. This could be
substantially corrected if the President were to do this.
2. The Federal agencies should develop a long-term management plan
to address predation by fish-eating birds and marine mammals. So far,
the Federal agencies have been unable to agree upon an approach to this
problem.
3. The National Marine Fisheries Service should work with the
region to conduct an intensive study on the impact of the ocean on fish
recovery, including the impact of predation, lack of food sources,
temperature problems and harvest regimes.
4. The use of spill should be improved--in duration, timing and
quantity--at all Federal hydroelectric projects. This does not, in my
view, call for more spill but rather that we gather the scientific
information needed to better determine how best to balance the
biological benefits of spilling water with the economic and system
reliability impacts to the region's electric power system.
5. Flow augmentation should continue as a key mainstem strategy.
However, the Federal agencies should document the benefits of flow
augmentation and the precise attributes of flow that make it
beneficial.
6. To reduce harvest impacts on listed fish, more selective fishing
techniques and a license buyback program that can reduce the current
excess fishing capacity should be instituted.
7. Harvest rates must ensure sufficient escapement to rebuild
declining stocks. With inriver rates ranging up to 31 percent for one
of the listed stocks, the Governors are not convinced that current
practices are compatible with rapid recovery. Terminal fisheries should
be established in appropriate areas.
8. Harvest goals must be linked to fish production goals. Hatchery
operations must be modified so that fish are not being produced for
fisheries where they cannot be harvested because of impacts on weak
stocks.
9. Consistent with the Council's Artificial Production Review, the
region's fish managers and tribes should jointly develop a
comprehensive supplementation plan that includes aggressive monitoring
and evaluation.
10. To facilitate a robust harvest program from hatchery fish in a
way that does not impact wild fish, the Governors endorse a program
that results in the marking of hatchery fish that pose threats to ESA-
listed fish, to the fullest extent consistent with the Pacific Salmon
Treaty.
Mr. Chairman, this is not to say that these recommendations are
inconsistent with the draft biological opinion. The more important
question is whether these recommendations will be pursued by the
Federal agencies that wield authority under the Endangered Species Act.
To my knowledge, the Governors' recommendations have not been
acknowledged, let alone adopted, by the White House or the Federal
agencies. This is unfortunate, especially when you consider that the
electricity ratepayers of the Bonneville Power Administration finance
the majority of salmon recovery measures instituted by the National
Marine Fisheries Service. So while the region is required to pay for
the implementation of the recovery measures, the region, historically,
has had limited influence in determining the nature of those measures.
This leads me into one of Governor Racicot's primary concerns about
the draft biological opinion. While the draft does appear to make a
stronger effort to encourage collaboration with the Power Planning
Council, the States, tribes, and others in the development of annual
implementation plans, there is a lack of detail regarding the cost of
the measures and whose responsibility it is to pay for them.
Considering that a significant portion of the draft's ``reasonable and
prudent alternatives'' deals with offsite mitigation measures, Governor
Racicot presumes that the ratepayers once again will be asked to pay
the freight.
What makes this even more troubling is the draft biological
opinion's designation of ``priority subbasins.'' Several of these high
priority subbasins never have been emphasized by the Power Planning
Council. For example, the Methow, Entiat, Cowlitz and Lewis subbasins
in Washington State would evidently take priority for funding over
other areas where the Council has historically concentrated significant
resources and effort over the years.
When Congress passed the Northwest Power Act in 1980 and created
the Northwest Power Planning Council, one of the primary
responsibilities given the Council was to develop a fish and wildlife
program to protect, mitigate and enhance all fish and wildlife in the
Columbia River Basin affected by the hydroelectric system. As Montana
understands the draft biological opinion, Congress' broad direction to
protect all fish and wildlife in the Basin may take a back seat to
focusing on ESA-listed stocks only. Such a development could have
tragic consequences for many other at-risk species in the Basin.
Unfortunately, Congress does not oversee the implementation of
Federal policy in the Columbia River Basin through its constitutionally
derived ``power of the purse.'' As a consequence, the funding of
endangered species activities in the Columbia is a prime example of
``backdoor'' spending by a Federal agency, the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Because Bonneville is a self-financing agency that
doesn't require annual appropriations for its operations, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, through its ESA authority, is able to require
Bonneville to pay for any number of measures in its biological
opinions, regardless of whether they represent sound science and good
public policy. Unfortunately, there is currently little opportunity for
Congress to either approve or disapprove Bonneville's expenditures for
ESA measures prior to their being made. Governor Racicot believes such
a procedure on the part of the National Marine Fisheries Service
circumvents the prerogative of Congress to approve agency budgets, as
well as the public's right to accountability in the expenditure of
public resources.
It is Governor Racicot's recommendation that the Fisheries Service
be required to submit a specific, annual ESA budget for the Columbia
River Basin, including activities proposed to be funded by the
Bonneville ratepayers, to Congress for approval, just like other
Federal agency activities. Ideally, ESA-specific measures, such as
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' identified in the biological
opinion, because of their national significance, should be financed
through appropriations, not Bonneville ratepayer funds. This would
ensure that Bonneville's funds would continue to be directed at the
historic mission of protecting, mitigating and enhancing all fish and
wildlife in the Basin affected by the hydrosystem. To the extent
Bonneville funds are required to pay for measures in the biological
opinions, Congress should demand the opportunity to review and approve
them prior to the start of the fiscal year.
Montana is also concerned that the National Marine Fisheries
Service's draft
biological opinion does not include cost estimates for its proposed
river and flow operations, and we are concerned about the potential
impacts of these operations on reservoirs and resident fish and
wildlife in our State. While water released in November primarily for
the benefit of chum salmon in the lower Columbia River Basin would
boost hydropower generation in that month, the region would lose 1,000
megawatts of generation in December and 1,500 megawatts in January as a
result. This is precisely the time of year when the region faces the
greatest risk of being unable to generate enough electricity to meet
demand, according to an analysis done by our staff at the Power
Planning Council. The cost of buying replacement power, if it is
available, could be astronomical--as we learned from California's
experience this past summer.
The reliability of the region's power system has clearly been
degraded and for the first time since the 1970's there are increasingly
frequent energy emergencies. These emergencies are of two types. First,
as electric loads approach the limit of the region's generation
capability, wholesale electricity prices become increasingly volatile.
This summer's market volatility took wholesale electricity prices in
the region to unprecedented levels of more than $1,000 per megawatt-
hour. This compares with the price of Bonneville's power for public
agencies in the region of approximately $23 per megawatt-hour. The
second stage of a power emergency that could result from the current
situation is curtailment of some loads followed by brownouts or
blackouts! It is my view that the combination of events that define the
region's power system reliability has reached a critical state where
total system collapse could happen if we get an unusually cold and dry
winter.
The impending regional power crisis is further exacerbated by the
conflicting and overlapping authorities of the many Federal, State and
tribal entities that make decisions concerning fish and wildlife
requirements, power and flood control operations and marketing. The
regional power reliability problems have at their root a public policy
failure that fails to balance the biological and economic effects of
proposed actions. An example of this occurred recently when Bonneville
declared an energy emergency at the end of last month. Bonneville
proposed to increase Federal generation and reduce fish requirements to
avoid purchasing power from the competitive market at very high prices.
The Federal agencies would not agree with Bonneville's proposal because
it caused impacts on fish and recreation. So Bonneville was then forced
to purchase power at prices in excess of $200 per megawatt-hour.
Bonneville recently reported to the Council that it spent
approximately $45 million for purchased power in 1 week! This during a
week when relatively few fish were in the river. This is an extremely
large sum, and my point is that there is no Federal, regional or State
decisionmaking mechanism to insure that an appropriate balance is
struck between the various interests that have competing demands for
the water stored in the region's reservoirs. The experience at the end
of last month highlights the region's inability to decide on the best
use of ratepayer funds and to establish a reasonable balance between
the various interests that are all struggling to control the system to
produce more of what they value most.
One last and specific example of the difficulty the region has
finding balance is the impact that Montana must absorb as water is
drafted in an attempt to improve the survival of juvenile salmon in the
Lower Columbia River. The Federal storage reservoirs in Montana house a
productive ecosystem and critical habitat that supports our ESA-
protected bull trout and other resident fish and wildlife. To improve
on our management of these reservoirs and the benefits they provide,
the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks has conducted years
of research on the impacts of reservoir operations on these species.
From this research we defined Integrated Rule Curves (IRCs), designed
to provide water for power generation and salmon flows while preserving
and protecting Montana's fish and wildlife species. The IRCs recognized
the need for water downstream of Montana for other fish and other uses.
However, we had to go to Federal court to secure even the weakest
recognition by the Federal agencies of the needs of species in Montana,
and to our consternation we find that the current draft biological
opinion from NMFS again ignores biological needs of animals in Montana
by recommending that even more water be taken from Hungry Horse dam.
On behalf of Governor Racicot, I want to thank you for offering me
this opportunity to highlight some of the complex and controversial
public policy questions that face our region. In our view, the present
operation of the Federal hydropower system makes it nearly impossible
to organize and direct a regional recovery effort and impossible to
provide a rational balancing of the many competing multiple purpose
interests in the Federal dams.
__________
Statement of Eric J. Bloch, Vice Chairman, Northwest Power Planning
Council and Representative of Hon. John A. Kitzhaber, Governor, State
of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, my name is Eric Bloch, and I am representing the
Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon. I also am one of Governor
Kitzhaber's two appointees to the Northwest Power Planning Council, and
currently I am the Council's vice chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on fish and wildlife recovery efforts in
the Pacific Northwest, and specifically on the draft biological opinion
issued recently by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
I would like to begin by commending the general approach to
recovery articulated in the Federal document, which I believe reflects
the recognition that improvements in salmon survival must come through
reducing mortality caused by hydrosystem operations, habitat
degradation, harvesting and unscientific hatchery operations--the so-
called ``4 Hs''. These key impacts on fish survival also are addressed
in the recommendations for protection of Columbia River Basin fish,
issued in July by the Governors of Oregon, Idaho, Montana and
Washington.
The Governors' recommendations constituted a substantial and
meaningful commitment toward ecosystem restoration, while accounting
for the importance of maintaining a strong economy in the Pacific
Northwest. The agreement was a clear recognition that, although at this
time there is not political consensus among the four Northwest
Governors on the fate of the Lower Snake River Dams, there is still
much that can be done to restore the Columbia River ecosystem, while
dam breaching remains a potential future action to be further evaluated
for its biological benefits, economic impacts, and engineering
feasibility. So the recommendations reflect agreement among the
Governors about actions that can be taken immediately to help the fish.
In the context of today's hearing, these areas of agreement in the
Governor's document are worth highlighting. For example, the Governors
called for significant efforts to restore habitat, acquire habitat and
water conversation from willing sellers, and increase Federal spending
on incentives for private landowners to improve habitat voluntarily.
The Governors support the full funding and implementation of the Lower
Columbia River Basin Estuary Management Plan. They also recommended
that fish harvest occur at levels commensurate with fish recovery and
that fundamental changes be made in fish hatchery management and
operation.
Finally, the Governors called for capital improvements at dams to
improve fish passage and survival, consistent with their preference for
natural river and biological processes.
Governor Kitzhaber hopes the Federal agencies will review the
Governors' recommendations as part of the process of finalizing the
draft biological opinion. In some instances, the Governors'
recommendations are preferable to, and even more specific than, those
in the biological opinion.
As I indicated at the outset, Governor Kitzhaber believes the
overall ``4-H'' approach outlined in the draft biological opinions is
commendable.
But after consideration of scientific analyses such as the State/
Federal/tribal PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) and the
Northwest Power Planning Council's Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment
model, and a thorough technical review of the Biological Opinion, we
believe the Biological Opinion generally underestimates the risk of
extinction faced by salmon and steelhead in the Columbia/Snake basin
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The Biological Opinion also generally underestimates the
survival improvements needed to meet the ESA's legal requirement of
insuring survival and recovery of the listed species.
To meet the legal mandate to insure both survival and recovery, the
Federal documents must be strengthened to reflect the true extinction
risk and necessary level of survival improvements. It is worth noting
in this regard that Governor Kitzhaber believes the Northwest
Governors' recommendations also must be strengthened so that they, too,
more accurately reflect the extinction risk and more closely
approximate the breadth and intensity of effort required for an
effective basinwide recovery plan.
Thus, Oregon offers the following specific proposals to strengthen
the draft Biological Opinion.
First, on-the-ground actions in each of the four ``H's'' must be
made more robust by adding actions not included in the Federal
documents and by increasing the intensity of some of the actions that
are included.
Regarding hydropower operations, Governor Kitzhaber believes that
the Federal proposal appears to rely too heavily on technological fixes
and fish barging rather than on improving inriver conditions for fish
migration. As I said earlier, this is in contrast to the four
Governors' recommendations, which assert stronger support for
hydrosystem configurations and operations that more closely resemble
natural river processes, recognize barging as an interim strategy, and
call for additional investment to improve river conditions so that more
fish can migrate the river.
Specifically in the area of hydrosystem reform, we support:
Increasing spill at all projects. Study after study has
shown spill to be not only the most normative mode of downstream dam
passage for migrating juvenile salmon, but also the mode with the
highest survival rates.
Increasing flow augmentation. At a minimum, the Federal
Government should expeditiously purchase the 2 million acre feet of
Canadian storage for Columbia River flows. For Snake River flows, the
Federal Government should make the infrastructure changes at Owyhee
Reservoir needed to access available storage there.
Continue to plan and, where necessary and appropriate,
implement system reconfiguration improvements. For the tributaries,
this mean removal of economically marginal projects, such as is
occurring with Marmot Dam on the Sandy River in Oregon, Condit Dam on
the White Salmon River in Washington State, and the Wapotox Dam on
Washington's Naches River.
For the mainstem Columbia and Snake River, this means continuing to
assess drawdown options for John Day and other mainstem dams. It also
means continuing to assess the biological benefits, economic costs,
mitigation requirements and engineering feasibility of by-passing
removal of the four dams on the Lower Snake River. It means timely
planning and implementation to achieve Clean Water Act compliance at
all the Federal projects.
To add to and make more robust existing harvest actions, we support
decreasing the level of impacts on threatened and endangered stocks,
while still affording a reasonable sport and commercial fishing
opportunities to both Indian and non-
Indian fishers. This can be accomplished by lowering the harvest rates,
particularly for the fall fisheries that impact listed Snake River Fall
Chinook, license buy-backs, creating terminal fishing opportunities off
the mainstem areas, and utilizing more selective gear types.
Regarding habitat, we support the Federal Government channeling its
support to the existing State, tribal and regional efforts currently
underway that will result in improvements to salmon-related habitat. A
principle example is the effort ongoing in Oregon, Washington and Idaho
to greatly improve water quality in the tributaries and the mainstem.
We also support, in the area of habitat, establishing a mechanism
and fund to purchase water and habitat rights on a willing seller/
willing buyer basis, and more ``user-friendly'' assistance to private
parties to such things as protecting riparian areas and conserving
water.
In addition to these new and more robust actions, a second approach
to making the Biological Opinion stronger is to improve the efficacy of
the proposed monitoring and evaluation process. This could be
accomplished by:
(1) Adjusting the timeframes for assessing compliance with
established performance standards. The region should, frankly, be given
less time than 5 years to get the required strategies and actions
underway--more like 3 years seems appropriate, but should also, in all
fairness, be given more like 10 years (at least two salmon lifecycles)
to demonstrate that the regional efforts are producing the desired
increase in salmon survival.
(2) Departing from the ``self-critique'' approach to progress
monitoring. Having agencies monitor and critique their own progress has
not proved timely or credible in the past, and there is no reason to
expect it would be any different under the current Biological Opinion.
Instead, all monitoring and evaluation must be done by an independent
body, and scientific peer review must be the rule, not the exception.
(3) Assuring that the consequences of failing to meet established
objectives are credible and proportional. The Biological Opinion
enumerates reinitiation of consultation and dam removal as the two
consequences of failing to meet established performance standards. To
both motivate action and fully inform the region, the Federal
Government should enumerate consequences that are more credible and
proportional. For example, if the region fails to achieve the requisite
amount of riparian fencing, the consequences should involve taking
other actions that will address the same temperature and sedimentation
benefits that the riparian fencing would have otherwise provided.
Third, the means of collaboration with the region outlined in the
Federal documents must be made far more explicit. At present, the
recovery plan outlined in the Federal documents appears to rely upon
regional collaboration, particularly with the Northwest Power Planning
Council. But the collaboration exists on far too conceptual a level,
given the importance of collaboration to achieving a plan that can be
effectively and expeditiously implemented. Collaboration should occur
in the following ways:
(1) Use Existing State and Tribal Salmon Improvement Efforts. The
States and tribes of the region already have underway strategies and
actions intended to benefit salmon, many of which are called for in the
Federal documents. Development of TMDLs, efforts to enhance water
monitoring capability, and working through local soil and water
conservation districts and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board to
increase enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,
are just three examples. These State and tribal actions have, to some
extent, been hampered by a lack of support and collaboration from the
Federal agencies. Providing support for these already-existing
programs, activities and authorities would accomplish the goal of
ecosystem health and fish and wildlife protection and recovery in the
most efficient and effective manner.
(2) Provide Increased Technical and Financial Assistance to Private
Citizens. There are private citizens all across this region who have
been hard at work to restore wild salmon and steelhead to the Columbia
Basin. Whether landowners changing their farming and ranching practices
or fishers exploring new opportunities for more selective harvest, all
need to receive greater assistance and true collaboration from the
Federal Government. The Federal documents must specify how this needed
change can be brought about.
Finally, as all four of the region's Governors clearly stated in
their consensus recommendations, the recovery effort we face will be
very costly. Without adequate funding, we will never restore the health
of the Columbia Basin ecosystem and the salmon runs. To be credible,
the recovery plan outlined in the Federal documents should provide a
detailed budget and a funding strategy. Such a budget and funding
strategy should include the following elements.
(1) Increase rate payer funding. The Bonneville Power
Administration, which currently obligates up to $435 million per year
in expenditures and foregone power system revenues, must provide more
resources. The BPA Administrator has repeatedly indicated the rates
being set for the 2002-2006 period give the agency the ability to meet
this increased fish and wildlife funding obligation.
(2) Account for all existing fish and wildlife-related Federal
appropriated funds. Many of the Federal departments and agencies
currently receive funds that are earmarked for activities that,
directly or indirectly, relate to restoration of ecosystem health and
salmon populations in the Columbia Basin. This includes everything from
NMFS' appropriations for ESA activities, to funds given to the U.S.
Geological Service to monitor snow pack and run-off. To maximize the
efficient and effective use of this existing funding, a summary
accounting should be done.
(3) Remove barriers to best use of existing Federal appropriated
funds. Barriers exist because of inter-agency ``turf '' concerns, as
well as rules that are not ``user friendly''. An example of these
problems can be seen in the CREP program, administered under the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. A focussed effort must be made to identify
and remove these barriers by making the administration of the fish and
wildlife programs more streamlined, and the rules governing their use
more flexible and goal oriented.
(4) Increase the Level of Appropriated Funds. The effort to restore
the Columbia Basin ecosystem and restore salmon protects a national
resource in satisfaction of national obligations, such as the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Indian treaties.
Therefore, appropriated funds are both proper and necessary to
contribute to the regional recovery effort.
(5) Provide funds, in the short term, through a fiscal year 2001
Supplemental Appropriations, to be acted upon in early 2001, and the
fiscal year 2002 Regular Appropriations Bill.
(6) Pursue new authority for a ``Columbia-Snake River Regional
Salmon Recovery Program''. As was done with the Everglades and the
California recovery effort known as Cal/Fed, this mechanism would
provide for regular appropriations to the Federal agencies involved in
the recovery effort, as well as direct and pass-through appropriations
to Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and other regional entities.
On these funding issues, we look forward to working closely with
Congress and the Administration to insure that the opportunity to
implement a recovery strategy that does not require removal of the four
lower Snake River dams is not jeopardized by a lack of resources.
In conclusion, let me remind the committee of something that
Governor Kitzhaber said in a speech he gave in Eugene last February to
the Oregon chapter of the American Fisheries Society, ``There is no
doubt in my mind that we can move ahead with salmon recovery without
breaching the dams. All I am saying to you today is that we have to
stop deluding ourselves into believing that our choices will be easier
and cheaper if we just leave the dams alone.'' What we have heard so
far this morning, and will likely hear over the next 2 days of
hearings, will generally bear out that prediction.
But we cannot shrink from this challenge of salmon restoration in
the Columbia Basin. As Governor Kitzhaber has also noted on a number of
occasions, unless we restore our degraded Columbia River Basin
ecosystem, unless we find the way to utilize the bountiful resources of
the Columbia in a sustainable fashion--sustainable ecologically,
economically and socially--we will truly be mortgaging our children's
futures.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today.
__________
Statement of Frank L. Cassidy, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Power
Planning Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Frank L.
Cassidy, Jr., and I am chairman of the Northwest Power Planning
Council. Today, I also am representing the Honorable Gary Locke,
Governor of Washington.
The Power Planning Council is an agency of the States of Idaho,
Montana, Oregon and Washington. Under the Northwest Power Act of 1980,
the Council conducts long-range electric energy planning and analysis,
and also prepares a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and
wildlife of the Columbia River Basin that have been affected by
hydropower dams.
The Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife program
directs the annual expenditure of about $130 million in electricity
ratepayer funds to mitigate the impact of Federal hydropower dams in
the Columbia River Basin on all fish and wildlife, including threatened
and endangered species. With Snake River dam breaching off the table
for at least 5 years, which coincidentally is the Council's statutory
planning horizon, fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia
River Basin will require undertakings and efforts with the dams in
place. This means a strong emphasis on improving spawning and rearing
habitat, changing hatchery and harvest practices to support rebuilding
naturally spawning fish populations, and improving both smolt and adult
fish passage survival throughout the basin, including at the dams.
These are key elements of the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish
and Wildlife Program, which has been in effect since 1982, and they
also are addressed in the fish recovery recommendations issued in July
by the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. As a matter
of record, and on behalf of the Power Planning Council, I would like to
thank the Governors for their valuable contribution to the effort to
devise regionally acceptable fish recovery plans. I hope the Federal
action agencies will carefully review the Governors' recommendations in
finalizing the draft biological opinions.
The Power Planning Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program is the region's largest single effort to enhance fish and
wildlife survival. Currently, the Council is amending the program with
basinwide goals, biological objectives and action strategies, along
with a scientific foundation of ecological principles. The basinwide
goals and objectives will guide the Council's program, which will be
implemented in the future primarily through locally-developed action
plans.
More than at any time in the past, the Council's fish and wildlife
program, which is the region's program, and the Federal recovery
program for salmon and steelhead (the draft 2000 biological opinions
and the so-called ``All-H'' paper) appear to be moving in the same
direction. Both emphasize actions to improve fish spawning and rearing
habitat, reform hatchery practices and give new direction to harvest
policy and management. Both also leave the hydrosystem intact for the
near-term and would direct actions to improve fish passage and survival
at the dams and in the rivers.
We are pleased to see a strong role for the Power Planning Council
in the Federal biological opinions and conceptual recovery plan, and we
look forward to working with the Federal fish and wildlife agencies to
improve the scientific credibility and the public accountability of the
region's fish and wildlife recovery efforts.
The National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion places
special emphasis on offsite habitat improvements (i.e., mitigating for
hydrosystem impacts in areas located away from the hydrosystem) and
calls for creating performance standards to guide habitat restoration.
Again, this is consistent with the Council's direction in our fish and
wildlife program, which relies on offsite mitigation as a means of
addressing the impact of the hydropower system. This work has been
under way for nearly 20 years through our program, and we welcome the
Federal agencies' call for additional offsite mitigation to help avoid
jeopardy and comply with the Endangered Species Act.
The Federal biological opinions call for reforming fish production
facilities to minimize harm to fish that spawn in the wild, and also
for using conservation and supplementation hatcheries to bolster weak
populations and avoid extinction. The Federal documents recommend
future fish hatchery policies and reforms be consistent with those
recommended by the Power Planning Council in our report submitted to
Congress last year on artificial production. We also intend to
incorporate those recommendations and policies into our program as the
basis for our future funding recommendations for artificial production
facilities in the Columbia River Basin.
The Federal documents also propose several key reforms in fish
harvest policies and management. First, the Federal agencies recommend
selective fishing techniques and terminal fishing opportunities to
reduce impacts on listed fish. These proposals are consistent with
activities already funded through the Council's program, including the
successful Select Area Fisheries Enhancement program that is creating
commercial salmon fishing opportunities in Youngs Bay near Astoria,
Oregon, and elsewhere in the lower Columbia River. The Federal agencies
also propose actions to reduce fish harvest and, as a result, impacts
on ESA-listed species. Again, these proposals are consistent with
policy and direction in the Council's program and the draft program
amendment.
The Federal action agencies propose to develop these habitat,
hatchery and harvest actions through 1-year and 5-year implementation
plans, focusing first on high-priority subbasins where there are listed
species. We see an opportunity for the Council and the action agencies
to work together in designing these plans, as the action agencies
propose to rely on coordination and support from the Council in
developing the implementation plans. The Council will provide this
coordination and support through subbasin planning. In our draft fish
and wildlife program amendment, we propose to implement our program
primarily at the subbasin level through locally-developed subbasin
action plans.
We see a number of opportunities in this cooperative planning
effort, beyond simply clarifying who will take responsibility for
actions in the Federal high-priority subbasins. The Council would have
the opportunity to help frame the Federal action plans, and the Federal
agencies would be able to participate in regional planning processes
such as the Council's annual fish and wildlife project-funding review
and recovery planning being undertaken by the States. This coordination
would help avoid duplication among the processes and also encourage,
and perhaps ensure, that the Federal, regional and State plans are
consistent. For example, the action agencies plan to define their
initial 5-year implementation plan by Jan. 31, 2001. Using this plan as
guidance, the Federal agencies plan to participate in regional
processes, such as the Council's review of projects funded through its
fish and wildlife program. The agencies plan to complete their initial
1-year plan by September 1, 2001, about the same time the Council will
recommend projects to Bonneville to implement the fish and wildlife
program in fiscal year 2002.
The Council would, therefore, have the opportunity to ensure that
its recommendations to Bonneville for project funding take into account
the direction in the Federal agencies' 5-year and 1-year plans.
Similarly, by participating in the Council's project review, the action
agencies would be able to incorporate information from the Council's
regional process into their implementation plan. Such collaboration by
the region and the Federal agencies can only help ensure more effective
efforts to protect, mitigate, enhance, and recover species in the
Columbia River Basin.
As with subbasin plans that will implement the Council's program,
there are benefits to implementing endangered species recovery through
1-year and 5-year action plans. The plans offer the opportunity to
identify progress and actions needed to achieve hydrosystem and offsite
habitat mitigation performance standards. The plans could integrate
actions affecting hydrosystem operation, configuration, research and
monitoring and evaluation. The plans could establish priorities to
guide regional planning and inseason actions, and they also could
support funding requests.
We note four areas where the biological opinions need further
refinement:
First, the opinions are specific in the types of actions that are
needed to avoid jeopardy, but they are general in describing where
these actions are needed and in defining schedules for accomplishing
them. More specificity is needed about which actions could be provided
in the subbasin plans developed through the Council's planning process.
Second, the Federal documents call for improving stream flows--
actions regarding water quantity and quality, and fish passage--but
again are short on details. These need to be better articulated in the
final documents.
Third, cost estimation is incomplete and needs much more detail. As
I noted earlier, our staff analyzed the river flow operations proposed
in the biological opinions and concluded they would reduce hydropower
generation by 87 average megawatts. This would be in addition to
hydropower operations in the 1995-98 biological opinion, which
currently reduce hydropower generation by 1,152 average megawatts, at
an estimated annual cost of $219 million in foregone power revenues and
replacement power costs, compared to the amount that would be available
if the system were operated only for power generation.
While 87 additional megawatts is a small amount of power at a
relatively small annual cost (about $12 million to $15 million)
compared to the output of the system and Bonneville's annual revenues,
the problem we see is that the loss is not uniform through the year
and, in fact, is quite large in winter months. For example, the
additional flows that would be required to protect listed chum salmon
in the lower Columbia River would boost hydropower generation in
November by about 1,400 megawatts. However, releasing that much water
in November would take away water from generation in December and
January--1,000 megawatts in December and 1,500 in January--when we
believe the power system will be stressed and most susceptible to
reliability problems. In fact, in our recent study of the reliability
of the regional power system we concluded the greatest risk--a 24
percent probability--of being unable to meet demand for electricity is
in the winter months, particularly in January if there is an extended
period of cold and dry weather. Thus we are concerned about the
possibility of losing 1,500 megawatts of generation in January.
Regardless of whether these or other new hydrosystem operations are
included in the final biological opinion, the Council's mission under
the Northwest Power Act to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and
wildlife while assuring the Northwest an adequate, efficient,
economical and reliable power supply makes clear our responsibility: to
identify other sources of power--a combination of renewable resources
and distributed generation, for example--and energy conservation and
other means of reducing demand for power, in order to provide equitable
treatment for fish and wildlife with other purposes of the hydropower
system.
Protocols should be established, if they are not already, for
Bonneville to decide when, and under what conditions, spill required
under the biological opinion would be curtailed in order to boost
hydropower generation. Decisions to reduce spill, which could harm
migrating juvenile anadromous fish, or to continue spilling when demand
for power is high, need to be based on clear protocols and be clearly
articulated for the public.
Fourth, the biological opinions designate priority subbasins for
actions to assist endangered and threatened species, but do not specify
how these actions would be funded. Because the Council's fish and
wildlife program is designed to benefit all fish and wildlife in the
basin, including listed species, we have been addressing listed species
through a number of actions in the program for years. A significant
portion of the approximate $130 million annual budget for the direct
program over the last 5 years has benefited species of concern under
the Endangered Species Act. In fact, the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Clinton Administration, the Council and Columbia Basin
Indian tribes, which established Bonneville's fish and wildlife budget
for the 1996-2002 time period, also set aside about $30 million in
Bonneville funding to pay for measures that might be required by the
1995-1998 Biological Opinion. Today, about $2.5 million remains.
However, we are concerned that Bonneville might be called on to
fund additional measures in the high-priority subbasins in order to
comply with the 2000 biological opinions, thus taking funding away from
efforts to mitigate the impact of the hydropower system on fish and
wildlife elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. Two of the high-
priority subbasins are downstream of Bonneville Dam. In the past, the
Council's program has contained few measures downstream of Bonneville
Dam, other than in the Willamette River Basin, because the majority of
hydropower impacts are above Bonneville. For Fiscal Year 2001, the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), which represents
the region's State, Federal and tribal fish and wildlife managers, has
identified nearly $140 million in projects for funding through the
Council's program. If the Council were to follow CBFWA's
recommendations, there would be little if any room in Bonneville's
budget to finance activities in the biological opinions. For that
reason, we believe that the Administration should prepare and submit
for Congress' consideration a supplemental appropriations request for
Fiscal Year 2001 for actions that address the reasonable and prudent
alternatives proposed in the draft biological opinions, particularly
those proposed for lower-Columbia listed species.
In my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I have pointed out some of the
similarities between the draft biological opinions and the Council's
draft amended fish and wildlife program. The draft program amendment
constitutes a major change in the way we fulfill our mandate under the
Northwest Power Act to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife
of the Columbia River Basin that have been affected by hydropower.
Unlike past versions of the program, which were criticized by
independent scientists for consisting primarily of a number of measures
that called for specific actions without a clear, programwide
foundation of scientific principles, the new program will express goals
and objectives for the entire Columbia River Basin based on a
scientific foundation of ecological principles. Currently, we are
amending the program with basinwide goals, biological objectives, and
strategies to achieve the objectives and a scientific foundation. We
expect to complete this phase of the rulemaking in October. Then we
will begin developing subbasin action plans for each of the 53
subbasins of the Columbia, which are arrayed within 11 geographic
provinces. These plans, which will be developed locally, will be
consistent with the goals and objectives for the basin--thus, the goals
and objectives we are developing now will guide the development and
implementation of the subbasin plans. As I noted earlier, this provides
an opportunity for the Federal action agencies to participate in
developing the plans so that the region has a consistent approach to
species recovery.
The Council believes this unique program structure, goal-oriented
and science-based, will result in a more carefully focused,
scientifically credible and publicly accountable program that will
direct the region's substantial fish and wildlife investment to the
places and species where it will do the most good.
It is an action-focused plan, as are the Federal agency biological
opinions. In addition to emphasizing locally-developed action plans,
the Council proposes to create either a trust or a separate fund for
habitat and water acquisitions in recognition of the habitat-
restoration focus of our program. We also propose to establish criteria
for ``early action projects''--those with a demonstrated need to move
more quickly than the normal planning procedures would allow.
The Council's draft amended fish and wildlife program addresses all
of the ``Hs'' of impacts on fish and wildlife--habitat, hatcheries,
harvest and hydropower:
Primarily, it is a habitat-based program, directing
significant attention to rebuilding healthy, naturally producing fish
and wildlife populations by protecting and restoring habitats and the
biological systems within them.
The draft requires that fish hatcheries funded by
Bonneville operate consistent with reforms recommended to Congress by
the Council last year, reforms that would shift hatchery production
away from a primary focus on providing fish for harvest to also
providing fish to rebuild naturally spawning populations.
The draft amendment will assure that subbasin plans are
consistent with harvest management practices and will increase
opportunities for harvest wherever feasible, while at the same time
avoiding interceptions of threatened and endangered species whenever
possible.
The draft program amendment focuses on providing
conditions in the Columbia River Basin hydroelectric system that most
closely approximate natural physical and biological conditions with the
dams in place.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Council is proposing a fundamentally
new management style for our fish and wildlife program, one that
focuses on locally-developed action plans with clearly stated goals and
objectives that are consistent with goals and objectives for the entire
Columbia River Basin. Our program will articulate a scientific
foundation for action, and we will continue to submit each project
proposed for funding through our program to review by a panel of
independent scientists as required by the Northwest Power Act. We will
reform hatchery practices for those facilities funded through our
program, and we will work to integrate harvest into our planning so
that harvest and hatchery policies and practices do not work at cross
purposes--raising fish for harvest that cannot be caught because of
harvest restrictions imposed to protect threatened and endangered
species. We also will continue to account for ocean conditions in our
decisionmaking, and we will work to improve data collection and
management and project monitoring and evaluation so that we, and others
in the region, can gain a better understanding of what is working, what
is not working and what might be done to improve our efforts.
All of these elements are part of a recovery and mitigation effort
that we look forward to pursuing in collaboration with the Federal
action agencies through locally-developed action plans. Ultimately,
this collaboration will improve the public accountability and
scientific credibility of all our efforts.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
__________
Statement of William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I commend the
subcommittee for taking the time to examine the complex choices facing
the Northwest region regarding salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is engaged
in two efforts at present to address salmon recovery policy as it
applies for the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). One is a
new biological opinion covering operations and configuration of the
system under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The other is a Basin-
wide Recovery Strategy, a conceptual recovery plan for all the listed
salmon stocks in the Columbia and Snake River basins.
I testified before this panel in April of this year, and my written
statement at that time described the overall approach being taken by
NOAA Fisheries in cooperation with affected Federal, State and tribal
agencies. My testimony today will serve to update you on these efforts.
stock status
NOAA Fisheries scientists continue to update and adjust their
assessments of the current status of the stocks and the prognosis for
those stocks over the short and long term. While we fine-tune those
analyses, the basic story remains the same: Stocks throughout the
Columbia Basin remain in deep trouble, with the Upper Columbia chinook,
Snake River chinook and steelhead stocks throughout the Basin most at
peril.
the biological opinion
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies
to consult with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that its actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or
endangered salmon and steelhead, or their habitats. To inform this
consultation, the so-called ``action'' agencies must conduct a
biological assessment (BA) of their prospective actions to determine
the likely impact of such actions on listed species. The BA forms the
basis of inter-agency consultation under ESA and the subsequent
Biological Opinion (BO) rendered by NOAA Fisheries.
On December 22, 1999, NOAA Fisheries received a BA from Bonneville
Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau
of Reclamation outlining proposed operation and configuration of the
FCRPS and assessing the likely impacts on listed salmon and other fish
and wildlife species. We have now developed a new draft BO for the
system to replace the one completed in 1995.
The scope of the new draft BO covers the entire FCRPS and all 12
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within the Columbia Basin. It
addresses operation of the system, including flow and spill. It
addresses system configuration, including a dam drawdown decision,
passage improvements at each project and operation of the
transportation system. It evaluates performance standards for the
hydrosystem based upon productivity improvements needed by each listed
ESU to avoid extinction and achieve a recovery trajectory.
Our jeopardy standard is the same as it was in 1995, but is applied
to additional at-risk populations.
NOAA Fisheries and the Action Agencies have been working in an
inter-agency group since Fall 1999. That group is composed of senior
staff from each agency. In addition, on January 26, 2000, NOAA
Fisheries sent a letter to each of the Northwest States and 13 Native
American tribes inviting them to participate in the consultation
process. Since then, the work group has been meeting regularly, both by
itself and with the States and tribes, to lay the groundwork for, and
develop the key elements of, a new BO covering future operations of the
FCRPS. Draft materials developed through the Federal work group process
have been shared with same States and tribes, including hydrologic and
biological analyses of the effects of certain flow and spill
alternatives, an analysis of the potential effects of those same
operations on the transmission system, and an initial description of
the information being developed to assist in the evaluation and use of
performance standards.
There have been numerous work group meetings for interagency
consultation, and there have also been a number of meetings between the
work group and the affected States and tribes. These were the meetings
during which the key technical elements of the biological opinion were
developed, analyzed, discussed, and refined. In short, this was where
the real work was done. We have endeavored to make this process as open
as possible by making technical documents and schedule information
widely available, and by inviting State and tribal governments to
participate.
NOAA Fisheries has submitted the draft BO to the States and tribes
for technical review and comment. This is not a formal public review
process. The point of the review by States and tribes with technical
expertise in this area is to ensure that NOAA Fisheries is including
and appropriately applying the best available scientific information.
The Opinion will be revised based on this input.
We had hoped to release the BO sooner, but there were several
reasons for the delay we experienced. First and foremost, we wanted to
be certain our analysis was complete. The biology was a major factor
informing our decision, and we wanted to make sure it could withstand
independent review. Second, we applied a new tool in our efforts to
rebuild salmon and steelhead populations: performance standards. We
think it is critical that we have an effective tool for setting goals
and measuring progress. Performance standards have tremendous promise
in this regard, but the technical challenge in applying them to the
salmon life cycle is extremely rigorous and time consuming. Finally,
there were considerable logistical demands associated with conducting
public hearings on the All-H Paper (which we are now calling the Basin-
wide Recovery Strategy) and consulting with 13 tribes.
the basin-wide recovery strategy
NOAA Fisheries and the other Federal agencies continue their work
on a comprehensive response to the status of these stocks through the
development of a Basin-wide Recovery Strategy--a collection of concepts
that will guide recovery planning for all the stocks in the Basin that
is often referred to as the ``All H's Paper.'' We released the draft
Basin-wide Recovery Strategy with the draft biological opinion
governing the operation of the Columbia River Federal hydropower
system.
The Basin-wide Recovery Strategy emphasizes that overhaul of the
situation in the Columbia Basin must be comprehensive to be effective
and is not limited to hydropower issues alone. The Basin-wide Recovery
Strategy therefore recommends a comprehensive basin-wide program that
places a premium on actions that can be implemented quickly, that are
likely to provide solid and predictable benefits, and that will benefit
the broadest range of species. These include conservation hatchery
interventions, production hatchery reforms, improvements on Federal
lands, instream flows for de-watered streams, elimination of
impediments to passage in the tributaries, continued improvements to
passage at the mainstem dams and rebuilding the productivity of the
estuary.
The Basin-wide Recovery Strategy is built on biological
considerations, but also recognizes there is a limit to the resources
available for the job and to the authority of Federal agencies. It also
emphasizes Federal support for actions that State and local governments
are planning or already undertaking, such as the Northwest Power
Planning Council's sub-basin planning proposal. In the habitat arena,
where some actions can take decades to show benefits, the program
emphasizes those measures that can be taken quickly, with longer term
actions to be taken later based on sub-basin assessments and plans. It
also seeks to establish strong connections between the new habitat
features of the Council's fish program and the related State programs
in the same subject area, such as water quality protections, instream
flows and riparian-related activities.
The Federal agencies also recognize that, even while the region has
devoted considerable resources to restoring Columbia Basin fish, there
are limits to those resources. The combination of near-term biological
risks and resource limitations led the agencies to focus on actions
that give the greatest ``bang for the buck''--that have predictable
benefits, that will benefit the greatest number of species. Getting the
biggest bang for the buck can mean focusing on those life stages where
improvements will yield the biggest results, or on those actions that
are more certain to result in improvements in a short timeframe.
For example, scientific analysis suggests that improving survival
during the first year of life, when the greatest mortality occurs, will
give the greatest benefit. This emphasizes, in particular, the value of
improving freshwater habitat. Scientific analysis also suggests
improvements in all life stages will have a greater effect on overall
productivity than focusing improvements on just one life stage. In
other words, a comprehensive approach to improve survival throughout
the salmon's life cycle will be a more effective strategy than a
singular focus on one life stage (or H). In summary, we believe getting
the biggest bang for the buck means making difficult choices on how
available resources are allocated, now and into the future, focusing on
actions that benefit a large number of ESUs. For example, improvements
in dam passage in the lower Columbia benefit all upriver ESUs, and
improvements in the estuary benefit all 12 ESUs to varying degrees.
Federal agencies also considered tribal trust responsibilities in
developing this package. For some ESUs, such as Snake River fall
chinook, eliminating harvest would reduce substantially the risk of
extinction. Dramatically reducing hatchery production basin-wide would
also benefit all ESUs to some degree, although it is not possible to
quantify the benefit with precision. The Basin-wide Recovery Strategy
does not recommend these actions, however, because of the importance of
maintaining some level of tribal harvest. Instead, we call for a major
effort to implement a complete overhaul of the hatchery system in the
Basin to reduce the ongoing risks to the weak wild stocks posed by the
existing system. The Strategy calls for a major effort to monitor and
evaluate the success of this overhaul and reduce the uncertainties that
now abound.
I would like to take a moment to speak to the general issue of
uncertainty and the NOAA Fisheries response to it. We must understand
that we face unavoidable uncertainties as we craft this next phase of
the recovery effort. Uncertainty pervades our ability to count wild
fish and estimate the size and trends in the populations because we
have not distinguished between wild spawners and their hatchery
counterparts when counting fish in the past. Hence our current
projections of the size of those populations must be caveated.
Uncertainty pervades the ability to estimate the scope and degree of
impacts--both positive and negative--associated with the Columbia Basin
industrial-scale hatchery system for the simple reason that we have not
bothered to make a priority to invest in the research to characterize
those impacts. Uncertainty pervades our ability to estimate the
existing habitat base and its potential to improve salmon productivity.
While we have made some progress in understanding the basic ecology of
freshwater systems, we remain ignorant of the ecology of the estuarine
or marine environments which are so vital to the long-term health of
these very salmon populations we are endeavoring to recover.
We must squarely confront these uncertainties as we work to
identify the best opportunities to secure survival improvements,
quantify how much improvement is enough, and assess whether a
particular menu of actions will likely produce the desired amount. In
the Basin-wide Recovery Strategy we place a significant emphasis on a
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program to generate better
information about what will work best so that we will be able to make
adjustments in the days and years to come. This work covers the key
uncertainties enumerated above, and we commit to its peer review as we
proceed. In short, uncertainty becomes a call to action and not an
excuse for inaction or capitulation.
Much of the regional debate has focused on removal of Snake River
dams. There is continuing scientific uncertainty about whether
breaching dams is necessary to achieve recovery and considerable
uncertainty about whether it will do the job. Only Snake River fish
benefit from breaching, with no benefit to eight other listed
populations. Dam removal would require explicit congressional
authorization, and, once authorized, cannot be implemented on a short
timeframe. Its high cost may prejudice other actions needed throughout
the Basin. The option of Snake River drawdown therefore appears to rank
as a lower priority at this time than other available options because
of the long time to implement, narrow benefits, biological
uncertainties and high costs.
Instead, the current analysis indicates that an aggressive and
comprehensive approach will provide immediate benefits and lay the
foundation for salmon and steelhead recovery. We expect to challenge
hydropower system operators now to meet rigorous survival goals over
the next 10 years, using continued improvements in flow and spill
management and structural improvements at dams. Progress would be
reviewed in 5 years, and system performance would be evaluated against
performance standards in 5, 8, and 10 years. Dam removal would again be
addressed if progress toward these goals is inadequate or if called for
by new scientific information about the Snake River stocks.
NOAA Fisheries and the Federal agencies are working to develop a
program that commits the region to implement habitat, harvest and
hatchery actions to further enhance fish survival beyond that achieved
with their investments in the hydropower system.
Such a program would call for a major effort at improving the
health of the stream systems, the mainstem habitats and the estuary,
all of which are important building blocks for recovery. The program
would ground the restoration strategies on a combination of scientific
assessments through the Council's program and sensible ``early
actions'' to jump start rebuilding. Putting water back into de-watered
streams and opening up access to healthy habitat may be a good place
start.
Finally, the program would call for the development and
implementation of an aggressive, unprecedented monitoring and
evaluation program that will enable the agencies to assess program
results as well as to resolve critical uncertainties. Further, this
contemplates rigorous independent peer review of its scientific
foundation and the implications of the monitoring and evaluation
activities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would welcome the
opportunity to respond to questions.
__________
Statement of Col. Eric T. Mogren, Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Colonel Eric
Mogren, Deputy Division Engineer, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. I am testifying on behalf of the Honorable Dr.
Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the status of the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Biological Opinions on operations of the Federal Columbia River
Power System.
background
The Corps constructed and operates 12 major dams in the Columbia
River Basin that affect the habitat and migration of anadromous salmon
and steelhead, Kootenai River white sturgeon, and bull trout--all
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The dams are authorized
under project authorities in the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1935, 1945,
1946, 1950, and 1962 for multiple uses including flood control, power
production, navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, irrigation and
municipal and industrial water supply.
Bonneville, the Dalles, John Day and McNary dams on the lower
Columbia River and Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower
Granite dams on the lower Snake River are in the migratory path of
several species of salmon and steelhead. Two upstream storage dams
operated by the Corps--Dworshak in Idaho and Libby in Montana--
contribute to salmon restoration actions through flow augmentation.
Operations of Dworshak, Libby and Albeni Falls, a multipurpose project
on the Pend Oreille River in Idaho, also affect white sturgeon and bull
trout habitat. The twelfth dam is Chief Joseph in the mid-Columbia
River.
The Corps Northwestern Division office in Portland and the Walla
Walla, Portland and Seattle District offices are involved in efforts to
improve conditions for ESA listed aquatic species throughout the
Columbia River Basin.
endangered species act/biological opinions
Although Columbia River Basin returns of adult salmon and steelhead
have been the strongest this year in several decades, overall many
Columbia River Basin fish stocks are in decline. In 1991, NMFS listed
the Snake River sockeye salmon as endangered under the ESA. In 1992,
the Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook salmon were listed as
threatened. USFWS has listed two species of resident fish in the
basin--Kootenai River white sturgeon in September 1994, and bull trout
in June 1998. Over the last several years, nine more Columbia and Snake
River salmon and steelhead stocks have been listed under the ESA,
bringing the total to 12 listed salmon and steelhead stocks within the
basin.
No single factor is solely responsible for the decline of the
salmon, and it will require efforts across all life cycle influences to
restore listed stocks. Recovery efforts must address the following four
life cycle areas, referred to as the All-H's: harvest, habitat,
hatcheries, and the hydropower system. The Corps' primary role in
recovery efforts is to implement measures at its dams and reservoirs to
assist recovery of salmon and steelhead and other listed fish
populations.
The salmon, steelhead, bull trout and sturgeon ESA listings
triggered the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and
USFWS on hydro-system operations and configuration affecting the listed
species. Formal consultation begins with a Biological Assessment from
the ``action'' agencies, i.e., the Corps, Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), and
culminates in hydropower Biological Opinions from the ESA regulatory
agencies. The action agencies are currently operating under 1995
Biological Opinions from NMFS and USFWS and 1998 and 2000 Supplemental
Biological Opinions to address additional salmon and steelhead species
listed since 1995. The Opinions contain measures to avoid jeopardizing
the continued existence of listed salmon, steelhead and white sturgeon
species and to avoid adversely modifying designated critical habitat.
The action agencies transmitted a new Biological Assessment to NMFS
and USFWS in December 1999, because the current Biological Opinions
were written pending results of long-term studies. The 1999 Biological
Assessment addresses proposed operation and identifies studies for
long-term configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS). The Biological Assessment incorporates measures that were put
into place under the 1995 NMFS and USFWS Biological Opinions, a 1998
supplemental, a 1999 Biological Assessment on listed bull trout and
sturgeon, and a 1999 draft Biological Opinion pertaining to listed
Columbia River chum salmon. Both near- and long-term actions intended
to improve fish passage are identified.
Near-term actions include:
Flow augmentation--Release of water from storage or
headwater reservoirs to meet flow targets in the lower river for salmon
and steelhead.
Reservoir operations--Operations of headwater projects to
provide for spawning and recruitment of Kootenai River white sturgeon,
and minimize rapid fluctuation in both reservoirs and unimpounded river
reaches for improved bull trout habitat conditions; and release of
water from Dworshak Dam for temperature control.
Spill measures--Water passed at a dam through a spillway
rather than being sent through the turbines to guide fish away from the
turbines, thereby reducing the percentage of turbine-related mortality.
Fish transportation--Juvenile salmon and steelhead
collected at dam sites on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers and
placed in specially designed barges to be transported down river and
released below Bonneville Dam.
Predator control programs--Programs intended to help
protect juvenile salmon from other species that prey on them, such as
northern pikeminnow and Caspian terns.
Long-term actions in the Biological Assessment include:
Lower Snake River survival improvement study--complete
feasibility level study to analyze alternatives for long-term
configuration and operation of the lower Snake River dams, including
breaching.
Water quality--planned and ongoing studies intended to
improve dissolved gas and temperature conditions.
Passage improvements--continue turbine studies to identify
operational and structural modifications to make turbine passage less
harmful to fish; testing of surface collectors; bypass improvements;
and additional fish transport facilities.
status of biological opinion
Consultations triggered by the 1999 Biological Assessment are
ongoing with NMFS and USFWS and the three action agencies--the Corps,
BPA and BoR. We are currently reviewing the draft Biological Opinions
released July 27, 2000, for 60-day Federal agency, State and Tribal
review. Consultations are addressing long-term operations and
configuration of the FCRPS needed to ensure survival of the listed
stocks throughout the Columbia River Basin. There are still some
measures to be worked further for the final Biological Opinions;
however, we believe that we can reach agreement on most major issues
and overall direction. We anticipate that a series of performance
measures and standards will allow us to judge the success of our
efforts. The measures in the Biological Opinion and the All-H Paper
continue to reflect the need to look beyond the hydrosystem and take
into account actions in all the life-cycle areas.
Consultations on the draft NMFS Biological Opinion are addressing
several major operational and configuration issues, including future
configuration of four Snake River dams, study of potential flood
control modifications, and water quality.
The NMFS July 27, 2000, draft Biological Opinion does not call for
immediate breach of the Lower Snake River dams. Rather, the draft calls
for aggressive actions in the FCRPS to be taken over the next 10 years.
It contains performance measures to be met, with check-ins at certain
points during the 10-year period. If performance measures are not met,
or if listed stocks experience dangerous declines, the agencies would
again consider the question of more drastic measures, such as dam
breach, within the context of actions for all listed salmon and
steelhead stocks throughout the basin. The Corps supports this approach
as long as actions across all H's are considered equally; performance
standards and milestones are realistic; there is an aggressive
monitoring and evaluation program to gauge performance; and, if the
jeopardy standards are not met after the specified period, other hydro
and non-hydroactions would be considered in a reconsultation process.
To minimize startup delay in the event of a lower Snake River dam
breach decision in the future, we continue to work with NMFS on the
timing and appropriate level of effort for engineering and economic
mitigation evaluation.
Current operations of Corps storage reservoirs are conducted to
provide adequate flood control protection. The draft Biological Opinion
calls upon the Corps to conduct a detailed, system wide, multi-year
study of flood control limits to determine whether flexibility exists
for providing additional fish flows by reducing the amount of flood
control storage required. We consider this to be a major undertaking,
and, if included in the final Biological Opinion, we would seek
appropriate congressional approval to begin this study.
The NMFS draft Biological Opinion also specifies measures the
Corps, BoR and BPA could take to preserve and restore habitat in the
Columbia River estuary, in tributaries, and in mainstem areas to
further improve the survival and recovery of listed species in critical
spawning, rearing and estuary stages. We strongly support these actions
as part of an All-H approach to species restoration. The Opinion also
continues to support evaluation of surface bypass systems for juvenile
fish, turbine passage improvements testing, and other advancements in
fish passage technology.
The draft USFWS Biological Opinion requests adjustments to the
operations and ramping rates at Albeni Falls and Libby Dam to balance
needs of listed resident fish (Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull
trout). In addition, USFWS is asking the Corps to continue for the next
6 years a study of alternative pool elevations at Albeni Falls to
increase Kokanee spawning for bull trout food source. This would affect
NMFS operations for salmon. The draft USFWS Biological Opinion also
addresses actions at Libby Dam to allow increased flows to achieve flow
objectives for sturgeon, while controlling additional total dissolved
gas. Several operational measures in the draft Biological Opinions
would require coordination with Canada.
federal caucus and basin-wide recovery strategy
Actions for fish in the hydropower system must be considered in the
broader context of the entire Columbia River Basin, for multiple
species, and across the salmon life-cycle influences. To provide this
broader context, a Federal Caucus is developing a basin-wide strategy
for recovery of Columbia River Basin fish. The Federal Caucus includes
representatives from NMFS, USFWS, BoR, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau
of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, BPA, U.S.
Forest Service, and the Corps.
In December 1999, the Federal Caucus released a draft ``All-H
Paper,'' which laid out options for action in the areas of hydropower,
harvest, hatchery management, and habitat improvements to be integrated
into a comprehensive strategy for recovery of the listed species. Those
options were grouped into the following four alternatives in the draft
All-H Paper for the purpose of stimulating public discussion:
(A) Dam Removal--breach four lower Snake River dams;
(B) Harvest Constraints--retain the lower Snake River dams, limit
salmon harvest, improve habitat, and improve conditions in the
hydropower system;
(C) Aggressive Non-Breach--defer decision on breaching lower Snake
River dams, aggressive actions in other H's; and
(D) Maximum Protections--breach lower Snake River dams, aggressive
actions in other H's.
The All-H Basinwide Strategy is meant to provide a framework for
recovery actions. It is a common Federal approach to look at all
aspects of life cycles in a comprehensive manner. This has created a
context and a common operating concept for Federal agencies to work
with the States and Tribes, to coordinate and collaborate on technical
and policy decisions for Columbia Basin fish recovery. The Federal
agencies have begun a joint consultation with the 13 Columbia River
tribes framed around the All-H Paper as a basis for constructive
discussion.
Following a public comment period and series of public meetings on
the draft All-H Paper, the Federal Caucus prepared a revised paper
which was released for public review on July 27 concurrently with the
draft Biological Opinions. This paper identifies a preferred strategy
of aggressive actions across all life-cycle H's, with a deferred
decision on dam breaching.
lower snake river study
The question of whether to breach four lower Snake River dams has
been a focus in regional discussions concerning recovery of Columbia
Basin stocks, even though such an action would have direct influence on
the recovery of only 4 of the listed 12 salmon and steelhead stocks in
the basin. The Corps of Engineers Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon
Migration Feasibility Study includes evaluation of such an action. This
study was initiated in response to the reasonable and prudent
alternative in the 1995 and later NMFS Biological Opinions to evaluate
long-term alternatives for the four lower Snake River dams.
The primary objective of the lower Snake River study is to develop
a plan to improve migration conditions for salmon and steelhead in the
lower Snake River and to contribute to the recovery of these stocks.
This study addresses the four lower Snake River dams--Ice Harbor, Lower
Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite. It does not address
specific actions on dams and reservoirs on the Columbia River, or other
factors in salmon decline besides operation of these projects. The
geographical scope is the lower Snake River, from its confluence with
the Columbia River extending upstream approximately 140 miles to the
city of Lewiston, ID.
The study examines the following four major alternatives for the
lower Snake River dams:
(1) maintain the existing fish passage system with current and
planned improvements;
(2) maximize transportation of juvenile fish;
(3) make major system improvements such as surface bypass, gas
abatement measures, and turbine passage improvements; and
(4) implement permanent natural river drawdown by breaching the
dams.
In December 1999, the Corps released a draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on these alternatives for public review. In order to
allow all affected parties in the region to address the issues within
the broader context of other ongoing regional efforts for Columbia
River Basin fish, a preferred alternative was not identified in the
draft EIS. In conjunction with the Federal Caucus, the Corps held 15
public meetings in February and March 2000 throughout the region
(Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Alaska).
The Corps continues to progress toward a final EIS. The Corps is
now processing the considerable volume of comments received and is
analyzing the substantive issues raised. At this point in the
evaluation, all four alternatives are still under consideration. The
measures called for in the draft/final Biological Opinions will be a
factor in the Corps' choice of a preferred alternative in the final
EIS. We anticipate that we will have a final EIS with a preferred
alternative identified in March 2001. If the recommendations in the
final EIS and Record of Decision include dam breaching, congressional
authorization and appropriations would be sought.
closing
The successful conclusion of the Biological Opinion consultations
and the integration of the Biological Opinions and the All-H Paper
depend upon the continued coordination and cooperation of the Federal
agencies. We are making good progress. The agencies, of course, have
different and sometimes conflicting views, but we are all committed to
restoring the many stocks of listed Columbia River Basin fish. We look
to the Congress for continued support of these efforts and will
continue to work with you and keep the lines of communication open.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Statement of Judith A. Johansen, Administrator and Chief Executive
Officer, Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my name is
Judi Johansen. I am the administrator and chief executive officer of
the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville). We appreciate this
opportunity to appear today. We also appreciate your and the
committee's continued support and attention to Columbia River Basin
fish and wildlife.
Bonneville is committed to working with the region on a
comprehensive plan for recovering Columbia and Snake River salmon,
steelhead, and resident fish. This is a considerable challenge, a work
still in progress. It requires agreement on common strategies and
actions among Federal, State, and tribal governments. It also requires
concerted effort and partnerships with many different parties in the
basin, some with differing interests and objectives.
Important decisions for fish recovery are coming together now. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) recently issued draft Biological Opinions on long-term
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) to avoid
jeopardy to listed salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and bull trout. At the
same time, nine Federal management agencies, including Bonneville,
released another draft of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, a
document that received extensive public review as the ``All-H Paper''
earlier this year. The Basinwide Recovery Strategy describes general
strategies and specific actions to be taken in habitat, harvest, and
hatcheries (H's), as well as hydro, in order to recover anadromous and
resident stocks. This fall, the Northwest Power Planning Council
(Council) will update its Fish and Wildlife Program, with a major
emphasis on biological objectives and subbasin planning.
All of these processes, and others, must come together to lay the
groundwork for a comprehensive regional plan. If the plan is to be
successful, action must be taken in all of the H's, across the life
stages of the listed stocks. Bonneville, in cooperation with the Corps
of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is
committed to a strong set of hydropower actions to aid in recovery of
listed species. We will continue to implement existing measures for the
FCRPS and will build on these measures with even more aggressive
hydropower improvements. We also intend to expand our efforts to
capture certain ``offsite'' recovery benefits, in the form of habitat
enhancements, hatchery reforms, and support for more selective harvest.
Today, I would like to cover three points about the upcoming
decisions on Columbia River Basin salmon recovery. First, I will
describe the practical measures we intend to implement for Federal
dams. Second, I want to discuss the importance of performance standards
as a tool to ensure that the hydropower system and the other H's
achieve real results. Finally, partnerships among agencies, among
governments, and with the citizens of the region are key to achieving
our goals and recovering the fish. This means not only joint planning
and mutually agreeable solutions, but also appropriate sharing of the
responsibility for funding and implementation.
hydropower improvement measures
There is some good news about the hydropower system and salmon
recovery. Our recent efforts to improve fish survival through the
Federal dams have met with real success. In the 1970's, the survival
rate through mainstem dams was about 30 percent. But since the
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program in the early 1980's and major
investments in fish passage improvements by Federal agencies since
1993, juvenile salmon survival through the eight dams on the Columbia
and Snake Rivers has steadily improved.
Today, according to NMFS data, the juvenile survival rate for Snake
River stocks is about the same as it was in 1960's--before the four
Lower Snake River dams were in place--about 40-60 percent (i.e.,
spring/summer chinook and steelhead hydrosystem survival in the 1960's
was 32 to 56 percent, when four dams were not in place). Four
additional dams were constructed between 1968 and 1975 with survival
estimated during the 1970's typically ranging from 10 to 30 percent.
During the most recent years (1995-1999), spring/summer chinook salmon
survival ranged from 42 to 59 percent. Survival during this recent
period is substantially greater than the 1970's and similar or higher
than levels in the 1960's. The data is from the NMFS White paper on
passage, April 2000. Comparisons for fall chinook survival cannot be
made because of limited data for pre- and post-hydrosystem
construction.
The Federal agencies' consultation on the draft Biological Opinions
led to agreements on management actions that were eventually included
in those draft documents. We used information on biological benefits,
performance standards, and costs to agree on spill levels for this
year's fish migration. These were incorporated into proposed agreements
for future migration seasons in the draft Biological Opinions.
The Federal hydro operators are proposing to take aggressive steps
at the Federal dams to further improve the survival of juvenile and
adult salmon and steelhead through the hydrosystem. These actions will
build on our successes and put more emphasis on accountability and
results.
The measures can be broken down into these categories:
Water management/flows--management of system storage to
provide a more natural river flow in the spring and summer during fish
migration. We will implement flood control adjustments in order to
further minimize risks to resident fish from salmon flows.
Juvenile fish transportation--continued collection and
transportation of fish downriver in barges to avoid mortality at
projects and in reservoirs using a ``spread the risk'' approach and
reduced reliance on trucking for fish transportation.
Improved juvenile fish passage--improved spill management
and other actions at the projects designed to improve juvenile fish
survival as they pass the dams. The FCRPS was derated as a result of
the 1995 NMFS Biological Opinion in order to spill water for fish. The
spill agreements in the new draft Biological Opinions will not result
in a significant additional derating.
Adult passage and research--configuration and research
activities to improve adult passage survival.
Water quality--actions to improve total dissolved gas
levels and water temperature within the mainstem to improve fish
condition.
Mainstem habitat--design and implementation of an
experimental program to improve mainstem habitat.
Predation measures--operations and/or active management of
salmonid predators in the mainstem.
Sturgeon and bull trout--flow and other measures to
contribute to recovery of resident fish.
Running a parallel track to this aggressive strategy--and the other
habitat, harvest, and hatchery improvements contemplated in the
Basinwide Recovery Strategy--would be a commitment from the hydropower
operators to annual and 5-year planning and to rigorous evaluation of
progress being made toward fish recovery.
The measures we are currently taking will not, by themselves, be
enough. Actions must be taken across all the ``H's'' in order for the
region to meet recovery goals. Recent ocean conditions and adult salmon
returns are also encouraging. The tally of adult spring chinook at
Bonneville Dam is the highest since the dam was built in 1938.
Performance standards will play a pivotal role to assure we are
achieving real results. They will be used to determine the success of
our proposed hydropower actions and the success of actions in the other
H's as well.
performance standards
Bonneville has been a continuing advocate for performance standards
for salmon recovery. We believe that scientifically sound performance
standards are the most reliable way to achieve improved survival in
each salmon life stage. A recovery plan based on achievable performance
standards will be more durable in the long term. The hydro operators
worked closely with NMFS and USFWS as well as the Administration on
performance standards for the FCRPS that were included in the draft
Biological Opinions.
Performance standards are scientifically-based, describing the
contribution needed at each life-history stage in order to achieve
overall biological goals and objectives for recovering the fish.
Habitat and hatcheries are important at the egg and smolt-life stage.
Hydro and harvest come more into play in the juvenile and adult life
stages. By looking at the contribution from each life-history stage, we
are also able to assign scientifically-based standards to individual
H's to achieve.
Performance standards provide increased flexibility to tradeoff
among the ``H's,'' which in turn makes the plan more implementable. For
instance, Bonneville and the other operating agencies can fund habitat
improvements that would not otherwise occur as ``offsite mitigation''--
to help meet overall performance standards. A performance standard that
specifies improvements at each dam could equate to the overall survival
rate projected for breaching the four Lower Snake River dams. This
would result in survival rates for listed stocks in both the Snake and
Columbia Rivers that are higher than we have achieved today.
Performance standards could also serve as the yardstick against
which we judge whether more aggressive recovery efforts are needed in
the future. On the other hand, Bonneville believes that, if reasonable
performance standards are set and achieved in each of the four ``H's,''
prospects are good that the stocks could recover without breaching the
four Lower Snake River dams.
That said, we must remember that the science still presents us with
a significant range of uncertainty about which measures will best
recover the stocks. Performance standards must be based on the best
scientific judgment, in the face of these huge uncertainties. However,
in setting standards based on judgments that are to a significant
extent qualitative, we must be prepared to alter course if further
research indicates our assumptions are flawed. The performance
standards incorporated in the draft NMFS Biological Opinion attempt to
reflect a range of assumptions about some key uncertainties. We look
forward to continuing to work with NMFS and the region to further
refine this work.
partnerships within the region
There are many Federal, regional, and tribal government entities
with a part in upcoming decisions about fish recovery: Federal agencies
concerned with anadromous fish and those concerned with resident fish,
Indian tribes, Federal hydro operators, non-Federal dam owners, the
Council appointed by the four State Governors, and Federal land use
agencies, to name a few. For a plan to work, it must bring together the
efforts of all of the government agencies that are working on the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the Council's Fish and Wildlife
Program amendment process, as well as the tribal planning of the 13
Columbia River Basin Tribes. It must bring together plans to recover
all of the 12 listed salmon and steelhead stocks as well as resident
species in the Columbia River Basin.
At the Federal level, Bonneville and eight other Federal action
agencies [the Corps and Reclamation, as well as the NMFS, USFWS, the
U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency] have been
working together to describe a common approach to salmon, steelhead,
and resident fish recovery in the ``Basinwide Recovery Strategy.'' This
coordination of Federal actions and proposals is unprecedented in the
Columbia River Basin.
Of course, we recognize that Federal efforts alone are not enough.
The States and the 13 tribes have important stakes in fish recovery,
too. While Bonneville may be a significant funding source for regional
salmon recovery, the science shows that hydro is only one of the four
H's that must be addressed in order to recover the fish. There will be
a number of other Federal funding components and contributions from
local and State governments that must be part of a regional plan for
recovering species. This must be a true and lasting partnership among
all those with a stake in the region's future.
An important part of our coordination with the region is
Bonneville's close working relationship with the Council. Habitat,
hatchery, and subbasin planning actions are the most promising areas
for enhanced regional cooperation with the Council's Fish and Wildlife
Program.
The Council has proposed to use a subbasin planning approach as a
framework for its upcoming Fish and Wildlife Program amendment process.
Bonneville is very supportive of that approach, and we are encouraging
active links between the habitat approach in the Basinwide Recovery
Strategy and the Council's Program. Federal agencies and the Council
staff are currently exploring several ways to make that happen. These
include:
(1) common templates for subbasin (tributary) assessments and
plans;
(2) common criteria for immediate actions designed to jump start
recovery while planning is underway;
(3) common approaches to enhance estuary and mainstream habitat;
(4) common use of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)
methodology that the Council has undertaken; and
(5) common use of independent science reviews.
Hatchery reforms are also a common interest. The Council's
Artificial Production Review identified key hatchery actions and
criteria for reforms that must be coordinated into any regional
approach to recover the fish.
The goal of these efforts is to have the Council's program bring
unified regional direction for our basin-wide habitat and hatchery
efforts--as well as for our funding priorities. If we are successful in
coordinating our approaches, any habitat and/or hatchery measures in
the Biological Opinions which Bonneville funds will be consistent and
complementary with those that Bonneville funds under the Council's Fish
and Wildlife Program.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Bonneville is committed to action in the hydropower
system that is needed to recover the fish. Today, I have described some
of the essential elements for successful fish recovery in the Columbia
River Basin as we move ahead with Biological Opinions for the
hydropower system and the Basinwide Recovery Strategy. I want to re-
emphasize that the unprecedented coordination among Federal agencies
and the strong partnerships we are building with other governments and
Northwest citizens is fundamental to our success.
In closing, I would like to highlight the fact that the effort to
recover endangered salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest is
different from virtually every other ESA effort in one important
aspect. It is different because most of it is funded, not by taxpayers,
but by Bonneville's customers and ratepayers. We take this
responsibility seriously. As Bonneville has told this subcommittee in
the past, Bonneville is committed to implement and fund our share of a
regional fish and wildlife plan. We have positioned ourselves
financially to perform on that commitment.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention. I welcome any questions
you may have about Bonneville's fish recovery measures.
__________
Statement of David Cottingham, Special Assistant to the Director, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am David Cottingham, Special Assistant
to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate
this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Service
regarding the status of the biological opinions on the operations of
the Federal hydropower system of the Columbia River.
The Service is conducting a consultation on the operations of
federally-owned hydropower facilities on the Columbia, Snake,
Clearwater, and Kootenai Rivers in the Columbia River Basin of the
Pacific Northwest. We are consulting with the following action
agencies: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power
Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation. At issue are the effects
of operating the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on the
endangered Kootenai River sturgeon, threatened bull trout, and, to a
limited degree, the threatened bald eagle.
The Service received two Biological Assessments from the action
agencies in June 1999 and in December 1999. Those documents described
the operations proposed for the Federal hydropower facilities. Since
that time we have been working closely with the action agencies and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to complete this consultation.
Several coordination meetings were held in the spring of 2000 between
representatives of the action agencies, the Service and NMFS. We shared
a preliminary draft biological opinion with these agencies in May 2000.
Comments on the preliminary draft opinion were received in June 2000.
The draft opinion was released to States and tribes for comment on July
27, 2000.
Throughout this process, an emphasis has been placed on discussion
of key issues, including minimization of adverse effects to sturgeon
and bull trout from the FCRPS operations in the Upper Columbia River.
Our draft opinion requests adjustments to the operations and ramping
rates at Hungry Horse, Libby, and Albeni Falls dams. We are also asking
the Army Corps of Engineers to continue to study alternative pool
elevations at Albeni Falls to increase Kootenai River sturgeon spawning
for bull trout food source. The draft opinion also addresses actions at
Libby Dam to allow increased flows to achieve flow objectives for
sturgeon, while controlling additional total dissolved gas.
The Service has worked closely with NMFS throughout this process to
ensure that the FCRPS operations to benefit sturgeon and bull trout do
not conflict with those for salmon or steelhead.
The current schedule includes receiving comments on the ``All H''
paper (hydropower, hatcheries, habitat and harvest issues), and the
draft opinions of the Service and the NMFS in late September 2000.
These documents are now available for review by States, tribes, and
other affected entities. We will then complete the opinion and
accompanying documents as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to
answer any questions you and members of the committee may have.
__________
Statement of J. William McDonald, Regional Director, Pacific Northwest
Region Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Bill McDonald,
Regional Director of Reclamation's Pacific Northwest (PN) region. I
appreciate your invitation to testify concerning the draft biological
opinions issued in July 2000 by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the operation of the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and the Federal Caucus
Draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for the
operation of 2 of the 14 Federal hydropower facilities of the FCRPS
that are the subject of these consultations. Reclamation's FCRPS
facilities are Hungry Horse Dam and Powerplant in Montana and Grand
Coulee Dam and Powerplant in Washington. In addition to its two FCRPS
projects, Reclamation operates and maintains 29 other projects in the
Columbia River Basin, some of which include power plants and/or provide
local flood control benefits but which are not operated or coordinated
as part of the FCRPS. All 31 Reclamation projects are authorized to
provide water for irrigated agriculture.
Reclamation is one of the three Federal action agencies that will
be directly affected by the biological opinions. Reclamation also is
participating with eight other Federal agencies in the development of
the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, a conceptual multispecies
recovery plan. The scientific underpinnings of the conceptual recovery
plan provided the basis of NMFS' draft biological opinion on the
operation of the FCRPS and Reclamation's projects. I will limit my
remarks to actions Reclamation is called upon to take in the draft
biological opinions.
The NMFS draft biological opinion calls upon Reclamation to take
certain actions as part of a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA)
to avoid jeopardy to salmon and steelhead. These actions can generally
be grouped in three categories:
(1) modification of FCRPS reservoir operations,
(2) water acquisitions for instream flow augmentation, and
(3) offsite mitigation for tributary habitat improvements. The FWS
draft biological opinion also calls for certain FCRPS reservoir
operation modifications.
Proposed actions in the RPA would require Reclamation to change its
reservoir operations, primarily at Hungry Horse and Grand Coulee.
Storage from Hungry Horse Reservoir and Lake Roosevelt (which is
impounded by Grand Coulee Dam) would be utilized as primary sources of
flow augmentation water to improve conditions for migrating salmon and
steelhead in the lower reaches of the Columbia River. In particular,
Lake Roosevelt, as the largest water storage reservoir in the Columbia
River system, is called upon to provide a significant amount of the
water for flow augmentation. Storage at Hungry Horse Reservoir would
also be utilized to increase minimum flows below the dam to improve
instream conditions for bull trout as called for by the FWS draft
biological opinion.
The purpose of the proposed operational modifications in the NMFS
RPA is to secure seasonal water to help meet flow targets for several
listed species of migrating adult and juvenile salmon at downstream
locations on the Columbia River. The operational modifications at
Hungry Horse and Grand Coulee will change the timing of water storage,
reservoir drawdown levels, and the scheduling of water releases as
compared to historic reservoir operations. The scheduling changes will
require that accommodations be made throughout the system to meet
demands for power production and flood control; consequently, system-
wide operational modifications are built into the RPA to accommodate
these needs.
Although the operational modifications can be accommodated on a
system-wide basis, there will be localized impacts. Among the impacts
is a deeper drawdown of Lake Roosevelt surface elevations during July
and August of low flow years. The RPA also calls for additional drafts
at Banks Lake (an off-stream storage reservoir that delivers irrigation
water to the Columbia Basin Project). Reclamation has not yet initiated
the studies needed to assess the extent of the impacts or to determine
appropriate mitigation actions.
The proposed RPA also directs Reclamation to continue flow
augmentation in the lower Snake River by providing water from its
storage facilities in the upper Snake River basin by annually providing
427,000 acre feet of water from its storage facilities in the upper
Snake River basin from willing sellers consistent with State water law.
NMFS' 1995 FCRPS Biological Opinion likewise called on Reclamation to
provide 427,000 acre-feet of water annually from the upper Snake River.
The water was to be obtained in accordance with State water law and
from willing sellers. Reclamation has, in fact, provided that water
every year since 1993 by working with the State of Idaho to release
augmentation flow water from uncontracted storage space, through leases
from the State water bank, and through purchased (or buy-back) of
contracted storage space.
In addition, the draft NMFS biological opinion proposes that
Reclamation will undertake ``offsite mitigation'' actions by addressing
instream habitat issues in 16 of the Columbia Basin's 53 subbasins,
many of which do not have an authorized Reclamation project. The RPA
action calls for screening diversions, removing or modifying instream
barriers to fish migration, and acquiring water for instream flows.
While Reclamation has successfully provided fish migration benefits in
the Umatilla and Yakima River basins where we have site-specific
authority, we need additional authority to construct or fund
construction of such facilities at non-Reclamation projects on a
broader scale. We look forward to working with the Congress, the
Northwest States, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, on this and other
related programs.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND THE DRAFT BASINWIDE
SALMON RECOVERY STRATEGY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 1:05 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
I thank you ladies and gentleman for appearing today for
the second day of this subcommittee's hearing to examine the
draft biological opinion and the draft recovery strategy for
anadromous fish.
If I could summarize the testimony that we heard yesterday,
to me it is that these Federal documents are deficient, both in
terms of the process used to develop them, and the products,
themselves. The representatives from the Federal Caucus even
admitted that there were certain deficiencies that they hoped
to correct before the biological opinion becomes final within
the next few months.
As I see it, this draft biological opinion appears to be an
incremental creeping policy initiative that will not solve the
problem with the fish, but, instead, will steadily erode State
and tribal sovereignty. This document must be improved before
it becomes final, and I urge the Federal Caucus to use the next
few months wisely to work more collaboratively with the region
and to get this right.
Today's witnesses will offer us a detailed examination of
how these draft documents came about and how they can be
improved. As I have said, we will have more hearings in the
future, including field hearings in the Pacific Northwest,
where we will hear from many more interests and individuals,
and I intend to include the technical Federal representatives
at that time for a further, more in-depth discussion of these
proposals.
It is very clear that not everyone who wanted to testify
was able to be here during these 2 days of hearings. We will
make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be fully heard on
these issues as we proceed.
As I did yesterday, I will again remind the witnesses that
we have a 5-minute rule for the oral testimony presentation,
and we encourage you to, as strictly as you can, follow that.
The green light will be on for 4 minutes. The yellow light will
be on when 1 minute remains. And then the red light means that
the time has expired and we encourage you to wrap up your
thought at that point.
As I usually say at these hearings, it is very likely that
you won't be finished saying what it is that you wanted to say
when the red light goes on, and I encourage you to recognize
that we have your written testimony and it will be carefully
reviewed and there will be an opportunity for questions and
answers where you will be able to add more elaboration to
comments that you may not have been able to make in your oral
presentation. We encourage you to pay attention to the lights.
I also often usually say, if you are like me and sometimes
forget to watch the lights and you start going over too long,
I'll rap the gavel a little bit just to remind you that it is
time to wrap up.
We would like to begin with the first panel. The first
panel consists of: Mr. Nick Bouwes of the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife; Mr. Ed Bowles of the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game; Mr. Keith Kutchins, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes;
and Mr. Earl Weber of the Columbia River's Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission.
Gentlemen, we welcome you with us today. We will go in the
order that I announced your names. I guess we'll start over
here with Mr. Bouwes. Please feel free to proceed.
STATEMENT OF NICK BOUWES, BIOMETRICIAN, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Bouwes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nick
Bouwes, and I am representing the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. I'm a fish population analyst that has worked on the
regional collaborative process known as PATH, intended to
provide the scientific support for the operation of the Federal
Columbia River power system, to be described in NMFS' 1999
biological opinion.
As you know, the biological opinion was delayed until this
year. During this 1-year delay, NMFS has established within
their agency a new analytical approach, the cumulative risk
initiative, or CRI.
My comments today are directed toward the analytical
components of the draft biological opinion, which now relies
solely on this new CRI process for listed Snake River stocks.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is concerned
that the biological opinion underestimates the true risk to
these stocks. First off, we believe NMFS has set the standard
too low of what constitutes a risk of extinction. NMFS defines
extinction of a population as ``one fish returning over a 5-
year period.'' In reality, populations are effectively extinct
at much greater spawner numbers. As a population becomes small,
whole hosts of problems occur, such as spawners are unable to
find a mate or the occurrence of in-breeding, and the
population enters what is termed an ``extinction vortex.''
NMFS is fully aware of this threshold and has developed a
framework that describes the minimum viable salmonid
population, which they term VSP. If any other alternative
thresholds evaluated by NMFS were used, risk to these stocks
would be much greater.
Also, the draft biological opinion assumes mortality due to
the dams and reservoirs on migrating juvenile salmon only occur
in the hydrosystem. It is reasonable to expect that young
salmon die after the stressful experience of passing through
eight dams and migrating through eight slow-water reservoirs.
This stress will decrease their ability to forage efficiently,
avoid predators, and fight diseases, and to cope with the
transition from fresh water to salt water.
This mortality that happens outside the hydrosystem, but
occurs only because of a fish's experience in the hydrosystem
is termed ``delayed mortality.'' Direct evidence indicates it
exists, and indirect evidence suggests that it is substantial.
The draft biological opinion assumes it does not exist.
These are just some of the assumptions NMFS has chosen to
describe an optimistic view of the risk to these stocks. What
is the result of not adequately capturing the risk to these
stocks? Well, this means the bar has been set too low, and,
therefore, mitigation responsibilities to clear that bar or to
ensure the survival of these stocks is much less than is truly
needed.
The result is NMFS' analysis suggests that only a 20- to
30-percent survival improvement for Snake River spring/summer
chinook is needed to ensure the survival of these stocks in 24
years, in contrast to the greater than 280 percent increase
estimated by PATH, an order of magnitude difference.
Also, we believe expected survival improvements from NMFS'
proposed management action, or the RPA, is too optimistic. The
expected improvement in juvenile survival is optimistic because
it is based on recent well-above-average run-off years. The
biological opinion assumes this improvement equates to recent
improvements in the hydrosystem that will be realized forever.
The RPA is assumed to reduce adult losses in the river by
25 percent. This large benefit is not supported by any
information or analysis.
Any other survival improvements needed to avoid jeopardy is
assumed to occur from offsite mitigation that is also not
supported by data or any analysis of feasible improvements. It
is simply assumed possible.
As I think other panel members will testify, it is unlikely
that these actions will have an immediate impact in the Snake
River stock.
The perilous state of ESA stocks is real. Last year, in two
of the Snake River spring/summer chinook indicators stocks that
spawn in wilderness areas, zero fish returned. We may have
already lost Snake River sockeye, and coho have gone extinct in
the Snake River Basin since efforts have been made to mitigate
for Snake River dams.
In our opinion, the draft biological opinion does not use
the best available scientific information to determine the
management actions most likely to recover listed stocks. The
determination of no jeopardy was based only on the most
optimistic assumptions about the risk to these stock and
survival improvements expected under the RPA.
Assumptions were not chosen by the weight of evidence, nor
in the absence of evidence were they conservative, i.e., they
don't avoid placing undue risk on listed stocks.
Finally, we do not believe the biological opinion
adequately anticipates and has prepared an alternative action
that can be immediately implemented if, at the end of the
interim period, the current RPA has failed.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Bouwes.
Mr. Bowles.
STATEMENT OF ED BOWLES, ANADROMOUS FISH MANAGER, IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, BOISE, ID
Mr. Bowles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ed Bowles.
I am the anadromous fish manager for Idaho Department of Fish
and Game. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the draft
hydrosystem BIOP and recovery strategy. These Federal documents
will dictate recovery efforts, and thus profoundly affect the
very existence and future of wild salmon and steelhead in the
Snake River Basin.
In my professional judgment, the current Federal approach
is destined for failure on several fronts.
First, its characterization of extinction risks and
conservation opportunities is not scientifically defensible.
Second, too much of the hydrosystem's conservation burden
is shifted to other sectors which are unable to shoulder this
burden.
Third, specific actions and their feasibility of adding up
to recovery are not identified.
Fourth, a check point system is established that basically
leaves the breach decision up to the whims of nature.
This is a recipe for failure, with significant ecological,
social, and economic consequences.
In the midst of all the debate on Snake River fish, it is
easy to lose sight of what is not disputed. There is general
agreement that runs in the 1960's were sustainable and
relatively stable; that fish declined rapidly following
completion of the main stem dams; that dams played a
significant role in this decline; that stocks are still
imperiled; that smolt transportation and flow augmentation have
been the centerpiece of efforts to compensate for the dams; and
that the overall downward trend has not reversed, although
there have been welcome pauses during favorable environmental
conditions.
So the dams were a significant factor in the decline of the
fish, and management actions have failed to reverse this
decline. Based on these facts, the obvious conclusion is that
smolt transportation, flow augmentation, and other measures
failed to fix the problem.
To conclude otherwise, there has to be compelling evidence
that the benefits are real, but other recent factors mask these
benefits. This is the key science question.
As detailed in my written testimony, the weight of
scientific evidence does not indicate the dams have been fixed
but the benefits masked.
NMFS has failed to scientifically counter this block of
evidence, failed to demonstrate the evidence supporting their
view, nor allowed additional collaborative analysis.
All the salmon managers in the basin except NMFS believe
the hydrosystem is still the primary problem and should be the
focus of recovery efforts.
In spite of this information, the draft BIOP and recovery
strategy represents a fundamental shift to a diminished role of
the main stem hydrosystem and a heightened role of habitat,
hatcheries, and flow augmentation. Conservation opportunities
and the other H's cannot make up for the impacts of the main
stem hydrosystem. The numbers simply do not add up.
This is not to say that tributary and estuary habitat
improvement, predator control, selective fisheries and
conservation hatcheries are not important. In fact, their
importance increases the closer our fish get to extinction, but
the conservation burden of those sectors must be kept in
perspective.
To be scientifically defensible, the BIOP needs to be
corrected. The BIOP uses a series of optimistic assumptions,
resulting in less risk of extinction. This results in
relatively little survival improvement required to avoid
jeopardy.
In spite of these optimistic assumptions, the hydrosystem
measures in the BIOP just barely avoid jeopardy for some stocks
and fail to avoid jeopardy for others; thus, the shift to other
H's to make up the difference. In other words, all the key
optimistic assumptions have to be true just to get to no
jeopardy. Even if one is wrong, the house of cards falls.
Nearly all of theses assumptions are questioned by State,
tribal, and Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries scientists.
The weaknesses of the Federal documents can be easily
corrected, but only through scientific collaboration, which is
currently lacking. Collaboration will focus the BIOP back on
the hydrosystem and allow managers to pursue the best possible
measures within established policy constraints.
If the breach decision is deferred, the Governors'
recommendations do a better job of keeping the primary sources
of discretionary mortality in focus, and embracing a conceptual
approach to attempt to address these problems prior to
breaching dams.
As described by Governor Kempthorne yesterday, these
actions should include immediate reduction of predators in the
estuaries, more spill at main stem dams, better bypass systems,
improved turbine design, more flexible flood control
operations, and more-
selective fishing techniques.
We have the bookends fairly well defined for what is
possible under current dam configurations and operations. When
environmental conditions favor the fish, the fish can hold
their own and even rebuild slightly. When nature throws a
curve, the fish slip rapidly toward extinction. On average, the
trend is downward.
We are currently seeing the benefits of high natural runoff
coupled with good ocean conditions. This has provided a welcome
respite the fish desperately needed. As long as these
conditions persist, I believe there may be time to pursue truly
aggressive non-breach alternatives built on the foundation of
the Governors' recommendations. If environmental conditions
deteriorate, decision-makers should be ready for emergency
actions, including reconsideration of the natural river option.
The draft hydrosystem BIOP and recovery strategy are not
currently constructive in this effort, but they can be. If the
scientific errors and omissions are corrected through
collaboration, the conservation burden refocused on the
hydrosystem, and truly aggressive actions put in place within
all the appropriate sectors, then I believe the BIOP and
recovery strategy can be better set up for success.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Kutchins.
STATEMENT OF KEITH KUTCHINS, ANADROMOUS FISH BIOLOGIST,
SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, FT. HALL, ID
Mr. Kutchins. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Keith Kutchins, anadromous fisheries biologist for the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
I have reviewed the draft documents and am deeply concerned
that they fail to rely on the simple scientific facts that are
evident to a vast array of scientists. The simple science of
observing salmon Redds and juvenile fish densities show that
the listed Snake River spring/summer chinook and steelhead
populations continue on a downward path.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are very concerned that the
NMFS concludes there have been improvements to the hydrosystem
in the past 5 years. Why aren't we seeing any results of those
improvements in the Salmon River?
I spend many weeks of each year working in the river. We
repeatedly invite NMFS staff and decisionmakers to visit the
headwaters, but they have yet to join us. They are not intimate
with the waters they are making decisions on.
The egg-to-smolt survival rates in these headwaters have
not decreased in the past 25 years; however, the smolt-to-adult
survival rates have plunged dramatically. Computer models are
misused when they deny these simple observations.
The NMFS is wrong when they conclude that the greatest
opportunities for survival improvements of listed Snake River
salmon may hinge on efforts to restore the health of the Snake
River tributaries. I am not denying there are problems in these
tributaries. For example, we've repeatedly reported dewaterings
in the Lemhi River and other smaller tributaries as violations
of the ESA. However, fixing these problems might only be enough
to stop the declines of listed fish and will not recover the
runs.
Ocean conditions have recently improved, but only ocean
harvest rates are within the immediate control of man.
Harvest rates that exceed 10 percent on under-escaped runs
of Snake River fall chinook and steelhead are inconsistent with
conservation principles applied to other stocks.
The NMFS is wrong to conclude that the only roles for
hatcheries are to prevent negative effects on wild fish and to
conserve wild fish. Yes, these are good roles for hatcheries,
but another very important role of hatcheries is to recover
listed fish populations.
The NMFS is wrong to use genetics as the over-riding factor
to impeded tribal supplementation actions. The NMFS needs to
incorporate the use of hatcheries to recover listed populations
rather than only using hatcheries as a conservation tool to
prevent extinction.
This year, many Salmon River spring and summer chinook
returned to the Rapid River and South Fork Salmon River
Hatcheries, and sports harvests occurred alongside treaty
fisheries directly below those hatcheries. Thousands of surplus
hatchery salmon were trapped at the hatcheries and trucked back
down multiple times so that the fish could swim through the
fisheries over and over again in order to increase their
chances of being caught. The ``biologists'' used the fishermen
to club these fish, wasting hundreds of thousands of viable and
valuable eggs. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes objected to this
recycling and proposed that these surplus fish instead be
transplanted into other Salmon River areas to spawn.
However, the NMFS determined that these surplus Salmon
River fish were genetically unfit to be used in other Salmon
River areas. The NMFS theories on salmon genetics prevent using
abundant, available, and appropriate donor brood stocks from
being used to recover listed fish.
I have already provided some detail in my written testimony
that explains our concerns about the new and seemingly ever-
changing science that the NMFS is now using for the
hydrosystem.
The settlement of the Idaho v. NMFS lawsuit established a
robust scientific process called PATH in order to continue the
efforts to resolve uncertainties that remained in 1995.
Yesterday, we heard that PATH was recently replaced because the
uncertainties in the PATH assumptions are not going to be
resolved.
The CRI is even less robust and more uncertain than the
PATH, plus, the CRI is not a product of a legal settlement. The
newly proposed BIOP does not define what we are measuring in
order to determine in 5, 8, or 10 years if there has been a
change in the jeopardy or how we will determine if the
reasonable and prudent alternative is succeeding in recovering
the listed fish.
The new BIOP and recovery strategies call for breaching the
four lower Snake River dams and should also recommend an
immediate moratorium on any non-breaching capital investments
of those four dams, because those expenditures will end up
being wasted.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes stated this many years and
several hundreds of millions dollars ago. Those dollars have
failed to reverse the decline of the listed Snake River fish.
We hear that barging smolts results in 97 percent survival
through the hydrosystem. This estimate does not include the
potentially high delayed mortality rates. There has yet to be a
transportation to in-river survival benefit ratio test that
compares transportation to in-river survival. The tests have
only compared transportation to in-reservoir and through-dams
survival, which greatly underestimates a truly in-river
survival rate.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe in ecosystem-based
approaches to salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin. What
is done for one native species should not hurt another native
species.
In summary, the PATH concluded that the benefits from
breaching the four lower Snake River dams are more certain than
non-breaching alternatives. The NMFS has boldly rejected that
science and concludes there is significant uncertainty with
breaching the four lower Snake River dams.
I do not believe that this change is adaptive management,
but instead reflects a serious flaw in the scientific process.
My suspensions are piqued because of repeated NMFS opinions and
actions that do what is politically feasible rather than doing
what the fish need. To the best of my knowledge, the NMFS does
not have any mandate to do what is politically feasible. With
all due respect, it is my understanding that doing what is
politically feasible is a congressional duty.
Thank you, Chairman Crapo and the subcommittee, for letting
us testify.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Kutchins.
Mr. Weber.
STATEMENT OF EARL WEBER, FISHERIES SCIENTIST, COLUMBIA RIVER
INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Earl Weber. I am a fisheries scientist with the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. I was the lead
scientists for the tribes on PATH until it was recently
mothballed.
I want to start by sharing my concerns, particularly from
the analytical point of view, with the NMFS process, but I
don't want to dwell on model outputs because it has been our
experience that the CRI model would behave similar to the PATH
model given similar input assumptions.
I want to discuss today, particularly, what I consider the
two fundamental assumptions that are the mainstays of the
current BIOP. One is that transportation is mitigating for or
is capable of mitigating for the hydropower losses, and the
second one is that substantial increases in the other H's are
possible.
Let me begin with transportation. There is no dispute that
transported fish are surviving at levels well below that needed
to sustain survival. I have blown up here a graphic from my
testimony that shows that survival of transported wild spring/
summer chinook salmon from Lower Granite Dam back to Lower
Granite Dam--it's called smolt-to-adult returns. The graphic
shows different kinds of tagging types, and also shows a 2- to
6-percent goal established by PATH. Notice that the survival
rarely, if ever, meets the lowest part of the goal. The solid
circles going along the right side of the axis, kind of
bouncing along the X axis, are from PIT tag data.
For those 9 years, the latest 9 years for which we have PIT
tag data, the fish survived, on average, at less than a half a
percent. In other words, they would need a fourfold increase to
meet the lower survival goal. That is approximately an
eightfold increase needed to reach the recovery goal.
Now, we in PATH allowed for the fact that there could be
some alternative explanation masking what would otherwise be a
successful transportation program. That's not a problem. The
problem is that, to date, in the past 5 years, no one has been
able to describe a biological mechanism that would explain why
Snake River fish collapsed while down-river stocks continued to
maintain healthy runs.
NMFS will point to genetic differences or ocean cycles.
First of all, the genetic differences are slight, and I think
they depend on whether you are a ``splitter'' or a ``lumper''
or whether you could say there's genetic differences at all.
But, more importantly, genetic differences do not kill the
fish. What kills fish is starvation, predation, or disease.
I think it is important to note that both the Snake River
stocks and the downriver controls occupy the same ocean areas,
roughly from northern California to the Gulf of Alaska. There
they feed on basically upwelling gyres that bring nutrient-rich
water to the surface and provide a food base. These fish, both
stocks, up-river and downriver stocks, or substocks, have been
doing this since they speciated approximately 12 million years
ago.
I believe it is unrealistic to assume that suddenly in the
1960's and 1970's, as the dams were built, that the Snake River
stock suddenly became unable to find food, whereas the
downriver stocks continued to be able to.
It is equally unlikely that after 12 million years the
Snake River stocks encountered some kind of previously
unencountered predator and the lower river stocks did not.
A third, disease, is likely. In fact, NMFS published a
report in 1989 linking the decrease in survival with injury and
stress due to collection transportation and BKD--bacterial
kidney disease--which is ever present.
If NMFS now thinks that there is a more robust hypothesis,
they should share it.
I don't mean to say that there are no such things as ocean
cycles, but if there were ocean cycles that are causing these
declines, it should be simple for scientists to look back in
the record and see if we've experienced these declines in the
past. We hav looked at that, and they haven't.
With regard to the other H's, let me briefly say that there
is certainly room for improvement in habitat in the Snake River
Basin, but there is also pristine habitat in Marsh Creek and
Sulfur Creek, both of which have had zero returns in recent
years.
There are no hatcheries in four of the seven Snake River
indicator stocks, including Marsh Creek and Sulfur Creek.
Obviously, poor hatchery management is not the cause of the
declines.
Harvest rates are very low. I think everyone is in
agreement that harvest will not recover these stocks.
Just by way of a brief conclusion, I think that it is safe
to say that we in PATH would not have come to the conclusions
we came to without some pretty hard evidence, and I think that
there is also very good reasons why the ISG called their
report, ``Return to the River.''
Finally, there is good reasons why the Idaho chapter of the
American Fisheries Society, the Oregon chapter of the American
Fisheries Society, as well as the western division of the
American Fisheries Society, have all passed resolutions calling
for breaching.
With that, I will thank you and look forward to any
questions you have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Bowles, since you are from Idaho, I guess you get
either the benefit or the burden of the first rounds of
questions. I'm going to start with you.
Could you tell me whether there has been collaboration
between your agency and the Federal Caucus agencies in the
development of this biological opinion?
Mr. Bowles. Mr. Chairman, they initially started out with
what I consider a good model for collaboration after the IDFG
v. NMFS decisions in the early 1990's, but since PATH was
discontinued and we have a new analysis coming out that
provides the main basis for the scientific foundation of these
documents--it's called CRI--there has been very little
scientific collaboration, and those efforts that we have taken
to try to influence that analysis and provide our input have
been not well received and not really a forum to do that.
So the State of Idaho has tried on several occasions, both
formally and informally, to have scientific meetings and
others, and we really appreciate that effort, but they haven't
provided much fruitage, because what we have right now is a
situation where you have information put out on the web or
reports put out or other things like that that we are there to
comment on, but we aren't an integral part, us or the other
State and tribal salmon managers, aren't a part of actually
developing the methodologies and analyzing the results. We are
basically there to critique, and that's not a healthy forum for
collaborative analysis. It doesn't provide ownership and it
doesn't make use of all of our collective expertise. Quite
frankly, it runs risk then of institutional bias because we
don't have the safety protections of a number of us all working
together.
Senator Crapo. Yesterday the Federal agencies--or NMFS, I
believe it was--testified that since the fall of 1999 that they
had a true collaborative process and effort underway. I would
like to ask you sort of a bifurcated question, and I am going
to ask each of the other members of the panel this same type of
question, so please be thinking about this.
It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that the fall of
1999 is basically when they surfaced again at having scrapped
the PATH model and developed the CRI model, and basically in
secret, as I see it. I know that wasn't entirely in secret, but
with very little collaboration.
So the question I have for you is: am I right on my
timeframes? From about somewhere in 1998 through about the fall
of 1999, what was the situation like in terms of collaboration?
Mr. Bowles. Prior to, as you characterize it, Mr. Chairman,
as the resurfacing, there was no collaboration or any contact,
so to speak, that I am aware of, but after that time then the
collaboration was, I guess, NMFS' definition of collaboration,
which is put the results on a web page and hold workshops of
your results and let people see that and critique it, but not
provide any opportunity to work together on both methodologies
and analyses, which provide the foundation of the results.
So you end up from the outside looking in trying to
influence a process that has already, quite frankly, been
largely completed. In my mind, that is not collaboration.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I just want to start with you, Mr. Bouwes, and then I'll
just get to each of the other witnesses. I would like you to
respond to the same issue. Do you feel that there has been
collaboration between your agency or your interests and the
Federal Caucus on the development of this draft biological
opinion? What is your opinion of whatever collaborative efforts
you are experiencing?
Mr. Bouwes. I guess the way I would define collaboration is
that we're all full and equal partners in evaluating the
factors responsible for the decline of these stocks, and then
evaluating the alternative management actions that would
recover these stocks.
That was what PATH was intended to be, so in that sense
PATH was used in--we were a collaborator in PATH with National
Marine Fisheries Service. However, with the cumulative risk
initiative, using my definition of collaboration, I do not
believe that we were considered partners, full and equal
partners in that process.
The initial process was developed and then they had a
workshop in the fall of 1999, but it took about 8 months to get
to that period.
We were allowed to come to this workshop, but I remember I
asked a question at this workshop and the response was, ``Well,
we're not here to answer questions.'' To me, that's really not
a definition of collaboration.
We have tried to point out the deficiencies in their model.
We have taken a very hard look at their model. To my knowledge,
they've only incorporated a couple of minor fixes to their
model, but the main problems that we have to the model have not
been incorporated, so I would not consider that a
collaborative--that we were in collaboration with National
Marine Fisheries Service on the cumulative risk initiative.
That's the only process for Snake River stocks that has been
used in the biological opinion.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Kutchins.
Mr. Kutchins. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It appears that perhaps collaboration is synonymous with
consultation. From the tribal perspective, tribes have been
asking for consultation. Consultation means it's not just
notification, but it is a genuine effort where you work
together at the technical level to come to agreement on
whatever you are doing, and that way your policy decisionmakers
have good, solid information upon which to make their
decisions. They will know where there is agreement and where
there is disagreement.
I completely agree with what other panelists have said.
NMFS' definition of collaboration appears to be notification.
As a matter of fact, somewhere around July 1999 when the PATH
made their last report and it was more or less rejected by
NMFS, and then in the Fall of 1999, the Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority worked together--that's all 13 tribes, four
States, and two Feds--to do what we called the CAT. It was a
Collaborative Analytical Team. I was on that work group.
We kind of saw where something was happening to PATH, it's
being rejected. I was under a lot of angst because I kind of
thought PATH was almost like a court order from the Idaho v.
NMFS lawsuit.
In this CAT we tried to come up with a process, anyway, so
that we could all collaboratively work together toward a new
analytical tool. There's more listings. There's 12 species
instead of 4. It's a bigger picture than just the Snake River,
so maybe the PATH wasn't enough. But, even the CAT then went
and just disappeared.
Basically, to be blunt, it seemed like it was wrestled away
from us by the NMFS and their science group, and along comes
CRI, and we are all trying to scramble to catch up and get on
their website and find out what it was, so there was no
collaboration in terms of us all working together to develop
this tool.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I guess my view on this would be that
PATH was continuing to operate until early this year. In July
1999, NMFS had a workshop where they introduced their CRI
initiative, which had been underway by different members of
NMFS--different from the ones that were involved in the PATH
process.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Mr. Weber. There were perhaps a half dozen NMFS scientists
from time to time involved in the PATH process.
What the Science Center did was hire individuals from
outside of the basin to do a fairly simple model. They wanted a
simple model and, frankly, they got a simple model. The problem
is that it is somewhat inadequate. I think that would show up
had some peer review been built into the process.
Unfortunately, when they--I won't say they unplugged PATH.
It wasn't quite that sudden. But when they put the brakes on
PATH and eventually defunded it, they didn't just take funding
away from State and tribal scientists, they also took funding
away from the facilitator that we had had for 5 years, they
took funding away from three technical advisors that had been
instrumental in the process and, in fact, had developed the
PATH model. They took funding away from the Scientific Review
Panel that was very familiar with all the documents that had
been written by PATH over the years--a fairly substantial
amount. It doesn't look like much when it is on a CD, but there
was a stack of papers perhaps a foot high.
These folks were all very familiar with that process, and
they disappeared along with us, with the State and tribal
scientists. What we were left with is, as my colleagues have
mentioned, kind of a situation where we were on the outside
with our noses pressed to the window, and on paper, at least,
given an opportunity to comment, but, in fact, most of our
comments, and, in fact, even when we have reconstructed their
model to show how we think it should be, how it would best
incorporate best available data, our comments have been largely
ignored.
So I think that is the situation we have now.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
From your testimony and the testimony that we heard
yesterday from others, as well as from input that has been
provided to me consistently over the last couple of years, it
continues to me to seem to be very evident that there was no
real collaboration going on and that, frankly, most of the
other fisheries scientists who had been a part of the process
up until approximately 1998 were out of the process.
What I have been hearing is not only did the opportunity
for this hands-on collaboration not take place, but, as you
just said, Mr. Weber, and others, and others yesterday even
more strongly, even when input was provided in some context,
over the website or in other contexts, it doesn't appear to
have been considered or to have had any effect, and no one
knows for sure whether it was considered and rejected or not
considered or what, because it is just difficult to know how we
got to this point because it has been such a closed process.
That being the case, now that the proposed biological
opinion or the draft biological opinion is out, I now hear
repeatedly, as has been testified to by every member on this
panel, that this draft biological opinion is seriously flawed,
both in terms of process and the product delivered.
Ed, I'm going to direct a question to you related to this.
If there is any good news, it is that the draft biological
opinion isn't yet final, and yesterday National Marine
Fisheries Service very directly said that they were willing to
use the next 3\1/2\ months or whatever time they had to
seriously and meaningfully engage in collaboration and try to
fix what these flaws that have been perceived are.
They also said, however, that they were going to stick with
their science unless their science was rejected or somehow
shown to be not adequate. So I'm not sure exactly what it was
that they're saying the ultimate outcome is going to be here in
terms of willingness to address differences in the approaches
considered.
But, Ed, the question I have for you--and I may ask the
others to briefly respond to this, as well--is, we've got 3\1/
2\ months, essentially, given the timeframe that NMFS has
talked about. Assuming that NMFS follows through on its
commitment yesterday to meaningfully and aggressively engage in
collaboration to try to address perceived flaws in the
biological opinion, what would you recommend that could be done
in the next few months that would make the biological opinion
more scientifically defensible and, therefore, more legally
defensible?
Mr. Bowles. Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question, and
that's right kind of at the nugget of the issue, because I
think all of us here share a desire to have a good biological
opinion, one that is sound biologically and that is progressive
from a management standpoint.
The first piece of that is to get it right. I don't think
any of us--and I am not saying that that automatically means
NMFS has to embrace my science. That's not what collaboration
is. We first have to get back to the table to work out the
differences that have come up through joint analysis, as well
as peer review, to help us on some of the things that we can't
agree on, independent sort of look.
This doesn't take long, because you can take a look at the
evidence that is already available, look at that evidence and
look at the weight of that evidence in the context of the
decisions being made, and that sort of analysis does not
require a long time. It just requires us getting our heads
together.
In my mind, in order for the BIOP to be scientifically
defensible--and I put this in my written testimony--there are
some steps to be taken, scientific steps that have to be taken.
You first have to have good, solid grounding on what is
extinction risk and what are the jeopardy standards. Then you
have to go in--and I've outlined this in my written comments--
you have to determine the amount of improvements that are
necessary, survival improvements, in order to avoid extinction
and meet the jeopardy standard. Then you have to determine what
the fish mortality is among those life stages and what--this is
a key piece of this--then you have to determine, of that
mortality, what portion of that is discretionary. In other
words, what is above and beyond the natural baseline that you
can't do anything about. What is manageable?
Then, once you do that, you can go back in and assess what
actions can address this and set up a program to evaluate it
and give you feedback so you can adapt.
On almost all of those steps, I feel NMFS got part of it
wrong. I think we can collectively help them get it right. I
think the basis to get it right is already in the models and
the analysis. You know, the CRI and other things I think, if
corrected, can get it right.
So I don't have any problems with working with them as
aggressively as we can for 3\1/2\ months, get the science
right, and then proceed with the management actions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Does anybody else on the panel
want to supplement that?
Mr. Kutchins. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, yes, I'm
concerned that we don't have 3\1/2\ months. The comment period
on this draft is in 2 weeks.
I understand that under ESA there is no requirement of NMFS
to even offer the thing up for comment. I'm glad they did that.
But we might need some help if what NMFS was saying yesterday--
if they want that feedback in 2 weeks, yes, we can give it to
them, but we can't do collaboration. We can't all get together
and just sit down and meet. That will take a couple weeks or a
month to do.
So if we can get that 3\1/2\ months, I bet we can do it.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Kutchins, I appreciate that, and before
I go to Mr. Weber and Mr. Bouwes I would indicate that you may
be aware that, from virtually the outset of when it appeared to
me that the Federal Caucus decided to go behind closed doors
and come up with its recovery plan, I have objected, and I have
objected primarily on the basis that they had ended the
collaborative process and that they were going to come out with
exactly what we now face, and so I agree with you. Timeframes
here--I think 3\1/2\ months is pretty short in terms of getting
this done. If NMFS limits it to a 2-week comment period and
then just proceeds behind closed doors again, I think that
would be a very, very fatal flaw in terms of the process of how
we are going to get this resolved.
I can assure you that I--and I think many others here in
Congress--will seek to be sure that NMFS' commitment to us
yesterday is to work fully and aggressively and sincerely in a
collaborative process to the point where the finalization is
achieved.
Mr. Weber, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Weber. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I agree that the time remaining, if they want to stick to
their schedule, is really almost too brief.
I would say that there are really two fundamental concerns
right now with NMFS being able to complete their task.
First of all, I don't think they have the proper tool.
Without getting too technical, they have an exponential model
without any kind of what is called ``density dependence.'' In
other words, the population goes up like a sky rocket. We've
referred to it as the ``fruit fly model.'' There are people
within NMFS that refer to it as the ``neo-Malthusian model.''
It isn't very realistic, and it doesn't leave them very much
time to develop a new model.
Just as an aside, within Inter-Tribe we are seeking funding
to do a feasibility analysis with the existing PATH model, and
I know that the people that can run the model and that
developed the model are available. I would like to see them
called back in to play, honestly.
The second problem, however, is even bigger, and that is
that they have not defined what the actions are. Asking us to
model something is one thing, but they haven't said what the
actions that we are to model should be, and that, I think, is
possibly even a bigger concern.
They've said that we are going to do certain things in the
hydrosystem, and I think, again, as Dr. Bouwes and others have
stated, those are all optimistic assumptions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bouwes.
Mr. Bouwes. Yes. I'd like to address something I think that
was brought up by Mr. Stelle yesterday. If we are promoting
collaboration, that that means we have to keep in mind that
that doesn't necessarily mean that there is consensus and that,
you know, Stelle was giving us a warning about that. I think
what he meant by this is that NMFS has the ultimate
responsibility to determine what the most prudent alternative
is, so they are supporting what they believe are the most
reasonable assumptions.
I think NMFS felt they did not have the authority over
PATH, and thus consensus was achieved in PATH that was
contradictory to NMFS' conclusions.
I think there is a big misconception about PATH that it was
a consensus process. I don't believe it was a consensus
process. I believe, I think, since the States and tribes
support the collaborative process of PATH, that NMFS is
concluding that the States and tribes were asking for consensus
with NMFS to make a decision, and that's not going to be
possible.
While PATH was not about consensus, it was an approach that
incorporated alternative assumptions, and it gave you a range
of answers with those alternative assumptions.
The approach NMFS is taking--which, if this is their
definition of having NMFS approval is that it is not an
approach of favored hypotheses, where NMFS has determined which
are the most appropriate hypotheses.
What that has led to is they've looked at a range of
hypotheses, and then they went across the board and said,
``We're going to favor the most optimistic assumption of these
hypotheses.''
We don't believe that's a very risk-averse approach to
managing these stocks.
The conservation burden should not be placed on the fish.
We should be erring on the side of the resource that we're
trying to manage.
In our detailed comments on the biological opinion, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife's detailed comments, we talk
about these assumptions and what alternative assumptions could
be used in their analysis that would basically address the
optimism of the assumption, and so we do have alternative
assumptions here that are described, and I think--well,
truthfully, I think if we just accept some of those alternative
assumptions it is going to greatly change the NMFS conclusions.
We believe that these assumptions should be discussed in
collaboration with the States and tribes.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Kutchins, you alluded to my next question in your
testimony, and so I am going to direct this question to you. It
is my understanding that Judge Marsh found in the Idaho Fish
and Game v. NMFS litigation that he wanted the Federal agencies
to collaborate with the States and tribes. I think that was
part of the court's order, and I think you alluded to at least
what you perceived the court to be directing happen there.
Could you tell me whether you believe that that
collaboration has occurred? I'm asking this in the context of
whether the current collaboration is going to be satisfactory
on a legal basis.
Mr. Kutchins. It is my guess, when the judge sent everybody
back to the drawing board and said, ``Work together''--and this
is a judge that, in particular, wants people to work together--
that I believe, as was stated by the other panelists here, in
the first 5 years, 4 or 5 years of that, through this PATH
process that was--I think I'd call that collaboration. It was a
pretty thorough and exhaustive enclosure of State, tribal,
Federal, and even other interested parties all working
together.
I wasn't part of it. I used to observe them working when I
was working down in Portland.
So perhaps up until the Summer of 1999, when PATH started
to get mothballed, it was collaboration.
What intrigues me even more is kind of what happened to the
1995 biological opinion in its entirety, not just PATH
collaboration, but the entire opinion, what happened to the
1999 decision, what happened to a variety of other RPAs that
were called for in that opinion that were never implemented.
With all due respect, you might be just touching the tip of
an iceberg there.
We were very flabbergasted and frustrated when we found out
there would be no 1999 decision; that, instead, it would be a
new biological opinion. From looking at the draft new BIOP, it
appears that the 1999 decision is to continue kind of the
status quo, at least in the hydrosystem, and there is not a
conclusion of whether to do that or to breach dams, for
example, that we were anticipating to come in the 1999
decision.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I just had another couple of questions, and, as usual, we
are running short on time, so I'll try to be brief here.
It seems to me that the Governors' recommendations
contemplate a careful transition from barging as many smolts as
possible to having more of those fish migrate out-river when
possible, and the Federal action agencies appear to be
steadfastly refusing to move in this direction and to
acknowledge this essential consensus among the Governors.
The question I have--and anybody can feel free to pitch in.
I guess I'd ask you to try to be as succinct as you can. Is
there any new and emerging evidence--or are we relying
basically on what we've talked about already--that suggests
that the Federal action agencies should listen more closely to
the Governors with regard to this issue?
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is some
evidence that barging is really not providing very much of a
benefit, but I think everyone would agree that, as a general
rule, there is a slight advantage to barging, and so I think we
need to be a little bit cautious here before we call an end to
barging and consider that some kind of solution.
The problem with barging, in my view, is not that it is
doing any particular harm relative to in-river fish; it is that
it is not providing very much benefit.
The way that it has been justified in the past is through a
transport benefit ratio, which you may have heard of, where
they measure the survival. Basically, that's where those data
come from.
Then they measure the survival of in-river fish and compare
that with transported fish. As transported fish do better they
say, ``Aha, that's good.'' But the fact is the in-river fish
are surviving, in general, no better and probably a little bit
worse.
So I think that if we are going to try that approach, it is
going to take massive amounts of water, and we're not talking
about half a--I've done some simulations. Even 4 million acre-
feet, which is probably all you can get, is not going to make a
huge difference.
There is a benefit, and I would certainly support flow
augmentation in the absence of breaching, but the idea that we
are going to get there through additional flows and additional
spills probably isn't very realistic.
As others have mentioned, we're talking about an increase
of perhaps threefold, at least threefold, to get to survival
and recovery, and I don't see that happening through either
flow augmentation or even a very generous spill program.
Senator Crapo. Any others want to comment on that?
Mr. Bouwes. Yes, I'd like to comment on that.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Bouwes.
Mr. Bouwes. Mr. Chairman, like Earl said, there does appear
to be a slight benefit for transportation, but if you look at
it more closely it depends on the route of passage that a fish
takes over the dam.
If a fish spends more time going over the spillway or,
since we don't really know if they are going over the spillway
or going through the turbines, simply if we know that they are
not detected--i.e., they're not going in the bypass system--
they seem to do a lot better compared to fish that go through
the bypass system.
We think that this is due to the propensity to have higher
survival of going through the spillway, and if we look at those
kind of comparisons then we see that there is probably a better
benefit to migrating in-river, going through the spillways, and
we believe in a spread-the-risk approach, where we don't try to
transport all the fish we can get our hands on, but try the
spillway approach and then perhaps transport half the fish that
were transported and send the rest over the spillway and see if
we can gain any improvement that way.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles. I'll try to keep this brief.
I think the key here on the transportation issue is yes,
there is both existing and emerging data that indicates the
perceived benefits of smolt transportation as head and
shoulders above keeping the fish in the river is seriously
questioned, and some new information, just preliminary coming
out now in the 1997 and 1998 smolt-to-adult survival rates
really don't show that benefit much at all, and also show a
higher delayed mortality of those transported fish than what
NMFS has earlier projected, but that's preliminary information
and we need to collaboratively take a look at it, but there is
emerging information that seriously questions the effectiveness
of transportation.
To me that certainly doesn't mean just pull the plug on
transportation and leave all the fish in the river. What it
means is that you put your efforts into trying to recreate, as
best you can, within policy constraints, those sorts of natural
processes in the river that the fish need and don't try to
circumvent the river. While you're doing that, while you're
trying to make the river a little more friendly, you don't put
all your eggs in one basket.
Depending on the river conditions, if it is drought sort of
scenario, obviously you are probably going to want to err on
the side of more fish in the barges. If it is good water
average or better and you're able to make a friendly river
environment, then you're going to err on the side of in-river.
But certainly don't maximize barging at the expense of in-river
conditions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Kutchins.
Mr. Kutchins. Real quickly, if the fish are doing better in
barges, think about what that tells us about the condition of
this so-called ``river.''
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
I do have other questions, but we are also running short on
time, so you guys are going to be off the hook at this point.
I want to thank you very much for your preparation and
attendance here today and for your attention to these issues
and assure you that your input has been heard, and that
hopefully we will be able to create an opportunity in the next
3\1/2\ months, if not more, to have true collaboration.
Again, thank you very much. This panel is excused.
We will call up our next panel. This would be: Mr. Derrek
Batson of the Idaho Salmon and Steelhead Unlimited; Mr. Scott
Bosse of Idaho Rivers United; and Mr. Rob Masonis of the
Northwest Regional Conservation Programs for American Rivers.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your coming today. I know you were
here for the instructions, so try to focus on these lights as
well as on your testimony.
Why don't we go ahead and begin in the order which I
stated. Mr. Batson, you may go first. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DERREK BATSON, TREASURER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
IDAHO SALMON AND STEELHEAD UNLIMITED, NAPA, ID
Mr. Batson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo and Senators of the committee, my name is
Derrek Batson. I am an officer of Idaho Steelhead and Salmon
Unlimited, or ISSU. I reside in Napa, ID.
First, let me say that any time I get east of Senator
Crapo's home town of Idaho Falls my knees begin to shake and I
feel a little bit overwhelmed; however, it is such a great
honor to be part of this important process, I've convinced
myself I'll be just fine.
Senator Crapo. You will.
Mr. Batson. ISSU was formed in 1984 by a diverse group of
businessmen, guides, conservationists, sports fishermen, and
concerned citizens from throughout the Columbia River region to
restore, protect, and preserve the region's steelhead and
salmon resources. So, as you can imagine, ISSU is no stranger
to this issue or process.
We know why you, Senator Crapo, and other northwestern
Senators care about salmon restoration, because salmon are in
your back yard. But why should the rest of you or your
constituents care? One reason is because protecting and
restoring what were once the world's largest runs of salmon and
steelhead, this icon of the northwest, is the right thing to
do. But another reason, and one which we believe is important
to your constituents, is that most of the rest of the Nation
view our area as their national playground. Our wilderness
areas, white water rivers, and massive expanses of Federal
lands are intriguing to them, and they come to our State by the
thousands to recreate in these areas.
In Idaho today, tourism is the No. 2 industry. It is
surpassed only by agriculture. A limited steelhead fishery on
hatchery-reared steelhead generates over $92 million annually
for our State. We have not had a general salmon season since
1978, only 3 years after completion of the lower Snake River
dams, but it is estimated that it would equal or exceed the
steelhead fishing economy.
So, as you can see, we wear the title of ``National
Playground'' proudly, and restoring salmon needs to be a key
part of it.
When your constituents come to Idaho, they deserve to be
able to enjoy this northwest icon.
Briefly, allow me to highlight where the Federal BIOP fails
the salmon. For the Federal Caucus to separate the mainstream
Columbia and Snake Rivers with their hydropower obstructions
from habitat is a misnomer. Habitat is habitat, whether it is
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness or the Dam Choke
Reservoirs and the main stream Columbia and Snake Rivers. For
the BIOP to focus on the freshwater habitat in the Snake River
tributaries while ignoring the Federal dams and reservoir is a
prescription for failure.
Idaho's wilderness salmon bedrooms are as pristine today as
they were 100 years ago, yet no salmon return. While salmon in
the middle fork of the Salmon River, the south fork of the
Salmon River, and most other tributaries pass no irrigation
diversions, yet the National Marine Fisheries Service wants to
focus on screening irrigation diversions.
Granted, it is probably politically non-controversial, but
it does nothing to recover wild salmon in these wilderness
areas.
The BIOP caps and in some cases reduces fishing when
fishing today is a mere fraction of what it was before the dams
were built in the lower Snake River. This is the fallacy of the
BIOP. It attacks land users and fishermen. Loggers, miners,
ranchers, farmers, and fishermen are all victims of Federal
dams, but the BIOP continues to punish these victims.
Land use industries sacrificed much to set aside the Frank
Church River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway Bitterroot
Wilderness to protect salmon and steelhead. Combined, these two
wilderness areas comprise the single largest continuous
wilderness in the lower 48 States. Fishermen have not kept wild
Snake River spring chinook salmon in the Columbia River or
Snake River since 1978 or wild summer chinook since the late
1960's. Yet, every wild stock is listed by the ESA.
To do more of the same while ignoring the No. 1 salmon
killer--the Federal dams in the lower Snake River--quite
frankly, this is inconceivable.
Allow me to give you a quick example of the half-
heartedness of the BIOP. Specific performance standards draft
BIOP 9-7 through 9-15, agencies are required to meet three
overall types of performance standards. First, programmatic.
Did the agencies implement the required measures? Did they
complete the required analyses? And did they acquire the
funding necessary to implement and complete these measures?
Second is biological, population growth rates, and,
finally, physical--spawner counts, riparian health, and water
quality.
There are only consequences for failure to meet the
biological standard.
Here is our take of this. First, the National Marine
Fisheries Service has yet to define the physical programmatic
standards. This is a major omission at the very heart of the
BIOP.
Second, current biological performance standards is based
on assumptions and data that do not adequately represent
population growth rates for Snake River salmon and does not
include other biological factors--for instance, population
distribution necessary for their recovery.
Third, specific consequences for failing to meet any of the
three types of standards should be incorporated into the BIOP.
It is important to emphasize here performance standards are the
means by which the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed
to make this plan work to restore salmon; yet, in the draft
document the performance standards are incomplete, are missing
all three types of standards, and there are no consequences for
failing to achieve two of the three types of standards.
The Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition has done an outline of
the draft recovery plan. I have included it in the material
package you now have. I hope you will take time to review it in
its entirety.
In closing, let me assure you that ISSU has no agenda just
to breach dams. Our agenda is to restore a viable, anadromous
resource to the Columbia region, even if it means breaching the
lower Snake River dams. We will accept any plan that will
assure recovery of salmon to harvestable, sustainable levels.
To date we have not seen one that can do that without breaching
the lower Snake River dams, nor do we believe we ever will.
Thank you for allowing this time before you. I will answer
any questions you have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Batson.
Mr. Bosse.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BOSSE, IDAHO RIVERS UNITED,
BOISE, ID
Mr. Bosse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely appreciate
your invite to testify today.
My name is Scott Bosse and I am a fisheries biologist for
Idaho Rivers United. We are a river conservation group based in
Boise that has 2,000 members from Idaho and across the
Northwest. We have been working very hard on this issue for the
better part of a decade, ever since our founding.
I would like to address three fatal flaws that we see in
the biological opinion in the Administration's draft basinwide
salmon recovery strategy, formerly known as the All-H paper,
and what I will hope to redefine is a three-H paper that
outlines recovery measures in two H's.
The first is the premise that because there are now 12 ESA-
listed stocks of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin
that any and all recovery measures must address all of these
stocks at once. In other words, the idea is that the premise
that we should have a one-size-fits-all salmon recovery
strategy in order to get the most bang for the buck. I think we
all heard Mr. Stelle say that yesterday and many times in the
past.
This goes against one of the most important things that
biologists know about salmon, and that is that each individual
stock is uniquely adapted to the river that produced it. That
is precisely why the Endangered Species Act protects salmon at
the stock level and not at the broader species level.
Saying we should not take out the lower Snake River dams
because that would only help 4 out of 12 listed stocks is much
like saying we should not do anything to improve air quality in
Boise because that will do nothing to improve air quality in
Houston or Phoenix. It is simply another excuse for inaction.
The fact is that the four listed stocks in the Snake River
Basin face a very different set of hurdles than the stocks in
the Columbia River. While most tributary habitat in the
Columbia River has been severely degraded by logging, mining,
grazing, urbanization, and agricultural development, the Snake
River stocks have available to them nearly 4,000 miles of prime
spawning and rearing habitat.
Approximately one-third of this habitat is protected within
federally designated wilderness areas or wild and scenic river
corridors. This habitat is theoretically capable of producing
millions of wild smolt that would result in the return of
hundreds of thousands of wild adult salmon.
The Administration contends there are four H's that must be
addressed in order to develop a comprehensive basinwide
recovery strategy. In reality, there are only three: habitat,
harvest, and hatcheries.
As Derrek said and as others have said here, hydro does not
deserve its own H. Hydro is habitat. Hydroelectric dams in the
lower Snake and Columbia Rivers have drastically altered the
465-mile-long migration corridor habitat that Snake River
salmon rely on in order to deliver them to the estuary when
they were smolts and bring them back to their spawning grounds
when they are adults. The dams have transformed what was once a
cold, swift-flowing river into what is now a chain of warm,
slack-water reservoirs which salmon are not genetically
equipped to survive in.
Hydroelectric dams have also inundated 140 miles of main
stem spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River fall chinook.
By largely ignoring the hydro H and trying to make up for it in
the other H's, the draft BIOP essentially writes off this
stock. This shortcoming is especially problematic because it is
fall chinook that are most sought after by tribal harvesters
who have treaty rights that this Administration and Congress
has pledged to uphold.
The second major point I wanted to address is the draft
BIOP's strong focus on habitat restoration in up-river
tributaries and the Columbia River estuary in lieu of the major
overhaul in the hydro H that Judge Marsh called for in the
Idaho v. NMFS case in 1994.
Mr. George Frampton, Acting Chair of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, has estimated that
expenditures on these two items, alone, will total additional
hundreds of millions of dollars above and beyond what is
already being spent on Columbia Basin salmon recovery.
A fair question then is: what will this money buy in the
3,700 miles of prime salmon spawning and rearing habitat that
lies nearly empty of salmon in central Idaho and northeast
Oregon?
What will it buy in the Middle Fork Salmon River drainage,
the largest wild salmon refuge left in the Columbia Basin,
where there are no hatcheries and the habitat is in better
condition than it was 30 years ago and where the spring/summer
Chinook that return to spawn face a combined harvest rate of
less than 10 percent, more on the order of less than 5 percent?
What will a plan that does virtually nothing to overhaul
the hydro H do for these salmon stocks that are almost wholly
affected by the dams?
NMFS scientists justify their focus on tributary habitat
restoration by saying the best opportunity to increase
population growth rates is in the salmon's first year of life,
but the science shows Snake River salmon have experienced no
significant decrease in egg-to-smolt survival since the
construction of the lower Snake dams 30 years ago.
The science also shows that Snake River salmon declines
have been similar in pristine streams and equally in badly
degraded streams, in streams of high natural fertility, and in
streams of low natural fertility.
The bottom line is NMFS has fundamentally misdiagnosed the
most critical problem facing 4 out of the 12 listed Columbia
River stocks by largely ignoring the hydro H and trying to pin
the problem on first year survival. The facts clearly do not
support this assumption.
Finally, I want to point out that the remedies prescribed
in the draft biological opinion are not time sensitive for at
least two out of the four listed Snake River stocks, those
being spring/summer chinook and sockeye. That is, restoring
spawning and rearing habitat, even if that was the most
critical factor affecting these stocks, would undoubtedly take
decades to bear fruit, when extinction models show some of
these stocks have only until 2017 before they functionally go
extinct.
The fact remains that the only recovery measure that is
likely to restore spring and summer chinook within a timeframe
that will beat the extinction clock is breaching the four lower
Snake dams.
Speaking at a July 27 press conference in Portland, Mr.
George Frampton was quoted as saying, ``We know dam breaching
is the single most effective thing we can do for these Snake
River stocks and that it may be necessary.'' I believe that, in
addition to being the most effective thing we can do, dam
breaching is also the only major thing we can do to actually
recover Snake River stocks before the extinction clock runs
out.
Until the Administration's draft recovery plan acknowledges
that basic fact, it is a recovery plan for just 8 out of the 12
listed stocks, and a rather weak one, at that.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Bosse.
Mr. Masonis.
STATEMENT OF ROB MASONIS, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST REGIONAL
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, AMERICAN RIVERS,
SEATTLE, WA
Mr. Masonis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today
regarding the Administration's draft plan to save Columbia and
Snake River salmon.
My name is Robert Masonis, and I am the northwest
conservation director for American Rivers, a national river
conservation group of over 30,000 members. I am also the
chairman of the board of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition,
which is a coalition of over 50 commercial fishing
associations, sport fishing groups, fishing-
related businesses, and conservation organizations from across
the Northwest.
Let me start by stating that we believe the general
framework set forth in the draft biological opinion represents
a workable, logical approach to addressing this extremely
complex issue. While we support this general framework of
action and adaptive management, we believe that the draft
biological opinion is severely lacking in several critical
respects, including the adequacy of the specific remedial
actions and the implementation timeline.
I will explain these concerns in more detail in a moment.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the
National Marine Fisheries Service scientists who have worked
over the last year on the cumulative risk initiative. They have
made significant contributions to our understanding of the
current tenuous State of Columbia and Snake River salmon and
steelhead. Their work has shown that many of the listed stocks
are at a high risk of extinction in the short term and that we
must move forward with aggressive, effective actions if we are
to get these stocks on the road to recovery before it is too
late.
But the draft biological opinion suffers from several deep
flaws that must be remedied if it is to pass scientific and
legal muster.
First, the draft biological opinion largely ignores the
extensive sound analysis of the team of Federal, State, and
tribe scientists known as PATH. There are other witnesses who
have testified here today who are better equipped to address
the crucial differences between CRI and PATH and the failure of
the draft biological opinion to adequately address PATH
findings, so I will not cover that same ground here. But it is
abundantly clear to us that, during the last year, the National
Marine Fisheries Service has largely taken the science in-house
and failed to adequately consult with the other Federal, State,
and tribe scientists, including those who are part of PATH.
Consequently, in several critical areas NMFS has
substituted its own scientific judgments for those of the PATH
scientists without analysis, demonstrating that the PATH
findings and judgments were flawed.
Second, the aggressive, non-breach recovery actions the
Administration has touted as a cornerstone of the draft
biological opinion are, in fact, not there. Instead, the
document sets forth laudable objectives, promises tough
performance standards, and then sets forth a list of actions
that consist mostly of studies, investigations, pilot projects,
and planning processes. Remarkably, the hydropower system
measures are essentially the same as those set forth in the
1995 biological opinion, with no hard flow requirements and a
continued reliance on fish barging, a practice which has been
roundly and deservedly criticized by the region's scientific
community.
For example, proposed measures include a 2-year study by
the Bureau of Reclamation to determine the extent of
unauthorized water use in the basin, and a 5-year draft
feasibility analysis of potential changes in existing flood
control operations to aid salmon. These purportedly
``aggressive'' actions will not save one fish in the near term,
and may not ever.
Our point is not that these steps are not worthy of
pursuit. They are. But they are not measures that will boost
listed stocks. Such actions would include requiring adequate
flows in all tributaries containing spawning habitat, or
requiring sufficient flow augmentation to provide for the
migratory needs of salmon and steelhead. The final biological
opinion must require implementation of such actions in a timely
manner dictated by the needs of salmon and steelhead.
Third, the draft biological opinion fails to define
recovery levels for the listed stocks. Of course, the adequacy
of the proposed actions cannot be determined without first
determining what is necessary to achieve recovery, as required
by the ESA. It also bears emphasis that it is recovery that the
region's four Governors have defined as the goal, not merely
avoiding extinction. This fact is routinely ignored in the
debate.
The final biological opinion should rectify this major flaw
by setting forth an aggressive schedule for defining recovery
goals for each of the listed stocks, and then adjusting the
biological opinion, as needed, to achieve those goals.
Fourth, the draft biological opinion fails to provide for
timely implementation of lower Snake River dam bypass should
other recovery actions either not be implemented or prove
inadequate. The current time line puts off a decision on
bypassing the lower Snake River dams for at least 8 years, and
implementation would be closer to 15 years out. That is
inconsistent with the needs of Snake River salmon and
steelhead.
The cumulative risk initiative--this is NMFS' process--
projects that Snake River spring/summer chinook and fall
chinook populations will be half the size they are today in
less than 5 and 10 years, respectively, if current trends hold.
There is no dispute that bypassing the four lower Snake
River dams is the single best recovery action for Snake River
stock, and it must, therefore, be available if and when the
fish need it. To make that possible, the final biological
opinion must contain a firm commitment to completing all
preparatory work for dam removal no later than 2005, and a
requirement that the action agencies seek authorization from
Congress at that point if Snake River stocks are not firmly on
the path to recovery. To do otherwise would be to ignore the
best scientific evidence and greatly increase the risk of
extinction for Snake River stocks.
In closing, American Rivers and the Save Our Wild Salmon
Coalition are committed to working with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies to remedy the
deficiencies in the draft biological opinion. The necessary
changes do not require new analysis or modeling, but rather can
be made based on available information developed by PATH, CRI,
and other credible sources, and should be completed no later
than the end of the year. There is absolutely no excuse for
further delay. Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead need strong,
effective recovery measures now if we are to realize our
collective goal of recovering healthy, harvestable stocks.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Masonis.
Recognizing that you would not necessarily be representing
States or tribes or whatever in the collaborative
decisionmaking process, I would like to ask each of you--and
you have each, to some extent, already touched on it, but I'd
like to ask you more specifically what your perception is with
regard to whether the Federal Caucus--in particular, NMFS--has
been conducting true collaboration with the region and the
various interests with which it is required to collaborate in
the region over the last couple of years.
Mr. Batson.
Mr. Batson. Well, I'm no scientist. Like I said, I'm a
simple fisherman that has a real study of the issue. It appears
to me that what happened is that when the PATH project was
brought about there was collaboration, and as this PATH, to
steal a phrase, headed toward breaching as the option, then the
National Marine Fisheries Service bolted. As it got closer to
the way to an end--you know, when the Oregon Fish and Game and
the tribal authorities are saying, ``Well, it looks like that's
where we're headed,'' it appears to me that the NMFS people
bolted and then go through this very, very long process of
trying to study the thing to death.
I believe that there is true collaboration, and they really
got in on it. I believe the message they are going to have to
hit and down the road they are going to have to look at
breaching, and it appears to me they took that off the table 10
years down the road when, as Mr. Masonis touched on, we need to
start acting now.
This is a four-H paper. I'm going to add my own H, and
that's Hope. I hope very soon we get action and not words. I
believe that, just in my perception, that is kind of what has
happened.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bosse.
Mr. Bosse. Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that State and
tribal and independent scientists often call me at my office to
see what NMFS is up to speaks for itself.
Senator Crapo. That would be very telling.
Mr. Bosse. It is awfully disturbing, because for many, many
months--for many years, as a matter of fact--we were told by
virtually everyone in the basin that PATH would be the most
rigorous scientific modeling effort ever undertaken anywhere,
just wait to see what the science says. We've heard that at
every level. All of a sudden the science said something and it
disappeared. It's almost like there was a coup.
Nothing very big was made of it, and it is very, very
disappointing to me, because, after observing that PATH process
very closely I was very impressed by it. It was rigorously peer
reviewed by virtually everyone, including industry, including
the Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
virtually every party involved in this debate. It fulfilled
Judge Marsh's order and the spirit of his order in 1995, and it
is very disappointing that it has not happened today.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Masonis.
Mr. Masonis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We recognized this problem, American Rivers did, last
winter, and, consequently, I called up the National Marine
Fisheries Service scientists working on CRI and asked them if
they would join us in co-sponsoring a workshop that was held on
March 29, 2000 to deal directly with this issue, which is that
we have the PATH scientists, the States, the tribal fish and
wildlife scientists who, at that point, had, you know, halfway
into the CRI process, essentially had no real input and
obviously had divergent views on some critical issues.
So we did convene that workshop, and a number of the
scientists came up to me afterward and remarked that they
thought it was the best one that had taken place to date
because there was actually some interaction.
Unfortunately, I don't think we saw, subsequent to that
particular workshop, much progress in terms of opening up the
CRI analysis and modeling effort to input, as the previous
panel testified to.
So I don't think there is any doubt that there is a
significant problem, has been a significant problem with
collaboration, meaningful collaboration, in the CRI process.
However, I do want to also emphasize that this is not an
indictment of CRI, per se. I think there is some good work that
has happened in that forum. But the work is not adequate, and
there are some critical flaws, and the only way for those to be
remedied in the next couple of months is to do what you have
proposed, Mr. Chairman, which is that these folks get together
and hammer them out.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
In the context of what needs to be done in the next couple
of months, could each of you also give me your definition of
``collaboration''? What is it? I'm going to ask another follow-
on question with regard to the requirements of the litigation,
what Judge Marsh had required, and whether we are going to
achieve that. But what is it that needs to happen in terms of
the next 3\1/2\ months?
Mr. Batson.
Mr. Batson. There, again, my observation is that this
polarization of these two scientific entities as the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the State agencies, if it takes
locking them in a room for a while and getting some hard
answers out of it--I mean, maybe that's not how things are done
in Washington. I don't know. But it would seem to me they need
to sit around and ask the hard questions.
As I said, time is critical. That's the sad thing about
this. Without it, it may not do any good. So, like I said, I
guess my suggestion would be lock them in a room and throw away
the key.
Senator Crapo. All right.
Mr. Bosse.
Mr. Bosse. I would agree with some things that were said
earlier, that obviously the National Marine Fisheries Service
needs to hammer out these differences with the States and the
tribes in a very sincere fashion and answer the very serious
doubts that the States and tribes have about that CRI model.
I would also say that it would be constructive to have the
Independent Scientific Advisory Board take a look at this CRI
science and take a look at the draft biological opinion that
has been released by the National Marine Fisheries Service, not
redo the science, not create a new model, but answer some very
key questions that the States have, that the tribes have, and
that we as a conservation and fishing group community have. I
think that would be very constructive. They've conducted that
similar role in the past.
I also think that your idea of having some regional
hearings in the Northwest would be a very good one, and I would
like to see the people that helped design those models and the
people that wrote that draft biological opinion answer these
questions.
Senator Crapo. I think that's a very good idea. In fact,
we've already concluded, I think, that we need to get a forum,
probably in the Northwest if not here, where the technical
experts can really get at it. We had hoped to maybe try to get
at that yesterday, but it just didn't work out yesterday in
terms of where the direction of the hearing went with regard to
things. But that's a good suggestion.
Mr. Masonis.
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman, to be very specific about this,
in answer to your question, I think that next week this
collaboration needs to begin in earnest, and there needs to be
a very large block of time and resources committed to working
through, on a face-to-face basis, these issues. These are not
issues that are going to be resolved at more CRI workshops, a
couple of them between now and the end of the year, nor is it
going to be resolved by allowing the States, tribes, and
Federal Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to submit
comments.
This is going to be hard work. It is going to be
contentious. It needs to be done, and it is going to require a
significant commitment of time and it should start now.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
As a followup--and I won't ask all three of you to answer,
I'll just give you each an opportunity if you choose to--well,
let me ask one other quick followup.
Mr. Bosse, as I was thinking about what you said--and
actually all three of you--are you telling me that the CRI has
not yet been peer reviewed?
Mr. Bosse. To my knowledge, the very serious questions that
have been asked by the States and the tribes and others have
not been adequately answered nor have they been verified by an
independent scientific body. That's correct.
Senator Crapo. Anybody disagree with that?
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman, no. I would just add that the
approach I think that CRI has taken, because this is an
initiative that started only a year ago, is that they are--the
scientists are producing work that they are submitting for peer
review for journal entry, but the process, as a whole, as far
as I know--and I may be wrong--has not been peer reviewed.
Senator Crapo. I'll just make an editorial comment at this
point. It just strikes me as a little surprising that we are
going to have a draft biological opinion that appears to be
based on something that hasn't even yet been per reviewed, and
that's another way of getting at what we've all been saying
here today, is that I think we now have a really short fuse to
get some major things done.
I assume that all three of you were here yesterday or
listened yesterday and heard the testimony of Mr. Stelle. In
one of the questions I asked him with regard to CRI, or with
regard to the commitment for collaboration and where we could
head on that, my recollection of what he said in part was that,
with regard to the science, that NMFS was very willing to
engage in a collaborative process and listen to concerns and so
forth, but I heard a proviso there that said, ``However, we
have our science models and our science models have to be
followed, or somehow proven to need reformation or change in
order to be then followed.''
But what I heard him saying was he was raising a strong
proviso that, you know, science has to guide you, but also that
the science that was going to guide was the current science
that was being utilized for the draft biological opinion.
First, I would ask if you got the same impression. If so,
what does that tell us in terms of what we need to achieve
between now and the end of the year?
Does anybody want to pitch in on that?
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in here.
What caught my ear was his insistence that the
collaboration be successful, which begged the question in my
mind of what does that mean.
It cannot mean to accept the National Marine Fisheries
Service's assumptions in all of its models with their flaws.
That is hardly a collaboration. There needs to be a willingness
to make adjustments based upon the collective expertise of the
scientists in the region, which is what PATH was designed to
provide.
So I don't think we are going to be able to make much
progress on these really difficult issues if the ground rules
are such that you can kind of tweak it around the edges but,
you know, ultimately the judgments and assumptions being used
by the National Marine Fisheries Service scientists will win.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Anybody else on that?
Mr. Bosse. I would add that both American Rivers and Idaho
Rivers United and the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition have
already sent a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service
asking for independent peer review by the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board. I think that would be a very
constructive step.
But I must say the joke amongst State, tribal, and
independent scientists right now is that the best available
science is no longer available. I think that says something
about almost an ideological insistence that their model is the
only model, and that perception needs to change in a hurry.
Senator Crapo. I agree. I see that as a potentially very
big hurdle.
Let me get to the question I had on the court case. In
terms of the whole dynamic that we've just finished discussing,
what does all of this mean with regard to Judge Marsh's order
in Idaho Fish and Game v. NMFS with regard to the required
collaboration? If you don't feel like you are in a position to
evaluate legal issues, I understand. I just am curious about
what your perspective might be on that if you do have one.
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Masonis.
Mr. Masonis. I will try to address that.
I think that Judge Marsh's concern in requesting that
collaboration is that the decision be informed by the best
available science. That is the crux of this issue, which is: is
the best available science informing this decision?
The fact that there has not been, in the last year or so,
effective collaboration in which these very significant issues
have been resolved brings that into question. But ultimately,
you know, that is what the judge is going to be looking for if
this biological opinion appears before the court.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
I want to shift gears here for just a moment. We've been
talking a lot about whether there is the right science and
procedure behind the actions of the National Marine Fisheries
Service. I want to shift gears and talk a little bit about the
ultimate policy decision that has to be made in terms of the
guidance here.
Mr. Kutchins in his testimony said that he thought that
NMFS may be doing what properly is a role of Congress, which is
going beyond the actual science and actually looking at how the
policy decision has to be made.
In my opening statement yesterday I pointed out that I
believe that we've got to have the best available science, but
we also can't ignore the fact that we have economics and
cultural and spiritual and other values to be measured here,
and that ultimately there will have to be a balance achieved in
this context.
I am also aware that where I personally have come down in
terms of how I see that balance coming out is not where any of
the three of you have come down with regard to it.
So we still have this arena beyond the science debate of
where do we go with policy. The question I would like to ask
you is: I recognize that each of you, if you were able to make
the policy decision, would breach the dams. I assume you
recognize that I have opposed that step. Assuming for the
moment that we are going to deal for the next 8 to 10 years
with a scenario in which we are not breaching the dams but that
the current broad guidance or broad approach of the biological
opinion in that context is followed, are there things that we
can do short of breaching the dams that do focus on the
hydrosystem and do focus on the main stem issues, where the
smolt-to-adult survival issues are so critical, that can help?
What I'm seeking here, as a policymaker, is just guidance
on what you feel we can do in these arenas, if there are
options where we can take action.
Mr. Batson.
Mr. Batson. Initially, Mr. Masonis touched on it, that if
you don't--they need action now. I suppose that would be the
biggest part. There are so many other parts of this that need
to go into place. If you study this for another 5 years without
doing anything, that certainly can't help the fish. Those are
great decisions.
Second, you know, maybe there will come a point down the
road where the science is refutable and maybe you'll change--
you know, political will might change. I understand that it is
not there now.
But, you know, I understand that there's families, there's
people on this river system whose lives would be changed if
these dams are ever breached, and there is, as far as I know,
no committee or policy looking for some sort of mitigation down
the road. I'm not saying it has to happen. I'm just saying, as
slow as things seem to move, we might as well get started now
looking for some sort of economic mitigation down the road.
We talked yesterday a little bit that Senator Slade Gorton
seems to be really adamantly opposed to this, even to the point
of trying to attach riders to delay things even more, and that
just seems to me that none of that is helpful. I mean, maybe
not breach the dams today. You know, I understand that it is
going to take a political will to make that happen.
But, like I said, this is my first time to Washington, and
I see how things kind of move here. You need to get started
now.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bosse.
Mr. Bosse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that there are many things
we can do right now to conserve these salmon, and I choose the
word ``conserve'' very carefully because there is a very big
difference between conserving these stocks and recovering these
stocks.
I think the science does show that we can get some very
minor incremental benefits, but certainly do all we can to keep
what we have by taking certain measures.
I gave a briefing paper to Governor Kempthorne just last
week while at Redfish Lake releasing some sockeye outlining
some of the things that we shared support of.
I think the general concept of restoring normative river
conditions is something that all of the science has shown we
must do, and that means a true spread-the-risk strategy where
we don't put 85.3 percent of all the fish in barges and trucks,
like we did this year, under a purported spread-the-risk
policy.
Senator Crapo. Which the Governors have generally moved
toward.
Mr. Bosse. Absolutely. In the State of Idaho, certainly
from Governor Batt to Governor Kempthorne, and also with the
other three Governors in the region.
I think the reason we are transporting all these fish, if
you look at this year, is that we have some of the worst
migration conditions in the lower Snake River that we've ever
recorded. We achieved flow targets that the National Marine
Fisheries Service set in its last biological opinion 20 out of
144 days this year. We're not just missing flow targets
frequently, we're missing them by so much it's not even funny.
If the target is 50 yards away, the arrow is landing 3 feet
away from the person that's firing the arrow.
We can also put irrigation screens on diversions that
remain unscreened. In Idaho, for instance, in the Lemhi River,
the Pasimari River, the Upper Salmon River, there are many
unscreened irrigation diversions.
We can reduce predators in the lower Columbia River
estuary. We can reform hatchery operations so that wild fish
are not as negatively impacted as they currently are. We can
increase in-stream flows in places like the Lemhi River in
Idaho where the very few and very expensive fish that return to
spawn are looking at 11 CFS of water in the Lemhi River.
So there are a lot of things we can proceed with now, but
for long-term recovery versus conservation some time we have to
address the bigger issue and, of course, that's where we may
differ right now. I hope we're on the same side of the debate
the next time I come to Washington.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. We will continue to engage
in that debate, I'm sure.
Mr. Masonis.
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman, if I understood your question,
you were referring specifically to the main stem and the
hydrosystem and what we can do short of breaching.
Senator Crapo. Yes, but feel free to be flexible on just
what we best need to do.
Mr. Masonis. Well, I think Mr. Bosse touched on a number of
the issues that encompass not only the main stem but also the
tributaries.
As far as the main stem Snake River goes, a true spread-
the-risk approach, which would reduce barging, as the Governors
have stated they would like to see, involves other actions,
necessary complementary actions. As Mr. Bowles testified on the
last panel, there are river conditions that exist now because
of inadequate flows that make the river a rather lethal
migratory corridor.
In order to change that, that means we are going to have to
significantly increase flows and we are going to have to spill
more water. Those things are all inter-connected--barging,
spill, flow augmentation--so those things need to be given very
serious consideration.
The other thing I want to point out is with regard to fall
chinook, which Mr. Bosse addressed earlier. The fall chinook
are main stem spawners. They need the Snake River. Right now
the only stretch of fall chinook spawning habitat in the Snake
River is below Hell's Canyon Dam. A Bonneville Power
Administration funded study that was recently conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey and Patel that looks at main stem
spawning habitat concludes that the only way to recover fall
chinook is to increase available main stem spawning habitat.
That habitat is buried beneath the four lower Snake River dams,
and the upstream habitat is blocked by Hell's Canyon. There are
two fundamental choices there.
It is interesting to note that the existing small stretch
of spawning habitat below Hell's Canyon Dam, when they run it
through their models, shows that zero spawners would use that
habitat. That shows you how resilient these fish are that they
are able to take advantage of something that naturally they
would ignore in their spawning migration, but it also shows you
how dire the need is to make very significant changes so we
have a normative river in the Snake River.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
I just have one more question, and, like usual, we are
running short on time here.
You heard yesterday a lot of talk about the need to build
consensus. Frankly, I think that the Governors' effort is the
best thing we've seen so far in terms of finding a path forward
to get to consensus on the issue.
In that context, Governor Kempthorne said yesterday--and he
said it much better than I will rephrase it, but he said that
he didn't think that we could implement any effective salmon
strategy if we don't have at least a basic consensus in the
region to move forward on that strategy.
I agree with that. Said another way, the best science
available might say to do X, but if X is going to be so
economically or culturally or in other ways divisive to the
political community that resides in the Pacific Northwest, I'm
not sure that it is achievable.
Mr. Batson and Mr. Bosse and you, Mr. Masonis, have all
indicated that perhaps that political dynamic can change as
information becomes available and options become expanded, or
as we try other things and see how they work, and so forth. I
think everybody needs to be flexible in terms of evaluating
where we have to head on this.
But in that context, I'd just like your brief observations
on what you believe the proper role of consensus is in the
region.
Mr. Batson. I believe that it is not this Federal Caucus
versus the four Governors' plan. I think that is very divisive.
I think that as people read this, the more information they
have, if you bring out the facts, I believe that people will
make their own decisions.
I read a poll done by Boise State University that 40
percent of the people favored breaching, 40 percent were
opposed, and 20 percent were undecided. That's real no one side
really trying to lead the other. I just think that's people
discovering the issue and making up their minds.
When they see the NMFS plan say one thing and the
Governors' plan kind of says another, I believe that that
throws a real divisive curve into this process of educating
people on this issue.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bosse.
Mr. Bosse. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I made a visit to
Representative Nethercutt's office, and, as you well know,
those four lower Snake dams are in Representative Nethercutt's
District.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Mr. Bosse. He is very opposed to removing them.
I met with his staffer, and the tendency in this debate has
been to argue the science and argue the science, and everyone,
even who is not a scientist, likes to be an armchair biologist.
When we do that, I find that we get nowhere. So what I tried to
do yesterday is I tried to change the conversation to, ``What
economic impacts make some of your constituents opposed to
removing these dams?'' Once we started talking about those very
real and legitimate concerns, we had a productive conversation,
because everyone has said in the region, everyone has said in
the hearings, every politician, from Senator Gorton to you name
it has said we want to save salmon. We all know that. The
problem lies in the economic impacts of these various recovery
measures.
I think that the framework that the Administration has laid
out in its draft biological opinion is workable. I think one of
the positive things about it is it is adaptive management. It
relies on trying some of the easier--politically easier and
economically easier--alternatives first, and then, if they do
not work, and we are sincere about restoring these fish, then
we address dam removal. But it is a wise and prudent
recommendation of theirs that we begin the economic transition
and engineering studies now, and it serves no one to attach a
rider onto an appropriations bill that precludes that from
happening. That is not bargaining in good faith.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Masonis.
Mr. Masonis. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is obviously
a need for consensus to have action on this important issue to
northwesterners, and really to the Nation, but what we cannot
do--and I agree largely with Mr. Bosse on this--we cannot try
to seek a consensus on the science, because we never will.
Truly, a consensus where everybody agrees to everything is not
going to happen.
What we need to do is act on the best available science,
and the best available science should set the sideboards for
that debate as to what management actions to take.
With that as guidance, I think we need to look at the
individual management actions, and I'm going to stress the same
thing that Mr. Bosse stressed, which is looking at the economic
impacts associated with dam removal and making a sincere effort
to develop transition and mitigation plans to deal with that.
Our opinion at this time--and it hasn't changed over the
years--is that the best available science says remove the Snake
River dams if you are going to save these fish.
The region needs to embrace that challenge, the economic
challenge, and embark on a course that is constructive.
Unfortunately, to date the debate has been so polarized, and
because of the lack of clarity on the scientific issues we have
not been able, despite our best efforts, to launch that
constructive dialog, and we're looking for leadership to help
us do that.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Masonis.
I thank the entire panel. These issues are so critical and
so intriguing that we could continue this for hours, but we
have one more panel that needs to get up here, and so I will
excuse you at this time.
Again, we appreciate your input. We will continue to work
on this.
We'll call up our next panel now, which consists of: Ms.
Sara Patton, who is the coalition director for the Northwest
Energy Coalition from Seattle; Mr. Norm Semanko, the executive
director and general counsel for Idaho Water Users; and Mr.
Glen Spain, the Northwest regional director of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
We welcome all of you here with us today. Thank you for
your patience. You are the last panel, but that doesn't mean
that your input is any less needed or important than others.
Again, I thank you. I guess you get the benefit of having
listened to what everybody else had to say and got asked, so
maybe you'll have a bit of an opportunity to be more prepared.
I would like to, without any further ado, just begin in the
order that you were introduced.
Ms. Patton, you are welcome to proceed.
STATEMENT OF SARA PATTON, COALITION DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST ENERGY
COALITION, SEATTLE, WA
Ms. Patton. Thank you.
First, I want to thank you, Senator Crapo, for asking us to
testify and allowing us to testify on this issue that is of
such importance to the people and the economy and the
environment of the northwest.
Senator Crapo. You're welcome.
Ms. Patton. My name is Sara Patton, and I am the coalition
director of the Northwest Energy Coalition. The Northwest
Energy Coalition endorsed bypassing the four lower Snake dams
in order to restore salmon and replacing the power from those
dams with clean energy in November 1998.
I want to talk a little bit about who the Northwest Energy
Coalition is before going into the reasoning behind that
endorsement.
The Northwest Energy Coalition is an alliance of nearly 100
member organizations in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana.
It includes utilities, and those utilities include Emerald
People's Utility District and Seattle City Light, both of whose
governing boards have endorsed taking out the four lower Snake
dams, replacing the power with clean energy, and mitigating the
economic impacts on the communities affected.
Our other members--lots of public interest groups spanning
a broad spectrum, including environmental groups, good
government groups, low-income groups, consumer groups. We even
have a couple communities of faith and one sports fishing
member group. We also have energy efficiency businesses and
renewable energy developers.
This is a diverse membership but it is united around a
desire for a clean and affordable energy future for the
Northwest.
So the first question that the Energy Coalition faced in
dealing with whether to endorse taking out the four lower Snake
dams was the first one that you have been dealing with today.
Does the science demand bypass in order to restore these
magnificent fish? The Coalition board was convinced, indeed,
that the science does demand that.
The second question was: can we replace the power with
clean, affordable energy from conservation and clean renewable
resources. There are many members of the coalition which care
just as much about water and air and climate change as they do
about salmon, and they are not willing to tradeoff restoration
of salmon for the pollution of air and the global climate
change, so this is a very important question.
The third question was, of course, mitigation for the
affected communities, and the Coalition was convinced that you
can do that, you can mitigate. It is worthwhile. It is
affordable. We should be going forward with finding out what
those measures are and how much they cost.
But, going back to the question of clean and affordable
energy to replace the power from these dams, we looked at it.
We worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and I
included in my testimony at least the preface, brought along a
copy of ``Going with the Flow: Replacing Energy from Four Snake
River Dams,'' and that study answers in the affirmative, yes,
we can replace power. We can replace the power with clean
energy and conservation renewables, and that power will cost no
more than it would cost to replace the power from the market.
In addition, we will still in the Northwest have power
which is below market cost, as we are lucky to have today.
That combination of measures is about 82 percent energy
conservation and 18 percent renewables.
I'm not going to go into the details of exactly how much it
costs and where it comes from and where the conservatisms are
in that study. Those are in my written testimony.
I will say that we are looking at strong work going forward
on conservation and renewables. Right now we've got about 350
megawatts of wind generation being developed in the Northwest
and about 60 megawatts of geothermal. That's good news.
I also want to talk a little bit about timing. We have an
energy crisis right now in the Northwest and on the west coast,
and so this is a pretty important question with regard to power
and taking out dams which provide power.
I am going to say that the very earliest possible time that
we could be looking at taking out the dams is 5 years. I think
other people would tell me I'm crazy for making it that short a
period of time. But, regardless, I'm saying 5 years because 5
years is plenty of time to be able to produce the kind of power
that we need to replace the power from the dams, and I want to
tell you about some of the things that are going forward right
now in order to do that.
On the conservation side, utilities like Seattle City Light
and Emerald and others are working hard to actually put into
place, deliver the energy conservation that is available.
Seattle City Light has been delivering six average megawatts a
year of energy conservation. It is planning to go to 12, to
double its effort.
For example, BPA is working through its conservation and
renewables discount and its conservation augmentation to do
that, and Oregon and Montana both have some strong commitments
to investment in energy conservation through their deregulation
legislation.
I've talked a little bit earlier about the geothermal and
wind that is going forward.
The other thing that is going forward at a very remarkable
clip is the development of gas-fired combustion turbines.
There is a new rush to gas. There are over 10,000 megawatts
cited or proposed in the region right now, and about 3,000 are
expected within the next 1 to 5 years. The 270 megawatt plant,
Rathrum Plant, is one of those ones that is expected to be
available fairly quickly.
We will be working to push for the first priority to be
given to energy conservation and to renewables. We will also be
working to look for mitigation opportunities for the gas
combustion turbines that are bound to come in.
The conclusion I think is that there are plenty of
resources being developed by the energy community right now, so
that by the time we come to a dam decision the issue of whether
there is enough energy will just not be an issue.
I do want to say just a little bit more about the current
electricity market problems.
We were appalled that BVA reduced spill three times at
least this summer--in California, for the wildfires in Montana
taking out the coal strip lines, and for our own regional
energy problems.
It is pretty clear that the power suppliers in the
Northwest and in California have been asleep at the wheel for
at least 5 years, and the fish paid the price, and that was
wrong.
We are mending that now, but there are a lot of difficult
months ahead. I think this is important for two reasons. One is
that the cost pressures that California saw during this crisis
are going to light the fire, re-ignite the fires that will
cause them to consider once again pushing to move BPA from at-
cost prices to market prices, and they'll use that. We can
certainly see that that's one more reason that we need to avoid
salmon extinction, which is another cost that would go on to
taxpayers and would give more fuel to that fire to take away
one of the big economic drivers of our region.
The other thing I wanted to mention about that is that the
biological opinion--it is important to have a strong, clear
biological opinion for the power managers in the region.
They've got enough uncertainty to deal with, and we need one
that will guide them and they'll know when and if they need to
replace the power in the four lower Snake dams.
With that, I will be happy to answer questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Semanko.
STATEMENT OF NORM SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL
COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS, BOISE, ID
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, my name is Norm Semanko and I
serve as executive director and general counsel for the Idaho
Water Users Association. The association was formed in 1938 and
represents about 300 canal companies, irrigation districts,
public and municipal water suppliers, individuals, and agri-
businesses. We are also affiliated with the National Water
Resources Association, which I serve as the board member from
Idaho and also as their Federal Affairs Committee chairman. We
do appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
We understand the focus of this hearing to be two-fold. One
is an examination of the science upon which Federal officials
are relaying in writing their salmon recovery documents, and,
No. 2, a determination of the extent to which the Federal
Caucus has collaborated with States, tribes, and others in
drafting these documents.
I will address both issues.
Idaho water users necessarily focus their attention on a
specific set of issues pertaining to flow augmentation from the
upper Snake River Basin. While the 12 species of salmon and
steelhead that are listed under the ESA exist only downstream,
as you well know, Mr. Chairman, of the upper Snake River, our
part of the State has been called upon to contribute almost
half a million-acre feet of water each year toward flow
augmentation during the migration season of the salmon,
particularly in the summer months.
NMFS continues to call upon Idaho to supply this and
additional water from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in
the draft biological opinion. This is water taken directly from
reservoirs which Idaho irrigators and other water users have
relied upon and used for most of the past century.
Mr. Chairman, the science is in on this issue, and it shows
that it is a failed experiment. The augmentation using water
from the upper Snake River Basin does not work. NMFS' continued
reliance upon flow augmentation is without adequate scientific
support and needs to be discarded from future salmon recovery
discussions.
In a recent white paper on flow augmentation, the Federal
Government's own scientists--distinguish that from their
policymakers--their own scientists have indicated that flow
augmentation really doesn't work. Additional research on the
topic by others, including the State of Idaho and our own
scientists and researchers yields the same result. The
information has been well documented and provided on several
occasions to NMFS and other Federal agencies. Many examples can
be provided to demonstrate how futile the flow augmentation
experiment has been.
Most astounding perhaps is the simple hydrologic fact that
adding even increased amounts of flow to the lower Snake River
would only increase the velocity of the water by \1/10\ of 1
mile per hour at Lower Granite Dam.
For this vain effort, we are spending taxpayer dollars and
putting our economy and way of life at risk. It is only a
matter of drought years coming, and we will feel the pain of
providing this water.
To date, this information has been ignored by the political
decisionmakers in the Clinton Administration who find it more
expedient to continue this failed program than to discontinue
it.
Idaho water users have participated in this experiment for
the past 10 years, waiting for proof that flow augmentation
works. Mr. Chairman, we are still waiting.
To their credit, the Governors of the four Northwest States
recently called upon NMFS to document the alleged benefits of
flow augmentation. Draft amendments to the Northwest Power
Planning Council's fish and wildlife program call for the same
documentation, including a determination of the precise
attributes of flow augmentation that provide any meaningful
benefit to the listed species.
We are proud of Idaho Governor Kempthorne's leadership
role, the statement that he made yesterday, and in taking this
important step, the first important step toward debunking the
myth that flow augmentation using Idaho water can somehow save
the fish. We know it cannot, and I have not heard anything
different today.
Flows from the upper Snake have slightly increased over the
past 85 years, especially during the critical months, despite
irrigation development in southern Idaho and the construction
of the upper Snake project. The simple reason for this is that
we store the water in the winter and early spring and we
release it in the summer, and it doesn't take a lot of
intelligence to figure out that there is more water in the
river because of that, even though we are depleting some of the
flows to provide irrigation.
The scientific documentation for these conclusions is
summarized in figures one through six, which are included in my
prepared statement.
It is worth noting here, Mr. Chairman, that the flows at
Lower Granite have been about 31,000 CFS, on the average, over
the last 84 years. NMFS has set flow targets between 50 and
55,000 CFS at Lower Granite. It makes absolutely no sense.
There is no scientific foundation for the conclusions in
the draft BIOP regarding flow augmentation. It does not provide
any benefits.
We have provided one more chart that we'd like you to look
at, and that's No. 7, figure seven of my prepared testimony,
and it shows the minuscule contribution--the little black bumps
at the bottom of the last page in my prepared testimony--the
minuscule contribution of the upper Snake flow augmentation
when compared to the entire flow of the Columbia Basin, the
Columbia River.
NMFS has said that flow augmentation helps from the upper
Snake for the lower Snake, for the lower Columbia, and for the
estuary, and you can see from that chart, alone, that that has
no basis in fact.
Mr. Chairman, by presenting this information I hope we have
given you some idea of the degree to which the science used by
the Federal agencies fails to support the conclusions regarding
flow augmentation in the draft salmon recovery documents. We'd
appreciate anything that you could do to bring this information
to the light of the Federal agencies.
On the other topic, Mr. Chairman, from our perspective the
Federal agencies involved in salmon recovery, particularly
NMFS, have failed to collaborate with interest groups such as
ours in drafting these important documents. We have taken very
seriously the task of reviewing this information and providing
data to NMFS. We have taken virtually every opportunity to
provide written detailed comments to NMFS on draft documents
and analyses. To date, our concerns have been ignored. In some
cases, as with our comments on the draft All-H paper, they have
not been acknowledged at all.
If the goal, Mr. Chairman, is to develop a regional plan by
consensus, the Federal agencies have failed miserably. Anything
that this subcommittee can do to correct this situation would
be greatly appreciated.
I do want to caution you, Mr. Chairman, though that this
type of collaborative process needs to include everyone in the
region. If that is done by having all of the interest groups,
the States, and the tribes at the same table, that's great. If
it happens with the four Governors through the process that
they have initiated, that works, too. But we need to do
something to get a true regional consensus. NMFS is not doing
it for us.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I do look
forward to the future hearings that will be held on this. I've
talked to a number of other interest groups in the region. They
have looked forward to that opportunity and they have a lot to
say, as we do, about not only economics but also the science
that has gone into the decisions that NMFS is making.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Semanko.
Mr. Spain.
STATEMENT OF GLEN SPAIN, NORTHWEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC
COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, INC., EUGENE, OR
Mr. Spain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since I am the last speaker and I'm kind of low on the food
chain, I'm going to cut to the quick here.
We're commercial fishermen. We're family food providers. We
harvest the bounty of the sea and the bounty that comes from
our rivers. That bounty in the Columbia has steadily decreased
over the last 40 years, and the final nail in that coffin, I am
afraid, was the construction of the four lower Snake dams.
There is a huge, huge cost of doing nothing. That cost has
been borne by lower river communities, it has been borne by
rate-payers, it has been borne by taxpayers. In mitigation
measures, alone, it is well in excess of $4 billion, with no
end in sight, to keep doing the same wrong things over and
over. They obviously have not worked or we would not have
virtually every stock in most of our basin listed under the
Endangered Species Act. But it has also seriously impacted
coastal communities and lower river communities.
We represent commercial fishermen, not only in the Columbia
River but as far south as San Diego and as far north as Alaska.
We are the west coast's largest organization of commercial
fishermen.
These stocks, when they get to the estuary, they swim north
and they swim south. They are the limiting factor now and have
been for over 15, 20 years in several major fisheries. Although
there are a lot of hatchery fish out there, we can't catch them
because we cannot impact beyond certain caps these weakest
stocks from the Columbia River.
The Columbia River declines have also been the major
precipitating factor in the international crisis with Canada
that has been temporarily resolved. We have obligations under
international law to Canada to continue free passage of fish
from the Columbia, but there first have to be fish from the
Columbia to get there.
We cannot continue trying to replace wild fish with
hatchery fish. Hatchery fish need the same river, the same
habitat, which is seriously degraded all the way from the
watersheds at the top in your State and beyond, on down to the
estuary.
We have serious problems throughout the system, and it has
impacted our people enormously. I think we need to appreciate
that.
However, that means that an investment in recovery can
bring back into the economy as much as $500 million a year
every year in lost economic benefits that are now gone from the
economy. This includes roughly $100 million from the Idaho
economy, primarily steelhead fishing, and roughly 5,000 jobs in
the Idaho economy that were fishing dependent that are not
there or that will soon disappear.
This is also an offsetting benefit for making the
investment in a good plan that works.
Now, our organization's interest is in restoring these
runs. I have struggled, as you have struggled, to try to grasp
the science, to try to deal with the policy issues, to try to
find any way we can save these fish short of the breaching of
the Snake River dams. We remain very skeptical that we can
offset the 88 percent mortalities in the dams, as the draft
BIOP already indicates, in the Snake River with the remaining
12 percent from other sources, but we are willing to give it a
try. We have always been willing to give it a try.
My view, frankly, of the BIOP is the framework is there,
but it is just a skeleton. We need to put some meat on it
before it is going to get up and walk.
We are going to have to have some specific details as to
what gets done, who gets to do it, how much it is going to
cost, and when it has to be done by. Specifically, there are
some systemic flaws in the BIOP that need to be corrected, and
quickly. One is lack of specific performance standards. We
don't know what the goal is. Until we know what the goal really
is in terms of runs, numbers of fish, restoration goals over
time, we have a difficult task ahead of us ascertaining whether
we're even meeting those goals.
We need detailed measures on how to reach those goals.
Right now there is a lot of good language there, but it is very
general and vague. The Administration admits this. It is a
draft. But once you've got the goals, once you've got the
measures to reach the goals, then you have to cost it out and
see who is going to pay for it and how much it is going to
cost.
We do not have that necessary detail in here. In fact, my
understanding is that the Office of Management and Budget was
asked for those numbers and they threw up their hands saying,
``This is too vague. We cannot put price tags on any of these
measures unless the measures are actually specific.''
We also need check-ins much more frequently. We'll know
within 3 years whether Congress, which is the prime performance
standard here, is going to fully fund these measures.
If Congress does not do that, or if people start cherry
picking, as I understand is what is contemplated with various
riders--block this, take this, whatever--the whole tapestry
here is going to unravel pretty quickly.
I am much more afraid of that than that we do these various
measures and in terms of the cost, because the alternative are
far worse. This is the only game in town right now. This
framework has to be made workable or we have chaos in the
region.
As you are well aware, the whole Federal hydropower system
in the region is right on the verge of serious chaos in the
courts, chaos among various interest groups. There will be
renewed calls for divesting the government of BPA altogether.
We may have Treasury payment failures. All of these are at risk
right now until we have a plan.
As to the consensus, I think we have the beginnings of a
consensus. We have about 90 percent convergence between the
BIOP's framework and the Governors' framework. I think we can
go that extra 10 percent pretty readily, but again we have to
do the details.
Finally, we have to we have some decision points. We cannot
avoid making decisions. The cost of doing nothing is mounting
as we speak. The economic dislocation in agriculture, in
transportation, in power, in fishing, in down-river fishing
communities, to fishing communities from central California,
and all the way up to Alaska is mounting. We have these
problems that we have to prevail against, and the only way we
can do it is with the best available science.
In terms of one of the suggestions, I am astonished, as you
are, that the CRI, the guts of this whole plan, has never been
peer reviewed. I'm astonished that the agencies have not taken
advantage of the Independent Science Review Board that is
already there, created by legislation with recognition of the
need for better science. At least they should be asked to peer
review, and I would ask you, as chairman of this committee, to
require them or request them to peer review the CRI and its
fundamental assumptions because, as you know, it is garbage in/
garbage out. You can have the best model in the world, but if
your assumptions are flawed you get nowhere and you get no
results.
My Papa always used to warn us, ``Never spend more money
doing the same wrong thing over and over if you can avoid it.
Sit down and think it through first and try to do it better.''
I think we can do it better, and I think we really must do it
better, not only for your people and your constituency but for
my people and my constituency--who, by the way, are more than
happy to work hand-in-hand with your committee, with upper
river irrigators and interest groups, to work through
mitigation, if necessary, and to work through alternatives if
possible.
I certainly pledge to you our efforts, as a coast-wide
fishing organization, to work on those issues with you
personally and with committee members.
I want to emphasize one other thing, and that is that there
are four elephants in this room. We are addressing but one. The
other three are the Clean Water Act; tribal treaty obligations,
which the courts, including the Supreme Court, take very
seriously; and the Northwest Power Planning Act. Those we have
to address in other forums, perhaps, but we must keep in mind
that we have to address all four or we are going to have a lot
of broken china in the room.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
To the entire panel, I appreciate your comments, just as we
have each of the other panels.
Ms. Patton, let me start with you. I appreciate the
supplemental information you provided, as well, from the
``Going with the Flow'' document, which I will review
carefully, but I want to ask you a couple of questions in that
context.
If I understand your testimony right, it is that, from your
analysis and the study that you have provided, that the energy
losses from decommissioning the dams could be replaced. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Patton. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. At below cost prices?
Ms. Patton. At below market cost prices.
Senator Crapo. At below market cost prices.
Ms. Patton. Yes.
Senator Crapo. In that analysis, is that primarily relying
on gas-generated electricity, or--I know you listed a number of
other options there, but my understanding in the past has been
that the economics weren't there for them to be really viable
replacement alternatives. Are those becoming economically
viable as replacement alternatives, or is it really the gas-
generated electricity that is the focus?
Ms. Patton. This study was looking specifically at
comparing a conservation and renewables package to a market
package. The market package--I had the numbers in there, but it
was primarily over 80 percent gas-powered combustion turbines,
and the remainder I expected to come from coal. That was the
package that BPA put together as the part of the draw-down
regional economic workshop part of the EIS.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Ms. Patton. BPA put together that package using their
models and said that was what the market would supply if BPA
went out and went to the market for that power.
So we were using that as our definition of market and
looking to find out if we could find a combination of
conservation and renewables that would meet that requirement
and be at or below that cost, and we did.
Senator Crapo. That is in this document?
Ms. Patton. It's in this document. In fact, what has
happened of late is that the cost of gas-powered combustion
turbines has started to climb pretty precipitously with the
increase in the cost of gas, the doubling of gas prices, and
we're not totally real concerned about the pipeline
capabilities and what we're looking at there, which means that
you start adding costs. Right now the market price that the
Power Council has used for--the Power Council did a new
conservation potential assessment for the city of Seattle, and
they are also putting together a new marginal value coming out
of their regional technical forum work, and they are using a
market value of about $0.04 to $0.041 a kilowatt hour, which is
much higher than the one we used for this.
What the effect of that is, is that if you have a higher
marginal value more conservation measures become cost
effective.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Ms. Patton. So you have a larger resource than we were
looking at that's cost effective.
Senator Crapo. Review briefly with me those conservation
measures, just to refresh my memory.
Ms. Patton. Well, they are the ones that everybody is
familiar with--putting insulation in your attic and getting a
more efficient washer/dryer, those kinds of things that we all
use in our everyday houses.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Ms. Patton. But, in fact, a lot of this potential comes
from commercial and industrial conservation, things like having
more-
efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning in
commercial buildings, more-efficient lighting. Lighting is a
huge energy use in commercial, and there are lots of ways to
improve that to make it more efficient.
In industry there is an enormous amount of potential, from
better motors, more-efficient motors, and more-efficient heat
processes, and also from the same things that you find in
commercial, the same lighting and heating and ventilation and
the air conditioning, and a lot of that potential comes there--
a lot of it is very inexpensive, and a lot of it is less than
$0.02 a kilowatt hour.
In fact, the potential assessment that the Power Council
did for Seattle City Light service territory found--and they
continue to do conservation, one of the few utilities that
stuck with it through thick and thin.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Ms. Patton. Yet, still in the future the Power Council
analysis said there was between 180 and 240 megawatts of
conservation at $0.02 a kilowatt hour or below that was
achievable in the Seattle area.
If we had a new regional conservation potential assessment,
I think we'd find that these numbers are very conservative in
terms of what is cost effective.
Senator Crapo. If you are looking at $0.04, then it even--
--
Ms. Patton. Yes.
Senator Crapo [continuing]. Becomes more reasonable.
Ms. Patton. Absolutely.
Mr. Spain. Mr. Chairman, could I offer a real-life example?
Senator Crapo. Go ahead.
Mr. Spain. The utility district in Eugene, OR, where I live
invested a few years ago in a Wyoming wind farm. I get 100
percent of my power from that wind farm. My rates went up about
40 percent over standard rates, but I also used a BPA-funded
conservation program to insulate the house, put in double-pane
windows, things that are required under modern construction
anyway but weren't 40 years ago. My house leaked a lot. Now my
power costs are 30 percent below the average for my neighbors.
Senator Crapo. Even though you may be paying a higher rate?
Mr. Spain. I'm paying a higher rate, but conserved over 50
percent of the overall kilowatt hours because of the
conservation program, 80 percent funded by BPA several years
ago. That funding program has disappeared. Most conservation
efforts are no longer funded by BPA or through utilities
because BPA doesn't make that money available.
Ms. Patton. But luckily we are starting to again.
Mr. Spain. That is a serious, serious problem.
Senator Crapo. So you have an example right here at the
table, Ms. Patton, of what you are talking about.
Ms. Patton. There are many examples, and great examples
from industry and business.
Senator Crapo. I don't know if it is in your testimony or
in the document that you provided, but do you have information
that shows the current economic cost of, say, solar power or
wind power as opposed to gas production or hydro production or
the like? Do you have something that compares the cost of all
those? I realize that changes.
Ms. Patton. I cited some of those numbers in the testimony.
I was just getting from a friend at Enron an analysis of gas
combustion turbines that said if you are under 250 megawatts it
is about $0.037 a kilowatt hour; if you are over, you can get
as low, they think, as $0.031 a kilowatt hour. That's bus bar.
That's not yet delivered.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Ms. Patton. So there are still some more things to add on
to that.
Right now there is a big planned wind project called the
State Line Project. It is 200 megawatts on the Washington side
of the river and 100 on the Oregon side of the river. It is an
expansion of the current VanSickle project. That's by FPL. They
are expecting to come in in the mid $0.03 range on that wind
because it is a big economies of scale.
The average for wind is between--and I've got this. I want
to make sure that I get--the price range for wind has been from
$0.04 to $0.06. We're hoping to see that go down with the
economies of scale, obviously.
For geothermal, from $0.045 to $0.07, so we're getting
close. Depending on what happens with natural gas, if it keeps
going up----
Senator Crapo. Then you could see some opportunity there
for economic sense to make these shifts.
Ms. Patton. Right, as well as if we find that we're willing
to make the serious investments that we need to make in
mitigation, CO2 mitigation, in order to make those gas plants
safe for our whole globe.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Semanko, I'm going to save you for last, since you're
from Idaho. I'm going to go to Mr. Spain next.
Mr. Spain, as I listened to your testimony, you answered
most of my questions as you proceeded, but I want to make sure
that I clarify what I understand you to be saying with regard
to the BIOP.
I understand the defects that you identified and listed,
and I think those are similar to many that have been raised,
but, in fact, in the latter part of your written testimony you
indicated that a number of political leaders have stated that
they believe that all other feasible measures throughout the
whole system should be tried before resorting to
decommissioning the dams, and that both politically and
administratively that makes sense.
So you agree then with the idea that we've got to see if
some of these other things will work before we take the major
step of decommissioning dams?
Mr. Spain. I do, but there are a couple of caveats here.
We have spent well over $4 billion trying to do things
there to help fish and wildlife, and all the easy things have
been done. Technical fixes to the dams, many of them have been
done. Some have been tried and they failed. We have some
concerns about what more can be done there.
We can certainly do a lot more for down-river habitat and
estuary habitat, particularly. Will Stelle's and NMFS'
assessments--and I agree with these assessments--are that we've
lost roughly 90 percent of the salmon productivity in the lower
estuary below Bonneville. We could do much better there.
There are clearly areas where tributaries need some
cleanup. There are some screens problems. As you know, Senator
Wyden and others have a bill to provide money for screens in,
unfortunately, way too many unscreened diversions in the
Columbia and elsewhere.
We can do all of those things. The question that remains
is, since each of those will give us a little increment and we
are dealing within that 12 percent mortality for the Snake
River runs, whereas the Snake River dams, according to the
BIOP's own numbers, provide up to an 88 percent mortality, can
we piece together enough benefit to offset the problems and--
the chart was up there--bring that up above 2 percent survival.
The 2 percent is replacement. To get to recovery you need to
get much higher than that. To prevent it getting worse you need
to get to 2 percent. Right now we have been on the order of \1/
2\ of 1 percent, or less, for years.
I think we can try a lot of things. As you point out, even
if the decision were made today to breach the Snake River dams,
it would take years to do it. Until that happens, there is a
lot we can do. In addition, the BIOP, I think rightly,
addresses the fact that there are eight listed runs that have
nothing to do with the Snake River. They are Columbia River
main stem runs.
In order to address the needs of those other fish, we still
have to do work in the estuaries, and we can get some bang for
the buck for the Snake River out of that, too, so it makes
sense to do the stuff that we can do aggressively, do it right,
do it based on the best available science, do it efficiently,
and do it as quickly as possible to try to get that benefit,
and monitor the results, hoping that we can avoid the much-
more-difficult, much-more-divisive, as you point out, problems
around breaching of the Snake River dams.
Senator Crapo. Do you agree generally with the testimony
that we've heard from a number of the other witnesses in these
2 days of hearings that the focus of the BIOP right now may be
a little too much in those other areas and not enough on the
main hydrosystem?
Mr. Spain. I think that is likely right. When we are
barging in excess of 80 percent of the smolts, as happened this
year, we can't continue doing that and say we're doing a
spread-the-risk strategy. We can't continue doing that without
looking at other ways and other alternatives, particularly
since we know there is an immense, unquantified but large
delayed mortality from those programs.
We also know that it is a lot more expensive than leaving
the fish in the river to begin with to take them out of the
river, put them on a truck, drive the truck to a barge, take
the barge down-river, and off-load them. That's all Federal
money. If we leave them in the river to begin with, we don't
have to do that.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Semanko, you indicated in your testimony that flows
have generally increased in the Snake River over the last 85
years, and largely that's due--I assume you mean during the
summer and fall--spring, summer, and fall timeframe?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, the period that we look at most
critically is the 75-day period, the summer migration that NMFS
requires that those flow targets be met.
Senator Crapo. OK. So you're talking about the very--that's
what I wanted to get at--you're talking about the timeframe
which is when the fish are in the river?
Mr. Semanko. That's true, although if you look at the
records for the entire year as an average, that holds true for
the entire year, as well.
Senator Crapo. OK.
Mr. Semanko. It goes down slightly in the spring, up
slightly in the summer, and overall for the year it is up
slightly.
Senator Crapo. All right. I assume you've provided that
information to NMFS?
Mr. Semanko. We have, and in much more detail than we've
provided it to you, and we'll be providing the subcommittee
with a copy of the comments that we are submitting to NMFS
again on this topic.
Senator Crapo. Good. I do find fascinating the charts you
provided. I'm looking here at figure seven, which is the one
that you referred to at the end of your testimony. I wish
everybody could see this. It's a little small, but it basically
shows the flows in the entire Columbia River and--let's see,
the Columbia River at the mouth and the Snake River at Hell's
Canyon; is that correct?
Mr. Semanko. Yes, and then the flow augmentation that is
provided.
Senator Crapo. So that shows the total flow, and then it
shows what part of that flow is provided by the flow
augmentation that is being asked from Idaho's up-river
irrigators and others, water users. The chart is dramatic. It
shows that it's just a little blip on the screen, basically, in
terms of the magnitude of the water that is flowing in that
river, which explains why those additional flows don't do much
to increase speed of travel in the river.
Now, I assume you provided this graph also to NMFS?
Mr. Semanko. We have.
Ms. Patton. What did they tell you?
Mr. Semanko. They don't really have a response to it. The
response to date has been that it provides some--Will Stelle's
answer is the best answer I can give you, that it provides some
incremental benefit, and if you start using the rationale that,
well, this doesn't really help, and you apply that to every
measure that they are trying to implement around the region,
all of a sudden the biological opinion from 1995 falls apart,
and we can't proceed that way. That's the best answer he gives.
He doesn't really or they don't really address the data that
we've provided them.
Senator Crapo. Have you had an opportunity to collaborate
with them--in other words, to sit down--my definition would be,
in your case, to sit down at a table with them with your
scientists and these charts and this information and to get
their scientists and their analyses and to see if you could
find some common understanding as to what the science is
showing?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, the short answer to that is,
``no'', We've made great efforts to try to meet with folks in
the Federal agencies. We have been able to meet on occasion
with people at the Bureau of Reclamation, the regional office
in Boise, but getting past that, getting our information to
NMFS and sitting down with them and discussing it is another
matter altogether, and we have not been successful in having
that occur.
Senator Crapo. You've listened to the testimony over the
last couple of days, haven't you?
Mr. Semanko. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Do you agree that during the next--I assume
you agree that during the next 3\1/2\ months we have an
important collaborative effort to undertake.
Mr. Semanko. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I, myself, wonder if
the massive type of collaboration that we're talking about can
happen in 3\1/2\ months, or perhaps whether the four Governors'
mechanism that's out there wouldn't provide a better vehicle.
As we talked about several years ago on the other side of
the Hill at another hearing, there have been other instances
where Governors have been given authority to act in ESA
matters, and the one that comes to mind is when Fish and
Wildlife Service signed a cooperative agreement with the three
Governors in upper Colorado Basin and said,
You folks go ahead and figure out a way to solve this
problem, and as long as it is within some broad parameters
we're not going to give away our authority under the ESA but
we're going to let you go ahead and run with the ball.
If we had that kind of model in the Pacific Northwest to
allow the four Governors to not only to come up with a plan
that they hope someone is going to read, but to actually say,
``Here's what the four Governors agree to, and as long as it is
within some broad parameters scientifically we're going to run
with that,'' I think that's something that we could achieve.
We've begun that process, I think, thanks to Governor
Kempthorne's leadership, but we are not quite there yet. We've
just begun to develop a skeleton, I think.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. You also testified that a number
of other interest groups were very anxious to provide their
input, and I want to again state that I am aware of that and
wish we had a third day that we could do this right now, but we
will be holding further hearings and that input will be
provided.
As I say, you've listened to the last couple of days
comments on the science issues. Do you have an objective or a
perspective on the science being utilized by NMFS right now
versus the science that had been seemingly in the collaborative
process that was existing before?
Mr. Semanko. You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm not a biologist or
a scientist. What I will tell you, though, is that I attend a
lot of the meetings where these things are discussed, and you
do owe it to yourself and to the subcommittee to hear from some
other people. PATH is not, from what I understand, the be-all
and the end-all of the science. There are a lot of other models
and science that's out there that you need to listen to.
I know the discussion about the so-called ``d-factor'' and
delayed mortality is the key factor. It's an assumption. I
understand whether you assume it one way or the other dictates
whether the conclusion from any of the models is to breach or
not to breach, and I can't tell you which one of those is
right. All I can tell you is that there are other people in the
region who have feelings about that, and you should hear from
them.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that input, and we will hear
from them.
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that, when you
first announced these hearings, you mentioned that you would
have several hearings, so nobody has ever questioned that. We
fully believe that this is going to be a long and contentious
process. It has been going on for a number of years, and it is
not going to get solved in one hearing.
I also wanted to mention, since I am qualified to answer
legal questions, that this question about Judge Marsh's opinion
in
Department of Fish and Game v. NMFS, I was able to attend the
hearings that Judge Marsh had in American Rivers v. NMFS in
1995 and 1996, and he commented that, under the Endangered
Species Act, as has been alluded to here today, there is no
requirement for the Federal agencies to, in essence, come to an
agreement with Federal or with State and tribal or other
entities. He did, though, say that in his previous opinion he
had said it is not reasonable for NMFS to proceed without
considering--and in the case of Idaho Fish and Game v. NMFS
they were not considering the input from the State and tribal
biologists.
So I think that that pushed the region toward having a
collaborative process, but the sad fact is that ESA does not
require NMFS to come outside of that black box at that point.
If anything, they've done more than they are probably required
to up until the last year or so when they've gone back behind
closed doors.
Senator Crapo. I think you've identified one of the
concerns that I have with the overall Endangered Species Act
process in that there is no formal requirement for
collaboration, yet on issues, particularly issues such as
significant as this and as large as this, I think the political
reality is if we don't have collaboration that we'll simply
have gridlock. That's one of the things I think we have been
experiencing in the Pacific Northwest for years now.
I appreciate once again all of you on the panel coming
forward today and your effort and concern on these issues.
Please continue to keep us informed, and we will continue to go
out and take testimony and hear from all perspectives until we
have it fully evaluated, and hopefully provide the kind of
oversight that Congress can, as this process proceeds, to
encourage the Federal agencies to proceed in a way that will
help us move toward a consensus-based path for recovery.
Once again, I thank everybody for coming. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Nicolaas Bouwes, Biometrician, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife
background
Current management of the hydrosystem is guided by a Biological
Opinion on 1994-1998 operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System and its supplement for listed steelhead (1995 Biological
Opinion). The 1995 Biological Opinion contains specific measures for
operating and improving the configuration of the hydrosystem in the
near term. However, it deferred decisions about the long-term future
operation and configuration of the hydrosystem until late 1999, when it
anticipated the completion of a formal and deliberate assessment of
three general alternatives. The decision about the long-term future
state of the hydrosystem was deferred until 1999 because of significant
uncertainties associated with the projected likelihood of survival and
recovery of listed fish under each option.
This assessment, referred to as the Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses (PATH) was shaped by Federal District Court orders arising
from a challenge of the legal adequacy of the Biological Opinion on the
1993 operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (1993
Biological Opinion) by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the
State of Oregon, joined by four treaty Indian tribes. They argued the
chosen jeopardy standard and the consideration of the reasonable and
prudent alternatives (RPAs) to avoid jeopardy were arbitrary and
capricious and otherwise not in accordance with the purposes of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The District Court agreed and set aside
and remanded the 1993 Biological Opinion and records of decision to the
Federal defendants with instructions that they review and reconsider
them. Rather than reconsider the challenged 1993 Biological Opinion,
the Federal defendants opted to reconsider the newly issued 1995
Biological Opinion. The following District Court orders guided their
efforts:
1. NMFS must consider relevant facts and articulate a rational
connection between the facts found and the choices made. These choices
included the choice of a standard, for which the District Court
expressly rejected any attempt to impose bright-line definitions of
survival and recovery. Instead, the District Court stated that, with
respect to listed Snake River salmon, survival and recovery are
virtually indistinguishable.
2. NMFS must conduct a reasoned evaluation of all available
information. The District Court found that NMFS arbitrarily and
capriciously discounted low range assumptions without well-reasoned
analysis and without considering the full range of risk assumptions.
This was particularly problematic given the enhanced risk associated
with the small size of listed Snake River salmon populations.
3. NMFS must substantively consider significant information and
data from well-qualified scientists such as the fisheries biologists
from the States and tribes. The District Court directed NMFS to provide
analysis and reasoned evaluation of submissions by such qualified
scientists, with any rejection of such submissions thoroughly
explained.
4. NMFS must provide sufficient reasoned analysis of its
consideration of alternatives and measures [for operation of the
hydrosystem] to permit judicial review.
In response to the District Court's findings, NMFS agreed in a
Joint Statement of the Parties, filed with the Federal Report of
Compliance, to several coordinating principles. Three of these
principles are particularly germane to the purpose of PATH and led to
its development.
1. NMFS, for development of its hydrosystem biological opinion
concerning the listed salmon, will use a regional analytical work
group, including State agencies and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission, to provide technical analysis of biological parameters
affected by fish passage through the hydrosystem and impacts on other
portions of their life cycle.
2. The Federal action agencies or NMFS will provide State agencies,
tribal governments, and others as they deem appropriate, with a
reasonable opportunity to provide new scientific and technical
information on a draft biological opinion(s).
3. Federal power system operators, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and NMFS will provide State agencies and tribal
governments and others with an opportunity to meet to discuss the
analysis of the expected effects of proposed actions in biological
assessment(s) and biological opinion(s) before final decisions are
made. In this regard, the Federal action agencies, FWS and NMFS will
make available to State agencies and tribal governments and others
documents containing data, analysis, and other information upon which
the biological assessment and biological opinion rely.
The PATH process was developed through a collaborative process and
adopted by NMFS in 1995 to provide a biological framework for decisions
concerning the listed Snake River salmon and steelhead, and most PATH
analyses were completed in 1998. The PATH forum is an inclusive,
regional analytical work group\1\ developed to provide technical
analyses of biological parameters affected by fish passage through the
hydrosystem and impacts on other portions of their life cycle. The PATH
analyses evaluated factors responsible for the decline of ESA listed
Snake River salmon and steelhead (retrospective analysis), and
described a range of possible responses to alternative management
actions (prospective analysis). The range of population responses to
each management action described the ability and uncertainty in meeting
the 1995 ESA jeopardy standards developed by the Biological
Requirements Work Group (BRWG). In a memorandum from Randall Peterman,
a world-renowned fisheries biologist reviewing the PATH process, to the
NMFS chaired Implementation Team, stated ``it is fair to say that the
PATH process, is the most comprehensive analysis of alternative
hypotheses and management options that I have ever seen, heard about,
or read about.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PATH participation was broadly represented by as many as 25
scientists from State, tribal, Federal, and private institutions
including NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, Bonneville Power
Administration, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia Basin fish
and Wildlife Authority, University of Washington, and other private
firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PATH retrospective analysis concluded that the most likely
factor responsible for the decline of Snake River spring/summer chinook
was the development and operation of the lower Snake River hydrosystem.
PATH found that the management action most likely to improve Snake
River salmon survival enough to meet the jeopardy standards over the
greatest range of hypotheses, was breaching of four lower Snake River
dams. The improved hydrosystem operations and increased transportation
options did not meet the jeopardy standards over the majority of
hypotheses evaluated.
In 1999, NMFS announced their intention to delay the 1999
Biological Opinion to 2000. NMFS also announced the beginning of their
new analytical process, the Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI). In the
Lower Snake River draft Environmental Impact Statement, NMFS stated in
their Anadromous Fish Appendix, that ``The CRI approach cannot replace
PATH's detailed examination of modifications of transport or fish
passage systems, and is not intended to do so.'' Instead, NMFS has
stated that they elected to move away from the PATH process to the
NMFS' CRI process because they needed a tool flexible enough to
evaluate the impacts of hydro, habitat, hatcheries, and harvest on all
listed stocks. We agree that these additional analyses are necessary;
however, the established PATH process could have addressed these needs
if the Implementation Team, who assigned PATH their analytical tasks,
had deemed them necessary. In addition, PATH made considerable progress
in investigating the improvements that might be expected from habitat
restoration, alternative harvest reductions, and estuary mortality
reduction in much greater detail than has been attempted by CRI. In the
draft Biological Opinion, NMFS' has ignored the PATH findings and has
relied on the CRI for the Snake River listed stocks and the
Quantitative Analysis (QAR) for the mid-Columbia listed stocks. The CRI
only evaluated ``modifications of transport, or fish passage systems''
and harvest for the Snake River listed stocks. Therefore, CRI is not
used for the purposes NMFS has given to abandon PATH, but only to
``replace PATH's detailed examination.'' The draft Biological Opinion
should include a description of why the PATH process and their findings
that were meant to provide the analytical basis for the 1999 (2000)
Biological Opinion were abandoned in exchange for what NMFS admits is a
less ``detailed examination''.
review of the draft biological opinion
A great deal of effort has been made by Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife to understand the 700 pages of draft Biological Opinion
that describes the analytical approaches and rationale developed for
the future operation of the FCRPS to ensure the survival and recovery
of the 12 listed ESU salmon and steelhead. This review occurred over
the last 6 weeks, and in general we are concerned that the conservation
burden of the Federal hydropower system has not been adequately defined
and has been inappropriately assigned to harvest, hatcheries, and
habitat programs. The States and tribes should not shoulder the
mitigation responsibility of the Federal hydropower system, nor should
the responsibility be shifted from the mainstem to the tributaries and
estuary without a full accounting of what limits the ability of the
hydropower system to meet its mitigation responsibility. The following
comments highlight shortcoming of the draft Biological Opinion that has
led us to this conclusion.
In general, the BiOp:
1. Overestimates probabilities of survival and recovery for listed
salmon and steelhead
2. underestimates survival improvements necessary to ensure the
survival and recovery of listed salmon and steelhead
3. overestimates or, for some measures, does not estimate
improvements to survival resulting from implementation of the
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)
4. describes an RPA for operation of the Federal hydropower system
that does not significantly change the status quo
5. does not adequately explain whether the success of the RPA can
be confidently described by proposed performance standards and measures
after 5-8 years
6. does not anticipate and have ready an alternative RPA, if the
proposed RPA does not produce survival improvements necessary to ensure
the survival and recovery of listed salmon and steelhead.
Specifically:
1. The BiOp overestimates the probability of survival and recovery
for listed salmon and steelhead because analyses are based on
optimistic assumptions.
(a) Optimistic assumptions.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy using only
those assumptions that present an optimistic view of the status of
listed salmon and steelhead. Assumptions used in the BiOp are not based
on the weight of evidence. Nor, in the absence of evidence, are they
conservative, i.e. they do not avoid placing undue risk on the listed
species.
(b) Extinction threshold.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy using the
probability of an absolute extinction of 1 fish/brood. In reality,
populations are at significant risk of extinction well before abundance
declines to 1 fish/brood. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
points this out in their description of Viable Salmonid Populations
(McElhany et al. 2000). The Biological Requirements Work Group (BRWG)
that NMFS formed to set threshold population levels for survival and
recovery of listed salmon and steelhead also points this out. Using an
absolute extinction of 1 fish/brood as the survival threshold under-
estimates the probability of real extinction for the listed species.
(c)Definition of high risk.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy by
defining high risk as a 5 percent probability of extinction in 24 and
100 years. This is inconsistent with the definition of high risk
previously described by NMFS in the Anadromous Fish Appendix of the US
Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Impact Statement for juvenile
fish passage improvements at Federal projects in the lower Snake River.
In the Appendix, NMFS defines high risk as a 1-percent probability of
extinction in 100 years. Relaxing the definition of high-risk under-
estimates the probability of real extinction for the listed species.
(d) Base time period.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy using a base
time period that only includes stock status information for the years
after the Federal hydropower system was constructed. The evaluation
also uses stock status projections (returns that have not occurred)
through 2004 in an attempt to reflect affects of recent good ocean
conditions. By not including years before construction of the
hydropower system, and by including stock status projections for future
years, the BiOp under-estimates the decline in population abundance
coinciding with construction of the hydropower system, and also over-
estimates the probability of survival and recovery.
(e) Population summary statistic.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy
using a metric for population growth that assumes a linear decline in
population levels. Evidence suggests that declines in population levels
are non-linear (Oosterhout 2000). In failing to correct for a non-
linear decline, the approach over-estimates the probability of survival
and recovery.
(f) Hatchery effectiveness.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy based on
the assumption that hatchery effectiveness is low. Evidence suggests
that hatchery spring and summer chinook that spawn in the wild in the
Snake River may be as effective as wild spawners. Assuming hatchery
effectiveness is low over-estimates the productivity of listed stocks,
and consequently, over-estimates the probability of survival and
recovery.
(g) Density dependence.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy based on the
assumption that there is no density dependence, i.e. that populations
can grow exponentially without limit. This assumption may be reasonable
at low population levels, but not at population levels that approach
recovery. Assuming no density dependence over-estimates productivity,
and consequently, the probability of recovery.
2. The BiOp underestimates the survival improvements necessary to
ensure the survival and recovery of listed salmon and steelhead.
(a) Necessary survival improvements.--Because the BiOp bases its
evaluation of jeopardy on optimistic assumptions that over-estimate the
probability of survival and recovery, estimates of the necessary
survival improvements are too low. Consequently, the BiOp concludes
that to meet the 24-year survival standard, necessary survival
improvements for Snake River spring and summer chinook are less than 30
percent over the life-cycle. This is an order of magnitude less than
estimates of over 740 percent by Peters and Marmorek (2000) and of 280
to 850 percent, based on smolt-to-adult ratios needed to meet the 24-
year survival standard used in the 1995 Biological Opinion.
(b) Delayed mortality.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy, for some
stocks, using a ``full mitigation'' standard that is equivalent to
survival through a natural river. This full mitigation standard was
calculated based on the assumption that there is no delayed mortality
of fish traveling through or transported around the Federal hydropower
system. This assumption is not consistent with the direct evidence that
delayed mortality exists and the indirect evidence that delayed
mortality is substantial (NMFS 2000, Bouwes 1999, Schaller et al. 1999,
Marmorek and Peters-SRP 1999, Marmorek and Peters 1998, Marmorek et al.
1996). Assuming no delayed mortality under-estimates mortality related
to the Federal hydropower system, and consequently significantly lowers
the full mitigation standard. This, in turn, underestimates the
survival improvement needed to meet the standard.
3. The BiOp overestimates, or for some measures, does not estimate
improvements to survival resulting from implementation of the
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA).
(a) Improvements in survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead.--The
BiOp evaluates jeopardy based on the assumption that estimated
improvements in survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead are primarily
the result of the measures implemented under the 1995 Biological
Opinion, and included as part of the proposed action. These
improvements could be a result of using data from recent high flow
conditions or an artifact of using different models to describe the
base conditions.
(b) Improvements in survival of adult salmon and steelhead.--The
BiOp evaluates jeopardy based on the assumption that the RPA reduces
losses of adult salmon and steelhead caused by the Federal hydropower
system by 25 percent. No data or analyses are presented to support this
assumption.
(c) Hydropower system responsibility.--The BiOp does not adequately
explain why certain assumptions were used, and not used, to determine
the level of impact attributable to the Federal hydropower system. The
BiOp relies on assumptions that require the least amount of hydropower
system improvements by selecting ``best case'' scenarios.
(d) Survival improvements from harvest, habitat and hatchery
measures.--The BiOp evaluates jeopardy based on the assumption that
``the greatest opportunity for
survival improvements may lie outside the scope of the hydropower
corridor''. This assumption is based on misleading ``numeric
experiments'' rather than analyses of feasible management actions. No
data or analysis is presented to support the conclusion that necessary
survival improvements can be achieved from harvest, habitat and
hatchery measures. Nor is there an assessment of risks of extinction
and associated uncertainties under these measures.
(1) Harvest rates.--The BiOp appropriately concludes that for wild
Snake River spring and summer chinook, further harvest restrictions
will not produce significant survival improvements and sets the overall
fishery impact standard at the spring season 2000 level of 6-9 percent,
which is a similar impact rate to the level of
6-10 percent set by NMFS and captured in United States v. Oregon
Management Agreements, 1996-99. It inappropriately indicates the
majority (if not all) the spring and summer chinook impacts could be
allocated to the Treaty Indian tribes because of Federal trust
responsibility and the Federal view that tribal harvest has a priority
legal standard over non-tribal harvest. The parties to United States v.
Oregon negotiate Treaty Indian and non-Indian harvest sharing. A non-
Indian impact level of 1-3 percent is considered the minimum to conduct
non-Indian selective fisheries on abundant Willamette and Cowlitz
hatchery-stock spring chinook.
(2) Harvest measures benefits.--The BiOp implies benefits from
harvest restrictions on listed stocks other than Snake River spring and
summer chinook, but fails to point out those restrictions must remain
in place for decades, and that some require agreement with Canada.
(3) Selective fisheries.--The BiOp does not clearly explain that
while much focus of selective fisheries will be toward hatchery origin
fish, selective fishery opportunities are available for healthy wild
stocks (e.g., Mid-Columbia sockeye and upriver bright fall chinook
salmon).
(4) Fishery effort reduction program.--The BiOP does not clearly
explain whether buyouts of commercial fishing licenses and permits are
voluntary.
(5) Hatcheries.--The BiOp suggests changes to artificial production
programs, but only qualitatively assesses how changes will affect
listed salmon and steelhead. In addition, the assessment erroneously
attributes potential survival improvements to monitoring and evaluation
of artificial production programs.
(6) Habitat.--The BiOp does not describe specific measures for
habitat protection and restoration in subbasins, nor does it include
measures to increase mainstem spawning habitat for fall chinook in
impounded reaches. It also does not explain how necessary survival
improvements for Snake River spring and summer chinook will be
achieved, given that it concludes that habitat measures offer little
potential improvement and assigns Snake River subbasins a low priority.
(e) Feasibility of timely implementation.--The BiOp evaluates
jeopardy based on the assumption that harvest, hatchery and habitat
measures are timely implemented and produce near-term survival
improvements. However, it neither evaluates the feasibility and risks
of implementing any of these measures, nor offers a ``game plan'' to
ensure timely implementation. Survival improvements from habitat
measures likely would not be realized for decades.
4. The BiOp describes an RPA for operation of the Federal
hydropower system that does not significantly change the status quo.
The BiOp does not acknowledge that many measures in the 1995 Biological
Opinion were not implemented as intended, or at all, for various
anticipated and unanticipated reasons. As a result, the BiOp does not
assess the likelihood that individual measures in the proposed RPA will
be fully implemented.
(a) Flow.--The BiOp does not designate meeting flow needs of listed
salmon and steelhead as at least an equal priority with other uses of
the water (e.g., power generation). It does not aggressively seek, nor
does it describe steps to acquire additional volumes of water necessary
to meet flow targets.
(b) Transportation.--The BiOp does not acknowledge the considerable
uncertainty in the potential benefits of transportation. As a result,
it does not adequately spread the risk between transporting listed
salmon and steelhead and leaving them to migrate in river by limiting
the percentage of fish transported to no more than 50 percent.
(c) Spill.--The BiOp reduces spill at The Dalles Dam from 64
percent to 40 percent, despite the fact that no statistically
significant results exist that indicate the need for the change.
5. The BiOp does not adequately explain whether the success of the
RPA can be confidently described by proposed performance standards and
measures after 5-8 years.
(a) Population summary statistic.--()Although it is
appropriate to use a life-cycle summary statistic such as as
a performance measure, using alone may not incorporate
variability. The BiOp does not clearly explain whether and how it
incorporates variability in its measurement of performance. The BiOp
also does not clearly explain whether the time series used to estimate
is the 1980 to newest years or just the newest years.
(b) Performance measures.--The BiOp does not clearly explain
whether it will use consistent methods to compare performance before
and after implementation of the RPA.
(c) Evaluation of uncertainty and error.--The BiOp does not
evaluate the feasibility of resolving uncertainty, or assess whether
the analytical approach will be able to reject the null hypothesis that
the RPA results in no survival improvement over current measures. It
does not describe feasible experimental design options to manage
uncertainty and error.
(d) Experimental management.--The BiOp does not clearly state
whether it embraces approaches that evaluate the value of what we can
learn from efforts to ensure the survival and recovery of listed salmon
and steelhead.
6. The BiOp does not anticipate and have ready an alternative RPA,
if the proposed RPA does not produce survival improvements necessary to
ensure the survival and recovery of listed salmon and steelhead. The
midpoint evaluation is not aggressive enough to avoid jeopardy given
the unstated and likely great uncertainty of the RPA and the high
probability of extinction.
(a) The BiOp does not adequately assess the likelihood of recovery
under an alternative RPA (e.g. dam-breaching) after 5 to 8 years, if
the proposed RPA does not significantly improve survival
(>0.95). If survival does not improve or continues to decline
over the time period, extinction of certain populations may be
unavoidable under any action.
(b) The BiOp does not assess the lead time needed to implement an
alternative RPA, nor does it describe what needs to be done in the
interim to ensure timely implementation. It does not describe steps
that must be taken now to satisfy NEPA requirements, get congressional
authorization, complete mitigation planning etc, and have an
alternative RPA ready to go, if needed. These steps could take 5-8
years after their initiation to complete.
(c) The BiOp cites significant uncertainty in survival improvements
from dam breaching as a basis for deferring its consideration until
some point in the future. However, the biological decision analysis
completed as part of the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses
(PATH) project concluded that the benefits from dam breaching were more
certain than non-breaching alternatives. The BiOp does not describe
decision criteria it would use or the approach it would take to resolve
conflicting assumptions, especially with respect to delayed mortality,
and reduce uncertainties associated with the proposed RPA or an
alternative RPA.
(d) The BiOp cites the fact that only Ecologically Significant
Units (ESUs) in the Snake River benefit from dam breaching as a basis
for deferring its consideration until some point in the future.
However, a number of measures in the proposed RPA only affect certain
ESUs. The BiOp does not describe why this criterion is valid for one
potential measure and not others. Problems with Snake River ESUs are
not less significant because other salmon populations have subsequently
been listed as threatened or endangered.
conclusion
The perilous state of these ESA listed stocks is real; last year in
two of the Snake River spring/summer chinook indicator stocks that
spawn in pristine wilderness areas, zero fish returned. We may have
already lost Snake River sockeye, and coho have gone extinct in the
Snake River basin since efforts have been made to mitigate for the
FCRPS. In the opinion of the ODFW, based on our assessment of the
current data and analyses, the draft Biological Opinion does not use
the best available scientific information to determine the management
actions most likely to recover Snake River ESA listed stocks.
The problems highlighted above underestimate the true risks to
these stocks and thus, underestimate the survival improvement needed to
avoid jeopardy. We also believe that the analyses used in the draft
Biological Opinion do not identify factors most likely responsible for
the decline in salmon and steelhead and, therefore, prescribe
management actions that may not provide the greatest survival
improvement to listed stocks. Specifically, the draft Biological
Opinion shifts responsibility of hydrosystem mitigation away from the
mainstem and onto habitat restoration, hatcheries, and harvest
reductions. The benefits expected to occur from the RPA's offsite
mitigation and the aggressive hydrosystem operations are subjective and
unsupported. We believe these benefits are overestimated, particularly
for the Snake River spring/summer chinook where harvest is already
extremely low, are located in good to pristine habitat and thus been
assigned the lowest priority for habitat improvements, and have no
hatcheries in 6 of the 7 indicator stocks. The aggressive hydrosystem
improvements under the RPA provide only a slight increase of the flow
targets defined in the 1995 Biological Opinion, which often have not
been met in the last 5 years. In fact, the draft Biological Opinion
actually decreases flow targets for Columbia River chum. In addition,
we do not believe that the described methods to assess the success of
the RPA can convincingly determine if the RPA has achieved its goals,
over the 5-8 year interim period. Finally, we do not believe the draft
Biological Opinion adequately anticipates and has prepared an
alternative RPA that can be immediately implemented if at the end of
this interim period the current RPA has failed.
__________
Statement of Edward C. Bowles, Anadromous Fish Manager, State of Idaho,
Department of Fish and Game
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Draft Biological Opinion (2000 BiOp) for operation of the Federal
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and the Federal Caucus Draft
Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (Recovery Strategy). These documents
will shape the region's focus for recovery efforts and thus profoundly
effect the very existence and future of wild salmon and steelhead in
the Snake River Basin.
Your leadership on this issue, Mr. Chairman, is both refreshing and
vital. I had the pleasure of testifying a couple times to your
subcommittee in the House of Representatives, and found your approach
thoughtful, open-minded and solution oriented. Your knowledge and first
hand experience with the fish are unprecedented in Congress and reflect
highly on your commitment to solve this decades-old tragedy. I think
you would agree that there is something about personally watching wild
salmon spawn or wrestling with a hatchery salmon on the end of your
fishing line that helps make salmon recovery real and tangible.
The intent of this testimony is not to advocate specific management
actions, but to help ensure the best possible science provides the
analytical basis of the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy. The
selection of recovery actions is a policy decision made in the context
of biological and non-biological considerations. The role of the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is to help strengthen the scientific
foundation from which various management alternatives are considered,
and assess these alternatives from a biological and scientific basis. A
strong scientific foundation for conservation decisions is a goal
common to both the State of Idaho and the Federal Caucus.
My professional judgment is that the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy are doomed for failure on several fronts. For ecological,
political and economic reasons, it is imperative that the 2000 BiOp and
Recovery Strategy are set up for success, not failure. If the desire is
to address all significant sources of ``discretionary \1\'' mortality
(short of using breach and additional Idaho water) to see if fish
recovery can be secured without breach, then the 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy should focus on: (1) the primary sources of discretionary
mortality, and (2) implement aggressive actions to address this
mortality. I am concerned that the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy fail on both counts; the hydrosystem is no longer the focus
and the proposed actions lack substance. This will waste significant
time and resources on actions that cannot provide recovery because the
actions do not address the primary sources of discretionary mortality.
I believe this failure will eventually result in more draconian actions
than may be necessary for success. This is a recipe for failure, with
significant ecological, social and economic consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Discretionary mortality is the mortality beyond the natural
baseline that can potentially be managed. Most discretionary mortality
is anthropogenic, although some factors, such as avian and pinniped
predation, are also partially linked to natural ecosystem processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS' estimates of expected improvement provided by Reasonable and
Prudent Actions (RPA) identified in the draft 2000 BiOp accentuate my
concern that the 2000 BiOp is set up for failure. The draft 2000 BiOp
concludes current FCRPS operations constitute jeopardy, and then
identifies a RPA to avoid jeopardy. Surprisingly, the RPA measures
associated with juvenile spring/summer chinook migration through the
hydrosystem are only expected to improve survival by 1-2 percent over
current operations (2000 BiOp, pages 6-76 and 9-161, Tables 6.3-2 and
9.7-6). NMFS then speculates on hoped for benefits in adult migration,
habitat and hatcheries to make up the difference to get to no jeopardy.
It is disappointing and perplexing that NMFS concentrates so little
effort to improve survival associated with juvenile migration, when all
other salmon managers \2\ in the Basin, and regional societies of
professional fisheries scientists \3\, are in agreement that this is
the primary factor limiting the survival and recovery of listed Snake
River salmon and steelhead. It is also disappointing and perplexing
that NMFS stakes such high hopes on improvements in adult migration,
habitat and hatcheries, when available data indicates these benefits
are unlikely to be biologically feasible. NMFS has not assessed
feasibility, and all other salmon managers in the Basin are in
agreement that these areas of discretionary mortality are less
significant than hydrosystem impacts on juveniles, and cannot add up to
recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Salmon Managers are the state, tribal and Federal entities
with statutory authority and responsibility for managing salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. These include Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of fish and Wildlife; Shoshone-Bannock, Nez Perce, Yakama,
Warm Springs, and Umatilla tribes, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
\3\ Resolutions by the Idaho and Oregon chapters of the American
Fisheries Society and the Western Division of the American Fisheries
Society all identify the FCRPS as the primary factor limiting recovery
of listed Snake River salmon and steelhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the decision to breach lower Snake River dams is deferred, I
believe the Four Governors' Plan \4\ does a better job of keeping the
primary sources of discretionary mortality in focus and embracing a
conceptual approach to attempt to address these problems prior to
breaching dams. Although there is no scientific basis for concluding
Snake River salmon and steelhead are likely to recover with non-breach
alternatives, interim actions focused on the primary sources of
discretionary mortality can certainly benefit the fish. Available
scientific analyses indicate these actions will help moderate
extinction risk, will increase the frequency of rebuilding
opportunities, and will increase the frequency of harvestable hatchery
surpluses compared to current operations, even though they are unlikely
to provide the magnitude of survival benefits required to secure
recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington for the Protection and Restoration of Fish in the Columbia
River Basin, July 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the structure of the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy is
adequate to frame the scientific information. The problem is that the
underlying scientific information used in the documents has several
fundamental errors and omissions. These errors and omissions alter the
conclusions, accentuate uncertainty beyond the limits of scientific
objectivity, and result in a misleading depiction of the fundamental
choices that face the region if salmon recovery is to succeed. The
technical information currently available is adequate to produce a
biologically sound and scientifically defensible 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy. If the errors and omissions are corrected, we believe the
documents can accurately represent the biological component of recovery
options, which policymakers can consider along with important social
and economic information in determining recovery actions.
The remainder of my comments will identify the procedural and
technical aspects of the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy that
heighten the risk of failure and identify changes necessary to promote
success.
collaboration
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy are Federal products
developed without true collaboration with State and tribal fisheries
scientists. Many of the State and tribal technical concerns could have
been addressed during development of these documents if NMFS would have
allowed collaboration on its Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) \5\. The
CRI analyses provide much of the scientific basis for the draft 2000
BiOp and Recovery Strategy. The CRI analyses are also the primary
source of the scientific errors and omissions in these Federal
documents, which result in misleading conclusions. Although the
ramifications of these errors and omissions are significant, they can
be easily corrected for the final Federal documents if scientific
collaboration is allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The CRI is an analytical process established by NMFS in 1999
and comprised on NMFS scientists. The primary purpose of CRI is to
analyze extinction risks and conservation opportunities for listed
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collaboration means working jointly on scientific issues to develop
methodologies and analyses that embrace the full expertise of
appropriate State, tribal, Federal and independent scientists. True
collaboration promotes defensible science through peer review, promotes
broader acceptance and ownership of methodologies and results through
active participation, and reduces the risk of institutional bias.
Collaboration does not undermine the statutory authorities and
responsibilities each participant brings to the process. Science
developed collaboratively can provide a common foundation from which
differing authorities and responsibilities can proceed accordingly.
Recovery decisions facing the region are important and
controversial. Sound science must lay the foundation for these
decisions. Broad ownership of this science through collaboration is a
vital step in developing recovery actions that will withstand judicial
challenge and garner regional support. NMFS embraced true collaboration
in PATH \6\, and has set up collaborative teams to develop recovery
standards and plans for other listed salmon and steelhead ESUs in the
Basin. It is disappointing and perplexing that NMFS chose to take a
unilateral, non-collaborative approach in the Snake River Basin after
PATH was discontinued. Inadequate time for collaboration is not a
worthy excuse. PATH was a 5-year collaborative effort. Time was short
only after PATH was abandoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Plan For Analyzing the Testing Hypotheses (PATH) is a
collaborative analytical process established by NMFS in 1995 and
comprised of State, tribal, Federal, and non-governmental scientists.
The purpose of PATH is to help sort out conflicting scientific
hypotheses regarding Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery issues,
particularly in the context of management alternatives associated with
the FCRPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regrettably, NMFS' track record for embracing collaboration with
their State and tribal peers is dismal for Snake River science issues
once PATH was discontinued. The current process is coordination, not
collaboration. NMFS develops their methodologies and conducts their
analyses unilaterally, then posts their information on a web page for
comment, or holds a ``workshop'' to discuss their information. The
States and tribes have spent considerable time and resources trying to
insert their concerns and analyses into this process, but have little
to show for their efforts \7\. When corrections have been made, it
often seems adjustments are made in other standards or analyses to
compensate so general conclusions remain the same. For example, NMFS
made some necessary corrections to the rate of population growth that
accelerated projected declines, but then NMFS arbitrarily lowered the
survival standard, resulting in little change to extinction risk and
the amount of improvement needed to avoid jeopardy. We have been
encouraged by attempts of some NMFS scientists to establish more
collaboration with our scientists, but opportunities remain sparse.
Without collaboration on the draft 2000 BiOp or Recovery Strategy, the
States and tribes are forced to try to correct errors and omissions
through the formal and brief comment period. To add to this difficulty,
new analyses by NMFS relating to the 2000 BiOp have come out in the
middle of this comment period (Toole 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, Attachments A and B of IDFG comments on NMFS' A-
Fish Appendix describe some concerns and NMFS' response (IDFG 2000b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific collaboration with State and tribal fisheries scientists
was a key element of Judge Marsh's decision in IDFG v. NMFS \8\, and a
key provision in the 1995 and 1998 biological opinions for FCRPS
operations (NMFS 1995; NMFS 1998). To NMFS' credit, PATH was created to
meet these mandates and represents a truly collaborative scientific
approach to sorting out the science associated with the long-term
recovery decision for Snake River salmon and steelhead specified in the
1995 and 1998 FCRPS BiOps. NMFS and other Federal Caucus members were
key participants in PATH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Idaho Department of Fish and Game v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 850 F. Supp. 886 (D. Or. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As PATH conclusions began to clarify the science, NMFS suddenly and
unilaterally began an alternative scientific process called CRI.
Although the CRI analyses are non-collaborative, preliminary, and not
fully analyzed or peer reviewed, CRI results became equal, if not
greater, partners with PATH in defining the science in the Anadromous
Fish Appendix of the Corps' Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Federal Caucus' All-H Paper. This pattern continues in the latest
draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy, which marginalize PATH results
even further.
Although the PATH and CRI analyses reach similar conclusions on
several key points, there are also several key differences. These
differences accentuate the need for continuing a truly collaborative
process to help identify and frame the differences and help promote a
convergence of the science where possible. Accentuating the
differences, without an honest attempt to resolve the differences
through scientific collaboration, is a disservice to the decision
process established in the 1995 and 1998 FCRPS BiOps.
I do not want to leave the impression that CRI is not constructive
toward resolving conservation and recovery issues. The intent and
general framework of CRI is to estimate extinction risks and identify
and allocate opportunities for conservation. This is necessary for
recovery discussions and decisions. Some of the CRI focus is in areas
PATH did not focus, and thus brings new information for consideration.
Other areas overlap, and provide an opportunity to corroborate results
from the different scientific approaches. But for this effort to be
constructive, the CRI analyses must be based on the best available
information and incorporate State, tribal and independent expertise in
helping resolve scientific disputes and uncertainties. We are confident
that if NMFS and the Federal Caucus embrace this approach, PATH and CRI
can be complementary rather than adversarial. If NMFS maintains an
autonomous approach to CRI, the opportunity to clarify the science for
recovery decisions will be lost and regional ``ownership'' diminished.
It is important that recovery decisions are not delayed
unnecessarily while the science is sorted out once again. We believe
most of our concerns regarding possible errors and omissions in the CRI
analyses can be addressed quite easily and quickly through
collaboration. We are committed to working collectively with NMFS
scientists to move this process forward.
scientific objectivity
In IDFG v. NMFS, Judge Marsh was critical of ``arbitrary and
capricious'' decisionmaking by NMFS in the 1993 FCRPS BiOp. Given this
litigation history, it is perplexing why NMFS tended to select the most
optimistic (i.e., least conservative) assumptions regarding extinction
risk, lack of hydrosystem impacts, and the benefits of improving
habitat and hatcheries in the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy. At
best, this approach appears inconsistent with the ESA requirement to be
risk-averse in the face of scientific uncertainty when protecting
listed species. At worst, this approach is poor stewardship when non-
conservative assumptions are accentuated and conservative assumptions
ignored, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.
For example, NMFS usually selected non-conservative assumptions for
factors affecting the amount of survival improvements needed to avoid
jeopardy. NMFS selected the optimistic assumption that small,
threatened populations face no threat of an extinction vortex, in spite
of theoretical and empirical evidence to the contrary (Dennis 1991;
BRWG 1994; Botsford 1997). NMFS also selected optimistic assumptions
for their extinction and survival standard, recovery standard, FCRPS
hydrosystem performance standard, definition of high risk, hatchery
effectiveness, years for time series, and effect of fish density on
population growth rates (Table 1).
NMFS also typically selected optimistic assumptions for factors
affecting the amount of survival improvements attributed to existing
and proposed measures in the 2000 BiOp. For example, NMFS selected the
most optimistic assumptions to attribute hydrosystem improvements for
any survival improvements of juvenile migrants since the 1995 BiOp,
rather than balance this assumption with the possibility that model
differences or high natural flow and spill from good water years could
also account for these increases. In contrast, NMFS selected
pessimistic assumptions regarding the effectiveness of breach on fish
survival. NMFS assumed there is no delayed mortality associated with
juveniles migrating inriver through the FCRPS, in spite of a wealth of
information to the contrary (Marmorek et al. 1996; IDFG 1998, 1999,
2000a, 2000b; Marmorek and Peters 1998; SRP 1998; Bouwes et al. 1999;
Congleton et al. 1999; Schaller et al. 1999; NMFS 2000a) and no NMFS
data or analyses confirming their assumption.
The effect of NMFS accentuating non-conservative assumptions,
regardless of scientific information questioning these assumptions,
results in several fundamental errors in the Draft 2000 BiOp and
Recovery Strategy: (1) underestimation of the actual extinction risk
and overestimation of the probability of survival and recovery; (2)
underestimation of the survival improvements necessary to avoid
jeopardy and ensure survival and recovery of listed Snake River salmon
and steelhead; and (3) overestimation of the ability of 2000 BiOp
measures to provide necessary survival improvements.
The collaborative decision analysis approach adopted by PATH
incorporated the full spectrum of assumptions, uncertainties and weight
of evidence in order to more objectively characterize risks and
conservation opportunities (Marmorek and Peter 1998; Marmorek et al.
1998; Peters et al. 1999).
The 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy should present a more objective
characterization of PATH results and uncertainty as a decision-analysis
tool, across the full range of scientific debate and uncertainty,
without bias toward assumptions promoted by NMFS scientists. There is
much evidence in PATH, the draft Anadromous Fish Appendix and the ESA
record as a whole that the hydrosystem is a source of both direct and
delayed mortality of transported and in-river juvenile migrants. NMFS
presents an unbalanced view of sources of extra mortality, emphasizing
uncertainty for one of the listed populations (spring/summer chinook).
All Snake River anadromous salmonids are threatened or endangered or
extinct (coho), and have hydropower impacts in common. Alternative,
non-hydro explanations of extra mortality posited by NMFS in the
Federal documents should explain recruitment patterns for the entire
suite of Snake River anadromous salmonids, but they do not.
IDFG disagrees with NMFS decision to disregard the PATH Weight of
Evidence process and the Scientific Review Panel weighted analysis.
Full disclosure of the weight of scientific evidence for key
alternative hypotheses, across species lines, should be presented in
the final 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy.
objective risk assessment
Risk assessment is critical to ESA decisionmaking processes. There
will always be ecological and scientific uncertainty. The key to
objective risk assessment is determining how to best meet the
biological needs of the fish in the face of these uncertainties. There
should be a clear recognition that lack of a decision, or delay, is
actually a conscious decision that the uncertainties are too great to
act on, and that the listed populations can survive the delay and still
retain enough inherent productivity and diversity to remain poised for
recovery. To moderate the risk, this approach should be coupled with
aggressive actions in all possible areas that can be agreed on,
recognizing the greatest uncertainty may actually be whether there will
be any fish left to save once all the questions are answered.
In my professional opinion, the amount of time available for
decisionmakers to continue trying to sort out recovery options is
largely dependent on the weather and the ocean. Available data indicate
Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon can maintain current
population levels, or even rebuild somewhat, when there are above
average runoff conditions (e.g., high natural flow and uncontrolled
spill) coupled with average or better ocean conditions (e.g., cool
temperature and strong coastal upwelling) (Figures 1, 2 and 3). The
same data indicate Snake River salmon can decline precipitously when
runoff or ocean conditions are poor. The overall trend for salmon
across the range of environmental conditions is downward. These
environmental factors appear to influence adult returns and survival
rates far more than any suite of management actions taken in recent
years.
Improved adult returns this year and projected for next year are
largely the result of good runoff and ocean conditions. As long as
these environmental conditions remain above average, Snake River salmon
populations will likely persist or even rebuild slightly; allowing
society some additional time to debate and experiment with management
options. Conversely, if these environmental conditions do not remain
above average (or potentially good runoff conditions are dampened by
FCRPS operations \9\), then Snake River salmon populations will likely
decline; making any additional delay risky for conservation and
recovery of these fish. Dr. Petrosky, the lead fisheries scientist from
IDFG on this issue, characterized NMFS' approach to salmon recovery
thus: ``If we can always average above average, things should average
out OK.'' Regrettably, that is not the way nature works, therefore this
is not a risk-averse approach to species conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In 1999 and 2000, above average and average snowpack should
have provided good spring runoff conditions, but inflexible FCRPS flood
control operations coupled with cool or hot spring weather resulted in
reduced flow and spill at critical times during the spring migration
period (see TMT minutes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If additional aggressive actions to address the mainstem FCRPS are
delayed, I recommend linking this decision to prevailing environmental
conditions, particularly snowpack, runoff, mainstem water temperature
and ocean temperature and upwelling. If these conditions deteriorate
from what was observed for juveniles migrating during 1997-1999, then
the FCRPS configuration decision should be revisited immediately and
additional emergency actions taken in other sectors until FCRPS
reconfiguration is authorized and implemented. These emergency actions
should focus on actions with immediate and direct benefits to the fish,
such as removing avian piscivores from the estuary, reducing pinniped
predation, altering flood control operations to help maintain high
springtime flows, increased mainstem spill, and additional harvest
constraints.
It will be both regrettable and scientifically unprofessional if
recent and future changes in fish survival and abundance are credited
to management actions without first factoring out the influence of
natural runoff and ocean conditions. For example, if new management
actions are implemented which are actually beneficial, but
environmental conditions deteriorate relative to the baseline, then it
may appear these factors are not beneficial when in fact they may have
eased the impact of these deteriorated environmental conditions.
Conversely, if management actions are credited for an upswing in
survival and abundance, which are actually the result of improved
environmental conditions, then a false sense of security can result in
further delay and elevated risk when environmental conditions
deteriorate.
The history of debate on Snake River salmon recovery actually
demonstrates this risk. Snake River salmon and steelhead declined
precipitously in the late 1970's and ESA listing was avoided in 1980
when the Northwest Power Planning Act ushered in a new period of
management planning and action. Good outmigration conditions in 1982-84
from high natural flow and spill at mainstem dams apparently resulted
in an upturn in salmon survival and adult returns in the mid 1980's
(Figure 1). At the time, this upturn was often equated with management
actions (e.g., Raymond 1988). Environmental conditions shifted in the
late 1980's and early 1990's, demonstrating that Snake River salmon and
steelhead had not actually turned the corner toward recovery from the
management actions. We are at risk of repeating this error again.
Environmental conditions were once again above average during the late
1990's, resulting in an upturn in fish survival and abundance at the
turn of the century. The draft 2000 BiOp credits much of this upturn to
actions implemented with the 1995 and 1998 BiOps (Draft 2000 BiOp,
pages 6-75 and 6-76, Tables 6.3-1 and 6.3-2). Fish survival during the
next 5, 8 and 10 years will be used to determine if the 2000 BiOp is
successful, or if the breach alternative needs to be implemented to
meet minimum needs of the fish. It is vital that the relative influence
of environmental factors, such as above or below average natural runoff
and ocean conditions, are factored out in the decision process. If
decisions whether or not to breach are simply made based on annual
population growth rates over a set number of years, then decisionmakers
are basically playing breach roulette with the weather.
Another important aspect of risk assessment is determining the
biological consequences of being wrong. This assessment requires
determining which actions are likely to have the most positive
biological response even if decisions are made based on false
assumptions. This assessment helps determine the most risk-averse
alternatives.
IDFG believes objective risk assessment in the final 2000 BiOp and
Recovery Strategy will demonstrate:
Snake River ESUs are imperiled, particularly at the
population level; providing recovery requires a substantial improvement
(e.g., three-fold) in overall life cycle survival;
the most risk-averse actions, for all species and runs
(recognizing the full range of scientific debate and uncertainty) must
address direct and delayed effects of the FCRPS, coupled with immediate
actions regarding harvest, predation, early ocean and estuary survival
and degraded tributary habitat; and
resolution of uncertainty adequate to change these
conclusions is unlikely to be gained through an additional 5 or 10
years of research.
The importance of the 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy to long-term
recovery decisions accentuates the need for objective risk assessment.
This is why a more collaborative approach should be embraced prior to
completion of the 2000 BiOp, Recovery Strategy and Corps Lower Snake
River Feasibility Study/EIS.
scientific approach for assessing jeopardy and conservation actions
There are several important scientific steps that must be taken to
determine biologically defensible recovery strategies:
(1) determine extinction risk and survival and recovery standards
for jeopardy,
(2) determine the amount of survival improvements needed to avoid
extinction and meet survival and recovery standards,
(3) determine fish mortality and allocate among life stages,
(4) determine the amount of discretionary mortality above the
natural baseline,
(5) assess management opportunities to address this discretionary
mortality,
(6) select a suite of management actions that are likely to provide
the necessary survival improvements, and
(7) develop an aggressive monitoring and evaluation plan to assess
effectiveness within the context of environmental variability.
None of these steps can be avoided.
As mentioned earlier, the general structure of the draft 2000 BiOp
and Recovery Strategy is adequate to frame the necessary scientific
information. The problem is that the scientific information used in
these steps has several fundamental errors and omissions, and some
steps, such as determination of discretionary mortality and ability of
management actions to address this mortality (i.e., biological
feasibility), were not included in the NMFS analysis.
IDFG is currently preparing formal comments on the draft 2000 BiOp
and Recovery Strategy, which will hopefully be submitted as part of the
official State of Idaho comments. These comments are due September 25,
2000. IDFG has commented extensively in the past on the Federal
scientific analyses used in the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy
(IDFG 1999, 2000a, 2000b). We only provide a brief synopsis of these
concerns in this document and request the subcommittee refer to our
prior documents, as well as the comments we will be completing this
month, for more detailed discussion.
Step 1: Determine extinction risk and survival and recovery standards
for jeopardy.
NMFS used optimistic assumptions to evaluate extinction risk and
lowered the standards used for jeopardy relative to the 1995 and 1998
FCRPS BiOps. The effect of these errors is underestimation of actual
extinction risk and reduction in the amount of survival improvements
necessary to avoid jeopardy. To correct these errors, NMFS must include
a more objective range of assumptions regarding extinction threshold,
depensation, definition of high risk, hatchery effectiveness and
density dependence.
NMFS should also adhere to the survival and recovery standards
developed collaboratively as a result of IDFG v. NMFS (BRWG 1994;
Marmorek et al. 1998) and the jeopardy standards established in the
1995 and 1998 FCRPS BiOps (NMFS 1995, 1998). NMFS apparently has
shifted from a focus on recovery, to simply trying to avoid absolute
extinction. The 2000 BiOp should develop a clear ``crosswalk'' linking
the earlier jeopardy standard developed collaboratively to the standard
currently proposed by NMFS. IDFG believed the standard developed for
the 1995 BiOp was not conservative enough to protect Idaho's wild
salmon populations, and objects to any attempts to ``lower the bar''
even farther.
For example, NMFS defined a ``moderate to high probability of
recovery'' as only a 50:50 chance that the standard would be achieved
within 48 years (NMFS 1995; 2000b). The IDFG v. NMFS collaborative
process recommended 24 and 48 year recovery standards (BRWG 1994), but
NMFS selected a standard for only the 48-year period (NMFS 1995). NMFS
now states: ``It may be unrealistic to expect populations to return to
recovery abundance levels within this time period [48 years],'' and
therefore introduced a 100 year standard (draft 2000 BiOp, page 1-12).
Step 2: Determine the amount of survival improvements needed to avoid
extinction and meet survival and recovery standards.
The problems identified in Step 1 carry over into Step 2. NMFS' use
of optimistic assumptions regarding extinction risk, lowering of the
jeopardy standard, and assumption that populations can grow
exponentially result in the perception of less difference between the
current productivity of the fish and the productivity necessary to
avoid extinction and provide recovery. This narrowing of the gap by
NMFS is not scientifically supportable.
Thus the draft 2000 BiOp concludes that approximately a 30 percent
improvement in lifecycle survival of Snake River spring/summer chinook
is necessary to meet the 24-year jeopardy standard. Because the CRI
approach includes such optimistic assumptions (Table 1), it is not
surprising that this estimate is far lower than estimates for recovery
that include less optimistic assumptions (IDFG 2000a, 2000b; Peters and
Marmorek 2000). These assessments indicate a 170 percent or more
improvement in lifecycle survival is needed for recovery of Snake River
spring/summer chinook.
Step 3: Determine fish mortality and allocate among life stages.
The CRI analysis used in the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy
does address one concern expressed by other Salmon Managers regarding
allocation of overall lifecycle mortality of Snake River spring/summer
chinook salmon (IDFG 2000a, 2000b; STUFA 2000). CRI now uses
empirically derived estimates of smolt-to-adult survival to solve for
egg-to-smolt survival, similar to the approach recommended by the
Salmon Managers. Mortality allocation issues related to delayed
hydrosystem mortality (smolt-to-adult) were not resolved in the CRI
analysis.
Step 4: Determine the amount of discretionary mortality above the
natural baseline.
NMFS failed to determine the amount of discretionary mortality for
each life stage above the natural baseline. This step is crucial to
developing recovery strategies because it allows decisionmakers to
focus actions on the primary limiting factors that can be managed. The
majority of mortality in the lifecycle of salmon and steelhead is
natural mortality that has little chance of being improved by man.
Effective recovery strategies will focus on the discretionary mortality
beyond this natural baseline, which is usually the result of
anthropogenic factors.
Available data indicate relatively little discretionary mortality
of Snake River salmon and steelhead during the egg-to-smolt stage, and
relatively large discretionary mortality during the smolt-to-adult
stage. Potential survival improvements from addressing the
discretionary mortality in the egg-to-smolt stage (i.e., spawning and
rearing habitat) range from 0-34 percent for seven indicator
populations (median 6 percent) (Marmorek et al. 1998; IDFG 2000a).
Estimated potential survival improvements from addressing discretionary
mortality during the smolt-to-adult stage is over 200 percent, based on
survival trends of comparable upriver and downriver stocks (Figures 3
and 4) (Marmorek and Peters 1998; IDFG 2000a, 2000b; STUFA 2000).
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy imply much of this
mortality in the smolt-to-adult life stage is not discretionary because
smolt transportation has largely fixed the dams and NMFS assumes no
delayed mortality of fish migrating inriver. NMFS assumes the extra
mortality must be associated with non-discretionary ocean conditions,
discretionary estuary conditions (e.g., estuary habitat and predators),
and delayed effects of discretionary conditions during the egg-to-smolt
stage (e.g., hatcheries and spawning and rearing habitat). Although the
potential sources of discretionary mortality in the estuary (e.g.,
avian and pinniped predators) should be addressed, NMFS' assessment is
not based on the weight of scientific evidence.
NMFS concurs that the level of delayed or ``extra'' mortality
associated with the fishes' hydrosystem experience is pivotal to
survival and recovery decisions for the Snake River ESUs (NMFS 1995,
1998, 1999, 2000b). Given the importance of this issue, NMFS should
have devoted much of the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy to an
objective and thorough assessment of the weight of scientific evidence
supporting or not supporting this source of mortality. Regrettably,
NMFS failed to take this approach and instead accentuated uncertainty
and recommended more study.
The final 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy should include full
disclosure of compelling scientific evidence for substantial delayed
effects of the hydrosystem experience. This evidence includes:
continued downward trend of adult returns and survival for
all species and runs of wild Snake River salmon and steelhead since
completion of the FCRPS;
an average 65 percent additional mortality (and thus
potential 200 percent survival improvement) for upriver spring/summer
chinook stocks relative to their downriver counterparts since
completion of the FCRPS, and synchronous common-year effect of
mortality factors experienced by both upriver and downriver stocks
(e.g., additional lower Columbia River dams, estuary and early ocean
conditions, disease (except as related to smolt transportation),
harvest, hatcheries (except as related to smolt transportation), lower
river and estuary predators, and climate);
less disparity between survival of comparable upriver and
downriver indicator stocks when outmigration conditions are more
favorable (e.g., high natural runoff and spill);
elevated post-Bonneville mortality of transported fish
relative to uncollected inriver juvenile migrants;
elevated post-Bonneville mortality of transported fish
relative to inriver migrants based on current collection and
transportation operations (`D'-value less than 0.74);
transport and control ratios (T:C) that do not demonstrate
a transport benefit relative to ``true'' inriver migrants passing dams
via the spillway or turbines;
contrasting reservoir-reach and smolt-to-adult survival
patterns based on a number of collections (i.e., PIT tag detections) at
dams;
different survival of fish relative to transport location;
and,
the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrating
adverse direct and indirect consequences of exposing plant and animal
species to anthropogenic factors completely outside of their
evolutionary history.
The above points are discussed in more detail in prior IDFG
comments (IDFG 2000a, 2000b).
The final 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy should also explicitly
incorporate previous assessments of the weight of scientific evidence
associated with various models and assumptions relating to FCRPS and
non-FCRPS sources of mortality (IDFG 1998, 1999, 2000; Marmorek and
Peters 1998; SRP 1998). NMFS' disregard for the PATH weight of evidence
analyses (Marmorek and Peters 1998; SRP 1998) is particularly
discouraging.
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy also fail to provide a
thorough and objective assessment of the weight of scientific evidence
indicating other factors, not related to the hydrosystem, are primarily
responsible for masking benefits of smolt transportation and other
FCRPS measures, particularly within the context of the evidence
described above. This line of reasoning and weight of evidence must be
able to rationally address the full biological picture observed in the
region.
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy should clearly describe
the assumptions that must be true in order to conclude that current
operations (e.g., smolt transportation, flow augmentation, spill, etc.)
have successfully compensated for the adverse effects of the FCRPS.
NMFS should then describe the weight of scientific evidence and theory
for and against these assumptions.
For smolt transportation to provide survival benefits to offset the
FCRPS related direct and delayed mortality, the following assumptions
must be true: (1) ``extra'' mortality apparent for upriver stocks (for
all species and runs) originated about the same time the FCRPS was
completed, but is not related to the dams; (2) this extra mortality
occurs in the estuary and ocean but is selective for Snake River fish
(while excluding downriver stocks) and is not related to delayed
effects of the dams or smolt collection and transport; (3) upriver
stocks (including Snake River) go to ``worse'' spots in the ocean than
downriver stocks (particularly after poor outmigration conditions
evidenced by low mainstem flow and spill), but this behavior began only
after completion of the FSRPS and is unrelated to the hydrosystem
experience; (4) upriver stocks do not go to ``worse'' spots in the
ocean when outmigration conditions are associated with high natural
runoff and spill; (5) if ocean conditions are not the cause of
``extra'' mortality, then elevated disease and/or poorer genetics and
less productive freshwater habitat accounts for this mortality, but it
is not expressed until fish arrive at the estuary or ocean, is not
related to the hydrosystem experience, and is apparent only in upriver
stocks; and (6) extra or delayed mortality of Snake River stocks is not
substantially higher for fish transported than those that migrated in-
river and the delayed mortality of both groups is unrelated to the
hydrosystem experience.
The weight of scientific evidence supporting this narrow set of
assumptions is low (IDFG 1998, 1999, 2000; Marmorek and Peters 1998;
SRP 1998). If NMFS chooses to accentuate this narrow set of
assumptions, it must explain in detail why other assumptions were
treated with less weight. NMFS must also convey the consequences of
falsely accepting this narrow set of assumptions in alternative
management options.
It is important to reiterate that the non-hydrosystem ``masking''
hypothesis requires two things to be true: high `D'-value (i.e., very
little difference in post-Bonneville mortality between inriver and
transported fish) and little to no delayed mortality of inriver and
transported smolts associated with their hydrosystem experience (e.g.,
cumulative stress and strain of collection, sorting, holding, loading,
barging and releasing transported smolts; and cumulative stress and
strain of delay, bioenergetic demand, disorientation, pressure changes,
dissolved gas, etc. of passing through eight dams and reservoirs for
in-river migrants). The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy do not
discuss the likelihood of both these points being true, within the
context of the evidence described above.
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy should also clearly
describe the management implications if `D' is not high or ``extra''
mortality is hydrosystem related, and the management implications if
`D' and ``extra'' mortality are moderate. These assessments are
critical to an objective risk analysis.
Step 5: Assess management opportunities to address this discretionary
mortality.
If the 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy correct the errors and
omissions outlined in steps 1 through 4, the documents will focus
management actions on addressing the direct and delayed effects of the
mainstem FCRPS, complemented with appropriate actions addressing
freshwater and estuary habitat, predators, harvest and hatcheries.
It is apparent in the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy that
NMFS is trying to shift the focus off the hydrosystem as a major source
of mortality (i.e., it has been fixed) and putting the focus on
tributary and estuary habitat. This approach is not scientifically
defensible and is unlikely to secure the survival and recovery of Snake
River salmon and steelhead. In an attempt to rationalize this approach,
the 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy overestimates, or in some measures
does not estimate, survival improvements expected from the Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA).
NMFS makes the optimistic assumption that any improvements
in survival since the 1995 BiOp are a result of BiOp measures, rather
than improvements from higher natural flows.
NMFS makes an assumption that the RPA will reduce FCRPS
mortality of adults by 25 percent (which is estimated to improve
survival by 7 percent), although no data or analyses are provided to
support this claim.
NMFS selects optimistic assumptions (e.g., minimal delayed
mortality) regarding the level of impact attributable to the FCRPS,
reducing the hydrosystem burden for conservation and recovery.
NMFS shifts the conservation burden to habitat, harvest
and hatcheries without a biological justification for this shift, or an
equitable assessment of appropriate conservation burdens. NMFS makes
this shift based on hypothetical ``numeric experiments'' that focus on
total mortality in each life stage, rather than the discretionary
mortality above the natural baseline. NMFS also failed to assess the
biological feasibility of these actions, the feasibility of
implementing these actions quickly, and the feasibility of near-term
survival improvements once the actions are implemented. For example,
the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy present an ambiguous message
regarding spawning and rearing habitat in the Snake River basin. On one
hand, NMFS shifts a primary focus for recovery to freshwater spawning
and rearing habitat, but on the other hand assigns Snake River
watersheds a lower priority for habitat measures because habitat
measures offer little potential for improvement. The documents also
fail to identify specific measures for implementation and a rational
basis for assigning expected benefits.
Because NMFS inappropriately shifts the conservation burden away
from the FCRPS, the draft 2000 BiOp RPA for hydrosystem actions does
not significantly change from current operations. The RPA basically has
the same spill, flow and transportation actions identified in the 1995
and 1998 FCRPS BiOps. As a representative of the Technical Management
Team for the State of Idaho, I can attest that there were numerous
times during the past 5 years that even these provisions were not met.
Step 6: Select a suite of management actions that are likely to provide
the necessary survival improvements.
Selection of management actions to address discretionary mortality
is a policy decision based on biological and non-biological factors.
However, these actions must be based on sound science and address
enough of the primary sources of mortality to meet survival and
recovery standards. The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy fail to
identify specific management actions or thoroughly assess the expected
contribution of these actions toward necessary survival improvements.
The draft 2000 BiOp concludes that a 30 percent increase in
survival estimated from FCRPS improvements of the RPA result in no-
jeopardy to Snake River spring/summer chinook, even though not all
stocks meet the standard without additional survival improvements. It
is not surprising that the CRI analysis indicates some stocks meet the
standards because of the numerous optimistic assumptions incorporated
into the analysis (Table 1). In contrast, PATH estimated recovery would
require approximately a 170 percent increase in survival rates for
Snake River spring/summer chinook (Peters and Marmorek 2000).
Our analyses indicate it is highly unlikely for non-breach
alternatives alone to provide the necessary survival improvements
required for survival and recovery of Snake River salmon and steelhead.
Regrettably, the numbers just do not add up. Given the current
unacceptability of the natural river option, it is important to
implement an aggressive suite of alternative management actions across
the lifecycle of the fish, but focused on the mainstem FCRPS. This is
important to not only test whether there are viable alternatives to
breach, but also to protect and enhance salmon and steelhead as much as
possible during the interim. Without these focused and aggressive
actions, the 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy are more likely to fail
because the conservation burden has been shifted to Hs that are
incapable of providing the necessary survival improvements.
Through their annual migration plans and involvement in the
Regional Forum, NPPC program, and Four Governors Plan, IDFG and the
State of Idaho have identified several actions that would more
aggressively address significant sources of direct and delayed
discretionary mortality than the existing RPA.
Take immediate actions to improve survival and reduce
stress associated with migration through the FCRPS. These actions
should focus on improving inriver migration conditions, and spreading
the risk among transported and inriver migrants depending on annual
river conditions.
Improve reservoir passage.--Shift flood control and reservoir
operations to ensure flows in the lower Snake River do not drop below
100 kcfs during the spring migration period. Investigate alternatives
to increase water velocity in the lower Snake (e.g., wing dams,
artificial velocity gradients, natural migration channel, etc.).
Improve dam passage.--Implement 24-hour spill to the maximum
allowable levels during the spring migration period. Begin research to
assess full spill for summer migrants. Alter dams to reduce total
dissolved gas. Reduce predators in the forebay and tailrace of the
dams. Install Minimum Gap Runner turbines. Reduce adult fallback and
passage duration (e.g., better attraction flows, more ladders, etc.).
Improve fish bypass system at Lower Granite Dam modeled after the
Little Goose Dam bypass system. Investigate and install surface bypass
systems at lower Columbia River dams.
Immediate reduction of avian and pinniped piscivores in
the Columbia River estuary to mid-1980's levels. These predator
populations are currently robust, whereas salmon and steelhead
populations are imperiled. Once fish populations increase, an
ecologically appropriate balance of fish, birds and pinnipeds can be
managed in the estuary.
Develop and implement selective fisheries to reduce the
take of listed fish while maintaining or increasing access to non-
listed or hatchery fisheries.
Implement more aggressive local watershed initiatives to
improve tributary connectivity, flow, water temperature, sediment and
nutrient inputs, barrier removal, riparian conditions, and additional
irrigation screening and consolidation. Experiment with fertilization
of selected spawning and rearing tributaries to assess potential
improvement in fish survival and condition. Restore Columbia River
estuary habitat and ecosystem functions.
Available scientific analyses indicate these actions will help
moderate extinction risk, will increase the frequency of rebuilding
opportunities, and will increase the frequency of harvestable hatchery
surpluses compared to current operations, even though they are unlikely
to provide the magnitude of survival benefits required to secure
recovery. If environmental conditions (e.g., annual snowpack, ocean
temperature, coastal upwelling) deteriorate during this interim period,
then more aggressive actions than those described above should be
immediately considered, including the natural river option.
Step 7: Develop an aggressive monitoring and evaluation plan to assess
effectiveness within the context of environmental variability.
The draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy do not identify an
adequate monitoring and evaluation program to assess the effectiveness
of management actions within 5, 8 and 10 years. It is not
scientifically feasible to implement new actions, particularly focused
on habitat improvement, and expect to evaluate the effect of these
actions on population growth rates within one decade. Thus, many of the
performance standards and measures in the 2000 BiOp and Recovery
Strategy are relatively meaningless in the context of the breach
decision.
Instead, the primary factors that will likely determine whether or
not population growth rates are adequate during the next few years are
the weather and ocean conditions. If snowpack and ocean conditions are
favorable during the evaluation period, population growth rates may
meet the standard. If these environmental conditions deteriorate, then
it is unlikely population growth rates will meet the standard. Thus, it
is very important that performance standards and measures capture the
relative influence of these environmental variables.
IDFG is concerned that the draft 2000 BiOp and Recovery Strategy
represents a fundamental shift away from an emphasis on recovery to an
emphasis on simply avoiding extinction. Recovery standards and
performance measures must all point toward the goal of sustainable and
naturally diverse fish runs with inherent productivities adequate to
meet the biological needs of the fish and provide societal benefits.
Performance measures are the means of tracking progress toward recovery
standards, and should be nested within a hierarchy to ensure a clear
delineation toward recovery. For example, the Primary measure of
success should be based on adult returns and overall life cycle
survival (adult-to-adult) for naturally spawning indicator populations
representing the diverse stock structure of the Snake River basin;
Secondary measurements of success should include relative survival
among upriver and downriver indicator stocks, smolt-to-adult survival,
and egg-to-smolt survival; Tertiary measurements could include
partitioning survival more finely within life stages (e.g., survival
through the migration corridor) and achieving a desired condition for
key ecosystem attributes, such as water quality, quantity and velocity,
riparian health, predatory impacts, fish health and condition, etc. It
is important that this hierarchical context remains clear, so that
tertiary or secondary measurements do not become an ``end unto
themselves'' but rather a means to our primary measures of success.
literature cited
Botsford, L.W. 1997. Depensation, performance standards and
probabilities of extinction for Columbia River spring/summer chinook
salmon. Draft in D.R. Marmorek and C.N. Peters (eds. 1998. Plan for
Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH)): Retrospective and prospective
analyses of spring/summer chinook reviewed in FY97. Compiled and edited
by ESSA Technologies, Vancouver, B.C.
Bouwes, N., H. Schaller, P. Budy, C. Petrosky, R. Kiefer, P.
Wilson, O. Langness, E. Weber, E. Tinus. 1999. An analysis of
differential delayed mortality experienced by stream-type chinook
salmon of the Snake River. A response by State, tribal, and USFWS
technical staff to the `D' analyses and discussion in the Anadromous
Fish Appendix to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer' Lower Snake River
Juvenile Salmonid Migration Feasibility Study. October 4, 1999.
Submitted to NMFS for ESA record.
BRWG (Biological Requirements Work Group). 1989. Analytical Methods
for Determining Requirements of Listed Snake River Salmon Relative to
Survival and Recovery. Progress Report of the Biological Requirements
Work Group, October 13, 1994. IDFG et al. v. NMFS et al.
Congleton, J.L., T. Welker and L. Haley. 1999. Evaluation of the
effects of multiple dam passage on physiological condition of migrating
juvenile salmon. In Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Annual Report, October 1, 1998 September 30, 1999. University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho.
Dennis, B. 1989. Allee effects: population growth, critical
density, and the chance of extinction. Natural Resource Modeling 3:481-
538.
IDFG 1998. Idaho's anadromous fish stocks: their status and
recovery options. Report to the Director, May 1, 1998. Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
IDFG 1999. Comments on the National Marine Fisheries Service's ``An
Assessment of Lower Snake River Hydrosystem Alternatives on Survival
and Recovery of Snake River Salmonids'' (Draft Anadromous Fish
Appendix). August 30, 1999. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise,
Idaho.
IDFG 2000a. Technical Comments on the Scientific Analyses Used for
the Federal Caucus Draft All-H Paper. March 17, 2000. Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
IDFG 2000b. Technical Comments on NMFS' Draft Anadromous Fish
Appendix. April 29, 2000. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise,
Idaho.
Marmorek, D.R. and Peters, C. (eds.). 1998. Plan for Analyzing and
Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Weight of Evidence Report. ESSA
Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J
5C6. 116 pp. + Appendices.
Marmorek, D.R., C.N. Peters and I. Parnell. 1998. Plan for
Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final Report for Fiscal Year
1998. ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300.
Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 263 pp.
NMFS 1995. Reinitiation of consultation on 1994-1998 operation of
the Federal Columbia River power system and juvenile transportation
program in 1995 and future years. Biological Opinion. National Marine
Fisheries Service. Seattle, Washington.
NMFS 1998. Operation of the Federal Columbia River power system
including smolt monitoring program and the juvenile fish transportation
program: a supplement to the biological opinion signed on March 2,
1995, for the same projects. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, Washington.
NMFS 1999. Draft lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration
feasibility report/environmental impact statement, Appendix A,
anadromous fish. Produced by National Marine Fisheries Service for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.
NMFS 2000a. NMFS White Papers: (1) salmonid travel time and
survival related to flow in the Columbia River basin; (2) summary of
research related to transportation of juvenile anadromous salmonids
around Snake and Columbia River dams; (3) passage of juvenile and adult
salmonids past Columbia and Snake River dams; (4) predation on
salmonids relative to the Federal Columbia River power system. March
2000
NMFS 2000b. Draft Biological Opinion on Operation of the Federal
Columbia River power system including the juvenile fish transportation
program and the Bureau of Reclamation's 31 project, including the
entire Columbia Basin Project. July 27, 2000 (draft). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.
Peters, C.N., D.R. Marmorek and I. Parnell. 1999. PATH Decision
Analysis Report for Snake River Fall Chinook, September 1999. ESSA
Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J
5C6. 332 pp.
Peters, C.N., and D.R. Marmorek. 2000. PATH Preliminary Evaluation
of the Learning Opportunities and Biological Consequences of Monitoring
and Experimental Management Actions. April 11, 2000. ESSA Technologies,
Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 154 pp.
Raymond, H.A. 1988. Effects of hydroelectric development and
fisheries enhancement on spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead
in the Columbia River Basin. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 8:1-24.
Schaller, H.A., C.E. Petrosky and O.P. Langness. 1999b. Contrasting
patterns of productivity and survival rates for stream-type chinook
salmon (Oncorynchus tshawytscha) populations of the Snake and Columbia
rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:1031-1045.
SRP (Scientific Review Panel). 1998. Conclusions and
Recommendations from the PATH Weight of Evidence Workshop. September 8-
10, 1998. Vancouver, BC Canada. PATH Scientific Review Panel (S.
Carpenter, J. Collie, S. Saila, C. Walters). Edited by C. Peters, D.
Marmorek, R. Gregory, T. Eppel. ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th
Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 32 pp.
STUFA (State and Tribal and U.S. Fisheries Agencies). 2000. A
technical review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Leslie matrix
model of Snake River spring and summer chinook populations. April 28,
2000. Submitted to NMFS for ESA Record.
Toole, C. 2000. Email memorandum to L. Krasnow and 9 others,
September 5, 2000. Subject: [Fwd: New AppB posted]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.005
__________
Statement of Keith Kutchins, Anadromous Fisheries Biologist, Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, Fisheries Department
My name is Keith Kutchins, Anadromous Fisheries Biologist for the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. I deal primarily with anadromous fish harvest,
production and hydrosystem issues and assist in subbasin planning.
Since 1991 I have been the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' representative on
the harvest and production technical committees of United States v.
Oregon, and I am intimately involved with a plethora of other processes
including the planning and implementation activities of the Northwest
Power Planning Council, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority,
Endangered Species Act consultations with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and fisheries co-management
activities with the State agencies and Columbia Basin tribes. I have
worked on anadromous fish management issues in the Columbia River Basin
for over 12 years.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are today co-managers of the anadromous
fish resource in the Columbia River Basin and have continued to work
toward improving the habitat and supplementation efforts. The Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes are also leaders in pursuing equitable allocation of
conservation-based harvest.
I have reviewed the Draft Hydrosystem Biological Opinions by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
the Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and the
Federal Caucus Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy and am deeply
concerned about the failure of these documents to rely on the simple
scientific facts that are so evident to the vast array of scientists
that work in the Snake River system. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have
repeatedly invited the National Marine Fisheries Service staff and
decisionmakers to visit us in the headwaters of the Columbia River,
particularly in the Salmon River system. Unfortunately, few have made
this trip to the headwaters.
The vast majority of the habitat in the Salmon River system is in
very good health for the salmon life stages that occur there. The
Salmon River was once the spawning and rearing habitat of at least 50
percent of the entire Columbia River runs of spring and summer chinook
salmon. The Clearwater and Salmon rivers are the exclusive homes of the
large Group-B (two-ocean) steelhead. Much of the Salmon River is
comprised of relatively pristine habitat--clean, clear, cold un-dammed
flowing waters with vast arrays of in-stream habitat such as woody
debris, large pool-to-riffle ratios, undercut banks and rich riparian
areas that shade the water. This is superb habitat for salmon and
steelhead.
However, it does not take much observation to reveal that all this
wonderful habitat is relatively devoid of anadromous fish. The spawning
beds have very few or no adult salmon and steelhead spawning on them.
Annually we count the salmon redds, or spawning nests, as an indication
of population abundance. These counts have occurred consistently since
1957 in Idaho in order to follow the trends of abundance. The trend is
unmistakably on a consistent downward path, even since the listings of
these fish under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1992.
We also snorkel the rivers in order to estimate the abundance of
juvenile fish that have been produced in the Salmon River. This
sampling has also been conducted in such a way as to confidently
compare abundance from year to year. The trend of juvenile fish
abundance is also on a consistently downward path. Just 10 years ago
most of the Salmon River tributaries had juvenile salmon densities that
were from 10 to 20 percent of the carrying capacity. Now, just one
decade later, the Salmon River tributaries contain only 5 percent of
the juvenile salmon needed to fill the habitat.
Computer models and fancy statistics are worthless compared to the
facts that simple observations have revealed to anyone who has watched
the Salmon River for a period of time. The simplest statistics, such as
the trends in redd counts and juvenile densities since the late 1970's
do not lie. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service appears to
ignore these simple statistics. The National Marine Fisheries Service
is plain wrong when they conclude that the greatest opportunities for
survival improvements of listed Snake River salmon may hinge on efforts
to restore health to the tributaries.
Although the habitat in the Salmon River is mostly in excellent
health, there are problem areas. The Lemhi and Pahsimeroi rivers and
the East Fork Salmon River have vast arrays of irrigation diversions.
Although the majority of these diversions are screened to bypass
migrating juvenile salmon back into the river, the sheer number of
diversions delay the outmigration to the point where the salmon misses
its window of opportunity to speed to the ocean, and these delays do
result in mortality. There are at least five major mines that pose
significant threats in the form of acid rock drainage and cyanide
spills and seeps, and a myriad of other small mines that add additional
sedimentation and water quality problems. Many smaller tributaries to
the Salmon River, and even the Lemhi River itself are so heavily used
for irrigation that they are literally de-watered.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes look forward to continuing work as
resource co-mangers with the Federal and State agencies and local
individuals and governments to correct problems in the Salmon River
primarily in tributaries to the Salmon River from the Lemhi River
upstream to the headwaters of the Salmon River. The Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes have been proactive participants in these efforts, through the
Lemhi River Model Watershed, through actions of the Tribes' Salmon
Corps, and through the Tribes' habitat enhancement projects funded by
the Bonneville Power Administration. We have documented many cases
where localized habitat problems have been corrected, to the benefit of
the anadromous and resident fish resources.
However, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are thoroughly convinced that
these improvements are not nearly enough to even stop the declines of
the listed anadromous fish, let alone recover them. Our best evidence
of this fact exists in the Middle Fork Salmon River, the largest salmon
producing tributary of the Salmon River system. The listed fish
populations in the Middle Fork Salmon River--which is a Wild and Scenic
River that lies almost completely within the Frank Church Wilderness
Area and is almost totally in pristine condition-continue to decline at
least at the same rate as the populations in the upper Salmon River.
This evidence suggests that the major problems--and thus the major
areas to concentrate recovery efforts--are outside of the Salmon River
system.
During the early and middle 1990's the conditions in the Pacific
Ocean were not good for Columbia River salmon populations. The impacts
of oceanic conditions become greater as salmon populations decrease, as
do the impacts created by all habitat conditions. The critical, or
threshold importance of learning more about how ocean conditions affect
salmon survival and recovery is doubtful. Although it is of interest to
further study the trends of oceanic conditions and their effects on
Columbia Basin salmon, very little can be done by humans to protect the
salmon during their time in the ocean, other than reducing or
eliminating mixed-stock harvest. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes applaud
the efforts of the National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce harvest
impacts on listed Snake River fall chinook over the past 8 years.
However, the impacts of 30 percent harvest rates on the fall chinook
and listed Group-B steelhead are still too high. The National Marine
Fisheries Service needs to more aggressively pursue continuity between
conservation-based harvest rates of Columbia Basin spring and summer
chinook salmon (approximately 10 and 5 percent, respectively) and the
30 percent harvest rates for fall chinook and steelhead.
The position of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes is that there should be
no interception fisheries in the ocean and mainstem Columbia River
while the weak stocks of listed fish are mixed in with more numerous
runs. Fisheries should instead be conducted in the tributaries with
runs that can support harvest. Selective harvest works best when the
fishing area is used as the tool for selectivity, rather than different
gears. Selective gears require the catch and then the release of the
listed fish, which still results in mortality of the listed fish.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is particularly unjust in its
allocation of the conservation burden when they allow ocean and
mainstem Columbia River fisheries to harvest listed Snake River salmon
and steelhead while at the same time the NMFS states that there is no
mechanism under their administration of the Endangered Species Act for
Shoshone-Bannock Tribal harvest of those very same fish once the fish
are in the Salmon River. The National Marine Fisheries Service is
arbitrary when they claim that harvesting listed fish is incidental
when the population of fish being harvested is comprised of less than
50 percent listed fish. They are also arbitrary, and capricious when
they further claim that harvesting listed fish is direct take when the
population of fish being harvested is comprised of greater than 50
percent listed fish.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is wrong to conclude that
that there are only two roles for hatcheries. The two roles they state
are: (1) reform existing hatcheries to prevent negative effects from
hatchery-origin fish on wild fish; and (2) use hatcheries to conserve
wild fish. These are good roles for hatcheries. However, the most
important role for hatcheries is to use them to rebuild wild fish
populations. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes call this concrete-to-gravel-
to-gravel management. Scientists call it supplementation. There are
appropriate ways to use hatchery-origin fish and release them into wild
areas for those fish to return to rebuild the listed wild populations.
The NMFS is wrong to use genetics as the overriding factor in impeding
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes from pursuing the production actions that
the Tribes have successfully initiated. Many of the wild areas no
longer contain any fish, so even if the NMFS is correct with their
genetics theories, it would be a moot point. We can no longer manage
for genes, and need instead to manage for fish. The Recovery Strategy
needs to aggressively pursue supplementation of listed fish with
available hatchery-origin stocks.
The National Marine Fisheries Service needs to incorporate the use
of hatcheries to rebuild listed populations, rather than only use
hatcheries as a conservation tool to prevent extinction. The year 2000
is a good example. Largely as a result of very high spring runoff in
1997, the returns of spring and summer chinook to some of the Salmon
River hatcheries were excellent during the summer of 2000. So many
spring and summer chinook salmon returned to the Rapid River and South
Fork Salmon River hatcheries that sportsman harvest occurred alongside
treaty fisheries in the rivers directly below those hatcheries. There
were so many hatchery salmon that the hatcheries trucked the fish back
down below the fisheries for the fish to swim through and have another
chance at being harvested after they had already returned to the
hatchery weirs.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes firmly believe that these ``surplus''
fish should have also transplanted into adjacent areas that are devoid
of listed, naturally producing salmon. For example, surplus adult
salmon and their offspring that returned to the Rapid River hatchery
should have been transplanted to the Yankee Fork Salmon River, upper
Salmon River and Pahsimeroi River. These target areas have received
outplantings from the Rapid River stock in the 1980's, and some of
those actions returned fish at 2 to 6 percent smolt-to-adult survival
rates. During the middle 1980's, one million smolts from the Rapid
River Hatchery were released each of 2 years to the Pahsimeroi River,
and those releases returned 4,000 to 6,000 adult salmon 2 and 3 years
later. Unfortunately, that practice was ended when it was decided that
the Rapid River stock was the wrong stock (spring chinook) to use in
the Pahsimeroi River (theoretically, summer chinook), even though the
performance of those outplantings suggest otherwise. This year, only
about 350 adult salmon returned to the Pahsimeroi Hatchery.
Likewise, the ``surplus'' chinook salmon adults that returned to
the South Fork Salmon River this year should have been transplanted to
Johnson Creek (a tributary of the South Fork Salmon River), and to the
Pahsimeroi River. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service
determined that the South Fork Salmon River has five distinctly
different stocks of chinook salmon that cannot be intermixed. In
essence, the National Marine Fisheries Service theories on salmon
genetics are preventing recovery because those theories prevent using
abundant, available, and appropriate donor stocks from being used in
areas that need fish.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes humbly request that the subcommittee
further investigate the policies and positions of the National Marine
Fisheries Service with regard to salmon supplementation. A very
powerful recovery tool is being ignored due to potentially esoteric
genetic theories. With great respect, we further request that the
subcommittee assists the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in securing the salmon
supplementation actions that we have been pursuing for over 10 years,
to at least allow us to also test our theories.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are also very concerned that the
National Marine Fisheries Service concludes that there have been
significant improvements to the migration conditions through the
hydrosystem in the past 5 years. The evidence based on simple
observations of wild salmon abundance in the Salmon River system does
not support this conclusion. Redd counts and juvenile densities
continue to decline, as I have stated earlier.
The National Marine Fisheries Service greatly underestimates the
necessary survival improvements that are needed to stop the declines
and move toward recovery. The 1995 hydrosystem Biological Opinion
concluded that the smolt-to-adult survival needs to improve from 280 to
850 percent in order to meet the 24-year survival standard. The current
draft Biological Opinion concludes that survival improvements need to
only be 30 percent for Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon.
The National Marine Fisheries Service underestimates the risk of
extinction when they use an absolute extinction risk threshold of one
fish per brood. It is wrong for the National Marine Fisheries Service
to use a one fish per brood extinction risk threshold for evaluation of
the hydrosystem, when they use a threshold population level of from 150
to 300 fish per brood for determining allowable tributary harvest
levels. The National Marine Fisheries Service further underestimates
the probability of real extinction for the listed species by relaxing
the definition of high-risk from a 1-percent probability of extinction
in 100 years (A-Fish Appendix to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon
Migration Feasibility Study) to a 5 percent probability in 24 to 100
years.
These are but a few of the many concerns that we have about the
ever-changing science used by the National Marine Fisheries Service in
the draft Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy. It appears that the
National Marine Fisheries Service picked an analysis method in order to
meet the desired end. They do not use the same jeopardy, survival and
recovery standards in these drafts as they did in the A-Fish Appendix
and in the 1995 Biological Opinion. They do not even use consistent
standards between different sections (different ``H's'') of these
drafts. The science that was agreed to as a result of the Idaho v. NMFS
lawsuit appears to no longer apply. That lawsuit resulted in a 1995
jeopardy opinion for the hydrosystem, and established a robust
scientific process (the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, or
PATH) to continue the efforts to resolve critical scientific
uncertainties that remained. The PATH concluded that the benefits from
breaching the four lower Snake River dams were more certain than non-
breaching alternatives. The National Marine Fisheries Service has
boldly rejected that science and has replaced it with a new and
different science that concludes that there is significant uncertainty
with breaching the lower Snake River dams.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are extremely disappointed that the
1995 Biological Opinion has not been adhered to. That Opinion allowed a
decision to be made in 1999 to either breach the lower Snake River dams
or else continue with attempts to fix the dams with screens, curtains,
bypasses and barges. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes believe that
technological fixes to the lower Snake River dams will not even allow
the listed Snake River salmon to survive, let alone recover. The 1999
decision should have been made based on readily available scientific
information, and it should have been to pursue congressional
authorization to breach those dams, as the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have
long been advocating. The Recovery Strategy and the new Biological
Opinion should call for the breaching of the four lower Snake River
dams now. The Recovery Strategy and the new Biological Opinion should
call for an immediate moratorium on any expenditures on those four dams
that will be rendered a wasted investment when the dams are breached.
The bottom line is that the draft Biological Opinion does not state
how it will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative results in no survival improvement over
existing conditions. In other words, the Draft Biological Opinion does
not define what we are measuring for in order to determine, 5, 8, or 10
years from now, if there has been a change in the jeopardy of the
future existence of the listed fish. It does not tell us how, in 5, 8,
or 10 years, we will determine if the Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative has succeeded in the listed fish survival or recovery. The
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes now see that the implementation of the 1995
Biological Opinion was a trap--a trap that somehow allows the science
to change in the eleventh hour with no consultation with the tribes.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are adamant that the new Biological
Opinion must incorporate the conclusions of the PATH reports, adhere to
the 1995 Biological Opinion, and call for the immediate breaching of
the four lower Snake River dams. If the National Marine Fisheries
Service can prove, using the best available science, that breaching the
dams will result in greater uncertainty than the non-breach
alternatives, then the new Biological Opinion must provide clear
decision criteria that will be used in less than 3 years to determine
the success or failure of the proposed Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative. The new Biological Opinion must also provide a clear
alternate Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that calls for immediate
pursuit of breaching the four lower Snake River dams if the criteria
concludes that the proposed RPA results in failure of survival for the
listed Snake River fish.
Thank you subcommittee, and Chairman Crapo for hosting this hearing
and providing the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes with an opportunity to
express their concerns.
__________
Statement of Earl C. Weber, Senior Fisheries Scientist, Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission on Salmon Recovery
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present you with my scientific perspective on salmon
restoration in the Columbia River basin. My name is Earl Weber. I am a
Senior Fisheries Scientist on staff at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission. The Commission was formed in 1977 by resolution of the
Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of
Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. The
Commission allows for coordination amongst the four tribes and provides
technical assistance to ensure that the resolution of outstanding
treaty fishing rights issues guarantees the continuation and
restoration of the tribes' fisheries into perpetuity.
1. introduction
On behalf of the tribes, I am providing this testimony as a
Fisheries Scientist involved in the Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses (PATH). Several years ago the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) initiated the PATH process as a means of evaluating
potential management actions aimed at restoring Snake River stocks.
PATH has employed a decision analysis framework that takes
uncertainties with respect to these potential management actions into
account. More importantly, PATH held rigorous, formal scientific
debates that included a weight of evidence approach for evaluating
scientific evidence, including the potential for salmon recovery
through actions other than additional management actions or
modifications of the hydroelectric power system.
In its Draft Biological Opinion (BIOP) on the Operation of the
Federal Columbia River Power System, released July 27, 2000, the NMFS
acknowledges the high risk of extinction for ESA-listed salmon stocks
in the Snake River. NMFS also acknowledges that breaching the earthern
portions of the four dams on the lower Snake River provides the best
opportunity for recovering these listed stocks. However, rather than
recommending breaching, NMFS postpones breaching these dams in favor of
other actions. These proposed actions largely consist of unspecified
efforts to improve survival in non-hydropower system areas and a
continued reliance on the transportation system to mitigate for
hydropower system losses.
In taking this stance, NMFS has ignored available technical
information developed by the PATH and other technical experts. Nor has
NMFS attempted to analyze and arrange information in a way that
illuminates a path between the proposed actions and recovery for all
listed stocks of salmon. First, NMFS has taken only selected,
optimistic pieces of information from the total amount available
through the PATH process. Second, NMFS has failed to look at the
information from the standpoint of the feasibility of management
actions to recover all listed Snake River salmon stocks.
2. testimony
My testimony focuses on two general areas that have been the focus
of PATH in recent years. First, my testimony will provide evidence that
transportation is not mitigating for hydropower system losses and that
other factors are not responsible for hampering what might otherwise be
a successful transportation program. Second, my testimony will show why
it is unlikely that recovery will be achieved by improving survival in
non-hydropower system arenas.
2.1. Transportation
The BIOP tacitly assumes that transportation is mitigating for
hydropower system losses. In making their case for the continued
transportation of juvenile salmon in barges, NMFS first omits important
information useful for evaluating transportation and, second, tacitly
supports the hypothesis that transportation is working but that other
factors are masking its success. Neither of these assumptions is
supported by scientific evidence. In fact, available scientific
evidence shows transportation to be a failed management tool for the
recovery of salmon stocks.
2.2. Transportation--does it work?
Historically, transportation was evaluated by comparing the
survival of transported fish with that of non-transported fish. Two
groups of fish were marked and one group was placed in the barge or
truck (transport group) and the other group was released back into the
river as a ``control.'' The survival rate of each of the two groups of
fish was calculated when they returned to the river as adults. The
ratio of their survival rates was then calculated. If the Transport-to-
Control-Ratio (TCR) was greater than 1:1, transportation was deemed
successful.
However, in a review of the juvenile transportation program, Mundy
et al. (1994) found the TCRs were ``moot'' if the survival of the
transported fish was not high enough to insure survival of the stock in
the long term. Typically, the Smolt-to-Adult survival of the
transported fish stocks was much less than 1 percent. PATH concurred
and established a survival goal for spring/summer chinook of from two
to 6 percent, based on the past survival of Snake River chinook and
recent estimates from a downriver index stock , Warm Springs spring
chinook (Toole et al 1996). The following graphic shows the Smolt-to
Adult-Return (SAR) of transported wild Snake River spring/summer
chinook.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.006
Note that in recent years (1988-1997) SARs were measured with
highly accurate Passive Interrogation Transponder (PIT) tags. During
this period the average survival rate was less than 0.5 percent, far
less than the minimum goal of 2 percent and an order of magnitude less
than the 4-percent which is approximately the level needed for
recovery. The survival goals and the survival information developed by
a panel of interagency agency and trial technical experts (PATH),
including NMFS staff, was omitted from the BIOP.
Interestingly, the recent PIT tag data also shows that
transportation may not be affording even a relative advantage over
smolts (juvenile fish) migrating down river through the turbines of the
dams. For example, Kiefer (in prep) found that juvenile Snake River
spring chinook that migrated to the ocean through the hydrosystem
without being handled or bypassed returned at rates above those of
transported fish in two of 3 years for which data are available.
Low SARs are consistent with other studies of Snake River Spring/
summer chinook. Deriso et al. (1996) and Schaller et al. (1999)
analyzed adult (recruit per spawner) data and found that the
differential mortality between seven Snake River spring chinook stocks
and six downriver control stocks averaged approximately 0.17 per
project, which equates to a mortality of over 80 percent for eight
projects. Because this level of mortality was far in excess of that
indicated by passage models, a statistic, D, was formulated to quantify
the level of differential mortality due to collection and
transportation relative to the delayed mortality experienced by fish
migrating inriver.
Like their predecessors, the Transport-to-Control Ratios, D values
are not in and of themselves important. While D values close to one are
better than D values close to zero, NMFS asserts that high values of D
indicate differential mortality is due to something other than problems
with the transportation program. D values are important in an
analytical sense only if it can be assumed that differential mortality
has nothing to do with the hydropower system. Therefore, it is
incumbent on NMFS to explain the source of extra mortality. To date,
NMFS has referred to genetic differences between Snake River spring
chinook and their downstream control stocks. But genetic differences
are not by themselves agents of mortality and must be at least
conceptually linked to one or more biological mechanisms. These would
include starvation, predation or disease.
It is unrealistic to believe that some stocks of the highly
migratory chinook would suddenly find themselves unable to locate prey
in the North Pacific. The trophic structure of the eastern North
Pacific Ocean is based on large scale wind driven upwelling events that
produce large, temporary gyres. These gyres bring cold, nutrient rich
water to the surface where food chains forms. Gyres repeatedly form and
dissipate throughout the range of spring/summer chinook, which extends
from Northern California to the Gulf of Alaska. Because both the Snake
River chinook and their downriver (control) counterparts occur within
this range, it seems unlikely that the Snake River chinook would become
unable to locate prey while the downriver stocks continue to feed
successfully. Likewise, it is difficult to believe that Snake River
fish would begin to encounter a previously unencountered predator while
the downriver fish proceed unmolested.
Although some have emphasized the importance of ocean cycles, the
fact that all Snake River salmon stocks obviously haven't collapsed
every sixty years, or on any other potential cycle, indicates that a
climatic cycle is not to blame. Instead, this hypothesis would seem to
require that a new and unexplained oceanic phenomenon would have to
have come into play coincidentally with the construction of the last
four dams. It is important to note that during PATH's Weight Of
Evidence process, the Scientific Review Panel assigned very low weights
(ranging from a 1 percent to a 20 percent likelihood) to the Regime
Shift Hypothesis as shown in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Carpenter Collie Saila Walters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight.............................. 0.01 0.1 0.15 0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, these were the lowest weights assigned by the SRP for any
hypothesis. NMFS ignored the Scientific Review Panel and the Weight Of
Evidence process in the BIOP.
Conversely, disease appears to be a likely contender for the
differential mortality. In fact, NMFS described a scenario over a
decade ago wherein a combination of stress and injury sustained during
bypass, collection and transportation, causes the ubiquitous but
generally asymptomatic Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD) to flourish
(Williams 1989). This phenomenon is well known among fish pathologists
(see for example Warren 1991). BKD takes several months to run its
course and thus mortality would not occur until the early ocean life
stage, the stage at which differential mortality is thought to occur.
If NMFS now believes this hypothesis to be untrue, they should provide
a more plausible explanation.
To summarize, D values, like Transport-to-Control Ratios (TCRs),
are relative measures used to relate the survival of transported fish
to that of inriver fish. There is no logical reason to believe that
high D values exonerate transportation. High values of D are only
important in a quantitative sense if one assumes that differential
mortality is unrelated to stress and injury in the hydropower system.
The only plausible hypothesis for delayed mortality is linked directly
to the hydrosystem. If NMFS wishes to provide a more plausible
scientific hypothesis for extra mortality, they need to provide a
biological mechanism whereby, 12 to 13 million years after speciation,
and concurrent with the development of the hydropower system, the Snake
River spring chinook stocks underwent severe declines that the
downriver control stocks did not experience.
3. potential for recovery through other h's
The major thrust of the BIOP is that salmon restoration may be
possible entirely through improvement in areas other than the
hydropower system (i.e., through additional restrictive management
actions in habitat, hatcheries and harvest.). This assumption is
contradicted by available technical information.
3.1. Habitat
While good habitat is important, one must remember that there are
wilderness areas in the Snake Basin yet there are still dwindling
spring chinook populations. For example, Sulfur Creek and Marsh Creek
are in prime habitat areas. But in 1994 and 1999, no fish returned to
Sulphur Creek and in 1995 and 1999 no fish returned to Marsh Creek. It
is, therefore, unrealistic to assume that habitat improvement alone
will recover spring chinook stocks. Likewise, there are no identifiable
opportunities for recovering the Snake River sockeye stock through
habitat manipulation.
The greatest ``habitat'' problem for fall chinook is the severe
reduction of spawning habitat caused by the Hell's Canyon dam complex
that blocked upstream migrations, and the lower Snake River dams that
encroached on their remaining spawning area downstream of Hell's
Canyon. NMFS acknowledges that the removal of the four lower Snake
River dams will increase spawning and rearing habitat up to 77 percent,
with the potential to add 5,000 spawners.
Note also that some of the more important habitat problems are
found within the hydropower system. These include nitrogen gas super
saturation, elevated water temperatures and the substantial reductions
in water velocities that occur in reservoirs. These water quality
issues affect all Snake River salmonids and other anadromous and
resident fish.
3.2. Harvest
With spring chinook harvest rates in the range of seven to 9
percent, opportunities for recovery through harvest reductions are
almost nonexistent. Harvest rates for Snake River summer chinook and
sockeye stocks are lower than those for the Snake River spring chinook
stock. At least temporarily, improvements in escapements through
harvest reductions are possible for fall chinook and, to a lesser
extent, steelhead, but that will not benefit spring/summer chinook or
sockeye.
3.3. Hatcheries
This approach has several potential facets. Hypothetically, high
densities of hatchery fish could negatively impact Snake River wild
stocks. But four of the seven Snake River spring/summer indicator
stocks, including the aforementioned Sulphur and Marsh Creek stocks,
have no hatchery programs. For these and many other stocks a reduction
or elimination of hatchery fish is impossible.
A second hypothesis suggests that hatchery fish, particularly the
larger steelhead, may stress spring/summer chinook in the unnatural
bypass/collection systems and barges. This further stress, mixed with
injury and disease transmission (Williams 1989), appears to be the most
likely reason for the low survival of transported spring chinook.
However, recent data show that even when steelhead are absent or
present in low densities, survival rates (SARs) for chinook are often
zero and always less than 1 percent (Peters and Marmorek 2000; Appendix
D). One could reasonably question the wisdom of dismantling a
moderately successful program (hatchery steelhead) in what would appear
at the outset to be a fruitless attempt to raise transportation
survival to the 2 to 6 percent range.
4. conclusion
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer
your questions, or those of other committee members, now. I am also
available to answer any written questions that you wish to provide to
me for the benefit of the record.
5. literature cited
Peters, C.N. and D.R. Marmorek. (compls./eds.) 2000. PATH:
Preliminary evaluation of the learning opportunities and biological
consequences of monitoring and experimental actions. Prepared by ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, 150 pp.
Toole, C., A. Giorgi, E. Weber and W. McConnaha. 1996. Hydro
decision pathway and review of existing information. In: Marmorek, D.
(ed). 1996. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final
Report on Retrospective analyses for fiscal year 1996. Prepared by ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.
Schaller, H.A., C.E. Petrosky and O.P. Langness. 1999. Contrasting
patterns of productivity and survival rates for stream-type chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations of the Snake and Columbia
Rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 1031-1045.
Warren, J.W. 1991. Diseases of hatchery fish. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pacific Region Publication. 90 pp.
__________
Statement of Derrek Batson, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited
Chairman Crapo, and Senators of the committee, my name is Derrek
Batson. I am an officer of Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited--or
ISSU--and reside in Nampa, Idaho.
First, let me say that anytime I get east of Senator Crapo's
hometown of Idaho Falls my knees begin to shake and I feel a little bit
over whelmed. However it is such a great honor to be part of this
important process and I have convinced myself I will be just fine.
ISSU was formed in 1984 by a diverse group of businessmen, guides,
conservationists, sport fishermen and concerned citizens from
throughout the Columbia River region to restore, protect, and preserve
the region's steelhead and salmon resources. So as you can imagine ISSU
is no stranger to this issue or the process.
We know why Senator Crapo and other Northwestern senators care
about salmon restoration--because salmon are in their back yard. But
why should the rest of you or your constituents care? One reason is
because protecting and restoring what were once the worlds largest runs
of salmon and steelhead--and this icon of the northwest--it's the only
thing to do. But another reason, and one which we believe is as
important to your constituents is that most of the rest of the Nation
view our area as their national playground. Our wilderness areas, white
water rivers, and massive expanses of Federal lands are intriguing to
them and they come to our State by the thousands to recreate in these
areas. In Idaho today tourism is the No. 2 industry. It is surpassed
only by agriculture. A limited steelhead fishery on hatchery-reared
steelhead generates over $92 million annually for our State. We have
not had a general salmon season since 1978--only 3 years after
completion of the Lower Snake River Dams--but it is estimated that it
would equal or exceed the steelhead fishing economy. So, as you can see
we will wear the title of national play ground proudly and restoring
salmon needs to be a key part of it. When your constituents come to
Idaho they deserve to be able to enjoy this northwest icon.
Briefly allow me to highlight where the Federal BiOp fails the
salmon.
For the Federal Caucus to separate the mainstem Columbia and Snake
Rivers--with their hydropower obstructions--from habitat is a misnomer
Habitat is habitat--whether it is in the Frank Church River of No
Return Wilderness or the dam-choked reservoirs in the Mainstem Columbia
and Snake Rivers. For the BiOp to focus on the fresh water habitat in
Snake River tributaries while ignoring the Federal dams and reservoirs
is a prescription for failure. Idaho's wilderness salmon bedrooms are
as pristine today as they were a hundred years ago, yet no salmon
return. Wild salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River, South Fork Salmon
River and most-other Idaho tributaries pass no irrigation diversions,
yet NMFS wants to focus on screening irrigation diversions. Granted
it's probably politically non-controversial, but it does nothing to
recover wild salmon in these wilderness areas. The BiOp caps--and in
some cases reduces fishing--when fishing today is a mere fraction of
what it was before the dams were built in the lower Snake River. This
is the fallacy of the BiOp. It attacks land users and fishermen.
Loggers, miners. ranchers, farmers and fishermen are all victims of the
Federal dams, yet the BiOp continues to punish these victims. Land-use
industries sacrificed much to set aside the Frank Church River of No
Return Wilderness and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness to protect
salmon and steelhead. Combined these two wilderness areas comprise the
single largest contiguous wilderness in the lower forty-eight States.
Fishermen have not kept wild Snake River spring chinook salmon in the
Columbia or Snake River since 1978--or wild summer chinook since the
late 1960's. Yet every wild stock is listed by the ESA. To do more of
the same while ignoring the No. 1 salmon killer--the Federal dams in
the Lower Snake River--quite frankly this is inconceivable.
Allow me to give you an example of the half-heartedness of the
BiOp. Specific Performance Standards; Draft BiOp 9-7 to 9-15--Agencies
are required to meet three overall types of performance standards:
programmatic (e.g., did the agencies implement the required measures,
did they complete the required analysis, and did they acquire funding
necessary to implement and complete these measures and analysis)
biological; (i.e. population growth rates), and finally physical; (e.g.
spawner counts, riparian health, water quality). There are only
consequences for failure to meet the biological standard.
Here is our take of this--First NMFS has yet to define the physical
and programmatic standards--this is a major omission at the very heart
of the BiOp. Second, the current biological performance standard is
based on assumptions and data that do not adequately represent
population growth rates for Snake River salmon and it does not include
other biological factors (for instance, population distribution
necessary for recovery). Third, specific consequences for failing to
meet any of the three types of standards should be incorporated into
the BiOp.
It is important to emphasize here: performance standards are the
means by which NMFS proposes to make this plan work to restore salmon.
Yet in the draft document the performance standards are incomplete or
missing all three types of standards and there are no consequences for
failing to achieve two of the three types of standards.
The Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition has done an outline of the draft
recovery plan. I have included it in the material package you now have.
I hope you will take time to review it in its entirety.
In closing let me assure you that ISSU has no agenda to just breach
dams. Our agenda is to restore a viable anadromous resource to the
Columbia Region even if it means breaching the lower Snake River dams.
We will accept any plan that will assure recovery of salmon to
harvestable, sustainable levels. To date we have not seen one that can
do that without breaching the lower Snake River dams, nor do we believe
we ever will.
Thank you for allowing me this time before you, and I will try to
answer your questions.
__________
Statement of Scott Bosse, Idaho Rivers United
I would like to thank Sen. Crapo and the distinguished members of
the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. My name is Scott
Bosse. I am a fisheries biologist with Idaho Rivers United, a river
conservation group of nearly two thousand members from Idaho and across
the Pacific Northwest that has been working on Columbia basin salmon
recovery since our founding a decade ago.
I would like to address three major points in my testimony on the
Administration's draft biological opinion and the Draft Basin-wide
Salmon Recovery Strategy, formerly know as the All-H paper.
The first is the premise that because there are now 12 ESA-listed
stocks of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia basin, any and all
recovery measures must target all of these stocks at once. In other
words, the idea is that we should pursue a ``one-size-fits-all'' salmon
recovery strategy in order to get the most ``bang for the buck.'' This
goes against one of the most important things biologists know about
salmon; that each individual stock is uniquely adapted to the river
that produced it. That is precisely why the Endangered Species Act
protects salmon at the stock level, and not at the broader species
level.
Saying we should not take out the four lower Snake River dams
because it would only help four out of the 12 listed stocks is akin to
saying we should not cleanup the air in Boise because that does nothing
to improve air quality in Houston or Phoenix. It is simply another
excuse for inaction.
The fact is that the four listed stocks in the Snake River basin
face a very different set of hurdles than the eight listed stocks in
the Columbia River. While most tributary habitat in the Columbia River
has been severely degraded by logging, mining, grazing, urbanization,
and agricultural development, the Snake River stocks still have
available to them nearly four thousand miles of prime spawning and
rearing habitat. Approximately one-third of this habitat is located
within federally designated wilderness areas or Wild and Scenic River
corridors. This virtually pristine habitat theoretically is capable of
producing millions of wild smolts that should translate into several
hundred thousand wild returning adult salmon.
The administration contends there are four Hs that must be
addressed in order to develop a truly comprehensive basin-wide recovery
strategy. In reality, there are only three: Habitat, Harvest, and
Hatcheries. The notion that Hydro deserves its own H is false. It does
not. Hydro is habitat. Hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake and
Columbia Rivers have drastically altered the 465 mile-long migration
corridor habitat that Snake River salmon rely on to in order to deliver
them to the estuary when they are smolts and back to their spawning
grounds when they are adults. The dams have transformed what once was a
cold, swift-flowing river into what is now a chain of warm, slackwater
reservoirs in which salmon are not genetically equipped to survive.
Hydroelectric dams also have inundated 140 miles of mainstem
spawning and rearing habitat for Snake River fall chinook salmon. By
largely ignoring the Hydro H and trying to make up for it in the other
three H's, the draft bi-op essentially writes off this stock. This
shortcoming is especially problematic because it is fall chinook that
are most sought after by tribal harvesters who have treaty rights that
this administration has pledged to uphold.
The second major point I want to address is the draft biological
opinion's strong focus on habitat restoration in upriver tributaries
and the Columbia River estuary in lieu of the major overhaul in the
Hydro H that Judge Marsh called for in 1994 (Idaho Department of Fish
and Game v. NMFS). Mr. George Frampton, Acting Chair of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, has estimated that expenditures on
these items alone will cost taxpayers and ratepayers hundreds of
millions of dollars a year above and beyond what is already being
spent.
A fair question, then, is what will this money buy in the 3,700
miles of prime spawning and rearing habitat that lies nearly empty of
salmon in Idaho and northeast Oregon? What will it buy in the Middle
Fork Salmon River--drainage the largest wild salmon refuge left in the
Columbia basin--where the habitat cannot be improved upon, where there
are no hatcheries, and where the spring/summer chinook that return to
spawn face a combined harvest rate of less than 5 percent? What will a
plan that does virtually nothing to overhaul the Hydro H do for these
salmon stocks that are almost wholly affected by the dams?
NMFS scientists justify their focus on tributary habitat
restoration by saying the best opportunity to increase population
growth rates is in the salmon's first year of life. But the science
shows Snake River salmon have experienced no significant decrease in
egg-to-smolt survival since the construction of the lower Snake River
dams. The science also shows that Snake River salmon declines have been
similar in pristine and badly degraded streams; in streams with high
natural fertility and those with low natural fertility.
The bottom line is NMFS has fundamentally misdiagnosed the most
critical problem facing 4 out of the 12 listed Columbia basin salmon
stocks by largely ignoring the Hydro H and trying to pin the problem on
first year survival. The facts clearly do not support this assumption.
Finally, I want to point out that the remedies prescribed in the
draft biological opinion are not time-sensitive for at least two of the
four listed Snake River stocks (spring/summer chinook and sockeye).
That is, restoring spawning and rearing habitat--even if it was the
most critical factor affecting Snake River stocks--would undoubtedly
take decades to produce the desired effect, when extinction models show
some of these very same stocks are on a trajectory to go functionally
extinct by 2017. The fact remains that the only recovery measure that
is likely to restore spring and summer chinook within a timeframe that
will beat the extinction clock is breaching the four lower Snake River
dams.
Speaking at a July 27 press conference in Portland, Mr. Frampton
was quoted as saying, ``We know dam breaching is the single most
effective thing we can do for these (Snake River) stocks and that it
may be necessary.'' I believe that in addition to being the single most
effective thing we can do, dam breaching is also the only major thing
we can do to actually recover Snake River stocks before the extinction
clock runs out. Until the administration's draft recovery plan
acknowledges that basic fact, it is a recovery plan for just 8 of the
12 listed stocks, and a weak one at that.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.007
Statement of Robert J. Masonis, Director, Northwest Regional
Conservation Programs, American Rivers
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today
regarding the Administration's draft plan to save Columbia and Snake
River salmon. I am the Director of Northwest Conservation Programs for
American Rivers, a national river conservation organization, and Board
Chair of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, a coalition of over 50
commercial fishing associations, sport-fishing groups, fishing-related
businesses and conservation organizations from across the Northwest.
American Rivers and the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition have been active
for many years in the effort to recover salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia and Snake Rivers.
The recent release of the National Marine Fisheries Services' draft
Biological Opinion was an important milestone in the region's effort to
develop a recovery plan for the listed salmon in the Snake and Columbia
River Basins. The challenge now is to improve the draft and finalize it
on schedule by the end of 2000. One issue that is clearly not disputed
among scientists is that the time to act is now if we are to recover
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin; further delay is
unacceptable.
Let me start by stating that we believe the general framework set
forth in the draft Biological Opinion represents a workable, logical
approach to addressing this extremely complex issue. While we support
this general framework of action and adaptive management, we believe
that the draft Biological Opinion is severely lacking in several
critical respects, including the adequacy of the specific remedial
actions and the implementation timeline. I will explain these concerns
in more detail in a moment.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the National Marine
Fisheries Service scientists who have worked hard over the last year on
the Cumulative Risk Initiative. They have made significant
contributions to our understanding of the current, tenuous State of
Columbia and Snake River salmon. Their work has shown that many of the
listed stocks are at high risk of extinction in the short term, and
that we must move forward with aggressive, effective actions if we are
to get these stocks on the road to recovery before it is too late.
But the draft Biological Opinion suffers from several deep flaws
that must be remedied if it is to pass scientific and legal muster.
First, the draft Biological Opinion largely ignores the extensive,
sound analysis of the team of Federal, State, and tribe scientists
known as PATH. There are other witnesses, including PATH
representatives, who are better equipped to address the crucial
differences between CRI and PATH, and the failure of the draft
Biological Opinion to adequately address the PATH findings, so I will
not cover that same ground here. But it is abundantly clear to us that
during the last year the National Marine Fisheries Service has largely
taken the science ``in house'' and failed to adequately consult with
the other Federal, State, and tribal scientists, including those who
were part of PATH. Consequently, in several critical areas NMFS has
substituted its own scientific judgments for those of the PATH
scientists without analysis demonstrating that the PATH findings and
judgments are flawed.
Second, the aggressive, non-breach recovery actions the
Administration has touted as the cornerstone of the draft Biological
Opinion are, in fact, not there. Instead, the document sets forth
laudable objectives, promises tough performance standards (to be
developed at a later date), and then sets forth a list of actions that
consist mostly of studies, investigations, pilot projects, and planning
processes. Remarkably, the hydropower system measures are essentially
the same as those set forth in the 1995 Biological Opinion, with no
hard flow requirements and a continued reliance on fish barging, a
practice which has been roundly and deservedly criticized by the
region's scientific community.
For example, proposed measures include: a 2-year study by the
Bureau of Reclamation to determine the extent of unauthorized water use
in the basin, and a 5-year draft feasibility analysis of potential
changes in existing flood control operations to aid salmon. These
purportedly ``aggressive'' actions will not save one fish in the near
term, and may not ever.
Our point is not that these steps are not worthy of pursuit, they
are, but they are not measures that will boost listed stocks in the
short and long term. Such actions would include requiring adequate
flows in all tributaries containing spawning habitat or requiring
sufficient flow augmentation to provide for the migratory needs of
salmon and steelhead. The final Biological Opinion must require
implementation of such actions in a timely manner dictated by the needs
of salmon.
Third, the draft Biological Opinion fails to define ``recovery''
levels for the listed stocks. Of course, the adequacy of the proposed
actions cannot be determined without first determining what is
necessary to achieve ``recovery,'' as required by the ESA. It also
bears emphasis that it is ``recovery'' that the region's four Governors
have defined as the goal, not merely avoiding extinction. The final
Biological Opinion should rectify this major flaw by setting forth an
aggressive schedule for defining recovery goals for each of the listed
stocks and then adjusting the Biological Opinion as needed to achieve
those goals.
Fourth, the draft Biological Opinion fails to provide for timely
implementation of lower Snake River dam bypass should other recovery
actions either not be implemented or prove inadequate. The current
timeline puts off a decision on bypassing the lower Snake River dams
for at least 8 years, and implementation would be closer to 15 years
out. That is inconsistent with the needs of Snake River salmon. The
Cumulative Risk Initiative projects that Snake River spring/summer
Chinook and fall Chinook populations will be half the size they are
today in less than 5 and 10 years, respectively, if current trends
hold.
There is no dispute that bypassing the lower Snake River dams is
the single best recovery action for Snake River stocks, and it must
therefore be available if and when the fish need it. To make that
possible, the final Biological Opinion must contain a firm commitment
to completing all preparatory work for dam removal no later than 2005,
and a requirement that the action agencies must seek immediate
authorization from Congress in 2005 to bypass the dams if Snake River
stocks are not firmly on the path to recovery. To do otherwise would be
to ignore the best available science and greatly increase the risk of
extinction for Snake River stocks.
In closing, American Rivers and the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition
are committed to working with the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the other Federal agencies to remedy the deficiencies in the draft
Biological Opinion before the final is issued. The necessary changes do
not require new analysis or modeling, but rather can be made based on
available information developed by PATH, CRI, and other credible
sources and should be completed no later than the end of the year.
There is absolutely no excuse for further delay. Columbia Basin salmon
and steelhead need strong, effective measures now if we are to realize
our collective goal of recovering healthy, harvestable stocks.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Sara Patton, Coalition Director, NW Energy Coalition
My name is Sara Patton and I am the Coalition Director of the NW
Energy Coalition. First I want to thank Senator Crapo and Senator Boxer
for holding these hearings and for allowing me to testify on this issue
of paramount importance for the people, the economy and the environment
of the Northwest. In November 1998, the NW Energy Coalition endorsed
bypassing the four Lower Snake River dams to restore endangered salmon
and steelhead on the Snake River and to replace the power from the dams
with energy efficiency and clean renewable energy resources.
Second I want to describe the NW Energy Coalition to give you an
idea of the breadth of our membership. The Energy Coalition has almost
100 member organizations including utilities like Snohomish County PUD
and Portland General Electric, environmental groups like the Sierra
Club and the Idaho Conservation League, consumer protection groups,
low-income weatherization groups, good government groups, energy
efficiency businesses and renewable resource developers. The Coalition
has 10-member organizations in Idaho who span most of the Coalition's
range from Idaho Rivers United to the League of Women Voters of Idaho
to the South Central Idaho Community Action Agency to Idaho Citizens
Network.
The Coalition's diverse member organizations do not share all of
each other's goals and agendas. They are united in working for a clean
and affordable energy future. When the Coalition Board debated
endorsing bypassing the dams, the first question was, of course,
whether the science calls for dam removal. Once the Board was convinced
that the best scientific analysis shows that dam bypass is necessary to
save these magnificent fish, they turned to the second and equally
important question: whether there was enough clean and affordable
energy to replace the power the four dams produce. The Coalition Board
insisted that the replacement power strategies must result in no net
increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The Northwest must not trade fish
and wildlife restoration for air emissions, which cause local air
pollution and global climate change.
My testimony will focus on the answer to that question and on the
relationship of dam bypass to the current energy supply problems in the
Northwest, California and the Southwest. The third question was how to
mitigate any dislocation or other difficulties that dam bypass might
cause to dam dependent communities and businesses. I will not talk
about the third question except to say that the Coalition Board was
convinced that there are reasonable and affordable ways to mitigate
that transition and the Board strongly supports funding for that
mitigation.
The question of whether there is enough clean and affordable energy
to replace the power from the four Lower Snake River dams was answered
in the affirmative by a study entitled Going with the Flow: Replacing
Energy from Four Snake River Dams. The Energy Coalition worked on the
study with the primary authors from the Natural Resource Defense
Council. I have appended the Preface and Executive Summary of this
report to my testimony and cite you to the Natural Resources Defense
Council web page for more detail (www.nrdc.org).
Going with the Flow finds that the power from the dams can be
replaced with energy conservation and clean renewable energy at a cost
which is equivalent to market purchases primarily from natural gas
plants. Please note that the market price forecast on which Going with
the Flow relied was a medium range forecast done in 1999. The recent
very high market prices, overall electricity market volatility and
avoided pollution make the conservation and renewable energy strategy
both the most environmentally responsible and the most cost-effective
power replacement option. The rate impact for residential customers of
utilities which buy power from BPA for this clean energy replacement
strategy would be about $1-3 per month.
Going with the Flow finds that the total power production of the
four dams is approximately 1136 average megawatts or about 10 percent
of the Bonneville Power Administration's power and about 5 percent of
the region's power. If the dams are not removed, additional required
flow augmentation would reduce the power by 196 average megawatts for a
total impact of approximately 940 average megawatts. The region can
replace that power with an affordable combination of clean resources:
82 percent energy conservation and 18 percent renewable energy from
wind and solar generation. New gas combustion turbines are forecasted
to produce electricity at 3.1 cents to 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Three quarters of the energy conservation comes in at 2 cents per
kilowatt-hour or less. The rest is under 3 cents per kWh.
Going with the Flow relied on the Northwest Power Planning
Council's (NPPC) most recent regional conservation potential
assessment. The 1998 Fourth NPPC Power Plan finds 1535 average
megawatts of cost effective conservation in the region, 515 of which
will probably be captured by utility acquisition programs and market
response. The remaining 1020 average megawatts are all under 3 cents
per kWh, but most (835 average megawatts) are under 2 cents per kWh.
This low price is important to remember since the analysis cuts off
its consideration of cost-effective conservation measures at the
marginal or avoided price of energy. Since the last Northwest Power
Planning Council analysis was completed, the marginal price of energy,
based on the price of new natural gas plants and the cost of the gas to
run them, has gone up dramatically. A new analysis done by the NPPC and
its Regional Technical Forum uses an avoided cost of almost 4 cents per
kWh to analyze conservation potential.
Another recent Northwest Power Planning Council study analyzed the
conservation potential for Seattle City Light. Seattle has had one of
the most consistent and effective energy conservation programs in
region and in the Nation for the last 20 years. Even with this
aggressive harvest of energy conservation, the NPPC found between 180
and 260 average megawatts of energy savings available in Seattle over
the next 20 years at a cost of 2 cents per kWh and below. Seattle has
an average electricity load of about 1100 MW. Seattle is now making
plans to double its rate of conservation acquisition in order to reap
that resource at a value of $310 to $420 million to its service
territory.
I want to return to the 1998 Northwest Power Planning Council
analysis on which Going with the Flow relied. There are several reasons
why that potential estimate was conservative at the time it was
completed. First the analysis showed that if the region valued carbon
emissions at between $10 and $40 per ton, another 130 to 350 average
megawatts of energy conservation would be cost-effective. Second the
analysis included no efficiency improvement estimates for aluminum
smelters and other BPA direct service customers. More recent analysis
shows a cost effective potential of between 300 and 400 average
megawatts from aluminum in the Northwest. Third the potential for
efficiency savings in the commercial and non-aluminum industrial sector
was underestimated in the NPPC 1998 analysis. Data from the region's
utilities with solid experience in delivering conservation in these
sectors showed an additional 400 average megawatts of achievable
conservation potential not included in the 1998 analysis.
In summary the cost-effective conservation potential derived from
the 1998 Northwest Power Planning Council's Fourth Power Plan shows
more than enough affordable conservation to replace 82 percent of the
power from the four Lower Snake River dams. When one takes the
conservatisms of the analysis at the time it was conducted into account
(no carbon value, no estimate for increased aluminum efficiency, and
underestimate of commercial and non-aluminum industrial conservation)
along with the new information (higher marginal value of energy and new
Seattle conservation potential forecast), it is exceedingly clear that
there is plenty of cost-effective energy conservation available in the
region to replace the power from these four dams.
The Going with the Flow estimate that 18 percent of the power from
the four dams can be replaced with clean renewable energy generation
may also be an underestimate. The Northwest has tens of thousands of
megawatts of wind power potential. Currently over 350 megawatts of wind
energy are proposed or being developed in Oregon and Washington alone.
Smaller scale projects are underway or planned in Idaho and Montana.
Idaho Power has expressed interest in purchasing the output of a small
wind project near Rupert, Idaho. The price range for wind power is 4 to
6 cents per kWh. The region has about 2000 megawatts of developable
geothermal potential. Currently over 60 megawatts are being developed
in Oregon and northern California with power bound for the Northwest.
The price range is 4.5-7 cents per kWh.
The Renewable Northwest Project estimates that the region could
acquire 420 average megawatts over 10 years at a net cost of
approximately $10-14 million per year over the financial life of the
plants assuming 30 average megawatt projects. An additional 50 average
megawatts of small scale distributed renewable energy technologies,
such as solar water heaters, micro-wind turbines and photovoltaic
systems for remote locations can be cost-effectively developed.
The soonest the dams can be bypassed with the speediest imaginable
decision, funding and implementation process is 5 years. Five years is
plenty of time in which to develop the resources to meet the need to
replace the power from the dams. The draft Biological Opinion gives the
region even more time to prepare for power replacement. And right now
the region is embarked on intensive resource development to meet an
immediate power deficit. The conservation resource is being developed
by utilities like Seattle City Light, by the Bonneville Power
Administration through its Conservation and Renewables Rate Discount
and its Conservation Augmentation acquisition program and through new
requirements in the Montana and Oregon utility restructuring statutes
for investment in energy conservation and renewable energy. As noted
above wind and geothermal power is being developed at a quickening
pace.
At the same time the region is getting ready to develop major new
gas fired generation. In the four States almost 10,000 megawatts of gas
combustion turbines have been sited or proposed. In Idaho, 500 MW have
been sited or proposed, and 270 MW from the Rathdrum project are
expected to come on line within 1 year. In Oregon, more than 1,800
megawatts are sited or proposed, and 1,300 of those are expected to
come on line within 3 years. Montana has a proposal for a 500 megawatt
plant in Butte. Washington has over 7,000 megawatts sited or proposed
with between 1600 and 2800 likely to be built in the next five to 10
years. Indeed, some State agency energy experts are wondering if
Washington's position on the transmission and pipeline grids combined
with its less stringent siting and emissions regulations may be setting
it up to become an energy farm for California and the Southwest.
The NW Energy Coalition will be working to ensure that cost-
effective conservation and renewables are first on regional energy
resource priority lists. The Coalition will also push for strong
emissions regulation and for full mitigation of carbon dioxide and
other green house gases from the new natural gas plants. We hope this
mitigation and the continuing good news in the development of wind,
geothermal, solar, fuel cells and other clean renewable resources will
make the region's dependence on natural gas as short and clean as
possible. None-the-less, we definitely expect significant increases in
gas generation in the near term.
The intense investment in gas, wind and geothermal plants and in
conservation is most likely to produce at least a sufficiency of power
to replace the contribution of the four Lower Snake dams. I have been
working in electricity in the Northwest for over 20 years, and my
educated guess is that the region will be in a power surplus in 5 years
and the issue of power replacement will not be important in the
implementation of dam bypass.
I do not mean to discount the difficulties regional electricity
suppliers are facing at the moment. The NW Energy Coalition was
appalled when the Bonneville Power Administration reduced spill to aid
juvenile migration not once but several times this spring and summer in
order to meet power shortages in California and in the region. BPA
reduced spill at Bonneville Dam and at the Dalles below the minimums of
the current Biological Opinion because the region and California energy
suppliers have been asleep at the wheel. They relied on a new and
volatile wholesale market to provide power at low prices for more than
5 years. Northwest power suppliers could have taken a lesson from the
Northeast and the Midwest which have already felt the wrath of the
semi-deregulated market, but they ignored that warning. When the market
spiked as markets will, it was the fish that were sacrificed to this
human failure.
I will end by saying a few words about the relationship of the
draft Biological Opinion to the current energy crisis. Regional energy
suppliers need all the certainty they can get in their increasingly
uncertain world. The draft Biological Opinion needs significant
improvements, but its framework of certain timetables with certain
criteria and certain consequences for failure to meet those criteria
provides the kind of certainty the power suppliers need to help them
manage the new dance of market prices and resource development. They
will know in time, with time to spare, when and if they will need to
replace the power from the four Lower Snake River dams. Significant
changes need to be made in the specific timetables, criteria and
consequences but the draft Biological Opinion provides a framework that
can accommodate those changes.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak to the
subcommittee and to answer questions if you have any.
__________
Statement of NW Energy Coalition
preface
After we conducted our analysis, the Army Corps of Engineers
analyzed the impacts on electricity users of removing darns and
replacing their energy through the market, as part of the environmental
studies for a Snake River salmon recovery plan. Its findings on carbon
impacts are virtually identical to ours. Its findings on the costs of
market-based energy replacement differ, probably due to differences in
two kinds of assumptions. First, our base case includes more spill and
flow than provided in current hydropower operations, on the premise
that such changes would be necessary to avoid salmon extinction if the
dams remain in place. The Army Corps used the status quo as its base
case. Second, in all our scenarios, we assume expenditures would be
made in the near future to bring Federal dams into compliance with the
Clean Water Act. Removing dams eliminates those costs for the retired
dams. The Army Corps did not consider Clean Water Act costs in its base
case.
Since we completed our analysis, changes have occurred in the
energy landscape, two of which have relevance to our conclusions.
First, oil and gasoline prices have jumped to record highs, offering a
reminder of the volatility of fossil fuel prices. The conservation and
renewable resources in our zero-carbon strategy for replacing energy
from the lower Snake dams offer insurance against that kind of
volatility. Our analysis indicates that when future energy prices are
high, conservation and renewables would be a particularly good deal for
the region. This market signal will stimulate investments, but barriers
will remain that prevent all cost-effective clean energy opportunities
from being fully captured. Without a commitment by government agencies
and utilities, many of those resources are likely to be left untapped.
Second, the Northwest now faces a situation in which the market may
not motivate the investments needed to provide sufficient energy for
the region's growing needs in the coming years. An analysis by the
Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) suggests that this shortfall
can be addressed in an orderly fashion through a combination of market-
driven and market-intervention approaches. Potential options include
using real-time energy pricing that creates an economic signal to
increase supply or reduce demand, using contracts or markets to reduce
loads, and implementing conservation measures.
The Council believes that some market intervention would likely be
needed to avoid unplanned disruptions of service, in part because the
independent developers who now build power plants face considerable
uncertainty about their ability to recover their costs and make a
profit during this unstable period of restructuring in the electricity
industry. If market intervention will be necessary even for energy
development that relies on market forces, it should not be viewed as an
insurmountable barrier to a clean energy strategy for replacing the
generation from the lower Snake dams.
If the Bonneville Power Administration chooses to pursue energy
efficiency beyond its current conservation efforts as part of a
strategy for reducing the potential shortfall, as we believe it should,
fewer opportunities for conservation would be available to replace
energy from the Snake dams than would otherwise be the case. However,
additional sources of cost-effective conservation would be available,
beyond those our study identifies for replacement of energy from the
dams, to help fill that gap. As we went to press, for example, the
Council was estimating significant conservation potential in the
aluminum industry that we did not include in our analysis. Our study
omits energy efficiency opportunities before 2001, some of which would
still be available later. We have also been conservative in our
estimate of industrial conservation potential and achievable renewable
energy. And any supply shortage might help push energy prices higher,
further increasing the amount of, and the incentives to pursue, cost-
effective conservation and renewables.
One thing is certain:-the energy landscape will continue to change.
Recent shifts underscore that conservation and renewable energy
resources are not only superior environmentally, but are also a low-
risk, versatile, and economically smart means of meeting the region's
expanding energy needs,.including the need to replace energy from the
lower Snake dams.
executive summary
Federal agencies are considering partial removal of four Federal
dams on the lower Snake River as a centerpiece of a plan to rebuild
endangered salmon and steelhead runs and restore a free-flowing reach
of the Columbia's biggest tributary. The Columbia and Snake Rivers once
formed the most productive salmon watershed in the world. Today, the
Snake River's four major salmon and steelhead runs are threatened with
extinction. Independent scientists have determined that a plan
involving partial removal of the four dams is the best way to restore
these runs to healthy, fishable levels.
Together, the dams produce about 1,136 average megawatts (aMW) of
electricity, enough to supply almost 5 percent of the region's annual
energy needs. Removing the earthen portions of the dams (about a third
of their width) would allow the river to flow freely around the
remaining concrete but render them unable to produce power.
Although deadly for fish, the dams produce electricity without
generating carbon dioxide (carbon), a main cause of global warming. The
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act identifies
energy conservation and non-hydropower renewables as priority resources
to meet the region's electricity needs. Yet without a conscious effort
to replace electricity from the dams through conservation and clean
renewable resources, removing dams would result in construction of new
natural-gas-fired power plants and/or increased production from
existing coal- and gas-fired generators. Greater reliance on fossil
fuel plants would increase emissions of carbon, nitrogen oxides and
mercury from electricity production in the West.
This report analyzes the costs and carbon-emission consequences of
removing the four lower Snake River dams--and replacing their energy--
to restore salmon. It finds that replacing energy without increasing
carbon dioxide and other emissions is affordable for residential
electricity users. Our analysis shows the following:
Clean energy replacement is a good deal. If future energy
prices are in the medium range of projected levels, replacing power
produced by the dams with clean, pollution-free alternatives would cost
no more than replacing it with fossil fuel sources. If future prices
are high, clean energy would be cheaper than market energy options.
Market intervention would be needed to promote energy conservation and
renewable energy resources.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) system will
continue to provide benefits to Northwest customers if dams are removed
to restore salmon. The cost of removing the dams and replacing their
power with clean energy would increase residential electric bills by
just $1 to $3 per month, assuming monthly electricity use of 1,000
kilowatt hours. BPA, which markets electricity produced by Federal
hydropower dams to Northwest utilities, would still have some of the
lowest electricity rates in the nation, even after paying to remove the
dams and replace their energy from clean sources.
We examined the following scenarios under low, medium, and high
projections for future market energy prices over a 20-year period
(2001-2021):
Base case: increased flow and spill to help salmon relative to
today's operations, with the Snake River dams still in place. Measures
in our base case would decrease current Federal hydropower generation
by 196 aMW. Our base case and other scenarios also assume that
additional efforts would be made, relative to the status quo, to bring
the dams into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Market-driven power replacement: partial removal of the four lower
Snake dams, with market forces directing energy replacement. Removing
the four dams would decrease hydropower generation by 940 aMW compared
with the base case. The market would replace the power from the dams by
causing some power plants in the western grid to run harder, and by
accelerating construction of new combined-cycle gas-fired power plants.
Using the AURORA electricity price forecasting model, we identified
which plants would increase or decrease their operations (and
associated carbon emissions) to replace lost energy and estimated by
how much. We also used AURORA to estimate when new generation would be
built and calculate its carbon emissions.
Allowing the market to replace 940 aMW from the dams would result
in a net increase in carbon emissions of 0.7 percent between 2001 and
2021 across the Western System Coordinating Council territory, which
encompasses the western United States and Canadian electrical grid
(Table 3, column 7). Eighty-seven percent of the replacement generation
would come from natural gas, and 13 percent from coal (Table 3, column
8). We estimate the market replacement case would increase Northwest
residential electricity bills by less than $2 per month.
Zero-carbon strategy: partial removal of the four dams with an
energy replacement strategy designed to produce no net increase in
carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants. Power from all four dams
could be replaced affordably with energy conservation measures and
renewable energy investments that would not occur without government or
other direct intervention. Substantial cost-effective conservation
opportunities (costing less than the market price of power and/or the
cost of new power plant construction) exist, but are not being pursued.
A classic example is energy-efficient buildings, which save money over
their lifetimes in the form of lower energy bills, but cost more to
build initially. Because builders have incentives to minimize
construction costs rather than life-cycle costs, this conservation
opportunity will be lost unless special incentives or building
efficiency standards are in place.
The analysis shows that a package of low- and high-cost
conservation, wind generation, and a very small amount of solar power
could offset the carbon-emission impacts of removing dams. Because of
timing issues--not all alternatives can be in place by 2004 to 2006,
when dams would be removed in our scenarios--the amount of clean energy
needed to ensure no net carbon increase would be greater than the
amount of hydropower it would replace. Thus, our zero-carbon strategy
would replace 940 aMW of hydrogeneration with 1,091 aMW of new clean
resources. About 75 percent of that energy would come from low-cost
conservation measures; most of the rest would come from non-hydropower
renewables.
In the medium market price case, a clean energy replacement
strategy would cost no more than allowing the market to replace lost
generation with natural gas and coal (Table 3, column 6). When future
energy prices are high, replacement with clean energy would actually be
cheaper than the market-driven alternative. Only if future energy
prices are low would the zero-carbon strategy be more expensive than
the market case. And the clean energy strategy offers unique advantages
over energy replacement through gas and coal generation, including
global climate benefits, freedom from nitrogen oxides and mercury
pollution, and insurance against the volatility of fossil fuel prices.
Compared to the base case, removing the four dams and replacing
their energy from clean sources would add between $1 and $3 to the
monthly electric bill of a residential customer fully dependent on BPA.
Most residential customers would see a smaller rise because they are
served by utilities that rely on BPA for only part of their electricity
supply. If future energy prices are in the medium or high projected
ranges, our analysis indicates that BPA energy prices would still be
competitive, and the agency would continue to provide substantial
benefits to its customers relative to the cost of buying power on the
market. BPA will have cash-flow problems in individual years, but can
solve those problems through advance planning. In all three energy
price cases BPA would have generation costs among the lowest of any
power marketer in the nation.
Recommendations
1. The Clinton Administration should base its salmon recovery
decision on the weight of the scientific evidence, which supports
partially removing the four lower Snake dams as a recovery measure. It
should develop a plan to mitigate the impacts of removing dams and
assist affected communities in making a smooth economic transition.
2. BPA is currently developing a resource-acquisition plan to
address its existing power shortfall. With assistance from the
Northwest Power Planning Council, BPA should expand that plan to
include targets for acquiring conservation and renewables capable of
replacing the energy generated by the Snake dams with no net increase
in carbon emissions. The plan should extend beyond the current 5-year
rate period to 2011. It should include:
investing in all cost-effective conservation measures;
investing in and/or acquiring new environmentally
responsible non- hydropower renewable resources;
developing partnerships with organizations and
institutions that can leverage increased investments in new non-
hydropower renewable energy resources.
3. BPA should develop and pursue a plan to avoid cash-flow problems
in individual years due to removing dams and replacing their energy,
using a reserve fund, borrowing mechanisms, revenue-spreading rate
mechanisms, or combinations of those tools.
__________
Statement of Norman M. Semanko, Executive Director and General Counsel,
Idaho Water Users Association, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Norm Semanko and I serve as the Executive
Director and General Counsel for the Idaho Water Users Association. The
Idaho Water Users Association was formed in 1938 and represents about
300 canal companies, irrigation districts, water districts, agri-
business and professional organizations, municipal and public water
suppliers, and others. We appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today and thank you for the invitation.
We understand the focus of this hearing to be two-fold: (1) an
examination of the science upon which Federal officials are relying in
writing draft salmon recovery documents for the Pacific Northwest; and
(2) a determination of the extent to which the Federal Caucus of
agencies has collaborated with States, tribes and interest groups while
writing these draft documents. I will address each of these broad
issues.
1. The Science Reveals that Flow Augmentation is a Failed
Experiment.--Idaho water users necessarily focus their attention on the
specific set of issues pertaining to flow augmentation from the Upper
Snake River in Idaho. While the 12 species of salmon and steelhead that
are listed under the Endangered Species Act exist only downstream of
the Upper Snake River, our part of the State has been required to
contribute almost half a million acre-feet of water each year toward
flow augmentation during the migration season of the salmon. The
National Marine Fisheries Service continues to call upon Idaho to
supply this--and additional water--from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
reservoirs in the draft Biological Opinion released on July 27, 2000.
This is water taken directly from reservoirs which Idaho irrigators and
other water users have used and relied upon for most of the past
century.
Mr. Chairman, the science is in on this issue and it clearly
demonstrates that flow augmentation using water from the Upper Snake
River Basin is a failed experiment. The National Marine Fisheries
Service's continued reliance upon flow augmentation is without adequate
scientific support and needs to be discarded from future Pacific
Northwest salmon recovery efforts.
In a recent ``white paper'' on flow augmentation, the Federal
Government's own scientists have indicated that flow augmentation does
not work. Additional research on the topic by others, including the
State of Idaho and our own scientists and researchers, yields the same
results. This information has been well documented and provided on
several occasions to the National Marines Fisheries Service and other
Federal agencies involved in salmon recovery. Many examples can be
provided to demonstrate how futile the flow augmentation experiment has
been. Most astounding, perhaps, is the hydrologic fact that adding even
increased amounts of flow augmentation to the lower Snake River would
only increase the velocity of the water by one-tenth of one-mile per
hour. For this vain effort, we are spending taxpayer dollars and
putting our economy and way-of-life at risk. To date, this information
has been ignored by political decisionmakers in the Clinton
Administration who find it more expedient to continue this failed
program than to discontinue it.
Idaho water users have participated in this experiment for the past
10 years, waiting for proof that flow augmentation using Idaho's
precious water would provide some meaningful benefit to the salmon. We
are still waiting.
To their credit, the Governors of the four Northwest States
recently called upon the National Marine Fisheries Service to document
the alleged benefits of flow augmentation. Draft amendments to the
Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program call for
the same documentation, including a determination of the precise
attributes of flow augmentation that provide any meaningful benefit to
the listed species. We are proud of Idaho Governor Kempthorne's
leadership role in taking this first important step toward debunking
the myth that flow augmentation using Idaho irrigation water can
somehow save the fish. We know that it cannot.
Mr. Chairman, we will be providing detailed comments to the
National Marines Fisheries Service regarding both the draft Biological
Opinion and the draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. We plan to
provide a copy of those comments to your subcommittee. In preparing
those comments, we have been able to draw the following conclusions
based on the science that currently exists:
1. Flow alteration from the Upper Snake River Bureau of Reclamation
projects, and operation and maintenance of these projects, has not
caused jeopardy to the listed species or resulted in any direct or
incidental take of the species;
2. Unnecessary and repetitive consultations have been held
regarding the Upper Snake River projects;
3. The flow-survival hypothesis used in the draft Biological
Opinion is unfounded;
4. The flow targets which have been set in the Lower Snake and
Columbia Rivers are unreasonable, unfounded and, in most cases,
unachievable;
5. Flow augmentation using Idaho water has not aided in
conservation or recovery of the listed species and may actually be
harming the fish;
6. Continuation of the flow augmentation program at current or
increased levels threatens to dry up hundreds of thousands of acres of
Idaho farmland and cost thousands of agricultural jobs; and
7. Other measures exist which, if adopted and implemented, would
provide a more certain benefit for the listed species.
A few of these points deserve additional discussion and
illustration.
Flows from the Upper Snake River have slightly increased over the
past 85 years, especially during the critical summer months, despite
irrigation development in southern Idaho and the construction of the
Upper Snake Bureau of Reclamation projects. The scientific
documentation for these conclusions is summarized in Figures 1 through
6, which are included in my prepared statement. This development and
construction occurred long before the populations of the listed species
declined to endangered or threatened levels. Thus, development in the
Upper Snake did not alter flows resulting in jeopardy to the listed
species or adverse effects on their habitat.
There is no scientific foundation for conclusions in the Draft BiOp
that Upper Snake flow augmentation will provide biological benefits for
the listed species. The purported flow survival relationship for fall
chinook above Lower Granite is unfounded and there is evidence that
flow augmentation from the Upper Snake BOR projects is actually
detrimental to the fish, particularly because of the temperature of the
water provided from the Upper Snake River. Likewise, there are no
demonstrated benefits from flow augmentation through the hydropower
system, in the estuary, or in the ocean plume for any of the listed
species. The relatively miniscule contribution that flow augmentation
makes toward the overall flow of the Snake and Columbia Rivers is
documented in Figure 7 of my prepared statement.
Flow augmentation from the Upper Snake has previously been an
interim or experimental measure aimed at mitigating the jeopardy and
incidental take caused by the FRCPS. There is no basis for the new
conclusion in the Draft BiOp that the Upper Snake BOR projects cause
jeopardy, with or without providing 427 kaf of flow augmentation.
Likewise, there is no basis for the implication in the Draft BiOp that
the Upper Snake BOR projects incidentally take listed species.
Because operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects does not cause
jeopardy, there is no basis for the reasonable and prudent alternatives
(RPAs) for these projects identified in the Draft BiOp. Specifically,
the flow targets established for the mainstem are unreasonable and
unfounded. Flow augmentation using 427 kaf of more water is unnecessary
and illegal, especially with respect to the use of powerhead space to
firm supplies. The requirement for the BOR to consult on uncontracted
space does not fully comport with Federal and State law and the
proposed consultations are too narrow. Pursuit of increased water
conservation and reduction of so-called unauthorized uses in the Upper
Snake will not increase streamflow. Finally, additional water should
not be sought from the Upper Snake. The additional water is not needed,
and a State law mechanism for providing that water downstream is
unlikely.
In its own consultations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recognized that the Upper Snake River projects were recently consulted
on, culminating in a biological opinion during 1999. Since nothing has
change in the Bureau or Reclamation's operations, the Fish and Wildlife
Service determined that additional consultation on the Upper Snake
projects is not required. As a result, the Upper Snake projects are not
included in the Service's draft 2000 biological opinion. Given the time
and effort put into the previous consultation, this is the only
approach that makes practical and legal sense. For reasons inexplicable
to us, the National Marine Fisheries Service has not followed the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's lead. Although the NMFS BiOp on the Upper
Snake projects was completed just last December, the agency chose to
include a reexamination of the projects in the 2000 BiOp, despite the
fact that there has been no change in the proposed operations. This
repetitive consultation is uncalled for.
Harvest reforms can provide significant benefit to the listed
species, especially Snake River fall chinook. The RPAs listed for
harvest in the Draft BiOp should be revised to require these reforms.
In summary, the Idaho Water Users Association opposes the inclusion
of flow augmentation using 427,000 acre-feet or more water from the
Upper Snake River as an RPA. There is no basis for these measures and
the Draft BiOp should be revised to eliminate Upper Snake River flow
augmentation because these BOR projects do not jeopardize the listed
species or adversely modify their habitat. Moreover, flow augmentation
does not provide significant biological or physical benefits to the
listed species.
Mr. Chairman, by presenting this information, I hope that we have
given you some idea of the degree to which the science used by the
Federal agencies fails to support the conclusions regarding flow
augmentation in the draft salmon recovery documents. We would
appreciate anything that you and the subcommittee can do to bring this
matter to the attention of the Federal agencies.
2. The Federal Caucus has Failed to Meaningfully Collaborate on its
Draft Salmon Recovery Documents.--From our perspective, the Federal
agencies involved in salmon recovery--particularly the National Marine
Fisheries Service--have failed to collaborate with interest groups such
as ours in drafting these important documents. In fact, we have taken
virtually every opportunity to provide detailed, written comments to
NMFS on draft documents and analyses. To date, our concerns have been
ignored. In some cases, they have not been acknowledged at all.
Mr. Chairman, if the goal is to develop a regional plan by
consensus, the Federal agencies have failed miserably. Anything that
this subcommittee can do to correct this situation would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I am glad to
answer any questions or provide any additional information to the
subcommittee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.012
September 25, 2000.
Federal Caucus,
C/O Jenifer Miller,
BPA-P-6,
905 NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR.
Re: July 27, 2000 Draft Basin-Wide Salmon Recovery Strategy
Dear Ms. Miller: Enclosed are comments on the draft Basin-Wide
Salmon Recovery Strategy submitted on behalf of a large number of Idaho
water users. We encourage the Federal Caucus to remove flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake River in southern Idaho from its
recovery strategy. Flow augmentation from southern Idaho was begun as
an interim experimental measure that has not been shown to be an
effective use of water resources or money for salmon recovery.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments to the Federal
Caucus on the draft Basin-Wide Salmon Recovery Strategy.
Respectfully submitted by,
John K. Simpson,
Roshon, Robertson & Tucker.
Norman M. Semanko,
Executive Director & General Counsel.
______
Federal Caucus--Comments by Idaho Water Users on Conservation of
Columbia Basin Fish Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee of Nine and
the Idaho Water Users Association (hereinafter ``Idaho water users'').
The Committee of Nine is the official advisory committee for Water
District 1, the largest water district in the State of Idaho. Water
District 1 is responsible for the distribution of water among
appropriators within the water district from the natural flow of the
Snake River and storage from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs on
the Snake River above Milner Dam. The Committee of Nine is also a
designated rental pool committee that has facilitated the rental of
stored water to the Bureau of Reclamation to provide water for flow
augmentation pursuant to the 1995 Biological Opinion. The Idaho Water
Users Association was formed in 1938 and represents about 300 canal
companies, irrigation districts, water districts, agri-business and
professional organizations, municipal and public water suppliers, and
others. These comments have been prepared with the assistance of the
scientists, biologists, and engineers who have been retained to address
Snake River ESA issues.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contributors include: Dr. James J. Anderson, School of
Fisheries, University of Washington; Craig L. Sommers and David B.
Shaw, ERO Resources Corporation; Dr. Richard A. Hinrichsen, Hinrichsen
Environmental Services; Dr. William J. McNeil, retired professor of
fisheries, Oregon State University. These individuals also contributed
to comments by the Idaho water users on the draft White Paper on flow
(10/29/99), the draft All-H Paper (3/16/00) and the draft Feasibility
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (3/31/00). Resumes of the
contributors are provided in Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
synopsis of comments
Idaho water users support salmon recovery. Idaho water users are,
however, becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of response to
legitimate scientific concerns raised in their numerous comments to
draft salmon recovery documents and proposals.
This Draft Basin-Wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (Draft Strategy)
once again demands release of water from the Upper Snake River \2\ for
flow augmentation in the name of salmon recovery, yet the benefit of
flow augmentation has never been documented. Further, even though flow
targets and flow augmentation were required by the 1995 Biological
Opinion and are the first items under Improving Water Management in
this draft, the Research, Monitoring and Evaluation portion of this
draft does not even mention how the alleged benefit of flow targets and
flow augmentation will be monitored or evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout these comments, the Upper Snake River means the
portion of the basin above Brownlee Reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of water resources in the Upper Snake River basin did
not cause the decline of fish populations and has not resulted in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reducing Upper
Snake River water uses to provide flow augmentation will not reverse
the fish population decline, recover the populations, or mitigate the
adverse modification of critical habitat caused by activities in the
lower Snake and Columbia Rivers. Continued calls for ever-increasing
amounts of water from southern Idaho ignore the fact that there is no
significant biological benefit from an option that has enormous
economic and social costs.
In the March 16, 2000 comments to the Draft All-H Paper, Idaho
water users agreed with the overall scope and purpose of the paper.
However, Idaho water users did not then and do not now agree with the
inclusion of existing or additional levels of flow augmentation in the
conceptual recovery plan. The concerns of the Idaho water users, the
same water users who provide much of the storage water to the Bureau of
Reclamation for flow augmentation, were not even acknowledged in the
Public Comments in the new draft report. Upper Snake River flow
augmentation is not a necessary or viable component of a conceptual
recovery plan because it fails to meet the goals and objectives spelled
out in the All-H Paper and it does not reflect and balance the
realities of the region, i.e.:
Flow augmentation does not provide significant biological
or physical benefits;
Flow augmentation has high economic cost and impact; and
Flow augmentation must overcome huge political and legal
hurdles.
The Upper Snake River basin has supplied over 3.5 million acre-feet
(MAF) of water for flow augmentation over the past 10 years. Another 15
MAF have been provided from Brownlee and Dworshak Reservoirs. In spite
of the enormous volume of water that has been released for flow
augmentation, there is no evidence that this added water has
contributed to the survival of Snake River spring and summer chinook,
steelhead, or sockeye populations or will promote their recovery.
Studies of fall chinook survival above Lower Granite Reservoir show a
relationship to migration timing, temperature, turbidity, flow, and
travel time (in that order), but the relationship between flow and
adult survival is not statistically or biologically significant.
The existing level of flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River
(427,000 AF/yr) should be discontinued since it provides no significant
benefit to listed.species or their habitat and impacts will occur on
water users and local resources in dry years. Likewise, an aggressive
program of additional flow augmentation, such as Hydropower Option 2
(taking up to another 1 MAF out of the Upper Snake River), will bring
renewed opposition from Idaho water users. Such a program will have
devastating impacts on southern Idaho by drying up more than 600,000
acres of productive farmland, costing over $430 M per year, causing
thousands of lost jobs, and severely impacting local fisheries,
wildlife habitat, recreation, and the cultural and historical resources
of the Upper Snake River (USBR, 1999).
In summary, Upper Snake River flow augmentation should be
eliminated from consideration as part of this recovery plan. Idaho
water users conceded to a trial period during which any benefit of
Upper Snake River flow augmentation could be demonstrated. The trial
period has ended and no recovery benefit has been demonstrated.
Our comments on the Draft Biological Opinion issued by NMFS are
attached to these comments. The attachment is incorporated by this
reference as though set forth in full herein.
general comments
The Idaho water users reiterate their comments of March 16, 2000.
The primary concern of the Idaho water users expressed in the March 16
comments and today is the continued call for augmentation water from
the Upper Snake River to attempt to meet flow targets at Lower Granite
Dam. Idaho water users initially agreed to the flow augmentation
experiment conditioned upon the development of data to show the effects
of augmentation on survival of the listed species. However, the data
that has been developed does not support the continuation of flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake River.
The attached comments of the Idaho water users on the Draft
Biological Opinion issued by NMFS present additional data and analysis
to support discontinuing flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River.
The available data does not show the mean annual discharge from the
Upper Snake River has decreased over time, even with the development of
Bureau of Reclamation projects in that portion of the basin. Neither
does available data show augmented flow from the Upper Snake River will
lead to recovery of the listed species. Finally, changes to the
hydrograph of the Columbia River at the estuary are primarily the
result of operation of the FCRPS on the mainstem of the Columbia and
the magnitude of those changes is such that trying to ``normalize'' the
hydrograph with Upper Snake River flow augmentation is simply futile.
conceptual recovery plan, goals
Idaho water users generally agree with the need for a conceptual
recovery plan to address the recovery of listed species impacted by the
FCRPS \3\. It is not apparent, however, what role the Draft Basin-Wide
Salmon Recovery Strategy will have nor how the goals will be pursued
since the Implementation chapter has not been provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FCRPS in this document refers to the Federal Columbia River
Power System and does not include the Bureau of Reclamation facilities
upstream from Lower Granite Dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program Goals are different in the Executive Summary (p. 4) and
in the body of the report (p. 38). Specifically, in the body of the
report, one of the goals states:
Balance the Needs of Other Species. Ensure that salmon and
steelhead conservation measures are balanced with the needs of
other native fish and wildlife species.
Idaho water users agree with this goal but in the Executive Summary
the following language has been added at the end after ``species'':
``and do not unduly impact upriver interests. `` It is not clear, due
to the differences in the goal at different locations, which goal will
be followed. As ``upriver interests,'' the Idaho water users, of
course, do not want to be ``unduly impacted.'' In fact, the Idaho water
users should not be impacted at all because their activities have not
caused the species to be listed and there is no evidence that Upper
Snake River flow augmentation has resulted in demonstrable benefits to
the listed species.
The Idaho water users also believe the goal to ``Minimize Adverse
Effects on Humans'' is critically important. The water users believe a
balance must and can be achieved that will recover the species but not
destroy the social and economic structure of the region.
hydropower option 2
The Federal Caucus recommends Hydropower Option 2 for Snake River
Operational Measures, which includes additional water for temperature
control and flow augmentation. As thoroughly discussed in the attached
comments to the NMFS Draft Bi-Op, augmentation water from the Upper
Snake River has not been shown to be beneficial for recovery of the
listed species. Flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River may, in
fact, increase downstream water temperatures that could be detrimental
to listed species.
As stated repeatedly in these and prior comments, the Idaho water
users do not believe the science supports taking additional Upper Snake
River water for flow augmentation or temperature control.
research, monitoring and evaluation
Although the Idaho water users strenuously oppose the use of water
from the Upper Snake River for flow augmentation, if any amount of this
augmentation is continued, it must be monitored and evaluated. The
research, monitoring and evaluation portion of the Draft Strategy omits
any attempt to quantify benefits from flow augmentation. Even though
the first measure identified in the hydropower element of the strategy
is ``water management . . . to meet salmon flow objectives, (Vol. 2, p.
71) the section on proposed monitoring and evaluation is silent on
determining the benefit of the flow objectives to the listed species
survival and recovery.
The Draft Strategy states ``. . . we will continue following
cohorts through their down-river migration to early ocean juvenile
stages . . .'' (Vol. 2, p. 95) but does not give any indication of a
planned measurement of flow augmentation benefits. The benefits of the
flow objectives on the listed species must be evaluated, yet the Draft
Strategy simply proposes to determine if the flow objectives have been
implemented. Implementing actions without assessing their consequences
not only ignores the requirement to apply the best available science to
recover the species but also is irresponsible.
public comments
The Idaho water users submitted extensive written comments on the
draft All-H paper as noted above. Those comments are more broadly based
than captured by Issues 02-006, 02-013, 08-001, and 10-005 in the Draft
Strategy. Research conducted for the water users cannot find any
scientific basis for the Lower Granite flow targets, the impetus for
flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River. In fact, analysis of
available data shows water from the Upper Snake River may adversely
impact temperatures at Lower Granite Dam and that discharge from the
Upper Snake River has not diminished over time.
The issue of Lower Granite flow targets and Upper Snake River flow
augmentation is a critical issue with the Idaho water users, those same
water users that have made water available for rent by the Bureau of
Reclamation to provide flow augmentation under the current Bi-Op. The
full range of legitimate questions raised by the Idaho water users in
their March 16, 2000 comments must be addressed and the flow targets
must be justified for there to be a basis for any further flow
augmentation experimentation.
__________
Statement of Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations (PCFFA)
My name is Glen Spain. I am the Northwest Regional Director of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), the west
coast's largest organization of commercial fishermen and fishing
families, which represents the interests of thousands of small and mid-
sized family owned commercial fishing operations working in ports from
San Diego to Alaska. We are also America's oldest industry. Our members
provide this country with one of its most important and highest quality
food resources as well as a major source of exports. Our efforts
provide tens of thousands of jobs in coastal communities supported by
the bounty of the sea. PCFFA is a federation of 25 different port and
small to mid-sized vessel owners' organizations coastwide, representing
a combined vessel asset investment in excess of $1 billion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A list of PCFFA member organizations is included as Attachment
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important
issue of salmon restoration in the Columbia Basin--a subject that means
life or death to many west coast fishing-dependent communities. The
mainstay of our industry has always been Pacific salmon--until recent
salmon declines, particularly in the Columbia, have made that
impossible. Decades of serious declines in salmon runs from the
Columbia, once the most productive salmon river system in the world,
have dramatically affected the commercial fishing-dependent economies
of California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska as well as devastated the
recreational fishing economy of Idaho. The current Biological Opinion
(BiOp) under consideration by this committee is the latest and most
important effort to reverse those declines and help restore our
industry.
Fishermen are family food providers, but in order to be able to
produce high quality seafood and maintain tens of thousands of jobs in
coastal communities, we must have something to catch! Most of our
people are now, or have been, salmon fishermen. However, every year for
decades now there have been fewer and fewer fish coming out of damaged
west coast watersheds. Widespread habitat loss and the destruction
wrought by the multitude of west coast dams, many no longer cost
effective or even needed, has now pushed many once abundant wild salmon
runs to such low numbers that NMFS has had to put 25 separate and
distinct runs of Pacific salmon and steelhead on the Federal Endangered
Species list.\2\ Twelve of those listed runs--among them runs
historically among the most important to the existence of a west coast
commercial salmon fishing industry--are now in the Columbia Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the current status of salmonid listing decisions on the
west coast, see the National Marine Fisheries Service web site: http://
www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pg300.pdf For online maps of the
many many ESUs now listed see: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/
mapswitc.htm. For general information on the listings, see: http://
www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/specprof.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
columbia river declines have devastated the west coast fishing industry
Once the most productive salmon-producing river system in the
world, wild salmon runs in the Columbia Basin are now at less than 2
percent of their historical run size. As we speak, nearly every salmon
run in the Columbia River has been listed under the Endangered Species
Act. However, the current depressed status quo does not come cheaply.
Salmon mean business. Fewer salmon mean fewer jobs, less cash-flow and
fewer tax dollars to every coastal and many inland communities. Salmon
declines have cost money--a lot of money--in the form of lost economic
opportunities, shrinking tax bases and lost jobs.
In fact, the mismanagement of the Columbia and Snake River Federal
Hydropower System that has plunged these runs toward extinction has
cost the regional economy at least 25,000 fishing-dependent family wage
jobs, and drained more than $500 million/annually from the west coast
economy in the form of lost economic opportunities.\3\ At least a fifth
of these losses 5,000 jobs and $100 million/year are directly
attributable to declines in the Snake River which in turn are clearly
linked to high salmon mortalities caused by the lower Snake River dams
(Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams), a
system of four dams completed in 1975. Once booming downriver fishing
ports such as the Port of Astoria are now in serious economic decline.
In recent years, since Snake River chinook and sockeye can migrate
widely both north and south, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(PFMC) has had to impose salmon fishing restrictions to avoid their
accidental bycatch all the way to Central California and well up into
Southeast Alaska at a cost to these ports of many tens of millions of
dollars annually in lost harvest opportunities.\4\ Columbia River
stocks are thus `key stocks' in the whole west coast salmon fishery
management. In other words, even though there may be millions of
healthy wild and hatchery-produced fish out there in the ocean, our
people are foreclosed from catching them for fear of even accidentally
impacting these weakest (and now ESA listed) stocks. The Columbia
salmon are also the key to meeting the U.S. allocation commitments to
the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, and past Columbia declines lead
directly to the Treaty's collapse in years past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Economic figures on salmon losses from the Cost of Doing
Nothing: The Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Columbia River
Basin (October, 1996), Institute for Fisheries Resources, available
from IFR at P.O. Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370.
\4\ Ocean and Columbia estuary salmon season closures have also
been independent of the ESA, and are required under `weak stock
management' principles by the Magnuson Act. Major coastal salmon
closures started almost two decades before even the first salmon ESA
listing as necessary conservation measures to protect weak stocks that
are in serious decline. Thus even without the ESA, many portions of our
coastal fisheries would remain closed simply because there are too few
fish surviving their in river migration through the dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The positive side of all this is that the economic return on your
investment in Columbia and Snake River salmon restoration efforts, if
done properly, will be very large. And I want to emphasize that salmon
restoration efforts in the Columbia are an investment, not a cost. If
properly done, much of the $500 million/year now lost to the regional
economy because of salmon declines could be recaptured in perpetuity as
part of a sustainable west coast fishing industry. Our priority--as a
major economic interest in the Columbia Basin as well as in the coastal
economies of California and Alaska--is in restoring the salmon, and in
so doing restoring the lower river and coast economies that depends
upon those salmon. If the best available science says that this means
that some of the Lower Snake River dams must be decommissioned, then we
support those measures and will work with upper river users to mitigate
and manage these changes. However, if Columbia River salmon recovery
can truly be accomplished without decommissioning the lower Snake River
dams, obviously this would be far better as well as far more
politically feasible.
importance of completing the columbia river biological opinion (biop)
In general, we support the Administration's current BiOp approach:
``Let's really try whatever we can do right now to offset and mitigate
for losses in the dams, including major efforts to improve flow and
restore critical estuary and tributary habitat, and carefully monitor
the results to see if we can achieve recovery short of decommissioning
Snake River dams.'' In other words, this BiOp sets up a test of the
easiest to achieve options first. We believe that this is by and large
a sound and rational strategy.
However, if that effort does not work, other necessary measures
must then be taken, up to and including selective dam decommissioning
in the Snake River. In the meantime, on the possibility that these non-
dam measures may not work, we must also plan for that alternative just
as a matter of insurance. Otherwise we are committing all our eggs to a
single basket which may not hold them. If the BiOp Plan fails, and we
do not make what would then be the only other possible decision, the
only other alternative would be to plunge the whole Northwest
hydrosystem, and the whole region, into political and economic chaos.
The importance of completing this Biological Opinion on the
operation of the Columbia River Power System (now out for public
comment) as soon as possible cannot be overstated. The whole Columbia
Federal hydrosystem teeters on the verge of chaos. The States have
shown themselves incapable of coming to any lasting consensus on the
management of the system (through the Northwest Power Planning Council
or otherwise) and the Federal Government is now faced with serious and
pervasive ESA conflicts, Clean Water Act conflicts, and potential
litigation by Treaty Tribes for the abrogation of their treaties.\5\
Postponing decisions will not make them cheaper, it will make them much
more difficult to achieve and therefore much more expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Tribal Treaty claims would be liabilities directly by the U.S.
Treasury, affecting taxpayers in every state. Minimum damages for
abrogation of those treaties have been estimated at $10 billion, and
such cases are routinely upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition there are continuing calls for the Federal Government
to divest itself entirely of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
by taxpayer watchdog groups and congressional budget hawks outraged by
the massive and pervasive Federal subsidies that are now propping up
the system, and those arguments will only be proven correct if BPA and
the region continue to be unable to solve these problems. These
problems are not getting any easier either as time goes by.
the biological opinion framework is workable
Though it has serious flaws (as outlined below), and the BiOp is
clearly a first draft, the overall framework of the Biological Opinion
is, we believe, the correct one. In fact, there are twelve (12) major
salmonid ESU's within the basin with declines that must be reversed,
only four (4) of which are in the Snake River. Though most of the
controversy has revolved around the Snake River, obviously breaching
the Snake River dams alone will do little to help the other eight (8)
runs. The BiOp recognizes that something more needs to be done to
benefit all the runs.
Many of the measures (such as increased flow augmentation and
estuary habitat protection and restoration) are clearly going to
benefit not only the most seriously depressed runs in the Snake River,
but all the other runs as well. Many of these measures are necessary to
salmon restoration. What remains to be seen is whether these measures,
alone, will be sufficient for actual recovery, and if so for which of
the twelve (12) listed runs? In order to ascertain whether these
measures work, the BiOp requires: (1) specific performance standards
and specific measures to be taken; (2) a clear and ongoing monitoring
mechanism to see whether performance standards are in fact being met
and take appropriate actions if they are not. The BiOp clearly is
designed to provide both, though details are so far sketchy.
However, in addition, there are consequences for inability to meet
performance standards. This includes the failure of Congress to fund
the required measures. This BiOp is the only scientifically and legally
viable plan available to avoid the necessity of decommissioning the
lower Snake River dams. Without congressional support particularly full
funding so that all its measures can be implemented in a timely way
this Biological Opinion will fail, and Snake River dam decommissioning
will then be left as the only available option. Failing to act would
plunge the region into political and economic chaos. The status quo is
not working, so doing nothing is also not an option.
However, this Plan must be taken and funded as a whole. The BiOp is
like a fine tapestry removing the warp from the woof will yield nothing
but an unconnected pile of threads. Efforts by certain Members of
Congress to `cherry pick' what provisions of the whole plan they wish
to implement will inevitably crash the plan.
the flaws in the biological opinion that need to be fixed
That said, there are still a number of serious systemic flaws in
the Biological Opinion that need to be fixed if it is to constitute a
valid recovery effort. These flaws include:
(1) Lack of Specific Performance Standards.--The agencies
admittedly are still developing both biological and implementation
performance standards by which to assess whether the plan is working or
not. Obviously there must be ascertainable recovery targets in the
BiOp. Many of these performance standards still need to be worked out,
and the lack of any detail on most of those standards is a serious
problem in the current Draft. The Administration admits this problem
and is attempting to develop specific performance standards at this
time.
(2) Lack of Detailed Measures.--Again, lack of detail in terms of
what specific measures will be required makes it difficult to assess
precisely what actions will be done under the BiOp, who is going to
perform them or to weigh their likely effectiveness. Again, these
details must be filled in before the BiOp constitutes a legitimate
recovery pathway.
(3) Lack of Cost Estimates of Measures.--Obviously, if it cannot be
ascertained what the recovery targets are nor what specific measures
must be undertaken to achieve them, then it becomes impossible to
estimate either the costs of the measures or their economic impacts on
other industrial sectors such as ours. It also becomes impossible to
accurately weigh those costs against the known costs of Snake dam
decommissioning, or against the enormous ongoing costs to the economy
of the current failed status quo. Clearly we need to know as soon as
feasible just how much these non-breach options will cumulatively cost
as the alternative.
(4) Check-ins Too Infrequent or Too Late.--Currently the BiOp
contains only year five (5) and year eight (8) check-ins to see how the
plan is being implemented and whether it is effective. These check-ins
need to be annually, with a major `decision-point' check-in at year
three (3). By year three (3), we will know whether the required
recovery measures are being scheduled and funded by Congress. By year
three (3) we will know pretty well whether the Plan is going to even be
implemented. There will also likely have to be occasional changes to
the BiOp as we implement adaptive monitoring. Long check-in timeframes
work directly against flexibility and efficient implementation and will
likely cost us all a lot more in the long run. Annual report cards
avoid this problem.
(5) Lack of `Hard-wired' Decision Points.--At some point, if this
Plan fails, there will have to be some very serious decisions made.
This Plan is, frankly, the best and likely the only option for recovery
short of decommissioning at least some dams (those in the lower four
Snake River). Biological or political failure of this `in-lieu of
breaching' strategy would leave no choices remaining but to
decommission some or all of the Snake River dams. This should be
acknowledged up front. The laws of nature are very unyielding, and the
options available are becoming increasingly limited not by policy
considerations, but by basic rules of hydrology, biology and physics.
it's time to put up or shut up
The Northwest ratepayers and Federal taxpayers have already
expended more than $4 billion on Columbia River salmon recovery
efforts, relying for three decades very heavily on artificial salmon
collection and barging and trucking programs which were never
thoroughly tested and which clearly have not worked. The BiOp also
relies much too heavily on those failed programs, but also includes
habitat and estuary restoration, hatchery reforms and fish passage
modifications that are all long overdue, and likely will benefit not
only the Snake River runs but all twelve (12) listed subspecies. While
we (as do most scientists) remain highly skeptical about whether all
the measures in the BiOp combined will, in and of themselves, be enough
to offset the up to 88 percent mortality inflicted by the whole gamut
of dams culminating in the Snake River dams, we believe there is good
logic in giving it the best possible try to see if we can achieve
recovery.
A number of political leaders have stated that they believe that
all other feasible measures throughout the whole system should be tried
before resorting to decommissioning Snake River dams. Both politically
and administratively this makes sense. However, we believe the time is
now here for opponents of dam decommissioning generally to `put up or
shut up.' The Biological Opinion now on the table is their only viable
alternative to dam decommissioning.
Legally the BiOp is a `jeopardy' finding, subject to an integrated
set of mandatory mitigation and recovery measures which, if
implemented, may overcome jeopardy. Any effort by Members of Congress
to `cherry pick' only the elements they like or to eliminate funding
for options they may not like (through the appropriations process or
otherwise) creates the huge risk that the BiOp as a whole will fail.
Failure would inevitably lead once again into chaos, a huge potential
Treasury liability and probable takeover of the whole system by the
Courts. Personally I do not consider that kind of chaos a viable
alternative.
This is why we are greatly concerned about various efforts by some
of these same Members of Congress to impose riders and other budget
limitations that would defund major portions of this overall Plan. The
most important implementation element of this restoration Plan is
Congress itself. If Congress does not fully fund its part, the BiOp's
Plan will most surely fail.
The BiOp is a single tapestry, and it will not hold together
legally or politically unless all its required treads are woven
together and funded in a timely fashion. Plunging the region into
widespread chaos, and plunging our own major industry into further
economic disaster, are not `plans' and cannot be considered viable
political or economic options.
__________
Statement of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is
the United States west coast's largest organization of commercial
fishermen and is a non-governmental, non-profit corporation organized
in 1976. As a federation, its membership is composed of 25 U.S. west
coast commercial fishermen's port associations and vessel owner's
associations spread from San Diego, California to northern Alaska.
Fishermen belonging to PCFFA member organizations engage in a variety
of fisheries, including those for salmon, crab, pink shrimp, albacore,
rockfish, shark, halibut, swordfish, sea cucumber, sea urchin, squid
and herring.
PCFFA provides its member associations with a full time staff to
address fisheries education, communications, habitat protection, and
legislation. PCFFA represents its member associations at the local,
State, regional and national levels on all fisheries issues before many
commissions, councils and legislatures throughout the Pacific region,
and before the U.S. Congress. PCFFA also has fishermen's health care
programs for fishermen belonging to its member associations. PCFFA is
involved in fisheries enhancement and publishes print and electronic
newsletters to alert the fishing industry to current issues that should
concern it.
Since the health of our industry depends on healthy marine and
anadromous fishery resources, much of PCFFA's efforts are directed at
habitat protection. This includes issues dealing with water quality and
quantity, wetlands protection, offshore oil pollution, ocean dumping,
water pollution and maintaining the healthy watersheds and estuaries
which are the nursery grounds for the many species upon which our
industry depends. Our Internet web site is: http://www.pond.net/
pcffa
This site contains Internet links to our member groups, other
fisheries organizations and many other useful resources for commercial
fishermen throughout the world. It also links to our sister
organization, the Institute for Fisheries Resources, which is dedicated
to ocean and anadromous resource protection throughout the Pacific.
______
ATTACHMENT A
The Members and Board of Directors of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations
The Board of Directors of PCFFA is composed of 25 major commercial
fisheries organizations on the U.S. west coast from San Diego to
Alaska. Each group is represented on our Board by that group's
President, Executive Director or designated Representative. The current
Board membership is as follows:
Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc.
Commercial Fishermen's Organization of Morro Bay
Crab Boat Owners' Association
Del Norte Fishermen's Marketing Association
Fishermen's Marketing Association of Bodega Bay
Salmon Trollers' Marketing Association
Half Moon Bay Fisherman's Marketing Association
Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association
Moss Landing Commercial Fishermen's Association
Port San Luis Commercial Fishermen's Association
Santa Cruz Fishermen's Marketing Association
Golden State Trollers Association
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association
Trinidad Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association
Southern California Trawlers Association
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association
Salmon for All
Federation of Independent Seafood Harvesters (FISH)
United Fishermen of Alaska
Ventura Commercial Fishermen's Association
Central California Longline Association
Washington Trollers Association
Western Fishboat Owners' Association
Monterey Fishermen's Marketing Association
Shelter Cove Commercial Fishermen's Association
PCFFA is by far the largest and most politically active
organization of commercial fishermen on the U.S. west coast, and is
active on all local, regional and national issues affecting our
fisheries.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.013
Appendix 1
Comments By Idaho Water Users on The Draft Biological Opinion for
Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Committee of Nine and
the Idaho Water Users Association (``Idaho water users'') and are
directed to the Draft Biological Opinion dated July 27, 2000 for
Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System Including the
Juvenile Fish Transportation Program and the Bureau of Reclamation's 31
Projects, Including the entire Columbia Basin Project issued by
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region (``Draft BiOp'').
The Committee of Nine is the official advisory committee for Water
District 1, the largest water district in the State of Idaho. Water
District 1 is responsible for the distribution of water among
appropriators within the water district from the natural flow of the
Snake River and storage from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (``BOR'')
reservoirs on the Snake River above Milner Dam. The Committee of Nine
is also a designated rental pool committee that has facilitated the
rental of stored water to the BOR to provide water for flow
augmentation pursuant to the 1995 Biological Opinion. The Idaho Water
Users Association was formed in 1938 and represents about 300 canal
companies. irrigation districts. water districts. agri-business and
professional organizations, municipal and public water suppliers, and
others. These comments have been prepared with the assistance of the
scientists. biologists, and engineers who have been retained to address
Upper Snake River issues involving the Endangered Species Act
(``ESA'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contributors include: Dr. James J. Anderson, School of
Fisheries, University of Washington: Craig L. Sommers and David B.
Shaw, ERO Resources Corporation: Dr. Richard A. Hinrichsen. Hinrichsen
Environmental Services: Dr. William J. McNeil, retired professor of
fisheries, Oregon State University. These individuals also contributed
to comments by the Idaho water users on the draft White Paper on flow
(10/29/99), the draft All-H Paper (3/16/00) and the draft Feasibility
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (3/31/00). Resumes of the
contributors are provided in Attachment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of comments
The Draft BiOp raises numerous issues. However, the Idaho water
users have focused their comments on the specific set of issues
pertaining to flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout these comments, the Upper Snake River (``Upper
Snake'') means the portion of the basin above Brownlee Reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an overriding issue, there is no need for consultation on the
Upper Snake BOR projects. The contractual obligations and operation of
these projects have not changed significantly since prior to the
passage of the ESA in 1973. Moreover, there have been no changes since
the last BiOp on these projects issued in December 1999.
The Draft BiOp violates the ESA by failing to identify the actions
of specific projects that cause jeopardy to the listed species or
adversely affect their habitat. The 43 projects encompassed by the
Draft BiOp are not all interrelated or interdependent. At the very
least, the Upper Snake BOR projects must be treated individually or
collectively in the BiOp or in a separate consultation.
Flows from the Upper Snake River have slightly increased over the
past 89 years, especially during the critical summer months, even with
irrigation development in southern Idaho and the construction of the
Upper Snake Bureau of Reclamation projects.\3\ This development and
construction occurred long before the populations of the listed species
declined to endangered or threatened levels. Thus, water development in
the Upper Snake in general, and the Upper Snake BOR projects in
particular, did not alter flows so as to cause jeopardy to the listed
species or adverse effects on their habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In fact. increased summer flows are the result of return flows
from Upper Snake irrigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no scientific foundation for conclusions in the Draft BiOp
that Upper Snake flow augmentation will provide biological benefits for
the listed species. The purported flow/survival relationship for fall
chinook above Lower Granite is unfounded and there is evidence that
flow augmentation from the Upper Snake BOR projects is actually
detrimental to the listed species. Likewise, there are no demonstrated
benefits from Upper Snake flow augmentation through the hydropower
system, in the estuary, or in the ocean plume for any of the listed
species.
Flow augmentation from the Upper Snake has previously been an
interim or experimental measure aimed at mitigating the jeopardy and
incidental take caused by the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FRCPS). There is no basis for the new conclusion in the Draft BiOp
that the Upper Snake BOR projects cause jeopardy, with or without
providing 427 kaf of flow augmentation. Likewise, there is no basis for
the implication in the Draft BiOp that the Upper Snake BOR projects
incidentally take listed species. Also, there is no explanation of how
NMFS could conclude in December 1999 that the proposed operations of
the Upper Snake BOR projects do not jeopardize the listed species, and
then conclude 6 months later with no new data that the Upper Snake
projects do contribute to the jeopardy of the species.
Because operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects does not cause
jeopardy, there is no basis for the reasonable and prudent alternatives
(RPAs) for these projects identified in the Draft BiOp. Specifically,
the flow targets established for the mainstem are unreasonable and
unfounded. Flow augmentation using 427 kaf or more water is unnecessary
and illegal, especially with respect to the use of powerhead space
which is contrary to State and Federal laws. The requirement for the
BOR to consult on use of uncontracted space does not fully comport with
Federal and State law and the proposed consultations are too narrow.
Likewise, the description of ``unauthorized'' uses does not comport
with Reclamation law. Pursuit of increased water conservation and
reduction of so-called unauthorized uses in the Upper Snake will not
increase streamflow. Additional water should not be sought from the
Upper Snake. The additional water is not needed and a State law
mechanism for providing that water downstream is unlikely. Finally,
there is inadequate consideration of resident fish and wildlife needs
and other impacts in continuation or expansion of Upper Snake flow
augmentation. It is not reasonable and prudent to potentially harm
resident species and their habitat when there is no significant benefit
to the listed species from the RPAs. Moreover because there is no
jeopardy from the Upper Snake BOR projects, NMFS must comply with NEPA
in taking actions with respect to these projects.
The biological, hydro, and physical performance standards set forth
in the Draft BiOp are flawed. Various standards under these categories
are unrealistic, not clearly defined, immeasurable, ineffective, or
even detrimental to the listed species.
Harvest reforms can provide significant benefit to the listed
species, especially Snake River fall chinook. The RPAs listed for
harvest in the Draft BiOp should be revised to require these reforms.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act recommendations for the listed species are
premature because Essential Fish Habitat has not been designated for
these fish. Moreover, the scope of those recommendations is not clear;
and to the extent that they apply to the Upper Snake BOR projects, they
suffer from the same defects described for the Section 7 consultation.
To reiterate a central point of these comments, the Idaho water
users oppose the inclusion of flow augmentation using 427,000 acre-feet
or more water from the Upper Snake River as an RPA. The Draft BiOp
should be revised to eliminate Upper Snake River flow augmentation
because these BOR projects do not jeopardize the listed species or
adversely modify their habitat. Moreover, flow augmentation provides no
significant biological or physical benefits to the listed species, and
indeed may be harmful.
biop scope and objectives are flawed
From the outset, the Draft BiOp is on the wrong track with respect
to BOR projects in the Upper Snake River basin. First, there is no duty
for the BOR to consult with NMFS on the operation of the Upper Snake
BOR projects because the contractual obligations and operation of those
projects have not changed since enactment of the ESA listing of the
species, or publication of the last BiOp on these projects. Second,
assuming there is a duty to consult. the proper scope of the
consultation is to ensure that specific BOR actions on particular Upper
Snake projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or adversely modify their habitat. Rather than being lumped
together with FCRPS projects and other BOR projects, the Upper Snake
BOR projects should be evaluated separately given their unique
circumstances. The Upper Snake BOR projects are not interrelated or
interdependent' with the FCRPS or other Columbia River basin BOR
projects (50 CFR 402.02). Third, there is no basis for a jeopardy
opinion on the Upper Snake BOR projects. As a result, the RPAs for the
Upper Snake projects are actually mitigation measures for the listed
species. Thus, as discussed further below, the Draft BiOp violates the
ESA with respect to the Upper Snake BOR projects.
The Upper Snake BOR projects have been operated and contractually
obligated to provide irrigation water, and incidentally to provide
power, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife benefits, since
their inception in the early 1900's. No significant changes in those
operations and contracts have occurred since the final components were
constructed in the 1940's and 1950's, long before the enactment of the
ESA in 1973 or listing of the species in the 1990's. Thus, there are no
new Federal ``actions'' in need of consultation with NMFS. Moreover,
there is no need to have reinitiated consultation when there have been
no operational or contractual changes since the 1999 BiOp on these same
Upper Snake BOR projects was completed in December 1999 (see discussion
below under Proposed Action).
There is no requirement for consultation on the Upper Snake BOR
projects with respect to the listed species involved in the Draft BiOp
because there is no discretionary ``action'' that is subject to
consultation. ``Action'' is defined as ``all activities or programs of
any kind authorized, funded or carried out, in whole or in part, by
Federal agencies . . .'' and include but are not limited to ``(a)
actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the
promulgation of regulations; (c) the granting of licenses, contracts .
. .; (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the
land, water. or air.'' 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.02. The ESA only requires
action agencies to consult or confer with FWS/NFMS when there is
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the ``action.'' The
storage and delivery of water under the Upper Snake BOR projects is
governed by permanent contracts, not discretionary actions. For
example, Attachment 2 contains an excerpt from the contract between the
BOR and the Twin Falls Canal Company, a representative contract in the
Upper Snake. This is a permanent contract that provides among other
things that ``It is the purpose of the United States and the water
users . . . to have the reservoir system so operated as to effect the
greatest practicable conservation of water'' under the water rights
created by the 1923 contract (see Articles 6 and 14(a)). Thus, there is
no ``discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action''
and, therefore, there is no duty to consult. Moreover, as discussed at
length below, because operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects does
not affect listed species or critical habitat, there is no duty to
consult.
At most, the BOR should only engage in informal consultation with
respect to the Upper Snake projects with respect to discretionary
actions, if any exist. Again, given that the result of the informal
consultation should be that any such actions are not likely to
adversely affect the listed species or critical habitat, the
consultation process should be terminated at that point.
Of course, the BOR previously sought consultation on the Upper
Snake projects, which led to the 1999 BiOp. However, since there has
been no new discretionary action, and there is no new information,
there is no reason to reinitiate consultation.
As set forth at the outset of the Draft BiOp, the ``Biological
Opinion does not attempt to apportion the relative contribution of the
FCRPS and BOR projects to the current status of the ESUs'' (p. 1-1).\4\
Rather, all 43 projects are combined in the Draft BiOp because they
have ``hydrologic effects on the flows in the mainstems of the Columbia
and Snake rivers'' (p. 1-1). This approach ignores the practical and
legal differences among these projects. The FCRPS and main stem
Columbia River BOR projects are relatively recent, enormous,
interrelated projects operating within or near critical habitat for the
listed salmon and steelhead. In contrast, the Upper Snake BOR projects
are relatively small, were in existence long before the decline of the
listed species to critical levels, are located far outside of critical
habitat (and in many cases outside of historical habitat), and have had
no significant impact on historical downstream flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In these comments, page references refer to the Draft BiOp
unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By failing to separately consult on specific actions or at least
analyze, understand, and apportion the relative effect of the projects
on the species or their critical habitat, the Draft BiOp fails to
conform to Section 7(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That
section requires: ``. . . a written statement setting forth . . . a
summary of the information on which the opinion is based, detailing how
the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat''
(emphasis supplied). The Draft BiOp recognizes that these are separate,
unrelated actions being consulted upon. Yet, as discussed thoroughly
below, the Draft BiOp does not and cannot provide details on how BOR
construction and operation of the Upper Snake projects affect the
listed species or their habitat.
The Draft BiOp notes that consultation between BOR and NMFS
occurred pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Unfortunately, the
Draft BiOp extends beyond the purpose of the consultation. Section
7(a)(2) consultation is to ensure that actions which are authorized,
funded, or carried out by the BOR are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat of such species. Section 7(b)(3)(A) directs the Secretary to
provide to BOR a written statement setting forth the Secretary's
opinion, and a summary of the information on which the opinion is
based, detailing how the agency action affects the species or its
critical habitat. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, the
Secretary is required to suggest those reasonable and prudent
alternatives that he believes would not violate Section 7(a)(2). As
discussed below, jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification has
never previously been determined by the Secretary for the Upper Snake
BOR projects. Indeed, just the opposite is true.
In summary, the Draft BiOp should be revised to eliminate the Upper
Snake BOR projects. If included in the Draft BiOp, the effects of the
Upper Snake BOR projects on the listed species and their habitat should
be specifically addressed, or separate analyses should be conducted on
these projects. In any event a jeopardy opinion is not legally or
factually warranted for any of the Upper Snake BOR projects.
proposed action
It is useful to summarize the historical circumstances leading to
the proposed action with respect to the Upper Snake BOR projects in
order to provide perspective on the jeopardy opinion and RPAs included
in the Draft BiOp.
Flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River was originally
requested as an experiment'' or an ``interim'' measure. The Northwest
Power Planning Council (``NPPC'') suggested flow augmentation as an
``experiment'' to test the hypothesis that there is a ``relationship
between spring and summer flow, velocity and fish survival'' in an
adaptive management framework (NPPC, 1994. p. 5-13). In support of the
1995 BiOp on the FCRPS. NMFS called for ``interim target flows''--and
thus, flow augmentation--on the basis of the NPPC program and a finding
that ``. . . a general relationship of increasing survival of Columbia
River basin salmon and steelhead with increasing flow is reasonable''
(NMFS, 1995, pp. 1, 2). In essence, in the 1995 and 1998 BiOps, the 427
kaf of Upper Snake flow augmentation was included as part of an
interim, experimental mitigation package for the jeopardy caused by
FCRPS operations or its take of listed species. Despite the lack of
scientific evidence or legal basis for flow augmentation, Idaho water
users acquiesced in the experimental program and helped pass State
legislation to authorize the use of water for flow augmentation.
Several years of research were conducted to assess the effects of flow
on the survival of listed species. As discussed below and in Attachment
1, no significant benefit from Upper Snake River flow augmentation is
evident from the research. Thus, the basis for the NMFS interim flow
augmentation no longer exists.
More recently, the 1999 BiOp on the Upper Snake BOR projects,
finalized on December 9, 1999 (about 7 months before the Draft BiOp),
did not find jeopardy from operation of these projects. The 427 kaf
augmentation was included in that BiOp as a continuation of an interim
measure required by the 1995 and 1998 BiOps on the FRCPS. In the
current consultation, the agencies once again propose to continue the
actions undertaken as a result of the 1995, 1998, and 1999 BiOps, i.e.,
to continue to provide 427 kaf of flow augmentation from the Upper
Snake.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The proposed actions involving the Upper Snake BOR projects
also include using powerhead space in the reservoirs to firm the water
supply, a proposal that the Idaho water users consider to be illegal
and thus invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Draft BiOp RPAs, NMFS includes additional measures to firm
the 427 kaf of flow augmentation and seeks additional water to provide
even more flow. That decision was made despite the fact that flow
augmentation has previously been recognized by NMFS only as an interim
measure. and not a permanent means for recovering salmon: ``the species
biological requirements in the migrators; corridor are likely to be met
over the long term only if there are major structural modifications to
the FCRPS that result in significant survival improvements'' (1999
BiOp, p. II-3). As an interim and experimental measure, Idaho water
users have continued to expect that flow augmentation using water from
the Upper Snake River basin would be eliminated as part of the long-
term decision encompassed in this Draft BiOp, particularly in light of
the lack of any scientific support for flow augmentation from Idaho.
historical and hydrological background
In order to provide context for the rest of our comments, some
background is useful. The history of irrigation development and the BOR
projects in southern Idaho, listed species declines, and hydrology of
the Upper Snake River basin are provided below.
History of Upper Snake BOR Projects
The Reclamation Service began studies in most western states and
territories for possible projects shortly after the Reclamation Act was
passed in June 1902. In Idaho, those surveys led to two early
irrigation ventures involving the Snake River watershed. These
undertakings are the Minidoka Project, which was initially authorized
in 1904; and the Boise Project, which was initially authorized in 1905.
Although several other BOR projects exist in the Upper Snake basin
(Michaud Flats, Little Wood River, Mann Creek, and Owyhee), the
Minidoka and Boise Projects are the largest.
Minidoka Project lands extend discontinuously from the town of
Ashton in eastern Idaho along the Snake River approximately 300 miles
downstream to the town of Bliss in south-central Idaho. The project
includes: Minidoka Dam (also known as Lake Walcott) on the Snake River
near Rupert, Idaho (completed in 1906); Jackson Lake Dam on the Snake
River near Wilson, Wyoming (completed in 1911); American Falls Dam on
the Snake River near American Falls, Idaho (completed in 1927); Island
Park Dam on Henry's Fork, a tributary of the Snake, near Saint Anthony,
Idaho (completed in 1938); Grassy Lake Dam on Grassy Creek in Wyoming
(completed in 1939): and Palisades Dam on the South Fork of the Snake
River (completed in 1957).
Known as the Payette-Boise Project prior to 1911, the Boise Project
was built in two parts the first being the Arrowrock Division, and the
second being the Payette Division--The Arrowrock Division, which serves
lands situated between the Boise and Snake Rivers, was authorized on
March 27, 1905 and includes: the Boise River Diversion Dam on the Boise
River near the city of Boise (completed in 1908); Lake Lowell (also
known as Deer Flat Reservoir) storing Boise River water offstream near
Nampa, Idaho (three dams completed between 1908 and 1911): Arrowrock
Dam on the Boise River near the City of Boise (completed in 1915); and
Anderson Ranch Darn on the South Fork of the Boise River (completed in
1947).
The Payette Division of the Boise Project consists of Deadwood
Darn, Black Canyon Darn, and Cascade Darn. The Payette Division serves
lands between the Payette and Boise Rivers and areas north of the
Payette River in the Emmett Irrigation District. Authorized on October
19, 1998, the Division includes: Black Canyon Darn on the Payette River
near the town of Emmett (completed in 1924), Deadwood Dam on the
Deadwood River, a tributary of the South Fork of the Payette River
(completed in 1931); and Cascade Dam on the North Fork of the Payette
River near the city of Cascade (completed in 1948).
In section 6.2.5, the Draft BiOp appears to greatly overstate the
impact of Upper Snake BOR projects by attributing 3.8 MAF of depletion
to those projects (p. 6-29) because these projects are only part of the
development of water resources that has become the backbone of Idaho's
economy. Beginning in 1836 on land inhabited by the Nez Perce Indians
irrigation expanded to encompass about 1.5 million acres in 1909,
largely from private irrigation developments that relied on the natural
flow of streams (Arrington, 1986; 1910 Census). Another 500,000 acres
was developed largely as a result of storage facilities constructed by
the United States in the first half of the 20th century. About 1
million acres is the result of irrigation by wells. most of which have
been drilled since the 1950's (IWRB, 1996). Surface and ground water
sources in the Snake River basin in Idaho now irrigate over 3 million
acres (IWRB. 1996).
History of Listed Species Decline
As described in the Draft BiOp, the listed species have gone
through two general periods of population decline (pp. 4-1 et seq). The
first period of decline was the late 1800s and early 1900s, primarily
as a result of high harvest levels (p. 5-8). The second period of
decline generally occurred after the 1960's as the result of a number
of factors including additional major dams on the Columbia and lower
Snake Rivers, and continuing changes in habitat, hatchery effects, and
ocean conditions (pp. 5-3 et seq). As shown in Figure 1, this second
decline resulted in the low population levels. which resulted in the
listings under the ESA. It is important to note that the listed
salmonid populations were self-sustaining long after water development
of the Upper Snake was complete.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.014
Hydrology of the Upper Snake River
Total annual outflow from Idaho into the Columbia River system is
about 70 million acre feet (MAF), or roughly one-third of the total
flow of the Columbia River (IWRB, 1996). About one-half of this flow is
provided by northern Idaho tributaries and one-half is from the Snake
River. Average annual flow of the Snake River as it leaves the State at
Lewiston is about 36 MAF (Id). Roughly one-third of this amount comes
from the Upper Snake River above Hells Canyon and about one-half is
contributed by the Salmon and Clearwater River basins (Id.). The
remainder is contributed from smaller tributaries in Oregon.
Washington, and Idaho.
Stream flow records do not extend back to the beginning of
irrigation in the mid-1800's. However, records for stream flow in the
Upper Snake River basin do exist from about 1910 on. As noted in the
previous section, the construction of reservoirs and development of
irrigation on about 1.5 million acres has occurred since 1910. However,
the historical record reflects a slight increase in flow despite
development in southern Idaho. Again, it must be recalled that the
Upper Snake BOR projects are only part of the irrigation development in
Idaho.
Figure 2 shows the actual mean annual flow for the Snake River at
the Weiser gage, located just above Brownlee Reservoir, for the period
1911 through 1999. As can be seen from the trend line plotted on the
graph, average annual flows have increased slightly over the past 89
years despite water development in the Upper Snake River basin. Figure
3 shows the actual mean summer flow for July 1 through August 31 for
the period 1911 through 1999 without flow augmentation. This period was
selected to match the time during which flow often falls short of NMFS'
targets and the season for which there has been concern over juvenile
fall chinook migration. Again, the trend line plotted on the graph
shows that the measured flows of the Snake River at Weiser have
increased over the past 89 years during the summer period. As discussed
in the next section, analysis of the minimum flow for the flow target
periods 4/3 through 6/20 and 6/21 through 8/31 show the same pattern of
slightly increasing minimum flows for the period from 1911 through
1999.
The tremendous variation in flows can also be seen in Figures 2 and
3. At Weiser, mean annual flows vary by over 350 percent and summer
flows vary by over 300 percent. These fluctuations are primarily the
result of natural variations in climate. The 427 kaf of Upper Snake
flow augmentation (about 3.5 percent of the average annual flow) is
dwarfed by this huge natural flow variation at Weiser. Upper Snake flow
augmentation can do little to offset the variability of natural flows
below Hells Canyon.
Similarly, the historical hydrology at Lower Granite Dam does not
reflect decreasing flows. Figures 4 and 5 show the same trend of
increasing mean annual and summer (July 1 through August 31) flows at
Lower Granite for the period 1911 through 1999 as shown for the Snake
River at Weiser.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Flow augmentation provided in recent years has been subtracted
from gage data before plotting the mean flows on Figures 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the quantity and timing of Snake River flow has not
changed significantly is not new. In 1995, the National Research
Council concluded:
Because there has not been a major shift in the Snake River
hydrograph, it is doubtful a priori that the declines in Snake
River salmon stocks are due to or reversible by changes in the
seasonality of the flow regime of the Snake River alone (NRC,
1995 at 193).
Despite these facts, which have been repeatedly pointed out to
NMFS,\7\ the Draft BiOp asserts that the Upper Snake BOR depletions
``are a major impediment to meeting NMFS' flow objectives'' (p. 6-28).
Failure to take these facts into account or respond to them is
arbitrary and capricious on the part of NMFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Idaho water users comments on the draft White Paper and
draft All-H paper.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.016
flow alteration from the upper snake river bor projects has not
caused jeopardy
In Section 6.2.5.2.3 of the Draft BiOp, NMFS asserts that
``[o]peration and configuration of BOR's irrigation projects could
affect salmon survival . . . [indirectly through] changes in flow
timing due to reservoir storage management activities, and streamflow
depletion from water withdrawals'' (p. 6-27, emphasis supplied). In
fact, as discussed in the previous section, the Upper Snake BOR
irrigation projects operated for decades prior to the precipitous
decline of listed species populations in the 1970's and 1980's, which
led to their listing and thus, the projects had no role in the
subsequent decline of the listed species. Even with operation of these
projects, the average flow of the Snake River at Lower Granite has
remained relatively constant through the years and the flow has
actually increased during the critical summer months because of
irrigation return flows from the BOR operations and other upstream
irrigation. Moreover, much of the water diverted from the streams by
water users in southern Idaho is done pursuant to State water rights
for natural flow. These diversions are not subject to BOR operation and
control. Finally, as discussed in the next major section of these
comments involving the biological effect of the Upper Snake BOR
projects, the relatively minimal flow alteration from these projects
has no significant effect on salmonid migration and survival.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the mean annual flow of the Snake River
at Weiser has not changed significantly since flow records became
available in 1911. Likewise. the variation of flow between years has
not changed significantly. Figure 2 is constructed of measured data and
is not based on theoretical calculations or assumptions. This time-
series analysis is not provided to suggest that Upper Snake irrigation
development and BOR storage projects do not consume water or have not
affected downstream flow. Rather, these flow records demonstrate that
there is no factual support for the premise that flow alterations from
the Upper Snake have jeopardized or will jeopardize the listed species.
Figure 6 contains the same mean annual flow data used to prepare
Figure 2 and, in addition, shows the development of irrigated acreage
in Idaho and the development of Upper Snake BOR water storage.\8\
Figure 6 shows that irrigated acreage significantly increased and most
of the BOR storage development occurred after flow measurement records
for the Snake River at Weiser began. Figure 6 also shows both irrigated
acreage and BOR storage increasing throughout the period but without a
significant change in the mean annual flow of the Snake River at
Weiser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The BOR storage represents all reservoirs above Brownlee. The
irrigated acreage is taken from Census Reports and include all
irrigated acres in Idaho (United States Census Office, 1902-1997). The
Census Reports do not separate the number of irrigated acres by river
basin within a state. The irrigated acreage reported for Idaho includes
acreage outside of the Snake River basin upstream from Weiser including
the Bear and Salmon River drainages. Similarly, the reported irrigated
acreage does not include acres irrigated from the Snake River basin
above Weiser located in Wyoming, Nevada and Oregon. The differences in
the chart from actual acreage irrigated from the Snake River basin
upstream from Weiser is believed to be minimal since most of the
irrigated acreage in Idaho is irrigated from the Snake River basin
upstream from Weiser and most of the acreage irrigated from the Snake
River basin above Weiser is in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the early 1920's, about 2.5 million acres were irrigated in
Idaho, yet the BOR had only about 1.5 MAF of storage capacity in the
Upper Snake River basin. Many of the irrigated acres were developed
with private water rights and without benefit of BOR stored water. The
lack of storage for full water supplies is shown, in part, by the
decrease in the number of irrigated acres during the drought years of
the late 1920's and the early 1930's. As BOR storage became available,
many irrigators relied upon the stored water to supplement their
private water rights in order to have a full water supply.
Table 6.2-1 and Table 6.2-2 in the Draft BiOp show relatively large
estimates of the amounts of water consumed by Upper Snake BOR projects
and reductions of flow at Lower Granite Dam (pp. 6-29, 6-30).
Regardless of those estimated depletions, Figure 6 shows conclusively
that both the number of irrigated acres and the amount of BOR storage
have increased during the period of record for the Snake River gage at
Weiser, which shows a slight increase in the mean annual flow.
This analysis of historical acreage in comparison to flows is
similar to the analysis by Dreher and the results are consistent with
those found by Dreher (Dreher, 1998, pp. 5-7). Dreher's analysis has
been criticized by DeHart (1998) on several bases. The comparison of
the development of irrigated acreage and BOR storage over time counters
the criticism that the major impacts of Idaho irrigation development
were in place prior to the period of analysis. In fact, much of the
development, particularly the Upper Snake BOR projects, has taken place
during the period of record. DeHart also suggests that the recent low
flows are lower than the historical low flows, and that this change in
low flows is masked by an analysis that relies solely on mean annual
flow amounts. Figure 7 contains two curves, one for the minimum mean
daily flow of the Snake River at Weiser for April 3 through June 20,
and one for the minimum mean daily flow of the Snake River at Weiser
for June 21 through August 31.\9\ The two curves represent the minimum
flow for each year during the respective periods. Trend lines are added
to the curves and show the minimum mean daily flow for both periods has
increased, on average, over the period of record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Augmentation flow was removed from the records for the recent
years before the minimum values were selected and plotted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The depletion analysis in Tables 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 is in error
because it ignores how the Upper Snake BOR projects actually operate.
Water is stored in the project reservoirs during the winter and spring
(except during major flood control operations when low flows are not an
issue) and then released for irrigation purposes during the summer,
primarily to supplement natural flow water rights. Thus, any reduction
of flow actually occurs during seasons when the flow targets at Lower
Granite are typically met (spring) or do not exist (winter). The Draft
BiOp's assumption that crop water consumption estimates in a particular
month are directly related to the downstream flow depletion for that
month is not accurate given the time lag between storage and release of
the water.
NMFS apparently relies upon the erroneous estimates in Table 6.2-1
and Table 6.2-2 to conclude the Upper Snake BOR projects cause jeopardy
for the listed species, yet the measured flow of the Snake River at
Weiser shows that no change has occurred following much of the
irrigation development and nearly all of the BOR storage construction
in the Upper Snake River basin. Although the listed species were in
decline due to over harvest by the early 1900's, there is no evidence
to suggest that the populations were limited by either habitat or
passage conditions caused by flow alteration from the Upper Snake.
Habitat and passage conditions resulting from Upper Snake flows were
the same in the first half of the 20th century as they are today.
Of course, the listed species no longer reach the Snake River at
Weiser because they have been excluded from the Upper Snake River basin
since the 1950's due to construction of the Hells Canyon complex. Thus,
there is no direct effect on the listed species due to irrigation in
southern Idaho or operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects. Because
the flow conditions of the Snake River at Weiser have not materially
changed, and because the population of the listed species has not been
limited by habitat or passage constraints imposed by irrigation or BOR
storage in the Upper Snake River basin, there is no basis to find
jeopardy due to indirect effects. In other words, changes in Idaho
water use did not cause and cannot cure the decline of listed fish
populations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.018
the flow-survival hypothesis used in the draft biop is unfounded
Even if the Upper Snake BOR projects altered the downstream flow,
the biological effect of those changes is insignificant to the listed
species and their habitat. The Draft BiOp hypothesizes a variety of
mechanisms by which historical flow alterations have negatively
impacted listed fish and their habitat and by which future flow
augmentation can provide benefits. These mechanisms include changes in
velocity, turbidity, temperature, and conditions in the estuary or
ocean plume (pp.
6-23 to 6-41). There is no reliable evidence that changes in Upper
Snake River water use have had or will have a significant effect on
these variables or on the bottom line--survival of the listed species.
The Draft BiOp analysis and conclusions related to the flow/
survival relationship for listed species rely extensively on the March
2000 White Paper entitled ``Salmonid travel time and survival related
to flow management in the Columbia River Basin'' (``White Paper'';
NMFS, 2000a) (pp. 2-3, 2-10, 6-34). Further evaluation of the
assertions in the White Paper, and replies to NMFS responses to
comments on the draft White Paper are contained in Attachment 1.
Flow and Velocity
The Draft BiOp suggests that downstream migration of juvenile
salmon could be improved by using flow augmentation to increase the
rate of flow through the reservoirs along the lower Snake and Columbia
Rivers to speed up migration (pp. 6-34 to 6-36). However, there are no
quantitative analyses of the velocity changes achievable with flow
augmentation, objectives for velocity changes, or analyses of the
biological benefits of incremental changes in velocity.
The Draft BiOp begins to recognize that Upper Snake flow
augmentation is futile to mitigate the velocity reductions resulting
from dams on the lower Snake River (p. 6-36). For example, adding 1 MAF
annually to existing flows results in less than \1/10\th of 1 mile per
hour increase in velocity through the lower Snake River reservoirs
(Dreher, 1998, p. 12). Stated another way, more than 160 MAF (over 4
times the existing flow) would be required to restore pre-dam
velocities that exceeded 2.5 mph (Id.). Clearly, any possible level of
flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River would have an
insignificant effect on water velocity through the lower Snake River
(Id.).
Flow and Turbidity
The Draft BiOp also suggests that downstream migration of juvenile
salmon could be improved by increasing the downstream turbidity using
flow augmentation
(p. 6-36). Again, there are no quantitative analyses of the turbidity
changes achievable with flow augmentation, objectives for turbidity
changes, or analyses of the biological benefits of incremental changes
in turbidity. Moreover, there is no reconciliation of the calls for
increased turbidity in the Draft BiOp with the reductions in sediment
load required by the Clean Water Act.
Significant increases in turbidity are not likely as a result of
Upper Snake flow augmentation. Most instances of increased turbidity in
the lower Snake River are the result of high tributary inflows due to
storm events or snowmelt.
Flow and Temperature
Flow augmentation is also suggested as a means to improve water
temperature in the lower Snake River (p. 6-36). Cold water has been
released from Dworshak Reservoir in the Clearwater Basin to lower
temperatures in the river for the benefit of salmon (NMFS, 1999, pp.
29-30). However, warm water released from the Upper Snake River
counteracts the cooling effect of releases from Dworshak Reservoir,
especially during low flow years when temperatures are generally the
highest (Corps, 1995, p. 4-61). Once more, the Draft BiOp contains no
quantitative analyses of the temperature changes achievable with flow
augmentation, objectives for temperature changes, or analyses of the
biological benefits of incremental changes in temperature.
To illustrate the problem of augmenting with warm Snake River
water, the effect of the existing flow augmentation on the temperature
downstream of Brownlee can be estimated.\10\ First, it can be
demonstrated that the temperature () in the Snake River
below Hells Canyon (at River Mile 180) \11\ is essentially determined
by the sum of the flow-weighted (F) temperatures of the Snake, Imnaha
and Salmon rivers according to the formula:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Additional information on the flow/temperature relationships
described in the following paragraphs will be provided in a paper
authored by James J. Anderson and posted on the Columbia River Basin
Research website (http://www.cqs.washington.edu/library.html) as soon
as it is final.
\11\ River Mile 180 (RM 180) is below the confluence of Snake,
Imnaha and Salmon rivers, about 75 miles upstream from Lower Granite
Dam (RM 106).
Figure 8 shows the regression of predicted and observed
temperatures at RM 180. The equation predicts the observed temperatures
quite well (R2 = 0.9989, slope = 1.0, intercept = (-) 0.17).
Figure 9 shows that flow and temperature are not correlated just
downstream of Hells Canyon Dam at RM 246. Figure 10 shows that river
temperature at Anatone and air temperature at Lewiston are linearly
related. These three relationships demonstrate that Upper Snake flow
augmentation does not significantly affect the temperature of the Snake
River entering Lower Granite Reservoir.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.021
The effects of Upper Snake flow augmentation on downstream
temperature at RM 180 can be calculated by changing Snake River flows
(FSnake) to reflect different levels of flow augmentation.
Figure 11 illustrates the difference in river temperatures at RM 180
with the additional 427 kaf. Note that Snake River flow augmentation
has a small effect on the river temperature and that the augmentation
typically causes river temperature to increase relative to the
predicted temperature without augmentation. This graphically
illustrates the problem with the assumption that flow augmentation is
uniformly good for fish. In fact, the model indicates that Snake River
temperatures would be reduced if Snake River flows were held constant.
This is illustrated in Figure 12, which shows the predicted difference
in river temperature caused by existing flow augmentation relative to
temperatures with a constant Hells Canyon flow of 5000 cfs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.022
A study of the limnology of Brownlee reservoir supports the
detrimental effect of summer flow augmentation from the Upper Snake
under some conditions (Ebel and Koski, 1968). The study found that the
reservoir stratifies in the summer with the epilimnion (warm upper
layer) extending down to or below the outlet works in July, August and
September during the period of study (Id., Fig. 2). The study also
evaluated the effect of the reservoir on Snake River flows above and
below the Hells Canyon dams. Relative to Snake River inflows to
Brownlee, temperature was higher and dissolved oxygen levels were lower
below Oxbow from mid-summer through fall (Id., Fig. 20). Thus, Upper
Snake flow augmentation during times such as these would exacerbate the
impact of water releases that are of poorer quality than inflows and
which can be detrimental to fish.
Estuary/Plume Effects
Flow augmentation also is being hypothesized as a way to change the
timing of the arrival of smolts at the estuary to pre-dam conditions
(p. 6-34). The suggested use of flow is perplexing for two reasons.
First, about 80 to 90 percent of Snake River chinook and steelhead
passing through the estuary arrive through transportation.
Transportation shortens the hydrosystem passage by two weeks for spring
chinook and a month or more for fall chinook, resulting in estuary
arrival times similar to the pre-dam conditions. Under the existing
hydrosystem operation, only 10 to 20 percent of migrating fish travel
in-river. At most, flow augmentation may only change the arrival time
of the remaining 10 to 20 percent of in-river migrating fish by a few
hours for spring chinook and a few dams for fall chinook, although we
do not concede that such reductions will occur (see discussion below).
Unless it can be demonstrated that these small changes in arrival
timing will occur and will benefit the survival of listed fish,
attempting to use flow augmentation to speed arrival timing at the
estuary for a small proportion of the fish is a gross misuse of water
resources.
In a further attempt to find some basis for flow augmentation, the
Draft BiOp suggests that higher flows might improve conditions in the
estuary and provide survival benefits to juvenile salmonids migrating
through the estuary or the Columbia River plume (p. 6-24. 6-34). As
discussed above under Hydrology of the Upper Snake River, the volume
and pattern of flow in the Snake River upstream from Lower Granite
Reservoir has not changed significantly over the past 89 years. Thus,
any changes that may have occurred in the Columbia River estuary or
plume are not the result of upstream development on the Snake River.
Further, the Upper Snake flows required to make significant changes in
the estuary or plume are so large that any attempt to use Snake River
augmentation water for that purpose is futile.
Table 1 compares minimum and maximum monthly discharges of the
Columbia River at Beaver Army Terminal near Quincy, Oregon with the
monthly discharge of the Snake River at Weiser during the same month.
The Beaver Army Terminal gage is located at river mile 53.8 within the
area of the river affected by tidal flow. Even though the gage record
is short--12 years of records, some partial, from 1968 through 1999--it
serves to show the wide variation in annual flow of the Columbia River.
The variation in monthly flow from high to low years (18.5 MAF in June)
is more than the entire average annual flow of the Snake River at
Weiser (13.3 MAF).
Table 1 illustrates that the flow of the Columbia River at the
beginning of the estuary is at least 10 times greater than the flow of
the Snake River at Weiser under both high and low flow conditions. It
is impossible to try to restore the lower Columbia to pre-development
conditions using augmentation from a source that provides less than 10
percent of the flow during the spring and summer.
Table 1.--Minimum and maximum monthly discharge of the Columbia River compared to Upper Snake River discharge in
that month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Flow (MAF) Maximum Flow (MAF)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Lower Upper Lower Upper
Year Columbia Snake Year Columbia Snake
River River River River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April................................... 1992 11.7 0.5 1969 24.2 2.3
May..................................... 1968 13.0 0.7 1997 31.2 2.5
June.................................... 1992 12.1 0.3 1997 30.6 2.9
July.................................... 1992 8.6 0.4 1997 17.2 1.1
August.................................. 1994 6.6 0.5 1999 13.7 0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to consider the futility of using flow augmentation
from the Upper Snake River to cause changes far downstream is to
compare the period of record average flow of the Columbia River at
Beaver Army Terminal for July, a relatively low flow month during the
period of flow objectives, to recent levels of Upper Snake River flow
augmentation. The average monthly flow of the Columbia River for July
at this location is 14.1 MAF for the period of record at the Beaver
Army Terminal gage. If the entire 427,000 acre-feet of Upper Snake
River flow augmentation were released in July (contrary to past
practice), it would be only 3 percent of the average monthly July flow
of the Columbia River at Beaver Army Terminal. Figure 13 shows Upper
Snake River flow augmentation from 1995-1999 in relation to the flow of
the Columbia River at the mouth.
Simply put, augmenting flows to significantly change the estuary or
plume would be fruitless and a waste of water resources. Moreover, this
rationale for additional water is premature given the research plan in
the RPAs to study whether there is any benefit from additional flows
(p. 9-133 et seq).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.023
The Flow/Survival Relationship
There is no clear scientific basis for the mainstem flow targets
and the requirements for flow management to meet those targets. Flow
management involves augmentation or reshaping the volume of water
flowing out of the Columbia/Snake River system over the season.
Although there may be a weak flow/survival relationship between years,
flows and survival have no relationship in the hydrosystem within a
season. The relationship between fall chinook survival and flow above
Lower Granite Dam cited in the Draft BiOp is statistically unfounded.
Relationships noted in the BiOp relating flow or travel time to smolt-
to-adult returns (SARs) are all compromised by the increasing number of
dams over time, changing ocean conditions and changes in the
hydrosystem.
The Draft BiOp gives a false impression that there is conclusive
support for flow targets and misrepresents the NMFS flow analysis. For
example, the Draft BiOp concludes that flow is strongly correlated with
survival:
To summarize, there are several studies which indicate a
relationship exists between river conditions when juveniles
out-migrated and the rate at which adults returned from those
juvenile year classes. Years of higher river flow produced
higher rates of adult returns than low water years. (p. 6-35).
Research conducted since 1995 suggest[s] that the spring flow
objectives in the Action Agencies proposed action for the Snake
and Columbia rivers are reasonable. (p. 6-36).
Yet, the White Paper is considerably more cautious about any
effects of flow on smolt travel time and survival:
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (Sokal and
Rohlf 1981), and higher SARs associated with higher flows does
not necessarily indicate that SARs can be increased by adding
more flow to the river. (White Paper, p. 52)
Thus, a relationship between adult returns and river flow
might be the result of other factors correlated with river
flow. (Id.)
In all cases where studies were updated to remove years
before the hydropower system was completed and include more
recent data, the newly obtained relationships were weaker than
the previously published ones. In some cases, the newly
analyzed data set did not contain the full range of water
travel time or flows as in previous studies. (Id.)
The last quote correctly notes that the hydrosystem has changed
significantly with the addition of more dams over time. Moreover, the
Draft BiOp and the White Paper fail to address the fact that the system
has continued to change with improvements in smolt passage facilities
and transportation. In addition, changes in ocean conditions greatly
complicate the evaluation of hydrosystem survival.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the
northern Pacific Ocean was in a warm cycle from the mid-1970's to the
mid-1990's. These warm conditions adversely affected salmon production
in the Pacific Northwest. Current evidence indicates the northern
Pacific Ocean is now cooling and salmon production is increasing (Hare
and Mantua, 1999, p. 1; JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group, 1999. p. 14;
Taylor, 1997 and 1999; Casillas, 1999; Espenson, 2000). As a result,
management improvements over the past two decades may have been offset
by poor ocean conditions. We may not know what is really working and
what is not working. Kevin Friedland states the resulting issue
succinctly: ``Management policy that is predicated on Freshwater
production trends and political trends and ignores decadal scale trends
in ocean productivity is doomed to Failure'' (Fried land, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Draft BiOp focuses on Upper Snake summer flow augmentation to
directly benefit juvenile Snake River fall chinook and provide
qualitative benefits to other runs as well (p. 6-36). However, NMFS
acknowledges that: (1) ``relationships between flow and survival and
between travel time and survival through impounded sections of the
lower Snake River'' are neither strong nor consistent; and (2) a causal
relationship between flow and smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) is not
supported by recent data and analyses (White Paper, pp. 17, 22, 52).
These issues are discussed further below.
As noted above, the Draft BiOp relies extensively on the White
Paper on flow/survival, which we further address in Attachment 1.
Yearling Migrants (Spring/Summer Chinook and Steelhead)
In its White Paper, NMFS asserts:
A strong and consistent relationship exists between flow and
travel time. Increasing flow decreases travel time. Thus,
although no relationship appears to exist within seasons
between flow and yearling migrant survival through the
impounded sections of the Snake River, by reducing travel
times, higher flows may provide survival benefits in other
portions of the salmonid life cycle and in free-flowing
sections of the river both upstream and downstream from the
hydropower system. Snake River basin fish evolved under
conditions where the travel time of smolts through the lower
Snake and Columbia Rivers was much shorter than presently
exists. Thus, higher flows, while decreasing travel time, may
also improve conditions in the estuary and provide survival
benefits to juvenile salmonids migrating through the estuary or
the Columbia River plume. By reducing the length of time the
smolts are exposed to stressors in the reservoirs, higher flows
also likely improve smolt condition upon arrival in the estuary
(White Paper, p. 22, emphasis added).
This speculative description of the possible benefits of decreased
travel time from flow management in the face of weak and inconsistent
data is evidence that there is no rational basis for flow augmentation
and that inclusion of such augmentation from the Upper Snake is
arbitrary without supported careful analysis from the scientific
evidence in the record. Careful analysis of the mechanisms,
uncertainties, and quantification of these speculative indirect impacts
is conspicuously absent. Moreover, survival is the issue, not travel
time.
NMFS reports a strong association between travel time and flow and
concludes that travel time is a function of flow (White Paper, pp. 12-
17, 22). However, the correlation appears to be invalid due to a
collinear relationship between flow and time of year (photoperiod).\13\
Flows measured by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Lower Granite Dam
at 15-day intervals in 1995 and 1996 are given in Table 2. As seen in
the table, there is a consistent increase in flow over time during the
downstream migration of smolts. Both flow and photoperiod increased
synchronously over the period of study. Thus, conclusions concerning
flow as the variable controlling travel time are highly speculative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Collinear means that the predictor variables (e.g.,
temperature, flow, travel time, and time of year) are highly correlated
with each other. Thus, any correlation of the variables to the
dependent variable (salmon survival) is confounded by the other
variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of tagged juvenile hatchery chinook based on smolt
migration through Lower Granite Reservoir from 1987 through 1995
concludes that photoperiod provides a better basis to predict travel
time than flow, and that travel time can be predicted by flow only
because the relationship between flow and time is collinear.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Attachment B in the comments submitted by the Idaho water
users on the draft White Paper submitted to NMFS on October 29, 1999.
Table 2.--Flow at Lower Granite Dam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1....................................... 46 kcfs 81 kcfs
April 15...................................... 78 kcfs 132 kcfs
April 30...................................... 84 kcfs 98 kcfs
May 15........................................ 96 kcfs 139 kcfs
May 30........................................ 111 kcfs 156 kcfs
June 14....................................... 120 kcfs 170 kcfs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS and other agencies should further evaluate potential collinear
effects among variables before arriving at firm conclusions for
yearling migrants. As discussed below for sub-yearling migrants (fall
chinook), confounding effects probably exist from collinearity between
flow and other environmental variables such as water temperature and
turbidity. In addition, the relationship of survival to other
independent variables such as the physiological State of the juveniles,
size of the juveniles, predation, competition, and ocean conditions
should be explored.
Quantitative estimates demonstrate that flow augmentation is
ineffective even at maximum possible levels. Year to year, a small
relationship between flow and SAR is evident in some stocks. However,
the resulting benefits to the listed species are likewise small when
considered in terms of actual range of flow increases that can be
achieved with flow augmentation. Moreover, the correlation of survival
with annual flows is not likely to equate to significant changes in
survival from flow augmentation within a season. Nevertheless,
consistent results reflecting minimal potential benefits from annual
flow changes emerge from several analyses.
For example, the theoretical effect of flow augmentation on Snake
River spring/summer chinook and steelhead SARs can be estimated through
relationships of flow, water travel time (WTT), and SAR. Flow
augmentation of 427 kaf from the Upper Snake decreases WTT between
Lower Granite and Bonneville by one-half day (Dreher, 1998, p. 12).
Based on the correlation of SAR to WTT in Table 15 of the White Paper,
this would only result in a change in SAR of about 0.04 for both
steelhead and spring/summer chinook.
In other examples, augmentation from the Upper Snake River of 1 MAF
could provide an 8 kcfs increase in flow over a 2-month season.\15\ A
recent study determined that an 8 kcfs flow change might result in a
change in SAR from 0.010 to 0.011 for four fall chinook stocks
(Anderson et al., 2000). Similarly, using a mean flow of 150 kcfs in
the mainstem Columbia River and the data in the White Paper, an 8 kcfs
increase might equate to a change in SAR for Upper Columbia wild
steelhead of 0.0155 to 0.0164. Only in the NMFS analysis for Marsh
Creek spring chinook is there any discernable correlation of year-to-
year flow to survival (NMFS 2000a). For that stock, the slope of the
regression was relatively large with a change in the spawner-recruit
ratio from 1.0 to 1.4 using an 8 kcfs increase on a 75 kcfs base.
However, with respect to this one possible exception, if the Marsh
Creek relationship were causative and widespread, the strength of the
correlation would be evident in tremendous and obvious success from the
past flow augmentation program. Instead, the continued decline of the
stocks during the flow augmentation program is more in accordance with
an insignificant or null effect of flow augmentation on adult survival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Of course, flow augmentation with 427 kaf can only provide
about 27 days of a flow increase of 8 kcfs and a corresponding decrease
in potential SAR changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Yearling Migrants (Fall Chinook)
A review of available data and recent research supporting and
defending flow augmentation for fall chinook leads to the conclusion
that Upper Snake River flow augmentation provides no significant
benefit to survival of the listed species for the following reasons:
1. Flow augmentation should be the focus of analysis, not natural
variations in flow. Upper Snake River flow augmentation provides no
beneficial changes in important environmental variables such as date of
migration. temperature and turbidity.
2. Flow is a poor predictor of survival and the effect of flow on
survival cannot be reliably estimated. Other environmental variables
such as time of migration, water temperature, and turbidity are more
strongly correlated with survival.
3. Survival is also more likely related to other independent
variables such as the physiological state of the juveniles, size of the
juveniles, predation, competition, and other factors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See our October 29, 1999 comments on the draft White Paper and
literature cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. There is no statistically significant relationship between flow
and spawner-
recruit data for fall chinook over brood years 1964-1994.
Recent Studies Above Lower Granite Reservoir
There are serious flaws in recent biological research that is being
used to support and defend flow augmentation to benefit ESA-listed
anadromous fish runs. The published results of this research raise
serious concerns about the methods being used in these studies and the
conclusions drawn from the results. These concerns include the
confounding effects from correlation between flow and other
environmental variables such as photoperiod, water temperature, and
turbidity. In other words, changes in survival appear to be in response
to variables other than flow. Flows naturally decrease during the
migration period for juvenile fall chinook. As discussed below, other
variables also change during this same period, which can lead to
spurious correlations of flow to survival (Anderson, et al., 2000).
The Draft BiOp assumes without comment that flow augmentation is
beneficial under all conditions. The analysis by Anderson Hinrichsen
and Van Holmes (Anderson et al., 2000) demonstrates that flow
augmentation with warm water is detrimental to salmon smolts. This
mistake reflects the ad hoc manner in which the science on flow was
incorporated into the Draft BiOp. The White Paper, in a cursory
analysis, determined that Hells Canyon flow is correlated with survival
as are the other environmental variables such as temperature and
turbidity. The Draft BiOp assumes that flow augmentation would then be
beneficial to fall chinook smolts irrespective of any causative
linkage. An extensive analysis of the fall chinook data by Anderson et
al. (2000) concluded otherwise; that Hells Canyon flow augmentation is
detrimental to fall chinook.
Anderson et al. statistically demonstrated that during the season,
migration timing and temperature are better predictors of survival than
flow (later timing and higher temperatures reduce survival).\17\ In
fact, multiple correlation rejects seasonal flow as a predictor of
survival. This means that within-season flow changes, such as through
flow augmentation, are even less likely to be significantly correlated
with survival than between-season changes. Anderson et al. further
demonstrated that the correlation between flow and water temperature
for Snake River flow augmentation can reverse from natural conditions
so that flow augmentation increases Snake River temperature. Because
temperature is likely to be a causative factor in the survival pattern
(higher temperature increases predation), when augmentation increases
temperature, it decreases survival. In other words, summer flow
augmentation with warm, clear water from Brownlee decreases survival
for Snake River fall chinook (Anderson et al., 2000, p. 58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The occurrence of higher flow also correlates with the
occurrence of lower temperature and earlier migration (earlier release
of fish). While temperature and migration timing correlate with
survival, flow and travel time do not. However, since all of the
variables change in synchrony, each factor individually correlates with
survival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cursory analysis of flow in the White paper and the ad hoc
application of the results in the Draft BiOp results in a flow
augmentation strategy that is not only ineffective, but in this case,
is detrimental to fish. In fact, while the Draft BiOp seeks to increase
Upper Snake River flow augmentation, the science suggests that in fact
this augmentation should be eliminated.
SAR v. Flow
Anderson et al. (2000) evaluated spawner-recruit data for several
index stocks of fall chinook for various brood year data sets extending
back to the 1960's. No statistically significant relationship between
natural variations in flow and recruits per spawner was found. Although
not statistically reliable, a small positive relationship exists.
However, even if additional data proves the relationship to be valid,
the effect would not be biologically significant because the benefits
of flow would be slight. Moreover, as discussed in the previous
section, it must be emphasized that it is not clear that flow is the
operative variable, and it is not apparent that flow augmentation
provides any of the benefits of a naturally high-flow year.
Smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) or survival encompasses life stages
between juvenile seaward migration and adult spawning. The high
mortality during various life stages contributes to low SARs. For
example, optimistic survival levels for fall (ocean-type) chinook are:
spawning to juvenile migrant (0.115), juvenile migration
(.610), marine feeding (.015), adult migration
(.600), and pre-spawning (.950).\18\ Total life
cycle survival contributing to SAR can be approximated by multiplying
the survival fractions, i.e.,
SAR0.1150.6100.0150.6000.
9500.0006. Thus, survival for juvenile migration
(0.610) represents less than 1 percent of the total SAR. A
similar example for spring/summer Snake River chinook also shows that
the SAR for juvenile migrants (0.60) is a tiny fraction of
total SAR (0.00014) (BPA et al., 1999, pp. 4-9--4-11). Thus,
there is little prospect for associating SAR with environmental
variables such as flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Attachment 4 to the Idaho water users comments on the
draft All-H Paper, which can be found at http://www.nwppc.org/
recommend/recommend.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Draft BiOp does not evaluate the effects of Upper
Snake flow augmentation on the listed species. The analysis in the
Draft BiOp uses the SIMPAS smolt passage model to assess the impacts of
hydrosystem operations on smolts. However, because this model has no
flow-survival component, the Draft BiOp cannot evaluate the impacts of
flow management. Rather than quantitatively address the relative
benefits of flow, if any, the Draft BiOp chose to rely on qualitative
assertions.
jeopardy opinion
This is the first BiOp in which NMFS has concluded that the
operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of these listed species or adversely affect their
critical habitat (pp. 8-2 et seq). None of the previous BiOps contain
such an opinion or conclusion--including the 1999 BiOp addressing the
Upper Snake BOR projects that was released just 7 months prior to this
Draft BiOp. No relevant new data or analysis is provided on the
specific effect of these projects on the listed species or their
habitat. Thus, the jeopardy opinion on operation of the Upper Snake BOR
projects has no basis. The only logical explanation, and one that is
suggested in the analysis, is that the conclusion derives from the
decision to simultaneously consult on all 43 projects--some of which
have been previously determined to cause jeopardy (FCRPS projects) and
others which have only been part of a mitigation or recovery strategy
(including the Upper Snake BOR projects).
It is deeply disturbing that the Draft BiOp concludes that the
Upper Snake BOR projects cause jeopardy while providing the 427 kaf of
flow augmentation called for in previous BiOps. There is no evidence
that the historical operation of the projects would cause jeopardy, let
alone when operated to provide flow augmentation water. Indeed, the
original reason for providing 427 kaf was to mitigate jeopardy caused
by the FRCPS. Yet, now NMFS concludes in the Draft BiOp that operating
the Upper Snake BOR projects to provide flow augmentation will
jeopardize the species.
If NMFS is now concluding that the Upper Snake BOR projects cause
jeopardy, then that conclusion appears to be based solely on the
depletion analysis in the Draft BiOp (pp. 6-27 to 6-30). The implied
logic is that these projects significantly deplete the downstream flow
during the migration/flow target season and that those depletions
adversely affect the survival of the listed species or their habitat.
As discussed in the previous sections, the hydrological and biological
underpinnings of the flow alteration hypothesis for jeopardy caused by
the Upper Snake BOR projects are not sound. There has been virtually no
change in the volume of historical outflow from the Upper Snake, flows
increased during the critical summer period, and there is no scientific
basis for the conclusion that Upper Snake flow augmentation from BOR
projects will benefit the listed species or their habitats.
In fact, the Draft BiOp itself questions the logic of the depletion
analysis. Although asserting that ``flow depletions caused by BOR-based
irrigation activities are a major impediment to meeting NMFS' flow
targets the text goes on to recognize the BiOp analysis as speculative
(p. 6-28). After acknowledging that water law would allow other
appropriators to take much of the supply made available by altering BOR
operations, the Draft BiOp concludes ``therefore, although the
following analysis attributes substantial streamflow depletion effects
to BOR project operations it is not clear that BOR could, with any
reasonable degree of certainty, avoid these effects'' (Id.). A jeopardy
opinion without certainty and based on speculation fails to meet, by
definition, the standard of reliance on the best scientific data
available required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Moreover, such an
opinion has no rationale basis, and is arbitrary.
upper snake reasonable and prudent alternatives
The Draft BiOp lists six RPAs that apply to the Upper Snake BOR
projects: pursue flow targets; provide 427 kaf of flow augmentation
using powerhead space if necessary; consult on uncontracted space;
improve water conservation; address unauthorized uses; and negotiate
for additional water (pp. 9-35 to 9-54). Each of these RPAs is
addressed below.
As a general matter, Idaho water users oppose continued Upper Snake
River flow augmentation because there is no evidence that the release
of an enormous volume of water over the past 14 years has contributed
to the survival of Snake River spring and summer chinook, steelhead, or
sockeye populations, or any other listed species.\19\ Development of
water resources in the Upper Snake River basin did not cause the
decline of fish populations and has not resulted in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. Continuing to reduce Upper
Snake River water uses to provide flow augmentation will not reverse
the fish population decline, recover the populations, or mitigate the
adverse modification of critical habitat caused by activities in the
lower Snake and Columbia Rivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ From 1986 through 1999. flow augmentation from Idaho has
involved 3.4 MAF from the Upper Snake, 2.3 MAF from Brownlee, and 13.5
MAF from Dworshak for a total of 19.2 MAF from Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, there is no legal or factual basis that the
Upper Snake BOR projects cause jeopardy to the listed species or
adversely affect their habitat. As such, there is no basis for
justifying these actions for the Upper Snake BOR projects as reasonable
and prudent alternatives to their very existence and operation. At
most, these actions should be characterized as offsite measures
intended to mitigate the incidental take caused by FRCPS operations.
lower granite flow targets are unreasonable and unfounded
Table 3 contains the NMFS' flow objectives in the Draft BiOp for
the Snake River at Lower Granite Dam (p. 9-40). These flow objectives
are the same as those set forth in the NMFS' 1995 and 1998 BiOps on
operation of the FCRPS.
Table 3.--NMFS flow objectives, Snake River at Lower Granite Dam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring (4/3-6/20)......................... 85-100 kcfs
Summer (6/21-8/31)........................ 50-55 kcfs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Varies based on water volume forecasts.
The basis of the flow targets in the 1995 and 1998 BiOps is set
forth in a 1995 report by NMFS (NMFS, 1995). The White Paper supplants
the 1995 report as the hydrological and biological basis for
continuation of the identical flow targets in the Draft BiOp.
As discussed below, the flow targets at Lower Granite Dam are
unreasonable because they cannot be reliably met and do not reflect the
wide natural variation in flows. Those flow targets are unfounded given
that flows remain similar to or are better than historical conditions
and there is no biological basis for the flow objectives.
The RPA for flow augmentation from the Upper Snake is largely
driven by the desire to meet the flow targets at Lower Granite Dam and
farther downstream (p. 9-39). However, these seasonal flow targets
identify flows that cannot be achieved on a reasonable or frequent
basis. For example, under the Draft BiOp analysis, the flow targets are
never met in August and would only be met 8 percent of the time if all
Upper Snake BOR projects did not deplete any flows.\20\ Flow targets
that can be met seldom, if ever, are unreasonable by definition.
Indeed, the goals of increasing spring and summer flows while limiting
winter/spring drawdown and increasing the probability of reservoir
refill are mutually exclusive and hydraulically impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the impact of Upper
Snake BOR project depletions are overestimated and any flow benefits
are speculative. Moreover, if the BOR projects did not deplete flows.
senior irrigators would be able to do so under State water law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described earlier in these comments, flow objectives are not
necessary at Lower Granite because current flows are approximately
equal to historical flows in both amount and timing. This is
particularly true during the summer when irrigation return flows have
increased the amount of water leaving the Upper Snake. Indeed, the 1999
BiOp on the Upper Snake BOR projects recognizes that average
streamflows at Lower Granite in August are virtually identical under
natural flow conditions and content conditions (1999 BiOp, p. 27).
Given that the average flow in August at Lower Granite has always been
around 31 kcfs, there is no basis for NMFS' current flow target of 50
to 55 kcfs and the BOR should not be required to provide water from the
Upper Snake basin to meet this unrealistic, and unjustified, objective.
Another perspective on the unreasonable level of the flow targets
is evident from the fact that enormous volumes of flow augmentation
from southern Idaho would have been needed to meet those targets,
especially in dry years--over 10 MAF would have been needed in 1977 and
1992, or nearly the total storage capacity of the largest 80 reservoirs
in the Snake River basin (Dreher 1998, p. 13).
Furthermore, the flow targets are also unreasonable in light of the
enormous natural variation in runoff. A range of 5 to 15 kcfs in the
low to high ends of the flow targets does not properly reflect that the
range of Snake River flows at Weiser varies 350 percent from year to
year (1999 BiOp, p. 25; see also Figures 2 and 6 in these comments).
Most importantly, the flow targets have no clear biological basis.
As discussed in previous sections of these comments, there is no
relationship between survival and flows through the hydrosystem within
a season. Above Lower Granite, the purported relationship between fall
chinook survival and flow is statistically unfounded. Indeed, Upper
Snake flow augmentation is detrimental to fall chinook survival.
Relationships noted in the Draft BiOp relating flow or travel time to
higher smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) are not valid with respect to
Upper Snake flow augmentation.
Flow Augmentation Using 427 kaf or More, and the Use of Powerhead
Space, is Unnecessary and Illegal
As thoroughly discussed in the comments above, there is no
scientific evidence that flow augmentation from the Upper Snake will
provide significant hydrological or biological benefits to the listed
species and their habitat. Thus, flow augmentation from the Upper Snake
BOR projects is unnecessary. Furthermore, the Draft BiOp's RPA for the
Upper Snake BOR projects ignores several aspects of Reclamation law and
Idaho water law.
NMFS instructs the BOR to annually provide 427 kaf irrespective of
the authorized purposes of the BOR projects involved (p. 9-48). A prime
example is the requirement to use powerhead water to provide flows
during drought (p. 9-49).
Each of the projects in the Upper Snake River basin was built
pursuant to specific Congressional project authorizations. The
authorized purposes of the projects are dictated by those Congressional
authorizations. The primary authorized purpose in each case is to
supply irrigation water. Only some of these projects are authorized to
serve fish and wildlife purposes as a secondary priority. A discussion
of the authorized purposes for each Upper Snake BOR project should be
contained in the final BiOp and the Action listed at the bottom of page
9-48 should be revised to read ``. . . pursuant to State and Federal
law. . . .''
One of the authorized purposes of the Minidoka and Palisades
Projects is power production. Contrary to this authorized purpose, NMFS
requires the BOR to use water released from powerhead space in the
event that the 427 kaf cannot be acquired by other means (p. 9-49).
There are legal constraints that prohibit this use. In the Upper Snake
projects that have a power component, the development of power was
necessary for the irrigation of the lands under the reclamation project
and the power generated by the reclamation project is reserved for use
on that project. In 43 USC Sec. 522, Congress has clearly provided that
neither surplus power or power privileges will be used so as to impair
the efficiency of the irrigation project. The cost of power is based
upon the cost of production. Powerhead space is used to provide
hydraulic head for the generation of power. Without this hydraulic
head, the efficiency of generating power is reduced or generating units
will not operate properly and must be shut down. In turn, the increased
costs for power directly affect the efficiency of the irrigation
project by increasing costs.
On the other hand, if this proposed use is based upon the premise
that the powerhead water is ``surplus,'' 43 USC Sec. 521 provides that
the BOR must obtain the approval of the spaceholders in the storage
facility for release of that water. This section of the code further
provides that such water shall not be released for other uses if the
delivery of such water is detrimental to the water service of the
irrigation project. When powerhead space is released, carryover storage
is reduced and the potential for refill is affected. No approval by the
spaceholders has been obtained by the BOR. In fact, the BOR has been
placed on notice that such use is unauthorized and the water users may
be damaged by such unlawful use.
In addition, the storage and distribution of water in each of the
Upper Snake BOR projects is controlled by a State water right issued by
the State of Idaho for such uses, as required by the Reclamation Act of
1902. The BOR does not have discretion to use the storage and
distribution facilities without regard to State law. In terms of
powerhead space, the State water right for the projects does not allow
for release and refill of the space. In addition, Idaho Code Section
42-1763B, which provides State law authority for the BOR to make salmon
water releases, does not include powerhead water.
Under Section 7 of the ESA, the BOR is only required to take those
actions that are within the agency's authorities to accomplish (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a)(1)). The ESA does not create new authority or
repeal existing authorities. The BiOp must set forth the authority
under State and Federal law, if any, for the BOR to release powerhead
water. In the absence of such authority, this element of the RPAs for
the Upper Snake must be deleted.
Consultation on Uncontracted Space
The Draft BiOp requires the BOR to consult with NMFS before
entering into any agreement with respect to uncontracted space in order
to identify potential additional supplies for salmon water (p. 9-50).
However, as discussed in the previous section, any change in the use of
this space must be consistent with Reclamation law and State water law.
Due consideration should also be given to the environmental, economic
and social impacts of such changes.
NMFS sets forth a policy of ``zero net impact [from any BOR
commitment to a new contract or contract amendment to increase the
authorized use of water] on the ability to meet the seasonal flow
objectives established in this Biological Opinion'' (p. 9-51). Given
the unrealistic summer flow target at Lower Granite (50 to 55 kcfs),
this virtually guarantees that there will be no further development
with water from Bureau reservoirs.
As discussed previously in these comments, the correlation between
irrigated acreage and flows from the Upper Snake is weak to non-
existent and does not justify NMFS' policy in this area. For example,
the 1999 BiOp notes that the number of irrigated acres in Idaho has
decreased by 215,000 (6.2 percent) since 1978 and the amount of land
receiving water from Bureau projects has decreased by 26,000 acres or
about 1.6 percent (1999 BiOp, p. VII-1). However, there has been no
significant increase in flows and the fish populations have not
rebounded. Moreover, these changes should be factored into the ``zero
impact policy.'' At a minimum, ail existing water uses from Upper Snake
BOR projects should be allowed to continue and Idaho should be allowed
to return to the 1978 level of irrigated acreage.
In terms of environmental, economic, and social impacts from
changes in the use of uncontracted space, the BOR should be required to
request assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, and the State of Idaho to evaluate the
impacts from any changes in uncontracted space. Uncontracted space in
reservoirs above Hells Canyon is currently used for a variety of non-
irrigation purposes (e.g. conservation pools, mitigation, reservoir
evaporation and streamflow maintenance). NMFS should not attempt to
force reallocation from existing needs to flow augmentation.
We request that the provision for consultation on uncontracted
space be modified to clarify that any BOR action with respect to
uncontracted space should be consistent with State and Federal law and
that consultation be expanded to include all affected agencies and
stakeholders.
Upper Snake Conservation Will Not Increase Streamflow
The Draft BiOp identifies water conservation through improved
irrigation efficiency as a reasonable and prudent alternative to
increase the water available for instream flows (p. 9-51). However, on
an annual basis, the flow from the Upper Snake River would not be
significantly increased by changes in irrigation efficiency because
water losses from irrigation inefficiency already return to the river
above Hells Canyon (Reclamation, 1999, pp. 3-4). Moreover, increased
efficiency is likely to reduce return flows during the summer months--a
time when the Draft BiOp indicates that additional flows are needed.
Also, as alluded to in the Draft BiOp, in most cases, the ``conserved
water'' would be used by the next junior water user downstream and the
water would not become available for flow augmentation. There is no
mechanism in Idaho law to ``protect such water from diminishment''
because these junior water rights are valid rights. As a result of
these undisputed facts, there is no basis for this Upper Snake RPA and
it should be deleted from the BiOp.
Addressing Unauthorized Uses
NMFS asks the BOR to investigate the unauthorized diversion and use
of BOR-supplied water (p. 9-51). NMFS foresees that the BOR will need
to take a contract action that will result in an additional opportunity
to consult under Section 7. However, many of these occurrences may not
be contract violations over which the Bureau may have authority, and
may be a valid exercise of State water rights. The distribution of
water is controlled by State law, as clearly set forth in Section 8 of
the Reclamation Act. Only the State of Idaho has authority to commence
enforcement actions for the unauthorized use of water. Again, this RPA
should be eliminated from the BiOp as clearly being beyond the scope of
the BOR's existing authority.
In any event, such action is unlikely to yield additional water for
downstream use for the same reason as water conservation--the water
will simply accrue to the benefit of a junior water right holder.
Negotiation for Additional Water
The Draft BiOp calls for negotiations to increase the supplies of
water available for flow augmentation from willing sellers and lessors
(p. 9-53). However, the interim and experimental use of Upper Snake
flow augmentation should be ceased, not expanded. As thoroughly
discussed above, flow augmentation from the Upper Snake BOR projects
does not provide significant biological or physical benefits to the
listed species or their habitat. Adding more water will not provide
benefits.
Correctly, the RPA acknowledges that such additional supplies need
to be obtained through State law mechanisms. Renewal of State authority
for large blocks of flow augmentation is highly unlikely; even if it
occurred, there may not be water available ever year. Any attempt to
force water to be released from the Upper Snake River basin
involuntarily will be vigorously opposed.
Resident Fish and Wildlife, Economic, and Other Impacts
In evaluating the Upper Snake RPAs identified in the Draft BiOp,
there is no evidence that NMFS considered resident fish and wildlife
species, economics or other local impacts in the Upper Snake basin
resulting from the alternatives NMFS that asserts are both ``reasonable
and prudent.'' Without evaluating these impacts, there is no assurance
that flow augmentation is either reasonable or prudent. Flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake lowers reservoir levels, changes
stream flow conditions, impacts other endangered species, and affects
water quality both in the reservoirs and downstream. Moreover the BOR
has identified numerous socioeconomic impacts associated with efforts
to acquire water for flow augmentation, including direct costs to
agriculture. hydropower, recreation and municipal uses, secondary
economic impacts, and changes in social well being (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, 1999). The proposal for flow augmentation is a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment
and a NEPA analysis on the impacts of these Upper Snake mitigation
actions is required before these measures can be demanded by NMFS. The
scope of the NEPA analysis must include impacts of the alternatives
(including a ``no action'' alternative) on resident fish and wildlife
populations, recreation, power generation at the Upper Snake BOR
projects water quality, and socioeconomic.
performance standards
A number of the performance standards set forth in the Draft BiOp
are flawed. These hydro, biological, and physical standards are the
measures with which NMFS will assess progress toward survival and
recovery of the species and will adjust, if necessary, its RPAs over
the next decade.
The FCRPS hydro standard for juvenile passage (Table 9.2-2 of the
Draft BiOp) is based on the combined survival in fish transport, in-
river passage, and any delayed mortality of the transported fish. An
adult standard is also given in Table 9.2-2. In addition to the
hydrosystem survivals, minimum additional improvements in life cycle
survival are identified to meet the jeopardy standard after achieving
the aggressive hydro survival levels (Table 9.2-3). These hydro
performance standards are not clearly defined and are unlikely to be
measurable within the 5- to 10-year timeframes for re-evaluation.
The biological performance standards based on population growth and
survival are unreachable under realistic levels of population growth.
Three biological standards are identified but they are not connected so
all three must be achieved individually.
Physical performance standards are described as target levels for
items such as flow and water quality. The physical performance
standards are unconnected to population performance or survival, are
likely to be ineffective, and may be detrimental to fish. Because the
physical standards are established in terms of targets, there is no
mechanism to assess their effectiveness or optimize their use. These
issues are discussed in the following sections.
Hydro Performance Standards
A number of problems make the hydro standards unusable. The
hydrosystem measure is a ``total system survival'' standard including
transportation, in-river survival, and delayed mortality. The NMFS-
derived total system survival uses a mixture of NMFS and PATH formulas.
The overall approach would be clearer if NMFS had simply used the PATH
formulation for system survival and transportation percentages. Also,
the NMFS approach only provides approximations because it assumes that
fish are only transported from Lower Granite. A more critical issue is
that the estimation of the differential delayed mortality (``D''
value), extra mortality, and system survival are problematic. NFMS used
average values from the passage models developed in PATH, and ad hoc
and unsupported passage estimates to estimate these factors. These
problems are critical because these factors determine whether fish are
recovering as a result of various actions or if the recovery is a
result of natural changes in ocean conditions.
Using average results from the two passage models used in PATH
produces unclear results. First, the conclusions from the two passage
models are mutually exclusive. Using the FLUSH model, mortality is high
in the hydrosystem and there is no trend in extra mortality. Using the
CRiSP passage model, the extra mortality occurs concomitant with the
Snake River dams and the shift in ocean conditions. Furthermore, NMFS'
PIT-tag survival studies discredit the FLUSH model. If NMFS chooses to
ignore these important facts in its use of PATH results, it must
reanalyze the data using a single model that is supported by the PIT-
tag data. A second alternative is to apply its own SIMPAS model and re-
evaluate the differential delayed mortality or extra mortality. In
either case, SMFS' approach of ignoring its own data and averaging
fundamentally different models cannot be supported.
NFMS does not describe its methods to evaluate how extra mortality
and total system survival change over the next 5 to 10 years. The Draft
BiOp states:
That is, if conditions during the two periods are similar,
then some factoring may be necessary to ensure that the
progress evaluation is truly assessing progress of actions
undertaken and there results are not masked by ambient
conditions (e.g. environmental or hydrologic). (page 9-11 of
the Draft BiOp)
However, the factors of extra mortality and delayed mortality are
inextricably bound to environmental and hydrologic factors. It appears
that NMFS does not detail a method for assessing progress because it
has not addressed the complexities of the issues. Furthermore,
averaging results from PATH is an imprudent approach that does not
resolve the complexities of fish recovery.
Total system survival includes a factor for differential delayed
mortality (``D''), which depends on the D factor developed in PATH to
quantify the level of extra mortality experienced by transported fish
relative to fish passing in-river. The value of D estimated by NMFS is
0.63 with a confidence interval spanning from negative numbers to
greater than 2 (NMFS 2000b). The aggressive RPA will yield a total
system survival that is within a few percent of the current ``total
system survival.'' For example, from the NMFS BiOp spreadsheets, the
base period system survival from 1980 through 1991 is 47 percent, the
current period (1994-1999) is 56.0 percent, and the aggressive
hydrosystem actions project a system survival of 56.7 percent (NMFS
2000c). Given that the range in D confidence intervals is 100 percent,
the 0.6 percent difference between current and a target survival is
insignificant. How will NMFS use such a measure to assess hydrosystem
performance?
The D value is a highly-calculated and theoretical term with an
unknown ecological foundation. It could reflect additional stress that
fish experience in transportation or it could be just the opposite,
where both weak and strong fish survive transportation and the weak
fish naturally die after transportation. In contrast, the weak fish
could be culled prior to their arrival in the estuary during in-river
passage. Thus, the level of D can be interpreted as a problem with
transportation or it may reflect the natural distribution of weak and
strong fish in the population. The hydro standard, which is a trigger
and criteria for assessing dam removal and other actions, tacitly
assumes that D reflects a problem in the transportation system. This
uncertainty in mechanisms associated with D creates a serious problem
with using total system survival as a performance measure. Simply put,
it is unclear whether the measure reflects natural or anthropogenic
factors but the change in the D value is being used as a measure of the
success or failure of the anthropogenic factors.
Another problem with the hydro standards lies in the SIMPAS model
being used to evaluate the effect of hydro actions. The stated purpose
of the model is to assess passage through various routes based on
empirical data. However, this simplistic model ignores the effects of
year-to-year and seasonal variations in supersaturation, temperature,
and flow on fish passage and survival. Thus, the SIMPAS model cannot
assess the impacts of water quality and flow measures on smolt
survival.
Biological Performance Standards
The biological standards are unattainable and immeasurable. Also,
it is unclear how the multitude of survival standards will be used in
the decisionmaking process.
The biological standards are based on the percent improvement in
population expressed as ``lambda.'' The underlying mathematical and
ecological basis of the approach, the estimation of the parameter
values in the models, and the use of a limited historical dataset to
extrapolate long-term performance of the stocks are problematic. The
technical difficulties are evident in the scientific debate on how to
formulate lambda. The CRI group has presented various techniques for
formulating lambda, has made a number of errors in the development of
the values, and has been remiss in providing confidence estimates with
the estimated numbers. In lieu of stating the confidence interval of
lambda, the BiOp gives best- and worst-case estimates of the
improvement in lambda that are required to meet the standards. The
resulting range of estimates is problematic for several reasons. At one
end of the range (the worst-case where large population growth is
needed to achieve recovery), the estimates equate to some stocks
increasing to levels approaching the entire Columbia/Snake River
population (Hinrichsen, personal communication). On the other end of
the range, the best-case estimates indicate that no improvements are
required to meet all standards. However, even in the best-case
conditions, the Draft BiOp would still require that the hydro and
physical performance standards be met.
Projections of lambda over a century are misleading and
inappropriate. To estimate lambda, NMFS only used data after 1980 while
the PATH analysis used the data series back to the 1950's. The
interpretation of the PATH analysis became highly controversial because
the analysis could not separate the effects of long-term changes in
ocean productivity from the effects of the Snake River dams. In an
attempt to avoid this controversy, NMFS ignored data prior to the
construction of the Snake River dams. However, this strategy has
serious consequences. The brood years 1980 through 1994 (the last full
brood year in the NMFS analysis) experienced some of the warmest North
Pacific conditions, which resulted in some of the lowest productivities
for all Northwest salmon. This analysis tacitly assumes that the 15
years of historically poor ocean conditions between 1980 and 1994 will
characterize the next 100 years. In reality, the NMFS projections
represent the worst-case conditions. In addition, the lambda analysis
treats temporal changes in productivity by assuming changes are random
and not cyclic; therefore, it consistently underweights recent
improvements in productivity, whether they are from natural causes or
the result of recovery actions.
The wide range and large variance of lambda estimates indicate that
it will be difficult to reliably estimate changes in lambda for
progress evaluations in 2005 and 2008. Due to the major problems in the
formulation and measurement of the biological standards in the Draft
BiOp, those standards must be revised.
Physical Performance Standards
The physical standards are inefficient and, in some cases such as
with the flow targets, they are unrealistic and unfounded. The physical
standards (including flow targets, tributary habitat, sediment input,
and water quality) are disconnected from each other as well as other
performance standards. Therefore, success from natural processes or
other actions that lead to recovery will not be considered in the
physical standards. For example, under the structure of the physical
standards, water resources will be wasted trying to meet flow targets
if other RPAs or changes in ocean conditions result in sufficient
improvement in survival of the listed species.
As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the flow targets.
especially at Lower Granite. are unrealistic given that they cannot be
reliably met. In addition there is no scientific basis for those
targets.
additional harvest restrictions are a more effective way to conserve
fall chinook
It is hard to think of a more perverse policy than to allow the
harvest of substantial numbers of listed fish, particularly as they
come up river to spawn. The Idaho water users are not aware of any
other species listed under the ESA where regular harvest within the
boundaries of the United States is allowed. Adults that are killed on
their way upstream have survived the life stages with the two largest
components of mortality--incubation/rearing and ocean feeding--only to
be taken a short time before spawning. The Draft BiOp suggests that
there is potential to improve survival of the listed species by further
reductions in harvest (p. 9-115). Idaho water users strongly support
aggressive harvest strategies, options, and actions, especially with
respect to fall chinook. Minimizing harvest is extremely cost effective
relative to the enormous investments and tremendous uncertainties
associated with the hydropower (flow augmentation or breaching),
habitat, and hatchery options.
With respect to fisheries, Idaho water users strongly support
pursuit of harvest reform through the use of selective fisheries,
alternative methods and gear, and increasing harvest in terminal areas
(p. 9-116). We believe that these alternatives can provide Tribal
fishing opportunities while still reducing the impact of harvest on
listed species.
A substantial number of listed species continue to be harvested in
the ocean and the main stem Snake and Columbia Rivers. In-river harvest
rates for Snake River spring/summer chinook have ranged from 3 to 8
percent in recent years (Marmorek et al., 1998, p. 14). Snake River
fall chinook are subjected to heavy fishing pressure (NRC, 1995, p. 82;
Marmorek et al., 1999, p. 15). Table 4 shows combined ocean and river
harvest rates of up to 75 percent for fall chinook (Peters et al.,
1999, p. 71; see also NRC, 1995, pp. 81, 82).
Reducing harvest rates will improve the probability of recovery by
100 percent or more (Peters et al., 1999, pp. 197, 198).
Table 4.--Fall Chinook Exploitation (Harvest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mainstem Ocean Exploitation Rate by Age
(Columbia and --------------------------------------------
Snake Rivers)
------------------
Run Year Exploitation
Rate 2 3 4 5 6
------------------
Jack Adult
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986............................................. 0.055 0.469 0.015 0.106 0.170 0.169 0.303
1987............................................. 0.037 0.560 0.037 0.156 0.140 0.159 0.169
1988............................................. 0.046 0.524 0.027 0.060 0.288 0.172 0.159
1989............................................. 0.026 0.432 0.038 0.151 0.233 0.227 0.172
1990............................................. 0.028 0.452 0.042 0.059 0.271 0.252 0.227
1991............................................. 0.044 0.276 0.026 0.051 0.138 0.212 0.252
1992............................................. 0.051 0.166 0.020 0.095 0.242 0.204 0.212
1993............................................. 0.050 0.254 0.006 0.079 0.244 0.204 0.204
1994............................................. 0.033 0.155 0.015 0.014 0.229 0.204 0.204
1995............................................. 0.025 0.115 0.016 0.047 0.074 0.169 0.204
1996............................................. 0.039 0.171 0.046 0.000 0.158 0.169
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mean........................................... 0.039 0.325 0.024 0.079 0.184 0.194 0.207
Min............................................ 0.025 0.115 0.006 0.014 0.000 0.158 0.159
Max............................................ 0.055 0.560 0.042 0.156 0.288 0.252 0.303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals for improving hydrosystem survival are small and, as
discussed previously in these comments, it is impossible to measure any
incremental change that may be related to Upper Snake flow
augmentation. However, the effect of harvest reduction can be clearly
identified and the harvest reduction equivalent to the potential
benefits of flow can be shown to be small and insignificant. To
demonstrate the equivalence between small harvest reductions and large
flow increases, we apply the approach developed by Norris (1995, 2000).
Norris used the Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Model to define
equivalent harvest reduction policies for endangered Snake River fall
chinook salmon. Because the stocks are harvested in a gauntlet of
mixed-stock fisheries from Alaska to Oregon. the overall exploitation
rate on Snake River fall chinook can be reduced by a variety of means,
each of which has different economic consequences for the fisheries.
Eight general types of policy alternatives were considered by Norris.
Four policy options reduce harvest in specific geographic regions: the
Alaska. British Columbia, or Washington and Oregon ocean fisheries. or
the Columbia River fishery. Two policies reduce harvests in all regions
in equal or scaled amounts; and two reduce harvests only in U.S. waters
by equal or scaled amounts. Scaled policies reduce regional harvests in
proportion to estimated regional catches of Snake River fall chinook
during the period 1979 through 1993. Policies were deemed equivalent
when the overall adult equivalent exploitation rate on the indicator
stock (Lyon's Ferry Hatchery) was reduced by the same percentage.
Equivalent policies were shown to be independent of assumptions about
stock productivity.
Table 5 illustrates the tradeoffs between harvest and downstream
survival by showing all possible solutions to reaching a specific
escapement goal. In the Norris study, the goal was defined as 3,000
Snake River fall chinook spawners in year 2017. The model illustrates
the change in harvest reduction to achieve the goal. For example,
improving downstream survival 36 percent, reducing harvest by 60
percent, and improving upstream survival to 90 percent is equivalent to
improving downstream survival by 360 percent, reducing harvest by 30
percent, and making no improvements in upstream survival.
Table 5.--Downstream survival rates for various harvest rate reductions and prespawning survival rates required
to achieve 3,000 spawners in year 2017. For example, if harvest rates are reduced by 30 percent, downstream
survival rates would have to equal 0.582 (if prespawning survival is 0.6) or 0.364 (if prespawning survival is
0.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prespawn Survival Prespawn Survival Prespawn Survival Prespawn Survival
Percent Harvest Reduction = 0.6 = 0.7 = 0.8 = 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................... 1.034 0.870 0.745 0.650
10.............................. 0.847 0.712 0.609 0.531
20.............................. 0.699 0.587 0.503 0.438
30.............................. 0.582 0.489 0.418 0.364
40.............................. 0.488 0.410 0.350 0.305
50.............................. 0.412 0.346 0.295 0.257
60.............................. 0.350 0.294 0.251 0.218
70.............................. 0.299 0.251 0.214 0.186
80.............................. 0.257 0.215 0.184 0.160
90.............................. 0.222 0.186 0.159 0.138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relative benefits of flow augmentation and harvest reduction
can be evaluated using Table 5 and the estimates of life cycle survival
improvements with flow augmentation. Although not statistically
significant. a correlation of Snake River fall chinook SAR with year-
to-year flow estimated that 0.5 MAF of Upper Snake flow augmentation
would change survival by 1.6 percent (Anderson et al, 2000). In other
words, total system survival would increase from 24.4 to 24.8 percent
using the estimate for Snake River fall chinook in the Draft BiOp (NMFS
2000d). Using Table 5, and assuming the lowest pre-spawning survival of
60 percent (which requires the largest change in harvest) the goal of
3000 spawners can be achieved by reducing harvest 82.6 percent with
flow augmentation or by reducing harvest by 83.7 percent without
augmentation. The average ocean and river harvest rate during the
period used in the Norris analysis are 36 percent and 50 percent. Thus,
the harvest rates to meet the 3000 fish goal with flow augmentation are
6.4 percent for ocean harvest and 8.9 percent for river harvest.
Without the 0.5 MAF of Upper Snake flow augmentation, the rates are 6.0
percent and 8.3 percent.
Under these worst-case conditions (optimistic estimates of the
effect of flow augmentation on survival and pessimistic estimates on
the number of spawners), a further change in harvest rate of 0.5
percent is equivalent to the effect of the Upper Snake River flow
augmentation. It is important to note these calculations assume that a
flow survival correlation between year-to-year flows will become
statistically significant and if so, the same increases in survival can
be achieved using flow augmentation within a year. It also assumes that
the statistically insignificant flow survival relationship is strictly
due to the water flowing down the river when the fish are migrating. In
actuality, many environmental factors are correlated with seasonal flow
including ocean productivity and the over wintering conditions of the
fish prior to their migration. Therefore, the actual harvest reduction
needed to achieve the theoretical effect of flow augmentation is likely
to be less than \1/2\ of 1 percent.
Harvest reforms can provide significant benefit to the listed
species, especially Snake River fall chinook. The RPAs listed for
harvest in the Draft BiOp should be revised to require these reforms.
incidental ``take'' does not occur from upper snake projects
Operation of the Upper Snake BOR projects does not ``take'' listed
salmon or steelhead. Without stating it directly, the Draft BiOp
implies that operation and maintenance of these projects results in a
``take'' of listed Snake River salmon and steelhead. This is inherent
in the ``Incidental Take Statement'' contained in the Draft BiOp (pp.
10-1 et seq). We strenuously oppose any conclusion that infers that
Upper Snake BOR project operations result in a ``take'' under the ESA
and therefore need to be authorized by NMFS.
Snake River salmon and steelhead habitat and the migratory corridor
to the ocean are located far downstream of the Upper Snake BOR
projects. These species have never existed above Milner Dam. The
``take'' that has occurred has been the result of downstream factors,
as indicated in previous consultations on the Federal Columbia River
Power System (``FCRPS''). The 1995 and 1998 Incidental Take Statements
were for the FCRPS, not the Upper Snake BOR projects. In an attempt to
mitigate the downstream impacts and pursue recovery of listed species,
NMFS has required the BOR to provide 427 KAF from the Upper Snake River
basin.
Given this relationship, NMFS properly concluded in the 1999 BiOp
that the BOR's continued operation and maintenance of the Upper Snake
projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. It
must be made equally clear that continued operation and maintenance of
these projects will not result in any ``take'' of the listed species.
This is a basic flaw in the Draft BiOp, which must be addressed.
magnuson-stevens act recommendations are premature and flawed
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has not been designated for any of the
listed species involved in the BiOp. Although EFH has been proposed for
salmon and steelhead, the Secretary of Commerce has not yet acted.
Thus. the analysis and recommendations on salmon habitat are premature.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (``MSA'') recommendations suffer from even
greater deficiencies than the rest of the BiOp. First, the scope of the
analysis is not clear. There is confusion as to whether the MSA
recommendations are directed solely to FCRPS projects, or to the FCRPS
and 29 additional BOR projects (compare Sections 12.2.1 and 12.3.1, pp.
12-5, 12-8). The rest of these comments assume that the Upper Snake BOR
projects are included within the scope of the recommendations.
The Draft BiOp contains a litany of impacts from reservoir
operations including changed streamflow conditions affecting turbidity
and sediment transport, estuary conditions, seasonal flows, and the
extent and characteristics of the Columbia River plume (pp. 12-8
through 12-11). Allegedly, these changes have led to migration delays,
changes in water quality, new predator-prey dynamics, habitat impacts,
and alteration of the distribution, abundance and diversity of
organisms (Id.). Such broad statements require identification of the
specific project creating those changes and the factual basis for such
conclusions pertaining to that project. Like similar statements in the
rest of the Draft BiOp, these conclusions cannot be substantiated with
established facts as to the Upper Snake BOR projects. Without specific
reference to particular projects and substantiation of the facts for
those projects, such broad generalizations should be deleted from the
BiOp.
The EFH conservation recommendations adopt the RPAs in Section 9 of
the Draft BiOp. For the reasons discussed under the section of these
comments on Upper Snake Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, those
recommendations are flawed and should be eliminated in the BiOp.
references
Anderson, J.J, R.A. Hinrichsen and C. Van Holmes. 2000. Effects of
Flow Augmentation on Snake River Fall Chinook Attachment 3 to
Evaluation of flow Augmentation proposals on the Snake River above
Lower Granite Dam.
Arrington, Leonard J. 1986. Irrigation in the Snake River Valley. A
Historical Overview. Idaho Yesterdays, Spring/Summer 1986, pp. 3-11.
Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Multi-Species Biological Assessment
of the Federal Columbia River Power System. Submitted to the National
Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December
21, 1999.
DeHart, Michele, 1998. Memo from Michele DeHart, Fish Passage
Center, to FPAC RE: Review--``Competing for the Mighty Columbia River--
Past, Present and Future: The Role of Interstate Allocation'' by Karl
J. Dreher.
Dreher, Karl J. 1998. Competing for the Mighty Columbia River--
Past, Present and Future: The Role of Interstate Allocation. Idaho
Department of Water Resources, Boise, Idaho. April 30--May 1, 1998.
Ebel, Wesley J and Charles H. Koski, 1968. Physical and Chemical
Limnology of Brownlee Reservoir, 1962-64. Fishery Bulletin: Vol. 67,
No. 2, pp. 295-335. December 1968.
Hinrichsen, Richard A. 2000. Personal communication. September
2000.
Idaho Water Resource Board. 1996. Idaho State Water Plan. December
1996 (Ratif1ed by the Idaho Legislature March 1997). Boise, Idaho.
Marmorek, D.R. et al. (eds.). 1998. PATH Final Report for Fiscal
Year 1998. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1995. ``Basis for Flow
Objectives for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.''
Seattle, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. An Assessment of
Lower Snake River Hydrosystem Alternatives on Survival and Recovery of
Snake River Salmonids, Appendix to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmonid Migration Feasibility Study. April
14, 1999.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000a. White Paper:
Salmonid Travel Time and Survival Related to Flow in the Columbia River
Basin. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. March
2000.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000b. Summary of
research related to transportation of juvenile anadromous salmonids
around Snake and Columbia river dams. Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, National Marine Fisheries Service Seattle, Washington. April
2000.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000c. Excel 97
spreadsheets with details of the species-level analyses described in
sections 6.3., 9.7.2, and 9.7.3.2. .
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000d. Biological
Opinion. Appendix C. August 30 Draft. .
Norris J. G. 2000. Defining Equivalent Harvest Reduction Policies
for Endangered Salmon Stocks. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific
Salmon. Editor Knudsen et al.
Norris. J. G. 1995. A Simple Spreadsheet Model for Evaluating
Recovery Strategies for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Fisheries
Research Institute. University of Washington, Seattle, WA http://
www.cbr.washington.edu/papers/global.pdf)
Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2000. White Paper: Salmonid
Travel Time and Survival Related to Flow Management in the Columbia
River Basin. Seattle Washington. March 2000.
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1994. ``Columbia River
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.'' Portland, OR.
NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Upstream: Salmon and Society
in the Pacific Northwest. Committee on Protection and Management of
Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences.
Peters, C.N. et al. 1999. PATH Decision Analysis Report for Snake
River Fall Chinook. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Columbia River System Operation
Review Final Environmental Impact Statement. North Pacific Division.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Snake River Flow Augmentation
Impact Analysis Appendix. Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration
Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement. February 1999.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Biological Opinion: Bureau of
Reclamation Operations and Maintenance of its Projects in the Snake
River Basin Above Lower Granite Dam: A Supplement to the Biological
Opinions Signed on March 2, 1995, and May 14, 1998. Endangered Species
Act Section 7 Consultation conducted by National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Region. December 9, 1999.
U.S. Census. 1910. Census of Agriculture, Part II, Crops and
Irrigation. U.S. Census Office.
______
Attachment 1: Comments on Flow White Paper and Reply to
NMFS Responses
In many instances, the revised White Paper \21\ is substantially
improved over the September 1999 draft. Some of the discontinuity
between the analysis of the data and the conclusions has been
eliminated and many of the uncertainties in the relationship of flow to
survival have been clarified. However, the Idaho water users still take
issue with a number of items in the White Paper and disagree with some
of the NMFS responses to our comments on the draft. Moreover, the
discontinuity that previously existed within the White Paper now exists
between the Draft BiOp and the White Paper, i.e., the Draft BiOp makes
much stronger assertions of ``fact'' than does the White Paper, yet the
Draft BiOp purports to rely on the White Paper's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ White Paper: Salmonid Travel Time and Survival Related to Flow
Management in the Columbia River Basin, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, Seattle, Washington, March 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One general comment is worth noting at the outset. We have made a
concerted effort to direct our comments on the White Paper and the
Draft BiOp only to flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River. The
reciprocal is not true. The White Paper and Draft BiOp generally lump
flow augmentation from all sources into the same analysis. Upper Snake
flow augmentation must be considered separately from Dworshak's cool
water releases and separately from the enormous volumes of water
available from mainstem Columbia River reservoirs.
Many of our issues are addressed in the body of our comments on the
Drati BiOp and will not be repeated here. Other comments on the final
White Paper remain the same as those on the draft and are simply
referenced here. The following comments follow the order of the items
in the White Paper.
introduction
We appreciate the recognition that ``storage regulation changes are
less pronounced in the lower Snake River than in the Columbia River''
(p. 1).\22\ We also agree that Snake River fall chinook ``are
particularly susceptible to changes in the thermal regime and they
spawn and rear in the mainstem'' (p. 2). However, juvenile migrant
mortality is also sensitive to temperature (Anderson et al, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In this attachment, page references refer to the White Paper
unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion of how the dams are operated to attempt to meet the
seasonal flow objectives is not applicable to flow augmentation from
Idaho. The reservoirs in Idaho are drafted in the late spring and
summer, not ``primarily through limiting winter drafting and rates of
reservoir refill.'' Particularly for the Upper Snake reservoirs, water
used for flow augmentation has typically been stored to meet authorized
purposes and would be used elsewhere if not released for flow
augmentation--it is not simply a matter of adjusting the rate of
outflow.
physical properties of water affected by flow
In our comments on the draft White Paper, we made a number of
comments concerning the need for additional hydrological background and
analysis in the White Paper. The response was as follows:
Our Original Comments (excerpts selected by NMFS): ``Flows from the
upper Snake Basin are virtually the same as they were 85 years ago.''
IWUA p. 3 ``. . . the flow quantity [from] the Snake River has not
changed significantly over the past 85 years. Thus any changes [to] the
estuary or . . . plume are not the result of upstream development on
the Snake River. Further, the [Snake River] flows required to make
significant changes in the estuary . . . are large . . .'' IWUA p. 4
``The White Paper should be substantially revised to incorporate a
comprehensive review and discussion of the hydrology of the Snake and
Columbia Rivers. Particular emphasis should be placed on the Snake
River system where populations of the listed species of most concern
are located.''
NMFS Response: We concur that a better understanding of hydrology
would be helpful. We did expand Table 1 to indicate how flows have
changed over time in the Snake and upper Columbia Rivers. However,
hydrology is not the focus of this paper. The focus is on studies that
measure the reaction of salmonid populations to variable environmental
conditions. We also need to dispel the notion that the Snake River
stocks are of most concern. Eight other salmonid ESUs are listed as
endangered or threatened in the Columbia River Basin. Upper Columbia
stocks are worse off than Snake stocks (excluding Snake River sockeye
salmon) according to the latest CRI extinction analyses. Further, flow
from the Snake River itself, though, is not the only important factor
for salmon survival; water velocity and temperature are also important.
These factors have changed drastically as a result of development of
the hydropower system, including on the Snake River above the
confluence with the Clearwater (Ebel and Koski 1968). Although flows in
the Snake River have not changed, travel time of migrants has increased
significantly due to the development and operation of the hydropower
system.
Our Reply: While we understand that the White Paper focuses on
biological response to environmental conditions, a more thorough
understanding of the environmental variables would assist in
interpretation of the data. For example, the fact that flows from the
Upper Snake River have not decreased over time and summer flows have
increased should be a consideration when evaluating which of the
variables may be the most important to the listed species, especially
when all of major variables are highly correlated with each other.
We also understand that the Snake River stocks may not be of the
``most concern'' to NMFS. However, we still believe that a more
comprehensive review and discussion of the Snake River hydrology is
warranted given that much of the biological research on flow-survival
has been conducted on the Snake River. Moreover, given the relatively
small amount of storage in the Snake River basin in comparison to the
entire Columbia basin. flow augmentation from the Snake River primarily
has the potential to affect the lower Snake, not the lower Columbia.
Thus. Upper Snake flow augmentation has little or no impact on the
``worse off'' Upper Columbia stocks.
We also agree that temperature is important. However as discussed
in the main body of comments on the Draft BiOp, summer flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake typically leads to warmer water
downstream, not cooler. In the case of flow augmentation from the Upper
Snake River, the dampening of temperature increases from increased
volume that is described in the White Paper (p. 5) is overwhelmed by
ambient air temperature.
While we believe that the relationships of survival to velocity and
flow to travel time are unproven, flow augmentation can do little to
alter velocity and travel time because of the enormous increase in
cross-sectional area created by the mainstem dams.
Another NMFS response to this area of comment requires a reply:
Our Original Comment: ``. . . flow augmentation is futile to
mitigate the velocity reduction due to dams on the lower Snake River .
. . More than 160 MAF would be required to restore pre-dam
velocities.''
NMFS Response: Nowhere in the white paper is the unrealistic goal
of affecting pre-dam water velocities through reservoirs considered.
Also, flow augmentation can be used for purposes other than increasing
water velocity, such as temperature regulation, decreased delay at
dams, and increased spill. Additionally, each incremental improvement
in flow helps to return the river to a more normative condition. The
incremental effects of water withdrawal throughout the system have also
changed the hydrology of the river from conditions under which the fish
evolved.
Our Reply: Assuming that the response means that the White Paper
does not suggest that the goal is to achieve pre-dam velocities, we
acknowledge that no velocity goals are set forth. The purpose of citing
the amount of water that it would take to achieve pre-dam velocities is
to put the magnitude of the futility to significantly alter velocities
in perspective. The White Paper does suggest that a link between
velocity, travel time, and survival exists. Our point is that flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake makes a minuscule difference in
velocity.
Similarly, Upper Snake flow augmentation makes a minuscule
difference, if any, to temperature regulation, decreased delay at dams,
increased spill, or estuary and plume conditions. In fact, as discussed
in the main body of comments on the Draft BiOp, summer flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake is detrimental to Snake River fall
chinook.
The argument that flow augmentation is needed to increase spill is
particularly perplexing because the fraction of the liver spilled
during low and moderate flow conditions (when flow augmentation might
be used to increase flows) depends on an operational decision. not the
total flow in the river. In other words, the percentage of spill is
independent of flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River.
There is no evidence that water withdrawals from the Upper Snake
have had a significant incremental effect on the listed species or
their habitat, or on ``normative'' conditions in the river.
effects of river factors--spring migrants
Our primary views on the effect of flow on spring migrant survival
are set forth in the main comments on the Draft BiOp. However, our
replies to NMFS responses on this issue are set forth below:
Our Original Comments: ``In recent years, the Raymond and Sims and
Ossiander research has been discounted . . . However, the studies
criticizing the dated research are not even discussed or cited in the
White Paper.''
``. . . older research that does not consider changes in the
hydrosystem over time . . . is still relied upon.''
NMFS Responses: We don't use data from any of these studies to
support our conclusions, therefore we do not make any effort to
criticize these data.
Wherever possible, we updated past analyses of SAR or recruit-per-
spawner data. Furthermore, the white paper relies mostly on the recent
PIT tag data, collected under current conditions.
Our Reply: We are encouraged to hear that NMFS is no longer relying
extensively on dated research.
Our Original Comment: ``. . . photoperiod provides a better basis
to predict travel time [of Snake River spring chinook salmon] than flow
. . .''
NMFS Response: ``This conclusion is based on an ad hoc analysis
(comparing mean R2 values) that would not measure up to
scientific scrutiny. We do acknowledge that smoltification level (for
which photoperiod is likely a surrogate) is important in determining
migration rate, and we elaborate on this point in the new version of
the white paper. This does not diminish the fact no study has failed to
find a travel time/flow relationship for Snake River spring chinook
salmon.''
Our Reply: The literature presents diverse interpretations of
observational data on variables which are observed to be statistically
associated with the migratory behavior of juvenile salmonids.
Statistical correlation between and among random variables is useful
for making predictions and evaluating hypotheses. Like NMFS, we
recognize that correlation is not causation. Controlled experiments are
typically required to identify cause and effect relationships. In the
case of the multiple variables that are related to flow, because the
wide natural variation in those variables and the lengthy life-cycle of
the listed species. controlled experiments are not likely to provide
useful information in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, all interested
parties must engage in ad hoc analysis, NMFS included. In such a case,
it is even more important to focus on the ecological mechanisms that
might explain correlations.
The onset and synchronization of smotification and migration to sea
are regulated by environmental variables--primarily increasing day
length and temperature. These exogenous factors operate after juvenile
salmonids attain a threshold size. Smotification and migration to sea
typically occur during a limited span of time, which is highly
predictable and closely related to cyclical changes in day length
(photoperiod) and water temperature. Temperature mediates the
physiological response to photoperiod--inhibiting smotification at
cooler temperatures and stimulating smotification at warmer
temperatures. Other environmental factors such as lunar periodicity,
barometric pressure, water turbidity and velocity, wind, and spring
overturn in lacustrine waters may modulate migration activity within a
given seasonal cycle.
In other words, statistical associations between smolt migration
speed or ``survival'' and flow may be coincidental where variables
exhibit collinearity or multiple collinearity. As discussed in our
primary comments on the draft BiOp, flow, temperature, photoperiod,
turbidity, and velocity are all collinear. It is incumbent on NMFS to
look beyond simple correlations of flow and survival in order to
examine the ecological implications of environmental vanables.
In our original comments, we list studies that have failed to find
a travel-time/flow relationship. For example, Skalski (1998) concludes
that even though environmental variables fluctuate greatly, survival of
cohorts of PIT-tagged juveniles released daily at Lower Granite Dam
exhibit little change throughout the migration period.\23\ He found
survival between Lower Granite and Little Goose Dam tailraces to be ``.
. . remarkably stable over the course of the season'' and observed no
association between survival and daily flow or daily spill. Such
studies are simply omitted from the White Paper and from the NMFS
response to our comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Skalski, J.R. 1998; Estimating season-wide survival rates of
outmigrating salmon smolt in the Snake River, Washington. Can. J. Fish
Aquat. Sci. 55:761-769.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
effects of river factors--summer migrants
Extensive comments on the flow augmentation-survival issue for fall
chinooks are set forth in the main body of comments on the Draft BiOp.
Our replies to the NMFS responses to our comments on the draft White
Paper and those of other commenters on are provided below:
Our Original Comment: ``Particularly troubling is the suggestion
that temperature control he used to more closely approximate historical
conditions. Most scientists caution against taking actions based simply
on how closely they approximate pre-dam environment . . . In the pre-
dam system, the vast majority of the fall chinook in the upper Snake
River spawned above Brownlee Dam . . .'' and ``Another issue is that
the existing outlet works from the dams in Hells Canyon are mid-
elevation facilities. Although an extremely expensive retrofit of
multi-level outlet works might be technically possible, it is not clear
that the pool behind Brownlee Dam has significant temperature
stratifications year-round.''
NMFS Response: We concur simply flying to mimic historical
conditions is naive. The goal is to restore threatened and endangered
salmonid populations. As noted elsewhere, hydroelectric development in
the upper Snake River has severely affected populations of fall chinook
salmon to the point that their major freshwater habitat has changed.
Returning to historical conditions is not relevant for these fish.
However, previous research has shown that changes in water temperatures
have changed the timing of fall chinook salmon spawning in the Snake
River. Subsequent emergence of fry and growth is also delayed, in turn
delaying the start of downstream migration. The later the fish migrate,
the worse the passage conditions. Changes in temperature regimes from
present conditions might lead toward more favorable conditions and
higher survival of fall chinook salmon. Ebel and Koski (1968) showed
that Brownlee Reservoir is highly temperature-stratified beginning in
May.
Our Reply: Beneficial changes in the temperature regime are
unlikely to result from Upper Snake flow augmentation. Regardless of
the stratification of Brownlee. ambient air temperature plays a
significant role in river temperatures downstream of Hells Canyon. As
noted in our primary comments on the Draft BiOp, Ebel and Koskis study
also shows that Upper Snake flow augmentation is detrimental to fish
under some conditions.
Original Comments: ``There are a series of factors that potentially
interact to determine the effect of flow on survival . . .'' Bouwes et
al. p. 14 ``. . . survival estimates were [not] used as a dependent
variable in multiple regression; i.e., the combined or interacting
effects of flow, spill, turbidity, and temperature were not examined as
predictors of survival rate.'' Bouwes et al. p. 19 ``. . .
environmental variables act in concert and affect survival rates in
biologically meaningful ways.'' USFWS p. 3.
NMFS Response: We concur that there is potential for environmental
factors to interact in their effects on survival. Multiple regression,
particularly with interaction among independent variables, might
improve model fits. However, in cases where univariate regressions over
a number of years yield no significant relationships (e.g. regressions
with Snake River spring migrants comparing survival estimates to flow
exposure), we consider it doubtful that a multiple regression approach
would uncover any new information. In the case of Snake River fall
chinook salmon, with regressions of survival from release to Lower
Granite on flow, temperature and turbidity exposure indices, the
environmental variables are so highly correlated that a multiple
regression analysis is highly unlikely to determine which factors are
most important in determining survival. Nonetheless, we intend to
explore multiple regression approaches in future analyses of these
data. The only way to demonstrate some of these effects with a high
degree of confidence is to conduct controlled experiments.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to define control and
treatment groups that only differ in a treatment (such as flow
augmentation). Within-season treatments would be difficult to conduct
because of the protracted migrations of release groups. Year-to-year
treatments would require many replications due to confounding effects.
With these limitations in mind, we are required to use the best
available information, which, at this point in time, is the results of
survival studies. In the future, it may be possible to manipulate the
system to limit the confounding effects of correlated variables.
Our Reply: We agree that multiple regression will not help the
analysis of spring migrant relationships to environmental variables.
With respect to fall chinook, we encourage you to replicate the
analysis performed by Anderson et al. (2000) which rejected flow as a
predictor variable. As noted above in these replies. controlled
experiments are unlikely to provide relevant information in a timely
manner.
Our Original Comment: ``. . . benefits of flow are justified with
phrases like `data indicate,' `would likely' and `may provide.' Clearly
these qualitative and subjective phrases are used because a
relationship between flow and survival has not been quantified, nor is
it likely to be quantified.''
NMFS Response: In ecological studies, it is rare that one can be
certain beyond a doubt about any conclusion. Scientific judgment
involves accumulating information through time and determining which
conclusions are supported by the preponderance of evidence. It would be
unfair to characterize something as certain when it is not. At the same
time, lack of 100 percent certainty does not indicate that
relationships do not exist. It is clear that salmon migrating
downstream through the hydropower system do so under flow conditions
that are different than those under which they evolved. This is
particularly true once the fish get below Bonneville Dam Suggesting
more natural flows are better for fish is not inconsistent. It is not
the role of science to make the management decision of when the costs
of flows are too high to outweigh presumed benefits for the fish.
Our Reply: The ``preponderance of the evidence'' does not support
Upper Snake flow augmentation. We agree that salmon are migrating
downstream under altered flow conditions. However, we maintain that
Upper Snake development had little or nothing to do with those changed
conditions and Upper Snake flow augmentation will not significantly
improve conditions downstream, particularly below Bonneville Dam. It is
also not the roll of science to rely on platitudes such as ``if some
water is good. more is better.'' The ESA requires a scientific analysis
from scientists, not a subjective analysis that ``natural'' is better.
Our Original Comments: ``. . . there does not appear to be a
relationship between travel time and survival [for Snake River fall
chinook salmon]. This strongly indicates that other river conditions .
. . may be more important to survival than simply the quantity of
flow'' ``. . . there is credible and important scientific evidence that
temperature is the operative variable affecting survival, not flow.''
NMFS Response: The highly speculative nature of these comments is
ironic given your criticism to NMFS for speculative conclusions.
Alternative explanations should be held to the high standards you
demand of NMFS. We discuss the effect of temperature and flow and
provide text on potential effects of both on survival in the final
White Paper.
Our Reply: We stand by our original comments. NMFS is in a poor
position to criticize commenters for speculative suggestions when the
comments are merely pointing NMFS to studies that do not support their
conclusions. Under the ESA, an agency must consider all scientific
evidence, not brush aside criticisms that disagree with NMFS
conclusions as ``equally speculative.'' NMFS has no license to
speculate in developing its biological opinion. As set forth in our
main comments on the Draft BiOp, we believe that our interpretations
are supported by sound science and reasonable ecological mechanisms.
Our Original Comment: ``Although flow and survival exhibit a
positive and linear relationship at low flows . . ., the relationship
is flat above 120 kcfs. . . . This is a strong indication that whether
the relationship is correlative or causative, it breaks down.''
NMFS Response: Our analyses contained in the white paper conclude
that above 120 kefs, the relationship between survival and flow
flattens out. Nonlinear relationships and threshold phenomena in
biology are very common. To say that the relationship ``breaks down''
because it is not strictly linear through its entire range is
speculative. Further, most flow augmentation will occur at background
flows below 120 kefs. We also provide text discussing how high flows
(in 1997) were probably detrimental to survival by flushing rearing
parr out of the system before they were ready and increasing the debris
load at the dams.
Our Reply: We believe that the issue of whether the relationship
``breaks down'' is moot. As discussed in the primary comments on the
Draft BiOp, further research using multiple regression indicates that
there is not a statistically-sound relationship between flow and
survival.
Our Original Comment: ``. . . the White paper reports an
investigator's [Connor et al. 1998] conclusions without noting
fundamental problems with the research.''
NMFS Response: We reported results from a peer-review[ed] journal
article and attributed the conclusions about the potential of flow
augmentation to improve survival to the authors. Disagreements with
scientific articles are properly addressed by writing a rebuttal
article, submitting it to the journal for peer review, and having it
published.
Our Reply: The purpose of the White Paper is to recommend policies
for NMFS to use for management of the Columbia River ecosystem. The
White Paper was obviously heavily relied upon in drafting the BiOp. To
cite Connor et al. without comment or qualification suggests that the
authors and NMFS endorse the conclusions. Simply because something
survives peer review is no guarantee that it is relevant, accurate or
sound. NMFS has a duty to critically examine all data submitted to it,
to examine it for methodological flaws that might bias its outcome
rather than to accept every published article. Surely NMFS does not
suggest that it will automatically reject every disagreement with a
scientific article that is not peer reviewed or published in a journal?
Or, on the other hand, automatically accept any scientific article that
is peer reviewed and published in a journal?
______
Attachment 2: Excerpt From BOR-Twin Falls Canal Company Contract United
States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Minidoka and
Palisades Projects, Idaho--Contract With Twin Falls Canal Company
(Contract No. 14-06-W-60)
re: concerning storage capacity in american falls, jackson lake, and
palisades reservoirs, and related matters
THIS CONTRACT, Made this 13th day of May 1954, pursuant to the
Federal Reclamation Laws, between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(hereinafter called the United States), acting through the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior, and TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPANY (herein after
called the Company), a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Idaho and having its principal place of business
at Twin Falls, Idaho,
Witnesseth, That:
2. WHEREAS, the United States, under the Federal Reclamation Laws,
has heretofore constructed and is now operating Jackson Lake, Island
Park, American Falls, and Lake Walcott reservoirs, among others, and is
now constructing Palisades Dam and Reservoir Project (herein called the
Palisades project);
3. WHEREAS, the Company desires to cooperate with the United States
and the various other water users organizations that enter into like
contracts in the water conservation program that will be made possible
with the construction of Palisades Reservoir and its operation in
conjunction with the construction of Palisades Reservoir and its
operation in conjunction with other Federal reservoirs on the Snake
River, as herein proposed; and
4. WHEREAS, the United States, the Company, and the Kuhn Irrigation
and Canal Company have heretofore entered into a contract dated
February 25, 1913 (Symbol and No. I1r-494) with respect to storage
rights in Jackson Lake Reservoir (hereinafter called the contract of
February 25, 1913, Symbol and No. I1r-494);
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and dependent
covenants hereinafter stated, it is hereby agreed between the parties
hereto as follows:
definitions
5. The following terms, wherever used in this contract, shall have
the following respective meanings:
``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the Interior or his
duly authorized representative.
``Federal Reclamation Laws'' shall mean the Act of June 17, 1902
(32 Stat. 388) and acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto,
including the Act of September 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 1083).
``Advisory Committee'' shall mean the committee defined by article
29 of this contract or its duly authorized representative.
``Irrigation season'' shall mean a period of each year beginning
April 1 and ending October 31 of that year.
``Storage season'' shall mean, with respect to the reservoir
involved, the period beginning October 1 of one year and ending during
the next year when, as to the particular reservoir, no more water is
available for storage.
``Reservoir system'' shall mean the existing and authorized Federal
reclamation reservoirs on the Snake River and its tributaries down to
and including Lake Walcott.
``Upper valley'' shall mean the irrigated areas of the Snake River
Basin that are served by canals diverting from the Snake River and its
tributaries above American Falls Dam.
``Lower valley'' shall mean the irrigated areas of the Snake River
Basin that are served by canals diverting from the Snake River and its
tributaries between American Falls Dam and Milner Dam.
``Watermaster'' shall mean the officer of the State of Idaho
charged by law with the distribution of Snake River water in the lower
and upper valleys, or such other officer properly authorized by law and
designated by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the Advisory
Committee.
Provisions Relating to Storage Capacity in American Falls Reservoir
(Articles 6 through 8)
status of company's rights under prior american falls reservoir
district contract
6. Lands lying under the canals of the Company are entitled to
receive water under rights created by the contract between the United
States and the American Falls Reservoir District, dated June 15, 1923,
as amended (Symbol and No. I1r-168), but neither that contract nor any
rights or obligations thereunder is intended to be altered in any
respect by this contract.
adjustment for company's share of net leasing revenues
7. (a) Of the net leasing revenues creditable to the 315,000 acre-
feet of reserved American Falls space, as of December 31, 1951,
determined by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of
section 3 of the Act of September 30, 1950, seventy-three thousand
seven hundred seventy-three dollars and fourteen cents ($73,773.14)
would have been available to the Company for application on the
construction charge obligation for American Falls reserved space which
the Company might have acquired. In consideration of the fact that no
such reserved space is being made available to the Company by this
contract, the Company's share of the credit being applied against the
construction charge obligation of the reserved space made available to
others purchasing such space, each entity so purchasing shall be
required, as a condition to such purchase, to contract to pay to the
United States an amount equal to its share of the Company's credit
which accrues to it.
(b) The amounts received by the United States shall be paid to the
Company, to the extent authority therefore is available, not less often
than once each year, or shall be credited once each year on obligations
then due or thereafter next to become due from the Company to the
United States in connection with the reservoir system, but no liability
shall . . . which provision for payment for the Company's share is made
elsewhere in this contract. The amount apportioned to American Falls
Reservoir shall be distributed equally over all space available for
irrigation storage, excluding the lower valley exchanged space but
including in lieu thereof the upper valley exchanged space in Jackson
Lake Reservoir.
(f) If the owners of any storage rights to benefit from the
operation of this article fail to obligate themselves for their share
of the annual payments for power replacement hereunder, the saved water
creditable to such rights and the power replacement costs chargeable
thereto shall be redistributed according to a formula to be agreed on
in writing between the Advisory Committee and the Secretary. Such
formula shall, however, be as nearly consistent as practicable with the
formula that would control but for such redistribution.
Provisions of General Application to All Rights Established or Defined
by This Contract (Article 14 through 37)
temporary storage and exchange of water; release of jackson lake and
palisades water for power production
14. (a) It is the purpose of the United States and the water users
having storage rights in the reservoir system (including the Company)
to have the reservoir system so operated as to effect the greatest
practicable conservation of water. In keeping with this purpose, the
endeavor will be to hold stored water in reservoir system space that is
farthest upstream. Water in storage in any of the reservoirs of the
system may, however, when the watermaster and the Advisory Committee
determine this to be in the interest of water conservation, be held
temporarily in unoccupied space in any other reservoir of the system.
And the Company hereby consents to the making, with the approval of the
watermaster, of annual exchanges of stored water among the various
reservoirs of the system. No such temporary holding of water or such
annual exchanges shall, however, deprive any entity of water accruing
to space held for its benefit.
(b) During any storage season, the United States, after
consultation with the Advisory Committee, may release stored water from
Jackson Lake reservoir for the maintenance of power production at
Palisades dam powerplant and may store such water, as Jackson Lake
water, in American Falls Reservoir. The release of such water will be
confined, however, in storage seasons when it appears that American
Falls, Palisades, and Jackson Lake reservoirs will fail to fill, to
water required for the maintenance of a minimum firm power production
(estimated to be about 11,000,000 kilowatt-hours per month at an
average production of 15,000 kilowatts) and which can be stored in
American Falls Reservoir; and no such release shall be made that will
preclude the later delivery of water, by exchange or otherwise, to the
upper valley entities entitled thereto.
rental of water; sale of space
15. (a) The Company may rent stored water which has accrued to its
credit in any reservoir of the system, but such rentals shall be for
only one year at a time and at rates to be approved in advance by the
Secretary and the Advisory Committee. Rates shall not exceed the annual
costs under the Company's obligations to the United States which are
properly . . . .
______
Attachment 3: Resumes of Contributors
James J. Anderson
Columbia Basin Research; 1325-4th Ave., Suite 1820, Seattle, WA
98101; Phone: 206-543-4772; Fax: 206-616-7452; Email:
[email protected]; Web: http//www.cbr.washington.edu/
jim
Appointment
Associate Professor (WOT), School of Fisheries, College of Ocean
and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
98195; Director, Columbia Basin Research, Columbia Basin Research,
1325-4th Ave., Suite 1820, Seattle, WA 98101
Previous Appointments
Research Associate Professor, College of Ocean and Fishery
Sciences. UW (1987-91)
Research Assistant Professor, College of Ocean and Fishery
Sciences, UW (1983-87)
Research Associate, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, UW
(1981-1982)
Visiting Scientist, Dept. of Biophysics, University of Kyoto, Japan
(1981)
Visiting Scientist, National Institute of Oceanology, Ambon,
Indonesia (1980-1983)
Visiting Scientist, Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley,
England (1980)
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center, State
Univ. of New York (1977-1980)
Principal Oceanographer, Fisheries Research Institute, UW (1979-80)
Oceanographer Dept. of Oceanography, University of Washington
(1969-1979)
Research Interest
Biomathematics ecology, fisheries, oceanography, toxicology, fish
protection at power plants, fish passage and life cycle modeling,
animal and human behavior, decision processes, ecosystem modeling,
fisheries decision support models for fish/hydropower interaction.
Recent Research
Hydro Project: Developing computer for management of Columbia River
hydroelectric and fisheries agencies. The work involves building models
and analyzing data on the migration and survival of salmon through the
Columbia River system (CRiSPI) and the harvest of fish in the ocean and
rivers (CRiSP2). The projects maintains computer models and data base
information accessible through the World Wide Web. The model are being
used to assess management strategies for hydrosystem operations and
fisheries management.
Model development has involved original work on fish migration and
survival. A number of student thesis and dissertations have been
developed through the project including a dissertation on fish
migration (Zabel 1994). a dissertation on fitness in salmon life
history strategies (Hinrichsen 1994), a thesis of optimum strategies
for salmon (Beer 1996), effect of ocean conditions on early ocean
survival of chinook salmon (Hyun 1996).
The model incorporates upstream adult migration, nearshore and
estuary affects on juvenile salmon survival, and improved modeling of
the impact of supersaturation on fish survival.
PATH Project: Participation in Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses (PATH) to evaluate the Snake River endangered species
recovery plans.
DART Project: Providing public data integration to the public for
more effective access, consideration, and application as well as
participating in a regional information review and making
recommendations to BPA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project: Developing analysis and
computer models for the impact of gas bubble disease on migrating
salmon. Analyzing the impact of reservoir drawdown on passage and
survival of adult and juvenile salmon.
National Marine Fisheries Service Project: Under this project a
general fisheries lifecycle harvest model is being developed. It is
anticipated that this model will be the foundation of salmon and
possibly ground fish management models in the next decade. The model
will be used in the salmon co-management activities and in evaluating
impacts of human activities on endangered species.
Professional Memberships
Sigma Xi
American Fisheries Society
Resource Modeling Association
Workshop and Conference Organization Activities
Organization committee for the Bonneville Power Administration
Predator/Prey Workshop, Friday Harbor Laboratories, May 1989.
Coordinator of the Bonneville Power Administration Survival
Workshop, Friday Harbor Laboratories, Feb. 1989.
Session chairperson at the Conference on Fish Protection at Stream
and Hydro-Power Plants Sponsored by Electric Power Research Institute,
Oct. 1987.
Coordinator for Ecological Risk Assessment Workshop University of
Washington, July 1987.
Session chairperson at the Saanich Inlet workshop, Sydney British
Columbia, Feb. 1983.
Public Service
Toured Tri-Cities, Walla Walla and Yakima with President Richard
McCormick, 1998.
Provided analysis and advice to the Snake River Endangered Species
Recovery Team, 1995.
Associate Editor North American Journal of Fisheries Management,
1989-1990.
University of Washington, Saturday Alumni Lectures, Autumn 1989.
Puget Sound water quality planning committee, ad hoc committee on
nutrient studies, Mar. 1987.
University Task Force on Salmon and the Columbia River System--
represent the UW in a group of faculty from the University of Idaho,
Oregon State University, Washington State University and University of
Washington with interests and expertise relating to the Columbia River
system.
Ravenna Creek Feasibility Study--joined with
representatives of neighborhoods adjacent to Ravenna Creek and members
of the Department of Landscape Architecture to consider the possibility
of daylighting the creek from its source to Portage Bay and possible
restoration of its salmon run.
Provide testimony on salmon restoration at 19 hearing
including U.S. Senate and House subcommittees and State (Oregon, Idaho,
Washington) committees between 1995 and 2000.
Reviewer
EPA Environmental Biology Review Panel
NSF Biological Oceanography, Physiological Processes
U.S. Geological Survey
Natural Environmental Research Council, Great Britain
EPA Cooperative research programs
NSF Psychobiology
Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.
Bonneville Power Administration to technical work group
NSF Physiological Process section
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative
NMFS Endangered Species Act review process for permit
applications
Various Scientific Journals
Expert Witness
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Court--certified as a
fisheries expert on issues of fish migration and dam passage
Honors and Awards
College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences Distinguished Research Award
1996
Research is included in the UW publication Pathbreakers: A century
of Excellence in Science and Technology at the University of Washington
(1997)
Nomination for Computerworld Smithsonian Awards in programming for
the CRiSP computer model, 1993
Special Recognition for participation in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Fish Passageways and Division Structures course in 1990
Research Faculty Fellowship, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences
1989
Research Faculty Fellowship, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences
1985
Selected Publications
Norris, J.S. Hyun, J.J. Anderson (in press) Ocean Distribution of
Columbia River Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Salmon Stocks.
Steel, E.A., P. Guttorp, J.J. Anderson and D.C. Caccia. (In press).
Modeling juvenile migration using a simple Markov chain. Journal of
Agricultural, Biological and Environmental statistics.
Anderson, J.J. 2000. A vitality-based model relating stressors and
environmental properties to organism survival. Ecological Monographs
70(3) 117-142.
Anderson, J.J. 2000. Decadal climate cycles and declining Columbia
River salmon. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Fisheries Conference,
Victoria, B.C., ed. E. Knudsen. American Fisheries Society Special
publication no. 2x. Bethesda, MD. 467-484.
Helu, S.L., J.J. Anderson, D.B. Sampson. 1999. An individual-based
fishery model and assessing fishery stability. Natural Resource
Modeling. 12(2) 213-247.
Zabel, R.W., J.J. Anderson, and P.A. Shaw. 1998. A multiple reach
model describing the migratory behavior of Snake River yearling chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences: 55:658-667.
Beer, W.N. and Anderson, J.J. 1997. Modelling the growth of
salmonid embryos. J. Theor. Biol. 189, 297-306.
Zabel, R. and J.J. Anderson. 1997. A model of the travel time of
migrating juvenile salmon, with an application to Snake River spring
chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17:93-
100.
Anderson, J.J. 1996. Review of the influence of climate on salmon.
In Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final report on
retrospective analyses for fiscal year 1996. Compiled and edited by
ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Nemeth, R. and J.J. Anderson, 1993. Response of juvenile salmon to
light. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12:684-692.
Anderson, J.J. 1992. A vitality-based stochastic model for organism
survival. In Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology:
Populations, Communities and Ecosystems. Editors DeAngelis and Gross.
Chapman Hall, New York. p. 256-277.
Anderson, J.J. 1991. Fish Bypass System Mathematical Models.
WATERPOWER 91, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower. July 24-26, 1991 in Denver, Colorado.
Ostrander, G.K., J.J. Anderson, J.P. Fisher, M.L. Landolt and R.M.
Kocan. 1990. Decreased performance of rainbow trout emergence behaviors
following exposure to benzo(a)pyrene. Fishery Bull. 88:51-55.
Anderson, J.J. 1988. Diverting migrating fish past turbines. The
Northwest Environmental Journal 4:109-128.
Anderson, J.J. 1988. A neural model for visual activation of
startle behavior in fish. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 131:289-305.
Anderson, J.J. and A.H. Devol. 1987. The extent and intensity of
the anoxic zone of basins and fords. Deep-Sea Research 34:927-944.
______
Craig L. Sommers
Water Resource Specialist
Craig is president of ERO Resources Corporation with over 20 years
of consulting experience in land and water resources planning and
evaluation. He serves as manager and lead scientist or economist on a
wide variety of projects.
Some of Craig's experience includes: technical coordination in
complex litigation, water rights and water resource evaluations,
resource economics, soil surveys, arable land classification, land use
planning, and agronomy.
Education
M.S., 1977, Agricultural Economics (Emphasis in Water Resources),
University of California, Davis
B.S., 1976, Soil & Water Science, University of California, Davis
Representative Projects
Water Resources and Rights
Gila River and Little Colorado River Adjudications, Salt River
Project, Arizona--Technical advisor, overall coordination of staff and
consultant efforts, water rights and economic analysis, member of
negotiation team.
Snake River Basin, Idaho Water Users--Evaluation of USBR water
right transfer applications; technical input to negotiations; soil,
arable land, hydrologic and economic evaluation of Indian and Federal
claims.
Big Horn River Adjudication, State of Wyoming--Expert witness in
soils, arable lands and agronomy, land use and land ownership
evaluations, technical assistance in post-trial pleadings, State water
right analysis.
San Juan River Adjudication, State of New Mexico--Overall
coordination and evaluation of State, Federal and Indian water rights.
Yakima River Adjudication, Yakima River Coalition, Washington--
Technical coordination, water right analysis, and economic evaluations.
Appraisals of water rights for clients in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Idaho.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Snake/Columbia River Basins, Idaho Water Users--Economic and
hydrologic analyses of critical habitat designations, agency decision
documents, and recovery plans for threatened and endangered salmon and
steelhead stocks.
Rio Grande River, New Mexico State Engineer's Office--Economic
analysis of critical habitat designation for the Rio Grande silvery
minnow.
Environmental Impact & Assessment Permitting
Soil, vegetation, wildlife, erosion control, economics water
quality or hydrology input to environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments for Denver Water Department, city of Thornton
city of Aurora, city of Boulder, U.S. Forest Service, Winter Park Ski
Area, Western Fuels Association and the Salt River Project in Colorado,
Utah, Wyoming and Arizona.
Natural Resources
Soil surveys for the mining industry and Federal agencies (BIA, BLM
and Forest Service) in California, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and
Montana.
Reclamation and Mine Plans in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado for UNC
Mining and Milling Services, Inc., NERCO, Amoco Minerals (Cyprus
Mines), Western Fuels Association, Tennessee Valley Authority and
Geokinetics.
______
David B. Shaw
Project Manager
Dave is an engineer who manages the Boise office for ERO Resources.
His experience in water resources and management dates from 1974. He
specializes in the identification, analysis, and resolution of water
issues including coordination with other professionals in multi-
disciplinary projects. Dave specializes in the following: surface and
ground water supply and use studies, water rights evaluations, project
management, alternative dispute resolution, expert witness testimony,
and technical input on legislative and administrative matters.
Education
B.S. 1966, Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho
M.S. 1972, Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho
Project Experience
Water Resources
Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA), ID--Program manager for
identification and evaluation of 170,000 claims to water rights.
Shoshone-Bannock Reserved Water Right Negotiation, ID--Co-chair of
the State, Indian, Federal and private technical advisory committee.
First Water Distribution Rules Developed and Adopted in Idaho, Big
Lost River Basin, ID--Team leader.
Water Right Adjudications, ID--Designated by the SRBA court as an
expert in water right adjudications.
Department of Water Resources, Southwest Idaho-Western Region
Manager.
Department of Water Resources, Boise, ID--Technical Support Section
Manager.
Ground Water Recharge Water Right Approval, Big Lost River Basin,
ID--Water Resource Negotiation/Expert.
Water Quality Analysis for Water Users, Southwest ID--Project
design, implementation and management.
Evaluate Interaction of Canals on Ground Water, and Surface Water,
Methow Valley, WA--Analysis of ground water/surface water supply.
Evaluate Impact of Proposed Water Right Transfer on Irrigation
District Water Supply, Boise River, ID--Identify and quantify changes
to ground and surface water supply if transfer were approved.
______
Richard A. Hinrichsen
Education
A.A.S., Music, 1982, Edmonds Community College
B.S., Mathematics, 1985, Central Washington University
M.S., Mathematical Sciences, 1987, Clemson University
Ph.D., Quantitative Ecology & Resource Management, 1994, University
of Washington
Societies and Associations
American Fisheries Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Shad Foundation, President
Presentations and Posters
Hinrichsen, R.A. 2000. The fight against variability: Are salmon
and experimental management losing? 2000 Annual General Meeting. North
Pacific International Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Mt.
Vernon, Washington, April 10-12.
Hinrichsen, R.A. and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1997. Epic shad invasions of
the Columbia River from the 1870's onward. Resource Modeling
Conference, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, June 18.
Hinrichsen, R.A. and J.J. Anderson. 1994. Understanding the
migratory behavior of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). contributed poster. Pacific Salmon & Their Ecosystems:
Status & Future Options. Seattle, Washington, USA.
Hinrichsen, R.A. 1993. Optimal upstream migration timing of chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Contributed paper. 1993 ESA annual
meeting. Madison, Wisconsin. USA.
Hinrichsen, R.A. 1992. Optimal feeding and migration
characteristics of ocean-type chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Contributed paper. 1992 ESA annual meeting. Honolulu.
Hawaii, USA.
Technical Reports and Papers
Hinrichsen, R.A. 2000. Are there scientific criteria for putting
short-term conservation ahead of learning No. Response to Kai N. Lee
1999: ``Appraising Adaptive Management''. Conservation Ecology 4(1):
r7. [online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/resp7.
PATH, 2000. Preliminary Evaluation of the Learning Opportunities
and Biological Consequences of Monitoring and Experimental Management
Actions. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, 150 pp.
PATH, 1999. Scoping of candidate research, monitoring and
experimental management actions: concurrently reducing key
uncertainties and recovering stocks. Working draft prepared by ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 232 pp.
Ingraham, W.J., C.C. Ebbesmeyer, and R.A. Hinrichsen. 1998.
Imminent climate and circulation shift in Northeast Pacific Ocean could
have major impact on marine resources. EOS Volume 79(6). page 197.
______
William J. McNeil
Professor of Fisheries (Retired) and Fisheries Consultant
Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport,
OR 97365; (503) 867-0100, 1066 Westfarthing NW, Salem, OR 97304; (503)
362-9134; FAX (503) 362-0365
Education
B.S. in fisheries, Oregon State University (1952); M.S. in
fisheries, Oregon State University (1956); Ph.D. in fisheries,
University of Washington (1962)
Employment
Self-employed consultant resent;
Professor, Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station (1990-1995);
Professor of Fisheries and Director, Cooperative Institute for
Marine Resources Studies, Oregon State University (1985-1990);
General Manager, Oregon AquaFoods, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Co. (1976-
1985);
Program Manager, Alaska Salmon Investigations, National Marine
Fisheries Service (1972-1976);
Associate Professor Fisheries, Oregon State University (1966-1972);
Supervisory Fishery Research Biologist, U.S. Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries (1962-1966);
Research Associate, Fisheries Research Institute, University of
Washington (1956-1962)
Professional Recognition
Lectures
Norwegian Society for Aquaculture Research and Directorate for
Nature Management (Norway) (1990);
Washington State University (1988); Institution Profesional de
Osomo (Chile) (1987);
Lewis and Clark College (1985, 1987, and 1989);
University of Oregon (1980-1984);
Portland State University (1983);
Willamette University (1983);
TINRO (USSR) (1976. 1978, and 1990);
University of Alaska (1974-1976 and 1989).
Symposia
Keynote Speaker, Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium (1988);
Convenor, World Salmonid Conference (1986):
Keynote Speaker, Salmonid Reproduction Symposium (1983);
Convener, Panel on Ranching, World Mariculture Society (1982);
Convener, Symposium on Salmonid Ecosystems of the North Pacific
(1978);
Steering Committee, North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium (1980);
Steering Committee, World Technical Conference on Aquaculture (1976);
Convener, Conference on Marine Aquaculture (1968).
Advisory and Executive Committees and Societies
Scientific Advisory Committee for Prince William Sound (Alaska)
Ecological Research Center (1989-present);
Secretary, Oregon Governor's Salmon Advisory Committee (1981-1986);
Advisor, Alaska Department of Commerce (1984 and 1985);
Member, Bonneville Power Admin. Research Review Panels (1985 and
1989);
Member, N.W. Power Planning Council Committee on Genetics Policies
(1989);
President, Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society (1982 and
1983);
Executive Committee, National Sea Grant Assoc. (1980-1983);
Chairman, Governor's Alaska Fisheries Council (1975-1978).
Chairman, Fisheries Technical Advisory Committee, Sheldon Jackson
College (1974-1977);
Advisor, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Aquaculture
(1977);
Fellow, American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists (since
1972).
Consulting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Client Years Topic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Water Power.......... 1992-1994......... Dams and salmon in
Clearwater River,
ID
Direct Service Industries....... Since 1989........ Endangered Species
Act and salmon in
the Coumbia Basin
Yakima River Basin Coalition.... Since 1989........ Irrigation and
salmon in Yakima
River, WA
Grant County PUD................ 1989-1992......... Passage of
juvenile salmon
at two mid-
Columbia River
dams
Oregon Forest Industries Council 1991-1992......... Forestry and
salmon in the
Pacific Northwest
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Since 1990........ Restoration plan
Assoc. for Tillamook
Bay, OR
Prince William Sound Aquaculture 1989-1990......... Impact of Exxon
Corp. Valdez oil spill
on hatchery
salmon
Pope Resources.................. 1988-1989......... Evaluation of Hood
Canal/Fort Ludlow
properties for
aquaculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publications
Approximately 80 published reports on subjects related to
salmonids. The most recent publications are listed below:
McNeil, William J. 1984. Salmon ranching: a growing industry in the
North Pacific. Oceanus 27 (1): 27-31.
McNeil, William J. 1985. Pink and chum salmon supply and outlook.
Proceedings of the 1984 Pink and Chum Salmon Workshop, p. 186-190.
Oceans and Fisheries, Canada.
McNeil, William J. and R.F. Severson. 1985. Impacts of ocean
fisheries on natural and ranched stocks of Icelandic salmon. Fish
Farming Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland.
McNeil, William J. 1985. Comments on north Pacific fisheries Delphi
project. In J. Yuska and N. Ridlington (editors). Seafood Quality and
Product Form. Oregon Sea Grant ORESU-IN-85-004, p. 3-8.
McNeil, William J. 1987. Offshore transport and release of salmon
smolts. Bonneville Power Administration Smolt Workshop, Kahneetah,
Oregon.
McNeil, William J. (editor). 1988. Salmon Production, Management,
and Allocation. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 194 pp.
McNeil, William J. 1988. Mariculture: an aid or hindrance to
management. Trans. 53rd N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf., p. 569-576.
McNeil, William J. 1989. Book review of Salmon and Trout Farming.
Fisheries. 14:57-58.
Kreeger, K, and W.J. McNeil. 1989. Estuarine dependence of juvenile
chinook as it relates to salmon ranching. Northwest Environ. Jour. 5:
165-167.
McNeil, William J. 1989. Aquaculture and salmon ranching. In C.L.
Smith (editor). Ocean Agenda 21. Oregon Sea Grant ORESU-B-89-001, p.
52-55.
McNeil, William J. In press. Future of salmon aquaculture. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 10: 12-18.
McNeil, W.J., R. Gowan. and R. Severson. 1991. Offshore release of
salmon smolts. American Fisheries Society. 10; 548-553.
McNeil, William J. 1991. Expansion of cultured Pacific salmon into
marine ecosystems. Aquaculture. 98: 172-183.
McNeil, William J. 1991. Sea ranching of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) in Oregon. pp. 1-10. In N. Pedersen and E. Kjorsvik (eds). Sea
Ranching--Scientific Experiences and Challenges. Proceedings from the
Symposium and Workshop on Sea Ranching. Norwegian Society for
Aquaculture Research 21-23 October 1990, Bergen, Norway.
McNeil, W.J. 1995. Water velocity and migration of juvenile Salmon:
Is faster necessarily better? Hydro Review 14(2): April 1995.
Ebbesmeyer, C.C. and R.A. Hinrichsen. 1997. The Oceanography of the
Pacific Shad Invasion. The Shad Journal. Volume 2(1): pages 4-8.
Ebbesmeyer, C.C., R.A. Hinrichsen, and W.J. Ingraham. 1996. Spring
and Fall wind transitions along the West coast of North America, 1900-
1994. Presented at the PICES meeting, Nanaimo, British Columbia, 18
October 1996.
Hinrichsen, R.A. 1994. Optimization models for understanding
migration behavior of juvenile chinook salmon. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Washington. Seattle, WA. USA.
Hinrichsen, R.A., T. Frever, J.J. Anderson, G. Swartzman and B.
Sherer. 1991. Columbia River Salmon Passage (CRiSP) Model.
Documentation for CRiSP.0. Center For Quantitative Science, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hinrichsen, R.A. 1987. The Leslie model with harvesting. Master's
thesis. Clemson University. Clemson, S.C. USA. 29p.
COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND THE DRAFT BASINWIDE
SALMON RECOVERY STRATEGY
----------
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Boise, ID.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in
the Boise City Council Chambers, 150 N. Capitol Boulevard,
Boise, Idaho, Hon. Michael Crapo (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Good morning. We're ready to begin. The
hearing will come to order. This is the third hearing in a
series of hearings that the Committee on Environment and Public
Works has been holding--the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Water, has been holding with regard to the draft
biological opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System
and the Federal Caucus Draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy.
I would like to thank everyone for being in attendance here
at this hearing. The first two hearings were held on September
13 and 14 of this year, when we held 2 days of hearings in
Washington, DC, to examine various aspects of the draft
biological opinion.
Today's hearing will complete our current review of these
Federal documents and afford those interests who will be
affected by these plans and those who were unable to attend the
hearing in Washington, DC, the opportunity to have their
comments on the official Senate record.
Most of you who are here today were not able to be in
Washington, DC, in September, and I want to take a little bit
of an extended opportunity right now to review where I think we
are and what we heard.
Despite several decades of work and cost to the taxpayers
and rate payers of an estimated $3 billion, the Pacific
Northwest salmon and steelhead continue to decline to the point
where they soon may become extinct. We must not allow that
extinction to happen and must proceed quickly with a consensus
present for action for recovery.
I must repeat my own position, that I see no evidence that
flow augmentation will recover anadromous fish, and I will not
support any flow augmentation other than that agreed to by the
State of Idaho, if any. The extensive political opposition to
breaching the four Lower Snake dams means that such
recommendation would put the region into an economic and
political gridlock in such a way that it would prohibit further
efforts to make reasonable efforts to save the salmon.
The Federal Caucus, a group of Federal agencies led by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Northwest Power
Planning Council, has produced their draft plans, and most
significantly, the Governors of the four States in the Pacific
Northwest Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon--have released
a series of recommendations that outline the process the
Governors feel must be followed to achieve anadromous fish
recovery.
Let me note here the contrast and the openness, the
transparency, and the real collaboration that characterize the
process used by the four Governors and their staff in preparing
their recommendations. The four Governors have done a good job
in identifying both the proper focus on where the real problems
lie and the real balance among various solutions that are
available.
The Federal Caucus would have done well to have followed
the same type of process. Instead, I had to file a Freedom of
Information request to find out what the Federal Caucus was
doing. I even then faced opposition in full disclosure, and
many others in the region still feel that they do not have and
have not had the opportunity to have real collaborative input
into the Federal decisionmaking process.
The primary purpose of this subcommittee's hearing here is
to examine the science used to develop the draft biological
opinion and the draft recovery strategy.
Let me describe the role of science as I see it. Science,
economy, and culture will all be partners in recovering these
wild anadromous fish. But recovery must be based in science,
and we must get the science right. We must not fear good,
accurate science.
Some worry about where good, accurate science may lead us
and as a result may try to manipulate scientific processes or
mischar-
acterize scientific hypotheses and conclusions. Such activity,
in my opinion, is a disservice and it can only bring further
gridlock and more severe penalties to the Pacific Northwest. I
urge people from all perspectives to insist on good science and
be willing to recognize it when we find it.
The approach I prefer is to understand the good science and
then let the people and the policymakers use that science to
craft a recovery plan that gives the economic and cultural
partners the trust they need to be advocates and participants
in the recovery.
The imposition of bad process and bad science will result
in distrust and retreat into self-interest. Such a tragic path
backward will have severe penalties for the Pacific Northwest
and ultimately result in the loss of these incredible fish.
There is too much at stake to allow our limited resources
to be applied to false schemes or solutions. We've got to get
the science right.
Specifically, there are those who advocate that the science
tells us the dams must be removed or that the problem is with
the hydrosystem. If that is what the science tells us, then we
have to listen to that science and act in that context, not
avoid it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ultimate
solution would be a decision to breach the dams as we make the
policy decision to address the cultural and economic
considerations that are at issue, but it means we must
recognize that science if it is the true science.
On the other hand, there are those who say that ocean
conditions or other circumstances like that are the true
problem, which we must address in the decline of these salmon
and steelhead. If that is where the science leads us, then we
must recognize that science and act accordingly.
An example would be if someone went to a doctor who had a
bad heart and they had a perfectly healthy leg. If the doctor
operated on the leg rather than treating the heart, you would
not see an improvement in the circumstances.
I don't support breaching dams, but if the science says
that it is the dams where the major problem is, then that's
where we've got to focus our resources and our efforts. That's
the kind of decision that this region needs to face.
Everything I just said about dams, as I've said, applies
exactly to all the other factors, whether it be harvest,
hatcheries, ocean conditions, or otherwise. We've got to get
the science right so that the policy decisions can be made
based on good science.
If I understand the direction that we appear to be taking
now as the result of the Federal Caucus action, we have a
window of time, about 8 to 10 years, to evaluate other options
and to take other options toward solutions that will recover
fish before the evaluation of dam breaching is then brought
back to the table for further consideration. That means we have
a short window of time in which we must do things right.
Otherwise, if we continue to spin our wheels or make wrong
decisions about how to approach recovery, we will in 5, 6, or 8
years once again be facing the difficult question of whether
this region must face the breach of the four Lower Snake dams
to save the fish.
Currently, there is widespread disagreement around the
region as to whether the draft BiOp is reflective of the best
available science. I view this disagreement as having at least
two parts--the process of developing this science and the
product resulting from this process. Let me first talk about
process.
Our first witness at September's hearing was Idaho's
Governor Dirk Kempthorne. Governor Kempthorne said, ``Our
commitment to this goal-restoration of all stocks of Idaho
salmon is unquestionable. The question before this panel is to
what extent the Federal agencies will help the States in this
effort.
I have long believed that only through a regional
collaborative effort will there ever be a real chance for
recovery of anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest. Only
through regional cooperation, not dictates by the Federal
Government, is there a chance to achieve real success. So if I
had to boil down our advice to the Federal Government of the
United States of America, I would do it in four words: listen
to the States. These are the States united in the recovery of
salmon. We share the same commitment to recovering these
remarkable species. We've taken the time and made the hard
choices to reach consensus in the region, and we've created
this comprehensive road map to recovery.''
A few minutes later, I asked Governor Kempthorne, ``Do you
believe that the State of Idaho is at this table, the table of
deciding and working to develop a plan for the recovery of the
salmon?''
Governor Kempthorne's response,
No, I do not. I believe that the State of Idaho is at the
table with the other three States, and the State of Idaho has
joined in a document that we have now submitted to the Federal
Government. This is a collaborative process, and, again, I have
sought through different forums, meetings with different
members of agencies, of different members of the cabinet
expressing my views, my concerns, but I do not feel that we
were invited to the Federal table in a collaborative process as
they developed this BiOp.
Later on the same day, then NMFS regional administrator,
Will Stelle, said,
The opportunity is there for the Northwest to come to terms
on an agreement, a program that we can put into place and
implement over the next 5 to 10 years. It is there for us if we
choose to take it, and I believe in good faith that the Federal
agencies, States and tribes, if we work hard, we can capture
that agreement by the end of the year and get on with the
business with salmon recovery.
Let me note for the record that my office has repeatedly
persuaded, cajoled, and even offered to host meetings as part
of my effort to, as Mr. Stelle said, capture that agreement by
the end of the year.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has not accepted my
offer. In fact, let me quote from the publication Columbia
Basin Bulletin, November 3, 2000, issue.
`Our intent is to have it completed and signed by mid-
December,' Brian Brown of NMFS told the Implementation Team
this week. `With the December 15 deadline, what is not clear to
me is what degree of additional discussion we'll be able to
have with the State and tribal managers.' He said NMFS would
like to meet with the States and tribes, but he promised that
few changes would be made to the revised BiOp as a result of
these meetings.
To me these words have great significance because they not
only acknowledge the critical lack of collaboration on behalf
of the Federal Caucus with other key scientists in the Pacific
Northwest including State, tribal, industry, and environmental
personnel, but these words also suggest serious flaws in the
science that drives this draft biological opinion.
Testimony we received at the September hearing was very
critical of the science basis for this Federal plan, and even
former administrator Stelle acknowledged these difficulties.
Let me quote Mr. Stelle:
How do we maintain the integrity of the process and at the
same time open the doors to it so that others have the
opportunity to critique it and participate in it and to help us
improve it? It is not a consensus-based exercise. If something
is not right from a scientific perspective its because
everybody agrees. Something is right, do it. Something is right
from a scientific perspective because it measures up through
the scientific process. The challenge for us, Senator, is to
pull those two things together. Have we done that well enough?
No. Are there opportunities to continue to improve that? Yes. I
would also encourage for your focus not only on this issue.
This issue is not only an issue between now and December.
As an aside, let me note that this is exactly with what I'm
doing and what we are doing here today.
Let me continue quoting Mr. Stelle, who was referring to
the cumulative risk initiative, CRI.
So it is not a static, done product. It is not a static
thing. It is not a completed product so far as finished, and it
will continue to evolve and improve as scientists inside and
outside have the opportunity to critique it, suggest ways to
improve it. So again, if the State of Idaho's scientific people
have observations or suggestions about where its flaws may be
and how to correct those flaws, I believe that the NMFS
scientists are open to it. It doesn't necessarily mean the NMFS
scientists will agree, but, absolutely, there should be that
critical review.
Then I responded, ``Are you committed to reconvening the
scientists in the sense to be sure that they have the chance
now to be collaborative on these matters?''
Mr. Stelle responded, ``Yes.''
At this point, let me repeat that my office and others have
consistently asked for such discussion to take place and have
offered to host or facilitate any discussion. Yet, it never
happened. The demonstrated behavior of the Federal Caucus is
clearly that it is unwilling to engage the other important
scientists in the region in a serious discussion whose
objective is to resolve as many differences as possible and
improve the quality of the science.
Let me again quote Brian Brown of NMFS in the Columbia
Basin Bulletin of November 3rd.
For key issues--those with a large number of comments--NMFS
will attempt to provide a stand-alone document describing the
issues and the response. Some of those issues are NMFS'
population analysis, its jeopardy standard, things like the use
of CRI or a greater reliance on PATH and the level of risk NMFS
is willing to accept. Brown expects that the hydro measures and
their effects will continue to evolve in the BiOp based on the
comments.
Basically, then, we have scientists and policymakers in the
Federal Caucus saying never mind and don't worry about the fact
that we haven't worked with the States and tribes in the
Pacific Northwest as we develop the BiOp and trust in the
Pacific Northwest when we say that we promise to work with you
later after the policy has been established. My question is why
should we believe that promise now?
In the September hearing, there was much discussion about
whether PATH or CRI is better and what the strengths and
weaknesses of the two models are, what elements are common in
both approaches and what are the key differences. Our
discussion at this hearing will not, of course, be able to
uncover those answers, but I do believe those answers are out
there and we'll find them if we look hard enough.
One of the questions I'll ask our Federal witnesses today
is what are their plans and commitments to work with the State
and tribal scientists and other interest groups, industry and
environmental, in an attempt to get the science right and are
they willing to do it before this draft biological opinion
becomes final? Why should we expect this process will be any
different after the biological opinion becomes final?
Let me summarize what's at stake in Idaho and the Pacific
Northwest. Our salmon and steelhead are priceless treasures
that are probably the best example of how nature works her
magic and selects the best and the brightest for future
generations. We must not allow these fish to go extinct. In
fact, we must recover them to sustainable and fishable
populations, if we can.
The economy of the Pacific Northwest is mainly vibrant and
strong with some important exceptions, particularly in some
more rural areas that depend on agriculture and natural
resource industries. We must keep our economy strong and spread
its strength throughout the region. This economy provides jobs
for families and tax revenues to support important work,
particularly the education of our children.
As I see it, this draft biological opinion could be an
incremental creeping policy initiative that will not solve the
problem for fish but instead will steadily erode State and
tribal sovereignty and diminish the opportunity for industry
and environmental groups to have an input into the process.
This document must be improved before it becomes final.
I urge the Federal Caucus to use the next few months wisely
to work more collaboratively with the region and to get it
right. We must accomplish both objectives and cannot allow
ourselves to be misled by the premise that it has to be one or
the other. We must not allow the process that developed this
biological opinion nor the science produced by this process to
force the region into mistakes, mistakes that could gut the
region's economy and yet not recover the fish.
It's my hope and expectation that today's hearing will help
us improve what has already been a decade-long, torturous, and
expensive process and make it into a success that will turn the
Pacific Northwest into a role model for how to recover
endangered species.
As I said, this is the third in a set of hearings to
address the questions of the biological opinion. There are
those who felt that their position was not adequately
represented in the first two hearings, and I think that was a
valid perspective. That's one of the reasons that we are
holding this hearing here. There are those now here today who
felt that their perspective was not adequately represented in
this hearing. I would remind them that their perspectives were
represented very effectively, I think, in the previous
hearings. There are those who will continue to believe that
their perspective has not been represented adequately in any of
the hearings, and we do face that problem, but we are pursuing
an effort to try to get as broad a perspective on these issues
as possible.
We are going to have three panels today. The first panel
will be Federal witnesses from Federal agencies. I'd like to
explain just briefly the process that we would like to follow
with regard to the panels. We have up here a set of lights.
Each of the panel members has already been advised that we
would like to ask them to keep their initial statement to 5
minutes. That will give us much more time for questions and
answers and give and take that will help us delve into the
issues. The written testimony of all of the witnesses has been
received, has been read and will be reviewed by the other
members of the panel as well and is made a part of the record.
Therefore, as the witnesses are testifying, please try to
keep an eye on the lights. The green light says that you still
have time. The yellow light will come on when there is 1 minute
remaining, and when the red light comes on, that means that the
time has finished, and we ask you at that time to wrap up your
comments.
I can tell you that, from past experience, if you're like I
am, your time will run out long before you finish saying
everything you have to say. I assure you that there will be
opportunities in question and answers for you to elaborate
further on what you would like to say and that you can
supplement the record. But I do encourage you to pay attention
to the time so that everyone can have a fair opportunity at the
hearing. If anybody does forget the lights, I will lightly rap
the gavel to remind you to pay attention to the lights and to
wrap up your statement.
With that, let me invite the first panel to come forward.
The first panel is Mr. Michael Schiewe, the director of Salmon
Research at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center for the
National Marine Fisheries Service; Mr. Doug Arndt of the Fish
Management Division of the Army Corps of Engineers out of
Portland; Mr. Howard Schaller, Project Leader of the Columbia
River Fisheries Program for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
out of Vancouver. I understand Mr. Rigby is here on behalf of
the Bureau of Reclamation. Mr. Ken Pedde was scheduled to
testify but has had an emergency come up and was not able to be
here.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your presence here, and I would
like to ask you to go ahead and testify. We'll have you go in
the order in which I just announced your names, and then
following that, we will get involved in the questions and
answers.
So, Mr. Schiewe, would you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCHIEWE, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST FISHERIES
SCIENCE CENTER, FISH ECOLOGY DIVISION, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, SEATTLE, WA
Mr. Schiewe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I'm Michael Schiewe, director of Salmon Research
at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northwest Fisheries
Science Center in Seattle, WA.
Within the National Marine Fisheries Service, the science
centers are responsible for providing the technical and
scientific support to the regional offices in carrying out
their regulatory and management responsibilities. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here today. I will limit my formal
comments to those involving the biological opinion and the
collaboration in the scientific process.
First, to summarize from the testimony of Mr. Stelle to
this subcommittee on September 13, 2000, the National Marine
Fisheries Service is currently engaged in the preparation of
two major documents. One is a biological opinion for the
Federal Columbia River Power System. The other is a conceptual
recovery plan called the All-H Paper. This latter exercise is
led by NMFS, but is more broadly the product of the Federal
Caucus composed of NMFS, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Forest Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management.
In preparing these documents, NMFS considered the results
of
a variety of analytical exercises and scientific syntheses
including results from the Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses, or PATH; NMFS' Cumulative Risk Initiative, or CRI;
and the empirical information summarized in NMFS White Papers.
Following review and comment by the State agencies and tribes,
both the biological opinion and the All-H Paper are currently
scheduled for release in final form on December 15.
On the issue of science collaboration, a major opportunity
will occur via participation in technical recovery teams. We
have already formed technical recovery teams, or TRTs, to start
the process for recovery planning in Puget Sound and on the
Lower Columbia River and Willamette Valley, and we are
considering establishing TRTs to develop recovery plans for the
listed salmon and steelhead in the interior Columbia River
Basin.
The process NMFS has initiated to develop these plans is a
two-phase one, with the involvement of both regional technical
and policy expertise in each of the relevant phases. To briefly
summarize, the first phase is a scientific exercise culminating
in the establishment of delisting criteria or recovery goals.
The second phase is more of a policy forum in which the
options for recovery will be carefully weighed and a suite of
actions selected. Both the technical phase and policy phase
will involve qualified individuals from regional entities and
interest groups. A recovery science review panel composed of
internationally renowned ecologists and evolutionary biologists
will review the products of the TRTs. Our goal is to bring
together a broadly representative group of the best minds to
tackle these issues.
To summarize, it is NMFS's intent that the recovery
planning process will take place out in the open, that it will
meaningfully involve regional scientific expertise, that the
recovery plans will be subject to peer review, and that the
final technical products, when appropriate, will be published
in scientific journals.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee.
I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Schiewe.
I should have said at the beginning of this panel each of
these panelists are scientists. We had their policymaker
counterparts from their agencies at the hearing in Washington,
DC and each of these gentlemen were there as backup, but we
didn't, because of timing problems, have a chance to get to you
on the scientific questions. So I realize that a statement has
already been entered into the record of the hearings here by
your agencies, and you may or may not want to make an
additional statement. You're very welcome to make additional
statements, but you may have been surprised when I set it up
for you to make statements. So if any of you choose to simply
answer questions, I understand that.
Mr. Arndt.
STATEMENT OF DOUG ARNDT, CHIEF, FISH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, NORTH PACIFIC
REGION, PORTLAND, OR
Mr. Arndt. Mr. Chairman, I am Doug Arndt, Chief of the Fish
Management Office in the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the status of the National Marine Fisheries Service and
Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinions on operation of
the Federal Columbia River Power System.
As you noted, on September 13, you heard the testimony of
Colonel Eric Mogren on behalf of the Corps. Today I'm going to
very briefly summarize that testimony, plus I'll add several
topical points. Currently, 12 populations of Columbia River
Basin salmon and steelhead, white sturgeon, and bull trout are
listed under the Endangered Species Act. That means that we
must broaden our consideration of recovery solutions from the
lower Snake River to the entire life cycle of the salmon
throughout the basin if we are to be successful.
On the flip side, this year we saw strong returns of adult
salmon to the Columbia. We believe these results are at least
partially due to the investment that the Nation has made in the
hydropower system.
Consultations on the 2000 biological opinions are ongoing.
We anticipate receiving a final BiOp or BiOps on or about the
15th of December. While there are still some measures that need
further work, we are optimistic at this point that we would
reach agreement on the major issues and on the overall
direction. We are satisfied that the draft biological opinion
is reflecting an increasing intent to pursue aggressive actions
across all the Hs with specified performance standards and
periodic check-ins.
Earlier in your opening statement you emphasized the need
for good science. We are also pleased at the current regional
effort to base recovery actions on the best available science.
The Corps' part in this effort is to fund some 50 to 70 field
research studies under our anadromous fish evaluation program.
That, by the way, is a collaborative process involving the
State, Federal, and tribal entities. We see this investment of
some $10 to $20 million in field research in seeking out better
scientific knowledge as being vitally necessary for making the
reasoned management decisions that you alluded to.
On the issue of funding, full implementation of the
measures called for in the biological opinions will be
ambitious. It will require substantial increases in our
appropriations. For example, the President's fiscal year 2001
budget submitted to Congress this year called for $91 million
in the Corps' fish mitigation project. Our fiscal year
appropriation, as passed by Congress, was $81 million. We
estimate that some additional $5 million to $10 million may be
needed to fully implement the measures in the biological
opinions. Further, we anticipate the cost will increase in the
out years. This is an important issue as our biological opinion
report card will heavily depend on our ability to implement,
read that as ``fund,'' recovery measures.
One of the areas of the biological opinion is to call upon
the Corps of Engineers to carry out actions in the offsite or
habitat measures for fish restoration as a means of
supplementing hydro actions. For example, we are being asked to
step up our efforts in the restoration in the Columbia River
estuary. We believe this is important and should be a part of
our approach to the fish recovery.
We look to the Congress for continued support of these
efforts. We will continue to work with you and to keep the
lines of communication open.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary, and I will be
happy to answer any of your questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schaller.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD SCHALLER, PROJECT LEADER, COLUMBIA RIVER
FISHERIES PROGRAM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, VANCOUVER,
WA
Mr. Schaller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Howard
Schaller from the Columbia River Program Fisheries Office of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and I appreciate this
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the service
regarding status of the biological opinions for the Federal
Hydropower System of the Columbia.
Our office is primarily responsible for a recovery
evaluation of Columbia River aquatic resources, which include
sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon. The service is conducting a
consultation on the operation of federally-owned hydropower
facilities on the Columbia, Snake, Clearwater, Kootenai rivers
in the Columbia River Basin. We're consulting with the action
agencies of the Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power
Administration and Bureau of Reclamation. At issue are the
effects of operating the Federal Hydropower System on the
Endangered Kootenai River sturgeon, threatened bull trout, and
to some limited degree, bald eagles.
The service received two biological assessments from the
agencies, a draft document in the summer of 1999, and a final
in December 1999. We shared a preliminary draft of the opinion
with these agencies in May 2000, and the comments on the
preliminary draft opinion were received June 2000. The draft
opinion was released to the States and tribes for comment on
July 27, 2000.
Throughout this process the emphasis has been placed on the
discussion of key issues including minimization of adverse
effects to sturgeon and bull trout from the PS operations in
the Upper Columbia River. Our draft opinion requests
adjustments to the operations and ramping rates at Hungry
Horse, Libby, and Albany Falls dams. We're also asking the Army
Corps of Engineers to continue studies of alternative pool
elevations Albany Falls to benefit kokanee salmon, a key food
source for bull trout in Lake Pend Oreille.
The draft opinion also addresses actions at Libby Dam to
allow increase flows to chief flow objectives for sturgeon. For
the Lower Columbia River, Snake River, and Clearwater River,
the service will require monitoring to better determine the
presence of bull trout and ensure their upstream and downstream
passage is not impeded. The services work closely with National
Marine Fisheries Service throughout this process to ensure that
the Federal Hydro System operations benefit sturgeon, bull
trout, and do not conflict with salmon and steelhead.
We are presently revising the biological opinion based on
comments we received from the States, tribes, and other
affected entities. We are now completing the opinion and
accompanying documents and anticipate to have a final draft out
by mid-December.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I'll be
happy to answer any of your questions that you and the members
have. Thanks. This is a summary of Mr. Cottingham's comments
from September.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rigby.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RIGBY, PROGRAM MANAGER, WATER RIGHTS IN
ACQUISITION, PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Rigby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard
Rigby. I am program manager for Water Rights and Acquisition in
the Pacific Northwest Region of the Bureau of Reclamation. My
primary activity with respect to this biological opinion and
previous opinions has been the provision of flow-augmentation
water from the Bureau of Reclamation projects in Idaho and
Oregon. As a stand-in for Mr. Pedde, I have no prepared
remarks, and I'll stand for questions.
Senator Crapo. We appreciate your being available on such
short notice.
Mr. Schiewe, I want to start out with an issue with you
first and then broaden to the rest of the panel. There is a
specific issue that has come up in just the last couple of days
relating to an article in The Oregonian, the headline being
``Unreleased Federal Plan Calls for Dam Breaching'' and another
headline in The Statesman with a version of the same article
that says, ``Unreleased Plan Shows Federal Uncertainty Over Dam
Breaching.'' Have you read the article that I'm referring to?
Mr. Schiewe. I did, Senator, see the article in The
Oregonian but not The Idaho Statesman.
Senator Crapo. I believe the Statesman version was just a
shortened version of The Oregonian story. The question that is
raised by the article is that apparently a document obtained by
The Oregonian shows that just a couple of months before George
Frampton from CEQ's announcement that the National Marine
Fisheries Service--well, let me back up a second.
A couple of months before the BiOp came out, the National
Marine Fisheries Service had fashioned an opposite plan that
called for dam breaching and that something happened in that
several month period of time to change the BiOp that was
submitted. There is speculation that that was because of the
Presidential election and the critical nature of particularly
Oregon and Washington in that calculation. There is speculation
that there was other disagreement over the science.
The question I have for you is, first of all, is there a
document that The Oregonian claims it has that was a decision
by the National Marine Fisheries Service to call for dam
breaching?
Mr. Schiewe. Senator, I have to preface my comments by
clarifying that I represent the science side of the house, not
the policy or management side of the house.
Senator Crapo. I understand that and respect the position
you're in.
Mr. Schiewe. Accordingly, I know that we have provided
scientific and technical information for a whole range of
different options, sort of a menu of potential actions and what
we would predict would be their outcomes. My sense is that on
the policy side of the house, they probably evaluated a full
range of different ones at different times, and if a policy or
political decision was made at one particular instance to
narrow the field, I'm not aware of that.
Senator Crapo. So you're not aware of this document that is
referred to in the article?
Mr. Schiewe. No, I'm not.
Senator Crapo. That may be an answer to my followup
questions, but let me ask them anyway. The obvious question
that comes out there is what caused--I'm assuming the document
exists since The Oregonian claims it has a copy of it. The
question is, what caused the change in position by NMFS over
that 2-month period of time from the initial document that is
referred to here to the ultimate decision that was announced?
Are you aware of any directives that came from George Frampton,
the Council on Environmental Quality, or the White House, or
otherwise that directed NMFS to change its position on the
BiOp.
Mr. Schiewe. I am unaware of any of those documents. I
think you would need to address that question to those parties
that you mentioned.
Senator Crapo. Are you in a position where you could take a
request from me back to those appropriate parties?
Mr. Schiewe. I can do that.
Senator Crapo. I would like to make this request, and we'll
get this to you in more specifics, but I would like to request,
first of all, a copy of the document that The Oregonian claims
to have in its possession and a copy of any other memos or e-
mails or communications from the Council on Environmental
Quality or the White House with regard to this document.
Mr. Schiewe. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Obviously, it becomes relevant as
we try to determine what is in the BiOp and why what is in the
BiOp is in the BiOp and whether we're looking at science or
whether we are looking at politics. I think that's a critical
aspect of the whole issue.
Now, let me get into a little bit broader context here. I'm
aware of--in fact, I have with me here a copy of the scientific
article that was published recently by the three NMFS
scientists, and I'm forgetting their names right now.
Mr. Schiewe. I'm aware of the article.
Senator Crapo. I also have a copy of the response to the
article by several people and then the response to the response
by the scientists who put out the article. Let me summarize
what I understand the issue to be there, which I think is a
critical issue. The scientific article put out by the National
Marine Fisheries Service scientists, Kareiva, McClure, and
Marvier--have I got the names right?
Mr. Schiewe. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. The article itself, as I understand it, says
that even if the dams are breached, that the salmon--that there
will not be enough of a recovery for the salmon to end the
decline, that the decline of the salmon will continue even with
breaching of the dams. I believe that the article also
concludes that if we focus on habitat and full augmentation--
estuary and flow augmentation type solutions, that extinction
or decline of the salmon can be avoided. Is that a fair summary
of the article?
Mr. Schiewe. With a few caveats, yes.
Senator Crapo. Please give me the caveats.
Mr. Schiewe. First, the paper concludes that if there are
no deferred or referred effects of hydropower passage, that is,
for some reason the fish are weakened and incur large mortality
later in the life cycle, then the benefits achieved by
improving survival to a near perfect one going up and
downstream in a hydropower corridor would not be enough
numerically to put the populations on a positive trajectory
where they're actually replacing themselves and increasing.
The two areas identified that were ripe for improvement
because the greatest mortality occurs during those phases would
be the first year of life before they reached the hydropower
corridor in the habitats, and, second, in the estuary and near-
shore ocean transition. The habitat area is one in which
anywhere from 95-plus percent of the juvenile fish die, hence,
somewhat modest changes could bring greatly improved survival
in that phase. These are numerical experiments.
The feasibility analysis is something that needs to be yet
done. The estuary flows could be one part of improving survival
in that particular phase because the estuary and the plume
created by flows are a complex ecological system that has a
major influence on salmon survival; however, there are several
other aspects of estuary restoration and rehabilitation other
than just flows, removal of dikes, changes in the distribution
of exotic predators, and other such activities.
Senator Crapo. Now, the response to these scientists'
reports states that the problem with the conclusion of the
report is that the first year survival rates, i.e., before
migration downriver, have not declined since the construction
of Snake River Dam. Therefore, nothing is changed. In fact, in
some areas, it's actually improved in terms of that first year
part of the life cycle. Do you have a response to that?
Mr. Schiewe. Yes, Senator. I think this would be an
instance where we wouldn't be in total agreement that there
aren't opportunities to improve habitat, even in some of the,
``pristine habitats'' of Idaho. We have gone back and looked at
the record and found that some of those areas cited as being
near perfect, have large numbers of mining claims. There's some
hazardous mining sites. They're highly allocated for grazing.
There are lots of unscreened diversions in other areas, and so
I think there are, in fact, some opportunities to improve
survival in that phase.
Senator Crapo. What about the Middle Fork of the Salmon? My
understanding of the Middle Fork is that it's got pristine
habitat right now and that there is little, if any, historic
grazing, mining, logging, or any other water diversions in that
area, and if the adult fish returning to this region have not
been subjected to harvest in Idaho since 1978, so you have a
pristine area that doesn't have any of these qualities. Yet the
decline is evident there as well. Is that not an indication
that the problem is not necessarily with the habitat?
Mr. Schiewe. Senator, on reviewing some of the land-use
activities in those areas, we've done some research and, in
fact, Marsh Creek has two water diversion, has 41 percent of
its catchment allocated for sheep grazing, has a mine claim
density of approximately seven claims per square kilometer and
has five mining related hazardous potential sites. These data
are summarized through the ICBEMP documents. So it might be as
good or as close to pristine as we have, but these statistics
would suggest otherwise.
Senator Crapo. So in other words, you don't agree that the
habitat in the Middle Fork of the Salmon is pristine?
Mr. Schiewe. I would say that if you define pristine as
absolutely unimpacted, I would say, ``Yes, I disagree''. Is it
perhaps some of the best we have? Yes, it is. But is it a
situation in which we do not have opportunity to improve it? I
would say we do have that opportunity.
Senator Crapo. Here's what I'm getting at and I'm going to
ask if any of the other members of the panel would like to
comment on this line of questioning, so feel free to be ready,
if you would like to do so.
I read the All-H paper that was put out by the Federal
Caucus as it was preparing the biological opinion, and,
frankly, as I read it, it appeared to be a very command and
control type approach, particularly a recommended--what it did
was it laid out all the different options, but it seemed to me
that the options that it tended to focus on were--particularly
now that we see the biological opinion as moving in that
direction--were options that focused on a command and control
type approach to asserting more and more Federal control over
water and water management in the Pacific Northwest, more and
more Federal control over habitat and control of habitat in the
Pacific Northwest. Frankly, it was somewhat alarming to see
that kind of proposal for increased Federal control of the land
and the water that has traditionally been managed by the
States.
If the BiOp takes us in a direction of saying we want to go
out there and for the next 5, 6, or 7 years assert more Federal
control over water and more Federal control over habitat to see
if that's going to save the salmon, and if we already have
areas that at least some are saying are pristine and that
that's not where the problem is, and we spend 5, 6, or 8 years
having increased Federal control asserted over these areas of
prior State control and jurisdiction without a positive effect
on the salmon, that we have, in effect, not spent that 5 to 6
years doing what could have been done best to help restore the
salmon and spent that 5 or 6 years locking in more Federal
control over the management of the land in the West.
So that's why this is a very critical issue. Yet, if I
understand your testimony, you're standing by the fact that the
best gains for the salmon, if we're going to use the next 5 to
6 years for the best we can do for the salmon, that those best
results can be obtained in the first year of the life, which is
in the habitat and the premigration portion of salmon's life
cycle. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Schiewe. From a numerical standpoint, it is fact that
the greatest mortality occurs in the first year and in the
estuary and ocean transition. Senator, that means that these
life stages represent the opportunity to improve survival most
and put them onto a track toward recovery. I don't think the
intent of the All-H paper or the BiOp with its offsite
mitigation, however, is to narrow the options to just those
particular issues. I think that the National Marine Fisheries
Service and Federal Caucus in general are looking to balance
and take advantage of opportunities to improve survival in any
of the life-history stages--no matter what the cause, whether
they're habitat, whether they're hydro, whether they're
harvest, or whether they're hatchery operations.
Senator Crapo. It's kind of an interesting change--what
appears to be a change in position on NMFS's part because if
The Oregonian story is correct, there was a document that said
that the engineering and plans for breaching the dams were to
be prepared by the year 2003, and now you're testifying that,
really, the other parts of the salmon's life cycle are the
areas where we must focus our attention. Is it fair to say that
there has been that kind of a dramatic reversal by NMFS in its
position over the last 6 to 8 months?
Mr. Schiewe. Again, I don't speak, for the policy side of
the house. Biologically, I think most biologists in the region
who have worked on this for a number of years, as I have,
recognize the importance of improving the plight of salmon
through changes and reductions of risks in each and every life-
history stage, wherever possible, and recognizing that this has
to be done in an economic and cultural context as you have
alluded to.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Would any other members of the panel like to comment on
this issue?
Mr. Schaller.
Mr. Schaller. I think the way Dr. Schiewe characterized his
interpretation of the paper is correct in that the biggest
mortalities occur in the first year of life and in the estuary.
The real question in what the approach in this biological
opinion is going to be is whether it's feasible to actually
make those improvements in the first year of life. That is, do
they naturally occur? Is that level of mortality natural or is
there room for improvement? So through monitoring and
evaluation, the purpose is to determine whether that type of
improvement is feasible.
Second, I think to reemphasize this paper, in terms of the
dam-breaching issue, also came to a very similar conclusion
that the previous scientific analysis did, and that is that the
direct mortality from the dams by removing all that won't be
sufficient to recover these stocks. The real issue--and, again,
through the monitoring and evaluation program is to determine
whether the delayed mortality or the stress of the hydrosystem
is large enough that the dam-breaching option in conjunction
with all these other areas would be sufficient.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Arndt.
Mr. Arndt. Thank you, sir. I guess I would like to kind of
say ``me, too'' in terms of what Dr. Schiewe has said. That is
that we have felt that in the past there had been--if anything,
the actions had been somewhat hydrocentric and that the scope,
the life cycle scope that's being looked at now is appropriate
and timely. I don't think that is coming at the lack of hydro
actions. As I indicated earlier in my testimony, we are still
moving ahead with a very aggressive, intensive program to
improve--further improve where we can, the survival of the fish
of the hydrosystem.
But I think rather the idea is to bring Federal funds and
Federal energy to the regional table in these other efforts,
particularly in habitat. I don't see that as being a command
and control activity, but rather one of trying to help leverage
the regional, the State, local actions that can take place and
give us the opportunity for improved survival.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Did you have anything to add, Mr. Rigby, on this?
Mr. Rigby. I do not.
Senator Crapo. It seems to me that the issue we're talking
about here is critical because I have in front of me a
statement by some scientists which says that there is little
scope for increasing survival during this stage, which is the
stage that you've just said is where the best opportunity for
improvement is, and that we should be focusing on the river and
the hydrosystem, where the best opportunity for an impact on
the life cycle of the salmon is.
I have the scientific study in front of me from National
Marine Fisheries Service, which you are all, I believe,
supporting it to some extent, which says that the best stage is
to focus on the--as you say, Mr. Schiewe, the first year, which
is in the original habitat, and then in the estuaries after
they've made it to the ocean eventually--two very, very
different conclusions about what the best thing to do in the
next 5 years is, two very, very different conclusions about
what the science tells us is the best we can do to help these
fish. To me it seems critical.
One says--and I've talked to scientists for the last 8
years. Since I've served in Congress, I think I've talked to--
I've read every scientific report that has been published by
any of your agencies and others and every bit of information
that's been submitted to me by the interest groups from one
perspective or the other. I've spent time personally with the
head of the ISAB, the science team, and with others, and it
seems to me that what we have been hearing, which I think Mr.
Schaller indicated, was for quite some time an indication that
of all the Hs that we're talking about--and we have to expand
that, I think, with ocean conditions that we are now getting a
better understanding of--that the biggest impact was the
hydrosystem. That's what I've been hearing for 8 years.
Today I'm hearing that it's not; is that right, that the
hydrosystem--let's just take the four Hs, habitat, hydro, and
so forth. Is it not true that the hydrosystem is the biggest
impact of those H's?
Mr. Schiewe. Mr. Chairman, in order to answer that, I think
the first issue that would have to be resolved would be to
attempt to partition natural mortality versus anthropogenic or
that caused by human causes. The greatest mortality occurs very
early in the salmon life cycle and most of that is probably
natural--although, habitat can contribute too. Among the
anthropogenic causes, the hydropower system was a major source
of mortaility and, it wreaked havoc with the salmon populations
when it was first used. But the more recent estimates of
downstream mortality that have been obtainable with the use of
PIT tags and with the use of the transportation program,
indicate that the impacts of the hydropower system are far less
than they used to be. In fact, if we ignore transportation
altogether and look only at measured in-river survival, we find
that survival now is similar to what we had back in the 1960's
with four dams in place--even though there are eight dams in
place. I would attribute this to the many changes we've been
able to make in the operation and structural forms of those
dams--putting in bypass systems to keep more fish out of
turbines, spilling more water; short of what causes gas bubble
disease but that which improves in-river survival; and
minimizing power peaking and other operational practices that
are currently the norm.
All of these have had a profound effect on improving
survival within the hydropower corridor. As articulated in the
biological opinion, we still think we can squeeze some more out
of it, but we probably are starting to come to the point where
there's not much more to be gained with it in place.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Schaller, do you want to add anything to
that?
Mr. Schaller. The only thing that I'd add is really the big
question before us, the region, is what is the delayed
component of that mortality, the hydrosystem. That needs to be
addressed and taken into consideration when we go through this
process over the next 8 to 10 years because the amount of
stress and delayed mortality and considering a large component
of these upper-basin fish are put in barges. The real issue is
going to be what is the level of delayed hydrosystem mortality,
and is there any differential delayed mortality for the
transport fish.
Senator Crapo. I think that's one issue on which there is
virtually unanimous agreement. We've got to answer that
question. I want to shift for just a moment because I think
it's relevant to you, Mr. Arndt. In its comments on the Draft
Basinwide Recovery Strategy, the State of Idaho offered several
suggestions with regard to the hydrosystem modifications not
including breaching the four Lower Snake dams. In other words,
what can we do with the hydrosystem short of breaching.
Examples include minimum gap runner or turbines, bypass
systems, turbine screens, fish-collector and fish-ladder
improvements, and PIT tag detectors at all dams.
The question I have is, is there any barrier to doing these
modifications with regard to engineering or construction?
Mr. Arndt. Technically, no. There is obviously, in some
instances, a procedural environmental documentation we have to
go through. But I think that the simple answer is, no. In fact,
the kinds of research that we're looking at carrying out now or
in the near term includes further improvement studies,
dissolved gas-abatement work, adult PIT tag development, which
is critical to understanding the survivability of the adult
fish as they move through the system, surface-bypass
development, fish-transportation evaluation to get at the kind
of questions that Dr. Schaller raised, avian predation-control
studies. Obviously, we know that has a big impact down in the
estuary.
So I think the answer is no. We're moving ahead very
aggressively to look at everything and anything we can to
improve survivability through the hydrosystem.
Senator Crapo. Do you have a sense of how long it would
take to get these--at least these construction-related and
engineering-related improvements put into place at the dams?
Mr. Arndt. It varies somewhat depending on the type of
improvement we're talking about, but, for example, on the
turbine-improvement studies, as you probably know, we've
already had a year of results from the Bonneville Dam minimum
gap-runner work, which was extremely encouraging. We're very
pleased with that, so much so that we are now moving to The
Dalles Dam, where we have a turbine replacement program
underway, and we're going to look at actually installing the
minimum gap runners at the Dalles. So in that case, we're
moving ahead right now.
Most of these other things--the surface bypass we're
working on right now. A better way to spill using spillway
weirs is underway. So most of these things we're actually
moving into right now.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Schiewe, is there any problem from
NMFS's point of view with moving ahead as aggressively as
possible on each of these dam improvements?
Mr. Schiewe. Absolutely no problem at all, sir.
Senator Crapo. This next question is probably for Mr.
Schaller and Mr. Schiewe. Though, again, any of you can feel
free to jump in on this at any time, if you choose to do so.
There's a concern that has been expressed to me that the NMFS
threshold selection ignored the real possibility of an
extinction vortex. You probably are aware of that debate. NMFS
was asked to at least model a range of thresholds more
conservative than one fish in any given year so that
decisionmakers could see the impact of this low extinction
threshold and what it did to both the extinction risk and the
amount of survival improvements needed to avoid the threshold.
Is it true that the draft BiOp not only failed to analyze
the more conservative threshold, but, in fact, lowered the bar
even further by using the threshold of zero fish or a full
generational cycle of about 5 years?
Mr. Schiewe. Let me begin to answer that, Senator, but then
I think I'll defer to Dr. Schaller.
It is true that the draft BiOp considered only one
threshold. It is being reconsidered now, however. It's an item
that is basically in play and being reworked and I know Dr.
Schaller has done an analysis; is that correct, of the effects
of considering different levels of risk and different periods
of time? He can probably address that better than I. Our intent
is to include that analysis in the final version.
Mr. Schaller. NMFS, as you correctly outlined in the
initial draft, they looked at a threshold level of one fish
over an entire generation, and through the comment period and
working collaboratively with NMFS, we've been exploring looking
at threshold levels of higher values, and they do, indeed,
affect the extinction probabilities, and NMFS has recognized
that problem and, I believe, working and looking at how they're
going to evaluate extinction probabilities, and, really, how
that translates is into some of the performance measures that
are going to be adopted to look at what occurs over the next 8
to 10 years.
So it is a critical piece, and I think that there has been
a lot of effort through the region to evaluate these threshold
levels and their effects and to look at a reasonable threshold
level and how it affects extinction probabilities in a more
conservative perspective.
Senator Crapo. Is it a problem that this hasn't been done
and yet there's a December 15 deadline in terms of adopting the
BiOp?
Mr. Schiewe. I don't think it will be a problem, sir.
Again, the full range is being explored, and, again, it's in
play now how it will be incorporated. One of the changes that I
know that is being contemplated--again, this is more a policy
issue of selecting from a menu than it is a scientific decision
per se, but the draft BiOp used a standard of reducing the risk
of extinction to 5 percent or less in 100 years. What's being
contemplated now is moving that to a more conservative 1
percent of extinction in 100 years.
Do please keep in mind, sir, that these calculated risks
have uncertainty associated with them. Probably the best way to
look at them is in a relative sense and prioritizing stocks and
populations for recovery actions. Those at greater risk
obviously need our attention before those that are at lesser
risk.
Senator Crapo. Back to the question of delayed mortality, I
want to divert for just a moment. It's been brought to my
attention in a number of discussions that although delayed
mortality is becoming one of the critical issues that we've got
to address in terms of answering some of the things we've been
talking about this morning, but it's incredibly difficult to
study. Is it possible to put together an experiment to study
whether delayed mortality exists and to what extent it exists
without breaching dams?
Mr. Schiewe. That's the $64,000 question. I think it
certainly is possible. It would be much easier if we had two
Columbia River systems and we were able to on paper remove one
and not remove the other and run that grand experiment. That
obviously isn't an option. We're looking now in concert with
the Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Fish Management Program
to develop a series of studies that would look at potential
causes for delayed mortality in fish that have transited the
hydropower system by moving fish to experimental facilities and
holding them and subjecting them to various analyses measuring
the potential for stress, for increased diseases, and the
various kinds of things that would probably come into play if,
in fact, there was a delayed mortality.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Schaller, do you have anything to expand on that with?
Mr. Schaller. The only thing that I'd say is we'll have the
results of stock comparisons throughout the basin. We'll have
additional years of stock comparisons that will help along with
these more directed studies to look at what are the inferences
about the relative levels of delayed mortality and how that
plays throughout these larger numeric experiments.
Senator Crapo. It seems to me that determining the amount
of survival improvements necessary to avoid jeopardy and to
provide recovery is a key element in developing recovery
action. Why was the CRI approach in that model used to develop
the probability of recovery when it assumes that populations
continue to grow exponentially? Doesn't the rate of population
growth slow as spawning numbers approach recovery levels?
Mr. Schiewe. Another way of asking that same question,
Senator, is the fact that CRI chose not to use a density-
dependent model, and there has been quite a bit of regional
debate about that. Again, our scientists have found no evidence
of density dependence; we're really at the low end of the
population growth curve. Density dependence would come into
play when we're close to recovery rather than at this point
where many of these populations are struggling to persist.
What you bring up was an issue which we raised with the
PATH models that were used. Those population models projected
that the populations would increase no matter what actions we
undertook, and that was one of the reasons why we chose to look
to some different kinds of models as well. In the end, we used
both to inform our process, though.
Senator Crapo. Wouldn't a more conservative approach that
incorporated density-dependence as populations grow be more
risk averse? Isn't that the objective we should focus on?
Mr. Schiewe. Again, Senator, the only evidence we saw of
any kind of density-related dependence was what they call
``depensation,'' which means that when you get to very low
densities, rather than very high densities, the populations
shrink a little bit faster and this gets a little bit to your
issue of the extinction vortex. I'm hopeful that we'll get to a
point where we have enough fish where we have to worry more
seriously about density dependence sooner rather than later.
Senator Crapo. So in other words, if we can get to the
point where this becomes more critical, there's still room to
adjust the models?
Mr. Schiewe. There certainly is. This is an evolving
process.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Rigby, I do have a couple of questions
for you. I have in front of me a copy of a letter signed by BOR
regional director, Bill McDonald, saying, in part, we find
Idaho's comments on Chapter 6 of the draft biological opinion
effects of the action to be generally consistent with comments
Reclamation provided to NMFS on October 5, 2000.
First of all, I should ask you, are you familiar with this
letter from Bill McDonald to Donna Darm relating to the Idaho
comments?
Mr. Rigby. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
Senator Crapo. I'm going to read the rest of this one
paragraph. He says Idaho's hydrologic analysis summarized in
Figures 2 through 5 in part 1 of their comments are both
factual and based on a more sophisticated analysis than that
previously undertaken. Idaho's comments represent a major
improvement in identifying the true effects of Bureau of
Reclamation storage operations.
First of all, do you agree with the statement in the
letter?
Mr. Rigby. I do, sir.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Rigby, briefly, what do you believe to
be the true effects of BOR storage operations?
Mr. Rigby. I might back up just a little bit, Mr. Chairman,
and say that I consider the process of identifying the impacts
of Reclamation projects to be work-in-progress, something we
need to work at and have worked at for some time. To summarize
what I think Reclamation's views and Idaho's comments were,
when Reclamation came on the scene in 1902, in much of the
basin the development of water resources had maxed out the
available supply and stream flows were often dry many times in
the late season in many places that are not dry today.
The main impact from Reclamation has been to provide
storage reservoirs that have stored water in the wintertime
during the spring freshet and release that water for subsequent
diversion in the summertime. So it's Reclamation's view that
the impacts from Reclamation projects are to reduce flows in
the winter and in the spring and to increase flows in the late
summer, the July and August period.
Senator Crapo. Have you seen--I'm sure you have seen the
charts that Mr. Dreher from Idaho has presented about the
impact of water augmentation from these projects----
Mr. Rigby. I have, sir.
Senator Crapo [continuing]. On flows in the Columbia and
Snake Rivers. Do you agree that those charts are accurate?
Mr. Rigby. I believe it's a matter of arithmetic.
Senator Crapo. Why?
Mr. Rigby. I think he's counting CFS and acre feet. They
seem to be accurate.
Senator Crapo. The conclusion that I reach from looking at
those charts is that there is virtually no meaningful impact
coming from the BOR projects we're talking about with regard to
the flow. Do you agree with that conclusion?
Mr. Rigby. Well, our effort has been trying to resolve ESA
problems. I would rather not characterize the magnitude of
those changes and let people draw their own conclusions.
Senator Crapo. I think we'll probably see some charts
either here today or on other occasions. Without objection,
this letter will be made a part of the record.
I just have one final question for the panel or line of
questions. The draft BiOp essentially says that if the measures
called for in the BiOp do not show enough progress, then the
Federal Caucus will then return to the breach question. Today
and during our September hearings, as we have heard--I think we
will hear that there's a lot of dispute as to whether these
measures are going to work. There's this scientific debate that
we've already talked about which part of the life cycle you
focus on and what do you do in those life cycles.
The question comes down to this: If, in fact, the National
Marine Fisheries Service was prepared to recommend breaching
the dams and to begin doing the engineering work and have it
finalized by 2003, and then over a short period of months,
changed that decision--we still don't know why, and I
understand, Mr. Schiewe, that you're not in a position to
answer that question--aren't we faced, basically, with a
circumstance in which if we don't do the very best that we can
do during the next 5 or 6 years, then we will see NMFS come
down with a recommendation to breach the dams?
Mr. Schiewe. I would certainly endorse the concept of doing
the very best we can do. Although, it is still in play exactly
how the wording will be used in the biological opinion, NMFS
intent is to have 5- and 8-year check-ins on a 10-year
biological opinion with the option that if the populations are
still on a steep trajectory toward extinction that we would
defer to the action agencies to seek congressional
authorization to remove dams.
Senator Crapo. Any others want to comment on that question?
Mr. Arndt?
Mr. Arndt. Certainly, I think the intent now is to move
ahead aggressively short of carrying out those kind of
Draconian actions with the idea that at some point if those
actions are not showing success, that we're going to have to go
back and consult and certainly consider actions that could be
more aggressive and depending on where we're falling short--and
one point I would want to make there is if we're falling short,
say, on mid- or upper-Columbia stocks, we may not look at
breaching Lower Snake River dams. I don't think that's the only
option on the table. But certainly, if the Snake River stocks
are not doing well, I would think that we are going to have to
look hard at what kind of actions can be taken there to further
improve survival.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Schaller, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Schaller. The only thing that I'd add is that--and from
the Service's perspective we just want to ensure that the
scientific quality of performance measures and how they're
evaluated are of the highest quality and done in a
collaborative fashion in the region.
Senator Crapo. Well, the reason I ask this question is
because, as I indicated earlier, if we have a decisionmaking
path that is really focused on breaching the dams but is going
to try some other things first, then those other things become
pretty critical, particularly if, as I have said, they involve
the assertion of extensive new Federal control over water and
extensive new Federal control over habitat measures that are
imposed on the people of the Pacific Northwest when in the
minds of at least some, that's not the area where the focus
ought to be.
We could end up with a circumstance in which we spend the
next 5 to 8 years seeing the expansion of Federal management
over water and habitat land in the Pacific Northwest and then
see the dams breached. It would seem to me that a much better
resolution would be--if the scientists who say that you need to
focus on the hydrosystem as the correct focus, we need to do
our maximum focus there as much as we can without breaching the
dams to see if we can, as I think you have said earlier, get
the very best reduction of mortality in the hydrosystem
possible so that we know we have done our very best in that
area.
I assume from what I'm hearing here that there is no
objection to doing that in the hydrosystem. Is there any
objection from any of the Federal panelists here at the
scientific level? I see no's from all four of the panel
members.
This question is one that I realize that you can answer,
but I would like to ask it and encourage you to take it back to
your policy counterparts in your agencies. But the question I
ask is faced with all of this uncertainty and these kinds of
questions and the critical importance of getting it right, why
does the Federal Caucus not continue--or I shouldn't say
continue--why doesn't it begin a meaningful collaborative
process with the States, the tribes, the environmental
community, the industry representatives, and others who have
very strong opinions and I think some pretty strong science
with them as well as to what the plan out to be?
Probably the best way to encapsulate that is to say the
four Governors did this. They sat down. They collaborated. They
have a much more consensus-based approach, and I think if
nothing else there will be confidence in the region if we
follow a collaborative-based consensus model that we did our
very best as we approach these decisions.
I'm not expecting you to answer this, although you're
welcome to give me an answer right now if you have one. My
encouragement to the Federal agencies, in particular NMFS, is
that they engage in that collaborative process soon. I'm
encouraging NMFS to not force a December 15 deadline and get
engaged in a consensus-building process as quickly as possible
so that we cannot be engaged in conflict after the December 15
decision is made.
Do any of you want to make a comment on that?
Mr. Schiewe. No, sir. I will take it back, though.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that.
One last thing, I expect that we will hear some testimony
today about the impact of the ocean on all this. We haven't
talked about that much. But I would appreciate any comments
that any of you have with regard to the relative importance of
ocean impacts as opposed to hydro impacts as opposed to habitat
or water augmentation and the like.
I'm right now trying to evaluate the information that's
coming to me from various perspectives about what the science
is telling us where the problems are.
Mr. Schiewe, do you have any comments on that general
issue?
Mr. Schiewe. I would say that I think that the ocean has
huge effects on the dynamics of salmon populations. Further,
that the strong salmon return we've seen in the Columbia this
year and in other rivers throughout the Northwest--as well as
what's predicted for next year based upon the returns of
precocious males or jacks--emphasizes the potential importance
of the ocean. At the National Marine Fisheries Service, we are
actively engaged in research to better understand the factors
that affect survival in the near shore ocean.
I think--as has been brought up by a number of other
people--that the most important aspect of understanding ocean
conditions and ocean factors is going to be to develop a
context for evaluating change that we may make in fresh water.
Try as we might, we aren't going to be able to effect changes
in the ocean through our manipulations.
Senator Crapo. Any other comments, Mr. Schaller?
Mr. Schaller. The only thing that I'd add is the last part
of Dr. Schiewe's comments is that it's very difficult to make
any changes in the ocean environment. I think what we need to
recognize is through management in all four Hs, we have to take
into consideration that there is going to be a cyclical nature
to the ocean conditions, and generally they're just an
indication of broad climatic factors across the whole Northwest
and that our management approaches will need to take into
consideration those climatic and ocean conditions when crafting
approaches--risk averse approaches in putting together all four
H-management strategies.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Arndt, or Mr. Rigby, did you care to
comment on this?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. It seems to me--just as a final wrap-up here
with regard to the answers that both of you just gave, it seems
to me that once we get, if we can get, to a point where the
science is pretty much agreed to, or even if we just end up
moving ahead on something that the decisionmaker gets to say
the science is, but the question of the relative impacts of
these various factors becomes critical to the policymaker
because once the science is understood or once the science is
agreed to that we'll be dealing with, then you have to work in
the questions of the economic impacts, the cultural impacts,
and the political complications that come to bear. The
policymakers then have to make very difficult decisions.
So the question that I see that we need to answer and
relatively quickly between, say, the ocean, the harvest, the
habitat, the hydrosystem, the predation issues, and the list
goes on, the estuaries and the first-year life cycle versus the
travel through the hydrosystem issues and all of those is what
is the relative relationship between them?
For example, if the ocean is 99 percent of the issue and
we're tinkering around with 1 percent of issue on all of these
other issues that we're talking about, that's pretty relevant
to a policy decisionmaker. On the other hand, if the ocean is
20 percent of the issue or 30 percent of the issue, and the
dams are some percent of the issue and the habitat is some
percent of the issue and so forth, that changes the entire
policy decisionmaking perspective. Do we have any answers in
that regard in terms of even broad estimates of the relative
impact of these various issues, or do we still need further
study on that?
Mr. Schiewe. I think you can always refine them, Senator,
but we do have these estimates--these are the basis for most of
the life cycle models. They are built around estimation of the
mortality that occurs in each of the life-history stanzas of
the salmon, and, again, the vast majority occurs very early in
the first year of life and at the near shore ocean transition.
It's less in other life-history stanzas, but we do have a
pretty good idea of what it is, and we're looking to make
changes in any and all of those, if we can.
Senator Crapo. OK. Anything further from the panel?
All right. I thank you both for sitting through the
Washington hearings when we asked you to be there and for also
being here for these hearings and for providing your
information. I would like to ask you, if you can, to hang
around and listen to the other testimony. I know you may have
other engagements, but there may be some questions that come up
as a result of that that we'd like to ask you to answer outside
the record.
This panel is excused, and we will call up our second
panel.
Our second panel is Mr. James Anderson of the Columbia
Basin Research in Seattle, WA; Mr. Charles Paulsen, president
of Paulsen Environment Research in Lake Oswego, OR; Mr. Karl
Dreher, director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources;
and Mr. Russell Thurow, fisheries research scientist for the
Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise, ID.
You all heard the instructions. I'd ask you to please try
to stick with the 5-minutes so we can get into a more thorough
discussion and questions and answers. But why don't we proceed.
Mr. Anderson, you may go first.
STATEMENT OF JAMES ANDERSON, COLUMBIA BASIN RESEARCH, SEATTLE,
WA
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim
Anderson. I'm an associate professor at the University of
Washington. I've been involved with the Columbia River research
for about two decades.
What I want to do today is present a concept of how I think
what's been responsible for salmon decline in the general sense
and then ask how the BiOp is addressing these issues. As you've
alluded to earlier, decline of salmon is really due to the
interaction of the decadal or the climate/ocean fluctuations
along with cumulative impacts of society. We are now in a
situation where the ocean is cooler with fish coming back in
numbers not seen in several decades.
This is a temporal phenomena which will change eventually
and there's really two possibilities I think the BiOp needs to
be viewed within. One is that there are decadal scales, and at
the end of this decade, we're going to have a lot of fish
coming into the Columbia River because we've returned to those
good conditions.
The other possibility is global warming is really going to
be driving things. We're going to have a drier land and a
warmer ocean in the future, and in that case, we're going to
have conditions where maybe fish are very bad off sometime in
the future. Either case, we expect to have drier conditions,
and we expect more stress on the fish sometime in the future.
So what I want to do is address--Is the BiOp preparing us right
now for these conditions whether they happen in 5 years or in
30 years?
Can the BiOp monitoring, within this 10-year period, really
tell us much about the success of the BiOp actions are? I
believe that period is just too short. Our analysis in PATH,
showed it takes 10 to 20 years to evaluate the impacts of some
of the actions that are being proposed. Within the 5-year
period, basically we're going to see the impacts on fish that
are spawning right now, and in the 8-year period we'll just
have a couple more brood years. So the ocean is going to be the
major driving factor affecting decisions at the end of this
decade.
Now, there are other ways, other things that the BiOp
considers, the physical factors. Here we have standards, for
instance, flow, temperature, and sediment levels, which are not
being connected to the survival of the fish. I think that this
is a problem. The BiOp needs to really put upper and lower
estimates on impacts of, for instance, flow, temperature, and
things like this.
Can the BiOp really assess the effectiveness of dam
breaching? It's been pointed out and I think a lot of people
understand now that it's going to be a very difficult thing to
address. I don't see right now that the BiOp is really dealing
with these issues well because we have to find out something
happening in one life stage that causes mortality in another
life stage. This is just a difficult scientific question to
deal with.
Now, flow is a particularly difficult one. The BiOp has a
very aggressive flow policy right now. NMFS's research has
shown insignificant impacts of flow. Most of the analysis has
related the seasonal natural variations in flow to survival,
but then the action we're taking is augmentation within a year,
which is on top of the natural seasonal variations. Flow
augmentation is very different from the seasonal variation, and
NMFS has not come--no one has come to grips with this
difference.
There needs to be research to address augmentation
specifically and it goes beyond taking--doing correlations
between seasonal or year-to-year variations in flow and
survival.
Now, I've mentioned in several of my testimonies before
that hatcheries are important, and I continue to question
whether or not we're dealing with hatcheries properly. Many of
the wild stocks have hatchery influences, and the way that
hatcheries are being dealt with is different. For Fall Chinook
in the Snake River, a hatchery is considered part of the ESU,
but then we have these very successful Carson Creek hatchery
fish, being clubbed before they can spawn in the system.
I just wonder if maybe hatcheries should be considered part
of the ESU and they should be considered as refugium during
these coming years, several decades from now when we are going
to have greater demands for the resources and we're going to
have dryer conditions.
The final comment in my testimony relates to whether or not
stakeholders are represented properly. There has been a lot of
discussion on this. I don't believe they have, and I think it's
a very difficult problem to find a way to herd these scientists
so we can actually get something coherent and comprehensible to
you. With that, I'll conclude my testimony. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Dr. Anderson.
Mr. Paulsen.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES PAULSEN, PRESIDENT, PAULSON ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH, LAKE OSWEGO, OR
Mr. Paulsen. I am Charlie Paulsen. I'm an independent
consultant, do mostly work for Federal agencies, but I will
emphasize right from the get-go here that the opinions and so
forth are mine and not those of folks who have underwritten my
research.
I was asked to comment on science and the BiOp, and I guess
I'll briefly touch on the CRI and PATH, a couple of BiOp
actions, and then uncertainties that I think are important.
Something to keep in mind with the CRI, especially with regard
to collaboration, is, basically, NMFS says it has analyzed
about 12 ESUs in the course of 12 months. I was a participant
in PATH. It took us 5 years to get basically through two ESUs.
For those who want to do a more collaborative effort, which I
think is a good thing, you're going to need to build some time
into the schedule to do that. You won't be able to get one ESU
a month if that's what you're shooting for.
In addition, the models that CRI is using are new--or at
least their application of salmon is new. They've been evolving
very fast, and for those of us who have been kind of involved
at the edge of this but not within NMFS, it's hard to keep up
with what version of the model you're talking about they're
using for this month as opposed to last month as opposed to a
year ago's results.
Whether you're using CRI style models or any others, you
have to keep in mind the survival rates. The number of fish
that return each year and so forth are very highly variable.
The number of fish coming back to spawn can vary by a factor of
10 over the course of a few years. With any model, predicting
the future is a very imprecise exercise. We don't know how to
predict how many fish are going to come back next year or 2
years from now let alone 20 years or 100 years from now, and
that's something to keep in mind when looking at all of these
models. None of them are going to be able to make precise
predictions.
One thing that CRI has done that I think is really good is
addressing what they call hatchery effectiveness, how good are
hatchery fish that spawn in the wild when it comes to producing
progeny 4 or 5 years later. It's really important for many
stocks, especially in the mid-Columbia, to a lesser degree in
the Snake and elsewhere. Most other groups have not really
tried to take this on. I think it's going to be a really
important issue in the future.
With regard to PATH, personally, I don't think that the
PATH results from a few years ago stand up particularly well to
recent numbers. Recent high returns of fish, NMFS direct
measurements of very high survival through the Snake River for
spring migrants, measures of ``D'' values, as they call them,
how well-transported fish do relative to in-river migrants.
Those are all much more optimistic in terms of short-term
survival than what PATH for the most part used, something that
would need to be addressed if one were to try to revisit and
reincorporate PATH stuff into the BiOp and so forth maybe.
Finally, if the ocean regime shift has happened--and 2
years of data don't a 20- or 30-year trend make, but if it has,
it also casts some doubt on whether or not the delayed
mortality or extra mortality and so forth is really due to the
dams, or was it just due to ocean conditions. At this point, we
don't know, but I think it's something that we'll be able to
find out some more about over the next 5 or 10 years.
BiOp actions, flow augmentation, at least for spring
migrants, has very little support in my opinion based on NMFS's
research. It just doesn't seem to make much difference how much
flow there is in the springtime when it comes to survival for
steelhead and spring chinook. For fall chinook, it certainly
makes a difference, but it's hard to tell what exactly makes a
difference. Is it the time of year? Is it the age of the fish
when they release them? Is it the temperature of the water or
how much flow there is? You can't really separate it out based
on results to date.
The BiOp places a lot of emphasis on offsite mitigation,
and that's going to take an enormous amount of monitoring and
evaluation to figure out whether or not those things work. One
thing that the BiOp doesn't talk about much, but I personally
think has a lot of promise, is what they call carcass or
nutrient supplementation where they put either literally fish
carcasses or inorganic fertilizer out there to see if the
juveniles do better.
You noted earlier that the survival of fish from spawning
down to the first dam seems not to have changed much, and that
may well be true. However, if those fish are smaller, less fit,
less ready to go, less ready to make it in the ocean because
they're not getting enough to eat when they're small, that
could really make a difference and certainly in other species,
especially along the Oregon and Washington Coast and B.C., it's
made a lot of--those sorts of programs make a lot of
difference--or it made a lot of difference in the past for
fish.
Finally, I think that given the variability, the
uncertainty, or just plain ignorance of how fish work, why
ocean conditions--why cooler ocean conditions are better and so
forth and so on, we need to be really humble about our ability
to predict what's going to happen in the future at all, let
alone what the effect of a particular management action or a
set of them are going to be. That's all.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dreher.
STATEMENT OF KARL DREHER, DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES, BOISE, ID
Mr. Dreher. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Karl
Dreher. I serve as the director of the Idaho Department of
Water Resources, a position that I've held since 1995. I
appreciate your invitation to testify at this hearing and would
like to share with you some of my concerns with the draft
biological opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River
System released by the National Marine Fisheries Service this
past July.
My comments will focus primarily on two aspects of the
Draft Biological Opinion. No. 1, the inadequacy of the science
relied on by NMFS in continuing to call for flow augmentation
in the mainstem of the Snake River. No. 2, the flawed analysis
conducted by NMFS in assessing the effects of the Bureau of
Reclamation projects in the Upper Snake River Basin, a subject
that you alluded to with the last panel.
First, in terms of the flows, if you look at the history of
recorded flows at the site of Lower Granite Dam, the striking
conclusion that can clearly be drawn is that despite the
increasing development of irrigated agriculture in the Snake
River Basin, despite development of municipal and industrial
water supplies, despite the upstream development of
hydroelectric power plants, despite the construction of
Dworshak Reservoir for flood control, and despite the
construction of Bureau of Reclamation storage reservoirs in the
Upper Snake River Basin, flows simply have not changed
significantly.
During the spring target flow period established by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, average daily flows range
from about 50,000 CFS to about 170,000 CFS. They do today. They
did prior to 1920. Similarly, during the summer target-flow
period, average daily flows range from about 20,000 CFS to
about 70,000 CFS. Again, they do today and they did prior to
1920.
The lack of dramatic change in flows is significant because
regardless of the flaws or lack of flaws with the process for
analyzing and testing the hypothesis model, that process
concluded that the productivity of Snake River spring/summer
chinook populations remained healthy through the 1950's and
into the 1960's. Consequently, changes in Snake River flows
can't have contributed to the loss of salmon productivity
because the flows didn't change, and it should not be expected
that increasing flows will significantly improve salmon
productivity because there's no significant flow depletion to
contribute to loss of productivity.
What has changed since the construction of the last four
dams on the Lower Snake River is the average velocity of river
flow, and that has slowed dramatically on an order of
magnitude. The slowing of river flows following construction of
the lower four Snake River dams coupled with observations that
improved adult returns are generally associated with good water
years during juvenile migration have led to the hypothesis, and
it's only on hypothesis that augmenting flows in the mainstem
Snake River will increase flow velocities, decrease the travel
time of outmigrating smolts by pushing them downstream and thus
improve their survival.
However, there has been little recognition by NMFS in the
draft BiOp and the supporting documents that flow augmentation
can only at best provide small and insignificant increases in
flow velocities. In part, to test this hypothesis, NMFS, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Nez Perce Tribe
investigated migration characteristics of hatchery-raised
spring, summer, and fall chinook in the Snake River using
hatchery-raised juveniles as surrogates for wild juveniles.
The studies were conducted during the period from 1995
through 1998 and showed that estimated survival from points of
release to the tailrace of Lower Granite Dam could be
correlated with all three environmental variables examined, and
those were--consisted of flow rate, water temperature, and
turbidity. At least for fall subyearlings they could
demonstrate these correlations.
Estimated fall subyearling survival decreased throughout
the season as flow volume and turbidity decreased and water
temperature increased. These correlations have been used by
NMFS as the primary basis in the Draft BiOp for the
continuation of flow augmentation from reservoirs in the Snake
River and Clearwater River basins to aid outmigrating juvenile
subyearling fall chinook salmon.
However, an elementary principle of statistics is that
correlation between variables does not equate to cause and
effect. Based on an analysis of the 1995 through 1998 data
relied on by NMFS, these data do not support a conclusion that
higher flows achieved by use of flow augmentation cause an
increase in survival.
Attached to my written statement is a copy of the executive
summary from a recent collaborative study completed by the
Idaho Department of Water Resources; the Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute, which is an arm of the University of Idaho;
and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Using the 1995
through 1998 data relied on by NMFS, we found that most of the
hatchery-raised fall chinook surviving to Lower Granite Dam
traveled faster, not slower, during lower flows. This is shown
in my written testimony, and it's completely opposite of what
would be expected if incrementally higher flow velocities
caused an increase in survival.
The inadequacy of the studies used by NMFS to investigate
survival under varying flow conditions does not suggest that
flow, specifically the attributes of flow--water velocity,
temperature, and turbidity--are unimportant to migration and
survival of juvenile salmon. However, flow rates, velocity,
temperature, and turbidity are closely correlated within one
another within the 1995 to 1998 data set used by NMFS to
justify continued flow augmentation in the draft BiOp. The
current data are insufficient to allow delineation of the
effects of individual attributes of flow.
Understanding the effects of individual attributes of flow,
particularly the usefulness of flow to compensate for the
effects of reservoir impoundment, is fundamental to determining
the effectiveness of flow-augmentation efforts for increasing
survival of juvenile salmon. For example, if cooler water
temperatures are important to improve the survival of juvenile
subyearling fall chinook salmon, then using relatively warm
water from the Upper Snake River to augment flows may be
counterproductive and may actually harm subyearling fall
chinook if river flows augmented with water from the Upper
Snake River Basin are warmer than what would have occurred
without flow augmentation from the Upper Snake.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason perhaps, or another, I note
that in today's issue of Clearing Updated, as I said, today,
November 20, 2000, it's reported--and I haven't seen this
report yet myself, but it is reported that NMFS scientists last
week presented research in Portland that found an inverse
relationship between spring flows and fish survival. I haven't
seen this work myself. It was apparently written in an October
26 memo, and it's yet to be reflected in what the policymakers
of NMFS have done.
I see that my time is up. Let me shorthand my comments on
the bureau effects, and if you wish to followup with questions,
I'll respond. The main problem with the analysis that NMFS did
dealing with the effects of the upper Snake projects that the
Bureau of Reclamation has constructed is they assume that the
depletions associated with the bureau projects occurred during
the migration season of the salmon when, in fact, the
depletions, as indicated earlier this morning by Mr. Rigby, the
depletions to storage occurred in the wintertime and the spring
months, not when the salmon were actively migrating.
Instead of recognizing that fact and also recognizing the
contribution of return flows, what NMFS did is they assumed
that the consumptive use associated with the irrigation caused
the deletion when, in fact, the depletion had already occurred
and was outside the window of importance to the salmon. Also,
in their base study, there's a serious misconception in that
without the bureau-depletion scenario, NMFS eliminated all
irrigation storage, diversions, and return flows.
This predevelopment scenario stretches the available data
and analytical tools well beyond their reliable use and places
the entire analysis well into the realm of speculation.
Unfortunately, NMFS then took the analysis one stunning step
further. It assumed that the bureau reservoirs would remain in
place and would be actively employed solely to augment flows
for salmon. In other words, NMFS calculated the effects of
operating the bureau projects on stream flow as the sum of: No.
1, the depletions that NMFS attributed to bureau-based
irrigation and then, No. 2, the volume of water that would have
been available if the bureau reservoirs were actively operated
solely to augment flows. That concludes my remarks, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Thurow.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL THUROW, FISHERIES RESEARCH SCIENTIST,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, BOISE, ID
Mr. Thurow. Thank you, Senator Crapo and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
I'm Russ Thurow, a Fisheries Research Scientist with the Rocky
Mountain Research Station, and my comments today do not
represent the Forest Service or the Administration's position.
I find the approach outlined in the Biological Opinion
flawed, and today I'd like to focus specifically on the
scientifically-indefensible conclusion that Snake River
anadromous fish stocks can be recovered through restoration of
freshwater spawning and rearing habitat. As detailed in my
written testimony the preponderance of evidence illustrates
this approach will fail to meet recovery goals for Snake River
stocks. I will use wild Middle Fork Salmon River stocks to
illustrate why that approach is infeasible since I'm intimately
familiar with those populations.
Focusing on restoration of freshwater spawning rear habitat
will not recover Snake River stocks because, first of all,
losses in the egg-to-smolt stage have not been the cause of the
declines. The number of young salmon recruits produced per
spawning adult has remained fairly consistent or slightly
increased since the 1960's, as was discussed earlier.
Comparisons of stock trends in wilderness and degraded
habitats also corroborate that changes in spawning and rearing
habitat quality have not been responsible for stock declines.
Chinook salmon redd counts in both wilderness and degraded
habitats have similarly declined since the mid-1970's.
Second, habitat conditions in the Middle Fork have remained
the same or improved since the 1960's. The 1980 wilderness
designation banned all dredge and placer mining. Livestock-
grazing management has improved in tributaries outside the
wilderness boundary, and the Middle Fork supports immense and
high-quality spawning areas that I invite the members of this
committee to go visit.
Third, in high-quality habitats like those that exist in
most of the Middle Fork drainage, there is virtually no
opportunity to substantially improve egg-to-smolt survival of
fish spawning in the wild. This science article that was
mentioned earlier by Kareiva and others emphasizes improving
egg-to-smolt survival to restore stocks without considering the
feasibility of actually achieving those improvements, and I
would challenge the individuals who are advocating freshwater
habitat restoration as a means to restore Snake River chinook
salmon to visit the Middle Fork habitats and explain how they
would achieve a 2.7-fold improvement in survival, which is what
PATH says is needed to restore these populations.
Fourth, the life stage where the largest increases in
mortality have occurred as a result of human activities is in
the smolt-to-adult stage. Return rates have declined from an
estimated 4 percent or more in 1968 to less than 0.2 percent in
1992. Comparisons of downriver stocks with Snake River stocks
corroborate the strong influence of migration corridor
mortality. Snake River stocks above eight dams are faring about
one-third as well as stocks--downriver stocks above three dams.
As further corroborative evidence, during years of higher
flows and improved passage conditions, differences in mortality
rates between downriver and upriver stocks tend to narrow. So
if freshwater habitat quality or even ocean condition
fluctuations were the proximate causes of mortality, the
shrinking of the differences between upriver and downriver
stocks with higher flows would not be expected.
The four points I just mentioned clearly illustrate the
changes in the egg-to-smolt stage in freshwater spawning and
rearing habitat are not responsible for declines in Snake River
stocks. Rather, the declines since the mid-1970's have been
caused by increased mortality in the smolt-to-adult life stage.
The problem lies not in the quality of spawning areas but in
the lack of sufficient numbers of adults successfully returning
to spawn. Consequently, freshwater habitat restoration will not
recover Snake River stocks.
A National Marine Fisheries Service document, the so-called
All-H paper provides the final supporting information to
illustrate why Snake River stocks will be not be recovered by
freshwater habitat restoration. The All-H paper prioritizes
subbasins for habitat restoration based on need and
opportunities for success. Not a single subbasin supporting
Snake River anadromous stocks was prioritized for habitat
restoration. Why? Precisely for the reasons stated earlier,
because most of the subbasins already support habitat of good,
high quality. In fact, the document said approximately 70
percent of the habitat for listed species currently lies in
wilderness or roadless areas, so only modest benefits would be
realized from freshwater habitat restoration efforts.
In summary, the biological opinion makes a critical error
focusing on the egg-to-smolt life stage as the area of
emphasis. This approach is not feasible and will fail to
recover Snake River anadromous fish. If Snake River anadromous
stocks are to be recovered, then the biological opinion must
change its approach and emphasize measures to restore survival
in the smolt-to-adult life stage to a level necessary to meet
recovery goals. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Thurow.
I'm going to ask some general questions for the whole
panel. I would just like you to feel free to jump in and
discuss these issues with me. But I want to start out with a
question that I discussed with the previous panel, and I'm just
going to hold up--there's the two scientific reports that I
talked about earlier. There's the Kareiva, Marvier, and McClure
report from NMFS, which says that it's the potentially egg-to-
smolt cycle where most bang for the buck can be achieved.
There's the response to that that says that cycle hasn't been
downgraded for decades and that's not where we're going to get
the success.
I know from your testimony where some of you come out on
that issue, but I would just like to ask you generally, in this
whole debate over whether our best success can be achieved in
terms of focusing on the egg-to-smolt cycle or the smolt-to-
adult cycle, do you have an opinion on that? I guess I would
just like to go through all four of you and see if you have an
opinion, and, if so, what it is.
Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. I think that the information on the smolt-to-
adult returns over the years has shown the greatest variation.
In the 1960's 2 to 6 percent of the Smolts returned as adults.
In the mid-1990's, they were on the order of a half percent or
less. That seems to me where the greatest variation is, and
that suggests where the mortality is great.
Now, that doesn't mean that that's where stress is
occurring, though. That's why you probably find, as I do,
science quite frustrating, because we can't find mortality in
the hydrosystem or in the freshwater environment. We think
considerable mortality occurs after the hydrosystem and is out
of our control, but we can always make arguments that it's due
to stress in the fresh water so it is in our control. Until we
can resolve that, whether it's due to the size of the fish in
the freshwater environment, stress in passing with barges or
through the hydrosystem, or if it's due to disease because of
interactions with hatcheries, until we can find or discard
those things, we're not going to be able to resolve where to
put our efforts.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Paulsen.
Mr. Paulsen. Certainly, there's been an enormous amount of
variability in survival from smolt at Lower Granite back to
adult at Lower Granite over the past 25 or 30 years, no
question about that. How much of that is anthropogenic, how
much of it is just ocean effects, I don't think anybody knows
for sure at this point. I agree with Russ Thurow's point that
the freshwater habitat for many of these stocks is in good
shape. That does not, however, mean there's nothing you can do.
I really think the possibilities for carcass nutrient
whatever additions are quite high if that would, for example,
help explain why you get this--what they call depensitory
mortality, where at very low numbers the survival gets even
lower than it was at moderate numbers of fish, and those
techniques where you basically add hatchery carcasses or just
plain fertilizer to the watersheds have proven themselves in
other areas. It hasn't been tried to any great degree in the
Snake at all. So, sure.
Ocean conditions, there's nothing we can do about those
other than monitor them, I think. There may be a little bit you
can do in terms of when the fish get to the estuary in a
transportation program or something of that sort, but those are
beyond our control. Let's see what we can do because, of
course, the basic point from the Kareiva et al article was that
even if you make hydrosystem survival 100 percent, no mortality
at all, that's not going to be enough by itself to bring the
stocks back.
They were just looking at this and saying, ``Well, where
could we possibly do something?'' It looked to them like the
only other place to look was very early in the life cycle
either when the fish are still rearing in freshwater or when
they're down in estuary, just out in the ocean.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Dreher.
Mr. Dreher. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I'm not a fisheries
biologist, and so I, with your permission, would defer
answering the question because I believe it's outside the realm
of my expertise.
Senator Crapo. I understand.
Mr. Thurow.
Mr. Thurow. A couple of points. To me, the issue of
discretionary mortality is a really critical one, and what I
mean by that is where in the life stage have there been changes
in mortality attributed to human activities, so where do we
have the discretion to do something about those?
My point is that in these high-quality habitats--and I
would disagree with Mr. Schiewe about the condition of the
Middle Fork. I'm very familiar with that drainage. I've worked
in it for 20 years. I've walked virtually every mile of
spawning habitat accessible to anadromous fish, and the only
drainage in the Middle Fork where we have opportunities for
improving habitat condition is in Bear Valley Creek. The rest
of that drainage is in very high-quality condition. Some of the
areas he mentioned are actually outside the wilderness
boundary, but Marsh Creek, for example, still has very, very
high-quality habitat.
So having said that, we do not have the opportunity for
changing mortality in those areas. There has not been the
change attributed to human activity so there isn't
discretionary mortality. The Kareiva, et. al paper, basically,
my understanding what they did and what CRI did is to look at
the whole life cycle of salmon and say where is the mortality
apportioned and where do we have some chance of doing
something. So they looked at the first year of life, and, not
surprisingly, that's where most of the mortality occurs.
These fish produce between 4,000 to 6,000 eggs per female.
In basic biology, we learn that the bulk of those are not going
to survive. Survival is variable, but even in the best
environments, the bulk of those fish are not going to survive
their first year. There's a variety of reasons for that. To me,
the biggest weakness of the Kareiva and the CRI work is that
they don't look at the feasibility of it. Yes, most of the
mortality occurs there, but what can we do about it? We really
can't do much in high-quality habitats.
I would also like to comment on Charlie's point about
fertilization. I struggle with that a little bit for two
reasons. Because, No. 1, my familiarity with the Middle Fork
stock suggests that, although we do have low nutrients, much
lower nutrients than we had historically because the great
declines in stocks, the chinook parr and the steelhead parr
that are in that system are in phenomenal condition. They're
athletes. Those fish are taking advantage of the food that's
there. The seeding rates are so incredibly low that in areas
where we used to have clouds of chinook parr, now you see three
or four fish.
So the fish that are there, from my perspective, are in
good condition. They're not suffering from bad conditions. If
we hypothesize that there is an effect from lack of nutrients
that we might have a positive benefit on, though, what that
causes us to have to do is to hypothesize that there's actually
delayed mortality that's skipping a life stage. What we see is
the spawner to recruit numbers are staying fairly flat or
increasing. That would suggest that the fish in the freshwater
environment are not suffering from low nutrients.
The hypothesis, then, would have to be that somehow they're
in worse condition so when they become smolts and migrate,
that's reducing survival, and, personally, I have a hard time
believing that. It's also interesting to me that some of the
scientists that aren't very comfortable accepting the notion of
delayed mortality through the hydrosystem would accept delayed
mortality skipping a life stage.
Senator Crapo. Your answers to this question have raised a
lot of issues for me. I want to kind of step you through what
I'm thinking right now as I'm listening to you and make sure
that I haven't reached any conclusions that you didn't intend
for me to reach or that you don't think are justified.
First, in terms of looking at the life cycle, what was it,
95 percent of the eggs don't make it through the first year; is
that the statistic that's generally accurate? The question,
then, is whether that's not normal or whether what we are
calling discretionary mortality or human-caused mortality is
occurring in that 95 percent loss of egg to smolt. Do any of
you on this panel believe that that's not normal? In other
words, is there a lot of room to improve that survival rate
over what it is in nature? Is my question making sense?
Mr. Paulsen. I suppose it depends on how you define ``a
lot.'' Are modest improvements possible? Could we drop the 95
percent to 94, 93 or something like that? If we knew what we
were doing, maybe. By the way, if it sounds like I'm proposing
this carcass or nutrient stuff as a panacea, I'm not. I'm just
saying I think it's something worth trying to see what happens.
I don't think you can reduce it to 1 percent or 5 percent from
95 percent or anything like that.
Senator Crapo. So would any of you say that I've made a
wrong conclusion here if I concluded that this 90-percent plus,
90 to 95 percent of the eggs are going to be lost because
that's how it works in nature and it's not being caused by
human activity? I'm assuming that I'm OK with that conclusion.
I also thought I heard in your answers, collectively, that
most of the actual mortality as opposed to whether it's from a
previous cause, but most of the actual mortality is actually
occurring once the fish gets out of the river system and into
the ocean. Is that true?
Mr. Anderson. To maybe qualify that, the greatest
variations in the life-stage mortality is in that section. Part
of it is because we can measure that. We know how many smolts
go out. We know how many adults come back and that's where we
see biggest--a huge variation.
Senator Crapo. OK. Well, any other responses to what I just
said?
Mr. Thurow. I guess I would clarify what I think you're
saying is most of human-caused mortality seems to have occurred
in that smolt-to-adult stage; is that what you're saying?
Senator Crapo. What I was getting at is if we could measure
how many fish die at each point of the--I'm not sure I want to
say the life cycle because the life cycle from smolt to adult
is 5 years or is a long period of time, and it includes the
river system plus the ocean. But if we could divide it into the
river system from when they leave their habitat--their spawning
habitat and get to the ocean, and then what happens in the
ocean, when does most of the actual mortality occur? Does it
occur in the river or does it--a human-caused mortality in the
river--or does it occur in the ocean regardless of what caused
it?
Mr. Paulsen. Are you saying human-caused mortality? I'm
getting confused. Human-caused mortality regardless of what
caused it?
Senator Crapo. Right. Regardless of what caused it. I want
to know when the death occurs.
Mr. Anderson. Well, the measurements we have through the
hydrosystem are 50 percent mortality, and that's about what it
was before the dams went in. After that, there's maybe a 1
percent survival after that point.
Senator Crapo. In the ocean?
Mr. Anderson. In the ocean including the estuary.
Senator Crapo. Let me interrupt. Before the dams went in,
there was a 50 percent survival through the river system?
Mr. Anderson. It was maybe higher. Before the Snake River
dams went in, when there were four dams in the system, it was
not much different than what it is right now.
Senator Crapo. With eight dams?
Mr. Anderson. With eight dams.
Senator Crapo. So what I interpret from that--what I hear
from that is that it hasn't changed significantly with the
additional four dams being put in. That doesn't mean that they
aren't causing mortality. It just means that the mortality, if
they are causing it, is occurring after they get to the ocean.
Am I right about that?
Mr. Anderson. You are right about that.
Senator Crapo. Any disagreement with that?
Mr. Paulsen. One caveat that Mike Schiewe mentioned this
morning is that in the 1970's as the dams were going in, things
were just terrible for in-river migrants. One thing he didn't
say is, for example, they used to shut the Snake River off at
night when power demand went down. It doesn't work that way
anymore.
Senator Crapo. So we don't really have a good gauge as to
what it would be.
Here's a question: Do we know without dams in the river
what the mortality rate would be in terms of fish transferring
itself from the habitat to the ocean?
Mr. Paulsen. Certainly, not from direct measurements, no.
There are certainly people who are willing to make a guess at
that. Almost everybody, I think, would say it would be higher
than it is now. It would be higher than the 50-odd percent that
it is now.
Senator Crapo. Higher survival.
Mr. Paulsen. Yes.
Senator Crapo. But we don't know how much. That helps.
I guess I still have a question. What I'm leading to here
is how we are going to figure out this question of delayed
mortality or human-caused mortality and how we can study it to
get an answer to it because we have--I think that we have some
pretty good evidence--at least from what I've seen so far,
there seems to be pretty strong evidence that the habitat issue
is one where just because of nature, that's where the biggest
losses occur, and we have pristine habitat where we still have
problems, and so there's obviously something else going on.
But then that something else is the question, and there are
strong advocates who say that something else is the river
system and the hydrosystem in particular, and there are strong
advocates who say that something else is the ocean climate
circumstance that we see cycled back and forth. I suspect
there's probably some truth in both. The question is how much
of a factor are those two, and then some say to me when I posit
that question, ``Well, we can't do anything about the ocean and
so we might as well focus on the hydrosystem because that is
something that we can focus on and can do something about.''
But the question I then have about that is if they're equal
components, that makes sense, but if the ocean is 90 percent of
the problem and the hydrosystem is 2 percent of problem, you're
not really solving a lot if you just focus on it that way. On
the other hand, if there are different ratios in there, then
maybe the decision as to what to do and where to focus your
efforts makes more sense.
So, I'm trying to get, as a policymaker, a perspective on
what the relative impact of different parts of the equation
are, whether it be the hydrosystem, the predation, the ocean
climate conditions, or whatever, how those fit together. Do we
have any ability as scientists to answer those questions yet?
Do any of you dare to even get it as simple as saying whether
the ocean is a bigger factor than the dams?
Mr. Thurow. I'll address that a little bit. I'm stepping
out of a box into an area that I haven't done specific work in
because my strength is in the freshwater-habitat arena. That's
where I have the knowledge and experience. Obviously, there's
strong evidence for cycles, productivity cycles in the ocean.
But these have probably been occurring for hundreds of
thousands of years, and salmon and steelhead have persisted
through those cycles. Those cycles are working in concert with
these other factors, these other human-caused factors.
But for the ocean conditions to be the proximate cause of
declines in Snake River stocks would require a couple different
things. First of all, it would require that there's an ocean
phenomenon that's specific to Snake River stocks, and it's a
phenomenon that was coincidental with but unrelated to the
hydrosystem. My understanding is that the first year of ocean
residence is believed to be the big driver in survival of
smolt-to-adult return so--in determining your class strength,
and that's one of the reasons why we use what we call jack
counts to estimate the next year's returns because there is
that strong relationship with first-year residence.
The evidence that I'm familiar with suggests that Snake
River stocks and some of those downriver stocks that showed
very different levels are using similar areas during that first
year of life. So that would be an argument against this
specific ocean--this ocean phenomenon specific to Snake River
stocks.
The other argument is that the shrinking of the differences
between up- and downriver stocks during years of better passage
conditions would also suggest that it's the migration corridor
and not the ocean conditions that are responsible for the
differences in those up- and downriver stocks.
So I guess my view of the ocean is certainly important.
Certainly, the ocean productivity is going to determine the
rate at which stocks decline or improve, but looking at all the
data, I find it really difficult to say that the declines of
Snake River stocks have been caused by ocean productivity
changes when we have measured changes in smolt-to-adult return
rates of that magnitude. We know that 1968 we were in the 4
percent smolt-to-adult range, and we know that it's declined,
as he said, less than a half percent in many years.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Anderson, Mr. Paulsen, do you have a
perspective on that?
Mr. Anderson. I have a perspective. We dealt with this in
the PATH process. We had a couple of alternative hypotheses,
one that was related to hydrosystem, one that related to ocean,
another that was disconnected from all of those. Looking at the
information, we found there were some critical data points, two
or three which would drive you one direction or another in your
conclusions. We did not have enough information to be able to
separate out if those critical data points were important.
We now have a little bit more information that our
assumptions on the mainstem hydrosystem survival were too low.
The new information indicates we have higher survival, so that
will change our analysis, which we have not done. We have not
looked at that. We still have some uncertainties about the
comparison data sets we were using. We were using lower river
stocks from the John Day, principally, which drove a lot of the
conclusions. We didn't look at stocks from the Upper Columbia,
which were declining independent of any changes in their
hydrosystem passage.
I think that we cannot resolve this issue with simple
logical scenarios. We have to take a wider look at the
different stocks using the available data we have, and,
hopefully, we will also look at some of the conditions of the
stocks. As Dr. Schiewe was pointing out, they're going to look
at survivability depending on passage route of fish after
they've left the hydrosystem. Putting all those factors
together, over the next decade, we might be able to resolve
this, but I just don't believe any logical scenario arguments
are going to be sufficient because we can come up with so many
of them right now.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Paulsen, before you answer, I want to
followup here. What I'm hearing from you--and I've kind of been
picking this up from a number of things said here today--is
that we don't have the ability to know the answer to some of
these critical questions yet. Given the fact that we're looking
at a BiOp that gives us 5 or 6 years to know before we're going
to face another very critical decisionmaking point, do we have
time to get some of the answers you just said we had to study
and find out in that period of time?
Mr. Anderson. Not in 5 years.
Senator Crapo. So in 5 years when we make this decision,
we're going to be sitting here with the same questions being
asked and the same answers being, well, we don't know; is that
right?
Mr. Anderson. We could, yes.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Paulsen, do you want to elaborate?
Mr. Paulsen. I'd say it depends on what we do in the
meantime. Certainly, things that depend on kind of gradual
responses for large numbers of stocks, like all of the Snake
River stocks all at the same time, we haven't a prayer of
finding out very much more in the next 5 years. One thing that
might happen is, again, if an ocean regime shift has occurred,
the smolt-to-adult return rates may well go up substantially
for Snake River stocks and probably others as well.
If that happens, it casts some doubt, at least, over the
dams as the cause of this extra mortality. In addition, if you
can do experiments that affect different stocks differently, so
you put carcasses out over here and don't put any out over
there, or you improve this habitat but don't do anything to
that, then you may be able to find some things out in 5 years
or so. But other than that, I agree. I think it's going to be a
while.
Getting back to the--was it the dams; was it the ocean, I
spent--I and other PATH members spent a lot of time trying to
tease this out of the existing data, and in different ways and
in different degrees, we all kind of gave up after a while.
They didn't put the Snake River dams in as an experiment. They
happened to go in when lots of other things may well have been
going wrong with the Snake River fish. The same for dams and
hatcheries and so forth and so on everywhere else in the
Columbia. It's really tough to disentangle that in a way that
you can say for sure, yes, it was the ocean and not the dams;
it was the habitat and not the hydrosystem or whatever it may
have been. It's a tough nut to crack.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Paulsen, on a related point, you state
in your testimony--or you stated concerning your testimony that
monitoring efforts will be too broad, too general, and too
diffuse to be effective, and I think you recommend some more
closely monitored specific management approaches to this. Could
you recommend or tell me what have you in mind there?
Mr. Paulsen. Well, in a general sort of way, sure. The All-
H paper in particular calls for monitoring just about every
phase of the life cycle for a great many stocks, and my main
concern is that between dollar constraints and just practical
ones, that there aren't but so many people who know how to do
this and such, that we may wind up just monitoring everything
that swims or creeps or crawls because almost anything could be
related to how well the fish are doing, whether or not a
management action is working and so forth.
All I'm trying to say in my written testimony is to try to
focus the monitoring on the effects of management actions taken
under the BiOp to see if those actions work. Does spring flow
augmentation, summer flow augmentation, do those have the
effects that the BiOp says they will? Does increased spill at
projects really result in increased survival at those projects?
Do habitat-enhancement actions, whatever they may be, have the
effect that people--have at least a positive effect, let alone
a specific effect, that people think that they will? Because,
otherwise, like I say, we may just run out of people, run out
of money, run out of time doing this.
Senator Crapo. Would you support the spread-the-risk
approach that has been advocated where we have more of a
balance between transportation and spill or other types of
passage at the dams and then studying those perspectives?
Mr. Paulsen. I think if and only if you really monitor
those closely. Tag lots and lots of fish. Release them via lots
and lots of different routes and so forth and so on because if
what you really want to do is find out quickly whether or not
transportation is better or in-river survival is better for
fish, the really easy thing to do would be to transport
everything you catch in, let's say, odd-numbered years and let
them all go in even-numbered years and see how they do a few
years later when they come back. That would give you far more
contrast than the sorts of----
Senator Crapo. Fifty-fifty.
Mr. Paulsen. Than the 50/50 that's being pursued now.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Dreher, I know that you're not a fish
biologist so you haven't participated in a lot of this, but I
do want to talk to you for a moment about the research that
you've done with regard to water augmentation. I've seen your
charts. I've got your testimony here with the charts that are
in them. But as you indicate, the amount of water that is
provided through flow augmentation in comparison to the flows
in the river, both rivers, when you put that chart up, it just
dramatically shows how insignificant that contribution is, and
you've indicated that the amount of flow historically, whether
you look at it from decades ago through now, has not changed.
Is it fair to say that even if the flow augmentation that
is being proposed were done, that it wouldn't change those
charts very much, that you would still have the same levels of
flow, in essence, very minor variations?
Mr. Dreher. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The water that's
placed in the system through flow augmentation, once it's in
the system it's so insignificant we can't even measure it. We
can't even find it. We know what we're putting in, but if you
were to go downstream and measure the flows without--with flow
augmentation and without flow augmentation, you wouldn't be
able to measure it.
Senator Crapo. That's even in comparison to years when
there was no storage and you just measured the flows when it
was all going down the river normally; correct?
Mr. Dreher. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Tell me what your charts explain once again
about the impact of flow augmentation on particle velocity.
Mr. Dreher. We can detect some change in average velocities
associated with flow. At least we can calculate some change. I
should put it that way. But the velocity improvements are
inconsequential. If velocities have slowed by an order of
magnitude--which they have. It's a factor of 10 or better--and
flow augmentation makes a 5 percent improvement, that's pretty
insignificant. That's about the range of scale that we're
talking about. It's a very few percent improvement in average
velocity trying to compensate for an order of magnitude change,
and it's too little. It's not enough to make up for the slowing
if that slowing has been significant.
But as I pointed out in my testimony, at least, based upon
the current data set available--and other data sets may shed
some more light on this--but flow--when the fish are ready to
migrate, flow does not seem to be that important. The reason we
can conclude that is because, as I indicated, most of the
surviving fish in this PIT tag study, they migrated faster
under lower flows than they did under high flows, and that's
just totally opposite to what you would expect if flow velocity
was a significant factor in migration.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I think we've gotten through this
before, but I wanted to be sure. This is to fish experts on the
panel. The question of whether the first year survival rates
have changed much over time--well, changed much since the dams
were put in is a critical question, I think, and I want to be
sure. I'm operating under the assumption that there's really
not much disagreement that the first-year survival rates have
not gone down since the dams went in; is that correct?
Mr. Paulsen. With, I think, one caveat. As a scientist,
what I would like to have seen is experiments--measurements
conducted exactly the way every year for 20, 30, 40 years. Of
course, that isn't the case. The dam configurations have
changed, the hardware, the bypass systems, and so forth, and so
I suspect that it probably is true, in fact, that those haven't
changed very much, but to say that they haven't changed at all
or that they're exactly the same now as they were 40 years ago
is probably stretching the data a little too thin.
Senator Crapo. Would any of you disagree with the
conclusion that even though the highest level of mortality is
in the first year of life of salmon, that the most bang for the
buck, in terms of what we can do to impact human-caused
mortality, would be in the smolt-to-adult cycle regardless of
whether we're talking about ocean conditions or hydropower
issues or whatever?
Mr. Thurow. I would say qualify that with where you have
good habitat, yes. If you have degraded habitat, certainly
there are some opportunities. In places like the Lemhi and the
Yankee Fork, there are some opportunities to improve first-year
survival, but where you have good-quality habitat, I think that
statement is accurate.
Mr. Paulsen. I'll put in a plug for carcass nutrient.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Anderson agrees?
Mr. Anderson. Yes.
Senator Crapo. I have no further questions for this panel.
I would like to thank you for your participation today and the
information. Your testimony has been very helpful.
We have one final panel. However, I've been asked to have a
brief break here for probably 15 or 20 minutes, and so we will
take a recess, and I'll try to keep the recess to about 15 or
20 minutes so we can keep on pace.
[Recess.]
Senator Crapo. Mr. Dreher, would you come back up to the
table? I know there's something that I was aware you were going
to say, and I wanted to hear it, but we didn't get it done
during the questioning, and I apologize for that. It has to do
with the issue of collaboration and litigation, and I know that
you and I have gone over this before, but I wanted it part of
the record. So I would like to give you another minute or so to
express your position on that.
Mr. Dreher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the
collaboration during this process, from my view, the
collaboration has been wholly inadequate, and I don't place
that criticism on the scientists necessarily. It's probably
more fairly placed on the policymakers at National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Had there been adequate collaboration, then these
scientific inadequacies, at least, that I described could have
been addressed before the draft BiOp was finalized. But an
aspect of inadequate collaboration that often is overlooked is
what inadequate collaboration leads to, and that is increased
litigation both in length and in scope.
In this particular case, what I'm afraid that will lead to
is a delay or diminishment in recovery actions that really
could help the fish. That's an aspect of lack of collaboration
that I think is often overlooked, but I think it's on point in
this particular instance.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate you being willing to come back
up and say that. As you know, I very strongly believe that
collaborative decisionmaking is not only better in terms of
developing the buy-in of the people who are involved and the
confidence of the people in the decisions that are made, but it
gives you better decisions, and that means you will have less
litigation and so forth.
In this case, I think, if we don't have it, it's going to
be worse for the fish. It's going to be worse for the people,
for the economy and ultimately it will face us with much more
expensive decisions that we will need to face in the future.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dreher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Let me call up the third panel now. The
third panel consists of Mr. Dan James on behalf of the Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association; Mr. Thayne Barrie, the owner
of Sunset Sports Center; Mr. Craig Smith, the Northwest Food
Processors Association; Mr. Mark Benson of Potlatch
Corporation; and Mr. Scott Corwin of the Pacific Northwest
Generating Cooperative.
Again, thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today. I
apologize for the break we had there. It was unavoidable, and I
appreciate your patience.
Mr. James, why don't you begin.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL JAMES, ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST
WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan James. I'm a
government relations consultant with law firm of Ball Janik.
Today, I'm representing the Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association, where I worked from January 1992 until last month.
PNWA's Idaho members include the Port of Lewiston, Boise
Cascade Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Idaho Power Company,
Lewiston Grain Growers, and the Lewis-Clark Terminal
Association. We recognize the importance of addressing the
salmon science question; however--and we talked a lot about it
this morning. However, even though there was 100 percent
agreement on salmon science, we would still be faced with the
problem of conflicts in law, goals, philosophy. These
conflicts, if unresolved, will keep us from success.
Consider the moon landing and the frozen French fry, the
polio vaccine, and the cellular phone. In each instance, there
were vast uncertainties in the science, wide gaps in knowledge,
conflicting data, and a diversity of opinion. Yet, ultimately,
those who pursued their goals were successful.
The application of science was successful because goals
were clear and priorities were definite. Absent clear goals and
definitive priorities, the problems surrounding the recovery of
salmon continue in the Columbia Basin. We are attempting to
apply science without clear goals and without definitive
priorities. Again, conflicts in law, goals, and philosophy are
serious impediments to salmon recovery in the basin. I'll give
you a few examples.
It is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries
Service to protect endangered fish without regard to the
economic cost of doing so. However, it is the responsibility of
the Northwest Power Planning Council to protect all fish and
wildlife in balance with meeting regional energy needs.
The Migratory Bird Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and other laws were created to promote a healthy, balanced
ecosystem. At the same time, some species we are protecting
have increased their consumption of ESA-listed salmon. The
Caspian turns in the Lower Columbia River are the best example
of this dichotomy.
The ESA gives a highest possible and legal priority to the
protection of listed species of salmon. Yet, the United States
has trust
responsibilities and treaties regarding Native Americans'
tribal fishing rights. There are conflicts between protected,
weakened--between protecting weakened salmon runs and
encouraging the harvest of stronger runs of wild salmon and
hatchery fish. There are conflicts between enhancing
populations of wild fish and enhancing populations of hatchery
fish.
Some who advocate breaching dams are not willing to
consider alternatives to mixed stock harvest to protect
endangered salmon. This is a philosophical point as is some who
advocate massive reductions in water withdrawals that would
devastate irrigated agriculture appear unwilling to consider
changing hatchery management goals to protect wild salmon runs.
We need to establish priorities, and I offer a few problems
to illustrate that point. What do we do when ESA and treaty
obligations conflict? What do we do when salmon protection and
marine mammal or avian protection conflicts? What do we do when
hatchery practices and harvest practices hurt ESA-listed fish?
To date, we have seen the Federal, State, and tribal
agencies attempt to meet diverse and conflicting objectives.
The Columbia and Snake Rivers support a tremendous diversity of
life and bring a remarkable array of benefits to the region and
the Nation. The question we have posed to ourselves is this: As
users of these rivers, how can we support recovery of listed
salmon stocks and preserve the other benefits that these rivers
bring to the entire region and the Nation?
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, after listening this morning, I
want to recognize the important role that you and the committee
can play in ecosystem restoration in the Lower Columbia River
estuary, where many believe--which many believe is the key to
salmon recovery. This committee can do an awful lot in that
regard.
Senator we hope that you and your colleagues will direct
the Federal, State, and tribal fish managers to establish a
clear and consistent goal that recognizes the complexities of
salmon and the river system. If the outcome of that guidance
manifests itself in multiple goals, then we must establish
clear priorities that lead us to salmon recovery while
maintaining the remarkable and important benefits of this river
system.
I do appreciate the opportunity to share my views on these
issues, and I look forward to answering any questions that you
may have. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barrie.
STATEMENT OF THAYNE BARRIE, OWNER, SUNSET SPORTS CENTER, BOISE,
ID
Mr. Barrie. Thank you, Chairman Crapo and members of the
committee. My name is Thayne Barrie. I'm an independent
businessman as well as president of Idaho Steelhead and Salmon
Unlimited. I own Sunset Sport Center with a store here in Boise
on the western side of the State as well as a store in
Pocatello on the eastern side of the State.
Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited was formed in 1984 by
a diverse group of businessmen, guides, conservationists, sport
fishermen, and concerned citizens from throughout the region to
protect, restore, and preserve the Snake River's anadromous
resource. The Snake River was once the world's largest producer
of spring chinook, summer chinook, and steelhead as well as a
large number of sockeye, coho, and fall chinook salmon. Snake
River salmon contribute to economies as far north as Alaska and
as far south as California and 900 miles inland to Stanley, ID.
Members of ISSU claim that they can remember back in the
late 1960's and early 1970's when small communities along the
Salmon River, such as Clayton, ID, would sell as much as 2,000
gallons of gasoline a day and about that many gallons of beer.
In 1978, only 3 years after the completion of the four lower
Snake River dams, salmon was closed on world famous Salmon
River and has never reopened. Fishing businesses from Alaska to
Stanley were devastated by the completion of these four dams.
Sport, tribal, and commercial fishermen were the first victims
of the result of the damming of the lower Snake.
Because those dams were so lethal to wild salmon and
steelhead, Congress acted immediately to protect remaining wild
populations by creating the Frank Church River of No Return as
well as the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas to protect and
enhance the spawning and rearing for a few remaining wide runs.
These two wilderness areas comprise the largest contiguous
wilderness area in the lower 48 States. However, this added
more victims such as logging, mining, and ranching, which were
all but eliminated in these areas all because the dams kill so
many fish that no other mortality can occur.
The same trend continues today. The four lower Snake River
dams continue to kill so many fish that no other human-caused
mortality is acceptable. Sport, tribal, and commercial harvest
are a mere fraction of what they were before the dams were
built. Habitat such as at Bear Valley Creek, Marsh Creek, and
Beaver Creek along the Salmon River, to name a few, are in
better shape today than they ever have been, yet the Federal
BiOp wants to continue to punish the victims. It is laden with
habitat, harvest, and hatchery measures, more of the same stuff
that has been done in the basin for 20 years.
Currently, steelhead fishing in Idaho is a $90 million a
year industry. It employs approximately 3,000 Idahoans. In
rural Idaho, such as Riggins, Challis, and Orofino, it's an
important natural resource, one that has far more economic
importance than simply restoring them because of the Endangered
Species Act. Don Reading of Ben Johnson and Associates
estimates that a restored salmon fishery in Idaho would double
that number. I know in my own business, salmon and steelhead
fishing mean $310,000 a year or 9\1/2\ percent of my total
business.
When you look at a business such as mine, and we try to hit
a net return of 3 percent, that's net, the loss of this revenue
would equate to three full-time jobs and two part-time jobs. I
cannot even speculate on the amount of nonfishing items that
this customer can relate to. Possibly, it would mean the loss
of my whole business. You factor that statewide and the effect
would be enormous.
Sportfishing in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, according to
the American Sport Fishing Association, showed that
$2,993,298,116 was spent in 1996 by sport fishermen, nearly $3
billion in 1 year, or about the same amount that has been
squandered in the region by Northwest Power Planning Council on
salmon recovery. Bear in mind this figure does not represent
tribal or commercial fisheries and was compiled at a time when
salmon and steelhead runs were at their all-time low.
ISSU has no agenda for dam breaching. ISSU's agenda is to
save salmon. If that includes the breaching of the lower four
Snake dams, then that must be. We are willing to support any
plan that can pass State, tribal, and legal muster. We have yet
to see one that does and nor do we believe we will.
I have included some economic attachments in my packet that
the Save Our Wild Salmon has put together. These figures were
in the documents derived from the DREW documents.
At this point, if there's any questions, Senator, I thank
you for the time and am willing to answer any.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG SMITH, NORTHWEST FOOD PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION, SALEM, OR
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Senator Crapo, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here today on such an important topic.
Northwest Food Processors Association is a regional trade
association representing the fruit and vegetable and specialty-
processing manufacturers in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Food
processing is the largest manufacturing employment sector in
the State of Idaho and the second largest manufacturing
employment sector in the States of Washington and Oregon. Food
processors in the region operate 257 plants, employ 50,000
individuals and realize a $7 billion in annual sales.
We have a critical interest in the future of the Columbia/
Snake system for irrigation water, transportation, and
hydropower. Today it seems apparent to us that salmon recovery
in the Columbia/Snake is really at a crossroads.
The Draft Biological Opinion really signals the beginning
of a shift in direction for salmon-recovery debate. It's a
shift away from dam breaching and toward a performance-based
plan. We believe this shift is long overdue even though the
BiOp has a lot of problems and still contains many of the same
elements of past failed efforts. For too long we believe the
region has argued over the big-ticket items, dam removal and
flow augmentation. These two issues have been the focus of
tremendous controversy and have dominated the public
discussion.
Now, the science is becoming more focused and the debate is
beginning to shift. I think we're now beginning to understand
that the science doesn't support dam breaching or flow
augmentation, especially as it relates to Snake River stocks.
That's a huge problem for some people who have staked their
reputation on breaching and flow augmentation. So now we have
the beginning of some different science battles that we believe
are going to be very detrimental to the decision in the
Northwest.
As we continue to debate whether it should be CRI or PATH--
and we realize that all those things have to happen, but the
data begins to become clear that there are things that can
happen outside this discussion of constantly moving science
that needs to happen and needs to happen now. It seems that
these debates go on forever with no real resolution in sight,
and while we argue and spin, viable and proven effective
measures that will really help salmon continue to wait for the
region to put its energies into productive recovery efforts.
This is not to say that good things are not happening now,
but how much more could we accomplish if we really move beyond
these esoteric, self-serving debates?
Mr. Chairman, our industry and the residents of the
Northwest that depend on the Columbia River system for their
livelihoods have had enough of this endless debate. The
uncertainty hangs like a cloud, and combined with difficult
times in the agriculture sector, it is having a very negative
effect on our industry. For the good of the region, we believe
it is time to develop and move ahead with a full recovery plan.
It's time for reason and common sense to merge with science
and produce a plan that can be implemented immediately for the
benefit of fish and the benefit of the Northwest. That's why we
agree with the approach that was taken by the region's
Governors last summer to put together a reasoned, well-balanced
All-H plan. We believe that that solution can come from the
region and that the Governors are the ones who are in the best
position to put together and move forward with that type of an
approach. Using the science to inform their decisions, the
region's Governors can develop a balanced plan that will
benefit endangered species.
NMFS and Federal agencies have had 10 years since the first
listing on the Columbia/Snake system, and they haven't produced
a recovery plan, and, in fact, the performance standards in the
Draft BiOp are an attempt to set some goals, which we think are
a positive thing, but they mean little outside the context of
an overall recovery plan.
In fact, it's our belief that the performance standards and
the subsequent requirement for offsite mitigation in the
current Draft BiOp have the potential to significantly damage
ongoing habitat-improvement projects by forcing dam operators
to go into tributary habitat areas, find projects that they can
take credit for, and screw up local planning processes. We've
seen this happen in the past, and we believe that it's a very
real consequence of this particular BiOp.
We are advocates of performance standards. However, they
must be developed for the whole system, not just the hydro
operation, and this is not possible because it's outside the
scope of the current BiOp. This accentuates the need for a
recovery plan.
We believe strongly that we have to eliminate the piecemeal
management practices we're now following. Consequently, it's
time to end the rancorous debate over flow augmentation from
the Upper Snake and the removal of four Lower Snake dams. While
these issues continue to polarize the region, the science does
not support either alternative. In my testimony I have at
length quoted from the Federal documents that we believe--and
this is NMFS science, not ours.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we think that now is the time
for action, not for continued argument over the nuances of
science. The science will never be complete. However, the
controversial issues of breaching and flow augmentation, and in
between those, there's general agreement on many practical,
achievable, and productive salmon-recovery measures, things
like limiting pinniped and avian and pikeminnow predation, and
continuing to improve mainstem passage through bypass
improvements and surface collectors, improving our
transportation system, studying effects of ocean conditions,
and many things that you've heard from the previous panels, we
believe all those things are very productive and should go
forward.
Our perspective on this at this point is that now is the
time for action. We cannot wait for 5 years to see whether or
not we're going to be effective and then default to a strategy
that isn't supported by the science. Thanks a lot.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I have read
your full testimony. I appreciate that.
Mr. Benson.
STATEMENT OF MARK J. BENSON, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, IDAHO
POTLATCH CORPORATION, LEWISTON, ID
Mr. Benson. I am Mark Benson, director of Public Affairs
for Potlatch Corporation's Western Region. Potlatch Corporation
is a diversified forest products company with holdings in
Idaho, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon. It is our pulp,
paper, tissue, and lumber operation in Lewiston, ID, and our
670,000-acre forest land holding in north central Idaho that
makes the FCRPS Draft Biological Opinion and Draft Basinwide
Salmon Recovery Strategy important to us.
Over the past 20 years, we have developed a significant
market for our paper board in Japan and other parts of the
Pacific Rim. Our ability to use barge transportation between
Lewiston and Portland has been critical to our success in
competing in these overseas markets.
Senator Crapo, let me begin my comments by thanking you for
your support for allowing all involved to focus on actions that
will help the fish while leaving dams in place, while
protecting Idaho's water, and while meeting the needs of
Idaho's communities. It is gratifying as an Idaho business with
significant dependence on the existing river infrastructure to
know we have unanimous support from our entire Federal
delegation as well as our Governor.
I also wish to thank you for providing this hearing
opportunity for Idahoans to voice their opinions and thoughts
about the BiOp and basinwide strategy. As you well know, there
are strongly different views of role of the dams with respect
to the current condition of Columbia and Snake River anadromous
fish, both in terms of the contribution the dams make to the
problem and in terms of their potential contribution to the
solution. We believe there needs to be recognition of the
strengths of BiOp as well as its shortcomings.
Early on, attention was too often focused exclusively on
the dams. We think that was wrong, and we're encouraged that
both the scientific and the policy focus has expanded to
include the entire life cycle of the fish and all of the H's
that impact their life cycle. The fundamental premise
underlying the Draft BiOp and the recovery strategy paper is
that we set aside dam breaching and aggressively pursue a range
of other measures to protect and recover listed fish species.
We see no better course available for us to take.
We understand that the details of draft proposals leave
many areas of uncertainty and debate and that the process going
forward will necessarily be adaptive and subject to ongoing
improvement. As is often the case, the devil is in the details.
We have concerns about the specifics and the timeframes of
the performance measures. As the documents relate to offsite
habitat management, we share a strong concern with others in
our industry about the growing Federal intrusion into resource
management roles that historically have been and should be the
province of State sovereignty. We share similar concerns for
farming communities of our State who see their dependence on
irrigation increasingly at risk of Federal intervention.
We believe, therefore, that the action by Governor
Kempthorne, together with Governors of Washington, Oregon, and
Montana, in stepping forward to assert a strong State role in
the recovery measures that must be undertaken is critical to an
acceptable and successful outcome.
My company and the forest products industry are dedicated
to fish recovery without interruption of the river system and
its amenities, and we believe, based on our interpretation of
work done by both government and private sector scientists,
that this is realistic. We are committed to working together
with Idahoans and others in the Pacific Northwest who are
committed to finding solutions to accomplishing this task.
It is important to move forward, and we must move forward.
In our opinion, moving forward requires three things. Clear
direction for maintaining the existing infrastructure,
meaningful and effective measures for recovering fish, and,
third, legal certainty.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to thank you for
the strong interest you have taken in addressing this hugely
difficult and critical issue. We deeply need the help and
guidance we have come to expect from you in our collective goal
of achieving a successful outcome for all of the economic,
environmental, and community interests that has so much at
stake in this effort. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Benson.
Mr. Corwin.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORWIN, PNGC POWER
Mr. Corwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear today. I would like to thank you for
showing the leadership to hold these hearings to scrutinize
these issues that are so critical to our region's environment
and economy. My name is Scott Corwin with PNGC Power. We are an
energy-services company that's owned by 16 rural electric
cooperatives throughout the Northwest, six of them here in
Idaho that you would know, Clearwater, Fall River, Lost River,
Northern Lights, Raft River, and Salmon River co-ops.
Before commenting on the BiOp and recovery strategy, I
would like to take a moment to highlight two important Federal
management positions that will need to be filled in the next
few months that a lot of us in the energy industry consider
critical to fish and wildlife management in the region. One, of
course, is the regional director of National Marine Fisheries.
The other one is the administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration. I would like to encourage you and your other
colleagues in the Northwest delegation to become involved very
early as potential replacements are considered.
There are several other important management issues that
are closely tied to scientific issues here today. Some of them
have been touched on here already. We look at the BiOp and
recovery strategy as taking significant steps forward in some
respects in trying to look at species recovery in a
comprehensive fashion. However, the goals in the BiOp and the
recovery strategy fail to address a weakness that has
continually hampered fish management in the Northwest, lack of
prioritization and lack of reconciliation among conflicting
goals, especially in areas such as fish harvest and hatchery
production, a point that you made eloquently at the September
13 hearing when you referenced spilling water for fish that
later get clubbed.
The recovery strategy needs to make more aggressive strides
to ensure that priorities, goals, and implementation of
strategies which are coordinated both internally and externally
with the Northwest Power Planning Council's program--certainly
with the four Governors' outline, which we thought was a very
good effort--and the tribal and State programs. While we
believe inclusion in the BiOp of the concept of performance
standards for measuring results is worthy, many of these
standards are incomplete and unevenly applied at this point. In
some areas, there remain questions as to whether they are
achievable at all. This area needs some work.
On the science, there are many recognized critical
uncertainties. Some of those have been covered today already.
Delayed mortality, certainly. Importance of diversity,
reproductive success of hatchery fish, impact of hatchery
releases, estuary ecology, ocean ecology, and even things as
basic as counting fish have caused problems with NMFS and other
folks doing the research here.
With limited scientific or legal clarity behind drastic
actions, such as breaching dams, we fail to see how references
to breaching dams or certainly to preliminary design work on
that deserve treatment alongside reasonable and prudent
alternatives in this Biological Opinion. This does not mean
that hydro is off the hook in this opinion, as Mr. Schiewe and
Arndt referenced earlier.
The hydrosystem continues to be the major focus of recovery
efforts, and it will continue to fund the bulk of the
mitigation in the region with current levels of 435 million
annually by rate payers, expected to rise by at least another
hundred million or more within the context of this BiOp. This
includes large investments in infrastructure, continued flow
augmentation, and potential enhancements to the spill regimes.
But because the best-available science shows that progress has
raised hydro fish passage close to the point of diminishing
returns, real success for recovery will require looking into
other areas of the life cycle. Efforts in the first year of
life and in the estuary appear promising as described earlier
here.
On budgeting for the BiOp, we're concerned we have yet to
see a comprehensive budget for the BiOp and draft recovery
strategy that contains real commitments from the many relevant
Federal agencies and other regional entities involved here. To
be viable, the plan cannot merely be a large blank check to be
filled in by the region's electricity customers. We need better
accountability than that and we need better monitoring and
evaluation of the science to know what we are getting for those
investments.
Finally, on power system reliability on the BiOp, I would
like to say that while curtailing fish operations during power
emergencies should not take the place of good power planning,
language should be included in the BiOp that recognizes this
need at times to ensure human safety. We would support the
request of the Northwest Power Planning Council because of the
serious potential in the near future for power supply shortages
in the region, it includes language in the BiOp that
specifically provides for curtailment of operations for fish in
the case of emergencies.
Again, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity and for
your continued push for the best scientifically-based solutions
to this problem. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Corwin.
There's a lot of questions that I have that come from
different perspectives to members of this panel, but I think I
want to start out with just some broad generalities and get
your positions on them.
First of all, let me ask--I assume that none of you are
fish biologists. I'm still going to ask you some scientific
questions, but I want to be sure that we understand where we
are all coming from. You represent from different perspectives,
nevertheless, different interest groups who are impacted by the
decisions that are made with regard to what direction we will
take and what priorities we will establish in the salmon
recovery. As a result, you have positions on the science.
You've studied the science like I have, and you've evaluated it
and have reached conclusions. So I do want to talk about that.
But first, I want to talk about essentially the role of
science versus the role of policymaking or establishing goals,
trying to clarify conflicts in the law, which is an aspect of
policymaking that we need to deal with. I want to make a
statement of my own and then ask you to just comment on it, if
you could. It seems to me, as I said at the outset, as we
develop the salmon recovery plan, it has to be based on good
science. I doubt that anybody will disagree with that.
However, the question then becomes, Will the science
essentially be a trump card that drives any solution and forces
out consideration of other factors, or will the science then be
merged by policymakers into a policy decision that takes into
consideration economic impacts, job loss, mitigation concerns,
cultural impacts, sociological aspects of the issue, and so
forth? How do we merge those two? It's a very difficult topic,
frankly, to discuss because it's hard to say that if science
says you have to do something, that it's not necessarily what
society will do.
But even though the Endangered Species Act does not have
many provisions in it which contemplate recognition of anything
other than what the science drives the decision to mean, what
we've learned under the Endangered Species Act--and I think the
God squad and the Endangered Species Act was sort of an effort
to recognize this--is that when people and jobs and the
economy, human element is not considered, then we have strife,
political division, and often the political process imposes a
gridlock on the decisionmaking process.
So the question I would like to ask in general is, how each
of you--if you don't have a position on it or prefer not to
state one, you don't have to, but if any of you have a
recommendation to me and to this committee and to the
decisionmakers in the region who will be evaluating this, what
role science has, and how we mix in the economic, human, and
political aspects of this difficult decision.
We will start with you again, Mr. James.
Mr. James. I'll take a stab at that. I think that one of
the things that science can do is provide us with a menu of
things for which we agree and a menu of things in which we do
not. I think that one of the things that policymakers--that we
would encourage policymakers to do is to find those areas in
which there is agreement. Call it developing a suite of options
or something else, but develop that list in which there is
agreement mostly and move forward on those things. You'll find
a tremendous amount of agreement, I believe, within the region
among a wide range of stakeholders on the role that ecosystem
restoration in the estuary plays, as an example. Let's move
forward on that.
Conversely, you find a tremendous amount of disagreement on
the issue of breaching dams. It's quite strident, and I believe
that that issue can keep us from moving forward on that which
we can agree on. As an example, in the coming years, we might
be debating funding for preliminary engineering and design for
breaching dam and economic mitigation studies at the same time
we're debating how to get funding for things like ecosystem
restoration. So debating one can keep us from moving forward on
the other. That's a great concern.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Barrie. This is one I really don't wish I were in your
shoes over. You have two sides of science. Which one do you
believe? Science can be melded to whichever opinion you choose
to follow.
Senator Crapo. We've certainly found that.
Mr. Barrie. Yes. Now, there's a thing called mitigation.
That's where I think someone has to look at it from outside the
realm of the affected and say we can't have any more victims, I
believe, in the issue of transportation by waterway, by water
rights. What I think has to happen is there's a tough decision
that's got to be made, but with everything that's got to be
done, I think there can be a balancing factor in their
mitigation with money that is already there and being spent.
It's time, like we've talked about in the past, that there
doesn't need to be more victims. There needs to be more answers
to those problems in making everybody whole again. I think
that's the one area that it's eventually going to come to.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Senator, I think fundamentally this is a policy
decision, ultimately. It will be informed by the science, but
ultimately this discussion will be made by the policymakers
like yourself. The reason I say that is such a complex issue
that we will argue the science until I am dead on this issue.
It will continue to change. It will continue to go through the
scientific process. That's the way science is.
I'm the son of an engineer. It's only taken me 40 years to
get over that. My father was trained in science. He never gave
a straight answer to anything. I love my dad. But the fact of
the matter is that it's not because he's trying to avoid that
or the science is trying to avoid the answer. The bottom line
is the scientific process is one that isn't designed to give
definitive answers. It's designed to refute rebuttable
presumptions. I don't think we'll ever get a clear, absolute
answer from the science on this issue.
I think that we do, however, have from the science some
very, very clear trends, and like Dan said, there are areas
where people generally agree that there are things we can do
now to move forward. That's really our position. We believe
that the science on dam breaching is very weak. It isn't
strong. There is no compelling reason to breach dams. If you
look at the science right now, there's no real benefit to fall
chinook as far as the Snake is concerned. The benefit to spring
chinook is very questionable depending on D values.
Well, they don't know whether there is really delayed
mortality or not. Right now it doesn't look like it, but the
science could change. So do we breach dams and hope that they
recover--it recovers fish based on a very hypothetical process?
I don't think so. But that's a policy decision. I believe that
down the line, ultimately the decisions that will be made, they
are being very highly--they're made much more complex by the
Endangered Species Act, which will not give us as much
flexibility.
But in the previous panel, Dr. Anderson made the suggestion
that we look at the way we define ESUs differently. There is
some flexibility, I think. Those are going to be policy
decisions because NMFS has made a decision on ESUs they're
probably not going to back off of, but if, for instance, we
were to use some hatchery fish as a refusion, as Jim suggested,
that's probably going to be a policy decision. There's lots of
areas, I think, where the policy aspects of this are going to
come into play.
I ultimately believe that whether the policymakers in the
region take an active role in this or default their active
role, it still would be a policy decision. It won't ever be a
science decision, ultimately will make a policy decision either
by default or by actively setting out a recovery plan and going
after it and saying this is the best we know how to do, and
then through adaptive management principles, making it better
as time goes by.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Benson.
Mr. Benson. As has been stated or alluded to, your
challenge is certainly made more difficult by the fact--or by
the--my observation that the science is never going to be
overwhelming on one side or the other. You're always going to
have to choose between some science, and not being a scientist,
like we aren't, it really does become a matter of good policy.
I do believe that the sooner we begin spending money to do
things for the fish, the better the fish are going to be and
the sooner they are going to begin to show improvement.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Corwin.
Mr. Corwin. I have the disadvantage of being a lawyer and
former Senate staffer, so I'm not biologically inclined.
However, when I analyze these issues from a policy perspective,
the ESA doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's other statutes that
will demand that it become a policy decision in the end, one of
which I reference in the Northwest Power Act, where we are
worried about reliability.
But beyond that, I think that the other problem is you
won't see reconciliation of the huge uncertainties in science
anytime soon. I was actually at a PSU--Portland State
University, had a whole symposium on this, how to make
decisions on salmon in times of uncertainty, and I can provide
some of the papers to you on that. They were excellent.
Senator Crapo. That would be helpful.
Mr. Corwin. That reminded me of--I saw a Presidential
historian, Richard Norton Smith, speak a couple days ago. He
said the trick to being a really good historian is to wake up
every morning energized about dispassionately studying his
subject. I think it's the same challenge here. We need to pin
down the answers that we can and then move forward carefully
and carefully monitor and evaluate everything--all of the steps
that we take so that we're not here in the same spot 10 years
from now.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Well, certainly, I agree with the comments that have been
made about the fact that ultimately this is a policy decision
that will be made at some level and probably at multiple levels
as our legal system operates.
I tend to believe that the more we study and the more
science we are able to evaluate, the more we can build
consensus on aspects of the science as we learn more and more
about it, but I think the testimony we've heard today and in
the other hearings shows that we are anywhere but near
consensus on the science right now. In fact, I thought that we
were getting to some consensus, and I'm concerned now that
maybe we're getting further away from some of the consensus
that I thought we were starting to build.
One of the questions that I have and I realize now I'm
starting to venture into the science arena. One question I'd
like to have you discuss with me from your perspectives is this
issue that I have used with both the other panels of the sort
of competing science reports.
I have here the science report from the National Marine
Fisheries Service that essentially says that taking out the
dams is not going to save the salmon and that will not--I'll
use their words,
Even if mainstem survival were elevated to 100 percent,
Snake River spring, summer chinook salmon would probably
continue to decline toward extinction and modest reductions in
the first year of mortality or estuarine mortality would
reverse current population decline.
So here's a study saying that dam removal isn't going to do
the job and focusing on, basically, the first year of life. The
egg-to-smolt stage is where we can get the most bang for the
buck. Here is a group of scientists responding saying that is
not correct. That the fact that the highest levels of mortality
occur in the first year of life is a natural fact of nature and
that we haven't seen reductions in the survival rate in the
first year since before the Snake River dams were put in. So
you're not likely to do anything except spend a lot of time and
money if you put your focus there. These are both current
scientific reports, I think, within the last month.
We have different positions here represented on this panel
with regard to what aspect of the salmon recovery should we
focus on as we try to move forward. The question I have is on
the science, as you understand it from your perspectives, is
there any consensus about whether it is the egg-to-smolt stage
or the smolt-to-adult stage that is where we should focus our
priorities in terms of salmon recovery efforts? Maybe instead
of asking you whether there's consensus, I'd ask you whether
you believe it's one stage or the other that's the better stage
to focus on, if you have an opinion.
Mr. James.
Mr. James. Do I really have to go first?
Senator Crapo. You can pass if you want.
Mr. James. I would like to think about that for a minute.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Barrie. One thing that we can look at, I've heard a lot
today about flow augmentation and velocities and such and that
they didn't relate to, basically, adult return, and one thing
that we can look at is this year's past salmon season on the
Little Salmon River. I believe that those fish are in direct
relation to the amount of water that we did have spilling in
the high-water years from 1997, 1998--excuse me. That would be
1998, 1999. Those fish are a progeny of that return.
You know, to say that the velocity and such doesn't
attribute to a better return, I wholeheartedly disagree with
that. In evidence with the jack counts that have been mentioned
earlier, next year's return looks to be great as well. Sure, we
have had tidal changes in the ocean. Do I hope that continues?
You bet. I would like to see the returns keep going up, up, up.
I think this next year's jack count, based on the low-water
year that we had for the--that that return would show that it
is going to be a key factor in knowing whether the ocean is
making that cyclical return.
But to say is it the juvenile, from the smolt to adult or
is it the egg-to-smolt, that's a tough one, and I think there's
been a lot said about that just recently more so than in the
past. I think that's becoming more and more a question. I
think, like you're saying, there's going to need to be a lot
more study, but I can't believe that throughout history from
the dawn of time that these fish did not have that same
percentage of egg-to-smolt survival rate. In common sense, it
doesn't play.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I don't really know or have an opinion on
whether it's one or the other because I don't really know the
science that well. But I do know this, that it makes more sense
that--well, I read a recent letter from NMFS to one of the
groups that had sent a letter to them. NMFS believes that, for
instance, for every smolt that is saved in the estuary from
predation, they get a tenfold increase in return. So they do
have some data that shows that.
To me, there's some commonsense things that we can do
without having to argue whether or not it's one or the other,
but it does make sense to decrease predation in the estuary, I
think we've already seen the results that this year where some
significant decreases were made and there's a lot of room for
improvement. Nobody really argues that, except we have lawsuits
that stop us from moving birds that don't belong in a certain
place. None of that makes sense to me. I think those are the
areas that we all could get behind or at least a lot us could
get behind.
I think that there's some really commonsense things. From a
perspective of habitat, maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense in
Idaho's tributaries to spend a lot of time on habitat unless
this fertilization process can be productive because they're in
good shape, but there are other places in the region, where
they're not in good shape, and I think that's the problem with
this BiOp. It's a one-size-fits-all kind of an approach. Flow
is always good. Habitat improvement is always good. There's
these general statements in there that don't apply to every
single area in the region. There's very different conditions in
each of these tributary systems.
So, habitat improvements may be tremendous in targeted
areas. That's been our complaint for many years, is that we
don't focus on things that are going to get us the biggest bang
for our buck in a hurry, and that's why we think that stopping
some of this predation, moving into habitat areas that are
clearly degraded and need to be helped, going and doing some
mainstem flow--not flow but passage improvements, and
continuing to tweak that system makes a lot of sense. We think
that that's the way to go rather than to--I can't tell you in
all honesty whether or not one or the other is better, but to
us there's a pragmatic way.
I think you said it best earlier when you said if the ocean
is 90 percent and we're only playing on 10 percent and we've
already gotten 90 percent of what we're going to get out of the
hydrosystem, then we're talking about 10 percent of 10 percent
as far as improvements on that, and we're going to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars. Is there a place we could do
it better? To me, those are the kinds of things that go back to
your policy question earlier.
We're probably going to need to make some policy decisions
that say our best return on investment is in these five things.
Let's go do them well and continue to study. I think we don't
know much about the ocean, and we don't know about these
questions you're asking. They should be studied, and if it's an
issue, then we know how to address it.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Benson.
Mr. Benson. I'm certainly not qualified to reflect on egg-
to-smolt versus adult-to-smolt, nor do we have staff scientists
in our company that have done work in that regard. We have
hoped, honestly, that science would be found that would support
the position to leave the dams in place because of the
importance they have in your operations. That has occurred.
There is science now and, frankly, has been throughout the
debate, and so I find myself a little perplexed by the ongoing
debate. I would like for the debate to be over sooner than
later.
But it seems to me that if there are credible scientists
delivering credible science that says it's worth taking a shot
at recovering these fish by leaving the infrastructure in
place, that that would be a constructive way--or a constructive
place to begin our work to achieve recovery of the fish.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Corwin.
Mr. Corwin. I would preface by saying the electrical co-ops
are kind of in an interesting position because they go beyond
carrying this--about the price of power in the dams. Their
owners, customers are the landowners also. From that
perspective, in this BiOp, we're trying to address eight other
species, too, beyond the Snake system that we haven't discussed
much where there very well may be habitat issues that haven't
been discussed here today.
In the Oregon plan, for example, where they were dealing
with species that weren't passing dams, there were very
concerned about water temperatures and tributaries. I
fundamentally don't accept the science, I guess, as a
dichotomy. I don't think we've seen enough yet to make this
call. I've looked at the statistical analysis in some of these
papers. I haven't seen one where--you can think of 10 or 20
variables off the top of your head where they're all
controlled, where they're all mixed between life stages and
different combinations all up and down the river. I'm not sure
we're there yet.
I think the more important point to come out of the one
paper was if there's a serious finding that you can't get
recovery even with 100 percent survival through the system,
then regardless of how much you can get out of other areas, you
better start looking.
Senator Crapo. Mr. James, did you want to----
Mr. James. I've now had a couple of minutes to collect my
thoughts. It's a pretty complicated issue, clearly. Although,
I'm not a scientist, I have a couple of observations. One is
that it seems that we ought to be doing everything we can. I've
heard it said anecdotally that it's all about getting adult
spawners back, how do you know that you've achieved success,
and that that's it. So we ought to be looking at--based upon
what we know, what gives you more adult spawners back.
I've heard references to something that Craig said about if
you improve survival at key points, there at least is a theory
that you get exponentially more fish back or by some factor
anyway, and I think that that ought to tell us something in
terms of where we ought to be focusing our efforts in the near
term.
Another one, and I know that this is subject of
disagreement, and that is the role of transportation. I think
that there is some evidence that this smolt transportation--
that barging fish has worked and that if we were to increase
the amount of fish in barges, at least based upon the theory
that we are getting more fish back that have a transfer system
that way as opposed to going down through the dams, that we may
be--you may see more adult spawners back. Again, it's a theory.
People disagree, but as we've looked at the science over the
course of the last 10 years or so, that's something that many
of our members believe.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Barrie. If I can for just a second, that's one thing
that I do want to address and that's the transportation issue
of actual--the barging of the smolt. It has been done for a
long time, and it has not worked. This year--I get the numbers
every week as far as bypassed and smolt transportation. I've
looked on them for numerous, numerous years. That plan is not
working. I mean, we are still not getting the return that was
projected by that idea. I don't want anybody to get the
misconception that maybe we can start barging. We barged 96
percent of them the last 2 years. That's one issue that we
definitely need to be aware of.
Senator Crapo. Some of us have been advocating a spreaded
risk for some time now.
Mr. Barrie. There was an idea suggested today about every
other year.
Senator Crapo. What do you think of that as opposed to 50/
50 each year?
Mr. Barrie. It's a tough decision, and I think it might be
one that we have to come down to. Some believe that that would
be a good proposal.
Senator Crapo. I see there's people getting interested in
this discussion. Is there anything more that anybody wants to
say? I think a debate started here.
Mr. Smith. I don't mean to debate, but I think there's a
couple things that I would like to add to the discussion, and
that is, No. 1, I do think that it would be interesting to do
every other year because it may give us some really valid
statistics. The problem that I see with that is it's extremely
risky.
I'm reading here from NMFS's documentation that,
Overall direct survival of transported migrants is high,
estimated at greater than 98 percent. Behavior and survival of
transported fish below Bonneville Dam is similar to that of in-
river migrants.
I won't read the rest of the paragraph.
The conclusion is while some differences in smolt-to-adult
returns exist between transported and undetected in-river
migrants, no significant differences have been observed. That,
in a nutshell, lines out why it is that NMFS is not advocating
breaching those four dams, because without differences in in-
river, undetected migrants and transported fish, the D value,
there is no justification for breaching, and that's why they're
backing away because their data right now does not indicate
significant D value.
That could change. I'm not a scientist. I don't understand
it, but that's from their own documentation that they put out.
I do believe that the transportation program has been
successful. Whether it's--it's not the long-term answer. I
don't think anybody believes that, but at this point in time,
it clearly is a good alternative.
Senator Crapo. What about the question of delayed
mortality? What if the other members of the panel said that's
the $64,000 question.
Mr. Smith. That is exactly what this addresses, the delayed
mortality, basically, when you look at transported fish returns
versus undetected in-river migrants. In other words, are the
in-river migrants coming back at a higher rate percentagewise
than the transported fish? That's the D value. That's the
ratio.
Right now, there is no--that's what this document says.
There is no significant difference in the computation. There is
not enough difference to be significant enough to cause
breaching to be successful. That's why the CRI analysis
addresses that and does not believe that given the PIT tag
data, and that's why we're in this discussion between PATH and
CRI because CRIs use some of the
latest PIT tag data, and I don't want to go into all that
because I don't understand it all. But we can argue this
forever, but I guess at some point in time, using the science
as best as we know it, and it does change, then we have to make
some management decisions.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Barrie. One thing there, though, that you need to
understand is that when 96 percent of fish are barged, you've
got 4 percent competing against 96 percent to have the same
amount back.
Mr. Smith. No. That's not the way it works. It's a ratio,
and so what they do is they count the number of fish down and
then the number of fish back out of that same number, and it's
a ratio of smolt-to-adult returners, so it's not a direct
number.
Senator Crapo. Although, if you do have 96 percent in one
category and 4 in the other, it's----
Mr. Barrie. The ratio is swayed.
Senator Crapo. The question is whether that 4 percent is
enough to give you a valid test.
Mr. Smith. I understand that.
Senator Crapo. I see the points that you're making. A
question that I have--I thought I saw another hand or somebody
else wanting to jump in.
One of questions that I have--and, Mr. Corwin, in your
testimony, you stated that the hydrosystem will continue to be
a major focus of recovery in the BiOp and very significant
effort will continue to be made there. I assume that--and, Mr.
Benson, you said that you agree. I'm putting words in your
mouth, but I think I'm correct here. You can correct me if I'm
wrong. Would you agree with the premise of the BiOp, namely
that we put back the breach decision and see if we can find
nonbreach alternatives that will work in the meantime?
The question that I have is this: If we accept that
premise--and I think whether we accept it or not, that's
probably what we're going to live with what NMFS is doing--then
we do have a period of time in which the decision to breach has
been set back, and we have, hopefully, a choice or an ability
to influence the choice about what we do during that period of
time.
Over the years, as I've read scientific studies and
evaluated all of the science that has come my direction, it has
seemed to me that a tremendous amount of the focus has been on
the hydrosystem as a cause of human-caused mortality to the
fish and that if we take our attention away from the
hydrosystem as we focus on what to do during the next 5 years
and focus in other areas that don't give us as much return--in
other words, if we don't get this right, then we could be in a
situation where we, as one of the witnesses, I think, Mr.
Thurow, said earlier, ``You're not going to recover the fish
with the current BiOp. It is not going to happen''. That's what
he said, if they focus in the way that it appears they're going
to focus.
Wouldn't it be better to do everything we can on the
hydrosystem short of breaching so that when these 5 years have
passed, we at least know in that area of it that we have done
our best? At the same time, we could, as I think Mr. Smith has
suggested, in areas where the habitat needs improvement, we
could do everything we can there, and in areas where we find
improvement opportunities in the estuaries, we can do what we
can there. But is there any justification for abandoning a
focus on doing the very best we can do with improving the
hydrosystem?
Mr. Corwin. I would say, no. But I guess I'm--I haven't
been able to detect where this BiOp and recovery strategy does
that. What it does is build on the existing efforts in the
hydrosystem. Certainly, monetarily it does that, but I think it
does that by keeping what's in place, by doing further
experimentation on some of the major aspects of what we're
doing in the hydrosystem, such as testing the spill programs.
They're certainly trying to continue to restructure the dams
themselves with surface bypass systems, all big efforts still
underway and continuing and building and even the efforts, as I
said, outside of the hydrosystem, you know, many of which will
be paid for by the hydrosystems. The focus is still very much
there.
The question--the quandary will be in is if we don't
accurately measure and account for these another areas that
we're starting to look at. When we look at the performance
measurements, that's where we do have a concern. I don't think
that they're at a point where they have been able to figure out
how are you going to determine exactly what returns you're
getting from habitat and from hatchery actions. That's going to
be critical if you are going to continue this road.
Senator Crapo. Did anybody on the panel--I understand, Mr.
Barrie, that you believe that--if I understand your position
correctly, that we should consider breach now, not put if off,
so you're not necessarily willing to agree with the premise of
NMFS BiOp?
Mr. Barrie. I believe right now the way it reads is it's a
status quo. It's the same thing we've been doing for 20 years.
There's no change. I do agree with Scott in saying that we're
not getting anywhere.
Senator Crapo. But with that exception, with the
understanding of your position, is there any other disagreement
on this panel with the notion that given the NMFS's approach,
that we ought to do everything that we can do on the
hydrosystem as well as in the other areas? I want the record to
reflect that nobody is disagreeing with that.
Mr. James. The additional thing that I would say and one of
the things that I think is key here is performance measures. We
need to be able to figure out if we're spending money the right
way, whether it's the hydrosystem or something else.
Senator Crapo. That's a criticism that I think I've heard
pretty regularly about the current BiOp is that its performance
measures are too general and diffuse and not focused on helping
us identify these questions that we need answers to.
Having established that we don't have any disagreement with
regard to trying to do our best in each of the areas including
the hydrosystem, and, Mr. Corwin, you indicated that you
couldn't see in the BiOp a difference from that, that you think
that that's where the BiOp is headed now. I'll tell you that
Mr. Will Stelle, the former director or whatever his title is
of NMFS here in the region, said the same thing in September in
Washington, DC, when I asked him similar questions. He said,
We are not moving our focus away from the hydrosystem.
We're still going to do everything we can there. But we're not
moving toward breach. We're not going to do breach now.
The concern, though, is that when you have a--I've had a
number of other scientists in communication with my office
indicate that they do believe what they read in the BiOp is a
distinct change in focus of priority, away from the
hydrosystem. When you read the science study that the three
NMFS scientists put out, which basically says you can improve
the hydrosystem to 100 percent survival and it isn't going to
work, and add that to arguments that have been made that they
pretty much got all the benefit they're going to get out of the
hydro improvements, then you at least see a concern being
raised that perhaps NMFS truly is changing its priorities and
is not going to try to get the maximum benefit that it can in
hydrosystem improvements.
I just wanted to be sure that--we can argue about what is
the maximum we can get and how we achieve it and all that, but
whether we should get the maximum that we can short of
breaching is something that I think we ought to be sure we
agree on.
Another question that I think is important to address is
how we will address--how we will deal with what I perceive to
be a significant lack of collaborative effort on behalf of the
Federal agencies. I don't know how many of you have been
involved in trying to collaborate with the Federal Caucus, but
as you have tried and if you've been more successful than I
have, then--which means you've had any success I would like to
know how you've done it. What is your perspective on your
ability to communicate with and have your positions and
viewpoints understood and evaluated by the Federal Caucus?
Again, if you choose to answer, you can. If you don't, not
everybody has to.
Mr. Corwin.
Mr. Corwin. I've tried very little to collaborate with
them. However, I would say there are a couple of consultants
for the hydro industry that have attended workshops that the
NMFS Science Center has held to update folks in the region on
what they have been up to and on their new research over the
last year or so, and they have had--they have given us
favorable reviews about ability to work with the folks at NMFS
in Seattle but on general collaboration.
Senator Crapo. That's refreshing to hear even to that
level.
Anybody else?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. One last comment, and then, again, any of
you who would like to comment on this--respond to this, you're
welcome to, and you're not expected to.
One of the concerns that I've had, something we started out
this hearing with, and that is that there's recently a document
that The Oregonian was able to obtain, apparently, from NMFS,
which indicates that NMFS was headed down a path toward
recommending breach and actually having the engineering and
everything else in place to bring it to Congress by the end of
the year 2002 or 2003. That in a very short period of time,
that changed, and NMFS is now going down the direction we've
discussed today.
A concern that has been raised to me and which I share is
that if NMFS truly has decided that it believes that breaching
the dams is the direction it must take, and if this BiOp is
simply a strategy to get there, then that raises a lot of
concern about what NMFS is going to do in the meantime. I
realize that's a rather cynical evaluation of what may be going
on here. But given the virtually closed system of
decisionmaking we've seen in the last 2 years from the Federal
Caucus, given the information about where we saw the Federal
Caucus headed and their almost immediate about-face in the
middle of a Presidential election in which Washington and
Oregon were critical electoral votes, I don't think it's an
unfair question to speculate about in terms of what is the
motivation of the National Marine Fisheries Service in the
actions it has taken.
I think it will be very interesting to see what kind of
response they give to my earlier request in this hearing for
them to document what they have received from the Council on
Environmental Quality and the White House over the last year in
terms of directives. If their response is like it has been in
the past, well, we'll see.
In any event, the question that I pose to each of you is,
if we pursue a path during the next 4 to 5 years that doesn't
give us the very best ability to save the fish short of
breaching the dams, do you not feel that we will be in a
position as a region where breaching the dams at that point
becomes the only remaining option to evaluate?
In other words, do you feel that if we're here 5 years from
now and we have witnesses in a panel like this who say, you
know, you started something 5 years ago that you knew wasn't
going to work or that we could tell you it wasn't going to work
and it didn't work, or you're now facing a situation where you
have a Federal agency that is pursuing a breach alternative,
are we, as a region, going to be in a position where we knew we
gave it our best if we don't right now evaluate what our best
options are?
Again, nobody has to comment on any or all of that, if they
don't want to, but you're certainly welcome to speculate, if
you would like.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I'd like to say this: I think that ultimately
NMFS can't make this decision, and I think that's why we're
struggling so badly right now. They have been put in a
position--I've never been a big Will Stelle fan, but Will was
in an absolute no-win situation as regional director.
Senator Crapo. That much I agree with.
Mr. Smith. The agency itself is in a no-win situation, and
they argue amongst themselves, and when you talk about the
Federal Caucus, we've had good luck with parts of the Federal
Caucus, but it depends on which part you're talking to on which
day.
I think the real solution here is for the region to come
together and make some decisions. That's why we're so
supportive of the process the four regional Governors have
tried to put in place, and we'd like to see it get legs because
we believe that once we can get a regional recovery plan in
place that it not only takes the focus off of the decisions
that NMFS makes, which they shouldn't be making, it also gives
us a forum in which to discuss these policy issues that a
Federal agency cannot do. They cannot make policy decisions.
They have to try to rely on the science because that's their
mandate.
Since you can't decide this issue based on science alone, I
don't see how we will ever be successful until we find a
different way to approach the issue. That's why we think it's
fundamental that the region pull together and take our own
future in our own hands, and that's not going to be an easy
thing to do, but I believe that it's the only possible
solution.
Senator Crapo. Anybody else want to take a stab?
Mr. Corwin. I'm glad Craig mentioned the Governors'
approach because I think that's critical. They said a regional
approach must include a clear goal so that, in short, the
region can understand what constitutes success. If we continue
with the policy conflicts and regional disagreement over things
like trying to manage the two types of fish simultaneously, if
we don't take actions in other areas, we can put our best foot
forward, and I think we should in the hydro area, and still be
down the line several years from now with folks screaming back
at hydro because actions haven't been taken in other arenas
that are critical to this issue.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Barrie.
Mr. Barrie. I've read about that plan that supposedly just
showed up, and I'm going to be honest with you. I think it is a
good plan. If you have something in place that by 2006 your
goals are not reached, it gives you the measure to go in that
direction. Guys, we're talking about a plan we're supposed to
have in place by that time, measured points at which we are
achieving our goals. If we're not achieving our goals, in fact,
we're going the other direction away, then the hard decision
has to be made, and it is put in place for that.
Senator Crapo. We'll have much more region consensus at
that point, I believe, if the region believes that they've been
trying the right things.
Mr. Barrie. We keep talking about measurements. Well, I
believe that from this day forward, we've got to take from
status quo where we're at, and if we're making these
improvements whether it be the habitat, you name it, and we're
not attaining those goals, then I believe that's what's got to
be done. Like I said, we have no agenda for dam removal. What
we have is an agenda to get the fish back, whatever it takes.
Senator Crapo. Anybody else?
Mr. James.
Mr. James. I return to a point that I made earlier, and
that's fights that we'll have about getting ready for dam
breaching will diminish our ability to get other things done, I
believe. It's sort of splitting hairs or we're going to do--
we'll partially fund studies for dam removal, and we'll
partially fund those things that we can do that are good for
fish in the near term. I think that hardwiring a decision, to
use some of the phrases that we've seen there, almost provide a
disincentive to get those things done for fish that can be done
in the near term because I think that there are other factors
that play here.
I think we all recognize the role of the Snake River in
this national debate about rivers and that this is a--well,
many of us are focused on salmon. There is a larger debate
nationwide on rivers, and that we are at the center of that
debate. So in a way, it almost provides a disincentive to solve
the problem. We've seen many people on both sides of the debate
over how to best recover Snake River salmon acknowledge that
point.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Benson.
Mr. Benson. I would just submit that if we're doing the
things that we should be doing in the next 1, 2, 3, 4 years,
that at 5 years to take a different tact is quite shortsighted,
and I would hope that we would not look at this as a 5-year--
and I'm not even sure an 8-year horizon gives time to see the
results of the things that we would attempt to put in place
between now and that time.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you. I have no further
questions for this panel. Do any of you have any last words you
want to get in? I'll give you a chance to make a last
statement, if you'd like to. If not, this panel is excused, and
I will make a closing statement here and then wrap up the
hearing.
In my closing statement, I'm going to be--I'm going to
continue to be quite critical of the National Marine Fisheries
Service in the way it's handled the decisionmaking on this
BiOp. Before I do make that statement, however, I want to say
that, as has been said by some of the witnesses here today, as
has been said by NMFS at the hearing in September, they don't
agree with what I think they're up to. They don't agree with
the concerns that I have raised about whether they are shifting
their emphasis away from the proper focus on what we can do
best to restore and strengthen the salmon and steelhead runs.
If that's right, then so be it. We have no problem.
If that's wrong, then they need to change the direction
that they're headed. I'm concerned that there does need to be a
change in the direction that NMFS is headed both in terms of
the process that they are following to make this decision and
in terms of the content of the decision that it appears they
are about to make.
I would, first of all, like to thank everybody here who has
testified for attending, those who have reported and otherwise
endured today's hearing. I'm struck by the fact that after 3
days of hearing by this committee on this matter, that, while
we don't know everything about how to recover anadromous fish,
we do, nevertheless, have an enormous amount of good
information. What remains a mystery to me is why we cannot
assemble this information in a way that assures the best
possible outcome.
I am extremely concerned that the Federal agencies are not
doing everything possible to organize people and their
knowledge in a systematic effort to get this right. I again
quote the November 3rd issue of the Columbia Basin Bulletin.
Ben Daley of the BPA said,
Whether the States and tribes participate doesn't change
the Federal obligation to make measured progress toward meeting
these goals. We have the responsibility to figure out how to
involve others, but we're not there yet. We'll be stumbling
around on this first one and probably be somewhat out of sync
with the region planning.
It looks to me like Mr. Daley has it right. I want to
emphasize that my reference to Mr. Daley's quote is in no way a
criticism of him because he simply seems to be telling the
truth.
It's anticipated that once this draft BiOp becomes final,
it will immediately be subjected to one or more lawsuits, which
raises the distinct possibility the courts may be forced to
take over anadromous fish recovery in the region. I'm sure that
the courts would prefer not to have to do that, and I certainly
don't want the courts in that position.
By far the best choice is for the region itself to grasp
the issue and in a collaboration with the Federal Government
make our best effort. As I've said before, I believe the four
Governors' document, which has been mentioned by a number of
the witnesses today, outlines a far better process than anybody
we've yet seen by the Federal Caucus. The Governors' approach
supported by a short-term focused effort of rigorous scientific
collaboration would provide far more benefit to the fish and
the regional economy than this Draft Biological Opinion.
As I say, unless I'm wrong about the direction that it
appears to me that NMFS is headed, the ultimate outcome could
very possibly be worse for the fish, worse for the jobs and the
economy of the people in this region, and ultimately much more
expensive as it causes this region to face difficult decisions
that it otherwise would not have had to face.
It's painfully obvious to me that the Federal Caucus itself
is divided about what is the best science and the best policy.
It's well established that there is widespread disagreement
around the region with this Draft Biological Opinion. Those who
are generally supportive of this draft offer important
criticisms. Even though we have not mastered the process
required to recover these fish, it is very obvious that we do
have an enormous amount of good information. In fact, we have
enough information right now that we should be able to develop
a much better policy than is currently being proposed, a policy
that takes immediate action, that is known to benefit the fish
while providing an agreed upon mechanism for monitoring any
subsequent adjustments.
With everything that is at stake, let me publicly suggest
that the Federal Caucus delay its printing and publication of
the final BiOp for a short period of time, perhaps 2 to 6
months, in an effort to assure us all that we are making our
maximum possible effort. I'm asking every Federal witness to
carry that request back to their management, and I will
followup this verbal request with a letter immediately. It
seems to me, once again, that we have an opportunity to get it
right and that we need to make sure that we take that
opportunity.
I would like to thank everybody for attending this hearing
today, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Michael Schiewe, Director, Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, Fish Ecology Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Seattle, WA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of subcommittee. I'm Michael
Schiewe, Director of Salmon Research at the National Marine Fisheries
Service's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Washington.
Within the National Marine Fisheries Service, the science centers are
responsible for providing the technical and scientific support to the
regional offices in carrying out their regulatory and management
responsibilities. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I will
limit my formal comments to those involving the biological opinion and
the collaboration in the scientific process.
First, to summarize from the testimony of Mr. Stelle to this
subcommittee on September 13, 2000, the National Marine Fisheries
Service is currently engaged in the preparation of two major documents.
One is a biological opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power
System. The other is a conceptual recovery plan being called the All-H
Paper. This latter exercise is being led by NMFS but is more broadly
the product of the Federal Caucus composed of NMFS, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
In preparing these documents, NMFS considered the results of a
variety of analytical exercises and scientific syntheses including
results from the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, or PATH;
NMFS' Cumulative Risk Initiative, or CRI; and the empirical information
summarized in NMFS White Papers. Following review and comment by the
State agencies and tribes, both the biological opinion and the All-H
Paper are currently scheduled for release in final form on December 15.
On the issue of science collaboration, a major opportunity will
occur via participation in technical recovery teams. We have already
formed technical recovery teams, or TRTs, to start the process for
recovery planning in Puget Sound and on the Lower Columbia River and
Willamette Valley, and we are considering establishing TRTs to develop
recovery plans for the listed salmon and steelhead in the interior
Columbia River Basin.
The process NMFS has initiated to develop these plans is a two-
phase one with the involvement of both regional technical and policy
expertise in each of the relevant phases. To briefly summarize, the
first phase is a scientific exercise culminating in the establishment
of delisting criteria or recovery goals.
The second phase is more of a policy forum in which the options for
recovery will be carefully weighed and a suite of actions selected.
Both the technical phase and policy phase will involve qualified
individuals from regional entities and interest groups. A recovery
science review panel composed of internationally renowned ecologists
and evolutionary biologists will review the products of the TRTs. Our
goal is to bring together a broadly representative group of the best
minds to tackle these issues.
To summarize, it is NMFS's intent that the recovery planning
process will take place out in the open, that it will meaningfully
involve regional scientific expertise, that the recovery plans will be
subject to peer review, and that the final technical products, when
appropriate, will be published in scientific journals.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee. I would
be pleased to answer any of your questions.
__________
Statement of Doug Arndt, Chief, Fish Management Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, North Pacific Region,
Portland, OR
Mr. Chairman, I am Doug Arndt, Chief of the Fish Management Office
in the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the status of
the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service's
biological opinions on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System.
As you noted, on September 13, you heard the testimony of Colonel
Eric Morgren on behalf of the Corps. Today I'm going to very briefly
summarize that testimony, plus I'll add several topical points.
Currently, 12 populations of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead,
white sturgeon, and bull trout are listed under the Endangered Species
Act. That means that we must broaden our consideration of recovery
solutions from the lower Snake River to the entire life cycle of the
salmon throughout the basins if we are to be successful.
On the flip side, this year we saw strong returns of adult salmon
to the Columbia. We believe these results are at least partially due to
the investment that the Nation has made in the hydropower system.
Consultations on the 2000 biological opinions are ongoing. While we
anticipate--we do anticipate receiving a final BiOp or BiOps on or
about the 15th of December. While there are still some measures that
need further work, we are optimistic at this point that we would reach
agreement on the major issues and on the overall directions. We are
satisfied that the draft biological opinion is reflecting an increasing
intent to pursue aggressive actions across all the Hs with specified
performance standards and periodic check-ins.
Earlier in your opening statement you emphasized the need for good
science. We are also pleased at the current regional effort to base
recovery actions on the best available science. The course part in this
effort is to fund some 50 to 70 field research studies under our
anadromous fish evaluation program. That, by the way, is a
collaborative process involving the State, Federal, and tribal
entities. We see this investment of some 10 to $20 million in field
research in seeking out better scientific knowledge as being vitally
necessary for making the reasoned management decisions that you alluded
to.
On the issue of funding, full implementation of the measures called
for in the biological opinions will be ambitious. It will require
substantial increases in our appropriations. For example, the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget submitted to Congress this year
called for $91 million in the fish--the Corps' fish mitigation project.
Our fiscal year appropriation, as passed by Congress, was $81 million.
We estimate that some additional $5 million to $10 million may be
needed to fully implement the measures in the biological opinions.
Further, we anticipate the cost will increase in the out years. This is
an important issue as our biological opinion report card will heavily
depend on our ability to implement, read that as fund, recovering
measures.
One of the areas of the biological opinion is to call upon the
Corps of Engineers to carry out actions in the offsite or habitat
measures for fish restoration as a means of supplementing hydro
actions. For example, we are being asked to step up our efforts in the
restoration in the Columbia River estuary. We believe this is important
and should be a part of our approach to the fish recovery.
We look to the Congress for continued support of these efforts. We
will continue to work with you and to keep the lines of communication
open.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary, and I will be happy to
answer any of your questions.
__________
Statement of Howard Schaller, Project Leader, Columbia River Fisheries
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, WA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Howard Schaller from the Columbia
River Program Fisheries Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the
service regarding status of the biological opinions for the Federal
Hydropower System of the Columbia.
Our office is primarily responsible for a recovery evaluation of
Columbia River aquatic resources, which include sturgeon, bull trout,
and salmon. The service is conducting a consultation on the operation
of federally-owned hydropower facilities on the Columbia, Snake,
Clearwater, Kootenai rivers in the Columbia River Basin. We're
consulting with the action agencies of the Army Corps of Engineers,
Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Reclamation. At issue are
the effects of operating the Federal Hydropower System on the
Endangered Kootenai River sturgeon, threatened bull trout, and to some
limited degree, bald eagles.
The service received two biological assessments from the agencies,
a draft document in the summer of 1999, and a final in December 1999.
We shared a preliminary draft of the opinion with these agencies in May
2000, and the comments on the preliminary draft opinion were received
June 2000. The draft opinion was released to the States and tribes for
comment on July 27, 2000.
Throughout this process the emphasis has been placed on the
discussion of key issues including minimization of adverse effects to
sturgeon and bull trout from the PS operations in the Upper Columbia
River. Our draft opinion requests adjustments to the operations and
ramping rates at Hungry Horse, Libby, and Albany Falls dams. We're also
asking the Army Corps of Engineers to continue studies of alternative
pool elevations Albany Falls to benefit kokanee salmon, a key food
source for bull trout in Lake Pend Oreille.
The draft opinion also addresses actions at Libby Dam to allow
increase flows to chief flow objectives for sturgeon. For the Lower
Columbia River, Snake River, and Clearwater River, the service will
require monitoring to better determine the presence of bull trout and
ensure their upstream and downstream passage is not impeded. The
services work closely with National Marine Fisheries Service throughout
this process to ensure that the Federal Hydro System operations benefit
sturgeon, bull trout, and do not conflict with salmon and steelhead.
We are presently revising the biological opinion based on comments
we received from the States, tribes, and other affected entities. We
are now completing the opinion and accompanying documents and
anticipate to have a final draft out by mid-December.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I'll be happy to
answer any of your questions that you and the members have. Thanks.
This is a summary of Mr. Cottingham's comments from September.
__________
Statement of James J. Anderson, Associate Professor, School of Aquatic
and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
This testimony concerns the 2000 Draft Biological Opinions by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and the
Federal Caucus Draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. This testimony
considers actions to be taken in the next 5 to 8 years to help fish
recovery.
My name is James J. Anderson; I am an Associate Professor in the
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington,
and I have been fully engaged in Columbia River salmon research for two
decades. Mr. Chairmen, I thank you and the committee for this
opportunity to testify in this hearing on the Draft Biological Opinion.
In my testimony, I first put the salmon decline in a historical context
and consider the future in which the region will use Bi-Op results. I
then discuss the adequacy of several Bi-Op approaches.
The decline of salmon: We know that the decline of Columbia River
salmon involved the interplay of climate/ocean fluctuations and the
cumulative impact of human activities on salmon and their habitat
(Anderson 2000a). Significant natural variations have occurred on
decadal scales and these are loosely viewed as switches between two
distinct climate regimes that may persist for two to three decades. The
20th century began in a cool wet regime favorable to salmon. It
switched to a warm dry regime unfavorable to salmon about 1920. The
climate returned to the cool wet regime during the development of the
hydrosystem and then switched back to a warm regime over the past 20
years. It is important to note that the impacts of the hydrosystem
development were partially masked by the good conditions of the wet
regime and the recovery efforts of the past two decades were partially
masked by the poor conditions of the dry regime. Recently the ocean has
cooled and fish runs have improved. (Anderson 2000b). It is unknown if
this represents a switch to a cool regime or a short-term anomaly in
the pattern of global warming.
If we have entered a favorable climate regime, then at the end of
this decade fish runs could be abundant, independent of any restorative
actions taken through the Bi-Op. More importantly, under this scenario
the climate will eventually switch to the unfavorable regime perhaps in
the second or third decade of the century. In the second scenario,
global warming dominates the decadal cycles and the ocean continually
warms. In both scenarios, conditions for salmon will degrade sometime
in the future due to warm dry conditions. It is also inevitable that
the competing demands for water and fish habitat will in the future be
greater than they are today. Will the Bi-Op plan provide the
information needed in a drier future with greater demands for the
Columbia River's resources?
Can the Bi-Op evaluate recovery actions? The 2000 Biological
Opinion sets the course for research and actions to be taken over this
decade to recover endangered salmon. Two important milestones are
identified. In 5 years (2005), if the trend in the stocks has not
significantly improved the program will be reopened for adjustments
including dam-breaching. At year 8 (2008), if the stock trend is
downward the agencies will seek authority to breach the dams if the
current science supports that recommendation.
This is not sufficient time to evaluate actions. The time between
when the adults spawn and when the fisheries agencies have complete
information on the returns of the progeny is 6 years. This means that
for decisions at year 5, complete information will be available only
for fish that spawned this year and for year 8 only information from
spawners over the next few years will be available. Furthermore, 10 to
20 years of returns are required to separate the effects of actions
from the effects of climate variability (Peters and Marmorek 2000).
Therefore, under the Bi-Op schedule, the decisions on the effectiveness
of actions will depend on the State of the ocean over the next few
years and will be essentially independent of the Bi-Op actions.
Can the Bi-Op measure the effectiveness of physical standards? Many
Bi-Op actions are based on physical standards that produce desired
changes in ecological attributes important for salmon, e.g., water
flow, sediment load and temperature. Although the standards are
referred to as interim surrogates of performance, the Bi-Op does not
specify how they will be connected to fish survival. It neither
characterizes the potential range of the measures in terms of survival
nor addresses if the desired changes are ineffective or even
detrimental to fish.
Can the Bi-Op assess the effectiveness of dam breaching? The
majority opinion within PATH claimed dam breaching was the most
effective recovery action available (Marmorek et al. 1998). The NMFS
Cumulative Risk Initiative (Kareiva et al. 2000), armed with new
information, sided with the minority opinion in PATH and concluded that
dam beaching on its own would not recover the stocks. CRI is vague as
to what will recover the stocks but points to the estuary and the
freshwater habitats as critical. If dam removal is a solution though,
it requires a complex link between the smelts' hydrosystem experience
and their survival in the estuary. Evaluating this linkage may be
difficult or impossible in the timeframe for decisions.
Does the Bi-Op assess the value of flow? The Bi-Op has an
aggressive policy to increase flows in the rivers, claiming they will
benefit fish through many life stages. The NMFS research has shown flow
is insignificant to fish survival, or at best its benefits uncertain.
Furthermore, flow augmentation is different from the seasonal and year-
to-year variations in flow, and it has even less impact on survival.
Under some situations, flow augmentation can be detrimental to fish
(Anderson et al. 2000). The Bi-Op has no program to evaluate the actual
impact of flow, where it is effective and where not. In some cases,
there is sufficient information to establish a possible range of flow
augmentation impacts but decades of observations may be required to
identify mechanisms and narrow the uncertainty in the estimates. The
Bi-Op virtually ignores the need for these studies. The reliance on
physical standards is inadequate to effectively manage flow in the
future when water resources will be in more demand than they are today.
Does the Bi-Op treat hatchery fish adequately? A significant number
of wild spawning stocks have hatchery influence but the Bi-Op does not
treat these influences in a consistent manner. For example, a high
proportion of Snake River fall chinook spawners are thought to be
hatchery strays, but it is still considered part of the ESU. In
contrast, to keep Carson Creek hatchery fish from mixing with wild
fish, they are clubbed as they attempt to spawn in streams. This is a
considerable public relations problem because the Carson Creek strain
is very successful and returns in large numbers. Hatchery fish are also
significant because the assessment of wild stock productivity for
decisions in years 5 and 8 depends on the fraction and success of
hatchery fish spawning with the wild stocks. The decision to breach
dams could rely on what we assume for the success of the hatchery fish.
It is somewhat ironic, if the hatchery fish are successful river
spawners, the Bi-Op could call for dam breaching.
The Bi-Op calls for hatchery reform to eliminate or minimize the
harm to wild fish and on an interim basis to supplement the wild fish
with genetically similar hatchery fish to avoid extinction. Even though
hatchery fish are inextricably linked with wild fish, the recovery
measures focus only on naturally spawning salmon. If hatcheries
represent successful ESUs then they should be considered when assessing
the status of the ESUs. Perhaps instead of treating hatcheries as
interim measures, they should be considered as genetic reservoirs,
especially during periods of poor ocean conditions. At the beginning of
the last century, hatchery fish were considered a solution to the
problem. At the end of the last century, they were considered part of
the problem. How will hatcheries be viewed in this new century? The Bi-
Op needs to address these issues.
Are Stakeholders represented? There are many opinions on the causes
for the decline of the salmon and how they can be recovered. The Bi-Op
represents the Federal Caucus proposal for achieving a comprehensive,
long-term strategic direction for actions in the basin. It solicits
stakeholder contributions through consultation and corroboration
refinements of the proposal, but there is no formal process for
comments or for presenting alternative approaches. It is a difficult
task. PATH had this goal, incorporating State, Federal and tribal
scientists in a formal decision framework. Unfortunately, many
conclusions of PATH were discounted because of public perceptions of
bias, undue complexity, and because new studies disproved critical
assumptions used in PATH. The relatively open but cumbersome PATH has
been replaced by the closed and streamlined Federal Caucus process. In
PATH, a steering committee set the direction of the research; the
participants carried out the work and the results were synthesized by
ESSA, the company hired to coordinate the workshops. In preparation of
the Bi-Op, the overall framework and substantive issues were developed
within the Federal Caucus. Community input came in the way of
occasional workshops and written comments. The inputs that were
incorporated related mostly to issues of model parameters and
correcting obvious mistakes in the Bi-Op modeling framework. From my
observations there is no mechanism to input substantive issues to the
Bi-Op process.
references
Anderson, J.J. 2000a. Decadal climate cycles and declining Columbia
River salmon. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Fisheries Conference,
Victoria, B.C, ed. E. Knudsen. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication No 2x. Bethesda, MD. 467-484.
Anderson, J.J. 2000b. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Water
and Power of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held in
Cascade Locks, Oregon April 18, 2000. (www.cbr.washington.edu/papers/
jim/testimonies/senate--water--2000.html).
Anderson, J.J., R.A. Hinrichsen and C. Van Holmes. 2000. Effects of
Flow Augmentation on Snake River Fall Chinook. In comments by Idaho
Water users on the ``Draft All-H paper by the Federal Caucus:
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish Building a Conceptual Recovery
Plan.'' Submitted on behalf of the Committee of Nine and The Idaho
Water Users Association March 16, 2000.
DRAFT Biological Opinion 2000: Operation of the Federal Columbia
River Power System Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program
and the Bureau of Reclamation's 31 Projects, Including the Entire
Columbia Basin Project. (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hydrop/hydroweb/docs/
2000/2000Biop.htm)
Kareiva, P.M. Marvier and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and management
options for spring/summer chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.
Science 290(3): 977-979.
Marmorek, D.R., C.N. Peters and I. Parnell (eds.) 1998. PATH final
report for fiscal year 1998. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd.,
Vancouver, BC, 263 pp.
Peters, C.N. and D.R. Marmorek (compls./eds.) 2000. PATH:
Preliminary Evaluation of the Imparting Opportunities and Biological
Consequences of Monitoring and Experimental Management Actions.
Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, 150 pp.
__________
Statement of Charles M. Paulsen, President, Paulson Environment
Research, Lake Oswego, OR
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
In preparing my written testimony, I have tried to make my remarks
accessible to a non-technical audience, and to keep the tone fairly
informal. I include an annotated list of technical references at the
end of the paper.
I have approximately 14-15 years of experience doing research on
Columbia River salmon. The first half of that period was devoted
primarily to socio-economic aspects of salmon enhancement and recovery
actions. The last 6-7 years of work has focused on quantitative
analysis of the biological effects of measures to aid Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listed stocks. These efforts have been funded largely
by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and to a lesser degree by
the Corps of Engineers. However, the views expressed here are strictly
my own, and should not be interpreted as representing those of BPA or
any other organization.
My remarks focus on three broad areas:
1. The Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) life-cycle analysis that
forms the basis for the population status analysis in the NMFS
September 2000 Draft Biological Opinion (Bi-Op);
2. The Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH) results,
how they compare to recent data, and how they are used in Bi-Op;
3. Uncertainty in the biological effects of the Bi-Op ``Reasonable
and Prudent Alternatives'' (RPA's) and in the possible effects of
drawdown.
Obviously, this covers a lot of territory, and my comments will
only touch on the highlights of each topic.
cri life-cycle approach
At the risk of over-simplifying a complex modeling exercise, one
can characterize the CRI approach as assuming that the future will be a
straight-line projection of the past, with a great deal of random noise
around that projection. It uses estimates of salmon population
abundance over time--generally derived from dam counts or redd (nest)
counts of fish returning to spawn--and extrapolates trends in past
estimates into the future. Unlike PATH efforts, each population is
assumed to be independent of the others, except in sensitivity analyses
(the latter are not used in the Bi-Op itself). Because salmon abundance
varies greatly from year to year, the CRI approach, in common with
other attempts to predict future fish numbers, is not very precise.
While the ``average'' trend for a population may be upward or downward,
one cannot place very much confidence in any particular value of the
trend estimate. However, it is clear that populations of most ESA-
listed stocks have shown marked declines over time, regardless of the
model used to project those trends into the future. The downward trend,
after all, is the rationale behind listing the stocks under the ESA.
As others have noted in previous hearings, the CRI model
development and application was not nearly so strongly collaborative as
PATH. The approach by NMFS was to develop models, have public workshops
to review them, and modify the models in response to the comments
received. In contrast, PATH held far more meetings and workshops, with
participation in both being restricted largely to the scientists who
were actively working on the analyses.
However, given NMFS' decision to analyze 12 Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) in just over 12 months, the level of
collaboration in PATH would have been impossible within that timeframe.
PATH required almost 5 years to do a thorough job on two ESU's--Snake
River spring/summer chinook and Snake River fall chinook--and a more
perfunctory analysis of Snake River steelhead. In addition (see section
on PATH, below), in light of recent information, the PATH conclusion
regarding drawdown of the lower Snake projects might in the end have
been similar to the Bi-Op: do what's feasible to improve anadromous
fish passage at the existing hydrosystem, make improvements in other
phases of the life cycle, and defer a decision on drawdown.
That having been said in defense of NMFS, the CRI method for
population projections clearly has some problems. For anyone trying to
follow their analysis from the outside, the many changes over the past
year make it very difficult to be certain what version of the model is
being used in any given version of the Bi-Op. For example, substantial
changes in extinction estimates occurred between the July release of
the Bi-Op and the current (September) version. In addition, the so-
called ``lambda criteria'' in the draft Bi-Op (section 9.2.2.1)--that
the population growth rate must be at least 10 percent per year, or
consultation will be re-initiated--may lead one to believe that growth
rates can be estimated very accurately. In fact, as noted above, the
growth rates are very imprecise and noisy, because population abundance
varies widely from year to year. This makes decision criteria based on
growth rates extremely problematic. In fact, for some stocks it appears
that even if populations reach recovery levels--several hundred to
several thousand spawners--within a decade, the 10 percent growth rate
may still not be met.
Finally, for wild stocks that have relatively large numbers of
hatchery-origin spawners, the CRI population projections are very
sensitive to ``hatchery effectiveness.'' Again, to risk over-
simplification, hatchery effectiveness concerns whether or not
hatchery-born fish spawning in the wild are as effective as their wild-
born cousins at producing viable offspring--fish that will eventually
return in the future and spawn. The Bi-Op rightly points to the need to
obtain empirical estimates of this for different stocks--at present,
the numbers used as a sensitivity are based on professional judgment--
but is silent on whether or not deliberate supplementation with
hatchery fish will continue or not. This question needs to be resolved
soon, since many stocks are supplemented heavily at present, and may in
fact be sustained largely by hatchery fish.
As with many other uncertainties, one may well wonder why, if it is
so important, it has not been the subject of more research. The answer,
I think, lies in the ESA focus on wild stocks. NMFS has interpreted
this to mean that only wild-born fish ``count'' when it comes to
achieving recovery goals--that supplementation with hatchery fish to
sustain a run cannot be part of a long-term management strategy.
Therefore, hatchery supplementation can only be used as a safety net to
sustain runs over the short term, though the exact definition of
``short term'' is an open question.
This in turn means that the question of how effective hatchery fish
are is very important for future management actions. If effectiveness
is very low, then hatchery fish are producing very few progeny, and
supplementation is likely a waste of resources. If it is high, and the
hatchery-origin fish are helping sustain the runs. The question then
becomes whether or not this situation is desirable from a scientific
and/or policy perspective.
path and its use in the bi-op
I was closely involved in PATH. While I disagree with many of its
conclusions, I feel that I am qualified to make some statements as to
how those conclusions stand up to recently available information.
PATH participants analyzed a host of uncertainties, ranging from
minor ones having little effect on the models' output to some that
turned out to be very important. Among the latter, three stand out as
being very influential:
1. Survival rates for juveniles migrating in-river;
2. ``D'', i.e., survival of transported juvenile fish after release
below Bonneville Dam relative to survival of in-river migrants;
3. ``Extra'' mortality, i.e., mortality not explained by simple
life-cycle models or by the effect of downriver passage of juveniles
through the hydrosystem.
While the PATH process is, of course, now defunct, these are still
relevant, because they are used in the Bi-Op to estimate the effects of
drawdown on Snake and Upper Columbia River stocks. In this section, my
remarks apply primarily to fish that migrate as juveniles in the
spring--spring chinook, summer chinook and steelhead--not to fall
chinook. In particular, I am concerned with how PATH conclusions stack
up when compared to recently available information.
First, NMFS' recent estimates of in-river survival rates for Snake
River spring/summer chinook are substantially higher than those
predicted by the passage models (CRISP and FLUSH) used in PATH. In
particular, they are 2-10 times higher than those predicted by FLUSH,
and somewhat higher than CRISP predictions. Therefore, both passage
models to some degree overstated the direct effects of the hydrosystem
on Snake stocks, FLUSH by a very substantial margin.
Second, NMFS estimates of ``D'', while very noisy and imprecise,
are higher than those used by either passage model in PATH--somewhat
higher than CRISP, and much higher than those used by FLUSH. The
implication is that transported fish survive at a higher rate overall--
from Lower Granite dam as juveniles back to Lower Granite as adults--
than do fish that migrate inriver.
Clearly, in these two areas, PATH predictions are at odds with
recent observations. When combined with very high returns of spring
chinook this year, they may also be at odds with various PATH
hypotheses about extra mortality. In particular, high numbers of
returning adults and jacks (immature fish that spend only 1 year in the
ocean), combined with other indicators, suggests that an ocean regime
shift may have occurred. I say ``may'' because such shifts have, in the
past, lasted for 20 years or more, and a few years of high returns do
not a 20-year shift make. If such a shift has occurred, however, it
casts serious doubt over the other PATH extra mortality hypotheses--
that it is caused by the existence of the Lower Snake dams, or that it
is ``here to stay'' due to diseases transmitted by hatchery fish or
some other unknown cause.
All of this casts considerable doubt on PATH's conclusion that dam
breaching is clearly the best alternative to recover Snake River
stocks. In addition, it has some important implications for the way
PATH results are used in the current Bi-Op. Basically, the Bi-Op uses
two values for extra mortality when analyzing the effects of drawdown.
One version assumes that extra mortality is zero, the other uses an
average of the values derived in PATH, and applies this to both Snake
and mid/upper Columbia stocks. If the argument outlined above is
correct, then the Bi-Op use of PATH results is clearly wrong. This
matters because the projected effects of drawdown manifest themselves
primarily via a reduction in extra mortality. Therefore, the value used
for this is crucial to predicting the effects of dam removal on fish
survival.
uncertainty in the effects of bi-op actions
The alert reader will have noticed the prevalence of terms such as
``imprecise,'' ``noisy,'' and ``uncertain'' in much of the text above.
In some cases this is simply the nature of the beast. Reasonably
reliable salmon abundance data for the Columbia dates back to the
closing of Bonneville Dam in 1938. It shows very high variability from
year to year, with runs often increasing or decreasing by a factor of
10 over the course of a few years. Reliable life-stage survival rates
(at least for Snake River fish) extend back almost a decade, when PIT
tag technology was first used, and these too show a high degree of
variability. No statistical model or experimental design will make this
variability vanish. The best one can hope for is that carefully
designed studies will account for it properly. Under some
circumstances, clever designs can make some of the variation ``cancel
out'' by controlling for it, while assessing whether management actions
work as planned.
The high variability matters when one is trying to assess the
effects of management actions. In the next few paragraphs, I discuss
two RPA's mandated in the draft Bi-Op, and an uncertainty that is
critical to the projected success of the Bi-Op in avoiding jeopardy. I
look first at the actions, flow augmentation and offsite mitigation,
and then at the potential effects of drawdown.
Flow Augmentation
Recent research by NMFS has found almost no relationship between
spring flow and reservoir survival for spring/summer chinook and
steelhead juveniles in the Snake. Although high flows are associated
with faster downstream migration through the Snake and Columbia
reservoirs, this apparently does not lead to increased survival. Given
the lack of evidence that higher spring flow leads to higher survivals
within the hydropower system, one can fall back on the hypothesis that
increased flow may lead to higher survival in the Columbia estuary or
in the Columbia River ``plume'' just off-shore, where fresh water from
the river mixes with salt water. Unfortunately, all one can do at
present is make guesses about this, because no direct estimates of
estuary/early ocean survival are available. It may be possible to
obtain estimates of this using so-called sonic tags, where ``pingers''
are placed in migrating juveniles, and the signals are picked up by an
array of floating microphones placed at intervals in the estuary and
just off-shore. Personally, I suspect that it will turn out that
estuary survival does not vary much with flow for these stocks, but the
only way to find out is to do the studies.
Fall chinook which migrate downstream as juveniles in the summer,
present a very different picture. NMFS research shows a fairly strong,
positive relationship between flow and survival. However, this is
confounded with temperature and turbidity. In addition, it is
confounded with the date that study fish were released into the river:
fish leaving early do better than fish leaving later in the season, and
flow decreases over the migration season. Therefore, separating the
effects of flow, time of release, etc. using data for years past is
impossible. Deliberate manipulation of flows, accompanied by intensive
field studies of tagged fish, is the only way I know of to resolve this
uncertainty.
Off-site Mitigation
For many stocks, offsite mitigation is a very important part of the
Bi-Op's reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPA's). This is because
relatively modest changes in survival rates are expected from
additional hydrosystem actions. In combination with large increases
needed to avoid jeopardy for some stocks, the result is that much of
the increase must come from freshwater spawning/rearing improvements.
The Bi-Op calls for many actions--screening diversions, reducing
subbasin irrigation withdrawals, and the like. Actually measuring the
effects of these offsite actions on survival rates will be a complex
undertaking.
Previous work I have conducted shows that there are large
variations in survival rates from parr (immature fish tagged in their
natal streams) to smolts arriving at Lower Granite Dam. More
specifically, survival rates vary both across years and across rearing
areas with different types of land use. The variation across time and
space seems sensible: parr survive at higher rates in cool, moist years
than in dry ones, and fish in wilderness areas have higher survival
than fish rearing in agricultural areas. However, the variability over
time and space is high. Even if the effects of habitat modification are
substantial, detecting survival increases will require carefully
designed studies that need to start very soon to produce results within
the Bi-Op's 5- to 8-year timeframes.
Potential Effects of Drawdown
For Snake River stocks, breaching of the four Lower Snake dams, and
perhaps McNary and John Day, is used as the ``gold standard'' in the
Bi-Op: if breaching is undertaken, the action agencies would then have
done all they could to reduce the effects of the hydropower system on
Snake River stocks. However, a couple of important uncertainties
underlie this conclusion. First, recent work by NMFS researchers
concludes that for Snake spring chinook and steelhead, survival rates
for juveniles migrating through the Snake and Columbia (from McNary to
Bonneville Dam) is about the same now as it was before the Lower Snake
projects were built. Therefore, it follows that any benefit the fish
derive from breaching would come about not because of acute, short-term
effects but because of the elusive ``extra mortality'' noted above. As
previously noted, it is my opinion that whatever extra mortality there
may have been since the 1970's, it may well vanish if an ocean regime
shift results in higher ocean survival. This leads me to be skeptical
of the projected biological benefits that may results from breaching.
Most scientists, including me, believe that the fish would be better
off without dams, but recent information suggests that the benefits are
probably quite modest.
where to go from here
While the model wars--a central feature of PATH--have abated to
some degree, they still continue on other fronts. For example, the Bi-
Op has recently been criticized for not using decision analysis
techniques, as was done in PATH. Given the uncertainties outlined
above, and many more that I've not gone into here, there are two things
of which I am absolutely certain:
1. Computer models and projections, however derived, are no
substitute for empirical data.
2. Surprises, both pleasant and otherwise, will be a prominent
feature of salmon management and biology for a long time to come.
Given these features of the problem, what should be done in future?
First, management agencies in the Columbia have a long history of
taking actions largely on faith and best professional judgment. Because
they were convinced that the actions would work, they did not monitor
the effects to assess their success or failure. This will have to
change in the future if we are to retain any credibility with the
public and with elected officials. I have identified two actions in the
Bi-Op--flow augmentation and offsite mitigation--that I think are
especially problematic in this regard. Previous estimates of costs for
flow augmentation and water spilled for fish averaged $180 million per
year. These assumed electricity prices well below the current market.
The Bi-Op's requirements for offsite mitigation are still too general
to enable meaningful cost estimates, but actions to reduce withdrawals,
screen diversions, and improve riparian habitat will not be cheap. We
owe it to ratepayers and taxpayers to monitor the biological
consequences of actions closely, to see that these expenditures are
having the intended effects.
Second, we need to be humble in the face of our ignorance. Our
ability to accurately forecast the future--with or without the effects
of new management actions--is very limited. The plethora of models that
do such forecasting should not distract one from this. Therefore, one
should not place too much confidence in anyone who says ``I know what
will happen to the fish if we do . . .'' The best we can hope for is to
continue learning as we go along, and not take predictions--optimistic
or pessimistic--too seriously.
Finally, the monitoring called for in the Bi-Op is an enormous
undertaking in its own right. Given the scale of the effort involved, I
am concerned that there will be a movement to try to monitor everything
that swims, creeps, or crawls, since almost anything might be related
to problems for ESA-listed stocks. In the absence of some guiding
principles--e.g., that monitoring be directed at assessing the effects
of Bi-Op actions--I worry that efforts will be too broad, general, and
diffuse. If that happens, in 5 to 10 years scientists and policymakers
will be rehashing the same arguments about flow augmentation,
transportation, hatchery effectiveness, and the like that vex us today.
Instead, I would recommend a set of closely monitored management
experiments to see what works and what doesn't. Unless this is the
foundation for future research efforts, money spent on monitoring will
be money down the drain.
references
NMFS, March 2000. Salmonid travel time and survival related to flow
in the Columbia River. Concludes that there is almost no relationship
between flow and survival for spring migrants, and a highly confounded
relationship for fall chinook.
NMFS, April 2000. Passage of juvenile and adult salmonids past
Columbia and Snake River dams. Concludes that current juvenile passage
survival is similar to that in the 1960's, before the Snake River dams
were constructed.
NMFS, April 2000. Summary of research related to transportation of
juvenile anadromous salmonids around Snake and Columbia River dams.
Contains ``D'' estimates for Snake River fish.
Paulsen, C. and T. Fisher. Statistical relationship between Snake
River spring/summer chinook salmon parr-to-smolt survival and indices
of land use. In press, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
Demonstrates that juvenile survival from Parr to smolt varies widely
across years and tagging locations.
Oosterhout, G. Analysis of a decision: A critique of the National
Marine Fisheries Service's draft Biological Opinion on the Operation of
the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System, from the perspective of
the sciences of decision analysis and risk assessment. Criticizes the
draft Bi-Op for the failure to use decision analysis techniques.
Paulsen, C. and R. Hinrichsen. Experimental Management for Snake
River Spring/Summer Chinook: Trade-offs Between Conservation and
Learning for a Threatened Species. In review, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences examines how many years would be
required to detect the effects of a variety of management actions.
__________
Statement of Karl J. Dreher, Director, Idaho Department of
Water Resources
Mr. Chairman, my name is Karl Dreher. I serve the State of Idaho as
the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, a position
that I have held since 1995.
I appreciate your invitation to testify at this hearing and would
like to share with you some of my concerns with the Draft Biological
Opinion on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
(``Draft Bi-Op'') released by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(``NMFS'') on July 27, 2000. My comments focus on two aspects of the
Draft Biological Opinion: (1) the inadequacy of the science relied on
by NMFS in continuing to call for flow augmentation in the mainstem of
the Snake River; and (2) the flawed analysis conducted by NMFS in
assessing the effects of the Bureau of Reclamation projects in the
Upper Snake River Basin.
1. inadequacy of science used to justify flow augmentation in the
mainstem snake river
Figure 1 shows the historical record of average daily flows in the
Snake River near the site of Lower Granite Dam, since records have been
kept, during the spring time period (April 10 through June 20) for
which NMFS has established a target flow objective for the Snake River
at Lower Granite Dam to aid outmigrating spring/summer chinook salmon.
Similarly, Figure 2 shows the historical record of average daily flows
in the Snake River during the summer time period (June 21 through
August 31) during which NMFS has established a target flow objective in
the Snake River to aid outmigrating fall chinook salmon.
To assist in evaluating these historical flows, a linear trend line
was calculated during each of the spring and summer target flow
periods. The striking conclusion that can clearly be drawn from these
data is that despite the increasing development of irrigated
agriculture in the Snake River Basin, despite the development of
municipal and industrial water supplies, despite the upstream
development of hydroelectric power plants, despite the construction of
Dworshak Reservoir for flood control, and despite the construction of
Bureau of Reclamation storage reservoirs in the Upper Snake River
Basin, flows have not changed significantly. During the spring target
flow period, average daily flows range from about 50,000 cfs to about
170,000 cfs; from prior to 1920 to the current time. During the summer
target flow period, average daily flows range from about 20,000 cfs to
about 70,000 cfs; again from prior to 1920 to the current time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.025
The lack of dramatic change in flows is significant because
analyses conducted by the Process for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses
(``PATH'') concluded that the productivity of Snake River spring/summer
chinook populations remained healthy through the 1950's and into the
1960's. Consequently, changes in Snake River flows can't have
contributed to the loss of salmon productivity (because the flows
haven't changed), and it should not be expected that increasing flows
will significantly improve salmon productivity because there have been
no significant flow depletions to contribute to the loss of
productivity.
If flows have not changed during the time period when salmon
productivity declined to the point that Snake River salmon and
steelhead stocks were listed under the Endangered Species Act, what has
changed? Figures 3 and 4 show the historic record of average daily
flows during the spring and summer flow time periods together with a
parameter termed ``water particle travel time''\1\, which is a
surrogate parameter for average velocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Water particle travel time is the theoretical length of time
that it would take a particle, suspended in a volume of water flowing
at a given rate, to travel some specified distance. An average velocity
can be calculated by dividing the specified distance by the water
particle travel time. The specified distance in this instance is the
length of the river segment from between the confluence of the
Clearwater and Snake Rivers to the confluence of the Snake and Columbia
Rivers, about 140 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures show that prior to the construction of the four
Federal Columbia River Power System (``FCRPS'') dams on the Snake River
above its confluence with the Columbia River, water particle travel
time, and hence the average velocity of river flow, were largely
independent of flow. Since the construction of the four FCRPS dams,
which have transformed a formerly free-flowing river into a series of
reservoirs, thereby increasing the cross-section of the river, the
average velocity of river flow has been slowed by an order of magnitude
and is now significantly dependent on flow.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.027
This slowing of river flows following construction of the four
FCPRS dams, coupled with observations that improved adult returns are
generally associated with good water years (i.e., high natural flow and
spill) during juvenile outmigration, have led to the hypothesis that
augmenting flows in the mainstem Snake River will increase flow
velocities, decrease the travel time of outmigrating smalls by pushing
them downstream, and thus improve their survival. However, there has
been little recognition by NMFS in the Draft Bi-Op and supporting
documents that flow augmentation can only provide small and probably
insignificant increases in flow velocities.
In part to test the hypothesis that flow augmentation improves
survival of outmigrating juvenile salmon by speeding downstream
migration, NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Nez Perce
Tribe investigated migration characteristics of hatchery-raised,
spring/summer and fall chinook salmon in the Snake River using
hatchery-raised juveniles as surrogates for wild juveniles. The studies
were conducted during the period from 1995 through 1998 and showed that
estimated survival from points of release to the tailrace of Lower
Granite Dam could be correlated with all three environmental variables
examined (flow rate, water temperature, and turbidity), at least for
fall subyearlings, as shown in Figure 5. Estimated fall subyearling
survival decreased throughout the season, as flow volume and turbidity
decreased and water temperature increased. These correlations have been
used by NMFS as the primary basis in the Draft Bi-Op for the
continuation of flow augmentation from reservoirs in the Snake River
and Clearwater River Basins to aid outmigrating juvenile subyearling
fall chinook salmon.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.028
However, an elementary principal of statistics is that correlation
between variables does not equate to cause and effect. Based on an
analysis of the 1995-1998 data relied on by NMFS, these data do not
support a conclusion that higher flows achieved by use of flow
augmentation cause an increase in survival. Attached to this written
statement is a copy of the executive summary from a recent
collaborative study completed by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources, the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute (University of
Idaho), and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Using the 1995-1998
data relied on by NMFS, it was found that most of the hatchery-raised
fall chinook surviving to Lower Granite Dam traveled faster, not
slower, during lower flows. This is shown in Figure 6 below and is
completely opposite of what would be expected if incrementally higher
flow velocities caused increased survival.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1532.029
Current data do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that
the relatively high mortality occurring after the release of hatchery-
raised fish, especially from later releases, is related to flow rate.
An inability to transition from a cultured environment to a natural
environment may result in high mortality shortly after release. This
post-release mortality is incorporated into survival estimates. If it
is
relatively high, this initial mortality could strongly influence
observed survival patterns, even when the cause of mortality cannot be
shown to be related to flow condi-
tions. For example, water temperature differentials between the
hatchery and the river release sites were not constant among release
groups. The temperature differential was relatively minor for early
releases, but more dramatic for later release groups. Although fish
were acclimated prior to release, and acute mortality monitored in net
pens, the additional thermal stress on later release groups may have
contributed to lower observed survival at Lower Granite Dam than for
earlier release groups. Another variable--that is termed herein as
``readiness to migrate''--may also have influenced hatchery-raised,
fall chinook migration rates and survival. Fish from the early release
groups may have been released prior to the time of optimal
physiological conditions for migration and, therefore, migrations were
delayed. Evidence for this possibility is the delay between dates of
release and dates of detections at Lower Granite Dam for early releases
as compared to later releases. Subyearlings from the later release
groups may have been released at the end of, or after, their optimal
physiological time for migration, although a few of the fish from late
releases appeared to ``catch up,'' as shown by faster travel times,
despite lower flow conditions, as compared with earlier releases.
The inadequacy of the studies used by NMFS to investigate survival
under varying flow conditions does not suggest that flow, specifically
the attributes of flow (water velocity, temperature, and turbidity),
are unimportant to migration and survival of juvenile salmon. However,
flow rates, velocity, temperature, and turbidity are closely correlated
with one another within the 1995-1998 data set used by NMFS to justify
continued flow augmentation in the Draft Bi-Op, and the current data
are insufficient to allow delineation of the effects of individual
attributes of flow. Understanding the effects of individual attributes
of flow, particularly the usefulness of flow augmentation to compensate
for the effects of reservoir impoundment on these attributes, is
fundamental to determining the effectiveness of flow augmentation
efforts for increasing survival of juvenile salmon. For example, if
cooler water temperatures are important to improving the survival of
juvenile subyearling fall chinook salmon, using relatively warm water
from the Upper Snake River to augment flows may be counterproductive
and may harm subyearling fall chinook if river flows augmented with
water from the Upper Snake River Basin are warmer than what would have
occurred without flow augmentation from the Upper Snake.
2. flawed analysis assessing effects of bureau of reclamation projects
The Draft Bi-Op discusses the flow depletion effects of irrigation
stemming from Bureau of Reclamation (``BOR'') projects in the Upper
Snake River Basin and concludes that: ``Flow depletions caused by BOR-
based irrigation are a major impediment to meeting NMFS's flow
objectives.'' Bi-Op at 6-28. This assertion is based on two analyses:
(1) the estimated monthly average water consumption of crops at BOR
irrigation projects upstream of McNary Dam; and (2) the percentage of
years that simulated mean monthly flows at certain other dams are not
met as a result of BOR-based irrigation. These analyses contain factual
errors, apply fundamentally flawed logic in defining the effects of the
action, and present a grossly misleading picture of the flow impacts of
Bureau operations.
The conceptual flaw in the approach used by NMFS to assess BOR
impacts is that the approach focuses on the time that reservoir storage
is released during the irrigation season and the consumptive use by the
crops irrigated by this water. Because irrigation occurs primarily
during the salmon migration season, NMFS assumes that BOR projects have
a substantial effect on flows during the migration season. This
approach overlooks a simple but absolutely crucial fact: most of the
water released from BOR reservoir storage space for irrigation purposes
was stored after the irrigation season during the winter and high run-
off periods in the spring. Without storage in a BOR reservoir, the
water would have flowed downstream and would not have been in the river
at the time that it is delivered for irrigation. Thus, water stored
during the winter and spring that is released for irrigation in the
summer does not reduce natural flows during salmon migration periods,
but may actually increase flows during salmon migration since a
substantial portion--roughly half--of the stored water that is released
for irrigation finds its way back to the river as return flow. To
correctly determine the effect of BOR reservoirs, NMFS must look to the
volume and timing of both reservoir storage and return flows during the
salmon migration periods.
In wrongly determining the percentage of years that operation of
the BOR projects would cause a failure to meet flow objectives at Lower
Granite and other dams based on a 50-year period of record (1929-1978),
the Draft Bi-Op uses a comparison of flows under current BOR operations
with flows under a simulated ``without BOR depletion'' scenario. Bi-Op
at 6-31. Two flaws in the NMFS analysis are readily apparent. First,
the amount of depletion caused by BOR-based irrigation is overstated by
approximately 50 percent. NMFS failed to distinguish between full
service lands, which use Bureau storage as a primary water supply, and
supplemental lands, which rely on Bureau storage as a secondary source.
The difference in water use patterns between the two types of lands can
be substantial. For instance, full service lands in the Boise River
Basin used 2.18 acre-feet of storage per acre, while supplemental lands
used 0.66 acre-feet of storage water per acre. NMFS simply assumed that
all lands used Bureau storage as their sole source of water. Second,
the analysis of the percentage of years that operation of the BOR
projects would prevent meeting flow targets continues the error of
basing the analysis on agricultural depletions rather than actual
reservoir storage and return flows. The analysis calculates the total
depletion due to all agriculture, assigns a fraction of that total
depletion to BOR-based irrigation, and assumes that the BOR-based
depletion occurs primarily during the salmon migration season. As
explained previously, this overlooks the distinction between the timing
of diversions to reservoir storage, which deplete flows at the time
storage occurs, and diversions pursuant to natural flow water rights,
which deplete flows at the time the diversion occurs.
This Draft Bi-Op analysis also reveals another basic misconception
in the NMFS analysis of BOR impacts. In developing the ``without BOR
depletions'' scenario, NMFS eliminated all irrigation storage,
diversions, and return flows. This ``pre-
development'' scenario stretches the available data and analytical
tools well beyond their reliable use, and places the entire analysis
well into the realm of speculation. Unfortunately, NMFS then took the
analysis one stunning step further; it assumed that the BOR reservoirs
would remain in place and would be actively employed solely to augment
flows for salmon. In other words, NMFS calculated the effects of
operating the BOR projects on streamflow as the sum of: (1) the
depletions that NMFS attributed to BOR-based irrigation; and (2) the
volume of water that would have been available if the BOR reservoirs
were actively operated solely to augment flows. Thus, NMFS treated the
failure to dedicate Bureau reservoirs to flow augmentation as an
``effect of the action'' for the operation of Bureau projects. The
Endangered Species Act does not allow NMFS to measure the effects of
the operations at BOR projects against some artificial scenario that
sweeps agriculture from the landscape of southern Idaho and then
assumes that Congress would have authorized and funded major water
projects for fish flow augmentation purposes.
3. insufficient collaboration with regional and local interests
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the breadth of disagreements on these
issues and others among scientists employed by Federal, State, and
local governmental entities, as well as scientists associated with
other interest groups. However, given the significance of salmon
recovery to the Pacific-Northwest and the Nation, coupled with the
inevitable costs of recovery actions, the limited collaboration that
has occurred with regional and local interests has been wholly
inadequate. Had adequate collaboration occurred, the insufficiencies in
the science I have described could have been addressed before the Draft
Bi-Op was finalized. While NMFS may address these flaws to some extent
in the ensuing final Biologic Opinion, the lack of adequate
collaboration has undoubtedly increased the likelihood and scope of
subsequent litigation--litigation which will only serve to slow
implementation and diminish the effectiveness of meaningful and
feasible recovery actions.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be pleased to
answer your questions or provide any supplemental information your
subcommittee may find useful.
______
Review of Survival, Flow, Temperature, and Migration Data for Hatchery-
Raised, Subyearling Fall Chinook Salmon Above Lower Granite Dam, 1995-
1998\1\ (Prepared by Karl J. Dreher, P.E., Director, Idaho Department
of Water Resources; Christian R. Petrich, P.E., Research Scientist,
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho; Kenneth
W. Neely, Technical Hydrogeologist, Idaho Department of Water
Resources; Edward C. Bowles Anadromous Fish Manager Idaho Department of
Fish and Game; Alan Byrne, Senior Fisheries Research Biologist, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Entire report is available from: http://www.idwr.state.id.us
(see listing on home page), or http://www.idwr.state.id.us/info/pio/
issues/IDWR-IDFG %20Flow%20&%20'survival%20Review.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
executive summary
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Nez Perce Tribe have investigated migration
characteristics of hatchery-raised, subyearling fall chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Snake River Basin from data collected
from 1995 through 1998 (Muir et al., 1999). The studies showed that
estimated survival from points of release to Lower Granite Dam could be
correlated with three environmental variables: flow, water temperature,
and turbidity. These correlations are being used in support of flow
augmentation in the lower Snake River.
This report provides a review of the data used for comparing
subyearling survival to flow rates, water temperature, time of release,
and travel time. The principal conclusion of the review is that
survival data and flow rates used by Muir et al. (1999), despite
showing an apparent correlation between flow rates and survival, do not
imply a cause and effect relationship between flow and survival of
subyearlings and should not be used as a basis to justify flow
augmentation. This is primarily because the experimental design did not
address other factors that appear to have strongly influenced migration
characteristics and survival.
There is a fourfold basis for this conclusion. First, although flow
can be correlated with survival, there is a stronger correlation
between estimated survival and release date. The NMFS experimental
design assumed that sequential releases of hatchery-raised fall chinook
would not influence survival independent of flow, temperature, and
turbidity. The high correlation between time of release and survival
makes this assumption questionable.
Second, travel times for hatchery-raised, subyearling fall chinook
did not correspond with flow rates. For instance, travel times for the
early percentile surviving fish (5th, 10th, and 25th percentiles) were
less at lower flows than at higher flows for most releases. Median
travel time for the fifth percentile surviving fish decreased from 33
days to 16 days between the first and sixth weekly releases, despite a
decrease in the fifth percentile flow indices during the same time from
122,000 cubic feet per second (kcfs) to 63 kcfs. These travel times and
arrival patterns were contrary to what would be expected if the higher
flows resulted in significant improvements in survival.
The fact that travel times are inconsistent with flow rates may
result from (1) the migration rate being weakly dependent on flow in
the flow ranges considered or (2) other important non-flow factors
influencing migration rate. An example of a non-flow factor is
``readiness to migrate.'' The NMFS study used hatchery-raised,
subyearling fall chinook as surrogates for wild fish. Implicit in the
use of these hatchery-raised subyearlings in sequential weekly releases
is that the fish are equally ``ready to migrate'' when released. Longer
travel times for portions of early released subyearlings, and faster
travel times for portions of later-released subyearlings, despite
substantially decreasing flows, suggests that the fish in the weekly
sequential releases may not have been equally ``ready to migrate.''
Differences in States of ``readiness to migrate'' would confound the
analysis of flow and survival relationships. Correlations of flow and
temperature with travel time and survival are only meaningful if the
groups of fish studied are actively migrating or relatively similar in
their State of ``readiness to migrate.''
Third, flow rates, velocity, temperature, and turbidity are closely
correlated with one another (NMFS, 2000). The current data are
insufficient to allow delineation of the effects of individual
attributes of flow. Understanding the effects of individual attributes
of flow, particularly the usefulness of flow augmentation to compensate
for the effects of reservoir impoundment on these attributes, is
fundamental to determining the effectiveness of flow augmentation
efforts for increasing survival of subyearling fall chinook salmon.
Fourth, additional problems with existing studies must be addressed
prior to making conclusions about the efficacy of flow augmentation.
These include use of flow and temperature indices that do not represent
overall migration conditions; release timing of hatchery-raised fish
that is not representative of natural migration; relatively high post-
release mortality; and the inability of reach survival estimates to
reflect the full spectrum of potential effects from altered water
velocities, temperatures, and turbidity during migration (e.g., altered
migration timing, bioenergetics, and transition into the estuary and
ocean).
In summary, this review does not suggest that flow, or the
attributes of flow (water velocity, temperature, and turbidity), are
unimportant to migration and survival of subyearling fall chinook
salmon. However, existing correlations between survival of hatchery-
raised, subyearling fall chinook salmon with flow rates and water
temperatures do not support the postulation that augmenting mainstem
Snake River flows improves subyearling survival.
November 1, 2000.
PN-1070 ADM-1.10
Ms. Donna Darm, Acting Regional Director,
National Marine Fisheries Service
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Bin C15700
Seattle, WA
Subject: State of Idaho's Comments on the Draft Biological Opinion
Dear Ms. Darm: We have reviewed Idaho's comments, provided on
September 29, 2000, on NMFS draft Biological Opinions (BO) on operation
of the Federal Columbia River Power System. Idaho's continents cover
the range of issues addressed in the Draft BO, including definition of
the action, scope, biologic issues, and effects of Reclamation
projects.
We find Idaho's comments on Chapter 6 of the draft BO (effects of
the Action) to be generally consistent with comments Reclamation
provided to NMFS on October 5, 2000. Idaho's hydrologic analysis
summarized in figures 2 through 5 in
Part 1 of their comments are both factual and based on a more
sophisticated analysis than that previously undertaken. Idaho's
comments represent a major improvement in identifying the true effects
of Bureau of Reclamation storage operations.
We encourage NMFS to seriously consider this more complete analysis
in revising the BO.
Sincerely,
J. William McDonald, Regional Director.
__________
Statement of Russell F. Thurow, Certified Fisheries Scientist, Boise
City Council Chambers, Boise, ID
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on the draft Biological
Opinion and Recovery Strategy. My name is Russ Thurow, I am a Fisheries
Research Scientist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station. Although I
am currently an employee of the U.S. Forest Service, I am submitting
these comments as an individual and they represent my professional
assessment. My testimony does not represent the Forest Service or the
Administration's position. My professional career spans nearly 28 years
of researching salmonid populations and their habitats. My comments
today are based on 20 years of experience working with chinook salmon
and steelhead in the Snake River basin, specifically in central Idaho's
Salmon River drainage.
I find the approach outlined in the Biological Opinion and Recovery
Strategy flawed and scientifically indefensible. In this testimony, I
want to focus specifically on the scientifically indefensible
conclusion that Snake River anadromous fish stocks can be recovered
through restoration of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat. I will
demonstrate that the preponderance of scientific evidence illustrates
this approach is infeasible and will fail to meet recovery goals under
ESA for Snake River stocks.
I want to begin by revisiting the status of Snake River Basin
anadromous fish:
1. As recently as the early 1970's, the Snake River basin supported
sport fisheries for wild chinook salmon and summer steelhead (IDFG
1992).
2. Since the mid 1970's, ALL stocks of anadromous fish in the Snake
River basin, including Pacific lamprey, have declined precipitously.
3. Abundant evidence suggests human activities and specifically
hydropower development, is the proximate cause of the post-1970
declines. Declines in stock productivity have coincided with the
development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system
(Schaller et al. 1999). As a result, a concentrated effort has been
applied to improve survival through passage technology, smolt
transportation, and flow augmentation (IDFG et al. 1990). It is also
apparent that a decline in ocean productivity occurred in the late
1970's (Pearcy 1992). The cumulative effects of a naturally cyclical
fluctuation in productivity and increased mortality as a result of the
hydropower system interacted to severely reduce stock productivity.
4. Despite nearly 30 years of efforts to improve passage through
the hydra system, the stocks have continued to decline. Snake River
sockeye salmon were federally listed under the Endangered Species Act
in 1991, spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon in 1992, and summer
steelhead in 1997. The 1995 chinook salmon read counts were the lowest
on record in the basin (Elms-Cockrom 1998) and all stocks remain
imperiled.
5. Although opinions on the most effective means of recovery vary,
it is clear that substantial improvements in survival must occur if
Snake River stocks are to be restored. The 1995-1998 National Marine
Fisheries Service Biological Opinion on operation of the Columbia River
hydrosystem created the PATH (plan for analyzing and testing
hypotheses) process to assist managers in making long-term hydra system
decisions necessary to ensure survival and recovery of Snake River
stocks (NMFS 1995). PATH, which represents the most collaborative and
peer reviewed analysis, concluded a 2.7 fold improvement in survival is
necessary for recovery of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon
(Peters and Marmorek 2000).
The approach outlined in the Biological Opinion and Recovery
Strategy suggests the best opportunities to improve survival and
restore Snake River anadromous fish stocks lie in the freshwater
spawning and rearing areas, specifically in improving egg-to-smolt
survival. Using wild Middle Fork Salmon River stocks as an example, I
will illustrate why that approach is flawed, infeasible, and will not
recover Snake River stocks. I am sure Senator Crapo is familiar with
the Middle Fork Salmon River, since 1930 the area was managed as the
Idaho Primitive Area. In 1980 the Central Idaho Wilderness Act
established a 2.2-million acre wilderness that remains the largest
contiguous wilderness in the lower 48 States. I am intimately familiar
with this drainage and its fish populations. Twenty years ago I began
an intensive fisheries investigation of anadromous and resident
salmonids there (Thurow 1985). Since then I have personally surveyed
all of the nearly 600 miles of spawning and rearing habitat accessible
to anadromous fish in the drainage (Thurow 2000a). The trends in Middle
Fork Salmon River salmon and steelhead populations are consistent with
the facts I listed earlier: since the mid-1970's salmon and steelhead
populations declined precipitously, the sport fishery has remained
closed, and the stocks remain at risk.
Focusing on restoration of freshwater spawning and rearing habitat
will not recover Snake River stocks because:
A. Losses in the egg to smelt stage have not been the cause of
declines in Snake River stocks. Analysis of numbers of wild Snake River
basin chinook salmon spawning adults and smelts produced indicates
mortality in this life stage has not changed substantially from the
1960's to present (Petrosky and Schaller 1996; Stufa 2000). The number
of young salmon or recruits produced per spawning salmon has remained
fairly consistent or slightly increased. Comparisons of stock trends in
wilderness and degraded habitats also corroborate the fact that changes
in spawning and rearing habitat quality have not been responsible for
stock declines. If freshwater habitat were the primary cause for
declines, then stocks in high quality habitats should be faring
substantially better than stocks in degraded habitats. The
preponderance of evidence demonstrates this is not the case. Snake
River chinook salmon read counts in both wilderness and degraded
habitats have similarly declined since the mid 1970's (Hassemer 1993).
B. Habitat conditions in the Middle Fork Salmon River have remained
the same or improved since the 1960's. The primary past human
activities that degraded habitat in the Frank Church Wilderness were
associated with mining and livestock grazing. The 1980 wilderness
designation banned all dredge and placer mining. Livestock grazing
management has improved and restoration of riparian areas is in
progress in the Marsh, Camas, and Bear Valley creek drainages. In the
1930's biologist William Chapman surveyed salmon habitat across the
Columbia River basin. He wrote: ``the Middle Fork of the Salmon
possesses immense spawning areas for spring chinook which to my
knowledge are not surpassed or even reached in quantity or quality any
place else in the Columbia River drainage.'' (Chapman 1940). Those
immense and high quality areas remain today and I invite the members of
this committee to visit them.
C. In high quality habitats like those that exist in most of the
Middle Fork Salmon River, there is virtually no opportunity to
substantially improve egg-to-smolt survival of fish spawning in the
wild. Biologists know that much of the freshwater mortality occurs
during the winter. Salmon evolved to produce between 4,000 and 6,000
eggs per female, and although survival rates vary, even in the best
habitats most of these eggs and fry do not survive. A recent article in
Science by Kareiva and others (Kareiva et al. 2000) has received a lot
of attention. Although the authors performed an interesting modeling
exercise, there are two major errors in the paper: (1) the authors
emphasize improving egg-to-smolt survival to restore Snake River stocks
without considering the feasibility of actually making those
improvements; and (2) the authors fail to acknowledge that declines in
Snake River stocks have not been caused by reductions in the egg-to-
smolt life stage. I challenge the individuals who are advocating
freshwater habitat restoration as a means to restore Snake River
chinook salmon to visit the Middle Fork Salmon River habitats and
explain how they would achieve a 2.7-fold improvement in survival.
D. The life stage where the largest increases in mortality have
occurred as a result of human activities is in the smolt-to-adult
stage. Smolt-to-adult return rates for Snake River stocks declined from
more than 4 percent in 1968 (Raymond 1979) to less than 0.7 percent in
the 1990's (Marmorek et al. 1998; STUFA 2000). In 1992, for example,
smolt-to-adult return rates were estimated to be less than 0.2 percent
(STUFA 2000). The smolt-to-adult life stage offers the best opportunity
to reduce mortality and restore survival to a level necessary to meet
recovery goals. Comparisons of downriver stocks with Snake River stocks
corroborate the strong influence of migration corridor mortality. Snake
River stocks above eight dams are faring about \1/3\ as well as
downriver stocks above 3 dams (Schaller et al. 1999; Deriso et al.
1996). As further corroborative evidence, during years of high stream
flows and improved passage conditions, differences in mortality rates
between downriver and upriver stocks narrow (Derive et al. 1996; IDFG
2000). If freshwater habitat quality or ocean condition fluctuations
were the proximate causes of mortality, this shrinking of the
differences in mortality between up and downriverstocks with higher
flows would not be expected.
These points clearly illustrate that changes in the egg-to-smolt
life stage in freshwater spawning and rearing habitat are not
responsible for the declines in Snake River stocks. Rather, the
declines since the mid-1970's have been caused by increased mortality
in the smolt-to-adult life stage. The problem lies not in the quality
of spawning areas but in the lack of sufficient numbers of adults
successfully returning to spawn. Consequently, freshwater habitat
restoration will not recover Snake River stocks.
Does this mean spawning and rearing habitats are not important?
Certainly not. The Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management
Project (ICBEMP) Aquatic Science Team concluded that high quality
freshwater habitats are extremely critical to the persistence of native
resident and anadromous salmonids. Native salmonids have generally
fared best in the areas least disturbed by humans and many high quality
habitats, especially those in designated wilderness or roadless areas,
represent the only remaining strongholds for native species (Lee et al.
1997). For Snake River anadromous stocks in the short term, because of
the habitat and population losses associated with the hydra system,
only the most productive populations may retain the resilience to
persist in the face of natural and human caused disturbance (Lee et al.
1997; Thurow et al. 2000b). Restoration of degraded habitats will also
benefit some Snake River fish populations. Any changes in the
environment that increase survival and productivity of Snake River
stocks will improve chances for persistence (Emlen 1995; NRC 1996). In
the Yankee Fork and Lemhi rivers, for example, restoration of more
natural stream flows and spawning gravels will benefit both resident
and anadromous stocks. However, while high quality spawning and rearing
habitat is key to stock persistence, freshwater habitat restoration
will not restore widely ranging Snake River anadromous stocks,
especially those in areas already supporting good quality habitat. The
ICBEMP Aquatic Science Team reported, for example, that despite
supporting some of the highest quality freshwater habitat in the entire
Columbia River basin, the central Idaho wilderness contains no strong
populations of anadromous fish (Huntington et al. 1996; Lee et al.
1997).
Another NMFS document, the so-called All-H paper (NMFS 2000),
provides the final piece of supporting information to illustrate why
Snake River stocks will not be restored by freshwater habitat
restoration. The All-H paper logically prioritizes subbasins for
habitat restoration based on need and opportunities for success. I
refer to the Table on page 15 of Volume 2 (NMFS 2000) that lists
``Highest priority subbasins and costs for fiscal year 2001 habitat
restoration''. Not a single subbasin supporting Snake River stocks of
chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, or summer steelhead was prioritized for
habitat restoration? Why? Precisely for the reasons stated earlier,
because most of the basins already support habitat of good to high
quality, only modest benefits would be realized from freshwater habitat
restoration efforts. I quote from page 17 of Volume 2 (NMFS 2000),
Subbasins above the four Snake River dams were given a lower
priority for investments in habitat restoration projects
because adult anadromous fish escapement during the last decade
has not been sufficient to seed existing Federal habitat.
Generally, anadromous and resident fish habitat quality of
Federal land in the Snake River Basin is considered to be in
good condition. Approximately 70 percent of the priority
watersheds with listed anadromous fish are in wilderness or
roadless areas.
In summary, the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy make a
critical error in focusing on the egg-to-smolt life stage as the area
of emphasis. This approach is not feasible and will fail to recover
Snake River anadromous fish. If Snake River anadromous fish stocks are
to be recovered, then the Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy must
change its approach and emphasize measures to restore survival in the
smolt-to-adult life stages to a level necessary to meet recovery goals.
Society has spent billions of dollars in efforts to restore
Columbia River basin anadromous fish because of their cultural and
economic importance. These efforts, though well intentioned, have not
been effective and the stocks continue to decline. I believe the draft
Biological Opinion and Recovery Strategy is scientifically indefensible
and misleads the public by asking them to believe freshwater habitat
restoration will recover Snake River salmon and steelhead. It is not
too late to correct this error, to refocus the effort on restoring
survival in the smolt-to-adult life stage, and to get on with the
business of recovering these stocks.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this critical
process that will ultimately determine the fate of Snake River native
fishes.
literature cited
Chapman, W.M. 1940. Report of a field trip to the Snake River
drainage in Idaho and Eastern Oregon, 1940. Washington Department of
Fisheries. Olympia.
Deriso, R., D.R. Marmorek, and I. Parnell. 1996. Retrospective
analysis of passage mortality of spring chinook of the Columbia River.
In Marmorek, D.R. and 21 co-authors. 1996. Plan for Analyzing and
Testing Hypotheses (PATH): final report of retrospective analysis for
fiscal year 1996. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Elms-Cockrom, T.J. 1998. Salmon spawning ground surveys, 1997.
Pacific Salmon Treaty Program. Award No. NA77FP0445. Idaho Department
of Fish and Game. Boise.
Emlen, J.M. 1995. Population viability of the Snake River chinook
salmon (Oncorhvnchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences
52: 1442-1448.
Hassemer, P.F. 1993. Salmon spawning ground surveys, 1989-1992.
Project F-73-R-15. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise.
Huntington, C.W.; Nehlsen, W.; Bowers, J. 1996. A survey of healthy
native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and
California. Fisheries. 213: 6-15.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game), Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho,
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 1990. Salmon River subbasin
salmon and steelhead production plan. Boise, ID.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 1992. Anadromous fish
management plan 1992-1996. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise,
ID.
IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Comments Regarding
Jeopardy Analysis and Biological Requirements of Listed Species.
September 29, 2000. Part II of State of Idaho Comments on Draft
Biological Opinion on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System Including the Bureau of Reclamation's 31 Projects, including the
Entire Columbia Basin Project (dated July 27, 2000).
Kareiva, P., M. Marvier, and M. McClure. 2000. Recovery and
management options for spring/summer chinook salmon in the Columbia
River Basin. Science. Vol. 290 977-979.
Lee, D., Sedell, J., Rieman, B., Thurow, R., Williams, J. 1997.
Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of
ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the
Klamath and Great Basins. Volume 3, chapter 4. U.S. Forest Service,
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.
Marmorek, D.R., C.N. Peters and I. Parnell. 1998. Plan for
Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final Report for Fiscal Year
1998. ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300.
Vancouver BC, V6J 5C6. 263 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society
in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: 39-66. Chapter 3.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Biological opinion:
reinitiation of consultation on 1994-1998 operations of the Columbia
River power system and juvenile transportation program in 1994-1998.
Endangered Species Act, section 7 consultation. NMFS, Portland, OR.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Conservation of
Columbia Basin Fish: Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (Update
of the All-H Paper). Volume 2. July 27, 2000. Prepared by National
Marine Fisheries Service in consultation with the Federal Caucus.
Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids.
Washington Sea Grant. University of Washington.
Peters, C.N. and D.R. Marmorek (eds.) 2000. PATH Preliminary
Evaluation of the Learning Opportunities and Biological Consequences of
Monitoring and Experimental Management Actions. April 11, 2000. ESSA
Technologies, Ltd. 1765 West 8th Avenue, Suite 300. Vancouver BC, V6J
5C6. 154 pp.
Petrosky, C.E. and H.A. Schaller. 1996. Evaluation of Productivity
and survival rate trends in the freshwater spawning and rearing life
stage for Snake-River spring and summer chinook. In Marmorek D.R. and
21 co-authors. 1996. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH):
final report of retrospective analysis for fiscal year 1996. ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C..
Raymond, H.L. 1979. Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations
of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to
1975. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 108: 505-29.
Schaller, H.A., C.E. Petrosky and O.P. Langness. 1999. Contrasting
patterns of productivity and survival rates for stream-type chinook
salmon (Oncorynchus tshawytscha) populations of the Snake and Columbia
rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:1031-1045.
STUFA (State and Tribal and U.S. Fisheries Agencies). 2000. A
technical review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Leslie matrix
model of Snake River spring and summer chinook populations. April 28,
2000. Submitted to NMFS for ESA Record.
Thurow, R. 1985. Middle Fork Salmon River fisheries investigations.
Job Completion Report. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-73-R-
6. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
Thurow, R.F. 2000a. Dynamics of chinook salmon populations within
Idaho's Frank Church wilderness: implications for persistence. Pages
143-151 In: McCool, S.F., Cole, D.N., Borrie, W.T., O'Loughlin, J.
Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 3: Wilderness
as a place for scientific inquiry, May 23-27, 1999, Missoula, MT. U.S.
Forest Service, Proceedings, RMRS-P-15-Vol-3.
Thurow, R.F., Lee, D.C., Rieman, B.E. 2000b. Status and
distribution of chinook salmon and steelhead in the interior Columbia
River basin and portions of the Klamath River basin. In: Knudsen, E.,
Steward, C., Mac Donald, D., Williams, J., and Resier, D., eds.
Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. Boca Raton: CRC
Press: 133-160.
__________
Statement of Dan James, Ball Janik LLP, Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association, Vancouver, WA
introduction
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dan James. I am a government relations
consultant with the law firm Ball Janik LLP. I am representing the
Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, where I worked from January
1992 until last month. The PNWA membership includes nearly 120
organizations and individuals in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. PNWA
represents public port authorities on the Columbia/Snake River System,
the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound; public utility districts, investor-
owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service industries;
irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export elevator
companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest; forest
products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge
operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers, and others
involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest. Our
Idaho members include the Port of Lewiston, Boise Cascade Corporation,
Potlatch Corporation, Idaho Power Company, Lewiston Grain Growers and
the Lewis-Clark Terminal Association.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues related to salmon
recovery science in the Columbia Basin.
successful ``applied science''
Consider the moon landing and the frozen French fry. The polio
vaccine and the cellular phone. In each instance, there were vast
uncertainties in the science, wide gaps in knowledge, conflicting data,
and a diversity of opinion, yet, ultimately those who pursued their
goals were successful. The application of science was successful
because goals were clear and priorities were definite. Senator, absent
clear goals and definitive priorities, the problems surrounding the
recovery of salmon continue in the Pacific Northwest. We are attempting
to apply science without clear goals and without definitive priorities.
conflicts in law, conflicts in goals, conflicts in philosophy
Conflicts in law, conflicts in goals, and conflicts in philosophy
are serious impediments to salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin.
Law
It is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) to protect endangered fish, without regard to the
economic cost of doing so. However, it is the responsibility of the
Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) to protect all fish and
wildlife, in balance with meeting regional energy needs.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and other laws were created to promote a healthy,
balanced ecosystem. At the same time, the species we are protecting
have increased their consumption of ESA-listed salmon.
The ESA gives the highest possible policy and legal
priority to the protection of listed subspecies of salmon, yet the
United States has trust responsibilities and treaties regarding Native
Americans' tribal fishing rights.
Goals
There are conflicts between providing sustainable runs or
harvestable runs of salmon.
There are conflicts between protecting weakened wild
salmon runs and encouraging the harvest of stronger runs of wild salmon
and hatchery fish.
There are conflicts between enhancing populations of wild
fish and enhancing population of hatchery fish.
Because we have so many goals, we essentially have no
goal.
Philosophy
Some who advocate breaching dams are not willing to
consider alternatives to mixed stock harvest to save endangered salmon.
Some who advocate massive reductions in water withdrawals
that would devastate irrigated agriculture appear unwilling to consider
changing hatchery management goals to protect wild salmon runs.
we need to establish priorities
Recognizing that we have many conflicting goals, the way to
successfully move forward is to establish definitive priorities--a task
we have yet to accomplish. I offer these problems to illustrate my
point:
What do we do when ESA and treaty obligations conflict?
What do we do when salmon protection and marine mammal or
avian protections conflict?
What do we do when our hatchery practices for harvest
practices hurt ESA-listed fish?
To answer these questions, we need to establish priorities. So far,
we have none. So far--we have seen the Federal, State and tribal
agencies attempt to meet diverse and conflicting objectives--in many
cases--at the expense of other national and regional goals--that appear
to be regulated to second tier. The Columbia and Snake rivers support a
tremendous diversity of life and bring a remarkable array of benefits
to the region and the Nation. The rivers support complex ecological
systems and are the lifeblood of the regional economy. The question we
have posed to ourselves is this: As users of these rivers, how can we
support recovery of listed salmon stocks and preserve the other
benefits that these rivers bring to the entire region and the nation?
Senator, we hope that you and your colleagues will direct the
Federal, State and tribal fish managers to establish clear and
consistent goals that recognize the complexities of salmon and the
river system and sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery.
If the outcome of that guidance manifests itself in multiple goals,
then we must establish clear priorities that lead us to salmon
recovery.
We appreciate your listening to our thoughts on these issues. Thank
you.
______
Saving Salmon in the Pacific Northwest
salmon recovery: an overview
In the next few months, the people of the Pacific Northwest and our
policymakers will be making critical decisions that will affect salmon
and other natural resources. The region's salmon efforts have been
extensive, with more than $3.0 billion invested since the passage of
the Northwest Power Act in 1980. Yet, the region's rivers remain the
focus of a perplexing policy and scientific debate.
Almost all of this debate is centered around proposed solutions to
the salmon issue. This attempt to find ``the answers'' has not produced
a recovery plan--mainly because the region hasn't agreed on the
question.
Before the region can find specific solutions addressing salmon
recovery, we believe the Northwest must address the following, broader
questions:
What vision does the region have for its rivers? What goals do we
have for our salmon and steelhead populations?
Despite intense debate, these questions remain largely unaddressed.
Indeed, the primary lesson of the past 20 years is that the region's
multi-layered process for salmon management is not effective at
defining consistent goals.
Instead, conflicting goals have led to actions that in some cases
reduced salmon survival. What we have learned is that proposing
solutions without clearly articulated goals will not result in
recovery.
Further, proposed solutions that ignore the complexity of the
salmon lifecycle and the complexity of the river system will not work.
In short, the region needs a recovery plan that:
(1) establishes and follows clear and achievable goals;
(2) recognizes the complexities of salmon and the river system, and
(3) sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery.
By insisting on a plan with these three elements, the region can
restore salmon runs and--at the same time--maintain the many
environmental and economic benefits of the Columbia/Snake River System.
It does not have to be an either/or choice.
The following sections of this paper address each of the three
elements needed for an effective recovery plan.
a plan that establishes and follows clear and achievable goals
Before any salmon recovery effort can succeed--and before any
specific recovery proposal can be evaluated--the region must adopt
clear and attainable goals.
In the recently completed ``All-H'' paper, the Federal agencies
describe Conservation Goals. They include: conserve species and
ecosystems, ensure tribal fishing rights, balance needs of other
species and minimize adverse effects on humans.
These goals mean different things to different people.
For some, the most important goal is to recover listed
salmon populations to the point where they can be removed from the
Endangered Species List. That goal leads to a certain set of actions
and policies.
For some, the priority is to build strong fish runs (of
both wild and hatchery salmon) to support current or even increased
harvest levels. That leads to a different set of actions.
For some, the goal is to return to a so-called ``natural''
river. That would lead to an even more drastic and uncertain set of
actions.
Without broad support for a unified plan, groups with conflicting
objectives are likely to work at cross-purposes--all under the broad
banner of ``saving the salmon.'' This situation is as much a legal,
policy and fisheries management crisis as a biological crisis.
a plan that recognizes the complexities of salmon and the river
Salmon travel thousands of miles over their lifespan, beginning in
the Columbia River and its tributaries followed by years in the ocean
before returning to the river system to spawn. Along the way they are
affected by dams, harvesting, predators, ocean conditions and many
other variables.
Salmon mortality is a result of many factors all along the
lifecycle of the salmon. This points out the overriding Catch-22 of all
single-minded salmon recovery efforts: Increasing survival at a single
point might be offset by mortality at another point in the salmon
lifecycle.
A comprehensive approach to improving salmon survival is the only
way to systematically reduce the levels of mortality that have led to
the low population sizes.
Recovery efforts must address:
spawning and rearing habitat;
downstream migration;
predators;
estuary conditions;
ocean conditions;
upstream migration;
hatcheries; and
harvest.
Focusing on any one recovery measure will be unsuccessful because
there is not a single source of mortality. Rather, we must work toward
a coordinated, comprehensive and scientifically-based recovery plan.
a plan that sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery
There is no shortage of proposals to ``save the salmon.'' In
addition to adopting clear goals and focusing on the entire salmon
lifecycle, an effective recovery plan must also prioritize these
proposals. This will allow the region to invest in the plans with the
best chance of success.
Science is critical to setting these priorities. Great strides have
been made in our understanding of the salmon lifecycle. However, there
continue to be large uncertainties that can only be answered through
continued research.
Recent science has provided evidence that survival of both juvenile
and adult salmon through the mainstem dams has been significantly
improved as a result of the region's major investments in dam passage
and operational changes.
Current NMFS research shows increased survival for spring/summer
salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers.
Survival rates at each dam, as measured by NMFS, are nearly 95
percent for most years since 1995. This compares with estimates of per
project survivals for Snake River fish of less than 70 percent during
most of the 1970's. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/white/travel.pdf on
page 24)
Indeed, the survival level through this stretch of the river is
approaching the practical upper limit. (It is not possible to reach
levels of 100 percent survival even through free flowing stretches of
the Snake and Columbia rivers.)
In addition, NMFS research is indicating that other factors play a
more important role in salmon mortality than previously thought. These
factors include estuary mortality, predation, poor ocean survival and
inadequate survival during the first year of life before the salmon
reach the first dam.
where do we go from here?--a cooperative approach
The Columbia and Snake rivers support a tremendous diversity of
life and bring a remarkable array of benefits to the region and the
Nation. The rivers support complex ecological systems and are the
lifeblood of the regional economy.
The question we have posed to ourselves is this: As users of these
rivers, how can we support recovery of listed salmon stocks and
preserve the other benefits that these rivers bring to the entire
region and the nation?
In answer to that question, we have formulated the following four
principles, which we endorse for ourselves and for others who seek to
make a constructive contribution.
1. Move beyond us-versus-them solutions. Seek win-win opportunities
instead.
2. Avoid drastic calls to action based on panic. Instead, seek a
reasonable or proven course based on sound science.
3. Recognize that there is no ``silver bullet.'' There is no single
action that will save the salmon. ``Silver bullet'' solutions are not
scientific solutions because they fail to recognize the complex
interconnected lifecycle of the salmon.
4. Most importantly, insist on and contribute to formation of a
salmon recovery plan based on the three elements we have outlined. Any
effective salmon plan must:
establish and follow clear and achievable goals,
recognize the complexities of salmon and the river system,
and
set priorities to maximize the chances of recovery.
In the Columbia and Snake rivers, the Northwest has been entrusted
with a remarkable resource--one that brings benefits to all aspects of
life in the Northwest. By following these four principles, the region
can restore listed salmon runs while maintaining a healthy environment
and a strong economy. Ultimately, that will benefit everyone.
Statement of Thayne Barrie, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited
Chairman Crapo, and members of the committee, My name is Thayne
Barrie, I am an independent businessman, and president of Idaho
Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited. I own Sunset Sports Center with stores
in Boise and Pocatello, Idaho.
Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited (ISSU) was formed in 1984 by a
diverse group of businessmen, guides, conservationists, sport
fishermen, and concerned citizens from throughout the region to
protect, restore, and preserve The Snake River's anadromous resource.
The Snake River was once one of the worlds largest producers of
spring chinook, summer chinook, and steelhead, as well as large numbers
of sockeye, coho, and fall chinook salmon. Snake River salmon
contributed to economies as far north as Alaska, and to the south as
far as California, as well as 900 miles inland to Stanley, Idaho.
Members of ISSU claim they can remember in the late 1960's and
early 1970's when small communities along the Salmon River--such as
Clayton, Idaho near Challis--would sell about 2000 gallons of gasoline
a day to salmon fishermen . . . and about that many gallons of beer.
In 1978--only 3 years after the completion of the four lower Snake
River dams--salmon fishing closed on the world famous Salmon River of
Idaho, and has never re-opened. Fishing businesses from Alaska to
Stanley were devastated by the completion of those four dams. Sport,
tribal, and commercial fishermen were the first victims as a result of
damming the lower Snake. Because those dams were so lethal to wild
salmon and steelhead Congress acted immediately to protect remaining
wild populations by creating the Frank Church River of No Return and
the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness areas to protect and enhance spawning and rearing
for the few remaining wild runs. These two wilderness areas comprise
the largest contiguous wilderness area in the lower 48 States. However
this added to more victims as logging, mining, and ranching was
eliminated in these areas. All because the dams kill so many fish that
no other mortality can occur. The same trend continues to this day. The
four lower Snake River dams continue to kill so many fish that no other
human caused mortality is acceptable. Sport, tribal and commercial
harvest are a mere fraction of what they were before the dams were
built. Habitat such as Bear Valley Creek, Marsh Creek, and Beaver Creek
along the Salmon River--to name a few--are in better shape today than
they have ever been.
Yet the Federal Bi-Op wants to continue to punish the victims. It
is laden with habitat, harvest and hatchery, measures. More of the same
stuff that has been done in this basin for the last 20 years.
Currently steelhead fishing in Idaho is a $90 million a year
industry. It employs approximately 3000 Idahoans. In rural Idaho--such
as Riggins, Challis, and Orofino--it is an important natural resource.
One that has far more economic importance than simply restoring them
because of the Endangered Species Act. Don Reading--of Ben Johnson and
Associates--estimates that a restored salmon fishery in Idaho would
double that number. I know in my own business steelhead and salmon
fishing means $310,000 or 9.5 percent of my total business. When you
look at a business such as mine, and we try to hit a goal of 3 percent
as a total net return, the loss of this revenue would equate to three
full time and two part time jobs. I cannot even speculate to the amount
of non-fishing items these customers relate to--possibly it could mean
the loss of my business in whole. You factor that in State wide and the
effect would be enormous.
Sport fishing in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington according to a study
by the American Sport Fishing Association showed that $2,993,298,116
was spent in 1996 by sport fishermen. Nearly $3 billion in 1 year, or
about the same amount that has been squandered in the region by the
Northwest Power Planning Council on salmon recovery. Bear in mind this
figure does not represent tribal or commercial fisheries and was
compiled at a time when salmon and steelhead runs were at all time
lows. Saving salmon is not a cost it is a benefit.
ISSU has no agenda to breach dams. ISSU has an agenda to save
salmon even if it means breaching the four Lower Snake River dams. We
are willing to support any plan that can pass State, tribal, and legal
muster to restore our salmon and steelhead resources. We have yet to
see one that does not involve breaching the four Lower Snake dams, nor
do we believe we ever will.
I have included some economic attachments prepared by the Save our
Wild Salmon Coalition. The figures in these documents were derived
directly from the Army Corps of Engineers Drawdown Economic Work Group
(DREW) documents.
You will see there are many more economic benefits from dam bypass.
One is a $123 million recreation benefit in the 140-mile section of
restored natural river in the lower Snake. A natural river in the Lower
Snake River would reveal 34,000 acres of inundated riparian land and
approximately 13,000 acres of river surface area, increasing big-mass
in the Lower Snake by 70 percent. Another is the savings of what the
Bureau of Reclamation estimates to be $180 million a year in flow
augmentation, adding water to the dammed river from upstream
reservoirs, disrupting hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated
land. Compliance with the Clean water Act could cost $460 million or
more if the dams stay in place. I urge you to look these documents over
closely. I think you will find that salmon recovery, and dam removal is
a winning proposition for all of us.
Thank you Chairman Crapo for allowing Idaho's sportsman and related
businesses an opportunity to be here today. I will try and answer any
questions you or the committee may have.
Statement of Craig Smith, Resource Adviser to the Northwest Food
Processors Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on the draft biological opinion and the
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
Senator Crapo, on behalf of the food processing industry in the
Northwest, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
continued leadership on this issue which is of such great importance to
all residents of the Northwest.
The Northwest Food Processors Association is a regional trade
association representing the fruit, vegetable and specialty food
processing industry in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Food processing is
the largest manufacturing employment sector in the State of Idaho and
the second largest manufacturing employment sector in both Washington
and Oregon. Food processors in the region operate 257 processing
plants, employ 50,000 individuals and realize $7 billion in annual
sales. Food processing is the backbone of the rural Northwest economy.
Food processors have a critical interest in the future of the
Columbia/Snake system. It is this great system that has allowed our
region to become one of the foremost food production areas in the
world. Access to adequate irrigation water, the availability of
dependable, low cost power and the river transportation system, which
helps us reach Asian export markets, are all critical to the continued
viability of our industry.
Today, it is apparent that salmon recovery in the Columbia/Snake
system is at a crossroads. The draft biological opinion signals the
beginning of a shift in direction for the salmon recovery debate. It is
a shift away from dam breaching, toward a performance-based plan. We
believe this shift is long overdue, even though the Bi-Op has many
problems and still contains many of the elements of past, failed
efforts.
For too long the region has argued over the ``big ticket items'',
dam removal and flow augmentation. These two issues have been the focus
of tremendous controversy and have dominated the public discussion.
Now, the science is becoming more focused and the debate is shifting.
We are now beginning to understand that the science doesn't support
either of these strategies, especially as it relates to Snake River
stocks.
That is a huge problem for some folks who have staked their
reputations on breaching and flow augmentation. Consequently, we now
have a rebirth of the debate over who has the ``right'' science. The
current argument is not over Crisp vs. Flush, even though that one was
never really resolved. But we still seem to be battling over who has
the better black box and which model more accurately reflects reality.
Should we rely on PATH or CRI? Does the data include the most recent
PIT tag studies or are they ignored? Did NMFS allow for enough
collaboration on CRI, or did they manipulate their results?
On it goes, seemingly forever, with no resolution in sight. While
we argue, spin and debate; viable, proven and effective measures that
will really help salmon continue to wait for the region to put its
energy into productive recovery efforts. This is not to say that good
things are not now being done, they are. But how much more could we
accomplish if we really moved beyond these esoteric, self serving
debates.
Mr. Chairman, our industry and the residents of the Northwest that
depend on the Columbia River system for their livelihoods, have had
enough of this endless debate. The uncertainty hangs like a cloud and
combined with difficult times in the agricultural sector, it is having
a very negative effect on our industry.
For the good of the region, it is time to develop and move ahead
with a recovery plan. It is time for reason and common sense to merge
with science and produce a plan that can be implemented immediately.
For the benefit of the fish, for the benefit of the Northwest.
That is why we agree with the approach taken by the region's
Governor's last summer. We believe that the solutions must come from
the region. Using the science to inform their decisions, the region's
Governors are best situated to develop a comprehensive, balanced plan
that will benefit endangered fish.
NMFS and the other Federal agencies have had 10 years since the
first listing on the Columbia/Snake system and they still have not
produced a recovery plan. In fact, they not only don't have a plan,
they don't even have a goal against which to measure progress. The
performance standards in the draft Bi-Op are an attempt to set some
goals for the operation of the system. However, they mean little
outside the context of an overall recovery plan.
In fact, it is our belief that the performance standards, and the
subsequent requirement for offsite mitigation, have the potential to
significantly damage on-going habitat improvement projects by forcing
dam operators to go into tributary habitat areas and find projects
which they can credit against their individual survival requirements.
This process has the potential to disrupt local planning processes and
to limit the willingness of local entities to cooperate in habitat
improvement projects.
We are advocates of performance standards. However, they must be
developed for the whole system, not just the hydra operations, and this
is not possible under the current Bi-Op, since it is outside its legal
scope. This further accentuates the need for a recovery plan. We have
to eliminate the piece meal management practices we now follow.
Consequently, it is time to end the rancorous debate over flow
augmentation from the Upper Snake River and the removal of the four
Lower Snake dams. While these two issues continue to polarize the
region, the science does not support either alternative. It is this
fact that has some people advocating the return to older science that
supports their position.
First, let me touch on flow augmentation.
Flow augmentation has failed, yet it is the primary strategy
utilized by NMFS to mitigate for the effects of impoundment. The flow
program is based upon a set of totally flawed assumptions. The
Hydropower Appendix of the All-H paper States the following:
Flow augmentation, or use of water from storage reservoirs to
augment natural streamflows, is one of the primary strategies to
mitigate the effects of impoundments and the regulated hydrograph on
juvenile passage.
Flow augmentation from storage reservoirs is intended to reduce the
fishes' travel time to more closely approximate that of pre-dam
conditions. The hypothesis is that increased water velocities resulting
from higher flow rates will decrease juvenile fish travel time,
resulting in reduced freshwater residence and earlier arrival at the
estuary.
Flow augmentation has virtually no effect on travel time and
thereby offers absolutely no benefit to spring migrants. Recent work by
Karl Dreher, ID. Dept. of Water Resources, shows that adding 1 MAF
annually to existing flows results in less than a 0.1 mile per hour
increase in velocity through the Lower Snake reservoirs.
PIT tag data shows absolutely no correlation between flow and
survival for spring/summer migrants. NMFS has finally recognized this
in the draft Bi-Op. However, their response has been to shift the
augmentation period to later in the summer in an attempt to benefit
fall chinook migrants. Benefits to fall chinook from increases in
travel time are not clear and may not exist.
In the Hydropower Appendix of the All-H paper, the following
summary statement is made:
The relationship between flow and fish travel time is
somewhat weaker for summer migrants (e.g., fall chinook) than
observed for spring migrants. Fall chinook have a more complex
migratory behavior than spring migrants, with fish size,
feeding, and rearing all affecting their migration.
NMFS science does shows a positive correlation between flow and
survival for fall chinook smolt in the free flowing sections of the
Lower Snake. However many experts believe this correlation is caused by
other environmental factors. A new study by Anderson, Hinrichsen and
Van Holmes (2000), concludes that Hells Canyon flow augmentation is
detrimental to fall chinook due to the increase in temperature from the
warmer upstream flows.
It is difficult to understand, in light of the information
presented in NMFS own science discussion, why the Federal agencies
continue to rely on this failed recovery measure. The agencies seem to
have an irrational attachment to flow. This is again demonstrated in
the totally erroneous conclusions drawn at the end of the flow
augmentation discussion of the Hydropower Appendix to the All-H Paper.
The conclusions stated are:
In summary, research suggests that the spring flow objectives
outlined above are reasonable. Flow augmentation does not
restore historic flow conditions, but survival rates for
juvenile spring/summer chinook passing eight dams approach the
levels observed for fish passing four dams. This suggests that
flow management coupled with other passage measures has had a
positive effect on juvenile survival.
NMFS own science suggests exactly the opposite conclusion. While
juvenile survival in the Lower Snake is at an all time high, flow
augmentation has made no contribution to that survival. Now data shows
that it might even be detrimental. Yet, NMFS is advocating for even
greater flows from Idaho.
It is time for NMFS and the fish managers of the Northwest to stop
advocating flow augmentation as a one-size-fits-all solution. More
water does not necessarily mean more fish, and in some cases, such as
flows during the summer from the Upper Snake, it may be extremely
harmful.
The case for dam breaching is no better. This is not a battle over
PATH or CRI, this issue is being driven by the hard data being
collected in the PIT tag studies.
However, it seems the discussion of breaching dams causes hearts to
race and science to stagger. Advocates of dam breaching have been
seriously hindered by the science in the past several years. That is
why we believe the controversy over the validity of the CRI analysis is
becoming so pointed. CRI is not new science. It is a risk assessment
model that uses most of the same data contained in PATH, along with
much of the later data from the PIT tag studies.
CRI does not point to dam breaching as a ``silver bullet'' that
will solve ail of our recovery problems. Common sense tells us that
there is no silver bullet in an issue this complex. However, even last
winter, prior to most of the CRI analysis being completed, NMFS science
documents did not support breaching.
Dam breaching does not come close to returning enough benefit to
justify the staggering cost. NMFS research shows that the benefits of
dam breaching are minimal, will take many years to realize and even
then the benefits are speculative. The Anadromous Fish Appendix of the
Corps EIS states:
CRI analyses suggest that no single management action is
likely to result in sufficiently improved demography for
spring/summer chinook salmon. For dam breaching alone to
recover spring/summer chinook salmon, it would have to produce
improvements in estuarine and early ocean survival as high as
80 to 100 percent, as well as an approximate 30 percent
improvement in survival during upstream migration.
In fact, the CRI analysis indicates that the most effective way to
help Snake River stocks is to aggressively pursue actions that improve
survival in the first year of life and during their time in the estuary
and entry into the ocean. The Anadromous Fish Appendix states:
On a more optimistic note, the CRI analyses suggest that a
combination of improvements spread throughout the life cycle,
and attained by a mixture of different management actions,
could promote adequate annual population growth for spring/
summer chinook salmon. Numerical experiments that correspond to
manipulations of ``current demography'' indicate that small
improvements in estuarine and early ocean survival or in the
survival of newly-born fish, will yield the greatest rewards in
terms of enhanced population growth.
The theoretical benefits of dam breaching are different for fall
chinook and spring/summer chinook. For fall chinook, harvest reductions
or moratoriums appear to have the same benefit as dam breaching, at a
fraction of the overall cost. Fall chinook would also benefit, in a
breach scenario, with increased spawning habitat. However, breaching
the lower four Snake dams would restore only 7 percent of the
historical fall chinook habitat; 90 percent of that habitat would
remain unavailable.
Benefits of dam breaching for spring/summer chinook are even more
speculative. The only way to show any benefit to this stock from
breaching is to manipulate the ``D'' value of the latent mortality
calculation. This is clearly outlined in the Anadromous Fish Appendix
of the Corps EIS:
For spring/summer chinook salmon, there is no silver bullet
that is likely to adequately reduce extinction risks. For dam
breaching alone to recover spring/summer chinook salmon, very
optimistic scenarios would need to be assumed about how much
survival below Bonneville Dam could be improved due to the
elimination of latent mortality not measured during in-river
downstream and upstream migration.
Delayed mortality is a theoretical concept that tries to explain
potential survival differences between transported and in-river fish.
To justify a breach decision biologically would require the presence of
significant latent mortality. The All-H paper Hydropower Appendix
states:
Before these fish return to spawn, they may suffer additional
mortality that exceeds what would have occurred if they were
not barged. This mortality is termed differential delayed
transportation mortality (measured by the ``D-value''). This is
one of the most important parameters with regard to deciding
upon the role of juvenile fish transportation in salmon
recovery and assessing the potential benefit of dam breaching.
NMFS own data argues against latent mortality. The All-H Hydropower
Appendix contains the following statements:
Breaching the Lower Snake River may be considered if
experimental management results find the level of delayed
mortality associated with transported fish is significant,
particularly if transported survival is less than estimated
natural river survival levels.
Overall, direct survival of transported migrants is high, estimated
at greater than 98 percent. Behavior and survival of transported fish
following release below Bonneville Dam is similar to that of in-ever
migrants. Some people believe that indirect mortality of transported
fish is high (i.e., many of the fish that survived during
transportation die later; delayed transportation mortality, but this is
a subject of ongoing research. Some have also suggested that fish that
migrate in-river and are undetected at dams return at higher rates than
those that were transported. While some differences in SARs exist
between transported and undetected in-river migrants, no significant
differences have been observed. (emphasis added)
Since survival of in-river and transported migrants is ``similar'',
and since NMFS sees ``no significant difference'' in the SAR's of
transported and undetected in-river migrants, then there is absolutely
no evidence of latent mortality. Without latent mortality, there is no
biological justification for breaching the Lower Snake River dams, even
without considering the enormous costs.
Additional factors argue strongly against breaching the lower four
Snake River dams.
The Corps of Engineers estimates that 50-75 million cubic yards of
sediment will be released into the river when the dams are breached.
This majority of this sediment will be deposited in Lake Wallula. The
impact of this action on resident and anadromous stocks will be long
term and severe.
In December 1999, the Northwest Power Planning Council issued a
report that estimates the need for 3000 MW of new electric power
production by the year 2003. The four lower Snake dams produce 1,195 MW
of power for the Bonneville system. Breaching these dams would increase
the projected regional power deficit by 40 percent.
Breaching four dams on the Lower Snake River is not a viable option
and should not be pursued.
summary
Now is the time for action, not for continued argument over the
nuances of science. The science will never be complete. However,
between the controversial issues of breaching and flow augmentation,
there is general agreement on many practical, achievable and productive
salmon recovery measures. Actions such as:
Act immediately to limit pinniped, avian and pikeminnow
predation.
Continuing to improve mainstem passage through by-pass
improvements and surface collectors.
Continue to improve transportation methods.
Target funding to improving critical habitat areas where
opportunities exist to significantly increase smolt production.
Limit in-river harvest to tribes and work on developing
terminal fisheries.
Adopt hatchery practices that encourage conservation.
Research the effects of ocean conditions on specific
stocks.
Enforce the Pacific Salmon Treaty
Now is the time for the region to step up to the challenge and
implement these practical measures. We believe the best place for that
to happen is in a regional forum led by the four Governors. We need a
recovery plan and the Federal Government needs to work with the region
to develop one.
Now is the time for action on things we can agree on, not for
continued argument over esoteric issues that are intended to support a
biased political position.
__________
Statement of Mark Benson, Director, Public Affairs, Potlatch
Corporation
I am Mark Benson, director of public affairs for Potlatch
Corporation's western region. Potlatch Corporation is a diversified
forest products company with holdings in Idaho, Arkansas, Minnesota,
Nevada and Oregon. It is our pulp, paper, tissue and lumber operation
in Lewiston, Idaho and our 670,000-acre forestland holding in north
central Idaho that makes the FCRPS draft Bi-Op and draft Basin-wide
Salmon Recovery Strategy important to us. Over the past 20 years we
have developed a significant market for our paperboard in Japan and
other parts of the Pacific Rim. Our ability to use barge transportation
between Lewiston and Portland has been critical to our success in
competing in these overseas markets.
Senator Crapo, let me begin my comments by thanking you for your
support for allowing all involved to focus on actions that will help
the fish while leaving dams in place, protecting Idaho's water and
meeting the needs of Idaho's communities. It is gratifying as an Idaho
business with significant dependence on the existing river
infrastructure to know we have unanimous support from our entire
Federal delegation as well as our Governor. I also wish to thank you
for providing this hearing opportunity for Idahoans to voice their
opinions and thoughts about the Bi-Op and Basin-wide Strategy.
As you well know, there are strongly different views of the role of
the dams with respect to the current condition of Columbia and Snake
River anadromous fish--both in terms of the contribution the dams make
to the problem and in terms of their potential contribution to the
solution.
We believe there needs to be recognition of the strengths of the
Bi-Op as well as its short-comings.
Early on attention was too often focused exclusively on the dams.
We think that was wrong, and we are encouraged that both the scientific
and the policy focus has expanded to include the entire life cycle of
the fish and all of the H's that impact their life cycle. The
fundamental premise underlying the draft Bi-Op and Recovery Strategy
paper is that we set aside dam breaching and aggressively pursue a
range of other measures to protect and recover listed fish species.
We see no better course available for us to take. We understand
that the details of the draft proposals leave many areas of uncertainty
and debate, and that the process going forward will necessarily be
adaptive and subject to ongoing improvement. As is often the case, the
devil is in the details. We have concerns about the specifics and
timeframes of the performance measures.
As the documents relate to offsite habitat management we share a
strong concern with others in our industry about the growing Federal
intrusion into resource management roles that historically have been,
and should be, the province of State sovereignty. We share similar
concerns for farming communities of our State who see their dependence
on irrigation increasingly at risk of Federal intervention. We believe,
therefore, that the action by our Governor in Idaho, together with the
Governors of Washington, Oregon and Montana, in stepping forward to
assert a strong State role in the recovery measures that must be
undertaken is critical to an acceptable and successful outcome.
Potlatch Corporation and the forest products industry are dedicated
to fish recovery without interruption of the river system and its
amenities. We believe based on our interpretation of work done both by
government and private sector scientists that this is realistic. We are
committed to working together with Idahoans and others in the Pacific
Northwest who are committed to finding solutions to accomplish this
task.
It's important to move forward and we must move forward. In our
opinion moving forward requires three things. Clear direction for
maintaining the existing infrastructure, meaningful and effective
measures for recovering fish and legal certainty.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to thank you for the
strong interest you have taken in addressing this hugely difficult and
critical issue. We deeply need the help and guidance we have come to
expect from you in our collective goal of achieving a successful
outcome for all of the economic, environmental and community interests
that have so much at stake in this effort.
__________
Statement of R. Scott Corwin, Director of Regional Affairs, PNGC Power
executive summary
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of PNGC Power, an
energy services cooperative owned by 16 Northwest rural electric
cooperatives, including six from Idaho. Our comments on the draft
Biological Opinion and Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy are
summarized below.
Goals.--The Bi-Op and Recovery Strategy take significant steps
forward in trying to look at species recovery in a comprehensive
fashion. However, the goals in the Bi-Op and the Recovery Strategy fail
to address a weakness that has continually hampered fish management in
the Northwest: lack of prioritization and lack of reconciliation among
conflicting goals in areas such as fish harvest and production.
Integration.--The two documents should make more aggressive strides
to ensure that priorities, goals, and implementation of strategies are
coordinated with the Northwest Power Planning Council's program, the
four Governors outline, and Tribal programs.
Standards.--While the inclusion of the concept of performance
standards for measuring results is worthy, many of the standards are
incomplete and unevenly applied. In some areas there remain questions
as to whether the measures are achievable at all.
Dam Breaching.--The best new science continues to deny the value of
breaching as a salmon recovery tool. We object to the inclusion in the
draft Bi-Op of a vague set of triggers toward breaching dams, including
requests for preliminary design work. With limited scientific or legal
basis behind this drastic action, we fail to see how references to it
deserve treatment alongside reasonable and prudent alternatives in this
Biological Opinion.
Getting the Best Value for the Investment.--The hydro system will
continue to be a major focus of recovery efforts in this Bi-Op, and
will continue to fund the bulk of the mitigation in the region. But,
because science, as indicated by recent NMFS Science Center studies,
shows that progress has raised hydro fish passage close to the point of
diminishing returns, real success for recovery will require looking
into other areas of the lifecycle. Efforts in the first year of life
and in the estuary appear to be very promising in this respect.
Balancing Effort and Costs.--We are concerned that we have yet to
see a comprehensive budget for the Bi-Op and draft Recovery Strategy
that contains commitments from the many relevant Federal agencies and
regional entities. A viable plan cannot be a large blank check funded
by the region's electricity customers.
Power System Reliability.--While curtailing fish and wildlife
operations during power emergencies should not take the place of good
resource planning, language should be included in the Bi-Op that
recognizes the need to ensure human safety.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Draft 2000 Biological Opinion (Draft Bi-Op) on
the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), and the Draft
Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. Thank you for showing the
leadership to hold this hearing to scrutinize these issues. Clearly,
they will have enormous impact on both the environment and the economy
of our region.
I appear today on behalf of PNGC Power, an energy services
cooperative owned by 16 rural electric cooperatives throughout the
Northwest. Our Idaho members include Clearwater Power Company, based in
Lewiston, Fall River Rural Electric Co-op, based in Ashton, Lost River
Electric Co-op, based in Mackay, Northern Lights Inc., based in
Sandpoint, Raft River Electric Co-op, based in Malta, and Salmon River
Electric Co-op, based in Challis. We are a Northwest-based company that
manages wholesale power supply and provides other technical services to
our members and clients.
Our interest in the Bi-Op and other processes impacting salmon and
the river system stem from two primary concerns. The first relates to
maintaining the delicate balance between the environment and the
agricultural economy. As electric cooperatives, our member utilities
answer directly to their owner/customers. These customers have a
genuine concern for the environment and enjoy our Northwest way of
life. Whether they are hikers, campers, fishing enthusiasts, or
hunters, they have a personal interest in responsible conservation of
our natural resources. In addition, many of these customers make their
living off of the land. They understand the need to protect the
delicate balance that allows utilization of natural resources in a
renewable manner. In fact, this understanding, and the desire of
cooperative customers to create new environmentally-friendly power
sources, led our members to develop a landfill methane gas plant
outside of Corvallis, Oregon that provides an innovative source of
renewable energy.
The second primary concern these customers have is that degradation
of our low-cost hydra resources will increase power rates and decrease
the reliability of the West Coast power system.
Before commenting on the Bi-Op and the Recovery Strategy, I would
like to highlight two important salmon management positions that will
need to be filled in the next few months. From the perspective of the
energy industry, the positions of Regional Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Administrator of the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) play critical roles in the creation of
balanced approaches on fish and wildlife issues. We would encourage you
and your Senate and House colleagues from the Northwest to become
involved very early as potential replacements are considered for these
positions. Their importance to the region cannot be overstated.
Goals, Integration, and Standards
Goals.--Viewed together, the Bi-Op and Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy (``Recovery Strategy'') make significant steps forward in
trying to look at species recovery in a more comprehensive fashion than
previously attempted. The Recovery Strategy even sets out general goals
for the region, an important step toward coordinating recovery efforts
among the many regional entities.
However, the goals apparent in the Bi-Op and the Recovery Strategy
fail to address a weakness that has continually hampered fish
management in the Northwest: lack of prioritization and lack of
reconciliation among conflicting goals. For example, it is not clear
whether the region should be managing to optimize protected fish or
whether it is attempting to optimize catchable, ``hatchery origin''
fish. Indeed, some have suggested that trying to manage for two types
of fish may not be possible in the final analysis. This dilemma may
loom large next spring with huge fish returns expected.
Senator Crapo's statement from the hearing this subcommittee held
on September 13th of this year posed the question: ``what sense does it
make to have a policy where we spill fish over dams then club them to
death when they come back?'' This hits the nail right on the head. One
might add to this quandary the fact that we have spent large amounts of
money at each of these steps, including creation of the hatchery fish
in the first place. This begs for a clarification of the true goals, or
a rethinking of the puzzling manner in which the government has chosen
to define the particular stocks they wish to protect.
Need for Integration and Coordination.--The policy conflicts
surrounding harvest and hatchery management create a good example of
the need for increased integration and coordination of the region's
fish and wildlife policies. Currently, there are nine Federal agencies
and numerous State and local agencies actively involved in issues
relating to salmon recovery in the Northwest. Even within NMFS itself
there are dual roles associated with managing fish for harvest and
protecting them for purposes of the ESA. To give you an idea of the
growth of the salmon recovery industry, the directory of the fish and
wildlife community created by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Authority contains around 1800 names from dozens of Federal agencies,
State agencies, tribal agencies, regional entities, educational
institutions, industry groups, and advocacy groups.
Integrating the myriad efforts underway in the region will be
absolutely critical not only to ensure progress in species recovery,
but also to attempt more efficient use of resources. Coordination on
the funding, administration, and implementation of a recovery plan is
absolutely crucial.
Those managing the Bi-Op should more aggressively seek to
coordinate on goals, priorities, and timing not only with the Northwest
Power Planning Council as it recreates it's own fish and wildlife
program, but also with the four Governors who have outlined their
priorities in a document released last summer, and with the Columbia
River Basin Tribes.
Standards and Measures.--Once goals are established and integrated,
one of the ways to create accountability is with specific and
measurable performance standards. The Bi-Op and Recovery Strategy have
some work to do in this respect. While we appreciate that they seem to
embrace the concept of performance standards, the standards appear at
times vague and unevenly applied.
If the intention is to develop the performance measures as time
moves on, it will be important that they balance the need for
flexibility (as further scientific and programmatic information is
received) with the need to set targets that action agencies can rely on
as they create their 1- and 5-year plans. This will not be easy.
Indeed, there are at least two concerns with these performance
measures clearly evident from the start. One is that there does not
seem to be any clear way to measure real performance in the hatchery
and habitat areas, a problem compounded by conflicts in goals as
discussed above. This is worrisome to ratepayers who will be asked to
fund some of the efforts in these areas.
The second concern is that, as the performance measures develop, it
is difficult to know whether standards set for the hydro system will be
achievable at all by the 5- and 8-year check-in times. It will be
difficult to create regional agreement on this plan if these measures
are impossible to meet. For example, the draft Bi-Op at 1.3.1.2.3
floats the concept of ``Full Mitigation'', a standard intended to
reflect the level of fish survival that would have occurred had the
dams never been built. Obviously, this raises serious questions about
how such a theoretical set of measurements could be created with
accuracy, and whether legal authority exists for demanding a standard
that goes well beyond prospective ``agency actions'' and into reviewing
the very existence of a facility.
Breaching Dams.--The triggers toward breaching the dams on the
lower Snake River found in the draft Bi-Op at 9.1.8 and the call for
funding to begin the process to breach dams found at 9.6.1.9 are
problematic. For instance:
It is acknowledged today that breaching dams alone will
not recover the lower Snake runs. We have no reason to expect it would
work 5 years from now. Further, breaching will not assist the other 8
listed salmonid runs in the Columbia River System.
If the lack of clear unified management goals among
Federal, State, and tribal fish managers makes improvements in other Hs
difficult by the 5 or 8 years check-in point, the hydro system would be
penalized for their failures.
The false hope of a silver bullet of breaching dams will
be furthered even if passage through the hydro system continues to
improve because targets might not be met through failures in harvest/
hatchery policies, bad ocean conditions, or a host of other factors.
Evidence of oceanic impacts is clear in studies by David Welch, Bruce
Finney and others, and should be Pursued further.
In light of the newest and best available science, the
logical and legal basis for a default to breaching dams is severely
lacking. As discussed below, passage through the hydro system has
improved almost to the point of diminishing returns.
Regardless of one's view of the science, a promise to move
toward breaching dams in the future will not assist fish recovery in
the present or during the time period of the Biological Opinion.
Certainly, because of the points raised above, preliminary
engineering and design studies to breach dams are not warranted at this
time.
accountability
This hearing is focusing primarily on scientific issues with the
Bi-Op. But, these are closely tied to management and accountability
issues. For example, there is much debate about whether causal
relationships exist with respect to salmon survival and flow
augmentation. We are skeptical about the existence of this
relationship, and would highlight the valid questions relating to
turbidity, velocity, temperature, flow rates, and release of hatchery
fish raised in a study released September 2000 by Karl Dreher of the
Idaho Department of Water Resources. Likewise, there is fervent debate
over nascent theories about relationships between hydro projects and
mortality occurring later in the life of salmonids. By contrast, there
is not much debate about the lack of a causal relationship between
money expended on this issue and recovery of protected species. Each of
these issues begs for more accountability.
Getting the Best Value on Investments.--Highlighting the amount
spent on fish and wildlife does not imply that all of these funds have
been wasted. Progress has occurred in specific areas. But, the
lifecycle of salmonids being complex and geographically diverse,
progress in one arena does not necessarily lead to progress overall.
This seems to be a theme echoed in the newest science to come from
the NMFS Science Center in Seattle. This makes logical sense. Science
shows that progress has been made in the hydro system that has raised
survival close to the point of diminishing returns. Yet, some stocks
continue to suffer. Real success in recovery will require looking into
other areas.
According to NMFS White Papers relying on PIT (Passive Integrated
Transponder) tag data, survival of Snake River spring/summer chinook
through the hydro system have increased from the 30 percent range to
around 60 percent. This is about the level of survival before the four
Lower Snake dams were in place.
``Attachment A'' contains an Oregonian newspaper editorial from
last Saturday about the NMFS paper published in the November 3, 2000
issue of Science Magazine. In this paper, well-respected scientists
Kareiva, Marvier, and McClure note that ``dam passage improvements have
dramatically mitigated direct mortality associated with dams.'' They go
on to say that even if main stem survival were 100 percent, Snake River
spring/summer Chinook salmon would continue to decline. They note that
declines could be reversed with improvements in first-year survival or
estuarine survival.
Large losses are natural within the first year of salmonid life.
However, when one compares survival through the hydro system of 40-60
percent with survival in the egg-to-smolt period of 3-4 percent, it is
easy to see how the first couple of years of life may provide broad
possibilities for efforts in the habitat and hatchery arenas.
These findings by Kareiva et. al. should not surprise anyone. Other
papers in recent years have indicated that this analysis was
forthcoming, and the NMFS Science Center has held workshops in order to
brief the public on their progress in this area. It is evident that
there is a lot of bang for the buck to be found by looking at measures
focusing outside of the hydra system. This effort should also include
reevaluating some of the assumptions surrounding presumed benefits of
the very expensive spill and flow regimes currently used.
Hydro Still on the Hook.--The improvements in fish passage
referenced above came about because the FCRPS has undergone significant
changes to improve fish survival during the last decade. Now, within
flood control and safety requirements, the system is operated to
maximize fish passage. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been
invested in intake screens, surface by-pass systems, fish friendly
turbines, transportation, gas abatement measures, and spill programs.
Northwest ratepayers are currently paying over $400 million per
year for fish and wildlife efforts. As explained above, this amount may
increase in this draft Bi-Op by another $100 million or more depending
on market prices. Fish and wildlife expenditures currently comprise a
whopping 20 percent of the BPA costs, a percentage that will increase
in the rate period starting next year. For rural systems where
distribution costs typically account for half of the retail rate, this
means a full 10 percent of customer fills go toward fish and wildlife
mitigation.
We've heard the view expressed that the hydro system is somehow let
off of the hook in this Bi-Op because the Bi-Op does not immediately
call for drastic actions such as breaching dams. This is not how we
read this Bi-Op and Recovery Strategy.
The draft Bi-Op calls for increased effort in the river system
including: continued and possibly enhanced flow augmentation; possible
enhancement of spilling water for fish; and, enormous infrastructure
investments in items such as spill deflectors and bypass systems. BPA
estimates that the draft Bi-Op will demand at least another 70aMW of
lost power generation added to the amount lost through previous Bi-Ops.
This creates a total loss to the Federal system of 991aMW, or about the
amount of energy it takes to provide electricity to a city the size of
Seattle for a year. The cost of that lost energy depends on the market
rates for power during the year. In addition, we have seen proposals
for close to $50 million of additional ratepayer costs for BPA's direct
Fish and Wildlife program, and another $40-50 million for increases in
capital costs and reimbursements to other agencies.
During a short period in August, with prices for power
skyrocketing, BPA lost approximately $40 million to fish operations.
This begs two questions: First, do these spill operations always help
fish? In the last spill agreement reached among river managers, spill
was reduced at The Dalles Dam because studies there showed that the
higher rate of spill was harming fish. The Bi-Op and Recovery Strategy
should not automatically assume benefits from spill, and should promote
continued study and reconsideration of this practice.
Second, should there be a cost/benefit decisionmaking process
associated with these operations. If spilling water is going to cost
$40 million of ratepayer funds in the span of a few days, the potential
benefit of that operation should be weighed against other assistance
for fish that might be purchased with that large sum of money. What
benefits to fish or to the regional economy are lost in these
scenarios? A regional salmon recovery strategy should consider these
cost/benefit questions.
Balancing the Cost.--The draft Bi-Op also calls for a balancing of
the effort into other areas in order to respond to what the science is
telling us about the progress in hydra system passage to date, and
about the potential for gains in other areas of the salmon lifecycle.
We suspect that BPA ratepayers will be asked to fund a significant
portion of those non-hydro efforts. However, ratepayer funding cannot
be the exclusive source of Endangered Species Act (ESA) funding for the
region. In fact, the Northwest Power Act does not permit BPA funds to
be used ``in lieu'' of fund responsibilities of other entities.
We are concerned because we have yet to see a comprehensive budget
for the Bi-Op and draft Recovery Strategy. While we suspect that
ratepayers will be asked to pick up a large portion of the tab, we have
yet to see budget commitments from other Federal agencies or regional
entities. The Endangered Species Act is a national law with national
implications. Salmon and steelhead listed under this act are species
that are impacted by myriad factors well beyond the reach of the hydro
system. This effort should call for specific budgets and extensive
funding commitments from the various Federal agencies, especially the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau
of Reclamation, the Forest Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. To be viable, this plan cannot become a very large blank check
funded on the backs of the homeowners, farmers, and ranchers who are
contractually obligated to buy power from the FCRPS over the next 10
years.
power system reliability and the draft bi-op
The Northwest Power Act States that the Northwest Power Planning
Council should create a program to mitigate for impacts to fish and
wildlife while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient,
economical and reliable power supply.
Operation of the hydra system for fish is inextricably tied to
reliability of the West Coast power system. This is especially true
when power supply is short. As alluded to above, power costs
skyrocketed to as high as $700 MWh this summer when supply was short.
And, there is good reason to be concerned about potential power
supplies this winter and next summer.
Ironically, in the same issue of Science Magazine in which Dr.
Kareiva's article appeared on November 3, 2000 there was an article
entitled ``Decreasing Reliability of Energy'' by editor Philip Abelson.
This article notes the greatly increasing demand for electrical power
in the United States, potentially rising from 40 percent of all power
usage now to 70 percent by 2050. Demand is expected to grow by 20
percent in the next decade alone, while planned growth of the
transmission system is only expected to be around 3.5 percent.
At the same time that demand for power is increasing, there is
continued movement to discourage use of fossil fuels. Last week,
President Clinton called for Federal regulations limiting power plant
emissions of carbon dioxide. This forces some very difficult questions
about how we will prioritize our sources of power in the future.
In our region, the Northwest Power Planning Council has estimated
that we will have a one in four chance of not getting through the
winter without a supply interruption over the next few years. This is
five times worse than the normally accepted standard. In order to bring
our region up to standard, it would require almost 3,000 megawatts of
new generating resources by 2003.
To address the potential for trouble with power supply in relation
to the salmon recovery effort, the Northwest Power Planning Council has
requested that language be included in the Bi-Op to address several
concerns. We concur with their request to include the following:
In emergency situations, fish and wildlife operations can
be curtailed. (This is simply a no-nonsense issue relating to human
safety concerns).
The option of curtailing fish and wildlife operations
during emergencies should not be used in lieu of establishing an
adequate and reliable power system. (Certainly, power supply concerns
in the Northwest go far beyond operations for fish and should be
planned for as such).
The option of curtailing fish and wildlife operations
should be viewed as a last-resort action. An emergency protocol should
be developed that incorporates not only curtailment of fish and
wildlife operations but also whatever other actions could be helpful to
alleviate the situation.
Proposed new resources (whether generating or demand-side)
that integrate more effectively with fish and wildlife operations
should be given priority.
conclusion
This subcommittee knows well that the Endangered Species Act cannot
be implemented in a vacuum. Because it coexists with many other laws
and priorities, reasonable and balanced solutions are needed to meet
it's mandates. The draft Bi-Op and Salmon Recovery Strategy take some
important first steps toward creating a balanced scientifically based
recovery plan. But, there is a lot of room for clarification and
improvement.
Success in this challenge will be extremely difficult unless
increased efficiency of effort can be achieved, including
accountability not only for results across all Hs but also for each
dollar spent. Without clearer goals and better accountability we will
succeed only in continuing to create the sense of crisis that ensures
increased expenditures without real results to show for our effort.
It is our hope that your interest in this issue, including your
continued demand for the best scientific knowledge possible, will help
lead the region to a coordinated approach to real recovery of these
precious species. Again, thank you for your efforts, and thank you for
this opportunity to testify today.
______
[The Oregonian, Saturday, November 18, 2000]
Science Shifting on Dam Removals
peer-reviewed article in journal science makes strong case that
breaching dams is not best way to save salmon
No matter who winds up winning the White House, it's quite clear
that neither the next president nor Congress will recommend breaching
four dams on the lower Snake River anytime soon.
Those who have campaigned so vigorously to remove the Snake dams no
doubt will be disappointed, and may charge that a decision to leave the
dams intact is politically motivated.
But the truth is dam-breachers are losing the fight on scientific
grounds.
Recently, the Federal Government's top salmon researchers, in an
article published in the respected journal Science, an arm of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, concluded that
breaching dams probably isn't an effective way to save salmon from
extinction.
The article by Peter Kareiva, Michelle McClure and Michelle Marvier
of the National Marine Fisheries Service lays out a solid case for
leaving the dams. It argues that increasing salmon survival in the
early life stages before the smolt reach the four dams--and later in
the Columbia estuary, below all eight dams in the Snake River salmon's
path--would have the greatest impact.
Under some of article's assumptions, the improvements in survival
from removing dams would be too little to save Snake River spring/
summer chinook. The article drives this point home by saying.
``Remarkably, even if every juvenile fish that migrated downstream
survived to the mouth of the Columbia,'' the salmon would continue to
decline.
Put another way, breaching the four Snake River dams isn't likely
to benefit the Snake River-bound fish as much as earlier scientific
opinions suggest.
The fisheries service's monitoring studies, in which salmon are
collected and tagged before they make the trip to the sea, not only
give us information about where fish go, they also tell us a lot more
about where and how they die.
As a result, some of the salmon deaths that have been blamed on the
dams--speculative estimates that have tilted computer models in favor
of dam breaching--are probably caused by other factors, such as
predation and declining habitat for rearing salmon.
The Science article adds credibility to the fisheries service's
findings. The agency is expected to complete its policy paper next
month, likely recommending that the region forego dam breaching for now
and take other actions to help salmon.
Those actions include restoring the rivers and streams where salmon
spawn, restoring the Columbia River estuary where young salmon feed and
grow before heading out to sea, reducing harvest, improving fish
passage around the dams and overhauling antiquated hatchery practices.
As we learn more about what happens to the salmon in their various
fresh water stages, the science is tilting away from dam breaching.
Perhaps we don't know enough yet to take dam removal off the table, but
the current is running against it.
__________
Statement of Save Our Wild Salmon, Seattle, WA
cost comparison for the removal or retention of the four lower snake
dams
The Army Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS)
claims that with all costs tallied, partial removal of four Lower Snake
River dams would cost $246 million more each year than other
alternatives. In fact, the DEIS underestimates both the benefits of dam
bypass and the costs of keeping the dams in place. A comprehensive look
at all costs and benefits, considering habitat and hatchery costs as
well as others the DEIS omits, such as flow augmentation and Clean
Water Act compliance, suggests that dam bypass saves at least $50
million annually and would contribute nearly $500 million a year in
additional real benefit value.
The costs and benefits listed below are conservative. In several
cases, the cost of retaining dams is likely larger. The Clean Water Act
estimate below does not account for compliance with temperature
standards. An alternate flow augmentation cost estimated by the Bureau
of Reclamation is hundreds of millions more per year. And the costs
still do not account for the Snake River's share of Federal fish
mitigation spending, estimated by Taxpayers for Common Sense at
approximately $100 million per year. Also, the benefits of removing
dams are likely far larger than estimated by the DEIS. Based on the
middle estimate of recreation benefits, the recreation value of dam
bypass would be at least $199-342 million per year. The passive or
existence values of the salmon were calculated by the Army Corps but
were not added into the Corps' summary documents. Using just the
figures calculated by the Corps, but correcting adding the costs of dam
retention and the benefits of dam removal, the savings from dam removal
would run close to $500 million per year.
Throughout the DEIS the Corps minimizes the benefits of dam
removal. The fact that the Corps accounts for $20 million a year under
Mitigation for maintaining Habitat Management Units (HMU) is absurd.
HMU's are riparian lands that were established to compensate for the
portions along the river that were flooded when the dams were built.
Over 34,000 acres of riparian land will be uncovered after dam removal.
The Corps does not include the value of this ``new'' land to be a
benefit.
Furthermore the costs of dam removal could be reduced significantly
with prudent investments in infrastructure in areas like power
generation and transportation. The Corps has not studied these types of
investments even though the Federal Government thinks it necessary to
do so. Still, the Corps numbers (summarized below) give us a basic
understanding of the economic reasonableness of dam removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits if Dams Benefits if Dams
Stay are Removed Stay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation...................... $123 million...... $32 million
Low estimate of
rec. benefits if
dams were
removed. (DEIS I3-
54).
Estimation of
reservoir angling
and reservoir
general
recreation. (DEIS
I3-54).
Passive or Existence Values* ................. $420 million per
year
............................... -0-...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated and published in DEIS documents but not included in final
report calculations (I-ES 17).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs if Dams are
Removed Cost if Dams Stay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dam Construction/Deconstruction. $64 million....... $21.3 million
Partial removal of
four Lower Snake
Dams (DEIS I3-
157) ``Major
System
Improvements''
(DEIS I3-157).
Dam Operation, Maintenance & $0................ $29 million
Rehabilitation.
Avoided Costs.
(DEIS I3-159)..
Alt. power
generation
replacement, e.g.
gas turbines.
Transportation.................. $24 million....... $10 million
Increased
transportation
costs for rail or
truck/barge.
(DEIS, I12-2).
Reduced
significantly w/
infrastructure
investments. See
AR study by
Dickey..
Conservative
estimate of
barging taxpayer
subsidy (Grain
Transportation
After Partial
Removal of the
Lower Snake River
Dams, Dr. Edward
Dickey. Sept.,
1999).
Irrigation...................... $15.4 million..... $0
Primarily Ice
Harbor irrigation
infrastructure
(DEIS I12-2).
Flow Augmentation............... $0................ $182 million
An additional 1.0
million acre-feet
studied by Bureau
of Reclamation.
Cost includes
acquisition of
flow, effect on
upriver
recreation,
annual loss in
farming gross
revenues, and
decrease in value
of production.
(Bureau of Rec.
Flow Aug. Impact
Analysis.
February 1999.)
Mitigation...................... $26 million....... $0
Fish and wildlife,
cultural. (DEIS,
I13-2).
Clean Water Act................. $0................ $30 million
Total cost $460
million, divided
along the same 15-
year timeline
used in the All-H
habitat
estimates.
(Resolving Rate
Case Issues.
Federal Memo, May
11, 1999.)
Habitat......................... $159 million...... $241 million
The cost of a
reduced habitat
program
implemented if
the dams are
removed. (NMFS
All-H Habitat
Appendix, January
2000).
An aggressive
habitat program..
Does not include
flow
augmentation.
(NMFS All-H
Habitat Appendix,
January 2000).
Hatchery Improvements........... $7.4 million...... $12.4 million
(Resolving Rate
Case Issues.
Federal Memo, May
11, 1999).
---------------------------------------
Total cost.................... $444 million/year. $494 million/year
Reduction in Irrigated Lands*... (1,579)........... 0
Reductions in Corps' Dam (1,326)........... 0
Operations.
Reduced Cruise Ship Operations.. (83) 0............
---------------------------------------
Total Long-term Employment (2,988)........... (2,382)
Loss.
Net Long-term Employment Change (711)............. (1,257)
Net Change as a percent of 1995 (0.22)............ (0.02)
Employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The vast majority of these jobs are seasonal, part-time. (Source: DEIS
table 5.13-2)
The Corps of Engineers estimates of economic impact are unrealistic
in two other important ways. First, they downplay or ignore economic
benefits outside their 25-county study area, ignoring economic benefits
to tribes, to coastal communities, and the economic growth that follows
restoration of a more healthy ecosystem. Second, large costs and
economic disruptions of keeping dams in place are not counted in the
Corps study.
A comprehensive look at all costs and benefits, considering habitat
and hatchery costs as well as others the DEIS omits, such as flow
augmentation and Clean Water Act compliance, suggests that dam bypass
saves at least $50 million annually. The Bureau of Reclamation has
estimated that flow augmentation, adding water to the dammed river from
upstream reservoirs, could cost at least $182 million a year,
disrupting hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated land, where dam
removal would affect no more than 37,000 acres. Compliance with the
Clean Water Act could cost $460 million or more if dams stay in place.
And the cost of Tribal Treaty claims if fish go extinct, estimated in
billions of dollars, would dwarf all other costs. The Corps ignores
these costs.
Although some habitat restoration would be necessary if dams are
removed, the Corps did not give any value to restoring 140 miles of the
mainstem Snake, which would reveal 34,000 acres of inundated riparian
land and approximately 13,000 acres of river surface area, increasing
bio-mass in the lower Snake by 70 percent. The NW Power Planning
council analyzed alternatives that include aggressive, widespread
habitat actions that would be necessary if dams remain in place. The
NPPC Framework Human Effects Group found the habitat-reliant
alternative would cost $40 million more than dam removal, and would
broadly impact farming, grazing, logging and other land uses.
Removal of four lower Snake River dams would create significant
economic opportunities for construction trades, while implementing the
only salmon recovery solution that scientifically promises salmon
recovery. Alternatives that keep dams in place present few benefits for
carpenters, are more expensive for the public and more economically
disruptive to the region, and have little or no evidence that they will
lead to salmon recovery.
The Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
calculates the job gains and losses that would occur if the four lower
Snake dams are removed. By focusing on a 25-county ``study area''
surrounding the lower Snake River, the DEIS generally under-estimates
economic benefits and over-estimates job losses and economic costs
associated with dam removal. It fails to capture the general economic
benefit of a healthy river and salmon recovery. The DEIS estimates more
than 20,000 jobs would be created in the 10 years during which partial
dam removal would proceed, including:
12,000 construction jobs building up to six replacement
power plants and electric transmission lines
3,000 jobs building improved rail and road infrastructure
1175 jobs modifying wells
Job Impacts During 10 Years of Partial Dam Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Snake
River Study Area Regional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Plant Construction..... 5,572........... 2,786
Transmission Line 2,080........... 0
Construction.
Rail Construction............ 872............. 0
Road Construction............ 1,972........... 0
Facilities Construction...... 6,982........... 0
Railcar Storage Construction. 0............... 63
Well Modification............ 1,175........... 0
Pump Modification............ 844............. 0
Partial Removal 1,293........... 0
Implementation.
------------------------------------------
Total Change............... 20,790.......... 2,849
Change as percent of 1995 6.52............ 0.05
Employment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: DEIS table 5.13-2)
Beyond the 10-year construction period, the DEIS estimates a small
net loss in regional jobs, but includes gains in areas that could
affect construction trades. The estimates exaggerate the impacts of
reduced irrigated agriculture, ignoring approaches that could keep land
in production and counting seasonal part-time jobs at the same level as
full-time jobs. The DEIS also under-estimates the value of increased
recreation that would follow restoration of 140 miles of free-flowing
river. And a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council predicts
that costs associated with increased electric bills could be reduced
substantially by conservation.
Long-Term Job Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Snake River
Study Area Regional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M Spending on Replacement 884............... 876
Power.
Plants & New Transmission Lines.
Increased Recreation (inc. 1,393............. 0
Angling).
Commercial Fishing.............. .................. 249
---------------------------------------
Total Long-term Employment 2,277............. 1,125
Gain.
Reduced Spending due to (2,382)...........
Increased Electric Bills.
Power $271 million...... $0
Alt. power
generation
replacement,
e.g., gas
turbines.
Transportation.................. $24 million....... $10 million
Increased
transportation
costs for rail or
truck/barge.
(DEIS, I12-2).
Reduced
significantly w/
infrastructure
investments. See
AR study by
Dickey.
Conservative
estimate of
barging taxpayer
subsidy (Grain
Transportation
After Partial
Removal of the
Lower Snake River
Dams, Dr. Edward
Dickey. Sept.
1999.).
Irrigation...................... .................
$15.4 million..... $0
Primarily Ice
Harbor irrigation
infrastructure
(DEIS I12-2).
Flow Augmentation............... $0................ $182 million
An additional 1.0
million acre-feet
studied by Bureau
of Reclamation.
Cost includes
acquisition of
flow, effect on
upriver
recreation,
annual loss in
farming gross
revenues, and
decrease in value
of production.
(Bureau of Rec.
Flow Aug Impact
Analysis.
February 1999.)
Mitigation...................... $26 million....... $0
Fish and wildlife,
cultural. (DEIS,
I13-2).
Clean Water Act................. $0................ $30 million
Total cost $460
million divided
along the same 15-
year timeline
used in the All-H
habitat
estimates.
(Resolving Rate
Case Issues.
Federal Memo, May
11, 1999.)
Habitat......................... $159 million...... $241 million
The cost of a
reduced habitat
program
implemented if
the dams are
removed. (NMFS
All-H Habitat
Appendix, January
2000).
An aggressive
habitat program.
Does not include
flow
augmentation.
(NMFS All-H
Habitat Appendix,
January 2000).
Hatchery Improvements........... $7.4 million...... $12.4 million
(Resolving Rate
Case Issues.
Federal Memo, May
11, 1999).
---------------------------------------
Total cost.................... $444 million/year. $494 million/year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jobs and employment
Removal of four lower Snake River dams would create significant
economic opportunities for construction trades, while implementing the
only salmon recovery solution that scientifically promises salmon
recovery. Alternatives that keep dams in place present few benefits for
carpenters, are more expensive for the public and more economically
disruptive to the region, and have little or no evidence that they will
lead to salmon recovery.
The DEIS calculates the job gains and losses that would occur if
the four lower Snake dams are removed. By focusing on a 25-county
``study area'' surrounding the lower Snake River, the DEIS generally
under-estimates economic benefits and over-estimates job losses and
economic costs associated with dam removal. It fails to capture the
general economic benefit of a healthy river and salmon recovery. The
DEIS estimates more than 20,000 jobs would be created in the 10 years
during which partial dam removal would proceed, including:
12,000 construction jobs building up to six replacement
power plants and electric transmission lines.
3,000 jobs building improved rail and road infrastructure.
1,175 jobs modifying wells.
Job Impacts During 10 Years of Partial Dam Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Snake
River Study Regional
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Plant Construction...................... 5,572 2,786
Transmission Line Construction................ 2,080 0
Rail Construction............................. 872 0
Road Construction............................. 1,972 0
Facilities Construction....................... 6,982 0
Railcar Storage Construction.................. 0 63
Well Modification............................. 1,175 0
Pump Modification............................. 844 0
Partial Removal Implementation................ 1,293 0
-------------------------
Total Change................................ 20,790 2,849
Change as percent of 1995 Employment.......... 6.52 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: DEIS table 5.13-2)
Beyond the 10-year construction period, the DEIS estimates a small
net loss in regional jobs, but includes gains in areas that could
affect construction trades. The estimates exaggerate the impacts of
reduced irrigated agriculture, ignoring approaches that could keep land
in production and counting seasonal part-time jobs at the same level as
full-time jobs. The DEIS also under-estimates the value of increased
recreation that would follow restoration of 140 miles of free-flowing
river. And a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council predicts
that costs associated with increased electric bills could be reduced
substantially by conservation.
Long-Term Job Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Snake
River Study Regional
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M Spending on Replacement Power............. 884 876
Plants & New Transmission Lines...............
Increased Recreation (inc. Angling)........... 1,393 0
Commercial Fishing............................ 249
-------------------------
Total Long-term Employment Gain............. 2,277 1,125
Reduced Spending Due to Increased............. (2,382)
Electric Bills................................
Reduction in Irrigated Lands*................. (1,579) 0
Reductions in Corps' Dam Operations........... (1,326) 0
Reduced Cruise Ship Operations................ (83) 0
-------------------------
Total Long-term Employment Loss............. (2,988) (2,382)
Net Long-term Employment Change............... (711) (1,257)
Net Change as a percent of 1995 Employment.... (0.22) (0.02)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The vast majority of these jobs are seasonal, part-time.
(Source: DEIS table 5.13-2)
The Corps of Engineers estimates of economic impact are unrealistic
in two other important ways. First, they downplay or ignore economic
benefits outside their 25-county study area, ignoring economic benefits
to tribes, to coastal communities, and the economic growth that follows
restoration of a healthier ecosystem. Second, large costs and economic
disruptions of maintaining the dams are not counted in the Corps study.
Compliance with the Clean Water Act could cost $460 million or more
if dams stay in place. And the cost of Tribal Treaty claims if fish go
extinct, estimated in billions of dollars, would dwarf all other costs.
The Corps ignores these costs.
Although some habitat restoration would be necessary if dams are
removed, the Corps did not give any value to restoring 140 miles of the
mainstem Snake, which would reveal 34,000 acres of inundated riparian
land and approximately 13,000 acres of river surface area, increasing
bio-mass in the lower Snake by 70 percent. The NW Power Planning
council analyzed alternatives that include aggressive, widespread
habitat actions that would be necessary if dams remain in place. The
NPPC Framework Human Effects Group found the habitat-reliant
alternative would cost $40 million more than dam removal, and would
broadly impact farming, grazing, logging and other land uses.
__________
Statement of Matt Eames, Senior Legislative Affairs Representative,
Idaho Power Company
The Idaho Power Company (IPC) appreciates this opportunity to
provide written comment in response to Senator Mike Crapo's November
20, 2000 public hearing in Boise, Idaho on the draft biological opinion
on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS BO) and the draft
basin-wide salmon recovery strategy issued by the Federal Caucus
(commonly known as the final draft ``All-H paper''). These comments
must be put in context with the background of the Company's facilities,
their physical location within the Snake River Basin, and the Company's
current involvement with the dynamic set of processes unfolding in the
region with respect to the fishery resources.
IPC is an investor-owned utility formed in 1915. On October 1,
1998, IPC adopted a holding company structure with the formation of
IDACORP, Inc. which serves as the parent company of IPC. IPC owns and
operates 16 hydroelectric plants on the Snake River and its tributaries
that are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
It also holds an interest in three coal-fired generating stations. IPC
provides electric service to approximately 380,000 customers within a
20,000 square-mile service area covering portions of southern Idaho,
eastern Oregon and northern Nevada.
The largest hydroelectric facility on the IPC system is the Hells
Canyon Complex (HCC) consisting of the Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon
dams. By opinion and order issued by the Federal Power Commission (now
FERC) on August 4, 1955, IPC was granted a license to construct and
operate three hydropower projects in the Hells Canyon reach of the
Snake River. While separate applications were filed for each of the
projects, the three were consolidated in the order issuing the license
and have since been collectively referred to as the HCC, FERC Project
No. 1971. The three facilities are located at RM 247-Hells Canyon Dam,
RM 273-Oxbow Dam and RM 285-Brownlee Dam. The Brownlee facility,
uppermost of the three, is the primary storage reservoir for IPC. The
HCC is located on the Snake River upstream from Lewiston, Idaho and
four lower Snake River Federal dams (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental,
Little Goose, & Lower Granite).
The current FERC license for the HCC expires in 2005. IPC is
presently engaged in a relicensing process initiated in accordance with
applicable FERC regulations. As part of this process IPC has initiated
a collaborative process involving State and Federal resource agencies,
Native American Indian Tribes and numerous smaller public and private
interests. In preparation for the filing of a license application, IPC
has also initiated various aquatic studies relating to the HCC. These
studies were developed in accordance with FERC regulations with input
from collaborative team members, including some of the agencies
represented on the Federal Caucus. IPC anticipates that the majority of
the studies will be completed by 2001 in order to allow for the
preparation of a draft license application by late that year or early
2002.
In general, IPC believes that the draft FCRPS BO and All-H Paper
commit three principal errors. First, the premise that flow
augmentation from the upper Snake River is efficacious is wrong.
Second, a party's responsibility for any loss of the fishery should
correlate with its contribution to recovery efforts. Third, as to the
HCC and Upper Snake, theory has been allowed to outstrip science.
flow augmentation
The National Marine Fisheries Service and other members of the
Northwest Federal caucus have consistently advocated flow augmentation
from the Upper Snake River as a key component of salmon recovery. They
have done so even in the face of studies by their own agency and by
some State government officials that indicate the contrary. The
assertion that flows from the Upper Snake River are efficacious is
wrong--it is wrong both generally, in terms of the alleged correlation
between flows from all of Idaho and fish survival, and specifically in
its assertion that the HCC operations could substantially assist salmon
survival in the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. IPC has reviewed
previous comments submitted by the Idaho Water Users Association and
Committee of Nine to the draft FCRPS BO and
All-H Paper and supports their prosition that the use of Upper Snake
River water for flow augmentation will neither reverse the decline nor
aid in the recovery of listed species. IPC also concurs with the State
of Idaho's comments to on the All-H paper denouncing flow augmentation
as a valuable tool for salmon recovery.
This is not to say that flows in Snake River may not affect
anadromous and native fish in the Snake River. In 1991, IPC implemented
the Fall Chinook Recovery Plan to address flow and operational issues
that might affect fall chinook habitat below the HCC. IPC is also
presently conducting a study in connection with relicensing (Hells
Canyon Instream Flow Assessment) to explore issues relating to flows
and operations at the HCC and the effects upon not only fall chinook
but also white sturgeon and native salmonids (bull and redband trout)
present in the Hells Canyon reach. This study, together with other
studies and analysis, will be completed through the HCC relicensing
process and will provide a scientific and reasoned basis upon which to
assess the effects of the flows and the HCC on fishery resources.
responsibility counts
IPC believes the FCRPS BO and All-H paper are mis-focused and as a
result and will fail in their intended goal to restore listed
endangered fish as prescribed by the Endangered Species Act. The
documents rely too heavily on habitat improvements in Idaho and on the
unproven experiment of flow augmentation measures from Idaho's Upper
Snake River and de-emphasize the impact on downstream impacts. Existing
spawning habitat in Idaho is in good condition and is adequate to
support recoverable levels of listed species. While habitat
improvements may be of obvious benefit, improvements in this area will
not result in the intended recovery levels desired by the documents or
the ESA. IPC believes the documents should direct more intense efforts
on downstream activities such as estuary improvements, fish passage
improvements at the four lower snake dams, predation, and commercial
and tribal harvest.
In this context, those interests who have not adversely impacted
the fisheries resources should not be made to bear a disproportionate
amount of the pain for assisting in their recovery. The draft FCRPS BO
and All-H Paper, however, propose in large part to assign equal
responsibilities for remediation to all members of the Snake River's
community. This is inequitable for all Idaho interests. IPC has
addressed past effects of the HCC on fishery resources through the 1980
Settlement Agreement and continues to address current or potential
effects of the HCC through the Fall Chinook Plan and ongoing studies
initiated in the connection with relicensing. It has also cooperated
with the implementation of measures under the 1995 Biological Opinion
which were intended to avoid jeopardy of the FCRPS. (IPC has been
reimbursed for some, but not all, of the costs associated with these
latter
efforts because the measures implemented were to mitigate for impacts
not attributable to the development and operation of the HCC. 16 U.S.C.
section 839(h)(11)(A).)
Another example of using a broad brush in assessing contribution
without addressing responsibility relates to the general Federal goals
for a regional fish recovery plan. In large part, the goals are in
conflict, at least in the context of ESA
recovery concepts. One goal is to conserve the species--avoid
extinction and foster long-term survival and recovery. Another is to
assure Tribal fishing rights--restore salmon and steelhead over time to
a level that provides a sustainable harvest. Neither the draft FCRPS BO
nor the All-H Paper specifies the level of recovery necessary to
achieve either of these goals, but it seems likely that the level
necessary to sustain a tribal harvest is far greater than that
necessary for conservation of the species. This raises serious
questions as to whether non-Federal interests can be compelled to
contribute to recovery goals that may go beyond necessary conservation
measures and address Federal trust or treaty responsibilities to Native
American Indian Tribes.
theory should not outstrip science
While conceptual planning is important, the draft FCRPS BO and All-
H Paper have a tendency to allow theory to outstrip study efforts that
were designed to formulate in a careful, cooperative manner a plan to
address fisheries issues on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data. This ignores the dynamic, interactive character of the
processes unfolding in the basin. Prejudgment is neither good science
nor prudent politics, both of which are essential in crafting an
appropriate and acceptable approach to the difficult questions our
region's fisheries present. IPC would urge the Federal interests to not
allow the process of building a conceptual recovery plan to outstrip
other Federal, State or regional processes that are proceeding parallel
to that effort and that may, if considered, aid in identifying viable
recovery and conservation alternatives. This is even more critical in
light of the electrical energy situation in the northwest and west in
general. Clearly, recent events of this past year in California and
northwest markets have indicated that the region is short of electrical
supply. This has obvious effects on energy prices and negative
reverberations in the economy. According to the Northwest Power
Planning Council, the region needs an additional 3,000 megawatts of
generating resources by 2003 to lesson the risk of critical power
shortages during peak periods. Hydropower plays a critical role in the
northwest energy markets as a whole and plays an equally critical role
in maintaining reliability because of its unique nature to follow load
and ancillary ability to maintain voltage support. With this situation
not likely to correct itself any time soon, putting Federal and non-
Federal hydropower at risk by recommending unsound scientific remedies
is irresponsible.
summary
The draft FCRPS BO and All-H paper attempt to recover listed fish
by expanding beyond the Federal hydropower system and implement a
strategy based on improvements to hatcheries, habitat, and harvest.
Unfortunately, the strategy places too much emphasis on improved
habitat in the upstream spawning areas where excellent habitat already
exists. The plan also falters by attempting to implement what is
largely a political strategy by continuing to call for additional upper
Snake river flow augmentation water even though the science concludes
other wise. The documents need to be amended to focus on areas where
immediate improvements will have the greatest and more immediate chance
to meet recovery goals, such as Lower Snake and Columbia fish passage
improvements, such as those suggested by the four Northwest Governors.
The documents should also focus on mixed stock harvest issues, estuary
habitat improvements and predation.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this
paramount issue for the northwest's future.