122 



45 



Model (PAM) and BPA's Cohunbia River Salmon Passage Model (CRiSP) has 

 been essentially contemporaneous, beginning about 1989. Both models )»ve 

 evolved and continue to evolve, incorporating advancements in computer 

 technology and in our understanding of pertinent physical and biological 

 processes, in an attempt to address evolving resource management issues. In 

 general, CRiSP has a much finer temporal resolution than PAM (e.g. daily 

 average flows in CRiSP vs. annual average in PAM), and includes separate 

 submodels for many processes that are simply lumped together in PAM (e.g. 

 dissolved gas generation and associated mortality). CRiSP is calibrated for 

 spring and fall chinook and for steelhead whereas PAM considers only spring 

 Chinook. CRiSP is also stochastic in order to represent the highly variable 

 nature of passage conditions. PAM considers only mean conditions. It is our 

 opinion that these and other differences between the models make CRiSP 

 better suited to investigate impacts of modifications to the operation of the 

 Columbia-Snake hydrosystem. While we prefer the CRiSP model, both models 

 are complimentary. 



Question 7: It is my understanding that BPA has contracted for a "shadow" biological 



opinion similar to the one conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

 It this correct? If so, what is the purpose of this contract and how much will it 

 cost? 



Answer: 



We assume this question refers to the NMFS Salmon Recovery Plan. 



BPA is developing a Technical Analysis document that will address a range of 

 issues we view as pertinent to the salmon recovery effort, including the NMFS 

 Recovery Plan. Several examples of these issues are: (1) habitats of weak 

 salmon stocks of the Snake River Basin and feasible recovery measures, (2) 



