Growing Small in Rural Southern Idaho: Small-Scale Hydropower Development in Agriculture-Based Communities

Home , Bliss Dam, Lower Salmon Falls Dam, Salmon Falls Creek

GROWING SMALL IN RURAL SOUTHERN IDAHO: SMALL-SCALE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT IN AGRICULTURE-BASED COMMUNITIES

by Paulina Littlefield

A capstone submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Energy Policy & Climate

Baltimore, Maryland March 2020

ABSTRACT

In Southern Idaho, a growing concern regarding water access is an issue caught between the need

for affordable, renewable energy, and the need for irrigation supply. Large hydropower projects

can intensify the seasonal availability of water supplies for agricultural practices if there is lack

of connection to irrigation infrastructure or conflicts with water use. The amount of land

developed for agriculture can also pose problems for the projects, reducing the flow reaching the

projects.1 Small projects can be placed in many different waterways, such as an irrigation canal,

which can improve efficiency.

These projects are achievable in Southern Idaho, though it is a matter of the weight of the

impacts on important agricultural areas and the surrounding environment. For example, there are

environmental concerns regarding major deployment of small hydropower projects, particularly

in a concentrated area, compared to those being more spatially dispersed. By examining several

small and large projects in the Snake River Plain region of Southern Idaho and the associated

environmental impact indicators, this paper examines the impacts of projects based upon

installed units, installed capacity, power generation, flow rate, reservoir size and storage

capacity, connection to irrigation infrastructure, and flood regulation, and shows that size of

hydropower project does not drastically impact the relative environmental integrity or the agricultural activity in the area. The ability to contribute to or join with irrigation infrastructure is what remains important when considering the future of hydropower development in the region.

1 Hansen et al. “Climate Change, Water Supply, and Agriculture in the Arid Western United States: Eighty Years of Agricultural Census Observations from Idaho.” 2015.

CONTENTS

Abstract...... ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….……………..iii Figures, Tables, & Graphs……………………………………………………….…………….…iv Research Statement………………………………………………………………………….……1 Introduction ...... 2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………...…………8 Results……………………………………………………………………………………...... ….11 General…………………………………………………………………………………..….…11 Electricity………………………………………………………………………………….…..13 Reservoir Storage……………………………………………………………….………….....14 Hydrology………………………………………………………………………….…...……..16 Flow…………………………………………………………………………………….…...... 19 Water Quality and Sediment…………………………………………………….…..………...20 Fish and Wildlife………………………………………………………………………....…...22 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………...24 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….. 30

iii

FIGURES, TABLES, & GRAPHS

Figures

Figure 1: Withdrawals by county in Idaho, 2015.……………………………………...…….…..6 Figure 2: Map showing the nine hydropower projects…………………………………….…..…8 Figure 3: Installed capacity (MW) for each project……………………………………….…….13 Figure 4: Capacity factors of the nine projects…………………………………………….…....14 Figure 5: Storage capacity of the nine projects…………...……………………………….….....15 Figure 6: Reservoir surface area of the nine projects…………………………………………...15 Figure 7: Average depth of reservoirs………………………………...... 16 Figure 8: Rates of water diversion into hydropower project during average flow conditions….19

Tables

Table 1: Irrigation withdrawals, top States, 2015 ………………………………………………..4

RESEARCH STATEMENT

The aim of the research presented in this capstone is to determine whether the relative impacts of hydropower projects of different sizes reveal if larger numbers of smaller hydropower projects are preferable to a smaller number of larger projects, and whether they interfere to a greater extent with water security for irrigation of land or have negative environmental impacts.

Small and large capacity projects located in Southern Idaho agricultural areas around the Snake

River to be examined according to impact analysis via the collection of indicators include installed capacity, installed units, annual power generation, rate of diversion, reservoir surface area, storage capacity, connection to irrigation infrastructure, and inclusion of flood regulation.

By collecting this information and comparing results, relationships between project size and power production, functions which support irrigation/agricultural activities, and impacts to local hydrology and environments, may be recognized in order to determine possible future development of hydropower projects in the region.

INTRODUCTION

Water security is a critical factor when determining climate change vulnerability of communities,

especially those that are agriculture-based. UN-Water, a United Nations (UN) inter-agency for water issues, defines water security as:

The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of and

acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-

economic development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-

related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political

stability.2

A changing climate further impacts water supply and demand, putting an increasing amount of pressure on those who depend on irrigation water for agricultural practices, and a spotlight on water security. Changes in seasonal snowmelt and declining summer water flows can negatively

impact irrigated crop productivity, particularly where access to reservoir water storage and/or

groundwater is limited.3

Idaho, home to over 140 hydropower projects with a total capacity of 2,700 MW, relies heavily

on power from hydro facilities – which accounted for 60% of net electricity generation in the

state for 2017.4 Large projects such as Hells Canyon Complex (1,167 MW), Dworshak Dam

2 “What is water security?” UN-Water. 2018. 3 May et al., “Northwest” in Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. 2018. 4 “State Profile Overview”. EIA. 2018.

(400 MW), and Cabinet Gorge Project (260 MW), provide a significant amount of the 60

percent, though the further development of large projects such as these do not seem likely.5

Energy is also at risk due to climate impacts. Snowpack, run-off, drought, and the general water availability within a basin supporting hydropower projects, are all factors that can impact hydropower projects, and are influenced by climate changes.6

In Southern Idaho, a change in water management has often been viewed as a solution the

growing concern of water access, with increasing reservoir storage, and new irrigation water

conservation measures as the two major solutions.7 Irrigation water use is defined as: water applied by an irrigation system for agricultural practices; this also includes water being used for pre-irrigation, frost protection, field preparation, crop cooling, harvesting, and dust suppression.8

Idaho is the West’s third largest agricultural state, and relies heavily on these practices to support

the state’s economy; annually, the state’s agricultural industry is valued at over 4 billion dollars.9

The majority of high-value agricultural areas are situated in the Southern region around the

Snake River, and the supply source is often cyclic, especially from season to season, so it

remains important that the water be used efficiently. Hydropower itself is also affected by these

cyclic patterns, especially with higher demands for water by irrigation users during summer

months.

5 “State Profile Overview”. EIA. 2018. 6 “Idaho Energy Landscape” Idaho Governor’s Office of Energy and Mineral Resources. 2019. 7 Schmidt et al. “Hydro-Economic Modeling of Boise Basin Water Management Responses to Climate Change.” Idaho Water Resource Research Institute. 2013. 8 “Irrigation Water Use.” Usgs.gov. n.d. 9 USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Agriculture in Idaho.” USDA, NASS Northwest Region Idaho Field Office. 2019.

Irrigation infrastructure in Southern Idaho is typically a system of canals (sometimes referred to

as ditches), from which irrigation districts or companies then distribute and divert water. These

districts must ensure the proper transfer of water to users who require it for agriculture.10 The efficiency of this method varies however – water seepage from unlined irrigation canals and flooding are two common issues. The costs associated with the delivery of this supply are then affected by this problem, and many more, including, system maintenance problems, water control and water measurement techniques and attentiveness, environmental constraints, means of water diversion, pumping costs, and system design.11 Upgrading can be costly and time-

consuming, though as water availability has becoming an progressively significant issue, efforts

to use water more efficiently have been increasing.

Table 1. Irrigation withdrawals, top States, 2015 [percentages of total U.S. Irrigation withdrawals calculated from unrounded values]. Source: Dieter et al., “Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015”. USGS. 2018.

State Percentage

California 16%

Idaho 13%

Arkansas 10%

Montana 8%

Colorado 8%

10 “Irrigation Organizations” Idaho Department of Water Resources. n.d. 11 Allen, Brockway. “Relationship of Costs and Water Use Efficiency for Irrigation Projects in Idaho.” 1979.

In 2015, the estimated withdrawal amount for Idaho was 15,273 Mgal/d, which is equivalent to

17,108,000 acre-feet per year – this accounted for 86% of the total water withdrawn.12 Irrigation

for agriculture takes water from both surface and ground; 91% of groundwater withdrawals

during 2015 were used for irrigation. The state ranks second, behind California, when it comes to

total irrigation withdrawals (Table 1.)

Irrigation withdrawals for 2015 were 21% less than 1980, when withdrawals peaked at 150,000

Mgal/d. With the use of more efficient irrigation systems, this continued to increase with 10

percent more irrigated acres using sprinkler systems in 2015 than in 2010.13

Consumptive use refers to the fraction of water, which was taken from a source for a purpose,

but is ultimately removed from availability in the process. Regarding irrigation water

consumptive use, this may represent the water withdrawn, and the losses that occur from events

such as evaporation, transpiration, conveyance losses, surface runoff, and infiltration.14 In 2015, approximately 58% of total withdrawals were consumptively used by agricultural practices. The other 42% re-entered the water cycle by conveyance losses, and other related events previously mentioned. Non-consumptive use refers to when the water remains in or is immediately returned to the location which it was extracted, such as a stream, river, or aquifer. Hydropower projects can function non-consumptively through instream water use.

12 “Idaho Water Use, 2015”. USGS. 2018. 13 Ibid. 14 Dieter et al., “Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015”. USGS. 2018.

)LJXUH:LWKGUDZDOVE\FRXQW\LQ,GDKR:DWHUXVHLVKLJKHVWLQVRXWKHUQ,GDKRFRXQWLHV ZKHUHLUULJDWHGDJULFXOWXUHLVSUHYDOHQW XVJVJRY

$FFRUGLQJWRWKH)DUPDQG5DQFK,UULJDWLRQ6XUYH\RYHURISURSHUWLHVOLVWHGUHGXFLQJ

HQHUJ\FRVWVDVDSULPDU\UHDVRQIRULPSURYLQJLUULJDWLRQPHWKRGV7KHVXUYH\UHVXOWVDOVR

UHYHDOHGUHGXFLQJZDWHUXVHDQGLPSURYLQJFURSTXDOLW\DVVLJQLILFDQWUHDVRQVIRULQYHVWLQJLQ

QHZLUULJDWLRQHTXLSPHQW

$VWXG\ZKLFKDVVHVVHGODUJHDQGVPDOOK\GURSRZHUGHSOR\PHQWLQWKH6SDQLVK'XHUREDVLQDQG

DVVRFLDWHGFXPXODWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVIRXQGWKDWFRQFHQWUDWHGGHSOR\PHQWRIVPDOO

SURMHFWVFDQOHDGWRKDYLQJDQHTXDORUKLJKHUHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWWKDQODUJHUSURMHFWVZKLOH

SURYLGLQJVLPLODUHQHUJ\RXWSXWV7KH6SDQLVK'XHUR%DVLQVWXG\XWLOL]HGDVHOHFWLRQRI

+LWDM6XWWOHV³7UHQGVLQ86$JULFXOWXUH¶V&RQVXPSWLRQDQG3URGXFWLRQRI(QHUJ\5HQHZDEOH3RZHU6KDOH (QHUJ\DQG&HOOXORVLF%LRPDVV´86'$ 0D\RUHWDO³7KH5ROHRI/DUJHDQG6PDOO6FDOH+\GURSRZHUIRU(QHUJ\DQG:DWHU6HFXULW\LQWKH6SDQLVK 'XHUR%DVLQ´ 6 indicators to measure environmental impacts. The results suggested that rather than focusing on the development of small projects, focusing on taking advantage of existing hydropower infrastructure would be beneﬁcial for energy, water and environmental security, and would maximize value-benefit/impact ratio of projects.17

By examining associated environmental impact indicators, impacts from the different sizes of hydropower projects can be determined. Whether size has an important position on impacting the agricultural region in Southern Idaho, is something that needs to be taken into consideration before future developments.

17 Mayor et al., “The Role of Large and Small Scale Hydropower for Energy and Water Security in the Spanish Duero Basin.” 2017.

0(7+2'2/2*<

1LQHK\GURSRZHUSURMHFWVLQ6RXWKHUQ,GDKRZHUHLGHQWLILHGE\VL]HDQGORFDWLRQWRGHWHUPLQH

SRVVLEOHLPSDFWVEDVHGRQSURMHFWVL]HZKHUHDQ\FDSDFLW\0:RUOHVVGHILQHVDVPDOO

K\GURSRZHUSURMHFW'DWDFROOHFWHGIRUWKHVHOHFWHGORFDWLRQVLQFOXGHGFRXQW\FKDUDFWHULVWLFV

HFRQRPLFEDVHK\GURORJLFDORYHUYLHZVXUURXQGLQJWKHSURMHFWVHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVRIWKH

SURMHFWVDQGLUULJDWLRQZDWHU

)LJXUH1LQHK\GURSRZHUSURMHFWVLQVRXWKHUQ,GDKRH[DPLQHGLQWKLVSDSHU %LUFK %DUEHU'DP $VKWRQ±6W$QWKRQ\ )HOW 0DJLF'DP 8SSHU6DOPRQ)DOOV /RZHU 6DOPRQ)DOOV %OLVV /XFN\3HDN 7KHQLQHSURMHFWVZHUHVHOHFWHGILYHVPDOODQGIRXUODUJHDQGH[DPLQHGDFFRUGLQJWRLPSDFW

DQDO\VLVYLDWKHFROOHFWLRQRILQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJLQVWDOOHGFDSDFLW\LQVWDOOHGXQLWVDQQXDO

³7\SHVRI+\GURSRZHU3ODQWV´(QHUJ\*RY 8

power generation, rate of diversion, reservoir surface area, storage capacity, connection to

irrigation infrastructure, and inclusion of flood regulation.

All projects are located in rural communities in Southern Idaho, surrounded by agricultural areas

and located in differing counties. The Hydropower Reform Coalition site’s project location tool offers a map of the U.S. divided by regions which enables users to relevant information and documents relating to projects that require Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses.19 This tool was used to identify FERC documents relating to the projects.

Environmental impact reports provided basic project facts including name, ownership, location,

and capacity; these documents also provided information on fish and wildlife protection

measures. Annual generation reports, project summaries, and unofficial documents (documents

shared within correspondences between project owners and FERC) were also used. For details

regarding water quality issues, basin reports from the Idaho Department of Environmental

Quality were used.

The following indicators were used to compare possible impacts by small and large projects in

the study area:

1. Number of installed units

2. Installed capacity (MW) – Another measure of technological deployment, the maximum

electricity output of the generator, often under ideal conditions.

19 “On Your River.” Hydropower Reform Coalition. 2020.

3. Annual power generation (kWh/year) – The annual power generation is the cumulative

amount of power produced over the timespan of a year. Calculated as a product of the

installed capacity and number of operating hours.

4. Rate of diversion (cfs) – How much water is being channeled through the powerhouse of the

project under average conditions.

5. Reservoir surface area (ft)

6. Water storage capacity (acre-ft) – The amount of water being held within the reservoir,

sometimes for later use. Run-of-river projects have limited storage capacity.

7. Connection to irrigation infrastructure – A project with associated infrastructure,

including multipurpose dams, canals and small ponds that currently provide water for

irrigation.

8. Flood regulation – Projects with regulation capacity to reduce the risk of ﬂooding events.

RESULTS

A. General

The following nine projects:

1) Birch: This project has a 2.70 MW installed capacity and is located on Birch Creek in

Butte/Clark County. The area surrounding the project is popular for fishing activities. Clark

county has a recorded population of about 1,000 as of 2017. The largest industries in Clark

County are agriculture, forestry, and fishing and hunting. As may be expected, the major land

use situated around this project, is for rangeland, forested land uses, and irrigated agriculture.

2) Barber Dam: This project has a 3.70 MW installed capacity and is located on the Boise River

in Ada County. This dam originally served as a mill pond for timber. Water releases from the

reservoir are primarily managed for flood control and irrigation purposes. Ada county has a

recorded population of about 470,000 as of 2017. The largest industries are sales and

management, and the most specialized are architecture and engineering.

3) Ashton- St. Anthony: This project has a 6.7 MW installed capacity and is located on the

Henry’s Fork of the Snake River in Fremont County; this section of the river flows through a gorge with walls of solid basalt rock. Fremont county has a recorded population of about 13,000 as of 2017. The largest industries are retail, educational services, and construction. Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations are the most specialized occupations in the county – including

203 of the estimated 5,000 residents employed by the county.

4) Felt: This project has a 7.45 MW installed capacity and is located on the Teton River in Teton

County, and occupies Bureau of Land Management land. The location is in a particularly scenic

forest area and sits within a canyon. Teton county has a recorded population of about 10,000 as

of 2017. The largest industries are management occupations, and construction and extraction

occupations; the former industry as well as farming, fishing, and forestry occupations are among

the most specialized within the county.

5) Magic Dam: This project has a 9 MW installed capacity and is located on the Big Wood

River in Blaine County. Water stored in the reservoir is used to irrigate approximately 90,000 acres of land, making this an important part of local irrigation activity. Blaine county has a

recorded population of about 21,600 as of 2017. The largest industry is accommodations, and

the most specialized is real estate.

6, 7, 8) Upper/Lower Salmon Falls, Bliss: Lower and Upper Salmon Falls Dam along with the

Bliss project, are a part of Idaho Power Company's Mid-Snake Projects which in total have a

capacity of 169.5 MW. Upper Salmon Falls has a 34.50 MW installed capacity. Lower Salmon

Falls has a 60 MW capacity, and Bliss 75 MW. The Lower and Upper Salmon Falls projects are

located in Twin Falls and Gooding county, and Bliss in Elmore and Gooding. As of 2017, the

Twin Falls population was about 82,000, bordering the much lesser populated Elmore county,

with about 26,000, and Gooding with 15,000. All three of these counties maintain farming,

fishing, and forestry as the most specialized occupations. Administration occupations are the

largest occupations in Twin Falls and Elmore, while agriculture, forestry, and fishing and

hunting are the largest in Gooding.

9) Lucky Peak: This project has a 101.25 MW installed capacity and is located on the Boise

River in Ada County. Its primary function was originally flood control and did not generate

power until the late 80’s. Ada county has a recorded population of about 470,000 as of 2017.

7KHODUJHVWLQGXVWULHVDUHVDOHVDQGPDQDJHPHQWDQGWKHPRVWVSHFLDOL]HGDUHDUFKLWHFWXUHDQG

HQJLQHHULQJ

)LJXUH,QVWDOOHG&DSDFLW\ 0: IRUHDFKSURMHFWVPDOOHVW %LUFK WRODUJHVW /XFN\3HDN

%(OHFWULFLW\

7KHPHGLDQK\GURSRZHUFDSDFLW\IDFWRUKDVEHHQLQWKH86DFFRUGLQJWRGDWDFROOHFWHG

9DOXHVDVORZDVDQGDVKLJKDVZHUHQRWHGDVQRWH[FHSWLRQDODVFDSDFLW\

IDFWRUUDQJHLVZLGHDQGGHSHQGVRQK\GURORJ\SODQWDJHPRGHRIRSHUDWLRQDQGRZQHUVKLS

W\SH7KH&DSDFLW\IDFWRULQGLFDWHVWKHSHUFHQWDJHRISRZHUJHQHUDWLRQLQDSHULRGRIWLPH

UHODWLYHWRWKHPD[LPXPSRVVLEOHJHQHUDWLRQXQGHUWKHFRQGLWLRQVRILWZRUNLQJDWIXOOFDSDFLW\

ZLWKRXWLQWHUUXSWLRQ7KHDYHUDJHFDSDFLW\IDFWRUIRUWKHVHOHFWHGSURMHFWVZDVDERXW7KHUH

ZDVQRGLVWLQFWFRUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQVL]HDQGFDSDFLW\IDFWRUIRUWKHVHOHFWHGSURMHFWV

³+\GURSRZHU0DUNHW5HSRUW´86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\ 13

)LJXUH&DSDFLW\IDFWRUVRIWKHQLQHSURMHFWVVPDOOHVWLQVWDOOHGFDSDFLW\SURMHFWV %LUFK WR ODUJHVW /XFN\3HDN

&5HVHUYRLU6WRUDJH

5HVHUYRLUVFDQSURYLGHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUVWRUDJHWRVXSSRUWLUULJDWLRQDFWLYLWLHVDQGVXSSRUWIORRG

FRQWURO7KHVL]HRIDUHVHUYRLUVL]HPD\DOVREHDQLPSRUWDQWIDFWRUZKHQHYDOXDWLQJLPSDFWWR

ORFDOHFRV\VWHPV7KUHHRIWKHILYHVHOHFWHGVPDOOSURMHFWVRSHUDWHDVUXQRIWKHULYHU )HOW

$VKWRQ±6W$QWKRQ\%DUEHU'DP ZKHUHWKHUHLVOLWWOHWRQRVWRUDJHXVH $OOQLQHSURMHFWVKDYH

IORRGFRQWUROV\VWHPVLQSODFH/XFN3HDNDQG0DJLF'DPERWKKDYHODUJHUHVHUYRLUVWKRXJK

WKHLUJHQHUDWLRQRXWSXWGLIIHUV±ZLWK/XFN\3HDN¶VLQVWDOOHGFDSDFLW\0:DQG0DJLF

'DP¶V0:/XFN\3HDN¶VSULPDU\UHVHUYRLUIXQFWLRQLVIORRGFRQWURO0DJLF'DP¶VSULPDU\

UHVHUYRLUIXQFWLRQLVIRULUULJDWLRQ

)LJXUH6WRUDJHFDSDFLW\RIWKHQLQHSURMHFWVRUGHUHGE\K\GURSRZHUFDSDFLW\VPDOOHVW %LUFK WRODUJHVW /XFN\3HDN

)LJXUH5HVHUYRLUVXUIDFHDUHDRIWKHQLQHSURMHFWVRUGHUHGE\K\GURSRZHUFDSDFLW\VPDOOHVW %LUFK WRODUJHVW /XFN\3HDN

)LJXUH$YHUDJHGHSWKRIUHVHUYRLUV YROXPHGLYLGHGE\VXUIDFHDUHD RIWKHQLQHSURMHFWV RUGHUHGE\K\GURSRZHUFDSDFLW\VPDOOHVW %LUFK WRODUJHVW /XFN\3HDN

'+\GURORJ\

%LUFK7KHK\GURORJ\RIWKH%LUFK&UHHNVXEEDVLQLVPDLQO\PDGHXSE\%LUFK&UHHNDQG

DVVRFLDWHGGLYHUVLRQVWUXFWXUHVWKDWDUHXVHGIRULUULJDWLRQRIIDUPODQGDQGK\GURSRZHURQWKH

6QDNH5LYHUSODLQ)ORZLQ%LUFK&UHHNEHORZWKHK\GURSRZHUGLYHUVLRQKDVEHHQUHPRYHGGXH

WRDSHUPDQHQWFRQWUROVWUXFWXUHGLYHUWLQJWKHZDWHUIRUK\GURSRZHUSURGXFWLRQ:DWHUGRHVQRW

UHWXUQWRWKHQDWXUDOFKDQQHODIWHUPRYLQJWKURXJKWKHSRZHUSODQW±DQGLVLQVWHDGXVHGIRU

LUULJDWLRQ$Q\ZDWHUWKDWLVQ¶WXVHGIRULUULJDWLRQGXULQJZLQWHULVVXEYHUWHGYLDPDQPDGH

infrastructure before spreading out into the desert above the Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL)

Test Area North facility, for flood control and aquifer recharge.21

2) Barber Dam: The Boise River is a tributary of the Snake River and drains a portion of the

Sawtooth Range and part of the western Snake River Plain. The watershed includes about 4,100

square miles of many diverse environments, including alpine canyons, forest, rangeland,

agricultural lands, and urban areas.22

3) Ashton – St. Anthony: Henry’s Fork is a tributary river of the Snake River, in the upper

Snake River watershed. The river provides irrigation water for over 280,000 acres of land, and area aquifer recharge primarily comes from seepage from irrigation, and losses from stream channels. Seasonal uses of canal irrigation systems are closely connected to the water storage available.23

4) Felt: The Teton River is a major natural resource in Idaho and is significantly valuable for

agriculture. The Teton River drains an area of 806 square miles (in Idaho), and originates from

headwater streams in the Teton, Big Hole, and Snake River mountain ranges, and flows more

than 64 miles before discharging into Henry’s Fork River.24

5) Magic Dam: The Big Wood River contains certain reaches (about 10%) which are

intermittent due to irrigation diversions. 25 The Big Wood River subbasin contains various

manmade reservoirs – the Magic Reservoir being the largest. Another important part of the

21 “Birch Creek Subbasin Assessment.” Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. 22 “Final Boise/Payette Water Storage Assessment Report.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region. 2006. 23 “Henrys Fork Basin Study Final Report.” Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Water Resource Board. 2015. 24 “Teton Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan for Agriculture.” Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2005. 25 “The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan.” IDEQ. 2002.

hydrology in the area is the Big Wood River Company’s canal system of the Big Wood River subbasin. It has storage space in the American Falls Reservoir, behind Magic Dam, and also has natural flow rights on the Wood River system. The Wood River system includes the Big Wood

River and the Little Wood River together and irrigates approximately 98,000 acres of land.26

Other management units that exist within the subbasin are the North Side Canal Company and

the Milner-Gooding Canal, as well as a number of smaller canal companies that are privately

owned and are operated above the Magic Reservoir.

6, 7, 8) Upper/Lower Salmon Falls, Bliss: The Snake River is the largest tributary of the

Columbia River and is more than 1,000 miles long. There are more than 23 dams on the

mainstem, making it one of the most dammed rivers in the Northwest. The Mid-Snake Projects

span more than 25 miles, from the main diversion dam at the Upper Salmon Falls Project

downstream to the Bliss Dam. Between these facilities are the Lower Salmon Falls Dam and a

free-flowing stretch of the Snake River known as the Wiley Reach.27

9) Lucky Peak: The Boise River is a tributary of the Snake River and drains a portion of the

Sawtooth Range and part of the western Snake River Plain. The watershed includes about 4,100 square miles of many diverse environments, including alpine canyons, forest, rangeland, agricultural lands, and urban areas.28

26 “The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan.” IDEQ. 2002. 27 “Hydropower Project Summary, Mid-Snake River, Idaho.” Hydropower Reform Coalition, River Management Society. 2013. 28 “Final Boise/Payette Water Storage Assessment Report.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region. 2006.

()ORZ

)ORZUDWHVGRVKRZFRUUHODWLRQZLWKSURMHFWVL]HZKLFKLVH[SHFWHG3URMHFWVZKLFKKDYHD

FRQQHFWLRQZLWKLUULJDWLRQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPD\KDYHIOXFWXDWLRQVLQIORZUDWHVGXULQJPRQWKVRIWKH

\HDUWKDWDUHPRVWFRPPRQIRULUULJDWLRQDFWLYLW\%LUFK%DUEHU'DPDQG0DJLF'DPKDYH

H[LVWLQJDQGDFWLYHFRQQHFWLRQVZLWKLUULJDWLRQLQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DJLF'DPDQG%DUEHU'DPKDYH

WKHKLJKHVWIORZUDWHVDPRQJWKHVPDOOSURMHFWVZLWK%DUEHU'DP 0: KDYLQJKLJKHUIORZ

UDWHVGHVSLWHEHLQJVPDOOHULQFDSDFLW\WKDQ0DJLF'DP 0: ZKLFKLVPRUHVLPLODUWR

%LUFK¶VVL]HRI0:ZKLFKKDVWKHORZHVWIORZUDWH)HOW$VKWRQ±6W$QWKRQ\DQG%DUEHU

'DPDUHUXQRIWKHULYHUSURMHFWVWKHUHGRHVQRWDSSHDUWREHDFRUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKLVW\SHDQG

WKHIORZUDWHV

)LJXUH5DWHVRIZDWHUGLYHUVLRQLQWRK\GURSRZHUSURMHFWGXULQJDYHUDJHIORZFRQGLWLRQV GXULQJLQVHDVRQPRQWKVIRULUULJDWLRQSUDFWLFHV -XQH6HSWHPEHU

F. Water Quality and Sediment

1) Birch: Birch Creek was added to the 303(d) list for flow alteration, habitat alteration, and

sediment and nutrients, by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Section

303(d) of the Clean Water Act, issues requirements for states to identify and prioritize any water

body that does not meet water quality standards.29 The primary water quality problem in this

case, based upon inspection, is due to the absence of flow due to the permanent diversion for

irrigation.30

2) Barber Dam: Water quality requirements maintain a positive record for this project.

Sediment issues do occur, however. When the project was originally constructed to serve as a

log-holding pond and power facility for a lumber mill, silt that came with the logs and sediments

in the river became trapped behind the dam and accumulated over time, which formed

landmasses in the impounded area.31 Once the Boise River Diversion Dam was constructed in

1908 and then Lucky Peak Dam in 1957, sediment deposition was significantly reduced.

However, any sediment that accumulates behind the Boise River Diversion Dam is washed

downstream to the Barber Dam impoundment when the gates at the base of the dam are opened

after irrigation season.32

3) Ashton – St. Anthony: Water quality data for this project area is lacking – the Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality considers the area above and below the project to be a

29 Department of Environmental Quality. “Birch Creek Subbasin Assessment.” Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. 30 Ibid. 31 “Pre-Application Document: Barber Dam Project FERC No. 488.” Fulcrum, LLC, Ada County, Idaho. 2018. 32 Ibid

“water of the State with insufficient data and information to determine if any standards are attained.”33

4) Felt: While no significant water or sediment issues were found due to the project directly, the

Teton Soil Conservation District (SCD) determined that sediment was a significant pollutant in

the area, with irrigated and non-irrigated cropland as the largest contributor.34 For many years, agriculture has been the main land use in the area, which has heavily impacted the quality of the water which interacts with the land. The main issues relate to erosion from rain and snow runoff from cultivated fields, and streambank erosion from grazing, channel alteration, and flood irrigation.35

5) Magic Dam: Aside from varying effects from agriculture practices and water diversions, there

have been notable occurrences where concentrations of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in the

reservoir reached unhealthy levels and formed a harmful algal bloom.36

6, 7, 8) Upper/Lower Salmon Falls, Bliss: The Salmon Falls Reservoirs have been found to

contain excess nutrients that lead to aquatic vegetation blooms; however only nonpoint sources

and natural soil-associated phosphorus contributed to increases in these concentrations.37

9) Lucky Peak: The water quality in the area has been affected by agricultural practices,

wastewater treatment facility discharge, urbanization, reservoir operations, and river channel

33 “Low Impact Hydropower Questionnaire: Ashton Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2381).” Low Impact Hydropower Institute, PacifiCorp Energy. 2009. 34 Ibid. 35 “Teton Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan for Agriculture.” Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. 36 “Health Advisory Issued for Magic Reservoir Because of a Harmful Algal Bloom.” Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2019. 37 “Salmon Falls Creek Subbasin.” IDEQ. 2019.

alteration.38 Higher levels of suspended sediment concentrations from the diversion dam

downstream from the project, as well as nitrogen concentrations, and phosphorus

concentrations.39

G. Fish and Wildlife

1) Birch: The upper 1.5 mile of the feeder canal was designed to be a riparian and fish

mitigation area, which includes: rock and boulders placed in canal upstream of fish screens,

overhanging bank structures for fish habitat, riparian vegetation, and ponds below the project

diversion to create additional riparian habitat.40

2) Barber Dam: A wildlife mitigation plan is active which requires the levee and area north of the powerhouse to be grass covered. The reservoir area encompasses the Barber Pool

Conservation Area, one of the state’s major roosting areas for wintering bald eagles and home to more than 200 species of birds and wildlife, therefore transmission lines were placed below ground at the time of construction.41

3) Ashton – St. Anthony: The project area contains fifteen raptor perches which are placed around the reservoir. Perches have been used regularly by nesting osprey, bald eagles, and other raptors. The 15 raptor perches (10 required by the FERC license conditions) around the reservoir are typically inspected multiple times over the year.42

38 MacCoy, D.E., 2004, Water-Quality and Biological Conditions in the Lower Boise River, Ada and Canyon Counties, Idaho, 1994–2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5128, 80 p. 39 Ibid. 40 Gaedeke, Erich G. Environmental Inspection Report, Birch Creek Project no. 7194-ID. Portland Region Butte and Clark Counties, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2003. 41 Lynde, Marcelle. Environmental Inspection Report, Barber Dam Project no. 4881. Portland Regional Office, Ada County, ID. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2007. 42 “Ashton Hydroelectric Project, Idaho, FERC Project No. 2381, Wildlife Enhancement Plan, Five-Year Monitoring Report: 2011-2015.” Pacificorp Salt Lake City, Utah. 2016.

4) Felt: A trash rack and a fish screen are located upstream of the intake tunnels. The project

also contains a fish ladder, and during spawning season, must maintain a minimum flow rate.43

5) Magic Dam: The only condition the licensee is currently required to implement regarding fish

and wildlife, is dissolved oxygen monitoring.44

6, 7, 8) Upper/Lower Salmon Falls, Bliss: Communications with the White Sturgeon Technical

Advisory Committee for population monitoring is required annually, and according to angler

reports, annually stocks rainbow trout in the Upper Salmon Falls project reservoir.45 Fish and

wildlife habitat enhancements, and monitoring of irrigation runoff are required at all three sites.

Notably, the fish ladder at Lower Salmon Falls was decommissioned in 2013 due to

ineffectiveness.46

9) Lucky Peak: Active efforts are in place to develop and maintain a wildlife mitigation area in

Lydle Gulch, adjacent to the project and the dam.47 The project provides irrigation to the area

year-round, and trees have been planted and protected by fencing to prevent damage by beavers.

43 Yaukey, Leslie. Environmental Inspection Report, Felt Project no. 5089. Portland Regional Office, Teton County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2006. 44 Gaedeke, Erich G. Environmental Inspection Report, Magic Dam Project no. 3407.Portland Regional Office, Blaine County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2007. 45 Ellis, Benjamin. Environmental Inspection Report, Upper Salmon Falls Project no. 2777. Portland Regional Office, Gooding and Twin Falls, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2015. 46 Ellis, Benjamin. Environmental Inspection Report, Lower Salmon Falls Project no. 2061. Portland Regional Office, Gooding and Twin Falls, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2015. 47 Wardle, L. Lewis. Environmental Inspection Report, Lucky Peak Project no. 2832. Portland Regional Office, Ada County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2018.

DISCUSSION

The study which assessed large and small hydropower deployment in the Spanish Duero basin, found that large deployment of small hydropower projects, particularly in a concentrated area, can lead to small projects have equal or higher impacts than larger projects.48 When small

hydropower projects are placed in this manner, they do not necessarily offer benefits with lower

and more spatially dispersed impacts. The study examined three impact categories – energy

security, water security, and environmental impacts, with 18 indicators between them. The study

for projects in Idaho examines a subset of the impacts identified in the Spanish Duero basin

study.

When it comes to irrigation, the amount of large hydropower projects found associated with

infrastructure providing water for irrigation was almost double that for small projects in the

Duero Basin study. Among the small projects which provided irrigation connections, 32% were

located in canals, 14% were located on a river, and 11% were run-of-the-river projects.49 In this

study of Idaho hydropower, the majority of projects which had connection to irrigation

infrastructure were small projects of Birch, Barber Dam, and Magic Dam (Figure 3), which had

installed capacities ranging from 3-9 MW. Barber and Magic Dam also had larger reservoir

48 Mayor et al., “The Role of Large and Small Scale Hydropower for Energy and Water Security in the Spanish Duero Basin.” 2017. 49 Ibid.

storage for this function compared to other projects of similar size, with surface areas of 75 and

3,740 acres (Figure 6). That is, that these projects may not have contributed as much power generation but had other related functions.

The Spanish Duero Basin study also suggested that contributions of projects do not depend on the size or production capacity of the plants, but on the type and any additional functions of their associated infrastructure and management.50 By example, several small projects with lower

capacity were located at the bottom of large dams that provided considerable water supply. The

irrigation water supply function was not performed by all large reservoirs, only by those with

multiple purposes.51 Still, larger projects were shown to have significantly higher storage

capacities compared to the smaller projects, which wasn’t always the case for the Idaho region.

Magic Dam had one of the highest levels of reservoir storage capacity (Figure 5), although only

having an installed capacity of 9 MW. While Bliss and Lower Salmon Falls had lower reservoir

storage capacities with much higher installed capacities (75 and 60 MW). This again illustrates

the importance of function vs size or production capacity.

The total amount of water which ﬂowed through turbines for energy production was four times

higher for large project than for small projects.52 The Idaho projects showed similar patterns where flow rates showed correlation with the size (Figure 8). When observing capacity factors for the Idaho projects, the average capacity factor for all 9 projects was about 52%, and showed no distinct correlation with project size. The lowest capacity factor was Magic Dam, with 38%, which is also the median for the U.S..

50 Mayor et al., “The Role of Large and Small Scale Hydropower for Energy and Water Security in the Spanish Duero Basin.” 2017. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid.

The Duero Basin results indicated that large projects made a higher contribution to water security and impact on environmental flows in terms of ﬂood regulation.53 The projects in Idaho all had

flood regulations in varying degrees. Even in run-of-the-river projects, the ability to maintain

management that can impact the surrounding environment and flows that may ultimately be

diverted for irrigation. Ashton – St. Anthony and Magic Dam projects are both small projects

with sizeable reservoirs and flood regulations in place; these projects are also important to

irrigation activities in the area. Irrigation water use impacts water storage in the Ashton – St.

Anthony project area, and Magic Dam has connection to a valuable canal system.

Through the information that was collected surrounding these nine projects, it was found that the

projects had no ongoing significant direct effects on the agricultural communities (negative or

positive), and agricultural practices in the region may be greater threat to water issues than the

use of small hydropower projects. Examples of this are the erosion and chemical alteration of

water found to be occurring surrounding Lucky Peak and the Felt projects. Water security isn’t

likely to be a significant impact with small projects, as the area surrounding projects remain an

important focus for irrigation water diversions, which often take precedence and have significant

impact on the hydrology systems and hydropower projects themselves. For wildlife concerns, the

structures also have relatively low impacts as long as FERC directives are followed. With fish

populations being a primary concern, beyond the features at the project sites, the significant

agricultural activity in the region poses a risk to these populations. Flow, temperature, and

chemical alterations to the water from these practices pose threats to these populations.

53 Mayor et al., “The Role of Large and Small Scale Hydropower for Energy and Water Security in the Spanish Duero Basin.” 2017.

Projects located in irrigation canals often do not generate power during winter months, as

irrigation canals typically do not run water through during that time. Projects with creek and

river water sources also were not out of reach from this issue, as other water channels also

become effected by both natural seasonal flows and flow changes from irrigation water

diversions. For example, stream sections near the Birch project have a recorded absence of flow

due to the permanent diversion for irrigation. Because irrigation demands can impact the amount

of power being generated, it isn’t always the most practical to place projects in such areas.

Irrigation canal systems, especially older ones, can lose water along the way to its destination,

reducing the efficiency. This can result from overflows, or seepage due to poor lining. However,

creating new projects in these may simultaneously help efficiency with additional measures to

prevent water loss such as upgraded canal linings, erosion control constructions, and flow control

abilities. Improved irrigation systems in general also can contribute to ensuring water access

under possible future circumstances where climate conditions have impacted access. Emerging

technologies such as soil probes offer options for future irrigation practices. By using an

electrical current to measure soil moisture and temperature, they are designed to help farmers

improve their irrigation practices by calculating evapotranspiration.54 Retrofitting existing

irrigation infrastructure, especially pivot systems, also can reduce water usage. Though with any

option, there comes with it a cost, and potentially time for certain technologies to mature.

The size of hydropower project does not drastically impact the environmental integrity or the

agricultural activity in the area, but it is the ability to contribute to or join with irrigation

54 Kennison, “New methods and technologies help irrigation systems become more effective, save water.” Magic Valley. 2019.

27 infrastructure is what remains important when considering the future of hydropower development in the region. Overall, the situation for small hydropower in agricultural areas in

Southern Idaho could be improved upon. Only 3 (all small projects) of the 9 projects had connection to irrigation infrastructure.

In order to truly benefit members of the agricultural communities, I suggest the development of on farm projects which are able to take advantage of existing irrigation waterways. These types of projects could also potentially be used to provide power for any pivot sprinkler systems that run off diesel, or simply offset the costs associated with running them. Though, compared to those that run off diesel, irrigation systems that run off electricity are typically easier to operate, need less maintenance, and can maintain stable power to output levels. A problem may arise from contracts with power companies, which wouldn’t allow property owners to use power from their small hydro project to run the system. But these types of projects may still help by connecting to the grid in order to offset on farm electricity consumption. Overall, agricultural practices include costs for a variety of things including but not limited to, costs of irrigation water supply, gas prices to run machinery, and electric costs for structures on property and irrigation systems.

A potential aide in the development of small hydro in Southern Idaho agricultural areas, could include wider-spread use of financial incentives for those interested. Two prime examples of this include programs that have been used to develop small hydro projects in agricultural areas in the past – The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Energy Audits and Renewable Energy

Development Grants, and the REAP Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency

Improvement Loans & Grants. These programs provide funding assistance for the development

28 of renewable energy projects and energy efficiency improvements.55 On farm small hydro projects can provide additional revenue for property owners, irrigation district, and the community. And with minimalistic impacts on water security and environment, these projects can be made to benefit agricultural communities.

This research shows that the size of hydropower project does not drastically impact the relative environmental integrity or the agricultural activity in the area. The ability to contribute to or join with irrigation infrastructure is what remains important when considering the future of hydropower development in the region.

55 “Energy Programs.” Rural Development, USDA. n.d.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, R.G., and Brockway, C.E. “Relationship of Costs and Water Use Efficiency for Irrigation

Projects in Idaho.” 1979. Available at:

https://digital.lib.uidaho.edu/utils/getfile/collection/idahowater/id/513/filename/iwdl-

allen_1979.pdf?_ga=2.105808451.1128157541.1575533869-91146495.1575533869

“Ashton Hydroelectric Project, Idaho, FERC Project No. 2381, Wildlife Enhancement Plan,

Five-Year Monitoring Report: 2011-2015.” Pacificorp Salt Lake City, Utah. 2016.

20160422-5017 FERC PDF (Unofficial).

“Bear River Basin 5-Year Review.” State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2017.

Available at: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-

tmdls/bear-river-basin-malad-river-subbasin/

“Birch Creek Subbasin Assessment.” Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Available at:

https://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/450372-

_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_birch_creek_birch_creek_entire.pdf

“Biological Evaluation of the NPDES General Permit for Hydroelectric Facilities Within the

State of Idaho”. EPA. 2018. Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/r10-npdes-idaho-

hydroelectric-gp-idg360000-biological-evaluation-2018.pdf

Data USA. Clark County, ID | Data USA. (n.d.). Available at:

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/clark-county-id#about

Data USA. Lincoln County, ID | Data USA. (n.d.). Available at:

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/lincoln-county-id

Data USA. Franklin County, ID | Data USA. (n.d.). Available at:

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/franklin-county-id

Data USA. Fremont County, ID | Data USA. (n.d.). Available at:

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/fremont-county-id

Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K.,

Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S., “Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015”.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441. 2018. Available at:

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1441

“Energy Programs.” Rural Development, USDA. n.d. Available at:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/energy-programs

Ellis, Benjamin. Environmental Inspection Report, Upper Salmon Falls Project no. 2777.

Portland Regional Office, Gooding and Twin Falls, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 2015.

Ellis, Benjamin. Environmental Inspection Report, Lower Salmon Falls Project no. 2061.

Portland Regional Office, Gooding and Twin Falls, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 2015.

Fackrell, Robert. Order Modifying and Approving Trout Monitoring Recommendations; Mink

Creek Hydroelectric Project no. 8646-027. ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

1995.

“Final Boise/Payette Water Storage Assessment Report.” U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region. 2006.

Gaedeke, Erich G. Environmental Inspection Report, Birch Creek Project no. 7194-ID. Portland

Region Butte and Clark Counties, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2003.

Gaedeke, Erich G. Environmental Inspection Report, Magic Dam Project no. 3407.Portland

Regional Office, Blaine County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2007.

Hitaj, Suttles, “Trends in U.S. Agriculture’s Consumption and Production of Energy: Renewable

Power, Shale Energy, and Cellulosic Biomass”. USDA. 2016. Available at:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/74658/60128_eib159.pdf?v=42593

“Health Advisory Issued for Magic Reservoir Because of a Harmful Algal Bloom.” Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2019.

“2017 Hydropower Market Report”. U.S. Department of Energy. 2018. Available at:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/downloads/2017-hydropower-market-report

“Henrys Fork Basin Study Final Report.” Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Water Resource Board

(IWRB). 2015.

“Hydropower Project Summary, Mid-Snake River, Idaho.” Hydropower Reform Coalition, River

Management Society. 2013.

“Salmon Falls Creek Subbasin.” IDEQ. 2019. Available at: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-

quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/salmon-falls-creek-subbasin/

Schmidt, Robert; Stodick, Leroy; Taylor, Garth; Contor, Bryce. “Hydro-Economic Modeling of

Boise Basin Water Management Responses to Climate Change.” Idaho Water Resource

Research Institute. 2013. Available at: https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/iwdl/docs/iwdl-

201301.html

“Species Conservation Status”. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. n.d. Available at:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/list?category=5&usesa%5B%5D=Delisted&usesa%5

B%5D=Proposed&usesa%5B%5D=Candidate&usesa%5B%5D=Threatened&usesa%5B

%5D=Endangered&srank=All&grank=All&sgcn=All

Springer, Fred E. Idaho Renewable Resources, Bonneville Pacific Corporation and Big Wood

Canal Company, Project no. 8909-000 Order Issuing License. Lincoln County, ID:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1987.

“State Profile Overview”. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2018. Available at:

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ID

“Teton Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan for Agriculture.” Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). 2005. Available at:

https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/tmdls/table-of-sbas-tmdls/

“The Big Wood River Watershed Management Plan.” Idaho Department of Environmental

Quality (IDEQ). 2002.

“Types of Hydropower Plants.” Energy.Gov. 2019. Available at:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/types-hydropower-plants

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Agriculture in Idaho.” USDA, NASS

Northwest Region Idaho Field Office. 2019. Available at:

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/left_nav/Idaho-Facts-

and-Figures-2019.pdf

Hansen, Zeynep K., Scott E. Lowe and Wenchao Xu. (2015). “Climate Change, Water Supply,

and Agriculture in the Arid Western United States: Eighty Years of Agricultural Census

Observations from Idaho.” (2015). Available at:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Climate-Change%2C-Water-Supply%2C-and-

Agriculture-in-of-Hansen-Lowe/750cedce0bb884c218c04e6c92a5b4eae01049db

Hocking, Steve. “Dietrich Drop Project no. 8909 Transmission Line Inspection Report Follow-

up.” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1997.

“Idaho Energy Landscape.” Idaho Governor’s Office of Energy and Mineral Resources. 2019.

Available at: https://oemr.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Energy-Landscape-

2019-1.pdf

Idaho Technical Committee on Hydrology. “Upper Snake River Basin Study.” Idaho Department

of Water Resources. 1997. Available at: https://idwr.idaho.gov/files/publications/199701-

MISC-Upper-Snake-River-Basin-Study.pdf

“Idaho Water Use, 2015”. USGS. 2018. Available at:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3036/fs20183036.pdf

“Irrigation Water Use.” Usgs.gov. n.d. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-

resources/science/irrigation-water-use?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-

science_center_objects

“Irrigation Organizations” Idaho Department of Water Resources. n.d. Available at:

https://idwr.idaho.gov/water-rights/irrigation-organizations/

Kennison, “New methods and technologies help irrigation systems become more effective, save

water.” Magic Valley. 2019. Available at: https://magicvalley.com/new-methods-and-

technologies-help-irrigation-systems-become-more-effective/article_32894f98-0e74-

5093-98b5-8388680bc110.html

“Low Impact Hydropower Questionnaire: Ashton Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2381).” Low

Impact Hydropower Institute, PacifiCorp Energy. 2009.

Lynde, Marcelle. Environmental Inspection Report, Barber Dam Project no. 4881. Portland

Regional Office, Ada County, ID. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2007.

May, C., C. Luce, J. Casola, M. Chang, J. Cuhaciyan, M. Dalton, S. Lowe, G. Morishima, P.

Mote, A. Petersen, G. Roesch-McNally, and E. York, 2018: Northwest. In Impacts, Risks,

and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II

[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.

Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington,

DC, USA, pp. 1036–1100. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH24

Mayor, Beatriz & Rodríguez-Muñoz, Ignacio & Villarroya, Fermin & Montero, Esperanza &

lopez-gunn, Elena. “The Role of Large and Small Scale Hydropower for Energy and

Water Security in the Spanish Duero Basin.” 2017. Sustainability. 9. 1807.

“On Your River.” Hydropower Reform Coalition. 2020. Available at:

https://www.hydroreform.org/on-your-river.

“Pre-Application Document: Barber Dam Project FERC No. 488.” Fulcrum, LLC, Ada County,

Idaho. 2018.

Wardle, L. Lewis. Environmental Inspection Report, Lucky Peak Project no. 2832. Portland

Regional Office, Ada County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2018.

Warnick, C.C. “Review of Alternative Energy Sources for Irrigation use in Idaho.” Idaho Water

Resources Research Institute. 1979. Available at:

https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/iwdl/docs/iwdl-warnick_1979.html

“What is water security?” UN-Water. 2018. Available at:

https://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/

“Wild Salmon and Steelhead”. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. n.d. Available at:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/fish/wild/about

Wolflin, John P. US Fish and Wildlife Service Review of Permit for Felt Hydroelectric Project

no. 5089 Teton River. Boise, ID: United States Department of the Interior Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1987.

Yaukey, Leslie. Environmental Inspection Report, Felt Project no. 5089. Portland Region Teton

County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2006.

Yaukey, Leslie. Environmental Inspection Report, Mink Creek Project no. 8646. Portland

Region Franklin County, ID: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2006.