X 



141 



Phillip R. Mundy, PhD Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 



1015 Sher Lane 



Lake Oswego, OR 97034-1744 



503-636-6335, Voice or facs, auto-switch 



July 7, 1995 COPY FOR ATTACHMENT TO TRANSCRIPT 



The Hon. Dirk Kempthome. Chairman 



Subcommittee on Drinking VV ater. Fisheries and Wildlife 



C ommittee on Ln\ ironment and Public Works 



L nited States Senate 



Washington, D( 20510-6175 



RK Response to \our request for comments on the role of scientific peer review in the 

 implementation of reco\ erN actions for endangered salmon 



Dear Senator Kempthome 



As chair of the oxersight hearing of Thursday. June 22nd, 1995, on the National 

 Marine Fisheries Ser\ ice policv on spills at Columbia Ri\ er hydropower dams, gas bubble 

 trauma in threatened and endangered salmon, and the scientific method used under the 

 Endangered Species Act which resulted in the spill policy, you in\ited me, as a member of 

 the scientific panel, to submit wiitten comments on how to impro\e the process of 

 applying science to recovery actions for endangered salmon Vly comments are as follows. 



The problem of getting a workable salmon reco\ei> plan in place is not one of the 

 nature and origin of scientific expertise, but of forming the appropriate institutional 

 structure As recognized by the Snake Rner Salmon Recoveiy Team, among others, 

 factionalism and controversy in the salmon recovery program are guaranteed by the wide 

 variety of federal, state, and tribal agencies now assigned to implement various pieces of 

 the salmon recovery program. Fnsunng that the salmon recovery plan is scientifically well 

 grounded means de\ eloping an institutional structure that both requires, and enables, the 

 monitoring, analysis and research to conform to relatively simple, yet clearly articulated, 

 recovery objectives. 



During my service as a scientific peer reviewer to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

 (F\ OS) Trustee ( ouncil in Anchorage (907-278-8012, Molly McCammon. Executive 

 Director), I have watched the oil spill peer rev ievv process evolve from a role of seizing 

 litigation to one of sers ing policy makers in shaping the scientific content of salmon 

 restoration activities The basic elements of both Endangered Species .Act (ESA) salmon 

 recovei> and the EVOS programs are the same; many millions of dollars are paid annually 

 to state and federal agencies for implementation of a salmon recovery program (E\ OS 

 addresses restoration of oil-injured species in addition to salmon) The two main 

 institutional advantages of EVOS over the ESA salmon recovery are that 1 ) all science 



