105 



to accommodate research activities if NMFS determines that the spill modi- 

 fications will not affect the validity of the transport vs. in-river survival 

 study. These spill operations should be treated as interim until the effects 

 of TDG on migrating salmonids are more fully evaluated and until a spill/ 

 transport rule curve can be developed. The rationale for flow targets associ- 

 ated with spill at collector projects is related to transportation policy and 

 discussed under measure 3 below. 



Migration over the spillways or through the bypass systems are the safest 

 routes of passage at the dams. Injury and mortality can occur through each 

 route of passage (turbines, spillways, ice and trash sluiceways, juvenUe fish 

 bypass systems), but loss rates via the spillways and bypass systems are 

 low relative to passage by the turbines. For both spring/summer and fall 

 Chinook salmon, mortality of fish passing over the spillways or through the 

 bypass systems generally ranges from 0-3 percent (ochoeneman et al. 1961; 

 Heinle 1981; Ledgerwood et al. 1990; Raymond and Sims 1980; Iwamoto et 

 al. 1994). Direct turbine mortality can range from 8-19 percent for yearling 

 Chinook salmon and 5-15 percent for subyearling chinook salmon (Holmes 

 1952; Long 1968; Ledgerwood et al. 1990: Iwamoto et al. 1994). Values of 

 turbine and spill mortality are not available for sockeye salmon. However, 

 it is reasonable to assume that these values are similar to or greater than 

 values for yearling chinook salmon due to size and timing of migration and 

 due to the greater susceptibility of sockeye to physical imury and mortality 

 in project passage and handling (Gessel et al. 1988; Johnsen et al. 1990; 

 Koski et al. 1990; Parametrix 1990; Hawkes et al. 1991)." 



3. How was public review and comment solicited on the 1994 spills? What com- 

 ments were received, and how was this information assessed by the Federal agencies 

 involved in implementing the spill policy? 



Public review and comment was not solicited for the 1994 spill program, which 

 was implemented as an emergency measure in response to record low returns of 

 Snake River spring/summer cMnook. The spill program in 1994 was modified after 

 internal examinations of steelhead revealed a high incidence of gas bubbles. After 

 the 1994 program, NMFS solicited expert scientific input which took the form of 

 convening two panels of experts on gas bubble trauma. The first examined the ques- 

 tion of how the gas bubbles found in the internal examinations of the steemead 

 should be interpreted. The second met to recommend what elements should be in- 

 cluded in a monitoring program in future spill operations. 



The draft 1995 bioloeical opinion containing the 1995 spill program was distrib- 

 uted to the parties in uie IDFG v. NMFS litigation for review and comment before 

 it was finalized. The spill program is also part of the Proposed Recovery Plan, which 

 is currently undergoing extensive public review. With respect to spill specifically, 

 there was a public hearing at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

 both in 1994 and 1995, wluch provided an opportunity for public comments on the 

 spill program. 



4. How did NMFS incorporate scientific and other information gained during the 

 1994 spills into decision making for the 1995 spill policy? 



See question number two, above, and the general text of this testimony. 



5. Please comment on how NMFS works with the many government and independ- 

 ent entities and concerned stakeholders doing research on issues related to salmon 

 mortality and the Row of scientific information. 



The NMFS worked closely with many other Federal agencies, state fisheries agen- 

 cies. Native American tribes and others during the development of the 1995 spill 

 program. The agency also works closely with these parties in developing its research 

 programs and coormnating them with those of others in the region. Most recently, 

 the NMFS has proposed to pursue a project that would create a comprehensive re- 

 search, monitoring and evaluation framework for all research in the Columbia River 

 Basin. This project, called the Plan for Analyzing Testable Hypotheses (PATH), will 

 be developed by experts from the Federal agencies, state fisheries agencies and 

 tribes, with assistance from outside experts. Trie NMFS has proposed that develop- 

 ment of the project be overseen by a group of Federal, state and tribal technical and 

 management representatives. Once the comprehensive framework is completed, this 

 same group of technical and management representatives would be responsible for 

 ensuring tnat future research and monitoring in the Basin is consistent with this 

 framework. 



6. Please comment on the role that various government entities played and should 

 play in the decisionmaking process and the advisability of establishing a single Co- 

 lumbia River policymaking body. 



There are four states and 13 Native American tribes with a direct interest in the 

 Columbia River Basin and its resources. 



