quale, technically defensible justification for any additional flow requests from the 

 Snake and Columbia River systems. We believe that if NMFS cannot provide this 

 justification, then requests for additional flows should not be made. I am submitting 

 this letter to secretary Brown for the hearing record. 



Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to express my strong concerns with the 

 NMFS salmon recovery efforts and their impact upon my state. 



Joint Letter From Senator Burns, Senator Craig, Senator Gorton, Senator 



Packwood, and Senator Kempthorne 



July 21, 1994. 



The Honorable Ron Brown, 

 Department of Commerce, 

 Washington, DC 20230 



Dear Secretary Brown: As you know, the Pacific Northwest states have been 

 grappling with the difTicult issue of Snake River salmon protection and recovery 

 unaer the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This issue is made 

 all the more difficult because the region is experiencing one of the lowest water run- 

 offyears on record within the Snake-Columbia River Basin. 



Throughout the state and federal ESA consultations for salmon management our 

 states have taken the position of compromise and support for several recovery meas- 

 ures, even though these measures require economic costs from citizens and ofTer lit- 

 tle direct benefit. State representatives also have supported some fiow-related ac- 

 tions, such as the measures identified by representatives of the Northwest Power 

 Planning Council within the "Strategy for Salmon" plan developed in 1992. Each 

 state has worked with the other Northwest states and key federal agencies as both 

 a "good neighbor" and a concerned steward of the region's salmon resources. 



More recently, the National Marine F'isheries Service (NMFS) has requested addi- 

 tional flow regimes for the spring and summer season salmon migration as part of 

 the ESA Sec. 7. consultation process. These spills, combined with How requests have 

 called upon the states of Idaho, Montana and Washington to draft each state's prin- 

 ciple recreation reservoirs to levels that affect the scenic, recreational, agricultural 

 and hydroelectric value of these reservoirs. In addition, negative impacts on resident 

 fish and wildlife populations have been documented. 



The costs for tnese additional spills are no longer borne only by Northwest rate- 

 payers and water users because the Administration has recently agreed to offset the 

 costs of measures "beyond" the current biological opinion. Since direct costs to the 

 U.S. Treasury may be in the range of $30 million, American taxpayers also have 

 every right for adeqruate technical justification for the spills. 



Your claim that tne spills would result in a 5 percent Improvement in salmon sur- 

 vival is very much in dispute. Given the high incidence of gas bubble disease result- 

 ing from the spill, we beheve that it is very unlikely that that these hoped-for gains 

 will be achieved. 



Mr. Secretary, NMFS has done a poor job of offering technically defensible jus- 

 tification for the spill requests. This inability or reluctance to provide meaningful 

 justification for maior changes in reservoir and river operations must cease. If 

 NMFS cannot proviae meaningful justification for its river operations requests, then 

 it should not make such requests. NMFS must act in an accountable manner. We 

 request that NMFS provide adequate justification for the spill decisions before addi- 

 tional spills are ordered. 

 Sincerely, 



Conrad Burns, 

 U.S. Senator. 

 Larry E. Craig, 



U.S. Senator. 

 Slade Gorton, 

 U.S. Senator. 

 Dirk Kempthorne, 



U.S. Senator. 

 Bob Packwood, 

 U.S. Senator. 



Senator Burns. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for gathering 

 the information on this. Because what we do in marine fisheries 

 does have an effect on upstream and the contributing rivers to 

 some of the problems that you are experiencing. So, this goes much 



