[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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------