Testimony of William Stelle, Jr.

Regional Administrator, Northwest Region

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

before the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Water and Power

U.S. Senate

Hood River, Oregon

April 6, 1999

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the pending decisions about the continued operation and configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). My name is William Stelle, Jr., and I am the Regional Administrator of the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I appear here today with my colleague General Robert Griffin, Commander of the Northwest Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Collectively, our testimonies address both the process and the substance of the 1999 decision. I will cover the Endangered Species Act (ESA) matters and our engagement with the region on ESA-related processes, as well as the scientific issues involved in the 1999 decision. General Griffin will review the Corps' feasibility study of lower Snake River drawdown, including the economic analysis. The Bonneville Power Administration has also provided testimony for the record which covers in greater detail the scope of the decision, federal agency process, and regional coordination.

In my testimony today, I would like to emphasize several key points:

n The federal agencies will use the best available scientific information for this decision. This is a requirement of federal law, and good common sense.

n The most important role of the National Marine Fisheries Service is to help generate and provide the best scientific information available on the biological aspects of the issue. We intend to do so in as clear and understandable a manner as possible. We will not shy from that responsibility, regardless of the implications of that information.

n We should all recognize that science will not give us the answer or provide us with absolute certainties. Science will give us information that will be vital to sound decisionmaking, but it will not tell us what to do.

n There is no silver bullet that will recover Columbia Basin stocks. A host of human activities have brought these fish to the brink of extinction and we must address all of these activities to bring them back from the brink.

n The 1999 decision is not just about Snake River stocks, but about all of the listed species in the Columbia and Snake River Basin and the fish and wildlife generally. While the ESA decisions in 1995 related to listed Snake River stocks only, we now have a total of twelve salmon and steelhead populations listed throughout the Columbia Basin, as well as bull trout, sturgeon and snails.

n The 1999 decision is not just an ESA issue. It involves other federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and Northwest Power Act, as well as fundamentals associated with treaty rights and obligations running between the people of the United States and the Columbia River treaty tribes. This is not a trivial point.

n We are committed to working in partnership with the states and tribes in the region as we evaluate the alternatives for fish and wildlife recovery in the Basin. We dearly hope for strong leadership from the states and tribes as we address these issues, for it will contribute to a durable and lasting solution. In the absence of that leadership, we will be prepared to proceed. That is our responsibility under law.

n While the federal agencies can advise decision-makers about the likely biological and economic outcomes of different options and their feasibility, the decision whether to remove federal dams or leave them in place is one that Congress ultimately must make. There should be no ambiguity on this point.

Process

The 1995 Biological Opinion

In 1995 NMFS issued a biological opinion on operation and configuration of the FCRPS. We concluded that the FCRPS jeopardizes the continued existence of Snake River chinook and sockeye salmon and that major changes would be necessary for recovery. In the opinion we called for:

1) Immediate changes in project operations to improve survival of Snake River salmon;

2) Near-term changes in project configuration to improve survival of Snake River salmon;

3) Specific studies, research and analyses to guide future decisions about operation and configuration of the FCRPS; and

4) A decision in 1999 regarding the future operation and configuration of the FCRPS.

The federal community has successfully carried out the first three actions on this list, and we are prepared to provide a federal recommendation this year.

The immediate changes in project operations included enhanced flows and spill and adjustments to juvenile transportation. The federal community has successfully implemented these changes over the last four years. The near-term configuration changes included measures to reduce dissolved gas and improve juvenile bypass. These changes also have been successfully implemented.

The primary study called for in the opinion was a study of the feasibility of alternative methods for improved passage survivals through the Lower Snake River, including the feasibility of breaching the four lower Snake River dams. The Corps of Engineers is near completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the engineering feasibility and economics of these options -- dam breaching, maintaining the status quo and additional flow augmentation -- and has held numerous public meetings to develop necessary information and receive public input.

The specific research included continued Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT-tag) studies to measure juvenile survival through the hydropower system, and a transportation evaluation, also using PIT-tag technology. We have gained a great deal of valuable empirical data from these studies that will help decision-makers analyze options for future FCRPS operations and configurations.

We have also made good progress on the analysis needed to fully evaluate the merits of alternative actions. The regional analytical process known as the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH) has been going on for several years now and has provided the region with a great amount of information about the likely biological outcomes of alternative operations and configuration of the FCRPS. The results of the PATH process have been controversial, and various interests in the region have used these results to support favored alternatives. As part of the decision-making process, NMFS will describe these results in a neutral and scientifically objective manner to aid decision-makers in managing the risks inherent in alternative decisions.

Since the 1995 opinion, NMFS has listed nine additional salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia River Basin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also listed bull trout throughout the Basin. Thus, the scope of the 1999 decision has grown. The "action agencies" -- the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration -- must now consult under the ESA on the impacts of the FCRPS on all of these listed populations. We expect the action agencies to release a draft Biological Assessment in late summer or early fall of 1999 that will lead to a final Biological Opinion, and to have a decision in place to guide operation of the hydropower system for the spring migration season in 2000.

Federal Coordination

As the 1999 decision point approached, the federal agencies recognized the need for a coordinated federal approach to this extremely important decision. Interagency coordination has been a fundamental credo of this Administration in the natural resource arena, and for good reason. The federal agencies are proud of the effort they have invested in interdepartmental coordination, and in the more unified perspectives we have brought to these complex issues. It is a hallmark of good government; it is what the public should expect of its government; and we remain committed to it.

It also requires hard work and determination to forge common perspectives and strategies among agencies with different missions, histories and cultures. Earlier this year, we agreed to form an internal working group, or caucus, to coordinate the federal agencies' efforts, ideas and analyses, and to do our homework in preparation for the 1999 decision in a collaborative interagency setting. NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the FCRPS action agencies invited other federal agencies to participate in this effort, recognizing that many federal activities affect the survival of these fish. The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Environmental Protection Agency all participated in the effort. Because of the importance of a coordinated federal approach, each of these agencies appointed a senior policy representative to the caucus.

This federal caucus serves a dual function. First, it is the coordinating body for federal participation in the Columbia Basin Forum, the regional body created by the tribes, states and federal agencies to coordinate on matters affecting the Basin. The federal agencies in the region have also charged the caucus with developing and analyzing alternatives for all activities affecting salmon in the Basin - hydropower, harvest, hatcheries and habitat. The caucus will display these comprehensive alternatives in a conceptual recovery plan, a "4-H paper" to be released for public comment in late summer or early fall of 1999.

Regional Coordination

Others in the region also recognized the importance of coordinating regional approaches to the 1999 decision. The Northwest Power Planning Council, with the participation of NMFS, launched an ambitious analytical project to create a multi-species framework to aid decision-makers. The framework has sought broad regional participation to develop a number of alternatives for future FCRPS configuration and operations. These alternatives are being analyzed by an Ecological Workgroup to provide insights into the likely biological outcomes of each alternative. A Human Effects Workgroup will provide economic impact analysis. The federal agencies are active in the framework process, participating both on the Management Committee and the Ecological Workgroup.

The Scientific and Policy Issues

I would like to preface a discussion of the scientific issues by pointing out the difficulty of the task at hand. Salmon have an unusually complex life cycle because they range thousands of miles across varied habitats and have different biological requirements in different life stages. It is difficult to analyze the many factors that affect them throughout their entire life cycle. Our task is to predict what will happen to these fish in the future under different scenarios. Predicting the future is always a tricky proposition, and it is especially difficult with animals that have as complex a life cycle as salmon. In other words, we should not expect science to provide certainty. We must manage risks in the face of uncertainty as we work to restore Columbia River salmon.

In the PATH process, NMFS and the region tackled the job of predicting the future through the accepted scientific approach of quantitative life cycle models. Simply, the models take what we know about salmon survival at various life stages and project overall survival under different scenarios. Where we do not have good information about survival in a given life stage, or how survival might be affected in the future by a particular action, we make assumptions. We also must make assumptions about the future. For example, a key assumption relates to trends in ocean and climate conditions over the next 50 years.

PATH analyzed a number of different management actions in its models, but they can be basically condensed into two alternatives - breach the four lower Snake River dams or continue to transport juvenile fish in barges. Some in the Region have seen the PATH results and have focused greatly on the conclusion that dam breaching is best for ESA-listed Snake River salmon over the long term, regardless of the assumptions. This conclusion, frankly, should not come as much of a surprise. The more finely honed policy issues may focus on: 1) Can Snake River salmon recover with the dams in place, and 2) Will Snake River salmon recover if the dams are removed?

The answer to these questions depends on what you believe about the key assumptions. There are three basic assumptions that appear to have a great effect on the projected outcomes. The first is whether fish transported in barges suffer some sort of "delayed mortality" after being released from the barges and, if so, how much delayed mortality. The delayed mortality hypothesis is that the transported fish die at a higher rate than those that are not transported as a result of being barged. If they do, then the value of barging as a recovery tool is limited, and the greater the delayed mortality, the greater the benefit of eliminating it.

The second assumption pertains to whether you believe future ocean conditions will look like they have in the past forty years, as PATH has assumed. This is a reasonable assumption but, like all predictions about the future, is uncertain. If existing ocean conditions were to continue or further degrade, the probability of recovery under any assumptions would decrease.

The final set of assumptions to focus upon in interpreting PATH results are those relating to the steep decline of Snake River spring/summer chinook in the mid-70s. Was it construction of the lower Snake River dams that caused a breakdown in stock structure, or was it the large increase in hatchery production, or widespread habitat degradation associated with agriculture, logging and human population expansions in the Pacific Northwest? Or was the breakdown in stock structure due to poor survivals in the estuary and ocean, which resulted from a shift in the ocean regime?

Let me try to summarize what the PATH results tell us. First, as I mentioned earlier, the PATH results indicate that dam breaching is the most risk-adverse alternative for Snake River salmon, regardless of what you believe about delayed transportation mortality, causes of decline, or future ocean conditions. If you believe transported fish suffer delayed mortality, then dam removal is clearly the less risky alternative, with transportation having a significantly lower probability of recovery. If you do not believe transported fish suffer delayed mortality, then dam removal offers much smaller benefits over continued transportation. If you believe poor ocean conditions will continue, then all of the PATH projections are optimistic and any of the hydropower alternatives alone will have a lower likelihood of recovering the fish than PATH projects.

It is NMFS' job to try to sort through these assumptions and present the region with a clear picture of where the uncertainties lie and what the risks are of taking, or not taking, different actions. It is also our job to indicate where and how science can reduce the uncertainties. We will begin this process later this month when we release our analysis of the biological effects of dam removal versus continued transportation. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to review the analysis at that time.

Let me emphasize again two points I made at the beginning. The PATH analysis looks in-depth at hydropower system alternatives for only one listed salmon species - Snake River spring/summer chinook. Detailed assessments for fall chinook are expected to be available this summer. There are eleven other species of salmon and steelhead in the Basin that are also at risk of extinction. Modeling and uncertainties aside, the hydropower system claims a heavy toll on most of these stocks.

The other point is that there is no silver bullet, including dam removal. We have taken significant steps to reduce the impacts on these fish from harvest, and we are working towards major reforms of the hatchery systems. We have instituted a major new strategy for managing federal lands to protect the aquatic system on those landscapes for the long-term, but much work remains to secure the productivity of the watersheds upon which the fate of these fish populations will depend. This translates directly into the importance of state and local authorities exercising their authorities to protect these habitats as well if we are to be successful. Dams are a serious source of mortalities, but so, too, is continued loss of freshwater habitat function. We need a comprehensive approach that addresses all human activities. Hence there remain vital roles for state, tribal and local authorities in the rebuilding effort, since so much of the primary responsibilities for these habitats rest with state and local authorities. These are precarious times for the fish, and they call for bold action by every level of government and the private sector. Salmon recovery is not just a federal issue, and salmon solutions do not involve simply the management of federal assets such as federal dams and federal lands. It must be more.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I look forward to answering any question you or the other Members of the Committee may have.