604 



Legislatively creating a new entity or designating an existing agency with 

 authority to mandate salmon recovery actions: 



Response : 



The multiple organizations that are currently charged with the mandate have the capability to 

 achieve the needed recovery. Every federal agency is charged under the ESA to conserve the 

 species in peril. The amazing fact is the vast number of federal agencies that have on their 

 staffs, fisheries and wildlife biologists. The different agencies all seem to have different 

 directives, and thus the biologists argue "company" positions, often times with insufficient ethics 

 to do what's best for the resource. Perhaps an entity like the proposed National Biological 

 Survey, that would put the natural resource protectors all under one roof would help prevent the 

 "scientific" discrepancies from blocking meaningful recovery actions. 



The two major "drivers" for salmon protection in the Pacific Northwest are the US v Oregon 

 Columbia River Fish Management Plan and the Power Act's Fish and Wildlife Program. A 

 solution to the failures of these forums is to provide detailed habitat (including the hydrosystem) 

 protection under the US v Oregon plan, which currently is being held hostage by the major 

 sources of salmon mortality - the hydrosystem. The other action, that if taken in concert with 

 the teeth that the US v Oregon forum needs, is to delegate the NPPC to have the fishery 

 managers determine the action plans necessary to carry out the Program, with BPA funding. 



Thus a legislative mandate to involve the fishery managers (agencies and tribes) as the planners 

 and implementors of the Fish and Wildlife Program is a major step towards the solution. 

 Another major step would be to have the operating agencies manage their operations in 

 compliance with the needs of the fish and wildlife resources. 



Question 6 : Have BPA and other federal entities met federal treaty and trust responsibilities 

 to the Indian tribes in managing the resources of the Columbia River? What, if 

 any, additional steps should be taken to improve federal relations with the tribes? 



Response : 



Federal entities have not met their trust responsibility to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and we 

 question whether they are even aware of the responsibility. This is not just true of the Operating 

 Agencies (BPA, BR, and Corps), but also with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

 Management and their oversight of mining, logging, and grazing management. This is also true 

 with the fish and wildlife resource managers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

 Marine Fisheries Service) as witnessed by the salmon production inequities of the Mitchell Act. 

 The vast majority of the salmon production from hatcheries has occurred below Bonneville Dam 

 in the Lower Columbia River. This negatively affects the recovery of the Salmon in the 

 headwaters of the Salmon River in at least two major ways. The harvest rates that the lower 

 Columbia River production supports impacts the less numerous Salmon River stocks that are 



Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Testimony Page 10 



BPA Task Force Hearings 



