(2) Use the model to condurt a technical analysis of general harvest, passage and 

 production alternatives. This analysis is intended to study the feasibility of a broad range of 

 fish production scenarios against a broad range of passage and harvest scenarios. In this 

 way: the feasible ranges of passage, production and harvest policies can be initially 

 identified. Any production and changed harvest parameters available as a result of United 

 States V. Oregon agreements can be included in the technical analysis. 



(3) Identify major system policy alternatives. Any United States v. Oregon agreements can 

 be included at this stage. The numerical output of the technical analysis and non- 

 numerical factors, such as genetics, also can be considered. Policy alternatives are 

 intended to define explicitly the relative roles of passage, production and harvest in 

 restoring salmon and steelhead, and to provide guideposts against which to measure the 

 effectiveness of actions. Policy alternatives may include statements of the scientific 

 uncertainties associated with each alternative and approaches to resolving them. 

 Alternatives may be in the areas of harvest needs and management policies for meeting 

 them; passage survival level consistent with assuring an adequate, economical, efficient, 

 reliable power supply: and production levels and types needed and management policies 

 for achieving them, compatible with harvest needs and passage constraints. 



(4) Discuss the major policy alternatives with the fishery agencies, tribes, land and water 

 managers, utilities and other interested parties Also, hold hearings, sponsor consultations 

 and receive written comment. 



(5) Make choices among the alternatives. 



-18- 



