342 



Using the "quadrant level" approach, a wide range of alternatives can be compared under 

 low and average water conditions: smolt transportation improvements 

 (TRANSPORTATION-1-4); in-river (HARVEST-1-3) and ocean (HARVEST-2-4) 

 commercial harvest restriaions; reservoir drawdown strategies (SNAXE DRAWDOWN and 

 JOHN DAY- 1-2); flow augmentation strategies (NPPC-FT.OW-II); predator control 

 programs (PREDATOR-1-2); and habitat management improvements (HABITAT-1-2). 



Key Finding and Discussion 



The most cost-effective salmon recovery alternatives are estimated to be transportation 

 improvements, in-river commercial harvest restrictions, and predator control programs. A 

 "mid-range" set of alternatives would likely include several features, though varying levels 

 of uncertainty surround these measures. For example, flow augmentation-if effective, and 

 estimated to provide additional transponation benefits in the Lower Snake River-would fall 

 within this mid-range cost-effectiveness level. Though highly sensitive to several variables, 

 ocean commercial harvest restriaions would generally fall within the mid-range. Also, when 

 reviewed across an aggregated industrial land-use perspective, habitat improvements would 

 enter mid-range cost-effeaiveness levels (industrial land uses need further disaggregation 

 for a more detailed cost-effectiveness ranking). 



Drawdown alternatives would offer the least viable, least cost-effective measures to be 

 included within a salmon recovery plan. The critical smolt survival rate assumptions 

 ("critical assumptions") necessary for the biological effectiveness of a Snake River reservoir 

 drawdown to near spillway crest are highly improbable, rendering it a poor candidate to pass 

 any cost-effectiveness review. Nor is drawdown of the John Day Reservoir to minimum 

 operating pool (MOP) a cost-effective alternative, given its relatively low fish benefit versus 

 economic costs. 



Questions are often asked about likely recovery program costs on a per returning adult 

 salmon basis. The recovery alternatives' cost-effectiveness range varies greatly. Based on 

 a cost-effectiveness index of annual dollars (1990$) per adult fish renim to Idaho waters for 

 the first-return cycle, transportation improvements would be in the hundreds-of-dollars per 

 fish range; in-river commercial harvest restriaions in the low tens-of-thousands-of-doUars 

 per fish range (along with other measures); and the drawdown of the John Day Pool to 

 MOP would likely be in the hundreds-of-thousands-of dollars per fish range. Because the 

 Snake River reservoir drawdown to near spillway crest would likely fail to equal or exceed 

 fish benefit numbers under the existing smolt transportation program, it is designated as "off 

 the chart" from a cost-effectiveness perspective. 



While the analysis presented here allows for a better understanding of the "path toward cost- 

 effectiveness' for salmon recovery measures, it should not be considered as either all- 

 inclusive or without need for further review and work. The objective is to improve an 

 understanding of the path ahead for securing high quality, prudent sahnon recovery 

 measures. 



