SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
68-012 DTP
2001
HYDROPOWER RIVER MANAGEMENT AND SALMON RECOVERY ISSUES
ON THE COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
APRIL 27, 2000, PASCO, WASHINGTON
Serial No. 106-94
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
or
Committee address: http://www.resourcescommittee.house.gov
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
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-HAGE, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
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
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO,
Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA MC CHRISTESEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
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 April 27, 2000
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Prepared statement of
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, Prepared statement of
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Prepared statement of
Nethercutt, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington
Prepared statement of
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Dr. Jim, Associate Professor, Columbia Basin Research, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington
Prepared statement of
Bogert, Michael, Counsel to Governor Kempthorne, Boise, Idaho
Prepared Statement of
Hagerty, Dean, Commissioner and President, Public Utility District of Grant County,
Ephrata, Washington
Prepared statement of
Ilgenfritz, Ric, Columbia Basin Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
Prepared statement of
Johansen, Judith, Administrator, Bonneville Power Authority, Portland, Oregon
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Mantua, Dr. Nathan, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Joint Institute for the
Study of Atmosphere & Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Prepared statement of
Minthorn, Antone, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation, Portland, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Mogren, Col. Eric, Deputy Commander, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Morton, Hon. Bob, State Senator, Washington State Senate
Prepared statement of
Roby, Dr. Dan, Assistant Unit Leader, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Unit, Oregon
State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Skinner, Michael K., Director, Center of Reproductive Biology, Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington
Prepared statement of
Swartz, Don, Science and Policy Advisor, Northwest Sportfishing Industries Association,
Portland, Oregon
HYDROPOWER, RIVER MANAGEMENT, AND SALMON
RECOVERY ISSUES ON THE COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2000
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Pasco, Washington.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in the Theatre,
Columbia Basin College, 2600 N. 20th Avenue, Pasco, Washington, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth-Hage presiding.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. The hearing will come to
order. Can you hear me back there? Is this microphone picking up our voices? It's not. Well,
we'll have to wait.
OK, I guess we're ready. I want to thank all of you for joining us here
today for this Congressional Hearing. Congressman, Don Young, the Chairman of the Resources
Committee, has sent the entire Committee out, absent Don Young, but we are here today and
there is a very, very important issue that we are going to be discussing today.
I do want to thank Congressman Hastings for inviting us into his
District. As we traveled in last night I was just amazed at the beauty and productivity of this area,
and it's quite amazing the development that has occurred here and it's quite beautiful and very,
very productive.
I also want to thank Congressman George Nethercutt for his joining us
today. This issue is exceedingly important to these two gentlemen and they have been stellar in
their leadership on making sure that we maintain the proper kind of control on our Snake River
and our Columbia River.
I am very, very happy to welcome my colleague from Idaho, Mike
Simpson, who is a member of not only the Resources Committee but also the Water and Power
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee and we join each other in sitting on that Committee. I think we all expected John
Doolittle, who is the Chair of the Water and Power Subcommittee to be here today, but due to a
death in the immediate family Congressman Doolittle is unable to join us today and we certainly
extend to him our condolences and our best wishes to Mr. Doolittle and his family.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
68012.002
68012.003
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN
CHENOWETH-HAGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
IDAHO
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. We are here today in the
Tri-City area to hear testimony about an issue that could very well determine the future of this
lush valley and many other such areas up and down the Columbia and Snake Rivers. That issue
is the recovery of the salmon. The agency in charge of this effort, The National Marine Fisheries
Service, is on the verge of issuing a plan that will have major implications for the States of
Idaho,
Washington and Oregon.
Today, we as Congress, are asserting our critical role in this process.
These not decisions that should be made without the awareness and the actions of Congress.
As we approach this issue we must first determine whether the focus is
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
truly on the salmon or some other agenda. I firmly believe that when the true focus is on the
salmon the battle will be mostly won. The science does exist showing all of the factors
detrimental to the fish, some which are caused by man and some which are nature's fault, and
realistic and efficient solutions to these problems are available if we only choose to use them.
Instead, those who have a different agenda other than saving salmon hijacked these issues.
Rather than hone in on the real problems of salmon decline and real solutions to recovery of that
species, these groups have instead sought to fulfill their own purposes, whether it be returning
the River system to its pre-Columbian condition or thriving on the cash cow of resource and
grant dollars that depend on the problem really never being solved.
Now, make no mistake about it, this is an unrealistic unachievable and
costly goal that is causing economic and ecological confusion, harming not only our economy
and not laws and but the salmon as well.
While billions of dollars have been diverted to endless studies on
highly experimental measures, such as flow augmentation and non-starters, such as dam
breaching doable measures such as predator and harvest controls, innovate fish green devices and
even modification to the dams remains on the shelf gathering dust.
Today, we hope to win back this issue, steer it back on the course that
it belongs; that is, which is to recover the species while at the same time respecting the laws
already in place and the way of life that has made spectacular agricultural valleys such as this one
prosper so well.
We will be hearing from witnesses, both in and outside the Federal
agencies about all of the factors affecting salmon and what can be done in the short term to deal
with these factors. We will be examining the process the agencies are using to determine salmon
recovery policy.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to make a special note of a witness here today from my
State of Idaho, Michael Bogart, who is representing Governor Kempthorn. Mr. Bogart will be
present perfect example of what is wrong with current salmon policy. Idaho, our State, is being
asked to make tremendous sacrifices at immense financial cost, even though the actual biological
conditions in the State have little to do with the salmon problems.
Farmers well into the upper Snake River valley, hundreds of miles
away from salmon habitat are being asked to give up water that adds virtually no real scientific
value to the recovery effort, and at the same time real problems, such as the taking of an
estimated 600,000 wild salmon smolts by the terns in the Columbia estuaries is being virtually
ignored.
As long an this imbalance of focus persists we will really never
recover the salmon.
In closing, before I recognize the other members for their statement, I
do want to say that Congress John Doolittle and I have spoken at length by phone. He does have
a statement that will available to all of you. It is an exceptionally good statement and I would
urge you to pick it up and examine it.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage follows:]
68012.004
68012.005
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. So with that I would like to
recognize Mr. Simpson for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank
you, Madame Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here in Washington and to discuss
this issue that is going to be obviously very important to the Pacific Northwest and extremely
important to the State of Idaho and the District which I represent, the southeastern portion of the
State of Idaho.
Some of the most contentious debates we've had while I have served in
the State Legislature in Idaho were over the issue of water and augmenting flows and the
legislature, as most people know in the State of Idaho, has approved over the past several years
additional flow augmentation of 427,000 acre feet, which has an impact on irrigated land in
southeast Idaho. While that ran out last year the legislature again approved an extension of that
for 1 year.
Those impacts that flow augmentation have on southeastern Idaho the
potential of the decisions that are going to be made relative to recovery of salmon and how we go
about that, have an enormous impact in my District on the people of my district as well as the
entire Pacific Northwest.
So I am very pleased to be here today to participate in this hearing and
receive the testimony input from those that are going to be presenting their testimony today on
this critical issue in the Pacific Northwest. Thank you.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Hastings.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you, Madame Chairwoman. I want to welcome all of you on the panel here to my district and I
thank you for coming. I might add by way of introduction this district you're really into health,
an apple a day keeps the doctor away and we lead the country in apple production, but if you are
in to what I might say junk food and I don't want to say it quite that way.
Mr. SIMPSON. Be
careful.
Mr. HASTINGS. Be
careful. We are a major producer of processed potatoes in this district, but if you're into the
higher life we lead the country in production of premium wine grapes, not the country but we
certainly lead the Nation in the quality of wine that's produced in this area. I don't want to let that
one go.
If you're really into health food during the season we lead the country
in production of asparagus, and at the final part of the day you want to have a nice cold beer, we
lead the production in the country of hops, which is an integral part of beer, and finally, if you
want to cleanse your palate you use the mint that is grown in this area in Creme d'Mint or
whatever you want.
So welcome to probably the most diverse agricultural area save for the
central valley of California in the county.
So I want to thank you for being here. The reason for this hearing is to
look at really some near-term recovery efforts and explore some of the activities that are going
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
on because the debate is going on and we will hear later on obviously about the dams and maybe
some changes in how we should pursue that.
But I have to tell you that I am very troubled by reports last week that
indicated that the Clinton-Gore Administration intervened with the Corps of Engineers on its
position in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the four lower Snake River
dams.
Instead of recommending additional fish passage improvements, it
appears that the Corps last fall was compelled to issue a draft with no preferred alternative. Now,
the stated reason for this was to allows for a more comprehensive review of the factors in
packing fish in the All-H Paper process that goes forward, and the idea was to allow that to go
forward without prejudice, which certainly sounds to me to be a reasonable expectation.
However, I would point out that within this Administration that line of
thinking apparently did not apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did recommend
dam breaching. Now, the Senate is already investigating this dilemma and I have asked this
Committee, as you know, and the Committee on Transportation to look into it.
But either way, I think that what we have to do is look at all factors,
and I know all the members on this Committee were cosponsors of my Concurrent Resolution 63
that passed this Committee last July to look into all factors rather than just the issue of dam
breaching.
Why ought we to look beyond dams? Well, the practical fact is that
fish passage improvements and transportation systems frankly have worked. And it seems to me
we ought to focus on different areas. For example, common sense would dictate that if we want
to increase our fish populations you have to look at other areas besides just the dams, and we
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
have to come to grips with the fact that it's not only humanity that eats the fish. There are others
that eat the fish. In fact, in the Corps Draft Environmental Statements they said, and I
quote,''10 to 30 percent of a 20 to 30 percent of all potential smolts that would otherwise be
found below Bonneville dam were consumed by birds.'' Yet Corps of Engineers began to remove
the colony of Caspian Terns that are on Rice Island they were prevented to do so by a
environmental group through a lawsuit.
Let's put this into perspective. The Caspian Terns are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but they are not endangered or threatened. At times when Federal
agencies are telling northwest residents that the Endangered Species Act supersedes State water
rights and perhaps even their constitutional right to private property, shouldn't we at least harass
a few birds to save an endangered species?
That hasn't really been addressed, it seems to me when you look at the
overall scope of what we're all about. I might add, too, that hatcheries have been a vital part in
this whole process. There's been some innovated work that has gone on and I think that ought to
be pursued.
Also, when we look at ocean conditions; I think too often the ocean is
dismissed. I know we're going to have testimony regarding that later on, but it seems to me
whatever decisions we make and not take into the data that we collect on ocean conditions make
it impossible for us to determine what a proper course in the future would be if we don't take that
aspect into consideration.
If the area of habitat is a very critical area, I think that we ought to look
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
at some local success and local efforts that are going on that can, in fact, increase habitat. And I'd
like to cite just a couple of them.
First, here within the Tri-Cities, Helen, when you flew into the
Tri-Cities and, Mike, when you flew in you probably saw those ugly levees that were there that
were left over from the results of the great flood of 1948, but within the 1996 WRDA Act that I
authored was a chance to transfer those lands to the area here, and there are certain local agencies
that are trying to improve the fish habitat utilizing those levees. Hopefully, we can have success
on that, but this is an example of local people getting together to try to come up with solutions.
Second, there are two irrigation districts that right now primarily draw
their water from the lower Yakima River. I have introduced a bill that would allow them to draw
the river, draw the water out of the Columbia River where there is much, much greater flow. This
is agreed upon, I might add, by virtually everybody in involved. It makes common sense, but I
want to emphasize this is a decision that could be made at the local level given the opportunity to
make that decision at the local level.
Finally, there is a proposal from the snake river Irrigators, Snake and
Columbia River Irrigators. Obviously, they have a great deal at stake in this, and they are
suggesting that rather than just flush water down and there is some data that proves that hasn't
had fish runs, we ought to allow that water to go dams and create power and with the excess of
that use it for habitat recovery as one example. That to me seems like a common sense approach
to what we want to do, and these are all near-term solutions to what our problem is.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, maybe what we ought to focus on more than anything else is a
solution to the problem that is facing us rather than just trying to deal with the political issue. I
think if you drive the decision back here more to people that are involved we can arrive at a
decision in that regard.
So Madame Chairwoman, I look forward to the testimony that's going
to be given from the people. I think we have a very good assortment of people on the panels and
I look forward to their testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
68012.006
68012.007
68012.008
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Nethercutt is recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE NETHERCUTT,
A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. We are grateful to you and Representative Simpson for
coming into our State and especially to Eastern Washington. Congressman Hastings and I have a
great friendship and great interest with respect to this issue and I'm especially delighted to be in
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the 4th Congressional District, which neighbors the far superior 5th Congressional District to the
east.
Salmon restoration and the issue of dam removal is a vital issue to this
region, Congressman Hastings' District and mine, most especially in our State.
I think for so long all of us have sat back and listened to the disputes
over, do we take out the dams or do we keep the dams in, and we need to have that debate most
definitely. But we also need to think carefully about other options that we all have and local
efforts that are being undertaken to improve the salmon habitat and improve the likely recovery
of species that are either threatened or endangered.
I'm glad that this particular hearing will be focused more on that, rather
than the contentious issue of dam removal, an issue that I have spoken out and Congressman
Hastings has spoken out very forcefully on and we are very much opposed to the breaching of the
dams in the lower Snake River and in the river systems in the west.
I am especially delighted that these panels have been convened today
by the Committee. They are excellent panels and I'm especially proud of those witnesses from
my own district; Senator Bob Morton who will testify here in a moment and Dr. Mike Skinner
from Washington State University and Mike Pelissier, who is not here I understand. Also Les
Wiggan, Commissioner of Whitman County is submitting testimony. Skip Meade and others will
submit testimony as well while the record remains open. We are grateful to have that testimony
and that information.
I think it's critically important that we focus, too, on what can be done
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
now to make improvements in salmon restoration. For members outside our region it's very easy
to make a decision on whether or not to support dam removal without fully understanding the
impacts of that decision and the efforts being done to restore salmon. That's why I think it's so
important that we're looking here today and elsewhere as we go through this debate on the focus
being on what can be done, not only from the perspective of Federal agencies and tribal interests,
but from those people most directly impacted in the local communities.
So I'm hopeful that these discussions and the record that's being
created will add to the positive solution for salmon restoration, and as we also carefully watch
what happens on this dam removal issue, especially by the Federal agencies who have
jurisdiction over it.
There are many folks here today who are working very hard to make a
difference, no matter how large or how small, in helping restore wild salmon runs. In my own
district efforts by the Walla Walla Conservation district to restore habitat at Nine Mile Ranch, is
a great project. I commend it to you. I look at it and see what they've done and why they're doing
it and doing it quietly, but it's for a good purpose of restoring on the ground salmon runs.
Planet CPR is an outfit, a localized effort to protect storm drains from
runoff that could be damaging to salmon. It's a small effort but it's a significant effort and it's part
of this great puzzle that we're trying to put together.
So I think there are effective pieces of this salmon restoration puzzle
that can be looked at and appreciated by local input. Protecting these runs in my judgment must
be based not only on the best available science but we must take into consideration all the
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
impacts on salmon and the multiple uses of this river system.
We can't destroy river transportation, agricultural and recreational
industries that have been created over the last 40 years as we address the solution to fish
problems. Again, I don't believe dam removal is the silver bullet answer. I won't support any
proposals from the Appropriations Committee standpoint, the Committee on which I serve, that
restores salmon on the backs of our local people, the people here in this region who depend on
this system, the agriculture, natural resources and the small communities and residences of
Eastern Washington and my district in particular.
So we convened a group of activists in the 5th District to talk about
this and look at small steps that we might able to take on a proactive basis, not just be against
dam removal but to look at what we can do locally to try to improve the situation, and that's
going to yield, I think, very, very positive results.
So we are making progress in respect to local input and that must be
considered by the Federal agencies as they struggle with this issue as well. Perhaps the most
environmentally sound solution to this, if you look at the broad environmental solution, is to
keep these dams in place because we have to look at the consequences of removing those dams
on the environment.
The evidence I've seen is that 700,000 trucks transporting our
commodities of wheat from Eastern Washington to market would have to traverse our highway
systems that are inadequate to provide that transportation. What happens with all the smoke and
vehicle emissions that go into the air from 700,000 trucks a year as opposed to the clean
renewable resource that comes from the river barge transportation system?
The loss of our power resources on the dam, although they're relatively
small, they are still critically important. We're facing gas price increases and fossil fuel energy
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
shortages and yet we are thinking or considering getting rid of the most clean and renewable
resource that we have for power generation.
I thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for the opportunity to speak here
and be participant in this hearing and I welcome the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nethercutt follows:]
68012.009
68012.010
68012.011
68012.012
68012.013
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Congressman
Nethercutt, and now it's my privilege to be able to introduce our first panel; the Honorable Bob
Morton, State Senator, Washington State Senate, Olympia, Washington; Mrs. Judith Johansen,
Administrator, Bonneville Power Authority, Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington; Colonel
Eric Mogren, Deputy Commander, Northwest Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland, Oregon; Dr. Nathan Mantua, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Joint
Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington in Seattle,
Washington; and Dr. Jim Anderson, Associate Professor, Columbia Basin Research, University
of Washington in Seattle, Washington.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As customary of this Subcommittee to place all witnesses under the
oath I would like to ask this panel if they would stand and raise their right hand to the square.
Do you promise and affirm under the penalty of perjury that you will
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
PANEL. I do.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you. Senator Morton,
I understand that you have, as part of your testimony, you have brought a film that you would
like to show; is that correct?
Mr. MORTON. That's
correct.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Would you like to introduce
the film?
Mr. MORTON. Thank
you, Chairwoman, and thank you for the rest of you being here. Go ahead. In the interest of time
let's get started then. This is a videotape that we've taken, and the Congressmen when I was in
Washington DC asked me if we could display it.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Senator Morton.
Before you're recognized for your oral testimony I do want to remind the witnesses of some of
the Committee rules. There's a bank of lights in front of you. I view them like traffic lights.
Green means go and yellow means wind up or step on the gas, I guess, and red means stop. So
we are under a time constraint and the hearing is just going to go right on through until we've
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
finished. So, Senator Morton, you're recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MORTON, STATE SENATOR,
WASHINGTON STATE SENATE
Mr. MORTON. Thank
you very much, Madame Chairwoman, and again thank you for the others for being here. It's a
delight to share with my two Congressmen for my district encompasses a great portion of both of
theirs.
This is the packet that I will be referring for you who are on the
Committee. This is the handout here for the general public that's up here on the floor, which is
basically the same material and they can pick that up later. I also have before you a three-ring
notebook that I put together which I will not testify on. That's merely information I had in my
files pertaining to the dams. I thought that might be helpful.
I'm just a little farm boy and so I would like to take you on a little
journey. I'd like to talk about the salmon, per se. Let's go back to 1994, and we had two proud
salmon go way up in my district and Doc Hastings district up into the upper Methow. There they
laid their eggs, they fertilized those eggs and the next spring.
Let's use one as an example, Jack was hatched. Jack the salmon was
hatched. And he started his journey from the hatchery. From the hatchery, this is important down
the Methow River. And he went down and he tumbled over the first dam and there he ended up
in the pool behind the Rocky Reach Dam, and there he met Jill and Jill had come down from the
Antiach (phonics) Hatchery and the two of them started their journey down the mighty Columbia
River.
They tumbled over or went through perhaps the turbines of nine dams.
Finally, they reached the salt waters of the Pacific, 515 miles they traveled as just little guys.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fortunately for them they arrived there at night, and the key being at night they were able to
navigate past Rice Island, that was referred to by Congressman Nethercutt, where the birds could
not get at them in the night. They went out into the mighty Pacific Ocean, and as they turned they
were able to escape from the seals and the sea lions, and they started up the coast on the arch of
the salmon.
As they made their way up the coast of Washington, the coast of
British Columbia, the coast of Alaska, and finally on down the Aleutian chain growing as they
went and they arrived in the far eastern area of the Korean and Japanese waters.
By this time it was probably about 1995 '96, 1997, and they were about
half grown, delicious at this time, and their comrades were caught in the 30-mile long nets that
are there in that area, which we have tried to do something about but which our coast guard still
has information that those 30-mile long nets exist.
Some way they navigated those and they started the return back as
nature beckoned them to go back to their spawning area. We're now in 1995, 1996, maybe even
1997, and they go back up the coastal area of Alaska, past the sport fishermen, past the
commercial fishermen there. They escape all of this and they arrive back down again at the
mouth of the Columbia, having come down the coastal waters of British Columbia and
Washington.
Here, again, they have to navigate somewhere between 400 to 800
seals and sea lions at the mouth of known predators that we're not doing anything about is my
point. Then they come up back past Rice Island and up the fish ladders of the mighty Bonneville,
and there from Bonneville to Umatilla they encompass in 1998, if they came, on September 2nd,
when I flew those waters they encompassed 400 tribal nets, perfectly legal, according to treaty,
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
according to judicial rulings, perfectly legal, 400 nets on both sides of the river approximately
400 feet long with a mesh of approximately seven inches, sometimes now BPA is going to put it
out there, I understand, at nine inches for experimental reasons.
Some way they get by those 400 nets. In 1999, on September 2nd, the
same day, the Indians had reduced it to 350 nets. My appreciation for them doing that. They
continue on. 515 miles they have to go over the fish ladders of eight dams and just before they
get to the ninth dam, a major decision.
Let's go back to Jack and Jill the fish. Jack turns to Jill and says we've
traveled all this distance and I understand without being too personal that, Chairwoman, you may
be familiar with this love factor now. They fall in love, and Jack says, Come on to my house.
You were raised in the Antiact but the waters of the Methow are marvelous. Please journey with
me on up there. We'll find the nice gravels of the Methow and we'll be able to make our
spawning bed there.
So they start over the last dam and up over the fish ladders and there at
Rocky Reach they go into the ponds and the channels of our good Washington State biologist.
Now, what's happened in the meantime? Two things have taken place.
The Federal Government has said with different rulings those salmon that did not return to their
waters of origin are destroyed.
Jill, Jill came out of Antiact. She is now going with Jack up the
Methow, naughty, naughty. She should have stayed in her waters of the Antiact. She did not. I
say to you, whoa, wait a minute. She spent 5 years, 80 percent of her life in the mighty Pacific.
She returned to the waters of her origin when she came to the Columbia River. That's the
drainage. Whichever creek she went up, I say biologists are being too finicky here, but because
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
she came from the Antiact in her spawning years hatchery and she's now over the dam (making
noises) she is destroyed, along with her eggs.
Now, Jack, Jack remains and what happens to Jack? Uh, oh, you spent
too much time downstream courting Jill. If you had been here last week we were under quota.
Now, we're up to our quota. I'm sorry, Jack (making noises) and he's destroyed.
As the film portrays, I'm saying we must stop this. The information
here—I notice the amber light—I would like you to turn to the back of it where I have six
suggestions I would like to share with you and then I'll conclude, Madame Chair, and thank you
for the time.
Number 1, I want to read them so that the public can also hear them.
They may want to make some comments later.
1. The Federal Government must enact legislation to designate one
lead Federal agency for States and other local government to contact for providing information
for salmonids upon written request that we write and ask for. We need one agency not
conglomerish and goolosh which we now have.
2. The Federal Government must enact legislation that will allow
balance in regulating no known salmonid predators currently protected by Federal regulations.
3. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, collectively needs
to study the high seas. Thank you for being here, Dr. Mantua, I'll leave that up to you to cover.
mention your studies of the PDO for consideration.
4. Washington, Oregon, Idaho collectively need to obtain core
samples, which incidently were done in the early 1990's in the upper Columbia when we had a
health hazard up there on the pollutants coming out of Canada, core samples that will show us
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the bottom of the river of the Snake and the Columbia so we can see the strata of what's
happened from the bones of the fish through the years and also the pollutants. We need those
cores. I can't locate the ones that were taken now by WSU and Eastern Washington. We need
new ones for our scientists to do.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Senator, I'm going to have to
ask to you to conclude.
Mr. MORTON. To
minimize the harm to listed species of the Columbia. This is, let's consider putting back into
force the fish wheels for our tribal people. Then our scientists and our tribes without the nets that
damage them will be able to use whatever they need for their meat and also be able to use
scientifically those salmon uninjured and let the rest go on, and that all fish finally returning to
the fresh waters of the State of Washington can go wherever they please to do their spawning,
rather than be corralled into one riverlet over another. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morton follows:]
68012.014
68012.015
68012.016
68012.017
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
68012.018
68012.019
68012.020
68012.021
68012.022
68012.023
68012.024
68012.025
68012.026
68012.027
68012.028
68012.029
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
68012.030
68012.031
68012.032
68012.033
68012.034
68012.035
68012.036
68012.037
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much,
Senator.
Mrs. Johansen, you're recognized for testimony for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH JOHANSEN, ADMINISTRATOR,
BONNEVILLE POWER AUTHORITY, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mrs. JOHANSEN.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm afraid this is a hard act to follow.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Madame Chair, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Judi
Johansen, the CEO and Administrator of The Bonneville Power Administration. I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today, and I would like to thank you for your support and your
attention to these critical issues for our region.
Madame Chair, Bonneville and the region want a comprehensive,
integrated fish plan for the Columbia River Basin that can be implemented. We believe that we
are coming closer to that goal, but the plan has to meet three criteria:
First of all, as mentioned in many of the members' statements it must
be scientifically sound. Second it has to comply with the legal obligations defined under treaties
and statutes, not just the treaties of the tribes but also international treaties. Thirdly it must have
broad regional support so that it is truly implementable.
Our vision for the plan is that it be broad enough to encompass not
only the listed stocks but also the needs of non-listed stocks. I believe that we can achieve the
twin goals of recovery of the weakened stocks and at the same time create more financial
certainty for this region.
In my testimony today, I would like to make three points about where
we're headed with the All-H Approach and where we can look forward.
First of all a durable, unified fish plan should be founded on
performance-based standards. You've perhaps heard that phrase in the last few months. We are
pressing for objective scientific standards on which our actions can be measured. That is
something that's been lacking in salmon recovery efforts over the past decade.
Second, my agency, The Bonneville Power Administration, is fully
committed to funding its share of the fish and wildlife program and it's fish and wildlife
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
obligation, we've established a financial strategy which takes us to that objective.
Finally, in echoing the comments of the members here today, this plan
has to be developed in close coordination with the States, local governments, and the tribes so
that it is truly acceptable and achievable in this region.
In terms of performance standards, let me just say a few words.
Performance standards are a means for establishing levels of survival improvements in each stage
of Jack and Jill's life. For example, a performance standard could require that a certain
percentage improvement in juvenile passage be required through the hydro system.
Performance standards are simply good management. They create clear objectives and they
provide flexibility on the part of the local residents and the stewards of the resources to define
the most efficient and effective means for achieving those standards. In other words, they
increase accountability.
For the hydro system, the performance standards create a clear yard
stick against which to measure accomplishments necessary to remove these species from the
endangered and threatened list. Moreover, I believe these performance standards can encourage
us to talk about tradeoffs and look for the most effective and efficient way to achieve recovery.
For example, we recently were able to work with the National Marine
Fisheries Service to revise the spill program at the various Federal projects, using a performance
standard basis. We have reduced spill at some projects where it's been acknowledged that the
level of spill is killing fish and increased spill in some instances at other projects.
If we stretch our imaginations a little bit, it's possible that with the
performance standard approach Bonneville could fund habitat improvements instead of the hydro
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
system changes that others might suggest.
Turning performance standards into a reality is going to be the difficult
part, but Federal agencies, working in conjunction with the States and with the tribes have been
trying to hone in on the performance standards concept. I think substantial strides have been
made in coalescing that concept.
Let me just quickly go now to Bonneville's funding for salmon
recovery. Assuming that we develop this regional plan that has some sort of consensus,
Bonneville is committed to funding its share. We have complied with the 1995 Memorandum of
Agreement and are operating under the recently established fish funding principles, which are set
forth more specifically in my written testimony.
Finally, I would like to underscore that it is critically important to the
Federal agencies, especially Bonneville, to work closely with the Northwest Power Planning
Council to assure that we're coordinated with State efforts, and to work closely with the tribes to
make sure that the Federal agency efforts are complimentary to those that are taken by the other
entities.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you very much for inviting me to
testify before the Subcommittee, I look forward to working with you in developing this fish
recovery plan. I believe for the first time we have the chance to have accountability and objective
measurements that will get us to the objectives that we all want and that's more fish in the river.
Thank you.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johansen follows:]
68012.039
68012.040
68012.041
68012.042
68012.043
68012.044
68012.045
68012.046
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you very much and
the Chair recognizes Colonel Mogren for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF COL. ERIC MOGREN, DEPUTY COMMANDER,
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND,
OREGON
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Colonel MOGREN.
Before I start, I would like to introduce some other members of the Corps that are here today, the
panel, in your letter of invitation, had requested Mr. Doug Arndt from my staff to join us, and
Doug is here. We also have Lieutenant Colonel William Bulen, the Commander of the Walla
Walla District. Colonel Bulen is charged with preparing the Snake River DEIS. The reason I say
this is I listened to your opening comments. Clearly you have interests that have gone beyond
those that were listed in our letter of invitation. So as we get into your questions, what I may ask
is your indulgence and to call on the staff to assist in answering those questions so we can give
you as complete an answer as we possibly can.
Madame Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Colonel Eric Mogren, Deputy Commander of the Northwestern
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I will keep my remarks brief and submit a more
complete written testimony for the record. And this may be a little presumptuous, because I do
sense your interests have shifted somewhat from the letter of invitation, I'll fly by those things
that were in the letter and get your questions so that some of these other things can be answered
in perhaps more detail.
Madame Chair, you asked that I address the near-term actions for the
salmon, Corps study results, the status of the juvenile salmon transport program and how the
Corps plans to use PATH study information. I'll start with near-term actions.
In the coming years we will continue to augment flows, spill for fish
and operate the juvenile fish transportation program in accordance with applicable biological
opinions on the Federal Columbia River power system. We will continue to make improvements
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
to fish passage facilities including: extended-length screens, juvenile fish collection channel
improvements, improvements to adult passage and additional fish passage facilities. We will also
continue evaluating surface bypass systems and gas supersaturation and improvements in turbine
passage. Of course, we are in the process of completing the lower Snake River feasibility study
and phase one of the John Day draw-down study.
The lower Snake Study examines four major alternatives for the dams:
existing systems, maximum transport, major improvements and dam breaching. The draft John
Day Phase One Study looks at spillway crest and natural river level drawn down options, both
with and without flood control.
The Corps released its draft report and based on the estimated cost and
biological benefits expected of all four alternatives, the Corps preliminary recommendation is
that no further study of the John Day drawdown is warranted.
Other activities the Corps could take in the near term include habitat
improvements, such as assisting the fish and wildlife service in long-term planning for
addressing the Caspian Tern problems in the Columbia River estuary in improving wetland
conditions in the estuary.
As you may be aware the Corps was prepared to keep the Caspian Tern
population from nesting on Rice Island this year. However, a preliminary injunction has put a
halt to that effort. We are appealing that injunction and we are hoping to have a decision from the
court sometime later this week.
Concerning Corps studies, we continue to fund research and fish
passage and survival at the dams, surface bypass technologies, juvenile fish transportation, in
river passage, adult fish passage and turbine passage improvements. Based on study results we
have developed and refined fish passage facilities and modified our operations. The significant
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
increase in survival rates through the system attests to the success of these improvements. For
example, research by the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that between 50 and 60
percent of juvenile fish that migrate in river successfully pass the Corps dams on the lower Snake
and the Columbia. This is up from the 10 to 40 percent survivals we saw back in the 1960's and
the 1970's.
Turning to the juvenile fish transportation program, since 1968, the
Corps has funded research to find the best methods of transporting juvenile salmon and to assess
related survival levels. We have determined that transported fish do not stray any more than
non-transported fish and most importantly transport returns significantly more fish than
non-transport as measured by smolt to adult return rates. Our research indicates that we get about
a two to one ratio of transported fish versus in-river fish returns. We also know that 98 percent of
the transported juvenile fish survive to the release point below Bonneville Dam.
One remaining question is the level of delayed mortality for
transported and non-transported fish. This is a significant factor in determining the overall
benefit of transport. Research is underway utilizing PIT tag technology to answer this critical
question. There is much we do not know about salmon and steelhead behavior and what affects
their survival. It is not fully understood why these stocks continue to decline. We believe further
research is needed to resolve some of these key uncertainties.
Turning to the Committee's question of how current transport research
information is dealt with in the PATH analysis. In its first draft biological appendix to the lower
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Snake River Study, the National Marine Fisheries Service used the plan for analyzing and testing
hypotheses or PATH. Responding to concerns from the Independent Science Advisory Board
NMFS subsequently introduced an additional tool called the umulative Risk Initiative or CRI to
analyze the risks of extinction and to provide a broader analysis of salmon life stages.
These models build on each other and we looked at NMFS to interpret
the results. PATH, CRI, as well as additional research information will all be used in the
biological analysis for the final EIS.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. I look forward to your
questions and I thank you again for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Mogren follows:]
68012.047
68012.048
68012.049
68012.050
68012.051
68012.052
68012.053
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
68012.054
68012.055
68012.056
68012.057
68012.058
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Colonel Mogren.
The Chair recognizes Dr. Mantua.
STATEMENT OF DR. NATHAN MANTUA, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, JOINT INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF
ATMOSPHERE & OCEANS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON
Mr. MANTUA. Thank
you, Madame Chair, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify at
this hearing today. I am Nathan Mantua. I'm an atmospheric scientist at the University of
Washington and my studies have focused on climate in the Pacific and more recently climate
impacts on natural resources, including Pacific salmon in the Northwest. There will be four
things that I want to report on in my testimony: First, in the past century coastal ocean habitat in
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the northeast Pacific has been highly variable, and that's also true in the broader, open waters of
the north Pacific; Second, much of the variability is related to the tropical El NinAE6o/La
NinAE6a phenomenon that we hear so much about in the media; Third, much of the
decade-to-decade variability is related to a recently named phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation that was mentioned in the first testimony;
Fourth, the unusually warm era that began in 1977 may have ended in 1998. However, a lack of
understanding the long-term climate cycles bases any long-term climate forecasts like those
looking 10, 20 to 30 years in the future, much more on faith than on science.
Now, I'll read from the summary of my Testimony.
Though scientists are not certain of all the factors controlling salmon
marine survival in the Pacific Northwest, several ocean-climate events have been linked with
fluctuations in Northwest salmon health and abundance. These include: El NinAE6o/La
NinAE6a, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the atmospheric Aleutian Low, and coastal upwelling.
Each of these features of the climate system influences the character and quality of marine
habitat experienced by Pacific salmon.
Cooler than average coastal ocean temperatures prevailed from the
mid-1940's through 1976, while relatively warm conditions prevailed from 1925 to 1945 and
again from 1977 to 1998. The decades-long climate cycles have been linked with the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation, which is an especially long-lived El NinAE6o-like feature of the Pacific
climate. In the past century, warm ocean temperature eras coincided with relatively poor ocean
conditions for most stocks of Pacific salmon in the Northwest, while cool ocean temperature eras
coincided with relatively good ocean conditions for Northwest salmon.
Pacific climate changes beginning in late 1998, indicate that the
post-1977 era of unusually warm coastal ocean temperatures may have ended. Coincident with
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the demise of the extreme 19970998 El NinAE6o, ocean temperatures all along the Pacific coast
of North America cooled to near or below average values, and this situation has generally
persisted to date. Recent climate forecasts, largely based on expectations for continued but
weakening tropical La NinAE6a conditions, suggests that these cool ocean temperatures are
likely to persist at least through the spring and on into the summer of 2000.
Beyond the coming summer there are no strong indications that there
will be major changes in the ocean state. If the recent past is a useful guide to the future one
might surmise that there is a reasonably good chance that cool coastal ocean temperatures will
persist for the next 20 to 30 years.
On the other hand, there has been no demonstrated skill in North
Pacific climate predictions beyond about 1 year windows into the future. Thus, a lack of
understanding for Pacific long lived climate cycles bases 20 to 30 year forecasts more on faith
than on science.
With a focus on the next five to 7 years, one may be much more
confident in predicting that coastal ocean temperatures and coastal marine habitat quality will
continue varying within and between seasons, as well as within and between years.
It seems that climate insurance for Columbia River salmon may be
provided by adopting management strategies aimed at restoring some of the characteristics
possessed by healthy wild salmon populations. Although the mechanisms are not completely
understood, wild salmon evolved behaviors that allowed them to persist and thrive under variable
ocean conditions. Management actions taken to restore some of the wild salmon characteristics
that have been lost in the past century are likely to be fruitful roots for minimizing the negative
impacts of poor ocean conditions and may also prove beneficial during periods of especially
good ocean conditions. There is little doubt that the ocean environment will continue to vary
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
between favorable and unfavorable conditions for Columbia River salmon populations, and this
is true at both year-to-year and decade-to-decade time scales. That concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mantua follows:]
68012.059
68012.060
68012.061
68012.062
68012.063
68012.064
68012.065
68012.066
68012.067
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Dr. Mantua.
Dr. Jim Anderson is recognized for testimony.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. JIM ANDERSON, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA BASIN RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank
you, Madame Chairman. It's an honor to be testifying before the Committee. This is an exciting
time for scientists because we have a great opportunity to be proven wrong and scientists always
enjoy that. The reasons we are being proven wrong is because we use analyses which are often
out of date, while nature and research continues to go on. Now, the recommendations that I'm
going to bring forward and how we might want to focus things are based on the fact that
conditions have changed radically in the last year, as Nate Mantua has shown.
Well, things first went wrong in the PATH conclusions which were
based on data through 1990, concluding that the only way to recover the runs was to remove the
dams. They also concluded there was high mortality through the hydro system. The new studies
on in-river survival show that high mortality doesn't exist and so mortality is happening. A lot of
the conclusions that have come out of PATH simply don't comport with the existing data.
The cumulative risk initiative of NMFS has also had an opportunity to
be wrong because they projected that runs are in a dire condition based on returns through brood
year 1994. As we now know the ocean has changed considerably and there are a significant
number of fish coming back to the river.
Now, many of the things that both of theses groups have done are
right, but these elements are important and I think they need to be understood as we look for
reasons or things to do in the near future.
The most interesting fact I want to bring forward is that the fish runs
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
have changed considerably, and I think many people are aware of that right now. In this year, we
have the makings of a run, which is two to three times the 10-year average of fish coming back
into the Columbia River. Many of these fish will travel up into the Snake River system. They are
different than fish that came back in the 1960's because these are mostly hatchery fish, and that's
part of the issue that I want to bring forward and something that needs to be considered.
The projections for next year's run are truly astronomical if we look at
the Jack returns this year. The Jack are precocious males that come back in the first year in the
ocean last year they returned at a record level. We had the highest run since we've been
collecting data in 1977, and right now the projection up to today is that the runs are about 10
times larger than they were in 1977. There are a lot of Jacks coming back, which also suggest
there is going to be a lot of fish coming back in the next couple of years.
As we know, the ocean has changed fundamentally and appears to be
in a better condition. This change will last for a few years or it could last for a long time. I hope
it's going to last 20 years, so I have an opportunity to be wrong. Many scientists saying a regime
shift has happened.
Considering that we are all wrong, what do we do, or that we are
potentially are all wrong, what do we do for the future. I have three suggestions. One is we need
to separate harvest. We need to make sure that the wild fish get up to the spawning ground, that
they are able to spawn and at the same time we are harvesting the hatchery fish. That's not
possible right now because some of the hatchery fish are not tagged to sepovate wild fish a live
harvest is needed so we can determine which ones to release back into the river.
Another important factor is to try to improve hatcheries. As the runs
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
increase, and we haven't thought about the possibility of runs increasing, the hatchery production
has been increased to compensate for the previous low runs. Now that stocks are increasing we
might consider cutting back on the hatchery production and allowing more of the wild fish to use
the resources. We also need to look at the genetics of these hatchery fish. Maybe some of them
can very spawn with the wild fish. May others should be removed. In either case we should
improve the genetic and behavioral qualities of hatchery fish. I think there needs to be more
emphasis on this.
The third suggestion I would think we should take a careful look at
flow augmentation. In some situations I think it does no good for the fish. It's often neutral and in
other conditions I think it's bad for the fish. We recently conducted an analysis which indicates
that summer flow augmentation from the Hell's Canyon complex is actually detrimental because
it warms the water which can increase the Feeding rate of the predators. These are the three
suggestions that the region we might do in the near future to improve the runs. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
68012.068
68012.069
68012.070
68012.071
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
68012.072
68012.073
68012.074
68012.075
68012.076
68012.077
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. I
want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony, and without objection your entire testimonies
will be entered into the official record, including Senator Morton's notebook here. I want to again
thank you for your testimony, and I want to remind our members that the Committee Rule 2(i)
imposes a 5-minute limit on questions that the members may ask. And so the Chair will now
recognize members for any questions that they may wish to ask the witnesses beginning with Mr.
Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank
you, Madame Chairman.
Ms. Johansen, there has been some concerns raised that the Bonneville
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
has not expended the total amount of funds that have been allocated under the memorandum of
agreement for fish funding. In fact, by some estimates up to 185 million dollars has not been
expended. Why is there such a large sum allowed funding not being spent and are there projects
out there not being funded for fish recovery that these could be funds could be spent on.
Mrs. JOHANSEN. The
180 million dollars that you referred to is the difference between what we expected would be
appropriated by Congress back when the MOA was entered into and what Congress really
appropriated. Bonneville budgeted the repay for a much higher level of principal and interest for
anticipated Congressional appropriations since we reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the power
user share of Congressional Appropriations provided for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau
fish of reclamation projects in the Federal Columbia River Power System.
The 180 million dollars will be carried forward into our next rate
period and will be made available for our fish and wildlife projects, which is our commitment
under Memorandum of Agreement. More importantly, my concern is that people not be fixated
on how to spend 180 million dollars, but instead focus on how do we develop a sound plan for
fish recovery, including near term measures. If there are additional near term measures that are
scientifically sound that run through the appropriate scientific review of the Independent Science
Review Panel and the Power Council's process, and that achieve the objectives under The
Endangered Species Act, then Bonneville stands willing to fund those measures. If necessary, we
could reopen the allocations in the Memorandum of Agreement but my expectation is that we
have adequate funds available now to handle any additional measures that might be deemed
urgent for an emergency.
Mr. SIMPSON.
Colonel Mogren, obviously you have read in the papers recently about the decision that was
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
made to not include a preferred alternative by Corps, and allegations or the implications or
whatever that there was influence from the Administration in the White House in this decision.
Could you go through that and tell me how this came about and why there will not be a preferred
alternative, it's relatively, is it not, to do an EIS without creating a preferred alternative?
Colonel MOGREN.
That is rare. Let me go back and start. What I'll do is I'll carry you through our process that I'm
personally familiar with, and to speculate on the motives of some of the decisions that were
made, I'm not sure would be appropriate on my part. I would be happy to share with you the
events that transpired as I participated in them, and as I'm aware of them.
As you know, throughout the process the Corps had planned all along
to issue a draft EIS with a preferred alternative. We had said that in testimony; we had said that
throughout the region. I believe it was the August or September timeframe, and frankly I may ask
the staff to help with some of the specific dates. The district had started to put together its
recommendation. As I mentioned before the Walla Walla district is charged with putting the draft
EIS together, and they had started formulating that preferred alternative.
They had done that. Colonel Bulen had forwarded it to my boss,
General Strock. Our staff had looked at it. We were not in complete agreement with everything
that was in that document, made some revisions to it in accordance with our review process and
then forwarded the document up to our headquarters. This was all in accordance with our normal
process for this.
We had notified the other Federal agencies and this was on in early
October now. I think we noted it on the 8th. Again, I'm not one hundred percent sure of the date
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
because as we had talked to the agencies and kept Washington informed, we had intended to
issue a preferred alternative and one of the steps in our process would be to discuss that and go
into consultation on that with the other Federal agencies in the region. We were in the process of
setting up a meeting to do just that.
Our document went forward to our headquarters. Sometime after the
8th of October, we had received guidance not to include a preferred alternative. That guidance
originated with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who had sent a memo to the
Chief of Engineers, General Joe Ballard. That was subsequently transmitted to us with guidance
from our headquarters to go forward without a preferred alternative and that's subsequently what
we did, we complied with that guidance.
Mr. SIMPSON. I
appreciate that explanation. I understand that there are at least several Senate Committees
looking into this and asking the same kind of questions and they've asked for a variety of
information. Would you be sure that the same information is available to this Committee?
Colonel MOGREN. I
will certainly do that.
Mr. SIMPSON. I
appreciate that very much. Let me ask one more question of Dr. Anderson. Given your testimony
I'm not sure, I assume that you believe that the PATH decision process and the CRI is not
adequate in terms of making future critical decisions on this; is that an accurate statement?
Mr. ANDERSON. That's
true. I think the new information on the ocean and fish causes the predictions from those two
analyses to be inaccurate and misleading.
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
you. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you, Madame Chairman. I appreciate it. Colonel Mogren, let me just followup because my
colleague from Idaho asked a question that I wanted to ask. I wanted to kind of tie this down a
bit. You're stationed where?
Colonel MOGREN. I'm
in Portland.
Mr. HASTINGS.
Portland, OK, and you were involved in this process last fall?
Colonel MOGREN.
Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. OK,
from the Portland standpoint working from?
Colonel MOGREN.
From the division headquarters; yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Your
recommendation as it had left your office going to Washington DC was that you would come up
with a preferred alternative?
Colonel MOGREN.
Well, the recommendation that went forward contained our proposed preferred alternative.
Mr. HASTINGS. So I
say you were to recommend the preferred alternative?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Colonel MOGREN.
Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Which
was that breaching should not be an option?
Colonel MOGREN.
Walla Walla District had proposed our alternative three, which was major system improvements
with maximum barging. My staff looked at that and a briefing from the National Marine
Fisheries Service on transport which had indicated to us in terms of recovery that we may have
gotten about all that we were going to get out of transport. So whereas the transport program was
vital to the survival of fish that we are seeing now increases to that level would only have
marginal improvements. So rather than supporting the maximum transport recommendation, our
staff said it might be more reasonable to take a flexible approach to assist in monitoring in
evaluation efforts to get to the question of delayed mortality, for example.
The other point that we are not in complete agreement with was a
fairly definitive recommendation from the district for non-breaching, and that was based largely
on the uncertainty of the science at that point in time. I want to emphasize we were talking about
the August, September, early October timeframe.
That same uncertainty in our view probably mitigated against such a
definitive statement. So our proposal that went forward called for not breaching, not at this point
in time, and there may be some point in the as the science evolved and matured that may, in fact,
be required.
Mr. HASTINGS. It's safe
to say that your preferred alternative, knowing that anything is on the table, was not to breach
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
and you had some other alternatives to enhance fish passage and so forth; is that right.
Colonel MOGREN.
That's right.
Mr. HASTINGS. So
when it got up to the level in Washington DC, that decision was made and you weren't involved
in that process at all?
Colonel MOGREN. No,
no, other than I went up to my headquarters and again in accordance with our process and briefed
our staff on where we were. Some of staff that were in the staff in the room with us were part of
that, made sure the staff was aware of that and then there was a policy review process that we go
through with our normal EIS's. As I indicated subsequently we had the guidance not to use it.
Mr. HASTINGS. You
had to follow orders, and I respect that. So the inquiries from the Senate presumably will be
focused not on your level but at higher level then, is that a good presumption?
Colonel MOGREN. Sir,
I don't know. I assume so, but I don't know.
Mr. HASTINGS. I won't
put words in your mouth on that. OK, thank you, Colonel Mogren. I appreciate that.
Senator Morton, you gave us a very interesting handout here. On page
12, you have and this is nothing do with hatchery fish. It's a very interesting water flow with fish
runs measurement at Astoria that you comply with figures from the U.S. Geological Survey and
the Corps of Engineers and so forth indicating that low flows is where your highest fish runs are
historically and the converse is true.
Could you elaborate on that and if either one of you would like to pick
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
up on that, if you haven't seen that chart it's in Senator Morton's handout on page 12.
Senator Morton, let me start with you.
Senator MORTON.
Thank you, Congressman. Yes, the lower graph portion on the second page, both pages have to
be studied together, and it has to be studied. It starts in 1938. We went back that far when we
have these figures. We only went up or were able to go up to 1986 because of the data not being
available at Astoria where the gauging station was eliminated. So in looking at both pages, yes,
what you analyzed is correct. It's very interesting that during the low flows of the Columbia
River were the highest salmon runs, and the inverse is also true, that during the highest flows we
had the lowest runs. I'm not a biologist. We just analyzed that. It came out as we looked at the
figures and data, so we printed it up.
Mr. HASTINGS. I know
Dr. Anderson and Dr. Mantua, you haven't had a chance to look at that at all.
Mr. MANTUA. No, I
have not had a chance to look at this particular graphic or table, but previous work that has been
done tends to support just the opposite conclusion: that during high flow years in the Columbia
system and throughout streams in the northwest, this is integrated over what we call the water
year, the month of October to the following September so it captures both snow melt
accumulation and melt season.
If you look at gauge flows on the Dalles, which captures most of the
Columbia Basin, you see that that's well correlated with cold ocean conditions and good ocean
habitat that we have associated with these climate cycles. So, in fact, there is some interaction
going on both in the river and in the ocean that is connected to the same climate pattern, the
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pacific Decadel Oscillation, changes in the wintertime circulation, and most of the work that has
been done in that area that I'm aware of and that I've participated in suggests that heavy snow
pack, high stream flows, cold ocean temperatures all go together with the productive years.
On the other hand, low flows, low snow pack, mild winter temperature
and warm ocean conditions have gone with poor production. So it's actually contrary to the
conclusions from this graphic.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you very much.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. The Chair would recognize
Senator Morton for a response for 1 minute.
Senator MORTON. I
think it would be very helpful if the good doctor could use the information. We didn't have the
time, Doctor, to go down through month by month. I think that would reveal even more if we do
as you're indicating seasonally, at least for the four seasons and/or month by month. We just
printed the data as it was revealed to us.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Dr. Mantua and Senator
Morton, this information is quite startling and the sources are from the USGF and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and at first glance it's hard to tell how it could be wrong. I wonder if the two
of you could work together and send the subsequent report to the Committee? Would you do
that? Thank you very much.
Chair recognizes Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Madame Chairman. Colonel Mogren, what is the date, sir, if you can recall that you
were notified of the decision that altered the recommendation which left your office and the
Walla Walla district office for the east? Do you remember when that came back to you and you
discovered that this preferred alternative was to be removed?
Colonel MOGREN. It
was mid-October.
Mr. ARNDT. 8 October.
Colonel MOGREN. I
know our note went off and we received verbal guidance on the 8th of October and it was
followed up in writing I believe a week or so later. I don't recall the exact date.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The
issuance then of the Corps recommendations or conclusions without a recommendation, so to
speak, what was the date of that issuance?
Colonel MOGREN.
Again, I need to refer to Mr. Arndt. Incidently, those dates obviously are in the documents that
Mr. Hastings has asked for. So if we can't satisfy this question here, we would be happy to
submit that for the record.
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
That's fine.
Colonel MOGREN. Do
you remember the dates of the documents of the Walla Walla recommendation, our
recommendation, and the respond memo from headquarters off the top of your head? Sir, we'll
have to submit it. Walla Walla District recommendation—October 14, 1999 Northwestern
Division recommendation to Headquarters—October 18, 1999 Headquarters response
memo—November 2, 1999.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
That's fine. I'm not trying to test your memory. I'm trying to get a sense of the gap in time from
when this decision may have been made, and I'm sure that the Senate and the House will
complete the investigations to decide who did what, when and to whom.
I appreciate the work of the Walla Walla district office and the initial
recommendations for a preferred alternative. I think that's valuable to know that history and the
history of your office has been what I consider positive in connection with trying to solve this
problem in a scientific manner as opposed to a political fashion. I'm informed that the
Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of preparing a letter concerning the Lower
Snake River Environmental Impact Statement. I also understand that the letter will notify the
Corps of an environmentally unsatisfactory rating for non-breach alternatives in the study. Are
you aware of that letter?
Colonel MOGREN.
Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Is
that rating of environmentally unsatisfactory a surprise to you?
Colonel MOGREN. We
were surprised by the severity of the rating. Back in August EPA had reviewed a preliminary
draft that was based at that point on the PATH report and it issued us a rating of environmental
objective EO2, which is less severe. We have subsequently been meeting with the Environmental
Protection Agency to try to resolve some of these very important water quality issues. Their
concerns are gas abatement, their concerns are water temperature and air quality issues, I believe
Mr. Hastings referred to earlier in his comment were also part of this.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the course of those negotiations and discussions there was
nothing that came up that was going to indicate in our view that a more severe rating such as
unsatisfactory was forthcoming. In fact, we did not know that until the regional administrator,
Mr. Clark, had given a call to our office and indicated that this was forthcoming.
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
When will that letter be available for review?
Colonel MOGREN. I
don't know. I believe EPA is going to sign that this week. So I would assume later this week but
again I don't know.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I am
wondering what impact the EPA letter whenever it's received and revealed and issued for review,
what impact will that have on your process and your recommendation of an alternative and the
activities that are continuing on an ongoing basis? My concern is that the likelihood may be
higher now that this is a political determination from the EPA, as well as from Corps of
Engineers, in my humble opinion, and that casts in doubt the question of whether you will be
able to, you the Corps, will be able to issue a final recommendation and conclusion based on
sound science as opposed to political science and I hate to have that definition muddled as we
know it. I hope you get my point.
Can you assure us that you are going to do your best, at least at your
level, at the Walla Walla office district level to make sure that this is not a political decision that
this is a sound science based decision, even with EPA involved given the surprise that apparently
is coming at you with respect to this letter and the more severe determination they have
apparently made?
Colonel MOGREN. Sir,
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
just to go back to an earlier comment I made in response to one of the earlier questions. I would
prefer not speculate or comment on the motives behind any of the actions ongoing. With regard
to your specific question about the impact on the process, we have received almost 90,000
comments. In fact, it was 90,000 last week. My guess is it's gone up since then regarding this
issue and the EPA is one of those 90,000. Clearly, it is very important. We are dealing with the
Clean Water Act and this is not something that the Corps takes lightly.
Clearly, there's direct implications on water quality imposed by the
Clean Water Act, and we are not taking those issues lightly. We will address those issues fully
and completely in our EIS.
One of the EPA's criticisms was that we do really give this due weight
in terms of discussion and evaluation in the report. One thing we've committed to do is bring that
information forthcoming so anybody who reads this report has the benefit of that analysis.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Did
the recommendation come from that Washington DC office with respect to this environmental
consideration or did it come from the regional office or the local office, or where did it come
from?
Colonel MOGREN. It is
my understanding it will be signed by Mr. Clark, the regional administrator. So I assume it came
from his office. Again, I don't really know that. I assume that's where it's coming from.
Again, going back to process, we have already met with EPA this last
week and we've agreed to some procedures to get to some of these issues that are in contention,
such as the impacts of the dams on water temperatures, such as what can we do about dissolved
gas.
I want to emphasize that the EPA and the Corps are working very
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
strongly to try to resolve some of these issues, but there are some fundamental disagreements
here. One of the issues, of course, is that from a biological standpoint with dissolved gas, the
State of, I don't mean to isolate anybody from the State of Washington up here but the State of
Washington has routinely waived the gas standard during fish passage season up to 120 percent
level, which National Marine Fisheries indicates, you know, the Federal scientists indicate it's
safe for juvenile salmon bypass. An absolute standard for the water quality is 110 percent. So
what we have is a conflict between the standards of the Clean Water Act and the standards from
the ESA as expressed as biological opinion that we operate to. I'm not sure what the resolution to
that is.
I guess my final point I would make, sir, is to go to your point. What
the Corps has always seen as its role in this whole process is to provide the best economic and
scientific data that we can put together from the broadest number of sources, have as open a
process as we can and to render a recommendation that will inform this process. I think the
ultimate decision on this is going to be a political decision because you're balancing some very
strongly held and competing values out here and that's what you guys get paid to do. What I get
paid to do is inform that through whatever analysis and so on and data and information that we
can collect and put together and provide to you.
Mr. HASTINGS.
Madame Chairman, could I ask one question?
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you. I just wanted to followup where you said Washington was waiving the rules regarding the
level of 120. Isn't that because that's where the dams are and isn't that because there are people
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
that are saying you need more flow. If you are going to have more flow you have release more
water over the dams and therefore you are going to have more super saturation? It seems to me
there is a conflict based in that statement from those that are involved in this.
Colonel MOGREN.
You've hit it on the head, the conflict between the Clean Water Act requirements and the ESA
Biological Opinion requirements. The 1995 Biological Opinion requires spill, under set
conditions, requires spill to help fish bypass. That pushes your dissolved gas rate at the dams at
which the spill occurs.
Mr. HASTINGS. Which
are detrimental to fish passage; is that correct?
Colonel MOGREN. I'm
sorry?
Mr. HASTINGS. Which
are detrimental to the fish that get caught up in that super saturation; is that correct?
Colonel MOGREN.
Well, right, presumably above a certain level; correct.
Mr. HASTINGS. I won't
ask you to draw his conclusion, but it seems to me we are really in conflict because it seems to
me most of the discussion has been on more flow augmentation, more water is what it is. So I
just want to make that point because you made the point that these things are waived and yet we
seem to be fighting ourselves on the back side.
We are not focusing on the impact on the super saturation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you. Thank you, Madame Chairman, I appreciate the consideration.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. I
want to ask Senator Morgon in your amendment to your testimony, on page one, you quote Chief
Spokane Gerry from the Congressional Record in 1877, on this page, at the very bottom. Did you
retrieve that quote from the Congressional Record yourself?
Senator MORTON.
Madame Chair, on page 14 it's elaborated on further in the Congressional Record and the State of
the State Message by Governor John Rankin Rogers in 1899. Those are both elaborated on on
page 14.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Senator. I
wanted to ask Dr. Mantua, have you seen this quote from Chief Spokane Gerry in 1877? That
quote is, ''My people have not be able to lay in stock enough of salmon for their winter food.''
it's very interesting. Obviously, this came from the Congressional Record. Do we have climate
studies that go back that far that can show this 30-year cycle that you testified to, Doctor?
Mr. MANTUA. We
don't have very good ones but we have flow records from the Columbia River that date back to
1878, and that's one the most reliable and long-term direct measurements we have in the region.
So we can't get to 1877. Of course, we do have excellent fishery records reconstructed from
cannery pack that date back to the same time period. So it would be very important to include
that information when you evaluate a statement like this. There are other sources of climate
information, like tree rings that people that I work with are actively working on to try to
reconstruct past climate in the Northwest and we're hosting a workshop next week in Seattle to
get at issues like this, what was the climate like prior to direct instrumental measurements.
Mrs.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHENOWETH-HAGE. I think it's quite startling to
me that the Native American were unable to even be able to stock in enough salmon for winter
because obviously the fish runs were down even then and that's long before any dams existed.
Mr. MANTUA. True,
but you must consider there was a very large lower river commercial fishery developed by that
time.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. In 1877?
Mr. MANTUA. I believe
so.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. That would be interesting to
study.
Dr. Anderson, you testified that the fact that there needs to be more
genetic studies of these listed stocks of salmon. Is there really any difference in the gene pool
between the hatchery fish and the wild fish? Is there really any difference?
Mr. ANDERSON. I can't
give you an easy answer to that. Some of the hatcheries are probably close to the wild stocks and
some of the hatcheries are very different because of the way that fish have been shipped all over
the Northwest when the hatchery programs were first established.
I think that's a good question and we should really begin to look at
endangered species in the hatcheries and in the wild and try to sort out what is the difference
between these two groups can we be a little bit more flexible maybe in how we manage both
hatcheries and wild fish.
Mrs.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHENOWETH-HAGE. But in the Columbia River
system is there a difference in the gene pool between the hatchery salmon and the wild salmon?
Mr. ANDERSON. There
might be in some cases. I'm not an expert in that particular field as far as past.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. I see. In your testimony you
indicated that we should harvest the hatchery salmon while letting the wild salmon go free. How
do you propose that we harvest the hatchery salmon? There are methods; life catch methods, fish
wheels marking all the clipping of fin of all the hatchery fish, not using gill nets, having catch
and release programs.
Most of this separation of harvest would have to be done in the river, I
believe. Right now it's not being done.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. I want to ask of Ms.
Johansen, can you explain to us, how the additional 24-hour spill of all the dams, except the
Dalles, will affect reliable power production and reliability as far as energy produced and what is
the cost of the region of this new spill activity?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. The
most recent spill regimen that my staff has discussed with the National Marine Fisheries Service
staff basically results in the same financial package that we have. In other words, there is no
change. There was a significant reduction of spill at The Dalles and that was countermanded by
increases at other projects. So, the net effect financially is zero.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However your question is a good and important question. Due to several factors, including
the derating of the hydro system, load growth in the region, and the fact that there has not been
very much construction of new generation in this region, we face a critical reliability issue that
we have to deal with now. Our studies reveal that if we embark on significant further spill on the
Columbia, especially down at the projects that are closely tied in with the California Intertie that
further derating could cause reliability problems in not only the Northwest but also in California
as well. So, in working with the National Marine Fisheries Service, we try to make them aware
of the transmission constraints and make sure that they understand where we run into those
problems. Reliability is an important issue that this region does need to focus on. We've stretched
the system to it's limits and the flexibility that we had even 5 or 10 years ago is gone.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Has the BPA analyzed and
can you tell the Committee where you will be getting other power during those high demand
peak weeks during August, September even in July when you are spilling and yet there's such a
high demand in the region. What will you supplement the power with?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. The
region is in a load resource deficit. Most of that deficit is not on the Federal system, although we
do have a large share of the deficit. I don't want to understate that. The problem is not just on the
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Federal side, but it's also a problem for other utilities. For peak operations, if we don't have
adequate water to provide or adequate resources in the Federal system, we rely on seasonal
purchases from California. So, the use of the interties is quite important to us to meet our peak
demand. We also rely on power purchases to the extent they're available from Canada because
Canada has surpluses, but there are transmission constraints there, and for future generation
construction how much of that will Bonneville purchase? We have recently concluded, and
yesterday I signed the final record of decision on our Subscription Strategy, which will require
that Bonneville add another 1500 to 1700 megawatts of power to augment our system so that we
can cover all of the demand that we've committed to. We are covering that with purchases from
independent power producers and a mix of utility purchases as well.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. The power produced in
California is significantly higher than that produced on the Columbia River system; is that not
true.
Mrs. JOHANSEN. The
cost of power on the West Coast is now dictated by a market that has been established as a result
of deregulation. So, the difference between the cost of market power in the Northwest is not that
significant versus California, and the market price we pay there however, the cost of production
does vary between the regions and you're correct in that.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Because the facilities on the
Columbia are so low cost and meet the demand of the Northwest Power Act in having a
renewable resource for its fuel source, has the BPA analyzed the conflict here that may appear to
us to be in the Northwest Power Act? The activities from BPA that seem to be focusing solely
almost in some cases on the salmon and the cost of reliable low cost renewable resources seem to
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
be sacrificed.
Mrs. JOHANSEN. We
have quite a significant focus on maintaining low cost power. In fact, as I sit before you today we
are the lowest cost provider save perhaps Idaho Power Company in the region. We embarked on
significant cost cutting in order to establish that position. We have cut over a half billion dollars
a year from our annual budgets to make sure that low cost continues to be provided in this
region.
At the same time, we are making investments in efficiency
improvements in the Federal hydro system working with the Corps and the Bureau through the
direct funding agreements. It's enabled us to work together to find efficiency improvements in
the hydro system that we otherwise wouldn't find, We are also increasing our transmission rates
to enhance the reliability of the transmission system, which as I said earlier has been stretched to
its limits in many instances.
While I publicly seem to be only addressing fish issues, really 99
percent of what I do and what my agency does is try to assure transmission reliability since we
are the primary owner in this region. We also work with the Corps and the Bureau to make sure
the efficiency improvements are made in the hydro system and in working with Energy
Northwest on their nuclear plant.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you. The members
have asked for a second round of questions and I will recognize them for a second round
beginning with Mr. Nethercutt.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I
want to conclude my questions here in the second round by thanking each one of you for your
testimony. We always get stuck on the 5-minute rule. We love it but we hate it because otherwise
it would be interminable. We sure thank you for your testimony. It's been compelling today and,
Madame Chairman, we will be able to submit questions for the record, perhaps.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Then
with your indulgence if we have question we would request that you file answers at your earliest
convenience.
Ms. Johansen, I'm interested in your performance standards testimony
and I think it makes sense. I urge that you think carefully about the development of those
standards and also include a local input to the development of the standards. Is that what you had
in mind, also?
Mrs. JOHANSEN.
Actually, the performance standards are being developed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and they will be articulated in their Biological Opinion. The Federal agencies have been
working with National Marine Fisheries Service to develop those standards, but they will
ultimately be the call of NMFS.
NMFS intends, or at least it's our understanding that they intend, to
release a draft Biological Opinion for review by the States and tribes around May 22nd. So, that
would be an opportunity for the State and local governments and other to comment on those
performance standards. This is the first time that we've done this, the region has done this. One
of the other things that National Marine Fisheries Service is contemplating is review of those
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
standards by the National Academy of Sciences. So, the intention is to make them as credible and
relevant as possible.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. So
there will be an opportunity for public comment and for additional local input. The local
agriculture conservation districts are doing very good work and perhaps would want to have
input into the establishment of those standards. I also was interested in your testimony where you
indicated that funding habitat improvements makes sense as well in the full picture of trying to
restore salmon.
Dr. Skinner, Mike Skinner is going to be testifying here on the next
panel or the following about the issue of reproductive biology as it relates to fish and looking at
what they are doing and why they are not doing it in connection with this whole great problem. I
wonder if you or agency would consider funding, relative to the money that's been spent thus far
on habitat conservation and protection and all the expenditures of government, the Corps study
and so forth for a relative small amount of money.
We can look at the reproductive biology of fish as part of the puzzle
and solution that we are seeking and for a very minimum amount of money and perhaps a limited
amount of time and we'll hear testimony about that. I'm wondering if BPA would consider that as
you go through looking at the funding that you're involved thus far and funding that you're
intending to undertake in the future?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. We
will certainly consider that. The process that we go through is to work with the Northwest Power
Planning Council and the Independent Science Review Panel to sort through the hundreds of
projects that come our way. Certainly, we will commit to working with Dr. Skinner to make sure
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
that his proposal is described as best it can be as it goes through that process.
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
Thank you very much. Senator Morton, Congress help established a fund that goes through the
Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and I'm wondering, sir, whether in your
opinion this has been successful, what projects have been funded throughout the State that you
think are valuable?
Senator MORTON.
Obviously, the money is valuable to some of the projects but not to all. I think a lot of the
projects have been what I would call minor significance as it pertains to habitat. We have habitat,
I believe, to a great degree in the tributary waters, for example, of the Columbia as well as and
particularly the Olympic Peninsula and for us to use that money in interior culverts, et cetera, I
think has been a true waste. Basically, that's my opinion on it, but we do have the need for the
moneys to be used in other areas of the State rather than deeply inland but more along the coastal
areas and the Columbia itself.
Mr. NETHERCUTT.
Thank you very much to all of you.
Mr. HASTINGS. I want
to followup on Mrs. Johansen. In your written testimony, at bottom of the first page and I'll read
it here and ask you to respond. In 1992 and 1994, when Pacific Northwest salmon and sturgeon
were listed as endangered species Bonneville's fish and wildlife program expenditures plus the
financial impacts of changes in hydro power system operations increased significantly going
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
from 150 million to over 400 million dollars a year. These are all, of course, ratepayer dollars.
There's no tax dollars. There's no tax dollars. These are all ratepayer dollars.
Could you break down that cost? I know a big portion of that is it
foregone revenues is the way to say it. Could you break that down and elaborate on that
paragraph?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. Let
me provide clarification. The 430 million dollars is a budgeted amount and as Congressman
Simpson pointed out, we have underspent under the MOA because we didn't anticipate expenses
due to a lower level of Congressional appropriations. But, of the 435 million dollars budgeted
amount that we have grown into, if you will, about 252 million dollars is associated with the
direct program that we fund for the Northwest Power Planning Council. You can break that 252
million dollars down into about 100 million dollars for the North West Power Planning Council's
direct Fish and Wildlife Program: about 40 million dollars for reimburseable expenses, and about
$112 million dollars for capital reimbursement for the Corps projects. That's the particular area
where the appropriations didn't come in as robustly as we anticipated.
The remainder, the roughly 183 million dollars remainder, is an
expected value of the operational costs that we incur either due to foregone revenues or increased
power costs to shift the water around in order to meet the fish migration as opposed to optimizing
for power.
So in any given year that balance, the amount above the 252 million,
could be 200, 300 million or it could be very small depending on the water or depending on the
market. So it does vary year by year, but on average we had planned for and had expected about
435 million dollars a year in total for all four cost categories under the current regime. Under our
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
new rate case which is concluding, and unfortunately I'm in ex parte so I can't debate the merits
with you, but I can tell you that we are increasing the level of funding given the range of
uncertainty that we see in terms of what our fish and wildlife obligations will be. That expected
value will go from about 435 to about 720 million dollars per year.
Mr. HASTINGS. Same
percentage breakdown in the programs as you mentioned here that roughly 252 and the other in
foregone power would that ratio remain about the same?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. The
ratio remains about the same, but it's up, ratcheted up in each instance.
Mr. HASTINGS. Right.
Prior to the listing in 1992, that 252 million dollars that you were talking about, I assume those
programs existed prior to the listing of the salmon and the surgeon; is that correct?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. This
predates me, but prior to 1992, we were operating under a program, a much more modest North
West Power Planning Council Program. I believe that the annual program was more in the 40
million dollar range. I'll followup with specific numbers there. The operations of the hydro
system were significantly different than we face now. The operation of the hydro system as a
result of the listings in 1992 has really changed the priority from flood control and power, which
was the case before 1992. Now flood control and fish are the two top priorities. The operational
regime back then had far more modest impact on our lost revenues and our purchased power
needs.
Mr. HASTINGS. Let's
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
put it another way. If we were trying to compare apples and apples prior to this and again making
the broad assumption and that these are—not the foregone power cost, I'm just talking about the
252, what figure would equate to the 252 prior to the listings?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. I'll
have to get back to you on that. I believe it would probably be more in the neighborhood of
perhaps maybe less than 100 million.
Mr. HASTINGS. Less
than 100 million.
Mrs.
JOHANSEN. That would be my guess. I want to
followup with you on a specific breakdown.
The breakdown follows:
68012.306
Mr. HASTINGS. OK,
but making the assumption that that's the case, 100 million prior to the listing of the species has
escalated or will escalate to over 500 million dollars that the ratepayers are principally paying,
there are some Federal direct appropriations; is that correct?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. I
believe if we held the ratio of the program expenditures to fore gone power revenues the same,
the top of your range would be about 418 million, and this is all ratepayers.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HASTINGS. It's all
ratepayers. So all the ratepayers here in the Northwest are paying this increased cost because of
these listings?
Mrs. JOHANSEN. Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank
you very much.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. Just
one quick question that came up and I don't know who to ask this to actually. I guess I'll ask it to
you to, Colonel, since in the middle. The debate started a little bit ago over whether historically
increased flows meant more returned salmon or less return salmon, and I guess the State of Idaho
has been given 427 acre feet and negotiated that and authorized it over the last several years to
increase flow augmentation. Any results of that? We did it as an experimental program to see if it
would increase the rate of return of salmon and flush salmon down the River. Have you seen the
results of that yet? Have you seen any benefit from that.
Colonel MOGREN. Let
me defer that to Mr. Arndt here, and I would also ask I believe there's a National Marine
Fisheries Service panel member coming up in the next panel and he may be in a better position to
answer that.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Arndt, would you stand
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
and be sworn, please? Do you promise and affirm under the penalty of perjury that you will tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. ARNDT. As I
understand your question there have been a demonstrable result in—.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Arndt, I'm sorry to
interrupt you. Would you please introduce yourself for purposes of the recorder.
Mr. ARNDT. Thank
you, Madame Chairman. My name is Doug Arndt. I'm Chief of the Fish Management Division
for the Northwestern Division, Corps of Engineers. In response to your questions, sir, the data
are still coming in on that and as you have heard earlier from the panel there seems to be an
overriding impact of the ocean conditions that may influence that.
I have seen some data that would indicate that the flow regimes are
probably less significant for spring/summer Chinook returns and perhaps more significant for the
fall Chinook returns. This is captured in some recent information that National Marine Fisheries
Service has put out. So I assume that you'll hear more about that from Ric Illgenfritz, who is on
your next panel.
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank
you.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Arndt, you may want to remain there. I have a question for you. If
you want to pull your chair around to the side, Mr. Arndt. I first have a question for Dr.
Anderson.
Dr. Anderson, can you give me the flows in cubic feet per second of
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the Columbia River, say, at the Dalles Dam and then maybe at Bonneville? What is the volume
of flow?
Mr. ANDERSON. The
volume today, I'm not sure. If I could look up our web page, I'll give you exact numbers. I think
using from these tables right here, we have on the order of 150,000 in a low flow year to three,
four, 450,000 cubic feet per second in a high flow year. That would be at Bonneville Dam. Most
of the flows at the Dalles and Bonneville are similar.
Mrs.
CHENOWETH-HAGE. The 427,0