114 



we called for spill and flows; protective measures our tribes and 

 agencies have been seeking for over a decade. (Attachment 6 - 

 Scientific justification for spill) . 



This spring. Judge Marsh recognized that the current 

 situation cries out for a major overhaul of the Columbia's hydro 

 system to save the salmon. Using barges to protect salmon from 

 their native environment, in lieu of dam modifications to provide 

 suitable fish passage, has failed to halt the salmon's decline 

 and offers no hope for their future. Restructuring the hydro 

 system to meet the needs of salmon must be a priority for the 

 region and the nation. 



Salmon also need hatchery and production reform throughout 

 the basin that assists natural stocks rather than replaces them. 

 The Mitchell Act, though it was intended to mitigate for upriver 

 losses, actually increased fishing pressure on upriver stocks by 

 providing hatchery abundance in the lower river (Attachment 7 - 

 Mitchell Act production table) . Now mixed stock fisheries are 

 tightly constrained by the condition of upriver stocks, and the 

 Mitchell Act needs to be used in a manner that assists the weak 

 stocks whose protection now restricts our fisheries. 



Before this can happen, though, the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service, as the lead agency for the Endangered Species 

 Act, needs to recognize that its responsibility for recovery 

 means more than maintaining a few isolated and fragmented upriver 

 populations as museum pieces, the effect of the NMFS 

 interpretation of the "distinct population" provision of the ESA. 

 The Endangered Species Act seeks to rebuild listed populations in 

 the habitat and it explicity mentions "live trapping, 

 propagation, and transplantation" as some of the means necessary 

 to accomplish recovery. NMFS must heed the experience and advice 

 of the Department of Interior on this issue and follow the law 

 rather than the theoretical musings of a few of its employees. 

 (Attachment 8 - Office of the Secretary of Interior letter) . In 

 this regard, I would like to offer two documents for the record; 

 one a recent law review article written by Professor Dan Rohlf of 

 Lewis and Clark Law School , an expert on the Endangered Species 

 Act, who argues that the NMFS ESU policy violates the ESA. The 

 other article entitled, "Managing Molecules ..." contends that 

 the ESU interpretation will severely limit biological recovery of 

 listed species because it ignores fundamental salmon biology. 



The Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla and Nez Perce Tribes are 

 full parties to the federal court case of U.S. v . Oregon along 

 with the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the United 

 States of America. The Columbia River Fish Management Plan, a 

 court-ordered settlement agreement in the case, furnishes a 

 blueprint for joint recovery efforts by the parties and provides 

 a means for resolving disputes. Along with subbasin planning 

 under the authorities of the Regional Act and the rebuilding 



