66 



St8rte 5.^30/95 P£^« 4 



W€ <^uesfion tha NMFS' prjposaJ ttiaithe Imptenwntation Team sfiould 

 be an Qc&nmstfative Ktemity that wtfl 'direct researdT and the dsptrte rB«)lraon 

 ciscussion is inoomptete and iaa(J©<?jate. In ttie U.S. v. Oregon process 

 unresolved dsputea escalate to a cSstnct judge- This seems to be in confSct with 

 statements elsewncre in ttie P\an that NMFS wrii make final dedaiona. 



The Team's reccmmendation was that \he Scientific Oversight 

 Committee. (SOC) now your SAP shciiid pnovkJe a process fof resoNnr»g 

 cfeputes and asse^ng saentific valkfty. The Team further recommended that 

 the SOC srtould estabtish research priortties and review and approve research 

 designs. In this way the SOC wouW ftandle research oversigm. 



The Team's fined recommerdations to NMFS were negative atwut 

 drawdown however, we left open the pcssibility of a test If a reasonable 

 experimemal design was devetoped tfat would net put fish at significant risic As 

 of this date we have yet to see an. experimental design that wouti suocessfully 

 test drawdown as a necovery strategy. W« note that you wiH meks a decision on 

 wfiether to conduct a short lemi drawdown in 1996. There are a number of 

 problems with near-term spiitway cmst drawdowns such as: ttie ioss of the 

 collection tadlfty. dipping fi^ out of the sateweiis or removing screens, the 

 opersaion of turtanes at off-peak eflxaency. the installation of rock weirs to 

 pfotect Vne spilling basins and the passage of adutt salmon pctst the drawdown 

 experiment These pnopterrts wiA, in our opinion, be d^rimentai and tbsuSI m 

 increased mortaltiy to salrrton. Urrtii the problems of teh passage are resolved 

 tr)ere shouki be qq, spdtway crest d r a wduwn. 



Flow Augmemanon 



As we have oommented before, we do not know how much water « 

 needed tor fish and there is lai^ unoertainty abotd the relationship of flow to 

 survival. The Team has acknowiedged that there is a tknv survfvaJ rofciito nahy 

 that is yet undefined for pre se ntty existing nver and reserved conditions. We dU 

 not accept a apecifio flow survivHl relationship as impfed by your wotdkig: "^ttte 

 TeamI acknowledged the validity of ttut f^ow survival relationship.* We have 

 recommended tt^at the amount o^ flow arKJ its allocation needed carefui testing. 

 The plan is-sil»ncoi>th«d«taii6 of testing and we suggeet that a more detaied 

 ptan of operations be devetoped. 



