    [Senate Hearing 107-1143]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 107-1143

     PACIFIC SALMON MANAGEMENT AND S. 1825, THE PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, AND FISHERIES

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 14, 2002

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    92-501                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West         TED STEVENS, Alaska
        Virginia                         CONRAD BURNS, Montana
    JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
    JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana            KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 GORDON SMITH, Oregon
    BARBARA BOXER, California            PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
    JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina         JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
    JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
    BILL NELSON, Florida

                   Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
                      Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
          Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries

                     JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
    ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
    JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana            KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    BARBARA BOXER, California            GORDON SMITH, Oregon
    BILL NELSON, Florida                 PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 14, 2002.....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Boxer.......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Smith.......................................    20
    Statement of Senator Stevens.....................................     2

                                   Witnesses

    Blackwolf, Sr., Harold, Commissioner, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
      Fish Commission................................................    22
        Prepared statement of Donald Sampson, Executive Director,
          Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission................    22
    Brazil, Dirk, Deputy Director, California Department of Fish and
      Game...........................................................    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Caswell, James L., Director, Office of Species Conservation,
      State of Idaho.................................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from Idaho..................     9
        Prepared statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator from
          Idaho......................................................     9
    Huntington, Geoffrey M., Executive Director, Oregon Watershed
      Enhancement Board..............................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Johnson, Laura E., Executive Director, Interagency Committee on
      Outdoor Recreation/Salmon Recovery Funding Board...............    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Knowles, Donald R., Director, Office of Protected Resources for
      Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.....    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
        Letter, dated May 6, 2002, to Hon. Ernest F. Hollings from
          Theodore W. Kasinger.......................................    18
    Spain, Glen, Northwest Regional Director, Pacific Coast
      Federation of Fishermen's Associations.........................    70
        Prepared statement...........................................    72
    Thompson, Hon. Mike, U.S. Representative from California.........     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Thorstenson, Bob, President, United Fishermen of Alaska..........    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F.
      Hollings to:
        Geoffrey M. Huntington.......................................    96
        Laura E. Johnson.............................................   100
        Donald R. Knowles............................................    85
        Frank Rue, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game..   104
        Donald Sampson...............................................    94

     PACIFIC SALMON MANAGEMENT AND S. 1825, THE PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
             Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara
    Boxer, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and
    Fisheries is called to order. I want to thank my colleagues as
    well as our many witnesses for being here today to provide us
    with testimony on the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, S. 1825. I
    was extremely pleased to reach across the aisle to work on this
    bill with Senators Craig, Crapo, and Smith, as well as with
    Senators Wyden and Feinstein. I believe that our bipartisan
    effort reflects the tremendous commitment that our five states,
    as well as the tribes in the region, have to salmon recovery.
        In California, as in much of the West, wild salmon stocks
    have collapsed. The results have been tragic. Fishermen have
    lost their jobs. Tribes have lost species that are religious
    and cultural icons, and the environment is suffering. Because
    most of the first salmon listings were in the Pacific
    Northwest, there has been a persistent perception that the
    crisis is only a Northwestern problem. Unfortunately, it is
    also a California problem. A look at the listed and candidate
    species or a comparison of the numbers of acres of critical
    salmon habitat reveals that the situation in California is
    nearly identical to Washington and Oregon. That's not
    necessarily something to be proud of, but it's part of the
    reason that I'm so interested in working together with my
    colleagues to move this bill forward.
        This bill, which was brought to me by Senator Mike
    Thompson--Senator--I just elevated you.
        Mr. Thompson. Those were the days.
        Senator Boxer. Yes. Right, he was a State Senator--by
    Congressman Mike Thompson would help to remedy the Pacific-wide
    salmon problems by providing a comprehensive authorization to
    the existing Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund.
        I'm happy to see Senator Crapo here. Will you please come
    on up and be on our very first panel?
        Specifically, the bill provides $350 million to the five
    states and the associated tribes. It gives priority to the
    restoration of species listed as threatened or endangered under
    the Endangered Species Act. It establishes criteria to ensure
    that Federal funds are not wasted on projects that will not
    benefit fish. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop a
    process for peer review of proposed projects to ensure that
    only scientifically sound projects receive funding, and it
    requires states and tribes to provide an annual spending plan
    to Congress as well as a one-time comprehensive plan for salmon
    restoration. And, of course, this bill makes Idaho eligible for
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund dollars. And certainly Senator
    Crapo is responsible for that.
        This bill was introduced in December after friendly but
    protracted negotiations among the six cosponsors. That being
    said, it is important to note that this bill reflects a
    compromise. At the time it was introduced, we knew that there
    were features that would be controversial, and the six
    cosponsors agreed at the time of the introduction that we would
    put the bill out there, go through the hearing process to get
    feedback, and then make changes accordingly.
        I am well aware of some of the concerns that our witnesses
    and perhaps our colleagues are going to express today. In
    particular, I know they have had a lot of questions raised
    about the planning requirements that are in the bill and
    whether they create too much of a burden on the states and the
    tribes. We have heard similar concerns about the peer review
    language.
        Last, but certainly not least, I understand that my
    colleagues from Alaska and Washington have concerns about the
    fact that this bill would require the funds to be equally
    distributed among the five states. It was not our intent to
    hijack funds from one state to divert them to another. We would
    like to see some mechanism for ensuring that the funds are
    distributed equitably so that the needs of endangered salmon up
    and down the Pacific Coast are addressed.
        To address these and other issues, it is my intent, and I
    believe the intent of all of our cosponsors, to make
    improvements in this bill so that it can be supported by all
    five delegations. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
    Because we have so many witnesses today, I have asked that the
    testimony be limited to 4 minutes, but that does not apply to
    Senators or Congressmen. So, thank you and--Senator Stevens?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Stevens. Madam Chairman, I note that Bob
    Thorstenson, the President of the United Fishermen of Alaska,
    is here. He'll be in the last panel. I have a conflict, but I
    know he's here with his family, and I look forward to seeing
    Bob and regret that I can't be with him when he testifies.
        Let me go back through a little history. Throughout the
    1980s and the 1990s, the United States and Canada were
    embroiled in negotiations on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. That
    had nothing to do with California at all. That was one of the
    most bitter disputes to come between our two nations in
    history. At one point, the Canadian fishermen blockaded an
    Alaskan state ferry that had nothing to do with fishing, but
    they just wanted to protest against the United States, and they
    blocked a ferry from leaving a port in Canada. Alaska fishermen
    and their vessels were seized for fishing in our own waters,
    because Canada suddenly decided that the disputed area of the
    Dixon entrance was not where we thought it was.
        In 1996, we had the Governors of Alaska, Washington, and
    Oregon discuss the need for a negotiation with Canada, and they
    held what was called the Sitka Salmon Summit. The three states
    agreed to seek Federal funds to preserve and enhance salmon
    habitat in their states to provide for more fish to harvest.
        I hope you keep in mind, we're talking about the harvest
    off Alaska. It's half the coastline of the United States, and
    we have proportionally about the same number of fish as
    California has the number of people compared to our state. The
    population of fish is the direct opposite of the population
    balance between California and Alaska. And I say that
    respectfully, as a former Californian.
        We ultimately had $50 million appropriated for the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, but the roadblock was the salmon
    treaty. There was just not enough fish to go around. As a
    matter of fact, the federal courts got involved in it in the
    State of Washington, and it had additional difficulties at that
    time. This commitment to seek additional funds for habitat
    protection and fish production provided the incentive for both
    nations to work out the arrangement that would hopefully lead
    to the recovery of the salmon in our area.
        In 1999, the U.S. and Canada finally agreed to this new
    salmon management regime. The Pacific Salmon Treaty of that
    year called for abundance-based management of all U.S. and
    Canadian stocks that intermingle. Alaskan fishermen agreed to
    large harvest restrictions in order to help protect Washington
    and Oregon stocks from Canadian over-fishing. And the system
    started to work.
        Congress closed the deal by passing my amendments to the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty Act. Those provisions streamlined the
    Pacific Salmon Commission and gave effect to the treaty's weak
    stock-management provisions. Since Fiscal Year 2000, Congress
    has appropriated about $250 million for the Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery Fund. Our continued commitment to habitat
    protection and fish production in Alaska, Washington, and
    Oregon made that 1999 salmon treaty a success. We continue to
    believe it's a success.
        I am worried about this bill, Senator Boxer, for several
    reasons. The funds that were made available for salmon habitat
    and fish production, they're not available on any kind of
    population basis. They're not equally allocated between the
    states, because the states have different problems. We're the
    ones that agreed to give up fish in order to get this treaty
    passed. The habitat was supposed to help us improve the
    production of fish in our state. Salmon fishing is much more
    important to Alaska than it is to any other state. Half of the
    people that have an income in my state have some income derived
    from the production of fish.
        Now, this is not the case with any of the other states
    involved. Washington State feels the brunt of the Endangered
    Species Act far greater than any other state so far. And
    sending the same amount of money to other states would ignore
    the fact that Washington has this enormous problem to contend
    with with regard to litigation and the result of that
    litigation involving endangered species.
        This bill would expand the number of entities which receive
    funds. In our state alone, we have 227 villages that are now
    recognized as being tribes. This bill would give them equal
    access to the money, compared to the State of Alaska, which has
    the overall jurisdiction. The bill also gives priority to
    salmon stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act.
        There are no endangered species of salmon in Alaska, but if
    $27 million is available for endangered species we're liable to
    have some litigation to try and prove there are. The National
    Marine Fisheries Service has never found that, and neither has
    our State Department of Fish and Game. I would hope that we
    would not allocate funds based upon the application of federal
    laws designed to protect endangered species. The only state
    that has really big problems so far is Washington. California
    may have it in the long run on the steelhead, but I don't know.
    Congressman Thompson and Senator Boxer would know better than
    that--about that than I do.
        We have been developing plans and spending money on the
    priorities coming out of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. To confuse
    that solution with the problem that you face in Oregon,
    Washington, California, and Idaho I think is wrong. You're
    facing the problem of stocks that are not intermingling with
    Canadian stocks like ours are. The funding we have had so far
    has been related to the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        Now, Idaho may have some claim to some of those funds. I
    don't dispute that, because they are the spawning grounds for
    the Washington portion of the salmon covered by the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty. But I hope you all keep in mind the reason we
    had the funding in the first place was my state agreed to give
    up and totally regulate the harvest of salmon in Southeastern
    Alaska at a rate no other state has ever done. Now, to start
    allocating money between states proportionally I think is
    entirely wrong. And I want you to know I will not support this
    bill the way it is. I don't think Washington will support the
    bill the way it is either.
        I hope you're going to be willing to sit down and work
    something out. We're perfectly willing to help you restore your
    stocks, but we want you to not interfere with the program we
    have underway which has been funded--and, by the way, all of
    the money has been spent for fish. Nothing has been spent for
    anything else, not for government or for any other needs. This
    is habitat and science-related money that we're dealing with to
    try and deal with the salmon that intermingle with Canadian
    salmon.
        So, Madam Chairman, I hope you will keep the subject
    straight. I'll be perfectly willing to work with you on a
    salmon recovery program for the Pacific Coast, and that should
    come, and it should be a high priority. I believe it entirely.
    But to say now that we want to reallocate these moneys that are
    available under the Pacific Salmon Treaty I think, is wrong,
    and I hope that you will not proceed with it on that basis.
        Senator Boxer. Senator, I'm very glad that you took the
    time to come over here and put your concerns on the record. We
    think we can allay those. We know that when Mike Thompson moved
    this bill over on the House side, he did get the support of Don
    Young, is my understanding, he did get the support of Norm
    Dicks, is my understanding, but maybe they didn't see some of
    the threats that you and your staff have uncovered. And it's
    not our intention in any way to threaten, you know, any
    existing treaties or--we want to be helpful, so I'm just very
    grateful to you for coming over here.
        I wonder, Senator--which of you would like to speak first,
    because, for me--it's up to you.
        Senator Crapo. Well, I was assuming that Mr. Thompson
    would, because it's his bill, but I'd be glad to go either way.
        Senator Boxer. All right. Mike, do you want to start, and
    then we'll go to Senator Crapo.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE THOMPSON,
                  U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much. Senator Boxer,
    thank you for introducing this bill and for holding this
    hearing. Senator Stevens, thank you for being here. I think
    your insight on the historical provisions of this issue are
    very, very helpful, and may, in fact, help us resolve this
    issue. Maybe we can find a way that we can separate the
    problems of those of us in California and Idaho, Oregon, and
    Washington, separate and apart from those problems that you
    have in Alaska. Maybe we should just bifurcate the states--
    bifurcate the bill to apply one set of solutions to Alaska and
    then deal with the habitat problems that we, in the Lower 48
    are experiencing. That's certainly a possibility.
        Senator Stevens. We have a bill. We don't need another law.
    We would be happy to work on a solution for you, but we don't
    need another law affecting Alaska.
        Mr. Thompson. Well, that's why I say maybe we could
    bifurcate it and do a law that helps the Lower 48 and lets you
    guys continue with the program that you have. But, in saying
    that----
        Senator Boxer. I think you hit a very important point. The
    Senator says, ``I'll be happy to work with you on that,'' and I
    think that's good news for us.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you. I just don't want my willingness
    to acquiesce to lead anybody to believe that this isn't an
    extremely important issue for those of us in California,
    Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The fact is--and I'll speak
    mostly from a California perspective--but the coastal
    communities that I represent, and those that run up the entire
    length of the coast, exist in large part because of historic
    numbers of fish. Fisheries were a very important industry and
    were, in fact, the glue that held those coastal communities
    together for many, many years. But over the past few years,
    we've seen an incredible decline in the number of fish, and
    this is for a number of reasons: water diversions, urban
    development, agricultural practices, forest practices, and even
    fishing. All of those have taken a toll on the fish
    populations. And as we know, you can have everything going for
    you except habitat, and you're not going to have fish. That is
    the critical element that is hurting us right now.
        And in California, on the North Coast, we're at about 10
    percent of our historic salmon numbers based on the historic
    highs of the 1800s. If you take the Trinity River alone,
    they've lost about 80 percent of their king salmon, and they've
    lost about 60 percent of their steelhead over the last 50
    years. The Central Valley in California has lost 70 to 90
    percent of its historic spawning and rearing habitat, which has
    taken a tremendous toll. There's 214 Pacific Coast anadromous
    fish populations that are at risk and another 106 that are
    already extinct. So this problem is very, very serious.
        In my district alone, if you look at the numbers from 1988,
    the sport and commercial salmon fishing created an industry, a
    regional industry, of about $1.25 billion. Since then, we've
    lost about 80 percent of that job base. The loss of salmon-
    related jobs in the past 30 years is nearly 75,000, so 75,000
    families that have lost their job because of the downturn in
    fish numbers.
        If you look at the fish that were caught--if you look at
    the coho salmon that were caught between 1981 and 1985 and the
    number of licensed fishing vessels in my district, you go from
    3,243 boats that, in addition to their other catch, brought in
    nearly 60,000 coho salmon. Today, there's 725 boats. And as I
    think everyone knows, there's no allowable catch for coho. You
    cannot catch coho.
        Eureka Fisheries, which is a commercial processing plant in
    Eureka, California, and Crescent City, California--and those
    combined populations of those two cities is about 30,000
    people--that company has lost 140 jobs, and that directly
    corresponds with the number of fish that aren't being caught
    anymore. And from 1976 to 1980, the cities of Fort Bragg,
    Eureka, and Crescent City were responsible for catching 4.8
    million pounds of salmon. Today, combined, they catch 58,000
    pounds of salmon per year.
        It's not uncommon for a commercial fisherman in my district
    to have to travel over 300 miles to fish because of the
    closures in their home-port waters. And it's affected every
    business, from the people that supply, you know, fly rods and
    flies to sport fishermen to timber companies that today have to
    spend millions of dollars in order to prepare aquatic habitat
    conservation plans to make sure that we don't have
    sedimentation problems that further exacerbate the salmon
    numbers.
        Now, the past help that Congress has provided is
    appreciated, and it's certainly helped to some regard, but
    there's a lot more help that needs to be done. And Senator
    Stevens mentioned that it is--it's just the salmon industry in
    Alaska, as opposed to other industries in California, but I
    want to point out that it's no longer just the fishing industry
    in California. Because of these listings that we have, because
    of the downturn in fish numbers, it's no longer just the
    commercial fishermen and related businesses, just the sports
    fishermen and related business, now it's everything. It's
    timber companies, it's agricultural practices, it's gravel
    harvesting, it's real estate development, it's road
    maintenance, it's Native American heritage issues that are at
    play. Local governments' water districts are having to do tests
    to make sure their sedimentation levels aren't high. They've
    had disruptions in delivery of water. It's all of the above
    that is affected now, no longer just fish.
        California has a great program that helps quite a bit. It's
    my hope that working with all of you, we'll be able to
    supplement that program, provide the moneys that are necessary
    in order to restore these habitats and bring back these fish
    numbers to, if not the historic numbers, something that will at
    least let people make a living.
        So thank you very much.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Congressmen.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Thompson,
                      U.S. Representative from California

        Senator Boxer and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on S. 1825, the Pacific Salmon
    Recovery Act. I appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing leadership on
    the fishery issues of the Pacific Northwest. I am also grateful to you
    Senator Boxer, and Senators Craig and Crapo who introduced the bill,
    Oregon Senators Smith and Wyden who were original co-sponsors, and the
    other Members of both the full and Subcommittee who have co-sponsored
    this important legislation.
        I want to thank the witnesses who have taken the time to testify on
    this measure, many of whom traveled thousands of miles to be with us
    today. In particular, I would like to thank Glen Spain of the Pacific
    Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations from Portland, Oregon and
    Bob Hight, Director of the California Department of Fish and Game for
    their continuing dedication to this issue.
        Salmon and steelhead trout have long been a critical component of
    the culture and economy of the Pacific Northwest. The port towns of the
    West Coast grew up around the salmon industry and the harvesting of
    salmon and other fish have served as the financial backbone for most of
    these communities.
        However, times have been tough for these communities, as the
    fisheries have declined. While salmon are still an integral part of the
    culture of my district, decades of water diversions, dam building,
    overfishing, resource practices, and urban development have had a
    terrible impact on the rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest. By
    the late 1990s, West Coast salmon populations had declined to only 10
    percent of what it had been in the 1800s. California's Trinity River
    system alone has lost more than 80 percent of its King Salmon and more
    than 60 percent of its Steelhead Trout over the past 50 years. In the
    Central Valley, 70-90 percent of historical spawning and rearing
    habitat has been lost.
        According to the American Fisheries Society, at least 214 Pacific
    Coast anadromous fish populations are ``at risk,'' while at least 106
    other historically abundant populations have already become extinct.
    Twenty-six distinct population segments of Pacific salmon and sea-run
    trout are listed as either endangered or threatened under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). California alone accounts for 11 of those
    endangered listings.
        With the commercial harvesting of coho salmon completely illegal in
    my state and other species not far behind, hundreds of our fishing
    families have been forced out of work. Many of our local economies have
    subsequently suffered. As recently as 1988, sport and commercial salmon
    fishing in the Pacific region generated more than $1.25 billion for our
    regional economy. Since then, salmon fishing closures have contributed
    to the loss of nearly 80 percent of our region's job base, with a total
    salmon industry loss over the past 30 years of approximately 72,000
    family wage jobs.
        The fleet of commercial fishermen off the North Coast of California
    has dwindled from 3,243 vessels to 725 since the 1980s. These boats
    used to catch upwards of 60,000 coho salmon. Today, fishing for coho is
    prohibited due to its listing as an endangered species. It has
    subsequently closed most commercial fishing operations between Coos
    Bay, Oregon to Bodega Bay, California.
        The impact on commercial fishermen has also translated into lost
    jobs in other fisheries reliant industry. As recently as July of 2001,
    Eureka Fisheries Incorporated laid off 140 people in the small Northern
    California towns of Eureka and Crescent City because they don't have
    enough fish to process. Salmon landings at Fort Bragg, Eureka and
    Crescent City declined from 4.8 million pounds per year from 1976
    through 1980 to approximately 58,000 pounds per year today.
        As an example, commercial salmon fisherman Dave Bitts from
    California's North Coast has had to spend May through August for the
    last 10 years at least 300 miles away from his home port to fish for
    salmon. That's because the salmon season has been virtually closed in
    the Klamath Management Zone, which covers nearly half of the California
    coastline. Mr. Bitts has to travel to San Francisco and south to fish
    for salmon, placing not only significant strain on his family life but
    also his pocketbook.
        Ideally, when salmon fishing is prohibited for ocean fishermen, the
    stocks would become healthier and we would be able to sustainably
    harvest salmon again. Unfortunately, when efforts to ensure healthy
    habitat and spawning beds for the salmon are not practiced upstream,
    salmon populations do not have the chance to replenish themselves.
    Without adequate and consistent funding for salmon habitat restoration
    upstream--like that outlined in S. 1825--the salmon populations will
    continue to decline.
        These dire circumstances aren't limited to the commercial fishing
    industry. It crosses all spectrums from our regions other industries--
    timber, recreational fishing, processing plants, ice factories, grocery
    stores, restaurants and tourism. Examples include:
        In 1998, the Governors of California, Oregon, Washington, and
    Alaska made a joint appeal to create a $200 million fund for coastal
    salmon restoration with funds to be divided equally among the
    participating states. The Administration responded in the FY 2000
    budget with a request for $100 million. Under the initial House budget,
    the salmon recovery program was zeroed out. Funding was restored in
    conference with the Senate but, when the final package went to the
    President that October, only $9 million was included for California.
        This year, the Administration's budget request includes $110
    million for the Pacific Salmon Restoration Fund. Unfortunately, only
    $90 million goes to the states and tribes in need. While the
    Administration's request is critically important, I believe our efforts
    need to be expanded.
        Last summer, a bill that I introduced in the House, H.R. 1157, the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Act passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 418-6.
    All the members of the Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Alaska
    delegations as well as most of California's members voted for this
    bill. This bill authorizes $200 million in federal assistance to the
    five Pacific states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California
    for the restoration of salmon and anadromous trout habitat, as
    requested by the four governors. More important, it guarantees equal
    funding among the five states and would require broad conditions under
    which the money must be spent while allowing maximum flexibility to
    each state in setting priorities.
        At a minimum, use of the funds must be consistent with the goal of
    salmon recovery, establish specific goals and timelines for activities
    funded, and include measurable criteria by which such activities can be
    evaluated.
        The bill also requires that activities carried out with funds from
    this program be scientifically based, cost-effective, contribute to the
    protection or restoration of salmon, and not be conducted on private
    land except with the consent of the owner of the land.
        Other provisions include tight restrictions on agency overhead
    costs, a requirement to provide public participation in the grant-
    making process, and assigning priority to those species that are listed
    under the federal Endangered Species Act.
        The money allotted to California last year was extremely important,
    but there is no reasonable justification for our state receiving less
    than an equal share of available funds. With 11 threatened and
    endangered species listings to contend with, California is in as much
    need as the other Pacific coastal states. Successful passage of the
    Senate bill is essential to ensure that these much-needed funds are
    distributed to the states. Taking preventive action like habitat
    restoration, as this bill would do, will save our coastal communities
    the additional devastating economic and social costs associated with
    endangered species listings. The House and Senate bills require that
    the funds for salmon restoration be distributed equally among the
    participating states, and this is critical to ensure continued funding.
        Early efforts at the state level have begun the process of
    reversing the decline of our salmon economy. Private landowners,
    conservation groups, and industry have committed to the lengthy process
    of repairing the damage done. It is now time for the Federal Government
    to increase its commitment to salmon restoration.
        For instance, a joint project in my district between Trout
    Unlimited and Mendocino Forest Products has produced significant
    success in repairing a river in Mendocino County by upgrading and
    decommissioning 8.75 miles of roads. This work stopped an estimated
    28,855 cubic yards of road-related sediment from being delivered to the
    South Fork of the Garcia River (a major salmon and steelhead river). A
    standard dump truck you see doing roadwork has a 10 cubic yard
    capacity, so this work kept 2,800 dump truck loads of dirt out of
    critical salmon/steelhead waters. Their work also entailed upgrading
    the remaining roads in the basin to withstand major storm events in
    addition to supporting traditional timberland usage.
        Because of this project, we are in position to restore Coho salmon
    to a restored sub-basin. Until now, reintroduction efforts in this
    river have usually involved putting fish back into the same conditions
    from which they disappeared and hoping that something will be different
    and that the fish will take to their changed surroundings.
        We will never return to what was once ``business as usual.''
    However, by stabilizing and restoring our salmon numbers through
    habitat recovery, we can lessen the regulatory pressure on industry and
    reduce the risk of new surprises. We must demonstrate our support for
    state, local, and private efforts to halt the decline of Pacific Salmon
    by fully funding salmon restoration efforts. This is why I support S.
    1825.
        I urge you to pass the Senate's Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. Doing
    so will enable all Pacific Northwestern states to undertake more
    projects like the one described, and protect the land, water and
    economy of the entire region. Making this investment today will ensure
    that these once strong rivers will have a healthy salmon future and
    reduce the financial and regulatory strain which has had an enormous
    effect on our timber, home building, real estate and business
    communities of the Pacific Northwest and California.

        Senator Crapo?

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
    before I begin, I don't know whether he will arrive, but in the
    event that he does not arrive, I would ask that Senator Larry
    Craig's testimony be made a part of the record.
        Senator Boxer. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator from Idaho

        Good afternoon. I would first like to thank Senator Boxer and her
    staff for their hard work and voice my appreciation for Senator Boxer's
    commitment to have a bipartisan bill on salmon recovery. I also want to
    thank my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, Senators Gordon Smith and
    Wyden from Oregon, and Senator Feinstein from California, for their
    valuable input that helped to create a responsible and effective bill.
    I enjoyed working with all of them and their staff.
        For over 20 years, the Federal Government and the States of
    California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, have invested
    billions of dollars attempting to sustain salmon runs in river basins
    throughout the West. Many Idahoans and special interest groups from
    around the country have criticized these huge expenditures, pointing to
    poor coordination among state, federal, and tribal fish & wildlife
    agencies, and to ineffective programs developed either by those
    agencies or under their supervision.
        We need only look at the number of policy development planning (or
    pre-planning) activities under way or still in force in the Pacific
    Northwest to understand how unwieldy our region's efforts to save
    salmon have become and why an overhaul of the current process is
    urgently needed.
        The bill we are discussing today, ``The Pacific Salmon Recovery
    Act'' (S. 1825), takes dead aim at these infirmities and establishes a
    framework that will ensure better coordination and more effective
    recovery programs.
        I am convinced that we'll get better ``bang for the buck'' if this
    bill is enacted.
        However, salmon recovery is complex. Scientific research has
    underscored the difficulty in finding quick answers to this complex
    issue. Objective scientists have been candid in stating unequivocally
    that there is no ``silver bullet'' that can cure what is happening to
    the fish or, for that matter, help us quickly understand what is
    happening to the fish.
        In my opinion, the intense focus on dam removal during the last
    several years has retarded progress in our understanding of what is
    happening to the fish. But, more importantly, it paralyzed our ability
    to take actions that could have had some incremental benefits to
    juvenile and adult salmon survival.
        There are some important facts that were often clouded and, at
    times, ignored during the last 5 years of debate about removing dams in
    the lower Snake River. One of those facts is that the majority of a
    salmon's life cycle is spent in the ocean. It is there that the salmon
    grows to adult size after nourishing itself for several years,
    preparing for the arduous journey back to its spawning area.
        What is becoming increasingly clear from new empirical data and
    fascinating new ocean research is that years of warm ocean temperatures
    caused reductions in food supply for the fish. That impact on the
    ocean's carrying capacity is still being studied, but clearly effected
    the size and strength of salmon populations in the ocean and their
    ability to successfully make the tough journey home to spawning areas
    throughout the West.
        More research in this area will provide helpful insight as to what
    can be done to adjust to that devastating fact. But recent adult
    returns--numbers not seen since 1938--have renewed my hope that all is
    not lost. The recent change to colder Pacific Ocean temperatures is
    widely credited for the record salmon returns that the Pacific
    Northwest has experienced during the last 2 years.
        It is my hope that a more open dialogue on ways to approach salmon
    recovery will ensure continued progress on effective measures that will
    both recover these fish and protect the economy of the West. It is my
    belief that this bill will enhance the prospect of achieving that goal.
        There are many good provisions in this bill. For example, it
    authorizes $350 million a year over the next five years to be spent on
    salmon recovery. This is a sizable expenditure of money that I believe
    is justified. However, we must persuade the American taxpayer and their
    representatives in Congress that this cost is justified. This will not
    be easy, but there are some provisions in this bill that should help us
    make a compellingly case to the American people.
        The peer review provisions in this bill require each state or
    tribal science based recovery activity to undergo a uniform scientific
    peer review before that activity will be funded with federal money. It
    is modeled on the very successful uniform peer review requirement
    established for the Pacific Northwest States by Congress in the
    Northwest Power Act for state and tribal salmon recovery programs that
    get Pacific Northwest ratepayer money.
        I do not believe that having five separate forms of scientific
    review, each form representing a different state's review process,
    provides the kind of uniform accountability that will likely be
    necessary in order to effectively sell this program to American
    taxpayers and their representatives in Congress.
        Ensuring ``accountability'' for large expenditures of taxpayer
    money is essential to keep the trust of the American taxpayer. The
    American taxpayers are entitled to a fair accounting and an objective
    review of the underlying science that supports many of the very
    expensive recovery plans, particularly the salmon supplementation and
    habitat restoration programs, that will be developed by the states and
    participating tribes. The peer review requirement in this bill should
    provide the reasonable assurances of competency for those expensive
    programs that the taxpayer deserves.
        Again, I thank my colleagues for their strong support and
    commitment to include Idaho in the quest to achieve successful salmon
    recovery in the West and for their tireless efforts to draft the
    appropriate legislative framework in which to accomplish the complex
    task of recovering those marvelous and important fish.
        Thank you.

        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. And, Madam Chairman,
    thank you for inviting me to testify today on S. 1825, the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. I specifically want to thank you
    and Senator Smith for your leadership on this issue, an issue
    that's critical to our region's biological, economic, social,
    and environmental well being, the recovery of our threatened
    and endangered salmon and steelhead. It's a priceless national
    treasure in the Pacific Northwest that is in dire straits.
        Icons of our region, wild salmon and steelhead teeter on
    the brink of extinction. And these anadromous fish are one of
    the best examples of the power and mystery of nature as well as
    the historical, cultural, and biological legacy in the West.
    This heritage must not end. We have the formidable
    responsibility of assuring that these fish are recovered to
    viable, sustainable, and fishable levels.
        Our anadromous sport and commercial fisheries are valuable
    parts of our Pacific Northwest economy, including Alaska and
    Western Canada. And I won't go into it today, but the same
    kinds of things that have been said today about what the
    impacts are in California could be said about Idaho as well as,
    I know, about Washington and Oregon. The impact of the loss of
    these fish, economically alone, has been devastating. But it's,
    again, I want to say, not just the economic impact that we are
    here to talk about today. These fish are a part of our culture
    and our heritage, and we must do what we can to save and
    recover them.
        Every state and province in the Pacific Northwest makes a
    biological contribution to our anadromous fish stocks,
    important contributions that have economic consequences, as
    well. It follows that every state should share in federal
    resources that fund the various anadromous fish recovery
    mechanisms. It is biologically, economically, and logically
    incorrect to isolate any state and deny federal funding that
    helps fix the problems in that state.
        The Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead have continued
    to decline to dangerously low levels, and extinction is
    possible--in fact, many say imminent--if we don't proceed
    quickly with an aggressive plan of action. We can do so in a
    manner that honors principles of state water sovereignty,
    states' rights, and private property rights. And I believe that
    S. 1825 does that. This bill provides us a unique opportunity
    to increase resources to the states where fisheries managers
    can implement restoration actions that provide the greatest
    benefits to these fish.
        The condition of these fish is a regional problem for the
    Pacific Northwest with multiple causes throughout the entire
    region. Without the federal funds necessary for each state to
    fully participate via their respective recovery actions, the
    success of the actions of every other state is jeopardized.
    These fish hatch, live, spawn, and die without regard to
    political boundaries.
        Let me make it very clear. We will not have regional
    anadromous fish recovery unless Idaho receives significant
    support for our efforts at salmon recovery. Failure of a
    region-wide recovery will result in legal, economic, cultural,
    and biological consequences that must be avoided. One of the
    objectives of this legislation is to authorize federal
    resources to be spent for anadromous fish recovery in Idaho.
        Madam Chairman, I've attached a document to my testimony,
    prepared by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, that
    provides some insight into Idaho's salmon challenges and why
    it's so critical that our state is authorized to receive funds
    for salmon recovery. I'm going to highlight just a couple of
    those in an effort to be brief. *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to was not available at the time this
    hearing went to press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Historically, the Snake River wild salmon and steelhead
    runs maintain the Columbia River fish hatcheries that have
    harvested 60 to 70 percent of the fish that have entered the
    river--that's the Columbia River--and tributary fishers that
    took another 30 percent of the remaining fish yet still return
    plenty of adult fish to spawning grounds to sustain high levels
    of production. Decline of the spring, summer, and fall chinook
    salmon and steelhead in Idaho greatly constrains fisheries not
    only in Idaho, but in Pacific Coastal and Columbia River
    fisheries. This affects communities and economies outside as
    well as within Idaho.
        Idaho has the largest contiguous area managed for wild,
    native, spring-and-summer chinook salmon and steelhead in the
    entire Columbia Basin and probably in the lower 48 states.
    These areas serve as genetic refugia and serve as a foundation
    for natural life history expression and genetic diversity.
    Intact native populations of salmon and steelhead that are not
    interspersed with hatchery fish are largely lost from the
    Columbia Basin and probably from the entire Pacific Coast.
    Idaho's refugia also serve as important for monitoring
    responses in natural production to recovery actions.
        What makes S. 1825 and the funding that accompanies it an
    even more pressing need is the biological opinion for the
    Federal Columbia River Power System published in December of
    2000. Although the bi-op was written to avert jeopardizing the
    continued existence of salmon and steelhead as they migrate
    through the dams, it called for unprecedented change in the
    roles and responsibilities of the states in that burden for
    mitigating these federal water projects, and it shifted that
    burden to the states. Through the reasonable and prudent
    alternatives in the biological opinion, the states are
    compelled to undertake offsite mitigation measures,
    particularly habitat work in the tributaries, that ensure
    continued operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
    Obviously, this places an immense financial burden on the
    states, a burden that the Federal Government cannot expect them
    to shoulder alone.
        We have only a very short window of opportunity under the
    bi-op--6 to 8, perhaps 10 years at the maximum--during which we
    must make significant progress toward conserving this precious
    biological legacy. If we fail, we will not get a second chance
    to save these fish.
        S. 1825 will assist states in implementing the swift and
    aggressive restoration measures that are critical to rebuilding
    populations by providing the necessary funding. It's long
    overdue that Congress authorize and appropriate adequate
    funding for restoring the declining salmon and steelhead runs
    in the West. In fact, I've proposed that funds be significantly
    increased to install fish steams, restore degraded habitat,
    undertake additional research and monitoring, improve harvest
    techniques to limit by-catch of listed salmon in stocks,
    retrofit hatcheries, increase the availability of water for
    fish, limit trucking of juvenile salmon and steelhead, conduct
    estuary restoration and research, improve fish passage, and
    control predatory birds.
        As Senator Boxer has expressed, concerns have been raised
    with regard to this bill, and I have met personally with
    Senator Stevens to discuss the concerns that he raises. He
    raises very important and legitimate concerns. And nobody that
    we've worked with in putting together this bill wants to cause
    any of the impacts that Senator Stevens says we must avoid. We
    can work together, and I'm confident that we can find ways to
    address these issues. We do not want to detract from the
    importance of meeting the treaty obligations that Senator
    Stevens identifies. We do not want to cause problems in Alaska
    or any other place that has these kinds of difficulties or is
    dealing with its own side of the issue, in terms of fish
    recovery and strengthening of our fish runs. And I'm confident
    that we can achieve that.
        I believe I can speak, though, for the other cosponsors of
    this bill in saying that it is our strong desire to address
    these concerns as we move through the process and to find a
    solution that we can all lock arms together on and work
    together to support.
        The central component of S. 1825, in my opinion, is
    restoring and strengthening funding to the states as we seek to
    recover and strengthen these fish, these incredible fish. This
    is an objective that should not be brought down by difficulties
    in achieving the needs of different regions, such as Alaska or
    California or Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
        Again, Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.
    It's critical that we work together to build a strong, united
    path forward for restoring these fish.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. I just wanted to
    say I thought you both were quite eloquent on the point, and it
    is such a fervent desire on our part to work something out. And
    I think with that desire, we can do it if we all come to the
    table and say, ``This can't stand. We have to fix.'' I think we
    can do it.
        I wonder, Senator, if you had any questions for either of
    our friends here.
        Senator Stevens. Well, do either California or Idaho have
    charges to those people who harvest these fish now? We have--
    for instance, we have a king tag. In order to be a sportsman
    and catch the king salmon, you have to have a king salmon tag,
    you have to buy one of those tags, and you'd better have it in
    your possession if you have a king that you've caught. And we
    limit the number you can catch. And we, as a matter of fact,
    severely limit now even the catch of the hand trawlers and the
    commercial fishermen of Southeastern Alaska. Do you have
    similar measures?
        Senator Crapo. Well, let me speak first for Idaho. Idaho,
    since it is an interior state, does not have the kind of
    fishery that you are describing, I think, in Alaska. However,
    when the fish are returning to spawn in Idaho, occasionally we
    are allowed to fish for them if the returns are large enough.
        In Idaho, there is a total ban on catching any natural
    fish. Only hatchery fish are allowed to be caught, period. And
    if a wild fish is caught, it has to be immediately released.
    There is a charge--there is a tag that must be purchased by
    anyone who fishes for these fish.
        But, you know, you asked if there were restrictions on the
    catch. In Idaho, there is a total ban on all fishing, most
    years. In some years, when the runs are large enough and there
    are enough hatchery fish coming back, they open the fishing
    season for a period of time to allow some catches of the
    hatchery fish.
        Mr. Thompson. Senator, in California, we have very severe
    limitations and restrictions on our fishing. There is--for
    sport fishermen, you have to carry so much paper when you go
    out into the stream, it almost has an effect on the tree
    harvesting in California. You have salmon and steelhead punch
    cards, and they very tightly regulate that.
        But, as I mentioned in my testimony, that there are some
    fisheries that are absolutely closed. You can't catch coho
    salmon. And the commercial industry has been regulated so
    tightly that fishermen up in the northern part of the area that
    I represent have to leave. They have to go down past San
    Francisco in order to catch fish.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I wish you luck. We have a lot of
    barren streams. We have a lot of areas that used to produce
    tremendous amounts of salmon, and they don't produce them
    anymore. We've tried to restore those streams, and we've been
    blocked by litigation and other restrictions. Habitat is one
    thing. Access to habitat for restoration of runs is an entirely
    different thing. I don't think this bill goes far enough to
    cover that, because it is a collision course for some people
    who just don't believe we should be able to interfere with
    nature and to, in effect, restore what has been destroyed.
        Second, I would tell you, and a lot of people aren't going
    to like this, but with the tremendous increase now in ocean
    mammals off the Pacific Coast and Alaska, they're joining the
    club and eating more fish, and there has to be some sort of
    balance somewhere along the line here between man and mammal,
    and I don't know where it is, and I don't think you even come
    close to it with this bill. But it is an enormous difficulty to
    restore these runs and to maintain them.
        We have had several areas of Alaska that have restored
    their runs. I think Prince William Sound is a good example.
    Those people did it with their own money. They put a tax on
    themselves of so many pennies for each fish, put it into a pot
    and built several hatcheries, and they're very successful. But
    they were lucky because they have that inland water to do that,
    but I think you're going to have to explore restoration as well
    as--fish production as well as restoration of habitat. Habitat
    alone won't give you fish runs.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Boxer. Did you want to respond?
        Senator Crapo. Madam Chairman, I would like just to respond
    to address Senator Stevens briefly. I just wanted to say to
    Senator Stevens, in the presence of the Committee and on the
    record, that I appreciate the opportunity I had to visit with
    him personally about this issue. I want to reassure Senator
    Stevens that nothing in my intent, and I don't believe the
    intent of any of the cosponsors of this bill, is aimed at
    trying, in any way, to reduce the amount of resources that go
    to Alaska to address these issues. In fact, I'd be very
    supportive of increasing them. And I wanted to thank Senator
    Stevens for what he said to me personally and what he has again
    said here today, which is that he recognizes that Idaho, as the
    spawning ground, has a role in these ocean fish, these
    anadromous fish, and that he will support finding a way for
    Idaho to participate in the funding, and then Idaho will work
    with the rest of the region, as we have said in this bill, to
    address putting together an aggressive approach to restoring
    and strengthening the Pacific Coast salmon recovery efforts.
    And, Senator Stevens, I just want to personally thank you for
    you commitment to work with us on that objective. If we haven't
    got it right here, we'll get it right, and I appreciate the
    chance to work with you.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll associate myself
    with the comments that Senator Crapo made. I appreciate your
    work on this and appreciate what you've done in the past to
    help the overall fishing industry, and specifically the fishing
    industry in Alaska. And working with you will be an honor to be
    able to work together to fix this problem.
        On the issue of private property, I just want to mention
    that we've had tremendously good luck in California, the way
    that the law is written there, where we require that any of the
    private property restoration work has to be done with a willing
    property owner, and we have an independent panel set up to
    evaluate proposals. And there was some reluctance when we first
    did this on the part of some of the private property owners.
    They thought the government was going to go in with a heavy
    hand and tell them how they were going to have to manage their
    property. And we found out that--working cooperatively with
    them, they've found out that it's not going to be like that,
    and it's worked out quite well, and we've had great results.
        And there's a number of projects that we're doing right
    now, private-public partnership projects, that are working
    extremely well, and I'd be happy to--and I'd like to invite any
    of you up to see those and see firsthand the impact it's having
    on the habitat and on the fish numbers.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    working with you. You've got a lot of problems out there, and
    there's a lot of resources projects, and working this out--if
    you can restore the runs, they still have to have access to and
    egress from the river and habitat areas, so it's a long road
    ahead, but I'll be happy to work with you on it. Thank you.
        Senator Boxer. Senator Stevens, I can't thank you enough
    for coming--really appreciate it. And I want to thank our two
    Members of Congress, because they have worked--they care so
    deeply about this, and we're in this for the long haul. And
    when Congressman Thompson got this bill through, he said, ``OK,
    Barbara. I got it through, now let's go.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. Well, he didn't know the Senator Stevens
    story or a few other stories. We're going to work it out,
    though, and I'm just delighted to have both of you here. And my
    thanks for your leadership, and Senator Crapo, as well.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
        Senator Crapo. Madam Chairman, again, thank you for your
    leadership on this issue.
        Senator Boxer. All right. Well, we'll stick with it until
    we get this right.
        Mr. Donald Knowles is here from the administration. Is he
    here? Could he come forward, please?
        Welcome, Mr. Knowles. I'm going to set this in the hopes
    that we can try 4 minutes, but if you go over, fine, but we'll
    try, just because I've got a schedule and we've got many people
    to hear from, so please proceed.

     STATEMENT OF DONALD R. KNOWLES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROTECTED
                   RESOURCES FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL
                 OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Knowles. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be glad to do
    that. I bring the apologies from Bill Hogarth, our Assistant
    Administrator for Fisheries, who has worked very nicely with
    the Members of the Committee working on National Marine
    Fisheries Service over the last couple of years, and he really
    appreciates the relationship he has with the Committee and
    wants to thank all of you for your support over time.
        I am the Director of Protected Resources in the National
    Marine Fisheries Service at Commerce. I have with me a views
    letter from the administration dated May the 6th. I'd like to
    ask that the views letter and the attached comments be included
    in the record, and I will briefly summarize those today.
        As has already been established, the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund was established in Fiscal Year 2000. Around $258
    million has been appropriated since then going to the four
    states and the tribes--both the Columbia River tribes, the
    Puget Sound tribes, the Klamath Basin tribes, and Coastal
    tribes, as well. Since 1991--one of the reasons I think this
    money was provided is, since 1991, we had listed 26 units of
    Pacific salmon either as threatened or endangered. Twenty one
    of those were listed since 1996. And, just for your
    information, NMFS has only 52 species listed in total, so half
    of our listed species are salmon, and 21 of those happened
    since 1996. So the impact on the National Marine Fisheries
    Service and the impact on the people in the region from the
    listings has been significant just in the last few years.
        The Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund was a very substantial
    source of help building the collaborative partnership that we
    needed with states and tribes to move forward. In January of
    this year, we held a--convened a 2-day workshop with the states
    and tribes to discuss the expenditure of the money under the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund. It produced an agreement to
    improve coordination on monitoring and evaluation of our funded
    activities. We hope to have a progress report available within
    a month. I'll be glad to send one up. I think the states and
    tribal reps who are here today will tell you about the
    beneficial uses that you will see reflected in that fund.
        On S. 1825, the department supports the objective of S.
    1825 to provide funding to the states and tribes for salmon
    recovery efforts. In particular, we support expansion of
    funding to Idaho. Our view is that support for Pacific salmon
    recovery should be comprehensive, should be focused on
    opportunities that provide the greatest benefits to the
    recovery of salmon populations. Many watersheds in Idaho
    contain some of the best salmon habitat in the Columbia River
    Basin. Idaho funding will help provide fish access and
    increased water flows, et cetera, to help facilitate recovery
    of Northwest salmon.
        This bill does provide significant changes in the amounts
    allocated, in the entities that receive the funds, and in the
    requirements for peer review for planning and for public
    participation. We all support those initiatives. Those are
    critical to maintaining the accountability and support of the
    public.
        Many of the aspects of the bill are already being conducted
    through the MOUs that we have with the states. We think that
    states and tribes in general have done a good job tailoring
    their program to individual circumstances. This results in
    local support.
        We would be pleased to work with the Committee to review
    ongoing efforts and determine if changes are needed to existing
    state, tribal, or regional frameworks for planning peer review
    and public participation. We do look forward to working with
    you on that. We do have a series of comments appended to our
    views letter that lay out some of these issues in more detail.
    But, Madam Chair, I'll conclude my statement at that point and
    answer any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Knowles follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Donald R. Knowles, Director, Office of Protected
           Resources for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                 Administration

        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Don
    Knowles, Director of the Office of Protected Resources for the National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I am here representing Bill Hogarth,
    Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today to discuss NMFS' views on S. 1825--the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. Among other things, S. 1825 authorizes the
    Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to state and
    tribal governments in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho
    for salmon habitat restoration projects in coastal waters and upland
    drainages. The Department of Commerce recently sent a letter with
    comments on S. 1825 to the Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science,
    and Transportation Committee. I would like to request that the letter
    and the attached comments be included in the record. For today's
    testimony, I will provide you background on the Pacific salmon listings
    and the current administration of the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery
    Fund (PCSRF), report on activities funded in FY 2000 and FY 2001, and
    outline comments on the current version of S. 1825.

    Pacific Salmon Listings
        Since 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service has listed 26
    Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific salmon as either threatened
    or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The geographic area
    covered by the listings is approximately 159,000 square miles, roughly
    equivalent to the area of the State of California. The listings affect
    the entire West coast of the United States. The salmon issue is not
    just a regional one, it is also a National issue and affects energy
    production and the national economy.
        Pacific salmon have declined in numbers since commercial fishing
    began in the late 1800s. A variety of factors have contributed to the
    decline including over-harvesting, fluctuating ocean conditions, and
    other human influenced activities. The decline of the runs has evolved
    over time and is due to many complex factors. In the same way, we must
    approach salmon recovery in a comprehensive manner. The Pacific Coast
    Salmon Recovery Fund is an effective tool to help this recovery happen.
    We are beginning to see improved runs, which are due to favorable ocean
    conditions, restrictions in harvest, ecological improvements in the
    operation of hydropower systems, and habitat restoration and hatchery
    improvement efforts.

    Background of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
        The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund was established in FY 2000
    at the request of the Governors of Washington, Oregon, California, and
    Alaska following NMFS' listing of coastal salmon and steelhead runs
    under the Endangered Species Act. The Governors recognized the need to
    form lasting partnerships between federal, state, local, and tribal
    governments and the public for recovering Pacific salmon and their
    habitats and to address impacts to local and state economies. The PCSRF
    supplements existing and proposed programs, and seeks more efficient
    and effective salmon recovery and conservation efforts through enhanced
    sharing and pooling of expertise and information. Through FY 2002, $258
    million has been appropriated to the fund, with $58 million
    appropriated in FY 2000, $90 million in FY 2001, and $110 million in FY
    2002. The President's budget for FY 2003 includes a request for $90
    million. We recommend that the bill's authorization of $350 million for
    each fiscal year through FY 2007 should be changed to conform to the
    Budget request.
        In January 2002, NMFS convened a workshop with state and tribal
    representatives to discuss funded activities and ways to maximize the
    benefits of the fund. The workshop produced an agreement between states
    and tribes to improve coordination of monitoring and evaluation of
    PCSRF-funded activities. NMFS, in cooperation with the states and
    tribes, is in the process of finalizing a report outlining the
    activities resulting from the first two years of the program. Based on
    the presentations at the workshop, we believe the fund has already
    produced tangible results. In the first two years of the program, over
    800 projects related to salmon habitat restoration, planning and
    assessment, research and monitoring, enhancement, and outreach and
    education have been funded. Highlights include: Washington's completion
    of 40 in-stream passage projects, Alaska's monitoring and assessment of
    populations and habitat, the Yurok Tribe's habitat restoration projects
    in the Klamath Basin, Oregon's work funding local watershed
    initiatives, and many other excellent projects. We are compiling a
    progress report, summarizing the first 2 years of funding, and expect
    to have this available in June. I am sure the state and tribal
    representatives who are here today will be happy to tell you about
    other beneficial uses of the fund.

    S. 1825
        The Department of Commerce supports the objective of S. 1825 to
    provide funding to the states and tribes for Pacific salmon recovery
    efforts. In particular, we support the expansion of this funding to
    Idaho. Support for Pacific Salmon Recovery should be comprehensive and
    focused on opportunities to provide the greatest benefits to recovery
    of salmon populations. As you know, many watersheds within Idaho
    contain some of the best salmon habitat in the Columbia River Basin.
    Idaho funding will help to provide fish access to this habitat as well
    as to undertake other restoration activities.
        While S. 1825 is similar to the current program for Pacific salmon
    recovery funding, it does propose significant changes to the amount
    allocated, the entities that receive funds, and the requirement for
    planning, peer review, and public participation in the program. Many of
    the aspects of the bill regarding planning, peer review and public
    participation are already being conducted on a voluntary basis as part
    of the Memorandum of Understanding that we require the states and
    tribes to sign to receive federal funds. Each state and tribe has
    tailored its program to the individual circumstances within each state
    or tribe, and has incorporated the PCSRF funds into existing programs
    for prioritization and distribution. We would be pleased to work with
    the Committee to review existing processes and to determine if changes
    are needed to existing state, tribal, and regional frameworks for
    planning, peer review, and public participation.
         We look forward to working with the Committee on the improvements
    to S. 1825 that were detailed in the Department's views letter
    transmitted to the Committee on May 6, 2002.
        We appreciate your commitment and continued support to Pacific
    salmon recovery efforts and I would be happy to answer any questions
    you may have at this time.
                                     ______

                        General Counsel, Department of Commerce
                                            Washington, DC, May 6, 2002
    Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
    Chairman,
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 1825, the Pacific
    Salmon Recovery Act, as introduced. Among other things, S. 1825
    authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to
    the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho for
    salmon habitat restoration projects in coastal waters and upland
    drainage. The Department of Commerce supports providing funding to the
    states and tribes for Pacific salmon recovery efforts.
        In particular, we support the expansion of this funding to Idaho.
    As you know, many watersheds within Idaho contain some of the best
    salmon habitat in the Columbia River Basin. Support for Pacific salmon
    recovery should be comprehensive and focused on opportunities to
    provide the greatest benefits to recovery of wild salmon populations,
    including opportunities for tributary stream habitat access and
    restoration in Idaho.
        This bill is similar to the current authorization for Pacific
    salmon recovery money to the states and tribes. However, there have
    been significant changes to the amount allocated, the entities that
    receive funds, and the requirement of planning, peer review, and public
    participation in the program. The authorization levels should comport
    more closely with the President's Budget (i.e., $90 million for FY 03).
    Many of the details of the planning, peer review and public
    participation are already conducted on a voluntary basis by the states
    and tribes that receive funds. We would be pleased to work with the
    Committee on changes to the bill to ensure that it incorporates, rather
    than duplicates, existing state, tribal, and regional frameworks for
    planning, peer review, and public participation.
        We have enclosed a list of detailed comments, grouped by sections.
    We appreciate your continued interest in Pacific salmon recovery
    efforts.
        The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
    objection to the submission of this letter from the viewpoint of the
    Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                                          Theodore W. Kassinger

                                     ______

    Comments on S. 1825
        1. Section 2(b): The FY 2000-FY 2003 requests for the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund reflected a 90 percent:10 percent
    allocation between the states and tribes. This bill would change the
    allocation to 85 percent:15 percent. We recommend continuation of the
    90 percent:10 percent allocation between states and tribes. However,
    within those categories, we recommend that the funds be distributed in
    proportion to the needs for recovery of salmonids. Within the state and
    tribal allocation categories, the National Marine Fisheries Service
    recommends that the funds be distributed in proportion to the needs for
    recovery of salmonids. The state apportionment would be based on
    factors such as numbers of Endangered Species Act listed populations in
    Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska; and areas affected
    by listed species and populations that are given special protection in
    Alaska. The same would be true for the tribal funding. The Secretary of
    Commerce should be charged with determining a basis for distributing
    the funds based on a needs assessment conducted in consultation with
    the states and tribes.
        2. Section 3: Any effort to increase accountability of the program
    through the development of plans should take into account other studies
    and performance requirements established in relevant biological
    opinions.

            Section 3(b)(1) Salmon Conservation and Restoration Plans
            should be required by March 31st of the fiscal year after
            amounts have been allocated to allow for development of
            comprehensive plans. A similar deadline could also be required
            for development of Memorandums of Understanding with tribal
            governments required in Section 3(c)(1)(B). The current Pacific
            Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund process will be adequate until
            spending plans can be developed.

            Section 3(i)(1) should be revised to allow the Secretary of
            Commerce to retain not more than 1 percent for administrative
            expenses and not more than an additional 2 percent for required
            reporting requirements of Section 7.

        3. Section 4: The Department of Commerce supports peer review and
    science based pre-project evaluation. We are also committed to using
    the best available science in developing and implementing salmon
    recovery. However, we feel that the current peer review process
    described in the bill could be more efficiently managed by the states
    and tribal governments receiving funds. Each State Salmon Conservation
    and Recovery Plan or Tribal Memorandum of Understanding could outline
    the peer review and project approval process that is to be used when
    funding projects and programs. These programs would then undergo
    Secretarial review as part of the overall plan review process. This is
    how peer review is currently handled.
        4. Section 5: Public participation through the development of state
    citizen advisory committees and the development of State public
    meetings are necessary and should be included as part of each State's
    Salmon Conservation and Restoration Plan or Tribal Memorandum of
    Understanding.
        5. Section 6: Revise the language of the second sentence to read
    ``Projects or activities that may affect listed species shall remain
    subject to applicable provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
    1973.''
        6. Section 8: This section defines ``salmon'' as including bull
    trout and Lahontan cutthroat trout in Oregon, and bull trout in
    Washington and Idaho. The Department believes that any statutory
    definition of salmon should not include these or any other non-
    anadromous (sea-run) species. Therefore, we recommend that these
    species be removed from the definition of salmon in the bill.
        7. Section 9: This bill changes the authorization level to $350M
    for Fiscal Years 2002-2007. We request that the authorization be
    changed to reflect the amounts in the President's budget request for FY
    2002. This request included $90M for the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund and $20M for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. However, we do
    support expansion of the authorization to include Idaho. For FY 2003
    and beyond, we request that the authorization include such sums as are
    necessary to carry out the Act.

        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. I think that what you
    have said is encouraging to me, that we will work together.
    We'll iron out our problems. We have a vision of a larger fund,
    because we hear the need, both from an economic standpoint and
    just from the standpoint of saving a God-given resource here.
        You mentioned Idaho. I assume you support California.
        Mr. Knowles. Absolutely.
        Senator Boxer. I just want to make it clear. And Oregon?
        Mr. Knowles. And Oregon.
        Senator Boxer. And Washington and Alaska.
        Mr. Knowles. Washington and Alaska.
        Senator Boxer. OK, then. We're OK. We're all the five
    states.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. I'm very happy to hear your testimony,
    because we've been working on this for a long time. It was just
    sort of the moment we had to bring everybody together. And I
    have one question, and then I'm going to ask my colleague to
    make an opening statement and ask you whatever questions. What
    form of peer review do you recommend to us?
        Mr. Knowles. I would say----
        Senator Boxer. Let's put it another way. What's wrong with
    the way we've done it in the past?
        Mr. Knowles. Well, we have peer review processes that work
    at a sort of a central way. I think the peer review process for
    projects funded by Bonneville through the Power Planning
    Council has one big peer review panel and process, and that
    works, but I do think it requires more time and effort. I think
    we have other peer review processes built in at the state level
    or at the NMFS level, because we are partway through our
    recovery planning process.
        Whatever peer review change we make or whatever peer review
    process we adopt, we're going to likely have to integrate that
    with our recovery plans once they're completed anyway. So what
    I would really like to do is to work with you folks in the
    states, state by state, and let's figure out what works best.
    If a big, central process turns out to be the most efficient,
    National Marine Fisheries Service will support that and work
    with you. If it turns out best to work with it state by state,
    we'll support that, as well.
        Senator Boxer. OK, thank you.
        Senator Smith?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much
    for holding this hearing on S. 1825, the Pacific Salmon
    Recovery Act. I'm relieved to learn from you that Senator
    Stevens is open to working with us, and I'm very encouraged by
    that. And I also appreciate that Senator Crapo came and spoke
    on behalf of this bill that he helped us to put together.
        I want to welcome Mr. Harold Blackwolf here. It's good to
    have you here from Oregon to speak on this issue. And thank you
    for traveling these many miles to be here.
        The bill before us today would authorize the Secretary of
    Commerce to provide financial assistance to the states of
    Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, and, specifically,
    Idaho, as well as the tribes in the region for salmon habitat
    restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages.
    For those of us who have advocated Federal funding to assist in
    West Coast salmon recovery efforts, this bill would provide the
    statutory framework for the coastal salmon funding that has
    been provided in recent years through the National Marine
    Fisheries Service to the West Coast states and tribes. It would
    also expand the program to ensure that recovery measures in
    Idaho could be funded. For those of us throughout the Northwest
    who benefit from the system of Federal dams in the Columbia
    River, restoration work in Idaho is, therefore, vitally
    important.
        Today we'll hear from Mr. Geoff Huntington, the Director of
    the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, concerning efforts of
    watershed councils in Oregon to get on-the-ground restoration
    projects funded and to provide effective project monitoring.
    One of the many positive features of the bill is that we do not
    dictate to the states the means by which they must distribute
    federal coastal salmon recovery funds. And I appreciate, Mr.
    Knowles, your comments just now that you're going to work with
    the states to do it the way that it works best.
        We do, however, expect that projects will undergo expedited
    peer review and that the states and tribes will report to the
    Federal Government at regular intervals concerning how the
    funds have been spent. In order to promote salmon recovery
    throughout the salmon's range, we've developed a formula to
    distribute the funds equitably to states and tribes throughout
    the West Coast. I realize that some organizations have
    expressed concerns about the peer review provisions as
    contained in the bill. I hope that the witnesses today will
    provide positive, concrete suggestions that will ensure that if
    these provisions are modified, the goal of selecting the most
    effective scientifically justifiable projects within each state
    will be retained.
        Finally, I'd like to comment on the need to examine factors
    affecting salmon throughout their life cycle. In 2001, we saw
    more fish return to the Columbia Basin than in any year since
    1938. This is largely due to improved ocean conditions that
    have provided more nutrients for salmon during the years they
    spent in the ocean. While we must continue to improve our
    environmental stewardship of the in-river habitat, we must not
    forget our human stewardship, as well. We cannot solve a 3,000-
    mile problem by focusing exclusively on select dams and
    tributaries. It has to be a much more holistic approach.
        Again, Madam Chairman, thank you for your leadership on
    this important issue, and I look forward to working with you
    and our witnesses and to hearing from them today.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Well, thank you very
    much, Mr. Knowles. We will view your testimony as an open
    invitation to work with you. Thank you.
        Mr. Knowles. Thank you very much.
        Senator Boxer. It would be wonderful if we can resolve
    this.
        Okay, I'm going to ask all the remaining witnesses to come
    up. And it's--I know there's a lot of you, so I'm going to call
    your name, and please come on up. Mr. Harold Blackwolf, Sr.,
    Mr. Dirk Brazil, Mr. Geoff Huntington, Mr. James Caswell, Ms.
    Laura Johnson, Mr. Glen Spain, and Mr. Robert Thorstenson.
        Now, we're going to call you in the order--and before you
    speak, I will give you a more formal, individual introduction,
    but I did want to say that we know that Mr. Thorstenson's three
    young children are here to watch him testify, and I wonder if
    they could stand up and show us who they are, because they came
    along way. Oh, wow, look at that. Hey, thank you for being
    here, and aren't you proud of your dad? He's trying to save the
    fish. It's very good.
        Okay, so we will start off. As I say, I will give each of
    you your own introduction, and we're going to set the clock for
    4 minutes. You need to speak into the mike. I know it's
    crowded.
        Our first speaker will be Mr. Harold Blackwolf, Sr.,
    Commissioner of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
    Commission, which represents tribes in the Columbia and Snake
    River Basins in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. We welcome you,
    sir. Go right ahead.

      STATEMENT OF HAROLD BLACKWOLF, SR., COMMISSIONER, COLUMBIA
                   RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

        Mr. Blackwolf. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
    Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Harold Blackwolf,
    Commissioner of Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
    Chair of the Fish and Wildlife Committee of Warm Springs Tribe
    in Oregon. I'm here today with Mr. Jim Heffernan, a policy
    analyst for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and
    Advisor to the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission.
        I want to thank you for this opportunity to present the
    tribe's views on the bill that you are considering. Don Sampson
    has submitted written testimony on behalf of the Commission. I
    ask that his testimony also be made part of the record for
    today's hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sampson follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Donald Sampson, Executive Director, Columbia
                       River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        On behalf of the Columbia River treaty tribes, I want to thank the
    Chair and Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to provide
    some initial written views on the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act (S. 1825)
    and Pacific Salmon Management Issues. I apologize for not being able to
    attend this meeting in person, but I believe that Harold Blackwolf,
    Sr., Commissioner and Chair of the Fish and Wildlife Committee of the
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, will
    ably present the initial views of the tribes'. Due to the very short
    time frame that was available to prepare this testimony, it was not
    possible to review this testimony with the Commission for which I work,
    the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Klamath River Inter-
    Tribal Fish and Water Commission, nor with the tribes that these three
    commissions serve. For that reason, I would like to request that you
    keep the hearing record on this important piece of legislation open for
    2 weeks so that the tribes and their Commissions may provide you
    additional considered views on the critical questions and issues
    entertained by the Subcommittee Members and witnesses today.
    Recommendation
        The Columbia River treaty tribes are heartened by Congress'
    continued strong support for the funding necessary to implement the
    historic 1999 U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreements, the
    coastwide salmon restoration fund through the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund, and other key salmon management programs and restoration
    efforts. Currently, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is
    authorized through the end of Fiscal Year 2003 at a total funding level
    of $100 million dollars. The Pacific Salmon Recovery Act (S. 1825)
    would authorize funding for four more years, through 2007, at a level
    more than three times the current authorization. At the same time, the
    legislation being considered by the Subcommittee would add additional
    layers of review and may require the duplication of on-going
    coordination and collaboration efforts of the states and tribes. Mainly
    for those reasons, and in consideration of the current budgetary and
    economic situation facing the country, the initial recommendation of
    the Commission is that the current authorizing legislation be modified
    in the following manner:

      -- Extend the authorization for another 6 (six) years through 2009.
            This amendment would capture two life-cycles of coho salmon and
            would ensure that the program covered two life-cycles of the
            chinook salmon.

      -- Amend the authorization to add the State of Idaho to the Fund.

      -- Increase the annual authorized appropriation for the Fund from
            $100 million to at least $132 million, of which:

          $110 million is for the for States of Alaska, California,
                Idaho, Oregon and Washington,

          $18 million is for the tribes served by the Columbia
                River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian
                Fisheries Commission, and the Klamath River Inter-Tribal
                Fish and Water Commission,

          $2 million is to be shared by the Colville Confederated
                Tribes, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and five other coastal
                tribes, and

          $2 million is for the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
                Commission.

      -- Increase the level of annual funding should the Secretary of the
            Interior identify any other qualified tribes or tribal
            organizations. In fact, just as the states qualified to
            participate in this Fund are explicitly identified in the
            current authorization, the clear and explicit definition of the
            participating tribal governments would be helpful. The bulk of
            the tribes or inter-tribal bodies noted above have recognized
            co-management authority under federal case law (U.S. v.
            Washington (Boldt); Hoh v. Baldrige; U.S. v. Oregon; and
            Parravano v. Babbitt). We would note that with regard to tribes
            in Alaska, it would be appropriate to specifically recognize
            those tribal governments (or their coordinating bodies as may
            be appropriate) that participate in the U.S.-Canada Treaty
            process or under the Yukon River Treaty or that are developing
            that capability.

        We are specifically concerned that the proposed legislation appears
    to:

      -- Add additional process, such as another layer of peer review,
            especially when a state or tribal governing body has already
            established a competitive review and technical oversight
            process;

      -- Require pre-approval of an annual spending plan or projects when
            an (MOU) process and/or a government approved restoration plan
            already exists; and,

      -- Focus attention on and narrow funding priorities to ESA-listed
            salmon stocks (thereby encouraging additional listing
            petitions) over meeting comprehensive obligations to restore
            other weak and depressed naturally spawning stocks to optimum
            production.

        We would be more than happy to provide you with specific language
    and commentary on the most current working draft of the proposed
    legislation.

    Commission Status
        The Commission was formed 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 for the purpose of
    coordinating fishery management policy and providing technical
    expertise essential for the protection of the tribes' treaty-protected
    fish resources. Since 1979, the CRITFC has contracted with the BIA
    under the Indian Self-Determination Act (Pub.L. 93-638) to provide this
    technical support. The Commission's primary mission is to provide
    coordination and technical assistance to the member tribes to ensure
    that outstanding treaty fishing rights issues are resolved in a way
    that guarantees the continuation and restoration of our tribal
    fisheries into perpetuity. My testimony today is provided on behalf of
    the tribes.

    Treaties of 1855
        Under treaties negotiated with the United States in 1855,\1\ the
    tribes reserved to themselves several rights as sovereigns, among these
    the right to take fish at all usual and accustomed fishing places. Our
    peoples have exercised this right since time immemorial. Our peoples
    fished during times of drought and during times of floods, during times
    of great runs of salmon and during times of low runs of salmon. As they
    do now, our chiefs and elders watched over the harvest to ensure that
    the people cherished and protected the gift of salmon from the Creator.
    It was the expectation of our treaty negotiators then that the tribes
    would always have access to abundant runs of salmon; it is our
    expectation now that the United States will honor that commitment and
    take the steps necessary to protect our trust resource. This reserved
    right has not been diminished by time and its full exercise has been
    upheld and affirmed in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Yet, our
    ability to fully exercise this right has been compromised by a
    combination of state and federal decisions and management actions
    focused on the short term.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The fact that we now find ourselves in an extremely low water year
    does not lower the standard by which the U.S. must strive to meet to
    honor those obligations; in fact, the drought increases the burden of
    the U.S. and its agencies to ensure that the salmon resource is
    protected from further injury and loss. To honor its commitment now
    means that the United States must ensure that there is water in
    sufficient quantity and quality in the Columbia River to ensure the
    safe passage of out-migrating juveniles as well as for adult salmon
    returning upriver.

    Extra-Legislative Development of Fund
        The development of this salmon restoration fund is intricately tied
    to 5 years (1995-1999) of intense U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    negotiations. The Columbia River treaty tribes, as are the western
    Washington tribes, are a key and integral party to the Treaty.
    Conserving and rebuilding far north migrating chinook stocks from the
    Columbia River and the Washington Coast remains a keystone commitment
    of the Treaty.
        In 1999, the United States and Canada, after several years of
    negotiation, formally renewed their salmon conservation and rebuilding
    programs and their harvest sharing arrangements under the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty. As part of this package of agreements, the Parties
    established two international Restoration and Enhancement Funds for
    research and projects on salmon stocks of interest under the Treaty. Of
    these two Funds, the Southern Boundary Restoration and Enhancement Fund
    will provide funding for projects and research in southern British
    Columbia and the Pacific Northwest (and, at the insistence of Columbia
    River treaty tribal delegates, specifically the Snake River basin).
        Domestically, in 1999 the U.S. Congress under Senators Stevens' and
    Murray's leadership passed legislation to authorize and appropriate
    funding for a similar program, first proposed by the Governors of
    Alaska, Washington, and Oregon at the Sitka Salmon Summit, convened by
    Governor Knowles in May 1996. U.S. representatives to the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty process attended the summit too.
        Governor Knowles convened the Sitka Salmon Summit as a healing tool
    for the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission. In 1995,
    Southeast Alaska chinook salmon fisheries were shut down for
    conservation purposes through court action against Alaska initiated by
    the Columbia River treaty tribes and joined by other treaty tribes, the
    states of Oregon and Washington, and Canada. This occurred only after
    years of negotiation and the implementation of draconian fishery
    management actions in Canadian and Pacific Northwest fisheries. The
    Summit provided a forum for U.S. representatives to begin to resolve
    differences and set a proactive course to rebuild chinook salmon
    stocks, as well as other salmon stocks. Among other initiatives, the
    Governors called for the establishment of a $250 million Fund for
    Pacific Salmon Conservation and Restoration. In June 1996, largely as a
    result of Governor Knowles' initiative, the U.S. was able to agree upon
    and propose to Canada a more responsive abundance-based chinook harvest
    management system.
        In October 1998, the Governor of California joined the Governors of
    Alaska, Washington, and Oregon at the Salmon Homecoming in Seattle,
    where they again requested the establishment of a coastwide salmon
    restoration fund. The Columbia River treaty tribes had submitted a
    similar request a few weeks earlier.
        In 1999, as the loose ends of the Pacific Salmon Treaty
    negotiations were tied up, the Congressional delegations of Alaska,
    Washington, Oregon and California reacted positively and in support of
    the U.S. negotiating team's efforts and success and aggressively moved
    funding measures through the Congress to implement the Treaty's ongoing
    and new bilateral commitments, as well as authorizing and
    appropriations language for the domestic Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund.

    The Tribes' Salmon Restoration Plan
        I want to take this opportunity to note that the tribes, working
    through the Commission, have developed a framework restoration plan,
    Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit or Spirit of the Salmon. I have provided
    copies for the Subcommittee's use, the plan is also available on line
    at www.critfc.org. This plan documents the threats to our fisheries,
    identifies hypotheses based upon adaptive management principles for
    addressing these threats, and provides specific recommendations and
    practices that must be adopted by natural resource managers to
    guarantee their trust responsibilities and meet their treaty
    obligations. In this plan, the tribes have identified the need to
    insure that the burden of conserving these salmon stocks is allocated
    fairly across those land and water uses responsible for their decline.
    Consistent with this need, we have identified changes that hatchery
    programs, forestry, hydroelectric development, irrigation, mining and
    other development activities must make in their operations to ensure
    the recovery of salmon stocks and fisheries. The tribes' ultimate goal
    is to restore a sustainable resource for the benefit of all peoples in
    the Pacific Northwest. Consistent with meeting this goal, each and
    every beneficiary of the river must make sacrifices in times of
    shortage, much as the tribes have voluntarily sacrificed fully
    exercising their right to fish over the last several decades. The
    tribes now call upon those who would generate electricity and those who
    would withdraw water from the rivers to now make that sacrifice, or to
    provide equivalent mitigation when it is demonstrated that such
    sacrifice is impossible.

    The Hydropower System
        With regard to the hydroelectric power system, the tribes continue
    to believe that the four dams in the lower Snake River must be breached
    to ensure the restoration of salmon in that basin. It is clear from the
    scientific data collected over years of study that breaching is the
    only sure course to salmon restoration. In lieu of dam breaching, a
    very aggressive program of increased flows through the reservoirs and
    spills at the dams must be pursued by the federal agencies to increase
    the survival of juvenile out migrants. Based on the overwhelming amount
    of information available from research conducted over the last 30
    years, the tribes do not believe that transporting fish provides
    benefits anywhere near the equivalent of adequate flows and spill.
        We advocate flow and spill not because we believe they are the
    answer to salmon recovery, but because they are the only two management
    actions at our disposal. They will lessen what promise to be unusually
    lethal impacts of the hydropower system at a time when salmon stocks in
    the Snake and upper Columbia River are at dangerously low levels. This
    cannot be considered enhancement but, at best, damage control.
        We have been told that, instead of dam breaching, we will use the
    next eight years for adaptive management. Yet there is a growing
    reluctance to use the information and knowledge we have already
    gathered about the survival of salmon, let alone utilizing additional
    information we may learn by conducting additional studies to improve
    their survival.

    Habitat Conservation and Restoration
        The tribes believe that implementation of their plan will result in
    healthy, sustainable salmon fisheries from Southeast Alaska to the
    headwaters of the Snake River Basin. To protect and recover tributary
    habitat, the plan proposes that land and water managers meet a series
    of habitat conditions associated with survival rates. The use of this
    ``Coarse Screening Process,'' where applicable will define allowable
    levels of watershed impacts consistent with salmon restoration.
        The tribes' salmon plan calls for baseline surveys of watershed and
    in-channel conditions as well as trend monitoring to document watershed
    recovery, test assumptions and validate models used in land management.
    Monitoring needs include egg-to-smolt survival, total smolt production,
    and production per spawning pair in salmon-bearing watersheds. Physical
    monitoring needs in all salmon-bearing watersheds include measuring
    substrate sediment loads, large woody debris, pool frequency, and
    volume, bank stability, and water temperature.
        Adaptive management is a hallmark of the tribes' salmon plan, which
    takes a gravel-to-gravel approach to achieve improvements in survival
    throughout the salmon life-cycle. The tribes' science-based approach to
    land management is supported by independent scientific peer review. To
    halt salmon declines and rebuild healthy runs, the USFS and BLM must
    likewise implement science-based adaptive approaches that integrate
    biological and physical monitoring with land management actions that
    protect and restore salmon habitat.
        The tribes' plan calls for an expedited program of watershed
    restoration actions for the Columbia Basin. The tribes are working in
    partnership with state, federal, and local governments as well as
    private landowners to establish a comprehensive program for
    implementing actions that will restore functioning ecosystems in our
    watersheds. We have developed watershed restoration action plans for
    the 23 salmon bearing watersheds above Bonneville Dam in the Columbia
    Basin. Many of these actions will be carried out on private lands.

    Hatchery Reform
        State and federal hatchery management programs contribute to the
    extirpation of naturally spawning salmon stocks in the basin. The
    tribal goal to put fish back in the river means literally putting the
    fish back. Young salmon, if released at the proper time, will return as
    adults to spawn in the same area they were released as juveniles.
    Consistent with this concept, the tribes, working with the state and
    federal fishery agencies, developed a supplementation protocol so as to
    reform hatcheries to rebuild naturally spawning salmon populations in
    the basin. Utilizing this protocol, the tribes developed integrated
    production plans that can be implemented as research projects to
    restore naturally spawning populations using carefully monitored
    supplementation practices. Under tribal management, hatcheries would be
    used for the restoration of naturally spawning chinook stocks
    throughout the Basin.
        The tribes' plan covers all the areas that must be addressed in
    order to protect salmon stocks and insure their restoration to levels
    consistent with the international obligations of the United States and
    with its trust obligation to the tribes; but that will be the easy
    part: the most difficult obstacle facing the restoration of the salmon
    runs is the lack of political will to tackle the issues head on. We
    will do everything necessary to insure that these runs will be rebuilt.

    Conclusion
        The tribes look forward to working with the state and federal
    governments on effective and efficient salmon restoration programs. We
    believe the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, with some
    modifications to the current authorizing language, can help us in this
    cooperative effort.

        Mr. Blackwolf. On behalf of the other tribes and tribal
    commissions involved in Pacific salmon management that do not
    have witnesses here today, I ask that you keep the hearing
    record open for 2 weeks so they may submit written testimony on
    the important issues being considered. Collectively, the tribes
    would also appreciate the opportunity to submit, for the
    record, written answers to the Subcommittee's questions. The
    tribes welcome the Subcommittee's strong support for programs
    designed to protect, conserve, rebuild, and restore stocks of
    Pacific salmon and the habitat upon which they depend.
        Our programs will require sustained levels of funding and
    programmatic support from Congress to reverse the coast-wide
    declines in salmon populations. These declines have been caused
    by decades of habitat degradation and destruction as a result
    of logging, grazing, and urban development by the use of rivers
    for irrigation and hydropower development or by modifying the
    river systems for transportation and flood control. The tribes
    are not saying that all these activities should stop, as they
    all contribute to healthy regional and national economies, but
    the actions of other river uses and their activities that
    affect the production and productivity of salmon cannot be
    ignored. The effects of these other uses must be minimized or
    reversed when we can do so. Where the effects of these
    activities can be avoided, then they must be mitigated through
    aggressive habitat conservation or restoration programs or
    though hatchery programs designed to protect and support
    naturally spawning populations of salmon.
        These efforts are best undertaken through a collaborative
    and coordinated approach by the states, tribes, federal
    agencies, and other stakeholders. There are already many
    programs operating to do this in the different geographic areas
    of the Pacific Coast. For example, in the Columbia Basin, there
    is a coordinated Fish and Wildlife Program implemented by the
    tribes and states under the Northwest Park Planning Council.
        There are new management recommendations and actions
    proposed and a biological opinion on the Federal Power Supply
    System. These are to be carried out by the Bonneville Power
    Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
    Reclamation, among other managers. Then there are both the base
    and expanded programs of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of
    Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    National Marine Fisheries Service. Independent scientific
    review boards or panels, and additional tribal, state, and
    federal agency scientists review project proposals under these
    various programs. Collectively, these programs benefit not only
    salmon, but other fish and wildlife, as well. They also allow
    all of the other uses of the river system to continue.
        Currently, there is not enough funding available for all of
    the work that has been agreed upon as necessary and useful by
    regional managers. As a result, many important salmon projects
    that have been reviewed and recommended by the scientists do
    not get funded. For that reason, it is critical to get more
    help from Congress.
        Over the last couple of years, the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund has come to play an important role in the
    coordinated efforts of the tribe, states, and federal agencies
    to rebuild and restore our shared salmon resource to healthy,
    sustainable levels. The fund has also allowed the Columbia
    River tribes to coordinate and collaborate on important
    projects with the State of Alaska. This kind of inter-regional
    coordination and collaboration is critically important,
    especially when you remember that sustainable fisheries in
    Southeast Alaska and in other ocean fisheries depend upon
    healthy salmon populations in the Columbia River almost as much
    as do the in-river tribal and non-tribal fisheries. We think
    that the legislation being considered by the Subcommittee
    should allow this kind of productive collaboration to continue.
        We would like to see the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
    continue with increased levels of funding through 2009. This
    will allow salmon managers to capture two more life cycles of
    coho salmon as well as two full cycles of chinook salmon under
    this program. This will also allow for a better long-term
    evaluation of the success of projects that are implemented
    under this fund. Other specific recommendations have been
    provided in the tribe's written testimony.
        Finally, I would like this Subcommittee to know that the
    tribes and state and federal agencies are exploring how best to
    reform the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program to fit into a
    comprehensive salmon restoration effort. The House of
    Representatives have already asked about this program. The
    tribes would welcome your oversight and support on this
    important regional effort, as well.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'll try
    to answer any questions you might have.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. What we're going to do is
    go down the list. I'm going to hand the gavel over to my
    colleague and friend. He's going to run the rest of the
    hearing, because I've got a conflict. I'm going to try to get
    back. But if not, let me just say right now, Mr. Blackwolf,
    what we will do is, we will keep the record open for that
    period of time for you to answer questions and another 2 weeks
    for comments. Without objection, we will do that. So that will
    be done.
        And, Mr. Brazil, I'm so glad you're here, Mr. Dirk Brazil,
    to share my state's perspective. He's the Deputy Director of
    California Fish and Game, which is the agency responsible for
    implementing California's state salmon recovery efforts. My
    first question is, how is my Northern California director
    doing--Tom Bohegan? Is he doing well?
        Mr. Brazil. He's doing very well.
        Senator Boxer. I thought so. He's a friend of mine in
    Northern California. I knew--he paid you to get me to ask that
    question----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. I'm glad. He is a wonderful staffer. Mr.
    Brazil, welcome, and we really look forward to hearing from
    you.

         STATEMENT OF DIRK BRAZIL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
                      DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

        Mr. Brazil. Thank you, Senator Boxer, for having your
    hearing today. As you say, my name is Dirk Brazil. I am a
    Deputy Director for the California Department of Fish and Game.
    I'm here to testify in support of the Pacific Salmon Recovery
    Act, S. 1825.
        I really can't put a finer point on it than either you or
    Congressman Thompson did on the current situation we find
    ourselves with in California. Recovery and management of
    coastal salmon is critical to California, where many of our
    coastal salmon populations are at critically low levels. Nearly
    all of these stocks are listed as threatened or endangered
    under the Endangered Species Act and/or the California
    Endangered Species Act.
        This bill is important to California because it would
    improve our current ability to recover and manage coastal
    salmon, it would authorize Federal funding over a 6-year
    period, thereby allowing the department to implement a more
    comprehensive strategy at the watershed level for restoration
    of coastal salmon and habitat through two complete life cycles
    of coho salmon and one life cycle of chinook salmon. There are
    currently 15 evolutionary significant units of Pacific salmon
    in California, 10 of which are listed under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act and one of which is a candidate.
        As has already been stated earlier, I mean, all of this
    begins and ends with degraded freshwater habitat and,
    therefore, recovery actions are aimed at restoring and
    rehabilitating degraded or blocked freshwater habitat.
    Providing access to healthy former habitat that is now
    inaccessible to salmon because of an impassible dam, culvert,
    or road crossing is one of the most important and least
    intrusive restoration actions that the state is pursuing.
    Providing greater in-stream flows and restoring the natural
    flow cycles is another restorative action needed in many of our
    rivers and streams. Fish screens on water diversions will
    reduce fish losses associated with entrainment of fish in the
    diversion canals or pumps, and habitat restoration projects to
    reduce sediment input from chronic sediment sources are also
    key to rehabilitating spawning streams.
        California has received grants from the Federal Pacific
    Coast Recovery Fund totaling $9 million in 2000 and 2001 and 15
    million-and-some-odd dollars in 2001/2002, and I'm here to say,
    combined with state dollars, we've put this money to good use.
    It's all on the ground, and a lot of it has already been
    successfully implemented--such things as salmon habitat
    restoration projects, planning and assessment, outreach and
    education, and the list goes on.
        Federal funding for coastal salmon recovery in California
    flows directly to on-the-ground needs implemented by nonprofit
    organizations, local public agencies, small businesses, and
    private individuals. These dollars have funded many worthwhile
    projects. Through the grant process, we developed a review and
    determined which projects could receive funding. Four hundred
    and thirty six barriers have been removed, and the California
    Conservation Corps have planted 1.3 million trees in the
    riparian zones of 120 streams.
        Madam Chairwoman, because your bill would authorize funding
    over a fixed period of years, this would allow the department
    to implement a more comprehensive plan at the watershed level
    for restoration of salmon and steelhead habitat. A fixed
    funding period of 6 years, for instance, would also allow
    evaluation of fishery response to occur through two complete
    life cycles of coho salmon. In addition, the current level of
    funding may not be adequate to recover salmon in a timely
    manner. This bill would provide additional funding at this
    critical juncture before stocks decline to a point where
    recovery is problematic.
        Proposals in California receive an intensive technical and
    field review that weigh heavily on the priorities for each
    basin. I won't go into all the detail. All of this is in
    written testimony. But suffice it to say that we have five
    levels of review that begin with the technical work on the
    ground and then at the director's office in Sacramento.
        As I mentioned at the outset, the Salmon Recovery Act is
    vitally important to California, and we applaud you for your
    leadership on this issue. We have a few areas of concern, all
    of which have been touched upon earlier. I won't go into
    detail. Again, they are in the written record. The only thing
    to say is that our concerns with that are all related to our
    ability to be flexible and to get these programs on the ground
    as quickly as possible, and that's all that we're concerned
    about. We have a system in California that seems to be working.
    It grows on a--it's growing by leaps and bounds, and we want to
    continue to support that growth.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brazil follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Dirk Brazil, Deputy Director, California
                          Department of Fish and Game

    Introduction
        Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    holding this hearing today. My name is Dirk Brazil. I am a Deputy
    Director of the California Department of Fish and Game and I am here on
    behalf of our Director, Robert C. Hight, to testify in support of the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Act (S. 1825). In addition, I want to thank
    you, Madame Chairwoman, for introducing this important bill and for
    working closely with the Department on it.

    Importance to California
        Recovery and management of coastal salmon is critical to
    California. As I describe in greater detail later in my testimony, many
    of California's coastal salmon populations are at critically low
    levels. Nearly all of these stocks are listed as threatened or
    endangered under the Endangered Species Act and/or the California
    Endangered Species Act.
        As you know, California is the most populous and third largest
    state in the nation, as well as the fifth largest economy in the world.
    With over 70 percent of California's population residing in coastal
    counties where these runs of salmon occur, it is not surprising that
    these listings have had an adverse impact on important parts of the
    state's economy--commercial and sport fisheries and related industries,
    timber management, agriculture, ranching, urban development, mining,
    and recreation.
        This bill is important to California because it would improve our
    current ability to recover and manage coastal salmon. It would
    authorize federal funding over a 6 year period, thereby allowing the
    Department to implement a more comprehensive strategy at the watershed
    level for restoration of coastal salmon and habitat through two
    complete life cycles of coho salmon and one life cycle of chinook
    salmon.

    Status and Recovery Needs of California's Salmon Stocks
        There are 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units of pacific salmon in
    California, 10 of which are listed under the Federal Endangered Species
    Act, and one of which is a candidate for listing. Attached for your
    information is a table entitled: ``Federal and State Endangered Species
    Act Status for California's Anadromous Salmonids as of 1/18/02'' which
    provides a summary of the listings.
        The primary reason for salmon declines is degraded freshwater
    habitat. Therefore, recovery actions are aimed at restoring and
    rehabilitating degraded or blocked freshwater habitat. Providing access
    to healthy former habitat that is now inaccessible to salmon because of
    an impassable dam, culvert, or road crossing is one of the most
    important and least intrusive restoration actions that the state is
    pursuing. Providing greater instream flows and restoring the natural
    flow cycles is another restorative action needed in many of our rivers
    and streams. Adequate fish screens on water diversions will reduce fish
    losses associated with entrainment of fish into diversion canals or
    into pumps. Habitat restoration projects to reduce sediment input from
    chronic sediment sources (roads, landslides, etc.) are key to
    rehabilitating spawning streams that are degraded by an excess of
    sediment.

    State Commitment to Coastal Salmon Restoration
        California's commitment to restoration of coastal salmon habitat
    has been demonstrated over the last 22 years. In 1981, in response to
    rapidly declining populations of salmon and steelhead trout and
    deteriorating salmonid habitat, a Fishery Restoration Grants Program
    (FRGP) was established in the Department of Fish and Game. Since 1981,
    the FRGP has awarded funding to more than 2,000 projects, totaling more
    than $100 million in grant funds. Sources of the state funding have
    included:

        Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card (up to $100,000 per year),

        Salmon Stamp (up to $250,000 per year),

        The Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988 ($100,000
            per year through 2001),

        Water Bond Act of 2000 ($25 million over three years),

        SB 271 creating the Salmon and Steelhead Restoration
            Account (up to $8 million per year through 2002), and

        California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks,
            and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (funding level per year
            currently uncertain, to begin in 2003).

    Federal Commitment to Coastal Salmon Restoration
        California received grants from the federal Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund totaling $9,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2000/2001 and
    $15,086,400 in Fiscal Year 2001/2002. During Fiscal Year 2000/2001, the
    combination of state and federal funds totaled $23,169,969, which the
    State used to fund the following types of restoration projects:

        Salmon Habitat Restoration Projects--104 projects totaling
            $8,361,114 in state funds; and 80 projects totaling $6,714,010
            in federal salmon recovery funds.

        Planning and Assessment Projects--39 projects totaling
            $2,405,428 in state funds; and 17 projects totaling $876,872 in
            federal salmon recovery funds.

        Salmon Research and Monitoring Projects--8 projects
            totaling $1,260,606 in state funds; and 7 projects totaling
            $231,546 in federal salmon recovery funds.

        Outreach and Education Projects--26 projects totaling
            $536,036 in state funds; and 9 projects totaling $355,054 in
            federal salmon recovery funds.

        Salmon Enhancement/Supplementation Projects--8 projects
            totaling $249,474 in state funds; and 2 projects totaling
            $38,065 in federal salmon recovery funds.

        Local Capacity Building and Organizational Support
            Projects--24 projects totaling $1,671,758 in state funds; and 8
            projects totaling $470,006 in federal salmon recovery funds.

        Federal funding for coastal salmon recovery in California flows
    directly to on-the-ground needs implemented by non-profit
    organizations, local public agencies, small businesses, and private
    individuals. These dollars have funded many worthwhile projects.
    Through the grant process we developed to review and determine which
    projects would receive funding, 436 barriers have been removed and the
    California Conservation Corps have planted 1.3 million trees in the
    riparian zones of 120 streams.
        Madame Chairwoman, because your bill would authorize funding over a
    fixed period of years, this would allow the Department to implement a
    more comprehensive plan at the watershed level for restoration of
    salmon and steelhead habitat. A fixed funding period of 6 years, for
    instance, would also allow evaluation of fishery response to occur
    through two complete life cycles of coho salmon. In addition, the
    current level of funding may not be adequate to recover salmon in a
    timely manner. This bill would provide additional funding at this
    critical juncture before stocks decline to a point where recovery is
    problematic. We have a need for additional funding because California
    has 840 miles of coastline with many anadromous fish streams that need
    to be restored. By way of comparison, Oregon has 296 miles and
    Washington has 157 miles of coastline.
        California also receives federal funding for the restoration of
    salmon habitat in the Central Valley, but these stocks are managed
    separately from coastal salmon. These federal funds are provided
    through the following four programs that support projects such as
    screening and fish passage projects; however, none of these monies are
    available for use on the coastal stocks of salmon:

        The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), funded
            annually by the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill through a
            surcharge imposed on Central Valley Project water and power
            contractors, has provided $39,323,500 for over 70 projects to
            restore anadromous fish habitat.

        Since 1996, state and federal agencies that are part of the
            CALFED Bay-Delta Program have awarded more than $335 million in
            grants for some 323 projects that help achieve ecosystem
            restoration goals, ranging from fish ladders that help salmon
            bypass dams to habitat and water-quality improvements.

        The Four-Pumps Agreement has provided $20 million in state
            funds for mitigating the effects on salmon for operation of the
            State Water Project.

        The Tracy Fish Facility Mitigation Program has awarded $4
            million in federal funds to offset losses of salmon at the
            Tracy Pumping Plant.

    Process for Targeting and Awarding Pacific Coastal Salmon Funds
        The Department uses basin planning to strategically target grant
    funds to the highest priority projects within watersheds. An example of
    a basin plan includes the recently completed Draft Russian River Basin
    Restoration Plan, which identifies key areas for restorative actions by
    streams, reaches, and watershed sub-basins. The plan prioritizes
    salmonid restoration priorities specific to tributaries and sub-basins,
    and also identifies needs for additional study. Progress is also being
    made to integrate watershed-level information provided by the multi-
    agency North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP). Several state
    agencies are working in concert to collect and analyze information
    designed to characterize current and past watershed conditions. A
    ``synthesis report'' is developed for each hydrologic unit by NCWAP,
    which will provide the Fishery Restoration Grants Program with
    information about the priority areas where restoration is most needed.
    This information will be used for planning restoration program grant
    priorities and provide valuable information from cumulative watershed
    effects analysis for basin-wide planning efforts and development of
    long-term restoration strategies.
        Proposals in California receive intensive technical and field
    reviews that weigh heavily the priorities of each basin. Once a Request
    for Proposal (RFP) is received by the FRGP, it is subjected to five
    levels of review, as follows:

       1. Upon receiving a proposal, a Technical Review Team (TRT) is
            convened to evaluate proposals using criteria described in the
            RFP. This team is comprised of Department fishery specialists,
            NMFS staff, and Department of Conservation, California Geologic
            Survey (CGS) personnel having extensive experience in
            evaluating restoration proposals. First, the TRT reviews
            proposals to determine if they meet all of the administrative
            requirements of the RFP. Then, the TRT prepares a pre-
            evaluation of each proposal with focused questions for field
            regional evaluators. This review also provides the CGS
            representative the opportunity to identify projects that need a
            field engineer's review. The evaluation criteria provide the
            means to determine biological soundness, and the technical and
            cost effectiveness of the proposals.

       2. During the second level of review, projects are reviewed at the
            site by field regional evaluators in order to evaluate, make
            comments, and score proposals (in compliance with contract law)
            to determine if they will lead to restorative actions.

       3. During the third level of review, regional evaluator scores,
            response to TRT questions, and comments are reviewed again by
            the TRT. Based on this review, the TRT may assign a different
            score to projects, in accordance with the criteria described in
            the RFP. All proposals, not administratively rejected, are
            forwarded with Department evaluation scores and comments, to
            the California Coastal Salmonids Restoration Grants Peer Review
            Committee.

       4. This committee, established by legislation, acting autonomously
            in a fourth level of review, evaluates each proposal and makes
            recommendations for funding priorities, as well as
            recommendations for limitations to dollar amounts to be funded,
            and provides the Director with a prioritized list of projects
            for funding.

       5. This list of recommended proposals is then forwarded to the
            Director for the fifth, and final level of review and approval.

    Pacific Salmon Recovery Act: California Issues
        As I mentioned at the outset, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act is
    vitally important to California, and we applaud Senator Boxer for her
    leadership on this issue. We have a few areas of concern with the
    legislation as it is currently written. However, we are confident that
    all of our concerns can be resolved. They are the following:

       1. The restriction of the state's share of matching funds to those
            available only in the Department's Coastal Salmon Recovery
            Program. We recommend changing the language of the bill to lift
            this restriction. This would allow the Department to continue
            using a variety of state matching funds, such as the state
            Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, the North Coast Watershed
            Assessment Program, the 2000 Water Bond Act (Prop. 13), the
            2000 Park Bond Act (Prop. 12), and the recently passed Prop.
            40, among others.

       2. The requirement for the formation of a redundant peer review
            group. Proposals in California are subjected to five levels of
            review. We recommend amending the bill to recognize and allow
            current alternative scientific review or peer review processes
            to continue. This redundancy could unduly threaten the timely
            application of restoration funds to much-needed remedial
            projects.

       3. The requirement for a completed California Salmon Conservation
            and Habitat Plan by the end of the first fiscal year. We
            support the requirement of a California Salmon Conservation and
            Habitat Restoration Plan as a condition of receiving funds, but
            respectfully request that each state be allowed 2 years to
            develop the plan, and that funds not be withheld during these 2
            years of plan preparation.

       4. The bill requires the submittal and approval of an annual
            spending plan ``which shall include a description of the
            projects and programs that the state or tribe plans to
            implement with the funds allocated.'' During the initial review
            of this bill, we interpreted this to be a general description
            of the types of projects that will be implemented by the
            program and not a detailed description of projects to be
            implemented. For California to provide a detailed description
            of the projects would require waiting until after the Director
            approved a list of specific detailed projects for each annual
            funding cycle and then submitting these individual projects to
            the Secretary of Commerce for another level of approval. This
            final level of approval would unduly delay and potentially
            eliminate many projects important to California.

        Through our grant cycle, proposals are received each May, field
    reviewed from June to September, scored in October, reviewed and
    proposed for funding by the California Coastal Salmonids Restoration
    Grants Peer Review Committee in November, and approved for funding by
    the Director in January. February through June is reserved for
    finalizing contracts and gaining permits. Most projects have to be
    implemented during the summer field season (which is most often July to
    September when listed species are not in the area). To delay grant
    awards until the Secretary makes a final decision on a detailed
    description of projects will, most likely, cause these contractors to
    lose a full field season. The loss of one full field season could
    jeopardize the program's ability to implement in-stream restoration
    projects due to limitations on state contracts--funds must be spend
    within 3 years of the date of encumbrance or the funding disappears.
    Because many complex on-the-ground projects take the full 3 years to
    complete, the funding could disappear if the first field season is
    lost. This would also delay the timely delivery of federal funds to
    worthy projects.
        Therefore, we request clarification of the language ``shall include
    a description of projects and programs. . . .'' If this language means
    anything more than a generic description of the kinds of projects, this
    requirement would adversely impact the program. We agree that there
    should be federal oversight to ensure federal funds are expended
    prudently, and propose that each recipient provide the Secretary with
    annual spending reports detailing the type and number of projects
    funded the previous year (rather than a detailed description of
    projects for approval).

    Conclusion
        In closing, I wish to reiterate the Department's thanks to you for
    holding this hearing, and for inviting the Department to appear before
    you today. We look forward to continuing to work with Senator Boxer and
    the other states and tribes. I would be pleased to answer any questions
    you may have.
                                     ______

        Attached is an update of California and Federal Endangered Species
    Act status for California anadromous salmonids as of 1/18/02. Please
    discard previous versions. This version reflects the publication of the
    Final 4d Rule establishing protective regulations for Central
    California Coast Coho Salmon, Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon,
    California Coastal Chinook Salmon, and Northern California Steelhead
    (Fed. Reg. 1/9/02). Please note the effective date for this 4d Rule is
    3/11/02.

                   Federal and State Endangered Species Act Status for California Anadromous Salmonids
                                                [as of January 18, 2002]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                CRITICAL  HABITAT    ESA SECTION 9
         SPECIES:  ESU (ESA) or            STATUS          EFFECTIVE DATE OF        DESIGNATED?    TAKE PROHIBITIONS
       Population segment (CESA)                           LISTING or ACTION                           APPLY? \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COHO SALMON
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ESA--Southern Oregon/Northern    threatened........  June 5, 1997.........  Yes..............  Yes (Interim 4d
     Calif. Coasts.                                                                                 Rule 7/18/97)
    ESA--Central California Coast..  threatened........  Dec. 2, 1996.........  Yes..............  Yes (eff. 3/11/
                                                                                                    02) \2\
    CESA--South of San Francisco     endangered........  Dec. 31, 1995........
     Bay.
    CESA--North of San Francisco...  candidate.........  Apr. 27, 2001........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CHINOOK SALMON
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ESA--Sacramento River Winter-    endangered........  Emergency listed as    Yes..............  Yes (2/3/94)
     Run.                                                 threatened Aug 1989;
                                                          final listed as
                                                          threatened Nov 1990;
                                                          reclassified as
                                                          endangered Feb 3,
                                                          1994.
    ESA--Central Valley Spring-Run.  threatened........  Nov. 15, 1999........  Yes..............  Yes (eff. 3/11/
                                                                                                    02)
    ESA--Central Valley Fall and     candidate.........  Sep. 16, 1999........  na...............  na
     Late Fall-Run.
    ESA--Southern Oregon and         not warranted.....  Sep. 16, 1999........  na...............  na
     Northern California Coastal.
    ESA--California Coastal........  threatened........  Nov. 15, 1999........  Yes..............  Yes (eff. 3/11/
                                                                                                    02)
    ESA--Upper Klamath--Trinity      not warranted.....  March 9, 1998........  na...............  na
     Rivers.
    CESA--Sacramento River Winter-   endangered........  Sep. 22, 1989........
     Run.
    CESA--Sacramento River Spring-   threatened........  February 5, 1999.....
     Run.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STEELHEAD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ESA--Southern California \3\...  endangered........  October 17, 1997.....  Yes..............  Yes (10/17/97)
    ESA--South-Central California    threatened........  October 17, 1997.....  Yes..............  Yes (7/10/2000)
     Coast.
    ESA--Central California Coast..  threatened........  October 17, 1997.....  Yes..............  Yes (7/10/2000)
    ESA--Central Valley, California  threatened........  May 18, 1998.........  Yes..............  Yes (7/10/2000)
    ESA--Northern California.......  threatened........  August 7, 2000.......  No...............  Yes (eff. 3/11/
                                                                                                    02)
    ESA--Klamath Mountains Province  not warranted.....  March 28, 2001.......  na...............  na
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT \4\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ESA--Southern Oregon/California  not warranted.....  April 5, 1999........  na...............  na
     Coasts.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For species listed as ESA endangered, ESA Section 9 take prohibitions apply when final listing becomes
      effective. For ESA threatened species, Section 9 take prohibitions do not apply unless and until an ESA
      Section 4(d) rule is promulgated.
    \2\ Supersedes 4d Rule promulgated 10/31/96.
    \3\ NMFS has proposed to extend the range of the Southern California ESU to include populations of steelhead
      that occur in watersheds south of Malibu Creek to, and including, San Mateo Creek in San Diego County.
    \4\ ESA jurisdiction for coastal cutthroat trout was transferred from NMFS to the USFWS on 11/22/99.

        Senator Boxer. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Brazil. And it
    certainly is our intent to make this work with the states. And
    I'm very proud of the work that you're doing in the state, by
    the way, and I just feel it is crucial that we help you with
    it.
        I just would close and say that the point you made about
    the continuity of the funding, that it is for a set period of
    years, is very important. You know, I was thinking, you know,
    when we do things in our own lives, we want a sense of
    certainty. If we buy a house, we don't just say we're going to
    buy it for 2 years, you know. You know, we're talking about
    here a home to species, and we have to make it work and,
    therefore, I think this commitment to the long-term is very
    important.
        And it is with pride that I hand the gavel over to you,
    Senator Smith, although hopefully not permanently after the
    next election.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Smith. In the meantime, I won't do anything rash, I
    promise.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. I know. And so you can introduce your Oregon
    witness. Thank you all.
        Senator Smith (presiding). Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        Geoff Huntington, from Oregon, good to see you and nice to
    have you here. Thank you for coming to testify. The mike is
    yours.

    STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON
                      WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT BOARD

        Mr. Huntington. Thank you for the opportunity, and it's
    nice to see you, Senator Smith. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify in support of S. 1825. And, as Senator Smith knows a
    lot of the details of the Oregon plan for salmon and
    watersheds, I think I still will spend a few minutes talking
    about that so that we can get a good sense in the room of what
    Oregon is doing to recover endangered fish stocks and also
    promote sustainable watershed health.
        Oregon has been actively working to recover the health of
    our watersheds for over a decade, and those efforts are now
    guided by something called the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
    Watersheds, which I think of as being essentially a four-legged
    stool that provides a solid base for recovering fish stocks.
    First we coordinate the delivery of agency programs and
    regulations in order to improve habitat and water quality and
    riparian function. On top of that regulatory baseline and
    coordination of agency programs, we have a dedication of state
    funds for watershed restoration projects that are voluntarily
    undertaken by private landowners to accomplish what regulation
    can't and to advance watershed health in their local area. The
    third leg of that stool, then, is an integrated monitoring
    program that Oregon is implementing that provides information
    and feedback over the long-term of the effectiveness of our
    efforts and our ability to see if the outcomes we desire are
    being accomplished or we're moving toward them, at least. And
    fourth, we have oversight and review by an independent science
    panel to keep everybody on track and honest.
        The plan is institutionalized in statute; in rule, by
    executive order; and by a state constitutional commitment
    dedication of funds. And it is into this structure that the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds are integrated and
    invested so that both the federal and the state's commitments
    are leveraged to accomplish more than either could alone.
        My board, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, functions
    much like a foundation. We award about $25 million a year in
    grants for voluntary projects on private lands using a
    competitive process. We receive about 500 applications annually
    and fund between a third and a half of those.
        Attached to my testimony is Oregon's report to the National
    Marine Fisheries Service that details how we invested the state
    and federal dollars during an 18-month reporting period from
    June to December. In that time, we committed $38 million in
    state funds to voluntary restoration projects and activities
    associated in supporting those projects. Of that, about $10.9
    million was federal funds.
        I've made the attachments to this report also available to
    Committee staff, because I think that they're interesting to
    take a look at. You can just thumb through the attachments and
    see, out of the 538 projects that we funded during this
    reporting period, get a brief description of the types of folks
    that are receiving money, both federal and state, and the kinds
    of projects they're undertaking and the breadth and scope of
    Oregon's program for helping to promote sustainable watershed
    health and, in the process, recover fish stocks that have been
    listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
        With this backdrop, I again want to say that Oregon
    supports S. 1825, but that some minor changes probably merit
    the attention of the Committee. In Oregon's perspective, where
    a state has a longstanding program promoting recovery that's
    backed by both science and substantial investments of both
    state and federal funds, it seems that everything reasonable
    should be done to ensure that federal dollars that are invested
    to accomplish the same outcomes take advantage of and use
    what's already working rather than add new layers of
    requirements.
        And with a couple of adjustments to two portions of the
    bill, in particular, I think we can be well on our way to that.
    For example, the science-based peer review of projects is of
    concern to Oregon, and I appreciated the Chair's willingness to
    talk about this and work through it. While section four
    establishes a peer review process that offers one approach to
    ensuring accountable investments based on scientific review of
    proposed projects, it's not the only way to get there, and, in
    fact, it may ultimately be at odds with the realities faced by
    states like Oregon that are implementing a restoration grant
    program that's premised on helping landowners in a variety of
    ways. We have a peer review process in Oregon that is science
    based. It's three levels, with technical projects teams looking
    at the merit of individual applications for funds and the
    strategic investment of peer review done at the board level
    which has broad representation that includes federal and state
    resource agencies and then at a program level that again is
    provided by our independent science panel.
        I think that where a state provides this level of
    accountability review along with a strong monitoring program,
    it should be recognized in lieu of a federally designated
    process that imposes a one-size-fits-all. And I think that
    everyone at this table probably is very comfortable saying that
    we want to and are willing to ensure accountability for both
    the federal investments and the investments of state dollars
    and that we want to do that in a process that is readily
    transparent to taxpayers that we're all accountable to. It
    would be our view in Oregon that we can accomplish both goals
    by having a process that's flexible and accommodates some of
    the realities of the individual implementers of this program.
        We have some minor concerns also about the spending plan
    that I won't go into, given the short time that's available,
    but, again, none that I don't think can't be readily resolved
    and we're already working to do that. Oregon will always be at
    the table to figure out a collaborative way to make S. 1825
    work and to invest these federal dollars in conjunction with
    our state funds.
        And I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about that
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Huntington follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Geoffrey M. Huntington, Executive Director,
                       Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present testimony
    regarding Oregon's efforts to restore endangered salmon and the health
    of our watersheds generally, and S. 1825 specifically. I especially
    want to thank Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, Senator Wyden, and the
    other cosponsors for introducing this legislation; and Representative
    Thompson for his success in having the House of Representatives pass
    H.R. 1157 by such a large majority: 418 to 6. I also thank the Members
    for the willingness they have expressed to have states suggest ways to
    modify the bill to better accommodate the needs of state and tribal
    governments participating in the program.
        Oregon wishes to address the Subcommittee on four substantive
    areas: The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Oregon's Investments
    in Voluntary Restoration Actions, Fiscal and Effectiveness
    Accountability, and Specific Comments on S. 1825.

    I. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
        Oregon's efforts to recover listed anadromous fish runs is guided
    by a unique blend of efforts integrated to deliver a single mission:

             ``To restore our native fish populations--and the aquatic
            systems that support them--to productive and sustainable levels
            that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and
            economic values to Oregonians.''

        The Oregon Plan has four components: coordinated delivery of agency
    programs promoting improved habitat, water quality, and riparian
    functions; funding of local and private watershed restoration actions
    undertaken voluntarily; monitoring the effectiveness of recovery and
    restoration efforts; and independent scientific review and oversight.
    The plan has been institutionalized in statute, executive order, agency
    regulations, and dedicated state funding necessary to sustain voluntary
    restoration and habitat improvement efforts by landowners.
        While the Oregon Plan is built on a foundation of existing federal
    and state laws, the backbone of Oregon's recovery efforts is the
    state's local citizen efforts to restore habitat and improve water
    quality through watershed councils and soil and water conservation
    districts. There will be no recovery of native salmon stocks without
    the active (and voluntary) participation of landowners who control more
    than 60 percent of the freshwater habitat of coho salmon runs.
    Successful recovery will be accomplished only by investing in watershed
    enhancements on these private lands that comprise mile after mile of
    critical stream reaches throughout the state.
        Currently, Oregon has a network of over 90 local councils and 45
    districts comprised of landowners, local conservation groups, private
    companies with land holdings, and state and federal agencies--most
    operating by consensus to encourage, support, and implement voluntary
    habitat restoration projects on private lands in their local watershed.
    This restoration infrastructure which is now thriving was established
    for a variety of reasons, not simply because of the listing of a dozen
    salmon stocks under the federal ESA involving over 75 percent of the
    land area of the state. Local groups are implementing a multitude of
    projects including assessments of watershed conditions, fencing and
    planting stream banks for vegetation recovery, replacing road culverts
    that block fish passage, eliminating roads or resurfacing roads to
    eliminate sediment delivery to streams, placing large wood and boulders
    in streams to enhance habitat, modifying inefficient (and often
    unscreened) irrigation systems in order to return water for instream
    flows, and encouraging new agricultural land management practices to
    improve water quality.
        In all, these efforts are changing the outlook for recovering
    dwindling fish runs by improving riparian habitat conditions beyond
    that which is needed for individual landowners to simply avoid ``take''
    under the federal ESA. The work is slow however, because the
    accomplishments occur stream mile by stream mile in every tributary
    that is key to survival of the wild salmon; and stable funding is
    critical to sustaining progress.

    II. Oregon's Investments in Voluntary Restoration Efforts
        Oregon has been promoting and funding voluntary restoration
    activities for more than 14 years. OWEB currently administers $24
    million in active watershed restoration grants implementing over 340
    projects and activities around the state. OWEB is responsible for
    investing up to $15 million annually from state lottery funds
    constitutionally dedicated to watershed and salmon habitat improvement,
    along with other private and federal funds administered by the agency.
    From June 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001, OWEB received a $24 million
    appropriation to the State of Oregon by Congress from the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. These funds have been administered by
    OWEB in tandem with the state funds using established eligibility
    criteria and funding mechanisms currently in place.
        OWEB's investment of public funds in watershed restoration efforts
    is guided by a 17 member board comprised of a representative from each
    of the state's natural resources commissions, Native American tribes,
    five federal agencies, the land grant university extension service, and
    five distinguished citizens from different parts of the state. Criteria
    for assessing proposals and awarding funds are established by rule, and
    are applied by regional teams comprised of state and federal natural
    resource field staff with first hand knowledge of local conditions.
    These teams use their collective expertise to review grant applications
    and make funding recommendations to the OWEB Board. Virtually any
    person or entity owning land, local council, private non-profit, or
    governmental entity may seek funding for restoration activities that
    will improve habitat or watershed health generally; and OWEB considers
    nearly 500 such requests annually.
        Limitations on the use of dedicated state lottery funds require the
    majority of OWEB's state funds to be spent on on-the-ground watershed
    enhancement projects and acquisitions. Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund dollars provide important flexibility enabling the OWEB
    Board to support watershed councils, watershed assessments, technical
    assistance for project design, effectiveness monitoring, and education
    and outreach projects-all of which are essential to achieving
    restoration of salmon and watershed health. By seamlessly integrating
    use of the federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program dollars
    into Oregon's existing infrastructure that invests in voluntary salmon
    recovery and watershed enhancement efforts, OWEB is able to
    substantially enhance the effectiveness of the Oregon Plan for Salmon
    and Watersheds.
        Attached to this testimony is Oregon's recent progress report on
    expenditures of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund awarded from June
    1, 2000, to December 31, 2001. This report was provided to the National
    Marine Fisheries Service in April 2002, to document Oregon's
    investments of state and federal funds by project categories. The
    attached report summarizes those investments. A complete report with
    attachments that itemize all of the individual investments made by the
    State of Oregon during the reporting period has been provided to
    Subcommittee staff to be made available to the Members. The attachments
    to the full report provide thumbnail summaries of the 538 ongoing and
    completed projects for this reporting period, making it easy to see the
    breadth and scope of Oregon's restoration investments.

    III. Fiscal and Effectiveness Accountability

    A. Fiscal Accountability
        An independent audit of OWEB's fiscal controls, grant award
    criteria, and grant management program completed in March, 2000 found
    the program has in place appropriate financial controls and grant
    review criteria to ensure accountability for use of public funds. OWEB
    and the National Marine Fisheries Service have an agreement in place
    governing expenditure of current and any future money distributed from
    the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program. That agreement ensures
    that the federal funds will be administered for activities supporting
    recovery of the listed anadromous salmon using OWEB's existing project
    funding criteria established in state statute and rule. This means that
    the federal funds are being used for the same types of voluntary
    restoration projects and watershed assessment and monitoring work that
    the Board is currently investing in; and with the same emphasis on
    fiscal accountability.

    B. Effectiveness Accountability
        Oregon has established a three-prong approach to ensure
    accountability for the effectiveness of investments in restoring
    watersheds and recovering salmon habitat. First, by emphasizing strong
    peer science and technical review of all applications seeking
    investment of restoration funds from OWEB. Second, by implementing a
    monitoring program designed to assess the effectiveness of Oregon's
    restoration and recovery efforts. Third, by providing programmatic
    oversight of all Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds activities by an
    independent science team so that principles of adaptive management can
    be used to adjust and modify Oregon's approach to recovery and
    restoration over time.

    1. Peer Review of Project Applications
        All grant applications seeking OWEB funds receive three kinds of
    peer review in addition to fiscal controls on expenditures. First, a
    technical multi-discipline team of 12-15 people reviews each proposal.
    This team evaluates the proposal and determines whether the proposed
    site, objective, and technology are sound and well suited to accomplish
    the identified restoration objectives. If one element does not work
    with the other, modifications are proposed or the project application
    is recommended for denial.
        Second, the technical team forwards its recommendations to the 17-
    member OWEB Board, which meets formally four times a year to award
    restoration project grants. As set forth above, five citizens, one
    tribal representative, five state and five federal resource and
    regulatory agency representatives, and a University Extension Service
    representative compose the Board. As a result, grants must address
    environmental priorities, and each receives a high level interagency
    review and coordination, with the state and federal agency
    representatives providing technical input and advice on project
    sufficiency to the voting members of the Board.
        Third, Oregon's independent science panel retains oversight
    responsibility for the overall program, including award criteria, to
    ensure sound science is the basis for program implementation. Other
    functions of this science panel are addressed in this testimony in
    Section III below.

    2. Project and Programmatic Monitoring
        OWEB is charged with developing a comprehensive system for the
    collection, management, and reporting of natural resources information
    in Oregon. This includes monitoring the long-term effectiveness of
    restoration and recovery efforts. OWEB is carrying out this legislative
    directive with the collaboration of state and federal agencies,
    universities, and local entities to implement a suite of monitoring
    activities that will identify whether restoration actions are
    adequately addressing key habitat issues and whether investments in
    recovery and restoration are having the desired cumulative effect.
        Already, implementation monitoring is being done by local groups
    and state agencies to ensure that individual restoration projects are
    performing as anticipated. State and federal agencies have also
    initiated effectiveness monitoring programs in all coastal basins to
    learn how our restoration efforts are affecting species and associated
    habitat on a watershed scale. OWEB oversees an interagency monitoring
    team which coordinates federal and state monitoring of water quality,
    species, and stream, estuarine, and upland conditions.
        Within the last six months, Oregon has established the foundation
    for an institutionalized statewide monitoring program aimed at
    providing a comprehensive picture of Oregon's watersheds and specie
    recovery efforts. Building this collaborative statewide program has
    been made possible both by the Oregon Governor's and Legislature's
    recognition of the importance of pursuing this task, and by Congress'
    support for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. The combination
    of state and federal support for effectiveness monitoring will provide
    federal, state, and local decision makers with long-term, reliable
    information on recovery trends and progress toward ultimate restoration
    objectives that has not historically been available.

    3. Science Panel Oversight
        When the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds was first
    established, a science team was created to advise the state on all
    matters of science related to implementation of the plan and the
    effectiveness of efforts aimed at restoring native fish populations and
    the health of Oregon's watersheds. This science panel (called the
    Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team) also reflects key
    provisions of a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Oregon and
    the National Marine Fisheries Service. As part of its responsibilities,
    this panel has the capacity to review OWEB's grant program as well as
    the adequacy and appropriateness of the monitoring efforts discussed
    above to ensure that funding decisions and long-term assessments of
    progress continue to be based on sound science.

    IV. Comments Specific to S. 1825

    A. Peer Review Provisions
        Section 4 of S. 1825 establishes a peer review process modeled upon
    that of the Northwest Power Planning Council. That peer review process
    evolved from and reflects the Council's unique needs, in which members
    representing the four states became responsible for reviewing and
    approving projects submitted by their colleagues. This is an effective
    model for the Council and could usefully serve as a default process for
    states that do not have a peer review process for their restoration
    projects. However, it is not as effective as scientific review
    processes like Oregon's and Washington's that are tailored to ensuring
    accountability while also addressing the realities of implementing
    locally sponsored restoration projects. For this reason, Oregon
    suggests that Section 4 be amended to allow a state to use a scientific
    review process that is mandated in state statute and regulations in
    lieu of a federally imposed process.

    B. Annual Spending Plan Provisions
        On first reading, Section 3's requirement of an annual spending
    plan makes good sense. However, upon reflection the provision
    inadvertently reverses the community based process that has guided and
    been at the heart of watershed restoration programs in Oregon from
    their inception. The provision creates a process in which a federal
    administrator would/could set the priorities for local watershed
    councils. Oregon recommends that subsection 3(a) be dropped and
    replaced with an annual report of expenditures to insure continued
    accountability. It appears that this could be accomplished with
    amendments to current language in Section 7 of the bill.

    C. Conservation and Salmon Restoration Plan Provisions
        Where a state has through statute or regulation established a
    comprehensive plan for restoring watersheds and promoting the recovery
    of listed fish stocks, that plan should be accepted by the National
    Marine Fisheries Service after expedited review. Perhaps the most
    valuable lesson learned from the current efforts to protect and restore
    native salmonids in the Northwest is that it is critical to honor
    different approaches in different areas as the most appropriate vehicle
    to promote recovery of listed stocks. Restoring watersheds and
    enhancing critical fish habitat occurs stream mile by stream mile and
    watershed by watershed using a variety of different approaches. Bill
    provisions mandating a conservation and salmon restoration plan must
    honor this premise or risk impeding state and local efforts to
    accomplish the most effective restoration activities in a manner that
    can be accepted and sustained by landowners and communities in every
    part of Oregon and the Northwest.

    D. Need for Continued Program Authorization Provisions
        Current authorization ends after federal Fiscal Year 2003 giving
    rise to the need to extend authorization for another 5 years as this
    bill does. The State of Oregon also supports this bill's expansion of
    the program to include the State of Idaho with the stated adjustments
    increasing the total authorization levels, and for equal share among
    participants in the program. If time runs out, however, and Congress is
    unable to complete work on this bill or H.R. 1157, then there is a real
    need to increase the appropriation level for federal Fiscal Year 2003
    to accommodate Idaho without adversely impacting current participants
    in the program.
                                     ______

                                                   Attachment A

      State of Oregon Progress Report on Expenditures of Pacific Coastal
      Salmon Recovery Funds Awarded From June 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001
                             (without attachments)

    April 5, 2002

    I. Introduction and Background
        Congress appropriated $9 million to the State of Oregon in June
    2000, $8.9 million in June 2001 and $6.1 million in September 2001 as
    part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRP). The funds
    are dedicated to support salmon and steelhead restoration efforts in
    the coastal and Columbia River drainages of Oregon. Funding was awarded
    by grant agreement NA06FP0421 on June 26, 2000. This report covers the
    period of June 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001 and includes grant
    agreements made during that time period. Additional grants relying on
    these funds have been awarded in 2002, but are not included in the
    scope of this progress report.
        The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) budgeted PCSRP funds
    to award as part of Oregon's existing watershed improvement grant
    program. Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of
    $49 million for watershed and salmon habitat improvement in Oregon.
    This amount includes $38 million in state funds, and $10.9 million in
    PCSRP funds.

    II. State Match of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program Funds
        The State of Oregon is required to provide a 25 percent non-federal
    match ($6,001,625) to the $24 million congressional appropriation to
    Oregon from the PCSRP. In the July 1999 through December 2001 state
    budget cycle, Oregon committed over $34 million in state lottery funds,
    state general funds, and other non-federal funds to invest in salmon
    recovery and watershed restoration efforts. To date, since June 2000,
    OWEB alone has invested over $38 million in non-federal funds, not
    including substantial program funds dedicated by other state natural
    resource agencies implementing the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
    Watersheds.
        Limitations on the use of state funds require the majority of
    OWEB's funds to be spent on on-the-ground watershed enhancement
    projects. PCSRP funds provide important flexibility for supporting
    watershed councils, watershed assessments, monitoring, and education
    and outreach--all of which are essential to achieving restoration of
    salmon and watershed health. By integrating use of the federal PCSRP
    funds into Oregon's existing infrastructure that invests in voluntary
    salmon recovery and watershed enhancement efforts, OWEB is able to
    substantially enhance the effectiveness of the Oregon Plan for Salmon
    and Watersheds.

    III. Work Accomplished and Benefits to Salmon
        Oregon is actively working toward restoration through
    implementation of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds--a
    comprehensive statewide effort initiated by Governor Kitzhaber in 1997.
    The Oregon Plan has four components: (1) coordinated delivery of agency
    regulatory programs promoting improved habitat, water quality, and
    riparian functions; (2) funding of voluntary watershed restoration
    actions implemented by local citizen groups; (3) integrated monitoring
    of the effectiveness of restoration and recovery efforts; and, (4)
    independent scientific review and oversight. The Plan directs improved
    enforcement of existing federal and state laws, and promotes citizen
    and landowner efforts to restore watershed health through a statewide
    network of organized local groups.
        Currently, over 90 local watershed councils and 45 soil and water
    conservation districts are implementing restoration projects in Oregon,
    partnering with agencies and private interests, educating and involving
    people in restoration, and monitoring watershed conditions to
    understand the effectiveness of restoration work. OWEB is the state
    agency responsible for supporting this local infrastructure, with
    strategic funding of restoration projects, watershed assessment and
    monitoring, public education and outreach, and technical assistance for
    local efforts.
        To accomplish this, OWEB invests up to approximately $15 million
    annually from state lottery funds dedicated to watershed and salmon
    habitat improvement, along with other private and federal funds,
    including the PCSRP appropriations. OWEB administers congressional
    PCSRP funds, as well as state and other funds, allowing flexibility to
    target investments to meet local needs and achieve significant, long-
    term improvements in salmon and watershed health.

    IV. Accountability and Effectiveness of Restoration Investments
        OWEB achieves strategic investment of public funds and cost-
    effective restoration through rigorous technical review of grant
    proposals, monitoring of restoration projects and results, and balanced
    Board leadership and policy direction. OWEB's investments are guided by
    a 17-member Board comprised of a representative from each of Oregon's
    natural resources commissions, Native American tribes, five federal
    agencies, the land grant university extension service, and five
    citizens from different regions of the state. Criteria for assessing
    proposals and awarding funds are established by administrative rule,
    and are applied through regional teams composed of state and federal
    natural resource field staff with first-hand knowledge of local
    conditions. These teams use their collective expertise to review grant
    applications and make funding recommendations to OWEB. The Board
    maintains a data base of all funded projects to track local progress
    and to communicate investment results, and collaborates with federal
    and state agencies to ensure that all investments demonstrate long-term
    watershed improvement.
        OWEB and the National Marine Fisheries Service have entered into an
    agreement governing expenditure of all money distributed from the
    PCSRP. The agreement ensures that federal funds will be administered
    using the Board's existing funding criteria for activities supporting
    recovery of anadromous salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    Thus, federal funds are now being used to supplement Oregon's
    commitment of state funds to support voluntary restoration projects,
    watershed assessments, monitoring, and outreach efforts. Used in this
    manner, the funds appropriated by Congress are a substantial
    enhancement to the state's ongoing investments in salmon recovery and
    habitat improvement.

    V. Project Funding Categories
        Sections A-H below describe the types of projects these funds have
    supported, and the total amounts of PCSRP funds invested in each
    project category to date.

    A. Salmon Habitat Restoration
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB committed a total of
    $29.7 million for locally sponsored restoration projects designed to
    recover pacific salmon and restore and enhance watershed health. This
    amount includes $29.3 million in state funds and approximately $413,600
    in PCSRP funds. Because the state constitution limits use of 65 percent
    of dedicated state funds to on-the-ground projects, OWEB targets
    Oregon's investment of PCSRP funds to activities supporting habitat
    restoration activities rather than toward funding the projects
    themselves.
        Oregon initiated a watershed restoration project program in 1995.
    OWEB documents the cost and monitors the effectiveness of each
    watershed restoration project it and other state grant programs fund.
    The project monitoring program is coordinated with the federal land
    management agencies (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management)
    having jurisdiction in recovery funding areas. The state reports
    annually on the implementation of watershed restoration projects. This
    reporting data base is useful in evaluating changes in design through
    time, the extent to which projects meet design guidelines, and the
    relative investment in different restoration activities.
        Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and
    other groups implement projects that are identified as priorities in
    watershed assessments and that involve local citizens and landowners.
    These projects result in a wide variety of watershed improvements,
    including:

        creation of salmon habitat in critical stream reaches;

        removal of barriers to salmon migration;

        enhancement of riparian, wetland, and estuarine areas;

        reduction of point and non-point sources of water
            pollution;

        reduction of non-natural erosion to streams;

        increase in in-stream water flows to benefit salmon; and

        acquisition of interests in land and water to protect
            salmon and watershed health.

        Local groups use the Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration and
    Enhancement Guide developed specifically for the Oregon Plan to design
    projects that follow sound recovery and restoration methods.
        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments A-1, A-2, and A-3.

    B. Assessment of Watershed Conditions
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $2.7
    million for locally sponsored assessments of watershed conditions. This
    amount includes $340,567 in state funds, and $2.3 million in PCSRP
    funds. Using a template designed by the state in collaboration with
    federal resource agencies, local watershed councils and soil and water
    conservation districts conduct watershed assessments to determine
    where, within a given watershed, work is needed to restore natural
    processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality.
    Specifically, watershed assessments enable local groups to:

        identify features and processes important to salmon habitat
            and water quality;

        determine how natural processes are influencing those
            resources;

        understand how human activities are affecting salmon
            habitat and water quality; and

        evaluate the cumulative effects of land management
            practices over time.

        Watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts use
    OWEB grants to purchase assessment equipment, hire watershed
    consultants, and do watershed mapping necessary for assessment. The
    template used by these groups is the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
    developed by OWEB. The manual helps ensure that local groups accurately
    assess watershed conditions, which in turn enables them to
    strategically plan salmon recovery and watershed restoration actions
    where the investment of time and money will yield the best results.
        Watershed assessments have been completed throughout much of the
    state, particularly in the coastal, Willamette, and Deschutes basins.
    Additional investments are planned for, or are under way, in other
    basins key to recovering listed stocks.
        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments B-1 and B-2.

    C. Monitoring of Watershed Conditions
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $2.2
    million for locally sponsored projects monitoring watershed conditions.
    This amount includes $408,361 in state funds, and $1.8 million in PCSRP
    funds. Additional investments of state and PCRSP funds were also made
    in agency monitoring program efforts identified in Section G, below.
        Watershed councils, state and federal agencies, and other groups
    monitor local watershed conditions to better understand trends in
    salmon populations and watershed health, and to determine whether
    completed restoration projects have achieved their intended goals. OWEB
    grants fund a variety of different types of monitoring, including:

        salmon and aquatic insect monitoring;

        water quality and stream flow monitoring;

        wetland, estuarine, stream, riparian and upland condition
            monitoring; and

        restoration project effectiveness monitoring.

        Data collected through monitoring are used to develop projects and
    plans to restore watershed health. Local groups and state and federal
    agencies use the Water Quality Monitoring Guidebook developed for the
    Oregon Plan to ensure sound monitoring techniques and to produce widely
    accessible information. OWEB has adopted a Monitoring Strategy to guide
    future investments in monitoring of salmon populations, environmental
    conditions, and project effectiveness. Locally sponsored monitoring
    proposals funded by OWEB are reviewed and evaluated by an
    interdisciplinary team in the context of the state's overall monitoring
    effort.
        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments C-1 and C-2.

    D. Education and Outreach
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $1.5
    million for locally sponsored education and outreach. This amount
    includes $137,627 in state funds, and $1.4 million in PCSRP funds.
    Public education and outreach regarding watershed conditions and
    restoration opportunities are a necessary part of gaining community
    support for and participation in watershed enhancement projects.
    Watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts are
    effective in citizen education and outreach because they operate at the
    local community level. Grants to these local groups support citizen
    learning with funding for education, coordination, materials, and
    training. Examples include:

        conducting watershed restoration workshops for landowners
            and educators;

        providing students with opportunities for field study and
            watershed learning;

        engaging youth and adults in programs of water quality
            monitoring;

        developing community informational materials, such as
            brochures, interpretive signs, and newsletters; and

        developing and implementing a watershed-based science
            curriculum for K-12 teachers, and providing training.

        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments D-1 and D-2.

    E. Technical Assistance
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of
    $971,098 to provide technical assistance to watershed councils, soil
    and water conservation districts, and individual landowners for
    engineering design, conservation planning, fluvial geomorphology, and
    other technical services supporting restoration project implementation.
    This amount includes $212,050 in state funds, and $759,048 in PCSRP
    funds. Technical assistance funding is necessary to enhance the quality
    of local restoration activities, and support implementation of the
    federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Lack of resources
    supporting technical design, planning, permitting, and application of
    technology is a significant constraint that impedes on-the-ground
    restoration work. This allocation by OWEB directly supported project
    development and implementation by 21 local watershed groups around the
    state.
        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments E-1 and E-2.

    F. Watershed Council Support
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $4.4
    million to support the capacity of local watershed councils to
    undertake restoration activities. This amount includes $2.4 million in
    state funds, and $2.07 million in PCSRP funds. More than 90 watershed
    councils are established in Oregon, implementing restoration projects,
    partnering with agencies and private interests, educating and involving
    people in restoration, and monitoring watershed conditions to
    understand the effectiveness of restoration work. Watershed councils
    are comprised of volunteers from local Oregon communities. They provide
    a forum for citizens, landowners, businesses, government, and other
    stakeholders to discuss local watershed conditions and to collaborate
    on restoration opportunities. OWEB grants support a variety of
    watershed council operations, including:

        salaries and support for council coordinators;

        training of council coordinators;

        materials used by the coordinator to conduct council
            business; and

        restoration action planning for council coordinators.

        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments F-1 and F-2.

    G. Agency Projects Supporting Local Watershed Restoration
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $2.6
    million in state agency projects principally relating to monitoring and
    data collection and supporting restoration and recovery efforts. This
    amount includes $1.0 million in state funds, and $1.6 million in PCSRP
    funds. Coordination among state agencies to implement programs and
    provide assistance to local groups is a necessary part of achieving
    improvements in salmon and watershed health. OWEB grants have enabled
    other state agencies to support watershed councils, local governments,
    landowners, and others with technical assistance for watershed
    enhancement projects, monitoring, assessment, and education.
        Oregon's investments in this project category are itemized by grant
    project commitment in Attachments G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and G-5.

    H. Agency Administration
        Between June 2000 and December 2001, OWEB invested a total of $4.3
    million in administering the state's grant, monitoring, data
    coordination, and outreach programs at OWEB supporting the Oregon Plan
    for Salmon and Watersheds. This amount includes approximately $3.8
    million in state funds and $537,000 in PCSRP funds.

        Senator Smith. Geoff, can you describe Oregon's peer review
    that, in your opinion, is working well? Can you describe it for
    us and how it differs from the one proposed in the bill?
        Mr. Huntington. Certainly, Senator Smith, I'd be happy to.
    That which is proposed in the current language of the bill sets
    up an overarching peer review with a single panel that would
    have appointments to it and would require that projects be
    reviewed prior to funding by the agencies, in my reading of the
    legislation.
        Oregon has a process that is similar but very, very
    different in some key ways. As soon as applications come into
    Oregon, into the door at OWEB, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
    Board, we send them out to five regional technical teams that
    are made up of about 12 to 15 people that have every discipline
    represented but also have local knowledge of what's going on in
    that part of the state and the kinds of restoration activities
    that are successful, those that aren't, and design criteria
    standards that need to be done to successfully implement those
    projects. They review every application for the use of federal
    and state dollars for technical merit and for also looking at
    the appropriateness of the siting of the proposed restoration
    activity.
        Those recommendations then come back into my office, and my
    board does a level of peer review prior to funding that is
    based on a more strategic level by the membership of my board
    representing five federal agencies and five state agencies,
    along with the University Extension Service advising the
    citizen representatives on the strategic value of the types of
    investments that have been recommended for funding by the
    technical review teams.
        On top of that, then, Oregon has overlaid a science panel
    that is an independent panel that does a constant review of the
    appropriateness of our investments and whether the questions we
    are asking are scientifically based in a way that can assure
    the long-term effectiveness of the efforts.
        The important difference between what is in the federal
    legislation and at least how Oregon currently is operating is
    that we have a--we run three grant cycles a year through our
    process to allow landowners and local restoration groups to
    participate on a frequent basis. And having a single panel that
    is modeled off the Power Planning Council process, which is
    also very successful but is only structured to allow a review
    on a very periodic, almost annual, basis, could cause a
    significant problem for us in getting dollars on the ground to
    projects being implemented for landowners that are interested
    in participating voluntarily.
        Senator Smith. I think the main thing is that, at the end
    of the day, all parties to this have confidence that what is
    reviewed has integrity and is scientifically sound, and then
    everybody, I think, is prepared to live with objective
    scientific conclusions.
        Mr. Huntington. I could give you a long-winded answer, but
    that's absolutely correct.
        Senator Smith. That's the goal. So if you have a better
    way, maybe Oregon's a good model. We're not locked into one
    way, but we do want to be able to say, with more confidence
    than we currently do, that the science we're using is
    legitimate; that it's not political science, it's factual. And
    people can then live with the law because they know it is
    objective.
        Okay, thank you very much, Geoff.
        Next on Senator Boxer's list is Mr. James Caswell, the
    Director of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation, which has
    jurisdiction over Idaho's salmon recovery work. Mr. Caswell?

        STATEMENT OF JAMES CASWELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SPECIES
                      CONSERVATION, STATE OF IDAHO

        Mr. Caswell. Thank you, Senator. It's a privilege to come
    here today and offer testimony in support of Senate Bill 1825.
    My name is Jim Caswell, and I serve as the director of our
    Governor's Office of Species Conservation for the State of
    Idaho. And our Governor and, of course, the former senator,
    Dirk Kempthorne, sends his warmest regards.
        Passage of S. 1825 is crucial and very important to the
    state. That's reflected, I believe in the original co-
    sponsorship of the bill by both Senator Craig and Senator
    Crapo. And I wish to thank them for their efforts.
        Past Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund allocations have
    largely overlooked Idaho despite the important role that
    Idaho's anadromous stocks play in the overall recovery of
    Pacific salmon. All of the native anadromous stocks are listed
    under ESA as either threatened or endangered within the borders
    of the state. I've traveled here to stress Idaho's support for
    S. 1825. From an Idaho perspective, the greatest good resulting
    from the passage of this bill would be the formalized
    recognition of Idaho's importance to the recovery of our
    anadromous stocks.
        In that regard, I'd like to make three points. One, that
    the salmon crisis in the Northwest cannot be resolved without
    restoring Idaho's anadromous stocks. Two, failure to restore
    anadromous runs in Idaho will prevent fishermen in both the
    Pacific Coast, California, and Alaska from being able to access
    healthy runs. And, three, that Idaho has sufficient spawning
    and rearing habitat to support restored runs of spring and
    summer chinook, sockeye, and steelhead.
        The threatened status of Snake River stocks has constrained
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty and other coastal fisheries
    stretching from California to Alaska. Idaho hopes that our
    inclusion in future funding allocations will help reverse these
    declines. That Idaho is a worthy recipient of coastal salmon
    moneys is a viewpoint not confined to the borders of the state.
    Both the Department of Commerce and the Columbia River Inter-
    Tribal Fish Commission support Idaho's inclusion.
        When the Governors of the four states chose to address
    salmon recovery together, they did so on a regional basis, and
    the result was the Four Governors' recommendation on salmon
    recovery. This partnership is accomplishing more in a way that
    honors the roles of the individual states and tribes while
    promoting planning at the local level for full salmon life-
    cycle restoration. The Four Governors' plan can work in concert
    with the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological
    Opinion. And the key, in our view, to that is to fully
    implement that biological opinion.
        Having mentioned our support for S. 1825, I'd like to take
    a moment and point out a few ways in which the Act might be
    improved. As an administrator, I appreciate the enormous
    financial resources committed to the restoration of these
    species. I'm sensitive to the desires to ascertain that the
    moneys authorized and appropriated are spent in the most
    efficient manner and that the states and the tribes are held
    accountable for their actions.
        It's in that vein that I suggest that some of the processes
    required by this bill are duplicative of processes and
    safeguards already in place throughout much of the Northwest.
    For example, under the Power Act and through the Northwest
    Power Planning Council, the states of Idaho, Washington,
    Oregon, and the tribes have already established a thorough and
    scientific peer-review program.
        Suppose the state determined that we were going to connect
    some habitat and establish and spend money to do this project
    through both coastal salmon funding and through the Northwest
    Power Planning Council funding. As it's now written, there
    would be two or more duplicative approaches that would have to
    take place, one at the local planning level--two different
    approaches there--citizen advisory committees--two different
    approaches there--looking at separate planning documents,
    looking at long-term accounting and followup on that project
    until the--throughout the life and until any dirt actually
    could be turned.
        I'd simply suggest that the Committee amend the bill to
    allow existing processes in the region to fulfill the Act's
    intent where they already exist. I can assure you, the
    Committee, that Idaho and the region as a whole, actually, has
    in place processes that meet the Act's desires for annual
    plans, peer review, and public participation.
        Let me close by saying that Idaho appreciates the
    recognition granted in S. 1825. It's an important role for our
    anadromous stocks to play in the region. We have both dedicated
    biologists and concerned property owners who anxiously await
    coastal salmon funds so we can advance efforts. We ask that
    processes in place be granted deference so that precious time
    and resources are not lost in the duplicative efforts.
        And I thank you for your time and attention.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Caswell follows:]

      Prepared Statement of James L. Caswell, Director, Office of Species
                          Conservation, State of Idaho

        Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the Oceans, Atmosphere and
    Fisheries Subcommittee:
        It is a privilege to come before you today and offer testimony in
    support of Senate Bill 1825--the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. My name
    is James Caswell and I serve as the Director of our Governor's Office
    of Species Conservation for the State of Idaho. Our Governor and your
    former senate colleague, Dirk Kempthorne, sends his warmest regards.
        Passage of S. 1825 is of crucial importance to the State of Idaho.
    Its passage will allow Idaho to help the Federal Government fill its
    responsibility. That importance is reflected by the original co-
    sponsorship of this bill by our Senators, Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. I
    wish to thank them for their efforts.
        Past Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund allocations have largely
    overlooked Idaho despite the important role Idaho's anadromous stocks
    play in the overall recovery of Pacific Salmon. All of Idaho's native
    anadromous stocks are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act
    as either threatened or endangered. Though they spawn and are reared
    far from the shores of the Pacific Ocean, some Idaho stocks travel in
    excess of 1000 miles to reach and return from the Pacific Ocean, these
    majestic fish call the same Pacific Ocean home for a portion of their
    life cycle.
        I have traveled here to stress Idaho's support for S. 1825. From an
    Idaho perspective the greatest good resulting from passage of this bill
    would be the formalized recognition of Idaho's place in assisting the
    Federal Government in meeting its responsibilities by dedicating a
    portion of future Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund distributions to
    Idaho.
    The salmon crisis in the Pacific Northwest cannot be resolved without
            restoring Idaho's anadromous stocks

        Four of the eleven (36 percent) listed Evolutionary
            Significant Units (ESUs) in the Columbia River originate in the
            Snake River Basin: Snake River Sockeye, Snake River Spring/
            Summer Chinook, Snake River Fall Chinook, Snake River
            Steelhead.

        Anadromous stocks from Idaho are the backbone of the
            Columbia River run.

        Idaho produces the largest components of the spring/summer
            Chinook and steelhead run.

    Failure to restore anadromous runs in Idaho will prevent fisherman in
            the Pacific Northwest, California, and Alaska from being able
            to access healthy runs

        The ESA has placed onerous constraints on fisherman to
            reduce harvest, at great expense to fishing families and
            communities.

        Idaho's salmon are mixed with stocks from other areas in
            traditional fishing areas. If runs from Washington and Oregon
            are restored, but those in Idaho are not, fisheries from
            Southeast Alaska to California will continue to be constrained.

    Idaho has sufficient spawning and rearing habitat to support restored
            runs of spring and summer chinook, sockeye and steelhead

        Idaho has 3,700 miles of habitat accessible to salmon and
            steelhead, which represents enormous production potential.

        The remaining key spawning and rearing habitat for the
            Snake River Fall Chinook is found mostly in Idaho or in the
            Snake River bordering Idaho.

        Idaho streams comprise the largest percentage of habitat
            and produce the bulk of wild spring and summer Chinook and
            summer steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.

        The Snake River retains the potential to produce 63 percent
            of natural-origin summer steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.

        The threatened status of Snake River fall chinook has constrained
    Pacific Salmon Treaty and other coastal fisheries stretching from
    California to Alaska. Idaho hopes that our inclusion in future
    allocations of the PCSRF will help reverse these declines which have
    cost the coastal states millions of dollars in lost revenue and jobs.
    The decline of spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon and steelhead in
    Idaho greatly constrains fisheries not just in Idaho, but Pacific
    coastal and Columbia River fisheries.
        That Idaho is a worthy recipient of PCSRF monies is a viewpoint not
    confined to the borders of the Gem State. I would like to draw your
    attention to a letter from Theodore W. Kassinger, General Counsel of
    the Department of Commerce, wherein he states ``In particular, we (the
    Department of Commerce) support the expansion of this funding (Pacific
    Coast Salmon Recovery Funds) to Idaho. As you know, many watersheds
    within Idaho contain some of the best salmon habitat in the Columbia
    River Basin. Support for the Pacific salmon recovery should be
    comprehensive and focused on opportunities to provide the greatest
    benefits to recovery of wild salmon populations. . . .'' The Columbia
    River Inter-Tribal Commission echoes these comments in stating: `` The
    Columbia River tribes continue to support expanding the program to
    explicitly include the State of Idaho's salmon restoration efforts.''
    If Pacific salmon recovery is to be effective, its focus and the
    resources committed to these efforts must be spread out across the
    region.
        When the Pacific Northwest Governors affiliated with the Northwest
    Power Planning and Conservation Act and the Northwest Power Planning
    Council choose to address salmon recovery they did so on a regional
    basis; the result was the Four Governors' Recommendations on Salmon
    Recovery. This was the first time that the states of Idaho, Washington,
    Oregon and Montana had come together on a common approach that
    acknowledged that the only way to progress on real recovery is with a
    partnership between the states and Federal Government. They acted in
    this manner because they knew no single state can solve the problem and
    as stated by Jim Connaughton, Chair of the Council of Environmental
    Quality, ``When you speak as a region, you have our undivided
    attention''. This partnership is accomplishing more in a way that
    honors the roles of the individual states and tribes while promoting
    local planning for full salmon life-cycle restoration. The region has a
    plan upon which we all agree. This Four Governors plan can work in
    concert with the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System biological
    opinion. The key is to now fully implement the federal biological
    opinion. With this spirit of cooperation among states and in
    partnership with the Federal Government, we are asking that Idaho be
    included in future allocations of the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery
    Fund. Let me be clear, any improvement in Idaho's listed anadromous
    stocks benefits all of our states that are committed to salmon recovery
    in the Pacific Northwest.
        Having mentioned our support for S. 1825, I'd like to take a moment
    and point out a few ways in which the Act might be improved. As an
    administrator tasked with conserving threatened and endangered species,
    I appreciate the enormous financial resources committed to the
    restoration of these species. I am sensitive to your desires to
    ascertain that the monies you authorize and appropriate are spent in a
    most efficient manner and that the states and tribes are held
    accountable for their actions. It is in that vein that I suggest that
    some of the processes required by this bill are duplicative of
    processes and safeguards already in place throughout much of the
    Pacific Northwest. Sec. 3(h)(1) asks that each eligible state and tribe
    ``carefully coordinate the salmon conservation activities of that state
    or tribal government to eliminate duplicative and overlapping
    activities'' yet passage as written would in fact cause duplicative and
    overlapping activities. For example, under the Pacific Northwest
    Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, the states of Idaho,
    Washington and Oregon and the tribes therein, already have an
    established, thorough scientific peer review program--the Independent
    Scientific Review Board. Suppose the State of Idaho determined to
    reconnect a once productive riparian area to currently existing habitat
    and determined to use both NWPPC Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
    Program monies and PCSRF monies to complete the project. As the act is
    now written this project would have to be endorsed by both a local sub-
    basin planning working group and some form of a citizen advisory
    committee, presented in two separate annual planning documents and then
    be presented initially to two scientific review panels with subsequent
    responses to address concerns raised by both review panels before one
    shovel of dirt could be turned. The accounting and follow up reporting
    would proceed down two separate tracks as well for the life of the
    project. Following that partial and yet lengthy example of the
    potential quagmire that awaits state and local conservation officers I
    would simply suggest that the Committee amend the bill to allow
    existing processes in the region to fulfill the Act's intent where and
    when they already exist. I can assure the Committee that Idaho already
    has in place processes that meet the Act's desire for annual plans,
    peer review and public participation.
        Let me close by saying that Idaho appreciates the recognition
    granted in S. 1825 as to the important role our anadromous stocks play
    in the region's salmon recovery efforts. We have both dedicated
    biologists and concerned property owners who anxiously await PCSR funds
    so that we can advance efforts which will pay dividends from Alaska to
    California. We ask that processes in place be granted deference so that
    precious time and resources are not lost in duplicative efforts. Thank
    you for your time and attention.

        Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
        Next we'll hear from Ms. Laura Johnson, Executive Director
    for the Inter Agency Committee on Outdoor Recreation/Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board for the State of Washington.

    STATEMENT OF LAURA E. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERAGENCY
     COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION/SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD

        Ms. Johnson. Good afternoon, Senator Smith. Thank you for
    the opportunity to be before the Subcommittee this afternoon. I
    am the Executive Director for the Washington Salmon Recovery
    Funding Board. Our administrative offices are with another
    state agency (``IAC''), which no one can pronounce, including
    myself.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Johnson. Washington State has faced this issue of
    endangered salmon for a number of years, including before the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Fund was officially enacted in the
    appropriations process.
        At this point, we have 15 runs of wild salmon that are
    listed as threatened or endangered. Listings cover 75 percent
    of the land base of the State of Washington and about 90
    percent of where the population now lives. That population is
    just about 6 million people, so we have an enormous public-
    policy challenge of how to restore the fish, how to protect the
    remaining habitat, and to do it in a way that achieves public
    support and also recognizes the reality that there are a large
    number of people living in the watersheds that the fish also
    live in or could live with restoration assistance.
        Our state legislature and our Governor have recognized this
    challenge in a variety of ways. They've established a
    Governors' Salmon Recovery Office, which is a separate
    institution from our board. We have had a major public
    enactment called the Forest and Fish Program which covers
    virtually all of the forestlands of the State of Washington and
    provides outstanding protection in a number of efforts in that
    regard.
        The legislature also had, I think, the great wisdom to
    recognize that people needed to be involved in this effort, and
    particularly in regard to habitat restoration. In that regard,
    the legislature, with the Governor's full support, established
    the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and its local institutions
    that we call ``lead entities''. Every one of the 26 throughout
    the State of Washington has a slightly different official name;
    the best title the legislature could come up with was ``lead
    entity''. But 26 of these locally based watershed-based
    institutions now exist, and all funds that are spent by the
    state must go through the lead entity process.
        At each lead entity, there's local public review. There's
    local volunteer effort. There's identification of sponsors for
    projects--of course all on a willing basis, willing landowner
    basis. And those local efforts are then forwarded to the Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board, which is appointed by the Governor, and
    currently chaired by a gentleman named Bill Ruckelshaus, who
    was also the first administrator of the EPA.
        And I would note also, Mr. Smith, that he is also serving
    on this Subcommittee's Oceans Task Force and is not available
    to be here today because he is at a meeting of that group; he
    sends his apologies. He also extends his willingness to this
    Subcommittee, to appear at some point in the future, should you
    wish have his comments on this issue.
        Very much like the other states, and particularly very
    similar to Oregon, our funding board has a rigorous process
    that includes both the local public review, the local technical
    review, a state technical panel, and a state public-process
    review. The net result of this has been the investment to date
    of approximately $60 million of state funds and a little over
    $100 million of federal funds. Some of the projects are
    captured, like Mr. Huntington, in the report that we just did
    on a portion of that, the 18 months of the federal funding
    officially known as the Pacific Coastal Salmon Fund.
        Very similar to other states, but in some respects
    different, Washington State also shares the concerns of the
    other states about the duplication of process. We believe we
    have established methods which assure credibility, but also
    excellent public participation and an excellent grassroots
    approach that really builds the citizen support that will be
    necessary if salmon recovery is going to be a reality in the
    State of Washington. This is not an issue that can be imposed
    from the top down. This is something that people who live in
    the watersheds really are going to have to participate in. And
    the Federal funds and the state funds have not only done good
    work in and of themselves in issues such as relieving fish
    passage problems or habitat restoration, but they've also done
    the tremendous public good of getting citizens involved and
    getting citizens to care. And that, we think, is an equally
    important product--very difficult to measure, I grant you, but
    a very important issue.
        So we are concerned about the duplication that might
    present itself with the current version of the bill, and we do
    certainly share with the other states the willingness to work
    on technical language and other approaches.
        We'd also comment that we share, with the State of Alaska--
    we do have the treaty responsibilities that were expressed by
    Senator Stevens earlier, Senator, before you were able to be
    present. And so we do have a concern that the distribution of
    funding by any formula, whether it's by appropriation or
    statute, does need to take into account those very real
    differences that the states have--of population, of length of
    streams, of previous legal requirements; in our case, we have a
    number of treaty requirements with our tribal communities.
    Likewise, we have a number of efforts underway with the
    Northwest Power Planning Council. And I think the complexities
    of these issues need to be adequately reflected in the bill.
        With that, Mr. Smith, I thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Laura E. Johnson, Executive Director, Interagency
         Committee on Outdoor Recreation/Salmon Recovery Funding Board

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to testify regarding the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, S.
    1825. I am Laura Johnson, Executive Director for the Washington State
    Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and its office, the affiliated
    agency known as the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC).
    I will comment briefly on Washington's actions to help restore wild
    salmon by building community support for strategic restoration
    investments.
        Fifteen runs of wild salmon have been federally listed as
    threatened or endangered across 75 percent of Washington State's land
    base--where 90 percent of our population lives. The magnitude and
    geographic extent of the listings pose a significant policy challenge--
    how can we most effectively restore the vitality of the salmon
    resources in a state that now has almost 6 million residents.
        Washington's Governor and the State Legislature have responded with
    a framework for Washington citizens to address salmon recovery. The
    Congress has also offered its assistance in addressing the challenge
    posed by the federal listings.
        My remarks will highlight the state's 1999 enactment of the
    ``Salmon Recovery Act'', Ch. 77.85, Revised Code of Washington. The Act
    established two key elements of the state's recovery framework--the
    Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (``SRFB''), and its associated
    local watershed partners, called ``lead entities.'' Because the Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board's work is directly related to proposed S. 1825,
    I will also comment on the interaction of the federal measure and our
    existing state processes.
    Overview of Washington's Recovery Initiatives
        Before I offer a more detailed explanation of the SRFB process, let
    me also point out a few of the other related salmon recovery processes
    underway in Washington State:

        The Governor's Salmon Recovery Office coordinates the
            state's overall recovery strategy, as set out in the Statewide
            Strategy to Recover Salmon: Extinction is Not an Option
            (September 1999). The Office also leads the Cabinet of natural-
            resource agency directors as they ensure interagency
            coordination, accountability of programs, and leadership.

        The Independent Science Panel, established by the state
            legislature and appointed by the Governor based on
            recommendations from the American Fisheries Society, is tasked
            with providing high-level advice on monitoring, data and
            recovery activities.

        The Forests and Fish Agreement, a voluntary pact negotiated
            by forest landowners, covers 8 million acres of forestland and
            60,000 miles of streams.

        Hatchery management changes are underway to help ensure
            hatchery and wild fish do not compete, and harvest practices
            have also been modified.

        The Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy is a project
            requested by the Governor and SRFB, and enacted by the 2001
            Legislature. It will develop a comprehensive monitoring
            strategy and action plan to guide our management and
            accountability tools--that is, where and how we measure our
            fish and watersheds.
        Attachment A provides a more detailed review of current recovery
    initiatives.
    Watershed Habitats--The Role of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board

             ``If we are going to be successful in recovering salmon
            habitat it will be based on the energy and commitment of local
            people supported by good science. The legislative wisdom of
            creating a citizen-based, science-informed process is starting
            to pay off in real results. I am confident it will return even
            more significant benefits in the future.''

            --William D. Ruckelshaus, Chairman, Washington Salmon Recovery
            Funding Board

        State policymakers and others understood that for wild salmon
    recovery to be successful, Washington would have to address the loss of
    spawning and rearing habitat in our watersheds. In 1999, the Washington
    Legislature provided for the habitat element of recovery by enacting
    the Salmon Recovery Act, Ch. 77.85 RCW. The Act established the Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), and created so-called ``lead
    entities''--or local citizen groups--to promote and coordinate salmon
    recovery activities in their communities and watersheds.
    Salmon Recovery Funding Board Composition
        The funding board is comprised of 10 members--five citizens
    appointed by the Governor and five directors from state natural
    resource agencies. A wide range of interests and expertise are
    represented. Current Board Members are:

        William D. Ruckelshaus, Seattle Chairman of the Board

        Frank L. ``Larry'' Cassidy, Jr., Vancouver (Chairman, NW
            Power Planning Council)

        Brenda McMurray, Yakima (Watershed & Environmental Issues)

        James Peters, Olympia (Natural Resources Director, Squaxin
            Tribe)

        Steve Tharinger, Port Angeles (County Commissioner, Clallam
            County)

        Conservation Commission, Steven P. Meyer, Executive
            Director

        Department of Ecology, Tom Fitzsimmons, Director

        Department of Fish & Wildlife, Jeffrey Koenings, Director

        Department of Natural Resources, Doug Sutherland,
            Commissioner

        Department of Transportation, Douglas B. MacDonald,
            Secretary

        The Board meets approximately monthly at locations around the
    state. All meetings are open to the public, and participation is
    encouraged. The administrative office of the Salmon Recovery Funding
    Board is with the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC),
    which ensures compliance with grant agreements as well as performing
    policy development and other duties.

    Lead Entities--Local Restoration Partners
        The 1999 Salmon Recovery Act also created the local framework for
    restoration work, through a system of `` lead entities.'' As of May
    2002, the state has 26 lead entities, operating in all salmon-bearing
    watersheds.
        The lead entities are organizations of local or regional scale,
    convened by cities, counties, tribes, and including nonprofits and
    other interested parties in the area. The lead entities create
    inclusive citizen-based committees to solicit and prioritize local
    habitat project lists. They are responsible for using limiting factor
    analysis and other watershed assessment tools to identify and
    scientifically review projects that benefit salmon habitat within local
    watersheds. The lead entities must also work with local Technical
    Assistance Groups (TAGs) to include local scientific knowledge.

    Selecting Restoration Projects and Efforts
        Once a lead entity has developed its local prioritized list,
    proposals on that list are submitted to the SRFB for possible funding.
    The Board's primary responsibility is to help fund the best salmon
    habitat projects and activities.
        To provide an independent statewide review of the proposals'
    science and technical merit, the SRFB has established a Technical Panel
    comprised of distinguished scientists and recovery experts. The
    Technical Panel applies its expertise and uses published criteria.
    Proposals are reviewed for their Benefit to Fish as well as the
    Certainty of Success that those benefits can be attained. The Technical
    Panel also reviews the lead entity's salmon recovery plans, and
    assesses how the proposed portfolio of projects supports the locally-
    identified strategic directions for salmon recovery. The Panel's final
    recommendations are provided to the SRFB.

    Public Participation and Accountability
        From its inception, the SRFB has insisted that its own processes
    for review, project selection and program administration be as
    transparent and accountable as possible.
        All meetings are open to the public, decisions are made on
    published criteria, and the Board has actively encouraged public
    participation by meeting throughout the state and by seeking advice
    (even critiques) on how to improve its work. Fund administration is
    rigorous, based on contracts for defined grant deliverables,
    ``milestones'' to track progress, and requirements for site monitoring.
    IAC manages the grants with a state-of-the-art computer system
    available through the Internet. IAC also contracts with National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide permitting assistance for needed
    environmental reviews, so grant funds can be implemented on-the-ground
    as swiftly as possible.
        In summary, Washington's system is premised on engaging and
    encouraging local citizens to make informed salmon habitat decisions.
    By offering incentives to the watersheds--primarily financial and
    technical assistance--and by establishing a structure for the
    watersheds to identify and support the best local projects,
    Washington's habitat recovery can achieve the support of those who live
    in the watersheds.

    Types of Projects Selected--A Competitive Process
        Restoration activities such as in-stream fish passage improvements
    or riparian habitat restoration are eligible for SRFB funding, as are
    habitat site acquisitions (in fee or by conservation easement), and
    assessments and studies designed to identify or improve restoration
    projects' feasibility. By law and Board policy, all proposals must be
    voluntarily submitted by the sponsor. Except under limited
    circumstances, funding cannot supplant existing resources and may not
    support actions otherwise required by law or regulation.
        The Board's process has proven to be popular, and highly
    competitive. Since 1999, the Board has held three full ``Grant Rounds''
    (yearly Calls-for-Proposals), as well as assuming administration of
    earlier grants awarded under SRFB predecessors. In the three SRFB grant
    rounds, the lead entities submitted requests for 713 proposals, seeking
    $152.7 million in assistance. The Board reviewed all the proposals,
    and, since 2000, has awarded grants for just under $82 million to 359
    proposals.
        SRFB grants must have at least a 15 percent match from the project
    sponsor. The match can be from the sponsor's local financial resources
    (such as local stream restoration funds). SRFB also allows and
    encourages match by in-kind methods such as contribution of volunteer
    time, labor, professional consulting expertise, or materials. In
    practice, SRFB has found that sponsors often bring far more than the
    minimum 15 percent match to the grant.

    Funding Salmon Habitat Restoration Efforts
        Both the Washington State Legislature and the Congress have
    provided significant funds to the SRFB to support salmon recovery
    projects and activities:

       State Funds, July 1999--June 2003 Biennial Appropriations:

         $ 64.9 million

       Federal Funds, Fiscal Year 1999 to 2002:

         $101.4 million

        Approximately $23 million of the federal funds to SRFB were subject
    to congressional marks to programs such as Forests and Fish
    implementation and Fish Mass Marking. $78 million of Federal funds were
    at SRFB disposal for local salmon recovery grants.
        The federal funds for grants are administered by SRFB using the
    competitive review process described above. A formal Memorandum of
    Understanding is in place between the SRFB and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS). Reports are provided to the Governor and
    State Legislature on a biennial basis, and to the NMFS on an annual
    basis. A copy of our recent report on the Pacific Coastal Salmon funds
    is enclosed, Attachment B. (Electronic version of attachment does not
    include detailed project lists which will be provided to the Committee
    in paper format.)

    S. 1825--Relation to Washington's Salmon Recovery Funding Process
        The support Congress has given to Washington's recovery efforts has
    been vital, and is deeply appreciated. Whether that support is
    expressed in an appropriations measure or by legislation such as S.
    1825, Washington will work towards salmon recovery using state and
    federal funds in the manner described above.
        Most of the elements and criteria expressed in S. 1825 are already
    in place in the Washington State system, and are important criteria for
    recovery funding, including:

        Accountability

        Transparency of process; opportunities for public
            participation

        Application of science

        Strategic focus on benefits to fish

        However, Washington is concerned that the detailed requirements of
    S. 1825 will pose challenges to Washington's established processes.
    Because S. 1825 adds plans and an additional (third) layer of review to
    processes already being carried out, it will create delay and cost to
    our recovery participants. It is also not clear to us that the specific
    federal processes outlined in the measure will add accountability or
    criteria beyond that already included in the state's system. Washington
    therefore encourages the Committee to consider modifying the measure to
    avoid unnecessary duplication of plans and accountability measures.
        For example, in respect to the Peer Review process outlined in Sec.
    4, the states should be able to use the outlined process or an
    alternative process, for those states where peer review is already
    mandated and in use under state rules (with NMFS review and concurrence
    through the Memorandum of Understanding process, of course.) Likewise,
    Sec. 3 expresses legitimate goals for planning and reporting. However,
    we believe existing Washington methods in this regard already address
    the bill's criteria, and would support modification of the bill to
    allow existing state processes as an alternative to accomplish the
    desired result. Finally, because Washington has been able to contribute
    significant state funds to its recovery effort, any funding formula and
    processes should not operate as a disincentive to state policy and
    financial commitments. We will be pleased to work with the Committee
    and the other states to offer specific draft text in these regards,
    should the Committee so desire.

    Conclusion
        Salmon recovery will continue to be a huge challenge for Washington
    State. SRFB Chairman Ruckelshaus has outlined where Washington now
    stands and our progress to date, Attachment C. Many of the key steps
    for the recovery of the salmon are in place. Through institutions such
    as the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board, credible public
    investments of state and federal funds assist our citizens in designing
    their own sustainable strategies for salmon resources. We deeply
    appreciate the efforts and enthusiasm of the thousands of Washington
    citizens now engaged in this work. On the federal level, we thank you
    for your efforts and support as well.
                                     ______

                                                   Attachment A

      Status of Salmon Recovery Initiatives, Washington State--April 2002
       Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, Olympia, Washington

    Introduction
        Fifteen runs of wild salmon have been federally listed as
    threatened or endangered across 75 percent of Washington State. The
    reasons for the decline are long-term and complex: we have over-fished,
    hatchery fish have competed with wild fish for limited space and food,
    and human activity has radically changed the physical landscape and
    habitat over the last 150 years. And, as growing numbers of people--our
    population has more than doubled in the last 50 years and is expected
    to double again in the next 50--take water from rivers, there is less
    water to supply the needs of salmon.
    Endangered Species Act Listings in Salmon Recovery Regions

    Washington Coast                      Puget Sound                           Northeast Washington
       Bull Trout                    Bull Trout                    Bull Trout
       Lake Ozette Sockeye           Chinook
                                             Chum
    Lower Columbia River                  Upper Columbia River                  Snake River
       Bull Trout                    Bull Trout                    Bull Trout
       Chinook                       Chinook                       Chinook
       Chum                          Steelhead                     Sockeye
       Steelhead                  ....................................     Steelhead
                                          Middle Columbia River
                                             Bull Trout
                                             Steelhead

    Management
    State Adopts Important Administrative Actions
        Responding to the listings of fish in urban, forest, and
    agricultural settings is a slow and complex process. The Governor's
    Office and legislature have provided a coherent framework--the
    foundation--upon which to lay future crucial building blocks so that
    that people of Washington may collectively build salmon recovery.
        Salmon Recovery Funding Board. This five member citizen board,
    appointed by the Governor and chaired by William Ruckelshaus, supports
    salmon recovery by funding habitat protection and restoration projects
    and related programs and activities that produce sustainable and
    measurable benefits for fish and their habitat. The directors of five
    state agencies assist them.
        Governor's Salmon Recovery Office. The legislature established this
    office within the Governor's Office to coordinate the state's strategy
    for salmon recovery and assist in development of a broad range of
    recovery activities.
        Independent Science Panel. This body, also established by the
    legislature and appointed by the Governor from recommendations by the
    American Fisheries Society, is tasked with providing advice on
    monitoring, data, and recovery activities.
        Joint Natural Resources Cabinet. In 1997 Governor Locke brought
    together the state agencies that most affect salmon management in a
    forum called the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet. This cabinet of 12
    agency directors has created the guidance and accountability tools used
    in Washington and provides an ongoing avenue for interagency progress.
        The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon: Extinction is Not an
    Option. This strategy was completed in September 1999 and is our guide
    for what needs to be done over the long-term to recover salmon.
        State Agency Action Plans. Produced for each biennium, these detail
    specific salmon recovery activities undertaken by state agencies.
        Salmon Recovery Scorecard. This is the state's performance
    management system for salmon recovery actions; it contains a mix of
    natural environment and human-focused indicators that are intended to
    measure our progress.
        Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy. The 2001 Legislature mandated
    development, by December 2002, of a comprehensive monitoring strategy
    and action plan for watershed health with a focus on salmon recovery.
    State Implements Early Management Actions
        Implementation of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon:
    Extinction is Not an Option (September 1999) is a long-term task.
    Efforts during the first few years have focused available resources on
    specific activities intended to build state and local capacity,
    undertake immediate habitat protection actions, and prevent further
    losses of salmon and their habitat.
        Fisheries harvest. In 1999 Governor Locke and Canadian Fisheries
    and Ocean Minister Anderson re-negotiated a critical component of the
    landmark Pacific Salmon Treaty; it reduces the Canadians' catch of
    Chinook and coho whose home streams are in Washington. This follows an
    important 1998 Locke/Anderson agreement on conservation that had the
    effect of increasing by 30 percent the number of Puget Sound Chinook
    that return to our streams to spawn.
        Hatcheries management. How the state manages fish hatcheries is
    also changing to ensure hatchery fish do not compete with wild fish.
    One-third of the 100-plus hatcheries in Washington State are involved
    in recovering wild salmon runs; guidelines have been developed to
    protect the genetic integrity of wild salmon; and a first-ever
    scientific review of federal, state, and tribal hatchery practices is
    now underway.
        Water policy. To address the growing concerns about our ability to
    provide adequate water for people and for fish, Governor Locke and the
    State Legislature adopted initial reforms during the 2001 legislative
    session, aimed at making Washington's water laws more flexible. They've
    also created a Joint Executive-Legislative Water Policy Group that
    developed a proposal for the 2002 legislature. Water legislation was
    introduced to address three policy areas: instream flows for fish, safe
    and reliable water supplies for growing communities, and water saving
    incentives so farmers don't face the consequences of the current ``use
    it or lose it'' doctrine.
        Forests and Fish Agreement. This is a voluntary pact negotiated by
    large and small forest landowners; and federal, state, tribal, and
    county governments. It covers 8 million acres of forestland, protecting
    60,000 miles of streams and is the first agreement of its kind in the
    country. (In September of 2000, the Washington Environmental Council
    (WEC) and other environmental groups filed two lawsuits that challenged
    Washington's Forests and Fish Report and actions the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) and The National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) have taken that endorse the Report. Recently, U.S. District
    Court Judge Barbara Rothstein dismissed both lawsuits. The Court left
    open, however, the possibility that 4 of WEC's 5 claims could be re-
    filed once the state applies to NMFS for coverage for Forests and Fish
    under the 4(d) Rule and NMFS makes a decision on that application.)
        Shorelines Regulations. In August, the state Shorelines Hearings
    Board invalidated shoreline management guidelines adopted last November
    by the state Department of Ecology. Various business, local-government
    and private interests challenged the rules, intended to protect 20,000
    miles of freshwater and saltwater shorelines. Officials representing
    the state, environmentalists and business interests announced in late
    September that they would attempt to negotiate an agreement on new
    shorelines guidelines for the state.
        Agriculture, Fish and Water (AFW). Beginning in December 1999,
    state, federal, environmental, tribal and agriculture interests entered
    into negotiations to develop an agreement on how farmers could meet the
    needs of salmon under the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water
    Act. To date, the negotiations have successfully produced guidelines
    for comprehensive irrigation district management plans and a mechanism
    to review pesticide registrations to ensure fish life is protected.
    Direct negotiations with the agricultural community are on hold for the
    next six months while several tasks are being concluded: the
    agricultural community will develop a scientific review of the buffer
    science in agricultural landscapes; and application will be made to the
    USDA to modify the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to reflect
    agreements on management for modified and near-natural agricultural
    watercourses.

    State Supports Local Recovery Actions
        More than 800 government jurisdictions and agencies, and many more
    farms, businesses, homeowners, and private citizens are involved in
    salmon recovery. The Governor's Office and Joint Natural Resources
    Cabinet have set a high standard of collaboration, coordination, and
    mutual support to ensure local efforts have a strong likelihood of
    success. The key roles local partners play will be the major focus of
    state agencies for the next few years.
        Watershed Planning Units. Created by the Watershed Planning Act,
    these planning bodies include county and city governments, water
    purveyors, tribal representatives, and private citizens. Their task is
    to decide what actions need to be taken in their watersheds to provide
    adequate water for people and fish. Presently, there are 32 Planning
    Units covering 41 WRIAs.
        Lead Entities for Salmon Recovery. In the Salmon Recovery Planning
    Act, the legislature focused on the need to coordinate local action to
    restore habitat conditions necessary for salmon recovery. Lead Entities
    spearhead these local efforts and are responsible for recommending
    projects to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for approval. There are
    26 Lead Entities covering 45 WRIAs.
        Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups. Created by the legislature
    in 1990, these groups work under the guidance of the Washington
    Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sixteen of these non-profit groups
    develop projects in partnership with tribes, sports, fishers, private
    landowners and local, state and federal agencies.
        Regional Salmon Recovery Organizations. There are currently four
    organizations engaged in recovery planning for an entire salmon
    recovery region (roughly equal to an Evolutionarily Significant Unit,
    or ESU); a fifth group is in the beginning stages of organizing. These
    organizations are partnerships among governments, organizations, and
    landowners with a stake in recovering salmon; they perform many
    different functions, from assessing factors for decline of salmon,
    participating in development and implementation of the habitat portion
    of a recovery plan, to organizing and approving recovery projects.

    Funding
        The 2001-2003 biennial budget for the State of Washington includes
    $270 million in salmon related expenditures for new activities, or
    changes to existing activities necessary to recover salmon or to meet
    the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The budget is
    predicated upon $90.7 million in federal funding for the two-year
    period, and includes appropriations for federal Fiscal Year 2002 and
    2003. Major components include:

    Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grants
    $68.7 million ($26.3 M State Bonds, $42.4 M Federal)
        The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) provides grants to local
    governments, tribes, nonprofit organizations, and state agencies for
    salmon habitat restoration, acquisition and assessments. In the 1999-
    2001 biennium, the SRFB awarded $99.4M ($36.2M State and $63.2M
    Federal) in grants and programmatic activities for salmon recovery. To
    date, the SRFB has provided grants for 517 projects with a value of
    $96.4M.
        The 2001-2003 biennial budget assumes $43.6 ($30.0M for FFY 2002
    year and $14.0M for FFY 2003, less $358K administrative overhead) from
    the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery program, administered by the
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). A match of $26.3M is assumed
    in the state budget.

    Forests and Fish Implementation
    $20.9 million ($12.7 M State, $8.2 M Federal)
        In 1999, the State legislature passed revisions to the state's
    forest practices regulations to make changes in timber harvest
    activities to meet ESA and Clean Water Act requirements. The Forest
    Practices Board has adopted a final rule package to implement the
    Forests and Fish Agreement. The Department of Natural Resources is
    developing data systems, hiring enforcement staff, operating a small
    landowner office and other work necessary to implement these rules.
        The 2001-2003 biennial budget includes $20.9 million in state and
    federal funds to implement the Forests and Fish rules. The State budget
    assumes that a minimum of $4 million a year in federal funds will be
    provided for FFY 2002 and FFY 2003 through the Pacific Salmon Coastal
    Recovery program in the NMFS budget. This is the same level as provided
    in FFY 2000 and FFY 2001. This funding would continue to be passed
    through the SRFB to the Department of Natural Resources.
        State agencies managing forestlands also need to inventory and
    modify forest roads to protect salmon. The state budget includes $4.9
    million for the Departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife,
    and the State Parks and Recreation Commission to begin meeting these
    requirements. The Department of Fish and Wildlife assumes $200,000 of
    this amount in federal funding from the Bonneville Power Administration
    (BPA) to help meet their obligations.

    Hatchery Reform
    $23.7 million ($9.3 M State, $13.9 M Federal, $0.5 M Local)
        Washington State, federal agencies and Washington treaty tribes
    operate the largest system of hatcheries in the world. The NMFS 4(d)
    rule requires all hatcheries to develop and implement Hatchery Genetic
    Management Plans (HGMPs) to ensure that these facilities do not harm
    salmon species listed under the ESA. In FFY 2000, Congress provided
    $3.8 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
    Washington Hatchery Improvement Project to conduct scientific research,
    and to redesign hatcheries to meet ESA requirements.
        The 2001-2003 biennial budget assumes $5 million for FFY 2001, and
    $5.6 million for both FFY 2002 and FFY 2003 for continuation of the
    Washington Hatchery Improvement program. The Washington State
    Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, which also supports the
    SRFB grant process, would administer this funding.
        The budget for the Department of Fish and Wildlife includes $9.8
    million in state and local funds to redesign and improve state
    hatcheries. It also assumes $2.7 million in federal funding through the
    BPA for reforms at Mitchell Act hatcheries.

    Fish Passage Barriers and Screens
    $16.2 million ($6.7 M State, $8.3 M Federal, $1.2 M Local)
        Inadequate fish passage and improper screens on irrigation
    diversions are significant factors limiting recovery of salmon. Not
    only are smolts inadvertently sucked into irrigation pumps, spawning
    adults lack access to important habitat.
        The 2001-2003 biennial budget includes $16.2 million to correct
    fish passage barriers and screens. This includes $6.7 million in state
    funds, $4.3 million of federal funding from BPA, $550,000 from the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service Dingel-Johnson allocation, and $3.5 million
    anticipated under Pub.L. 106-502  The Fisheries Restoration and
    Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 for the Department of Fish and
    Wildlife to correct blockages and screens at its facilities. The budget
    also includes state funding for the Department of Transportation to
    correct fish passage barriers. Fish passage barriers will also be
    corrected as state agencies begin updating forest roads to meet the
    requirements of the Forests and Fish agreement on state lands.

    Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation
    $6.7 million ($1.7 M State, $5 M Federal)
        The 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty requires buyback of commercial
    salmon fishing licenses. The state has provided $1.7 million in state
    funds to be matched by $5 million in federal funds appropriated in FFY
    2001.

    Pesticide Strategy
    $1.6 million State Funds ($1.3 M State, $0.3 M Federal)
        The state is developing a comprehensive strategy for assessing
    pesticide impacts on threatened and endangered salmonids in Washington
    State. This strategy is being developed by the Washington State
    Department of Agriculture in conjunction with the National Marine
    Fisheries Service NW Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western
    Washington Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS), Washington State University, and the
    Washington State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, and Fish
    and Wildlife. The strategy will use surface water monitoring to
    determine salmonid exposure to pesticides, evaluate the impact of
    exposure at various life stages, and then propose appropriate
    mitigation actions. In addition to the $1.3 million in state funds,
    $245,000 in additional federal funding per year is requested to expand
    the surface water monitoring program in Washington State. This funding
    will allow expanded monitoring in basins representing the various
    cropping patterns in the state and which provide critical habitat for
    salmon.

    Future Actions
        The 1999 Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon recognizes that most
    habitat protection and restoration initiatives are best implemented at
    the watershed level in partnership with local, tribal, and private
    entities, and with state and federal guidance and support. The Strategy
    also notes recovery plans that integrate habitat, hydropower,
    hatcheries, and harvest are best built collaboratively by local
    participants. In the remainder of the present biennium (i.e., through
    June 2003), the focus for salmon recovery will be in continuing support
    for local salmon recovery activities, providing water for fish, and in
    completing the statewide comprehensive monitoring strategy.

    Supporting Regional Salmon Recovery Planning
        Regional Action Plan. Recently, state agencies and regional
    organizations developed an action plan to support regional efforts at
    achieving diverse and productive wild salmon populations. The action
    plan includes specific state agency and regional organization
    commitments to enhance the effectiveness of everyone's efforts.
        Guidance Documents. The Governor's Salmon Recovery Office assists
    regional organizations in assessments; planning; monitoring; managing
    data; and integrating hatchery, hydropower and harvest issues. The
    types and extent of support provided to the regions changes through
    time, depending on the success, needs and maturation of the region. The
    Office has produced several documents to assist local organizations in
    the development of recovery plans:
        Guidance on Watershed Assessment for Salmon (2001). This
    publication helps watershed groups, state agencies and others
    understand what kinds of assessment are needed to make decisions about
    projects and other actions to protect and restore habitat for salmon.
        Roadmap for Salmon Habitat Conservation at the Watershed Level
    (2002). This document helps local groups take key steps needed for
    salmon habitat conservation in their watershed and relate their work to
    regional salmon recovery planning. The Salmon Office offers workshops
    to state agency staff to support their efforts helping local and
    regional partners apply the Roadmap to their watersheds.
        Reference Guide to Salmon Recovery. This document explains what
    salmon recovery means, what is happening, and who is involved at
    different geographic scales. This information will help people who are
    interested in salmon recovery and salmon habitat conservation in their
    watershed better understand the broad context of salmon recovery. It
    also identifies some sources of additional information that are
    available.
        Recovery Plan Model. This model will identify the essential
    elements of a recovery plan, a document that will comprehensively
    define actions necessary to recover one or more salmon populations
    within a region.
        Identifying Limiting Factors. The Conservation Commission has
    completed reports on habitat factors that limit salmon and steelhead
    production in watersheds for 36 of the 62 Water Resource Inventory
    Areas. By the end of the 2001-2003 biennium, all watersheds with a Lead
    Entity will have a completed report. This will provide important
    baseline assessment information for setting priorities for habitat
    restoration projects.

    Providing Water for Fish
        Sixteen major water basins do not have enough water for fish.
    Adoption of in-stream flow regulations in 4 high-priority basins will
    be accelerated and local planning units will receive state financial
    and technical assistance. Stream flow restoration plans, water
    conservation and waste water reuse programs will be implemented in high
    priority basins. This includes buying water rights to increase the
    water supply for fish, providing technical and financial assistance for
    small water systems, and creating a new water conservation program for
    farms.

    Monitoring Results
        Measuring progress toward salmon recovery helps those involved know
    if they're making the right decisions and taking the most appropriate
    actions. Some early salmon recovery actions included monitoring
    components, but they were not always consistent, comprehensive, or
    coordinated. Responding to recommendations of the Independent Science
    Panel, the 2001 Legislature established a committee to develop a
    statewide comprehensive monitoring strategy and an action plan with an
    adaptive management framework. The plan will address watershed health
    with a focus on salmon recovery. Federal, tribal, and local government
    partners are part of the endeavor. The committee report is due in
    December 2002 and it will identify steps needed to have the monitoring
    strategy fully implemented by June 30, 2007.
                                     ______

                                                   Attachment B
                  Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF)
                        December 31, 2001 Annual Report

    I. Introduction and Background
        FFY 1999: In the immediate predecessor to the Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery Fund, the State of Washington received federal funding
    of $19 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
    dollars were earmarked for particular areas of the state and
    distributed by the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office. Grants were
    issued for habitat restoration, land acquisition, local capacity
    building, and plans and assessments.
        FFY 2000-2001: Through its new Salmon Recovery Funding Board
    (``SRFB''), the State of Washington received federal Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery Funding (``PCSRF'') in the federal 2000 and 2001
    appropriations: $47.9 million total. The National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS) is the federal administrator. $8.0 million of the funds
    were earmarked for direct support to the ``Forests and Fish'' program.
    The remaining funds were used by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to
    make grants for: habitat restoration; acquisition of land, rights and
    easements; and plans and assessments. The second issuance of 2001
    federal funds ($12.0 million) is being allocated for programmatic
    activities, such as regional recovery capacity, instream flow
    protection and drought relief, the Forests and Fish Program, and
    restoration projects.
        The 3 years of federal PCSRF funds have funded 111 organizations
    conducting 287 projects. These projects have also included non-federal
    matching funds and volunteer support with a value of over $18 million.
    See attachment A for a detailed listing of the funded projects and
    their matches.
        During the same time, the State of Washington has contributed state
    funds in the amount of $36 million towards salmon recovery efforts
    through the SRFB. The state funds have supported 95 locally-based
    organizations conducting 211 projects, and are matched with over $24
    million in value contributed by the projects' sponsors. See attachment
    B for a detailed listing of these funded projects.
        With the PCSRF support, Washington State has also funded activities
    and programs. Federal funds have funded two rounds of Forests and Fish
    activities and state dollars have funded 13 programs, totaling over $9
    million. See attachment C for a detailed listing of the funded
    activities and programs.
        Washington's concentrated effort to offer grants to support
    locally-based salmon recovery projects is relatively new. In a few
    projects, fish have already started using newly-opened habitat. For
    most projects, however, because of salmon life-cycles, it will be
    another year or two before we may see the benefits to fish resources
    that we started to help in 1999. It will probably take at least two
    full salmon life-cycles, or until 2010, before the states in PCSRF are
    able to reach ``recovery''.
        Washington recognizes that the recovery of fish is a long-term
    investment. Not all the pieces of an ``ideal'' recovery structure are
    in place now. For example, final federal recovery goals have not been
    set for each species, and the state's Plan(s) to address such Goals are
    necessarily dependent in part on such targets. While we are building
    the longer-term structure for recovery, the state is not ignoring the
    need to take interim actions; we must implement some short-term
    improvements for the fish. Washington's interim actions include strong
    emphasis on involvement of local governments, active participation by
    stakeholders in their watersheds, gaining knowledge through
    comprehensive assessments, and funding to support actions that improve
    conditions for fish, including unblocking habitat and protecting
    habitat areas.
        To ensure it is part of the effort to move effectively toward the
    more ideal structure for recovery, the SRFB is using an adaptive
    management approach in its work. The Board is continually refining its
    process to fund better projects and ensure the success of actions
    taken.
        The Board recognizes that local efforts and science are the keys to
    the success of salmon recovery. Local support coupled with good science
    and technical expertise are essential in ensuring the best projects are
    proposed to the Board for funding in its annual grant process.
        To help ensure local support and participation, the Board works
    through local organizations called lead entities. These organizations
    are required to develop a strategy to identify and prioritize their
    area's project proposals. Lead entities use local technical experts to
    evaluate the technical merits and certainty of project technical
    success. Then, local Citizen Committees rank the proposals to ensure
    priorities and projects have the necessary community support for
    success. Finally, the Board's Technical Panel helps the Board ensure
    overall benefits to fish and certainty of success of the project
    proposals.

    II. Work Accomplished and Benefits to Salmon

    A. Salmon Habitat Restoration
        The SRFB funds restoration and acquisition projects in the
    following categories, using federal and state funds, together with
    local contributions for match:

        In-stream Diversions:  These projects include those items
            that affect or provide for the withdrawal and return of surface
            water, such as screening of fish from the actual water
            diversion (dam, headgate), the water conveyance system (both
            gravity and pressurized pump), and by-pass of fish back to the
            stream.

        In-Stream Passage:  These projects include those items that
            affect or provide fish migration up and downstream to include
            road crossings (bridges and culverts), barriers (dams, log
            jams), fishways (ladders, chutes, pools), and log and rock
            weirs.

        In-Stream Habitat:  These freshwater projects address or
            enhance fish habitat below the ordinary high water mark of the
            water body. Elements include work conducted on or next to the
            channel, bed, bank, and floodplain by adding or removing rocks,
            gravel, or woody debris. Other items necessary to complete
            these projects may include livestock fencing, water conveyance,
            and plant removal and control.

        Riparian Habitat:  These projects include those freshwater,
            marine near-shore, and estuarine items that affect or will
            improve the riparian habitat outside of the ordinary high water
            mark or in wetlands. Projects may include plantings or plant
            management, livestock fencing, stream crossings, and water
            supply.

        Upland Habitat:  These projects address sites or activities
            that affect water quality and quantity important to fish,
            occurring above the riparian or estuarine area. Elements can
            include the timing and delivery of water to the stream;
            sediment and water temperature control; plant removal, control,
            and management; and livestock fencing and water supply.

        Estuarine/Marine Nearshore:  These projects address sites
            or activities that affect or enhance fish habitat below the
            ordinary high water mark of the water body. Projects include
            work conducted in or adjacent to the intertidal area and in
            subtidal areas. Items may include beach restoration, bulkhead
            removal, dike breaching, planting or plant management, and tide
            channel reconstruction.

        Acquisition:  These projects include the purchase of land,
            access, or utilization of rights in fee title or by perpetual
            easement. Rights or claims may be acquired, provided the value
            can be established or appraised.

             The grant awards and number of projects for restoration and
            acquisition categories awarded by the Salmon Recovery Funding
            Board with FFY 2000 and 2001 funds are shown below:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     No. of
               Category             PCSRF Funding   State Funding   projects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In-Stream Diversions.........        $277,400        $675,207          6
    In-Stream Passage............       3,825,698       2,171,841         40
    In-Stream Habitat............       4,347,355       5,396,791         53
    Riparian Habitat.............         495,289         596,185         15
    Upland Habitat...............       1,073,016         898,403         14
    Acquisition..................       8,153,626       4,595,935         38
    Combination [Acquisition &          4,204,385       4,202,849         21
     Restoration]................
                                  ------------------------------------------
        Total....................     $22,376,769     $18,537,211        187
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: U.S. Fish and Wildlife funds awarded in 1999 and the Interagency
      Review Team awards in 2000 are not included in this chart.

    B. Planning/Assessments
        Assessments and Studies:  These types of projects may
            include feasibility studies; channel migration studies; reach-
            level, near-shore, and estuarine assessments; and inventories
            such as barriers, unscreened water diversions, and landslide
            hazard areas. A feasibility study could include assessing the
            willingness of landowners to allow access to their land for a
            habitat restoration project or to consider selling a property
            interest.

             The results of proposed assessments must directly and clearly
            lead to identification, siting, or design of habitat protection
            or restoration projects. Assessments intended for research
            purposes, monitoring, or to further general knowledge and
            understanding of watershed conditions and function, although
            important, are not eligible for SRFB funding.

             Assessments must be closely coordinated with other assessments
            and data collection efforts in the watershed and with federal,
            tribal, state, regional, and local organizations to prevent
            duplication and ensure the use of appropriate methods and
            protocols. To improve coordination, lead entities and
            applicants are encouraged to partner with each other.
            Assessments and studies must be completed within 2 years unless
            additional time can be justified by the project sponsor.

             The grant awards and number of awards for Assessments/Studies
            and programmatic activities awarded by the Salmon Recovery
            Funding Board is shown in the following table:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     No. of
               Category             PCSRF Funding   State Funding   projects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Local Assessments/Studies....      $1,390,975       3,866,990         47
    Forests and Fish.............       8,836,000  ..............          3
    Regional Capacity............       2,000,000  ..............          1
    Nearshore Project............  ..............         375,000          1
    Other programs and activities  ..............       8,888,222         12
    In-Stream Flows..............       6,000,000  ..............          1
                                  ------------------------------------------
        Total....................     $18,226,975     $13,130,212         65
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife funds awarded in 1999 and the
      Interagency Review Team awards in 2000 are not included in this chart.

             A paragraph on each project funded can be found in Attachment
            D.

    C. Salmon Research and Monitoring
        Measuring our success in recovering salmon and maintaining
    watershed health is vital. Policy makers and salmon advocates must have
    tools to know what is working for fish and watersheds, so they can
    determine the success of public, private and volunteer investments. The
    SRFB requested state legislative support for a major strategic
    initiative during 2001 and 2002. This effort, known as the
    Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy, will identify current monitoring
    efforts, and recommend future approaches to regional, watershed and
    project-scale monitoring. The Strategy will also address the state's
    Independent Science Panel (ISP) recommendation that the state develop a
    coordinated monitoring strategy and action plan to meet salmon recovery
    goals and objectives.
        A Monitoring Oversight Committee has been established. It is co-
    chaired by the director of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office and
    the Chair of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The directors of 8
    state agencies are members. The treaty tribes, federal agencies such as
    EPA, and local government and watershed groups also participate.
    Legislative oversight is provided by a bipartisan legislative steering
    committee of 4 legislators.
        An interim Report was provided to Governor Locke and legislative
    committees on March 1, 2002. A final report is due by December 1, 2002.
    The final report must include the monitoring strategy and an action
    plan for implementation. The recommendations must be based on a goal of
    fully implementing an enhanced and coordinated monitoring program by
    June 30, 2007.
        The ISP will advise the oversight committee, review all work
    products, and make recommendations to the Monitoring Strategy Project.
    The ISP may be contacted at http://www.governor.wa.gov/esa/science.htm.
        The Strategy will enable the state to more effectively identify the
    type and extent of monitoring needed at differing scales, such as
    region-wide, watershed or at the level of each individual project. In
    the meantime, project-level monitoring is a required element of SRFB-
    funded projects. SRFB is also supporting a number of watershed-scale
    assessments. These assessments provide specific identification of
    worthy future projects, but also help establish baseline information
    that will be needed to understand future monitoring results.
        Numerous agencies and citizen organizations are engaged in
    monitoring a wide range of salmon recovery activities. The SRFB is
    committed to encouraging a greater degree of coordination of these
    efforts.

    D. Outreach and Education
        SRFB encourages active public participation. The Board's monthly
    and semi-monthly meetings are held in watershed locations around the
    state, and the Board also seeks on-the-ground tours of local areas with
    local salmon advocates. The Board's Technical Panel--experts assembled
    to review all project proposals--has traveled to each of the state's
    lead entities areas before reviewing project requests. The Board also
    works closely with the Governor's Natural Resources Cabinet and federal
    agencies.
        In addition to the Board, a number of organizations in the State of
    Washington are focused on outreach and education, such as Regional
    Fisheries Enhancement Groups, schools, People for Salmon, and Long Live
    the Kings.

    E. Salmon Enhancement/Supplementation
        A number of organizations in the State of Washington are focused on
    salmon enhancement/supplementation, such as Regional Fisheries
    Enhancement Groups. At this time, the SRFB is focusing on on-the-ground
    projects and relying on other organizations for supplementation.

    F. Local Capacity
        Local capacity for salmon project sponsorship and related actions
    is primarily funded through other organizations. Listed below are a few
    of the local organizations the Salmon Recovery Funding Board works
    closely with:

        Lead entities:  (With Washington State Department of Fish
            and Wildlife)

       Lead entities are organizations in a geographic area that come
            together with a common goal to recover salmon. A lead entity's
            statutory responsibility is to use limiting factors analysis
            and other watershed assessments or studies to identify and
            prioritize projects that benefit salmon habitat within a
            defined geographic area. Technical sub-committees typically
            perform the role of screening and reviewing applications for
            scientific merit. Citizen committees, composed of diverse
            habitat interests, are statutorily responsible for adopting
            habitat project lists using information from the science sub-
            committees. Habitat project lists are submitted to the Salmon
            Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) or other granting sources for
            funding.

        Local planning units:  (With Washington State Department of
            Ecology)

       Local Watershed Planning Units were created to develop local
            watershed plans for managing water resources for in-stream and
            out-of-stream use.

        Conservation districts:  Washington Conservation Commission

       Conservation districts are a unique form of non-regulatory agency,
            matching local resource needs with technical and financial
            resources, and helping landowners apply conservation on the
            ground.

       Watershed stewards:  Washington State Department of Fish and
            Wildlife

       Watershed Stewardship Teams have been formed to assist lead entities
            efficiently utilize the resources and expertise within
            Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Team members
            are to provide leadership, coordination, and technical
            assistance to facilitate the development, effectiveness, and
            success of local community salmon recovery efforts.

       Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups:

       The Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group (RFEG) program is a
            legislative program designed to include citizens in salmon
            restoration efforts. Twelve non-profit groups of volunteers
            cooperate with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
            (WDFW) to improve salmon resources throughout the state.
            Dedicated funding supports project activities.

    G. Administration
        The federal funds have limited the amount of administrative
    overhead that the SRFB can use to operate the PCSRF program to 1
    percent for the State of Washington. One percent is not sufficient to
    administer these funds, therefore, state funds are used to supplement
    the federal administration dollars. Total administration dollars for
    the state and federal funds is under 4 percent.
                                     ______

                                                   Attachment C

                              Washington's Salmon
                              Getting To Recovery
    An Update For Congress
    March 2002

        Dear Reader,
        When I accepted the chairmanship of Washington's Salmon Recovery
    Funding Board, I did so out of optimism:

        Optimism that the fish are worth saving, for their own sake
            as well as for the recreational and economic benefits they
            bring to so many citizens;

        Optimism that by benefiting the fish and their habitats, we
            will also benefit our communities' clean water, land base, and
            business climate;

        Optimism that our citizens, by crafting locally-based
            recovery measures, will create salmon recovery strategies that
            are better and more sustainable than regulation or court action
            alone could achieve;

        Optimism that our state and federal governments will
            provide sufficient resources for at least two more salmon life
            cycles, to assist our citizens in designing their own
            sustainable salmon future.

        These views are tempered by some real truths:

        This work is painfully slow;

        Some of our work will fall short. (But, we should call it
            failure only if we do not learn from these ``mistakes''); and,

        As we make strides towards recovery, it is very difficult
            to identify how we are making progress along the way. However
            difficult, we must and will do our best to show that
            improvement is being made--and how the public and decision
            makers are connected to that progress.

        This paper outlines how an ideal strategy for salmon recovery would
    look, where we believe we are now, and how we are proceeding in the
    interim towards healthy and sustainable conditions, for fish and for
    people, in our watersheds.
        We invite your support.

    Chairman William D. Ruckelshaus

    Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board
         What Would the Ideal Structure for Salmon Recovery Look Like?
    Ideally, we should have:

        Recovery Goals, set for all salmon species in each region;

        A Plan that integrates all ``H'' factors (habitat, harvest,
            hydro & hatcheries), so as to meet the recovery goals;

        Clear and strong community support for actions, and a
            timeline to meet the goals;

        Adequate funding to support actions on the timeline;

        A Monitoring system to measure success; and

        Enforcement of resource protection standards.

    Fall 2001--Returning Chinook salmon find a restored new channel and log
    jam shelters instead of a bare concrete channel, at Gorst Creek, near
    Bremerton
    SFRB Project # 00-1111.
                           To Help Achieve That Ideal
    Actions To Support the Ideal Strategy Will Include:

        Developing recovery goals and plans at regional levels for
            listed species;

        Coordinating efforts on habitat, harvest, and hatcheries at
            the regional level;

        Fostering inclusive watershed and regional groups to help
            determine goals and make commitments necessary to achieve them;

        Assessing habitat conditions;

        Developing strategies to prioritize habitat actions;

        Funding conservation, preservation, and restoration
            projects that improve immediate conditions for fish;

        Developing hatchery management plans consistent with ESA
            requirements and reform practices;

        Continuing to improve harvest management--and to make these
            decisions more transparent; and, not least

        A communication plan to inform, build support, involve and
            mobilize citizens.

                          Interim Measures of Success

    The ideal longer-term Structure and Strategy are not yet in place. As
            we move in that direction, Interim Measures of Success are
            needed, likely through at least 2010. Progress in the
            ``Interim'' is shown by:

        An expanded involvement of local governments, tribes, and
            citizens in developing salmon recovery goals and plans for each
            region--goals that address all water uses and continued
            prosperity of the region.

        A clear structure for integrating harvest, hatchery and
            habitat actions.

        An inclusive involvement of stakeholders at the watershed
            level in habitat conservation, preservation, and restoration
            projects.

        Comprehensive assessments of habitat conditions in each
            watershed.

        Locally developed watershed strategies that list the
            priority habitat actions and target areas are developed or
            underway.

        Implementation of the most important conservation,
            preservation, and restoration actions in each watershed, with
            active local support.

        Implementation of the Forest and Fish Agreement for forest
            practices, and similar efforts to address agricultural issues.

        Funding necessary to support the development of goals,
            plans, and implementation of projects.

        Improved conditions for fish, measured by indicators such
            as fish access to blocked habitat, improved riparian
            conditions, acres of key habitat protection, or volume of water
            restored.

        Recovery actions are adjusted as monitoring information and
            new science becomes available.
           By 2010, How Should We Measure Success in Salmon Recovery?

    Ultimate Measures of Success Will Be:

        The increased abundance, productivity, diversity, and
            spatial distribution for all species.

        Growing percentage of healthy wild stocks, and de-listing
            of all endangered salmon species.

        Abundance of salmon for harvest.

        Healthy watershed conditions.

        Supportive communities.

        Integration and consistency between salmon recovery,
            community and economic development, natural resource practices,
            and other community interests.

                     CURRENT EXAMPLES FROM WASHINGTON STATE

        SRFB works through 26 locally-organized citizen-led groups
            known as ``lead entities'', covering almost all watersheds of
            the state.

        Four major regional areas have organized within the last
            year. SRFB funding support will help these regional efforts get
            underway in developing their local recovery strategies.

    Tree planting near the Deschutes River in Tumwater. Revegetating
    riparian areas helps provide erosion control and shade. Volunteers
    often participate along with personnel from local, tribal and state
    agencies. In October 2000 the local Stream Team reported that over 220
    volunteers, Miller Brewery employees, Conservation Corps and Community
    Youth Services groups, and other community members planted 4000 native
    plants and shrubs along the Deschutes riparian corridor.

        For the SRFB's third round of grants in Fall 01-Spring 02,
            we estimate that well over 1,500 local citizens are directly
            involved in their lead entities or in sponsoring local
            projects.

        In 2001, the SRFB and the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office
            initiated the Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy Project. The
            final report in December 2002 will provide the first
            comprehensive model for the state's regional, watershed and
            project-scale monitoring efforts.

        Federal Fiscal Year 1999-2001 Pacific Coastal Salmon
            Recovery Funds have been placed into 111 organizations
            conducting 287 projects.

        These projects have included non-federal match (cash,
            volunteers or labor) with a value of over $18 million.

        During the same period, the State of Washington has
            provided $36 million towards salmon recovery efforts through
            the SRFB.

        State funds through the SRFB have supported 95
            organizations conducting 211 projects, and are matched with
            over $24 million in value contributed by the projects'
            sponsors.

        With federal support, SRFB has also helped fund 2 years of
            ``Forests and Fish'' activities, and, with state dollars,
            funded 13 other programs.

        Senator Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms.
    Johnson.
        We'll now hear from Glen Spain, Northwest Director of the
    Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, an
    organization that represents fishing interests in all the
    states affected by this bill. Welcome.

              STATEMENT OF GLEN SPAIN, NORTHWEST REGIONAL
     DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS

        Mr. Spain. Thank you, Senator Smith. Greetings from our
    mutual home State of Oregon.
        I'm the Northwest Director of the West Coast's largest
    organization of commercial family fishermen. Our folks have
    been devastated--I can't stress that enough--by the losses over
    the last two to three decades of salmon runs all along the
    coast, all the way up into Alaska. My colleague here will speak
    to some of the Alaska issues, but I want to speak particularly
    to the issues in the Northwest.
        We have lost almost $1.25 billion worth of net economic
    benefits to the Northwest regional economy from the salmon
    runs. That was the figure that was generated for the economy in
    that region in as recently as 1988, our last really good year.
    That has been cut down to--we've lost roughly 90 percent of
    that. And with what is remaining we're hanging on very hard and
    working like the dickens to try to restore these streams.
        Our organization, for instance, has a salmon stamp program.
    California fishermen assess themselves through that program,
    which goes into a fund that is managed by commercial fishermen
    for habitat restoration. We've spent as much as a million
    dollars a year on self assessment taxes, if you will, through
    the salmon stamp program to put that directly back into the
    watershed.
        We are very familiar with some of the problems, pitfalls,
    and advantages of salmon restoration work, particularly in
    California. And I personally work very closely with folks in
    Oregon and Washington to do the same.
        There are certain things, certain principles that we have
    to keep in mind. One is that the salmon runs and the salmon
    problem are totally interwoven and interconnected. No one state
    is unaffected by what happens in another state. For instance,
    28 percent of all the chinook salmon harvested in southeast
    Alaska originate in Washington, particularly the Columbia River
    or the Puget Sound. Thus, it makes very good sense--I wish
    Senator Stevens were here to hear this--to have Alaska invest
    in the restoration of Columbia River salmon runs. It makes
    sense for the economy in Southeast Alaska. It makes sense to
    reduce the constraints that those damaged Columbia River runs
    impose on Alaska under weak stock management under the Magnuson
    Act and also under the ESA and other constraints.
        It also makes sense for Oregon and Washington to invest in
    California salmon restoration, because 50 to 70 percent of all
    the salmon harvested in Oregon come from the California Central
    Valley Hatchery System. There are a lot of interconnections.
    And, likewise, whatever constraints are imposed because of weak
    stocks in the Columbia cause closures all the way down to
    Central California.
        In fact, the collapse in the Columbia salmon runs was a key
    issue that contributed to the collapse of the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty and our treaty obligations with Canada. The fish that
    Canadian fishermen lost to Alaska, they looked south to find,
    but those fish had disappeared. There was thus a tremendous
    imbalance in the treaty. And that precipitated a lot of the
    collapse of the former treaty.
        So there are interstate, inter-regional, and international
    issues all of which are triggered by the declines of the West
    Coast salmon runs in addition to coastal economies that have
    suffered severely.
        Another principle is that salmon restoration is an
    investment, it is not a cost. Like any investment, it will, if
    wisely done, provide dividends to the economy. One and a
    quarter billion dollars is not chicken feed for these coastal
    economies. We can restore it to those levels. And that alone is
    nowhere near the historic levels. That's the level that we were
    able to achieve in 1988. Historic levels are much greater.
        And if we can move more over the next 20 or 30 years toward
    historic run sizes, and I think we can, this is a multi-
    billion-dollar benefit in dividends that will be paid each and
    every year to our regional economies and to coastal economies.
    It is an investment. And like any investment--like any investor
    making an investment, they want to make wise use of their
    money.
        Another principle is that we have been lurching along for a
    long time on 50-year restoration plans with a year-by-year
    appropriation process that is essentially ad hoc. We can't
    continue to do that without basically damaging the efficiency
    of the program. Thus, we strongly support this bill, and
    Representative Thompson's bill on the House side (H.R. 1157),
    that institutionalizes and creates quality control and peer
    review and accountability criteria that make it assured that
    those funds will be wisely spent and that there will be a
    continuity of institution that is comparable to what we need in
    terms of the length of effort.
        Another thing we need to do, of course, is have ways of
    funding this in a perpetual way. And again, this bill is a good
    move in that direction. There are two areas where we would
    suggest some improvements. One is that H.R. 1157, Section 11
    sets a standard for recovery. This bill does not. That
    standard, I think, should be the Four Governors' declaration in
    the year 2000, which said the standard that we are trying to
    achieve is a harvestable surplus. That is the standard that
    will achieve the economic benefits, the return on our
    investment, the dividends to our communities.
        It's not sufficient to recover to the point where we have a
    few museum runs. We want our people working. We want our
    communities working. We want our fishermen to be able to
    deliver high-quality seafood to their restaurants, to their
    processors, to the chain of markets, and for export as a major
    resource in what was and is the United States' oldest industry.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Spain follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director, Pacific
                  Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important
    issue of salmon restoration funding--a subject that means life or death
    to many west coast fishing-dependent communities.
        My name is Glen Spain, and I am the Northwest Regional Director of
    the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). We
    are commercial fishermen and women, working in America's oldest
    industry. Our members provide this country with one of its most
    important and highest quality food resources and a major source of
    exports, and our efforts provide tens of thousands of jobs in western
    coastal communities, jobs supported by the bounty of the sea.
        PCFFA is the West Coast's largest organization of commercial
    fishermen and fishing families, representing the interests of small and
    mid-sized family-owned commercial fishing operations working and living
    in ports from San Diego to Alaska. We are a federation of 25 different
    port and vessel owners organizations coastwide, representing several
    thousand fishing families with a combined vessel asset and industrial
    infrastructure investment of nearly $1 billion.
        Fishermen are family food providers, but in order to be able to
    produce high quality seafood and maintain thousands of jobs in coastal
    communities, we need something to catch! Most of our people are now, or
    have been, salmon fishermen. However, every year for decades now, the
    long-term trend has been that there have been fewer and fewer juvenile
    fish surviving to come out of damaged west coast watersheds. Widespread
    habitat loss, massive forest liquidation and the destruction wrought by
    the thousands 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\
    In fact, ESA protections are all that now stands between many of these
    irreplaceable salmon runs and complete extinction. Several additional
    populations are also still under consideration for ESA listing, and
    will and should be listed unless we work in earnest to prevent their
    further declines and eventual restoration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ For the current status of salmonid listing decisions see
    Attachment B, from the National Marine Fisheries Service web site:
    http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pg300.pdf. For online
    maps of the 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thus, even though we are a heavily regulated industry ourselves
    under the ESA, we strongly support these listings and fully support
    maintaining a strong Endangered Species Act generally. We also support
    all efforts toward speedy recovery for these salmon runs. Extinction is
    not an option. Salmon extinctions mean economic extinction for many of
    our most important west coast fisheries supporting tens of thousands of
    fishing jobs as well as hundreds of rural fishing-dependent
    communities.
        I have often heard statements from representatives of the very
    inland extractive industries that have caused and profited by the
    destruction of our salmon watersheds blame fishermen for the declines
    of the West Coast's salmon runs. At best, these statements are
    disingenuous, little more than the fox blaming the geese for the sudden
    disappearance of other geese.
        While there have certainly been instances of salmon overfishing in
    past decades, the facts show that at least since the passage of the
    Magnuson Act in 1976 in federal waters, and in California and other
    states decades before back to the late 1800s, west coast Pacific Salmon
    runs have been increasingly state and federally managed to target
    hatchery fish, not wild stocks, and that we are getting better and
    better at maintaining sustainable fisheries.
        Today, only a very small portion of the total of all human caused
    salmon mortality can be attributed to fishing. So many once abundant
    fisheries are now closed already that meaningful salmon recovery simply
    cannot be achieved through more such closures. ESA listed coho salmon
    fisheries, for instance, were completely closed in California in 1994,
    and are now closed in all lower 48 states. Even complete closure of all
    the rest of the salmon fisheries, which target hatchery fish, would
    provide only a very small benefit compared to the massive salmon
    mortality incurred at all the other stages of the salmon's lifecycle,
    i.e., in the watersheds. Blaming the fishermen for salmon declines
    today is like blaming the victim of a rape.
        There are efforts underway everywhere to actually solve these
    problems, however, by protecting and restoring our watersheds and
    estuaries. Various state and local plans now exist for restoring
    depressed salmon runs and reinvesting in the natural resources which
    sustain them. However, particularly in this era of strained state
    budgets and budget deficits, the states cannot and should not go it
    alone.
        The desperate need, as well as the value of providing matching
    federal investments to supplement ongoing state and local salmon
    restoration efforts, should be clear. The wanton destruction of this
    valuable economic and cultural resource is a national disgrace for
    which the Federal Government also bears considerable responsibility.
        Reinvestment in our watersheds also makes excellent economic sense.
    As recently as 1988, just before the current collapses, salmon fishing
    in all its forms (sport and commercial) brought more than $1.2 billion
    to the West Coast economy outside of Alaska, supporting some 62,750
    family wage jobs.\3\ Though many of these jobs have now been lost or
    are at risk, a wise investment in this resource now will bring many of
    them back, helping to revitalize a whole region's coastal economy, and
    producing a multitude of other economic benefits for all.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ From The Economic Imperative of Protecting Riverine Habitat,
    Pacific Rivers Council Report No. 5 (January, 1992).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Representative Mike Thompson's bill (H.R. 1157), passed
    overwhelmingly in the House on 13 June 2001 by a vote of 418-6,
    represents an important effort to commit the needed funds to help
    redress this economic disaster, and we commend him for his efforts.
    Representative Thompson has long been a friend of the fishermen.
    Likewise, so has Senator Barbara Boxer, whose S. 1825 is parallel to
    Representative Thompson's bill, with only slight differences. We thank
    them both for their leadership in restoring this economically and
    culturally important part of our West Coast economies and the nation's
    oldest industry. Either of their bills would be acceptable, frankly,
    which puts us in the enviable position of being able to improve what
    are already good bills. Our comments, therefore, concern ways to merge
    these two bills into one, taking the best of both.
    Appropriations vs. Stand Alone Bill
        There appears to be some continuing debate over whether these funds
    could be obtained directly through the appropriations process (as was
    done in previous years) or whether a separate authorizing bill is
    really necessary. We firmly believe there is ample authority under the
    ESA to fund the recovery efforts that the ESA requires through
    appropriations alone, if necessary. Every major salmonid species on the
    coast (including coho, chinook, chum, and steelhead) are now listed
    under the ESA in large parts of their range and for many genetically
    distinct major subpopulations (ESUs).\4\ The geographic area in which
    they are listed ranges from San Diego to nearly the Washington-Canada
    border. The ESA, as you know, requires recovery plans for listed
    species, which necessarily implies the funds to make them a reality.
    Given that general and very broad authority, and given a past history
    of similar appropriations, a special appropriation to provide federal
    matching funds to assist ongoing state ESA recovery efforts makes
    perfect sense.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Listings decisions are made on the basis of genetically similar
    subpopulations, called ``Evolutionarily Significant Units'' or ESUs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If there is any real question on this point, the Subcommittee Chair
    should refer the question to Legislative Counsel for a prompt opinion
    and proceed accordingly. What would be inappropriate would be to hold
    up the process of getting these desperately needed funds out to
    projects on the ground by allowing these kinds of trivial procedural
    questions to block the funding process itself.
        A stand-alone bill also makes perfect sense for authorizing this
    program for a longer period of time, such as 5 years, and providing it
    more structure and institutional strength. Such an authorizing bill
    would help prevent future confusion and would help maintain more stable
    funding--a desperate need for any salmon recovery program, which of
    necessity must be long term. Senator Boxer's S. 1825 does just that.
        In the interim, however, until a stand alone bill has been passed
    and signed, Congress should be pursuing both routes simultaneously. The
    real point is--get these programs the money and get the money to
    improvements on the ground. Don't let the funding bog down in
    procedural complexities and side issues that, ultimately, are
    irrelevant.
        All over the coast we need to be getting the restoration job done,
    and any delays would just further jeopardize fishing-dependent
    economies and make ultimate recovery that much harder as well as more
    expensive.

    Assuring Accountability and Targeting Priorities
        A much more important issue is assuring that these limited funds
    are well spent on salmon watershed investments that make biological
    sense and which will give the most `` bang for the buck.''
    Specifically, we have been concerned in the past about the lack of
    guidelines to date to the states on how this money is to be spent. We
    worry that this money will simply disappear down a rathole on
    ineffective half-measures, much like what happened on the Columbia
    River, with little to show in the end in the way of increased fish
    populations. Moreover, our ability in the future to seek federal
    dollars for salmon could be seriously compromised if these funds are
    mismanaged. This is why we need a bill like S. 1825 or H.R. 1157, to
    provide ``side bars'' on how these funds will be spent, and to assure
    accountability.
        Frankly, in California at least, we have already had some
    difficulty with previous federal salmon money already given that state.
    Counties, the timber industry and agriculture groups are all scrambling
    to grab these funds to cover, we fear, projects that may be ineffective
    or themselves damaging, or to merely subsidize industry's existing
    legal obligations to mitigate impacts from their past operations (e.g.,
    decommissioning logging roads) on fish and fish habitat. Many of the
    projects proposed in California have not in fact been for new projects,
    and some of the work being proposed is not even salmon-related.
        Restoration plans and scientific standards are necessary, as are
    checks and balances to prevent waste and duplication. Those in the
    fishing-dependent communities in greatest need will have to bear the
    consequences of the Administration's or Congress's failure to provide
    the oversight necessary to assure that these limited funds are wisely
    invested. Both H.R. 1157 and S. 1825 require organized salmon
    restoration and recovery plans by state recipients for just that
    purpose.

    Some Guidelines Required for Accountability and Efficient Use
        We do not believe it necessary for the Federal Government to
    micromanage how the money is spent, but we do believe, at a minimum,
    that some common-sense guidelines are needed to keep these limited
    funds from being wasted. The guidelines we have recommended in the past
    in congressional budget and/or bill language for these funds are as
    follows:

       1. Funds should only be expended for work or projects conducted
            pursuant to an approved salmon fishery restoration or recovery
            plan which has had scientific review and which is likely to be
            biologically effective;

       2. No funds should be expended for any work or project, in whole or
            in part, for salmon habitat restoration or to rebuild or
            restore salmon populations where there is an already existing
            legal or contractual obligation by another entity, public or
            private, to carry out or pay for that work or project, or to
            mitigate for past damage to the resource;

       3. No funds should be used for any work or project for salmon
            habitat restoration or to rebuild or recover salmon populations
            unless there exist rules or regulations that reasonably assure
            that other activities near or adjacent to the work or project
            or within the watershed of the work or project will not
            adversely affect, damage or destroy the work or project
            proposed for use of these funds.

        The above common sense guidelines would, we believe, provide the
    National Marine Fisheries Service and states the necessary direction
    for developing memorandums of understanding with the states that would
    govern how these funds are best spent. Without these guidelines it
    would be next to impossible for NMFS agents in the region to negotiate
    strong MOUs with the states that will, in fact, help the fish. These or
    similarly helpful guidelines are in both H.R. 1157 and S. 1825 in
    various forms.

    Salmon Restoration Planning Is Not Difficult--Requiring a Plan Will
            Support Efficient Implementation
        Provisions in both H.R. 1157 and S. 1825 would require, as a
    prerequisite to receiving funds under this program, that there be a
    state approved salmon restoration and protection plan. Oregon has long
    since developed and is currently implementing a comprehensive statewide
    salmon and steelhead recovery plan (the ``Oregon Plan''--see website
    at: http://www.oregon_plan.org). Among other things the Oregon Plan
    contains the following elements:

       (1) Both statutory and Administrative support--the Oregon Plan was
            created by both statute and Executive Order of the Governor;

       (2) Independent scientific review and oversight--an Independent
            Multi-Disciplinary Science Team (IMST) was created by statute
            to assure the scientific legitimacy of the plan, to assure that
            recovery measures were biologically sound and to oversee
            monitoring and adaptive management efforts over time;

       (3) A source of permanent funding--in addition to Legislative funds
            each year, some $44 million a year was dedicated to the Oregon
            Plan by a statewide ballot initiative (Measure 66) in
            perpetuity;

       (4) A system of screening and prioritizing projects--There is a
            clear project review process intended to get the best use of
            funding;

       (5) Comprehensive--the Oregon Plan is state-wide, involving both
            salmon and steelhead, and directly involves the counties while
            assuring cross-county consistency.

        Washington State also has most of the elements of a similar
    comprehensive recovery plan, including a screening and prioritization
    process for grants, and scientific oversight. Neither Oregon nor
    Washington would have significant problems meeting the minimal
    accountability and effectiveness criteria set forth in S. 1825. Nor
    would Alaska, given its very active and committed Department of Fish
    and Game and the models of both Oregon and Washington to emulate.
    States with already existing plans have already done their homework,
    and should be allowed to have those plans expeditiously reviewed and
    signed off on by the NMFS and other federal agencies so they can start
    receiving those funds.

        Unfortunately, even today California has no statewide salmon and
    steelhead restoration plan, though several counties have combined to
    create a regional plan. As to California, requiring appropriate
    planning and accountability as does language in both H.R. 1157 or S.
    1825--or alternatively, comparable language in any appropriations or
    budget report--as suggested above could only benefit the salmon
    resource, save federal taxpayers money by targeting investments wisely
    for the greatest return, and serve to provide California a strong
    incentive to make sure that there is in fact a California State
    recovery plan in place as soon as possible.

    Some Improvements That Would Result From Integrating Both Bills
        There are some differences between the two bills (S. 1825 and H.R.
    1157) that should be reconciled, and the best of each incorporated into
    a consolidated bill perhaps through the vehicle of S. 1825. The
    principle changes that could be made are as follows:

       (1) A Standard for Recovery: The goal of salmon recovery is clearly
            the direction of all our efforts. However, it is often unclear
            just what ``recovery'' means in these contexts, and so it is
            important to have a standard or goal in mind within the statute
            itself. This standard appears most clearly in H.R. 1157, Sec.
            11, with a reference to the declaration of July 2000 of the
            Four Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington that
            established that the recovery goal should be ``to protect and
            restore salmon and other aquatic species to sustainable and
            harvestable levels'' while meeting the standards of all
            applicable laws.
         The Four Governor's Declaration is the clearest statement yet of
            the desired goals for salmon recovery programs ever produced in
            a policy paper, and Section 11 of H.R. 1157 should be
            incorporated verbatim into S. 1825. Indeed, recovery to
            ``harvestable levels'' is the only goal that makes economic
            sense, as it is the only way that the economic investment in
            salmon recovery can be recovered--ultimately many times over--
            by society. The ESA goal of just enough of a population to keep
            them (barely) off the endangered species list will lead only to
            museum runs, and the Four Governor's clearly recognized this in
            their joint statement.

       (2) State to State Flexibility of Planning: The status of salmon
            recovery plans varies considerably from state to state, with
            Oregon's the most developed and California's the least.
            Approval of a state's existing salmon recovery plan,
            particularly those most developed, should be expedited under
            this process to avoid bureaucratic barriers to success, while
            those states that have not yet adopted a statewide plan should
            be required to pass through all the steps outlined in S. 1825.
         Oregon, for instance, already imposes two levels of scientific
            peer review on its salmon recovery plan, first at the statewide
            level through its legislatively created Independent Multi-
            disciplinary Science Team (IMST), and second at a project level
            for each project. Additionally, its internal guidelines for
            stream restoration projects have already been peer reviewed and
            approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which
            has worked in close collaboration with the State of Oregon
            throughout the process. Asking for a third level of review
            would be redundant and unnecessary, and I am sure this was not
            the intent of the language in S. 1825. If a credible and
            independent scientific review processes is already in place,
            this should be recognized as potentially sufficient to meet
            these requirements. We believe this was the intent of S. 1825
            language to that effect, but minor wording changes could be
            made to more clearly state that intent.

       (3) Accountability and Annual Funding Plans: There should be some
            provision for the submission of existing state salmon recovery
            and funding plans and their meeting these accountability
            criteria and annual spending plan requirements of S. 1825.
            Again, the State of Oregon, which has a well developed salmon
            recovery plan now being implemented, including ongoing funding
            mechanisms, could easily use its existing procedures and
            documents to meet these conditions, and it should be made clear
            that there is no need for redundant documents when the same
            documents can serve both functions. Some language allowing
            states to submit existing and approved statewide recovery and
            funding plans to satisfy those requirements in S. 1825 is a
            good idea to prevent such duplications.

       (4) Level of Funding: We believe that the proposed level of funding
            authorized in S. 1825, $350 million per year for 5 years, split
            among the various states and Tribes as indicated in the bill,
            is the correct amount. Remember that these funds are an
            investment. Eventually these funds invested will help restore a
            billion dollar a year west coast fishery, and will thus be
            repaid as dividends to the regional economy and to coastal
            communities many times over.
         We caution, however, that these funds should not be seen as in
            lieu of additional and much needed separate funding for the
            Columbia River salmon recovery plan now in place, the CALFED
            process underway to help restore the aquatic ecosystem of the
            California Bay Delta, or any other existing salmon protection
            program. We need to do all of these things, and these other
            restoration programs are also required by other statutes. The
            funds designated in S. 1825 (and similarly in H.R. 1157) are
            intended to fill the gaps in funding primarily for coastal and
            other salmon restoration efforts that currently cannot be met.

        Summary: Overall, these problems are minor wording and
    clarification issues, and may be merely differences in interpretation.
    Certainly the structure of S. 1825 is excellent, and the concepts of
    accountability and peer review are sound and necessary. Only minor
    changes need be made to promote the kind of state-by-state, from-the-
    ground-up, recovery planning process that recognizes that one size will
    not fit all circumstances.
        PCFFA strongly supports S. 1825 in concept, and believes it will be
    a long step forward toward making cost effective and economically
    beneficial use of salmon restoration funds that will greatly help our
    hard pressed coastal fishing communities and economies.

      Summary: Salmon Restoration Is an Investment That Will Repay Itself
                                Many Times Over

        Salmon are a self-reproducing and extremely valuable national
    resource that mean jobs and dollars in every west coast coastal and
    many inland communities. Well targeted investments in salmon habitat
    restoration, coupled with efforts to curtail or mitigate factors which
    lead to their loss, will without any doubt return many dollars on each
    dollar invested--if invested wisely.
        However these funds are provided--whether solely by an
    appropriation, or through longer term funding through specific
    authorizing legislation, or some combination of both--this Congress and
    the implementing agencies have an obligation to the federal taxpayers,
    and to coastal communities, to see that these funds are wisely and
    effectively spent in accordance with the common sense criteria
    presented above or their equivalent. We believe that either S. 1825 or
    H.R. 1157, and preferably a bill combining the best of both, is the
    best route to follow and will greatly benefit the whole west coast
    regional economy.

        Senator Smith. Glen, do you believe that if we pass this
    bill, and assuming that the stocks are recovered, that you'll
    be allowed to go fishing again?
        Mr. Spain. Well, the essence of any recovery plan is to
    achieve recovery. My view is that we can most likely achieve
    that by a consistent, organized effort over the long term.
        Senator Smith. And this bill helps you to do that?
        Mr. Spain. Absolutely.
        Senator Smith. What's your position on the use of
    hatcheries for mitigation and restoration?
        Mr. Spain. Well, our organization has run hatcheries, we've
    funded hatcheries, we've fought for hatchery reform. They are a
    tool, a management tool. Where hatcheries will actually
    conflict with recovery of wild stock, those have to be
    rethought and reorganized and re-managed.
        Senator Smith. Are you convinced NMFS is doing that now?
        Mr. Spain. Well, they are in the process of a review of
    their hatchery policy. The State of California is just
    completing a hatchery review. The State of Oregon is doing the
    same. There was a major scientific peer review of the
    Washington Hatchery Program with a number of recommendations--I
    think there were well over a hundred recommendations for
    reforms there. These are all in play and need to be pursued,
    yes. But remember that hatchery fish come from wild genetic
    stock. If we lose the fundamental genetic stock, the wild fish
    that have evolved for millions of years, we will eventually
    lose those hatcheries, as well.
        Senator Smith. I agree with that. I believe you are saying,
    though, that there is a scientific standard by which, if
    they're operated, they could be very helpful.
        Mr. Spain. Yes.
        Senator Smith. OK. How much, in your view, has farm raising
    of Atlantic salmon hurt the Pacific salmon fishery?
        Mr. Spain. My colleague from Alaska will have words on that
    one, I'm sure. That is a disaster in the making. There is no
    question that some of those fish--many, many, many tens of
    thousands--escape. We've gotten a number of scientific reports
    that they are colonizing and competing with wild fish in
    British Columbia and some in Alaska. You know, the farm fish
    operations have their place, but obviously it's a whole
    different area. They need to be controlled so that they do not
    impact, they do not escape, and they do not spread disease to
    the wild populations.
        Senator Smith. Very good, thank you.
        Our final witness, then, is Mr. Robert Thorstenson,
    President of the United Fishermen of Alaska, to present the
    perspective of commercial fishing interests in Alaska. And they
    are his children we met earlier.
        Mr. Thorstenson. Yes, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Smith. They've got a good looking momma,
    apparently.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Thorstenson. I hear that often.
        Senator Smith. I hope you know I'm kidding you, but those
    are very handsome children.
        Mr. Thorstenson. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT THORSTENSON, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF
                                 ALASKA

        Mr. Thorstenson. Alaskan fishermen share the vision that
    brought this bill before you, the desire to preserve and
    protect salmon. However, Alaskan fishermen have a somewhat
    different perspective regarding the origins of the salmon
    recovery legislation and the objectives it should serve.
        The original authorization for and funding of Pacific
    salmon recovery grew out of conflicts arising from the
    application of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The funding was
    intended to address two basic objectives: restoring salmon runs
    and mitigating the economic impacts that our commercial
    fisheries and coastal communities suffered as a consequence of
    depleted runs. S. 1825 dramatically modifies the fund, steering
    it on a course sharply different from the ones conceived by its
    original proponents, disregarding the nexus with the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty and preventing use of the funds to foster a
    sustainable salmon industry.
        Alaska depends on the salmon. Alaska salmon runs are
    abundant, with no stocks listed under the Endangered Species
    Act. In our coastal communities, commercial fisheries provide
    more than half of the basic private-sector employment. Over
    10,000 Alaskans operate commercial fishing vessels and hold
    permits to fish for salmon. Tens of thousands more work as crew
    on commercial fishing boats. Many more Alaskans process salmon
    in numerous processing facilities that dot the coast. In
    addition to the direct employment from commercial fisheries,
    support services in industries from fuel suppliers to banks to
    freight companies depend on commercial fisheries for much of
    their revenue. I could go on and on, but let's just say salmon
    is Alaska's equivalent of Boeing and Microsoft.
        The Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and
    Canada brought dramatic restrictions to the fisheries in
    Alaska. Under that treaty, Canada and the states of Washington,
    Oregon, and Alaska, as well as 28 Pacific Northwest Native
    American tribes sought to conserve and share the harvest of
    salmon that migrated along the coast from Northern Oregon to
    Southeast Alaska. Efforts to apportion the burdens of
    conservation and to share the benefits of a harvest of a far-
    ranging resource led to serious conflicts between the two
    nations and among interests within the United States.
        Over 95 percent of the salmon harvested in Southeastern
    Alaska are bound for Alaska's streams and rivers, but because
    of the concerns about troubled salmon stocks originating in
    Washington, Oregon, and Canada, Alaska was asked to reduce its
    harvest of healthy Alaskan-origin salmon in order to reduce the
    incidental take of salmon originating elsewhere.
        To address these concerns raised by the Northwest states
    and tribes and by Canada, Alaskan salmon fisheries suffered a
    series of cutbacks between 1985 and 1992. These cutbacks cost
    Alaska the harvest of tens of millions of salmon worth hundreds
    of millions of dollars. Salmon stocks in Canada and the Pacific
    Northwest suffered a continuing productivity decline in the
    1990s intensifying conflict between Alaska and the Pacific
    Northwest. The conflict manifested itself in the press and the
    courts and in the salmon treaty negotiations.
        For several years, the treaty negotiators were unable to
    reach agreements on conservation or on harvest sharing. In an
    effort to compel the United States to grant concessions to the
    treaty negotiations, Canada prosecuted aggressive fisheries
    that harvested salmon from endangered and depleted runs
    originating in Washington and Oregon. Even when U.S. managers
    stopped U.S. fishing on these runs, Canada continued to fish
    those runs, saying they would stop only if the U.S. agreed to
    concessions in Alaska.
        Finally, in 1999, the two nations and the diverse interests
    within the United States negotiated a long-term agreement to
    address the conservation and sharing of migratory salmon
    stocks. However, peace with Canada and the protection of
    depleted Washington- and Oregon-origin salmon from fishing by
    Canada came at a high price for Alaska since the agreement
    instituted yet another set of restrictions on Alaskan
    fisheries.
        The funding for Pacific salmon recovery has been important
    to Alaska to address both of the primary objectives of the
    program: conservation of the resource and improving fishery
    economies. To these ends, Alaska has funded important research
    programs, habitat conservation, and programs to mitigate the
    economic impacts of the fishery restrictions imposed in
    response to salmon conservation problems in the Pacific
    Northwest and Canada.
        Specifically, the Salmon Recovery Appropriation has funded
    salmon escapement enumerations, salmon habitat assessment, and
    stock identification work. Equally important, Alaska has used
    salmon recovery funding for a salmon marketing program. Faced
    with significant harvest reductions under the treaty, Alaska
    seeks to gain more value from the limited harvest. Furthermore,
    the funding has been used to increase production in Alaska's
    Salmon Enhancement Program and thereby increase the harvest
    fishermen can take from abundant and carefully enhanced salmon
    stocks.
        The Pacific Salmon Recovery Appropriation that was first
    passed by Congress in 1999 was conceived by Alaskans and had
    its roots in the conflicts arising from the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty Agreements. While Alaskan fishermen applaud efforts to
    conserve salmon, we are concerned that S. 1825 takes this
    appropriation in a new direction and ignores many of the
    primary objectives with the original legislation. There are
    other issues of concern in the text of S. 1825, but the
    principal policy issue is that S. 1825 fails to provide for the
    special circumstances which are related to the implementation
    of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Given that fact, we cannot
    support this legislation as it is drafted.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thorstenson follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Robert Thorstenson, President,
                           United Fishermen of Alaska

        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee on S.
    1825, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act. I am appearing today as the
    President of the United Fishermen of Alaska, a statewide organization
    and coalition of commercial fishermen, and as a member of the Northern
    Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission.
        Alaskan fishermen share the vision that brought this bill before
    you--the desire to preserve and protect salmon. However, Alaskan
    fishermen have a somewhat different perspective regarding the origins
    of the salmon recovery legislation and of the objectives it should
    serve. The original authorization for, and funding of, Pacific salmon
    recovery grew out of conflicts arising from the application of the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty. Alaska fishermen were foremost among the
    proponents of the salmon recovery legislation. The funding was intended
    to address two basic objectives--restoring salmon runs and mitigating
    the economic impacts that the commercial fisheries and coastal
    communities suffered as a consequence of depleted salmon runs.
        S. 1825 dramatically modifies the fund, steering it on a course
    sharply different from the one conceived by its original proponents,
    disregarding the nexus with the Pacific Salmon Treaty and preventing
    use of the funds to foster a sustainable salmon industry.
        Maritime Alaska depends on the salmon. Alaska's salmon runs are
    generally abundant with no stocks listed under the Endangered Species
    Act. In our coastal communities, commercial fisheries provide more than
    half of the basic, private-sector employment. Over 10,000 Alaskans
    operate commercial fishing vessels and hold permits to fish for salmon.
    Tens of thousands more work as crew on commercial fishing boats. Many
    more Alaskans process salmon in the numerous processing facilities that
    dot the coast. In addition to the direct employment from the commercial
    fisheries, support services and industries, from fuel suppliers to
    banks to freight companies, depend on commercial fisheries for much of
    their revenue.
        The Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada
    brought dramatic restrictions to the fisheries in Alaska. Under that
    Treaty, Canada and the states of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska as well
    as 28 Indian tribes sought to conserve and share the harvest of salmon
    that migrate along the coast from Northern Oregon to Southeast Alaska.
    Efforts to apportion the burdens of conservation and to share the
    benefits of the harvest of a far-ranging resource lead to serious
    conflicts between the two nations and among interests within the United
    States.
        Although Alaskan fisheries harvested principally very productive
    local stocks, a very small percentage of the Alaskan harvest was
    comprised of salmon migrating from Canada or the Northwest into Alaskan
    waters. Because of the concern about troubled salmon stocks originating
    in Washington, Oregon and Canada, Alaska was asked to reduce its
    harvest of healthy Alaska origin salmon in order to reduce the
    incidental take of salmon originating elsewhere. To address these
    concerns raised by the Northwest states and tribes and by Canada,
    Alaskan salmon fisheries suffered a series of cutbacks between 1985 and
    1992.
        For example, because of amendments to the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
    the Alaskan Noyes Island purse seine fishery, which harvested abundant
    Alaska origin pink salmon runs, was severely curtailed to reduce the
    catch of sockeye salmon originating in Canada. The Treaty restrictions
    forced Alaskan fishermen to sacrifice the harvest of 60 million salmon
    to prevent the harvest of a few hundred thousand Canada-bound sockeye.
    Hundreds of fishing vessels that once plied the waters near Noyes
    Island found the only remaining opportunity in the early part of the
    salmon season to be in carefully managed fisheries near salmon
    enhancement facilities.
        Restrictions extended to other fisheries as well. Although Alaska
    implemented a Chinook conservation and stock rebuilding program prior
    to implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Treaty instituted
    further harvest restrictions on sport and commercial fisheries, placing
    a quota on the Chinook salmon harvest. While Chinook abundance
    increased dramatically through the 1980s and early 1990s Alaskan
    fisheries remained constrained by the Treaty quota of 263,000 fish
    annually.
        Salmon stocks in Canada and the Pacific Northwest suffered a
    continuing productivity decline in the 1990s, intensifying conflict
    between Alaska and the Pacific Northwest as the different jurisdictions
    sought to impose harvest restrictions on the incidental catch in Alaska
    of non-Alaska origin Salmon. The conflict manifested itself in the
    press, in the courts and in the salmon treaty negotiations. For several
    years, the Treaty negotiators were unable to reach agreements on
    conservation or harvest sharing. In an effort to compel the United
    States to grant concessions in the Treaty negotiations, Canada
    prosecuted aggressive fisheries that harvested salmon from endangered
    and depleted runs originating in Washington and Oregon. Even when U.S.
    managers stopped U.S. fishing on these runs, Canada continued to fish
    those runs saying they would stop only if the U.S. agreed to
    concessions in Alaska.
        Finally, in 1999, the two nations and the diverse interests within
    the United States negotiated a long-term agreement to address the
    conservation and sharing of migratory salmon stocks. However, peace
    with Canada and the protection of depleted Washington and Oregon origin
    salmon from fishing by Canada came at a high price for Alaska since the
    agreement instituted yet another set of restrictions on Alaskan
    fisheries.
        For example, the sport and commercial Chinook salmon fishery saw
    its harvest drop from a quota of 263,000 salmon to harvest levels that
    are but a fraction of that. The Noyes Island fishery, which, as noted
    above, had already been severely restricted in prior Pacific Salmon
    Treaty agreements, and which was now constrained from harvesting more
    than 5 million fish per year, was cut back by an additional 10 percent.
    The Tree Point fishery was slashed from a four-day-per week fishery to
    two with consequent loss of harvest.
        With the long-term treaty agreement completed in June 1999,
    Alaskans turned their attention to developing legislation to solve some
    of the underlying problems created by the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
    Commercial fishermen worked with the State of Alaska and Senator
    Stevens to develop federal appropriations that would help to fund
    salmon conservation in the Treaty area, including Washington and
    Oregon, and also help restore salmon fisheries and local economies
    devastated by the severe restrictions imposed by the Treaty and the
    decline of Northwest salmon stocks. To these ends, Senator Stevens
    included in the omnibus appropriation bill for Fiscal Year 2000 funding
    ``for salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock enhancement, salmon
    research, and implementation of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty
    Agreement and related agreements. . . .'' Pub.L. 106-113. Similarly the
    following year, the Congress appropriated money for Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery ``for necessary expenses associated with the
    restoration of Pacific salmon populations and the implementation of the
    1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and
    Canada. . . .'' Pub.L. 106-105.
        The funding for Pacific salmon recovery has been important to
    Alaska to address both of the primary objectives of the program--
    conservation of the resource and improving fishery economies. To these
    ends, Alaska has funded important research programs, habitat
    conservation, and programs to mitigate the economic effects of the
    fishery restrictions imposed in response to salmon conservation
    problems in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Specifically, the salmon
    recovery appropriation has funded salmon escapement enumeration, salmon
    habitat assessment, and stock identification work. Equally important,
    Alaska has used salmon recovery funding for a salmon marketing program.
    Faced with significant harvest reductions under the Treaty, Alaska
    seeks to gain more value from the limited harvest. Furthermore, the
    funding has been used to increase production in Alaska's salmon
    enhancement program and thereby increase the harvest fishermen can take
    from abundant and carefully enhanced salmon stocks.
        The Pacific salmon recovery appropriation that was first passed by
    Congress in 1999 was conceived by Alaskans and had its roots in the
    conflicts arising from the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements. While
    Alaskan fishermen applaud efforts to conserve salmon, we are concerned
    that S. 1825 takes this appropriation in a new direction and ignores
    many of the primary objectives of the original legislation.
        In addition to the dramatic change of course envisioned by S. 1825,
    the bill incorporates a number of problematic elements. Section
    3(b)(3)(D) does not contain important language found in H.R. 1157
    permitting Alaska to use funds to mitigate the economic impacts of the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty by increasing economic opportunities for salmon
    fishermen. Similarly, list of eligible activities on Section 3(d) omits
    a significant provision in H.R. 1157 allowing states and tribes to use
    funds allocated to them for projects outside their jurisdiction. This
    provision was included to allow parties affected by the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty to work co-operatively in salmon restoration and enhancement
    projects. The deletion of these provisions reflects the fact that S.
    1825 fails to recognize important Pacific Salmon Treaty issues.
        A major flaw in H.R. 1157 that is repeated and magnified in S. 1825
    is that ``salmon'' is defined to include only naturally produced runs.
    S. 1825 then specifically restricts certain eligible activities to
    those benefiting only naturally produced salmon runs. The net effect of
    this is to arbitrarily exclude any run which has been enhanced by
    management activities and any mixed run. This overly restrictive
    limitation will redound to the detriment of many runs and will
    undermine each state's ability to assist in the recovery of depleted
    salmon runs.
        S. 1825 then adds a cumbersome and unnecessary peer review program.
    Alaska, like other Pacific Salmon Treaty states, has an outstanding
    scientific peer review program which ensures the scientific and
    programmatic quality of projects. S. 1825 adds another stage of review
    and approvals which is nothing more than a bureaucratic duplication of
    existing peer review programs.
        There are other issues of concern in the text of S. 1825 but the
    principal policy issue is that S. 1825 fails to provide for the special
    circumstances which are related to implementation of the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty. Given that fact, we cannot support this legislation as drafted.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

        Senator Smith. In addition to commercial salmon harvests,
    Alaska has a strong sport fishery. Do you have any estimates on
    what the sport fishing industry contributes to the Alaskan
    economy?
        Mr. Thorstenson. In Southeast Alaska, in the treaty region,
    on the most recent year that I've got numbers from, the sport
    harvest of chinook salmon was 60,000, the sport harvest of coho
    salmon was 320,000. Just a ballpark guess in Southeast, that
    would probably be in the neighborhood of, you know, $20-$30
    million, maybe $50 million if you start adding in hotels,
    restaurants and--but the actual--the impact from the treaty
    that's been taken on sport fishing runs into the tens of
    millions of dollars, at least, just for sport fishing alone,
    because in Southeastern Alaska, a non-resident coming into the
    state to fish is only allowed two king salmon per 365-day
    calendar year and one king salmon per day. I believe this year
    the Columbia River Basin is going to be higher numbers, and I
    think we're going to be seeing better production for most of
    our driver stocks, so hopefully we'll have an opportunity for
    outside fishermen to come in and catch two per day this year,
    but that's what we've been living under. It's a pretty tight
    sport restriction, as well. I've spoken mostly to commercial
    because I represent commercial fishermen, but also we've had
    some tremendous sport impacts with the treaty, as well.
        Senator Smith. Over the last several years, we've had
    tremendous returns to the Columbia Basin. And, as I understand
    the testimony today, Alaska's fishing is directly correlated to
    the Columbia River.
        Mr. Thorstenson. Part of the problem----
        Senator Smith. What have these strong returns done for you,
    anything?
        Mr. Thorstenson. Part of the problem we've had in
    Southeastern Alaska is the treaty is based on a very
    complicated chinook model, and so the increase in the Columbia
    River Basin, where it should be rising, the tides at the same
    level across the whole range of the resources, the last 2 years
    were the lowest chinook harvest we've been allowed probably in
    50 years. So what happened is the model is based upon Robinson
    Creek, West Coast, Vancouver Island, a lot of different
    scenarios across--up and down the coast. And even though the
    Columbia River is a huge driver stock to upriver rights, the
    lack of flexibility in that model, the lack of flexibility in
    the agreement has kept our harvest reduced significantly for
    both sport and commercial.
        Senator Smith. Let's just say, hypothetically, if these
    returns remain high--based on the current law, if you're
    opposed to this bill--do you anticipate that they would let you
    go fishing again?
        Mr. Thorstenson. That's going to depend upon Canada and
    Washington and Oregon and the Columbia River tribes. We have a
    working arrangement in the treaty with them, and we're going to
    have to work through that model.
        Senator Smith. OK.
        Geoff, have you estimated the cost of the restoration
    projects that have already been proposed in Oregon? What is it
    going to run?
        Mr. Huntington. Senator Smith, the average right now that
    we're running--we have not done a long-term estimate. What I
    can tell you is that at putting in about $25 million a year
    just into voluntary restoration projects on privately-owned
    lands, we are far short of the capacity of willing landowners
    to be undertaking better stewardship projects. We are unable to
    provide adequate technical assistance so that folks can get
    through a permitting process and design process to get more
    projects on the ground. We have not even begun to scratch the
    surface, I don't believe, on replacing fish screens for
    diversions for--agricultural diversions that are directly
    threatening fish. And so we have really looked at this program
    as being the starting point for a long-term engagement where
    we're investing in key strategic ways over time that would at
    least be two life cycles of the listed fish stocks.
        Senator Smith. Have the Oregon watershed councils been able
    to leverage Federal monies, matching funds for these coastal
    salmon issues?
        Mr. Huntington. Senator Smith, the watershed councils and
    the soil and water conservation districts that are the primary
    recipients of funds all are required to at least have a 25-
    percent match for any of the dollars we give. That usually runs
    more on the order of a 50-percent match, frankly, and it's not
    uncommon at all to see more money coming in from outside
    sources on any given project.
        Overall, as we run a tally, we see a ratio of about 3 to 1
    being invested by private dollars going into restoration
    activities by commercial forest industry and other private
    landowners to every public dollar that's being invested in
    Oregon right now.
        Senator Smith. Well, you've got currently budgeted $25
    million to go to the ground.
        Mr. Huntington. That's approximately what we spend each
    year on projects on the ground and activities associated with
    getting those projects on the ground.
        Senator Smith. What would those activities be? Fish
    screens?
        Mr. Huntington. The on-the-ground projects?
        Senator Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Huntington. Fish screens, fish passage barrier
    removals, push-up dams, modifying grazing practices, fencing
    and shading riparian areas, putting large woody debris in
    streams in order to improve structure of habitat, acquisitions
    of conservation easements that help improve and protect water
    quality if they're done with willing sellers and in the context
    of local community values. We----
        Senator Smith. The $25 million isn't even scratching the
    surface, then.
        Mr. Huntington. No, sir, it is not.
        Senator Smith. That's amazing.
        Mr. Blackwolf, again, thank you for coming. You're familiar
    with the success in reestablishing salmon runs in the Umatilla
    River. And I wonder if, in your view, this bill is compatible
    with those efforts. Does it support what's been done there?
        Mr. Blackwolf. Yes, sir, Senator Smith. You know, the
    Umatilla is just one of the projects that's been a success for
    bringing--putting fish back in the streams again. I don't know
    how many years the Umatilla River has been without salmon, but
    the project that the Umatilla Tribe, along with the voluntary
    work of the landowners, they got salmon back in the river, and
    people are catching salmon right in the town of Pendleton now.
        Senator Smith. Yes, they do. It's wonderful to see. I have,
    I hope you know, tried to be very supportive of the tribe there
    and their efforts to restore salmon runs, and they are really
    restored. And it's wonderful to see all these fish coming back
    onto the reservation, through the community and Pendleton. It's
    a very gratifying success story, and I'm anxious to make sure
    that there's nothing in this bill that in any way inhibits
    future successes for other tribes and other communities as we
    try and recover these stocks. So if you find anything in here
    that doesn't contribute to that end, you let me know.
        But in the meantime, we thank you all for your testimony
    today. It's been helpful to have your input on this bill. It's
    a work in progress. We will work with our Alaskan and
    Washington colleagues to make sure that its benefits are
    equitably distributed, because we're really in this together,
    and it's got to work for all if it's going to work for any.
        So thank you all for being here, and we're adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
                               Donald R. Knowles

        Question 1. I understand that 26 runs of Pacific Salmon are listed
    as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    What activities has NMFS or other NOAA line offices taken under the ESA
    to restore these runs?
        Answer. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has
    taken numerous actions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to
    protect and restore the 26 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
    Pacific salmon that have been listed as threatened or endangered under
    the ESA since 1989 (22 ESUs were listed after 1995). The agency is
    implementing changes needed to protect and recover these fish,
    including those necessary to address human impacts from habitat
    destruction, dams, hatcheries, and harvest. NOAA Fisheries has sought
    to reduce or eliminate threats to the species as the first step towards
    recovery. NOAA Fisheries has also sought to minimize the impacts to
    affected parties and to fulfill its treaty obligations with Native
    American tribes. There is no single factor in salmon declines, and
    there is no single solution for their restoration. The recovery of
    salmon runs will be a cooperative effort involving hundreds of affected
    parties and federal, state, local and tribal governments. NOAA
    Fisheries is working with many partners to take the incremental steps
    needed to recover salmon, and those actions are reducing the
    probability of extinction. While the specific actions taken by NOAA
    Fisheries are too numerous to list in this document, a few examples are
    given below. All of these examples have led to improved salmon survival
    and will aid in future recovery of the runs.

    Harvest
        The goal in harvest management since listing salmon along the West
    Coast has been to minimize the impacts to ESA listed stocks, while
    maximizing the harvest of unlisted hatchery-produced salmon in tribal,
    commercial and recreational fisheries. These changes have taken a
    variety of forms from development and ratification of the United
    States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty to development of tribal and state
    resource management plans under the ESA 4(d) rules for threatened
    species. These management changes will allow the rebuilding of
    depressed runs over time. A few of the changes that have been
    implemented are listed below.

    Participation in the U.S. v. Oregon forum to advocate harvest
            management reforms to limit the impact of fisheries on ESA-
            listed fish consistent with the Basinwide Salmon Recovery
            Strategy
        The U.S. v. Oregon parties reached agreement on a 5-year,
    abundance-based harvest plan that will constrain harvest rates on
    listed salmon during the spring and summer season tribal and non-tribal
    fisheries, while encouraging increased testing and deployment of
    selective fisheries gear and methods. The fisheries target surplus
    salmon returning to hatcheries on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

    Evaluation of 2 joint state/tribal resource management plans to allow
            Washington State and all 17 Puget Sound treaty Indian tribes a
            limited harvest of ESA-listed Hood Canal summer chum and Puget
            Sound chinook
        The management plans have strict limits on how many salmon can be
    taken and require the state and the tribes to carry out crucial
    sampling and monitoring. The strict harvest limits, plus the wealth of
    information that will come from the state and tribes over the next 2
    years, will help fishery scientists better understand the Sound's
    salmon populations and improve the fishes' chances of recovery.

    Approval of an innovative fisheries management and evaluation plan for
            Willamette Basin spring chinook fisheries
        This fisheries management and evaluation plan, developed in
    coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, helps
    recover Willamette Basin spring chinook, while allowing fishers to
    catch a higher number of hatchery-produced chinook than in the past.

    Evaluation of a tribal resource management plan for managing spring
            chinook in the Imnaha River in 2001
        This plan, developed in coordination with the Nez Perce Tribe and
    the State of Oregon, ensures that important tribal and recreational
    fisheries in northeast Oregon can take place while still protecting
    listed salmon.

    Implementation of provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996
            for commercial and recreational salmon fishing off the West
            Coast
        The agency proposed Amendment 14 to the fishery management plan,
    took comments, and published the final rule. Provisions included
    descriptions of essential fish habitat, a new definition of
    overfishing, and new bycatch provisions. The amendment also addressed
    revisions to management objectives for a number of key salmon
    populations, and changed some fishery allocation rules.

    Completion of the 1999 United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty and
            related ESA section 7 consultation
        Completion of the 1999 United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    and related ESA section 7 consultation resulted in an abundance-based
    fishery management scheme that limits impacts to ESA listed salmon
    runs. The ESA consultation included an evaluation of the impacts of
    Canadian fisheries on listed runs, and it was determined that the
    United States and Canadian fisheries would not jeopardize the continued
    existence of the listed runs along the West Coast.

    Habitat
        The destruction or modification of habitat has been one of the
    major factors leading to the long-term decline in salmon populations.
    Habitat will also take the longest to restore and recover. NOAA
    Fisheries has developed three major target areas for habitat protection
    and recovery: (1) ESA section 7 consultation on actions that affect
    habitat; (2) development of agreements (Habitat Conservation Plans)
    with private landowners to protect and restore habitat; and (3) funding
    of restoration projects through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund.
        NOAA Fisheries has completed thousands of informal and formal ESA
    section 7 consultations on actions that may affect listed salmon. NOAA
    Fisheries has sought to minimize the number of individual consultations
    that are conducted and has focused on development of programmatic
    consultations for a variety of activities. One programmatic
    consultation can negate the need for hundreds of individual
    consultation actions.
        An example of programmatic consultation is the completed biological
    opinion covering 15 categories of permit actions regulated by the Army
    Corps of Engineers (Corps). Many of the most severe and direct adverse
    impacts to salmon habitat occur as a result of dredge and fill
    activities, channel modifications, bank stabilization, and in-channel
    construction. Most of these activities require a Clean Water Act
    section 404 permit issued by the Corps. This is a federal action
    requiring ESA section 7 consultation when the results may affect listed
    species or their critical habitat. Application of the programmatic
    biological opinion will dramatically improve NOAA Fisheries'
    effectiveness in implementing the ESA by streamlining the agency's
    review of hundreds of Corps permits. The new programmatic approach
    represents a significant departure from the past practice of consulting
    on each individual project, and paves the way for similar opportunities
    for NOAA Fisheries to meet its strategic goal of recovering protected
    species through cooperative partnerships with other federal agencies
    and private citizens.
        As part of the National Fire Plan, NOAA Fisheries secured
    additional staff to provide streamlined, expedited Endangered Species
    Act section 7 consultation, coordination, planning and review. These
    services support U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
    efforts to carry out fire management projects as they implement the
    National Fire Plan. This plan responds to the extensive wildfires that
    ravaged the West during the summer of 2000. Much of forest plan work
    has the potential to affect salmon habitat, so NOAA Fisheries hired,
    trained and deployed 40 new biologists. To place these scientists close
    to where the work will occur, NOAA Fisheries opened seven new field
    offices in Salmon and Grangeville, ID; Ellensburg, WA; La Grande, OR;
    and Ukiah, Yreka, and Santa Barbara, CA.
        In August 2000, NOAA Fisheries signed the Record of Decision for
    the CALFED Bay Delta Program to restore the San Francisco Bay Delta
    ecosystem, including recovery of threatened and endangered salmon and
    steelhead, while ensuring the water supply reliability for the 20
    million water users that depend on the water exported from the Delta.
        NOAA Fisheries has completed 10 Habitat Conservation Plans related
    to industrial forestland operations, hydropower operations, and
    withdrawal of water for residential, municipal, industrial and
    agricultural use. These agreements provide for the protection of listed
    species while allowing the activities to continue in modified form.
        Habitat restoration is very important for the recovery of self-
    sustaining salmon populations. The Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund has
    been instrumental in making this happen through a variety of activities
    such as watershed planning, land acquisition, fish passage, road,
    riparian and water quality improvement, or through monitoring
    activities. NOAA Fisheries acts as the granting agent for the funds and
    provides limited project oversight. The Memoranda of Understanding with
    the funded entities outline the types of projects to be funded, and
    NOAA Fisheries is working cooperatively with the states and tribes on
    monitoring and evaluation of the funded projects.

    Dam Operations (Hydro)
        Many actions have been taken to minimize the impact of dams and
    hydropower operations on listed salmonids. The largest of these actions
    was completion of the ESA section 7 consultation on the Federal
    Columbia River Power System in December 2000. The resulting biological
    opinion and accompanying ``Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy'' will
    help guide the operation of the hydropower system, as well as all
    actions taken to recover salmon in the Basin over the next 10 years.
    The resulting strategy is practical and comprehensive, and places the
    highest priority on those actions likely to produce the greatest
    benefit for the broadest range of species throughout the Basin. A
    central feature of the strategy is the establishment of explicit,
    scientifically-based performance standards to gauge the status of
    salmon and the success of recovery efforts. Progress will be measured
    against those standards in 5, 8 and 10 years to determine if more
    aggressive recovery efforts--including breaching of 4 lower Snake River
    dams--will be necessary.
        Other Hydropower actions include the following.

        NOAA Fisheries reached agreement on McKenzie River
            (Willamette River Basin) hydro project operations. After more
            than a decade of discussion, litigation and negotiation, NOAA
            Fisheries, other federal agencies, and licensee Eugene Water
            and Energy Board reached a settlement agreement. It resolved
            outstanding issues at the Leaburg-Walterville Project. This
            project is on the McKenzie River, a major tributary to the
            Willamette River and stronghold of the remnant upper Willamette
            River chinook salmon ESU, listed as threatened under the
            Endangered Species Act. The agreement included construction of
            passage facilities that will significantly reduce deaths of
            migrating juvenile chinook, and optimize passage of adult fish
            through the project.

        NOAA Fisheries signed a settlement agreement resolving a
            lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act related to Savage
            Rapids Dam on the Rouge River. NOAA Fisheries had been involved
            for 6 years in negotiations and litigation to improve fish
            passage at Savage Rapids Dam. The settlement requires Grants
            Pass Irrigation District to stop using the dam for irrigation
            by November 1, 2005, and to use properly screened electric
            pumps instead. Removal of the dam will occur as soon as federal
            authorizing and funding legislation is enacted.

        NOAA Fisheries signed an agreement protecting listed salmon
            affected by the North Umpqua Hydroelectric Project. This
            project, owned by Scottish Power, is on the west side of the
            Central Cascade Mountain Range in southern Oregon. The North
            Umpqua River has a 34-mile reach of wild and scenic river below
            the project area, which contains 6 populations of wild salmon
            and trout, including ESA-listed coho. For the past 2 years,
            Scottish Power, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
            Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, State of
            Oregon Office of the Governor, and Oregon Departments of
            Environmental Quality, Fish and Wildlife, and Water Resources
            participated in consensus-based negotiations that culminated in
            the signing of the North Umpqua Settlement Agreement. During
            the process, the parties first negotiated resource management
            goals to set standards an agreement would have to meet. Both
            environmental resources and power generation concerns were
            protected under this agreement.

        NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center is
            conducting pre-project monitoring for removal of the Elwha
            River Dam on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. This
            monitoring will not only provide information on the effects of
            the dam removal on the Elwha River, but will also provide
            valuable research on how rivers respond to changes in sediment
            loads and flow.

    Hatcheries
        Pacific salmon hatcheries have been in operation for over 100
    years. In the past they have predominantly been operated to maximize
    production of fish to satisfy tribal treaty obligations, mitigate for
    other impacts on habitat, or to provide for commercial and recreational
    fisheries. With the ESA listing of salmon, significant changes are
    being undertaken to minimize the impacts that production hatcheries
    have on listed wild runs, while also developing hatchery programs for
    conservation of severely endangered runs, and supplementation programs
    to boost production of wild runs.
        One of the major changes will be the development of Hatchery
    Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for all hatchery operations. These
    HGMPS will guide hatchery operations and ensure that they do not
    interfere with recovery of listed wild runs. NOAA Fisheries will also
    be developing guidance in late 2002 on the use of hatcheries to aid in
    the recovery of wild salmon runs.
        NOAA Fisheries has worked on several gene conservation hatchery
    programs to help prevent the extinction of salmon runs. For example,
    the Snake River sockeye captive brood program, and the Lyons Ferry fall
    chinook program both have been instrumental in maintaining the genetic
    resources of endangered runs. This will allow the runs to be rebuilt
    after other recovery actions are taken to secure habitat and prevent
    mortality. The Snake River sockeye run has increased from near
    extinction up to 250 fish in 2001. The Snake River fall chinook run has
    increased from 78 individuals in 1990-1991 into the thousands over the
    past few years. Both of these programs have preserved options for
    future recovery.

    Research and Monitoring
        NOAA Fisheries has developed an extensive research and monitoring
    program that is carried out by the Northwest and Southwest Fisheries
    Science Centers. A variety of projects are being conducted on tasks
    evaluating the efficacy of different habitat restoration techniques,
    the use and importance of estuaries for juvenile salmon, the growth and
    survival of salmon in the Columbia River plume and ocean environments,
    the passage of fish through dams and migration through the Columbia and
    Snake rivers, and the role of salmon carcasses in providing nutrients
    for juvenile fish production.
        As part of the implementation of the FCRPS Biological Opinion, NOAA
    Fisheries has begun implementation of a research, monitoring, and
    evaluation (RM&E) program. The RM&E program will provide the scientific
    information necessary to assess whether the Biological Opinion's
    performance measures are being achieved at the 2003, 2005, and 2008
    check-ins.
        Salmonid populations in California are at the southern extent of
    their natural range where environmental conditions (e.g., warm
    temperatures, Mediterranean climate and arid conditions) are marginal
    for them to exist. Consequently, their life history and population
    dynamics are different from those of the Pacific Northwest. Internal
    funds of NOAA Fisheries are being used to support cooperative research
    with academic institutions, the California Department of Fish and Game,
    and private industry on a wide variety of issues to guide the recovery
    process. For example, stream ecologists are monitoring population
    levels and habitat conditions, describing different life history
    strategies and competitive interactions between wild and hatchery fish.
    This information supports population modelers that are assessing the
    risk of extinction and the impacts of ocean harvest. Population
    geneticists are determining population structure of steelhead trout and
    chinook salmon needed to guide recovery planning, and economists are
    conducting studies to predict the economic effects of habitat
    restoration and regulatory impacts to commercial fisheries. Very little
    is known about the ocean and estuarine ecology of juvenile chinook
    salmon, and the potential for that knowledge to identify mortality
    factors to guide restoration and recovery. To that end scientists are
    investigating habitat use, growth, feeding, condition and survival in
    relation to production source (hatchery versus wild, natal stream and
    spawning date) in the Gulf of the Farallones and San Francisco Bay.
        An example that ties many of these actions together has occurred in
    the Central Valley of California. When Sacramento River winter-run
    chinook salmon were downgraded from threatened to endangered in 1994,
    returns had dropped to as low as 189 adult spawners in a single year.
    Numbers have stabilized at significantly higher levels (average 2,500)
    over the last 6 years. Actions taken include curtailment of incidental
    take in ocean salmon fishery, implementation of the Biological Opinion
    for the Central Valley and State Water Projects, fish passage
    improvements, construction of major new fish screens at large river
    diversion dams, reconfiguration of dams that impeded passage,
    temperature control on the spawning grounds, and a carefully managed
    artificial supplementation program.

        Question 2. In his testimony, Don Knowles, Director, Office of
    Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, stated that the
    Agency has entered into cooperative agreements with the states and
    tribes for restoring Pacific salmon. What kind of fiscal or legal
    accountability is provided under these agreements? Please provide us
    with copies of each of the agreements.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF),
    $258 million has been appropriated and distributed since the program's
    inception in FY 2000. The PCSRF has been distributed through
    reimbursable grants to the states of Alaska, California, Oregon, and
    Washington; Tribal Fisheries Commissions; and through the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs for individual tribal governments. The grants to the
    states and Tribal Fisheries Commissions are based upon signed Memoranda
    of Understanding (MOUs) and standard grant provisions under NOAA
    Financial Assistance Awards. The MOUs outline the framework and
    criteria for transferring the funds to the states and tribes and for
    funding eligible projects within each state and tribal government.
    Specifically, the MOUs outline the types of funded activities, the
    process for project selection and review, the criteria for project
    selection, and reporting and monitoring requirements. For individual
    tribal funds not under MOUs, proposals are reviewed by NOAA Fisheries
    to ensure the projects meet PCSRF objectives. Funding to the states has
    a 25 percent non-federal matching requirement and limits the states to
    3 percent for administrative expenses. Funded entities are required to
    monitor projects and report annually to NOAA and Congress on the
    results of their recovery activities and the overall program. Copies of
    the signed MOUs for all entities and an example of the NOAA Financial
    Assistance Award for the State of California are attached.
        In January 2002, NOAA Fisheries hosted a workshop in Portland,
    Oregon, to discuss implementation of the Fund. The two needed
    improvements that were recognized at the workshop were the need for a
    more coordinated monitoring and evaluation component, and for
    coordinated reporting of project activities. During this year, NOAA
    Fisheries has worked with the states and tribes to improve these
    aspects of the program. A follow-up workshop is planned for December
    2002 in Seattle, Washington.
        MOUs are currently in place for the following entities and are
    attached for review: The states of Alaska, California, Oregon, and
    Washington; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; and the Klamath River Inter-
    Tribal Fish and Water Commission. Grant proposals are submitted on an
    annual basis after PCSRF appropriations are made by Congress. Grants
    for the PCSRF are issued as Financial Assistance Awards by the NOAA
    Grants Office, similar to other NOAA grant programs, which include
    routine government accountability provisions established by law, OMB
    circulars, and NOAA provisions. Funds are dispersed to the states and
    tribes on a reimbursable basis, and all work must be conducted in
    accordance with the terms and conditions of the Financial Assistance
    Awards, consistent with the MOUs.

        Question 3. Additionally, the Committee requests documentation* of
    all endangered and threatened Pacific salmon-related projects funded by
    NMFS (including but not limited to funds from the Pacific Salmon
    Recovery Fund) for FY 2000-2002; including project name, location,
    principal investigator contact information, the approximate starting
    and end dates of each project, the goals and results of each project,
    and the amount of funding received through NMFS for each year.
        In the event such detailed information is not readily available
    from NMFS, the Committee respectfully requests that the Agency obtain
    the information, compile it and submit it to the Committee for review,
    as soon as possible but not later than September 1, 2002.
        Answer. A copy of the FY 2000-200l PCSRF report and a detailed
    listing of PCSRF projects is attached. A majority of the funds expended
    by NOAA Fisheries on Pacific salmon recovery projects are funded
    through the PCSRF. A description of the other ESA salmon recovery
    programs conducted directly by NOAA Fisheries and the funding
    associated with these programs is attached. In FY 2002, NOAA Fisheries
    expended $37.95 million on Pacific salmon programs related to recovery,
    regulation, risk management, population dynamics, habitat assessment,
    enforcement, and legal support.

        Question 4. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provides for
    Cooperative Agreements between the Agency and the States to collaborate
    on restoring threatened and endangered species, and sets forth
    criteria, under which funds should be allocated to states based on need
    and threat. Are the expenditures of funds under the Pacific Salmon
    Recovery Fund for endangered species governed by ESA section 6
    cooperative agreements? Please tell us which states have ESA section 6
    agreements governing Pacific salmon, and provide copies of each
    agreement. For States with no agreements, please explain why and
    indicate when such agreements will be completed.
        Answer. The expenditure of funds through the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund is not governed by ESA section 6 cooperative agreements.
    Instead, consistent with congressional direction, the distribution of
    the funds is governed by MOUs between the funded entities and NOAA
    Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries does not have line item section 6 funding for
    Pacific salmon.

        Question 5. Over the past 3 years, hundreds of millions of dollars
    have been spent on the recovery of Pacific salmon. What progress has
    been made in recovering salmon stocks with the funds from the Pacific
    Salmon Recovery Fund? How is the success of individual projects tracked
    and evaluated?
        Answer. Recovery actions specifically tied to funding from the
    PCSRF are helping the recovery of Pacific salmon stocks. Since the
    inception of the Fund, over 800 projects have been completed. These
    projects will be reported to the Committee soon. These actions range
    from single projects to remove fish passage barriers and reduce
    sediment inflow to streams to larger projects which include monitoring
    of habitat and populations. The state and tribal governments that
    receive the PCSRF funds are responsible for individual project tracking
    and evaluation as part of the MOUs between the groups and NOAA.
        PCSRF projects are being tracked and evaluated at many different
    levels of detail and for a variety of purposes. The development of a
    consistent and coordinated monitoring and evaluation effort was
    highlighted as a major need at the PCSRF workshop convened in January
    2002, and NOAA Fisheries is working with the states and tribes to
    improve this portion of the program. Many of the states and tribes are
    currently developing their own monitoring and evaluation programs, and
    NOAA Fisheries is working with them to coordinate the programs and
    facilitate basin-level monitoring of Pacific salmon, including trends
    in abundance and habitat quality.
        The tracking of recovery of Pacific salmon involves much more than
    the tracking and evaluation of individual projects. As part of the
    FCRPS Biological Opinion and Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy,
    federal, state and tribal partners are implementing a monitoring and
    evaluation program in which monitoring will occur at a variety of
    spatial scales to monitor regional salmon population abundance, the
    link between salmon populations and habitat, and the effectiveness of
    individual recovery projects. This monitoring will determine if the
    established Biological Opinion performance standards for the Basin are
    being achieved at the 2003, 2005, and 2008 check-ins. As a first stage
    in this effort, NOAA Fisheries is currently working with the State of
    Oregon to implement a pilot monitoring program in the John Day River
    Basin in Oregon. Results of this pilot program will be applicable to
    the assessment of populations coastwide.

        Question 6. How are the 4 H's needed for effective restoration
    (habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower) being addressed by each
    state and tribe? If all 4 H's are not being addressed by each state and
    tribe, please let us know which is being addressed and explain why.
        Answer. The states and tribes are addressing all 4 H's based on
    their assessment of salmon conservation priorities at the regional and
    local scale--they choose those projects that address the factors most
    limiting salmon recovery. Every state has a program to administer the
    funds as supported by testimony from the state representatives at the
    May 14, 2002, hearing on S. 1825. The tribal governments also have
    salmon conservation programs. For example, the Columbia River Inter-
    tribal Fisheries Commission has developed WY-KAN-USH-MI WA-KISH-WIT to
    guide salmon recovery for their member tribes.
        In the Columbia River Basin, all 4 H's were important factors in
    the decline of listed salmonids, and all are being addressed by the
    states and tribes in recovery planning and implementation as part of
    the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. However, for Oregon Coast coho
    and most California Coastal ESUs, hydropower did not play as important
    a role in species decline as did habitat degradation, over-harvesting,
    and negative hatchery interactions. In these areas, non-hydropower
    actions are the focus of current recovery efforts. Alaska faces yet a
    different set of circumstances where listed salmon occur in commercial
    fisheries. In this case, Alaska has reduced fishing mortality on listed
    stocks (harvest), and is working to monitor, protect and prevent future
    degradation of habitat and future ESA listings.

        Question 7. Please explain the prospects and timetable for recovery
    of Pacific salmon to sustainable harvestable levels and how the agency
    will track recovery. Please report recovery progress to Congress.
        Answer. The recovery (delisting) of all 26 listed ESUs of Pacific
    salmon will be a monumental task. It took decades to get to this point
    of severely reduced fish populations, and it will take years to build
    them back up. With the three-to-five-year life cycle of most salmon, it
    will take at least several salmon generations before we can be sure
    recovery has been achieved. While it is a monumental task, it is
    achievable, as long as the long-term management systems are put in
    place to protect, recover, and maintain the species. On the whole, over
    the past 2 years salmon populations have shown increases in abundance.
    Much of this is due to a return of favorable ocean conditions along the
    West Coast, while some of the increase in spawning numbers can be
    attributable to improved salmon management.
        Currently, NOAA Fisheries is developing recovery plans for all of
    the listed ESUs. This process will be completed for the first recovery
    area (Puget Sound, Washington) by 2004, and we intend to complete
    recovery planning for all other ESUs by 2007. These recovery plans will
    present the status of the species; objective, measurable criteria for
    when the species will be recovered; and the specific actions that need
    to be taken to achieve recovery. The plans will include a monitoring
    and evaluation section and a description of how the agency will track
    recovery. Attached is a detailed table showing the schedule for
    developing and implementing recovery plans for each ESU (see response
    to question 12).
        An initial glimpse of the strategy that will be used to recover
    salmon in the Columbia River Basin can be seen in the Federal Caucus'
    Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy that was released in conjunction
    with the Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River
    Power System in December 2000. The strategy outlines the actions that
    will be taken from 2000-2010 to recover salmon populations in the
    Basin. The strategy also outlines a research and monitoring program
    that included performance measures for gauging success of recovery
    efforts. These performance measures will help track the status of
    salmon populations over time, as well as the implementation of specific
    actions and the effectiveness of these actions in achieving their
    goals.
        NOAA Fisheries is currently evaluating current population levels
    coastwide by conducting status reviews for 24 listed ESUs of Pacific
    salmon as part of our response to the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans
    district court decision. These status reviews will analyze the risk of
    extinction of each ESU and determine if the species still warrants
    protection under the ESA. The updated status reviews are scheduled to
    be completed in late 2002 and early 2003 and will document if the
    declines in the runs have been halted and whether some of the runs have
    increased in abundance since listing.
        The most recent NOAA Fisheries Endangered Species Act Biennial
    Report to Congress (1998-2000) contains the recovery progress for
    listed salmon ESUs.

        Question 8. How does the funding for Pacific Salmon compare with
    funding provided for other protected species managed by NOAA Fisheries?
        Answer. The FY 2002 appropriations for NOAA Fisheries Protected
    Resources Research and Management under the Endangered Species Act and
    the Marine Mammal Protection Act totaled $143.6 million. Of this total,
    $37.9 million, or about 26 percent, is for ESA recovery of Pacific
    salmon. In addition, Pacific salmon received $130 million in pass-
    through funds: $110 million of PCSRF funds to the states and tribes,
    and $20 million to the Pacific Salmon Commission for the 1999 U.S./
    Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement stipulations.
        The amount of funding for Pacific salmon is driven by the magnitude
    and the urgency of the salmon crisis. Many recovery activities are
    occurring in an enormous land area and are influenced by numerous
    stakeholders including tribal, urban, agriculture, forestry,
    environmental and industrial interests. The 26 ESUs currently listed as
    threatened or endangered throughout the West encompass an area of
    159,000 square miles, or about 40 percent of the land area of the
    states of Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho, and the 26 ESUs of
    Pacific salmon represent half of the 52 ESA listed species under NOAA
    Fisheries jurisdiction. The Pacific salmon listings have regional,
    national and international importance through their effect on rural and
    urban development, the production of electricity, timber and
    agricultural commodities, their importance to tribal, recreational and
    commercial fisheries, and their iconic status in the Northwest.

        Question 9. What administrative and review processes are in place
    to ensure that the legal and technical requirements under the ESA for
    Pacific salmon are being met by the states and tribes who are receiving
    Pacific Salmon Funds?
        Answer. See the response to question 6, above, for information on
    how the states and tribes select PCSRF projects. The FY 2000
    Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-479, page 12301)
    encouraged the development of the MOUs with the states and tribes and
    that the MOUs would not require NOAA Fisheries approval of individual
    projects, but would define recovery strategies for projects. The FY
    2001 and FY 2002 distribution of funds were based upon the MOUs
    developed for the FY 2000 funding year. Per Congress' direction, NOAA
    Fisheries did not maintain direct oversight of each individual project.
    Instead, NOAA Fisheries worked with the funded entities on development
    of the MOUs and is collaborating with the states and tribes to review
    and improve the program where needed. The MOUs include provisions to
    ensure that legal and technical requirements of the ESA are being met.
    NOAA Fisheries scientists participate in the technical review of
    projects, and ESA section 7 consultations are conducted by NOAA
    Fisheries biologists on projects that affect listed species. PCSRF
    funds are issued through NOAA Financial Assistance Awards which include
    standard administrative and legal requirements for any pass-through
    funds. When awarding funds to individual projects, the states are also
    subject to standard legal and administrative requirements under their
    respective state grant provisions. The states and tribes are required
    to annually report their funding expenditures and program performance
    to NOAA. A report on FY 2000-2001 PCSRF activities is attached.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.

        Question 10. Witnesses from the States indicated that federal funds
    from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund are used to leverage state funds
    for salmon restoration projects. Please describe procedures, if any,
    the Secretary has put in place to ensure that funds distributed are not
    vulnerable to charges of waste, fraud, or abuse. How does the Secretary
    determine whether a use of funds is appropriate? Please provide the
    criteria used by the Secretary. If none exists, please explain why.
        Answer. The Secretary utilizes the MOUs between the states and
    tribes and NOAA Fisheries, along with the Financial Assistance Awards
    to ensure that funds are not vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. The
    MOUs outline the project selection, reporting and monitoring
    requirements that must be followed in order to receive PCSRF funds.
    PCSRF funds are issued through NOAA Financial Assistance Awards which
    include standard administrative and legal requirements for any pass-
    through funds. The grants require the states to leverage a minimum of
    25 percent cost match for funded projects. The states greatly exceeded
    the match requirements in FY 2000-2001 and in many cases have provided
    100 percent match to the federal funds. The MOUs for each of the states
    and Tribal Fisheries Commissions are attached.

        Question 11. Are the funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
    provided to Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California used for
    recovery activities not directly related to ESA-listed runs of Pacific
    Salmon? If so, please describe the activities.
        Answer. A portion of the PCSRF funds is used for non-listed salmon
    species. For example, there are no salmon species listed under the ESA
    that spawn in Alaskan waters. However, Alaska receives a portion of the
    PCSRF funds. The MOU with Alaska outlines that the funds are to be used
    for salmon habitat and stock research and monitoring, habitat
    stewardship and restoration, increasing economic opportunities for
    Southeast Alaska fishers, and cooperative projects with other Pacific
    Northwest states, Treaty tribes, and Canada. Many of the projects
    conducted in Alaska are preventative in nature, in that they are
    seeking to develop monitoring programs to track salmon abundance and
    habitat quality to prevent degradation. Projects conducted in Alaska in
    FY 2000 included: conducting habitat assessments, funding watershed
    councils, salmon research and monitoring, developing salmon processing
    infrastructure and salmon marketing, and public education. While one of
    the factors used to prioritize the distribution of funds by the states
    is the presence of ESA listed runs, it is not the only factor used to
    determine the distribution of the funds for eligible projects. The
    activities conducted to help monitor and improve non-listed salmon runs
    will be important in preventing future ESA listings and will help to
    increase overall salmon abundance along the West Coast.

        Question 12. Section 4(f) of the ESA requires a recovery plan to be
    developed and implemented on each listed species. I am aware that such
    plans do not exist for all listed ESUs of Pacific salmon. Please
    describe the progress and time line for completion of each plan.
        Answer. Recovery planning for Pacific salmon is a very complex
    issue involving hundreds of affected parties. The complexity of Pacific
    salmon recovery planning and the need to involve a wide variety of
    interest groups has increased the length of time needed to complete a
    recovery plan. To efficiently move through the recovery planning
    process for all listed ESUs, NOAA Fisheries has divided up the 26
    listed ESUs of salmon and steelhead into eight recovery areas or
    ``domains.'' They are: Puget Sound, Willamette/Lower Columbia, Interior
    Columbia, Oregon Coast, Southern Oregon/Northern California, North-
    Central California Coast, Southern California, and California Central
    Valley. Recovery planning efforts will be conducted in each domain and
    the recovery plans for each domain will address all listed salmon
    within that domain. Recovery planning for Pacific salmon will involve a
    two phase process where recovery scenarios will be developed by a group
    of science experts through a Technical Recovery Team (TRT), and
    recovery goals and actions will be determined by a fully representative
    Phase II policy group. TRTs for the first part of the process have been
    selected for six recovery domains and the remaining two TRTs will be
    selected shortly. The second phase policy groups have been established
    for the Puget Sound and Willamette/Lower Columbia Recovery domains.
    These groups are currently evaluating scenarios of salmon abundance and
    options for improving the ecosystem. The Puget Sound Recovery Plan is
    scheduled to be completed by 2004; the Interior Columbia and the
    Willamette/Lower Columbia Recovery Plans are scheduled to be completed
    in 2005. TRTs for the Upper Columbia, North-Central California Coast
    and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast have begun work with
    emphasis on the initial tasks of identifying independent populations,
    and in many cases assembling data needed to accomplish TRT analyses for
    ESUs. The TRT for the California Central Valley Domain will soon begin
    work. The TRT for the Southern California Coast has yet to be formed;
    nominations for this team will soon be solicited. Given adequate
    funding, it is our intent to complete formal recovery planning for all
    26 ESUs by 2007.

                                 Status of NOAA Fisheries ESA Recovery Planning Efforts
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Phase I  Technical                       Estimated date
          Recovery Planning Domain         ESU's included      Recovery  Team    Phase II  process    of completed
                                                                established         established       recovery plan
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Puget Sound.........................  Puget Sound       X                   X                   2004
                                           chinook
                                          Hood Canal
                                           Summer chum
                                          Ozette Lake
                                           Sockeye
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Willamette/Lower Columbia...........  Upper Willamette  X                   X                   2005
                                           River chinook
                                          Lower Columbia
                                           River chinook
                                          Columbia River
                                           chum
                                          Upper Willamette
                                           River Steelhead
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Columbia............................  Upper Columbia    X                   ..................  2005
                                           River Spring
                                           chinook
                                          Snake River
                                           Spring/Summer
                                           chinook
                                          Snake River Fall
                                           chinook
                                          Upper Columbia
                                           River steelhead
                                          Mid-Columbia
                                           River steelhead
                                          Snake River
                                           steelhead
                                          Snake River
                                           sockeye
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oregon Coast........................  Oregon Coast      ..................  ..................  2006
                                           coho
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. Oregon/N. California Coasts......  Southern Oregon/  X                   ..................  2006
                                           Northern
                                           California
                                           Coasts coho
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    N. Central California Coast.........  California Coast  X                   ..................  2006
                                           chinook
                                          Central
                                           California
                                           Coast coho
                                          Central
                                           California
                                           Coast steelhead
                                          Northern
                                           California
                                           steelhead
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. Central California Coast.........  South-central     ..................  ..................  2007
                                           California
                                           Coast steelhead
                                          Southern
                                           California
                                           steelhead
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California Central Valley...........  Central Valley    X                   ..................  2007
                                           Spring chinook
                                          Sacramento River
                                           Winter chinook
                                          Central Valley
                                           steelhead
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
                                 Donald Sampson

        Question 1. Please describe the review process undertaken by the
    tribes to determine which recovery projects for the Pacific Salmon
    receive funding under the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund.
        Answer. The Commission, on behalf of and at the direction of its
    member tribes, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
    the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the implementation of
    the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. The MOU outlines the process
    for project proposal and approval process. The tribes themselves decide
    which projects are priorities to meet the overall salmon recovery goals
    of the Tribe, consistent with the MOU and the tribes' goals and
    objectives outlined in the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (the watershed-
    based framework designed to restore fisheries in the Columbia River
    Basin developed by the Tribes and CRITFC staff). By the terms of the
    MOU, tribal staffs take each project proposal before their respective
    tribal governing body for review and approval before submitting the
    project proposals to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
    (CRITFC) staff for review.
        To meet the MOU objectives, the CRITFC utilizes an internal
    technical team to review each project proposal from the Tribe. The
    CRITFC Science Review Team consists of the following experts: Fish
    Production Scientist, Fish Production Coordinator, Permit & Compliance
    Coordinator, Habitat Scientist, and Quality Control & General
    Coordinator. The CRITFC Review Team is charged to ensure that each
    project is consistent with (1) Congressional guidance regarding the
    PCSRF, and (2) the tribes' goals and objectives outlined in the Wy-Kan-
    Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit. The goals and objectives of Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-
    Wit address factors limiting stock production and productivity.
        Once the Review Team has approved the project proposals, they are
    presented to the Commission for final approval. This ensures a tribal
    public process for project selection is always present. Tribal and
    Commission meetings are open to the tribal public.
        After the Commission approves the projects, the CRITFC enters into
    sub-recipient agreements with each Tribe that incorporates funding
    criteria consistent with the goals and objectives of the PCSRF. Tribal
    sub-recipient agreements provide project proposal, reporting, and
    monitoring and evaluation criteria to ensure that tribal activities and
    projects funded through the MOU are consistent with Congressional
    intent to advance salmon recovery efforts.
        The CRITFC requires that all sub-agreements include the stipulation
    that project actions that may affect ESA-listed populations cannot
    commence until an ESA-related review process has been completed with
    NMFS. All applicable local, state and federal permitting requirements
    must also be met, as appropriate.
        Staff at each Tribe prepares semi-annual reports on the projects
    they have implemented under the PCSRF and identify progress towards the
    stated objectives. Projects are subject to an annual evaluation by
    tribal and CRITFC staff, and by the Commissioners. The evaluation is
    done to determine whether project modifications are necessary (adaptive
    management), or whether the project should be suspended or terminated
    due to its failure to meet anticipated goals and objectives identified
    during the project selection process.
        Each project developed by tribal or CRITFC staff includes a
    description of the measurable benefit or value, immediate or
    anticipated, of the planned activity in addressing factors limiting
    production or productivity of salmon stocks. In some cases this is as
    simple as a description of the number of miles of riparian area to be
    restored in a project area and the anticipated increase in the
    productive capacity of the habitat for spawning or rearing for a salmon
    population. In other cases, projects reflect the expected long-term
    increase in natural spawners returning to a river as a result of a
    tribal supplementation project. In each case however, the projects are
    evaluated for consistency with the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, and
    measured against the tribal goal of restoring healthy, self-sustaining
    runs of salmon throughout their former range in sufficient numbers to
    provide for sustainable tribal and non-tribal fisheries.

        Question 2. Please describe all salmon recovery projects undertaken
    by the tribes, using funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund. The
    Committee requests documentation* of all endangered and threatened
    Pacific salmon-related projects funded from the Pacific Salmon Recovery
    Fund; including project name, location, principal investigator contact
    information, the approximate starting and, if applicable, end dates of
    each project, the goals and results of each project, and the amount of
    funding received from NMFS for each project, each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. See attached PCSRF Annual Report, pages 10 through 25, for
    all specific project information such as funding levels, start and end
    dates, project summaries, work accomplished and the benefits to salmon.
    See each Tribe's progress reports for each PCSRF project following the
    summary sheets for specific contact information for each project.

        Question 3. What progress has been made in recovering salmon stocks
    with the funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund? How is success of
    individual projects tracked and evaluated?
        Answer. Pages 10 through 25 of the attached PCSRF Annual Report,*
    clarify the accomplishments for each PCSRF project, along with the
    specific benefits to salmon stocks. As a result of the PCSRF,
    significant progress has been made in making salmon rearing and
    spawning habitat available, recovering riparian areas, improved fish
    passage conditions, increased salmon stocks, coordination of salmon
    restoration objectives and providing research to improve guidance of
    various salmon restoration efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Individual projects are regularly tracked and evaluated by the
    project managers, the Fish and Wildlife Committees for each Tribe, and
    by the PCSRF Project Implementation Coordinator at CRITFC. Detailed
    progress reports are required for each project biannually to CRITFC.
    The CRITFC Coordinator prepares a Semi-Annual Report (December 31st),
    and Annual Report (May 31st), each year for NMFS.

        Question 4. How are the 4 H's needed for effective restoration
    (habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower) being addressed by the
    Tribes? If all 4 H's are not being addressed, please let us know which
    is not being addressed and explain why?
        Answer. The question appears to be directed at broad-based salmon
    recovery efforts, not just those projects funded through the PCSRF. For
    the Columbia River Basin, there is only one plan that considers all of
    the salmon's lifecycle (4 H's) and that is the tribal salmon recovery
    plan: Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit. Under the Northwest Power Planning and
    Conservation Act, the four state Northwest Power Planning Council
    (NWPPC) is responsible for overseeing the development and
    implementation of a Fish and Wildlife Program to mitigate for the
    impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System. This Program is
    supposed to be based upon the input and expertise of the tribes,
    states, and federal fish and wildlife agencies. The Bonneville Power
    Administration (BPA) is responsible for funding the Council's program.
    After the ESA listings for salmon in the early 1990s, the BPA began to
    refocus its attention more narrowly on ESA-listed stocks, to some
    extent to the detriment of a more comprehensive program supported by
    the tribes and states.
        There is a separate effort by the National Marine Fisheries Service
    to develop a more narrowly based recovery plan, but this has been an
    on-going effort for over a decade and a new plan is at least several
    more years in the making. In the year 2000, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service approved a Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Federal
    Columbia River Power System (federal hydropower system) that now avoids
    jeopardy to listed salmon species through the use of extensive ``off-
    site'' mitigation for the adverse impacts of hydropower operations.
        For the most part, this program under the BiOp should complement
    the Fish and Wildlife program developed by the NWPPC and should also be
    funded in large part by the BPA. Unfortunately, there are two problems:
    (1) the BPA-funded program is too narrowly focused on just ESA-listed
    populations, and (2) the BPA now believes it is not in a financial
    position that will allow it to continue funding levels already
    identified by the tribes and others as inadequate to meet treaty and
    statutory based obligations to the tribes and others.
        The FCRPS BiOp defers addressing factors limiting salmon production
    and productivity attributable to the hydropower system through the use
    of off-site mitigation. The reluctance to change the status quo
    management of the hydropower system and the failure to aggressively
    fund and implement a regionally (BPA) funded salmon habitat
    conservation and restoration program means that programs such as the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund must play a larger and longer term
    role in Pacific salmon restoration.
        With regard to the tribal PCSRF projects, the Memorandum of
    Understanding between CRITFC and NMFS is limited to habitat and
    hatchery actions. Harvest and hydropower actions are funded elsewhere.
    However, several tribal projects address all 4 H's with regard to
    research, monitoring and evaluation components. Tribal projects
    currently being funded under the PCSRF are categorized as follows:

       41 percent Salmon Habitat Restoration Projects

       27 percent Salmon Enhancement/Supplementation Projects

       28 percent Salmon Research and Monitoring Projects

       4 percent PCSRF Planning and Coordination Projects

        For FY 2001, the tribal PCSRF projects were categorized as follows:

       58 percent Salmon Habitat Restoration Projects

       18 percent Salmon Enhancement/Supplementation Projects

       20 percent Salmon Research and Monitoring Projects

       4 percent PCSRF Planning and Coordination Projects

        The Committee's assistance in ensuring the effective and efficient
    use of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds would be welcomed and
    could be accomplished by this, or the next Congress through oversight
    hearings on the funding and implementation of the programs called for
    under Biological Opinion issued by NMFS for the Federal Columbia River
    Power System and on the funding and implementation of the Mitchell Act
    (Columbia River hatchery) programs.

        Question 5. Please explain the prospects and timetable for recovery
    for Pacific Salmon to sustainable, harvestable levels and how the
    tribes are tracking recovery and reporting progress to Congress.
        Answer. The implementation of this PCSRF has just begun. The
    lifecycle of salmon is 4-5 years. Most projects began implementation in
    the calendar year 2001. Actual increases in spawning would only occur
    on a few projects that outplanted adult salmon in 2001. Most other
    projects involved habitat restoration actions that would benefit future
    generations of spawning salmon. Results from this first salmon
    generation will be available starting in the year 2005.
        Currently, each Tribe tracks their salmon recovery projects and
    compares it to specific tribal recovery goals. Detailed project
    progress reports are required from each Tribe to CRITFC, and then
    compiled in Semi-Annual and Annual reports for NMFS. The tribes and
    states have begun discussions on the development of a comprehensive,
    coastwide monitoring and evaluation effort to show the benefits of the
    PCSRF. CRITFC and the tribes are very interested in demonstrating the
    benefits of the program as results become available.

        Question 6. If the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund has leveraged non-
    federal funds, please describe the source and amount of additional
    funds used for endangered and threatened runs of Pacific salmon.
        Answer. The PCSRF appropriation language did not place a non-
    federal cost share requirement on the tribes. Cost share requirements
    are only for state governments. Cost share requirements on tribal
    governments would likely reduce tribal involvement in the PCSRF due to
    lack of a substantive tax base or infrastructure. However, many of the
    tribal projects have leveraged non-federal funding and the Commission
    is organizing a database to keep track of all federal and non-federal
    cost shares.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
                           to Geoffrey M. Huntington

        Question 1. I understand the review process undertaken to determine
    whether a project receives funding, but please explain the process by
    which the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board decides which projects are
    funded with state funds, and which projects are funded with federal
    funds.
        Answer. The Interagency Agreement between OWEB and NMFS (now NOAA
    Fisheries) governing administration of the federal funds provided to
    the State of Oregon requires that the same processes and funding
    criteria be applied to use of the federal funds that is in place in
    rule and statute governing use of state restoration dollars by the OWEB
    Board. Because of this, federal funds are integrated into the OWEB
    grant process seamlessly with State funds allowing for significant
    reduction in administrative overhead to OWEB and great simplicity and
    access to grantees.
        The bulk of state funds available to the OWEB grant program are
    constitutionally limited for use in support of on-the-ground watershed
    restoration activities and expenses associated with undertaking such
    projects. Because of this restriction on use of state funds, the OWEB
    Board uses available federal funds principally for the following
    purposes: supporting scientific assessment of watershed conditions;
    monitoring of projects, status, and trends in salmon population
    recovery; technical assistance grants to landowners; education/outreach
    efforts to K-12 students and the general public on watershed functions
    and the connection between individual actions and impact to fish and
    wildlife populations; and the creation of accessible natural resource
    data sets which support salmon recovery efforts at all levels of
    government and among members of the public. In the past, the Board has
    also used federal funds to support the capacity of local citizen groups
    to engage in voluntary restoration activities.
        Each time an installment of PCSRF has been made available to the
    state, the OWEB Board has developed a spending plan which identifies
    rough allocations of the available federal funds which the Board has
    budgeted for particular categories of expenditures mentioned above.
    That spending plan is subject to legislative review, and is discussed
    in public meetings with the involvement of both state and federal
    agency representatives (including NMFS). Once this spending plan is
    adopted by the Board, it guides the allocation of the federal funds as
    individual spending and grant decisions are considered.
        Federal PCSRF dollars provide important flexibility that enables
    the OWEB Board to support essential portions of Oregon's plan for
    achieving restoration of salmon runs and watershed health. By
    seamlessly integrating the use of the federal and state dollars into
    Oregon's existing infrastructure that invests in voluntary salmon
    recovery and watershed enhancement efforts, OWEB is able to
    substantially enhance the effectiveness of the Oregon Plan for Salmon
    and Watersheds as a response to listings of native salmonid runs under
    the federal Endangered Species Act.

        Question 2. Please describe the federal presence on the Technical
    Review Teams and elsewhere in the review process in Oregon for funding
    Pacific salmon restoration projects.
        Answer. OWEB's investment of public funds in restoration efforts is
    guided by a 17 member board which includes representation from 5
    federal agencies (USFS, NMFS, USEPA, USBLM, NRCS) in addition to
    representatives from each of the state's natural resource commissions,
    Native American tribes, the land grant university extension service,
    and 5 distinguished citizens from different parts of the state. These 5
    representatives of federal agencies fully participate in the Board's
    decision-making process in a non-voting capacity. These individuals are
    looked to by the voting members of the OWEB Board as policy experts on
    subject areas when investment of federal and state dollars intersect
    with the mission and technical expertise of any one of the agencies.
        Technical review of grant applications seeking federal and state
    funds from OWEB is accomplished using regional teams comprised of state
    and federal natural resource field staff with first hand knowledge of
    local conditions, people, and project specifications. These teams use
    their collective expertise to review grant applications and make
    funding recommendations to the OWEB Board. Federal agency
    representatives on the technical review teams have equal status with
    all state members of the teams and are relied upon heavily to ensure
    that funding recommendations considered by the OWEB Board reflect the
    collective judgment of all entities represented in the process.
        Finally, the Independent Science Panel which oversees and evaluates
    the scientific basis for decisions regarding implementation of the
    Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds includes scientists employed by
    federal natural resource agencies. As part of their responsibility,
    these team members review and comment on the overall effectiveness of
    various program efforts (including OWEB's investment of state and
    federal dollars) in support of recovery of listed salmon stocks.

        Question 3. Please describe how activities funded through the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund meet ESA requirements and ensure progress
    toward recovering the stocks.
        Answer. OWEB works cooperatively with State and Federal Agencies,
    as well as local organizations and individuals to insure that
    activities funded through the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund meet ESA
    requirements and ensure progress toward recovering salmon stocks.
        Guidance for the planning and implementation of salmon restoration
    projects has been jointly developed by OWEB, the State Natural Resource
    Agencies, Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries
    (formerly NMFS). This guidance starts with structured watershed
    assessments that help local organizations identify problems and
    prioritize restoration actions. The design and construction of specific
    restoration projects is also guided by jointly developed protocols. As
    a result of this guidance, many project types are permitted under the
    Section 4(d) Limits of the ESA. These Limits help reduce paperwork and
    expedite implementation of projects while assuring that they will be
    beneficial and not harmful to fish. More elaborate or multi-agency
    projects require ESA Section 7 or Section 10 review and permitting.
    Federal agencies (NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
    have worked with Oregon agencies to help clarify and appropriately
    apply the ESA requirements.
        OWEB and the State of Oregon evaluate and monitor restoration
    projects to ensure that they contribute to the recovery of ESA listed
    salmon populations. We have developed a hierarchical approach that
    evaluates individual projects for effectiveness and compliance with
    guidelines, evaluates the response of salmon stocks to restoration
    efforts within specific watersheds, and that tracks the status of
    salmon populations and their supporting habitat at the scale of the ESU
    Listing areas. Documentation for all restoration projects funded by
    OWEB using the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund or from other sources is
    maintained in the OWEB Watershed Restoration Inventory system that
    helps provide accountability and supports coordinated planning for
    future efforts.
        The scope of the monitoring effort needed to document the status of
    salmon populations and to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration
    efforts is very large. Oregon has made an unprecedented effort to
    address this monitoring issue, creating partnerships among State
    agencies, Federal regulatory and research agencies, university
    scientists, and local organizations, structured around a common
    monitoring strategy. The Monitoring Strategy that guides and describes
    this effort has been formally adopted by the OWEB Board and State
    Natural Resource Agencies, and has been endorsed by NOAA Fisheries
    scientists and by Oregon's Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team.
        Individual research and monitoring projects that evaluate ESA
    listed species are permitted to ensure compliance with ESA
    requirements. OWEB, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA
    Fisheries have developed a system under the ESA 4(d) Limits to
    facilitate coordinated research and monitoring efforts. This allows us
    to share information and to guard against potential duplication of
    monitoring efforts. NOAA Fisheries staff in the NW Region Office in
    Portland, OR has taken a lead role in supporting this cooperative
    approach.
        By providing science-based guidance and by implementing a
    comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluation, OWEB is confident
    that we are on the right path to ensure accountability for activities
    funded through the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund.
    References:

    Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
    http://www.oweb.state.or.us/publications/wa_manual99.shtml

    Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guide
    http://www.oweb.state.or.us/publications/habguide99.shtml

    Oregon Plan Water Quality Technical Guide Book
    http://www.oweb.state.or.us/publications/mon_guide99.shtml

    Oregon Plan Strategic Monitoring Framework
    http://www.oweb.state.or.us/monitoring/index.shtml

    Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team
    http://www.fsl.orst.edu/imst/index.htm

    OWEB Watershed Restoration Inventory
    http://www.oweb.state.or.us/pdfs/wri_reports/2000ar_wri.pdf

        Question 4. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provides for
    Cooperative Agreements between the agency and the states so they can
    collaborate on restoring threatened and endangered species, and sets
    forth criteria under which funds should be allocated to states based on
    need and threat. Are the expenditures of funds from the Pacific Salmon
    Recovery Fund in Oregon for endangered species governed by an ESA
    section 6 cooperative agreement? Please provide a copy of the (ESA
    section 6) agreement governing Pacific Salmon. If there is no
    agreement, please explain why and indicate when such agreements will be
    completed.
        Answer. Oregon has three agreements with USF&WS under Section 6 of
    the Endangered Species Act. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has an
    agreement that was signed in 1986 addressing vertebrate animals. Oregon
    Department of Agriculture has an agreement addressing plants and Oregon
    Natural Heritage Program has an agreement addressing invertebrates.
    These agreements are between the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
    Oregon. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service does not have regulatory
    authority over anadromous fish.
        The expenditure of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund monies is
    governed by an overarching Memorandum of Agreement and individual grant
    agreements between the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and the
    National Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries). While there is
    no ESA section 6 agreement governing Pacific Salmon, the terms of the
    MOA govern both the substantive criteria and processes applied to all
    OWEB decisions relating to expenditure of federal PCSRF dollars.
    Accountability and expectations are well defined by this agreement, as
    is assurance that the goals of federal ESA are served by Oregon's use
    of the funds.

        Question 5. How are the 4 H's needed for effective restoration
    (habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and hydropower) being addressed in
    Oregon? If all 4 H's are not being addressed, please let us know which
    is not being addressed and explain why.
        Answer. The 4 H's are being addressed by specific provisions of the
    Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.
        Harvest--Oregon developed a specific response to limit harvest to
    15 percent of escapement and adjust harvest to ocean conditions. That
    response has been implemented at great expense to the anglers and
    commercial fisheries of the state. NMFS has determined that that level
    of harvest is acceptable as ``take'' in their listing decision. The
    state has agreed to the following measures:

        Minimize fishery related impacts and develop a future
            management strategy.

        Manage estuary and river salmon fisheries to minimize
            impact.

        Manage trout fisheries to reduce ecological interactions
            and mortality on juvenile salmonids.

        Adult escapement and juvenile coho salmon production
            assessment.

        Assess marine survival.

        Establish new escapement targets.

        Adult escapement and juvenile coho salmon production
            assessment.

        Monitor marine survival.

        Evaluate coho hook and release mortality.

        Hatcheries--Oregon has committed to reduce the genetic risk to wild
    populations by reducing the percentage of hatchery fish to less than 10
    percent of the total population spawning in the wild. Oregon Department
    of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of completing hatchery
    conservation management plans for all hatcheries in the state. The
    following measures are being implemented to minimize hatchery effects
    on wild fish:

        Reduce coastal hatchery coho smolt releases.

        Implement wild fish management strategies.

        Develop management objectives for each hatchery program,
            including genetic guidelines.

        Mark all hatchery coho.

        Develop management objectives, including genetic
            guidelines.

        Utilize hatcheries to rebuild wild runs.

        Use hatchery carcasses to increase coho production.

        Hydropower--Oregon participates in the federal dialog on the
    effects of hydropower on salmon. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and
    Watersheds includes specific measures to address fish passage barriers
    other than federally licensed hydropower dams. The following measures
    have been initiated:

        Modification or replacement of diversion dams which
            interfere with fish passage.

        Cooperative removal of barriers.

        Require fish passage on ponds.

        Maintaining existing fish passage: Public interest review
            in issuing new water rights.

        Watershed health funds for south coast fish screening
            needs.

        Screening of water diversions greater than 30 cfs.

        Habitat--Oregon has invested more than $80 million in habitat
    restoration activities in the state since the chinook listing decision
    in 1992. The state has dedicated approximately $22 million annually for
    14 years to directly address the habitat issues in the state. The
    strategy of the state is to develop water quality plans for each basin
    in the state. Half of the state agriculture water quality plans have
    been completed and the remaining portion of the state will be completed
    in the year 2003. Oregon has developed a consistent methodology for
    addressing stream temperature that has provided leadership for the
    region. Stream temperatures have been identified as a significant
    limiting factor for many salmon populations. The state has developed a
    unique delivery of assistance through local communities. Watershed
    councils have been established throughout the state. They have been
    provided analytical tools to conduct watershed assessments that
    identify the current conditions in light of critical processes and
    historical conditions. This assists watershed councils to prioritize
    restoration projects.
        The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds includes all factors for
    decline of salmon. In 1999 Governor Kitzhaber issued an executive order
    (99-01) to expand the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds statewide.

        Question 6. Please explain the prospects and timetable for recovery
    of Pacific Salmon to sustainable, harvestable levels and specifically
    how the State of OR will track recovery and report progress to
    Congress.
        Answer. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds approach to
    recovery of salmon has demonstrated the ability to evaluate and address
    environmental stressors across land ownership boundaries. Unlike the
    spotted owl recovery strategy, recovery must address environmental
    improvements on private lands as well as public lands. A critical
    element of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds that has been
    statutorily placed with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board is the
    role of monitoring progress. OWEB has developed a cooperative
    monitoring strategy that addresses status and trend monitoring of
    salmon populations, aquatic habitat and water quality. The program has
    been incrementally implemented and has gathered data on coastal salmon
    populations for the last 6 years.
        OWEB has maintained a database of watershed restoration activities
    since 1995. This database is critical for analyzing different
    restoration strategies. OWEB has invested funds in the evaluation of
    the effectiveness of certain restoration projects. The evaluation has
    led to the development of implementation criteria for large wood
    placement and stream crossing design criteria. OWEB is currently
    evaluating the implementation of riparian restoration projects.
        As Congress was informed by the National Academy of Sciences in
    Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, ``solutions will
    not be easy or inexpensive to implement; even a holding action to
    prevent further declines will require large commitments of time and
    money from many people in many segments of society in the Pacific
    Northwest.'' The monitoring program established by Oregon will provide
    valid information on the status of salmon and assist in evaluating the
    effectiveness of recovery results. Oregon is required by law to report
    to the public on the implementation of restoration activities and their
    effectiveness on a biennial basis.
        These accountability measures along with substantial investments in
    habitat enhancement that are sustained for multiple lifecycles of
    listed stocks will together provide the opportunity for citizens of the
    northwest to reestablish watersheds capable of functioning at a level
    that can both support native salmonid runs and the region's local
    economies.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
                                Laura E. Johnson

        Question 1. Explain the process by which the Washington SRFB
    decides which projects are funded with state funds, and which projects
    with federal funds.
        Answer. Washington's Salmon Recovery Funding Board (``SRFB'') uses
    appropriated state and federal funds for grants to projects or programs
    related to salmon habitat recovery. All grants, whether state or
    federal-funded, are administered under the same decision criteria to
    the extent authorized within any guidance provided by the governing
    authority. Where congressional appropriations guidance has been
    available, it is the primary guidance for allocation of federal funds
    within the overall funding process (e.g., conference notes associated
    with the FFY 2001 appropriations.) From time to time, NMFS has also
    expressed guidance as to specific activities, such as support for
    regional recovery organizations.
        After reviewing any specific congressional, legislative or NMFS
    direction, SRFB follows the processes outlined in its Memo of
    Understanding with NOAA/NMFS, for all funds. That Memo of Understanding
    provides procedural and substantive guidance to ensure that state-
    selected grants (projects) using federal Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery funds meet the overall intent of the congressional enactments
    and are consistent with the state processes as well. The Memo also
    provides assurances for federal ESA regulatory review of grant projects
    using the federal funds.
        After the above authorities have been applied, any remaining
    discretion as to fund placement is guided by a number of practical
    considerations. Although all projects within a category are evaluated
    on the same criteria regardless of funding source, as a selected grant
    is implemented, state or federal funds may specifically be placed in
    particular projects selected by the Board. For example, grant recipient
    sometimes express preference for state funds due to matching fund
    restrictions related to the grantee's contributions. Federal funds are
    often placed in grants that include acquisition of habitat or
    assessment and planning for restoration improvements; the regulatory
    review of these types of projects is more streamlined for the sponsors.
        Because federal funds are received on a calendar basis different
    than the state's biennial budget funding, federal funds may be
    available when state funds would not yet be, and vice versa. The Board
    uses a biennial spending plan to help guide approximate allocations of
    all funds within broad categories of use, such as projects, regional
    plan development activities, assessments, and other habitat project
    activities. All Board funding decisions are made in open public
    meetings.
        The State of Washington has maintained a significant contribution
    of state funds in this effort: almost $60 million in state funds since
    1999. The vast majority of the federal and state funds distributed by
    the SRFB are applied exclusively for on-the-ground work. The NMFS Memo
    of Understanding has limited the state SRFB's administrative use of
    federal funds to 3 percent (1 percent in prior years); state funds have
    provided any remaining administrative support. The Congress can be
    assured that Washington has not used federal funds to substitute for
    state program and administrative support for salmon habitat projects.

        Question 2. Describe the federal presence on the Technical Review
    Teams and elsewhere in the review process in Washington for funding
    Pacific salmon restoration projects.
        Answer. Washington State's Legislature created the Salmon Recovery
    Funding Board (``SRFB'') to oversee salmon habitat fund distributions.
    The SRFB is a 10-member body, chaired by a citizen appointed by the
    Governor. The Board's role is to work with the 26 ``lead entities''
    (salmon & watershed restoration groups) to determine the best
    strategies for effective use of the state and federal funds entrusted
    to the SRFB. The Board is subject to governor and legislative
    oversight. All meetings are open to the public (participation is
    active!), and all grant-making decisions are evaluated for scientific
    and strategic merit. Federal representatives of agencies such as the
    U.S. Forest Service and NMFS frequently appear before or participate in
    SRFB-related meetings and activities. The SRFB also receives regular
    briefings and comment from the Governor's Independent Science Panel,
    five national-caliber scientists who independently offer science-based
    feedback on policy issues in salmon recovery.
        During the three grant making competitions the SRFB has
    administered since fall 1999 (using both state and federal funds), the
    SRFB has established a Technical Panel for each of the competitions.
    These Panels are not a standing or permanent group, but are assembled
    to advise the SRFB for each competition. The Panel's role is to meet
    with each of the state's 26 ``lead entities'' (watershed groups), and
    to offer general advice on recovery strategy plans and local project
    selection. Then, after each of the local groups has submitted its
    ranked list of salmon habitat proposals to the SRFB, the SRFB's
    Technical Panel reviews the lists for their relative ``Benefit to
    salmon'' and ``Certainty of success in achieving those benefits.''
        Panel composition seeks to include a variety of relevant
    disciplines and experience. As noted on its guidelines for the current
    grant competition (Fourth Round, Manual, Page 19):

            The SRFB will seek technical panel members who have expertise
            and work experience in a variety of areas, including fish,
            habitat and conservation biology, geomorphology, hydrology,
            nearshore and estuarine, and watershed ecology. The Board will
            include persons on the Panel with experience and expertise
            relevant to eastern and western Washington ecosystems. Tribal
            representatives and the 2 federal agencies that administer the
            ESA (USF&WS and NMFS) will be sought for the Panel, as will
            members from the private sector. Panel members should have a
            good understanding of watershed functions, salmon life history
            and associated risks, assessment methodologies, and salmon
            recovery issues state-wide. The Technical Panel is independent
            in the sense that team members do not represent an agency or
            constituency and should not currently be involved
            professionally or as a volunteer in any lead entity process or
            a project on a lead entity list. Panel members' discussion and
            decisions should be based only on sound scientific information
            and principles and their best professional judgment.

            The Board will appoint up to 10 members to its Technical Panel.
            Staff will ask for nominations or suggestions from agencies
            (USF&WS, NMFS, NWIFC, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
            Commission, WCC, WDOE, WDNR, and WDFW), lead entity
            participants, SRFB members and the general public. The
            resulting list will be brought to the LEAG for review prior to
            selection by the Board's subcommittee.

        Using this process, federal agency employees such as scientists
    from the NOAA/NMFS NW Science Center, the USDA Forest Service and the
    U.S. F&WS have participated on a SRFB Technical Panel in each of the
    past three SRFB grant competitions. Federal participation has been
    volunteered by their federal agencies at little or no cost to the
    state, for which we are most appreciative.
        After the selection review described above, all funded projects are
    required to follow applicable state and federal regulatory
    requirements. For ESA review by NMFS, Washington State has established
    and funds a dedicated position within NMFS to review SRFB-funded
    proposals. Having a dedicated resource within NMFS has assisted project
    proponents in ensuring their federal reviews proceed more swiftly,
    including coordination with other federal entities such as the Corps of
    Engineers. This dedicated resource also attends and participates in
    SRFB meetings and related work such as the state's Monitoring Strategy
    project; participates in SRFB's ``Application'' and ``Successful
    Applicants'' training workshops; keeps the agencies informed about ESA
    requirements; and answers SRFB questions and addresses issues that
    arise.
        For projects where federal permitting or ESA review is not
    required, state permitting laws usually apply. All permits or reviews,
    whether federal or state-based, must be done by the grant project
    sponsor before proceeding and before any financial reimbursements can
    be completed.
        Terminology Note: NOAA/NMFS, as part of its responsibilities under
    ESA, has established science Technical Review Teams to assist with
    developing recovery goals. The federal `` TRT '' process is exclusively
    a federal responsibility, and should be distinguished from the state
    SRFB's ``Technical Panel'' described above.

        Question 3. Please describe how activities funded through the
    Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund meet ESA requirements and ensure progress
    toward recovering the stocks.
        Answer. Activities funded through the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
    are subject to the ESA Section 7 consultation process due to the
    federal nexus created by this funding program. Washington's Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board cooperates with the National Marine Fisheries
    Service as the federal funding agency to determine the appropriate
    Section 7 procedures for the different types of funded activities. The
    different categories of activities that have been funded are:
        Habitat Projects--A large number and wide variety of habitat
    acquisition and restoration projects have been funded by the Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board using funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery
    Fund. Most projects are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
    stocks and Section 7 consultation for those projects is addressed
    informally by the National Marine Fisheries Service as the federal
    funding agency. Section 7 consultations for projects that require
    federal permits and may have temporary adverse effects on ESA-listed
    stocks are addressed by the federal permitting agency. All projects
    that receive funding have been carefully evaluated through the SRFB's
    process for their benefit to ESA-listed stocks and to broader salmon
    recovery.
        A copy of Washington's reports on the specific projects funded is
    available on request. See also www.wa.gov/iac/salmonmain.html.
        Assessments and Studies--The assessments and studies funded by the
    Salmon Recovery Funding Board do not require additional ESA compliance
    procedures. The assessments and studies provide critical information
    needed to evaluate the feasibility, benefits and priority of potential
    habitat acquisition and restoration projects. The resulting projects,
    when funded and implemented will contribute to meeting ESA requirements
    and making progress toward salmon recovery.
        Forests and Fish--The funds for Forests and Fish are used to
    implement the Forests and Fish Report, an agreement to modify forest
    practices and restore forests to meet the habitat needs of fish,
    particularly ESA-listed fish. The actions to implement Forests and Fish
    are in the process of being recognized as meeting ESA requirements by
    the National Marine Fisheries Service. A Habitat Conservation Plan is
    being developed for long-term recognition of ESA compliance for Forests
    and Fish. Implementation of Forests and Fish is a major factor in
    meeting ESA requirements and ensuring continuing progress in salmon
    recovery.
        Regional Recovery--Federal funds have been provided by the Salmon
    Recovery Funding Board to 5 regional organizations within Washington.
    These funds are being used to develop regional salmon recovery plans
    that meet ESA requirements and can be used by the federal agencies as
    recovery plans under ESA Section 4(f). Implementation of these plans
    will be the primary local mechanism for ensuring progress toward
    recovering salmon stocks.
        Instream Flows--Half of the supplemental federal funds in 2001 ($6
    million) were passed through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to the
    WA Department of Ecology for work to restore stream flows for fish.
    Determining and restoring adequate stream flows for fish is critical to
    meet ESA requirements and recover salmon stocks in many river basins.
    The Department of Ecology is using these funds to: help local groups in
    priority river basins evaluate flow needs for fish; provide state
    assistance to determine flow needs and implement local recommendations
    to restore flows; acquire water rights to restore flows for fish in
    critical basins; monitor flows in basins that need critical stream flow
    data; and help selected irrigation districts develop pilot water
    management plans for restoring stream flows.

        Question 4. What is the relationship of ESA Section 6 agreements,
    if any, and the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund in Washington.
        Answer. For NMFS-administered Pacific Salmon funds to the
    Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board, we have to date relied on the
    Memo of Understanding along with Sec. 7 consultations and the dedicated
    resource within NMFS, discussed in Question 2, above. The MOU
    incorporates the SRFB's commitment to ESA compliance and to efficiency
    and coordination of efforts for salmon restoration projects and
    programs.
        USF&WS has awarded a number of Sec. 6 grants to other entities to
    assist in development of HCPs (Habitat Conservation Plans), HCP land
    acquisition, and land acquisition to assist in the recovery of USF&WS
    listed species. These USF&WS grants support upland game and plant
    species as well as fish resources such as bull trout, and do not
    necessarily focus on addressing Pacific salmon. The grants have
    provided valuable assistance for such state-federal cooperative
    efforts, but may not, in all cases, be integrated with the full range
    of other related salmon restoration activities. It is recognized that
    the complex overlay of funding sources and regulatory requirements is
    an area for fruitful future coordination. SRFB and its partners are
    undertaking coordination efforts in this regard, for example through
    work under the Monitoring Strategy program and in cooperation with the
    regional recovery boards now under development.

        Question 5. How are the 4 H's, needed for effective restoration
    (habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower), being addressed in
    Washington?
        Answer. Washington State's strategic approach to salmon recovery
    includes three geographic levels of implementation: local watershed
    management, statewide initiatives, and regional salmon recovery
    efforts. It is through these three levels of implementation that the 4
    H's of salmon recovery are being addressed.
        Local watershed management efforts focus primarily on habitat--
    habitat restoration projects, habitat acquisition, regulatory
    protection as well as the habitat assessments and monitoring needed to
    prioritize and evaluate the success of recovery efforts. Many statewide
    initiatives also focus on habitat by providing a framework and support
    for local watershed management; establishing consistent approaches for
    different land use practices (e.g., Forest and Fish Agreement, Growth
    Management); and developing guidance for habitat assessments and
    monitoring.
        Salmon recovery hydropower issues in the Columbia-Snake Basin are
    dealt with through Washington's participation in the NW Power Planning
    Council and through the Governor's Office, in collaboration with state
    agencies and other constituencies. Outside the Columbia-Snake Basin,
    existing re-licensing processes (FERC, CWA) are used to address salmon
    recovery hydropower issues for larger dams while smaller dam habitat
    related issues are addressed at the watershed level.
        Hatchery and harvest recovery measures are being developed mainly
    by tribal and state agency fishery co-managers and will be integrated
    with habitat/hydro related elements at both the watershed and regional
    scale. The SRFB's administrative office also administers the federally-
    created Hatchery Review Board, which is charged with researching and
    recommending improvements to hatcheries.
        Regional recovery groups will compile/integrate regional and
    watershed actions across the 4 H's into regional recovery plans that
    meet regional recovery goals and ESA recovery planning requirements.
    The regional recovery groups are locally driven and self initiated in
    collaboration with the tribes, the state, and federal services.

        Question 6. Please explain the prospects and timetable for recovery
    of Pacific Salmon to sustainable, harvestable levels and specifically
    how the State of WA will track recovery and report progress to
    Congress.
        Answer. The Technical Recovery Teams commissioned by NOAA/NMFS have
    drafted population viability criteria, i.e. recovery goals, to signal
    criteria that would be used in de-listing decisions for salmon
    populations that have been listed under ESA. At present, these draft
    criteria propose that 20 years is a minimum timeframe for measuring
    whether the number of adult and juvenile salmon is growing at a rate
    that represents an acceptable risk of extinction in the next 100 years.
        The SRFB reports on an annual basis through NMFS on its uses of
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, and also prepares similar
    reports to the state legislature and governor. On-line access to SRFB
    project records is available on the Internet. Grant funds are issued
    only on a reimbursement basis, and projects are tracked via a
    sophisticated computer system that notes project timelines, fiscal
    disbursements, and other control and tracking mechanisms. Project-level
    monitoring is required in most cases; larger scale monitoring efforts
    are already in place or will be adjusted to meet recommendations of the
    state's Monitoring Strategy project, due for completion by the end of
    2002. Regular state audits are performed, and all records are also
    maintained for federal audits as needed.
        The Governor's Salmon Recovery Office helps coordinate the state's
    actions and recovery plan, Extinction Is Not An Option. To achieve
    measurable improvements and progress toward salmon recovery the
    Washington Joint Natural Resources Cabinet produced in May 2000 the
    Salmon Recovery Scorecard. It is being used to monitor and evaluate the
    implementation of the State Agencies' Action Plan, and to report state
    actions for recovery. For further information, see http://
    www.governor.wa.gov/esa/strategy/summary.htm.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
                                   Frank Rue

        Question 1. The Committee requires documentation* of all Pacific
    salmon-related projects or programs funded by NMFS (including but not
    limited to funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund) for FY 2000-
    2002; including project name, location, principal investigator contact
    information, the approximate starting and end dates of each project,
    the goals and results of each project and the amount of funding
    received through NMFS for each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. The enclosed document, ``Response to U.S. Senate Committee
    on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Management of Pacific Salmon
    and S. 1825,'' lists all of the program and project specific
    information requested in this question. Briefly, these programs and
    projects are vital to the State of Alaska, its salmon, its salmon
    fishermen, and its fishing communities. Much of Alaska's economy is
    supported by fishing: commercial, recreational, and subsistence.
    Fishing accounts for 47 percent of the private sector industry jobs in
    Alaska. In addition, the recreational and subsistence fisheries provide
    food for many of the people of Alaska. Total federal funding through
    NMFS in Fiscal Years 2000 to 2002 supported nine programs totaling
    $85,692,277.
        These funds support four major areas of salmon and salmon fisheries
    in Alaska: (1) U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement and
    Amendments (Pacific Salmon Treaty, Chinook Letter of Agreement,
    Anadromous Salmon Research, and Transboundary Rivers Enhancement); (2)
    sustainable salmon and sustainable salmon fisheries (Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery Fund, and Pacific Salmon Recovery Initiative); (3)
    fisheries disaster declarations (Western Alaska and Norton Sound); and
    (4) international cooperation on the management of Yukon River salmon
    (Yukon River salmon).

    1. Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation
       a. Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding--The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST)
            was signed in 1985 (Pub.L. 99-5, March 1985) after many years
            of discussion between the U.S. and Canada. It was a
            particularly difficult agreement involving, Alaska, Washington,
            Oregon, Idaho, the Treaty Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, and
            Canada. The PST is complex and requires many technical
            meetings, research, and fisheries management projects for
            effective implementation. PST funding supports participation on
            the Pacific Salmon Commission and related committees, technical
            and fisheries management projects primarily for chinook salmon.

       b. Chinook Salmon Assessment Letter of Agreement Funding--Chinook
            salmon are at the heart of the PST. Of all the fisheries stocks
            covered by the PST, only chinook stocks are shared by all.
            These funds were provided as a result of the signing of the
            Letter of Agreement Regarding an Abundance-Based Approach to
            Managing Chinook Salmon Fisheries in Southeast Alaska (the LOA)
            by Pacific Northwest states and Alaska. NMFS appropriates
            $1,800,000 to the U.S. Section of the PSC each year. The
            Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) of the PSC solicits, reviews,
            and ranks proposals for work on chinook stocks that are
            beneficial for the LOA. The money may be used to work on any
            U.S. chinook stocks that contribute to PST fisheries, and the
            money is distributed according to the benefits of the project.
            Alaska's portion of these funds has been approximately 20
            percent.

       c. Anadromous Salmon Research Funding--This program supports
            important research on the management of the commercial salmon
            fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Many of the fisheries in
            Southeast Alaska are managed according to plans developed
            within the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), the implementing
            body for PST.

       d. Transboundary Rivers Enhancement Funding--Transboundary rivers
            are those western rivers that flow from Canada through the U.S.
            which have both Canadian and U.S., salmon fisheries occur on
            them. Three rivers Stikine, Taku, and Alsek, located in
            Southeast Alaska are covered under the transboundary rivers
            provision of the PST. This program supports salmon enhancement
            projects that benefit the fishermen of both countries. For U.S.
            fishermen, the enhancement projects provide a replacement for
            fish that were formerly caught solely by the U.S., but are now
            shared as a part of the PST.

    2. Sustainable Salmon and Sustainable Salmon Fisheries
       a. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funding--This program supports
            funding for several program areas including, salmon habitat
            stewardship and restoration, salmon research and monitoring,
            salmon enhancement and other methods of increasing economic
            opportunity for salmon fishermen and communities in Southeast
            Alaska, and implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. No
            salmon that spawn in Alaska are listed as threatened or
            endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and ADF&G
            uses these funds to help ensure that continues to be the case.
            A more detailed discussion of this program was provided in
            ADF&G's letter to the Committee of August 8, 2002.

       b. Pacific Salmon Recovery Initiative Funding--This program provides
            for Alaska's participation in the monitoring of the Columbia
            River hydrosystem management and Pacific Northwest ESA listed
            salmon recovery issues; Alaska's participation in discussions
            concerning the Habitat Annex of the PST; ADF&G oversight of
            Alaska's portion of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funding;
            and, development of sustainable salmon plans in several areas
            of the state to ensure that Alaska salmon remain healthy and
            sustainable. As NMFS reassesses the ESA listed salmon and
            recovery needs of salmon in the Pacific Northwest states, the
            State of Alaska participates in these discussions to ensure the
            Alaskan position is adequately represented.

    3. Fisheries Disaster Declarations
       a. Norton Sound Disaster Funding--In fall of 2000 the Norton Sound
            salmon fisheries were declared a disaster due to acute salmon
            run failure. The salmon failure was believed to be in part due
            to changing ocean survival conditions, but several questions
            remain as to the exact causes of the salmon shortages and the
            potential for restored productivity. These funds support
            research initiatives that seek to advance understanding of the
            factors involved in Norton Sound salmon production through
            studies of juvenile salmon and freshwater environmental
            conditions.
         Many of the large questions that remain unanswered regarding
            Norton Sound salmon production depend upon a better
            understanding of the marine phase of the salmon life cycle.
            Biological and environmental monitoring and research of the
            nearshore and offshore marine ecosystem relative to Norton
            Sound salmon is a large, expensive undertaking, and we have
            moved in this direction with federal funding.

       b. Western Alaska Disaster--In the fall of 2001 Western Alaska
            salmon fisheries were declared a disaster as salmon runs
            failed. These funds support the goal of understanding the
            mechanisms that control or affect the annual abundance of
            salmon returning to Western Alaska and are used to develop
            monitoring programs and management systems that can be used to
            ensure sustainable populations and harvests.
         The salmon failure was believed to be in part due to changing
            climatic and ocean conditions. While climate change is beyond
            our control there are things government, as stewards of the
            resource, can do to restore fisheries, to anticipate changes in
            production, and to prepare those dependent upon the salmon
            resource for those changes. These funds support a long-term
            research program to address the responsiveness of the state's
            harvest management and stock monitoring programs to changes in
            productivity.

    4. Yukon River Salmon Funding
       Yukon River Salmon--Salmon stocks originating from the Yukon River
            in Canada have long been harvested by fishermen in Canada and
            the United States. After 16 years of deliberation between the
            U.S. and Canada, negotiators reached an agreement on catch
            shares and conservation measures for Canadian-origin salmon
            that are harvested by U.S. and Canadian fishers. This program
            supports work and studies to: develop coordinated conservation
            and management plans for chinook and fall chum salmon;
            understand the composition of stocks in the various Yukon River
            fisheries and determine the status of the salmon stocks; assess
            and inventory wild stocks to maintain, restore, and enhance the
            salmon runs; and, develop effective management techniques based
            on precautionary management approaches.
        Question 2. Is there a cooperative agreement or memorandum of
    understanding regarding the funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund
    between the Agency and the State of Alaska? Please provide the
    Committee with a copy.* If there is no such agreement, please explain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Attached are copies of the original MOU, signed in 2000,
    and the revised MOU under review by NMFS. The original MOU describes
    the State of Alaska's strategy for the efficient allocation of funds
    for projects and activities, and describes the selection process used
    to disburse the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program funds as
    directed in the Conference Report (H.R. 106-479). These funds are to be
    used for salmon habitat, research, enhancement, and implementation of
    the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement in and outside of Alaska. The
    MOU is being revised to address procedures appropriate to projects and
    programs specifically identified for funding by Congress.
        The MOU outlines the State of Alaska's dual purpose for these
    funds: to support both sustainable salmon and their habitat, and a
    sustainable salmon industry in Southeast Alaska. This dual purpose
    differs from the use of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds outside
    of Alaska where some salmon stocks are listed under the Endangered
    Species Act and habitat restoration is pivotal in the recovery of
    salmon.
        The State of Alaska is using these funds in Southeast Alaska to
    continue and improve sustainable salmon fisheries management and
    improve habitat stewardship, in order to prevent salmon from ever being
    listed. For Alaska, the Congressional emphasis on Pacific Salmon Treaty
    implementation is addressed by funding salmon monitoring projects as
    well as those that increase economic opportunity.

        Question 3. Please explain how the State of Alaska determines which
    projects or programs receive funding from the Alaska portion of the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.
        Answer. The State of Alaska provided the Senate and House
    Committees on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation with a copy of the progress report on
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program on September 1, 2000
    (attached). This document includes language from Congress, the Alaska
    State Legislature, the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Annex, and Alaska's
    Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy directing the use of the funds. It
    also describes the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program in Southeast
    Alaska: its vision, mission, goals, and framework.
        In December 2000, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game brought
    together agency scientists and managers in the Divisions of Habitat and
    Restoration, Sport Fish, and Commercial Fisheries to determine the
    priorities for funding salmon habitat stewardship and restoration
    projects, and salmon research and monitoring projects in Southeast
    Alaska. A written description showing the process the department used
    to determine funding priorities in these categories is attached.
        Of the funding provided to the State of Alaska for Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery in FFY00, approximately two-thirds was allocated by the
    State to salmon habitat, research and monitoring, and the remaining
    one-third was allocated to increasing economic opportunity for salmon
    fishermen and communities. The State developed a Stakeholder Advisory
    Panel in December 2000, to review all proposed projects and clarify
    program funding areas to increase economic opportunities for Southeast
    Alaska salmon fishermen and communities.
        The Stakeholder Advisory Panel recommended the majority of the
    ``economic opportunity'' funding should support salmon enhancement
    projects, with additional funding for salmon marketing, education and
    infrastructure projects. Requests for project descriptions were
    publicized, then the Stakeholder Advisory Panel reviewed and
    recommended projects to the Commissioner of Fish and Game, who made
    final selections and authorized funding. Included in the attachments
    are the requests for project descriptions that were advertised.
        A similar process has been followed with FFY01 and FFY02 funding,
    with the significant change of the addition of an active Science
    Coordination Panel, involving several state and federal agencies, the
    University of Alaska, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council, and
    non-governmental organizations. The Science Coordination Panel
    identifies the priority information needs/issues for salmon habitat
    stewardship and restoration, salmon monitoring, research and
    management, based on a framework and interagency gap analysis. Attached
    are drafts of the second year (FFY01) Strategy and Gap Analysis
    developed by the Science Coordination Panel. The Science Panel has
    identified priority information needs and issues for the third year of
    federal funding (FFY02) and will be conducting a further gap analysis
    to identify specific projects that should be funded. This process
    increases coordination between various state and federal agencies and
    other entities that fund or conduct salmon research in the Gulf of
    Alaska. For second year funding, the Stakeholder Advisory Panel has
    identified several salmon enhancement projects through an open public
    process. The department is also requesting education proposals and
    developing a request for proposals to conduct an economic analysis of
    the salmon fishing industry in Southeast Alaska, in order to identify
    priority infrastructure and marketing projects. In May 2002, the
    Stakeholder Advisory Panel and the Science Coordination Panel held a
    joint meeting. They recommended that additional planning be undertaken
    in the areas of enhancement, infrastructure, education, and marketing
    in order to better define goals and be able to measure progress in
    achieving those goals.
        The Department of Fish and Game's web site contains additional
    information about the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund, as the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery program is known in Alaska. The web page for
    the Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund is found at www.state.ak.us/adfg.
    Further information on the program and projects that have been funded
    by Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds for all states and tribes can
    be found in NMFS's April, 2000, document, ``Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund Report on FY2002 and FY2001 Programs'' and at the NMFS
    web site www.nwr.noaa.gov under Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund.

        Question 4. What progress has been made in recovering salmon stocks
    with the funds from the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund? How is the
    success of individual projects and/or programs tracked and evaluated?
        Answer. The State of Alaska maintains a conservation-based
    management program for both salmon harvest and protection of salmon
    habitat, in order to ensure sustainable stocks and runs of salmon. No
    salmon that spawn in Alaska are listed as endangered or threatened
    under the Endangered Species Act, and Alaska has agreements in place
    with National Marine Fisheries Service for those listed species of
    salmon originating from outside of Alaska that are caught incidentally
    in the harvest of non-listed salmon. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    funds are used primarily to protect salmon habitat through good
    stewardship, to restore damaged habitat, to involve communities in
    salmon habitat stewardship and restoration, to ensure salmon management
    continues to provide sustainable salmon runs through monitored harvests
    and escapement, and to implement the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty
    Agreement.
        The success of each project is measured against the objectives of
    the project as outlined in a Statement of Work. Semi-annual reports are
    required for each project and these reports are sent to NMFS as part of
    their ongoing program review. Habitat stewardship and salmon monitoring
    and research projects all involve the collection, storing and analysis
    of measurable data. Each enhancement project has a specified measurable
    objective in adding salmon to the common property resource. The
    marketing project incorporates performance measures. The Southeast
    Sustainable Salmon program will be strengthened this year by the
    development of a strategy for a sustainable salmon industry which in
    conjunction with the sustainable salmon strategy will lay out the
    overall goals in a concrete fashion.
        During discussions with other states and tribes receiving these
    funds it was determined that funding must be maintained for multiple
    life cycles of listed stocks: a minimum of ten years of Pacific Coastal
    Salmon Recovery funding would providing a basis for measuring recovery
    because it encompasses two Chinook salmon life-cycles and about three
    coho life-cycles.

        Question 5. Please explain the prospects and timetable for recovery
    of Pacific Salmon in Alaskan waters to sustainable, harvest-able levels
    and how the State is tracking that recovery.
        Answer. Please recall that in our answer to question 4, we
    explained that no salmon that spawn in Alaska are listed as endangered
    or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and Alaska has
    agreements in place with NMFS for those listed species of salmon
    originating from outside of Alaska that are caught incidentally in the
    harvest of non-listed salmon. Of the hundreds of stocks of salmon in
    Alaska, all except a few in western Alaska are supporting healthy
    sustainable fisheries. For those stocks in western Alaska where
    management concerns have been identified, we believe the prospects for
    recovery are excellent. Alaska has been fortunate that much of the
    habitat necessary to maintain healthy populations is intact. What is
    needed is a program to determine the population dynamics of stocks
    where we lack this information so that scientific management techniques
    can be developed and applied. Many of these studies require a minimum
    of two salmon life cycles to develop the necessary data and it would
    likely take several years to implement management programs to provide
    the sustainable, harvestable levels.
    Attachments*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------