155 



regarding production, the state and federal fishery agencies have been reluctant to allow them 

 a seat at the table. Every program attempted by the tribes has been attacked with little or no 

 regard for the resource. The effect has been that although the tribes are allowed to plan for 

 production, they are not allowed to implement programs. For example, for years the Yakima 

 Nation and Nez Perce Tribe have worked within the Northwest Power Planning Council process 

 in yet unsuccessful attempts to get tribal production projects implemented. There have been 

 proposals, plans, studies, more studies and more plans; there is still no on-the-ground 

 production. By contrast, it took less than one year for the Council to put the Young's Bay 

 Project at the mouth of the Columbia River into production. The Council needs to produce real 

 fish above Bonneville Dam, as quickly and effectively as it was able to put fish into production 

 below the dams at Young's Bay. 



HABITAT - Like production the tribes have been denied a seat at the habitat table. To address 

 habitat problems, the tribes have embarked upon an ambitious program to seek protection and 

 recovery of important natural resources and habitat - to the extent our limited resources have 

 allowed. We are working with federal and state agencies, such as the Environmental Protection 

 Agency, state water quality and water resources departments and the Forest Service, in an 

 attempt to gain better protection for the salmon and the aquatic habitat they depend on. We have 

 attempted to modify adverse federal land management activities by reviewing and commenting 

 on forest plans but there have been no real positive results. Accordingly, the tribes were put 

 in the undesirable position of having to file administrative appeals of 15 Forest Plans in the 

 Columbia Basin in an effort to improve the protection of fish habitat. Unfortunately, the tribes 

 must repeatedly insist on meaningful consultation and involvement in federal agency decision- 

 making processes, even though these agencies are discussing and determining policies that affect 

 treaty rights and trust resources. The Forest Service pays lip service to treaty rights but 

 otherwise disregards them. 



HYDROPOWE R AND WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPME NT PROJECTS - Early attempts 

 by the tribes to make changes in the operations of federal water projects occurred through 

 litigation and resulted in small concessions to the needs of the fish. Recent attempts to make 

 changes have been through negotiations. The tribes have participated in the numerous fora 

 established for evaluating the impacts of Columbia River development on salmon. Endless 

 meetings are conducted where the issues arc discussed with little or no progress being made to 

 modify the operations of the projects to benefit the fish. Despite our efforts to change operations 

 so that the salmon receive equitable treatment, the salmon only get what is left over after all the 

 consumptive users of water have met their needs, and minimal, albeit hard fought concessions 

 from the power system. Because of the lack of progress, the tribes are once again looking at 

 the litigation route to trigger the change needed to not only halt the slide toward extinction, but 

 to actually restore the runs as mandated by our treaty rights. 



2. How arc the tribes coordinating restoration efforts with those of state and federal 

 agencies? Is there an overall strategy for restoration? 



There are many fora that provide for some coordination of restoration efforts among the tribes 

 and state and federal agencies. However, it is really in only one area, harvest, that true 





