Views Differ On Salmon Recovery Proposal There Was Agreement That The Draft Plan Is Flawed
Sammy Steelhead stole the show.
An environmentalist in a fish costume was first to testify at a Thursday hearing on the federal government’s plan to save endangered Snake River salmon.
Even though the rainbow stripe up his back added humor to the serious tone of the evening, the fish was like the other speakers in the passion he expressed.
“I was designed to flow with the river,” he said, raising his silver fins. “I was not meant to survive in someone’s bathtub.”
By “bathtub” he meant barge, as in those used to transport many salmon and steelhead around federal hydropower dams. Environmentalists consider that a failed experiment, and want the National Marine Fisheries Service to stop it. They want reservoirs dropped and water sent over spillways to help flush young fish to the ocean.
The recovery plan calls for immediate spilling of water, and potentially big reservoir drawdowns. But those methods are expensive and unproven, some speakers said.
The plan is a draft document, expected to be made final by early 1996. While it calls for changes in hatcheries, harvest and spawning habitat, its biggest and most expensive changes would be in the operation of federal hydropower dams.
“This represents the most expensive recovery plan in the 22-year history of the Endangered Species Act,” said Pete Forsythe, a spokesman for Kaiser Aluminum Co.
About 130 people attended Thursday’s hearing at Spokane Community College. Many wore orange “Extinction is Forever” stickers.
Among those who testified, people from all perspectives thanked the Fisheries Service representatives for the last-minute addition of Spokane to its list of hearing sites.
There was also agreement that the draft recovery plan is flawed. But there was big disagreement about what was wrong. Here’s a sample of the comments made to Merritt Tuttle and Rob Jones, who were representing the Fisheries Service:
Spokane angler/activist Harvey Morrison said the Fisheries Service is failing to help the salmon. He wants Congress to put the Northwest Power Planning Council in charge.
Paul Glabin, representing the United Steelworkers of America, said power rate increases needed to pay for the recovery efforts could cost a lot of familytype jobs. “If those jobs are gone, the region will have less of an ability to pay for salmon recovery.”
George Brabb of Coeur d’Alene said members of Kootenai Environmental Alliance agreed with the recovery plan on two counts: a drawdown at John Day Dam to minimum operating level, and the use of surface collectors to get young fish safely around turbines. “Regretfully, we don’t find much else to commend you for.”
Othello farmer Mark Booker urged the Fisheries Service to lift the current moratorium on the issuing of water rights, which would continue under the recovery plan. The amount of irrigation water taken from the Columbia River is “trivial,” he said, and is not hurting salmon.
Don Gunther of Newport criticized the recovery plan for endorsing wide, standardized stream-protection zones to protect spawning habitat. “There is nosize-fits-all,” he said.
Spokane author Derrick Jensen said there is a proven solution to salmon declines: “Remove the dams.”
, DataTimes MEMO: IDAHO HEADLINE: Views differ on how to save salmon