19 



So I went out with and I helped the NMFS, who had two people 

 to do the work of four people. I saw some serious shortcomings in 

 their techniques and I told them so. Then my colleague did the 

 same upriver at Ice Harbor Dam and the next thing we knew, 

 NMFS was offended by this and a news release that a third party 

 put out. Thereafter, we were not permitted to go back out with the 

 NMFS crew, look at their fish, or help them. I asked if I could at 

 least look at the fish when NMFS got through with them, because 

 NMFS kills them all, and I said if you're going to throw them in 

 the garbage, can I have them when you get through and NMFS 

 said no. I asked, can I buy your garbage and NMFS said no. The 

 NMFS employees said if I wanted to talk to them, I had to call a 

 PR person in Seattle and make formal arrangements. You can't get 

 anything done that way. 



Senator Kempthorne. What would you have done with those 

 specimens? 



Mr. BoucK. I would like to have looked at them to see if I could 

 see bubbles or other lesions that the NMFS's staff of non-biologists 

 couldn't see. I was primarily interested in the wild resident fish. 

 We have quite a trophy fishery for walleye and small-mouthed bass 

 in the Lower Columbia River. I was able to get the cooperation of 

 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife crew who let me look 

 at their fish. We were not able to get an ESA permit to collect 

 nonsalmonid fish or look at fish. We had to have the cooperation 

 of somebody who had a permit; the NMFS people had a permit, the 

 National Biological Service people had a permit, and we wanted to 

 look at their nonsalmonid fish to see if we could expand the infor- 

 mation base on gas bubble disease and so forth. 



NMFS and NBS came up with a lot of reasons why we couldn't 

 look at their fish but it all boiled down to the fact that they didn't 

 want to cooperate. So that was the end of that. 



Senator Kempthorne. Were you invited by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service to participate in this? 



Mr. BouCK. No. I asked for permission and it was granted, then 

 rescinded. I'm on their panel of gas experts, so I think that had 

 something to do with it. I asked, "can I go out and have a look at 

 the fish?" and NMFS said yes, but then they withdrew it and said 

 no. 



Senator Kempthorne. So they would not allow you to look at 

 these dead fish? 



Mr. BoucK. Not after the first time I went out there, no. This 

 attitude immediately went to the National Biological Service and 

 before we had a chance to go out with NBS, they let us know that 

 they would not cooperate or allow us to look at any fish that they 

 had looked at. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right. I appreciate that. 



Mr. Anderson, your overall conclusions on the modeling and I 

 guess the final point I'd like you to address is, is spill beneficial? 



Mr. Anderson. Our work suggests that spill is not beneficial. It's 

 not beneficial to fish passing through the river and it's not bene- 

 ficiad when you consiaer fish being transported, particularly when 

 fish are being transported. Anytime you do not transport fish, 

 you're losing some of the benefits of the transportation. 



