18 



to make sure that they could get their water when the suppHes 

 were very low. 



So I am sorry to say I don't agree with the Governor. I think that 

 we have a plan that is definitely not the status quo. We may not 

 know exactly what is going to work and what isn't and it is our 

 view that we can't wait for any better science. 



We have got to go ahead with what science we have now and de- 

 velop new science as we go along and I think in some respects 

 there is time to do that with major issues. When you plan moving 

 concrete in the river that takes time, it takes appropriations and 

 we have got time to gather better information. 



Next year may be the last year that we have large numbers of 

 wild fish going down the Columbia River for a few years to come 

 and we simply have to take advantage of next year to gather the 

 kind of information to settle some of these differences of opinion. 



Ms. FuRSE. Madam Chair, if I may. Mr. Holt, you mentioned that 

 the Bonneville Power Administration has already spent $1 billion 

 on fish and wildlife recovery. In your view, how will the tribal res- 

 toration plan differ from the Power Council and the BPA efforts? 

 How will your plan be more effective than those other plans? 



Mr. Holt. The tribal recovery plan plans on revisiting some of 

 the tributary restoration strategies that have initially been sought 

 after and in fact in 1981 the tribes proposed a tributary restoration, 

 strategy. 



At that time we were met, of course, by opposition by BPA who 

 put restrictions on our program. BPA had focused at that time 

 more in the planning and research rather than the implementation. 



BPA's focus, in fact, on planning rather than action caused the 

 region to waste valuable time as well as money and we cite now 

 today that in fact we must hurry and visit and discover and verify 

 and to qualify new science but we believe, in fact, that those strate- 

 gies, those sub-basis plannings of some 31 sub-basins in the Colum- 

 bia that are sited under the tribal restoration plan will provide for 

 a comprehensive approach. 



Plans will be aimed at implementing the rights that our treaties 

 have preserved and we feel already that much science and study 

 has already been done well beyond the means and the time that 

 we have available to us. 



Ms. FuRSE. Thank you. If I may ask Mr. Schmitten just one 

 question. Judge Marsh recently invalidated the jeopardy standards. 

 The Federal, State and tribal agencies have jointly filed a schedule 

 and process for establishing new jeopardy standards. 



Will NMFS' recovery plan reflect those new jeopardy standards 

 that results from this process? 



Mr. Schmitten. You are correct that Judge Marsh has indicated 

 the assumptions and the opinion need to be reevaluated. Included 

 in that are both the base period; the differences are distinction be- 

 tween recovery, survival, life cycle, modeling and jeopardy, all of 

 which are technical issues that we do hope to resolve with the com- 

 munity and would be a part of our recovery plan. 



Ms. FuRSE. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 



Ms. Unsoeld. The other gentlewoman from Washington is recog- 

 nized. 



