351 



Endangered Species Act (for example, see Olsen and Peters, 1991). Given this review 

 and intemaJ discussion, a clear majority of the NMFS Economics Technical Committee 

 has consistently stressed that recovery measure evaluation should be based on each 

 measure's incremental biological benefits and economic costs, within a comprehensive 

 recovery plan. The biological benefits for key recovery measures should be based on 

 adult returns back to Idaho waters; no other measure will lead to a technically correct 

 cost-effectiveness analysis and least-cost salmon recovery plan. 



Given this methodological framework, the cost-effectiveness of a John Day Pool 

 drawdown measure should be evaluated according to its biological benefits and 

 economic costs relative to other recover measures-such as harvest restrictions, smolt 

 transportation Improvements, predator control actions, and other alternatives. A John 

 Day Pool drawdown would be cost-effective if, and only if. it provides a greater number 

 of returning adult salmon back to Idaho waters per recovery dollar spent, when compared 

 to other major recovery measures. 



The NiU has made an initial estimate of the cost-effectiveness of a John Day Pool 

 drawdown from elevation 262.5-263.5 (minimum operating pool) to 257 (minimum 

 operating pool). This estimate was included within the study provided to the ETC for their 

 review (Olsen 1992). This work relies on life-cycle modelling estimates derived from the 

 Idaho Fish Manager spreadsheet model, calibrated to reflect system passage survival 

 rates similar to the NPPC's PAM model and the CRISP 1 .0 series model, and includes 

 ocean and in-river harvest/mortality rates developed by or for state and federal resource 

 agencies. 



The study's economic cost estimates are primarily based on estimates prepared by the 

 ETC, the Corps of Engineers, PNUCC, and other agency/industry consultants and 

 reports. The costs cover impacts to hydropower, irrigation pump modifications, 

 recreation, and preliminary estimates for Umatilla Rsh Hatchery pump modifications, and 

 mitigation costs for the Umatilla Wildlife Reserve. 



As noted above by Anderson (1993a), a John Day Pool drawdown produces very small 

 fish benefits, if any. This obsen/ation was further borne out within the NIU analysis (Olsen 

 1992), even under conditions of optimal smolt survival assumptions. 



But the economic costs are not inconsequential. A drawdown cost would likely be in the 

 $9,000,000 to $14,000,000 per year range (annualized dollars using a 40/15-year 

 amortization period for federal/private capital expenditijres, with a 4% real discount rate- 

 ETC standard assumptions). This cost range was discussed in detail with the Corps of 

 Engineers' economists woridng on the System Configuration Study (SCS) and the System 

 Operation Review (SOR). and they indicated that this cost range is a reasonable estimate 

 and consistent with their own cost estimates (Economics Branch Staff 1992). 



Using a cost-effectiveness index of annualized dollars per year for the first adult return 



