Contact

About

#### Integrating energy and the environment in the Columbia River Basin

About the Council

Mission and StrategyMembers and StaffBylawsPoliciesCareers / RFPs

News

#### See what the Council is up to.

Read the Latest News

Read All NewsPress ResourcesNewslettersInternational Columbia River

## Explore News By Topic

Fish and Wildlife PlanningSalmon and SteelheadWildlifeEnergy PlanningEnergy EfficiencyDemand Response

Fish and Wildlife

#### The Council works to protect and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. Its Fish & Wildlife Program guides project funding by the Bonneville Power Administration.

Fish and Wildlife Overview

The Fish and Wildlife Program
Program Tracker: Resources, Tools, Maps2020 Addendum2014/2020 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife ProgramProject Reviews and RecommendationsSubbasin PlansF&W Program Costs Reports

## Independent Review Groups

                  - Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB)
                  - Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB)
                  - Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)

## Forums and Workgroups

                  - Asset Management Subcommittee
                  - Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum
                  - Regional Coordination
                  - Science and Policy Exchange
                  - Toxics Workgroup
                  - Columbia Basin Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Workgroup
                  - Informal Hatchery Workgroup
                  - Strategy Performance Indicator Workgroup

## Topics

Adaptive ManagementAnadromous Fish MitigationBlocked AreasHatcheries & Artificial ProductionInvasive and Non-Native SpeciesLampreyPredation: Sea lions, pike, birdsProtected AreasResearch PlanResident FishProgram Tracker: Resources, Tools, MapsSockeyeSturgeon

Energy

#### The Council develops a plan, updated every five years, to ensure the region’s power supply and acquire cost-effective energy efficiency.

Energy Overview

## The Northwest Power Plan

The 2021 Northwest Power Plan2021 Plan Supporting Materials2021 Plan Mid-term AssessmentPlanning Process and Past Power Plans

## Technical Tools and Models

                  - Regional Portfolio Model
                  - Generation Evaluation System Model (GENESYS)

## Energy Advisory Committees

                  - Regional Technical Forum
                  - Climate and Weather Advisory Committee
                  - Conservation Resources Advisory Committee
                  - Demand Forecast Advisory Committee
                  - Demand Response Advisory Committee
                  - Fuels Advisory Committee
                  - Generating Resources Advisory Committee
                  - Resource Adequacy Advisory Committee
                  - System Analysis Advisory Committee
                  - RTF Policy Advisory Committee
                  - System Integration Forum

## Energy Topics

                  - Energy Efficiency
                  - Demand Response
                  - Power Supply
                  - Resource Adequacy
                  - Energy Storage
                  - Hydropower
                  - Transmission

Meetings

See next Council MeetingAugust 13 - 14, 2024 in (Webinar) ›			See all meetings ›		

#### Recent and Upcoming Meetings

Swipe left or right

                WED              

                08              

                1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q4 Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                14                              15              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE              

                05              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                12                              13              

              Council Meeting            

                WED              

                03              

                1:30 pm—3:00 pm                            Public Affairs Committee Meeting            

                MON              

                08              

                1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            Informal Hatchery Workgroup Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                09                              10              

              Council Meeting            

                WED              

                17              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                TUE              

                30              

                9:00 am—11:30 am                            Resource Adequacy Advisory Committees                            1:00 pm—4:00 pm                            System Analysis Advisory Committee            

                TUE                              WED              

                06                              07              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE              

                13              

                9:00 am—1:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                12                              13              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE              

                19              

                9:00 am—2:15 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                TUE              

                26              

                9:30 am—12:30 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee                            1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q1            

                TUE              

                02              

                9:30 am—11:30 am                            Steering Committee - Resource Adequacy Advisory Comm            

                WED              

                03              

                9:00 am—11:00 am                            Webinar: Issue Paper on Preparation for the Ninth Power Plan            

                THU              

                04              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            Ocean and Plume Science and Management Forum                            9:30 am—3:30 pm                            Resource Adequacy Tech and System Analysis Adv Comms Combined Meeting                            1:00 pm—2:30 pm                            Public Affairs Committee            

                TUE                              WED              

                09                              10              

              Council Meeting            

                THU              

                11              

                9:00 am—10:00 am                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee: Demand Response Working Group                            1:00 pm—2:00 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee:  Natural Gas Working Group            

                TUE              

                16              

                2:00 pm—3:00 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee: Primary Research Working Group            

                TUE              

                23              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                THU              

                25              

                9:00 am—10:00 am                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee: Primary Research Working Group            

                TUE                              WED              

                14                              15              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                21                              22              

              RTF Meeting            

                THU              

                30              

                9:30 am—2:30 pm                            Resource Adequacy/System Analysis Advisory Comm Combined Meeting            

                FRI              

                31              

                9:30 am—2:30 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q2            

                TUE                              WED              

                11                              12              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE              

                18              

                9:00 am—1:00 pm                            RTF Meeting                            1:30 pm—3:30 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee            

                MON              

                24              

                1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            Fuels Advisory Committee            

                THU              

                27              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            Resource Adequacy Advisory Comm - Technical Committee            

                TUE                              WED              

                09                              10              

              Council Meeting            

                THU              

                11              

                9:00 am—3:00 pm                            Regional Coordination Forum (RCF) Meeting            

                MON              

                15              

                1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            Climate and Weather Advisory Comm Kick Off            

                TUE              

                23              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                WED              

                31              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            System Analysis Advisory Committee            

                THU              

                01              

                1:00 pm—3:00 pm                            Climate and Weather Advisory Committee            

                TUE                              WED              

                13                              14              

              Council Meeting            

                THU              

                15              

                2:00 pm—4:00 pm                            Conservation Resources Advisory Committee            

                TUE              

                20              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                WED              

                21              

                2:00 pm—4:00 pm                            Climate and Weather and Conservation Resources Adv Comm Combined Meeting            

                TUE              

                27              

                9:00 am—12:00 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee            

                THU              

                05              

                9:30 am—12:30 pm                            RTF Policy Advisory Committee Q3            

                TUE                              WED              

                10                              11              

              Council Meeting            

                THU              

                12              

                9:30 am—12:30 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee            

                TUE              

                17              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                TUE              

                01              

                1:00 pm—4:00 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee            

                TUE                              WED              

                08                              09              

              Council Meeting            

                WED              

                16              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

                FRI              

                18              

                9:30 am—12:30 pm                            Generating Resources Advisory Committee            

                WED                              THU              

                13                              14              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                19                              20              

              RTF Meeting            

                TUE                              WED              

                10                              11              

              Council Meeting            

                TUE              

                17              

                9:00 am—4:00 pm                            RTF Meeting            

View Council MeetingsView All Meetings

Reports and Documents

#### Browse reports and documents relevant to the Council's work on fish and wildlife and energy planning, as well as administrative reports.

Browse Reports

## REPORTS BY TOPIC

Power PlanFish and Wildlife ProgramSubbasin PlansFinancial ReportsIndependent Scientific Advisory BoardIndependent Scientific Review PanelIndependent Economic Analysis Board

## COLUMBIA RIVER HISTORY PROJECT

# Human Effects Analysis of the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives

## Phase II Final Report compiled by CH2M Hill

                        Feb. 1, 2000                      

## Share

**Acknowledgements**

**1 Summary**1.2 Alternative 2 Summary1.3 Alternative 3 Summary1.4 Alternative 4 Summary1.5 Alternative 5 Summary1.6 Alternative 6 Summary1.7 Alternative 7 Summary1.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

**2 Background to the Human Effects Analysis**

**3 Methodology and Current Conditions**3.1 Background for Analysis3.2 Measures of Human Effects 3.2.1 Social Effects3.2.2 Tribal Effects3.2.3 Economic Welfare Effects3.2.4 Regional Economic Effects 3.3 Sources of information 3.3.1 Economic and Social Theory3.3.2 Existing Studies and Information3.3.3 New Analysis 3.4 Key Assumptions 3.4.1 Common Assumptions3.4.2 Analytical Assumptions3.4.3 Cost Allocation Assumptions

**4 Framework Strategies: Policy and Economic Efficiency Effects**4.1 Relationship of Strategies to Alternatives4.2 Beneficial Effects 4.2.1 Tribal Values4.2.2 Commercial Fisheries4.2.3 Recreational Fishing and Hunting4.2.4 Other Recreation and Nonconsumptive Use Values4.2.5 Passive Use Values4.2.6 Other Benefits from Endangered Species Recovery4.2.7 Benefits Associated with Individual Strategy Blocks 4.3 Adverse Effects 4.3.1 Hydrosystem Strategies4.3.2 Habitat Strategies4.3.3 Harvest Levels and Strategies4.3.4 Hatchery Production Levels and Operations

**5 Alternatives Analysis**5.1 Social Effects 5.1.1 Poverty5.1.2 Mortality5.1.3 Passive Use5.1.4 Other Environmental Effects5.1.5 Other Quality of Life 5.2 Tribal Effects 5.2.1 A Summary of Impacts of Alternative Framework Initiatives on the Tribes5.2.2 Salmon5.2.3 Wildlife Habitat5.2.4 Water Quality5.2.5 Distribution of Columbia Basin Income and Wealth5.3 Economic Efficiency Effects 5.3.1 Fisheries5.3.2 Hydropower5.3.3 Recreation5.3.4 Transportation5.3.5 Agriculture and Water Users5.3.6 Forestry5.4 Regional Economic Effects 5.4.1 Output5.4.2 Personal income5.4.3 Employment5.5 Risks Associated with Common Assumptions 5.5.1 Clean Water Act Enforcement5.5.2 Trends in Fish Populations5.6 Mitigation/Transition

**6 References Cited****Appendixes**A Current Status of Human Effects Measures by RegionB Examples of Existing and Proposed Programs and Practices that Could be Used to Accomplish Framework Habitat StrategiesC Strategies Organized by Human Effects Strategy BlockD Strategies Included in Each AlternativeE Passive Use Value and the Multi-Species Framework AlternativesF Description of Hydrosystem Modeling

**Tables**1-4 Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Multi-Species Framework Alternatives1-2 Human Effects of Framework Alternatives3-1 Categories of Human Effects and Human Effects Indicators for the Human Effects Analysis3-2 Selected Human Effects Indicators of All Citizens and Tribal Citizens of the Columbia Basin3-3 Age Adjusted Death Rates for Tribal Peoples Compared to Other Citizens in the Columbia Basin3-4 Losses of Reservation Lands By Tribes of the Columbia Basin3-5 Present Value of BPA Net Revenues, 2002 to 2021, Three Market Price Scenarios4-1 Human Effects Strategy Blocks4-2 Estimated Chinook Salmon Run Size, Current Conditions, Alternatives, and Historical Potential4-3 Fishing and Hunting Unit Values from the Literature4-4 Summary of Hydrosystem Actions Included in the Alternatives4-5 Value of Hydroelectric Generation in Framework Alternatives4-6 Additional Cost for Transmission System Improvements, Framework Alternative 34-7 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Analysis of Snake River Flow Augmentation Scenarios4-8 Potential Monthly Electric Bill Increases from Snake River Drawdown Alternative4-9 Facility Modifications Costs, Implementation Costs, Juvenile Transportation Costs, and Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs4-10 Economic Costs Associated with Dam Breaching, Facility Modifications, and Hydrosystem Actions4-11 Land Use by Ecological Province4-12 Agricultural Land Use by Ecological Province4-13 Assumptions for Practices for Strategies that Affect Agricultural Land Use4-14 Assumptions for Extent of Practices for Strategies that Affect Forestry4-15 Assumptions for Extent of Practices for Strategies that Affect Construction or Land Acquisition4-16 Ranges of Annualized Economic Value (NED Benefits) from Columbia River Anadromous Fish by Fishery for Feasibility Study Baseline Alternative4-17 Summary Data from Hatchery Audit Reports4-18 Changes in Chinook Salmon Hatchery Production by Framework Alternative in Numbers of Fish5-1 Social Effects of Alternatives5-2 Chinook Salmon Run Size by Alternative in 1,000 Fish and Number of Fish as Percent of Alternative 45-3 Probability of Delisting Natural Spring/Summer Chinook With Alternative Actions at Four Lower Snake Dams5-4 Proposed Habitat Intensities By Alternative5-5 Tribal Impacts on Lands Inundated by Four Lower Snake River Reservoirs5-6 Impacts of Alternatives on Commercial Fisheries5-7 Impacts of Alternatives on Hydropower5-8 Impacts of Alternatives on Recreation5-9 Impacts of Alternatives on Transportation5-10 Summary Estimates of Preliminary Habitat Land Use Impacts and Costs by Alternative5-11 Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture and Water Users5-12 Preliminary Direct Output Effects of Framework Alternatives5-13 Assumed Share of Direct Effects by State5-14 Response Coefficients per Million $ Output5-15 Example Regional Economic Impacts for Alternative 1, by State5-16 Impacts of Alternatives on Value of Output5-17 Impacts of Alternatives on Personal Income5-18 Impacts of Alternatives on Employment

**Figures**3-1a Ecoprovinces and Subbasins3-1b States, Counties and Economic Regions with Ecoprovince Boundaries

**Acknowledgements**

This report was compiled by CH2M HILL from contributions by numerous authors including Roger Mann, RMecon; Phil Meyer, Meyer Resources, Inc. (tribal values); NWPPC Staff (hydrosim analysis, economic and Framework background, sensitivity analysis); Mary Jo Kealy, CH2M HILL (Appendix E Passive Use Values), Chris Hansen Murray, U.S. Forest Service (USFS policies and ICBEMP), and Ed Sienkowicz (mitigation analysis). Many others contributed to the analysis through their participation in the Human Effects Workgroup and through comments provided on earlier drafts. The document was prepared under the guidance of Terry Morlan, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, and Andy Linehan, CH2M HILL, Portland. The roles and contributions of these people do not imply their acceptance of any particular results or statements made in the report.

**Section 1**

**Summary**

The primary objectives of the human effects analysis are to evaluate and display potential human effects of the Multi-Species Framework alternatives (the alternatives). The alternatives represent different policies to balance the multiple uses of the Columbia River Basin. All of the alternatives are intended to enhance fish and wildlife resources, especially anadromous fish, to achieve better balance between economic and natural amenities in the Basin. The alternatives, and this Human Effects Analysis, attempt to capture a range of economic, social and tribal visions concerning what an appropriate balance should be and how this balance could be achieved. At this time, none of the alternatives is formally supported by any particular interest groups.

This report was developed with advice and comment from the Human Effects Workgroup (Workgroup), which developed the analysis scope and work plan that guided this effort. Social scientists analyzed the alternatives by organizing the strategies that make up each alternative, collecting and analyzing existing information about the effects of these or similar strategies, and, finally, aggregating effects for a summary evaluation of each alternative. A contractor, CH2M HILL with RMecon, provided most of the text and analysis. Some analysis and text have been provided by Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) staff, other consultants and Workgroup members. Sections 3.2.2, 4.2.1, and 5.2, which pertain to tribal values, were written primarily by Meyer Resources, Inc.

This section provides a short overall summary followed by summary descriptions of the human effects potentially associated with each alternative. The next section provides a discussion of linkage between Framework goals and the responsibilities of this evaluation procedure. Section 3 describes methodology and current conditions. The human effects indicators used, related key assumptions, and sources of information are described. Human effects are identified and aggregated for combinations of Framework strategies. Finally, the impacts of the alternatives on each human effects indicator are described in detail.

Human effects are social, cultural, tribal, and economic, and they include a variety of more specific indicators of human welfare. The Workgroup identified 22 human effects indicators for analysis. The human effects indicators are biophysical, economic, social, and tribal, and are meant to measure or serve as proxies for important human effects identified by the workgroup.

The analysis is not framed to rigidly adhere to formal analytical criteria as provided for National Economic Development, environmental documentation, Regional Economic Development, or cost-effectiveness analysis. However, it does provide information that could be used in these more formal analyses. The analysis describes long-term effects on the Pacific Northwest region, but it also provides information on short-term effects and the areas and groups most likely to be affected.

Five types of analyses provide most of the information about direct effects shown in this report: (1) The Ecological Workgroup's evaluation of physical and biological impacts (the Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment, or EDT analysis) provides preliminary information regarding chinook salmon run size. Other forecasts of the ecological effects of Framework alternatives (e.g., predictions of the abundance of other fish stocks and terrestrial wildlife) are not yet available for benefits analysis. This omission could be remedied when more results of the ecological analysis are available. Until then, a balanced portrayal of human effects and benefits requires that estimates of ecological benefits be based on the limited information about chinook salmon run size, other studies, theory, and judgment.

(2) Hydrosystem operations studies provide information about change in water flow, storage, and power production with dam breaching and changes in reservoir operations. The available models do not vary hydropower production for reservoirs in Canada, on the portion of the Snake River in Idaho above Brownlee dam, or on small dams on other tributaries. The power production from these dams is held constant among the alternatives.

(3) Facility modifications are an important component of costs for some alternatives. Most facility modifications are structural changes at dams that would improve passage or downstream water quality. Most information was obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

(4) The habitat practices and cost analysis uses preliminary information on typical practices that might be applied to accomplish each habitat strategy, assumptions about the amount of resource (land, water, amount of construction) affected, and unit costs from similar existing practices and programs. This analysis uses information from the Ecological Workgroup and from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Use Information Program to identify total amount of land in many uses by ecological province. Most assumptions about the amount of forest and agricultural land affected are expressed as a share of the potential land base. These direct changes are then analyzed for their effects on the human effects indicators.

(5) Qualitative information about tribal effects is developed primarily from the Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study), conducted by the COE, and from academic literature.

(6) Extrapolation from other studies is used to describe how many strategies might affect humans. The most important of these studies are the Feasibility Study and the John Day Drawdown Study Phase 1 conducted by the COE, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis. Other information from federal and state governments, private organizations and academic literature is used as needed.

Results in this report reflect the status of information concerning the Multi-Species Framework goals, alternatives and impacts as of February 2000. This report relies on existing economic, social, and cultural constructs and existing data to gauge human effects. The quality of these data is variable, and for some of the strategies there is currently limited or no usable information about likely human effects. The sources of information used in the analysis have been subject to different levels of scrutiny. Data from the EDT analysis and the John Day Drawdown Study are currently subject to public and professional review and revision, and other sources may be revised. Other studies, especially recreation and passive use studies from the Feasibility Study, have been reviewed and revised but are still controversial even among professionals.

The Human Effects Analysis is part of a larger, continuing process to define and implement fish and wildlife policy in the Columbia River Basin. The NWPPC's Fish and Wildlife Process, the federal 4H process, the Feasibility Study, the John Day Drawdown Study, ICBEMP, and other studies are all related in that each process provides information and checks on information provided by the others.

The Human Effects Analysis and the discussions of the Human Effects Workgroup illuminated many differences in opinion regarding the relative importance of different types of human effects, the adequacy of economic theory and methods, and the appropriate analysis of social effects. Many issues were not resolved. Important outstanding issues include future fish survival parameters, passive use values, future recreational use and value, the nature and cost of economic adjustment, and the magnitude of economic benefits from ecological improvements. Improved analysis of human effects might seek to resolve these issues.

The complete and accurate evaluation of potential human effects currently is limited by many other uncertainties.
                              - Framework alternatives could be implemented in several ways. Human effects may be sensitive to such variation in implementation methods.
                              - The intensity of implementation is often unknown. Even if the implementation method were known, the amount of implementation in terms of quantity of land or water affected, or expenditure, is still unclear.
                              - Impacted regions, tribes, companies, governments and individuals may adapt their actions based on which alternative is chosen. Theory and data are presently insufficient to predict the net effects following adaptation, but theory provides some guidance. Section 5.6 discusses potential mitigation and adjustment strategies.
                              - Changes in the broader range of future conditions in the region will affect the forecasts provided in this report. Such changes could include changes to human populations, technological advances, changes in tastes, preferences and markets, climatic change, and changes in relationships between tribal and non-tribal peoples in the region.

This analysis addresses uncertainty in several ways. Potential ranges of implementation methods and future conditions are discussed. Where impacts cannot be quantified, they are ranked qualitatively, and if they cannot be ranked, reasons are discussed. Often, uncertainty and a lack of information preclude quantitative estimates, but a non-parametric and qualitative comparison of alternatives is still possible. Additional analysis will be needed to verify and refine the results presented here.

Table 1-1 provides a summary emphasizing quantitative estimates and qualitative rankings where feasible. Table 1-1 provides a preliminary summary of benefits, costs and rankings for each alternative. The table contains three different kinds of information. When possible, costs and benefits are quantified in dollars per year. Benefits and costs that can't be expressed in dollars are shown in one of two ways. Chinook salmon effects are measured as percent increases from current levels. Other effects are ranked from 1 to 7, where 1 is best and 7 is worst. In the case of benefits, a rank of 1 suggests the highest benefits and, in the case of costs, 1 suggests the lowest costs.

Dollar benefits are subtracted from dollar costs to estimate the "net dollar costs" shown at the bottom of the table. A range is provided based on the range of recreation benefits from the Feasibility Study, a range of costs from the habitat cost analysis, and a range of hydrosystem costs of plus or minus ten percent. Net dollar costs can be compared to salmon increases and the qualitative cost and benefit rankings to evaluate and compare among alternatives.

**1.1 Alternative 1 Summary**

Alternative 1 would restore natural ecosystem functions and components. The four Lower Snake River dams, McNary Dam, and John Day Dam would be removed or modified to lower pools to natural river levels. Operations would be changed to produce an enhanced natural hydrograph, to provide temperature control, minimize flow fluctuations, spill fish, and improve conditions for resident fish in and below reservoirs. In general, dams would be operated to flood control elevations such that inflows would be passed. Up to 1 million acre feet (MAF) of flow augmentation would be provided from Mica Reservoir in August.

Modifications to the structures of the remaining dams would include surface bypass, gas abatement, turbine intake screening systems, and turbine modifications at Bonneville. All of these, except turbine intake screening, would be required at The Dalles. Gas abatement modifications would be required at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph, and surface bypass modifications would be required at Wells.

Aggressive habitat restoration would seek to preserve and restore land, water, and native biological resources. Habitat implementation would be most intensive. By assumption, costs would not limit implementation, and the scope of habitat restoration would be much more than current levels. On private lands, habitat objectives would be accomplished by land and water lease, purchase, subsidy, and similar incentives. On public lands, objectives would be accomplished by changes in the mandates and/or regulations of public agencies.

Aggressive in-stream and riparian habitat restoration would require actions such as streambank protection (primarily fencing) and stabilization; planting of native trees and other plants; streambed modifications; reconnections with backwater, tributary, and wetland habitats; introduction of woody debris and gravel; and removal of man-made channel and bank modifications. Riparian lands, adjacent lands, and lands to provide connections to upland habitats would be acquired and restored. Anadromous fish passage improvements would be obtained through removal of small dams, other barriers to upstream passage, screening improvements, and flow restoration. New development in riparian areas would be limited.

Aggressive restoration of in-stream flows for passage, temperature and habitat would require irrigation system improvements. Irrigated agriculture would be most affected in some tributary watersheds of the Columbia and Snake rivers, especially in dry years. Some water could be obtained by conservation and specific farming operations without substantially changing crop mix and value of product, but some areas would require irrigated land to be fallow in dry years to meet flow goals.

Economic activities on upland range, forest, and agricultural lands would be affected by additional land management changes. Point and non-point pollution abatement and terrestrial habitat improvements would affect recreation, crops, and livestock, industrial and municipal wastewater costs, and urban stormwater management. Forestry practices would be altered, clear-cutting further reduced, some forest roads would be closed or obliterated, and fire management practices would be changed. Development of intact upland habitats would be limited.

Harvest and hatchery management would be altered to maximize production of natural fish. Juvenile (smolt) transportation would not be used. Harvest might be reduced in the short run. Hatcheries would be phased out as natural production was restored.

Alternative 1 is expected to have the largest positive effect on natural fish and wildlife populations. Total salmon production and harvest would be less than some alternatives, however, because hatchery production would be eliminated. Substantial economic and social benefits involve some types of recreation, reduced costs of compliance with environmental laws, and passive use values. Passive use values (the values humans place on natural resources independent of their direct use of natural resources), though never measured for this characteristic and scope of restoration, would be substantial.

In addition, this alternative would have the greatest positive benefit from a range of improved ecological services that may have major human benefits. These ecological services, which are difficult to quantify in monetary or even physical terms, include "the purification of air and water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, regulation of climate, regeneration of soil fertility, and production and maintenance of biodiversity, from which key ingredients of our agricultural, pharmaceutical, and industrial enterprises are derived" (Issues in Ecology, 1997). With expected habitat restoration and preservation, wildlife populations would increase, water quality would improve, and most ecological resources available to tribal members would increase in amount and quality.

Preliminary EDT estimates show that total chinook salmon populations are expected to increase in comparison to current conditions. The projected increase in natural stocks (306 percent) is the largest of any alternative, but total (including hatchery) chinook salmon increases in comparison to current conditions (127 percent) are comparable to or less than any alternative that includes hatchery production. Even with the natural population increases, the number of fish available for harvest would be less than in most other Framework alternatives because hatchery production would be lost and ocean harvest would be substantially reduced to bolster populations. All other alternatives increase numbers of hatchery fish compared to current conditions, and this makes Alternative 1 compare even less favorably.

The EDT analysis is preliminary and represents the first use of this tool on a basin-wide basis. Results are applicable for 50 to 100 years in the future. Many of the model parameters are highly uncertain. If future hatchery production is less successful than predicted, then Alternative 1 would compare to the other alternatives more favorably. If survival of natural fish is less than predicted, however, then Alternative 1 would result in an even smaller natural and total chinook salmon run size. Sensitivity analysis of EDT results suggests that, with conservative assumptions on in-river survival and harvest reductions, natural run size would be much less.

This alternative ranks highly from the tribal perspective. It has the highest rank for the tribal indicators of wildlife habitat, water quality and natural chinook salmon production. It ranks highly for equity. However, it does not rank as well as some other alternatives with respect to total salmon available for harvest. This finding is dependent on the model parameters involving survival of hatchery and natural fish.

This alternative would have the largest economic costs to existing developed water uses; in particular, hydropower, navigation, agriculture, and flatwater recreation. Total annual net costs would be around $1.0 billion to $1.8 billion annually. Power losses would be worth about $610 million annually. This alternative probably would have the greatest implementation cost among the alternatives. Implementation and facility modification costs could exceed $360 million in annualized terms. Combined power replacement and implementation costs of about $1 billion annually would be reflected in some mix of increased electricity rates and increased federal and state taxes. Most of these costs probably would be paid by electricity ratepayers.

Losses to other existing water uses include reductions in agricultural production or costs for replacement water ($60 million annually), and increases in the costs of transporting products that currently use barge transportation on the Columbia and Snake rivers (a loss of about $95 million annually). Adverse regional impacts would be most severe in the agricultural communities of the mid-Snake and mid-Columbia basins that are most heavily dependent on impacted irrigation diversions, barge transportation, and flatwater recreation. Short-run impacts on the Tri-cities area would be severe, but there would be some offsetting regional benefits from new construction. Many of the construction benefits would not accrue to current residents. In the long run, some of the adverse impacts would be offset by increased salmon and steelhead fishing and other river recreation. Long-run adverse impacts might be reduced by induced economic responses, such as technological and structural change, that cannot be foreseen at this time.

Alternative 1 habitat restoration and protection would be the most extensive of any Framework alternative. Total habitat costs for Alternative 1 are estimated to be $370 million to $680 million annually. This total consists of about $140 million to $300 million for agricultural practices and $70 million to $130 million for forestry practices. Most of the remainder is construction, especially fish screens (about $75 million annually) and land acquisition. By assumption, about one-third of habitat costs would be paid by ratepayers. Costs savings from eliminating hatchery production would be about $50 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.

This alternative might stress the Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA's) financial viability. Loss of generation from the Lower Snake facilities, John Day, and McNary would reduce revenues and implementation costs, facility modification costs and harvest management, and a share of habitat costs would increase outlays. Together, these factors might combine to cause BPA to be unable to meet current financial commitments such as repayment of debt to the federal treasury.

**1.2 Alternative 2 Summary**

Alternative 2 would emphasize production of anadromous fish. The Lower Snake dams and John Day dam would be breached. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except in the following respects:
                              - McNary dam would not be breached, but would require turbine improvements, gas abatement, surface bypass, and turbine intake screening systems.
                              - Flood control operations would not be modified as much. Reduced flood control space at Grand Coulee, Dworshak, and Brownlee; variable flow flood control limits at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee; 1 MAF of non-treaty water in Mica reservoir; 900,000 acre-feet in Arrow reservoir; and 1 MAF diverted from Banks Lake are used to help achieve flow objectives.
                              - 1 MAF per year of additional Snake River flow augmentation would be required.
                              - Habitat expenditures would be focused on improvements for anadromous fish instead of overall ecosystem health. Habitat improvements would be moderately intensive instead of most intensive.
                              - Hatcheries would be phased out or phased in according to their contribution to harvest, and supplementation would be increased. In the EDT analysis, it is assumed that current hatchery production is maintained. In addition, 10,000,000 more subyearling chinook salmon are released into the Rocky Reach pool and 810,000 more yearlings are released into the Yakima River. Snake River smolt transportation would be eliminated.
                              - Ocean harvest would be reduced, but not as much as Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 would have effects similar to Alternative 1 except that a larger share of benefits would occur through commercial and recreational harvest of anadromous fish, a smaller share would occur through other ecosystem values, and implementation costs would be less (but more than most other alternatives).

Salmon populations and harvest would be larger than in any other alternative. Total and natural chinook salmon populations both would increase significantly (227 and 161 percent, respectively) relative to current conditions. Under more conservative assumptions, the increases would be somewhat less. Populations of other wildlife would increase, but with less habitat restoration than in Alternative 1.

Benefits to Tribes, especially those associated with salmon harvest, would be substantial under this alternative. This finding is dependent on the model parameters involving survival of hatchery and wild fish. This alternative does not rank as well as Alternative 1 with respect to the tribal indicators of wildlife habitat and water quality.

Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be about $530 million to $1.08 billion annually. Power losses would be less than Alternative 1, (totaling about $340 million annually), and implementation and facility modification costs would be about $300 million annually. Transportation losses would be the same as Alternative 1 ($95 million annually). Costs for 1 million acre-feet of Snake River flow augmentation would be about $75 million annually. Costs of habitat restoration and protection measures would be less than in Alternative 1. Total costs would be about $140 million to $260 million annually. This total would consist of about $40 million to $90 million for agricultural practices and $20 million to $50 million for forestry practices. Most of the remainder would be for construction, especially fish screens (about $40 million annually) Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $1.4 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.

**1.3 Alternative 3 Summary**

Alternative 3 would emphasize restoration of natural ecosystem function and components as in Alternative 1, but the scope of strategies would be more focused on the Snake River Basin. The four Lower Snake dams would be breached, but not McNary or John Day. Modifications to McNary and John Day would include turbine improvements, gas abatement, surface bypass, and turbine intake screening systems, and modifications to all other facilities on the Columbia River would be as described for Alternative 1. Flood control rules, storage rule curves, and 1998 Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) flows on the upper Columbia would not be modified much, except that variable flow flood control elevations would be implemented at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee and 3 to 5 MAF of non-treaty storage at Mica would be used for flow augmentation.

Habitat improvements would be moderate in the Snake River watershed and moderate or least intensive in the other parts of the Columbia Basin. Snake River hatcheries would be improved or eliminated. Hatchery production assumptions in the EDT analysis are the same as Alternative 2 except that 10,000,000 more subyearling chinook smolts would be released into the John Day reservoir. Snake River smolt transportation would be eliminated.

The benefits of Alternative 3 for all chinook salmon populations would be substantial and similar to Alternative 2, and benefits for fish and wildlife in other parts of the Columbia Basin would be significant. Total and natural chinook salmon populations would be increased 207 and 120 percent, respectively.

Tribal values associated with salmon would be increased substantially compared to current conditions, and prospects for recovery would improve with more natural fish production. Tribal values associated with equity, wildlife habitat, and water quality are similar to Alternative 2.

Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $260 million to $760 million annually. Power losses and costs would be somewhat less than for Alternative 1 or 2, about $250 million annually, and implementation and facility modification costs would be about $200 million annually. Transportation cost increases ($25 million annually) would be less than in Alternative 1 because the river would still be navigable to Tri-Cities.**C**osts associated with implementing habitat restoration and protection measures would be the same as in Alternative 2. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $2.4 million annually. Economic benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.

**1.4 Alternative 4 Summary**

Alternative 4 would emphasize additional research and adaptive management. In the short run, Alternative 4 would adopt the current operations program as defined by the 1998 Bi-Op. No IRCs would be implemented. Tests of IRCs at Libby and Hungry Horse dams and tests of temperature control, using the Hells Canyon complex and Dworshak, would be conducted. Reservoir operations experiments would be practiced for 10 years and results then would determine whether and how the Lower Snake River dams would be modified. Snake River smolt transport would be used on a spread-risk basis; that is, a larger share of smolts would be transported in dry years. Many facility modifications assumed to be implemented in Alternatives 1 through 3 probably would not be implemented in the short run. Annual hatchery production would be the same as current levels except that 810,000 more yearling chinook salmon would be released into the Yakima River.

Total net annual cost of this alternative in the short run would be about $130 million to $180 million annually. Annual facility modification costs are estimated to be about $50 million and current O&M costs at existing dams would continue. Habitat costs would be $50 million to $80 million annually, primarily for screening of water diversions. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $0.4 million annually. The cost estimate for this alternative is an underestimate to the extent that experimentation may result in implementation of other strategies in the future.

The results of Alternative 4 are especially uncertain because future actions are contingent on the results of experiments and adaptive management. More research and experimentation would be required in the short run, but results in the long run might be similar to any of the other alternatives.Long-term effects of Alternative 4 have not been compared to other alternatives because this is basically a short-term strategy. The effects of Alternative 4 displayed in Table 1-2 are largely based on continuation of existing programs without any major changes as the result of study and testing.

Preliminary EDT results suggest that chinook salmon populations would increase relative to current conditions, but most of the increase would involve hatchery fish. Total and natural populations would increase 100 and 33 percent, respectively. Results are especially dependent on hatchery fish survival, and future habitat loss caused by population growth has not been considered. The EDT results suggest that natural chinook salmon populations would not increase much relative to current conditions. Therefore, current risk of extinctions probably would continue.

Tribal values would not be enhanced as much as in Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, and tribal interests have been concerned that conditions might not improve relative to the current situation. In this view, Alternative 4 continues the status quo. EDT results suggest increased salmon production, but this increase does not occur under some sets of more conservative assumptions. Substantial adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities and costs associated with status quo alternatives and current trends might continue.

**1.5 Alternative 5 Summary**

Alternative 5 would not breach any mainstem dams, but modifications to Snake River and Columbia River dams would be required for gas abatement, turbine improvements might be required, and bypass and screening options would be evaluated. Changes to operations and flow augmentation on the upper Columbia would be similar to Alternative 3. Flood control and storage rules would be experimental and 1998 Bi-Op flows would be implemented**.** Habitat strategies on federal lands would be similar to Alternative 1 but habitat improvements on private lands would be only moderately intensive.

All hatcheries would become supplementation facilities. In the EDT analysis, hatchery chinook salmon production levels were increased from current conditions by the release of 10,000,000 subyearlings into the John Day Reservoir, 810,000 yearlings into the Yakima River, 10,000,000 subyearlings into the Rocky Reach Reservoir, and 14,000,000 subyearlings into the Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater rivers annually.

Ocean harvest would be reduced. Harvest would be modified to be more stock-specific through live catch, terminal stock, and known-stock practices, and change to selective harvest practices might be used if cost-effective. More in-river harvest would be used to select individual fish from hatchery stocks.

Alternative 5 would increase numbers of salmon substantially. Total increases would be comparable to Alternative 2 or 3, but a larger share of fish would be hatchery-produced. Compared to Alternative 1, less than half as many natural salmon would be produced, but total production would be 50 percent larger and comparable to Alternative 2 or 3. Compared to current conditions, natural salmon numbers would increase substantially (80 percent) even with the emphasis on hatchery production.

Tribal values would be enhanced, especially those associated with wildlife habitat and total salmon production. Restoration of wildlife habitat in this alternative is second only to Alternative 1. Improvement in tribal conditions would depend largely on the ecological effects of habitat improvements and facility modifications.

Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $310 million to $470 million annually. Hydropower production would not be reduced much in comparison to Alternatives 1 through 3, (about $60 million annually), facility modification costs would not be as substantial (about $90 million annually) but habitat costs would be slightly more than Alternative 2, or 3. Total habitat costs would be about $160 million to $290 million annually. This total would include about $40 million to $90 million for agricultural practices and $40 million to $70 million for forestry practices. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $4 million annually. Benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.

**1.6 Alternative 6 Summary**

Alternative 6 would preserve and enhance hydropower to finance more intensive actions in other areas. The alternative includes more aggressive ocean harvest reduction, a change in dam operations to focus on temperature reduction in summer, and more aggressive supplementation. Dam improvements are similar to those for Alternative 5, except that turbine improvements would be required on all facilities from Lower Granite downstream to Bonneville. Reservoir operations would be similar to Alternative 5, except that IRCs would be implemented at Libby, Hungry Horse, and Grand Coulee; 1998 Bi-Op flow levels would be provided in summer only; and new flow augmentation from Canadian reservoirs and the Snake River would not be required. Some habitat restoration would be financed by increased power revenues resulting from increased summer flows, but results suggest that the increased power revenues would not finance a large share of the planned restoration. Habitat management would be most intensive on federal lands and moderate or least intensive on private lands.

Hatchery production would be increased as described for Alternative 5. In addition, aquaculture would be used to produce 10,000,000 subyearling chinook in the Lower Columbia River region.

Preliminary EDT analysis suggests chinook salmon run size much larger than current conditions. Total and natural populations would increase by more than 200 percent and 60 percent, respectively. These population increases do not occur with more conservative assumptions about survival of transported and hatchery fish. Under these less favorable assumptions natural chinook salmon populations would decline from current levels.

Most tribal values would be enhanced by this alternative, but less than in Alternatives 1 through 3 or Alternative 5. However, this alternative also carries some risk that salmon populations might not increase. In this case, adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities, and risk of extinctions as in current conditions would continue.

Alternative 6 would increase the value of power production by shifting production to summer when the power is most valuable, and turbine improvements would increase power production while improving downstream fish passage. Hydropower gains would be about $20 million to $40 million annually.

Total net economic costs of this alternative to the nation would be $160 million to $260 million annually. Total habitat costs would be about $100 million to $190 million annually. This total would include about $20 million to $50 million for agricultural practices and $30 million to $50 million for forestry practices. Flow augmentation from the Snake and Upper Columbia would not be required. Less fish spill and reduced flow fluctuation would be required. Facility modification costs would be about $80 million annually. Costs of increased hatchery production would be about $5 million annually. Benefits have not been quantified in comparable terms.

**1.7 Alternative 7 Summary**

Alternative 7 would seek to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements at the lowest possible cost. Fish restoration strategies would need to pass a test of cost-effectiveness. Most dam modifications and changes to operations would not occur. Some turbine improvements, and surface bypass and screening improvements would be evaluated. Hydrosystem operations rules would be returned to pre-water budget (circa 1980) conditions. Smolt transportation would be maximized and most ocean harvest would be eliminated. Economic incentives would be used to make hatchery production and other measures, such as habitat restoration, more efficient and effective. Habitat management improvements would be least intensive.

Aquaculture would be used to produce 10,000,000 subyearling chinook in the Lower Columbia River region, but other hatchery production would be reduced in comparison to current conditions. According to the EDT analysis, total annual smolt production would be increased about 6 percent from current levels.

Preliminary EDT analysis suggests chinook salmon run size would be larger than current conditions but similar to Alternative 4. Chinook run sizes would be about two-thirds the levels of Alternatives 2, 3, or 5. Natural populations would not increase as much (41 percent) in comparison to current conditions, but total stocks would increase by 122 percent.

Under conservative assumptions, these population increases would not occur and natural populations would decline. Tribal conditions would continue to decline. Adverse effects on treaty and trust responsibilities, and risk of extinctions as in current conditions probably would continue.

Alternative 7 would increase hydropower production in comparison to existing conditions. The value of hydropower production would increase by about $250 million annually. The alternative would provide more economic incentive for improved fish and wildlife populations, but no major new actions are planned to improve conditions. Current programs that are not cost effective would be eliminated. Facility modification annualized costs would be about $20 million, O&M costs would be about $55 million, and habitat costs would be about $40 million to $65 million more than current conditions, mostly for screening of water diversions. Net cost savings from changes in hatchery production would be less than $1 million annually.

Total net economic benefits of this alternative to the nation would be about $120 to $130 million annually. This benefit consists of about $250 million of hydropower value offset by about $130 million of habitat, facility, and O&M costs. Costs of continued ecosystem losses have not been quantified in comparable terms.

**1.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives**

Table 1-2 provides a more detailed comparison for each human effects indicator. Short qualitative descriptions are provided within the table format. Information about each human effects indicator is provided for each alternative. In reading Table 1-2, comparisons should be made "indicator-by-indicator," reading down each column. Comparisons or additions across indicators (across columns) are invalid in that different attributes are being measured. Comparisons are based on current information and may change as new information becomes available.

The analysis suggests that Alternative 1 ranks highest in terms of benefits, except for benefits involving total numbers of chinook salmon and salmon harvest; these benefits are larger in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. Alternative 1 also has the highest costs by a substantial margin of any alternative. Alternative 2 generally ranks second in benefits, but at net dollar costs that are nearly half those of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 produces the largest increase in total chinook salmon, but only about half of the increase in natural chinook salmon as Alternative 1.

Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 produce the same increases in total chinook salmon. However, these alternatives are different in terms of their effects on natural salmon, their qualitative rankings, and their net dollar costs. Alternatives 3 and 5 have similar net dollar costs, but the comparison depends significantly on the highly uncertain value of recreational benefits on a restored Lower Snake River. Alternative 6 has substantially lower net dollar costs than Alternative 3 or 5, but also has a higher risk of continued declines in natural salmon stocks with the attendant costs. Alternative 6 also ranks lower in qualitative benefits.

Alternatives 4 and 7 have the lowest benefits and costs. Under favorable biological assumptions these alternatives can produce improved total chinook salmon populations at low or even decreased costs. However, under less optimistic assumptions about hatcheries and smolt transportation, these alternatives may continue current adverse conditions for at-risk species, tribes and environmental quality. They carry the highest risk of increased costs in the future to meet ESA and water quality requirements. (The analysis of Alternative 4 does not account for future decisions made about fish and wildlife policy as a result of the research and testing that are the essence of this alternative.)

One of the goals of the Human Effects Analysis was to assess whether each alternative would meet its human effects goals. This analysis cannot be completed without more inputs from the Ecological Workgroup.

## ISRP 2021-05 LibbyMFWPfollow-up1June.pdf

Contents and Section 1. SummarySection 2. BackgroundSection 3. Methodologies and Current ConditionsSection 4. Framework StrategiesSection 5. Alternatives AnalysisSection 6. References Cited

Appendices
                                - Table - Summary of Measures Related to Economic Opportunity...
                                - Table - Human Effects Strategy Block...
                                - Human Effects Workgroup Strategy Block Organization, Disposition, and Representative Practices
                                - Strategies Included in Each Alternative
                                - Passive Use Value and the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives
                                - Description of Hydrosystem Modeling

## Sign up for our newsletter

                    -     Spotlight    
                    -     Council meeting notifications

## Contact

            - Central Office
            - Idaho Office
            - Montana Office
            - Oregon Office
            - Washington Office
            - Council Members

## Social Media

FacebookX.comthreadsInstagramLinkedInVimeoFlickr

©  NW Power & Conservation Council