203 



Mr. Moss. Senator, no I do not. I guess being a practical individ- 

 ual, not a fish biologist — but somebody needs to prove to me that 

 a 1-percent change in the improvement in flow velocity or a 9-hour 

 decrease in particle travel time to those four lower Snake River 

 reservoirs can serve any good. 



I mean we are talking about 40,000 to 90,000 cfs. That is six 

 times the volume of what is running out here in the Potomac River 

 today. Just rationally, you cannot conclude that. 



The State of Idaho sends out 38 million acre feet down that river 

 each year, and 20 million of it goes during this migration period. 

 The fish lived very well. 



They did tremendous, evidently, until we had some dams, and we 

 provided an environment in those reservoirs that have allowed, not 

 only below the reservoir of Bonneville, but the marine mammal 

 predation, which the recovery plan says may be responsible for 50 

 percent of the adult mortality. 



We have 40 percent dam adult fallback, as we are going up the 

 river. It just boggles one's mind that we are not addressing the big 

 salmon mortality causes, and we are looking to farfetched solutions 

 out there, of which there is not a scientific basis. 



Now, the biological opinion says that we want to try this, but, 

 Senator, I can find you an equal number of biologists out there, but 

 they do not work for NMFS, that say that is not the solution. It 

 is very difficult. 



In fact, that is why I am here. We have been unable to get to 

 the table to talk about these issues and the affect on Idaho, be- 

 cause we are not biologists, and the system does not allow it. The 

 only way we can get to the table is through the court system. 



And as I noted in my testimony, Disheroon says, "Come get me, 

 and just sue me for compensation and damages." 



It is a poor society or system that we cannot, in fact, talk about 

 these things openly. But the answer to your question is no. 



Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Moss, we are happy that you are at 

 the table here today and giving us the benefits of your thoughts. 



Mr. Sampson. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond very briefly. I 

 am a fish biologist, and I have been a biologist in the Columbia 

 River for over 15 years, working with the States of Idaho, Montana, 

 Washington, and Oregon, as well as all 13 tribes, and the two Fed- 

 eral agencies, and we have concluded, from the tribes' position, 

 that the actions that are necessary — and we look at main stem as 

 habitat. It is not a corridor to pass fish through. It is habitat, and 

 it always has been. 



What is necessary is action to decrease travel time and to im- 

 prove water quality sufficiently to prevent extinction must be im- 

 plemented immediately, structural modifications at the dams, in- 

 cluding better juvenile bypass systems, adult fishways, immediate 

 improvements in river velocity, increased spill when necessary, im- 

 plementation of drawdowns on the lower four Snake River dams 

 and John Day to minimum operating levels, and the release of 

 stored water from the upper Snake and upper Columbia reservoirs 

 to augment in-stream fiow. 



We must remove juveniles from the artificial means of transpor- 

 tation as well. It is not working. It has been proven, it has not 

 worked; otherwise, these salmon would be here right now. 



