18 



Senator Kempthorne. So let me see if I'm tracking with you. In 

 the examination for the existence of bubbles, they would use 100 

 power magnification? 



Mr. FiDLER. Right. 



Senator Kempthorne. And in 1994? 



Mr. FiDLER. That was 1994. 



Senator Kempthorne. Yes. And in 1994, by utilizing that meth- 

 od, you were able to come up with some meaningful data and yet 

 in 1995, they went to a 10 power magnification which apparently 

 does not allow you to see the existence of the bubbles? 



Mr. FiDLER. As I pointed out earlier, there's a very sharp con- 

 trast between all of the data from 1994 compared to 1995. In 1995, 

 we've got much higher dissolved gas levels than we had in 1994 

 where we saw signs of gas bubble trauma. Yet, in 1995, the pro- 

 gram is reporting very few signs. The net pen studies below Ice 

 Harbor in 1995 have shown dramatically higher levels of mortality 

 than occurred in similar studies in 1994. As I said earlier, there 

 just seems to be such a contrast in these results that one has to 

 question the validity of the monitoring program. 



Senator Kempthorne. All right. I appreciate that very much. 



Ms. Filardo, I understand that it's common practice to have a 

 test population — we just referenced that — and a controlled popu- 

 lation when conducting an experiment or observing a particular 

 phenomenon. What control did you use to compare the effects of 

 spill on wild fish? 



Ms. Filardo. I'm unsure of the question. In the monitoring pro- 

 gram, what you're looking at is fish that are run-of-the-river fish, 

 including both hatchery and wild fish. In terms of experimentation 

 that's done, I'd say the preponderance of the information that has 

 been collected has been conducted on hatchery fish themselves. The 

 monitoring itself is not a research program; it is to monitor the ex- 

 tent of the signs of gas bubble trauma in the population. There 

 isn't any specific test and control group in that. There are specific 

 test and control groups that National Biological Service is conduct- 

 ing under experiments they are subcontracting under the monitor- 

 ing program. 



Senator Kempthorne. Thank you. 



Mr. Bouck, I'd like you've referenced the term, if I jotted this 

 down right, referring to the National Marine Fisheries Service that 

 there was an "iron curtain of isolation." Would you tell me what 

 you mean by that? Again, we're not being personal; this is just be- 

 tween you and me. 



[Laughter.] 



Mr. BouCK. Admittedly, it's kind of hard to accept not being one 

 of the boys I guess, having watched some of these young folks like 

 Mike Schiewe come up through the line, and now he has replaced 

 Wes Ebel. But when this issue came up, I was called and asked by 

 Cramer Associates to go out on the river and have a look at how 

 things were going and report back to them. I thought that had 

 some merit and of course I was very interested. I think gas bubble 

 disease is a tremendously interesting biological phenomena and it 

 also just happens to have some important ecological and environ- 

 mental implications. 



