Since the federal government is developing its "4-H" paper behind closed doors, it is somewhat difficult for us to comment on the substance of it. However, it is our understanding that the "4-H" paper is intended to provide a "context" or "backdrop" for the federal government's decision regarding the future of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
It is well recognized that the hydrosystem causes significant impacts on salmon. In fact, the incidental take permit that NMFS has granted the hydrosystem operators allows the hydrosystem to take 24% to 86% of the juvenile Snake River spring/summer chinook and 21% of the adult spring/summer chinook. Similarly, the hydrosystem is allowed to take 62% to 100% of the juvenile Snake River fall chinook and 39% of the adult fall chinook. The National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion on the hydro-system states that the existing operation of the hydrosystem does jeopardize the continued existence of Snake River salmon. This "state of jeopardy" is allowed on a temporary basis so that the federal government could gather the information it needs to make an informed decision regarding the proper configuration of the hydrosystem. Under the biological opinion, this information gathering and analysis process will culminate in a final decision in late 1999.
NMFS' biological opinion recognizes that it is important to quantify the level of mortality imposed by the hydrosystem. This information "will help answer whether sufficient survival improvements can be achieved in the hydropower system to contribute to the recovery of the listed stocks, or whether large survival improvements must be achieved in other sectors."
The Commission and its member tribes have long recognized that one cannot assess or manage the various mortality sectors, the "4-H's," in isolation. Hence, the Commission's member tribes have long advocated for "gravel-to-gravel" management. This requires addressing the entire lifecycle of the salmon. To ensure that a species will rebuild all sources of mortality must be addressed. In order to control the various sources of salmon mortality and manage them to achieve rebuilding, it is necessary to develop goals and objectives for the affected salmon stocks that are consistent with law and based on sound biology. When assembled into a comprehensive package, the measures adopted to achieve these goals and objectives must add up to rebuilt salmon runs.
Over four years ago, the Commission and its member tribes published a salmon restoration plan entitled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the Salmon). This plan encompasses the "4-H's" and includes quantitative goals and objectives. It uses the best available science and provides for monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management. This is still the only plan for Columbia River basin salmon recovery that quantitatively assesses the measures recommended against the adopted goals and objectives and addresses all 4 "H's" of salmon management in a manner consistent with applicable laws.
The federal government is the biggest dam operator, land owner, and hatchery manager in the Columbia River basin. It also has significant harvest management authorities. The federal government can and must set the tone for salmon rebuilding. The federal government cannot meet its legal obligations simply by complying with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is only one of the laws that governs federal actions affecting fish. Other critically important laws governing federal action include the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and treaties with Indian tribes. Most of these laws contemplate salmon population and harvest levels considerably higher than the "survival" and/or "recovery" levels that NMFS believes meet the requirements of the ESA. The federal government is legally obligated to use all of its authorities to ensure that Columbia basin salmon runs are rebuilt to support salmon harvest both within the Columbia River and in the ocean.
For decades, the primary approach to conserving Columbia basin salmon has been to constrain harvest. This has not been effective. For example, hardly any spring or summer chinook are harvested in fisheries above Bonneville Dam. In fact, the tribes have not had a commercial fishery on spring chinook since 1977 or on summer chinook since 1964. Despite these severe restrictions, these runs have continued to decline to the point where Snake River spring/summer chinook are now endangered. Clearly, to prevent the extinction of Snake River spring/summer chinook, it is essential to develop a plan that addresses all 4 "H's." Yet, given the federal government's current restrictive policies on the use of artificial propagation, rebuilding of spring/summer chinook will have to be implemented solely by making significant changes in the hydrosystem and habitat management policies.
It has been frustrating for the tribes to watch the great salmon debate proceed with no real links to legal obligations and sound biological objectives. Instead, the focus is more on whether dam breaching is on the table or off the table or whether the Bonneville Power Administration will manage its finances so that salmon, taxpayers, and ratepayers are all given a fair shake. While these are important issues, one cannot reach a reasonable judgment about them unless they are placed in the context of legal obligations and sound biological objectives. Neither the tribes nor probably anyone else would suggest breaching any dams unless it is necessary to meet legal obligations and sound biological objectives. A reasonable "4-H" analysis should delineate all legal obligations and biological objectives so that one can clearly see what actions are needed.
A reasonable "4-H" analysis must be firmly grounded in the best available science. The policy of deference to agency expertise does not always foster the use of the best available science nor does it foster acceptance and support by affected interests. The federal government and its scientists have been making the decisions about what salmon protection measures are implemented in the hydrosystem, in hatcheries, and on federal lands. While non-federal entities can provide comments or make recommendations, the final decisions have continued to rest with federal scientists and policy-makers. We see the fruits of their "expertise" in the empty waters and degraded streams in the basin.
Any "4-H" analysis developed by the federal government must be subject to thorough review by independent scientists. For example, the PATH process is a scientifically rigorous and independent process for reaching scientific conclusions. In contrast, NMFS scientists at the Coastal Zone and Estuarine Services in Seattle have too often rushed to broadcast their results before undergoing any external peer review process. We are very concerned that the federal government will develop its "4-H" paper without reasonable and necessary scientific peer review. We are not talking some sort of public comment process. The federal government has ignored our comments, to the detriment of salmon and the region, too many times. We suggest that, to the greatest extent possible, the federal government employ existing, thorough-going peer review processes such as the PATH or ISAB as a means of developing and reviewing scientific judgments.
In closing, we believe that in order to meet its obligations to protect and rebuild salmon, the federal government must conduct an analysis of what must be done in each of the 4 "H's" in order to meet reasonable goals and objectives. These goals and objectives must be based on the biological needs of salmon and the federal government's legal obligations. These legal obligations include not only the ESA, but also the Clean Water Act and treaties with Indian tribes. In evaluating the efficacy of various actions for each of the 4 "H's," the federal government must be guided by the best available science. In addition, the federal government must submit its scientific determinations to rigorous independent review.