35 



We also have the experience of the Columbia Gorge preservation, 

 which was a Federal regional mandate in which we worked out a 

 process of making decisions. 



Are we talking about a king decisionmaker or are we talking 

 about a clarified process, maybe in the EIS, on how the plan is de- 

 veloped? 



I would like your thoughts on that. 



Mr. Turner. I take it that those questions are directed at the re- 

 covery of Columbia River, Snake River fish? 



Ms. Cantwell. Yes. 



Mr. Turner. I think if you asked a group of people representing 

 a broad range of interests in the Columbia whether there is consen- 

 sus on data sufficient to move forward on a recovery plan, you 

 would get a wide variety of answers, all dependent on whether they 

 believe they are going to be adversely affected by the recovery plan 

 or not. 



Ms. Cantwell. So does that mean you think we need to have a 

 scientific body to make that decision? 



Mr. Turner. No, I believe that there are overwhelming amounts 

 of data to indicate what kinds of actions should be taken now to 

 move forward. As Mr. Hallock pointed out, as one of the things 

 that needs to move forward is monitoring evaluation of the things 

 that work so that we can evaluate and gain the data that provides 

 us the confidence to add to those measures and move forward and 

 move away from the ones that do not move forward. We cannot not 

 do something for the lack of data that convinces everyone that it is 

 a great idea. 



Ms. Cantwell. Well, then whose data do we use? 



Mr. Turner. We use the data that is available and we use all of 

 it that we have our hands on right now, all of which is, in my 

 mind, and I will defer to Rollie, sufficient to point us in a direction 

 that we should pursue and monitor and evaluate those actions. 



Ms. Cantwell. Mr. Schmitten. 



Mr. Schmitten. I will add to that. Science certainly is important. 

 It is a foundation which we make our decisions by. It reflects the 

 makeup of the recovery team, which is prominently made up of 

 key scientists. 



There are over 200 years of experience in the team, but simply 

 stated the fish can't always wait for science. You can go so far and 

 you must use best judgment; you use available science and make 

 decisions. If you find down the course of time that they need to be 

 modified, you make the changes, but we have to take action. We 

 have to put the recovery plan in place, and get it operable as soon 

 as possible. 



Ms. Cantwell. So whose scientific data do we use? All that there 

 is consensus on, or yours, or Mr. Turner's, or the Northwest Power 

 Planning Council? 



Mr. Schmitten. I would use it all, and I would find the guiding 

 lights through all of it. Where there is uncertainty I would err on 

 the side of fish. I think that is my responsibility to you as a fisher- 

 ies manager. Most of the key issues we know, and we have at least 

 a majority opinion on. The only unknown currently is drawdowns. 

 We need additional testing on fish travel time. Those tests are 



