50 



He had a full record before him. He had affidavits. He also per- 

 sonally questioned the parties' technical experts on this issue. He 

 felt particularly strongly, I believe, that the specific recommenda- 

 tions that had been made by scientists from the State agencies and 

 the tribes were not carefully considered, were not seriously consid- 

 ered. 



In fact, if you read the Biological Opinion it says, well, we got 

 the agencies and tribes detailed fishery plan and we didn't have 

 time to consider it. Though it was a 4-year Biological Opinion or 

 five-year Biological Opinion, there was no process to even consider 

 what the agencies and tribes had presented for subsequent years, 

 assuming that those couldn't be incorporated into 1994 decision- 

 making. 



So I think that the guide that Judge Marsh saw was the Detailed 

 Fisheries Operation Plan presented by the agencies and the tribes, 

 which called for fiow augmentation, spills, a movement away from 

 barging toward in-river migration and a schedule for moving ahead 

 with investigation of reservoir drawdown rapidly, as opposed to 

 over a period of a decade or more. 



Ms. FURSE. A question I would like to ask Mr. Wright. In your 

 testimony you state, "There are only two legitimate recovery plans 

 on the table." What in your mind constitutes a legitimate plan? Do 

 you mean legitimate in law or legitimate in science and are you 

 prepared to consider the upcoming tribal recovery plan as legiti- 

 mate? 



Mr. Wright. The term I used and it may have been an unfortu- 

 nate term, was simply to imply that the Northwest Planning Coun- 

 cil's strategy for salmon basically emanates from the Regional 

 Power Act and the recovery plan emanates from the Endangered 

 Species Act, both of which have legitimacy in their nature to try 

 to develop a salmon recovery. 



I was unaware of the tribal plan and I would not be so foolish 

 as to challenge the tribes' sovereign responsibilities under their 

 treaties so I would of course call out a legitimate plan. 



I would add I would hope the tribe would make every effort to 

 incorporate as we are trying to incorporate the Bevan Recovery 

 Plan and the Council strategy for salmon. 



I would hope the tribes would make every effort to incorporate 

 their plan so we don't have the warring plan problem. 



Ms. FuRSE. Thank you. If I may, Madam Chair, Ms. Hamilton, 

 you spoke of a $3 billion income. Now I assume that you are saying 

 it is $3 billion now under this diminished resource. 



Ms. Hamilton. Those figures are from 1991 and they were pro- 

 vided by the Sport Fishing Institute. 



Ms. FuRSE. Can you just make a guess at what you think the in- 

 come from the sports fishery would be under a recovered resource? 



Ms. Hamilton. Well, we can look at some of the studies that are 

 done per fish chasing salmon recreationally and one of the points 

 I didn't get to make orally, it is in my written testimony, is that 

 people who fish for salmon are addicts and they are not going to 

 go bowling instead. 



This is lost revenue to our States and there is also some docu- 

 mentation in my testimony done by Bill Clark of the Northwest 



