27 



particularly with private lands, to tell the owners that they can no 

 longer use their property in the way they have been or have in- 

 tended to in the future, that we will have to provide compensation 

 for that curtailment of use? 



Mr. Turner. My brief answer is no, but in my opinion, in recov- 

 ering these salmon stocks, we are not necessarily, in reference to 

 your first question, looking for culprits. 



What I think the State of Washington is looking for are the 

 kinds of incentives that are going to make landowners, whether 

 they be Federal, State or private, and we have substantial State 

 forest land holdings in Washington, have incentives to manage 

 those lands in a way that is consistent with the restoration of habi- 

 tat and the protection of habitat. Those kinds of incentives should 

 not require the kinds of compensation that is suggested by your 

 second question, in my opinion. 



Mr. Plenert. I think when you look at the entire system, you 

 know, if you look at restoration in itself, I think you have to look 

 at the area in a joint venture, in a cooperative basis and put to- 

 gether kind of an umbrella plan that addresses restoration across 

 all three States and then step it down by State, by providence and 

 drainage, and then try to form partnership and give incentives and 

 work toward incentives toward restoring streams and restoring 

 rivers and the landscapes and that sort of thing and do it on a joint 

 venture partnership, challenge grant basis. 



It is not the cost of the Federal Government entirely or State 

 government. I think we all need to invest in this and there is a lot 

 of private corporations and a lot of folks that would step forward 

 and match Federal dollars or State dollars in this effort. So I think 

 it is a broad approach that we are looking at. 



Mr. Manton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 



Chairman Studds. In the risk of breaching seniority here, I am 

 going to turn to our host, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. 

 Furse. 



Ms. Furse. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the same ques- 

 tion to Mr. Turner, to Mr. Hallock, and to Mr. Strong. I would like 

 to ask you, in your opinions, how would you change the current re- 

 sponse of the Federal Government to salmon recovery. Given that I 

 only have five minutes, I am going to ask you three if you could 

 respond to that question. 



Mr. Turner. Well, I think there are probably a variety of ways. I 

 can think of two. 



One of them we have already alluded to, which is to provide 

 some mechanism to facilitate and coordinate Federal actions 

 toward consistent policies and priorities, so we have somebody we 

 can call on who will answer the phone and give us a response. 



Secondly, I know this committee has concerns about the Pacific 

 Salmon Commission and the way it operates. I am one of the three 

 voting members of the Pacific Salmon Commission. 



I can tell you that among the commissioners and the commission 

 as a whole there is a lot of frustration about the lack of a forcing 

 mechanism by which a decision must be made by some time. We 

 require consensus to move forward. 



I was commenting to Congresswoman Unsoeld earlier, I don't 

 mind the consensus so much as the lack of a wall that we are going 



