199 



doubt help BOR meet its 1995 flow augmentation requirements. Some junior appro- 

 priators in the upper SR were unable to procure water in 1994 and some of those, 

 who had junior rights were turned-off as early at July 1994 — with no further turn- 

 ons. There is no surplus of water in the upper SR. The flow augmentation of 

 427,000 acre feet annually simply helps drain our reservoirs so that the likelihood 

 of providing carry over storage for drought protection is significantly reduced. 



Let me assure you that I am not against the noble goal of saving the salmon, and 

 I, too, want that species back in our streams, in abundance. What I vigorously op- 

 pose is the proposed methods of solution and, in fact, dispute that these will be the 

 most effective ones, or even effective at all. The salmon decline is not from lack of 

 Idaho water and using Idaho's precious resource will not facilitate their return. The 

 effects of the 8 federal dams on the lower SR and CR, over-harvesting, ocean and 

 stream conditions, predation, poor quality hatchery smolt production, and 

 unscreened diversions must be recognized as the primary causes. It boggles one's 

 mind that we cannot eliminate predators, stop harvesting, eliminate gill nets, pro- 

 cure additional fish-friendly barges, and screen diversions — all easily within our im- 

 mediate capabilities and technologies. Based on the studies available, effective im- 

 plementation of just these items could reduce mortalities by over 50 percent. If for 

 no other reason, we must do these things to reduce the mortality variables in the 

 system, so that we can determine the extent of any flow-survival relationship. 



Idaho normally discharges about 38 million acre feet of water annually to Lower 

 Granite Dam with about 20 million acre feet arriving during the April 15 to August 

 salmon migration period. This produces typical average flows ranging between 

 40,000 and 90,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Assuming an average flow of 50,000 

 cfs, river flow velocity improvements from 427,000 acre feet of flow augmentation 

 is about 1 percent. At an average flow of 80,000 cfs, water particle travel time 

 through the lower 4 SR reservoirs would be decreased from 256 hours to 247 

 hours — neither are very significant, and I submit a very poor and expensive choice 

 of alternatives to save the salmon. In contrast, minimum operating pool (MOP) oper- 

 ation of the 4 lower SR reservoirs will increase flow velocities by 6 percent. Fish 

 live very well in river flows of 40-80,000 cfs — and for your reference, your nearby 

 Potomac River has mean flows of 21,000 and 15,000 cfs during the months of April 

 and May, respectively. 



The efforts of the past 14 years to save the salmon have lacked commitment and 

 strong management direction. The modifications necessary to make the federal 

 dams fish-friendly have proceeded at a snail's pace, if at all. We have spent an esti- 

 mated $2.0 billion on the salmon issue and one salmon returned to Redfish Lake 

 in 1994. Two returnees are estimated for 1995. Someone needs to ask the questions: 

 Are we doing it right? And are there adequate resources to timely commit to this 

 endeavor for a successful conclusion? 



For the written portion of my testimony, I have included a brief list of salmon 

 mortality causes that have been gleaned from the multitude of documents on this 

 salmon issue. The continuation of flow augmentation with upper SR water through 

 the 4 lower SR reservoirs and dams must rank high as potentially expensive, specu- 

 lative and ineffective to save the salmon. Lack of Idaho water did not cause the near 

 extinction of the salmon that we are witnessing. Nor, in my judgment, will more 

 water from Idaho significantly alter their further decline. Other major actions must 

 be accomplished. If flow augmentation is a political choice for "sharing the burden", 

 firm scientific data, supported by independent peer review, must support this en- 

 deavor. Solutions and corrective actions must focus on the primary relevant causes 

 of salmon mortality — not on more Idaho water. The economic impact of long-term 

 flow augmentation would be horrendous for the State of Idaho. 



The attached mortality list does illustrate the very complex nature of the problem 

 and the complex solutions that must evolve for us to be successful in saving this 

 species in the man-altered-Columbia and Snake River systems. 



Again, thank you for allowing me to present my views on this important salmon 

 issue. 



KNOWN VARIABLES EFFECTING SALMON LOSSES 



d.) Turbines — outright kill, injure, stun, delayed mortality, predator suscepti- 

 bility, and disease susceptibility. 



(2.) Size and age of smolts: (a) Migration smoltification stage; (b) Date of initiation 

 of migration; (c) Physiological conditioning of smolts for transition from fresh to salt 

 water; (d) Photoperiod during migration; (e) Physical condition at onset of migration 

 and ocean entry. 



(3.) Travel time in the river and reservoir system and miles of migration. 



