30 



Mr. Stelle. I would guess so. 



Dr. Schiewe. 



Dr. Schiewe. Yes, those were the results we obtained last year. 



Senator Kempthorne. If her testimony then was correct, you 

 must have some new data that justified initiating and expanding 

 the spill program this year. In light of the testimony that we've 

 just heard from the preceding panel, perhaps you would tell us 

 what information you had that justified this year's spill? 



Mr. Stelle. That's a good question, Senator. A couple of major 

 pieces of information. First of all, on the issue of whether or not 

 spill per se is a preferable way to move young fish around individ- 

 ual projects, I think there is a large body of information which an- 

 swers that question in the affirmative. 



The question then turns on the issue of gas levels and what is 

 an acceptable level of gas supersaturation to protect these young 

 fish against gas problems. On that, we discussed the matter with 

 the parties to the IDFG Marsh litigation; we also discussed it with 

 the States and tribes extensively in the development of our biologi- 

 cal opinion; and our Science Center, after reviewing all of the infor- 

 mation, made a recommendation to me on what it believed was a 

 safe level for purposes of gas supersaturation. It was that rec- 

 ommendation which NMFS then sought to implement through ap- 

 plications for gas waivers to the States of Washington, Oregon, 

 Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe. Those waivers were granted. 



Senator Kempthorne. How do you respond to some of the com- 

 ments by some of the scientists who had been on your panel that 

 they felt that their recommendations were not well received, per- 

 haps not even received at all, the idea that it was isolation, that 

 the monitoring program was designed so that it would not identify 

 the gas bubble trauma? 



Mr. Stelle. If I may. Senator, may I turn it over to Dr. Schiewe 

 as its chief architect? 



Senator Kempthorne. Sure, but then I'd like your input as well. 



Mr. Stelle. Of course. 



Dr. Schiewe. I would like to begin. Senator, with just a brief 

 comment on the events of 1994. As Mr. Stelle has indicated, the 

 spill program began in mid-May in a rather hasty, hurried fashion 

 and the monitoring program had to be developed somewhat after 

 the fact. We learned quite a bit from that and I believe we've incor- 

 porated much of what we learned last year into what we've done 

 this year. 



Senator Kempthorne. Dr. Schiewe, let me ask you this question, 

 and I appreciate that. As you stated and this is consistent with 

 what members of the National Marine Fisheries Service stated last 

 year, it was after the fact, it was an experiment. How do we justify 

 that when we're dealing with an endangered species? What was the 

 science that drove you to do this when you had not had good re- 

 sults on the spill in 1994? 



Dr. Schiewe. For this year, in the framework of developing the 

 necessary information to operate and manage the hydropower sys- 

 tem in future years in the best way and for the benefit of fish, we 

 consider a spill to be an integral component of improving in-river 

 conditions and allowing us to make a scientifically sound evalua- 



