tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post7641849853710546794..comments2024-03-12T10:09:34.656-07:00Comments on KlamBlog: Klamath Water WoesFelice Pacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15745833097325147423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post-36961171126934483872014-01-10T16:20:34.205-08:002014-01-10T16:20:34.205-08:00Nice writing and summary, though some facts need t...Nice writing and summary, though some facts need to be fixed. The 2010 BO minimums, Phase II minimums, and the 2002 BO description need more accurate reporting. For instance, when comparing minimum flows, we need to look at apples with apples. Why was 90% exceedance flows chosen when 95% exceedance flows for the 2010 BO and the Hardy Phase II flows are available? <br /><br />Also, the 2002 BO comment about that being illegal because it ignored the best available science (i.e., Phase II report) is not correct. The Hardy Phase II report was finalized in 2006, whereas the BO was completed in 2002. If I recall correctly, what was wrong with the BO is that NMFS analyzed the long term flows (aka Phase 3) properly but not the first two. Therefore, the court required Reclamation to implement Phase 3 flows until there's a new consultation. If the 2002 BO was "illegal", the Klamath wouldn't have those flows you listed in the table. <br /><br />Please check your facts so that your blog can be more credible. Finally, thanks for sharing info and for being a Klamath and salmon advocate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4361990989642100421.post-62919344762151600762013-08-18T14:58:04.556-07:002013-08-18T14:58:04.556-07:00Thanks for the fine & comprehensive review. W...Thanks for the fine & comprehensive review. We are with the salmon, the salmon are with us.Mike Vozick, New York Citynoreply@blogger.com