you may feel you're covering in your opening comments and your 

 formal opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

 With that, let me call on Mr. Fidler. 



STATEMENT OF LARRY FIDLER, ASPEN SCIENCES LIMITED, 

 CRANBUCK, BRITISH COLUMBIA 



Mr. Fidler. Thank you, Senator. 



This morning, I would like to review two of the main topics I dis- 

 cussed in my written testimony. The first item is the question of 

 are benefits of spill as a fish passage mechanism established, espe- 

 cially in relationship to other fish passage mechanisms? My re- 

 sponse to that is I do not believe that is the case for the following 

 reasons. 



In the NMFS' biological opinion, NMFS failed to present a quan- 

 titative, comparative analysis of the various fish passage mecha- 

 nisms. This is especially true in the case of spill and the effects of 

 dissolved gas supersaturation and gas bubble trauma in fish. With- 

 out such a comparative analysis, it is impossible to establish which 

 is the best mechanism or combination of mechanisms for survival. 



Second, in the spill in 1995 risk assessment document, the State 

 and tribal agencies present data to demonstrate that spill is the 

 best fish passage mechanism. However, as I pointed out in my 

 written testimony, much of that data is highly inconsistent and 

 fails to support that hypothesis. Furthermore, the so-called risk as- 

 sessment analysis performed in that spill in the 1995 risk manage- 

 ment document, the analyses were severely criticized by NMFS sci- 

 entists, by scientists with the Oregon Department of Environ- 

 mental Quality and by independent scientists. The methods used in 

 the analysis of gas bubble trauma were flawed to the extent that 

 the results were invalid. 



I would suggest that if the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 had used their 1994 expert panel on dissolved gas supersaturation 

 to review both the biological opinion and the spill and 1995 risk 

 management document, a more scientifically defensible spill pro- 

 gram could have been developed. 



The second area I would like to discuss is the 1995 Biological 

 Monitoring Program. You have no doubt read and you will probably 

 hear today that this is a fine program. I would suggest this is not 

 the case. Before describing my reasons for this, I am reminded of 

 something I heard earlier this year. 



On April 14, 1995, the Oregon Department of Environmental 

 Quality held hearings to review the application by NMFS for a 

 variance to the Oregon State standard for dissolved gas 

 supersaturation. At that hearing, one of the commissioners made 

 the observation that in his view, the 1995 Biological Monitoring 

 Program had been designed specifically to avoid find signs of gas 

 bubble trauma in fish. 



Senator Kempthorne. Would you repeat that? 



Mr. Fidler. Yes. One of the commissioners — I'm paraphrasing 

 here — indicated that it appeared to him that the 1995 Biological 

 Monitoring Program was specifically designed to avoid finding 

 signs of gas bubble trauma in fish. After the program proceeded, 

 I believe that observation is verified for these reasons. 



