4 framework

This section discusses the types of beneficial and adverse effects expected to follow from the alternatives, and data and analysis about the effects are presented where available. First, the relations between strategies and Human Effects Strategy Blocks are shown. Then, types of beneficial effects are discussed . Finally, adverse effects are addressed. Adverse effects under each strategy block are discussed.

4.1 Relationship of Strategies to Alternatives

The evaluation of the human effects of the alternatives began by grouping the strategies that make up the alternatives into Human Effects Strategy Blocks. The strategies included in each block affect similar types of human activity and, therefore, can be evaluated using similar sources of data and analysis. Most of the 16 Human Effect Strategy Blocks are related to the four H?s?hydropower, habitat, hatcheries, and harvest. Table 4-1 illustrates the Human Effects Strategy Blocks. Appendix C shows strategies grouped into the strategy blocks and shows how each strategy was considered in the analysis. Information about which strategies are included in each alternative is provided as Appendix D.

The human effects of alternatives are derived from their component strategies and from the effects of those strategies on the natural and human environment. Most beneficial effects are likely to result from the combined effects of the many strategies that make up an alternative. These benefits are based on the effects of the alternatives on fish and wildlife populations and other environmental conditions, such as air and water quality. On the other hand, most strategies have adverse effects (direct costs) associated with their implementation and another type of adverse effect (lost use) that results from their constraints on human activities.
 

4.2 Beneficial Effects

Most beneficial effects of the Framework alternatives are directly or indirectly related to populations of fish and wildlife, although additional benefits are associated with ecosystem health and diversity. There currently is limited information available regarding impacts on fish and wildlife populations.

The Ecological Workgroup?s evaluation of physical and biological impacts (the EDT analysis) has provided preliminary information regarding chinook salmon run size. The estimates include hatchery and natural fish production for each ecological region and for spring, summer, and fall runs. It should be recognized that results represent long-run populations that may take up to 50 to 100 years to accomplish. The EDT tool is still being developed, so changes to the results can be expected in the near future. Preliminary estimates of chinook salmon run size are in Table 4-2. Additional estimates for populations of steelhead trout, bull trout, and several terrestrial species are forthcoming.
 

As with any forecast, results are based on parameters that are themselves uncertain. The Ecological Workgroup has developed sensitivity analyses that consider those parameters results are most sensitive to. These parameters vary by alternative because the composition of the runs varies by alternative. For example, in-river survival and harvest reductions are important in Alternative 1, but transportation is more important in Alternative 4 because the dams are still in place.

Results under these more "conservative" assumptions have been developed. Natural salmon populations in Alternatives 1, 6, and 7 appear to be most affected by the change in assumptions. With the conservative assumptions in Alternative 1, the increase in natural salmon populations relative to current conditions is reduced by about half. In Alternatives 6 and 7, adoption of the more conservative assumptions results in natural population decreases relative to current conditions. Alternative 5 also appears to be quite sensitive to the more conservative assumptions. Alternatives 2 through 4 do not appear to be as sensitive.

4.2.1 Tribal Values

(Note: This discussion is not conditioned on EDT results from Table 4-2.)

The extensive losses of salmon, other fish, wildlife and tribal lands?and the present desperate circumstances of many tribal peoples?were profiled in Section 3.2.2. This section extends understanding of some of the values tribal peoples associate with these resources and discusses the nature of linkages between resource changes and tribal well-being.

Tribal peoples often use the all-encompassing phrase "the land," or "our Mother the earth" to integrate the various components of their natural resources-based existence. Such terms convey powerful cultural values for tribal peoples that transcend any single measurement of effects ? and also convey particular relationships between species and tribal peoples.Since we know our religion cannot be set aside and trampled on, and say Yakama tribesmen are a ?dreamer? religion? . Since immemorial days we have had great prophets to guide our laws that have been established for us to follow and which we do so at the present knowing the living God still exists; first, the water; second, the salmon; third, the big game; fourth, the roots; and fifth, the berries. All of which we used each year to give thanks to our living God, which when first taken are new to us each year, in other words, ?communion? with our living God through the water and food he provides for us each year.
(Martin Hannigan, Chairperson, Yakama Indian Nation, 1949)

My grandfather explained to me how the elk, as it grows up, eats plants that have nutrition and medicine in them. It stores these things in its body as it grows ? and carries the medicine with it. One day, at the right time, we go and hunt it. Often we put it away for the winter, when we need the protein. Same with the salmon.
(Hobby Hevewah, Councilor, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, 1998)

Salmon are the centerpiece of our culture, religion, spirit, and indeed, our very existence. As Indians, we speak solely for the salmon. We have no hidden agenda. We do not make decisions to appease special interest groups. We do not bow to the will of powerful economic interests. Our people?s desire is simple?to preserve the fish, to preserve our way of life, now and for future generations.
(Donald Sampson, Chairperson, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, 1994)

In thinking of your people, you are thinking of the coming generations. And that philosophy was applied to their preservation of resources? . You don?t think that when I die and you die that that?s it? . You don?t think of just one. Think of yourself as a generation.
(Adelin Fredin, Elder, Colville Tribes, 1982)

Traditional activities such as fishing, hunting and gathering roots, berries and medicinal plants build self-esteem for Nez Perce peoples?and this has the capacity to reduce the level of death by accident, violence and suicide affecting our people. When you engage in cultural activities you build pride. You are helped to understand "what it is to be a Nez Perce"?as opposed to trying to be someone who is not a Nez Perce. In this way, the salmon, the game, the roots, the berries, and the plants are the pillars of our world.
(Leroy Seth, Elder, Nez Perce Tribe, 1998)

Species emphasis will vary, depending on the location, history and ecological circumstances of each tribe. Yet the overall importance of the land, waters, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Columbia Basin?and the importance of each for the survival of the others?is clear. For example,The tribal vision is how the tribes came to be part of the earth and part of creation and what the future holds. This vision is not easily expressed into non-tribal language, but it is sovereignty, respect of the air, water, plants and animals and the interconnection of the spirits of these and tribal peoples, past, present and future?

For the tribes, there has always been a common understanding ? that their very existence depends upon the respectful enjoyment of the (Columbia) Basin?s rich and vast land and water resources?

Tribal people believe that there is no distinction between natural resources and cultural resources ? all are necessary for culture, economy, religion and a way of life to be expressed, practiced and maintained. Indeed, the native peoples? very souls and spirits were and are inextricably tied to the natural world and its myriad inhabitants.

Today,?the Columbia River ecosystem is seriously damaged and extensively degraded. The extinction and threatened extinction of many salmon species is currently only the most prominent symptom of this widespread devastation?

As a result, tribal rights secured by treaty and established by executive order?have been drastically compromised? . Tribal cultures, economies, religions and ways of life throughout the Columbia River Basin are endangered no less than our air, water, fish, wildlife, plants and other resources--they depend on them and cannot exist in their absence. Tribes have already borne enormous, unjust losses and hardships because of this widespread lack of environmental justice? . It is time to remedy this situation (Minthorn, 1999).

The present perilous circumstances of Columbia Basin tribes have been created in significant measure by extensive losses of tribal lands, salmon, game, and other resources. These relationships between tribal resource deprivation, and poverty and ill-health are consistent with both the expectations of theoretical analysis?and with actual tribal circumstance across the Columbia Basin landscape.It appears that Native Americans, as a group, have been blocked on the hierarchy of needs at basic levels. Many are dealing with survival--trying to resolve physiological and safety needs. This condition often leaves belongingness and self-esteem needs unmet. Movement through developmental stages has been perilous, beginning with birth itself, increasing with entry into school, and peaking in excessive stress for young adults, who should be entering the productive years of life and in control of their environment.

Alleviation of poverty conditions are clearly indicated as essential? .

Glouster similarly identified economics as potentially the key to improvement for Native Americans. He further maintained that it is essential that they control their land and water. On this point he is congruent with the psychological prerequisite for a healthy personality outlined in this section?if Indian people are to obtain a greater level of achievement and satisfaction in their lives, and regardless of respective goals, it is essential that they achieve a greater level of control over their psychological, social, and economic environment (Bachtold, 1982).The reservation system of the United States destroyed the native standard of living and introduced a host of viruses and bacilli to the Indians living on the Yakama Reservation. The result was poverty, ill health and death among Yakama people (Trafzer, 1997)Ball, writing of the effect of termination (loss of reservation lands) on the Klamath Tribe, notes:High rates of PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) in this Tribal sample; rates that are usually found in groups that have all suffered extreme trauma like massive burns, racial cleansing, or war; rates that would be seen as pathological in non-Indian communities are normative in this sample. ?(Yet) this tribe is not pathological. It would be pathological for them not to exhibit these high rates of negative social outcomes in lieu of the ongoing, systematic and pervasive genocide they have faced (Ball, 1998).Similarly;The personal suffering and tragic lives of many (Indian) people are not revealed in the cold reports of tribal and federal governments. It can, however, be seen and felt in the towns and the countryside--n the eyes of men and the despair of mothers, with few options for change. When you can no longer do what your ancestors did; when your father or mother could not do these things either; when they or you found little meaning in and limited access to the ways of mainstream culture--the power of 70 percent winter time unemployment, and 46 percent of the population below the poverty line, is visibly throughout the Nez Perce landscape (Central Washington University, 1991).

These (adverse) statistics represent real people, they are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, cousins, friends. They are not bad people, they are just not very good statistics (Ball, 1998).

The broad relationship between loss of key fish and wildlife resources, and the present adverse circumstances of tribal peoples seems inescapable. Over time, available evidence clearly suggests that higher levels of fish and wildlife in the Columbia Basin will result in improved levels of tribal wellbeing. For example:In sum, there?s a huge connection between salmon and tribal health. Restoring salmon restores a way of life. It restores physical activity. It restores mental health. It improves nutrition and thus restores physical health. It restores a traditional food source? . It allows families to share time together and build connections between family members. It passes on traditions that are being lost. If the salmon came back, these positive changes would start.At some time in the future, economic costs may be required to compensate Tribes for some of their losses related to reduced fish and wildlife populations over time. Beaty et al. (1999) provide an historic estimate of potential commercial revenues foregone by Tribes due to losses of salmon from COE dams and provide methodologies that could be extended to future losses. The amount of compensation paid would be a transfer from the regional perspective, but the transfer would imply losses and gains to groups of persons within the region.

4.2.2 Commercial Fisheries

Beneficial effects in commercial fisheries are primarily producer surpluses associated with increased revenues. Increased revenues might be associated with increased catch per unit effort as well as increased effort in response to better fishing. Increased harvest revenues, profits, and incomes benefit producers and workers in the industry. Consumers benefit if prices are reduced, but reduced prices are not likely in today?s global salmon markets. Some localized consumer benefits in the fresh market are possible. Tribal benefits would include improved relative per capita incomes and reduced poverty.

The Feasibility Study (USACE, 1999h) estimates economic benefits to producers in the commercial salmon industry. Under the study?s baseline, likely condition (A1), total national economic benefits from commercial fishing of Columbia River stocks amount to about $971,000 annually. Most of these benefits ($703,000) are obtained by the In-river Indian Treaty fishery (Table 4-16, Section 4.3.3.1). The difference in economic value from the alternative A1 base case for alternative A2a is $0.16 million; for alternative A2b, $0.158 million; and for alternative A3 (8 years to implement), $1.49 million annually. These numbers are small in comparison to historical benefits, in comparison to the total size of the commercial fishery, and in comparison to the coastal regional economies.

The chinook salmon run size data generated by the EDT (Table 4-2) include positive effects on populations as well as negative effects from harvest strategies. Total harvest potential is used as the best available indicator of total harvest size, and this number for the alternatives divided by the number for current conditions is used as a scalar for the net benefits under current conditions displayed in Table 4-16. For example, the ratio of harvest potential in Alternative 1 to current conditions is 394/237 or 1.663, and net economic value in current conditions from Table 4-16 is $0.97 million, so estimated net value in Alternative 1 is $1.61 million (0.97 times 1.663) and the difference from current conditions is $0.6 million (1.61 minus 0.97). Using this method, the net benefits of commercial fishing for chinook salmon compared to current conditions in each Framework alternative would be:

• Alternative 1: $0.6 million
• Alternative 2: $2.7 million
• Alternative 3: $2.5 million
• Alternative 4: $0.9 million
• Alternative 5: $2.4 million
• Alternative 6: $1.2 million

• Alternative 7: $0.8 million

Another approach to estimating benefits uses the number of fish harvested times the value per fish harvested. Table 4-2 shows the number of fish available for harvest. It is assumed that half of the total harvest potential in Table 4-2 can be taken in any alternative. From Radtke et al. (1999) the commercial value per fish, based on 70 percent of ex-vessel value and shares taken at different locations, is roughly $30. The total net benefit of Columbia River chinook salmon catch under each alternative above current conditions is then:

• Alternative 1: $2.4 million
• Alternative 2: $9.9 million
• Alternative 3: $9.0 million
• Alternative 4: $3.4 million
• Alternative 5: $8.7 million
• Alternative 6: $4.5 million

• Alternative 7: $2.9 million

These estimates do not account for the delays in achieving the EDT population increases. Also, actual net benefits may be much different because strategies may affect unit costs and unit benefits. Selective harvest strategies might replace ocean harvest with harvest near or in-river. In-river catch may be worth less than ocean catch because fish quality may decline as fish migrate upstream. In general, it is believed that economic benefits from commercial harvest are a small to negligible component of all potential benefits of the Framework alternatives. However, some important but localized benefits from commercial fishing are likely.

4.2.3 Recreational Fishing and Hunting

New recreational fishing opportunities and improved recreational fishing quality would affect consumers and producers. Improved quality, such as increased catch rates, increases the user?s value per unit time of recreation. The amount of time spent also increases as the enhanced activity attracts more users and more time per user. On the producer?s side, recreationists spend more money in pursuit of fish and game, and this increased spending increases profits in the recreation industry. Some of the increased spending in the fishing and hunting industry may be offset by reduced spending in other economic sectors, because some users are merely changing the location of their expenditures.

Fishing and hunting privileges are purchased through licenses and access fees, but much of the expense for these activities involves travel costs and travel time. Economists have long recognized that distance to outdoor recreation is a good proxy for price, and willingness to pay estimates have been derived from travel cost information. Economic values are also derived from surveys that query recreationists about the value of their experience. A summary of some relevant studies is provided in Table 4-3.

Work by Loomis (1999) for the Feasibility Study (USACE, 1999h) is probably the most recent and relevant information for in-river fishing values. A large sample of Pacific Northwest and California residents was surveyed to identify the type and number of recreation users who would visit the Lower Snake River if the dams were breached. Almost 5,000 surveys were completed. Analysis for in-river fishing was constrained to accommodate the number of available fish.

This study found that the annualized net recreation benefits of reservoir recreational fishing, under Feasibility Study alternatives A1, A2a, and A2b, at 4.75 percent, were $1.7 million annually, and total recreational fishing value in the region was $23.7 million to $25.7 million annually.

For Feasibility Study alternative A3, results are provided under two assumptions regarding daily use values, Low national economic development (NED) and High NED. For the middle use estimate, benefits of river recreational fishing are $31.92 and $61.14 million annually, respectively. The total annual net recreational fishing benefits of drawdown are estimated to be about $6 million (31.92-25.7) to $37 million (61.14-23.7) annually, respectively.
 

29
 36

39 to 76

^{1 Mostly based on data obtained from Phil Meyer in December 1999.
2 WTA = willingness to accept compensation.}

The analysis assumed 24 hours to harvest one steelhead and an average of 7.2 hours per fishing day. With the data in Table 4-3, the average value per steelhead harvested can be estimated as $130 to $253 ([24/7.2] times 39 or 76). For chinook salmon, 35 hours were required to harvest one fish and the daily value was $76. With 7.2 hours per day the value per salmon is $369. The value per salmon harvested on tributaries is more ($396) because the average fishing day was 6.72 hours instead of 7.2.

The Human Effects Analysis uses this information to estimate the value of increased catch of chinook salmon in the recreational fishery. The assumed value per salmon is $370 per fish.

For chinook salmon, a small share of salmon harvest is taken by the in-river recreational fishery. Radtke (1999) estimated that, for fall run and spring run fish, recreational harvest accounted for only 2.5 and 1.3 percent, respectively, of ocean escapement. The Human Effects Analysis assumes 2 percent of total harvest potential (Table 4-2) would be taken by the river recreational fishery at a unit value of $370 per salmon. Net annual benefits would be:

• Current conditions, $1.75 million
• Alternative 1, $2.91 million
• Alternative 2, $6.64 million
• Alternative 3, $6.20 million
• Alternative 4, $3.42 million
• Alternative 5, $6.06 million
• Alternative 6, $3.97 million

• Alternative 7, $3.18 million

A substantial share of steelhead trout is taken in the recreational fishery, but information about steelhead trout has not yet been provided by the EDT analysis. Benefits would be much larger than those estimated for chinook salmon.

For ocean sport fishing, Radtke (1999) estimated the total NED benefits from Columbia River anadromous fish under a baseline, likely condition. Total benefits were estimated to be about $24,000 annually. By inference from Table 4-2, benefits of increased salmon catch in the ocean sport fishery would not increase by more than $100,000 annually in any case.

Increases in other wildlife populations might be associated with large fishing and hunting benefits. Population projections for other species are not yet available. Long delays to achieve population increases and subsequent recreation values may occur, but the economic values above have not been discounted accordingly. Land management of previously inundated land in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and management of land acquired for habitat purposes could have important implications for recreation use and value. The amount and type of recreational access is currently unknown so no analysis is possible.

Adverse recreation impacts may result from a loss of surface water reservoirs, changes in reservoir water levels, adverse changes in river flow levels, and reduced quality of certain recreational fishing. The Human Effects Analysis attempts to present the net effects from both reduced recreational opportunities and improvements wherever possible.

4.2.4 Other Recreation and Nonconsumptive Use Values

Many people enjoy non-consumptive recreation that will be affected by the Framework alternatives. Examples of non-consumptive recreation are:

• Viewing of fish and wildlife
• Boating, rafting, waterskiing

• Hiking, sightseeing, camping

Loomis (1999) estimated economic values for a variety of non-consumptive recreation uses in the Lower Snake reservoir region including flatwater recreation ($71.31 per day) and rafting in central Idaho ($87.24 per day) With drawdown of the Lower Snake reservoirs, "other river-related" values were estimated to be $71 to $114 per day. Annualized net recreation benefits of Lower Snake River reservoir recreation on the four reservoirs, not including fishing, would be $31.6 million annually (using a 4.75 percent annual discount rate) under Feasibility Study alternatives A1, A2a, or A2b.

For Feasibility Study alternative A3 (with drawdown), results are provided under two assumptions regarding daily use values. For the middle use estimate, benefits of river recreation, not including fishing, are $85.5 million and $354.9 million annually, respectively. The total annual net recreation benefits of drawdown, not including fishing, are estimated to be about $54 million (85.5-31.6) and $323 million annually, respectively. This value could be affected by land use decisions regarding the formerly inundated areas, and the amount and cost of recreation facilities. There are some assumptions under which values could be even higher.

Improved recreational opportunities and non-consumptive use values are important quality of life considerations for many residents of the Northwest. Quality of life may have economic implications in retaining residents, attracting new ones, increasing effective income, and improving community and cultural cohesion. These benefits have not been quantified.

4.2.5 Passive Use Values

It is generally accepted that the preservation of species and other natural attributes have human value above and beyond any use of them. Passive use value is defined as economic value unrelated to the use of a good or attribute. Passive use may include existence values, option values, and stewardship values (see Appendix E). In the case of endangered species, passive use values are the benefits that citizens associate with the continued existence of the species or increased probability of recovery. Economic quantification is difficult, however, even if probabilities of recovery could be quantified. Measurement of passive use values using survey techniques, such as contingent valuation (CV), is discussed in more detail in Appendix E.

Evidence from contingent value studies and analysis of the revealed preference of voters suggests that these values are large. Several studies have queried citizens about the value of anadromous fish population increases in the region. Olsen et al. (1991) used a telephone interview of Northwest households with an open-ended question format. Residents were asked to state their willingness to pay increased power bills for a doubling of salmon from 2.5 million to 5 million fish, for a net change of 2.5 million salmon. The study determined that the amount residents would be willing to pay was $32.52 per household per year in 1996 dollars (about $35 in 1998 dollars). Currently, there are more than 4 million households in the region, so the total passive use value to all regional residents would be about $130 million annually.

Loomis (1996) used a mail questionnaire and a dichotomous choice format to value salmon recovery from breaching a dam in the Elwha River. Respondents were told that the increase in salmon population due to dam removal would be approximately 300,000 fish. The average stated value was $76.46 annually in 1996 dollars per household (about $82 in 1998 dollars). The value to the rest of U.S. residents was quite similar, at $71.24 in 1996 dollars (about $75 in 1998 dollars).

A recent study by Layton, Brown, and Plummer (LBP, 1999) asked Washington residents to value migratory fish population increases in eastern Washington and the Columbia Basin under two conditions. The low status quo condition showed fish populations declining during the next 20 years at the same rate as the previous 20 years. In the high status quo condition, populations stabilized at current levels during the next 20 years. The authors estimated two willingness to pay functions, one corresponding to each of the two status quo conditions. The estimates of willingness to pay for increases in each type of fish population depend on the baseline and the size of the increment.

To illustrate their results, the authors computed the value estimates that correspond to two scenarios. Under the high status quo condition, the study estimated that each Washington household would pay $140 annually for a doubling of eastern Washington and Columbia Basin migratory fish populations from 2 million to 4 million fish in 20 years. Under the low status quo condition, each Washington household would be willing to pay $332 annually for an increase from 0.5 million to 2.0 million fish. Extrapolating to all households in the state (about 2 million) would result in a value of $280 million and $664 million annually, respectively. For the entire region (about 4 million households) the value would be about double this amount.

The IEAB (1999) noted that LBPs method should provide estimates of values that represent total economic value (recreational, existence, option value, etc.) rather than non-use value alone. Results from LBP therefore should not be added to the net benefits from recreation studies.

These studies substantiate the large economic value placed on increased salmon populations, but difficulties arise in how they might be extrapolated across scenarios (the Framework alternatives in particular) and to different groups of people and types of fish.

The studies suggest that willingness to pay is not strongly affected by population numbers. The values per household per year across the three studies ; $35, $82, and $140, are much different when expressed as value per household per fish; $1.40, $27.33, and $7 per 100,000 fish; respectively. People may experience a diminishing marginal willingness to pay to recover additional numbers of salmon, higher per-fish values for smaller populations might be related to the format of the survey, or the higher recent values may be related to changing public perceptions about endangered fish. Additional difficulties involve extrapolation to residents of other states. Oregon residents may value Columbia Basin salmon runs similarly to Washington residents, but what about residents of Idaho, Montana, or California? Some studies (Hanemann et al., 1991; Loomis, 1996) have found that residents of more distant states actually have passive use values for salmon similar to residents of the state in which the salmon run.

Extrapolation among species, runs, and regions (benefits transfers) is not straightforward. The IEAB (1999) noted that extrapolation of results from one or a few salmon runs to all salmon runs in the region could imply that residents would be willing to give up a significant share of their income to recover just salmon, not to mention the many other species needing assistance.

Another problem involves the composition of increased fish populations. The Framework alternatives vary substantially in terms of what fish populations would be augmented and by how much. In particular, the alternatives vary substantially in their shares of hatchery and natural fish in the chinook population. None of the available contingent valuation studies makes this distinction. What are the passive use values for hatchery fish compared to natural fish? Increases to endangered stocks versus healthy stocks? What are the relative values for small and large population increases? These questions have not been addressed by the available contingent valuation studies.

The region has committed substantial resources to recovery of endangered fishes. Do the contingent value surveys suggest that residents are now willing to spend more, or is the value of recovery already reflected in the costs of endangered species management and environmental enhancement in the region? Finally, preservation of traditional lifestyles, such as family farming, also may have passive use values for the public. These values have not been measured, but they might offset some of the natural preservation value.

Given all of these factors, the Human Effects Workgroup has concluded that there are no contingent valuation results that can be unambiguously applied to differentiate the Framework alternatives in terms of the economic value of anadromous fish recovery. Nonetheless, the available studies do suggest that passive use values are probably the largest identifiable economic benefit associated with recovery of anadromous fish in the Columbia Basin. Based on the Olsen et al. (1991) and LBP (1999) studies, a doubling of numbers of salmon in the Columbia Basin probably would be worth $100 million to $1 billion annually in passive use value to residents of the region, with additional value for residents of other states. There are no studies available that estimate the value of endangered fish recovery independent of population levels.

Table 4-2 shows increases in chinook salmon populations under the Framework alternatives. Given the available information, any of these alternatives could have important passive use values, but their relative ranking is not entirely clear. For example, alternative 1 could rank close to last or above all other alternatives depending on how valuable hatchery fish are in comparison to natural fish. The Human Effects Analysis assumes that ranking for passive use values should be based on natural fish production, so Alternative 1 has the highest rank of any alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 4 follow in that order. If total chinook populations were used, the ranking would be Alternative 2 first, followed by Alternatives 3, 5, or 6, and then Alternatives 1, 7, and 4.

Northwest residents may hold passive use values for a restored ecosystem independent of quantifiable impacts on fish and wildlife populations. A report to the COE (Loomis et al., 1999) claimed that "existing literature" from Colorado supports "a passive use value of $420 million for returning the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions, independent of any effect on salmon populations." The IEAB (1999), however, stated that "we are skeptical that the large populations in southern California will value the Lower Snake River as highly as Colorado residents value their own nearby rivers. Further, the referenced studies apparently do not establish that public passive use values for free-flowing rivers are proportional to the length of the rivers." Again, the Human Effects Workgroup concludes that none of the available contingent valuation studies can be unambiguously applied.

4.2.6 Other Benefits from Endangered Species Recovery

The study team has assumed that the probability of extinction of listed species would not change without the Framework alternatives and present recovery costs would continue indefinitely.With the implementation of alternatives, cost savings would be obtained from reduced costs allowed by delisting of the species. This expected value can be calculated as the increase in probability of recovery times the amount of reduced cost.

Strategies that preserve or enhance biodiversity would increase the probability that organisms valuable for their pharmaceutical, agricultural, or industrial values (for example, the Pacific Yew, harvested for its cancer-fighting compound, Taxol) will be available in the future.

Results of the EDT analysis are provided in terms of the status of populations throughout the Columbia River Basin. Status is expressed as healthy, low risk, high risk, and critical. Under the baseline assumptions, the order of the alternatives from the fewest critical populations to the most is: Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 4. That is, Alternative 1 shows the least number of critical populations and Alternative 4 shows the most. All alternatives are improvements in comparison to current conditions.

4.2.7 Benefits Associated with Individual Strategy Blocks

Some benefits have been associated with particular Human Effects Strategy Blocks rather than fish, wildlife, or ecosystem recovery generally.

Facility Modifications and CWA Compliance. The alternatives include a variety of dam and related structural modifications which should improve compliance with Clean Water Act (CWA) water quality standards in the region. Many facility modifications are being considered to improve compliance with the CWA, and many of these are included in the Framework alternatives. Examples include deflectors, spillway modifications, modifications to fishways, surface bypass systems, juvenile bypass systems, turbine intake screening systems, and turbine improvements such as minimum gap runners. The CWA water quality goals most likely to be substantially improved are temperature and dissolved oxygen. Some other beneficial effects of these dam modifications would involve better upstream and downstream passage, fewer problems of gas supersaturation, and improved operations that could increase hydropower generation.

Most hydrosystem modifications were defined by the hydrosystem workgroup. Cost data were provided by the COE (Anderson, 1999) and the EPA (Socia, 1999). The data were compiled into the alternatives with additional information about the fish passage goals in each alternative. Facility modifications included in each alternative are shown in Table 4-9.

Dam Breaching. The major types of economic benefits associated with mainstem dam breaching are fisheries related: passive use values, tribal values, reduced ESA costs, recreational values, and commercial fishery values. These benefits were discussed above. Additional benefits associated with breaching the Lower Snake dams may include economic use of about 34,000 acres of formerly inundated land, and improved water quality downstream. Total acreage made available by breaching John Day and McNary would be roughly 30,000 and 13,800, respectively. None of these benefits has been quantified in dollar terms. Water quality improvements, especially temperature and dissolved oxygen, are being estimated by the EDT analysis.

Agricultural Soil and Water Conservation. Many habitat strategies would be directed at agricultural practices. Strategies that reduce erosion from farmland would help to maintain long-term farm productivity. Improved grazing management of grasslands could increase their future productivity for use by livestock. Strategies that reduce the use of pesticides may reduce the pace of development of pesticide resistance and extend their useful life, while potentially improving the structure and long-term productivity of agricultural soils.

Water quality related to nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly from farm and forest practices, may be improved by some strategies that seek to reduce erosion and runoff. Improved CWA compliance has benefits for water users in terms of increased utility of water, reduced treatment costs, and regulatory cost savings. Strategies that improve drinking water quality would reduce water treatment costs, improve the taste and appearance of drinking water, and foster human health.

Habitat strategies that reduce sedimentation from farmland or forestlands would extend the usable life of downstream reservoirs. Operations and maintenance costs of water diversion facilities and navigation channels might be reduced. Strategies that restore normative fire patterns in forestlands might reduce the severity of damage from future wildfires.

Habitat strategies that restore normative function of watersheds and riparian areas could increase their ability to store and release water. This could benefit downstream water users by providing more flow during dry periods, and downstream flood damages could be reduced. The benefits of habitat improvements in terms of improvements in fish and wildlife populations and environmental parameters have not been quantified. Benefits are discussed generally in Section 4.2.

The benefits of these measures include improved water quality and increased flows in tributaries and downstream. These benefits would depend substantially on how and when the improvements were obtained. Benefits and costs at any given site may differ substantially from typical or average conditions.

The benefits of improved forestry practices would include conservation of timber; benefits of improved forest ecosystems; possibly improved water quality, improved water retention, and reduced flooding downstream; and passive use values associated with forest preservation.

4.3 Adverse Effects

In contrast to beneficial effects, which are generally the product of all strategies, most adverse effects, especially costs, can be attributed to particular strategies or strategy blocks.

4.3.1 Hydrosystem Strategies

Hydrosystem strategies include all the strategies directed at the configuration or operation of reservoir facilities on the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. Hydropower reservoirs on tributaries also are included. The strategy blocks include the removal or construction of dams, modification of dam configuration to improve passage or downstream habitat conditions, and change in dam operations to affect reservoir storage, downstream flows, or water quality. Juvenile fish transportation is included here because the potential for successful transportation is closely linked to dam configurations.

Multi-species Framework Alternatives Hydrosim Analyses. Hydrology and hydropower simulation and hydropower valuation studies were prepared for the Framework alternatives. These studies include some of the strategies discussed in Sections 4.3.1.1 (Dam Operations and Flow Management), and 4.3.1.2 (Dam Breaching or Construction) below. The key characteristics of these studies are in Table 4-4. A more detailed description of how hydrosystem strategies were modeled is included as Appendix F.
 

Table 4-5 summarizes pertinent results from the hydrologic and hydropower modeling conducted for the Framework alternatives. Alternative 4 was used to model hydrology and power production under the common assumptions. Electricity generation was valued at projected market prices. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in annual power losses valued at $590 million, $320 million, and $250 million, respectively.
 

By assumption, these costs would be passed to power ratepayers. Electricity market conditions might make this difficult. The consumption of more expensive hydropower at the wholesale level, which may be limited by the alternative costs of wholesalers, and consumption at the retail level may be affected by price-induced conservation. This behavior may have economic implications in addition to the direct costs. For example, businesses that have located or would locate in the region because of low electricity prices might decide to locate elsewhere.

Alternative 5 would result in a relatively small loss of power production, valued at about $60 million annually. Alternatives 6 and 7 would increase the value of power production by about $20 million and $250 million, annually, respectively.

Transmission and Distribution Costs. Breaching of the Lower Snake dams would require changes to the regional transmission system. Table 4-6 shows increased costs required for modifications to the electrical transmission and distribution system following breaching of the Lower Snake dams. Total costs are estimated to be about $22 million annually. Breaching of John Day or McNary also would require significant changes related to transmission system stability. Additional costs in alternatives 1 and 2 have not been estimated.
 

4.3.1.1 Dam Operations and Flow Management

The strategies included in this block would change the operations of existing dams to provide more flow downstream or to otherwise improve habitat conditions. Flow management strategies would operate reservoirs differently to achieve normative seasonal flow patterns, temperature, estuarine conditions or flooding; for channel maintenance; or to minimize dissolved gas or flow fluctuations. Tributary reservoirs could be managed to achieve normative flow conditions in tributary streams. Reservoir operation rules could be modified to achieve resident fish habitat goals using Integrated Rule Curves, or operation rules could be set to meet 1998 Bi-Op or other criteria. Other strategies would operate passage facilities for a longer period or all year.

Most operations and flow management strategies have been modeled in the hydropower simulations and their effects are included in the results discussed in Section 4.3. Appendix F shows which strategies have been included in the operations models and a summary is provided in Table 4-4. The major types of cost impacts involve hydropower, flood damages, water or storage rights, and recreation. Hydropower effects are shown in Table 4-5. Hydropower effects discussed here are in addition to effects shown in Table 4.5.

Additional flow augmentation from Snake River reservoirs would be used in Alternative 2, and additional water from Canadian reservoirs would be used in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Several sources of information are available concerning flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River. The USBR (USBR, 1999) considered the costs of obtaining 1 MAF of water for flow augmentation in the Lower Snake. Two scenarios were developed that differed primarily on the basis of the amount of reduction in consumptive use of crops needed to achieve the flow target. Results are shown in Table 4-7.
 

Total costs are estimated to vary between $70 million and $85 million annually. The human effects analysis assumes $75 million.

Additional Canadian water has been included in some hydrosystem model runs in terms of its effects on downstream flows, storage and power. The costs of this water in terms of lost generation, recreation and other values in Canadian reservoirs have not been estimated at this time.

Hydropower costs of two strategies were estimated based on probable implementation and secondary information from other hydrosystem model runs (Fazio, 1999). Hydrology 30.0 would manage flow to promote mainstem spawning below dams. Power costs are expected to be less than $10 million annually. Hydrology 9.0 would minimize daily flow fluctuations for up to three locations at a total cost of $5 million to $10 million annually.

Hydrology 8.0 would manage spill to minimize dissolved gas. Most costs associated with control of dissolved gas are counted as facility modification costs. Changes in power generation may or may not be important.

Biological Rule Curves (BRCs) would be implemented by Hydrology 37.0. BRCs were not modeled because it is not known how they would be implemented.

The effects of many other strategies in this Human Effects Block cannot be estimated because the strategy is not well specified or because little information is available about that type of strategy at this time. In particular:

• Habitat 5.0 would regulate tributary storage releases to provide normative flows. Other habitat strategies (7.0, 25.0, 32.0, 33.0, 34.0) would allow more water to be saved in reservoirs and released later to increase flows. No other actions are assigned to Habitat 5.0.
• Hydrology 14.0 would provide flow to re-establish normative estuarine and plume, and salinity conditions. The potential effects of this strategy are unknown, but costs could be large because large volumes of water may be required to make a difference in the estuary.
• Hydrology 26.0 would provide flow to produce normative downstream temperatures. The potential effects of this strategy are unknown, but costs could be large because large volumes of water may be required to reduce temperatures and meet goals.
• Hydrology 1.0 would provide channel maintenance flows below dams and Hydrology 10.0 would provide normative seasonal flow and flooding. The potential cost impacts of these strategies are not believed to be large as long as the increased flows were required infrequently and limited in duration.

Most alternatives were designed so that risks and severity of flooding would not be increased. It is believed that Alternative 2 would increase the risk and severity of flooding because of changes to flood control rules in Dworshak, Brownlee, and Coulee.

The hydrology results have not been analyzed in terms of their effects on flatwater and riverine recreation or consumptive use of water in upstream reservoirs. Potentially affected facilities include Libby, Hungry Horse, Grand Coulee, Dworshak, and Brownlee. Potential adverse or beneficial effects involve fluctuations in elevation and their effects on resident fish and wildlife and reservoir surface areas. Results from the hydrology analysis (Appendix F) show that average summer water elevations are substantially lower in Dworshak in Alternatives 4 and 5 compared to the other alternatives, and elevations in the other reservoirs are generally lower. Elevations in Alternatives 1 and 7 are generally higher than the other alternatives.

4.3.1.2 Dam Breaching or Construction

The major types of adverse effects of breaching, in addition to hydropower losses, would include a loss of commercial navigation and flatwater recreation, implementation costs (breaching work, bank protection, rail and road work, land restoration, relocation of access and fishing areas), additional costs for modifications to transmission facilities, and costs to reconfigure water diversion facilities and other structures.

The Lower Snake breaching actions in Feasibility Study alternative A3 correspond to Framework Alternative 3, and Feasibility Study alternative B1 includes breaching of the Lower Snake and John Day dams corresponding to Framework Alternative 2. Modifications at McNary were not considered in any Feasibility Study alternatives. Also, none of the DREW Feasibility Studies, except hydropower, evaluated alternative B1. Breaching of John Day is being evaluated in the COE John Day Drawdown Study.

Table 4-8 shows increased costs of monthly electric bills from Snake River drawdown in Feasibility Study alternative A3. Residential BPA customers would pay $5.30 per month more on average. BPA industrial customers and aluminum companies would see cost increases ranging up to hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly. No quantitative information is available concerning the effect of these cost increases on the behavior of businesses in the region.
 

Transportation Costs. The existing reservoirs on the Columbia and Snake Rivers support commercial navigation to Lewiston, Idaho. Grains, primarily wheat and barley, account for about three-quarters of the tonnage shipped on the Lower Snake River. Petroleum products, wood chips and logs, and other forestry products account for much of the remainder. A few companies account for the majority of vessels operated, as well as the majority of traffic. In 1995, one company operated 72 vessels that transported a little more than 50 percent of the total commodity tonnage. This company operated 77 percent of all tankers in use (USACE, 1999c). This level of market concentration is likely to have impacts on transportation pricing?both for barge transportation and its major alternative, rail. Net effects on pricing and regional costs are not clear at this time.

Three of the alternatives would breach mainstem dams and commercial navigation above the dam sites would be infeasible. Information about transportation impacts is available from DREW, and preliminary information has been provided from the John Day Drawdown Study (USACE, 2000).

With the Lower Snake reservoirs breached in Alternative 3, barge transportation would continue downstream of Tri-cities. Transportation costs counted by DREW were the increased costs of transporting products either by rail to Portland or by truck to Tri-Cities and by barge from there to Portland. Only two alternatives?with or without the Lower Snake reservoirs?were considered. In the base condition, average annual shipping costs for the period of 2007 to 2106 were estimated to be $210 million annually. With drawdown, annual costs increased to $238 million annually. The difference in costs is about $28 million annually. The annualized difference at 4.75 percent using a base year of 2005 is $25 million annually.

These costs do not include new infrastructure cost estimated to be $210 million to $535 million, or roughly $10 million to $30 million annualized. Improvements in regional rail and highway transportation would be beneficial for many residents, potentially compensating this cost.

In Alternatives 1 and 2, Tri-cities would no longer be a port, and Portland likely would be the upstream port of the system. The John Day drawdown study group has estimated that the increased cost of transportation for products with the John Day dam removed would be about $95 million annually (USACE, 2000). It is believed that this cost would apply to Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 2 would keep McNary but additional costs for on-loading and off-loading to maintain navigability through McNary would be prohibitive.

Costs to Water Users. About 167,000 acres of irrigated lands are served from the John Day Reservoir, about 125,000 from the McNary Reservoir, and 37,000 from Ice Harbor Reservoir. Breaching or lowering of reservoirs would require improvements to surface irrigation diversions. In addition, many wells benefit from the raised ground water levels caused by reservoir storage nearby. For Lower Snake breaching the annualized costs of impacts to pump irrigators, based on the land value approach, were estimated to be $6.4 million. Costs to municipal/industrial water suppliers and private wells were estimated to be $0.5 million to $2.7million and $2.7 million, respectively, for a total of $9.6 million to $11.8 million (USACE, 1999d). The Human Effects Analysis assumes $11 million.

Pacam Engineering and IRZ Consulting (1991, 1991a) estimated costs to extend pump lines and improve facilities, and additional operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for some surface water diversions from McNary and John Day. Using their data to extrapolate to all acreage irrigated from both reservoirs (pools), annualized costs to maintain water supply for operations "below minimum operating pool" would be $5.8 million to $6.4 million. This cost is believed to be too low because it does not consider costs associated with permanent drawdown to natural river.

The COE is conducting the John Day Drawdown Study Phase I to consider the impacts of drawdown to spillway or natural river (USACE, 2000). Preliminary information from the study estimates a one-time cost of $425 million for canals from the McNary Reservoir to serve John Day irrigators, or about $22 million annually. A cost of about $122 million or $6 million annually would be required for municipal and industrial water supply. These costs are used in the Human Effects Analysis.

The method used for McNary applies the per acre cost for pump irrigators from the Feasibility Study to the 125,000 acres irrigated from the McNary Reservoir. About 37,000 acres are irrigated from the Ice Harbor Reservoir, so estimated costs for the McNary Reservoir irrigators are $21.6 million (125/37 times $6.4 million).

Recreation Costs. The benefits section above discusses benefits from drawdown of the Lower Snake reservoirs. Lost fishing benefits were estimated to be about $1.7 million annually, and non-fishing reservoir benefits were estimated to be about $31.6 million annually.

The John Day drawdown study has estimated a net recreation loss of $2.4 million annually from breaching that facility (USACE, 2000). The net economic cost or benefit, exclusive of anadromous fishing benefits, is not believed to be large.

Lake Wallula, behind McNary dam, currently experiences about 5 million days of visitation annually (USACE, 1999c). No estimates of the net recreation costs or benefits from breaching McNary are available. If daily values and use patterns from DREW can be extended to McNary, estimated economic costs of the 5 million days can be estimated. DREW found that about nine-tenths of trips were general recreation valued at $71 per trip, and one-tenth was reservoir fishing valued at $29 per trip. Assuming the same distribution of use and assuming 2.6 days per trip, the value of lost recreation in McNary would be over $125 million (4.5*27.3+0.5*11.2) annually. This estimate is not used in the analysis because no estimates of recreation benefits on the restored river are available.

Breaching Implementation Costs. Total cost of implementing Lower Snake drawdown exclusive of water supply costs discussed above, has been estimated to be about $800 million without water supply costs included or roughly $42 million annually using the 4.75 percent discount rate.

Cost estimates from the John Day Drawdown Study (USACE 2000) are preliminary and have not been reviewed by HEW members. With drawdown to natural river, costs would be required for dam modifications ($1.358 billion), shoreline costs ($1.055 billion), utilities ($19 million), recreation ($27 million), erosion control ($66 million), and cultural costs ($189 million). Total annualized costs amount to $143 million. No information is available about costs of breaching McNary. Costs are assumed to be similar to costs for John Day. The additional implementation cost for breaching McNary is assumed to be $2.0 billion or $105 million annualized.

Annual costs avoided by breaching include ongoing O&M and new facilities modification costs no longer needed because of breaching. Annual O&M costs for Snake River facilities are estimated to be about $34 million. Annual O&M costs avoided at John Day and McNary in Alternative 1 are assumed to be $10 million at each facility. O&M costs are shown by alternative with all other facility costs in Table 4-9. Additional costs of breaching may include downstream sedimentation and mitigation. Downstream sedimentation costs would occur as sediment is eroded from the former reservoir bottoms and conveyed to downstream reservoirs. Economic costs are unknown. Mitigation costs are discussed in Section 5.6. Most mitigation costs would be associated with training and relocation of workers in transportation and natural resource industries.

This strategy block includes strategy Hydrology 15.0, removal of economically marginal dams on tributaries that block anadromous passage. Some information is available about breaching smaller dams on tributaries. Recent negotiations have resulted in an agreement to remove Condit Dam (Columbia Basin Bulletin, CBB, 9/24/99), and Portland General Electric has proposed to remove Marmot Dam on the mainstem Sandy River and Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River (CBB, 5/28/99). These sources have provided estimated costs of removal as well as the amount of hydropower production lost. Typical removal costs would be $10 million to $20 million per dam, and typical hydropower production capacity is 10 to 20 megawatts. Based on these data and a value of $0.03 per kWh, annualized costs and revenue losses range from $3.5 million to $6 million per dam. However, it is believed that these and similar facilities would be required to pay annual costs equal to or greater than benefits if they remained in operation. Therefore, no net cost is assigned.

The Framework strategies currently do not identify specific impoundments that might be removed or breached. Enloe and Zosel dams have been discussed in the past as possible additional candidates for removal. The analysis assumes that up to 10 small dams would be removed in Alternative 1. Half this number would be removed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, and only the three facilities currently planned for removal would be removed in Alternative 4, 6, and 7.

4.3.1.3 Facility Modifications

The strategies included in this block would change the facilities at existing dams to facilitate passage and water quality goals. Examples include new fish ladders, surface bypass structures, other bypass improvements, modified turbines, turbine intake screening systems, and facilities for gas abatement.

The major types of adverse effects would involve the implementation costs. Changes in operations costs to use the facilities might be required, however, some of the changes in operations might reduce costs.

Table 4-9 shows capital and annualized costs of some of the options being considered in the federal caucus process, and costs that may be required for temperature and dissolved gas control. Breaching, water supply, and related implementation costs are included to ensure comparable costs and cost savings across alternatives. All costs are annualized using the 4.75 percent discount rate. Each annualized cost is shown by alternative and costs in each alternative are summed.

For Alternative 1, for example, breaching of the Lower Snake facilities would cost $52 million annualized, but O&M costs and facility costs not required would amount to at least $40 million annualized (for Alternative 4, 1.16+0.26+. . . +34.1). Implementation costs for John Day and McNary breaching would be more than $237 million annualized (132 + 105 ). A large number of modifications at other facilities bring the total annual cost to $409 million annually.
 
 
 

One Framework strategy (Hydrology 16.0) in this Human Effects Block would restore anadromous fish passage above existing blockages. This strategy has been combined with a similar habitat strategy (Habitat 13.0). Another strategy (Hydrology 25.0) would eliminate use of extended length screens at all projects. No specific consideration of this has been accomplished. Another strategy (Hydrology 5.0) would discourage proliferation of shad via adult passage facilities. The impacts of this strategy are unknown.

4.3.1.4 Juvenile Transportation

Smolt transport currently uses trucks and barges to carry young anadromous fish downstream past reservoirs, turbines, and other sources of mortality. Current fish transportation operating costs for Snake River stocks are about $1.2 million annually (Sorenson, 1999).

Juvenile transportation would not be used in Framework Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 because juvenile fish barges would not be able to operate. In Alternative 4, transportation would be experimental and used on a spread-the-risk basis (that is, a larger share of smolts would be transported in low-flow conditions) and transportation past McNary would occur in summer only. This is similar to current practices.

Alternative 5 also would adopt spread-the-risk, and only barges (no trucking) would be used. Surface bypass systems would be installed on all four Lower Snake projects at a cost of $157 million or $8.3 million in annualized costs (Table 4-9). Alternative 6 would maximize transport in spring and summer, and extended length screens would be installed at collector projects. Alternative 7 also would maximize juvenile transportation. The costs in Table 4-9 include capital and operating costs required to implement the juvenile transportation strategies included in each alternative.

Other potential transportation strategies, including use of transportation only on an emergency basis (Alternative 5), and changes to juvenile transportation around the Lower Columbia dams, were not evaluated.

Table 4-10 summarizes the available information about the costs of mainstem hydrosystem strategies. It includes summaries of cost data in Tables 4-5 to 4-9 as well as all other costs of hydrosystem strategies that have been quantified. The table includes juvenile passage and O&M costs, but not habitat, hatchery, or harvest costs.

Hydropower costs are by far the largest category of costs and breaching costs account for most of the remainder. Transportation costs are important, particularly because of their regional focus. O&M and juvenile transportation costs are largest in those alternatives that do not include breaching.

Alternative 1 shows the largest cost, but benefits are not included. Alternative 7 shows a net benefit because increased hydropower production is included, but potential costs to tribes and costs of reduced compliance with environmental laws are not included.
 

4.3.2 Habitat Strategies

Habitat strategies aim to improve conditions for fish and wildlife through land management, restoration of normative stream characteristics, or passage improvements. Many habitat strategies would affect, or have the potential to affect, land uses that rely on water or land adjacent to streams.

Economic costs are generally the costs of the economic activities that are impaired or eliminated, plus implementation costs. By assumption, strategies requiring private resources would be voluntary, so private interests would not participate unless the costs were compensated. The lost use and implementation costs are passed to electricity ratepayers and taxpayers.

The Human Effects Habitat Strategy Blocks are organized according to the major types of human activities affected?agriculture, forestry, and urban lands. Habitat actions to restore riparian lands may affect any of these activities. Actions to modify in-stream areas and in-stream passage generally would not create a loss of economic activity on private lands; for those types of actions, the economic costs are generally just the costs of implementing the actions.

The Human Effects Analysis has developed preliminary methods to estimate habitat costs based on typical habitat improvement practices and unit costs of implementing the practices. Typical practices and their unit costs are described below. Data about typical practices were obtained from a variety of sources, especially the USDA, BPA and state governments. For this report, the amount of resource (acres of land, water, miles of stream, amount of construction) affected by each practice is largely assumed because the necessary information from the ecological analysis is not yet available. This Human Effects Analysis uses information from the Ecological Workgroup?s land use database and from the USGS Water Use Information Program (USGS, WRD, 1995) to identify the total amount of land in various uses by ecological province. Most assumptions about the amount of forest and agricultural land affected by practices are expressed as a share of this potential land base. Data from the land use database are summarized in Table 4-11.
 

4.3.2.1 Intensity of Habitat Restoration Activities

The Ecological Workgroup has defined general levels of intensity of habitat restoration (on a scale of 1 to 3) for the Framework alternatives to specify the effect of the Framework alternatives on the environment. Intensity levels are defined by their goals rather than the nature of their implementation actions. Human effects, however, depend on the types and extent of actions required. In the Human Effects Analysis, the intensity of habitat restoration is represented by the share of potential land use affected by the practices in each strategy. In this draft, we are unable to ensure that the level of intensity assumed for the Human Effects Analysis is comparable to that implied by the ecological assumptions.

4.3.2.2 Sources of Information on Unit Costs

Information about habitat costs is available from many sources. Tables in Appendix B show costs and goals for habitat projects recently proposed or approved by the states or BPA. The study team has reviewed the costs and proposals for many of these actions and unit costs have been derived where possible. The USDA provides cost-sharing and technical assistance for many types of practices that would be used in the Framework alternatives. Unit costs and actual expenditures by state are available. ICBEMP provides data about costs of forestry practices. Other sources are cited as needed below.

4.3.2.3 Habitat/Water Use on Agricultural Lands and Screening of Irrigation Diversions

The strategies included in this block would reduce agricultural pesticides, nutrients, and pathogens, grazing impacts to riparian areas, irrigation water use, and agricultural impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. More irrigation diversions would be screened.

Tables B-1 through B-5 in Appendix B show costs of some agriculturally related habitat programs and screening programs in the Columbia Basin. Many of the habitat programs involve technical assistance and planning at a general level and unit costs cannot be identified. For other programs, such as those administered by the USDA, unit costs can be readily identified (Tables B-4 and B-5, Appendix B). USDA programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and formerly the Agricultural Conservation Program, have a long history with a large number of standard practices that are similar to practices likely to be implemented under the Framework alternatives.

The ICBEMP has evaluated alternative management policies for rangelands administered by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management in most of the Columbia River basin and portions of the northern Great Basin and the upper Klamath River basin (USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, 1997a, 1997b; USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, in press). Basin lands not in the analysis include the Willamette River basin, tributary watersheds below the Klickitat River in Washington, and Canada.

The proposed focus of management direction for these lands -- subject to additional public comment and final agency decision -- is to maintain, and where necessary, to restore the health and sustainability of rangeland, and associated aquatic and riparian, ecosystems. This would be accomplished by protective measures undertaken for key aquatic and terrestrial habitats and for riparian areas, and by active restoration measures to improve the structure and functioning of degraded ecosystems. Investments would be made in rangeland restoration and improvements, and changes would be made in rangeland management practices in order to accomplish the desired ecosystem objectives.

Data are provided in the environmental documents and supporting background reports about typical revenues and costs per Animal Unit Month and typical costs per acre for rangeland restoration and improvements (USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, 1997a, 1997b; in press; Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997).

Data about the amounts of irrigation withdrawal and irrigated land by ecosystem province have been compiled. Table 4-12 shows agricultural land by type of agriculture. Data about total agricultural use is from the EDT database. The USGS database provided information about irrigated land by method, and withdrawals of ground water and surface water. Land irrigated with groundwater and surface water was estimated from the data about withdrawals of groundwater and surface water and by assuming that land irrigated with groundwater and surface water withdraws the same amount per acre. With this assumption, total irrigated land can be split into land irrigated with each water source.

Table 4-13 shows assumptions about the strategies, amount of land affected, and range of unit costs for strategies that would affect agricultural land use. Unit costs are based on data in Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5. A range of costs is used where substantial uncertainty exists.

In general, habitat implementation intensities of 3, 2 and 1 were assumed to affect 33, 10, and 5 percent of agricultural land, respectively, in the relevant land use type in any region in which the strategy applied. Data about riparian acreage are not available. Therefore, assumptions for strategies targeted to riparian land are expressed as amount of acreage affected.
 

As an example, reduced pesticide application would be accomplished by the use of better pest management and scouting. These practices are assumed to result in no net loss of crop production, so the only economic cost is the implementation. A typical cost for these practices is $5 to $10 per acre. Anywhere where a habitat intensity of 3 applies, the cost is applied to 33 percent of all irrigated and dryland agriculture.
 

4.3.2.4 Habitat on Forest Lands

The strategies included in this block would limit clearcuts; provide normative ecotones (ecological transition areas), age structure, species composition, and fire frequency; reduce density of forest roads; and reduce forestry impacts to riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Costs would include the net economic value of lost timber production, changes in the economic costs of these activities, and implementation costs.

The ICBEMP has evaluated alternative management policies for forest lands administered by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management in most of the Columbia River basin and portions of the northern Great Basin and the upper Klamath River basin (USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, 1997a, 1997b; USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, in press). Basin lands not in the analysis include the Willamette River basin, tributary watersheds below the Klickitat River in Washington, the area along the east side of the Cascade crest already covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, and Canada.

The proposed focus of management direction for these lands -- subject to additional public comment and final agency decision -- is to maintain, and where necessary, to restore the health and sustainability of forest, and associated aquatic and riparian, ecosystems. This would be accomplished by protective measures undertaken for key aquatic and terrestrial habitats and for riparian areas, and by active restoration measures to improve the structure and functioning of degraded ecosystems. Large-scale thinning of unhealthy stands, and reduction of excess fuels through mechanical means and with prescribed fire, would be employed as restoration tools to achieve the desired ecosystem objectives.

Data are provided in the environmental documents and supporting background reports about typical revenues and costs per acre by ecological region and by harvest practices, including shelterwood, group selection, and thinning harvest methods (USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM, 1997a, 1997b; in press; Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997). Other data sources include Public Forestry (1999), Pacific Rivers Council (1993), and Warren (1999). Assumptions for the extent and unit costs of practices are in Table 4-14.

In the past, public lands in the Columbia River basin have contributed up to 60 percent of total timber harvest from all ownerships. However, that percentage has been declining steadily over the past two decades, and is expected to be only about 35 percent over the next 30 to 40 years (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997).
 

Net costs on public lands are assumed to be paid by taxpayers and by timber interests whose use of the resources would be lost. Less than half of the costs of harvest methods would occur on public lands. Harvest on Forest Service lands in the four states (including areas of the states outside of the Columbia basin) is now only about 10 percent of total harvest (Warren, 1999). Private timber accounts for most harvest. For this analysis, it was estimated that 2.0 and 0.3 percent of private and federal forests are harvested annually.

Table B-6 in Appendix B shows two habitat programs on forest lands in the basin. Other projects on private lands that may include forest lands are dispersed throughout Tables B-7 to B-12. Costs on private lands are assumed to be compensated and passed on to ratepayers and taxpayers, reducing disposable income and economic activity in other sectors.

4.3.2.5 Habitat/Water Use in Urban Areas

The strategies included in this block would improve municipal wastewater management and urban storm runoff control. Urban road management (other than culvert replacement) is included. Benefits primarily are related to water quality, although the type of treatment (for example, stormwater detention ponds or wetlands for wastewater treatment) can have incidental habitat benefits. For pertinent alternatives it is assumed that improved management would be practiced on a maximum of 50,000 acres of construction sites and other urban lands at an average cost of $50 per acre annually.

The other two strategies included in this block involve activities that municipalities and states are required to implement by existing CWA regulations or that they will be implementing in the future in response to proposed changes to CWA regulations. For example, as part of their compliance with the CWA, states are developing TMDLs for water-quality limited streams. The new TMDLs are likely to include more stringent limits on pollutants and temperature for many more streams that are currently regulated by CWA rules, and are likely to expand the regulation of nonpoint sources of pollution, in particular. Municipalities throughout the Northwest are participating in the regulatory process leading to the implementation of TMDLs and are planning and budgeting for increased levels of water quality regulation. Compliance by municipalities with new TMDLs will happen independent of the Framework alternatives, and thus the Framework strategies related to municipal water quality may not involve additional costs.

4.3.2.6 Other Habitat Strategies

Some of the strategies in this group would improve riparian and aquatic conditions by reducing sediment, enhancing tributary gravel and wood supply, removing dikes, managing dredging, and conducting other measures to restore estuarine habitats. Some strategies would manage predator habitat, provide gravel and organic debris in unimpounded mainstem areas, manage bank armoring, connect backwaters and sloughs, and conduct other riparian and streambed restoration activities.

Primary plans for the approximately 64 million acres of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands in the Columbia River basin covered by ICBEMP include protection and restoration of aquatic, riparian and key terrestrial habitats. In addition, the proposed direction calls for an overall reduction in road densities on agency lands throughout the basin to reduce adverse environmental effects such as sediment production and habitat fragmentation, while at the same time maintaining important public and administrative access.

The major types of adverse effects would be implementation costs. By assumption, most of these costs on private lands would be passed on to electricity ratepayers and taxpayers. Expenditures for construction would have localized economic benefits.

The most important sources of cost information are the proposals for programs funded by BPA and the states. Appendix B shows costs of some riparian/in-stream habitat restoration programs in the basin. Most of these programs include multiple activities that make unit costs difficult to determine.

The USDA (1996, see Appendix B Table B-4) provides average costs and flat rates for practices that might be used in this category. Some average annual costs recently paid were:

• Stream protection: $27 per acre.
• Developing shallow water areas for wildlife: $416 per acre.
• Streambank stabilization: $224 per acre.

Doyle et al. (1998) reviewed several sources of data and recommended summary costs for cost analysis purposes. Costs have been annualized using the 4.75 percent discount rate and expressed on a per-mile basis below.

• Streambank and shoreline protection: $3,800 per mile per year.
• Fish stream improvements: with 0.5 to 10 structures per mile, costs would be $100 to $2,000 per mile per year.
• Critical area planting: approximately $150 per mile per year.

Other strategies included in this block would improve passage by removing or improving flow conditions around obstructions. Most costs are implementation costs. The most important sources of information are the proposals for programs funded by BPA and the states. Tables B-10 and B-11 in Appendix B show some costs of passage programs in the Columbia Basin. The major types of passage improvements are culvert replacement, fishway improvements, and elimination of push-up dams.

Other strategies included in this block would develop, establish, link, or protect habitat. Most strategies would require that land be acquired and protected. The major types of adverse effects would involve implementation costs, primarily acquisition costs, and some economic value might be lost if agricultural or other production were reduced. The most important sources of information are the programs funded by BPA and the states. Table B-12 in Appendix B shows some project costs. These projects are primarily to purchase and manage upland wildlife habitat, and habitat acquisition and maintenance. Land acquisition costs typically range from $500 to $10,000 per acre.

Other sources of information include the California Resources Agency (1989), the USACE (1999g), and the Columbia Basin Bulletin (CBB) (1999b). The last source has followed a bill passed by the House of Representatives that would provide $25 million annually for screening of water diversions. States would provide matching funds, and water users would pay 35 percent for total annual funding of $77 million.

Most of the strategies in this group would require earth-moving, land shaping, and related activities. Some would require land acquisition from unspecified uses. Table 4-15 shows strategies, assumed practices and maximum implementation, and unit costs. Most unit costs are from data in Appendix B.

The costs of habitat strategies were estimated using the amounts of land in Tables 4-11 and 4-12, and the assumptions on share of land affected and unit costs provided in Tables 4-13 to 4-15. Information about the strategies used by each Framework alternative was applied to each strategy and costs were summed over each alternative. Results of the preliminary analysis are in Section 5.
 

4.3.3 Harvest Levels and Strategies

Harvest strategies focus on reducing the take of at-risk stocks. Specific strategies would require selective fisheries, a focus on sport or commercial and sport fisheries, harvest based on escapement needs for the smallest population unit or population aggregates, management of overall harvest to meet escapement needs, or the use of various new harvest techniques, such as fish wheels or use of fish ladders to select individual fish for harvest or release.

Costs include implementation costs, enforcement costs, and lost profits from fishing. In theory, economic profits from fishing will be capitalized into permits that enable that fishing. Therefore, prices of exchangeable but limited permits might be used to estimate economic benefits of expanded fishing or costs from eliminating fishing. Another approach, the method of residual returns, uses budget information to estimate net returns to fishing. This method is more common but has disadvantages in that data must be developed and the residual returns may include costs paid to uncounted factors of production.

4.3.3.1 Commercial Fisheries

Table 4-16 shows estimates of the economic benefits generated by Columbia River salmon and steelhead stocks taken in numerous fisheries under early 1990s conditions. These are the baseline harvest value estimates which, by assumption, would continue indefinitely with the other common assumptions explained in Section 3.4.

The EDT estimates that the Framework Alternatives would all increase harvestable chinook salmon populations and value in the long run (Section 4.2.2). In the short run, some harvest strategies would have economic costs associated with lost salmon catch.

Some alternatives would eliminate ocean salmon fishing. Salmon range up and down the coast in mixed stock fisheries. Therefore, the entire west coast salmon fishery, and even some non-salmon fisheries, from California to Southeast Alaska would need to be eliminated to ensure that no Columbia River fish were caught. As a practical matter, the human effects analysis assumes that ocean catch of Columbia River fish would not be entirely eliminated in any alternative. Rather, those fisheries that catch the largest shares of Columbia River fish would be eliminated or modified, and some Columbia River catch would continue as long as total harvest stays within harvest goals.

In Alaska, for example, Table 4-16 suggests that the net economic value of Columbia River chinook salmon in the southeast Alaska fishery is just $12,720 annually. In practice, it would be very difficult to eliminate catch of these Columbia River fish in Alaska without reducing catch of other stocks. Any measures required to eliminate Columbia River fish catch would affect costs and revenues from all other catch.
 

Total catch of chinook salmon in the southeast Alaska commercial fishery is a small fraction of the total, and most chinook are caught in the commercial troll fishery. Roughly a quarter are caught by the recreational fishery. The commercial troll fishery accounts for only 3 percent of the number of salmon caught in the region (ADFG, 1999). Therefore, a substantial reduction in catch of Columbia River stocks in Alaska probably could be accomplished by modifying or eliminating the troll and recreational fisheries. Complete elimination of Columbia River catch in Alaska would entail a much larger cost. Total economic contribution of salmon to personal income in the Alaska economy recently was estimated to be about $1.2 billion.

In the Columbia River, depressed stocks could be protected by targeted in-river fisheries. In comparison to ocean fisheries, revenues would be reduced by reduced fish quality, but costs might also be reduced. One method would modify fish ladders to allow take of robust stocks and hatchery fish while allowing safe passage for the depressed and natural stocks.

Fishwheels could be used in the same way. Fishwheels are semi-submerged waterwheels turned by the river?s current. Baskets scoop the fish from underneath the wheel and dump them into a holding tank where they can be sorted and released if desired. Jaeger (1997) provides an economic analysis. Annual costs to install and operate the fishwheel using the 4.75 percent discount rate and operating for 20 days would be about $5,300. Annual revenues are estimated at a slightly lower price per fish, but revenues are estimated to be $18,000 to $47,000 annually.

Jaeger (1997) finds that fishwheels are substantially more economical than purse seines or gill nets. This finding, and the observation that fish in ladders could be harvested at a small cost, suggest that targeted fisheries could be implemented in the Columbia River at a small net cost in comparison to costs of dam removal or habitat improvements. Compensation or mitigation might be desirable for the ocean fishery, but new opportunities would be created in the terminal fishery. Total personal income earned from the Washington and Oregon commercial salmon fishery recently was estimated to be less than $90 million (Radtke, 1999). Net income from commercial salmon fishing in the two states is probably less than $10 million. Therefore, a complete buy-out of non-Indian commercial salmon fishing in Washington and Oregon would probably cost around $10 million annually.

Additional strategies would involve better enforcement of fishing laws, or new laws to reduce catch or unwanted mortality. BPA programs (Table B-13 in Appendix B) have funded two projects for the year 2000; one aimed at better enforcement, and one aimed at reduced hooking mortality in recreational fishing. No other costs have been estimated.

4.3.4.2 Predator Control

The strategies included in this block would control predatory fish, birds, or mammals. Strategies to control species that compete with desirable species are included. Costs would be primarily implementation costs. Economic costs might include the value of the "undesirable" species for some persons.

Target predator species include the northern squawfish, sea lions, seals, and Caspian terns. BPA projects (Table B-14 in Appendix B) have been funded to study and control some of these predator species. Predator control programs usually seek to reduce predator habitat or predation at locations where anadromous fish may become unnaturally concentrated, disoriented, or otherwise become easy prey.

One program funds a bounty for sport take of northern pikeminnow (squawfish). Total program costs were about $3.3 million annually. The CBB (4/30/99) reports that bounties in 1998 were paid for 108,000 fish caught, at a cost of $4 to $6 per fish. If this program were expanded by increasing the bounty to $8 per fish, and twice as many squawfish were caught, program costs would increase by about $500,000 annually.

Other predator control strategies would not be expensive to implement. Total costs of $5 million to $10 million annually probably would cover all practical practices.

4.3.4 Hatchery Production Levels and Operations

4.3.4.1 Hatchery Production Levels

The strategies included in this block would change hatchery production levels; or augmentation, supplementation, or aquaculture facilities would be constructed. Benefits of hatcheries are controversial. Therefore, some strategies would expand current hatchery production programs while others would eliminate them or use them only in specific situations or as a last resort.

The most important sources of information about hatcheries are from current programs funded by BPA, the states, and other sources. Data from BPA programs are shown in Table B-15 in Appendix B. Data about hatchery plans have been obtained from the proposed federal production plan for the Columbia Basin. The "Fed1" hatchery list provides information about the types of hatchery production likely to be implemented in the near future, but little cost information is included.

Data about hatchery operations from hatchery audit reports were compiled to see if scalable values could be derived. Annual operations costs and production for 1995-1997 were used to estimate costs per pound. Data are provided in Table 4-17. Operations costs range from $0.61 to $20 per pound, but most hatcheries with data have unit costs ranging from $1.50 to $6 per pound. Additional work might yield information about costs by species or other factors. Regression analysis, for example, suggests that unit costs in Table 4-17 are negatively related to size of the operation; that is,, hatcheries exhibit economies of scale.
 

Costs to construct new hatcheries vary by size, purpose, and other factors. Typical capital costs for modern facilities are $20 million to $40 million, or $1 million to $2 million in annualized terms.

The EDT provides data about numbers of yearling and subyearling smolts to be produced by facility for each alternative (EDT, 2000). New facilities in some alternatives include the Yakima hatchery, the East Bank hatchery located at Rocky Reach Dam, and other facilities located throughout the Columbia Basin. Table 4-18 shows changes in hatchery production by alternative.
 

Radtke and Davis (1997) estimate that variable and fixed costs per pound of smolts are about $3.33 and $4.00, respectively. Total costs per smolt are about $0.10 per fish for small smolts and $0.50 per fish for large smolts. Increased costs in each alternative are estimated assuming that subyearlings are "small" smolts and yearlings are "large" smolts.

Increased costs of hatchery production by alternative are:

• Alternative 1: $35 million to $50 million of cost savings
• Alternative 2: $1.4 million
• Alternative 3: $2.4 million
• Alternative 4: $0.4 million
• Alternative 5: $4.0 million
• Alternative 6: $5.0 million
• Alternative 7: $0.8 million of net cost savings

The same extrapolation from the Radtke and Davis (1997) data puts the cost savings from eliminating hatcheries in Alternative 7 at $1.8 million annually, but $1 million are required for additional aquaculture production (data for large smolts are used for aquaculture costs). Alternative 1 would eliminate hatchery production entirely. Data from the IHOT data set suggests that total variable cost savings would be $35 million to $50 million annually.

4.3.4.2 Hatchery Operations

The strategies included in this block would operate hatcheries differently. In one strategy, dead salmon from hatcheries could be used to fertilize rearing areas. Species might be reintroduced, natural fish incorporated into hatchery broodstocks, progeny of captive brood fish reintroduced into habitat, or natural populations used as a template for hatchery production. New supplementation techniques, emergency preservation of genetic resources, use of natural fish emulation techniques in hatchery, and reduced spread of hatchery pathogens to natural stocks are also strategies.

Table B-16 in Appendix B shows some costs of proposed hatchery operations programs in the basin. Recent programs cover captive broodstock and supplementation programs, tagging, and programs for endangered species. The costs of these programs are not believed to be substantial relative to costs of facility modifications, habitat or hydrosystem strategies.