271 



Ub-ZH-yl Uy:r(AM HUM GOVERNORS OFFICE FU3 



House Merchant Marin© & Fisheriee CommltteG 

 JunB27, 1994 

 Pago 2 



collectively, in achieving recovery. We all anticipate that recovery of these 

 salmon populations will be dltflculf and expensive. For a proposed recovery plan 

 to be accepted and supported, it must be based on a clear, sound and convincing 

 analysis that incorporates all significant life cycle factors and assesses the likely 

 contribution of each to meeting a rebuilding schedule. 



Second, I am deeply concerned that the Team's recommendations identify 

 virtually no specific actions, other than the unproven strategy of massive barging, 

 to be tal^en in the near term to avoid loss of these critically depressed salmon 

 populations. The sudden drop in numbers of returning spring ohinool< salmon this 

 year emphasizes the point that we have not been granted a grace period in which 

 to conduct additional studies and evaluations before taking decisive action. The 

 National Marine Fisheries Service cannot assemble a proposed recovery plan 

 witiiuut addressing our most urgent order of business • actions needed over the 

 next four to five years to be sure we have a base from which to work toward long 

 term recovery. 



Third, I must reiterate the deep concerns I expressed in comments on the draft 

 the Team circulated earlier this year, particularly regarding its extensive reliance 

 on transportation of juvenile fish by barge and truck as the primary solution to the 

 substantial mortality caused by hydroeleotrio dams. A recent review by a laanel of 

 .scientific experts assembled by the National Marine Fisheries Sen/Ice and the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was pointedly dubious that continued very heavy 

 reliance on transportation could reverse the present decline of Snake River 

 salmon. 



The Team appears to disregard the level of risk to the salmon imposed by 

 single-minded reliance on this controversial approach to dealing with dam 

 mortality. The absence of such a risk analysis of the transportation strategy is 

 another example of the lack of a structured analytical approach to frame the 

 Tflam'R rscommendations Further, the Team'? reliance on transportation causes 

 it to defer improvements to in-river migration conditions pending additional time 

 consuming studies. Certainly we need improved data, but just as certainly 

 improvements in survival conditions for river-migrating juveniles cannot wait for 

 absolute knowledge. 



Many Individual elements of the Teams recommendations merit praise. The 

 discussion and development of proposed recovery goals and delisting criteria 

 appears soundly based and carefully considered. Tne review of measures to 

 protect and restore spawning and rearing habitat puts an appropriate emphasis 

 on protection and restoration of habitat. The Team has dearly taken an 

 ecosystem management view in identifying the need to address a brnad range of 

 watershed activities and rnanacjement practices, and deserves credit for these 

 steps. 



Finally, I wish to raise a process issue that has tremendous implications for our 

 ultimate success In eaimon recovery. Initial Indications from the National Marine 



