OLMSTEAD

Comment 21-10: The results presented in figures 3.1.4.1 through 3.1.4.3 are critical in the decision strategy. However, later in section 3.5 the USGS recommends that the models be recalibrated and that new data should be collected. This casts a shadow on the predictive ability of the PHABSIM and SALMOD models. Can the modeling used in this document correctly predict useful results or is the data presented in these figures in error. This question should be addressed specifically in a later final report.

SALMOD Response: We recommend that SALMOD (or similar young-of-year production model) be refined by extending the geographical coverage downstream and by validating its predictions through monitoring of annual smolt production.

PHABSIM Response: These figures represent the physical use by fish of particular habitat variable, as developed from direct observations in the Trinity River. Their predictive ability for future flow conditions is the same for the existing stream channel as for possible future modified channels. The accuracy of predictions of habitat in modified channel is limited by lack of knowledge of the actual depths and velocities in the future channels. These were approximated as closely as possible by the analyses presented in the Channel Restoration section of the draft ane expanded in the revision.

Response: These figures represent the physical use by fish of particular habitat variable, as developed from direct observations in the Trinity River. Their predictive ability for future flow conditions is the same for the existing stream channel as for possible future modified channels. The accuracy of predictions of habitat in modified channel is limited by lack of knowledge of the actual channel geometry of the future channel. These were approximated as closely as possible by the analyses presented in the Channel Restoration section of the draft and expanded in the revision. We recommend that SALMOD (or similar young-of-year production model) be refined by extending the geographical coverage downstream updating the channel descriptors as the geomorphic processes reshape the channel, and by validating its predictions through monitoring of annual smolt production.

Comment :(Page 5) Section 3.5, Page 3.72: Second assumption: "...habitat values do not change appreciably, and almost certainly do not decrease, at flows above 3,000 cfs." This assumption is not supported by the analysis presented for section 1A in figures 3.1B.3 on Page 3.22a where it is readily apparent that habitat values appear to be rapidly increasing between 3000 and 4500 cfs. A better rationale and justification must be supplied to support this contention in the report since the results would contradict the statement that "habitat values do not change appreciably."

SALMOD Response:: Additional text has been added that refers to another figure that substantiates the statement that habitat values do not decrease at flows above 3000 cubic feet per second (cfs). We examined the feasibility of inserting values for 4500 cfs but were extremely limited by the small amount of habitat data that was collected during the short duration of that flow. We remind the readers that SALMOD was designed to model flow : habitat relationships in the range 300 to 3000 cfs (Williamson et al. 1993) and that is where it is best used until the channel geometry descriptors are extended beyond the vegetated berms and onto the floodplain. In addition, as the channel responds to the recommended management actions, the geometry descriptors will need periodic updates.

PHABSIM Response: STALNAKER/WILLIAMSON NEED TO ADDRESS THIS

Response: Use Salmod response

Lisle COMMENT 3.91: How do we interpret results if different transects were used? They may be OK if they are close enough and the sections were altered radically anyway. If so, I'm not convinced that they show significant improvement from rehab.

REHAB Response: This analysis was only intended to show the change in the flow habitat curves and not the change magnitude of the habitat values.

PHABSIM Response: Habitat representation using WUA generates a relative index to habitat suitability and is limited when comparing the magnitude of WUA at different sites. Pre and post-rehabilitation channels were sufficiently changed to consider them to be different sites, where WUA trends but not magnitudes can be evaluated.

Response: Habitat representation using WUA generates a relative index to habitat suitability and was not extrapolated to reach or river segment values for comparing the magnitude of WUA at different sites. Pre and post-rehabilitation channels were sufficiently changed to produce different indices. Therefore WUA trends but not magnitudes can be evaluated. This analysis was only intended to show the change in the flow habitat indices and not the change in magnitude of the habitat values.

Auble COMMENT:... misguided reliance on "naturalness" of the pre-dam conditions to define the shape of the descending limb of the snowmelt peak in the new river produces one of the worst possible prescriptions from the perspective of limiting vegetation recruitment. The gradually declining limb of pre-dam conditions was not what limited riparian vegetation, it was what enables vegetation to re-establish following catastrophic winter floods. The monotonic declines of Table 6.1 are particularly worrisome. This is exactly the pattern being recommended to maximize seedling establishment on restoration sites where the objective is to encourage expansion of riparian trees - it provides optimal germination conditions at the maximum number of locations and minimizes the possibility of killing yesterday's germinants by any increase in stage. If this decline is dictated by temperature concerns then you may have to accept the undesirable effects on vegetation. However, the tradeoff demands the sort of quantification expected combined effects and justification from tradeoffs that is woefully lacking throughout the overall analysis.

REHAB Reply: The intention of the monotonic declines are restore the snowmelt recession limb of the hydrographs. Although this may allow, to some degree, germination of riparian vegetation over a larger area, much of the germination will occur high on the bars and any plants that germinate near the flow channel margin will be very susceptible to high flows in following years.

GEO Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3, and incorporated into recommendations in Section 8.1.5, dam releases of 1,500 cfs at Lewiston during the snowmelt runoff period of downstream tributaries will cause flow variability (including periodic increases in flow from tributaries) in the mainstem. For example, by releasing 1,500 cfs at Lewiston in early summer, flows below Douglas City may be twice this. If we drop dam releases rapidly just after the snowmelt peak (as the reviewer implies should be done), we would be creating the condition the reviewer is criticizing us for creating: a slowly dropping water level over most of the 40 miles, when seeds are available for germination, that maximizes seedling establishment along the low water channel. Dry and Critically Dry years will present the greatest uncertainty. If (when) two or three Dry and/or Critically Dry years occur in sequence, the recommended flows will not extend sufficiently through the germination period. Tributary flow inputs also will be low over this period. Without an effective high flow following this sequence, riparian encroachment could establish a foothold. We expect riparian establishment to occur from the floodplain down to the 1,500 cfs stage close to the dam, and at higher stages downstream. Additionally, a gradually descending limb allows for a gradual increase in water temperatures, that act as cues for smolting salmonids.

Response: Use Geo Response

COMMENT: Randle: Pages 6.14 to 6.17, Ramping Rates: Are specific ramp rate criteria being proposed (e.g. so many cfs change per hour)?

REHAB Reply: Daily releases during the ascending and descending limbs are recommended.

GEO Response: - can't find....

Response: No, daily releases during the ascending and descending limbs are recommended.

Comment: Raymond D. Hart

Department of Water Resources

Sacramento, CA

Comment : The data presented do not definitively support any specific flow schedule that would correct declining fish and wildlife populations in the basin... Therefore we agree with the recommendation that any actions adopted be carried out using an adaptive management approach.

AEAM Response: Adaptive management is recommended as requested.

REC Response: Disagree with these statements. The increase in flows, to 340,000 acre-
feet, has only been since 1991 and the level of instream releases represents the third driest year on record. The upper Trinity River has been experiencing a drought since the construction of the TRD. The data and recommendations contained in the report provide the best supportable recommendations to restore the fishery resources of the Trinity River.

Response: Disagree with first statements. The increase in flows, to 340,000 acre-feet, has only been since 1991 and the level of instream releases represents the third driest year on record. The upper Trinity River has been experiencing a drought since the construction of the TRD. The data and recommendations contained in the report provide the best supportable recommendations to restore the fishery resources of the Trinity River. Adaptive management is recommended, as reviewer requested, to refine recommendations of flow releases and channel maintenance as deemed warranted by the AEAM process.

Ronald Rempel/ Robert McAllister

California Department of Fish and Game

Sacramento, CA

Comment : Recommended flows are insufficient and would not restore the river and its resources to pre-project conditions. Therefore we recommend the flow regimes developed through the temperature and fluvial geomorphological analyses be implemented on an interim basis. We further recommend that flows greater than those being recommended due to project constraints be evaluated before a final decision is made regarding Trinity River stream flow regimes. This is necessary in order to fully evaluate the river's needs and potential recovery alternatives.

AEAM Response: The implementation of the flow regimes is recommended on an interim basis. Refinements tot the release schedules will be made on the basis of findings through the AEAM process.

REC Response: The flow regimes and volumes are based on the best available data. Changes in flows will be assessed through the Adaptive Management Program.

Response: Pre-project conditions are not the goal of the TRFE Report, rather the goal is to rehabilitate a functioning alluvial river that provides and maintains the necessary habitats for anadromous salmonids and other riverine-dependent species. The flow regimes and volumes are based on the best available data, regardless of project constraints, and implementation of the flow regimes is recommended on an interim basis. The recommendations include an adaptive environmental and assessment management (AEAM) program to evaluate the recommended flow releases and channel rehabilitation and refine these recommendations as necessary. Refinements to the release schedules will be made on the basis of scientific findings through the AEAM process.

Auble Comment 1?? 1. [Based on the information presented], " large winter flows were likely the dominant aspect of pre-TRD flow regime controlling bottomland vegetation and to a large extent bottomland geometry..... The time since the last, slate clearing winter flood was likely the over-riding determinant of the vegetation at any point in time. This is acknowledged in Table 3.4.1, but the implications do not seem fully recognized in the subsequent analysis. Elimination of the dominant winter forcing function gives you a fundamentally different system. The characteristics of the "natural" (pre-dam), secondary snowmelt peak have little or no relevance to how well it will control riparian vegetation in the new system. The snowmelt peak is now the dominant, not the secondary peak. The fact that a particular shape of snowmelt hydrograph occurred in a pre-TRD system that had bare gravel bars means nothing because the snowmelt peak was not what was limiting riparian encroachment in the presence of much larger winter peaks.

GEO Response: We recognize that the "naturalness" of a hydrograph's snowmelt peak was not what historically restricted riparian encroachment, nor that it was the sole cause of open point bars. Our results suggest that open point bars are a combined result of: (1) snowmelt timing and duration that keeps seedlings off of the bars, (2) winter peaks that scoured and killed plants that established on open bars, and (3) year to year variation in WY hydrographs (including droughts) that caused a mosaic of riparian vegetation initiation patterns. Restoring the snowmelt peak has been emphasized because this component cannot be mitigated by downstream tributaries, and the TRD can restore and control its magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration. Downstream tributaries provide winter storm peaks that help mitigate the loss by TRD operations (see Figures 8.14a-g). We agree that the pre-dam winter peaks were the primary riparian encroachment limiting process. However, based on field sampling in 1995-97, we cannot discount the importance of moderate (6,000 cfs to 30,000 cfs) maintenance flows on limiting riparian encroachment in a smaller alternate bar morphology (see Sections 5.4.4.6 and 5.4.4.7).

As discussed in Section 5.4.4.7, a twofold process for limiting sandbar willow is proposed: (a) restrict initiation on open bar surfaces during the first year, and (b) scour the plants away before they become firmly entrenched. Sandbar willows cannot be entirely prevented from germinating on the bars by inundating bars during peak seed dispersal periods due to their long seed dispersal period (it would require too much water). However, inundation combined with high flows (greater than 6,000 cfs) within two or three years since germination can remove the remaining plants that have established.

REC Response: Yes, winter floods controlled riparian encroachment prior to the construction of the TRD. Because salmonids must use the mainstem below Lewiston Dam for spawning, incubation and rearing, restoring winter floods from Lewiston Dam to control riparian encroachment would negatively affect redds and alevins by scouring the riverbed and could displace emergent fry downstream prematurely. Other measures, such as timing geomorphic flows during the spring snowmelt period, must be used to control riparian vegetation because the presence of the TRD makes the reach of the river below Lewiston Dam critical to salmonid production.

Response: We recognize that the "naturalness" of a hydrograph's snowmelt peak was not what historically restricted riparian encroachment, nor that it was the sole cause of open point bars. Because salmonids must use the mainstem below Lewiston Dam for spawning, incubation and rearing, attempting to provide flood releases from Lewiston Dam to control riparian encroachment would negatively affect redds and alevins by scouring the riverbed and could displace emergent fry downstream prematurely. Other measures, such as timing geomorphic flows during the spring snowmelt period, must be used to control riparian vegetation because the presence of the TRD makes the reach of the river below Lewiston Dam critical to salmonid production.

Results suggest that open point bars are a combined result of: (1) snowmelt timing and duration that keeps seedlings off of the bars, (2) winter peaks that scoured and killed plants that established on open bars, and (3) year to year variation in WY hydrographs (including droughts) that caused a mosaic of riparian vegetation initiation patterns. Restoring the snowmelt peak has been emphasized because this component cannot be mitigated by downstream tributaries, and the TRD can restore and control its magnitude, timing, frequency, and duration. Downstream tributaries provide winter storm peaks that help mitigate the loss by TRD operations (see Figures 8.14a-g). We agree that the pre- dam winter peaks were the primary riparian encroachment limiting process. However, based on field sampling in 1995-97, we cannot discount the importance of moderate (6,000 cfs to 30,000 cfs) maintenance flows on limiting riparian encroachment in a smaller alternate bar morphology (see Sections 5.4.4.6 and 5.4.4.7).

As discussed in Section 5.4.4.7, a twofold process for limiting sandbar willow is proposed: (a) restrict seedling germination on open bar surfaces during the first year, and (b) scour the plants away before they become firmly entrenched. Sandbar willows cannot be entirely prevented from germinating on the bars by inundating bars during peak seed dispersal periods due to their long seed dispersal period (it would require too much water). However, inundation combined with high flows (greater than 6,000 cfs) within two or three years after germination can remove the remaining plants that have established.

(Redundant??? -RJW)

Auble Comment 1??: Likewise, the misguided reliance on "naturalness" of the pre-dam condition to define the shape of the declining limb of the snowmelt peak in the new river produces the worst possible prescriptions from the perspective of limiting vegetation recruitment. The gradually declining limb of pre-dam conditions was not what limited riparian vegetation, it was what enabled vegetation re-establishment following catastrophic winter floods. The monotonic declines of Table 6.1 are particularly worrisome. This is exactly the pattern being recommended to maximize seedling establishment on restoration sites where the objective is to encourage expansion of riparian trees – it provides optimal germination conditions at the maximum number of locations and minimizes the possibility of killing yesterday's germinants by any increases in stage. If this decline is dictated by temperature concerns then you may have to accept the undesirable effects on vegetation. However, the tradeoff demands the sort of quantification of expected combined effects and justification for tradeoffs that is woefully lacking throughout the overall analysis.

GEO Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3, and incorporated into recommendations in Section 8.1.5, dam releases of 1,500 cfs at Lewiston during the snowmelt runoff period of downstream tributaries will cause flow variability (including periodic increases in flow from tributaries) in the mainstem. For example, by releasing 1,500 cfs at Lewiston in early summer, flows below Douglas City may be twice this. If we drop dam releases rapidly just after the snowmelt peak (as the reviewer implies should be done), we would be creating the condition he is criticizing us for creating: a slowly dropping water level over most of the 40 miles, when seeds are available for germination, that maximizes seedling establishment along the low water channel. Dry and Critically Dry years will present the greatest uncertainty. If (when) two or three Dry and/or Critically Dry years occur in sequence, the recommended flows will not extend sufficiently through the germination period. Tributary flow inputs also will be low over this period. Without an effective high flow following this sequence, riparian encroachment could establish a foothold. We expect riparian establishment to occur from the floodplain down to the 1,500 cfs stage close to the dam, and at higher stages downstream.

REC Response: No studies were conducted to assess the appropriate ramping rates for the ascending or descending limbs of the snowmelt hydrographs. Using natural patterns, stratified by water year class, was deemed appropriate because these were conditions that existed before the TRD adversely affected the river below Lewiston. Mimicking the historic descending limb allows for a gradual decrease in flows, accompanied by a gradual increase in water temperatures, which act as cues for smolting salmonids.

Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3, and incorporated into recommendations in Section 8.1.5, dam releases of 1,500 cfs at Lewiston during the snowmelt runoff period of downstream tributaries will cause flow variability (including periodic increases in flow from tributaries) in the mainstem. For example, by releasing 1,500 cfs at Lewiston in early summer, flows below Douglas City may be twice this. If we drop dam releases rapidly just after the snowmelt peak (as the reviewer implies should be done), we would be creating the condition he is criticizing us for creating: a slowly dropping water level over most of the 40 miles, when seeds are available for germination, that maximizes seedling establishment along the low water channel. Dry and Critically Dry years will present the greatest uncertainty. If (when) two or three Dry and/or Critically Dry years occur in sequence, the recommended flows will not extend sufficiently through the germination period. Tributary flow inputs also will be low over this period. Without an effective high flow following this sequence, riparian encroachment could establish a foothold. We expect riparian establishment to occur from the floodplain down to the 1,500 cfs stage close to the dam, and at higher stages downstream. Additionally, mimicking the historic descending limb allows for a gradual decrease in flows, accompanied by a gradual increase in water temperatures, which act as cues for smolting salmonids.

James Myers, Ph.D.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (reviewed for John Williams)

General Comments:

1. Many key characteristics of the mainstem habitat relating to juvenile and adult needs were addressed. Most importantly, the study clearly shows that current flow regimes are not adequate to maintain the river as a salmonid habitat. The impact of the riparian berm on salmon habitat and river morphology was well documented, as were the estimates of flows necessary to alleviate the establishment of vegetation on the berm. However, some of the models used to estimate spawning and rearing area under different flow regimes seemed inappropriate. Although benefits were based on habitat preferences (relative abundance) observed in the river, since hatchery production contributes a large number of juveniles to the system, in some cases the majority of juveniles (e.g. coho and spring chinook salmon, and summer steelhead), the authors should devote some discussion to the possibility that hatchery and wild juveniles exhibit different habitat preferences (if so, different flow regimes could bias the recovery of wild fish relative to hatchery-derived fish). To weigh the importance of mainstem flow on overall production, it might have been useful to estimate the relative abundance of fry, fingerling, and holding/spawning adults (chiefly coho salmon and steelhead) in tributaries compared with mainstem habitats.

GEO Response: Comment noted. At this time this information is largely unavailable. As the channel configuration changes once rehabilitation projects are done and recommended flows are released, the available habitat availability curves (presented in Section 5.1) will also change. It is the authors' intention that future management re- examine and re-model habitat areas and the interactions/differences between hatchery and "wild" fish, as such text is included in the adaptive management appendix.

REC Response: The recommended releases, along with channel rehabilitation and sediment management recommendations, are not targeted for just fall chinook salmon. All three anadromous salmonid species were considered when developing flow recommendations and restoration of the riverine habitats will benefit all anadromous salmonids as well as the amphibians and reptiles that rely on the habitats provided by an alluvial river such as the Trinity River.

PHABSIM Response: All studies of fish species criteria and habitat were designed to focus on wild fish to the extent possible. Data collection efforts on juvenile criteria, for example, were suspended each season after releases of hatchery juveniles were made.

Response: The recommended releases, along with channel rehabilitation and sediment management recommendations, are not targeted for just fall chinook salmon. All three anadromous salmonid species were considered when developing reservoir release schedules and restoration of the riverine habitats are designed to will benefit all anadromous salmonids as well as the amphibians and reptiles that rely on the habitats provided by an alluvial river such as the Trinity River. At this time, additional information is largely unavailable. As the channel configuration changes once rehabilitation projects are done and recommended flows are released, the available habitat availability curves (presented in Section 5.1) will also change. It is the authors' intention that future management re-examine and re-model habitat areas and the interactions/differences between hatchery and "wild" fish. For the studies presented, all studies of fish species criteria and habitat were designed to focus on wild fish to the extent possible. Data collection efforts on juvenile criteria, for example, were suspended each season after releases of hatchery juveniles were made.

Pages 2.45-46, Section 2.7.1.4: The information here about historical escapement estimates should be included in a discussion of the validity of the Trinity Restoration Program goals. Such a presentation would be useful in developing a meaningful adaptive management program.

F&W Response: The Program's escapement goals do not directly affect the recommendations contained in this report, as the goals of this report are broader than the TRRP's escapement goals. If the established goals of the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force are to be re-evaluated, it would be appropriate only under the guidance of the Task Force, whose members include several affected agencies (including Reclamation), some of which are not directly involved in the drafting of this report.

REC Response: Some of this information is pertinent to the Trinity River EIS/EIR. Pertaining to the restoration goals of the Trinity River Restoration Program (Program), it was decided by the authors that it was not appropriate to re-assess the restoration goals of the Program and that any re-assessment should be conducted by the Task Force and its technical committee of with the Bureau is a member.

Response: The Program's escapement goals do not directly affect the recommendations contained in this report, as the goals of this report are broader than the TRRP's escapement goals. Pertaining to the restoration goals of the Trinity River Restoration Program (Program), it was decided by the authors that it was not appropriate to re-assess the restoration goals of the Program and that any re-assessment should be conducted by the Task Force and its technical committee of which Reclamation is a member.

Michny/Lentz Comment: Page 6.21, paragraphs 2-3: Sand dredging is not included as a fine sediment control. It is an important action and should be discussed in this section. Also see comment for Page 2.58.

GEO Response: See response for comment for page 2.58. [which is "Continued dredging is recommended for the Hamilton Ponds, and, as suggested, is also remains as a potential management tool in the future for the mainstem. These inconsistency has been clarified in the report."]

REC Response: THERE WAS NO RESPONSE...

Response: Use GEO response for p 2.58.

BOVEE Comment: I realize that the graph on page 2.27a probably refers to the release temperature at Lewiston and the other temperature data refer to downstream location. However, this distinction is not clear (e.g., compare the first paragraph on page 2.28 with the first paragraph on page 2.50), nor are the causative mechanisms for the difference (how can it be warmer downstream if we are releasing colder water upstream?).

GEO Response: Comment incorporated and text clarified.

TEMP Response: Additional data/graphics have been included to accommodate this comment.

Response: Additional data/graphics and clarifying text has been included to address this comment.

OLMSTEAD Comment 21-17: No attempt is mentioned in the final strategy to influence river flows solely for the coho salmon. The relationship between the flow strategy upon the coho salmon and other salmonid species and non-fish species is overlooked. The high flow strategy presented in this document will certainly result habitat degradation and result in a negative impact upon various species will as juvenile fish and smolts.

REC Response: The recommended releases, along with channel rehabilitation and sediment management recommendations, are not targeted for just chinook salmon and steelhead. All three anadromous salmonid species were considered when developing flow recommendations and restoration of the riverine habitats will benefit all anadromous salmonids as well as the amphibians and reptiles that rely on the habitats provided by an alluvial river such as the Trinity River. Disagree with the statement that "the high flow strategy ... will certainly result in habitat degradation ...".

PHABSIM Response: See response to ORNL above [The discussion of tradeoff between rearing habitat and fluvial processes recommendations will be expanded in the revision of the draft.]. High flows can cause temporary reductions in salmonid populations in exchange for longer term maintenance of habitat quality.

Response to myers' similar comment: The recommended flow regime is designed for the spawning, incubation, rearing and outmigration of all anadromous salmonid species, without special emphasis on any species, pursuant to the mandates of the 1981 SID and relevant statutes.

Response: The recommended flow regime is designed for the spawning, incubation, rearing and outmigration of all anadromous salmonid species, without special emphasis on any species, pursuant to the mandates of the 1981 SID and relevant statutes. The recommended releases, along with channel rehabilitation and sediment management recommendations, are targeted for all three anadromous salmonid species, all of which were considered when developing flow recommendations. The restoration of the riverine habitats will benefit all anadromous salmonids as well as the amphibians and reptiles that rely on the habitats provided by an alluvial river such as the Trinity River. Disagree with the statement that "the high flow strategy ... will certainly result in habitat degradation ...". High flows can cause temporary reductions in salmonid populations but these reductions are in exchange for long term maintenance of high quality habitats.

Randle Comment: The statement at the bottom of page indicates that 300 cfs provides more habitat than 450 cfs. If the sand berms are removed, would the amount of habitat be about the same at either flow?

REC Response: This is unknown and will be a task of the Adaptive Management Program.

PHABSIM Response: The Channel Rehabilitation habitat analysis indicates that approximately the same amount of total habitat would be present over this flow range if the sand berms were to be removed.

Response: The Channel Rehabilitation habitat analysis indicates that approximately the same amount of total habitat would be present over this flow range if the sand berms were to be removed. However, the habitat provided by the rehabilitated channel is more robust and relatively stable over a range of flow conditions. Re-evaluation of habitat availability by the Adaptive Management Process will be needed once berms are removed and channel morphology has changed

Sale Comment : Initial rationale for developing the recommended flow regimes is described well at the beginning of Section 6, but it is not always clear why specific flow values were selected. ... A more complete explanation is needed.

REC Response: Text has been rewritten to clarify how different flow-related objectives were incorporated into the final recommended hydrographs.

First PHABSIM Response: Comment 22-9a: .... it is not always clear why specific flow values were selected. Response: The discussion of flow recommendation rationale will be expanded in the revision of the draft.

Second PHABSIM Response: Comment 22-9b : High flows can be damaging to salmonid production... A more complete explanation is needed. Response: The discussion of tradeoff between rearing habitat and fluvial processes recommendations will be expended in the revision of the draft.

Response: Text has been rewritten and expanded in Section 8. to clarify how different flow-related objectives were incorporated into the final recommended hydrographs. The discussion of tradeoff between rearing habitat and fluvial processes recommendations has been expended in the revision of the draft.

SALE Comment: The final flow recommendations end up quite a bit high relative to past alternatives. There is relatively little information in the report that will help understand the incremental benefits and costs to salmonid production that would be associated with marginal adjustments in flows. More work should be done with the SALMOD simulations to get at marginal benefits of flows for salmon.

REC Response: Information pertaining to the benefits of increase flow, as well as other restoration alternative, is being addressed through the EIS/EIR process.

SALMOD Response: Numerous additional SALMOD model runs have been made since receiving the reviewers' comments that consider different flow regimes, different spawning escapement levels, spawning and rearing habitat changes and various reservoir release temperature effects on production, survivorship and growth.

Response: Numerous additional SALMOD model runs have been made since receiving the reviewers' comments that consider different flow regimes, different spawning escapement levels, spawning and rearing habitat changes and various reservoir release temperature effects on production, survivorship and growth. Information pertaining to the benefits of increase flow, as well as other restoration alternatives, is to be addressed through the EIS/EIR process.