329 



The NPPC's "Strategy for Salmon" 



Is the NPPC's Strategy for Salmon an appropriate and sufRcient framework for salmon recovery 

 efforts in the Columbia Basin? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy for 

 Salmon? 



The greatest strength of the Strategy for Salmon plan is its recognition that there is no 

 "silver bullet" for salmon recovery. Recovery measures must take into account impacts 

 incurred during the complete salmon life-cycle. This includes protection for productive 

 spawning areas, for system passage through the Snake-Columbia river system, and for sufficient 

 adult escapement from ocean and in-river fisheries back to spawning areas. The plan addresses 

 a broad range of human impacts to the Snake-Columbia River salmon runs. 



Also, the Council has shown a willingness to engage diverse interests and parties in their 

 plaiming effort through an exhaustive public involvement program. The Council deserves credit 

 for providing open access to and a broad public forum for salmon recovery planning. 



But the Strategy for Salmon plan does exhibit some crucial weaknesses, and this factor 

 requires some specific discussion about salmon recovery planning. 



Establishing Salmon Recovery Priorities: 



The greatest weakness of the plan is its failure to prioritize recovery measures, given the 

 broad range of available alternatives. By not accepting the discipline required for setting 

 priorities, the Council has placed needless emphasis on some highly questionable alternatives, 

 while giving more productive measures less attention. 



The methodological approach that should be used to establish priorities is cost- 

 effectiveness analysis or least-cost planning. Cost-effectiveness analysis allows for an 

 identification of those measures that will acquire the greatest biological benefit for the dollars 

 committed. In the case of the Snake River weak salmon stocks, the objective is to maximize the 

 total number of adult salmon returning back to Idaho waters for each recovery dollar spent. In 

 simplest terms, the application of cost-effectiveness analysis means choosing measures that will 

 get more fish back to Idaho, not less, and at least-cost to the region. 



The Council is no stranger to cost-effectiveness analysis or least-cost planning. It 

 adamantly endorses least-cost planning for its regional power plan. Moreover, the Council is well 

 aware of the provisions in the Northwest Power Act calling for cost-effectiveness analysis to be 

 applied to the fish and wildlife program. But the Council refuses to subject the Strategy for 

 Salmon plan to the scrutiny of a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis. Some Council 

 members, and some of their staff, have been quite candid about this issue and stated to Alliance 

 members that the plan is, first, driven by regional politics and, second, a course of action based 

 on science and technical information. 



