323 



predator concentrations, and increase adult passage mortality, let 

 edone the ecosystem impacts of drawdowns that could occur to resi- 

 dent fish and wildlife. 



Fourth, require actions to meet a cost-effectiveness test. We must 

 identify measures that will reap the greatest biological benefit for 

 the dollars committed. The National Marine Fisheries Service has 

 convened an Economic Technical Committee to advise the service 

 on the economic merits of the Recovery Plan. Likewise, the Army 

 Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration are 

 using comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis methods to salmon 

 recovery planning. All of these groups stress the need for cost-effec- 

 tiveness. 



And then finally, fifth, we must rely on our managers and force 

 our fish and wildlife managers to be accountable for their decisions. 

 Management of the federal Columbia River system is a Federal 

 Government activity. It is impractical, imprudent and probably ille- 

 gal to turn over the operational requirements of the system to a 

 non-feder^ body such as the Northwest Power Planning Council. 

 The existing Council's fish and wildUfe authority should not be ex- 

 tended beyond its current form. We believe that the region is effec- 

 tively addressing the problem of salmon enhancement. We believe 

 that what has been lacking has been the fiscal responsibility of fish 

 management agencies for salmon enhancement. The region has 

 spent well in excess of one billion dollars and in 1993 sdone has 

 spent almost $300 mUhon through higher power rates for salmon 

 enhancement activities. We have provided the resources to our 

 state and federal fish management agencies, yet we lack the ac- 

 countabiUty for those funds by these agencies or by the Northwest 

 Power Planning Coiincil. 



Within this sound fi*amework that I have just described for salm- 

 on recovery, we think that the cornerstone for the salmon recovery 

 effort is the smolt transportation program — what I think you have 

 referred to as the barging program. We think that enhancements 

 need to be made for those; those can be put in place near-term and 

 frankly can meet the costs and the needs of the other multi-use 

 river users. Other measures that would complement that, and are 

 necessary, would include adequate production for productive habi- 

 tat areas, reductions in ocean and in-river harvest and revised 

 hatchery management practices. 



The Columbia River Alliance also supports water conservation 

 management practices within irrigated agriculture, but we do so 

 only based on site-specific, technically credible evaluations. And we 

 beheve to be truly effective, this program must include financial in- 

 centives and the voluntary cooperative participation of local 

 irrigators and communities. 



As we move forward with these key recovery measures, the re- 

 gion must gain an appreciation that simply some factors are out- 

 side our control. For example, the Snake River chinook runs have 

 followed overall production trends declining similar to the trends 

 apparent in other West Coast rivers, both with and without dams. 

 Clearly, ocean and inter-related inland climate effects vary firom 

 year to year, and these effects can either help or hurt our up-river 

 restoration efforts. We must be cognizant of this factor. 



