SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
51–600 l
1998
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FIELD HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998, PASCO, WASHINGTON, AND SEPTEMBER 3, 1998, BOISE, IDAHO
Serial No. 105–111
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FIELD HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998, PASCO, WASHINGTON, AND SEPTEMBER 3, 1998, BOISE, IDAHO
Serial No. 105–111
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held in Pasco, Washington, September 2, 1998
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Nethercutt, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos A., a Delegate in Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Smith, Hon. Linda, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, James D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Baker, Jim, Northwest Salmon Campaign Coordinator, Sierra Club, Pullman, Washington
Prepared statement of
Baker, Jim, Northwest Salmon Campaign Coordinator, Sierra Club, Pullman, Washington
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from members
Ballard, Clyde, Speaker of the House, Washington State Legislature
Prepared statement of
Curtis, Jeff, Western Conservation Director, Trout Unlimited, Portland, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Erickson, Richard, Secretary/Manager, East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Othello, Washington
Prepared statement of
Ferrioli, Ted, Oregon State Senate
Prepared statement of
Givens, John, Executive Director, Port of Kennewick, Kennewick, Washington
Prepared statement of
Hale, Bob, Hale Farms, Hermiston, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Kilbury, Charles D., Mayor, City of Pasco, Washington
Prepared statement of
Lundquist, Lynn, Speaker of the House, Oregon State Legislature
Prepared statement of
Mastin, Dave, Chairman, House-Senate Executive Branch Task Force on Salmon Recovery, Washington State Legislature
Olsen, Darryll, Ph.D., The Pacific Northwest Project, Kennewick, Washington
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Phillips, Rob, Director, Northwest Sport Fishing Industry Association, Oregon City, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Stelle, Jr., William, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington
Prepared statement of
Response to questions from Committee
Ziari, Fred, Chairman, Eastern Oregon Irrigation Association, Hermiston, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Bowman, Leo M., Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, prepared statement of
Christensen, Shirley D., President, Sunset Orchards & Farms, Inc., Othello, Washington, prepared statement of
Fancher, Helen, President, Washington State Assoc. of Counties, Tacoma, Washington, resolutions passed by
Johnson, Linda M., Director, Government Relations, Washington State Farm Bureau, Olympia, Washington, prepared statement of
Lonn, Robert D., Consultant/Planner, NW Council of Governments & Associates, Soap Lake, Washington, prepared statement of
McCleary, Edward, Tacoma, Washington, prepared statement of
McGregor, Alex, State President, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, prepared statement of
Meissner, Louis, Chairman, Governmental Affairs, Greater Pasco Area, Chamber of Commerce, Pasco, Washington, prepared statement of
Norris, Charles R. ''Chuck,'' Hermiston, Oregon, prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perleberg, Columbia Basin Nursery, L.L.C., prepared statement of
Puzey, Kim B., Ph.D., General Manager, Port of Umatilla, Umatilla, Oregon, prepared statement of
Riley, Susan, Secretary/Treasurer, Columbia Basin Environmental Council, Soap Lake, Washington, prepared statement of
Riley, William, Director, Big Bend Economic Development Council, Moses Lake, Washington, prepared statement of
Stueckle, David J., LaCrosse, Washington, letter to the Committee
Sullivan, Suzanne, Burbank, Washington, prepared statement of
West Coast Seafood Processors Association, Portland, Oregon, letter submitted to Hon. Don Young
Hearing held in Boise, Idaho, September 3, 1998
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statement of
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, a Senator in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Batt, Philip E., Governor, State of Idaho
Prepared statement of
Cantrell, Shawn, Northwest Regional Director, Friends of the Earth
Prepared statement of
Doeringsfeld, David, Manager, Port of Lewiston
Prepared statement of
James, Olivia, President, The River Company
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Kerr, Thomas, Commissioner, Valley County, Idaho
Prepared statement of
Klemm, Jerry, President, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council
Prepared statement of
Limbaugh, Mark, Executive Director, Payette River Water Users Association, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Little, Jim, Idaho Cattle Association
Prepared statement of
Maynard, Robert A., Perkins Coie, LLP
Prepared statement of
Pollot, Mark, Foundation for Constitutional Law
Raybould, Dell, Chairman, Committee of Nine, Water District 1
Prepared statement of
Sanchotena, Mitch, Executive Director, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited
Prepared statement of
Stelle, Will, National Marine Fisheries Service
Stuart, Tom, Board President, Idaho Rivers United
Additional material supplied:
Chapman, Sherl L., Executive Director, Idaho Water Users Association, prepared statement of
Darm, Donna, Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, prepared statement of
Moss, DeWitt, on behalf of Northside Canal Company, Twin Falls Canal Company, and Committee of Nine, Water District 1, prepared statement of
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FIELD HEARING ON NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Pasco, Washington.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in the Columbia Basin College, Workforce Training Center, Pasco, Washington, Hon. Richard W. Pombo presiding.
Mr. POMBO [presiding.] Before we get started, I would like to announce that there is an overflow room. It is room 130 and 131. There is, I am told, a live video and audio in the other room.
So everybody could either try to come into the room, or there is an overflow room that I am told is comfortable and has live audio and video in it so you can see the hearing. But we'd like to get everybody in if possible.
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the House of Representatives Committee on Resources to the state of Washington and the Tri-Cities area. We look forward to this hearing today to learn more from you about how the Endangered Species Act is being implemented and enforced in this Northwestern region of the country by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Chairman of the Committee, Congressman Don Young, the Congressman from the state of Alaska, sends his best regards and his regrets that he cannot be here with you today. He has asked me to chair this field hearing for him.
In 1995 when the Republicans became the majority party in Congress we all had great hopes that we would be able to amend the Endangered Species Act and implement common sense approaches to species protection, similar to those that the 1973 Congress envisioned when they originally adopted this law.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress believed that this law would be used to prevent the extinction of species, but never dreamed that it would turn into a tool to be used by a small minority of people to impose Federal land and water use controls on the majority of people.
They also never envisioned the widespread injunctions and economic and social dislocations that many of you are now familiar with.
For the last 4 years many of the members here present and others in Congress have worked to bring about a common sense approach that protects both species and the rights of our citizens.
Unfortunately, instead of sitting down with Congress to discuss the future of protecting the nation's species, the Clinton Administration has chosen to stand in the way of genuine efforts that would have brought about change. Changes that would have protected the right of our farmers and landowners while still ensuring the protection of wildlife.
The ESA has been law since 1973. Currently there are over 1100 domestic species protected under that law. Time is long over-due for the administration to work cooperatively with Congress to fix the ESA. It is outdated and it is broken. It is broken for people and it is broken for wildlife.
As many of you in this room today can attest to, it punishes those who do the most to provide habitat for wildlife.
Today this hearing will focus on the role that the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, plays in enforcing the ESA. The ESA gives NMFS the authority to perform all the duties required by the ESA when they involve ocean dwelling species and marine mammals.
The Fish and Wildlife Service enforces the law and performs all of the duties required by the ESA for all other species. However, when land based activities are affected by the ESA, both Federal agencies are involved in regulating those activities.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you have endangered species on your property in this region of the country, you may be required to obtain two Federal permits under the ESA for the same activity.
It seems to me that there is no need for two Federal agencies to perform exactly the same duties and regulate the exact same activities.
The House Resources Committee is here today to hear from you. We are here to listen to your ideas on what we, as your elected representatives, can do to improve the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
I strongly believe that as our country begins to enter the 21st century we must and can find a more friendly and fair way to accomplish the goals of this outdated species protection act.
Surely we can reduce the regulatory burdens on average citizens, small businesses and state and local governments, while still protecting our natural resources. I hope today's hearing will help you find a way to make improvements in this law in ways that work for both species and for people.
I would like at this time to recognize the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Romero-Barceló.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I congratulate you for holding this hearing today.
Since this legislation that is the subject of the hearing will require a complete reorganization of at least two government agencies at a considerable expense to the American taxpayers, I sympathize with the need to hear from witnesses more knowledgeable on this subject and the issues than most of us in Congress.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate the chairman's concerns for the Endangered Species Act and the idea that we must be looking for ways to improve our endangered species recovery efforts.
But I have reservations that the Bill that would strip the National Marine Fisheries Service from its authority to implement the Endangered Species Act is the best solution.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has spent decades gaining the expertise to address endangered species problems related to marine fisheries and species, while the Fish and Wildlife Service has focused its expertise on terrestrial species.
I feel that a transfer of authority at this time could slow the recovery process for salmon and other marine species at a time when many of these species are in trouble and can ill-afford a delay.
For an island like Puerto Rico it has proven that officials to have just one agency making management decisions for both marine species and commercially valuable marine fisheries, to divide responsibility between two different agencies with two different cabinet heads has a potential of a real quagmire, creating twice the bureaucracies and taking twice the time to make management decisions.
In fact, the Committee has already heard from representatives of the West Coast fishing industry who are opposed to the legislation for this very reason.
If there are problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, we need to address those fundamental issues.
One of the more serious issues is funding. In the past decade the National Marine Fisheries Service's responsibility with respect to endangered species has grown dramatically, but their budget has not followed suit.
This year the administration requested a $10,000,000 million increase in the Endangered Species Act, but the appropriators only provided level funding.
As a result of delays in the development of recovery plans, consultations and other activities that cause people to complain that the National Marine Fisheries Service is not doing its job will continue.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill does nothing to address that problem.
In addition, fundamental changes are needed in the law itself to streamline many of the processes that people find so frustrating, regardless of whether it is the National Marine Fisheries Service or Fish and Wildlife Service implementing the law.
If we want to do something to really resolve the Endangered Species Act conflict, we must provide the agencies with the financial and legislative resources to do their job in a timely fashion.
It is clear that the majority of Americans support the protection of endangered species and the law is not going away, and whether moving our problems from one agency to another is the solution, I don't know. But let us work together to reauthorize the law in a way that makes it better for both the species and the people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I would like to recognize Congressman Hastings at this point for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you and my colleagues for coming here to the Tri-Cities and Central Washington for this field hearing.
Clearly, the Endangered Species Act and its implementation has impacted those of us in Central Washington.
And let me just give you my observation on how the ESA has worked here.
Using the Endangered Species Act, I believe that Federal regulators have squeezed their way into every aspect of our lives. From water usage, commercial and sportfishing, irrigation diversions, hydroelectric production, and even flood control, an assortment of Federal agencies end up making decisions for our region, oftentimes circumventing the state and local decisionmaking process.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we have a variety of different species protected under the ESA here in the Columbia Basin, by far the most sensitive, and important I might add, is the issue of saving and restoring our historic salmon runs. The history and culture of our entire region is at risk in this debate.
The ability of the Federal Government to deal with the decline of salmon runs will test the ESA's efficacy in addressing difficult and complex regional issues.
Locally the Federal Government has already declared the Snake River steelhead, Snake River Sockeye, the Snake River Chinook and the Upper Columbia River steelhead as endangered. That's just essentially in Washington State. Adding Oregon and Idaho, the list becomes even larger.
Clearly the role of the Federal protection agencies is going to grow if more and more populations are listed.
As you well know, the Endangered Species Act does not protect species. Let me repeat that, because I believe it is one of the largest misunderstandings of the ESA. It protects distinct population segments.
This is a regional classification that ignores the strength and health of the species in other regions. A specie may not be in danger of extinction at all, and in fact there are many that are not even close to being extinct.
But the ESA specifically provides for the protection of distinct population segments of species, and therefore the protection of Sockeye salmon of the Snake River or Chinook salmon of the upper Columbia can be federally protected under the ESA.
Even the controversial Northern Spotted Owl has never been in danger of becoming extinct, just locally extinct.
I would conclude that there is a big difference.
I share the belief that regional populations of distinct species should be preserved as best as possible.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To accomplish this, however, we must look at the entire life cycle of a protected population. This is where preserving and restoring salmon populations become very, very difficult.
We are committing regional resources, and in some cases national and international resources, to the preservation of a local resource. And we know so little about the conditions that each salmon stock prefer. Therefore, making necessary adjustments become very costly, with a very limited likelihood of complete success.
Let me give you an example. Why can the Sockeye return to the Okanogan River through nine dams and through hundreds of miles, and still be a viable specie, while the Upper Columbia River steelhead, who goes through exactly the same dams, the same hundreds of miles, is listed as endangered?
The question is, is it ocean conditions, the timing of the harvests, their path through the Northern Pacific, the temperature of the water, the depth of the migration that protects them from predators, or something else entirely?
I think we need to find out, and that's the coordination that I think needs to be looked at.
Unfortunately, our Federal fishery managers and their supervisors, right up to the Department—to the Secretary of Interior, have so consistently blamed the dams for the decline of all the salmon runs that they have become the targets of the most dramatic adjustments for the sake of the region's salmon.
Deep drawdowns below the minimum operating pools, reducing irrigation diversion below Federal contract levels, eliminating timber harvests near streams, delaying grazing permits for cattle, and outright removal of dams, all of these options have been studied, considered, or mandated in our region, with no certainty of recovery, or even making the sustainability of salmon, and I think this issue must change.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What has yet to be comprehensively addressed in my view is the commercial harvest of salmon in the open ocean.
I don't understand how our fisheries managers can continue to allow the harvest, and I am not referring to incidental catches in this case, I am speaking of harvesting endangered salmon stocks by commercial fishermen. I think we can all remember that when the spotted owl was listed in the 1980's, that the threat of removing one tree within their owl circle was considered a take under the ESA.
Now, because the Sockeye salmon from the Snake River is not visually distinct from Sockeye salmon from Alaska or Canada, commercial fishermen continue to harvest millions of pounds of Sockeye each year.
I will be very interested to hear why the National Marine Fisheries Service has not required each commercial fisherman to be issued an incidental take permit for every endangered salmon caught or killed.
I would like to know why our region has committed billions of dollars to recovery efforts when commercial harvests continue unabated.
I will just make this, quickly four recommendations that I think need to be a part of any ESA reform.
First, we need a comprehensive approach that doesn't leave predator control to nature. If we are to protect the region's salmon runs, we must protect them from their natural predators, as well. For example, the Caspian Tern population at the mouth of the Columbia is now one of the largest in the world. There has been a recent report that the Caspian Tern has consumed over 11 million smolts. I might add that that is more smolts than we barge down the Columbia River.
So we need to look at it, have a comprehensive approach to the predator problem.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, we need an approach that doesn't put commercial fishing and tribal fishing under different Federal jurisdictions.
And third, we need to have the BPA and the Northwest Power Planning Council working with the Federal agencies, not at the mercy of them.
I would like to see a program implemented, in conjunction with the Power Planning Council and BPA, that would voluntarily offer to compensate fishermen for setting aside a portion of their salmon harvest.
This is very similar to what we do with land as far as habitat under the Conservation Reserve Program.
And, finally, I would argue that most importantly, local citizens need to be at the table, making decisions for themselves.
We had a case of that in the upper Mid-Columbia with the Mid-Columbia PUDs agreeing to a habitat conservation plan that will last for some 50 years if it is implemented.
But the bottom line of that whole plan is that local people will be at the table. That's the approach we need to pursue.
So, in closing, I would just like to say that once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this hearing, and I am looking forward to all the testimony from those that are affected, either pro or con, perceived or not, as to how the ESA is being implemented by NMFS.
And with that I will give back my time.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Congressman Smith—Congresswoman Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming. You could have stayed home with that new baby. All of a sudden that baby isn't that new anymore.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee as it sits today is a committee of very diverse people from around the West. And what we find for you here from home is that there's quite a different opinion of who should control our destiny in our state.
And they have come up with some false choices that I want to hear addressed today by those testifying that if we are to work to recover salmon and to preserve our environment and the endangered species, then we automatically have to give up our other rights, like property rights.
And I think what I want to just lay as a base of the philosophy that I would like to hear spoken to, do we believe that that assumption is accurate?
And I am going to say that I don't. And I guess I set that up a little bit. I don't think we have to have the choice of recovery and protection of species or protection of our property rights.
I do believe that water is a property right. And if you deny water as a property right, held to the States, controlled by the Federal Government, then you give property rights to the Federal Government to control the moment that they control the water.
And what we're seeing around the Nation here, and that's why it's important we have this hearing here, is the Federal Government moving to control water levels which then control water rights, whether they take them or not.
Because if they change our water levels, they've got our water rights.
So, this is an important thing today that is happening.
I am very, very grateful for the Chairman of this Committee. We have several Subcommittees. We happen to be on this, Representative Pombo and myself, but we have several Subcommittees, and most folks take August off. They go home. They get some rest, to go back in September.
So, for this Committee to take their time and Representative Chenoweth and Representative Romero-Barceló, to come here, means a whole lot for our region, and I do want to thank them for coming to our state.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to make a statement about your representative. Doc Hastings probably knows this issue better than anyone in Congress. And he really fought to get this hearing here. Our Committee didn't have much ability to hold hearings. We're just about to the end of the 2 year period. And so for him to advocate the way he did, you have to know, you've really got a champion for you from this district.
And I look forward to hearing the testimony.
Mr. POMBO. Congressman Nethercutt.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE NETHERCUTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to participate in this panel. I am not a member of the Resources Committee in Congress. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Interior agencies and the Agriculture Department, those land management agencies that affect farmers and ranchers.
So I have a particular interest in this issue because of the subcommittees on which I serve have to pay the bill for these activities that the Federal Government engages itself in relative to our natural resources.
I want to thank Congressman Doc Hastings and Congressman Pombo and the rest of the panel for being here today to chair this very important hearing and listen to the citizens of our region.
Doc and I represent more than half of the entire geographical area of the state of Washington. And the two primary interests that are affected in our respective districts are agriculture and the timber industry, or natural resource based industries.
From an economic standpoint, agriculture and timber play a tremendous interest, as part of our state's economy and our region's economy.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, what the Federal Government does to us in those industries has a tremendous impact and a reverberating effect on corresponding industries that rely on agriculture and timber.
My bias has been, since I was elected to this job, was to be sure that the people who work and live in the Fifth Congressional District, north in the timber areas and south in the agriculture areas, are able to continue their way of life, that they are able to continue to farm and ranch and live the lifestyle they have lived over generations.
And to the extent that the Endangered Species Act has an impact on that way of life, it has a very great impact on the way I look at the actions of the Federal Government.
The bottom line for me is to try to listen here today, and frankly I am very pleased to see so many citizens here who have a stake in the decisions that are made by the Federal Government, the NMFS, and all the other land management agencies, as it relates to the Endangered Species Act.
So I welcome you here as a nonmember of this Subcommittee or Committee, but as a very interested part of the equation of paying for those things and trying to make good judgments about how, you as taxpayers, pay for the activities that these government agencies decide are in our best interests.
Beyond the very severe impacts of the ESA on private property rights and the two industries that I mention, decisions relative to breaching dams and locking up our forests under the name of protecting species will have a terrible effect on our agriculture and timber industries and have a terrible effect on our economy.
So my hope is that we can resist that at every instance, because I think it's wrong headed, and to the extent that government agencies have a desire to do that, you'll find everyone on this panel I predict fighting against those kinds of actions.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, thank you for coming. Thank you, Chairman, for recognizing me, and I look forward to a good hearing.
Mr. POMBO. Congresswoman Chenoweth.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say I am very pleased to be here. I am a member of the Resources Committee and I am a member of the task force on the Endangered Species Act. And so this subject holds a great deal of interest for me.
It's great to be here in Doc Hastings's district. I see, Mr. Chairman, that we have great witnesses in the three panels, and I am looking forward, as I know we all are, to hearing from those witnesses.
And I just want to say I very much identify with the comments of my colleagues. Thank you very much.
Mr. POMBO. Just to start off, there's one member that's out here that I would specifically like to thank for being here.
Congresswoman Chenoweth in the 25 odd hearings that I have chaired on the Endangered Species Act, has been at every single one of them, whether it was in New Orleans or South Carolina or California or where it was, she showed up at every single one of them. And I appreciate her diligence in representing the people that she's elected to represent.
To start off, I would like to call up the Mayor of Pasco, Mayor Kilbury, and he has a brief statement he would like to make. Please join us.
Thank you very much for being here. I realize that you have a written statement on the specifics of the hearing. That will be included in the record. I wanted to give you an opportunity to welcome everybody to your fine city. Mayor?
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. KILBURY, MAYOR, CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Mr. KILBURY. Well, first I'd like to welcome everyone to my fine city. It is a fine city. We are glad to have you. It gives us an opportunity to speak on this matter.
I am Charles D. Kilbury, Mayor of the city of Pasco, and I am reporting action by the City Council of the city of Pasco.
Some few weeks ago the City Council passed a resolution in direct opposition to an action requiring breaching or lowering the pools behind the dams on the Snake or Columbia Rivers.
For any Federal agency to advocate breaching of any or several of the Federal dams, with the idea of increasing the number of anadromous fish returning to the upriver spawning grounds, when no evidence has been taken to prove that only rivers with dams have reduced runs of salmon, when the fact is, that rivers with no dams have already had their spawning runs decimated, makes little sense, and cries out for the NMFS to be investigated for their lack of scientific study of the Columbia River basin.
Why has there been no attempt made to restrict the destruction of the salmon in the ocean?
Why has there been no attempt to restrict over-catching of the salmon in their passage up the river?
Why has there been an increase in the Yakima River Chinook run even with only the supplementation of the wild run having taken place, when that run has come through four dams in the Lower Columbia?
What has been done to eliminate the massive increase in predators at the mouth of the Columbia River?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nor has the NMFS considered the enormous cost of removing irrigation, barge traffic and recreation from the river.
We do feel action by the NMFS will affect the city of Pasco's water rights.
At this time I call on Congress to call a halt to this bureaucratic bungling immediately.
I am presenting also a resolution passed by the City Council of the city of Pasco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kilbury may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
I would like to call up our first panel of witnesses. Speaker Clyde Ballard, Speaker of the House of Washington State; Speaker Lynn Lundquist, Speaker of the House, Oregon State; Representative Dave Mastin; Senator Ted Ferrioli; and Dr. James Anderson, if you would join us at the witness table.
Just so you understand how it works, you've got little lights in front of you. We try to limit the testimony, the oral testimony, to 5 minutes.
I am sure most of you are familiar with this. The lights work similar to traffic lights. Green means go, yellow means hurry up, and red means stop. That's what it means in California.
Your entire written statement will be included in the record, but if you could summarize those written statements to within the 5 minutes, I would appreciate that.
Speaker Ballard, you are recognized first. If you are prepared, you may begin, Mr. Ballard.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF CLYDE BALLARD, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE
Mr. BALLARD. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Clyde Ballard. I am Speaker of the Washington State Legislature.
And first, I would like to express my thanks to the Committee for bringing forward a public hearing to provide for oversight regarding the actions being conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Pacific Northwest.
My views are those of an elected official who is directly responsible to the citizens of Washington State, the people who provide for the economics and social well-being of our communities, the people who are directly affected by NMFS' actions to implement salmon recovery measures, and influence river system governance.
I want to be direct with you in my comments. I believe that you are here today because the National Marine Fisheries Service has sought to engage in actions that exceed its rightful authority, because it has nurtured the development of a self-serving salmon recovery industry, and because it has failed to offer the region a workable pragmatic salmon recovery plan for the Columbia-Snake River Basin.
My first remarks focus on NMFS' attempts to control water management.
The NMFS has put forth a water policy for the Columbia River drainage area, a policy it refers to as zero net water loss policy.
The end effect of this policy is to eliminate future water withdrawals from the Columbia-Snake River mainstem, tributaries to the mainstem, and related groundwater sources, including the protection of existing water rights as well as review existing water withdrawals to assess impacts to salmon. Basically, all Basin water resources are affected.
This policy challenges the authority of the States to review and grant water rights from municipal, industrial and irrigation purposes and directs all future water use for one purpose and one purpose only, fish protection.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This water policy not only attempts to abrogate state authority over existing and future water rights, but it presents an absurd resource management policy for the State with the only real objective of transferring control of water management over to NMFS, not creating more fish.
The NMFS is primarily interested in resource control and breaking the back of western and state water law. To suggest that this policy is being a driven resource by prudent managers with the sole objective to enhance salmon is disingenuous.
The state of Washington is willing to work to address the salmon recovery of the region, but the state will aggressively resist attempts by NMFS to control our water.
Unfortunately, the most effective action of NMFS to date is to enhance what is being called a salmon recovery industry, not improving salmon runs. The salmon recovery industry, an army of state, Federal and tribal bureaucrats and their consultants, have simply sought greater political and operational control over the resources and funding. Their objectives are totally self- serving. More control and funding has not created more fish in the river.
In 8 years, NMFS and the salmon recovery industry have neither produced more abundant salmon runs nor even developed a recovery plan that a majority of the region is willing to accept.
The NMFS and the salmon recovery industry cannot even quantify the number of salmon it has supposedly saved while spending literally billions of dollars. NMFS and the salmon recovery industry have advanced an almost total disenfranchisement of the river system's key economic stakeholders and the people who are directly affected by management actions.
There is never room at the decisionmaking table for the stakeholders, nor does there appear to be room for the region's elected officials.
Let me give you a personal experience. The state of Washington put a moratorium on removing any additional water from the Columbia River. That meant cities could not build houses, they could not build medical facilities, they could not have any agriculture, nothing could happen.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And this past week Speaker Hastings and myself had the privilege of taking Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Dan Miller and Congressman Clay Shaw, along with a number of other speakers from the Western States, on a tour of the Columbia River.
And as we went up the river, I asked them to look at the vastness of this Columbia River. Remember, that agriculture takes less than 3 percent of this water supply, and that is above the Columbia—above the dam, the first dam on the river, which I just forgot the name of, to be able to service all of the ag industry.
When the state put on the moratorium, there was no scientific data, none.
In 1997 the legislature passed legislation that declared void the moratorium, and further directed the Department of Ecology committees to consult with the standing committees of the state of Washington in the future.
I met with the Director of the Department of Ecology following the session to talk about the legislation. He indicated that there was a major problem with giving any more permits because NMFS had declared the Columbia River to be overallocated.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, without water, along with the threat to remove existing water rights, will guaranty that a large part of the state of Washington will be an economic disaster along with the stealing of property values due to threats from NMFS.
Please send a message to the agency, that we not only have the ability to make the right decisions on water, but it is our right, not that of a Federal agency.
Thank you for your commitment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ballard may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Speaker Lundquist.
STATEMENT OF LYNN LUNDQUIST, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, OREGON STATE LEGISLATURE
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to let us speak to you today. I am from the central part of Oregon.
Certainly, we're a state like Washington, where natural resources literally drive our economic engine.
I want to make three points today.
First, I want to make a statement, that a flawed law cannot be administered as good public policy.
The Endangered Species Act does not provide effective mechanisms for species recovery as we have already heard. And I think there is one main reason for that. And that is it is not based on science but rather it is too much based on politics.
I just came last week from a central coast town called Coos Bay that is timber dependent and fish dependent. And there is a story that goes around town like this. What do you get when you cross a spotted owl with a coho salmon? 100 percent unemployment in Coos Bay.
And that's not a very funny story. It's reality that hits home.
Let me tell you a little about what's happened to Oregon's effort to recover the coho salmon.
As you probably know, we put forth an Oregon Plan, a very inclusive, very comprehensive kind of plan, with hundreds of measures that are already being implemented by state agencies, a lot of them prior to the plan.
We put in $32 million, a public/private partnership, the first time it had ever been done.
Where was the money from NMFS that helped in that process? I would like to ask that question.
When we put together that public/private partnership, however, it was almost for naught in many regards, because after the species was not listed, there was a court challenge, and as most of you will probably realize, our coho salmon has been listed, effective October 9th.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What that says to me is that the state does not have the right to have its own destiny in its own hands, because of a law. If in fact that's true, something's wrong with the law.
The second point I would like to make is simply this: That agencies can make a flawed law even worse. Not all the disappointment in the Endangered Species Act is because of the Act itself.
I believe that the NMFS has created considerable frustration among legislators, state agencies and citizens.
What it has done is force Federal mandates upon our local communities and say we can't do it ourselves.
Let me give you some specific examples that I think are leading to the frustration that we find in Oregon.
No. 1. There have been a number of Memorandums of Agreement developed with the state at different times. These Memorandums of Agreement, and particularly the one that deals with the Oregon Plan, were like having a gun at your head. That's frustrating.
Point No. 2. After we already had the Oregon Plan in and it had passed the legislation, NMFS came forward with a draft proposal, I want to emphasize that, a draft proposal to the Oregon Board of Forestry that I believe was blatantly regulatory and hammer oriented.
Let me give you some examples.
Where we have fish bearing streams, they were saying in the riparian management zone, that up to 200 feet wide on each side would have to be set aside for an 80 to 200 year old stand, and that during that time no more than two entries per 50 year timeframe could be entered into those areas for timber management.
But that's not even in my opinion as absurd as this next one, and that is that on non-fish bearing streams, that are seasonal streams, OK, non-fish bearing streams that are seasonal streams, that there has to be up to 100 foot width on each side.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, you visualize in Western Oregon how many streams flow in the wintertime that don't flow in the summertime, with that kind. Let me give you the economic impact.
It has been estimated that if this would have gone forward, and we simply said, have at it, we're not going along with this one, but if this were to be in place, it would reduce the value by 41 percent on our timberlands.
There was a Southern Oregon county there that had a proposed sale that was to bring in $1.5 million into their county coffers under the normal Forest Practices Act that we have in Oregon. With this plan they would have brought in $75,000.
Now, that's probably more extreme than normal. But that's the kind of economic impact it makes.
I would simply like to emphasize what the prior speaker has also said in regard to my third point, and that is it is imperative that the National Marine Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies do not infringe upon western water law and the state's sovereignty over the allocation of that resource.
I could tell you in Oregon we will fight that to the bitter end.
Mr. Chairman, and fellow Congressmen, Congresswomen, my request is simply this: We need a change in the Endangered Species Act to allow for local solutions and direct the agency or agencies to be a partner, not a stumbling block, to the process, and stay away from infringing on our state waterways.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lundquist may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Representative Mastin.
STATEMENT OF DAVE MASTIN, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE-SENATE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TASK FORCE ON SALMON RECOVERY, WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MASTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. My name is Dave Mastin. I am a State Representative from the 16th District in the state of Washington.
If you take the state of Connecticut and plop it into the southeast corner of the state, that's my home.
I have served in the legislature for 6 years, and in the past year I was the Chairman of the Legislative Salmon Restoration Task Force.
I am deeply committed and deeply involved with restoring salmon habitat in the state of Washington. You already heard some testimony and we have a room full of people. These people come from this area, and some of them will be testifying today.
They live here. They work here. They raise their families here. They pay taxes here. These people are not anti-salmon, and they are not anti-environment.
What I think you will hear today with all the different testimony is one value that the people in this room hold to be true. Fish are important. But people should count, too.
Many of the people in this room have already begun to do salmon habitat restoration. We have several tributaries off the Columbia Basin system that have spent millions of Federal dollars, millions of state dollars, and hundreds of thousands of private dollars, individual landowners giving up their time, giving up their land, and giving up their incomes to help restore habitat. That's the silent work that is going on right now in the state of Washington.
I took the opportunity to ask these people, how is NMFS doing? National Marine Fisheries Service is in charge of restoring salmon habitat. These people are on the front line. These are farmers across the Snake River, agricultural folks on the front line, and they have taken that mission of restoring salmon habitat. And I asked them that simple question, how is NMFS doing.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And to a person, they have told me that NMFS has been a major impediment at restoring salmon habitat. They have been a bureaucratic roadblock at restoring salmon habitat in the tributaries off the Snake River.
I will give you two examples.
Two tributaries that in the past 5 years we had the finest watershed assessment team in the Northwest, bar none, come to this area and do river segment by river segment assessment to find out what fish needed in that area.
And then with local government, with landowners, with state and Federal agencies working together, they developed fish habitat projects. Willing landowners, willing to give up some of their land, to give up some of their time and effort, and we have the projects ready to implement.
And then the permitting begins. Of these two tributaries in the last year, there were about 60 projects. For those 60 projects you need a hydraulic permit. BPA requires a NEPA checklist. NRCS requires an environmental evaluation. And some of them need county shoreline permits, as well.
All of those permits and all of those agencies combined require about 60 pages of work for those projects.
Then we have to go to NMFS. The NMFS requirement is about 230 pages, different pages, not the same information, 230 pages. And so they take these projects that everyone else has agreed is going to help salmon, these are salmon restoration, habitat restoration projects, and NMFS takes 3 to 6 months, 3 to 6 months to tell us that in fact these salmon habitat restoration projects will not jeopardize salmon. Will not jeopardize salmon.
Some people wonder why it takes so long. And I am sure you will hear that there's questions about agency priority and agency funding.
But I think that's the wrong question. I think the right question is, why? Why do we delay restoration efforts 1 minute, let alone 6 months, so that it can go through one more step to get the support of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And if the reason is, because the ESA, so they're doing what the statute tells them to do, then how come they haven't been in here kicking and screaming to you folks to change the ESA so that when we step forward in the state of Washington, which I could guaranty you we are, and try to improve and will improve the restoration of the salmon habitat, when we are taking that strong step, how come they're not helping us?
They should be helping us, not only with financial support, but they should be coming to you and telling you that we need to change this ESA so we can do what's going to help salmon, and remember that people count, too.
I see I am about out of time, so I would like to conclude with two thoughts.
If the example that I have given you is more than an isolated occurrence within this agency, then this is an agency that has a lot of problems, has a lot of difficulties, and I believe it is your job respectfully to look into that sincerely and do what it takes in Congress to make sure that they don't stop us as we try to restore habitat. And that as we do restore habitat, we will do it in a way that it helps fish, but also works with people instead of against them.
One of the men that I talked to from my district wrote me a quick note, and he said landowners are receptive to tree planting and habitat enhancement projects, but we cannot afford to let these positive projects get held up in political areas or all the grassroots work will be lost due to uncertainty and lack of trust and lack of credibility.
Many of us have a lot of concerns with National Marine Fisheries Service. I have mentioned but one. Even when we are stepping up to the plate, as these people behind me want to, to restore salmon habitat, it seems to be an impediment rather than a helping hand. We urge you to take serious consideration of our concerns.
Mr. POMBO. Senator Ferrioli.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, OREGON STATE SENATE
Mr. FERRIOLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is State Senator Ted Ferrioli. I represent State Senate District 28 in Oregon. Senate district 28 starts about 25 miles out of the Portland metropolitan, right across the river from the Sandy River, it continues eastward to the state of Idaho, including all or parts of 11 counties, about 17,500 square miles. Population density .17 persons per square mile. I am very happy to see this large crowd appear today.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to cram 2 years of frustration into 5 minutes of testimony. You have already identified the duplication of efforts between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing guidelines for every aspect of natural resource management associated with riparian areas, and that of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which essentially does the same thing, affecting grazing, upland management, timber harvest, water withdrawals for irrigation, vegetation management, fishing and all other aspects of that habitat management. So I won't belabor that point.
But let me give you at least a couple of examples of how that affects people living in rural communities.
We had a fire in Grant County, it was called the Summit Fire, it was started by lightening August 13th, 1996. It burned 38,000 acres. About 300 million board feet of timber was killed.
The day after the fire was put out, that timber at $400 a thousand was worth $120 million to the Federal treasury.
We began fire recovery planning, and that planning included two complete Environmental Impact Statements, primarily because we had the listing of bull trout, and the salmon issues to consider during the planning processes.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It took until July 12th, 1998 for a Record of Decision finally to be issued, and that called for the salvage and restoration, rehabilitation of approximately 6600 acres out of the 38,000 that burned. And the proposal was for harvesting of about 50 million board feet of timber.
Let's just do the math. The fire cost $25,400,000 to put out. Planning for the project cost $1.2 million for the original Environmental Impact Statement, and about $50,000 for the Supplemental Impact Statement, which included first informal conferences with NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and finally formal conference also with both agencies, in the development of a water quality management plan for each of the listed species, with both the different agencies.
Finally the project has been awarded and sold, the timber sales have produced approximately $2 million of revenue for the Federal treasury. When you do the math, my friends, the math simply is nonsensical.
But those delays and expenses caused by this duplication of effort between the agencies on the Summit Fire might be the least costly aspect of dual administration of the Endangered Species Act.
Undoubtedly you have heard of the Oregon Plan for the restoration of salmon, and now the supplemental restoration of species. Our plan, like Washington's plan, goes far beyond what the Endangered Species Act, which is avoidance of the take.
Our plan is designed to restore aquatic habitat and to restore salmon and steelhead by involving forestland owners, irrigators, cattle producers, dairymen, farmers and municipal watershed managers in a cooperative effort.
In that process we entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Their draft proposal for a complete rewriting of the Oregon Forest Practices Act includes some proposals that I think are patently ridiculous, so much so that I have to read one of them to you. I hope you will indulge me. The issue is on culverts. The section is titled, Hydraulic Conditions Required for Adult Fish Passage culvert design is detailed:
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Where culvert lengths exceed 150 feet, a bridge installation should be strongly considered. Generally, culverts smaller than six feet in diameter are not adequate for fish passage and should not be used. Culverts less than 10 feet in diameter require lighting within the culvert barrel, provided by a vertical riser above the road surface or by artificial lighting every 75 feet.''
In addition, the proposal contains admonitions against wet weather in Oregon. In wet weather conditions, typically two inches of precipitation in 24 hours, especially during the period of October 1st to April 30th. Hauling or skidding should not resume for 48 hours after precipitation ends or until road surfaces and ditches are not flowing with water.
Members of the Committee, Oregon is famed for many things, one of them is prodigious rainfall. We have places in Western Oregon where we log 200 inches of rainfall a year.
And to prohibit any management operations there when rain exceeds two inches is patently ridiculous and shows a particular disconnect from the real Oregon climatological condition.
An analysis was done of the NMFS proposal by the Small Woodlands Association and the Oregon Forest Industries Council, and my colleague from the Oregon House is absolutely correct, 41 percent of our total forested land base would be rendered unusable or unmanageable because of NMFS' proposals, and that converts into 3.3 million acres of forest land out of the timber base, and that converts to a total lost value of approximately $25.4 billion in foregone economic opportunities for the State of Oregon.
This $25 billion comes directly out of the pockets of our small woodland owners, who have submitted maps to show how NMFS proposals would affect their properties, and in some cases it's up to 75 percent of their land base would be involved in riparian management areas and therefore rendered impossible to manage for timber production.
I simply submit to you that this agency is out of control.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An attempt to consolidate the agency's management under H.R. 4335 will help bring some sensibility and sense of proportion to the management of natural resources in all of the State of Oregon and all of the United States, and I urge you to continue your inquiry along these lines.
One thing that you will not hear, and this is particularly for Congressman Nethercutt, you will not hear NMFS come to your Committee and ask for appropriations for management of salmon and the services to provide to Oregon and Washington. They are asking us to go lobby for that money.
So I urge you to pass H.R. 4335. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrioli may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Dr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. ANDERSON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Pombo, thank you for this opportunity to talk in front of your hearing. This is a great opportunity again to try to compress 10 years of research into 5 minutes. I have failed in other attempts.
What I really wanted to discuss is NMFS flow and water policies, and I want to discuss that in terms of what it's done for how science is used.
Simply put, what NMFS has done, is try to justify benefits in a qualitative sense, without putting numbers on the benefits.
And I think that what this does is produce an unrealistic expectation for some of the actions.
It's critical that we put numbers on things so we know the cost and the benefits. And I want to use the flow as an example of how we have been misled inadvertently in many cases.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A decade ago, when the dams were put in, or several decades ago, it was felt that because the fish decreased, if we just increased the flows back to the pre-dam levels, that the fish would come back.
That simply is not true. The research that we now have shows that instead of having the thousand percent increase that would be needed to return the runs, we get about a 1 percent increase by increasing the flows.
So there is—the idea of a strong flow relationship simply don't exist; a strong relationship between survival and throw. There was not, this type of information has not been used in developing the flow objectives and the flow targets.
It needs to be really considered, and the flow targets need to be assessed for really their inability to improve fish survival.
In terms of this, this was for the spring Chinook.
The fall Chinook, where there has been a relationship observed between flow and survival down to the first dam, this is a complex matter, which is not necessarily related to the flow.
Temperature changes with flow, it also depends on when the fish move through the system, and some of the newest work we have done shows a relationship between fish size and the survival of fish down through the system.
If it is fish size which is the operative variable, then increasing flow which could decrease the temperature and move the fish sooner through the system could actually have a negative impact on the fish.
The point being, we really don't know how flow is affecting the fall Chinook, and we find no relationship in the river passage between spring Chinook and flow.
And these issues and these numbers need to be brought forward so that people have realistic expectations for the impacts of flow.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My second point is on the water withdrawals, or the moratorium on having new water withdrawals. These are blanket moratorium. If you remove water anyplace in the system, it is assumed to have the same impact on fish.
And this simply isn't true. Up in the tributaries, water can have a significant impact on their survival.
You get down into the mainstem, and we have no evidence that water withdrawals have a significant or measurable impact on fish or on their recovery. And there again, these withdrawals and the justifications for them were put in a qualitative sense that we can imagine they're good for fish, so we should implement these regulations.
My point being, that that leads to unrealistic expectations for what we can gain from these actions. And I think that whatever management goes on at the ESA, we need to put the numbers onto the fish so people are really grounded in the success of these different actions.
And that concludes my comments. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I thank the panel for your testimony.
Dr. Anderson, you've—the research that you talk about, is this research that you have done yourself in terms of flow, or that you've supervised?
Dr. ANDERSON. Most of the research that I am discussing right here has been conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and peer reviewed and analyzed by fisheries biologists throughout the region. One of which is me.
Mr. POMBO. You helped to peer review it?
Dr. ANDERSON. I've analyzed the data, and part of what's called the plan for analyzing and testing the hypotheses, where we are going with a fine tooth comb through each and every hypothesis that we have on the fish.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am one of the members of that panel, and very much involved in these analyses, yes.
Mr. POMBO. But you talk about the flow impacts and the moratorium on diverting additional water as if they have little effect on the recovery of the species.
Dr. ANDERSON. That's right. That's what the science is showing us right now.
Mr. POMBO. Then why is National Marine Fisheries taking the actions that they have?
Dr. ANDERSON. There are at least two cultures at NMFS. There is a management culture and a science culture.
And I think there are another reasons why NMFS has taken its particular actions.
Mr. POMBO. Political reasons?
Dr. ANDERSON. Some political reasons. And I think that they need to readdress these and stand behind the science more strongly.
I think that that would help in grounding people's expectations.
Mr. POMBO. Do you think, and I realize that you are a scientist, but do you think that the political decisions that have to be made, and that's those of us sitting up here are the ones that have to make those political decisions, would be easier if it was based upon good science?
Dr. ANDERSON. Oh, of course.
Mr. POMBO. One of the frustrations I have with the implementation of this Act is that we have people who come in and testify that what the Federal Government is doing just doesn't make sense.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then we have the scientists who come in and testify and question the scientific decisions that are being made.
And it puts us in a political conflict.
It would seem much easier to be able to make a decision and to go to all of these people and to say, here is the science, back up the decision, and if it's good science, I think they can look at it and say, well, all right, we might not like it, but it makes sense, it leads to the recovery of the species, and we will go along with it.
The problem comes when they look at it and say, this just doesn't make sense, why are you doing this to us?
And that's the conflict that we have heard all over the country with this particular Act. That gives me a real problem.
Speaker Ballard, you mentioned in your testimony resource control. That you felt that a lot of the actions that were being taken had little to do with science or the recovery, but had more to do with wanting to control the resource.
Can you expand on that?
Mr. BALLARD. Well, we have been working hard in the state of Washington to be able to do something productive.
And what we have found is there is an industry who includes the ones I mentioned that I believe simply have nothing to do with the salmon recovery, but more have to do with establishing control, and with a political agenda.
I wish there was some way I could say that they had done something productive. Their production has been in spending large amounts of money of the government, in spending and controlling large numbers of citizens who virtually are being shut out of their own property, and I think it is simply something that in the end will result in not only the failure to improve any salmon recovery but will also literally decimate people's property rights and communities throughout this whole region.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. I will recognize Congresswoman Chenoweth.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to address my questions to Dr. Anderson.
You know, first let me say, Mr. Chairman, we have been on a lot of these hearings, and we have heard hundreds of people give testimony to us.
But I think that this, the panel that we have in front of us, has been one of the most instructive and startling pieces of testimony that we have heard. Thank you so very much. Very, very good.
Dr. Anderson, I wanted to ask you, have you ever heard of Jim Bugal, an author of the book The Great Salmon Hoax, an Eye Witness Account of the Collapse of Science and Law and the Triumph of Politics in Salmon Recovery?
Dr. ANDERSON. Yes. I know James quite well.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you? I would recommend that everybody read this, most especially the Federal agencies. Shame on them.
You know, Mr. Bugal, by the way, is a major in physics, and he's an environmental lawyer, and I am not real fond of environmental lawyers. But I really like this book.
But, you know, he points out the fact that the overwhelming bias of the fisheries agencies are against the dams, and yet to my knowledge, and I am asking you, have they ever produced defining documents establishing any of the other causes for what they perceive to be a decline in the fisheries, such as what are the threats of the major explosions of the terns and the sea lions and the squaw fish and the walleye and the young steelhead and the mackerel and the northern sea lions and California sea lions and so forth, have there ever really been any defining documents that really address this?
Dr. ANDERSON. In the PATH process, where we are trying to pull apart all the pieces, we have gone through the first stage of looking at some of the basic things.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we have found was there's a huge amount of mortality in these fish that we don't have a good explanation for where it's come from. It seems to have—to have occurred about the time the dams went in.
But if you look closely at the data, you find that there were high fish runs when the Snake River dams were being put in. A lot of us believe that the climate is a very important factor, and it certainly is. We're now, in this analysis process, beginning to look at these other factors. The terns, the sea lions, the impacts of hatcheries, also the impacts of the hydro systems, and putting all of these things together in what we call a multiple hypothesis.
The trouble we have in doing this is that all of these things kind of happened at the same time, so we are having a hard time giving—pulling the pieces apart. The old statement comes up with when every scientist, we need more data to be able to give you a definite answer, is true in this case.
And so it is going to continue to be a political issue until we can resolve some of these things.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Congresswoman Smith.
Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentleman, you represent your states very well. Very articulate.
And I know some of the things you've done in both states to restore salmon runs. And I would trust you more than any Federal agency in just what you have done.
I would like to address a question to Dr. Anderson. I am going to ask you to answer it pretty direct.
Are poor ocean conditions the major factor currently affecting salmon recovery?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. ANDERSON. I think they are one of the major factors. And I don't think we know all of the major factors.
Just to put things in context, we're in a period that is poor fish conditions and dry weather conditions that's one of the longest periods in probably the last 500 years. So we have unusual conditions right now.
It just so happens that these flipped into the state about the time the dams went in. It could be that that's a major cause.
But we can't really give a definite answer.
Mrs. SMITH. Give me about the time the dams went in, so you say it is a fairly prolonged change.
Dr. ANDERSON. In 1977, the ocean changed. The last dam was put in in 1976. The hatcheries increased, we controlled the flows with the new storage reservoirs.
Everything happened at that time. But ocean is clearly a factor because stocks are going down all over the West Coast.
But there is a ray of hope in that, that it looks like, and there's a lot of close scrutiny of this right now, that some of these conditions may be flipping right now, and that's demonstrated by the decrease in the returns in Alaska and some small increases in runs on the West Coast.
So I think just a lot of the issues might be, will resolve themselves if the ocean does really turn around and the runs come back on their own.
Mrs. SMITH. I would like to followup a little bit on your participation in the flow augmentation program and your review.
Do you believe that the program is producing meaningful results, will it contribute significantly toward fish protection or recovery, and I guess go on to just tell me, do you think it should be continued at all, and would you modify the program if you think it should be continued?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. ANDERSON. The analysis we have done on the flow and the impacts on survival indicate that it has very little impact on the fish.
So that's what the science is telling me, so that's what I would have to go with.
I think that there's better ways to spend our limited resources than putting water through the system in the spring.
In particular, with the transportation program where there are so few fish that are actually moving down through the system.
Most of the fish right now are going down the system in barges.
Mrs. SMITH. Thank you. And in summary, if you could, and I know you have way much—way too much information to really do this, but if you could be God for a day, and don't take this as sacrilege, what would you do? What would you do today, if you had all the money, all the time, you could just do it without bureaucracy?
Dr. ANDERSON. I would evaluate which programs are working, and I would then spend time trying to educate better the public on what works and what doesn't.
Mrs. SMITH. And what do you think works now, if you just think, I mean, give us that benefit.
Dr. ANDERSON. Transportation program works fairly well.
Mrs. SMITH. Barging?
Dr. ANDERSON. Barging. And it is partly responsible for the stocks not going extinct during this bad period. I also think there have been some great improvements at the dams.
And those would be two of the main things.
What I get out of most of the things we have done is it appears like a lot of it is out of our control right now.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have made some incremental changes and we will probably continue to do that. I don't see any magic bullet that's going to save the fish.
Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. POMBO. Congressman Romero-Barceló?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to congratulate the panel. I think the testimony here today has been extraordinary, and I certainly have learned a lot.
I am here to learn. I am not here to tell you anything. But I would like to hear a little bit about the plans that Washington State and Oregon have developed to restore the salmon habitat.
I mean, what I would like to address your answers to, what is—what are the obstacles to implementing these plans and can they be identified, and if so, how do you suggest that they can be overcome so that those plans can be put into practice?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. I will start with Oregon's situation.
First of all, let me say that in response to some of the comments here about science, we have what can be called a multidisciplinary scientific team as one of the core of our Oregon Plan, as one of the core elements.
And again I think that is one of the things that will help us restore the salmon.
The doctor down here I think is saying, we don't really know, and so why go out and spend billions when we don't really know.
So point No. 1, that's what's happened in Oregon.
Second, it was very comprehensive. It really boils down to improving the quantity and quality of water. That's really what it's all boiled down to.
The impediment that we have in Oregon, since we had it approved, we put the money forth, with the legislature and the private industry, and then the courts came along and said, no, this doesn't meet the ESA standards.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so that right now is our major impediment.
I will tell you in Oregon, we are going ahead anyway. We will probably do some revising of the plan in the next session. But we are going to go ahead.
And so the impediment is not with the landowners. The impediment is from the Federal regulations that apparently do not allow this to function.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Is that the Federal Court or the State Court?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Federal Court.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Federal Court. And the NMFS has approved the plan?
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Yes. The National Marine Fisheries Service did not list the Coho on the central Oregon coast, and the northern coast, and then after that happened, then that's when the courts came in. There are some groups obviously that filed a court case against us.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you.
Mr. MASTIN. The legislation we passed last year received 100 percent support in the legislature. The governor signed it without vetoing any section. And the Governor in our state is known for vetoing sections. So that's significant itself.
I am not trying to be humorous. That's true.
Probably the biggest impediment that we face, two, basically.
No. 1, our approach is based on science, and it's based on the specific river-based science, site-specific science. And then it's based on working with landowners instead of working against them. Being a partner, collaborating with them.
We have stepped up to the plate. We have spent over—about a hundred million, with some Federal dollars, we have appropriated through our state budgets on this plan to work with the landowners to improve the habitat.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These are the challenges we are facing right now.
If we start to move into a regulatory enforcement legalistic mode, which is what I've been hearing is happening not only at the Federal level but actually within our state administration, then we will undo all the work that we have begun to do to restore the habitat.
So I think the regulatory bureaucratic enforcement mode is the biggest impediment we have.
Point No. 2. Just take the example of a buffer zone. In the Touchet River, right outside my home town of Walla Walla, they have over 26 miles, over 26 miles of landowners who are willing to put in buffer zones of a hundred foot. A hundred feet. Twenty six miles.
There's been rumors that NMFS, or others, are going to require a 200 foot buffer.
If we go to a 200 foot buffer requirement, you will have less than a quarter of a mile of buffer zones on the Touchet River.
And I submit to you that whether certain scientists in certain rooms say you have to do 200 foot, in reality, if you want to improve the habitat on the Touchet River, go with the hundred foot buffer, because you will get 26 miles of it, and for every buffer you put, the landowner will also let you put in large woody debris and will do meandering and root walk, they will let you do these other things that will help the habitat as well.
So I say the biggest impediment is people who don't want to work with landowners, who don't want to listen to the people in this room, and who are more interested in a bureaucratic approach than actually solving the problem.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. In other words, you work only from the scientific point of view but also from the political point of view, working with everyone that is concerned.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MASTIN. And I won't call it political. I would call it common sense.
The principle is this: People like to be asked, not told. And people will work with you if you respect their concerns and their interests.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That's what I call political.
Mr. MASTIN. You collapsed all of that in Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Some other people look at politics in the negative, because some politicians are negative.
The difference between petty politics and politics, policy.
Mr. MASTIN. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I just thought of one other point that is very important.
We ask that you folks, as Members of Congress, listen to what we did. We ask you to respect what the state legislature did last year. No dissenting votes, from the most conservative to the most liberal. Every single member voted on what we did, and the Governor signed it.
And we ask you, when you look at appropriating dollars to the state of Washington, please respect what we did.
I think to some degree we knew what we were doing, and we would appreciate, if you are sending us money, to send it in a way that respects what we did and doesn't conflict with that and pull down the effort that we have started in Washington State.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. FERRIOLI. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Pombo, Representative Romero-Barceló, we have a similar story to tell in Oregon, and similar support for our effort.
We appropriated $30 million directly, and $120 million are coming from voluntary enhancements.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The key effort is cooperation. Landowners, timber operators, cattle ranchers, farmers, irrigators, folks that depend on the land, need certainty, and they need reasonable rules.
The issues that we have come up against with National Marine Fisheries Service is they have no sense of propriety. They take a regulatory approach to everything that they do.
And there's a clear choice on the table here between the regulatory approach, which would be just to virtually stand over people with the full weight of the Federal authority, or a cooperative approach, where you simply ask people to do a reasonable management regime based on certainty and based on reasonableness to improve aquatic habitat.
The word's cooperation, and so the choice is clear.
The Oregon Plan, and I think to the same extent the Washington plan, to recover the species far exceeds what could be required under the Endangered Species Act, and it is based on cooperation, as opposed to the mere avoidance of take, which is the regulatory approach, being pushed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service.
So we have come as a society to a choice. Either we are going to involve every person that lives in our state and that works with the land in recovering this species, or we are going to try and regulate every person that lives in this state as to everything that they do in society to manage their land and produce the food and the fiber and the goods that we all depend on.
We have chosen the course that is based on cooperation and involvement.
And unfortunately the courts decided on a technical issue that we can't consider cooperative efforts as being effective under the Endangered Species Act.
That's the flaw here. It wasn't that Washington's plan or Oregon's plan wasn't effective or wouldn't work or wouldn't be efficacious on this issue. It was that under the constrictions of the Endangered Species Act, you can't consider cooperation in the listing decision.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It shows you how badly flawed the Endangered Species Act is.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Speaker Ferrioli.
Mr. POMBO. Congressman Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. First of all, I want to congratulate you legislators, not only from Oregon and Washington, but also from Idaho and I think Montana and other Western States that are taking the bull by the horns on this issue and are trying to come up with local issues.
Because I certainly subscribe to the notion that when the issue is done at the end of the day, if it ever does get resolved, it will be better resolved and understood because of the input that you have had and decisionmaking that you have had at the local level.
Part of the reason for this hearing is to try to ascertain how NMFS has been administering this Act in the Northwest.
Both of your states have described how you have gone through this process.
My question, Dave, I suppose you would be the one from Washington since you took the lead on this, and I will ask you, and then Dave, if you are the one from Washington, or Lynn, it doesn't make any difference to me.
My question is this: As you started this process, did you attempt to include right from the beginning NMFS in this process, and if not, why not, and if so, did they participate on an active basis to try to help you through some of the hurdles that you would have. Dave?
Mr. MASTIN. Congressman Hastings, several of us met with Mr. Stelle, Will Stelle in Seattle, who's in charge of NMFS up in the Seattle area. And we also had hearings across the state. And NMFS was always willing to come and testify before our task force.
I think that the approach we took was when we started looking out there and seeing, HCPs and getting certainty and what does it take and what rock do you want, I mean, how much do we have to do and what do we have to do, and all of the maze, and no answers, and I am hearing from all of our state agencies, they are not getting a response from NMFS, NMFS won't tell them what they need to do or won't give them a clue, I am hearing this, and other legislators are hearing from this task force.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we just did something real simple. We said, let's set aside all of the politics, let's set aside all of that stuff, and let's pretend we are God for a day, and let's figure out how can we create a system that is viable and will restore habitat.
And that is a system that is based on science and which the landowners agree to be participants. And if you do those two things, you will restore habitat. And that's what we did in the legislation.
So in a sense, we avoided all of that because it seemed like a big mess that we weren't going to get resolved. While those of us in the state of Washington are committed to reasonable and sufficient environmental and salmon habitat restoration, that is what we took to move on.
Mr. HASTINGS. One last statement in that regard. With the example of the two streams, the unfortunate part is you have the 6 month delay even though I assume in this case those two streams you are talking about, they were along with the process all the way.
But even if they are along the process, you had a problem of the 6 months delay for them to OK.
Did I hear you right?
Mr. MASTIN. That's absolutely correct. So what we have, as many of you are aware, there is a window of opportunity to get into the streams to do restoration work. And that ends September 1st.
And so each day and each month that we lose, and in this case we lost 3 months on one stream and 6 months on the other stream, each day means that that's another project we are not going to get done this year, and that just backs up the projects down the road.
So that's a major concern.
The other thing is even with the September 1st deadline, what we saw, Fish and Wildlife, every day would come out and see if fish were returning yet. And they actually got to work until September 13 because no fish—they were set to come back about September 1st, but Fish and Wildlife actually went out and made sure there were no fish and allowed the landowners to keep working in the stream to improve habitat.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That's the kind of relationship we'd like to have with NMFS, one that's cooperative and working together.
But the problems on the most part, we'd like money from the Congress so that we can go forward with our restoration efforts that we think's going to work.
Mr. HASTINGS. Go ahead, Lynn.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Well, the process in Oregon actually was going on before the session for approximately 18 months before we even got into the session.
The Governor took the lead on this. Actually was working with NMFS and with a lot of the natural resource community, Farm Bureau, cattlemen and so forth.
So, in direct answer to your question, yes, there has been a dialogue going on there.
However, the dialogue was not with the legislature through that process. And when the legislature did get involved, NMFS I would say did participate.
However, I would characterize it as the fact that how could we meet their standards? It wasn't a matter of what was good for the fish. Even though they would say that is part of the process.
But really it seems more like, how do we meet the standards so we don't get listed. We thought we were going to get listed. And eventually, now we have. That was the situation.
Also it seemed like when you went to step A, then there was step B. And I suppose you could say part of it is it is a new endeavor, at least for the state of Oregon. Very comprehensive. If I were to bring that, it is probably about that thick, the Oregon Plan.
But once you got to one point, then you had to go to the next point.
And what I said before, the Memorandum of Agreement, we thought we were there. And then we had to have this gun to our head, Memorandum of Agreement process.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that's the kind of history I think that Oregon has had with implementing the plan.
Mr. FERRIOLI. Mr. Chair, Representative Hastings, Dave Mastin mentioned, go get a rock.
That's the experience we had. Our speaker mentioned the feeling of have a gun to our head.
I tell you it was a very extortionary relationship. We would be told that the commitment was questioned by the Federal agency, the commitment of the people of Oregon was called into question by this agency. We don't trust you. We don't believe that you will do what you say you will do. Well, we're not sure that this organization or this plan or this aspect of the plan will be sufficient. What else can you do?
And that was a continuous relationship. Here's an example. After we agreed to collaborate and we knew National Marine Fisheries Service had a real problems of what they were perceiving in the Oregon Forest Practices Act, I thought that was because of their misunderstanding of the requirements of the Act, we knew they wanted to open a dialogue on the changes that they expected us to look at at the state legislative level.
What we got was a press conference. And what we got was the release of the document after it had that had been written.
There was no collaborative process. There was no iteration of values. There was no give and take on how we might improve the effects of the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
So the bottom line for us is that we were in an opportunity to do something cooperatively and collaboratively.
Somebody pointed out in the legislative session that collaborators were shot during World War II, and that is exactly why.
The definition of collaboration in Oregon was capitulation to the National Marine Fisheries Service. We didn't want to go there, and we still don't want to go there.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BALLARD. The way we have been treated by the National Marine Fisheries in general is one of threats, and if you don't do what we're going to tell you, no matter whether it has any basis, no matter if it will steal people's rights, if you don't do it, we will make you suffer at a greater level than what you are going to suffer.
I would submit to you if the employees that are making these decisions and the heads of these agencies were treated the same way they treat us for a period of 1 year, we would find a dramatic change.
It should not be happening in the United States, for people to do things the way they're doing. They are literally treating us as though we are their prisoners, and that's wrong.
Mr. LUNDQUIST. Congressman Hastings, one thing I did not point out in our relationship, and that is what I think you are here to find out about NMFS, was I believe there's a significant disconnect between the people that we worked with at maybe at the upper level, and with a lot of the staff in NMFS.
And if you would read the judge's decision, you will see that pointed out.
And I think that's very, very significant.
When you have an organization that I am going to say that even the upper echelon were probably more receptive, at least they were available, and were having I think a lot of staff undercutting it.
If you will read the judge's decision, you will see that. And that is just an untenable position.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. Congressman Nethercutt?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all, gentlemen, for your testimony today.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think you have illustrated what those of us at this panel have come to be frustrated with, and that is Federal judges making decisions under the Endangered Species Act that Federal agencies tell us and tell you that they are trying to implement.
There's an ambiguity in the ESA that is interpreted by one or more Federal judges that leads to terrible frustration.
So the ESA cries out for reform.
But from a political standpoint, my sense is it's resisted time and time again, and demagogued to the point where it becomes a very political issue at the Federal level where we have to deal with trying to change those laws.
So I sense clearly what your frustration is.
I look at H.R. 4335 to transfer the functions of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Interior, and I am not very pardoned by that, given the persuasion that we have to deal with at the Department of Interior and the Secretary of the Interior.
So maybe anything's worth trying, but, boy, we deal in spades with those kinds of frustrations in dealing with all these land management agencies, comprised I am sure of good people and good intentions, but, boy, maybe that's the fat into the fire in some respects.
But having said that, I want to address the issue of solutions, and cost.
Senator Ferrioli, you mentioned the cost issue and this unfunded mandate mentality.
Do you have specific recommendations about how we can address the issue of unfunded mandates and cost for implementation of EAs and NMFS requirements in a way other than to just eliminate some Federal agencies, which many of us would prefer, but maybe you can address that, sir.
Mr. FERRIOLI. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Nethercutt, I think the key here is to be cognizant of the fact that the states, given the challenge for managing for the recovery of species, have developed a program to do that that involves every agency in the state government and significant commitment of resources at the state level.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies needs to get out of the way and let those states accomplish those goals.
We don't really have a problem with setting the goal at the Federal level. What we have a problem with is the infusion of Federal regulations at the local level and the mistrust of state activities and state efforts to accomplish the goal.
We don't have a problem with where the bar is set, but once the bar is set, leave it alone, and then let the state government and the citizens of the state and the landowners of the state go about meeting the requirements.
We will do it, and we will do it in a much more cost effective way and a much more reasonable way than anything that the Federal Government can bring to the problem.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. But that might impinge on the Federal employment of the Federal agencies.
Mr. BALLARD. My request would be to look at what the states have done with cooperation from virtually every part of the state of Washington and Oregon.
And as was pointed out, when you get unanimous votes.
What is not helpful, is for the Federal Government to send money to a state that bypasses the legislature and the intent of the legislature, and then gets put off into more programs that have absolutely no way to enhance the salmon.
So, we have good plans. And what we'd like to do is work in cooperation with you so that if you are going to send money, I must be honest with you, my preference would be to keep your money and to keep your rules and regulations.
But, having said that, the legislatures historically have been overlooked. We are the ones that have to deal—These are our constituents. We go home, they know us by our first names, they know our home phone numbers, and we have to deal with them. And it's our responsibility, and we gladly accept that.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But work with us, when you send resources, so that we can work with the people then to do what's been pointed out, is a very successful way to do it.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Many of us would prefer not to have the money being sent in the first place back to Washington. We'd rather have people here use it and have the states make decisions about what's in the best interests of their region.
I see my red light is on. I would just make a quick comment.
Representative Mastin, you are from the district in which I serve, and you are recognized as a leader in this whole issue.
So, to the extent that there are any questions about the commitment to preserve fish habitat and have recovery efforts and respect the rights and property interests of the industries that you serve and I serve and everyone at this panel serves, that's agriculture and timber, we congratulate you and every member of this panel for your commitment to those local control goals and decisions and respect for the industries that drive our part of the country. That's why we like to be here.
So I thank you all for your testimony today. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I am going to release this panel. I would like to thank you for your testimony. I can tell you that it was quite refreshing, the honesty in which you answered the questions. A lot of times when you have elected officials who have to deal with these Federal agencies on a day-to-day basis, they kind of try to sugar coat all of their answers.
And I appreciate your honesty in answering the questions.
I will tell you that there will be additional questions that will be submitted to you in writing. I know I have some specific questions that I would like to ask Dr. Anderson about his perspective on some of the things that are going on.
If you could answer those in a timely basis for the Committee hearing, we will leave the official record open to give you time to answer those.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I know that other members will have additional questions they would like to ask of you, and I would like to thank you for your time and for your testimony. Thank you for being here.
I would like to call up the second panel. Mr. William Stelle, Jr., Mr. Jeff Curtis, Dr. Darryll Olsen, Mr. John K. Givens, and Mr. Bob Hale. If you would join us at the witness table, please.
I would like to welcome the witnesses here today. I think you heard the explanation about how the lights work. I won't do that one again.
Mr. Stelle, if you are prepared, you can begin. You will have to use that microphone there.
And just to remind you, all of you, you are going to have to speak right into the mikes, because they won't pick it up otherwise. So get it as close to you as you can.
Mr. Stelle?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STELLE, JR., REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. STELLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I have a written testimony which I want to submit to the Committee. And I will summarize my comments before you.
Before I get into the substance of my testimony, I want to genuinely express my appreciation for this hearing today. I think it's an excellent opportunity for us to get together here in the Tri-Cities area and talk about this important subject.
People care about it. It is complicated. There's a lot of information. And I think a dialogue and a good, full throated discussion about these issues is useful to continue on in the salmon recovery effort here in the Pacific Northwest.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think this hearing is useful, and I thank you for an opportunity to participate in it.
Let me summarize my comments by making a series of what I hope are fairly precise points, and then I encourage questions. I look forward to them.
First and foremost, the salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest are at serious risk of extinction, and that is the starting point for our discussions today, and for all of the efforts here on salmon recovery. They are at risk in the Snake Basin, in the Upper Columbia, in the Lower Columbia, in Puget Sound, in coastal and in the drainages of coastal Oregon, and California. We have a very serious problem, first and foremost.
Second basic point is that the causes of this problem are many and extensive. And it's important to understand that. This is not an upstream issue only. It's not a downstream issue only. We didn't get here in a day. We have come here to where we are today from over a long period of time, and we will not reverse the trends in these populations unless we have perseverance, patience, and resolve. This will not be simply a flash in the pan solution.
Third, and, again, very importantly, the Pacific Northwest are absolutely and fundamentally committed to the restoration of these salmon runs. The extinction of salmon in the Pacific Northwest is not an option. This is not an Endangered Species Act issue per se. It's an issue about what we in the Pacific Northwest are all about.
The idea of our region, barren of salmon in the coming decades, is completely unacceptable to everyone. And we have a deep and abiding commitment to the restoration of these runs.
Salmon recovery is not fundamentally a political issue. It is not a partisan football. It is a simple matter of priorities. And the priorities of the people of the Northwest, expressed over and over from every point of view, is that we want a successful salmon restoration effort here in the region.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fourth. The issue, the challenge most fundamentally, is an issue of habitat. Restoring salmon is the same thing as protecting our clean water, is the same thing as restoring the health and vitality of our stream and river systems. Healthy salmon runs, healthy salmon streams, good, clean water are all one in the same effort.
Let me describe to you some of the basic principles that the National Marine Fisheries Service brings to the issue of salmon recovery here in this region.
First and foremost, we have a commitment to pursue the best science available. Unequaled. It is an unequivocal commitment. Our science is open. Our science is transparent. Our science is continually submitted to peer reviews, and our decisions are based upon it. Point No. 1.
Point No. 2. It is a commitment to a comprehensive approach to salmon restoration. As earlier witnesses have testified and observed correctly, there is no silver bullet, there is no one single source of the problem, and a solution to be effective must be comprehensive. It is not just a question of the dams, though the dams are important. It is not just a question of water, though water is important. It is not just a question of fishing, though fishing is important. And it's not just a question of hatcheries, though hatcheries are important.
Any successful solution for salmon restoration over the long term in the Pacific Northwest must be comprehensive and must address all stages of risks to salmon throughout their wonderful life cycle.
In the spawning and rear tributaries, in the mainstem, in the estuaries, and in the ocean.
The third point. We are absolutely committed to fostering partnerships in salmon restoration. Partnerships with the states, partnerships with the counties, partnerships with private entities, wherever and whenever we can.
Some examples that you have heard again already is, one, with the Oregon Plan. The speaker and Senator very eloquently described it to you. From our perspective, we worked very long and very hard for a couple of years, shoulder and shoulder with the State of Oregon to construct an Oregon Salmon Plan.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe it is the way to go. We support it. We made decisions based upon it. And we will defend those decisions, and we will defend the continued implementation of that plan.
Closer to home, we spent several years working very hard in good faith with the state, with the Tribes, and with the Mid-Columbia utility districts to develop a long-term strategy that they fostered for the operation and improvement of fish survivals and productivities at their projects here in the Mid-Columbia region. Again, a vital partnership.
Salmon solutions are not going to be Federal solutions alone. They will not be state solutions alone. They will not be private solutions alone. If we are going to be successful, and we must be successful, we must do so in partnerships in good constructive collaborations. And we support those.
Finally, we are committed also to, in our salmon restoration work, to honor Federal obligations to Native Americans and treaty Tribes here in the Columbia Basin and throughout the Northwest.
The restoration of the salmon is not only vital to the people of the Northwest in general, and important under the Endangered Species Act, but it is also essential to honor our centuries of commitment to our Native American Tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, to enable them to exercise their treaty preserve rights, to fish and hunt in from usual and accustomed fishing places.
We believe that the endangered species efforts and those treaty efforts are compatible, and we seek to pursue them both.
What are some of the major challenges in the salmon restoration effort?
Let me first of all cite what is not a major challenge. People care about salmon, and that is the bedrock of success upon which this effort is going to be based.
Some of those challenges are, first and foremost, scientific uncertainty.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would love, and I can't tell you how much I would love, to be able to point to clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence on some of the important issues we face here in this region.
The fact of life is, is that there is not crystal clear science on any one particular factor. The ability to isolate one factor as the silver bullet is very limited. The ability to eliminate the noise in the system, so to speak, from a scientific perspective is, is limited, and we therefore don't have absolutely clear-cut scientific certainties. We must acknowledge that, and we must design strategies that build decisions based upon on the best scientific judgment available to us, and we do so.
Second, there are bottlenecks in the system. This is a hard job. Speaking largely from an NMFS perspective, it is hard. There are hundreds and hundreds of activities that one has to review. There are meetings and meetings, countless meetings that you are invited to at every level of the agency, and you only have a limited number of people. So you cannot be everywhere at once. And it is simply hard, a big, important challenge to our staff to try to cover all the bases that we must.
I think we are meeting that challenge in a responsible way. We have geared up to meet it. And our capabilities now are well suited, as we move into additional restoration efforts here largely, largely in the coastal areas.
The third major challenge——
Mr. POMBO. I am going to have to ask you to wrap it up.
Mr. STELLE. Yes. The third major challenge is what I consider the blame game, and that is the tendency for entities or individuals to try to pass the buck somewhere else.
You know this well. Everybody knows this well. It's a fact of life. But there is a tendency to point the fingers elsewhere, to say, no, it's not the dams, or, no, it's not fishing, or, no, it's not the habitat, or, no, it's not water.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those assertions are all wrong. It's a little bit of everything, and all of the sectors and all of us will have to take responsibility in improving salmon survivals and in contributing to the long-term restoration effort.
The blame game will not succeed in where we must succeed.
Finally, I thi