Most of you who are here today were unable to hear the proceedings in Washington DC in September. Let me take this brief opportunity to summarize what we heard.
Despite several decades of work and a cost to taxpayers and ratepayers of an estimated $3 billion, Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead continue to decline to the point where they may soon become extinct. We must not allow that extinction to happen and must proceed quickly with a consensus plan and action for recovery. I must repeat my own position that I see no evidence that flow augmentation will recover anadromous fish and I will not support any flow augmentation other than that agreed to by the State of Idaho, if any. The extensive political opposition to breaching the four lower Snake dams means that such a recommendation would put the region into economic and political gridlock in such a way that would prohibit further efforts to make reasonable steps to save the salmon.
The Federal Caucus, a group of Federal agencies lead by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Northwest Power Planning Council have produced their draft plans and most significantly, the Governors of the four Northwest States have released a series of recommendations that outline the process the Governors feel must be followed to achieve anadromous fish recovery.
Let me note the openness, the transparency, and the real collaboration that characterize the process used by the four Governors and their staff in preparing their recommendations. The four Governors have done a good job in identifying both the proper focus on where the real problems and the real balance among the various solutions that are available.
The Federal Caucus would have done well to have followed the same type of process. Instead, I had to file a FOIA request to find out what the Federal Caucus was doing, even then faced opposition in full disclosure. And many of the others in the region still feel that they do not and have not had an opportunity to have real collaborative input in to the Federal decision-making process.
The primary purpose of this subcommittee's hearing here is to examine the science used to develop the draft Bi-Op and the draft recovery strategy.
Let me describe the role of science as I see it. Science, economy, and culture will all be partners in recovering these wild anadromous fish, but recovery must be BASED in science, and we must get the science right.
We must not fear good, accurate science. Some worry about where good, accurate science may lead us, and as a result may try to manipulate scientific processes or mischaracterize scientific hypotheses and conclusions.
Such activity, in my opinion, is a disservice and it can only bring further gridlock and more severe penalties to the Pacific Northwest. I urge people from all perspectives to insist on good science and be willing to recognize it when we find it.
The approach I prefer is to understand the good science and then let the people and the policy-makers use that science to craft a recovery plan that gives the economic and cultural partners the trust they need to be advocates and participants in recovery.
The imposition of bad process and bad science will result in distrust and retreat into self-interest. Such a tragic path backwards will have severe penalties for the Pacific Northwest and ultimately result in the loss of these incredible fish.
There is too much at stake to allow our limited resources to be applied to false schemes or solutions. We have got to get the science right.
* Specifically that means if the science says it's the dams, then we should accept that--not avoid that--and act accordingly.
* I do not support breaching the dams but if the science says it's the dams then we should focus our limited resources on fixing the dams.
* A simple analogy is if a medical patient is suffering from heart problems it makes no sense at all for the doctor to remove a healthy leg.
* Everything I just said about the dams applies exactly to all the other factors whether they be harvest, hatcheries' ocean conditions or anything else.
If I understand the direction that we appear to be taking now as a result of the Federal Caucus' action, we now have a window of time -- 6 to 8 or 10 years -- to evaluate other options and take other options and take steps towards solutions that will seek to recover the fish before evaluation of dam breaching is then brought back to the table for further reconsideration. That means we have a short window of time in which we must do things right. Otherwise, if we continue to spin our wheels or make wrong decisions about how to approach recovery, we will, in 5, 6, 8 years be once again facing the difficult question on whether the region must breach the dams to save the fish.
Currently, there is widespread disagreement around the region as to whether the draft Bi-Op is reflective of the best available science. I view this disagreement as having at least two parts: the process of developing this science and the product resulting from this process. Lot me first talk about process.
Our first witness at September's hearing was Idaho's Governor, Dirk Kempthorne. Governor Kempthorne said, "Our commitment to this goal--restoration of all stocks of Idaho's salmon is unquestionable. The question before this panel is to what extent the Federal agencies will help the States in this effort. I have long believed that only through a regional collaborative effort will there ever be a real chance for recovery of anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest . . . Only through regional cooperation, not dictates by the Federal Government, is there a chance to achieve real success. . . So if I had to boil down our advice to the Federal Government of the United States of America, I would do it in four words: listen to the States. These are the States united in the recovery of salmon. We share the same commitment to recovering these remarkable species. We've taken the time and made the hard choices to reach consensus in the region, and we've created this comprehensive road map to recovery."
A few moments later I asked Governor Kempthorne, "Do you believe that the State of Idaho is at the table?"
Governor Kempthorne's response: "No. I do not. I believe that the State of Idaho is at the table with the other three States, and the State of Idaho has joined in a document that we've now submitted to the Federal Government. This is a collaborative process, and, again, have sought through different forums, meetings with different members of agencies of different members of the cabinet expressing my views, my concerns, but I do not feel that we were invited to the Federal table in a collaborative process as they developed this Bi-Op."
Later on the same day then NFMS regional administrator Will Stelle said and I quote, "The opportunity is there for the Northwest to come to terms on an agreement, a program that we can put into place and implement over the next 5 to 10 years. It is there for us if we choose to take it, and I believe, in good faith, that Federal agencies, States, and tribes, if we work very hard, we can capture that agreement by the end of the year and get on with the business of salmon recovery."
Let me note for the record that my office has repeatedly persuaded, cajoled and overtly offered to host meetings as part of my effort to, as Mr. Stelle said "capture that agreement by the end of the year". The National Marine Fisheries Service has not accepted my offer. In fact let me quote from the publication Columbia Basin Bulletin, November 3, 2000 issue: "Our intent is to have a completed and signed Bi-Op by mid-December," Brian Brown, NMFS, told the Implementation Team this week, "With the Dec. 15 deadline, what is not clear to me is what degree of additional discussion we'll be able to have with the State and tribal managers." He said NMFS would like to meet with the tribes and States, but he promised that few changes would be made to the revised Bi-Op as a result of these meetings."
To me these words have great significance because they not only acknowledge the critical lack of collaboration on the part of the Federal caucus with other key scientists in the Pacific Northwest, including State, tribal industry and environmental personnel, but these words also suggest serious flaws in the science that drives the draft biological opinion.
Testimony we received in the September hearing was very critical of the science basis for this Federal plan and even former administrator Stelle acknowledged these difficulties. Let me quote Mr. Stelle: "How do we maintain the integrity of the scientific process and at the same time open the doors to it so that others have the opportunity to critique it, to participate in it, and to help us improve it? It is not a consensus-based exercise. Something is not right from a scientific prospective because everybody agrees. Something is right, do it. Something is right from a scientific perspective because it measures up through the scientific process. And the challenge for us, Senator, is to pull those two things together. Have we done that well enough? No! And are there opportunities to continue to improve that? Yes. I would also encourage your focus not only on this issue -- this issue is not only an issue between now and December."
[As an aside, let me state that is exactly what I am doing and that is why we are here today.]
Let me continue quoting Mr. Stelle (who was referring to the cumulative risk initiative-CRI): "So it is not a static, done product. It is not a static thing. It is not a completed product, so far as finished. And it will continue to evolve and improve as scientists inside and outside have the opportunity to critique it, suggest ways to improve it. So again, if the State of Idaho's scientific people leave observations or suggestions about where its flaws may be and how to correct those flaws, I believe that the NMFS scientists are open to it. It doesn't necessarily mean the NMFS scientists will agree, but absolutely there should be that critical review and exchange of--
Senator Crapo. "And you are committed to reconvening the scientists in the sense to be sure that they have the Clarence now early to collaborative on these matters?
Mr. Stelle: "Yes."
At this point let me repeat that my office and others have consistently asked for such discussion to take place and offered to host; or facilitate any such discussion -- yet it never happens. The demonstrated behavior of the Federal caucus is clearly that it is unwilling to engage the other important scientists in the region in serious discussions whose objective is to resolve as many differences as possible and improve the quality of the science. Let me again quote Brian Brown of NMFS in the Columbia Basin Bulletin, November 3, 2000 issue: "For key issues -- those with a large number of comments -- I will attempt to provide a stand-alone document describing the issues and the response. Some of those issues are NMFS' population analysis, its jeopardy standard, things like the use of CRI or a greater reliance on PATH and the level of risk NMFS is willing to accept. Brown expects that the hydro measures and their effects will continue to evolve in the Bi-Op, based on comments."
Basically then we have scientists and policy makers in the Federal caucus saying--Never mind and don't worry about the fact that we haven't worked with the States and tribes in the Pacific Northwest as we develop the Bi-Op and trust us when we say we promise to work with you later after the policy has been established. My question is why should we believe that promise?
In the September hearing there was much discussion about whether PATH or CRI is better, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the models used, what elements are common to both approaches, and what are the key differences? Our discussions at this bearing today will not of course, be able to uncover those answers but I do believe those answers are out there and we'll find them if we look hard enough. One of the questions I'll ask our Federal witnesses today is what are their plans and commitments to work with State and tribal scientists and other interests in an attempt to get the science right. And are they willing to do that before this draft Bi-Op becomes final? Why should we expect this process will be any different after this Bi-Op become final?
Let me summarize what's at stake in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest -- our salmon and steelhead are priceless treasures that are probably the best example of how nature works her magic and selects the best and the brightest for future generations. We must not allow those fish to go extinct. In fact we must recover them to sustainable and fishable populations. The economy of the Pacific Northwest is mainly vibrant and strong with some important exceptions, particularly in some more rural areas that depend on agriculture and natural resource industries. We must keep our economy strong and spread its strength throughout the region. This economy provides jobs for families and tax revenue to support important work, particularly the education of our children.
As I see it, this draft biological opinion could be an incremental creeping policy initiative that will not solve the problem with the fish, but, instead, will steadily erode State and tribal sovereignty. This document must be improved before it becomes final, and I urge the Federal Caucus to use the next few months wisely to work more collaboratively with the region and to get this right.
We must accomplish both objectives and cannot allow ourselves to be misled by the premise that it has to be one or the other. We must not allow the process that developed this draft Bi-Op nor the science produced by this process to force the region into mistakes -- mistakes that could gut the region's economy and yet not recover the fish.
It is my hope and expectation that today's hearing will help improve what has already been a decade's long, torturous, and expensive process and make it into a success that will turn the Pacific Northwest into a role model for how to recover endangered species.
I would like to thank all of you who have testified, attended, reported and otherwise endured today's hearing. I am struck by the fact that after 3 days of hearings on this matter that while we don't know everything about how to recover anadromous fish, we do nevertheless have an enormous amount of good current information. What remains a mystery to me is why we cannot assemble this information in a way that assures the best possible outcome. I am offended that the Federal agencies are not doing everything possible to organize people and their knowledge in a systematic effort to get this right. I again quote the November 3 issue of the Columbia Basin Bulletin: Dan Daley of the BPA said: "Whether the States and tribes participate doesn't change the Federal obligation to make measured progress toward meeting those goals. We have the responsibility to figure out how to involve others, but we're not there yet. We'll be stumbling around on this first one and probably be somewhat out of sync with region planning."
It looks to me like Mr. Daley has it right. I want to emphasize that my reference to Mr. Daley's quote is in no way a criticism of him and he appears to be simply telling the truth.
It is anticipated that once this draft Bi-Op becomes final it will immediately be subjected to one or more lawsuits which raises the distinct possibility that the courts may be forced to take over anadromous fish recovery in the region. I am sure the courts would prefer not to have to do that and I certainly don't want the courts in that position.
By far the best choice is for the region itself to grasp the issue and in collaboration with the Federal Government make our best effort. As I've said before I believe the four Governors' document outlines a far better process than anything we've seen from the Federal Caucus. The Governors' approach supported by a short-term, focused effort of rigorous scientific collaboration would provide far more benefit to the fish and the regional economy than this draft Bi-Op.
It is painfully obvious that the Federal Caucus itself is divided about what is the best science and the best policy. It is well established that there is widespread disagreement around the region with this draft biological opinion. Those who are generally supportive of this draft offer important criticisms. Even though we have not mastered the process required to recover these fish, it is very obvious that we do have an enormous amount of good information. In fact we have enough information--right now--that we should be able to develop a much better policy than is currently proposed--a policy that takes immediate action that is known to benefit the fish while providing an agreed-upon mechanism for monitoring and subsequent adjustments.
With everything that is at stake, let me publicly suggest that the Federal Caucus delay its printing and publication of the Final Bi-Op for a short period of time, perhaps 2 to 6 months, in an effort to assure us all that we are making our maximum possible effort. I am asking every Federal witness to carry that request back to your management. I will follow up this verbal request with a letter immediately.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen. We stand adjourned.