239 



The Bevan Report relies on bu-ging and other artifida] salmon transportation systems which 

 have no demonstrated efTectiveness - and may themseKes be a leading cause of decline* 



Barging and tiucking salmon around the dams began in 1968 as a shon-tenn expenemeni, and has 



increased in scope almost every year since then However, these anificial transporution methods 



have never been subjected to NEPA analysis (the program began before NEPA was passed into law 



and was "grandfathered" in) nor have they been systematically studied 



In 1993 a suit was brought in US District Court in Oregon against NMFS, the Army Corps of 

 Engineers and others to require fliU NEPA analysis of artificial transportation This suit was 

 successful, and the US District Court (Judge Marsh) order a full ^fEPA analysis to be done ' In 

 re^ronse to that court order, NMFS recently commissioned an independent scientific peer review of 

 the scientific rationale for barging and other artificial salmon transportation programs This study 

 (the "Mundy Report," after the Chairman of the review team, Dr Phillip Mundy, Ph D ), was 

 coincidentally also released in May, 1994, at about the same time as the final Sevan Committee 

 Report The Mundy Report is not cited in the literature referenced in the Bevan Report, and 

 apparently its findings were not iiKluded in the data analyzed by the Bevan Team. 



After looking at all the data supporting artificial transportation, the Mundy independent review 

 team concluded: 



"As presently conceived and implemeirted, transportation is unlikely to halt or prevent 

 continued decline and extirpation of listed species of salmon in the Snake River Basin " 



While acknowleging that there was some evidence that transportation may have some positive 

 impacts in very low flow years or for some species (such as steelhead, which is not ES A listed), the 

 Review Team could find little evidence to support the presumption that Uansportation was justified 

 under most circumstances, and also found evidwice that in some cases transportation may have a 



rSonhwtU Environmental Defense CenUr.eLoL vs. \M^. «. a/. . (USDC - C«; No. 93-870-MA). Judge 

 Marsh stated m his final opinion that case as foUows: "It is at this poml that I ultmutel)' find thai the CC« [Coips of 

 Engmeeisl ftiled m its NEPA obligatioas in 1 993 From (he record before me, I find that the COE has spent ahnosJ all of 

 Its research and refonn efforts on improvements m the transportation program itself - improvements m strocture such as 

 coUection and b\pass facilities and improvements m flow to aid collection. I find that the COEs failure to significantly 

 analyze' transport impacts and ahematives WTthm the 1993 SEIS for flow nnprovement measures is arbitrary, capricious 

 and not m accordance with the law Based on the foregomg, I find that the COE acted arbitrarily and capriciously widi 



respect to Its 1 993 NEPA anal>sis of flow measure improvements " (Opinion of 12/22/93) 



