123 



transport groups were marked making comparison with in-river migremts impossible 

 most years. However, the research results available today demonstrate unequivo- 

 cally that transport of chinook and steelhead from \he Snake lUver Dams benefits 

 salmon and steelhead more than does in-river migration. I have seen no convincing 

 scientific studies that indicate spilling at Lower Granite, Little Goose and McNary 

 Dams is better than collecting and transporting the fish from these upstream dams. 

 State and tribal fishery agencies have attacked the transportation research, but 

 their criticisms lack merit. In an April 7th letter to Oregon and Washington water 

 quality regulators (copy attached), I have addressed some of these issues (at p. 6 

 & Ex. A). 



2. What independent scientific research is being conducted to monitor the effects 

 of spill and its alternatives in the Columbia River system? Please comment on the 

 results of relevant studies. 



In 1995, substantial numbers of juvenile spring chinook were marked to evaluate 

 transportation and in-river migrations. The resmts of these studies will determine 

 whether transport is better or worse than in-river migfration which included spill as 

 specified in the biological opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

 These studies most likely will not be able to determine differences in survival of in- 

 river migrants during periods of spill and non-spill because spill was occurring at 

 several dams throughout the spring migration season. 



3. Are there risks to migrating smelts and returning adults associated with high 

 levels of dissolved nitrogen resulting from spill? 



There are risks to migrating smolts and returning adults associated with high lev- 

 els of dissolved gases. Whenever gas levels approach or exceed 120 percent satura- 

 tion, mortality to juveniles and adults can be substantial depending on exposure 

 time, depth distribution of the fish and level of gas saturation. In the April 7th let- 

 ter (at 2-5), I have discussed some of the relevant effects of gas supersaturation. 



The fishery agencies and tribes prepared a risk analysis, titled "^ill and 1995 

 Risk Management", addressing spills, gas saturation, and mortality. There are sev- 

 eral errors in interpretation of results of some key studies cited in this analysis. As 

 a result, some values used are incorrect and the conclusions drawn from some im- 

 portant research are either distorted or incorrect. Thus, the risk depicted in this 

 analysis that is associated with spilling water at dams is underestimated. The April 

 7th letter addresses these issues (at p. 4). 



4. Have there been investigations of the effect of supersaturated water on resident 

 fish? Have the results of these studies been incorporated into current policy? 



There have been investigations of the effect of supersaturated water on resident 

 species of fish in the laboratory and in 1994 and 1995 in the Columbia River. Gen- 

 erally, resident fish are more resistant to supersaturated water, but those that re- 

 side in shallow water in the river (1 meter or less) would be severely affected. Pre- 

 sumably, the results of studies completed in 1994 are incorporated in the current 

 policy to the extent that NMFS continues to monitor the effects of supersaturation 

 on resident fish. 



5. To what extent has scientific research from the states been incorporated into the 

 current spill policy? How can the decisionmaking process be improved? 



The states have not done any recent research on spill and gas bubble trauma. The 

 agencies and tribes have conducted various analyses of studies conducted by others, 

 including the risk analysis. 



The decisionmaking process can be improved by continuing to properly evaluate 

 the actions taken to increase adult returns of salmon and steelhead to the Columbia 

 River. Key studies are tiiose designed to evaluate transportation and in-river sur- 

 vival of juvenile migrants under various flow and spill scenarios. If the proper stud- 

 ies had been continued through the 1980's and 1990'8 as NMFS proposed, we 

 wouldn't be here today testifying before this committee. NMFS proposed continued 

 evaluation of transportation ana in-river survivsd of juvenile migrants during the 

 1980's and 1990's, but these proposals were rejected by the various committees that 

 must approve NMFS researcn proposals before they can go forward. Those commit- 

 tees are dominated by the state fishery agencies and tribes. Hiring freezes and lack 

 of funding have also severely hamstrung 5ie NMFS units charged with carrying out 

 the above needed research. 



