DOCSLIB.ORG

Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan March 8, 2018 Upper Thompson River near Bend. Photo Credit: Brian Sugden Page 1 of 99 Acknowledgements Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group (LCFWG) has taken the lead in organizing and drafting the Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan, but the completion of this plan was only possible with the contribution of many local stakeholders throughout the Thompson River Watershed. A special thank you to all of the community members within the Thompson River Watershed who took the time to complete our online survey and provide us with local input. Authors: Sarah Bowman – Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group Brita Olson – Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group Secondary Authors: Ryan Kreiner – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Samantha Tappenbeck – Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana Brian Sugden – Weyerhaeuser Company Contributing Stakeholders: Clark Fork Coalition: John DeArment Eastern Sanders County Conservation District: Steve Dagger Flathead Conservation District: Valerie Kurth Green Mountain Conservation District: Leona Gollen Lincoln Conservation District: Becky Lihme Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group: Brita Olson, Jay Stuckey, Jean Dunn, Ruth Watkins, Sarah Bowman, Sean Moran Montana Department of Environmental Quality: Eric Trum Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation: Dave Mousel, Dave Olsen, Mike Anderson, Tony Nelson Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks: Ryan Kreiner Natural Resources Conservation Service (Kalispell Field Office): Angel Rosario Natural Resources Conservation Service (Plains Field Office): Travis Lemke, Troy Hidy NorthWestern Energy: Brent Mabbott, Jordan Tollefson Sanders County: Carol Brooker, Katherine Maudrone Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana: Jessica Makus, Samantha Tappenbeck Thompson River Drainage Association: Jerry McGuire Trout Unlimited: Christine Brissette, Paul Parson, Rob Roberts United States Forest Service – Lolo National Forest: Chris Partyka, Dave Hattis, Heather Berman, Jon Hanson, Kristin Duckworth Richardson, Traci Sylte Weyerhaeuser Company: Brian Sugden Funders: Lolo National Forest Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation NorthWestern Energy Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana Page 2 of 99 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.1: Watershed Restoration Plans ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2: Impaired Streams and Total Maximum Daily Loads .......................................................................... 7 1.3: Causes and Sources of Impairments .................................................................................................. 7 1.4: Additional Streams and Water Quality Management Considerations ............................................ 11 1.5: Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan Goals and Objectives .............................................. 12 Section 2: Thompson River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 14 2.1: Thompson River Watershed Characterization and Streams Identified ........................................... 14 2.2: Big Rock Creek Subwatershed.......................................................................................................... 22 2.3: Fishtrap Creek Subwatershed ......................................................................................................... 27 2.4: Lazier Creek Subwatershed .............................................................................................................. 31 2.5: Little Thompson River Subwatershed .............................................................................................. 34 2.6: McGinnis Creek Subwatershed ........................................................................................................ 40 2.7: McGregor Creek Subwatershed ....................................................................................................... 43 2.8: Thompson River (Mainstem) ........................................................................................................... 49 2.9: West Fork Thompson River Subwatershed ...................................................................................... 53 Section 3: Recommended Best Management Practices, Restoration, and Expected Pollutant Reductions .................................................................................................................................................................... 55 3.1: Best Management Practices and Restoration ................................................................................. 55 3.2: Expected Pollutant Reductions ....................................................................................................... 60 Section 4: Available Resources ................................................................................................................... 61 4.1: Technical Resources ......................................................................................................................... 63 4.2: Financial Resources .......................................................................................................................... 66 Section 5: WRP Development and Priorities for Restoration ..................................................................... 70 5.1: WRP Development Process .............................................................................................................. 70 5.2: Priorities for Restoration ................................................................................................................. 74 5.3: Adaptive Management – Shifting Priorities in the Face of Future Climate Change ........................ 80 Section 6: Progress Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 83 6.1: Milestones ........................................................................................................................................ 83 6.2: Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 84 Section 7: References .................................................................................................................................. 89 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 92 Page 3 of 99 A1: Ranking Criteria Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 92 A2: Investigation Project Rankings (Highest to Lowest) ........................................................................ 93 A3: Implementation Project Rankings (Highest to Lowest) .................................................................... 96 A4: Proposed Projects Not Yet Ranked ................................................................................................... 99 Page 4 of 99 List of Acronyms ACM: Anaconda Copper Mining Company BEHI: Bank Erosion Hazard Index BMP: Best Management Practice CR: County Route CWA: Clean Water Act DEQ: [Montana] Department of Environmental Quality DNRC: [Montana] Department of Natural Resources and Conservation EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EPA: Environmental Protection Agency ESCCD: Eastern Sanders County Conservation District FCD: Flathead Conservation District FR: Forest Route FWP: [Montana] Fish, Wildlife, and Parks GMCD: Green Mountain Conservation District HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan LCD: Lincoln Conservation District LCFWG: Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group LWD: Large Woody Debris MCA: Montana Climate Assessment MDT: Montana Department of Transportation MFISH: Montana Fish Information System MOU: Memorandum of Understanding MWCC: Montana Watershed Coordination Council MTNHP: Montana Natural Heritage Program NFS: National Forest System NPS: Nonpoint Source [Pollution] NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service RKM: River Kilometer RM: River Mile SMZ: Streamside Management Zone SWCDM: Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana TAC: Technical Advisory Committee TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load TN: Total Nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus USFS-KNF: United States Forest Service - Kootenai National Forest USFS-LNF: United States Forest Service - Lolo National Forest USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service WRP: Watershed Restoration Plan WY: Weyerhaeuser Company Page 5 of 99 Section 1: Introduction 1.1: Watershed Restoration Plans A watershed restoration plan (WRP) is a locally developed document that provides a framework for managing, protecting, and restoring local water resources. Creating a plan is one of the requirements to receive grant funding under Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA, passed by congress in 1972 to be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), establishes the basic structure for addressing discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and its major goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (DEQ 2014). Point sources, defined as pollution that comes from a single source, are regulated through discharge permits
Recommended publications
  • PROCEEDINGS of the BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 3, 2017

    PROCEEDINGS of the BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 3, 2017

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 3, 2017 The Board of Commissioners of Sanders County, Montana, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Present were Carol Brooker, Presiding Officer; Glen E. Magera, Commissioner, and Anthony B. Cox, Commissioner. The Boards and Committees that the Commissioners will attend in 2017 are as follows: Commissioner Cox Commissioner Brooker Commissioner Magera Avista Management Committee Child Development Center Board Sanders County 911 Advisory Board Flathead Valley Chemical Dependency of Directors, Chairman Area Agency on Aging Board Area VI, Corporation, Board of Directors Governors Board of County Printing Chairman Sanders County Board of Health MACo Natural Resources/Public Lands Community Action Partnership Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Litigation Fund Committee Hot Springs Refuse Disposal District Disposal District MACo Public Land Committee Sanders County Board of Health MACo Board of Directors Sanders County Board of Health Sanders County Community Housing Sanders County Aquatic Invasive Plants Sanders County Community Organization (AIP) Task Force Development Corporation, Board of Sanders County Council on Aging Boards Attended: Directors Sanders County Council on Aging Sanders County DUI Task Force Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Financial Committee Committee Disposal District Board Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Resource Advisory Committee Thompson Falls Community Trails Disposal District Terrestrial Resources Tech
  • Olive Clubtail (Stylurus Olivaceus) in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment Canada

    Olive Clubtail (Stylurus Olivaceus) in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment Canada

    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Olive Clubtail Stylurus olivaceus in Canada ENDANGERED 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olive Clubtail Stylurus olivaceus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 58 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Robert A. Cannings, Sydney G. Cannings, Leah R. Ramsay and Richard J. Cannings for writing the status report on Olive Clubtail (Stylurus olivaceus) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Paul Catling, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Arthropods Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le gomphe olive (Stylurus olivaceus) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Olive Clubtail — Photo by Jim Johnson. Permission granted for reproduction. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/637-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18707-5 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2011 Common name Olive Clubtail Scientific name Stylurus olivaceus Status Endangered Reason for designation This highly rare, stream-dwelling dragonfly with striking blue eyes is known from only 5 locations within three separate regions of British Columbia.
  • Independent Review of the Science and Management of Thompson River Steelhead

    Independent Review of the Science and Management of Thompson River Steelhead

    Independent Review of the Science and Management of Thompson River Steelhead Prepared for: Thompson Steelhead Technical Subcommittee c/o Cooks Ferry Indian Band PO Box 130, Spence's Bridge, BC Canada V0K 2L0 March, 2014 Independent Review of the Science and Management of Thompson River Steelhead David A. Levy and Eric Parkinson Levy Research Services Ltd. 315 Lonsdale Ave. North Vancouver, B.C. Canada V7M 2G3 March 2014 ______________________ Recommended citation for this report: Levy, D.A. and E. Parkinson. 2014. Independent review of the science and management of Thompson River steelhead. Prepared for Thompson Steelhead Technical Subcommittee c/o Cook's Ferry Indian Band, Spences Bridge, BC. 104p. Executive Summary In response to the decline in steelhead productivity that has been occurring since the early 1990's, the Thompson Steelhead Technical Subcommittee commissioned the present report to evaluate steelhead status, causes for the decline, effectiveness of management tools and prospects for recovery. The work was motivated by a strong desire among Thompson River First Nations to develop a sound conservation strategy that ensures long-term sustainability and a recovery of the traditional food, social and ceremonial fishery. Thompson River steelhead support a world-class recreational fishery which is managed by the Province of BC. DFO is intimately involved in the management process by developing salmon harvest regulations to mitigate commercial by-catch mortality. First Nations are largely outside of the management process and meaningful consultations have been absent to date. Science and management tools included harvest analysis, juvenile assessment, forecasting procedures, spawner enumeration and enhancement. Conservation thresholds place steelhead numbers in the conservation concern zone in most years.
  • Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau

    Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau

    LATE PREHISTORIC CULTURAL HORIZONS ON THE CANADIAN PLATEAU Department of Archaeology Thomas H. Richards Simon Fraser University Michael K. Rousseau Publication Number 16 1987 Archaeology Press Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Roy L. Carlson (Chairman) Knut R. Fladmark Brian Hayden Philip M. Hobler Jack D. Nance Erie Nelson All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN 0-86491-077-0 PRINTED IN CANADA The Department of Archaeology publishes papers and monographs which relate to its teaching and research interests. Communications concerning publications should be directed to the Chairman of the Publications Committee. © Copyright 1987 Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau by Thomas H. Richards and Michael K. Rousseau Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University Publication Number 16 1987 Burnaby, British Columbia We respectfully dedicate this volume to the memory of CHARLES E. BORDEN (1905-1978) the father of British Columbia archaeology. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................vii List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................iv
  • Columbia River Crossing I-5 Immersed Tunnel I-5 Immersed Tunnel Advantages Immersed Tunnel

    Columbia River Crossing I-5 Immersed Tunnel I-5 Immersed Tunnel Advantages Immersed Tunnel

    6 Sections 500 feet long x 170 feet wide 3,000 ft. Columbia River Crossing I-5 Immersed Tunnel I-5 Immersed Tunnel Advantages Immersed Tunnel Navigation clearances Aviation clearances No freeway noise on river front No mile-long elevated bridge ramps dividing Vancouver Aberdeen Casting Basin 165 x 910 feet Baltimore's Fort McHenry Tunnel Completed 1985 1.4 miles 8 lanes – 4 tubes 115,000 vehicles/day I-95 Immersed Tunnel saved Baltimore’s Inner Harbor 1985 1959 freeway plan Vancouver’s Massey Tunnel under Fraser River October 14, 2019 Vancouver’s Fraser River Bridge replaced by Tunnel 10 lanes April 1, 2020 Vancouver’s Columbia River Bridge replaced by Tunnel Øresund Bridge 20 sections x 577ft = 2.2miles & Tunnel 1999 138ft wide Øresund Tunnel Section 20 sections x 577ft =2.2miles 138ft wide Columbia River Tunnel Section 6 sections x 500ft = 0.6miles 170ft wide Immersed Tunnels About six 500 foot immersed tunnel sections could be a simple, elegant, and cost effective solution to the I-5 Columbia River Crossing. The Aberdeen Casting Basin used to build the SR 520 bridge pontoons would be well suited to casting tunnel sections. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2014/11/12/SR520-Factsheet-Pontoons- February2017.pdf In 1985 Baltimore completed the Fort McHenry Immersed Tunnel and saved its famous Inner Harbor from encirclement by I-95 concrete bridge. https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2011/04/29/the-senator-and-the-highway/ Vancouver, Canada rejected a ten lane bridge over the Fraser in favor of an immersed tunnel. https://www.enr.com/blogs/15-evergreen/post/47724-vancouvers-george-massey- tunnel-replacement-may-now-be-a-tunnel-instead-of-a-bridge The 1999 Oresund Bridge & Immersed Tunnel connects Sweden to Denmark.
  • The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement

    The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement

    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement Jackie Krolopp Kirn Marion E. Marts Recommended Citation Jackie K. Kirn & Marion E. Marts, The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement, 26 Nat. Resources J. 261 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. JACKIE KROLOPP KIRN* and MARION E. MARTS** The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement SETTING AND BACKGROUND The Skagit River is a short but powerful stream which rises in the mountains of southwestern British Columbia, cuts through the northern Cascades in a spectacular and once-remote mountain gorge, and empties into Puget Sound approximately sixty miles north of Seattle. The beautiful mountain scenery of the heavily glaciated north Cascades was formally recognized in the United States by the creation of the North Cascades National Park and the Ross Lake National Recreation Area in 1968, and earlier in British Columbia by creation of the E.C. Manning Provincial Park. The Ross Lake Recreation Area covers the narrow valley of the upper Skagit River in Washington and portions of several tributary valleys. It was created as a political and, to environmentalists who wanted national park status for the entire area, controversial, compromise which accom- modated the city of Seattle's Skagit River Project and the then-planned North Cascades Highway.
  • Order of the Executive Director May 14, 2020

    Order of the Executive Director May 14, 2020

    PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Park Act Order of the Executive Director TO: Public Notice DATE: May 14, 2020 WHEREAS: A. This Order applies to all Crown land established or continued as a park, conservancy, recreation area, or ecological reserve under the Park Act, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or protected areas established under provisions of the Environment and Land Use Act. B. This Order is made in the public interest in response to the COVID-19 pandemic for the purposes of the protection of human health and safety. C. This Order is in regard to all public access, facilities or uses that exist in any of the lands mentioned in Section A above, and includes but is not limited to: campgrounds, day-use areas, trails, playgrounds, shelters, visitor centers, cabins, chalets, lodges, resort areas, group campsites, and all other facilities or lands owned or operated by or on behalf of BC Parks. D. This Order is in replacement of the Order of the Executive Director dated April 8, 2020 and is subject to further amendment, revocation or repeal as necessary to respond to changing circumstances around the COVID-19 pandemic. Exemptions that were issued in relation to the previous Order, and were still in effect, are carried forward and applied to this Order in the same manner and effect. Province of British Columbia Park Act Order of the Executive Director 1 E. The protection of park visitor health, the health of all BC Parks staff, Park Operators, contractors and permittees is the primary consideration in the making of this Order.
  • Overview of Wheat Movement on the Columbia River Report Prepared August 17, 2016 All Data Based on Five Year Averages (2011-2015)

    Overview of Wheat Movement on the Columbia River Report Prepared August 17, 2016 All Data Based on Five Year Averages (2011-2015)

    Overview of Wheat Movement on the Columbia River Report Prepared August 17, 2016 All data based on five year averages (2011-2015) The Columbia-Snake River grain handling system includes: o 7 grain export terminals. o 26 up-country grain barge loading terminals along 360 miles of navigable river. o Eight dams that lift a barges a combined 735 feet. o 80 barges controlled by two companies (Shaver and Tidewater). The seven export terminals on the Columbia River annually export 26.5 MMT of grain, including 11.7 MMT of wheat. This makes the Columbia River the third largest grain export corridor in the world behind the Mississippi River and the Parana River in South America. Grain exports from the Columbia River continue to grow each year. Every year approximately 4.0 MMT of wheat, largely Soft White, is shipped down the Columbia River via barge from the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. This is equivalent to: o 34% of all wheat exports from the Columbia River. o 15% of all grain exports from the Columbia River. o 15% of all wheat exported from the United States. o 70% of all wheat exported from the Pacific Northwest. o 50% of all wheat produced in the Pacific Northwest. The wheat moved by barge is largely sourced from the upper river system. o 18% from between Bonneville Dam and McNary Dam. o 36% from between McNary Dam and Lower Monumental Dam. o 46% from between Lower Monumental Dam and Lewiston, Idaho. o 54% of the wheat moved by barge moves through one or more of the four Lower Snake River dams.
  • The Columbia River Gorge: Its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway by IRA A

    The Columbia River Gorge: Its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway by IRA A

    VOLUMB 2 NUMBBI3 NOVBMBBR, 1916 . THE .MINERAL · RESOURCES OF OREGON ' PuLhaLed Monthly By The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology Mitchell Point tunnel and viaduct, Columbia River Hi~hway The .. Asenstrasse'' of America The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations Entered aa oeoond cl,... matter at Corvallis, Ore., on Feb. 10, l9lt, accordintt to tbe Act or Auc. :U, 1912. .,.,._ ;t ' OREGON BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY COMMISSION On1cm or THm Co><M188ION AND ExmBIT OREGON BUILDING, PORTLAND, OREGON Orncm or TBm DtBIICTOR CORVALLIS, OREGON .,~ 1 AMDJ WITHY COMBE, Governor HENDY M. PABKB, Director C OMMISSION ABTBUB M. SWARTLEY, Mining Engineer H. N. LAWRill:, Port.land IRA A. WILLIAMS, Geologist W. C. FELLOWS, Sumpter 1. F . REDDY, Grants Pass 1. L. WooD. Albany R. M. BIITT8, Cornucopia P. L. CAI<PBELL, Eugene W 1. KEBR. Corvallis ........ Volume 2 Number 3 ~f. November Issue {...j .· -~ of the MINERAL RESOURCES OF OREGON Published by The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology ~•, ;: · CONTAINING The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History l Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway t. By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations 1916 ILLUSTRATIONS Mitchell Point t unnel and v iaduct Beacon Rock from Columbia River (photo by Gifford & Prentiss) front cover Highway .. 72 Geologic map of Columbia river gorge. 3 Beacon Rock, near view . ....... 73 East P ortland and Mt. Hood . 1 3 Mt. Hamilton and Table mountain .. 75 Inclined volcanic ejecta, Mt. Tabor. 19 Eagle creek tuff-conglomerate west of Lava cliff along Sandy river.
  • 2020 EARLY SEASON REPORT Columbia Shuswap Regional District Golden, BC (Area ‘A’) Mosquito Program

    2020 EARLY SEASON REPORT Columbia Shuswap Regional District Golden, BC (Area ‘A’) Mosquito Program

    2020 EARLY SEASON REPORT Columbia Shuswap Regional District Golden, BC (Area ‘A’) Mosquito Program Submitted by Morrow BioScience Ltd. April 17, 2020 www.morrowbioscience.com Toll Free: 1-877-986-3363 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ____________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 2 Monitoring Methodology _______________________________________________________ 2 Data Management ____________________________________________________________ 4 Education Outreach ____________________________________________________________ 4 Season Forecast _______________________________________________________________ 5 Snowpack ________________________________________________________________________ 5 Weather __________________________________________________________________________ 7 Reporting Schedule ____________________________________________________________ 8 Contacts _____________________________________________________________________ 8 References ___________________________________________________________________ 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Snow basin indices for the Upper Columbia Basin determined by the 1 April 2018, 1 April 2019, and 1 April 2020 bulletins ............................................................................................ 7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding Aquabac®, the bacterial larvicide utilized by MBL (a.i., Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) Appendix
  • The Damnation of a Dam : the High Ross Dam Controversy

    The Damnation of a Dam : the High Ross Dam Controversy

    THE DAMYIATION OF A DAM: TIIE HIGH ROSS DAM CONTROVERSY TERRY ALLAN SIblMONS A. B., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1968 A THESIS SUBIUTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Geography SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY May 1974 All rights reserved. This thesis may not b? reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Terry Allan Simmons Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: The Damnation of a Dam: The High Ross Dam Controversy Examining Committee: Chairman: F. F. Cunningham 4 E.. Gibson Seni Supervisor / /( L. J. Evendon / I. K. Fox ernal Examiner Professor School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University rhe righc to lcnd my thesis or dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed ' without my written permission. Title of' ~hesis /mqqmkm: The Damnation nf a nam. ~m -Author: / " (signature ) Terrv A. S.imrnonze (name ) July 22, 1974 (date) ABSTRACT In 1967, after nearly fifty years of preparation, inter- national negotiations concerning the construction of the High Ross Dan1 on the Skagit River were concluded between the Province of British Columbia and the City of Seattle.
  • Columbia River Treaty Review the Idaho Position This Position

    Columbia River Treaty Review the Idaho Position This Position

    Columbia River Treaty Review The Idaho Position This position Statement outlines the current position of a broad range of Idaho stakeholders (identified below and collectively referred to as “Idaho Stakeholders”) on the efforts to modernize the Columbia River Treaty (“CRT”) with Canada. I. Hydropower: The CRT provides for an “entitlement” for power benefits derived from the agreement. See CRT Article V.1 (“Canada is entitled to one half the downstream power benefits determined under Article VII”). The entitlement is determined as “the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States of America with and without the use of Canadian storage, determined in advance, and is referred to in the Treaty as the downstream power benefits.” CRT Article VII; see also CRT Annex B ¶ 1 (“The downstream power benefits in the United States of America attributable to operation in accordance with Annex A of the storage provided by Canada under Article II will be determined in advance and will be the estimated increase in dependable hydroelectric capacity in kilowatts for agreed critical stream flow periods and the increase in average annual usable hydroelectric energy output in kilowatt hours on the basis of an agreed period of stream flow record”). Over time, this “Canadian Entitlement” has proven to greatly exceed the actual benefits. Discontinuation of the Canadian Entitlement would result “in an overall increase in annual revenue for the United States (about $180 million to $280 million).”1 As explained in the Regional Recommendation, at page 4, “rebalancing is necessary because the present Treaty power benefits are not equitably shared and Canada is deriving substantially greater value from coordinated power operations than the United States.” Idaho Stakeholders take the following position on Hydropower: 1.