64 



Steile 5/'30/95 Page 2 



We recogrsze tinai some o< ocir recornmendatkins are not poptiiar with 

 some, txft that does not deter us from seeking impravements in the NMFS Plan 

 trsat w« believe will b«neft the listed salmon. 



Our ma/ar difterences are thdS«; 



• Summary TaWo« {Duration Column): Tirne scales n«©d to be shortened for 

 vanoufi activities, 



• instttttfionai structur*: The Soentrfic Advisory P^ieJ shotrfd harvdte 

 research oversight and reeotution ot soentiftc disputes. 



► • Otwwdown; We have not seen a reasonable exp«imental desion to tBSt 

 ca^wdown. Until the problems of downsCneam arKJ upstiBam passage for both 

 juvemios znd adults, which we- beleve wiil ir^rease saimon mortality, are 

 addressed there should be no drEMrdowns. 



• now augmentation: We do rtot accept t)ie Plan's wordif>g that implies that 

 there is a known ftow-SL»rv<wal relationship. We cannot concur with a shift in 

 phoifty to sphng flows as described in the NMFS Plan. First pooflty shoukJ b« 

 given to summer fJows. We are corKsemed that the NMFS Plan appears to 

 diecredt the NMFSAJnrvefSity of Washington 1993-1994 Snake River survrvaJ 

 stLKfee. 



- • 3pJn; SpiWng at collector dams is not in our judgment a viawe recovery 

 method dv«n wdhout gas bubtXe mortality. 



>« H arvat t: We do not beieve thai giving harvest management rasponsaaaty to 

 the Pactfic Fishery Mareigemefn Councd and the Pacrfic Saimon Comfrtssion 

 wiil nesud in reoovefy. 



• Ha b ftaL Some specifk; gxaions the Team rsco<nrr>eoded ("ua-. an immediate 

 moretohum on further rxjn-feh-retetod ctevetopment of crlticai habita! areas), 

 and which were incJuded in eajfer NM=^ Plsoi drafts, became *wetered 

 down' in the final draft to the status of federaJ agency guidelines rather than 

 ESA-martdated spedftc actions. 



