Acknowledgements
1 Summary
1.2 Alternative 2 Summary
1.3 Alternative 3 Summary
1.4 Alternative 4 Summary
1.5 Alternative 5 Summary
1.6 Alternative 6 Summary
1.7 Alternative 7 Summary
1.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives
2 Background to the Human Effects Analysis
3 Methodology and Current Conditions
3.1 Background for Analysis
3.2 Measures of Human Effects 3.2.1 Social Effects
3.2.2 Tribal Effects
3.2.3 Economic Welfare Effects
3.2.4 Regional Economic Effects 3.3 Sources of information 3.3.1 Economic and Social Theory
3.3.2 Existing Studies and Information
3.3.3 New Analysis 3.4 Key Assumptions 3.4.1 Common Assumptions
3.4.2 Analytical Assumptions
3.4.3 Cost Allocation Assumptions
4 Framework Strategies: Policy and Economic Efficiency Effects
4.1 Relationship of Strategies to Alternatives
4.2 Beneficial Effects 4.2.1 Tribal Values
4.2.2 Commercial Fisheries
4.2.3 Recreational Fishing and Hunting
4.2.4 Other Recreation and Nonconsumptive Use Values
4.2.5 Passive Use Values
4.2.6 Other Benefits from Endangered Species Recovery
4.2.7 Benefits Associated with Individual Strategy Blocks 4.3 Adverse Effects 4.3.1 Hydrosystem Strategies
4.3.2 Habitat Strategies
4.3.3 Harvest Levels and Strategies
4.3.4 Hatchery Production Levels and Operations
5 Alternatives Analysis
5.1 Social Effects 5.1.1 Poverty
5.1.2 Mortality
5.1.3 Passive Use
5.1.4 Other Environmental Effects
5.1.5 Other Quality of Life 5.2 Tribal Effects 5.2.1 A Summary of Impacts of Alternative Framework Initiatives on the Tribes
5.2.2 Salmon
5.2.3 Wildlife Habitat
5.2.4 Water Quality
5.2.5 Distribution of Columbia Basin Income and Wealth
5.3 Economic Efficiency Effects 5.3.1 Fisheries
5.3.2 Hydropower
5.3.3 Recreation
5.3.4 Transportation
5.3.5 Agriculture and Water Users
5.3.6 Forestry
5.4 Regional Economic Effects 5.4.1 Output
5.4.2 Personal income
5.4.3 Employment
5.5 Risks Associated with Common Assumptions 5.5.1 Clean Water Act Enforcement
5.5.2 Trends in Fish Populations
5.6 Mitigation/Transition
6 References Cited
Appendixes
A Current Status of Human Effects Measures by Region
B Examples of Existing and Proposed Programs and Practices that Could be Used to Accomplish Framework Habitat Strategies
C Strategies Organized by Human Effects Strategy Block
D Strategies Included in Each Alternative
E Passive Use Value and the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives
F Description of Hydrosystem Modeling
Tables
1-4 Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Multi-Species Framework Alternatives
1-2 Human Effects of Framework Alternatives
3-1 Categories of Human Effects and Human Effects Indicators for the Human Effects Analysis
3-2 Selected Human Effects Indicators of All Citizens and Tribal Citizens of the Columbia Basin
3-3 Age Adjusted Death Rates for Tribal Peoples Compared to Other Citizens in the Columbia Basin
3-4 Losses of Reservation Lands By Tribes of the Columbia Basin
3-5 Present Value of BPA Net Revenues, 2002 to 2021, Three Market Price Scenarios
4-1 Human Effects Strategy Blocks
4-2 Estimated Chinook Salmon Run Size, Current Conditions, Alternatives, and Historical Potential
4-3 Fishing and Hunting Unit Values from the Literature
4-4 Summary of Hydrosystem Actions Included in the Alternatives
4-5 Value of Hydroelectric Generation in Framework Alternatives
4-6 Additional Cost for Transmission System Improvements, Framework Alternative 3
4-7 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Analysis of Snake River Flow Augmentation Scenarios
4-8 Potential Monthly Electric Bill Increases from Snake River Drawdown Alternative
4-9 Facility Modifications Costs, Implementation Costs, Juvenile Transportation Costs, and Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
4-10 Economic Costs Associated with Dam Breaching, Facility Modifications, and Hydrosystem Actions
4-11 Land Use by Ecological Province
4-12 Agricultural Land Use by Ecological Province
4-13 Assumptions for Practices for Strategies that Affect Agricultural Land Use
4-14 Assumptions for Extent of Practices for Strategies that Affect Forestry
4-15 Assumptions for Extent of Practices for Strategies that Affect Construction or Land Acquisition
4-16 Ranges of Annualized Economic Value (NED Benefits) from Columbia River Anadromous Fish by Fishery for Feasibility Study Baseline Alternative
4-17 Summary Data from Hatchery Audit Reports
4-18 Changes in Chinook Salmon Hatchery Production by Framework Alternative in Numbers of Fish
5-1 Social Effects of Alternatives
5-2 Chinook Salmon Run Size by Alternative in 1,000 Fish and Number of Fish as Percent of Alternative 4
5-3 Probability of Delisting Natural Spring/Summer Chinook With Alternative Actions at Four Lower Snake Dams
5-4 Proposed Habitat Intensities By Alternative
5-5 Tribal Impacts on Lands Inundated by Four Lower Snake River Reservoirs
5-6 Impacts of Alternatives on Commercial Fisheries
5-7 Impacts of Alternatives on Hydropower
5-8 Impacts of Alternatives on Recreation
5-9 Impacts of Alternatives on Transportation
5-10 Summary Estimates of Preliminary Habitat Land Use Impacts and Costs by Alternative
5-11 Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users
5-12 Preliminary Direct Output Effects of Framework Alternatives
5-13 Assumed Share of Direct Effects by State
5-14 Response Coefficients per Million $ Output
5-15 Example Regional Economic Impacts for Alternative 1, by State
5-16 Impacts of Alternatives on Value of Output
5-17 Impacts of Alternatives on Personal Income
5-18 Impacts of Alternatives on Employment
Figures
3-1a Ecoprovinces and Subbasins
3-1b States, Counties and Economic Regions with Ecoprovince Boundaries
Acknowledgements
This report was compiled by CH2M HILL from contributions by numerous authors including Roger Mann, RMecon; Phil Meyer, Meyer Resources, Inc. (tribal values); NWPPC Staff (hydrosim analysis, economic and Framework background, sensitivity analysis); Mary Jo Kealy, CH2M HILL (Appendix E Passive Use Values), Chris Hansen Murray, U.S. Forest Service (USFS policies and ICBEMP), and Ed Sienkowicz (mitigation analysis). Many others contributed to the analysis through their participation in the Human Effects Workgroup and through comments provided on earlier drafts. The document was prepared under the guidance of Terry Morlan, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, and Andy Linehan, CH2M HILL, Portland. The roles and contributions of these people do not imply their acceptance of any particular results or statements made in the report.
Section 1
Summary
The primary objectives of the human effects analysis are to evaluate and display potential human effects of the Multi-Species Framework alternatives (the alternatives). The alternatives represent different policies to balance the multiple uses of the Columbia River Basin. All of the alternatives are intended to enhance fish and wildlife resources, especially anadromous fish, to achieve better balance between economic and natural amenities in the Basin. The alternatives, and this Human Effects Analysis, attempt to capture a range of economic, social and tribal visions concerning what an appropriate balance should be and how this balance could be achieved. At this time, none of the alternatives is formally supported by any particular interest groups.
This report was developed with advice and comment from the Human Effects Workgroup (Workgroup), which developed the analysis scope and work plan that guided this effort. Social scientists analyzed the alternatives by organizing the strategies that make up each alternative, collecting and analyzing existing information about the effects of these or similar strategies, and, finally, aggregating effects for a summary evaluation of each alternative. A contractor, CH2M HILL with RMecon, provided most of the text and analysis. Some analysis and text have been provided by Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) staff, other consultants and Workgroup members. Sections 3.2.2, 4.2.1, and 5.2, which pertain to tribal values, were written primarily by Meyer Resources, Inc.
This section provides a short overall summary followed by summary descriptions of the human effects potentially associated with each alternative. The next section provides a discussion of linkage between Framework goals and the responsibilities of this evaluation procedure. Section 3 describes methodology and current conditions. The human effects indicators used, related key assumptions, and sources of information are described. Human effects are identified and aggregated for combinations of Framework strategies. Finally, the impacts of the alternatives on each human effects indicator are described in detail.
Human effects are social, cultural, tribal, and economic, and they include a variety of more specific indicators of human welfare. The Workgroup identified 22 human effects indicators for analysis. The human effects indicators are biophysical, economic, social, and tribal, and are meant to measure or serve as proxies for important human effects identified by the workgroup.
The analysis is not framed to rigidly adhere to formal analytical criteria as provided for National Economic Development, environmental documentation, Regional Economic Development, or cost-effectiveness analysis. However, it does provide information that could be used in these more formal analyses. The analysis describes long-term effects on the Pacific Northwest region, but it also provides information on short-term effects and the areas and groups most likely to be affected.
Five types of analyses provide most of the information about direct effects shown in this report: (1) The Ecological Workgroup's evaluation of physical and biological impacts (the Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment, or EDT analysis) provides preliminary information regarding chinook salmon run size. Other forecasts of the ecological effects of Framework alternatives (e.g., predictions of the abundance of other fish stocks and terrestrial wildlife) are not yet available for benefits analysis. This omission could be remedied when more results of the ecological analysis are available. Until then, a balanced portrayal of human effects and benefits requires that estimates of ecological benefits be based on the limited information about chinook salmon run size, other studies, theory, and judgment.
(2) Hydrosystem operations studies provide information about change in water flow, storage, and power production with dam breaching and changes in reservoir operations. The available models do not vary hydropower production for reservoirs in Canada, on the portion of the Snake River in Idaho above Brownlee dam, or on small dams on other tributaries. The power production from these dams is held constant among the alternatives.
(3) Facility modifications are an important component of costs for some alternatives. Most facility modifications are structural changes at dams that would improve passage or downstream water quality. Most information was obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
(4) The habitat practices and cost analysis uses preliminary information on typical practices that might be applied to accomplish each habitat strategy, assumptions about the amount of resource (land, water, amount of construction) affected, and unit costs from similar existing practices and programs. This analysis uses information from the Ecological Workgroup and from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Use Information Program to identify total amount of land in many uses by ecological province. Most assumptions about the amount of forest and agricultural land affected are expressed as a share of the potential land base. These direct changes are then analyzed for their effects on the human effects indicators.
(5) Qualitative information about tribal effects is developed primarily from the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study), conducted by the COE, and from academic literature.
(6) Extrapolation from other studies is used to describe how many strategies might affect humans. The most important of these studies are the Feasibility Study and the John Day Drawdown Study Phase 1 conducted by the COE, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis. Other information from federal and state governments, private organizations and academic literature is used as needed.
Results in this report reflect the status of information concerning the Multi-Species Framework goals, alternatives and impacts as of February 2000. This report relies on existing economic, social, and cultural constructs and existing data to gauge human effects. The quality of these data is variable, and for some of the strategies there is currently limited or no usable information about likely human effects. The sources of information used in the analysis have been subject to different levels of scrutiny. Data from the EDT analysis and the John Day Drawdown Study are currently subject to public and professional review and revision, and other sources may be revised. Other studies, especially recreation and passive use studies from the Feasibility Study, have been reviewed and revised but are still controversial even among professionals.
The Human Effects Analysis is part of a larger, continuing process to define and implement fish and wildlife policy in the Columbia River Basin. The NWPPC's Fish and Wildlife Process, the federal 4H process, the Feasibility Study, the John Day Drawdown Study, ICBEMP, and other studies are all related in that each process provides information and checks on information provided by the others.
The Human Effects Analysis and the discussions of the Human Effects Workgroup illuminated many differences in opinion regarding the relative importance of different types of human effects, the adequacy of economic theory and methods, and the appropriate analysis of social effects. Many issues were not resolved. Important outstanding issues include future fish survival parameters, passive use values, future recreational use and value, the nature and cost of economic adjustment, and the magnitude of economic benefits from ecological improvements. Improved analysis of human effects might seek to resolve these issues.
The complete and accurate evaluation of potential human effects currently is limited by many other uncertainties.
- Framework alternatives could be implemented in several ways. Human effects may be sensitive to such variation in implementation methods.
- The intensity of implementation is often unknown. Even if the implementation method were known, the amount of implementation in terms of quantity of land or water affected, or expenditure, is still unclear.
- Impacted regions, tribes, companies, governments and individuals may adapt their actions based on which alternative is chosen. Theory and data are presently insufficient to predict the net effects following adaptation, but theory provides some guidance. Section 5.6 discusses potential mitigation and adjustment strategies.
- Changes in the broader range of future conditions in the region will affect the forecasts provided in this report. Such changes could include changes to human populations, technological advances, changes in tastes, preferences and markets, climatic change, and changes in relationships between tribal and non-tribal peoples in the region.
This analysis addresses uncertainty in several ways. Potential ranges of implementation methods and future conditions are discussed. Where impacts cannot be quantified, they are ranked qualitatively, and if they cannot be ranked, reasons are discussed. Often, uncertainty and a lack of information preclude quantitative estimates, but a non-parametric and qualitative comparison of alternatives is still possible. Additional analysis will be needed to verify and refine the results presented here.
Table 1-1 provides a summary emphasizing quantitative estimates and qualitative rankings where feasible. Table 1-1 provides a preliminary summary of benefits, costs and rankings for each alternative. The table contains three different kinds of information. When possible, costs and benefits are quantified in dollars per year. Benefits and costs that can't be expressed in dollars are shown in one of two ways. Chinook salmon effects are measured as percent increases from current levels. Other effects are ranked from 1 to 7, where 1 is best and 7 is worst. In the case of benefits, a rank of 1 suggests the highest benefits and, in the case of costs, 1 suggests the lowest costs.
Dollar benefits are subtracted from dollar costs to estimate the "net dollar costs" shown at the bottom of the table. A range is provided based on the range of recreation benefits from the Feasibility Study, a range of costs from the habitat cost analysis, and a range of hydrosystem costs of plus or minus ten percent. Net dollar costs can be compared to salmon increases and the qualitative cost and benefit rankings to evaluate and compare among alternatives.
| Table 1-1 |
| Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Multi-Species Framework Alternatives |
| Alternative | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Non-Monetary Benefits1 |
| Percent Increase in Chinook Salmon2 | | | | | | |
| All chinook | 127% | 227% | 207% | 100% | 206% | 207% | 112% |
| Natural chinook | 306% | 161% | 120% | 33% | 80% | 62% | 41% |
| Qualitative Rankings 3 | | | | | | | | |
| Wildlife | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Water quality | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 7 |
| Passive use values4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Monetary Benefits (million $/yr) 5 |
| High recreational non-angling 5 | $354.9 | $354.9 | $354.9 | | | | |
| Low recreational non-angling 5 | $85.5 | $85.5 | $85.5 | | | | |
| Recreational angling | | $0.7 | $4.7 | $4.1 | $1.7 | $3.8 | $1.3 | $0.7 |
| Commercial fisheries 6 | | $0.6 | $2.7 | $2.5 | $0.9 | $2.4 | $1.2 | $0.8 |
| Non-Monetary Costs 1 |
| Qualitative Rankings 3 |
| Additional CWA compliance cost | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 |
| ESA and species losses cost | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Monetary Costs (million $/yr) 5 |
| Hydropower and transmission 7 | $612.5 | $342.2 | $271.5 | $ - | $61.7 | $(20.1) | $(254.6) |
| Dam breaching and modification | $367.9 | $304.2 | $171.2 | $82.9 | $88.6 | $80.1 | $77.3 |
| Water supply, transport, misc. 8 | $199.7 | $178.1 | $89.3 | $10.0 | $20.0 | $ - | $ - |
| High habitat actions | | $676.9 | $262.6 | $262.6 | $79.4 | $286.3 | $191.6 | $64.1 |
| Low habitat actions | | $369.3 | $145.0 | $145.0 | $46.9 | $157.0 | $104.2 | $38.6 |
| Hatchery costs | | | $ (50.0) | $ 1.4 | $ 2.4 | $ 0.4 | $ 4.0 | $ 5.0 | $(0.8) |
| Net Dollar Cost Ranges (Quantified costs less quantified benefits, million $/yr) |
| High costs and low benefits 9 | | $1,838.2 | $1,078.0 | $758.2 | $179.4 | $471.5 | $260.1 | $(133.2) |
| Low costs and high benefits 10 | $1,025.2 | $526.1 | $264.8 | $128.3 | $308.1 | $160.7 | $(123.3) |
1 Non-monetary benefits and costs measures are not independent, for example, passive use values may measure same benefits or avoided costs as water quality, wildlife and salmon.
2 Percent increase in chinook salmon abundance under operating base assumptions. Increases under conservative assumptions are less.
3 Rankings except for passive use and Endangered Species Act costs are exclusive of chinook salmon effects. 1 is lowest cost or highest benefit, 7 is worst): wildlife based on habitat intensity, water quality is a judgment.
4 Based on natural chinook population increases. Contingent valuation surveys have found that passive use values of regional residents for a doubling of salmon are roughly $100 million to $1 billion annually.
5 Millions of 1998 $ annually.
6 Alternative method increases commercial fishery benefits about three times
7 Transmission costs estimated for Lower Snake breaching only.
8 Irrigation and municipal water supply, navigation losses, recreation losses on lower Snake, Snake R. water supply, misc. hydropower.
9 Hydropower, transmission, dam breaching, water supply, transport and miscellaneous effects are 10 percent greater to account for uncertainty.10 Hydropower, transmission, dam breaching, water supply, transport and miscellaneous effects are 10 percent less to account for uncertainty. CWA = Clean Water Act.
ESA = Endangered Species Act |
1.1 Alternative 1 Summary
Alternative 1 would restore natural ecosystem functions and components. The four Lower Snake River dams, McNary Dam, and John Day Dam would be removed or modified to lower pools to natural river levels. Operations would be changed to produce an enhanced natural hydrograph, to provide temperature control, minimize flow fluctuations, spill fish, and improve conditions for resident fish in and below reservoirs. In general, dams would be operated to flood control elevations such that inflows would be passed. Up to 1 million acre feet (MAF) of flow augmentation would be provided from Mica Reservoir in August.
Modifications to the structures of the remaining dams would include surface bypass, gas abatement, turbine intake screening systems, and turbine modifications at Bonneville. All of these, except turbine intake screening, would be required at The Dalles. Gas abatement modifications would be required at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph, and surface bypass modifications would be required at Wells.
Aggressive habitat restoration would seek to preserve and restore land, water, and native biological resources. Habitat implementation would be most intensive. By assumption, costs would not limit implementation, and the scope of habitat restoration would be much more than current levels. On private lands, habitat objectives would be accomplished by land and water lease, purchase, subsidy, and similar incentives. On public lands, objectives would be accomplished by changes in the mandates and/or regulations of public agencies.
Aggressive in-stream and riparian habitat restoration would require actions such as streambank protection (primarily fencing) and stabilization; planting of native trees and other plants; streambed modifications; reconnections with backwater, tributary, and wetland habitats; introduction of woody debris and gravel; and removal of man-made channel and bank modifications. Riparian lands, adjacent lands, and lands to provide connections to upland habitats would be acquired and restored. Anadromous fish passage improvements would be obtained through removal of small dams, other barriers to upstream passage, screening improvements, and flow restoration. New development in riparian areas would be limited.
Aggressive restoration of in-stream flows for passage, temperature and habitat would require irrigation system improvements. Irrigated agriculture would be most affected in some tributary watersheds of the Columbia and Snake rivers, especially in dry years. Some water could be obtained by conservation and specific farming operations without substantially changing crop mix and value of product, but some areas would require irrigated land to be fallow in dry years to meet flow goals.
Economic activities on upland range, forest, and agricultural lands would be affected by additional land management changes. Point and non-point pollution abatement and terrestrial habitat improvements would affect recreation, crops, and livestock, industrial and municipal wastewater costs, and urban stormwater management. Forestry practices would be altered, clear-cutting further reduced, some forest roads would be closed or obliterated, and fire management practices would be changed. Development of intact upland habitats would be limited.
Harvest and hatchery management would be altered to maximize production of natural fish. Juvenile (smolt) transportation would not be used. Harvest might be reduced in the short run. Hatcheries would be phased out as natural production was restored.
Alternative 1 is expected to have the largest positive effect on natural fish and wildlife populations. Total salmon production and harvest would be less than some alternatives, however, because hatchery production would be eliminated. Substantial economic and social benefits involve some types of recreation, reduced costs of compliance with environmental laws, and passive use values. Passive use values (the values humans place on natural resources independent of their direct use of natural resources), though never measured for this characteristic and scope of restoration, would be substantial.
In addition, this alternative would have the greatest positive benefit from a range of improved ecological services that may have major human benefits. These ecological services, which are difficult to quantify in monetary or even physical terms, include "the purification of air and water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, regulation of climate, regeneration of soil fertility, and production and maintenance of biodiversity, from which key ingredients of our agricultural, pharmaceutical, and industrial enterprises are derived" (Issues in Ecology, 1997). With expected habitat restoration and preservation, wildlife populations would increase, water quality would improve, and most ecological resources available to tribal members would increase in amount and quality.
Preliminary EDT estimates show that total chinook salmon populations are expected to increase in comparison to current conditions. The projected increase in natural stocks (306 percent) is the largest of any alternative, but total (including hatchery) chinook salmon increases in comparison to current conditions (127 percent) are comparable to or less than any alternative that includes hatchery production. Even with the natural population increases, the number of fish available for harvest would be less than in most other Framework alternatives because hatchery production would be lost and ocean harvest would be substantially reduced to bolster populations. All other alternatives increase numbers of hatchery fish compared to current conditions, and this makes Alternative 1 compare even less favorably.
The EDT analysis is preliminary and represents the first use of this tool on a basin-wide basis. Results are applicable for 50 to 100 years in the future. Many of the model parameters are highly uncertain. If future hatchery production is less successful than predicted, then Alternative 1 would compare to the other alternatives more favorably. If survival of natural fish is less than predicted, however, then Alternative 1 would result in an even smaller natural and total chinook salmon run size. Sensitivity analysis of EDT results suggests that, with conservative assumptions on in-river survival and harvest reductions, natural run size would be much less.
This alternative ranks highly from the tribal perspective. It has the highest rank for the tribal indicators of wildlife habitat, water quality and natural chinook salmon production. It ranks highly for equity. However, it does not rank as well as some other alternatives with respect to total salmon available for harvest. This finding is dependent on the model parameters involving survival of hatchery and natural fish.
This alternative would have the largest economic costs to existing developed water uses; in particular, hydropower, navigation, agriculture, and flatwater recreation. Total annual net costs would be around $1.0 billion to $1.8 billion annually. Power losses would be worth about $610 million annually. This alternative probably would have the greatest implementation cost among the alternatives. Implementation and facility modification costs could exceed $360 million in annualized terms. Combined power replacement and implementation costs of about $1 billion annually would be reflected in some mix of increased electricity rates and increased federal and state taxes. Most of these costs probably would be paid by electricity ratepayers.
Losses to other existing water uses include reductions in agricultural production or costs for replacement water ($60 million annually), and increases in the costs of transporting products that currently use barge transportation on the Columbia and Snake rivers (a loss of about $95 million annually). Adverse regional impacts would be most severe in the agricultural communities of the mid-Snake and mid-Columbia basins that are most heavily dependent on impacted irrigation diversions, barge transportation, and flatwater recreation. Short-run impacts on the Tri-cities area would be severe, but there would be some offsetting regional benefits from new construction. Many of the construction benefits would not accrue to current residents. In the long run, some of the adverse impacts would be offset by increased salmon and steelhead fishing and other river recreation. Long-run adverse impacts might be reduced by induced economic responses, such as technological and structural change, that cannot be foreseen at this time.
Alternative 1 habitat restoration and protection would be the most extensive of any Framework alternative. Total habitat costs for Alternative 1 are estimated to be $370 million to $680 million annually. This total consists of about $140 million to $300 million for agricultural practices and $70 million to $130 million for forestry practices. Most of the remainder is construction, especially fish screens (about $75 million annually) and land acquisition. By assumption, about one-third of habitat costs would be paid by ratepayers. Costs savings from eliminating hatchery production would be about $50 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.
This alternative might stress the Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA's) financial viability. Loss of generation from the Lower Snake facilities, John Day, and McNary would reduce revenues and implementation costs, facility modification costs and harvest management, and a share of habitat costs would increase outlays. Together, these factors might combine to cause BPA to be unable to meet current financial commitments such as repayment of debt to the federal treasury.
1.2 Alternative 2 Summary
Alternative 2 would emphasize production of anadromous fish. The Lower Snake dams and John Day dam would be breached. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except in the following respects:
- McNary dam would not be breached, but would require turbine improvements, gas abatement, surface bypass, and turbine intake screening systems.
- Flood control operations would not be modified as much. Reduced flood control space at Grand Coulee, Dworshak, and Brownlee; variable flow flood control limits at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee; 1 MAF of non-treaty water in Mica reservoir; 900,000 acre-feet in Arrow reservoir; and 1 MAF diverted from Banks Lake are used to help achieve flow objectives.
- 1 MAF per year of additional Snake River flow augmentation would be required.
- Habitat expenditures would be focused on improvements for anadromous fish instead of overall ecosystem health. Habitat improvements would be moderately intensive instead of most intensive.
- Hatcheries would be phased out or phased in according to their contribution to harvest, and supplementation would be increased. In the EDT analysis, it is assumed that current hatchery production is maintained. In addition, 10,000,000 more subyearling chinook salmon are released into the Rocky Reach pool and 810,000 more yearlings are released into the Yakima River. Snake River smolt transportation would be eliminated.
- Ocean harvest would be reduced, but not as much as Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 would have effects similar to Alternative 1 except that a larger share of benefits would occur through commercial and recreational harvest of anadromous fish, a smaller share would occur through other ecosystem values, and implementation costs would be less (but more than most other alternatives).
Salmon populations and harvest would be larger than in any other alternative. Total and natural chinook salmon populations both would increase significantly (227 and 161 percent, respectively) relative to current conditions. Under more conservative assumptions, the increases would be somewhat less. Populations of other wildlife would increase, but with less habitat restoration than in Alternative 1.
Benefits to Tribes, especially those associated with salmon harvest, would be substantial under this alternative. This finding is dependent on the model parameters involving survival of hatchery and wild fish. This alternative does not rank as well as Alternative 1 with respect to the tribal indicators of wildlife habitat and water quality.
Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be about $530 million to $1.08 billion annually. Power losses would be less than Alternative 1, (totaling about $340 million annually), and implementation and facility modification costs would be about $300 million annually. Transportation losses would be the same as Alternative 1 ($95 million annually). Costs for 1 million acre-feet of Snake River flow augmentation would be about $75 million annually. Costs of habitat restoration and protection measures would be less than in Alternative 1. Total costs would be about $140 million to $260 million annually. This total would consist of about $40 million to $90 million for agricultural practices and $20 million to $50 million for forestry practices. Most of the remainder would be for construction, especially fish screens (about $40 million annually) Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $1.4 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.
1.3 Alternative 3 Summary
Alternative 3 would emphasize restoration of natural ecosystem function and components as in Alternative 1, but the scope of strategies would be more focused on the Snake River Basin. The four Lower Snake dams would be breached, but not McNary or John Day. Modifications to McNary and John Day would include turbine improvements, gas abatement, surface bypass, and turbine intake screening systems, and modifications to all other facilities on the Columbia River would be as described for Alternative 1. Flood control rules, storage rule curves, and 1998 Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) flows on the upper Columbia would not be modified much, except that variable flow flood control elevations would be implemented at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee and 3 to 5 MAF of non-treaty storage at Mica would be used for flow augmentation.
Habitat improvements would be moderate in the Snake River watershed and moderate or least intensive in the other parts of the Columbia Basin. Snake River hatcheries would be improved or eliminated. Hatchery production assumptions in the EDT analysis are the same as Alternative 2 except that 10,000,000 more subyearling chinook smolts would be released into the John Day reservoir. Snake River smolt transportation would be eliminated.
The benefits of Alternative 3 for all chinook salmon populations would be substantial and similar to Alternative 2, and benefits for fish and wildlife in other parts of the Columbia Basin would be significant. Total and natural chinook salmon populations would be increased 207 and 120 percent, respectively.
Tribal values associated with salmon would be increased substantially compared to current conditions, and prospects for recovery would improve with more natural fish production. Tribal values associated with equity, wildlife habitat, and water quality are similar to Alternative 2.
Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $260 million to $760 million annually. Power losses and costs would be somewhat less than for Alternative 1 or 2, about $250 million annually, and implementation and facility modification costs would be about $200 million annually. Transportation cost increases ($25 million annually) would be less than in Alternative 1 because the river would still be navigable to Tri-Cities. Costs associated with implementing habitat restoration and protection measures would be the same as in Alternative 2. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $2.4 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.
1.4 Alternative 4 Summary
Alternative 4 would emphasize additional research and adaptive management. In the short run, Alternative 4 would adopt the current operations program as defined by the 1998 Bi-Op. No IRCs would be implemented. Tests of IRCs at Libby and Hungry Horse dams and tests of temperature control, using the Hells Canyon complex and Dworshak, would be conducted. Reservoir operations experiments would be practiced for 10 years and results then would determine whether and how the Lower Snake River dams would be modified. Snake River smolt transport would be used on a spread-risk basis; that is, a larger share of smolts would be transported in dry years. Many facility modifications assumed to be implemented in Alternatives 1 through 3 probably would not be implemented in the short run. Annual hatchery production would be the same as current levels except that 810,000 more yearling chinook salmon would be released into the Yakima River.
Total net annual cost of this alternative in the short run would be about $130 million to $180 million annually. Annual facility modification costs are estimated to be about $50 million and current O&M costs at existing dams would continue. Habitat costs would be $50 million to $80 million annually, primarily for screening of water diversions. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $0.4 million annually. The cost estimate for this alternative is an underestimate to the extent that experimentation may result in implementation of other strategies in the future.
The results of Alternative 4 are especially uncertain because future actions are contingent on the results of experiments and adaptive management. More research and experimentation would be required in the short run, but results in the long run might be similar to any of the other alternatives.Long-term effects of Alternative 4 have not been compared to other alternatives because this is basically a short-term strategy. The effects of Alternative 4 displayed in Table 1-2 are largely based on continuation of existing programs without any major changes as the result of study and testing.
Preliminary EDT results suggest that chinook salmon populations would increase relative to current conditions, but most of the increase would involve hatchery fish. Total and natural populations would increase 100 and 33 percent, respectively. Results are especially dependent on hatchery fish survival, and future habitat loss caused by population growth has not been considered. The EDT results suggest that natural chinook salmon populations would not increase much relative to current conditions. Therefore, current risk of extinctions probably would continue.
Tribal values would not be enhanced as much as in Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, and tribal interests have been concerned that conditions might not improve relative to the current situation. In this view, Alternative 4 continues the status quo. EDT results suggest increased salmon production, but this increase does not occur under some sets of more conservative assumptions. Substantial adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities and costs associated with status quo alternatives and current trends might continue.
1.5 Alternative 5 Summary
Alternative 5 would not breach any mainstem dams, but modifications to Snake River and Columbia River dams would be required for gas abatement, turbine improvements might be required, and bypass and screening options would be evaluated. Changes to operations and flow augmentation on the upper Columbia would be similar to Alternative 3. Flood control and storage rules would be experimental and 1998 Bi-Op flows would be implemented. Habitat strategies on federal lands would be similar to Alternative 1 but habitat improvements on private lands would be only moderately intensive.
All hatcheries would become supplementation facilities. In the EDT analysis, hatchery chinook salmon production levels were increased from current conditions by the release of 10,000,000 subyearlings into the John Day Reservoir, 810,000 yearlings into the Yakima River, 10,000,000 subyearlings into the Rocky Reach Reservoir, and 14,000,000 subyearlings into the Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater rivers annually.
Ocean harvest would be reduced. Harvest would be modified to be more stock-specific through live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock practices, and change to selective harvest practices might be used if cost-effective. More in-river harvest would be used to select individual fish from hatchery stocks.
Alternative 5 would increase numbers of salmon substantially. Total increases would be comparable to Alternative 2 or 3, but a larger share of fish would be hatchery-produced. Compared to Alternative 1, less than half as many natural salmon would be produced, but total production would be 50 percent larger and comparable to Alternative 2 or 3. Compared to current conditions, natural salmon numbers would increase substantially (80 percent) even with the emphasis on hatchery production.
Tribal values would be enhanced, especially those associated with wildlife habitat and total salmon production. Restoration of wildlife habitat in this alternative is second only to Alternative 1. Improvement in tribal conditions would depend largely on the ecological effects of habitat improvements and facility modifications.
Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $310 million to $470 million annually. Hydropower production would not be reduced much in comparison to Alternatives 1 through 3, (about $60 million annually), facility modification costs would not be as substantial (about $90 million annually) but habitat costs would be slightly more than Alternative 2, or 3. Total habitat costs would be about $160 million to $290 million annually. This total would include about $40 million to $90 million for agricultural practices and $40 million to $70 million for forestry practices. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $4 million annually. Benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.
1.6 Alternative 6 Summary
Alternative 6 would preserve and enhance hydropower to finance more intensive actions in other areas. The alternative includes more aggressive ocean harvest reduction, a change in dam operations to focus on temperature reduction in summer, and more aggressive supplementation. Dam improvements are similar to those for Alternative 5, except that turbine improvements would be required on all facilities from Lower Granite downstream to Bonneville. Reservoir operations would be similar to Alternative 5, except that IRCs would be implemented at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee; 1998 Bi-Op flow levels would be provided in summer only; and new flow augmentation from Canadian reservoirs and the Snake River would not be required. Some habitat restoration would be financed by increased power revenues resulting from increased summer flows, but results suggest that the increased power revenues would not finance a large share of the planned restoration. Habitat management would be most intensive on federal lands and moderate or least intensive on private lands.
Hatchery production would be increased as described for Alternative 5. In addition, aquaculture would be used to produce 10,000,000 subyearling chinook in the Lower Columbia River region.
Preliminary EDT analysis suggests chinook salmon run size much larger than current conditions. Total and natural populations would increase by more than 200 percent and 60 percent, respectively. These population increases do not occur with more conservative assumptions about survival of transported and hatchery fish. Under these less favorable assumptions natural chinook salmon populations would decline from current levels.
Most tribal values would be enhanced by this alternative, but less than in Alternatives 1 through 3 or Alternative 5. However, this alternative also carries some risk that salmon populations might not increase. In this case, adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities, and risk of extinctions as in current conditions would continue.
Alternative 6 would increase the value of power production by shifting production to summer when the power is most valuable, and turbine improvements would increase power production while improving downstream fish passage. Hydropower gains would be about $20 million to $40 million annually.
Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $160 million to $260 million annually. Total habitat costs would be about $100 million to $190 million annually. This total would include about $20 million to $50 million for agricultural practices and $30 million to $50 million for forestry practices. Flow augmentation from the Snake and Upper Columbia would not be required. Less fish spill and reduced flow fluctuation would be required. Facility modification costs would be about $80 million annually. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $5 million annually. Benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.
1.7 Alternative 7 Summary
Alternative 7 would seek to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements at the lowest possible cost. Fish restoration strategies would need to pass a test of cost-effectiveness. Most dam modifications and changes to operations would not occur. Some turbine improvements, and surface bypass and screening improvements would be evaluated. Hydrosystem operations rules would be returned to pre-water budget (circa 1980) conditions. Smolt transportation would be maximized and most ocean harvest would be eliminated. Economic incentives would be used to make hatchery production and other measures, such as habitat restoration, more efficient and effective. Habitat management improvements would be least intensive.
Aquaculture would be used to produce 10,000,000 subyearling chinook in the Lower Columbia River region, but other hatchery production would be reduced in comparison to current conditions. According to the EDT analysis, total annual smolt production would be increased about 6 percent from current levels.
Preliminary EDT analysis suggests chinook salmon run size would be larger than current conditions but similar to Alternative 4. Chinook run sizes would be about two-thirds the levels of Alternatives 2, 3, or 5. Natural populations would not increase as much (41 percent) in comparison to current conditions, but total stocks would increase by 122 percent.
Under conservative assumptions, these population increases would not occur and natural populations would decline. Tribal conditions would continue to decline. Adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities, and risk of extinctions as in current conditions probably would continue.
Alternative 7 would increase hydropower production in comparison to existing conditions. The value of hydropower production would increase by about $250 million annually. The alternative would provide more economic incentive for improved fish and wildlife populations, but no major new actions are planned to improve conditions. Current programs that are not cost effective would be eliminated. Facility modification annualized costs would be about $20 million, O&M costs would be about $55 million, and habitat costs would be about $40 million to $65 million more than current conditions, mostly for screening of water diversions. Net cost savings from changes in hatchery production would be less than $1 million annually.
Total net economic benefits of this alternative to the nation would be about $120 to $130 million annually. This benefit consists of about $250 million of hydropower value offset by about $130 million of habitat, facility, and O&M costs. Costs of continued ecosystem losses have not been quantified in comparable terms.
1.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Table 1-2 provides a more detailed comparison for each human effects indicator. Short qualitative descriptions are provided within the table format. Information about each human effects indicator is provided for each alternative. In reading Table 1-2, comparisons should be made "indicator-by-indicator," reading down each column. Comparisons or additions across indicators (across columns) are invalid in that different attributes are being measured. Comparisons are based on current information and may change as new information becomes available.
The analysis suggests that Alternative 1 ranks highest in terms of benefits, except for benefits involving total numbers of chinook salmon and salmon harvest; these benefits are larger in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. Alternative 1 also has the highest costs by a substantial margin of any alternative. Alternative 2 generally ranks second in benefits, but at net dollar costs that are nearly half those of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 produces the largest increase in total chinook salmon, but only about half of the increase in natural chinook salmon as Alternative 1.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 produce the same increases in total chinook salmon. However, these alternatives are different in terms of their effects on natural salmon, their qualitative rankings, and their net dollar costs. Alternatives 3 and 5 have similar net dollar costs, but the comparison depends significantly on the highly uncertain value of recreational benefits on a restored Lower Snake River. Alternative 6 has substantially lower net dollar costs than Alternative 3 or 5, but also has a higher risk of continued declines in natural salmon stocks with the attendant costs. Alternative 6 also ranks lower in qualitative benefits.
Alternatives 4 and 7 have the lowest benefits and costs. Under favorable biological assumptions these alternatives can produce improved total chinook salmon populations at low or even decreased costs. However, under less optimistic assumptions about hatcheries and smolt transportation, these alternatives may continue current adverse conditions for at-risk species, tribes and environmental quality. They carry the highest risk of increased costs in the future to meet ESA and water quality requirements. (The analysis of Alternative 4 does not account for future decisions made about fish and wildlife policy as a result of the research and testing that are the essence of this alternative.)
One of the goals of the Human Effects Analysis was to assess whether each alternative would meet its human effects goals. This analysis cannot be completed without more inputs from the Ecological Workgroup.
| Table 1-2 Human Effects of Framework Alternatives |
| Level of Effects |
| Human Effects Indicators Under Each (description of indicators/measures and current conditions data if available) |
| Social Effects |
| Framework Alternative | Poverty (In 1996, about 12% of households in OR, WA and ID were in poverty, 17% in MT) 1 | Mortality (average life span, childhood mortality) | Passive Use Value (values placed on amenities even without use) | Environmental Effects (ecosystem benefits)2 | Other Quality of Life (Stress, local living costs and quality) |
| 1 | Significant improvement in tribal poverty levels but increased temporary poverty in natural resource industries, navigation, rural communities | Significant reduced tribal mortality, slight improvements from ecosystem health | Largest value associated with natural fish and ecosystem | Most potential benefits from restoration of habitat, natural river conditions and facility modifications | Most short-term adverse effects from construction, stress and habitat restrictions in rural communities, some long-run improvement for most |
| 2 | Substantial tribal improvement but increased temporary poverty in natural resource industries, navigation, rural communities | Substantial reduced tribal mortality slight improvements from ecosystem health, some increase in flood risk | Large value associated with ecosystem and fish | Large level of potential benefits from restoration of habitat, natural river conditions and facility modifications | Short-term adverse effects from construction and stress, some long-run improvement for most |
| 3 | Substantial tribal decrease in poverty; less temporary increase in poverty in natural resource industries, navigation, rural communities | Substantial reduced tribal mortality | Large value associated with ecosystem and fish | Large level of potential benefits from restoration of habitat, moderate benefits from natural river and facility modifications | Some short-term adverse effects from construction and stress, some long-run improvement for most |
| 4 | Depends on EDT assumptions. Maintains current conditions in short term including tribal poverty. Unknown in long term | Depends on EDT assumptions. Maintains current conditions in short term including tribal mortality. Unknown in long term | Depends on assumptions for salmon populations. EDT baseline suggests some increased salmon populations. In short run, smallest value compared to current conditions. | Maintains current conditions in short term. Ecosystem health may decline further. Unknown in long term | Little effect relative to current conditions in short term. Unknown in long term. |
| 5 | Significant improvement in tribal poverty levels . Some adverse effect in natural resource-based communities from habitat actions | Significant reduced tribal mortality | Large value associated with habitat and fish restoration, but fish value less than 2 or 3. | High level of potential benefits from restoration of habitat, especially on federal lands | Moderate positive effects stemming from habitat-related projects |
| 6 | Not much adverse effect in natural resource-based communities Tribal effects similar to Alternative 4. | Maintains adverse tribal conditions as in Alternative 4 | Little improvement compared to current conditions . | High level of potential benefits from restoration of habitat on federal lands, little on private | Small to moderate positive effects stemming from habitat-related projects |
| 7 | Maintains or increases adverse tribal condition compared to Alternative 4. Power costs reduced, ecosystem benefits reduced. | Maintains or increases adverse tribal conditions compared to Alternative 4 May reduce flood risk | Little improvement compared to current conditions. Some reduction in values associated with ecosystem. | Low level of potential benefits from restoration of habitat. Probable adverse effects on ecosystem benefits | Small effect relative to current conditions in short term. Unknown in long term |
Note: Impacts are relative to a future with common assumptions only. See text.
1 For tribal effects, "substantial" effects would be expected to resonate in communities across the tribal landscape almost immediately, bring hope/despair to tribal peoples, and to create substantial changes in tribal poverty, unemployment, and health measures within a 10-year (decennial) period. "Significant" effects would provide shorter-term impacts (+ or -) for some tribal communities or groups, and would provide measurable changes to human effects indicators during a decennial period. Moderate effects would provide benefits or costs which could be significant for some tribal communities or groups, but which might not result in measurable changes to poverty and health indicators during a decennial period.
2 Fish and wildlife, and water quality impacts are separate items. |
| Table 1-2 CONTINUED Human Effects of Framework Alternatives |
| Tribal Effects 1 |
| Framework Alternative | Salmon (number of salmon available to Tribal fishers) | Equity (wealth distribution between Tribes and others) | Water Quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, organics, chemicals) | Wildlife Habitat (amount and quality of usable habitat) |
| 1 | Substantial increase in natural stocks, but hatchery fish eliminated, overall effect not large compared to current conditions. | Significantly more equitable distribution of river wealth | Significant improvement in water quality in long run, some short-run sediment problems | Most habitat restoration |
| 2 | Most increase in total stocks compared to current conditions, Columbia mainstem and Snake River stocks increased substantially | Substantially more equitable distribution of river wealth | Significant improvement in water quality in long run, some short-run sediment problems | Moderate habitat restoration |
| 3 | Substantial increase in stocks, both natural and hatchery compared to current conditions. | More equitable distribution of river wealth particularly for Shoshone-Bannocks, Nez Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, and Warm Springs | Significant water quality improvement in long run, especially in Snake River, moderate elsewhere, some short-run sediment problems | Moderate habitat restoration in Snake River basin, significant elsewhere. |
| 4 | Similar to current conditions. Depends on assumptions about future conditions. EDT predicts increased populations. Long-term effects unknown. May maintain adverse conditions and risk of extinction. | Depends on assumptions about future conditions | Very small improvement from minor dam modifications and habitat improvements. | Moderate restoration on public lands, least on private lands. Long-term effects unknown. |
| 5 | Substantial increase in stocks, especially hatchery fish. Natural stocks increased less compared to current conditions. | More equitable distribution of river wealth. Relative tribal status will improve if habitat and hydrology gains outweigh risks of salmon extinction | Some improvement from dam modifications, significant from habitat improvements | Most habitat restoration on public lands but moderate habitat restoration on private lands |
| 6 | Similar to current conditions, some relative increase in hatchery stocks. | Likely some tribal gains. Increasing risk that, overall, salmon declines would outweigh these gains | Improved summer temperatures. Small improvement from dam modifications, some from habitat improvements. | Most habitat restoration on public lands, least on private land |
| 7 | Similar to current conditions. May maintain adverse conditions and risk of extinction. | Maintains adverse conditions | Maintains current conditions, maybe less compliance with Clean Water Act | Least habitat restoration. With population growth, improvements unlikely. |
| 1 For tribal effects, substantial effects would be expected to resonate in communities across the tribal landscape almost immediately, bring hope/despair to tribal peoples, and to create substantial changes in tribal poverty, unemployment, and health measures within a 10-year (decennial) period. Significant effects would provide shorter term impacts (+ or -) for some tribal communities or groups, and would provide measurable changes to human effects indicators during a decennial period. Moderate effects would provide benefits or costs which could be significant for some tribal communities or groups, but which might not result in measurable changes to poverty and health indicators during a decennial period. Tribal human effects indicators will include bear, beaver, and bull trout when population estimates are available. |
| Table 1-2 CONTINUED Human Effects of Framework Alternatives |
| Economic Efficiency Effects 1 |
| Framework Alternative | Fisheries (net value in production)2 | Hydropower (net cost of electricity)3 | Recreation (users and recreation services 2) | Transportation (cost of transporting goods now moved in river) | Agriculture & Water Users (habitat & water supply costs, most paid by taxesratepayers) 4 | Forestry (costs of management and lost forestry production., most paid by taxesratepayers) 4 | Facility Modification, O&M and other Habitat Costs 6. (Mostly paid by ratepayers) |
| 1 | Hatcheries eliminated, ocean harvest mostly eliminated, infer some increased in-river catch | Cost increase more than $620 m/yr | Lower Snake net benefit $54 to $323 million annually, net costs on JDA and MCN unknown5 | Increased cost about $90 m/yr | Costs of at least $60 m/yr for water supply, habitat $140 to $300 m/yr | Habitat costs $70 to $130 m/yr | About $370 m/yr for facilities, breaching and O&M, plus $160 to $250 m/yr habitat |
| 2 | Increased harvest, net value about $3 to $10 m/yr | Cost increase more than $350 m/yr | Lower Snake net benefit $54 to $323 million annually, net costs on JDA maybe $2.5 million5 | Increased cost about $90 m/yr | Costs of about $40 m/yr for water supply, habitat $40 to $90 m/yr | Habitat costs $20 to $50 m/yr | About $300 m/yr for facilities, breaching and O&M, plus $80 to $130 m/yr habitat |
| 3 | Increased harvest, net value about $2 to $9 m/yr | Cost increase more than $280 m/yr | Breaching benefit $54 to $323 m/yr, long run | Increased cost about $25 m/yr | Costs of around $10 m/yr for water supply, habitat $40 to $90 m/yr | Habitat costs $20 to $50 m/yr | About $170 m/yr for facilities, breaching and O&M, plus $80 to $130 m/yr habitat |
| 4 | Depends on EDT assumptions, harvest may increase with increased hatchery populations, $1 to $3 m/yr | Maintains current levels in the short term; unknown in long term | Maintains current levels in the short term; unknown in long term | Maintains current levels in the short term; unknown in long term | Habitat $5 to $25 m/yr; unknown in long term | Habitat costs $5 to $10 m/yr | About $80 m/yr for facilities and O&M, plus $30 to $40 m/yr, mostly for screens |
| 5 | Increased harvest, net value about $2 to $9 m/yr | Cost increase about $70 m/yr | Unknown, habitat effects may be beneficial | No effect (continues current transportation) | Habitat costs $50 to $100 m/yr | Habitat costs $40 to $70 m/yr | About $90 m/yr for facilities and O&M plus $80 to $120 m/yr habitat |
| 6 | Ocean harvest reduced, increased net value $1 to $4 m/yr | Cost reduction of about $20-$40 m/yr | Unknown, probably small | No effect (continues current transportation) | Habitat costs $20 to $50 m/yr | Habitat costs $30 to $50 m/yr | About $80 m/yr plus $60 to $90 m/yr habitat |
| 7 | Ocean harvest reduced, increased net value $1 to $3 m/yr | Cost reduction of $250 m/yr | Loss of benefits from anadromous fish | No effect (continues current transportation) | Habitat costs $15 to $35 m/yr | Little effect | Around $80 m/yr for facilities and O&M plus $20 to $30 m/yr habitat |
1 Dollar values are approximate where given. m/yr = million dollars per year. Capital costs generally discounted at 4.75%
2 Amount of harvest depends on EDT analysis.
3 Hydropower costs include new transmission costs of $20 m/yr required by breaching of lower Snake reservoirs.
4 Cost and benefit impacts are very tentative at this time. Most costs assumed to be paid by ratepayers or taxpayers. Costs are reported as ratepayer costs elsewhere.
5 JDA = John Day, MCN = McNary.
6 This includes facility costs for Clean Water Act compliance. O&M costs are for Lower Snake, McNary, and John Day only.
O&M = operation and maintenance. |
| Table 1-2 CONTINUED Human Effects of Framework Alternatives |
| Regional Economic Effects (Not updated for chinook benefits or other recent changes but still representative) 1 |
| Framework Alternative | Personal Income
(Four-state income in 1997 was $270 billion (b) | Output
(Four-state output in 1997 was $320 billion) | Employment 2
(Four-state employment in 1996 was 5.3 million) |
| 1 | +$7.1 b temp, -$0.4 billion per year annual long term. Both temporary and long-term effects focused near Lower Snake River and mid-Columbia Regions. Some long-term adverse effects focused near energy-intensive and natural resource industries. | +$23 b temp, -$2.5 billion per year annual long term. Both temporary and long-term effects focused near Lower Snake River and mid-Columbia Regions. Some long-term adverse effects focused near energy-intensive and natural resource industries. | +213,000 temp jobs, -20,000 annual jobs long term. Both temporary and long-term effects focused near Lower Snake River and mid-Columbia regions. Some long-term adverse effects focused near energy-intensive and natural resource industries. |
| 2 | +$4.6 b temp, -$0.1 billion per year annual long term, location same. | +$15 b temp, -$1.0 billion per year annual long term, location same. | +139,000 temp jobs, -10,000 annual jobs long term, location same. |
| 3 | +$3.0 b temp, -$0.07 billion per year annual long term, location more focused in Lower Snake River region. | +$10 b temp, -$0.8 billion per year annual long term, location more focused in Lower Snake River region. | +89,000 temp jobs, -6,000 annual jobs long term, location more focused in Lower Snake River region. |
| 4 | +$0.0 b temp, -$0.01 billion per year annual long term | +$0 b temp, -$0.04 billion per year annual long term | +1,000 temp jobs, 0 annual jobs long term |
| 5 | +$0.2 b temp, -$0.0 billion per year annual long term | +$0.5 b temp, -$0.2 billion per year annual long term | +5,000 temp jobs, -1,000 annual jobs long term |
| 6 | -$0.1 b temp, +$0.05 billion per year annual long term | -$0.4 b temp, +$0.07 billion per year annual long term | -4,000 temp jobs, +2,000 annual jobs long term |
| 7 | -$0.6 b temp, +$0.1 billion per year annual long term | -$2.2 b temp, +$0.5 billion per year annual long term | -20,000 temp jobs, +5,000 annual jobs long term |
1 Regional effects include no benefits associated with fish and wildlife recovery, for which information is not yet available. Costs of legal actions and/or settlements not included. Dollar values are approximate where given. "b temp" refers to billion $ one-time, temporary effects, generally associated with construction of water facilities and power plants. Temporary effects may be spread out over time to about the year 2015. Long-term annual effects generally are every year following implementation. Annual effects are in addition to temporary effects.
2 "Temp jobs" are person-years, annual jobs are permanent. |
