327 



concerned that drawdowns would do more harm to the salmon resource than good. 



3. Identifying alternatives that minimize risk while achieving the goal of increased returns. 

 Using the same example, a Snake River reservoir drawdown v/ould likely lead to 

 additional project mortality due to reduced fish guidance efficiency, problems involving 

 gas supersaturation, increased predator concentrations, latent smolt mortality below 

 Bonneville Dam due to the effects of cumulative project passage through the Snake- 

 Columbia River system and increased adult passage mortality. 



4. Requiring actions to be tested for cost-effectiveness and least cost. Cost-effectiveness 

 analysis allows for an identification of those measures that will acquire the greatest 

 biological benefit for the dollars committed. The National Marine Fisheries Service has 

 convened an Economics Techmcal Committee to advise the service on the economic 

 merits of its recovery plan. The committee is presently evaluating a comprehensive set 

 of salmon recovery measures and determining those measures that will meet cost- 

 effectiveness criteria. Likewise, the Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power 

 Administration are using a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis approach to salmon 

 recovery planning within the System Configuration Study. 



5. Relying on managers who will be held directly accountable for their decisions. 

 Management of the federal Columbia River power system is a federal government activity. 

 It is impractical, imprudent and probably illegal to turn the operational requirements of 

 the system over to a non-federal body, such as the Northwest Power Planning Council. 

 The existing Council's fish and wildlife autiiority should not be extended beyond its 

 current form. To do so implies that the major responsibilities of the region's federal 

 resource agencies should be negated, and that the Council would somehow perform better 

 than the resource agencies presentiy involved. The region, v^th its federal agencies, has 

 effectively addressed die problem of salmon enhancement. We believe what has been 

 lacking has been the fiscal responsibility of fish management agencies for salmon 

 enhancement. The region has spent well in excess of $1 billion, and in 1993 alone has 

 spent almost $300 million through higher power rates for salmon enhancement activities. 

 We have provided the resources to our state and federal fish management agencies, yet 

 we have no accountability for those funds by these agencies or the council. 



Within a sound framework for salmon recovery, enhancements to the existing smolt 

 transportation program will be the basis for success of the other measures. These measures would 

 include adequate protection for productive habitat areas, reductions in ocean and ia-river harvest, 

 and revised hatchery management practices. 



The Columbia River Alliance supports water conservation management practices within 

 irrigated agriculture, but we do so only when based upon site specific, technically credible 

 evaluations. To be truly effective, this must include financial incentives and the voluntary 

 participation of local irrigators. 



