122 



entific peer review of AFEP proposals, test-fish needs, and study results with tech- 

 nical experts, the agencies. Tribes and others. Corps representatives are working 

 with the agencies. Tribes and other interested parties to encourage active participa- 

 tion in the APEP process. 



We will continue the annual study review meetings to provide the region with 

 preliminary results of current studies. Final study reports and data will be provided 

 to all interested parties as they become available. 



SUMMARY 



In conclusion, we have underway in the region a comprehensive and ambitious 

 plan of measures and evaluations to improve survival of salmon at the Federal 

 nydroprojects. Because of the complex life cycle of the salmon and the many factors 

 that influence their survival, there is much uncertainty about the quantitative im- 

 provements achievable from any individual measure. We must continue to learn 

 from our actions and modify them as necessEiry. The NMFS Biological Opinion and 

 proposed Recovery Plan and our research process are intended to assure that. Re- 

 sults from turbine efficiency, gas abatement and surface collection evaluations, 

 among others, will be considered as we make future decisions. 



Spilling is to provide interim protection for the juvenile fish until better tech- 

 nic[ues for moving juvenile salmon around individual projects can be implemented. 

 Spill is considered to be a safe method of passing the fish as long as it is carefully 

 monitored to control gas supersaturation. The Corps has a network of gas monitor- 

 ing devices at locations throughout the basin. The physical monitoring is unique in 

 its intensity and coverage, and allows us to closely align our spill levels witn the 

 water quality standards of the states and EPA. 



We have relied upon NMFS to provide a biological monitoring plan of action. 

 While there continues to be refinements in the biological monitoring plan, an all- 

 out effort is being made in the monitoring to provide for the safety of the juvenile 

 fish. 



Thank you Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be very happy to 

 answer any questions. 



Prepared Statement of Dr. Wesley J. Ebel, Biologist, Seattle, WA 



My background: I was employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and its 



Fredecessors for 31 years as a "Fishery Research Biologist. For 26 of those 31 years 

 worked on fish passage problems in the Columbia River. I retired in 1988 as Direc- 

 tor of the Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division (previously called the Fish 

 Passage Research Division). Since 1988, I have worked as a consultant on fish pas- 

 sage and other related research. I obtained a Ph.D. in Forestry and Wildlife Man- 

 agement from the University of Idaho in 1977. 



My comments regarding the 5 questions you wish addressed are as follows: 



1. Are the benefits of using spill as a fish passage mechanism established, espe- 

 cially in relation to other fish passage mechanisms? Please comment on the scientific 

 validity of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) spill policy. 



The benefits of using carefully controlled levels of spill as a fish passage mecha- 

 nism are established if there is no other alternative than passage through turbines. 

 Available research indicates that juvenile salmon will survive at a significantly 

 higher rate passing over a spillway than through turbines at Columbia River dams. 

 Thus spilling water at dams where fish are not collected and transported or where 

 juvenile bypasses are inadequate does have some scientific validity as long as spill 

 volumes are held at levels that do not cause excessive mortality from gas bubble 

 trauma. 



The benefits are spill are not established in relation to smolt transportation. To 

 the contrary, the best available data indicates that survival of fish collected and 

 trsmsported 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 effects of 

 transporting iuveniles, spring, summer and fall chinook and steelhead. In these 

 tests, marked groups of fish released in the river as controls and transported (by 

 barge or truck) were enumerated when they returned as adults to the fishery and 

 to the dam where they were marked. All but two of these tests showed a benefit 

 from transportation (transported fish returned at a significantly higher rate than 

 fish released in the river). Two tests that did not show a benefit indicated no signifi- 

 cant difference in retvim of transported and non-transported fish. 



Unfortunately, since 1983 there have been only 2 years (1986 and 1989) when 

 both transport and control releases were marked lor proper evaluation of the trans- 

 port operation. During the remainder of the years, no fish were marked or only 



