| |
Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives |
Section 4. Framework Strategies: Policy and Economic Efficiency Effects
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.
| Table 4-1 | |
| Human Effects Strategy Blocks | |
| Hydropower | Dam breaching or construction |
| Dam modifications | |
| Dam operations | |
| Flow management | |
| Juvenile transportation | |
| Habitat | Habitat, land use on agricultural land |
| Habitat, land use on forest land | |
| Habitat, land use in urban areas | |
| Habitat, other | |
| Hatcheries | Hatchery operations |
| Hatchery production levels | |
| Harvest | Harvest levels |
| Harvest strategies | |
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.
(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.
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)
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).
Alleviation of poverty conditions are clearly indicated as essential… .
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).
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:
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.
| Table 4-3 | ||||||
| Fishing and Hunting Unit Values from the Literature (willingness to pay, unless noted) 1 | ||||||
| Meyer, Brown, and Hsaio (1983) | Oregon sport fishing | River
salmon River steelhead Ocean fish |
Per fish caught | 55 74 58 |
198 267 211 |
|
| Crutchfield and Schelle (1978) | Washington sport fishing | Ocean salmon | Per day per person | 18 | 66 | |
| Crutchfield and Schelle (1978) | Washington sport fishing | WTA ocean salmon2 | Per day per person | 75 | 282 | |
| Brown and Mendelson (1981) | Washington steelhead | 10% loss in fishing | Per day per person | 38 | 92 | |
| Sorg et al. (1985) | Idaho fishing | Cold water
Warm water |
Per day per person | 64
63 |
139
143 |
|
| Radke et al. (1999) | Sport fishing | Per day per person | 60 | 60 | ||
| Loomis (1999) | Sport fishing | Lower
Snake Reservoir fishing
Upriver fishing Fishing in New River |
Per day per person | 36 39 to 76 |
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 4-4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Summary of Hydrosystem Actions Included in the Alternatives | ||||||||||||||||
| Configuration Changes | Lower Snake Dams | |||||||||||||||
| John Day | ||||||||||||||||
| McNary | ||||||||||||||||
| Gas abatement | ||||||||||||||||
| Surface bypass | ||||||||||||||||
| JBS/screens | ||||||||||||||||
| Operations | Flood control changes | + |
||||||||||||||
| Storage rule curves | - |
|||||||||||||||
| Flow objectives | - |
|||||||||||||||
| Additional Upper Snake water | ||||||||||||||||
| Additional Canadian water | ||||||||||||||||
| Minimize flow fluctuations | ||||||||||||||||
| Temperature control | ||||||||||||||||
| Passage | Smolt transport | Spring and Summer |
||||||||||||||
| Fish spill | + and - |
+ |
- |
|||||||||||||
| Turbine improvements | + |
|||||||||||||||
| JBS =
Juvenile Bypass System IRCs = Integrated Rule Curves 98 Bi-Op = At 1998 Biological Opinion levels Col = Columbia River Pre WB = At pre-Water Budget levels SN = Snake River Test = Develop and Test or Experiment + = More than the specified level VAR Q = Variable Flow Flood Control - = Less than the specified level |
||||||||||||||||
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.
| TABLE
4-5
Value of Hydroelectric Generation in Framework Alternatives. Price and Difference from Alternative 41 |
||||||||
| September | 32.52 | -47.8 | 24.9 | -21.6 | 0.0 | 4.5 | -1.2 | 39.5 |
| October | 26.16 | -46.0 | -34.9 | -36.3 | 0.0 | 2.0 | -0.5 | 23.4 |
| November | 32.62 | -65.3 | -32.1 | 17.6 | 0.0 | -0.5 | -0.5 | 55.5 |
| December | 33.23 | -75.2 | -42.3 | -23.1 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 2.5 | 29.0 |
| January | 28.28 | -122.5 | -99.2 | -33.5 | 0.0 | -38.3 | 0.6 | 32.8 |
| February | 27.17 | -70.2 | -57.9 | -11.3 | 0.0 | -15.2 | -0.7 | 19.9 |
| March | 25.76 | 5.8 | -5.1 | -16.0 | 0.0 | -5.0 | 5.2 | 52.8 |
| April 1 | 18.28 | 1.3 | -6.1 | -6.4 | 0.0 | -3.9 | 6.2 | 1.3 |
| April 2 | 18.28 | -20.5 | -5.6 | -5.1 | 0.0 | -4.1 | -0.3 | 3.2 |
| May | 16.77 | -27.2 | -17.9 | -20.6 | 0.0 | -17.3 | 2.1 | 11.3 |
| June | 21.01 | -27.8 | -13.2 | -32.8 | 0.0 | -15.9 | 5.5 | 5.8 |
| July | 28.99 | -15.4 | -7.9 | -36.4 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.1 | -10.1 |
| August 1 | 39.69 | -37.4 | -5.9 | -17.4 | 0.0 | 4.9 | -8.1 | 0.0 |
| August 2 | 39.69 | -41.8 | -16.7 | -6.5 | 0.0 | 15.8 | 9.1 | -9.7 |
| Average | -590.2 | -319.9 | -249.2 | 0.0 | -61.7 | 20.1 | 254.6 | |
| 1
From NWPPC. 2 Hydrosim modeling for Alternative 1 assumed IRCs. |
||||||||
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.
| Table 4-6 | |||
| Additional Cost for Transmission System Improvements, Framework Alternative 3 | |||
| Synchronous condensers on Lower Snake | |||
| Modify John Day synchronous condensers | |||
| Upgrade 230/115-kV lines (Eastern Washington) | |||
| Schultz-Hanford 500-kV line | |||
| Bell-Ashe 500-kV line | |||
| Franklin 230/115-kV transformer | |||
| Big Eddy-Ostrander 500-kV line | |||
| Captain Jack-Meridian 500-kV line | |||
| Total | |||
| 1Cost
estimate not available. 2Midpoint of range, 4.75%, 50 years. Source: USACE, 1999b. |
|||
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.
| Table 4-7 | ||
| U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Analysis of Snake River Flow Augmentation Scenarios 1 | ||
| Reduction in crop consumptive use |
345,790
|
621,186
|
| Annual cost of compensating reductions in farm income (Million $) |
$57.2
|
$81.4
|
| Annual cost of hydropower losses (Million $) |
$2.7
|
-$1.9
|
| Annual cost of recreation losses (Million $) |
$13.7
|
$4.1
|
| 1
All annual values are based on a discount rate of 7.125 percent.
Includes impacts above Brownlee Reservoir only. 1427I minimizes impacts
on consumptive use by using stored water. 1427r minimizes impacts on
storage by reducing consumptive use to obtain water.
Source: USBR, 1999. |
||
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:
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.
| Table 4-8 | |||||
| Potential Monthly Electric Bill Increases from Snake River Drawdown Alternative (Similar to Framework Alternative 3) | |||||
(kWh/mo.) |
Increase for Replacement Power Only |
||||
| Resi | |||||