Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives

Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives

Section 2. Background to the Human Effects Analysis

The Columbia River has long provided a broad range of values and services that matter to humans. One of the oldest uses of the river system has been to provide ecological services to support fish and wildlife. For many centuries Native Americans were the exclusive human users of the river system�s natural bounty�harvesting salmon and other fish from teeming rivers, streams, and lakes; hunting for wild game; gathering a wide variety of berries, roots, and plants throughout their tribal territories; and living as one with their accustomed lands and waters.

Today, the capability of the Columbia Basin to produce wealth has been transformed, and its ability to provide ecological services greatly reduced. The basin�s waters produce great amounts of inexpensive electrical energy, sustain substantial levels of irrigated agriculture, provide an inland waterway for commercial water traffic as far inland as Lewiston, Idaho, on the Snake River, and assimilate significant amounts of industrial waste. But at the same time, the wild game, roots, and plants have been greatly diminished�and many salmon runs are functionally extinct, threatened, or endangered.

The present relationship between the natural and man-made products of the basin is viewed as unbalanced by many participants in the Framework Process. A key goal of the Framework Process is to identify and evaluate alternatives for re-establishing a balance between natural and human-made assets in the Columbia Basin. Given the basin�s current status, this re-balancing necessarily involves the identification and evaluation of alternative actions that would restore the region�s natural resources in the most cost-effective manner possible.

It is important to note that not all of the relationships between human values and fish and wildlife health are negative. Some actions taken to improve fish and wildlife conditions also will create positive economic effects. The obvious example of this is fisheries enhancement, but more important may be improved water quality, increased recreation and tourism, and the attractiveness of an improved natural environment for the location of new industries. The Human Effects Analysis is intended to provide information that will help evaluate the tradeoffs inherent in alternative rebalancing proposals.

The Human Effects Analysis evaluates tradeoffs by focusing on two key aspects of each Framework alternative:

The expected achievements (benefits) of each alternative. Wherever feasible, the Human Effects Analysis has attempted to portray these benefits in terms of measurable human effects�for example the numbers of users and the economic value associated with new recreational opportunities. In other cases, it has only been possible to identify the nature of the human benefit�for example, increased ecosystem health probably would lead to reduced water treatment costs, but that effect cannot be quantified.
Implementation costs and adverse effects associated with each alternative. The Human Effects Analysis identifies economic losses in the form of net costs. The primary purpose of identifying losses is to help policy makers to understand who is likely to experience adverse economic or other social impacts and to help in planning for compensation or mitigation to those heavily affected by changes in policy.

Changes in the use of the river system are likely to create winners and losers. Individuals and communities that currently derive benefits from the river system may experience gains or losses if the use of the river system changes. These kinds of costs, although painful, are often temporary. However, these adverse effects are more concentrated and predictable and thus tend to have a disproportionately greater influence on the policy debate than the potential winners. Beneficial effects of ecological improvements tend to be diffuse and difficult to measure in comparison to the adverse effects.

A key goal of the Human Effects Analysis has been to try to develop an assessment procedure that provides a fair and balanced treatment across the range of interests, visions, and cultures relevant to Columbia Basin resource decision-making, and that fairly addresses and describes both adverse and beneficial impacts, wherever they occur. The Human Effects Workgroup accomplished this by using economic, social, and tribal human effects indicators in its analysis. The human effects indicators are described in Section 3.2.

^ top | < index