202 



and those that you think we should actively pursue. Again, just 

 your thoughts. 



Mr. Baker. The first comment I should make to you, Senator, is 

 that the Sierra Club and environmental organizations have been 

 the first to disarm in the war over biology. We have no staff biolo- 

 gists. We even put together our wild salmon forever plan, which we 

 brought to Capitol Hill 2 months ago — we even compiled our salm- 

 on recovery plan with the help of volunteer biologists. 



We feel it is scientifically credible, but we are not eager to en- 

 gage in the war of Ph.D.'s that has broken out in the Northwest. 



We have consulted biologists from the States and tribes from the 

 Northwest Power Planning Council, from folks who have no other 

 interest than the protection of the fish and their restoration. 



In consulting with them, we find a great need to relieve the 

 blockage created by eight consecutive reservoirs of slack water, 320 

 miles in length, that delay migration to the point of very large mor- 

 talities. 



And for that reason, we have proposed a program both of res- 

 ervoir drawdowns within the salmon corridor as well as flow aug- 

 mentation. 



We were disappointed by the final biological opinion which came 

 from them recently, because it relied solely upon flow augmenta- 

 tion, and put the kind of burden that we have heard from Mr. 

 Moss. 



And many of the numbers, if not all of the numbers that he gave 

 you, we are in agreement with. The fact of the matter is when you 

 consult with these biologists at the States, at the tribes, at the 

 Northwest Power Planning Council, the only way you can get an 

 upward sloping line, based upon the best available scientific infor- 

 mation, the only way you can get an upward sloping line of salmon 

 numbers, is through a program of drawdowns, flow augmentation, 

 and spill. 



In that regard, I would point out to you, Senator, that the Sierra 

 Club and other environmental organizations which we work with 

 on the recovery have been in the forefront of pushing for the Corps 

 of Engineers to install baffle spill gates, to install surface-oriented 

 collectors, and to install bolt turbines. 



The kind of technological innovations that you called for earlier 

 today, that we also heard from Administrator Hardy, these are im- 

 portant measures, they need to be installed, they make the system 

 work, but all of these technological advances are only targeted on 

 increasing the survival of the fish as they pass through the dam 

 itself, through the concrete. 



These measures provide little or no benefit in moving the fish 

 through the slack water reservoirs that are delaying the migration 

 such that we get these devastating mortalities. 



Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Baker, thank you. 



Mr. Moss, let me then turn to you with a final question. In your 

 judgment, does a 1-percent increase in river velocity, from flow 

 augmentation, justify the kind of costs that we have talked about 

 today, concerning BPA and irrigated agriculture, and do you be- 

 lieve that a water-based solution is the answer for the recovery of 

 the salmon. 



