Recommendation 003 Bill Bosch

Recommendation 3
Click here to download this recommendation. (29 K)	Click to comment on this recommendation.

February 10, 2000

Bill Bosch
116 N. 45^th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98908
Federal Caucus Comment Record
C/O BPA-PL
707 W. Main St., Suite 500
Spokane, WA 99201

Mark Walker
Director of Public Affairs
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. These comments are my personal comments and are being provided both to the federal government in response to the "All H" review process, and to the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) in response to the program amendment process. I am a lifelong resident of Washington state and have lived most of my years in eastern Washington (Spokane and Yakima). I hold a Master of Science degree from the University of Washington and have worked for the past 10 years on Columbia River fisheries issues. From 1996 through 1999 I served as chair of the United States versus Oregon Technical Advisory Committee, responsible for providing technical guidance to regional fishery agency managers on Columbia River fishery management issues.

After 20 years of processes, programs, measures, and many, many dollars dedicated to recovering Columbia River salmon stocks, it is obvious to all that we are not succeeding. It is time for some vastly different thinking regarding how the region approaches and implements salmon recovery. Many good ideas and suggestions have already been provided to you by the various groups of "independent" scientists. Some of these ideas were documented in Return to the River and in comments on the NPPC�s Fish and Wildlife Program.

The science is as certain as it ever will be � if we want more fish, we need to return the Columbia River ecosystem to a more normative state, a free-flowing, natural, cold water river system. To do this, it is also very clear that we need to overhaul the ways in which we humans currently use the river to further our economic interests. This does not have to mean "zeroing" anybody out or forcing anybody into bankruptcy. It simply means that we need to figure out how to transition from our current system to a system where the river is "normative" but still provides most or all of the benefits to humans that it does now. This means rethinking the way we humans do business, not continuing to research and implement ways for the fish to work around our current human practices.

With these premises in mind, I propose the following radical changes in current regional Columbia River Basin-level salmon recovery implementation principles and strategies.

Mainstem dams stay in place � for now. The region has invested a lot in the mainstem Columbia and Snake River hydropower system. The region has also received a lot in return for this investment. It took a long time to put this system into place and more thought, public discussion, and research (see next point) are needed regarding how to replace the system�s benefits: energy, irrigation, transportation, and in some cases, flood control. Too many people are still too afraid that removing the dams will end their existing lifestyle. We need to design transition plans that are ready to implement, so that when we remove a dam, existing systems are essentially "unplugged" and new systems "plugged in" with virtually no effect on current users.

However, we must all remember that nothing lasts forever. Do we really want to proceed well into the 21^st century clinging to technology that was designed in the 1920s and 1930s? As the dams become obsolete, especially on the tributaries, we should remove them and restore a more natural ecosystem, as is planned for the Condit Dam on the White Salmon River. Removing smaller dams will give us some experience as to the "do�s and don�ts" of dam removal. We will learn what to watch out for and how best to implement dam removal. It will also give us time to develop transition plans for larger dams. This effort to transition to a life beyond the dams should be seen as a 20 to 50 year effort.

Redirect the fisheries research engine. A huge research industry was created as a result of the salmon crisis. Although a lot of attention is paid to any conflicting results offered by the scientists, we can�t ignore the fact that most, if not all, of the science points to one main answer: If we want more fish, we need to let the river be more of a river, not a system of reservoirs. We don�t need more research directed at refining sources of fish-related mortality and determining how to alter the fishes� natural behavior to better accommodate our human needs. The majority of this research (people and dollars) should be redirected to tell us humans how to get what we need from a river that is allowed to be a river. How do we replace the clean energy, irrigation water, and transportation benefits supplied by the hydropower system? Is it possible that a concerted research effort could result in revolutions in solar chip technology over the next 20 years that match or exceed the computer chip technology revolution of the past 20 years? What about research directed toward radically improving our agricultural water needs?
Redirect federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) process efforts. As far as I am concerned, the ESA has done its job in the Columbia River Basin � it has sounded the loud and clear alarm that the health of the entire ecosystem is in jeopardy and it is time to act. Everybody has heard the alarm and most people are ready and willing to act (and in many cases are already acting). It is time for the federal government to back off into a monitoring, advisory, and funding role and let the people of the region proceed with implementing the necessary changes. The process part of the ESA has proven, at least with respect to Columbia River salmon, that it does more harm than good. It has: produced forests of paperwork and not one fish, exacerbated the climate change problem as hundreds of people from all over the region gather weekly at meetings to review the latest process paperwork, and furthered the "us versus them" mentality in the region which is preventing any movement toward a constructive recovery plan. The region would be much better served if the resources currently devoted to the ESA process effort were redirected towards the necessary research I describe in point 2 above.

One farmer was quoted at a recent (federal comment) meeting as having said, "I know I need to stop using pollutants on my farm. I need you people to tell me how to do that." In other words, the federal government needs to stop telling people what to do, and start telling them how to make the necessary changes in their practices to protect fish and fish habitat. We also need to provide the resources necessary for implementation of these changes.

Utilize hatcheries as short- to mid-term fishery mitigation and gene banking tools. Given that the strategies outlined above are necessarily long-term in nature, it is important that we maintain our existing demographic and genetic fishery resources. The region should accept that, although the best "wild genes" may exist only in truly wild fish, "wild genes" and "wild know-how" can and do still exist in hatchery fish. Let�s maintain our existing hatchery programs and maybe even create some new ones. Salmon are known for their ability to move and colonize new or restored habitat. When we get a "normative" river system restored many years down the road, we can begin to dismantle the hatchery system and let the fish re-colonize the restored natural system on their own over time. In the meantime, the region can still have fisheries, and where certain stocks are deemed not likely to survive the transition period to a "normative" river, the genetic characteristics represented by these stocks can best be preserved in a hatchery environment.

This type of approach to hatcheries would allow the region to redirect the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on PIT tags, coded-wire tags, blank wire tags, spaghetti tags, radio tags, eye tags, adipose-fin clips, ventral fin clips, anal fin clips, etc., and all of the associated research dependent on these tags and marks, toward the research described above that will give us long-term solutions, not tell us how to "band-aid" more symptoms. I believe that if we implement the above strategies, in conjunction with continuing efforts to implement EDT-directed (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) habitat fixes and to limit harvest to sustainable levels, we will finally begin the long road to recovery. To continue down the road of the past 20 years, with any changes that pose any "risk" whatsoever to the region�s economy rejected out-of-hand, is a certain way to waste more money in vain. We must all recognize that all change involves risk and that change is an unalterable fact. As FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". We need leadership that harnesses the deep well of human creative energy and talent in this region and challenges us all to embrace the transition from an economy dependent on an abused and declining river system, to an economy that works in harmony with a natural river system. We can have healthy fish runs, a healthy river system, and a healthy economy. But the only way to get there is to accept that deep changes in our existing practices are necessary and then accept the risk involved in making these changes.