The benefits of spill are not established in relation to smolt 

 transportation. To tne contrary, the best available data indicates 

 that survival of fish collected and transported is greater than in- 

 river survival of migrants even during periods of high flow and 

 spill. Since 1968, over 29 tests were conducted to evaluate the ef- 

 fects of transporting juvenile spring, summer, fall chinook and 

 steelhead. In these tests, marked groups of fish released in the 

 river as controls and transported by barge or truck were enumer- 

 ated when they returned as adults to the fishery and to the dam 

 and sometimes to the spawning grounds when sufficient numbers 

 were marked. 



All but two of these tests showed a benefit from transportation. 

 In other words, transported fish returned at a significantly higher 

 rate than fish released in the river. Two tests that didn't show a 

 benefit indicated no significant difference. In other words, it didn't 

 matter whether you transported them or left them in the river; the 

 survival was the same. 



Unfortunately, since 1983, there have been only 2 years, 1986 

 and 1989 when both transport and control leases were marked for 

 proper evaluation of the transport operation. During the remainder 

 of the years, no fish were marked or only transport groups were 

 marked, making comparisons with in-river migrants impossible 

 most years. 



However, the research results available today nevertheless dem- 

 onstrates unequivocally that transport of chinook and steelhead 

 from the Snake River Dams benefits salmon and steelhead more 

 than it does river migration. I have seen no convincing scientific 

 studies that indicate spilling at Lower Granite and Little Goose 

 Dams or McNary Dam is better than collecting and transporting 

 fish from these up-river dams. State and tribal fishery agencies 

 have attacked transportation research but I believe their criticisms 

 lack merit. 



In regard to how we can improve the decisionmaking process, I 

 believe the decisionmaking process can be improved by continuing 

 to properly evaluate actions taken to increase adult returns of 

 salmon and steelhead on the Columbia River. Key studies are those 

 designed to evaluate transportation and in-river survival of juve- 

 nile migrants under various flow and spill scenarios. If the proper 

 studies had been continued through the 1980's and 1990's, as the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service prc^osed, we wouldn't be here 

 today testifying before this committee. I think we'd have enough in- 

 formation to make decisions that people couldn't argue with. 



NMFS proposed continued evaluation of transportation and in- 

 river survival of juvenile migrants during the 1980's and 1990's but 

 these proposals were rejected by the various committees that must 

 approve research proposals on the Columbia River. Those commit- 

 tees are dominated by State fishery agencies and tribes, and some 

 of the same people who are severely criticizing the transportation 

 operation now are the same ones that rejected the research propos- 

 als in the 1980's and 1990's to evaluate transportation and to con- 

 duct in-river survival estimates. 



I believe if we're going to spend millions on various activities to 

 increase survival of the fish in the river, we ought to spend a few 

 bucks on properly evaluating what we're doing. 



