27 



I'm not aware of any salmon management agency and tribe in the 

 Columbia Basin that does not believe the benefits associated with 

 a carefully controlled and carefully monitored spill program don't 

 far outweigh potential risks from gas bubble trauma. 



NMFS' spill policy includes adequate provisions to adeptly man- 

 age spill and minimize risk of gas bubble trauma. This does not 

 mean we shouldn't take rigorous action to better control gas. Ice 

 Harbor Dam is a pertinent example where risk of gas trauma could 

 be substantially reduced if the Corps could install gas abatement 

 devices and get their turbines back on line. 



Regarding the development of NMFS' spill policy, I think they 

 did a good job this past year soliciting scientific information. From 

 my perspective, this information helped formulate their spill policy, 

 just as new information will help adjust that policy. After extensive 

 input and debate, NMFS concluded that continued use of spillway 

 passage is scientifically justified. State and tribal salmon manage- 

 ment agencies concur. 



Although NMFS has allowed ample opportunities for public com- 

 ment on the general merits of spill, it has not done all it should 

 to include State and tribal fishery professionals in the day-to-day 

 decisions that implement that program. As a result, I believe that 

 the region missed some opportunities to improve salmon survival 

 in 1995. Correcting this flaw is important. 



In conclusion, I believe existing knowledge supports spill as an 

 important recoverv tool. It is currently the best way to spread the 

 risk more equitably between transportation and in-river migration. 

 It's the best way to minimize the number of in-river migrants pass- 

 ing through turbines and it is the best way to get in-river migrants 

 past the dams. 



I think one of the key questions today is not whether there are 

 people who disagree with the continued use of spill, but rather, did 

 N^flFS take into account all relevant evidence and make a decision 

 to use spill that is supported by this information? In this case, it 

 is clear that NMFS met this fundamental obligation. Can the 

 NMFS spill program be improved? Absolutely, but that is the na- 

 ture of adaptive management and something we should not be 

 afraid of as we move forward in salmon recovery. 



Thanks once again. Chairman Kempthome, for this opportunity 

 to testify. I hope my comments have been constructive. I have writ- 

 ten comments that expand on this oral testimony. 



Senator Kempthorne. Thank you very much. 



Let me start with you since you just completed your testimony. 

 You stated just a moment ago that all State agencies share consen- 

 sus that spill is a valid program. Does vour testimony reflect the 

 position of the Governor of the State of Idaho? 



Mr. Bowles. Essentially, my testimony represents the State and 

 tribal salmon management agencies. These are the fisheries profes- 

 sionals that are obligated and responsible for salmon recovery with- 

 in the States and tribes. 



Senator KEMPTHORNE. Does the Gk)vemor concur with that? 



Mr. Bowles. In my opinion, yes. The Grovemor right now doesn't 

 have his own personal salmon recovery plan that he has put forth 

 but our department is working very closely with him, his staff and 

 the Idaho representation on the Northwest Power Planning Council 



