Mr. Chairman, my name is Dan James. I am a government relations consultant with the law firm Ball Janik LLP. I am representing the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, where worked from January 1992 until last month. The PNWA membership includes nearly 120 organizations and individuals in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. PNWA represents public port authorities on the Columbia/Snake River System, the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound; public utility districts, investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export elevator companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest; forest products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers, and others involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest. Our Idaho members include the Port of Lewiston, Boise Cascade Corporation, Potlatch Corporation, Idaho Power Company, Lewiston Grain Growers and the Lewis-Clark Terminal Association.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues related to salmon recovery science in the Columbia Basin.
Successful "Applied Science"
Consider the moon landing and the frozen French fry. The polio vaccine and the cellular phone. In each instance, there were vast uncertainties in the science, wide gaps in knowledge, conflicting data, and a diversity of opinion, yet, ultimately those who pursued their goals were successful. The application of science was successful because goals were clear and priorities were definite. Senator, absent clear goals and definitive priorities, the problems surrounding the recovery of salmon continue in the Pacific Northwest. We are attempting to apply science without clear goals and without definitive priorities.
Conflicts in law, conflicts in goals, conflicts in philosophy.
Conflicts in law, conflicts in goals, and conflicts in philosophy are serious impediments to salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin.
Law
-- It is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to protect endangered fish, without regard to the economic cost of doing so. However, it is the responsibility of the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) to protect all fish and wildlife, in balance with meeting regional energy needs.
-- The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other laws were created to promote a healthy, balanced ecosystem. At the same time, the species we are protecting have increased their consumption of ESA-listed salmon.
-- The ESA gives the highest possible policy and legal priority to the protection of listed subspecies of salmon, yet the United States has trust responsibilities and treaties regarding Native Americans' tribal fishing rights.
Goals
-- There are conflicts between providing sustainable runs or harvestable runs of salmon.
-- There are conflicts between protecting weakened wild salmon runs and encouraging the harvest of stronger runs of wild salmon and hatchery fish.
-- There are conflicts between enhancing populations of wild fish and enhancing population of hatchery fish.
-- Because we have so many goals, we essentially have no goal.
Philosophy
-- Some who advocate breaching dams are not willing to consider alternatives to mixed stock harvest to save endangered salmon.
-- Some who advocate massive reductions in water withdrawals that would devastate irrigated agriculture appear unwilling to consider changing hatchery management goals to protect wild salmon runs.
-- We need to establish priorities
Recognizing that we have many conflicting goals, the way to successfully move forward is establish definitive priorities -- a task we have yet to accomplish. I offer these problems to illustrate my point:
-- What do we do when ESA and treaty obligations conflict?
-- What do we do when salmon protection and marine mammal or avian protections conflict?
-- What do we do when our hatchery practices for harvest practices hurt ESA-listed fish?
To answer these questions, we need to establish priorities. So far, we have none. So far -- we have seen the Federal, State and tribal agencies attempt to meet diverse and conflicting objectives -- in many cases -- at the expense of other national and regional goals -- that appear to be regulated to second tier. The Columbia and Snake rivers support a tremendous diversity of life and bring a remarkable array of benefits to the region and the nation. The rivers support complex ecological systems and are the lifeblood of the regional economy. The question we have posed to ourselves is this: As users of these rivers, how can we support recovery of listed salmon stocks and preserve the other benefits that these rivers bring to the entire region and the nation?
Senator, we hope that you and your colleagues will direct the Federal, State and tribal fish managers to establish a clear and consistent goals that recognize the complexities of salmon and the river system and sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery. If the outcome of that guidance manifests itself in multiple goals, then we must establish clear priorities that lead us to salmon recovery.
We appreciate your listening to our thoughts on these issues. Thank you.
Salmon recovery: An overview
In the next few months, the people of the Pacific Northwest and our policy makers will be making critical decisions that will affect salmon and other natural resources. The region's salmon efforts have been extensive, with more than $3.0 billion invested since the passage of the Northwest Power Act in 1980. And yet, the region's rivers remain the focus of a perplexing policy and scientific debate.
Almost all of this debate is centered around proposed solutions to the salmon issue. This attempt to find "the answers" has not produced a recovery plan -- mainly because the region hasn't agreed on the question.
Before the region can find specific solutions addressing salmon recovery, we believe the Northwest must address the following, broader questions:
What vision does the region have for its rivers? What goals do we have for our salmon and steelhead populations?
Despite intense debate, these questions remain largely unaddressed. Indeed, the primary lesson of the past 20 years is that the region's multi-layered process for salmon management is not effective at defining consistent goals.
Instead, conflicting goals have led to actions that in some cases reduced salmon survival. What we have learned is that proposing solutions without clearly articulated goals will not result in recovery.
Further, proposed solutions that ignore the complexity of the salmon lifecycle and the complexity of the river system will not work.
In short, the region needs a recovery plan that:
1) establishes and follows clear and achievable goals
2) recognizes the complexities of salmon and the river system, and
3) sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery.
By insisting on a plan with these three elements, the region can restore salmon runs and -- at the same time -- maintain the many environmental and economic benefits of the Columbia/Snake River System. It does not have to be an either/or choice.
The following sections of this paper address each of the three elements needed for an effective recovery plan.
A plan that establishes and follows clear and achievable goals
Before any salmon recovery effort can succeed -- and before any specific recovery proposal can be evaluated -- the region must adopt clear and attainable goals.
In the recently completed "All-H" paper, the Federal agencies describe Conservation Goals. They include: conserve species and ecosystems, ensure tribal fishing rights, balance needs of other species and minimize adverse effects on humans.
These goals mean different things to different people.
-- For some, the most important goal is to recover listed salmon populations to the point where they can be removed from the Endangered Species List. That goal leads to a certain set of actions and policies.
-- For some, the priority is to build strong fish runs (of both wild and hatchery salmon) to support current or even increased harvest levels. That leads to a different set of actions.
-- For some, the goal is to return to a so-called "natural" river. That would lead to an even more drastic and uncertain set of actions.
without broad support for a unified plan, groups with conflicting objectives are likely to work at cross-purposes -- all under the broad banner of "saving the salmon." This situation is as much a legal, policy and fisheries management crisis as a biological crisis.
A plan that recognizes the complexities of salmon and the river
Salmon travel thousands of miles over their lifespan, beginning in the Columbia River and its tributaries followed by years in the ocean before returning to the river system to spawn. Along the way they are affected by dams, harvesting, predators, ocean conditions and many other variables.
Salmon mortality is a result of many factors all along the lifecycle of the salmon. This points out the overriding Catch-22 of all single-minded salmon recovery efforts: Increasing survival at a single point might be offset by mortality at another point in the salmon lifecycle.
A comprehensive approach to improving salmon survival is the only way to systematically reduce the levels of mortality that have led to the low population sizes.
Recovery efforts must address:
-- spawning and rearing habitat
-- downstream migration
-- predators
-- estuary conditions
-- ocean conditions
-- upstream migration
-- hatcheries
-- harvest
Focusing on any one recovery measure will be unsuccessful because there is not a single source of mortality. Rather, we must work toward a coordinated, comprehensive and scientifically based recovery plan.
A plan that sets priorities to maximize the chances of recovery
There is no shortage of proposals to "save the salmon." In addition to adopting clear goals and focusing on the entire salmon lifecycle, an effective recovery plan must also prioritize these proposals. This will allow the region to invest in the plans with the best chance of success.
Science is critical to setting these priorities. Great strides have been made in our understanding of the salmon lifecycle. However, there continue to be large uncertainties that can only be answered through continued research.
Recent science has provided evidence that survival of both juvenile and adult salmon through the mainstem dams has been significantly improved as a result of the region's major investments in dam passage and operational changes.
Current NMFS research shows increased survival for spring/summer salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers.
Survival rates at each dam, as measured by NMFS, are nearly 95 percent for most years since 1995. This compares with estimates of per project survivals for Snake River fish of less than 70 percent during most of the 1970s. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/white/travel.pdf on page 24)
Indeed, the survival level through this stretch of the river is approaching the practical upper limit. Of is not possible to reach levels of 100 percent survival even through free flowing stretches of the Snake and Columbia rivers.)
In addition, NMFS research is indicating that other factors play a more important role in salmon mortality than previously thought. These factors include estuary mortality, predation, poor ocean survival and inadequate survival during the first year of life before the salmon reach the first dam.
Where do we go from here? A cooperative approach
The Columbia and Snake rivers support a tremendous diversity of life and bring a remarkable array of benefits to the region and the nation. The rivers support complex ecological systems and are the lifeblood of the regional economy.
The question we have posed to ourselves is this: As users of these rivers, how can we support recovery of listed salmon stocks and preserve the other benefits that these rivers bring to the entire region and the nation?
In answer to that question, we have formulated the following four principles, which we endorse for ourselves and for others who seek to make a constructive contribution.
1. Move beyond us-versus-them solutions. Seek win-win opportunities instead.
2. Avoid drastic calls to action based on panic. Instead, seek a reasonable or proven course based on sound science.
3. Recognize that there is no "silver bullet." There is no single action that will save the salmon. "Silver bullet" solutions are not scientific solutions because they fail to recognize the complex interconnected lifecycle of the salmon.
4. Most importantly, insist on and contribute to formation of a salmon recovery plan based on the three elements we have outlined. Any effective salmon plan must:
-- establish and follow clear and achievable goals
-- recognize the complexities of salmon and the river system, and
-- set priorities to maximize the chances of recovery.
In the Columbia and Snake rivers, the Northwest has been entrusted with a remarkable resource -- one that brings benefits to all aspects of life in the Northwest. By following these four principles, the region can restore listed salmon runs while maintaining a healthy environment and a strong economy. Ultimately, that will benefit everyone.