WASHINGTON — Eight Northwest lawmakers express “deep concern” to the White House over recent draft reports recommending at least one Lower Snake River dam be breached.

“Specifically, we were appalled by the lack of transparency and obvious political intervention …” the Republican members of Congress say in the letter. “Even more alarming, we have received further indication of political maneuvering by this administration to prevent information on the costs of replacing the power generated by the lower Snake River dams on the Federal Columbia River Power System from being made public prior to the release of the previously mentioned NOAA draft ‘report.’”

The letter pointed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, which “took four years to complete, included multiple comment periods, and cost over $50 million and countless staff hours.”

In comparison, “the recent (National Oceanic and Atmopheric Administration) draft ‘report’ appears to have been released without process, prior congressional notification, or any triggering action,” the letter states. “Even more troubling, the NOAA draft ‘report’ cites plaintiffs in National Wildlife Federation et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al … as sources without referencing non-plaintiff co-managers.”

Led by Idaho Sen. James Risch and Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the letter was signed by Sen. Mike Crapo and Rep. Russ Fulcher of Idaho, Rep. Dan Newhouse and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, Rep. Cliff Bentz of Oregon and Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. It went to council chair Brenda Mallory.

The letter calls for a response from the council by Aug. 15.

“While it is the expectation that CEQ and the other agencies written to by the Northwest delegation have a prompt and transparent response, Senator Risch will be prepared to continue ongoing oversight on this issue,…” Marty Boughton, communications director for Risch, told the Capital Press.

Risch is “staunchly opposed” to dam breaching, and will stand against any proposal that aims to remove or reduce the services provided by the dams, Boughton said.

“The recent actions by this administration have sewn complete distrust in this administration’s ability to lead with facts, science and transparency regarding the Columbia River System,” the letter states. “These actions will undoubtedly have long-term and damaging effects on this administration’s ability to bring diverse stakeholders together to chart a path forward on species recovery and preservation of the vital benefits of the Columbia River System.”

1. Were you or any members of your staff involved in delaying the release of the report entitled BPA Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Study prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3 Study)? If so, what was the purpose of the delay?

2. If CEQ was not involved in the delay, what is CEQ’s understanding as to why the briefing with Northwest Power and Conservation Council Members scheduled for July 7, 2022, was delayed until July 12, 2022?

3. There were changes made to the E3 Study between the time an embargoed version was released to Congress on July 11, 2022 and when the report was made public on July 12, 2022.

a. Did you or your staff direct any changes between the two versions?

b. Were you or your staff involved in any conversations considering changes between the two versions?

c. If the answer to either of these questions is yes, please detail the changes CEQ either directed or consulted on.

4. The E3 Study was released at the same time as the Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead draft “report” released by NOAA (NOAA draft “report”). Were the two releases coordinated? If so, why?

5. Were you or your staff involved in any way to urge the initiation of the NOAA draft “report”?

6. Did you or your staff review any versions of the NOAA draft “report” prior to v2.5 dated July 11, 2022? If so, did you or your staff offer any notes, changes, or suggestions? If so, what were they?

7. Did you or your staff in any way notify or brief any Congressional offices on the NOAA draft “report” prior to the initial member briefing notification sent by your staff on July 8, 2022? If so, which offices did you notify?

8. Were any other parties outside of the administration, other than those specifically referenced in the NOAA draft “report,” briefed on or notified of the “report” ahead of the Congressional briefing on July 11, 2022, including but not limited to non-referenced comanagers, stakeholder groups, or members of the press? If so, why were these parties briefed prior to members of Congress?

9. Did you or your staff direct NOAA to include input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, scientists and fishery managers from the Nez Perce Tribe and State of Oregon in the NOAA draft “report” (as detailed in footnote 1, page 2 of the NOAA draft “report”)?

10. Did you or your staff direct NOAA not to consult non-plaintiff co-managers?