Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives

Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives

Section 5. Alternatives Analysis

The discussion below summarizes the effects of the alternatives, first by human effects category, then by human effects indicator. The purpose and meaning of human effects indicators were discussed in detail in Section 4.1.

The mix of strategies in each alternative varies by ecological province. This information was used explicitly for the EDT analysis of chinook salmon populations and costs of habitat measures. For hydrosystem actions, and facility modifications, each alternative includes specific actions and modifications provided by the Hydrosystem Workgroup.

5.1 Social Effects

The Framework alternatives would have a variety of social effects�some related and some unrelated to economics. The five human effects indicators in this category include indicators for health and human well-being, environmental quality, and other factors that affect the quality of life of citizens of the Northwest. Information about these indicators is closely tied to the results of the Ecological Workgroup analysis, which was not available when this Human Effects Analysis was prepared.

Table 5-1 provides a summary of social effects of the alternatives.

Table 5-1

Social Effects of Alternatives

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives

1 Significant decreased tribal poverty and mortality depending on status of natural stocks. Most potential for increased poverty associated with increased electricity costs, loss of transportation, and increased costs and reduced activity in natural resource industries. Most passive use value and environmental benefits from preservation and restoration, better quality of life in some rural communities, more stress and adverse construction effects in others.

2 Largest increase in harvest potential, substantial decreased tribal poverty and mortality. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1. Some potential for increased flooding mortality.

3 Large increase in harvest potential, substantial decreased tribal poverty and mortality. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1.

4 Tribal poverty and mortality may decrease or continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, little passive use values, little effect on mortality. High risk of extinction of some runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5.

5 Large increase in harvest potential, some decreased tribal poverty and mortality. No loss of transportation economy. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1.

6 Tribal poverty and mortality may decrease or continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, little passive use value, little effect on mortality. High risk of extinction of some natural runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5

7 Tribal poverty and mortality may continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, negative passive use value associated with natural fish, little effect on human mortality. High risk of extinction of some runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5

5.1.1 Poverty

Most impacts on poverty are likely to be related to unemployment, especially in natural resource industries: agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Tribal poverty related to subsistence opportunities is a concern. Poverty rates may be affected by:

Increased unemployment in agriculture, flatwater recreation, transportation, and forestry
Changes in unemployment levels in salmon fisheries
Increases in employment in river-based recreation
In the long run, reduced poverty conditions in tribal economies associated with increases in treaty harvest, subsistence catch, and ecosystem health
Short-term gains from construction and implementation activities
Reduced economic activity associated with higher energy costs
Increased employment associated with the attraction created by improved ecosystem health.

5.1.2 Mortality

Mortality rates may be affected by several factors including:

Availability of more salmon for subsistence harvest may increase nutrition levels and reduce mortality of tribal members
An increased sense of well-being may reduce suicide and violent crime rates among tribal members
Employment changes in natural resource industries could affect number of fatalities in these hazardous occupations
In Alternative 2, changes in reservoir configuration and operations could increase risk to life associated from flooding, especially along the lower Snake river. Additional costs would be required to maintain mortality risk at current levels.

Table 3-4 shows tribal death rates relative to non-tribal members. Mortality rates are notably higher than non-tribal levels. Quantitative measurements of impacts on mortality are not available.

5.1.3 Passive Use

Passive use values are discussed in Section 4.2.2 and in more detail in Appendix E. In summary, passive use values are potentially large economic benefits associated with healthier fish and wildlife populations. Positive passive use values associated with fish and wildlife protection are evidenced by public support for the ESA and the allocations of public funds for the protection and recovery of endangered species.

Passive use values for the Framework alternatives have not been quantified because (1) The available studies do not cover the range of population increases estimated for the Framework alternatives, (2) the available information about salmon does not differentiate hatchery and natural fish, (3) limited information is available about the values of some groups of Pacific Northwest residents, and (4) results of the available contingent valuation studies have not been verified by use of actual willingness-to-pay experiments. Several techniques have been suggested for verifying contingent valuation results, including better use of sampling and bias control techniques. However, as described earlier (Section 4.2.2), passive use values are probably the largest benefit potentially associated with Framework alternatives.

5.1.4 Other Environmental Effects

The only environmental benefits that have been estimated are for salmon populations and, from DREW: salmon and steelhead trout population increases from the breaching of the Lower Snake dams. Other environmental benefits will involve improvements in the status of other species of animals and plants. Many other environmental benefits should be included in the analysis (for example, water quality improvements, biological diversity) but cannot be quantified at this time because strategies have not been specified or impacts of the strategies have not been measured. Environmental benefits that are unrelated to fish and wildlife populations (that is, the multiple benefits of healthy ecosystems) are discussed in Section 4.2.

The alternatives also would have environmental costs. Alternatives that decrease hydroelectric power supply would be likely to cause an increase in thermal generation. This increase would contribute to fossil fuel emissions, including carbon. DREW analysis showed a small effect on fossil fuel emissions for Lower Snake drawdown alone.

5.1.5 Other Quality of Life

Other factors that may affect the quality of life for residents include impacts on local populations, infrastructure, finance and social services, non-economic effects of construction, impacts on community and culture, and wealth effects that may not be picked up by other economic analyses. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 may impair quality of life for natural resource occupation workers in rural communities, at least in the short run. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 7 may impair quality of life for tribal members, fishermen, and river-based recreationists. No quantitative information has been developed.

Community effects stem from disruptions to established local norms of work and behavior. Some habitat strategies might result in disruptions to established resource use patterns and property rights. Some alternatives might reduce these effects by use of more incentives.

5.2 Tribal Effects

Additional tribal effects are human effects indicators of concern to Tribes above and beyond those human effects indicators discussed earlier in this document. Tribal members have unique concerns (identified for the Human Effects Workgroup by participants reflecting tribal perspectives) that transcend their roles in the non-tribal economy. This section covers some of these concerns.

Given the broad cultural and spiritual relationship between Columbia Basin natural resources and tribal peoples, it is likely inappropriate�and also not fully possible�to establish linkages between Framework alternatives and the circumstances of tribal peoples based on some single calculus or measure. Information is adequate, however, to distinguish between Framework alternatives, based on three inter-related bodies of information available to this report:

First, direct information provided by the tribes themselves, in their own words, and reflecting their own value systems, provides an important basis for identifying which alternative or alternatives will best improve tribal living circumstance, and which will not. Some tribal testimony is incorporated in this report. Other testimony will be provided to the broader Framework process.
Second, direct monitoring of expected results from implementation of each Framework alternative on key indicator species will provide a good indication of whether tribal circumstances are, in fact, improving. Underlying this key indicator species approach is the concept that while tribal and non-tribal residents may perceive "how to measure the value" of such species differently, they can agree that "they are of value." By focussing on estimated abundance changes for each species, we leave persons from each culture free to value the species in their own words�while being able to distinguish which alternative actions are superior for the species involved.
Third, the key species selected for such measurement are salmon, bull trout, beaver, and bear. It is also a reasonable presumption that if these species were recovering, it is likely that the ecosystem as a whole also may be recovering.

It is probably not possible to develop shorter-term quantitative relationships between changes in underlying levels of tribal resources and associated well-being. In fact, this may be neither feasible nor necessary � as most of the core data about poverty, unemployment, and per capita income used in this report are from the U.S. decennial census. Noting this, we employ the following qualitative typology to distinguish among the effects of Framework alternatives on the Tribes:

"Substantial" effects would be expected to resonate in communities across the tribal landscape almost immediately, bring hope/despair to tribal peoples, and to create substantial changes in tribal poverty, unemployment, and health measures within a 10-year (decennial) period.
"Significant" effects would provide shorter term impacts (positive or negative) for some tribal communities or groups, and would provide measurable changes to human effects indicators during a decennial period.
"Moderate" effects would provide benefits or costs which could be significant for some tribal communities or groups, but which might not result in measurable changes to poverty and health indicators during a decennial period.

5.2.1 A Summary of Impacts of Alternative Framework Initiatives on the Tribes

Estimates of changes in numbers of chinook salmon in the Framework alternatives from the EDT analysis are provided in Table 5-2. Estimates for other salmon species are not currently available.

Table 5-2
Chinook Salmon Run Size by Alternative in 1,000 Fish and Number of Fish as Percent of Alternative 4

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hatchery
0

552

560

381

625

660

407

Natural
691

445

375

226

306

276

240

Total
691

997

935

608

931

936

646

Natural Increase as Percent of Alternative 4 205.4% 96.4% 65.5% 0.0% 35.0% 21.9% 5.8%

The EDT results suggest that all of the alternatives would provide more natural salmon than alternative 4. This finding rests on numerous assumptions about survival of natural and hatchery fish that have not been reviewed or approved outside of the Ecological Workgroup. Therefore, these results are not yet accepted as the basis for analysis of tribal effects. Rather, results from PATH used for the Feasibility Study are considered.

The Feasibility Study provides fairly extensive data about breaching Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Lower Granite dams on the Lower Snake River, but little information is provided about other Framework strategies.

PATH (1998) studies found that breaching Lower Snake and John Day reservoirs would increase fish populations and increase the chances of meeting NMFS jeopardy standards. NMFS (1999) finds that "based on the PATH analyses conducted to date, actions involving drawdown (Feasibility Study alternatives A3 and B1) projected consistently higher relative probabilities of exceeding survival and recovery population thresholds than actions using the current configuration� ." These studies support the biological benefits of breaching strategies independent of their role in the Framework alternatives.

Assessment of tribal impacts from the alternatives posed also depends critically upon whether it is assumed that populations of key fish and wildlife species, and more broadly, Columbia Basin ecological diversities in general, are stable, or whether they are in continued decline (Section 5.5). Historically, it has been demonstrated that tribal life has been devastated by cumulative destruction of the salmon-producing capabilities of the Columbia-Snake system and by declines of many game and plant species upon which they depend. Much of this destruction has been accompanied by mitigative assurances which, with time, turned out to be hollow promises. As a result of this empirical record, the Tribes have learned to be cautious of promised mitigation. That concern carries to the present assessment�where the Tribes see little in Framework Alternatives 4 through 7 to indicate that these long-term cumulative losses to key species will be reversed. Because of these concerns, summary results in this section first will be presented under the tribal assumption that key stocks are still under threat and will continue to decline unless major remedial actions are quickly undertaken. We will then summarize results using a stock stability presumption, for comparison with other like sections of this report.

5.2.2 Salmon

The Tribes used PATH results refereed by independent experts to estimate comparative tribal harvests from breaching the Lower Snake River dams, and compared these to harvests forecast under "status quo" and under an alternative termed "the transportation alternative," which maximized potential retrofitting of fish passage measures at these dams. Probabilities of removal of natural spring/summer chinook from the Endangered Species List after 48 years of recovery are presented in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3

Probability of Delisting Natural Spring/Summer Chinook With Alternative Actions at Four Lower Snake Dams

Potential Action Probability of Delisting
(percent)

Maintain status quo 41

Maximize dam fish passage retrofit 37

Breach four dams 78 to 79

Source: PATH scientific review panel, 1998. Conclusions and recommendations from the PATH weight of evidence workshop. p. 22.

Considering these data, several conclusions seem evident with respect to impacts on Tribes.

Retrofitting Lower Snake River dams to provide "improved" fish passage offers little relief to the Tribes and is inferior to "status quo" present day fish passage and flow measures. This option offers only a 37 percent chance of salmon recovery after 48 years. If we assume salmon stocks are still in decline, this action might be accompanied by further extinction of stocks with attendant catastrophic results for affected tribal peoples. As noted, these assessments apply only to dams on the Lower Snake River. However, to the extent that Framework Alternatives 5 through 7 are substantially dependent on the assumption that retrofitted dams can safely pass recovered salmon, these findings would seem to imply that they also will not succeed and that they may result in further salmon extinctions in the future.
Maintaining status quo fish passage and flow measures on the Lower Snake River was found to be slightly better for salmon than dam retrofitting. However, potentials for delisting of spring/summer chinook within 48 years fall below 50 percent�and if stock declines are continuing, still risks extinctions�with attendant catastrophic damages for affected Tribes. More broadly, this would seem to imply that salmon recovery throughout the full Columbia/Snake system will require some mix of dam breaching, improved fish passage at remaining dams, and attendant habitat recovery for successful salmon renewal. These observations seem particularly to apply to Framework Alternatives 1 and 2.

Finally, these findings suggest that "maintaining status quo" measures for a further study period poses significant extinction risks for affected stocks and for dependent Tribes. This poses a serious consideration for Framework Alternative 4.

Cited data indicate the breaching of the four Lower Snake River dams is the only alternative considered that offers hope of substantial recovery of Snake River salmon stocks and the prospect of significant reduction in threats of extinction. Breaching the four dams is forecast to produce 2.5 times more salmon than retrofitting or status quo and would reach biological recovery goals within a reasonable period of time. Within 50 years, this action is estimated to add 1.7 million pounds to presently diminished tribal harvests. To paraphrase Chris Walsh (Walsh, 1999), a psycho-social nursing specialist working for the Yakama Indian Nation, if these salmon came back, substantial positive changes would start for tribal peoples. These findings primarily apply to Framework Alternative 3, and the Tribes who depend on Snake River stocks. They also are relevant for Framework Alternatives 1 and 2, because breaching of the four Lower Snake River dams are incorporated in those alternatives.

Further discussion of the effect on salmon-dependent Tribes must necessarily await completion of work by the Framework Ecology Workgroup.

5.2.3 Wildlife Habitat

As with salmon, available information about habitat and dependent fish and wildlife awaits the completion of work by the Framework Ecology Workgroup. That work also may specify impacts on several potential key species of interest to Tribes, notably, bull trout, beaver, and bear, and provide further information about salmon. Preliminary information from the Framework process suggests the ranking of habitat recoveries under framework actions shown in Table 5-4.

Additional information is available for impacts on the Nez Perce, Yakama, and Umatilla Tribes if the reservoirs for the four Lower Snake River dams were drawn down to "natural river" by breaching. This information is summarized in Table 5-5.

Table 5-4

Proposed Habitat Intensities By Alternative

Alternative Federal Lands¹ Private Lands¹ Notes

1 3 3

2 2 2

3 2 2 May be less in Columbia Basin

4 2 1

5 3 2

6 3 1

7 1 1

^{1
3 is most intensive, 1 is least intensive}

Table 5-5

Tribal Impacts on Lands Inundated by Four Lower Snake River Reservoirs

Impact Dams and Reservoirs Remain Dams Remain/Reservoirs Drained

Fishing sites Access to many fishing sites preempted. Some alternative sites available (principally non-salmon). Would reestablish tribal fishing sites along 150 miles of river.

Hunting and gathering areas Reservoirs presently flood 33,890 acres. Up to 33,890 acres restored for tribal hunting, gathering of roots, berries and plants.

Tribal land base Eliminated 33,890 acres from tribal use. Would add land-based tribal opportunities up to 1/3 the size of present Nez Perce land holdings, or, up to 1/5 the size of present CTUIR land holdings.

Cultural activities Floods more than 600 to 700 locations where cultural activities occurred. Would enable tribal peoples to reestablish contact and use of more than 600 to 700 usual cultural locations.

Religious/spiritual Floods numerous tribal graves. Involved violation and stealing of bodies of some ancestors. Separates tribal peoples from their land, their rivers, and their sacred and ceremonial places. Would reunite tribal peoples with their land, the river, and the creatures of the Lower Snake. Would allow Tribes to care for the graves of loved ones. Would recover sacred and ceremonial places.

Source: Meyer Resources, 1999. p. 222.

5.2.4 Water Quality

The tribes place great importance on cool, free-flowing, pollution-free streams and rivers to support humans, fish, and wildlife. Framework Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 breach Lower Snake dams, and presumably would improve water quality as a result. Alternative 5 explicitly targets adequate summer temperatures for fish, and should lead to improved water temperatures in the system. Conversely, alternatives that continue adverse discharges (toxic or non-toxic) into Columbia Basin waters will rank low with respect to water quality. Our analysis awaits further information.

5.2.5 Distribution of Columbia Basin Income and Wealth

Historically, the Tribes of the Columbia Basin have been deprived of the resource wealth required for their survival, even though protection of these tribal resources was promised by representatives of the United States and often were guaranteed in treaties. Non-Indian residents of the Columbia Basin obtained these tribal resources by force, coercion, negotiation, and in later periods, by conversion of rivers to support great amounts of electric energy production, irrigated agriculture, and commercial transportation, but far less fish and wildlife. So as most residents of the region have prospered, the circumstances of tribal peoples have become increasingly desperate. These circumstances and their result for tribal peoples are summarized in Section 3.2.2.

Tribes are consequently critically interested in the issue of fairness�whether alternatives considered by the Framework solidify these prior takings of wealth from the Tribes, and the imbalances of poverty, unemployment, income, and ill health they created between tribal peoples and regional residents in general. Such concerns about distributional fairness also are mandated under the EPA�s Environmental Justice Guidelines.

Based on discussion in this report, it appears that Framework Alternatives 1 through 3 would move the region toward a fairer balance between the wellbeing of tribal and non-tribal citizens. It is not clear that Alternatives 5 through 7 would achieve this objective. Alternative 4, by recommending "status quo and study" would continue present adverse levels of poverty, unemployment, insufficient income, and premature death for tribal peoples of the region.

5.3 Economic Efficiency Effects

Economic efficiency effects are meant to provide some of the information required for NED accounts, which are most commonly encountered in the context of benefit-cost analysis. The accounting stance for NED analysis is usually the entire nation, or all U.S. citizens. Cost measures also could be used in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis.

5.3.1 Fisheries

This human effects indicator includes economic surplus associated with commercial harvest of salmon. Other fish species that may be impacted have little or no commercial importance. Recreational harvest is included in the discussion of the recreation industry (Section 5.3.3) and subsistence harvest is included in tribal effects under the salmon human effects indicator (Section 5.2.2).

Producer surplus in commercial fisheries involves sales, costs, and net returns. Sales are the price of fish times quantity sold. Costs are payments for labor, services, and equipment. Net returns, or sales minus costs, are a measure of economic benefit. Costs must include the opportunity costs of unpaid factors for benefits calculations. The analysis does not include consumer surplus of fish consumers in the United States. Consumers of salmon are not likely to be affected much because in a world market for salmon (much salmon is commercially cultivated), the price of salmon would not be affected much by Columbia River actions.

The specific strategies for chinook salmon included in the preliminary EDT analysis are:

Alternative 1: Eliminate ocean and lower river harvest; improve harvest on known populations, use traditional methods and sport on mainstem
Alternative 2: Reduce ocean harvest, provide for a lower river net fishery, status quo mainstem harvest
Alternative 3: Same as Alternative 2
Alternative 4: Status Quo
Alternative 5: Same as Alternative 2
Alternative 6: Eliminate ocean and lower river harvest; known population C&S, known stock and focus on hatchery fish on mainstem
Alternative 7: Same as Alternative 6

The Human Effects Analysis takes the perspective that these strategies would be primarily short run and harvest restrictions could be reduced in the long run as stocks recover. This perspective is supported by the EDT analysis (Table 4-2) in that future total harvest potential exceeds preterminal harvest by multiples of 2 to 32. In the long run, the alternatives� effects on salmon fisheries should be largely positive and stem from the beneficial effects of many strategies that would increase numbers of salmon. These population increases will interact with harvest strategies and other background conditions in the commercial fishing industry to determine harvest levels and value. Some economic benefit estimates were developed in Section 4.2.2. These estimates, using total harvest potential, allow that some harvest strategies to reduce harvest could be weakened in the future to allow for more of the total harvest potential to be taken.

Short-run harvest reductions, though not currently specified by any alternatives, may be required. The analysis assumes that harvest reductions are accomplished by positive voluntary incentives so that owners of fishing enterprises are not worse off. By assumption, ratepayers would pay the costs of these voluntary incentives.

Table 5-6 summarizes the available information about impacts of the alternatives on fisheries. Sources of information were discussed in Section 4.5.

Important uncertainties in estimating fisheries impacts involve fish population increases and future fisheries regulations. Critical assumptions involved in estimating fisheries impacts involve U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The NMFS currently is considering salmon harvest alternatives in the West Coast Salmon Environmental Impact Statement ranging from status quo to no harvest. A reasonable range of common assumptions might include more restrictive harvest regulations. If more restrictive harvest regulations were adopted as a common assumption, the effect would be to minimize the adverse effects of the Framework harvest strategies.

Table 5-6

Impacts of Alternatives on Commercial Fisheries

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives

1 Most ocean harvest eliminated in the short run, share of harvest from ocean substantially reduced in the long run. Harvest increase in the long run. Potential benefit compared to current conditions is about $0.6 million to $2.4 million annually. Change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Most lower river harvest eliminated in its current form.

2 Ocean harvest reduced in the short run, share of harvest from ocean reduced in the long run. Most harvest increase in the long run. Potential benefit is about $2.7 million to $10.0 million annually, mostly on mainstem. Change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Population aggregate escapement goals. As a goal, harvest increased in the long run to levels defined by U.S. v. Oregon. Some cost savings through more efficient harvest; but increased costs for management and tagging. .

3 Similar to Alternative 2. Potential benefit is about $2.5 million to $9.0 million annually.

4 Status quo harvest rates. Potential benefit is about $1.0 million to $3.4 million annually. No selective harvest. Weakest aggregate harvest rate. Long-run effects depend on experimental management.

5 Similar to Alternative 2. Potential benefit is about $2.4 million to $8.7 million annually.

6 Most ocean harvest eliminated in the short run, share of harvest from ocean reduced in the long run. Potential benefit is about $1.2 million to $4.5 million annually. Some change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Selective fisheries, weakest aggregate harvest rate, and aquaculture development. Most lower river harvest eliminated in its current form.

7 Similar to Alternative 6. Potential benefit is $0.8 million to $2.9 million annually.

5.3.2 Hydropower

This human effects indicator includes economic measures of hydropower costs and benefits. Hydropower production is affected by several strategy blocks, including dam breaching or construction, dam modifications, and dam operations and flow management. The value of sales also is affected by operations that change the timing of production. In addition, hydropower costs are increased by the share of other costs (mostly habitat, harvest, and hatcheries) assigned to hydropower.

The Human Effects study team has assumed that ratepayers (electricity consumers) pay for the costs of electricity needed to replace lost hydropower, and that ratepayers must pay for harvest reductions, hatcheries, and one third of habitat costs. Demand may be more elastic in the future as market conditions change, and this may reduce the ability to pass on these costs.

Table 5-7 summarizes the available information about impacts of the alternatives on hydropower. The analysis involves electricity producers in two ways�BPA sales are reduced, and other costs are increased. BPA customer costs are increased by the cost of replacement power and the other costs are passed to ratepayers. On the other hand, thermal power producers and construction interests may benefit from the need for new capacity. These benefits are reflected in the regional assessment.

Table 5-7

Impacts of Alternatives on Hydropower

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives

1 Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $590 million annually and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Additional increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $290 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $80 million annually, but no O&M for breached facilities. Preliminary habitat cost share (1/3 of habitat costs) from $120 million to $220 million annually. With this magnitude of additional net costs, potential problems for BPA meeting financial obligations. Cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $54 million. Long-run cost savings from eliminated hatchery production are $35 million to $50 million annually.

2 Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $320 million annually and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Additional increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $190 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $110 million annually, and O&M at affected facilities $10 million. Preliminary habitat cost share (1/3 of habitat cost) from $50 million to $90 million annually. O&M cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $44 million. Some likelihood of financial problems for BPA. New hatcheries cost $1.4 million annually.

3 Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $250 million annually, and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $60 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $110 million annually, and O&M at affected facilities about $20 million. Preliminary habitat cost share from $50 million to $90 million annually. O&M cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $34 million. Some likelihood of financial problems for BPA. New hatcheries cost $2.4 million annually.

4 Small changes in hydropower value from removal of a few small dams, but comparable cost savings. Facility modification costs are about $30 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Long-run effects unknown. New hatcheries cost $0.4 million annually.

5 Hydropower value loss of about $60 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $35 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for preliminary habitat are $60 million to $100 million annually. May be more costs for selective harvest. New hatcheries cost $4.0 million annually.

6 Increase in hydropower value of $20 million to $40 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $26 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for habitat are $40 million to $60 million annually. May be more costs for selective harvest. New hatcheries cost $5 million annually.

7 Increased hydropower value of about $250 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $23 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for preliminary habitat are $10 million to $20 million annually. Change in hatcheries saves $0.8 annually. May be more costs for selective harvest.

BPA = Bonneville Power Administration.

5.3.3 Recreation

This human effects indicator includes producer and consumer surplus from all forms of recreation that may be affected by the alternatives. Important categories of recreation include:

Recreational fishing. Important species that may be affected include salmon, steelhead trout, and a variety of resident fish including trout, sturgeon, and bass.
Recreational boating. Flatwater, river, and whitewater boating would be affected.
Hunting, wildlife viewing, and wildlife/natural history education. Land-based recreation could be affected by habitat actions and effects on wildlife. Important habitat actions involve road closures, riparian land management, and management of land acquired and restored for habitat.

The recreational industry includes businesses that sell recreation goods and services, and consumers of those goods and services. The analysis is concerned with consumers as well as producers because both are located in-region, and both would be affected by changes in the mix and quality of recreation services available.

Table 5-8 summarizes the available information about impacts of the alternatives on recreation.

Table 5-8

Impacts of Alternatives on Recreation

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives

1 Loss of flatwater recreation in Lower Snake, McNary, and John Day reservoirs, increase in river-based recreation. Net effect for Lower Snake breaching believed positive, for John Day believed small, unknown for McNary. Improved salmon and steelhead trout fishing and riverine opportunities. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $2 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large. Other outdoor recreation increased in amount and quality. Road closures and other loss of access on public lands may have costs and benefits. Some new access to acquired habitat areas assumed.

2 Loss of flatwater recreation in Lower Snake and John Day reservoirs. Benefits and losses at least as large as Alternative 3. Net benefit of John Day drawdown (net value of change in recreation types) not expected to be large based on John Day drawdown study. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $5 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large.

3 Lower Snake reservoirs removed. Loss of existing sport fishing value about $2 million annually. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $4 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large. Loss of other flatwater recreation values about $30 million annually, increased riverine recreation valued between $85.5 million and $366 million annually. Other outdoor recreation values increased depending on management of acquired and restored habitats. Habitat-related effects similar to Alternative 2.

4 Recreation patterns on Lower Snake largely unchanged. Potential flow augmentation from Snake River in long term would cost $4 million to $14 million annually, primarily in Idaho, due to reservoir drawdown. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $3 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.

5 Not much net effect, some gains and losses from habitat measures. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $4 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large.

6 Not much effect. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $1 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.

7 Not much effect. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $1 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.

5.3.4 Transportation

This human effects indicator includes producer and consumer surplus in the navigation industry, its customers, and rail and trucking industries. Impacts occur only in alternatives with breaching. Transportation is shifted to truck and rail. The economic cost is the difference in resource costs between the two transportation modes. Most of the freight is agricultural products and supplies. Agricultural demand is elastic, so most cost would be paid by agricultural transportation users.

Table 5-9 summarizes the available information about impacts of the alternatives on transportation. Important uncertainties involve the ability of agriculture to absorb the transportation cost increases and the market structures in barging, rail, and trucking that affect the costs of transportation. Improvements in rail and road transportation might be beneficial for regional residents.

Table 5-9

Impacts of Alternatives on Transportation

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives

1 Navigation lost above John Day dam. Most shipments would probably shift to rail to/from Portland. Navigation net revenue loss and transportation cost increase may be $90 million to $100 million annually. Most cost increase passed to agriculture in the Upper Columbia Basin. Transportation cost increases would cause some marginal dry cropland probably to go out of production.

2 Same as Alternative 1.

3 Loss of navigation from Idaho to Tri-cities. Without breaching, cost of navigation is about $225 million. With breaching, cost for rail and trucking increases to about $250 million. Therefore, net cost increase is about $25 million. Most of the cost increase is passed to agriculture in the Upper Columbia.

4 No effect in the short run; unknown in the long run.

5 No effect.

6 No effect.

7 No effect.

5.3.5 Agriculture and Water Users This human effects indicator includes impacts to the agricultural sector and other water users that stem from several types of strategies: 1. Strategies that breach dams or lower reservoirs would reduce water levels or groundwater tables. Structural modifications would be required for diversions or groundwater pumping to continue, or the use of water might cease. These costs probably would be borne by the water users. Annualized costs are estimated to be more than $60 million, $30 million, and about $10 million in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

2. Habitat and hydrology strategies that reduce irrigation withdrawals to leave more water in-stream would require reductions in the amounts of water used for irrigation. Costs would be required for increased irrigation efficiency, or irrigated land use would be changed. Costs could be up to $100 million annually in Alternative 1; near $30 million annually in Alternatives 2, 3, or 5; and minimal in Alternatives 6 and 7. By assumption, these costs would be borne by ratepayers, and taxpayers. By assumption, electricity ratepayers would pay about one-third, taxpayers two-thirds, so he share paid by farmers would be zero or minimal.

Some habitat strategies would change farming practices; require on-farm improvements, change farming practices, or increase costs for screens. Costs could be $100 million to $200 million annually in Alternative 1; near $50 million annually in Alternatives 2, 3, or 5; about $30 million in Alternative 6, and minimal in Alternative 7. Most of these costs would be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. Some costs, such as screening and reduced grazing on public lands, are assumed to be paid by the affected water or land users. In general, increased costs assigned to agriculture could not be passed to consumers because demand is elastic; that is, prices are set by national or international markets.

4. Some habitat strategies would reduce grazing, especially in riparian areas. Private land owners would be compensated. Costs on public lands probably would be borne by livestock owners, and the public landowner would receive less grazing revenue.

5. Some strategies would acquire agricultural land and devote it to conservation uses.

Table 5-10 summarizes the impacts of habitat-related strategies on land use and costs by alternative. Costs are shown by where they first occur, not who pays for them. Impacts to agriculture account for much of the land and economic cost of habitat actions. In Alternative 1, more than 20,000 square miles of cropland and grazing land would be affected. From Table 4-8, about half of agricultural land and a third of grazing land would be affected. In Alternatives 2 and 3, habitat intensities are reduced from 3 to 2. This decreases the amount and cost of habitat strategies markedly.

Table 5-10
Summary Estimates of Preliminary Habitat Land Use Impacts and Costs by Alternative ¹
	1		2		3		4		5		6		7
Habitat practices that are associated with specific land use types and amounts ²
Thousand Acres Treated		16,178		5,010		5,010		2,158		6,907		4,520		1,934
Riparian		1,161		581		521		491		521		275		118
Rangelands and pasture		5,773		1,749		1,749		875		3,069		2,482		875
Other agricultural land		7,547		2,082		2,055		814		2,287		938		938
Forestland		937		284		284		0		691		638		0
Harvested forestland		743		309		309		0		334		184		0
Urban land		17		5		5		5		5		3		3
Minimum cost/year, million $		$204.2		$61.5		$61.5		$14.1		$79.2		$43.3		$14.6
Forestry practices		$65.3		$22.8		$22.8		$6.5		$35.1		$26.3		$0.9
Agricultural practices		$138.1		$38.4		$38.4		$7.4		$43.9		$16.9		$13.6
Maximum cost/year, million $		$424.2		$135.3		$135.3		$37.9		$166.1		$100.0		$36.3
Forestry practices		$128.7		$49.0		$49.0		$10.3		$71.7		$52.2		$1.4
Agricultural practices		$294.6		$86.1		$86.1		$27.3		$94.1		$47.7		$34.8
Cost/acre/year, minimum		$12.62		$12.27		$12.27		$6.53		$11.47		$9.58		$7.57
Cost/acre/year, maximum		$26.22		$27.01		$27.01		$17.54		$24.04		$22.13		$18.80
Habitat costs not associated with specific land use types and amounts ³
Million $ cost/year, minimum		$165.1		$83.5		$83.5		$32.8		$77.8		$60.9		$24.0
Land acquisition, minimum		$15.0		$7.5		$7.5		$1.3		$7.5		$7.5		$1.6
Road obliteration, min		$10.0		$5.0		$5.0		$0.0		$5.0		$5.0		$0.0
Million $ cost/year, maximum		$252.7		$127.3		$127.3		$41.6		$122.3		$91.6		$27.8
Land acquisition, maximum		$3.5		$1.8		$1.8		$0.1		$2.0		$2.0		$0.3
Road obliteration, max		$15.0		$7.5		$7.5		$0.0		$7.5		$7.5		$0.0
Min or Max screen costs		$77.0		$38.5		$38.5		$19.3		$38.5		$38.5		$19.3
Total costs, minimum, million $/year		$369.3		$145.0		$145.0		$46.9		$157.0		$104.2		$38.6
Total costs, maximum, million $/year		$676.9		$262.6		$262.6		$79.4		$288.3		$191.6		$64.1
^{1 Assumed 1/3 paid by ratepayers and 2/3 by taxpayers.} ^{2 Some acreage may receive more than one treatment. Total riparian acreage not yet identified.} ^{3 Includes two hydrology strategies: providing gravel and removing armoring. Includes acquisition or lease of about 2,000 square miles of land in unidentified use, probably most would be grazing.}

Table 5-11 summarizes the available information about impacts of the alternatives on agriculture and water users.

Table 5-11

Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users¹

Framework Alternative Description of Impact of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users

1 Cost to maintain 167,000 acres irrigated from John Day, 125,000 acres from McNary and 37,000 from Ice Harbor would be up to $60 million annualized. Agriculture also would pay up to $27 million annually for screening costs.
Preliminary habitat costs on agricultural lands would be $140 million to $300 million annually. These costs are assumed to be paid by some mix of farmers, ratepayers, and taxpayers. By assumption, farmers� share would be small, or agriculture obtains benefits to compensate cost share. In addition, some agricultural land, mostly grazing land, removed from grazing use by acquisition.

2 Water supply costs about $30 million annually. Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small. Other costs and effects reduced proportionately.

3 Water supply costs about $10 million annually. Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.

4 Screening costs about $7 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $10 million to $30 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small. Unknown in long run.

5 Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.

6 Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $20 million to $50 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.

7 Small screening costs ($7 million annually). Preliminary habitat costs $10 million to $30 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.

^{1
Habitat costs are not additive with costs in Table 5-7. Table 5-7
includes ratepayer share of habitat costs including some of these
agricultural costs.}

5.3.6 Forestry

This human effects indicator includes the direct costs of implementing major changes to land use on forested lands in the Columbia Basin. Forestry-related strategies would change forestry practices and reduce timber harvest. Table 5-10 shows potential impacts from the preliminary habitat assessment. In Alternative 1, added costs for restoration and management on forestlands could be $70 million to $130 million annually in costs and net revenue losses. Annual costs in Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 are similar at about $20 million to $60 million annually. Alternative 5 forestry costs amount to about $40 million to $70 million annually, Alternative 4 would cost $5 million to $10 million annually, and Alternative 7 would have little effect on forestry.

Most of these costs represent changes to forestry practices on private lands that would be compensated. Costs on federal lands would be minimal because a relatively small amount of federal land is being harvested in the region. One exception is that costs to establish normative fire conditions on federal lands could be large. Restoration and management costs on federal lands are assumed to be paid by federal taxpayers, but increased harvest costs on federal lands probably would be paid by users, not taxpayers.

5.4 Regional Economic Effects

This category of effects considers all of the industry-level effects combined, plus the effect of trade linkages, on important indicators of regional economic activity. These indicators are the value of output, personal income, and employment. These human effects indicators are discussed in Section 3.2.4, as are some issues about the meaning and application of these measures.

The DREW regional analysis suggests that a substantial amount of temporary employment and income would be created by breaching the Lower Snake River dams. Total temporary construction employment would be about 5,500 jobs in power plant construction; and about 15,000 jobs in construction of new transmission lines, rail, highways, facilities, pump stations, and wells. In the long run, and permanently, about 3,000 jobs would be lost due to loss of irrigated agriculture and cessation of dam operations, but 2,300 jobs would be gained from power plant operations and increased recreation use (USACE, 1999h).

The Feasibility Study did not include economic impacts of the loss of the navigation industry or the job gains from increased sales to the rail and trucking industries. Estimates of navigation-related losses were developed by the Tri-Port Economic Impact Study (1997). Roughly 800 jobs would be lost in the navigation sector, 800 more jobs would be lost in related sectors, and about 3,000 jobs would be lost in industrial parks and related areas. No data are available about the offsetting increases in rail or trucking.

The Feasibility Study estimated sales, income and job losses that might be caused by increased electricity ratepayer costs following breaching of the Lower Snake dams. Over the entire four-state region, lost sales amount to about $400 million annually, more than 2,300 jobs would be lost, and more than $230 million of personal income would be lost. The regional analysis for the human effects analysis uses input-output (I-O) to estimate changes in the value of output, personal income, and employment. The use of I-O requires that several issues regarding the method be discussed.

I-O analysis estimates changes in output, income, and employment following a change in sales from the regional economy. These sales, called final demands in I-O terminology, cause additional rounds of sales in the regional economy, giving rise to the familiar economic multiplier effect.

I-O assumes constant returns to scale. As the scale (amount) of production increases, costs increase proportionately. If all individual operations are the same, and assuming perfect competition, I-O may imply that no economic surplus is associated with increased sales (output). This inference about producer surplus effects may not be true, however, if the regional technology differs from the total market technology such that the local economy has comparative advantage that generates economic rents, even if the local industry exhibits constant returns to scale.

I-O does not count amounts of regional resources used in production, yet it implies that resources are available to meet increases in demand according to the fixed-input technology. In fact, regional resources may not be available to meet increases in demand, and the necessary resources may need to be imported. This is one reason why changes in output, income, and employment are measures of regional activity, not necessarily benefits or costs to the region.

Changes in regional economic activity may have profound effects involving substitution among factors of production and/or price changes. I-O does not consider either of these economic phenomena.

Transfers of funds among industries, households, or other members of the regional economy generally have offsetting effects in that the increased rounds of expenditure at the receiving end are offset by decreased rounds of expenditure at the giving end. This principle is important to the Human Effects Analysis because most costs would be paid by regional residents.

Effects that are offsetting for the region as a whole may have important local implications. One goal of this analysis is to identify particular groups of people who may be most affected by the alternatives. Ideally, the human effects indicators could be applied to any group of people that may be affected. Due to data limitations, measures are possible only for specific geopolitical areas, such as counties, states, or groups of counties.

Economic multipliers measure direct effects and effects that occur through backwards trade linkages�the purchases of goods by consumers and production inputs by producers. Practical considerations also limit the extent to which forward linkages, price effects, wealth, and public services effects can be quantified.

Tables 5-11 through 5-14 provide an example of human effects estimates of major regional impacts by alternative. This example uses the economic coefficients and multipliers developed by the DREW regional analysis with direct economic effects estimated for the human effects analysis to estimate regional effects of the Framework alternatives. No positive fish and wildlife benefits are included in the example. Rather, the example counts payments and expenditures required to implement hydrosystem, facilities, and habitat strategies. The example is illustrative and preliminary.

Table 5-12 shows the direct economic effects included in the regional analysis. The direct effects are based on an earlier version of the Human Effects Analysis but are still similar to the values shown elsewhere in this final report. Some important assumptions are:

Major annual direct effects related to hydropower costs include the increased sales for alternative power supplies and, on the other hand, the loss of BPA power sales and the loss of consumer spending due to higher replacement power costs,. These three items generally have offsetting effects on overall spending because, with inelastic power demand, the cost of the new power supplies equals the lost cost of the lost supplies plus the increased cost to consumers. Power sales are lost, but the expenditure for replacement power is larger, and the difference between these represents increased consumer costs. By assumption, increased costs result in reduced discretionary income for ratepayers and reduced expenditures in the regional economy.

This may not be true if there are differentials in import patterns between the power supplies; for example, if new thermal generation facilities were located outside of the region. Also, effects that are offsetting for the region as a whole may have important local implications.

It is assumed that power customers also pay for breaching costs, facility modification costs, and one-third of habitat costs. Expenditures for these items are increased, stimulating regional economies, but increased costs for ratepayers reduce their discretionary income and offset the positive expenditures on a regional basis.
In the transportation sector, negative effects include decreased navigation sales and decreased net income of farmers who use barge transportation. On the other hand, increased rail and trucking sales are about equal to the decreased barge sales plus the increased transportation cost.
Habitat costs on private lands would be compensated and the costs would be passed to ratepayers and taxpayers. The net income loss results in reduced spending by ratepayers, not farmers. However, strategies that fallow a significant share of irrigated land would have adverse local effects even if the owners of the irrigated land are fully compensated because compensation is paid only for lost net revenues (the rent paid to the landowner), not total farming expenses. Farming expenses include payments to suppliers, labor, and other factors of production. A large loss of crop production has adverse local economic impacts as agricultural income and expenses are reduced and less product is stored, processed, and transported in the local economy. In the Human Effects Analysis, the value of production lost is assumed to be five times the compensation required to induce the farmer to cease irrigated production.
Regional economies experience other effects. Increased expenditures for habitat improvements are a boost to the farm services sector but increased ratepayer and taxpayer costs are offsetting. Households in the states lose buying power because taxes and electricity costs would be increased to pay for two-thirds of habitat costs.
Expenditures for forestry management practices in the timber industry are assumed to increase, but these increases are offset by increased taxpayer or ratepayer costs, reduced discretionary income, and decreased expenditure.

Table 5-12

Preliminary Direct Output Effects of Framework Alternatives, Million $ by Alternative

Source of Effect

Affected Sector

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Alt 5

Alt 6

Alt 7

Annual (permanent) effects

Fisheries, harvest effects

Fisheries

No analysis developed, impacts small by comparison

Recreation

Retail

Use DREW results

BPA hydropower sales lost

Hydropower

-590

-320

-249

-62

255

Thermal power operating expenses ¹

Thermal power

502

Table 5-1
Social Effects of Alternatives
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives
1	Significant decreased tribal poverty and mortality depending on status of natural stocks. Most potential for increased poverty associated with increased electricity costs, loss of transportation, and increased costs and reduced activity in natural resource industries. Most passive use value and environmental benefits from preservation and restoration, better quality of life in some rural communities, more stress and adverse construction effects in others.
2	Largest increase in harvest potential, substantial decreased tribal poverty and mortality. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1. Some potential for increased flooding mortality.
3	Large increase in harvest potential, substantial decreased tribal poverty and mortality. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1.
4	Tribal poverty and mortality may decrease or continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, little passive use values, little effect on mortality. High risk of extinction of some runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5.
5	Large increase in harvest potential, some decreased tribal poverty and mortality. No loss of transportation economy. Otherwise similar to Alternative 1.
6	Tribal poverty and mortality may decrease or continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, little passive use value, little effect on mortality. High risk of extinction of some natural runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5
7	Tribal poverty and mortality may continue, depending on future survival of hatchery fish. Low level of environmental benefits, negative passive use value associated with natural fish, little effect on human mortality. High risk of extinction of some runs compared to 1, 2, 3 or 5

Table 5-2 Chinook Salmon Run Size by Alternative in 1,000 Fish and Number of Fish as Percent of Alternative 4
	Alternatives
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Hatchery	0	552	560	381	625	660	407
Natural	691	445	375	226	306	276	240
Total	691	997	935	608	931	936	646
Natural Increase as Percent of Alternative 4	205.4%	96.4%	65.5%	0.0%	35.0%	21.9%	5.8%

Table 5-3
Probability of Delisting Natural Spring/Summer Chinook With Alternative Actions at Four Lower Snake Dams
Potential Action	Probability of Delisting (percent)
Maintain status quo	41
Maximize dam fish passage retrofit	37
Breach four dams	78 to 79
Source: PATH scientific review panel, 1998. Conclusions and recommendations from the PATH weight of evidence workshop. p. 22.

Table 5-4
Proposed Habitat Intensities By Alternative
Alternative	Federal Lands¹	Private Lands¹	Notes
1	3	3
2	2	2
3	2	2	May be less in Columbia Basin
4	2	1
5	3	2
6	3	1
7	1	1
^{1 3 is most intensive, 1 is least intensive}

Impact	Dams and Reservoirs Remain	Dams Remain/Reservoirs Drained
Fishing sites	Access to many fishing sites preempted. Some alternative sites available (principally non-salmon).	Would reestablish tribal fishing sites along 150 miles of river.
Hunting and gathering areas	Reservoirs presently flood 33,890 acres.	Up to 33,890 acres restored for tribal hunting, gathering of roots, berries and plants.
Tribal land base	Eliminated 33,890 acres from tribal use.	Would add land-based tribal opportunities up to 1/3 the size of present Nez Perce land holdings, or, up to 1/5 the size of present CTUIR land holdings.
Cultural activities	Floods more than 600 to 700 locations where cultural activities occurred.	Would enable tribal peoples to reestablish contact and use of more than 600 to 700 usual cultural locations.
Religious/spiritual	Floods numerous tribal graves. Involved violation and stealing of bodies of some ancestors. Separates tribal peoples from their land, their rivers, and their sacred and ceremonial places.	Would reunite tribal peoples with their land, the river, and the creatures of the Lower Snake. Would allow Tribes to care for the graves of loved ones. Would recover sacred and ceremonial places.
Source: Meyer Resources, 1999. p. 222.

Table 5-6
Impacts of Alternatives on Commercial Fisheries
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives
1	Most ocean harvest eliminated in the short run, share of harvest from ocean substantially reduced in the long run. Harvest increase in the long run. Potential benefit compared to current conditions is about $0.6 million to $2.4 million annually. Change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Most lower river harvest eliminated in its current form.
2	Ocean harvest reduced in the short run, share of harvest from ocean reduced in the long run. Most harvest increase in the long run. Potential benefit is about $2.7 million to $10.0 million annually, mostly on mainstem. Change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Population aggregate escapement goals. As a goal, harvest increased in the long run to levels defined by U.S. v. Oregon. Some cost savings through more efficient harvest; but increased costs for management and tagging. .
3	Similar to Alternative 2. Potential benefit is about $2.5 million to $9.0 million annually.
4	Status quo harvest rates. Potential benefit is about $1.0 million to $3.4 million annually. No selective harvest. Weakest aggregate harvest rate. Long-run effects depend on experimental management.
5	Similar to Alternative 2. Potential benefit is about $2.4 million to $8.7 million annually.
6	Most ocean harvest eliminated in the short run, share of harvest from ocean reduced in the long run. Potential benefit is about $1.2 million to $4.5 million annually. Some change in type of harvest to live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock techniques. Selective fisheries, weakest aggregate harvest rate, and aquaculture development. Most lower river harvest eliminated in its current form.
7	Similar to Alternative 6. Potential benefit is $0.8 million to $2.9 million annually.

Table 5-7
Impacts of Alternatives on Hydropower
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives
1	Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $590 million annually and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Additional increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $290 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $80 million annually, but no O&M for breached facilities. Preliminary habitat cost share (1/3 of habitat costs) from $120 million to $220 million annually. With this magnitude of additional net costs, potential problems for BPA meeting financial obligations. Cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $54 million. Long-run cost savings from eliminated hatchery production are $35 million to $50 million annually.
2	Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $320 million annually and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Additional increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $190 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $110 million annually, and O&M at affected facilities $10 million. Preliminary habitat cost share (1/3 of habitat cost) from $50 million to $90 million annually. O&M cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $44 million. Some likelihood of financial problems for BPA. New hatcheries cost $1.4 million annually.
3	Hydropower value losses from dam breaching, modifications, and operations totaling about $250 million annually, and additional transmission costs are about $20 million. Increase in ratepayer costs for implementation and preliminary habitat costs. Implementation costs such as breaching may cost $60 million in annualized terms. Facility modification costs about $110 million annually, and O&M at affected facilities about $20 million. Preliminary habitat cost share from $50 million to $90 million annually. O&M cost savings from non-operation of facilities are about $34 million. Some likelihood of financial problems for BPA. New hatcheries cost $2.4 million annually.
4	Small changes in hydropower value from removal of a few small dams, but comparable cost savings. Facility modification costs are about $30 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Long-run effects unknown. New hatcheries cost $0.4 million annually.
5	Hydropower value loss of about $60 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $35 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for preliminary habitat are $60 million to $100 million annually. May be more costs for selective harvest. New hatcheries cost $4.0 million annually.
6	Increase in hydropower value of $20 million to $40 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $26 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for habitat are $40 million to $60 million annually. May be more costs for selective harvest. New hatcheries cost $5 million annually.
7	Increased hydropower value of about $250 million annually. Facility modification costs are about $23 million annually, O&M is about $54 million annually. Cost shares for preliminary habitat are $10 million to $20 million annually. Change in hatcheries saves $0.8 annually. May be more costs for selective harvest.
BPA = Bonneville Power Administration.

Table 5-8
Impacts of Alternatives on Recreation
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives
1	Loss of flatwater recreation in Lower Snake, McNary, and John Day reservoirs, increase in river-based recreation. Net effect for Lower Snake breaching believed positive, for John Day believed small, unknown for McNary. Improved salmon and steelhead trout fishing and riverine opportunities. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $2 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large. Other outdoor recreation increased in amount and quality. Road closures and other loss of access on public lands may have costs and benefits. Some new access to acquired habitat areas assumed.
2	Loss of flatwater recreation in Lower Snake and John Day reservoirs. Benefits and losses at least as large as Alternative 3. Net benefit of John Day drawdown (net value of change in recreation types) not expected to be large based on John Day drawdown study. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $5 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large.
3	Lower Snake reservoirs removed. Loss of existing sport fishing value about $2 million annually. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $4 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large. Loss of other flatwater recreation values about $30 million annually, increased riverine recreation valued between $85.5 million and $366 million annually. Other outdoor recreation values increased depending on management of acquired and restored habitats. Habitat-related effects similar to Alternative 2.
4	Recreation patterns on Lower Snake largely unchanged. Potential flow augmentation from Snake River in long term would cost $4 million to $14 million annually, primarily in Idaho, due to reservoir drawdown. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $3 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.
5	Not much net effect, some gains and losses from habitat measures. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $4 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown, could be large.
6	Not much effect. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $1 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.
7	Not much effect. Increase in sport fishing value compared to current conditions for salmon about $1 million annually. Increased steelhead trout populations and value unknown.

Table 5-9
Impacts of Alternatives on Transportation
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives
1	Navigation lost above John Day dam. Most shipments would probably shift to rail to/from Portland. Navigation net revenue loss and transportation cost increase may be $90 million to $100 million annually. Most cost increase passed to agriculture in the Upper Columbia Basin. Transportation cost increases would cause some marginal dry cropland probably to go out of production.
2	Same as Alternative 1.
3	Loss of navigation from Idaho to Tri-cities. Without breaching, cost of navigation is about $225 million. With breaching, cost for rail and trucking increases to about $250 million. Therefore, net cost increase is about $25 million. Most of the cost increase is passed to agriculture in the Upper Columbia.
4	No effect in the short run; unknown in the long run.
5	No effect.
6	No effect.
7	No effect.

Table 5-11
Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users¹
Framework Alternative	Description of Impact of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users
1	Cost to maintain 167,000 acres irrigated from John Day, 125,000 acres from McNary and 37,000 from Ice Harbor would be up to $60 million annualized. Agriculture also would pay up to $27 million annually for screening costs. Preliminary habitat costs on agricultural lands would be $140 million to $300 million annually. These costs are assumed to be paid by some mix of farmers, ratepayers, and taxpayers. By assumption, farmers� share would be small, or agriculture obtains benefits to compensate cost share. In addition, some agricultural land, mostly grazing land, removed from grazing use by acquisition.
2	Water supply costs about $30 million annually. Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small. Other costs and effects reduced proportionately.
3	Water supply costs about $10 million annually. Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.
4	Screening costs about $7 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $10 million to $30 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small. Unknown in long run.
5	Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $40 million to $90 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.
6	Screening costs about $13 million annually. Preliminary habitat costs $20 million to $50 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.
7	Small screening costs ($7 million annually). Preliminary habitat costs $10 million to $30 million annually. By assumption, agricultural share of habitat costs would be small.
^{1 Habitat costs are not additive with costs in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 includes ratepayer share of habitat costs including some of these agricultural costs.}