Anderson, James J. “Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power and Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans.” Washington, D.C. May 27, 1999, and
Anderson, James J. “Testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power.” Hood River, OR. April 6, 1999. (reviewed by Adam Kendall)
Summary:
In these testimonies, the author, a professor in the School of Fisheries at the University of Washington, presents an inside look at the procedures and publications of the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH), of which he was a member. The group, formed in cooperation with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), a joint program of the Northwest Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, took on the task of accumulating and testing hypotheses that would provide a theoretical and empirical model for the examination of trends in salmonid populations in the Columbia River basin.
Specifically, PATH focused on the possibility of removing the dams on the lower Snake River, and proposed two models, one with dam breaching and the other focused around transportation of fish via barges (which is currently underway). In its 1998 report, PATH concluded that, “with up to 90% certainty, breaching the lower Snake River dams will recover endangered salmon.” What the author goes on to state in his testimony, however, is that these annual reports, issued by PATH as recaps of its activities for the past year, are not meant to be taken at face value, and he says that “the structure of PATH under-represents the uncertainty in the science.”
The reaction to the 1998 annual report was varied, but many media outlets and advocates claimed that PATH's conclusions regarding dam removal were final, which, he states, they were not, and some even claimed that further scientific analysis was unwarranted, given their “complete” report. As an insider to the proceedings of PATH, the author disputes these claims, saying that “it is important to realize that the public documents of PATH are not final reports…and do not represent a complete analysis of the important factors contributing to salmon decline and recovery.”
Critique:
This source is certainly enlightening, because the PATH publications do represent themselves to be “sacrosanct” and complete in their findings, and to require little more examination. Without this testimony, this inside view would not be available to counteract and filter the easily-misinterpreted reports of PATH.
The professor is obviously well-versed in the subject matter (he admits to having “studied Columbia and Snake River salmon for fifteen years.”) and is closely acquainted with the facts surrounding PATH and the ISAB, both of which he is a member. As an explanation to the reports of PATH and to understanding hypothesis-building for the Columbia Basin, this testimony is invaluable. Additionally, more resources can be found on the University of Washington, School of Fisheries' website, under the personal homepage of Professor James J. Anderson).
Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
HC 441: Science Colloquium, Columbia River Ecology
Fall term, 2005
Send e-mail to the Webmaster