48 



to participate. Frankly. I will just say candidly we have too much 

 at stake as people representing Northwest interests and the North- 

 west economy to sit on the sidelines and not participate in this 

 process so I think the direction right now ought to be to let us 

 move to a regional open process. 



I am not suggesting a salmon summit but I am suggesting dialog 

 that frankly doesn't play games and use the courts and political is- 

 sues and so forth to exclude parties because I believe if we repeat 

 that, if we continue with that kind of mode, we will repeat the spill 

 issue and that mistake over and over again, as Al is suggesting, 

 into the summer and into the fall and I think that is a big mistake 

 for the region. 



Ms. H.\MlLTON'. I would like to address two points I think that 

 are tied together with that question you asked and there is so 

 much said today about scientific uncertainty and disagreement 

 among scientists and all this. 



But there is a very impressive document that has been put to- 

 gether by four States, the tribal commission and the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service and it is called the Detailed Fishery Operating 

 Plan. 



In addition to reading the impressive document, I think the prin- 

 cipal of those five entities, including four tribes, agreeing to sit 

 down with their science and produce the document is a good start- 

 ing point and the reason that these issues are in court is the exclu- 

 sion of that science. 



I am not suggesting I know how to go about formatting such a 

 policy group for implementation and as Thane said earlier NMFS 

 would have to be a part of that process also, but there is a large 

 group of scientists representing fish interests in this region who 

 could sit down and agree on science and produce a document. 



Ms. BoDl. The figure of Bonneville spending $350 million on fish 

 programs has been used repeatedly. I just can't let it go by without 

 a short response at least. 



I do agree with the idea that Bonneville Power Administration 

 is unilaterally deciding in many cases how to spend its money on 

 its fish program, and is not necessarily following even the blue- 

 prints set by the Power Council. So I think there is an important 

 debate here on the priorities for the money that Bonneville is 

 spending out of pocket on fish and wildlife, which amounts to be- 

 tween $80 and $90 million per year, not $350 million. 



I think that is an important debate because there is, for example, 

 as Congressman DeFazio has pointed out in his recent report, a 

 fairly large Bonneville fish and wildlife staff, 77 people according 

 to the DeFazio report. 



And there is great potential, I think, to look at where the money 

 is going and how it is being spent and prioritize those $80 to $90 

 million of expenditures. 



But the vast majority of the money, the so-called money, that is 

 bandied about as a Bonneville expenditure is foregone power reve- 

 nues. It is important to know that those are very broad estimates. 

 The assumptions for those foregone power revenues have not been 

 critiqued in any kind of open way. 



It tends to confuse, as Congressman DeFazio points out in his re- 

 port also, the cost of a drought with the cost of salmon recovery, 



