PREPARED BY SAVE OUR WILD SALMON

The Army Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) claims that with all costs tallied, partial removal of four Lower Snake River dams would cost $246 million dollars more each year than other alternatives. In fact, the DEIS underestimates both the benefits of dam bypass and the costs of keeping the dams in place. A comprehensive look at all costs and benefits, considering habitat and hatchery costs as well as others the DEIS omits, such as flow augmentation and Clean Water Act compliance, suggests that dam bypass saves at least $50 million annually and would contribute nearly $500 million a year in additional real benefit value.

The costs and benefits listed below are conservative. In several cases, the cost of retaining dams is likely larger. The Clean Water Act estimate below does not account for compliance with temperature standards. An alternate flow augmentation cost estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation is hundreds of millions more per year. And the costs still do not account for the Snake River's share of Federal fish mitigation spending, estimated by Taxpayers for Common Sense at approximately $100 million per year. Also, the benefits of removing dams are likely far larger than estimated by the DEIS. Based on the middle estimate of recreation benefits, the recreation value of dam bypass would be at least $199-342 million per year. The passive or existence values of the salmon were calculated by the Army Corps but were not added into the Corps' summary documents. Using just the figures calculated by the Corps, but correcting adding the costs of dam retention and the benefits of dam removal, the savings from dam removal would run close to five hundred million dollars per year.

Throughout the DEIS the Corps minimizes the benefits of dam removal. The fact that the Corps accounts for $20 million a year under Mitigation for maintaining Habitat Management Units (HMU) is absurd. HMU's are riparian lands that were established to compensate for the portions along the river that were flooded when the dams were built. Over 34,000 acres of riparian land will be uncovered after dam removal. The Corps does not include the value of this "new" land to be a benefit.

Furthermore the costs of dam removal could be reduced significantly with prudent investments in infrastructure in areas like power generation and transportation. The Corps has not studied these types of investments even though the Federal Government thinks it necessary to do so. Still, the Corps numbers (summarized below) give us a basic understanding of the economic reasonableness of dam removal.

Reduction in Irrigated Lands*	(1,579)	0
Reductions in Corps' Dam Operations	(1,326)	0
Reduced Cruise Ship Operations	(83)	0
Total Long-term Employment Loss	(2,988)	(2,382)
Net Long-term Employment Change	(711)	(1,257)
Net Change as a % of 1995 Employment	(0.22)	(0.02)

* The vast majority of these jobs are seasonal, part-time. (Source: DEIS table 5.13-2)

A comprehensive look at all costs and benefits, considering habitat and hatchery costs as well as others the DEIS omits, such as flow augmentation and Clean Water Act compliance, suggests that dam bypass saves at least $50 million annually. The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that flow augmentation, adding water to the dammed river from upstream reservoirs, could cost at least $182 million a year, disrupting hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated land, where dam removal would affect no more than 37,000 acres. Compliance with the Clean Water Act could cost $460 million or more if dams stay in place. And the cost of Tribal Treaty claims if fish go extinct, estimated in billions of dollars, would dwarf all other costs. The Corps ignores these costs.

Although some habitat restoration would be necessary if dams are removed, the Corps did not give any value to restoring 140 miles of the mainstem Snake, which would reveal 34,000 acres of inundated riparian land and approximately 13,000 acres of river surface area, increasing big-mass in the lower Snake by 70 percent. The NW Power Planning council analyzed alternatives that include aggressive, widespread habitat actions that would be necessary if dams remain in place. The NPPC Framework Human Effects Group found the habitat-reliant alternative would cost $40 million more than dam removal, and would broadly impact farming, grazing, logging and other land uses.

Removal of four lower Snake River dams would create significant economic opportunities for construction trades, while implementing the only salmon recovery solution that scientifically promises salmon recovery. Alternatives that keep dams in place present few benefits for carpenters, are more expensive for the public and more economically disruptive to the region, and have little or no evidence that they will lead to salmon recovery.

The Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) calculates the job gains and losses that would occur if the four lower Snake dams are removed. By focusing on a 25-county study area" surrounding the lower Snake River, the DEIS generally under-estimates economic benefits and over- estimates job losses and economic costs associated with dam removal. It fails to capture the general economic benefit of a healthy river and salmon recovery. The DEIS estimates more than 20,000 jobs would be created in the 10 years during which partial dam removal would proceed, including:

-- 12,000 construction jobs building up to six replacement power plants and electric transmission lines

-- 3,000 jobs building improved rail and road infrastructure

-- 1175 jobs modifying wells

The DEIS calculates the job gains and losses that would occur if the four lower Snake dams are removed. By focusing on a 25-county "study area" surrounding the lower Snake River, the DEIS generally under-estimates economic benefits and over-estimates job losses and economic costs associated with dam removal. It fails to capture the general economic benefit of a healthy river and salmon recovery. The DEIS estimates more than 20,000 jobs would be created in the 10 years during which partial dam removal would proceed, including:

-- 12,000 construction jobs building up to six replacement power plants and electric transmission lines

-- 3,000 jobs building improved rail and road infrastructure.

-- 1,175 jobs modifying wells

* The vast majority of these jobs are seasonal, part-time. (Source: DEIS table 5.13-2)

Compliance with the Clean Water Act could cost $460 million or more if dams stay in place. And the cost of Tribal Treaty claims if fish go extinct, estimated in billions of dollars, would dwarf all other costs. The Corps ignores these costs.

Although some habitat restoration would be necessary if dams are removed, the Corps did not give any value to restoring 140 miles of the mainstem Snake, which would reveal 34,000 acres of inundated riparian land and approximately 13,000 acres of river surface area, increasing big-mass in the lower Snake by 70 percent. The NW Power Planning council analyzed alternatives that include aggressive, widespread habitat actions that would be necessary if dams remain in place. The NPPC Framework Human Effects Group found the habitat-reliant alternative would cost $40 million more than dam removal, and would broadly impact farming, grazing, logging and other land uses.