DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish Passage and Reintroduction Phase 1 Report: Investigations Upstream of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish Passage and Reintroduction Phase 1 Report: Investigations Upstream of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Fish Passage and Reintroduction Phase 1 Report: Investigations Upstream of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Prepared by the Upper Columbia United Tribes May 2, 2019 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 11 2.0 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................... 12 3.0 GOALS ....................................................................................................................................... 13 4.0 DONOR STOCK AND RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 15 4.1 GENERAL METHODS ............................................................................................................ 15 4.2 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2.1 Donor Sources ............................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Ecological Impacts ........................................................................................................ 21 4.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 23 4.3 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 27 5.0 HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................................... 29 5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 29 5.2 INTRINSIC POTENTIAL FOR CHINOOK AND STEELHEAD .......................................... 30 5.3 EDT MODELING OF CHINOOK AND STEELHEAD IN SELECT TRIBUTARIES .......... 37 5.4 LARGE RIVER CHINOOK SPAWNING HABITAT AND REDD CAPACITY .................. 42 5.5 CHINOOK REDD AND ADULT SPAWNER CAPACITY ESTIMATES ............................ 44 5.5.1 Caveats and Considerations ........................................................................................... 46 5.6 POTENTIAL SOCKEYE SALMON SPAWNER CAPACITY IN THE SANPOIL SUBBASIN .......................................................................................................................................... 47 5.7 SOCKEYE SALMON REARING CAPACITY OF LAKE ROOSEVELT ............................. 50 5.8 CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................... 53 5.9 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 55 6.0 LIFE-CYCLE MODELING ....................................................................................................... 59 6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 59 6.2 OVERVIEW OF LCM .............................................................................................................. 67 6.2.1 Natural Production......................................................................................................... 67 6.2.2 Hatchery Production ...................................................................................................... 69 6.2.3 Harvest ........................................................................................................................... 70 6.2.4 Fish Passage .................................................................................................................. 71 6.2.5 Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................. 72 6.3 BASELINE SCENARIOS AND KEY LCM MODELING ASSUMPTIONS ......................... 72 6.3.1 Natural Production......................................................................................................... 73 6.3.2 Hydro Operations and Fish Passage .............................................................................. 73 6.3.3 Harvest ........................................................................................................................... 73 6.3.4 Hatchery ........................................................................................................................ 77 6.4 LCM RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 78 6.4.1 Baseline LCM Results for Summer/Fall Chinook and Sockeye ................................... 78 6.4.2 Summer/Fall Chinook Modeling Variants .................................................................... 81 6.4.3 Sockeye Modeling Variants .......................................................................................... 87 6.4.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Summer/Fall Chinook and Sockeye ....................................... 90 6.5 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 94 7.0 ADULT AND JUVENILE FISH PASSAGE ............................................................................. 95 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 95 7.2 ADULT PASSAGE FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 95 7.3 JUVENILE PASSAGE FACILITIES ....................................................................................... 97 7.3.1 The Floating Surface Collector (FSC) ........................................................................... 97 7.4 RESERVOIR PASSAGE AND SURVIVAL ........................................................................... 99 7.5 CHIEF JOSEPH PROJECT CONDITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FISH PASSAGE103 7.5.1 Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 103 7.5.2 Implications for Fish Passage ...................................................................................... 106 7.5.3 Initial Juvenile Passage Facility Concept at Chief Joseph Dam .................................. 107 7.5.4 Initial Adult Passage Facility Concept at Chief Joseph Dam ...................................... 110 7.6 GRAND COULEE DAM PROJECT CONDITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FISH PASSAGE ....................................................................................................................... 113 7.6.1 Project Conditions ....................................................................................................... 113 7.6.2 Implications for Fish Passage ...................................................................................... 115 7.6.3 Initial Juvenile Passage Facility Concept at Grand Coulee Dam ................................ 117 7.6.4 Initial Adult Passage Facility Concept at Grand Coulee Dam .................................... 121 7.7 FISH PASSAGE FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 122 7.7.1 Chief Joseph Dam........................................................................................................ 122 7.7.2 Grand Coulee Dam ...................................................................................................... 124 7.8 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 127 8.0 FUTURE FIELD STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 130 8.1 CHIEF JOSEPH ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 130 8.1.1 Testing Key Assumptions ............................................................................................ 130 8.1.2 Interim Fish Facilities .................................................................................................. 132 8.2 GRAND COULEE DAM ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 133 8.2.1 Testing Key Assumptions ............................................................................................ 133 8.2.2 Interim Fish Facilities .................................................................................................. 143 8.3 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 145 List of Tables Table 4-1. Synthesis table for summer/fall Chinook Salmon donors. Attributes and risk rankings for summer/fall Chinook Salmon donors. Highest grand total and weighted grand total scores imply the more suitable donor selection, and were consecutively ranked as the most suitable choice (that is, 1). Weights are assigned to attributes and risks considered more important for species reintroduction. Within UCR: Within upper Columbia River. ESA status: Endangered Species Act status. NFH: National Fish hatchery ............................ 19 Table 4-2. Synthesis table for Sockeye donors. Attributes and risk rankings for Sockeye Salmon donors. Highest grand total and weighted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington
    BRIDGEPORT STATE PARK Chief Joseph Dam, Washington Sun Shelter and Play Area Group Camp Fire Circle Bridgeport State Park, located on systems; landscaping; and the Columbia River at Chief Joseph sprinkler irrigation. Osborn Pacific Dam, was an existing development Group provided complete design composed of a boat launch, services followed by completion campground, temporary of bid documents for the park and administration area, and day-use recreation amenity features, and group-use areas. The park was buildings, landscape architecture, created subsequent to the Chief and sprinkler irrigation. Joseph Dam construction and was Subconsultants provided civil, Picnic Shelter built by the U.S. Army Corps of structural, mechanical, and Engineers. The park is maintained electrical engineering. Site: Approximately 400 acres of rolling and operated by Washington State arid topography on shore of Rufus Parks. Woods Lake. Approximately 30 acres Project: is developed. Osborn Pacific Group Inc. was Bridgeport State Park Services: Client: retained by the U.S. Army Corps of Final design, construction documents, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle and cost estimate of park and Engineers to provide design District recreation amenity features, buildings, services and prepared construction Location: landscape architecture, and sprinkler documents for a $1.4 million park Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River, irrigation. Contract administration expansion project. Features Washington and coordination for civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical included: upgrading and expanding engineering. recreation vehicle campground area, day-use picnic area and swim beach development; group camp area development; pedestrian and handicapped access trails; ranger residence; maintenance building; restrooms and shelters; roads; water, sanitary, and electrical .
    [Show full text]
  • Power System
    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Coe Portland District (Nwp) Hydropower Projects
    Updated March 30, 2021. Use the appropriate district distribution list below when submitting a System Operational Request (SOR). COE PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS COE SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS Bonneville Dam & Lake on Columbia River Libby Dam & Lake Koocanusa on Kootenai River The Dalles Dam & Lake Celilo on Columbia River Hungry Horse Dam & Lake on South Fork Flathead River John Day Dam & Lake Umatilla on Columbia River Albeni Falls Dam & Pend Oreille Lake on Pend Oreille River Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake on Columbia River Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) TO: TO: BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander COL Alexander Bullock COE-NWS Commander COL Mike Helton COE-NWP Commander Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Lisa Wright COE-NWD-PDW-R Jon Moen COE-NWS-ENH-W Tammy Mackey COE-NWP-OD Mary Karen Scullion COE-NWP-EC-HR Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director John Roache USBR-PN-6208 John Roache USBR-PN-6208 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 John Hairston BPA Administrator Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 John Hairston BPA Administrator Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Tribal Liaisons: Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Integrated Resource Plan
    DRAFT 2018 Integrated Resource Plan Public Utility District No. 1 of Benton County PREPARED IN COLLABORATION WITH Resolution No. XXXX Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Obligations and Resources ........................................................................................................................ 1 Preferred Portfolio .................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Load Forecast .............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 3: Current Resources ....................................................................................................................... 7 Overview of Existing Long-term Purchased Power Agreements ............................................................... 7 Frederickson 1 Generating Station ........................................................................................................ 7 Nine Canyon Wind ................................................................................................................................. 7 White Creek Wind Generation Project .................................................................................................. 8 Packwood Lake Hydro Project ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Joseph Hatchery Program
    Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS-0384 May 2007 Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Title of Proposed Project: Chief Joseph Hatchery Program Cooperating Tribe: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation State Involved: Washington Abstract: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a Chinook salmon hatchery production program sponsored by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribes). BPA proposes to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of the program to help mitigate for anadromous fish affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System dams on the Columbia River. The Colville Tribes want to produce adequate salmon to sustain tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries and enhance the potential for a recreational fishery for the general public. The DEIS discloses the environmental effects expected from facility construction and program operations and a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to build a hatchery near the base of Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River for incubation, rearing and release of summer/fall and spring Chinook. Along the Okanogan River, three existing irrigation ponds, one existing salmon acclimation pond, and two new acclimation ponds (to be built) would be used for final rearing, imprinting and volitional release of chinook smolts. The Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery Program Master Plan (Master Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004) provides voluminous information on program features. The US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District, and others have cooperated on project design and siting.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott
    Dammed Societies: Effects of Dams on Native Americans in the Columbia River Basin Elliott McGill Senior Capstone Project Faculty Advisors: Dr. Jamie Dolan, Dr. Jeremy Johnson, and Dr. David McCanna McGill 1 Abstract Since dam construction began in the New Deal Era, it has represented a dominance of humankind over nature. These massive structures have harnessed, collected, and distributed electricity from the rivers they hold back and allow humans to reap the benefits of that cycle. One of the areas where dams are particularly apparent is in the Columbia River Basin in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. While the dams in this region certainly have allowed the area to develop and build by using the electricity collected by these dams, they have also had several negative effects on the tribal people in the region who once fished the mighty Columbia during its populous salmon runs and relied on the salmon for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons. This project seeks to examine the costs of human advancement when it comes to dams, and will do so by studying three dams located in the Columbia River Basin: The Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, and The Grand Coulee Dam. These dams will be studied using Black’s Theory of Law as a framework to examine the manner in which law was applied to each case. The research finds that although the dams certainly provide a useful resource to the people of the region, it has had negative effects on the Native American people who depended on the river. McGill 2 Introduction When President Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 22 Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 22 Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit—Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit 575 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 22. Mainstem Upper Columbia River Critical Habitat Unit The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU is essential for maintaining bull trout distribution within this unique geographic region of the Mid-Columbia RU and conserving the fluvial migratory life history types exhibited by many of the populations from adjacent core areas. It is essential for conservation by maintaining broad distribution within the Mid-Columbia RU across Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Its location between Chief Joseph Dam in the most northern geographical area and John Day Dam in the most southern area provides key connectivity for the Mid-Columbia River RU. It is essential for maintaining distribution and genetic contributions to the Lower Columbia and Snake River Mainstems and 13 CHUs. Bull trout are known to reside year-round as sub-adults and adults, but spawning adults may utilize the mainstem Columbia River for up to at least 9 months as well. Several studies in the upper Columbia and lower Snake Rivers indicate migration between the Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU and core areas, generally during periods of cooler water temperatures. FMO habitat provided by the mainstem Columbia River is essential for conservation because it supports the expression of the fluvial migratory life history forms for multiple core areas. In addition, there are several accounts of amphidromous life history forms present between Yakima and John Day Rivers that may still have the potential to express anadromy (see Appendix 1 for more detailed information).
    [Show full text]
  • Coe Portland District (Nwp) Hydropower Projects
    To submit a System Operational Request (SORs), please use the distribution list below for the relevant hydropower project. Updated September 3, 2019. COE PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS COE SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) HYDROPOWER PROJECTS Bonneville Dam & Lake on Columbia River Libby Dam & Lake Koocanusa on Kootenai River The Dalles Dam & Lake Celilo on Columbia River Hungry Horse Dam & Lake on South Fork Flathead River John Day Dam & Lake Umatilla on Columbia River Albeni Falls Dam & Pend Oreille Lake on Pend Oreille River Chief Joseph Dam and Rufus Woods Lake on Columbia River Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) PORTLAND DISTRICT (NWP) Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (NWD) TO: SEATTLE DISTRICT (NWS) BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander TO: COL Aaron Dorf COE-NWP Commander BG Pete Helmlinger COE-NWD-ZA Commander Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief COL Mark Geraldi COE-NWS Commander Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Jim Fredericks COE-NWD-PDD Chief Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Steven Barton COE-NWD-PDW Chief Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Tim Dykstra COE-NWD-PDD Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Julie Ammann COE-NWD-PDW-R Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Doug Baus COE-NWD-PDW-R Tammy Mackey COE-NWP-OD Aaron Marshall COE-NWD-PDW-R Mary Karen Scullion COE-NWP-EC-HR Logan Osgood-Zimmerman COE-NWS-ENH-W Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director Lorri Gray USBR-PN Regional Director John Roache USBR-PN-6208 John Roache USBR-PN-6208 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Joel Fenolio USBR-PN-6204 Elliot Mainzer BPA Administrator Elliot Mainzer BPA Administrator Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Kieran Connolly BPA-PG-5 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Scott Armentrout BPA-E-4 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Jason Sweet BPA-PGB-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Eve James BPA-PGPO-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Tony Norris BPA-PGPO-5 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Scott Bettin BPA-EWP-4 Tribal Liaisons: Paul Cloutier (NWD), Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Falls Power
    INTRODUCTION The first public utility in America began over Although Idaho Falls was not the first community to own and 120 years ago. The efforts of the early electrical operate its municipal utility, it is one of the oldest public power pioneers have allowed the nation’s municipal utilities communities in the Northwest. The city of Idaho Falls is to give inexpensive, reliable electric power to millions celebrating the past 100 years of providing its residents of Americans in the twentieth century. Today municipal ownership in its electric power system. This report municipal utilities give over 2,000 communities a will provide some interesting facts about the pioneers who sense of energy independence and autonomy they can installed a tiny electric generator on an irrigation canal in the carry into the twenty-first century. fall of 1900, establishing the beginning of the Idaho Falls municipal utility. Lucille Keefer pictured in front of the falls, is one of the more endearing images of Idaho Falls’ hydroelectric history. The Pennsylvania-born school teacher was the wife of the project’s construction superintendent. THE CANAL ERA The original 1900 power plant generated electricity from the water tumbling out of an irrigation ditch. When the Utah and Northern Railroad extended its tracks During the 1880s and 1890s, lumberyards, flourmills, to the rapids on the Snake River in 1879, the small town livestock auction houses, newspapers, banks, and clothing of Eagle Rock (now Idaho Falls) was established. The stores sprouted up along the railroad tracks. Population turn of the century not only brought more people to the surged as merchants and professionals flocked to the city to newly formed community but new developments as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover Black White
    r.'Z"r.1 ~ Teacher’s Guide to US Army Corps of Engineers® Bonneville Dam Portland District Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam Packet #2 Initial Concepts and Pre-Draft: Patrick Barry Becky Bernson Deanne Converse Katie Kinney Kathy Peck Jim Runkles Dan Troglin Bill Wiley 1984 Summer Visitor Center Staff. Thanks to: George Wilson, Stevenson High School Bev McKinnon, Carson Elementary Final Edition Writers and Editors: Anna Bates and Shelley Gimbal Final Edition Review Team: Patrick Barry Jim Runkles 1988 Summer Visitor Center Staff i Table of Contents Page Goals of the Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam ................................................................................................. v Objectives of the Teacher’s Guide To Bonneville Dam.......................................................................................... v Introduction To Teachers Guide: How this Guide is organized ................................................................................................................................1 Planning a visit to Bonneville Dam. .....................................................................................................................1 Facilities at Bonneville Dam................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Map......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Teacher’s Checklist ...............................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Report on The
    REPORT ON THE U. S. D EPA R E INTERIOR BONNEVILLE IN ISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ----<COl--- . REPORT ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM Consisting of THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and Power Components of THE BONNEVILLE DAM PROJECT AND THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT (GRAND COULEE DAM) 19!6 Prepared by THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 811 NORTHEAST OREGON STREET PORTLAND 8, OREGON LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 ~ONTENTS REVENUES 5 REPAYMENT OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT 6 INTEREST 8 ENERGY DELIVERIES 9 ENER<;Y PRODUCTION 12 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 15 MAP-TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 17 OPERATING RESULTS 20 POWER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 24 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 26 CUSTOMER SERVICE 29 POWER RATES 31 PERSONNEL 34 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR December 31,1946. THE HoNORABLE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D. C. My dear Mr. Secretary: Transmitted herewith is a report showing the results of operations of the Bonneville Power Administration from July 1, 1945 to June 30, 1946. Where matters of significance have occurred since the close of the fiscal year additional data have been included. This report, to which is attached the second independent annual audit of the accounts of the Administra­ tion, conforms with the requirements of Section 9 (c) of the Bonneville Project Act. Financially, operations were satisfactory during the fiscal year 1946. Total revenues of $19,884,285 covered all costs of operation, maintenance, depreciation and interest and left a surplus of $4,754,895 for the year­ thus increasing surplus net revenues from power operations as of June 30, 1946 to $16,326,947.
    [Show full text]