14 



users of the river to assure recovery of salmon stocks but as earlier 

 indicated, no single water user should carry the burden of recovery. 



Consider the following; this is the seventh consecutive drought 

 year in the Snake River Basin and runoffs are expected to be less 

 than 50 percent of normal. There is little likelihood this year of 

 meeting the summer flows established in a Biological Opinion. 



Coast-wide, the 1994 harvest of chinook salmon is 84 percent 

 below 1982. The Snake River spring and summer chinook run re- 

 turn in 1994 may be the lowest ever. Runs which averaged 20,000 

 fish from 1986 to 1990 are predicted to come back at 1,900 fish. 



Also consider the fact that all chinook arriving at the Snake 

 River will be down around 200 fish, the level that led to listing this 

 stock. These factors and others resulted in the closure of all ocean 

 fishing off the State of Washington and most of Oregon, something 

 that I thought in my 17 years as a fisheries manager I would never 

 see. 



In addition, both Oregon and Washington are proposing to elimi- 

 nate nearly all commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River. 

 Third, I am convinced that the Team's recommendation plus other 

 information will provide us the basis for developing a plan that will 

 lead to the recovery of these listed species. 



The procedure that we will follow is, before issuing a final plan, 

 publishing for public comment a proposed Agency plan including an , 

 analysis, a side-by-side comparison, of what the Agency rec- 

 ommendations are compared to the recommended Team rec- 

 ommendations. 



We agree with the Team's conclusion that a myriad of different 

 factors affect the survival of salmon and that no single solution will 

 lead to recovery. We also agree that the recovery plan must be 

 flexible. It must allow for modifications based on new scientific evi- 

 dence. 



Further, we believe that addressing any single factor in isolation 

 likely will not lead to recovery. We agree with the Team that 

 science, I repeat science, must be the predominant consideration in 

 recovery planning decisions. 



However, the importance placed on developing new information 

 does not diminish the need for making timely decisions. Using the 

 best available information is mandated by the Endangered Species 

 Act. In the face of scientific uncertainty, and considering the pre- 

 carious status of many of the salmon stocks that I have just out- 

 lined, recovery measures accompanied by careful monitoring and 

 evaluation should be implemented without delay and modified as 

 new information indicates appropriate. 



The National Marine Fisheries Service has adopted recovery plan 

 guidelines that provide a framework for developing recovery plans 

 for species under the ESA. The recovery plans will be based upon 

 the biological requirements of the species necessary for timely re- 

 covery. 



Let me also indicate that in those plans we must by law identify 

 the cost of the measures to all affected parties, develop a schedule 

 for implementation of each measure and identify the parties re- 

 sponsible for implementing them. These are elements that were not 

 requested of the Team in their recovery plan and we are currently 



