INVITED TESTIMONY TO THE 


UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE


ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES


ON 1996 AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHWEST POWER 


PLANNING ACT ON SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF 


THE COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROGRAM





By Bill M. Bakke, Director


Native Fish Society





February 17, 1998


______________________________________________________________________________





	My name is Bill M. Bakke, Director of the Native Fish Society, a regional


conservation organization.  The mission of the Native Fish Society is to


protect and rebuild native, wild fish populations in the Northwest and their


habitats.





	I have been invited to share my views on the 1996 amendment to the N.W.


Power Planning Act requiring scientific accountability and peer review of


projects funded by the Bonneville Power Administration's annual fish and


wildlife budget.


	I have been involved in the development of the Columbia River fish and


wildlife program (FWP) since the passage of the Power Planning Act in 1980.  


	In this testimony I provide the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural


Resources with my assessment of the FWP, the 1996 amendment implementation,


and make recommendations for Congressional changes to provide additional


needed oversight of Columbia River salmonid recovery efforts.  





Introduction:





	The fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have a conflict of interest in


the development, prioritization and approval of projects to be funded by the


BPA.  As long as these agencies continue to control what projects get


funded, the decline and extinction of native salmon and steelhead runs will


continue.  The track record of these agencies is a matter of record, and


billions of dollars in public funding has failed to reverse the decline and


extinction of these fish.  The failure has been due to these agencies being


unable to agree among themselves about how to restore the salmon at the


subbasin level, the emphasis on hatchery replacement of wild salmonids in


the basin, and the lack of a unified goal among the agencies to develop the


necessary recovery actions to maintain the biological diversity and fitness


of the basin's salmonids. The only remedy is for Congress to remove language


in the Power Act that requires  fish measures to be consistent with 


the programs of the fish agencies and replace that language with a


requirement that fish and wildlife measures must be consistent with


independent scientific review and sound scientific principles of


conservation biology.





The 1996 Amendment, An Unqualified Success:





	The 1996 Amendment to the N.W. Power Planning Act is a breath of fresh 


air.


It is the basis for making funding commitments consistent with science. The


1996 Amendment put into place an independent scientific review of fish


agency projects and this is the only way that the fish and wildlife program


could be turned around from a politically driven to a science driven project


approval process that decides how the money is distributed by the fish


agencies and tribes.


	The peer review of projects called for in the amendment was not


successfully completed in 1997 and 1998 due to the large number of projects


and the compressed timeframe for review. More importantly, projects did not


lend themselves to scientific review.  The new project applications for 1999


have been designed to promote scientific review.


	The 1998 watershed and hatchery projects are being reviewed by the


Independent Scientific Review Panel.  The watershed projects advanced by the


fish agencies and tribes needed clear criteria before they could be funded.  


	The hatchery projects, including new hatchery development, hatchery


supplementation, and captive brood projects were the subject of a


comprehensive review conducted by the fish agencies and tribes through the


Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.  This review took five years and


cost nearly $2 million, but was rejected by extensive scientific and public


review at the draft stage.  Because this hatchery review by the fish


agencies failed, a comprehensive review is needed to justify continued


funding of the proposed hatchery program. 


	The hatchery program has consumed 40-43 % of the fish and wildlife program


budget, and is the single largest funding category in the entire program,


but the effect of hatcheries upon the natural ecosystem has not been


evaluated in over 120 years of operation.  Yet the fish agencies and tribes


continue to advance the hatchery solution to declining salmon runs. The


recommendation, therefore, by the Independent Scientific Review Panel to


conduct a comprehensive review of hatcheries and the Power Planning


Council's temporary suspension of funding for hatcheries until the review is


completed is justified.


	The peer review process is working well, and it is clear that without the


1996 amendment, improvements in science and evaluation of the Fish and


Wildlife Program would not be taking place.  The proof will be in what


ultimately gets funded.  Given the resistance to scientific peer review by


the fish agencies and tribes, and legal action against the N.W. Power


Planning Council by the tribes over project funding, the Council will need


the full support of Congress to actually improve the future outcome of the


Fish and Wildlife Program. 





Recommendations for Change:





1.	Remove the consistency language in the N.W. Power Planning Act where


projects have to be consistent with fish agency programs and replace it with


language that requires projects to be consistent with scientific principles


and approved by independent scientific evaluation.





2.	Change the N.W. Power Planning Act to include representation by the


tribes and the federal government and expand the mandate of the Power


Planning Council to deal with planning recovery measures for salmonids


beyond the impact of the federal power system.  This would allow the


existing institutional structure to continue solving salmon problems rather


than reinventing this process through the Three Sovereigns Process.  The


Three Sovereigns Process is duplicative and will result in unnecessary delay


with more money being spent on expensive non-solutions.





3.	Congress has called for a independent scientific review of the salmon


hatchery program. This review must be completed. This should include all


hatcheries and it should involve a thorough economic evaluation.  The


economic evaluation should focus on the cost per hatchery adult salmonid


produced compared to the benefit to the fisherman.  Also, the hatchery


program should be evaluated for its ability to produce a product that is


competitive in the world market where the price for salmon is controlled by


international salmon farming. 





4.	Congress should provide independent scientific review of the Columbia


River Fish Management Plan, a court ordered plan to provide a fair and


equitable sharing of fish harvests and to rebuild the runs.  This plan went


into effect in 1987  and has failed to lay the groundwork needed to rebuild


the runs, even though the harvest allocation questions were resolved.  This


process has been captured by the fish agencies and tribes and is subject to


the same failures as the Fish and Wildlife Program if it remains under full


control by the fish agencies and tribes.  At this time the Columbia River


Fish Management Plan and the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program are in


conflict because the fish agencies and tribes cannot agree on a salmon


rebuilding strategy.





5.	Open the Fish and Wildlife Program to ideas and talent outside the fish


agencies and tribes to help solve problems of salmon recovery. Allow


outsiders to propose projects that are judged on their merits through


independent scientific evaluation rather than by the self-serving and


politically charged selection process used by the fish agencies and tribes.





6.	Congress should make all federal hatcheries comply with the National


Environmental Policy Act.  At this time federal hatcheries are categorically


excluded under NEPA.  Federal hatcheries should be subject to a permit


process that provides for periodic public and scientific review of each


hatchery program, so that the federal hatchery program is consistent with


new scientific information and are in fact serving the public's interest in


salmon conservation.





7.	Congress should use the hatchery permit system to justify the annual


funding of federal supported hatchery programs rather than rely upon the


annual lobby from the fish agencies and tribes as justification for funding.


Since federal hatchery funding constitutes a major source of funding for


fish agencies and tribes, they have a strong financial interest in annual


hatchery funding.  





8.	Congress should amend the N.W. Power Planning Act to create Salmon


Conservation Zones based on independent scientific evaluation.  This


amendment would require the Power Planning Council and the Bonneville Power


Administration to identify and fund a systemwide conservation strategy for


salmon based on a description of salmonid biological diversity.  This


strategy would be used to develop a cooperative management plan among the


states, tribes and federal agencies that would (1) describe the salmonid


biological diversity in each subbasin, (2) set subbasin production goals by


subbasin that harvest management and hatchery operations must be consistent


with, (3) establish spawner abundance objectives by subbasin, (4) define and


resolve factors limiting production by subbasin to achieve production goals,


(5) combine subbasins into a network of  Salmon Conservation Zones based on


biological diversity, and (6) link these Salmon Conservation Zones into a


basin-wide salmon management and recovery program.  This would target


funding so that there is an effective response to problems that under the


current program cannot be achieved due to numerous institutional and funding


barriers.