12 



the fish are in the water column, the more dangerous it becomes 

 because the more they are being exposed to it. 



These model results tell us that we can explain both the cage 

 studies and the impact on the fish. The fact that we are not seeing 

 many results in the river, we're not seeing a lot of impact on the 

 fish. Of course as Dr. Ebel points out, I believe one of the reasons 

 we're also not seeing a large impact on the fish is because you don't 

 see dead fish. Other things consume them. 



The net result of all this analysis is that we probably are not 

 having much of an impact through the spill program. This is the 

 conclusion that the Snake River Recovery Team has also come to. 

 The important result from my concern is that I believe that our 

 analysis to date might be underrepresenting the impacts of spill 

 and we might actually have a much larger impact than we realize. 



That concludes my results. 



Senator Kempthorne. Dr. Anderson, thank you. 



Let me begin with some questions now. Mr. Fidler and Mr. Ebel, 

 I appreciated your comments that you made at the opening. Let me 

 ask you this. In many cases, under the Endangered Species Act we 

 ask scientists like yourselves to provide the policymakers with the 

 options. We also then ask the policymakers to make the best pos- 

 sible decisions based upon what they've been provided by the sci- 

 entists. My question is, how has this process worked for you? Has 

 your science been considered fully, in your opinion, by the policy- 

 makers; have you ever been asked to make any policy decisions? 

 How is the process working and do you feel the science you've rec- 

 ommended is being considered? 



Mr. Fidler. Both Wes and I were members of the NMFS expert 

 panel on dissolved gas supersaturation. The panel came up with a 

 variety of recommendations to assist NMFS in their decisionmak- 

 ing. Unfortunately, many of the recommendations were not in- 

 cluded in the Biological Monitoring Program. The final design of 

 the 1995 Biological Monitoring Program was never submitted to 

 the NMFS expert panel for review. As I said earlier, I believe if 

 that had happened, many of the flaws in that program would have 

 been identified and some corrections could have been made so that 

 it would be a much more viable program. So there seems to be a 

 disconnection between what scientists like myself suggest in such 

 panels and the actual policy that is developed. 



Senator Kempthorne. ^y insight, Mr. Fidler, as to where that 

 disconnect took place or what caused that? 



Mr. Fidler. I m not sure. It's verv apparent that has happened. 

 I don't know that the problem really lies within organization like 

 NMFS, or why they chose not to take advantage of the broad base 

 of knowledge that is represented by those panels. I think if they 

 had, we would have much better programs. 



Senator Kempthorne. I appreciate that. 



Mr. Ebel, your comment. 



Mr. Ebel. I think they have considered the research. I think the 

 problem is the degree of emphasis that one bit has in relation to 

 another bit of research and whether or not, for example, it's a good 

 idea to spill x amount at Lower Granite or not to spill anvthing, 

 and whether it is a good idea not to transport fish at all from 

 McNary, for example. I think the agencies and NMFS have consid- 



