21 



up and down of expenditures whenever we have a bad water year, 

 hke the type of thing that has happened this year. 



You asked us to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of 

 the Council's plan. It's strengths are pretty clear: One, it is a com- 

 prehensive plan; and second, it is an excellent representation of the 

 collective interests of the four Northwest States. I think that is of 

 tremendous value. 



I would say its weaknesses are that we need stronger monitoring 

 and evaluation, and we need more specific performance standards 

 as part of the plan and as part of Bonneville's activities in imple- 

 menting the plan, so we can get more of a focus on resxilts. We 

 need to move away fi*om money being the measure of effectiveness 

 to biologic results being the measure of effectiveness of how suc- 

 cessfiil our fisheries programs are. 



We have a number of challenges ahead, some of which the task 

 force, and you, Mr. Chairman, have already identified in your open- 

 ing remarks, but I would lay them out as these: 



First, we need clear biological goals and implementation prior- 

 ities and we need to be able to measure the results. 



Second, we need to have a greater emphasis on monitoring and 

 evaluation, and when something is proven not to work, we get rid 

 of that and try something that does, rather than just continuing 

 fimding ad infinitum. 



Third, we need to be able to reconcile the mandates of the Coiui- 

 cil's "Recovery Plan" with the Endangered Species Act process. We 

 are struggling to do that right now. We, being the four federal 

 agencies that are principally involved with the recovery process 

 and the Council. There are some forums to do that, and they need 

 to be better coordinated. 



Fourth, we desperately need good flow survival data. That is one 

 of the key aspects of analysis that has yet to be done. It is now fi- 

 nally under wayo After 10 years of trying, we finally have some of 

 that started, but it is going to take at least one breed cycle before 

 we will get reliable data. 



Fifth, we need to find a better way to balance the conflicting in- 

 terests that we have. The Council's plan, with its emphasis on dou- 

 bling overall nin size; the recovery plan that the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service is developing which will focus on specific endan- 

 gered salmon stocks; the multiple uses of the river itself, be they 

 irrigation, recreation, power, navigation, or fisheries recovery. We 

 still have not mastered that very well and that is a large part of 

 our problem. And lastly, the increasingly developing conflicting 

 ESA mandates — ^resident fish versus anadromous fish versus po- 

 tentially some forms of wildlife are requiring us, on one hand, to 

 provide flows and at the same time keep the reservoir high. We 

 have a case in point, probably with the white sturgeon, that pre- 

 sents us with some of those very challenges. 



Finally, we need to focus on some of the harvest alternatives and 

 particularly renegotiation of the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Trea- 

 ty so that we m^e sure that the gains we get by in-river flows or 

 other measures are not lost to the offshore fishery. 



I would conclude, Mr. Chairman, by making three points: We are 

 spending, as I said, $300 million a year, that is 12 percent of our 

 budget, and we face I think some real limitations financially on 



