My name is James J. Anderson, I am an Associate Professor in the School of Fisheries at the University of Washington. I have studied Columbia and Snake River salmon for fifteen years and my research group, is engaged in quantitative analyses of the environmental and policy factors affecting the decline of salmon and the actions being taken to recover the runs. I am a member of the PATH group (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) which was formed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Northwest Power Planning Council to evaluate, in detail, the scientific issues involving salmon recovery. In my testimony I will discuss my opinions on the project review and prioritization process and offer two thoughts on how it can be further improved.
Assuring adequate peer review and accountability of the projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program is monumental task. From my fifteen years of experience with the river, the current program is significantly improved over anything that existed in the past. For the first time there is a process in place to review the science and the projects. In general I agree with the finding of the Moss-Adams Review of the Contracting Processes published in December of 1997. This is an excellent report with many good recommendations.
I want to empathize two points that complement the report: First there is a need to improve the information management system to assist in setting project priority measures and in project evaluation; Second, many fish management actions and policies are outside the current review process which largely deals with funding of projects. Policies, especially in regards to the operations of the hydrosystem, hatcheries, harvest, need to be integrated into the review process and subjected to scientific review and evaluation.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
As the Moss-Adams report points out in finding B4, the Program appears to provide little guidance regarding the setting of the relative priority of measures. CBFWA now prioritizes projects after the proposals have been received. They do so in a subjective manner which is potentially biased because they prioritize their own proposals and that of their potential competitors. Although the ISAB and ISRP can evaluate general methodology of projects, these bodies are not equipped to evaluate quantitatively the potential impacts of the projects on a basin-wide scale. Such a capability is especially essential to develop since the area under an endangered species designation is expanding to the entire Columbia/Snake basin. Prioritization in the future will become more difficult and complex as the region strives to take an ecosystem approach to management. No scientific group responsible with assessing the relative merits of projects has access to the types of information need for this ecosystem and basin wide evaluation. Neither does any group have access to the information needed to develop a basins wide plan.
What is required is an Internet based data/modeling system that will give the scientists, managers, and the public up-to-date information on fish and the projects of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The system needs to be accessible through a web browser and graphically show where project are located, along with the current and historical fish runs and habitat conditions. This information, coupled with models, would provide estimates of the potential impacts of the projects on fish. This information would be essential to prioritize projects.
This is not a pie-in-the-sky venture, the major data sets and information tools already exist. A useful system could be developed by integrating existing facilities and resources. This system would become an essential part of the comprehensive framework for project delivery and program performance monitoring and evaluation as noted in the Moss-Adams report. This tangible capability is essential to make prioritization less subjective and fraught with self-interest. This capability would open the Fish and Wildlife Program to the world and the system would become a standard for resource management in the 21st century.
REVIEW OF POLICY
A second issue concerns the review of agency policies. Although there are significant improvements in evaluating the programs funded by BPA, how the science is used by management agencies to developing policy is largely unstructured. For example, NMFS is currently developing flow targets for the Mid-Columbia but the process is much like what was done to develop the Snake River flow targets in 1994. There is no formal review of the need for a flow target, nor are the current tools and data being fully utilized to evaluate their impacts or to develop an optimum policy. This type of process needs to be more open to the stakeholders. Developing policies should not be conducted in a closed process in which unreviewed science is presented through internal memos which end up in the press as scientific facts. In particular, year-to-year project operation issues need be integrated in the regional review process.