My name is Tim Stearns. I am the Policy Director of Save Our Wild Salmon. For the past eight years I have sought to help the Northwest adapt to and make decisions about how best to stabilize and restore populations of wild salmon and steelhead on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and the ecosystems on which they depend. Save Our Wild Salmon is a coalition of sportsfishing, commercial fishing, traditional environmental groups and salmon-based businesses. Prior to that I worked on the implementation of the Northwest Power Act, since its passage in 1980, where the Northwest sought to survive the failure to build nuclear plants, implement cost-effective conservation programs and build the power system of the future.
I wanted to offer our observations on problems in the decisionmaking and analytical processes being used to make long term decisions.
Declining salmon is not a new issue. It has existed since the arrival of white settlers. Increasing competition for fish, technological improvements, new people, development and resource use have all contributed to the decline. The Northwest has tried repeated technological interventions to stave off the declines. The single most destructive set of activities on the Snake and Columbia River has been the damming of rivers. In this testimony, I will not focus on the causes, but how to work toward solutions.
Since the mid 1970's and the completion of the Lower Snake dams the Northwest has wrestled with the Endangered Species Act. The Northwest Power Act sought to fix two major problems - first the energy situation - including inefficient energy use, increased demand, huge cost increases from new thermal projects, poor forecasting and closed planning processes. It also sought a fix to declining stocks of anadromous fish, namely salmon and steelhead. The Northwest agreed to protect, mitigate and enhance salmon and steelhead, provide flows of sufficient quality and quantity, provide equitable treatment and defer to agency and tribal experts. The Power Act delayed implementation of the Endangered Species Act until 1991 when it was apparent our efforts were insufficient and probably misguided.
The Northwest Power Planning Council made one last attempt to retain regional control of the issue with its 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. The new Council, Bonneville Power Administration and Congress treated that program like a cafeteria implementing some measures and ignoring others, the Federal Government never embraced it and implemented measures of their own.
The National Marine Fisheries Service under the Bush administration assured the region and nation it could handle this problem without additional staff or appropriations. Unfortunately, this decision did not allow the administration to develop a strategic approach or the people power necessary to analyze, assess and implement measures. NMFS has proved to be a bottleneck - I would suggest they have since somewhat geared up to take on the challenge since then, but too little too late resulting in bad feeling on the ground. NMFS has not consistently enforced its Biological Opinions. In our view NMFS never developed the independent scientific and economic tools necessary to work through these issues. NMFS continues to be dependent on the Bonneville Power Administration and Northwest Power Planning Council for hydrosystem economic information. NMFS has involved scientists who designed and study the passage measures at dams and the barging program instead of developing a separate scientific group.
During this time period the science has significantly changed the playing field and our outlook. Until the mid 1990's the region and nation believed we could engineer our way through every salmon problem. In fact we deluded ourselves into believing we could do things better than mother nature. The state of the science was encapsulated in two watershed reports - Upstream by the National Research Council and Return to the River by the Independent Science Advisory Board concluded that salmon convolved with their watersheds and thus, needed restored watersheds processes. The scientists went to great lengths to suggest that human development and technology could be compatible with sustainable salmon runs; however, they did suggest that we need to be increasingly cognizant of the needs of salmon, that technology should be used to complement and recreate watershed processes and that virtually everything we do should be treated, monitored and adapted like an experiment.
After a series of litigation that found the interim recovery measures adopted by NMFS inadequate, NMFS proclaimed to the Federal Court they would make decisions by December of 1999. The Court reluctantly deferred to the discretion of the federal government. NMFS sketchily laid out its decisionmaking and research plan. In the 1995 Biological Opinion NMFS proposed interim flows, a spill program and modification of the John Day dam. Unfortunately, the flow targets have never been met during the summer months and the administration never sought did the Congress approve the John Day modifications. The spill program has improved after relentless prodding. NMFS launched its limited research program and called upon the Corps of Engineers to study the alternative measures for restoring Snake River salmon.
The Corps Lower Snake River Leasability study has been rife with problems: it is over six months behind scheduled; it is limited to three mainstem Snake River options; it does not encompass the broad range of alternatives or impacts throughout the Columbia ecosystem - for instance the future operation and configuration of John Day dam is being addressed in a separate EIS; harvest, hatcheries and habitat are being dealt with in many processes. It does not have a well defined protocol for releasing information - thus officially releases some information and allows other information to be embargoed resulting in charges of leaks, spin control frustration by interested parties and media. Recently participants in the economic analysis have supported open dissemination of final reports creating a more open availability of information and encouraging a more open debate. The Corps has consulted with some parties and affected communities, while ignoring others - the Corps appropriately did a series of meetings with communities near the river that would be directly affected by changing. Unfortunately the Corps did not hold similar meetings with coastal communities or parties who would benefit from either improved fisheries and recreation, or those who implement infrastructure improvements. Finally, the Corps has not focused on how we would solve problem, mitigate damages or implement thoughtful transitions for affected parties.
The states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, the 13 tribes adjoining the Snake and Columbia and the federal government have launched an analytical process called the Framework and a discussion forum called the Columbia Basin Regional forum. The Framework is still somewhat undefined as to what its analysis will be and whether it will be available on time. It has its problems and limitations. We are participating and hoping it will provide useful information on which to base decisions. It is certainly not clear whether Council is capable of adopting a scientifically sound program.
The Federal government has launched a parallel process they call the 4 H paper. Some are suspicious of this project. We share the skepticism, but believe it is overdue and necessary. First the Corps EIS is clearly too limited and probably won't comply with the National Environmental Policy Act because of its limited scope and problems. Second the NMFS biological opinions covering harvest, the operation of the Columbia River power system, hatchery system and habitat are incomparable, inconsistent and are not coordinated making them ripe for challenge. For instance the 94-98 hydro biological opinion allows 99% of smolts to die migrating through the hydrosystem, while it allows over 60% of adults to die returning. The harvest bi-op limits harvest on healthy fall chinook to 24% to protect endangered stocks. The inequitability is clear. Thirdly, the federal government does not speak with one voice on salmon recovery. It is long overdue for this administration to develop one unified and coordinated policy.
The federal government needs to put its options out for state and tribal consultation and public review. We have called for this openness in this process. We reject the notion that the administration should not meet privately to develop its positions. The administration has the legal obligation to implement the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, tribal treaties, Forest Land Management Act and the U.S.-Canada treaty.
I understand the suspicions of the federal government and share the frustration and usually champion openness; however, it is vitally important and long overdue that the administration get its act together and puts its alternatives and proposals on the table and leads a public discussion. We have urged and many members of Congress have urged that proposals go through the same set of economic and scientific analytical filters to ensure the region and nation can understand the tradeoffs, consequences and transition opportunities.
The Bonneville Power Administration is about to enter into its rate setting process to establish electric rates from 2001 to 2006. The Administration adopted Fish Funding Principles to ensure that adequate dollars would be available to implement recovery measures. Unfortunately the rate proposal by BPA puts too much risk on fish recovery and could require a substantial rate increase in 2007. This could have easily been avoided. The Senate has adopted language to prevent the establishment of a recovery fund to be used in a future rate period. Bad water years, changes in market conditions and economic downturn could create a crisis pitting salmon recovery against repaying the Treasury. This will either invite out of region intervention or delay salmon recovery. ~~~ hope the Administration will revise the proposal so it becomes solid. I am not sure whether my 7 year old son will go to college or where nor how long my retirement will be, but I have started saving so I can ensure that options exists. Salmon recovery will cost money in the next 10 years to modify hatcheries, buy habitat, change fishing practices or modify dams. The Northwest only deserves the benefits of this unique power system if we meet treaty obligations, comply with federal laws and implement public purposes.
With regard to public process, we have urged the administration to hold one set of hearings throughout the region, on the coast and in Washington, DC before Thanksgiving or after the New Year (if information is delayed) on its draft Biological Opinions, 4 H paper, the Lower Snake Feasibility study and other relevant documents. We want to avoid the chaotic holiday season to ensure the discussion is as fruitful and inclusive as possible. We want to ensure that the Framework produce its information for inclusion in the same set of hearings.
This committee can play a vital role to ensure the decisionmaking is done thoughtfully, orderly and on time.
1) Demand that the alternatives being considered by the federal government be submitted to the following entities for review and comment: Process for Analyzing and Testing Hypothesis Independent Science Advisory Board Independent Economic Advisory Board Framework process.
We assume the Corps will discuss it with its Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup.
2) Urge the Clinton Administration to make its final decisions prior to the 1999 salmon migration as it committed to in Federal Court. Ensure those decisions comply with all applicable federal laws and treaties.
3) Urge the Clinton Administration to fully consult with the affected states and tribes and respond to substantive comments before making decisions.
4) Urge all parties in the region to consider all options. It is premature to rule out any option. Opposing dam removal is not a recovery plan. Opposing increased flows is also not a recovery program.
5) Ensure that appropriate mitigation and transition plans are developed so we can ensure that affected parties are dealt with fairly.
Clearly this issue is contentious. The longer we put it off the more difficult and expensive recovery will be. The longer we continue out of compliance of federal laws the more legal, political and congressional pressure we should expect. The longer we wait the longer the uncertainty prevents people from moving forward. The changes needed will be difficult, but we must keep our eyes on the prize - a sustainable economy that works for salmon, people and the future. Together we can work through these changes.
Thank you.